If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Why does not being violent mean passivity and inaction?
That's the difference between us.
While I know that learning is a life-long process, you've decided for yourself, that by the age you are at now, you're an all-knowing oracle. And that older = wiser.
In many cases that could be true, but you've clearly forgotten to think about the sources of error, of which you are one.
I was talking generally.
I didn't say "not being violent".
I was pointing out, that passivity wouldn't create new actions. Merely, let then occuring actions, continue to appear.
Yes learning is a lifelong process, one which those older than you have in many cases undergone much more of than you. Yet you continue to make assertions which cater only to extremes rather than appreciating that those you rail against as being "passive" simply believe from experience that invading countries, forcing nations to cater to other nation's whims and interests above their own, and generally carrying on with the failed policy of employing the gun, will not solve anything, but fan small flames into even greater conflagrations. Especially so in the Middle East as most people who take time to concern themselves with such issues would agree.
You may not have specifically said "not being violent" but your constant intimation of that fact is there in your constant attacks of the anti-hawk position.
It is the "hawks" who bear the burden of attending to the messes that you self-possessed self-styled supremist/elitests create, like your philosophical hero, Komrad Blow-job Klinton. Had he attended to business, rather than focusing on another tryst with another young aide, there never would have been a second WTC attack. Turning chickenshit and all touchie/feelie after Mogadishu, tucking tail and running from the confrontation with your ever so heroic Mohamod Farrah Aidid... you do consider Aidid "heroic", don't you? After all, he did struggle against US forces, even tho (the US forces were) ever so outnumbered, and his only misdemeanor was that pittence of a mere 300,000 starved to death until the US Marines restored a temporary order.
But oh... since Marines were involved, THAT would have been another example of "imperialistic agenda", from the arch right, correct? :rolleyes:
Naw... you mealy mouthed opportunists create the messes, the military restores some semblance of order, then is you wankers' task to sort out what you fucked up in the first place. But rather than admit your fuck-ups, you gotta blame it on the garbage collectors who must take out your trash, right?
You make the messes, then blame it them who must clean it up. Classic... and typical.