Terrorism in Indonesia - Where ??

[Rebo Paing]

... the willingness (for) the whole world to be open to change and that's not ever going to happen...

Rahayu to everyone,
Interesting thoughts. Sometimes I think that we too easily assume that for 'the world to change' carries the implied understanding that it change according to our own requirements and agenda.
This emotion is clearly evident when watching the news in western nations, particularly when talking about the spreading of 'democracy'.
But let's look at who consumes the bulk of the world resources, while numbering only a fraction of the world's population ... it is the west.
When the west says ... "we will fight to defend our way of life" ... what are they really saying? They are saying that they will fight to maintain their consumption of the bulk of the worlds resources to the detriment of the rest of the world.
Look, resources are finite and the truth is that there is very little justice in how those resources are allocated and used.
Moralising about 'democracy' and 'peace' needs to begin from the point of view of justice. There is no other way.

Salam,
Krisno

[SilatJunkie]

Greetings Krisno;

Sorry but I didn't make that assumption. Perhaps there was an assumption by someone else? My statement was direct and said everything I wanted it to say.

I didn't mention peace or democracy. Quite frankly there will never be peace or true democracy. It has nothing to do with who has what resources.

Poor and rich alike kill each other.
Poor and rich alike steal.
Poor and rich alike rape.
Poor and rich alike destroy the environment.
Poor and rich alike persecute others for their religion and beliefs.
Poor and rich alike persecute others for their race.
Poor and rich alike persecute others for their gender.
Poor and rich alike all governments are corrupt.

If you want to suggest to me that somehow a country that uses less resources but still causes harm, is somehow better than a country that uses more resources and causes harm, then we will never be able to communicate, because the logic of the argument is only about degrees of destruction.

The Chinese are well on their way to becoming the next primary world power and do you think for a second that somehow they will improve things? What if Indonesia was the wealthiest nation would they somehow improve things for the rest of the world?

Sean

[Rebo Paing]

Sorry but I didn't make that assumption. Perhaps there was an assumption by someone else? My statement was direct and said everything I wanted it to say.
...

Hi Sean,
A statement like " ... the willingness (for) the whole world to be open to change and that's not ever going to happen... " is a rather open ended statement to which it is possible to insert core reasons.
I believe all these problems have underlying core reasons and it has EVERYTHING to do with who controls the lion share of the resources.
I agree that it most likely won't change the habits of whom-ever is in power (Chinese, Indians, Indonesians etc), but hopefully humans from everywhere can start to recognise that there are other humans out there and get social justice movements to address the injustices that flow from greed, and today we have the scenario as it is ... no hypothetical required  .

This is a good example of silat opening the doors of communication  .

Here is an article, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18711.htm that describes it well IMO.


P.S.
I think I should clarify that I don't equate 'west' with 'caucasians' or 'bule' but with industrialised modern consumerist societies. For example South Korea and Japan are such.
Certainly in Indonesia too there is a growing class of the well to do who live the consumerist capitalist system!

Maybe the North South dichotomy is a better description?

Regards

[SilatJunkie]

Selamat Krisno;

I believe that people who have the greatest resources have the potential - at least financially - to affect certain aspects of life for people everywhere. On the other hand, there are more than injustices that flow from greed - in existence. Greed is certainly wrong, but wrong is wrong in any form and from any intent.

My major contention is that somehow the people of the "West" (or anywhere) should somehow be considered of one mind and one thought and almost, it seems, as one being.  :'( When in fact, there are many people in the "West" who speak out against atrocities around the world, and give of themselves and their wealth to help others in need no matter where they live.  Certainly, the majority could do more, but let's avoid generalizations because I know plenty of people who do a lot concerning social justice issues, etc. 

Sincerely,
Sean

[Rebo Paing]

Rahayu Sean,
I tend to agree with you that it is a mistake to lump everyone in the same basket!
Sometimes when talking about world events though, it becomes convenient to make some broader generalisations ... particularly when democratically elected  governments choose to do things which affect so many of the rest of the world.

It is good and heartening to come down to the personal and human level I think. Thank you for reminding me  .

Salam and cheers,
Krisno