Why is there so much hatred and conflict in the world?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

People believing st that isn't true. That's at the root of 99% of humanity's problems, including war and conflict. In every war, at least one of the sides' troops and population will believe st they've been told that isn't true. In the case of religious wars, both sides believe st that isn't true, because there is no god and all religions are false.

Mark Twain once said that a lie could travel half way round the world before the truth had got its boots on. And that was before the internet, social media, etc. The village idiot is now the global idiot, with an audience of millions.

It was hoped that as a species, we'd get less gullible over time, but the reverse has been true.

[Murph7355]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

People believing st that isn't true. That's at the root of 99% of humanity's problems, including war and conflict. In every war, at least one of the sides' troops and population will believe st they've been told that isn't true. In the case of religious wars, both sides believe st that isn't true, because there is no god and all religions are false.

Mark Twain once said that a lie could travel half way round the world before the truth had got its boots on. And that was before the internet, social media, etc. The village idiot is now the global idiot, with an audience of millions.

It was hoped that as a species, we'd get less gullible over time, but the reverse has been true.

War is always about the human condition. Power, hoarding and our species' love of groups.

We're getting better at suppressing it in some quarters, but you can't keep it down forever. Especially with 7-8bn of us.

World wars haven't been ended. They're just waiting for the right triggers. Proximity to horrific events is precisely no means of prevention to it happening again. Look at the two world wars, or every war before. And how much fighting has gone on since (I don't think there's been a year without conflict somewhere).

[768]

I'm not sure there's more hatred and conflict in the world now. What there is spreads like wildfire, magnified over the internet and distorting perspectives.

Get out there and you'll find most people, everywhere, are pretty decent, one on one. Sometimes more so in the places associated with conflict.

I think religion is a significant factor, but there's some good we have a tendency to throw out with it, getting rid of it isn't going to solve everything either.

[Kermit power]

Dagnir said:

Kermit power said:

Dagnir said:

otolith said:

No, I was just thinking that we've been doing things which have been described as warmongering for as long as I can remember - whether it was allegedly allowing the Falklands crisis to escalate to an electorally convenient war, or the various expeditions on the shirt tails of the Americans. If anything I think we've been less willing to wage war since Blair got himself labelled a war criminal, with Cameron losing the vote to bomb Syria. There have been subsequent actions, bombing ISIL and Houthis, but nothing of the scale of our previous adventures.

IDD with most of that.

Well there are some exceptions (protecting integral international trade from the Houthis for example) and whilst yes, we do still get involved when we could choose not to....my point was about starting West v West wars.


Without the less civilised nations being such a tinder box for war, I don't think we would have been warmongering nearly as much.


I'm not blaming them btw.....quite often it's as much of an excuse as it is a cause.

Seriously???

You think the reason that Western nations equipped with state of the art weaponry don't go to war with each other is because we're more civilised???

Presumably when those same Western powers are off fking up various parts of Africa and the Middle East that's all the fault of those damned uncivilised darkies in your world view?

Blimey...are you OK?

...and did you read my final paragraph?

Yes, very much okay, and yes I read your last paragraph. Your "I'm not blaming them, btw" is dripping with the same sort of arrogant disdain as all your other comments about "less civilised nations".

So much of the violence of today is a direct result of initially European and later American imperialist aggression, yet somehow we're the civilised ones?

Just because we've realised that the sort of weaponry we possess as developed Western Nations means than any conflict between us is pretty much bound to end in catastrophic loss of our own lives that hasn't stopped us sticking our noses in here, there and anywhere that we can be pretty certain that the loss of life is only going one way.

I think it was you asking another poster to point to a war between two Western nations as though the fact that we no longer tend to attack each other is some sort of badge of civilisation???

How about we flip that around and see if you can point to any recent conflicts between two non-Western nations that isn't directly influenced by the West?

There are in fact very few wars between non-Western nations full stop. Most of the conflicts you tend to see around the world these days tend to be insurgencies and civil wars, often where people were forced into the same country by colonial border-setting, or Islam-based violence which can be laid almost exclusively at the door of the Yanks.

[Dagnir]

Kermit power said:

Dagnir said:

Kermit power said:

Dagnir said:

otolith said:

No, I was just thinking that we've been doing things which have been described as warmongering for as long as I can remember - whether it was allegedly allowing the Falklands crisis to escalate to an electorally convenient war, or the various expeditions on the shirt tails of the Americans. If anything I think we've been less willing to wage war since Blair got himself labelled a war criminal, with Cameron losing the vote to bomb Syria. There have been subsequent actions, bombing ISIL and Houthis, but nothing of the scale of our previous adventures.

