This was very a interesting thought. But what are your views on a states monopoly on violence? which legitimizes violence from lets say U.S military, but criminalizes violence from ISIS. From the view of realism, a states use of violence to sustain hegomony on the international arena is expected since states are rational actors.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
My view is that talented psychologists, not militarists, should be in charge of a nation's foreign policy.
Most acts of violence are inner-conflicts projected outwards. The solution is to understand the true roots of violence: Often childhood trauma or socio-economic pressures.
Most humans are rational actors. I feel that we label them irrational only when we fail to understand or take interest in their motivations.
For example, the fairly recent murder of as many as eight million people in the Middle East by wars undertaken by the UK and USA seems like it might be a powerful motivator for groups like ISIS to feel their voice is unheard.
Thanks for a thought-provoking question :)
Reminds me of the philosopher king solution :)
I'd humbly suggest taking a step back and learning what ISIS really is though. It has been trained, armed, and funded by the West.
Violence should only be used, by individuals or groups of individuals, in defense and only when all else fails. It certainly should not be used to steal economic resources, empire building, or for ethnic cleansing.
Thanks, @finnian.
I don't know enough on the specific topic of ISIS, but I'm aware that America and the UK manufacture many of the world's weapons and that many so-called 'terrorist' groups are often the previous generation of 'freedom fighters', armed and financed by a previous terrorist government in the US or elsewhere.
It's basically a mercenary army to wage war by proxy. Russia knows this and is playing the game wisely. Unfortunately though, most people in the West have no clue, or they ignore the truth as usual.