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…