IDD with most of that.

Well there are some exceptions (protecting integral international trade from the Houthis for example) and whilst yes, we do still get involved when we could choose not to....my point was about starting West v West wars.


Without the less civilised nations being such a tinder box for war, I don't think we would have been warmongering nearly as much.


I'm not blaming them btw.....quite often it's as much of an excuse as it is a cause.

Seriously???

You think the reason that Western nations equipped with state of the art weaponry don't go to war with each other is because we're more civilised???

Presumably when those same Western powers are off fking up various parts of Africa and the Middle East that's all the fault of those damned uncivilised darkies in your world view?

Blimey...are you OK?

...and did you read my final paragraph?

Yes, very much okay, and yes I read your last paragraph. Your "I'm not blaming them, btw" is dripping with the same sort of arrogant disdain as all your other comments about "less civilised nations".

So much of the violence of today is a direct result of initially European and later American imperialist aggression, yet somehow we're the civilised ones?

Just because we've realised that the sort of weaponry we possess as developed Western Nations means than any conflict between us is pretty much bound to end in catastrophic loss of our own lives that hasn't stopped us sticking our noses in here, there and anywhere that we can be pretty certain that the loss of life is only going one way.

I think it was you asking another poster to point to a war between two Western nations as though the fact that we no longer tend to attack each other is some sort of badge of civilisation???

How about we flip that around and see if you can point to any recent conflicts between two non-Western nations that isn't directly influenced by the West?

There are in fact very few wars between non-Western nations full stop. Most of the conflicts you tend to see around the world these days tend to be insurgencies and civil wars, often where people were forced into the same country by colonial border-setting, or Islam-based violence which can be laid almost exclusively at the door of the Yanks.

You've had an irrational, emotional reaction to me stating a very simple and established fact. There was no criticism in my post. You have entirely imagined that because you're (apparently) desperate to be offended on behalf of other people. Some countries are more civilised than others. If you can't deal with reality, go and see your mental health councillor.



You're literally inventing racism and in your head and accusing me of thinking of some people as 'darkies'?



.....for God's sake get a bloody grip!

[swisstoni]

The idea that things would all be sweetness and light if it wasn’t for ‘the West’ is a lovely conceit.

[Dagnir]

swisstoni said:

The idea that things would all be sweetness and light if it wasn’t for ‘the West’ is a lovely conceit.

It's absolutely bonkers!


There are cannibal warlords currently running riot in parts of Africa.


I suppose that's the height of civilisation...

[Slowboathome]

Why is there so much hatred and conflict on this thread?

[Kermit power]

Dagnir said:

Kermit power said:

Dagnir said:

Kermit power said:

Dagnir said:

otolith said:

No, I was just thinking that we've been doing things which have been described as warmongering for as long as I can remember - whether it was allegedly allowing the Falklands crisis to escalate to an electorally convenient war, or the various expeditions on the shirt tails of the Americans. If anything I think we've been less willing to wage war since Blair got himself labelled a war criminal, with Cameron losing the vote to bomb Syria. There have been subsequent actions, bombing ISIL and Houthis, but nothing of the scale of our previous adventures.

IDD with most of that.

Well there are some exceptions (protecting integral international trade from the Houthis for example) and whilst yes, we do still get involved when we could choose not to....my point was about starting West v West wars.


Without the less civilised nations being such a tinder box for war, I don't think we would have been warmongering nearly as much.


I'm not blaming them btw.....quite often it's as much of an excuse as it is a cause.

Seriously???

You think the reason that Western nations equipped with state of the art weaponry don't go to war with each other is because we're more civilised???

Presumably when those same Western powers are off fking up various parts of Africa and the Middle East that's all the fault of those damned uncivilised darkies in your world view?

Blimey...are you OK?

...and did you read my final paragraph?

Yes, very much okay, and yes I read your last paragraph. Your "I'm not blaming them, btw" is dripping with the same sort of arrogant disdain as all your other comments about "less civilised nations".

So much of the violence of today is a direct result of initially European and later American imperialist aggression, yet somehow we're the civilised ones?

Just because we've realised that the sort of weaponry we possess as developed Western Nations means than any conflict between us is pretty much bound to end in catastrophic loss of our own lives that hasn't stopped us sticking our noses in here, there and anywhere that we can be pretty certain that the loss of life is only going one way.

I think it was you asking another poster to point to a war between two Western nations as though the fact that we no longer tend to attack each other is some sort of badge of civilisation???

How about we flip that around and see if you can point to any recent conflicts between two non-Western nations that isn't directly influenced by the West?

