Made involved

An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind, Gandhi said but, it’s not about taking revenge, nor standing for an ideal. I hardly think so. I believe when two fronts, two ways of seeing something such as political perspective, for instance, somehow agree at their clash: if I want to rule over many, obviously there will be some against it, I have to count on that, It is the purpose of a conquest, because that is what it’ll be at the end: a victory on one side and a defeat on the other. Afterwards, logically; the tension: what’s taken must be kept as much as what’s to take must be conquered. I just wrote it a pair on lines back: a clash is an agreement between a pair of counterposed stands. For those who never wanted it, never cared of, because they do not feel identified, don´t understand it or just don´t sympathize; for those ones, for those it will always be a problem. Let’s take a look at the recent events at Aleppo for example. What about the people who just live there and don´t want any trouble? What about them? They don’t choose, they’re just there and just for being, only for being; they must face consequences of some other’s actions. This is not an eye for an eye thing, no, this is a problem all over the world: two sides fight and the rest is made involved…