difficult to understand who is in daily struggle, but there is not at war; difficult to understand who daily fights, but has no enemies;
difficult to understand that a warrior does not like the smell of blood;
difficult to understand ...
In my life I lost all the battles I've done, I always chose to side with the "wrong" of the fence! Many times I tried to explain, to understand that in everything there must always be a bridge, that a people is emancipated only if they find whoever provides the means to establish their own law, to sanction and codify it.
is not mediation, diplomacy is much less! It 's a basic choice of how to port forward a battle. The choice loser ... of battles, but the "war"? In the long run what will be the prevailing logic? That conflict and closure, or the clarity of the positions, but the dialogue and availability?
I do not think people my enemy's enemy may be political strategy, but are always people and I fight for people, not for my truth!
The truth is so varied ... valla to seek what could possibly be more true. Everything is so mobile and indefinite, so ethereal that I learned that there is no truth whatsoever, but only interpretations, and these are based on assumptions. My assumption is that if you lot, lot for people, for individuals, for subjectivity, not to give such a configuration.
I thought part of the weak? Yeah, right! But this does not mean it is not clear or easily assimilated, perhaps it's difficult.