There are in fact very few wars between non-Western nations full stop. Most of the conflicts you tend to see around the world these days tend to be insurgencies and civil wars, often where people were forced into the same country by colonial border-setting, or Islam-based violence which can be laid almost exclusively at the door of the Yanks.

You've had an irrational, emotional reaction to me stating a very simple and established fact. There was no criticism in my post. You have entirely imagined that because you're (apparently) desperate to be offended on behalf of other people. Some countries are more civilised than others. If you can't deal with reality, go and see your mental health councillor.



You're literally inventing racism and in your head and accusing me of thinking of some people as 'darkies'?



.....for God's sake get a bloody grip!

You've spent the whole of this thread banging on about how the West is so much more civilised. I notice you've not managed to point to any recent wars between two non-Western countries that weren't heavily influenced by the West?

[NRS]

Dagnir said:

If the entire world was as civilised as the west, I think there would much stronger consensus that war is hell on earth. The issue is of course that a lot of countries/societies are more primitive, anti-science, less civilised etc... than we are.


There are exceptions of course (Russia and her imperalism being a grey area) but when was the last time a true western nation started a war with another western nation?

Surely that’s more about it being easier to beat up a less well off country than each other as much as it is anything else? We’ve done lots of that recently, and huge amounts previously.

[Dagnir]

Kermit power said:

Dagnir said:

Kermit power said:

Dagnir said:

Kermit power said:

Dagnir said:

otolith said:

No, I was just thinking that we've been doing things which have been described as warmongering for as long as I can remember - whether it was allegedly allowing the Falklands crisis to escalate to an electorally convenient war, or the various expeditions on the shirt tails of the Americans. If anything I think we've been less willing to wage war since Blair got himself labelled a war criminal, with Cameron losing the vote to bomb Syria. There have been subsequent actions, bombing ISIL and Houthis, but nothing of the scale of our previous adventures.

IDD with most of that.

Well there are some exceptions (protecting integral international trade from the Houthis for example) and whilst yes, we do still get involved when we could choose not to....my point was about starting West v West wars.


Without the less civilised nations being such a tinder box for war, I don't think we would have been warmongering nearly as much.


I'm not blaming them btw.....quite often it's as much of an excuse as it is a cause.

Seriously???

You think the reason that Western nations equipped with state of the art weaponry don't go to war with each other is because we're more civilised???

Presumably when those same Western powers are off fking up various parts of Africa and the Middle East that's all the fault of those damned uncivilised darkies in your world view?

Blimey...are you OK?

...and did you read my final paragraph?

Yes, very much okay, and yes I read your last paragraph. Your "I'm not blaming them, btw" is dripping with the same sort of arrogant disdain as all your other comments about "less civilised nations".

So much of the violence of today is a direct result of initially European and later American imperialist aggression, yet somehow we're the civilised ones?

Just because we've realised that the sort of weaponry we possess as developed Western Nations means than any conflict between us is pretty much bound to end in catastrophic loss of our own lives that hasn't stopped us sticking our noses in here, there and anywhere that we can be pretty certain that the loss of life is only going one way.

I think it was you asking another poster to point to a war between two Western nations as though the fact that we no longer tend to attack each other is some sort of badge of civilisation???

How about we flip that around and see if you can point to any recent conflicts between two non-Western nations that isn't directly influenced by the West?

There are in fact very few wars between non-Western nations full stop. Most of the conflicts you tend to see around the world these days tend to be insurgencies and civil wars, often where people were forced into the same country by colonial border-setting, or Islam-based violence which can be laid almost exclusively at the door of the Yanks.

You've had an irrational, emotional reaction to me stating a very simple and established fact. There was no criticism in my post. You have entirely imagined that because you're (apparently) desperate to be offended on behalf of other people. Some countries are more civilised than others. If you can't deal with reality, go and see your mental health councillor.



You're literally inventing racism and in your head and accusing me of thinking of some people as 'darkies'?



.....for God's sake get a bloody grip!

You've spent the whole of this thread banging on about how the West is so much more civilised. I notice you've not managed to point to any recent wars between two non-Western countries that weren't heavily influenced by the West?

That's simply a lie. I have brought up the topic of being civilised once and I dont think I was exclaiming that we are 'so much' more civilised. Again, that's your emotions twisting your perception/memory and wanting me to have said bad disparaging things so that you can get upset on behalf of the 'underdog'. It's weird and somewhat pathetic.


You're clearly 'triggered', hence your irrational reaction. What's your problem with me saying some nations are more civilised than others? I really don't understand. Why does that evoke outrage in you?


