Post162. Let us try to think logically, hey?
Let us try to think logically, hey?
Continental Chinese are right about Xinghiang, in denying Independence Status to the Huighurs since this territory has been Chinese for thousands of years, since the days of the first known Chinese Emperor, and is being claimed by the Islamic Huighurs on the basis of a local majority that has occurred as the result of a demographic escalation that has gone on for centuries, in order to make of it an Islamic State. Why should the local Chinese Minority become subjected to someone who refuses to adopt and respect the culture of the original Host Nation, independently and in separation from religious biases ( theocratic obsessions)? Should we Australians be prepared to accep the same scenario were Moslems in Australia to procreate at such a rate as to acquire a majority one day? Let us not kid ourselves that this could never become a reality. On the other hand, I condemn the same China for having attacked and invaded Tibet that has never been a part of Chinese territory, although having antagonised China in the days when the Silk Route was extremely important to China, the former not being so today. We have to learn to thing logically and to discriminate between different scenarios. Take for example another issue, that of wether a Partisan or Terrorist is always right just because he/she has got a grievance motivating him/her even his/her risking death, mutilation or imprisonment. We in the West tend to think a terrorist is always right on the basis of the example of Partisans of the WWII who fought the Nazis, the Fascists and the Japanese. Please remember that in the days of WWII there were also Partisans loyal to the Nazis who fought the Russian Communists ( i.e., Mareshall Tito's opponents in Yougoslavia, Polish partisans against the Russians)).
I am on principle against all irregular, out-of-uniform fighters, who hide among the Civilian populations, actually involving Civilians even against their will, by blackmailing these to use these tactically against their opponents, or massacring civilians for sheer terror, stealthily and treacherously murdering unsuspecting soldiers who are fighting in a declared war for a legal Government elected by a Majority. In the case of the Nazis, the Fascists, the Japanese, the Iraqi, the Irish fake-Catholic Southerners, the North Vietnamese, the North Koreans, etc.etc, etc.
their partisans and terrorists, if any, are totally wrong.
Civilised nations have tried to remove as far as possible war from the civilian scenario and to minimise destruction of resources. Modern, World-Scale Warfare beginning with WWI, has gradually moved again toward the involvement of a denial of resources to the opponent by destroying these at their source which is Civilian. The problem arises when two ideologies are so incompatible, that no one can afford to submit to the opponent. Historical analysis and one about the ideologies at play, becomes then necessary to determine the nature of the origins of the conflict. If an opponent clings to an ideology ( i.e., or religious ideology or political creed ) only as an excuse to justify total and uncompromising defyance, or just becasue totally ignorant of anything else but the one ideology ( ignorance does not justify anyone ), than obliteration is justified as I cannot see why the older, viable, legally existing ideology should give way to a later rising one that has no exceptional superiority, this being only in the eyes of its biased beholder. At the end the confrontation becomes one of willingness to die for one's belief and/or one's readiness to destroy an obdurate, uncompromising opponent. Waverings, hesitations, false hopes or ideals ( like the hope to win your opponent's hearts and minds ) may mean extinction and defeat. Look at and remmeber the determination and ruthlessness the Allies had to resort to in WW II, in order to survive an equally determined, desperate and obdurate opponent represented by the forces of the Axis Powers. For example, in order to finally crush the Talibans one may have to eradicate their villages and resources ( remove their women and children first or give these a warning and a chance to evacuate firts) and deny them their mountaineous ground. There may be no other way. If you prefer extinction, and the loss iof all your good things, please yourselves by all means. I am 70 and on my way out. What annoys me though is stupidity and lack of logic!
Hasta La Vista Babes!
Continental Chinese are right about Xinghiang, in denying Independence Status to the Huighurs since this territory has been Chinese for thousands of years, since the days of the first known Chinese Emperor, and is being claimed by the Islamic Huighurs on the basis of a local majority that has occurred as the result of a demographic escalation that has gone on for centuries, in order to make of it an Islamic State. Why should the local Chinese Minority become subjected to someone who refuses to adopt and respect the culture of the original Host Nation, independently and in separation from religious biases ( theocratic obsessions)? Should we Australians be prepared to accep the same scenario were Moslems in Australia to procreate at such a rate as to acquire a majority one day? Let us not kid ourselves that this could never become a reality. On the other hand, I condemn the same China for having attacked and invaded Tibet that has never been a part of Chinese territory, although having antagonised China in the days when the Silk Route was extremely important to China, the former not being so today. We have to learn to thing logically and to discriminate between different scenarios. Take for example another issue, that of wether a Partisan or Terrorist is always right just because he/she has got a grievance motivating him/her even his/her risking death, mutilation or imprisonment. We in the West tend to think a terrorist is always right on the basis of the example of Partisans of the WWII who fought the Nazis, the Fascists and the Japanese. Please remember that in the days of WWII there were also Partisans loyal to the Nazis who fought the Russian Communists ( i.e., Mareshall Tito's opponents in Yougoslavia, Polish partisans against the Russians)).
I am on principle against all irregular, out-of-uniform fighters, who hide among the Civilian populations, actually involving Civilians even against their will, by blackmailing these to use these tactically against their opponents, or massacring civilians for sheer terror, stealthily and treacherously murdering unsuspecting soldiers who are fighting in a declared war for a legal Government elected by a Majority. In the case of the Nazis, the Fascists, the Japanese, the Iraqi, the Irish fake-Catholic Southerners, the North Vietnamese, the North Koreans, etc.etc, etc.
their partisans and terrorists, if any, are totally wrong.
Civilised nations have tried to remove as far as possible war from the civilian scenario and to minimise destruction of resources. Modern, World-Scale Warfare beginning with WWI, has gradually moved again toward the involvement of a denial of resources to the opponent by destroying these at their source which is Civilian. The problem arises when two ideologies are so incompatible, that no one can afford to submit to the opponent. Historical analysis and one about the ideologies at play, becomes then necessary to determine the nature of the origins of the conflict. If an opponent clings to an ideology ( i.e., or religious ideology or political creed ) only as an excuse to justify total and uncompromising defyance, or just becasue totally ignorant of anything else but the one ideology ( ignorance does not justify anyone ), than obliteration is justified as I cannot see why the older, viable, legally existing ideology should give way to a later rising one that has no exceptional superiority, this being only in the eyes of its biased beholder. At the end the confrontation becomes one of willingness to die for one's belief and/or one's readiness to destroy an obdurate, uncompromising opponent. Waverings, hesitations, false hopes or ideals ( like the hope to win your opponent's hearts and minds ) may mean extinction and defeat. Look at and remmeber the determination and ruthlessness the Allies had to resort to in WW II, in order to survive an equally determined, desperate and obdurate opponent represented by the forces of the Axis Powers. For example, in order to finally crush the Talibans one may have to eradicate their villages and resources ( remove their women and children first or give these a warning and a chance to evacuate firts) and deny them their mountaineous ground. There may be no other way. If you prefer extinction, and the loss iof all your good things, please yourselves by all means. I am 70 and on my way out. What annoys me though is stupidity and lack of logic!
Hasta La Vista Babes!
posted by Templar @ 3:55 AM
0 Comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home