You also need to re-read what I've said. I haven't once claimed that the West doesn't get involved with conflicts in other parts of the world. Quite the opposite in fact, as I even mentioned that the west uses existing conflicts as excuses.


I'm just puzzled. You're pushing back against things I simply haven't said. It's very bizzare and I can only assume it's down to your tantrum about me mentioned that the west is more civilised than some other parts of the world.


The point I was making is that it's much harder for 2 western countries to start a war amongst themselves.....am I wrong? I am suggesting that we are more likely to settle our differences via diplomacy, than 2 nations that have ruled tribes/Warlords etc. and have been fighting for decade.....am I wrong?

Edited by Dagnir on Tuesday 14th May 18:19

[NRS]

It’s true, but it’s less likely that it’s because we’re more civilized and more likely because it’s easier to wage war on poorer countries instead of taking on someone our own size and just wiping each other out as it’s an equal fight.

[Kermit power]

Dagnir said:

That's simply a lie. I have brought up the topic of being civilised once and I dont think I was exclaiming that we are 'so much' more civilised. Again, that's your emotions twisting your perception/memory and wanting me to have said bad disparaging things so that you can get upset on behalf of the 'underdog'. It's weird and somewhat pathetic.


You're clearly 'triggered', hence your irrational reaction. What's your problem with me saying some nations are more civilised than others? I really don't understand. Why does that evoke outrage in you?


You also need to re-read what I've said. I haven't once claimed that the West doesn't get involved with conflicts in other parts of the world. Quite the opposite in fact, as I even mentioned that the west uses existing conflicts as excuses.


I'm just puzzled. You're pushing back against things I simply haven't said. It's very bizzare and I can only assume it's down to your tantrum about me mentioned that the west is more civilised than some other parts of the world.


The point I was making is that it's much harder for 2 western countries to start a war amongst themselves.....am I wrong? I am suggesting that we are more likely to settle our differences via diplomacy, than 2 nations that have ruled tribes/Warlords etc. and have been fighting for decade.....am I wrong?

First up we've had these which all make it pretty clear who you think of as civilised vs uncivilised....

Dagnir said:

If the entire world was as civilised as the west, I think there would much stronger consensus that war is hell on earth. The issue is of course that a lot of countries/societies are more primitive, anti-science, less civilised etc... than we are.

Dagnir said:

Get what you're saying but it's not wokeness that prevents us from being warmongers.....it's being a civilised, western democracy.

Dagnir said:

Without the less civilised nations being such a tinder box for war, I don't think we would have been warmongering nearly as much.

Dagnir said:

If the entire world was as civilised as the west, I think there would much stronger consensus that war is hell on earth. The issue is of course that a lot of countries/societies are more primitive, anti-science, less civilised etc... than we are.

Then we had...

Dagnir said:

when was the last time a true western nation started a war with another western nation?

Suggesting you believe that Western nations don't fight each other because they're "civilised", not because they know that with the military arsenals they now have, any conflict between them would cause way more suffering and death amongst their own populations than those populations would be willing to tolerate.

Then when you get called out on the fact that we're still perfectly capable of being bloodthirsty warmongerers, we get...

Dagnir said:

Well there are some exceptions (protecting integral international trade from the Houthis for example) and whilst yes, we do still get involved when we could choose not to....my point was about starting West v West wars.

Seemingly doubling down on the fact that in the West we must be civilised because we no longer start wars with each other!

Can you really not see how I've reached the conclusions I have based on what you've written?

I don't know what you mean by a "true" Western nation - maybe not counting the Balkan conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, or not counting the Soviet Union/Russia because they're in the East? - but whatever, you're correct in that there haven't been (m)any direct West vs West conflicts since the end of WW2, but take a look at the post-war history of US regime change in Latin America and tell me how civilised you think they've been there? Would Britain have gone to war to reclaim the Falklands had the Americans not supported the coup that put the Argentine Junta in place, for example?

I'll grant that you're possibly not wrong in believing that being a democracy makes a country less inclined to war (although the fact that Hitler was democratically elected might suggest that prosperity more than democracy is the thing that really counts) so what might have happened if we and the Americans hadn't overthrown the last democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 in an ultimately futile bid to protect British oil interests and broader Imperial existence in the region?

So many people are so quick to blame Islam for being uncivilised and warmongering, but arguably pretty much all Islamic extremism today stems from a reaction to that act and the Western imposition of the State of Israel in 1947. The latter, of course, was completely well-meaning and civilised, albeit without fully considering the potential consequences, but the former was reprehensible and not something that any civilised nation should be doing.

[Jinx]

Kermit power said:

So many people are so quick to blame Islam for being uncivilised and warmongering, but arguably pretty much all Islamic extremism today stems from a reaction to that act and the Western imposition of the State of Israel in 1947. The latter, of course, was completely well-meaning and civilised, albeit without fully considering the potential consequences, but the former was reprehensible and not something that any civilised nation should be doing.

Iran/Iraq war? Civil war in Yemen? There has been lots of extremism within Islam since the death of Mohammed.

[White-Noise]

Rufus Stone said:

I can't help wondering if it's because the current generations have no knowledge of the atrocities of large scale war. I think the human race is regressing not progressing. You might think that globalisation of business and largely worldwide access to information and people via the internet would make people realise that we are one planet and need to get along, but the red lines on the map are just getting brighter.

A good thread thank you for making us think.

I think about this sometimes and I'm not sure the lack of wars that affect us as much as those of the past is a major factor, its smaller than that in my mind if you look back at ww1 and 2 how close together they are.

Although the world has become a smaller place, countering that you have folks at the top with an agenda and an ability to control and influence others. I could probably go on a meandering talk as it's a big comicated topic to my mind but I agree I wish it wasn't like it is. Inside us all lives an animal, our reptilian brain and that has needs of its own.

I think that if everyone had the chance to go and sit on the moon for the afternoon while watching the news on their phone looking back at the earth, we would all probably come back thinking quite differently about a lot of things. We would soon forget about it though.

[Rufus Stone]

I can't help but think that one day humanity will exterminate itself.

[Pit Pony]

Rufus Stone said:

I can't help but think that one day humanity will exterminate itself.

And then "mother nature" will just make the best of it.

A bit like my next door neighbours garden, only on a larger scale.

Anyway, in the words of Billy Bragg.

It's all about the price of Oil.

[768]

Jinx said:

Kermit power said:

So many people are so quick to blame Islam for being uncivilised and warmongering, but arguably pretty much all Islamic extremism today stems from a reaction to that act and the Western imposition of the State of Israel in 1947. The latter, of course, was completely well-meaning and civilised, albeit without fully considering the potential consequences, but the former was reprehensible and not something that any civilised nation should be doing.

Iran/Iraq war? Civil war in Yemen? There has been lots of extremism within Islam since the death of Mohammed.

Yeah. I don't recall al-Wahhab mentioning Israel.

[Derek Smith]

Pit Pony said:

And then "mother nature" will just make the best of it.

A bit like my next door neighbours garden, only on a larger scale.

Anyway, in the words of Billy Bragg.

It's all about the price of Oil.

If it's all about oil, we need to reduce our dependence on it. More wind farms, more solar panels, more efficient vehicles, and fewer airplanes. It's a lot to give up, but if you don't like war, it's so much better than merely complaining about it.

[Kermit power]

Jinx said:

Kermit power said:

So many people are so quick to blame Islam for being uncivilised and warmongering, but arguably pretty much all Islamic extremism today stems from a reaction to that act and the Western imposition of the State of Israel in 1947. The latter, of course, was completely well-meaning and civilised, albeit without fully considering the potential consequences, but the former was reprehensible and not something that any civilised nation should be doing.

Iran/Iraq war? Civil war in Yemen? There has been lots of extremism within Islam since the death of Mohammed.

Shall we look at the timeline of the Iran/Iraq war?

1941 - Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran after they refuse to sack Germans running the railways. Reza Shah resigns, replaced by his son Mohammed Reza - 'the' Shah.

1950 - Mohammad Mosaddegh elected Prime Minister in relatively free and fair elections.

1951 - Mosaddegh's oil nationalisation bill passed by the Iranian parliament and the Shah loses most of his former absolute powers.

1953 - British/American-backed coup overthrows the Mossaddegh government and restores the Shah as an absolute monarch.

1979 - Shia theocracy rises to power after rallying support for the revolution which finally deposes the Shah.

1980 - Iraq invades Iran to pre-empt the risk of Shia Iran coming to help Iraqi Shias rise up against Sunni Saddam and the Ba'ath party. Over the next 8 years, both countries will get plenty of support from the West, in some cases from the same country at the same time!

1985 - The Iran-Contra affair kicks off. A particularly high watermark of American civilisation whereby the US regime secretly sold arms illegally to Iran to create untraceable funds to bring about regime change in Nicaragua!

Tell me again how the Iran-Iraq war wasn't massively created/influenced by the West?

I'll admit that I know very little about the Yemeni Civil War, but my understanding was that it originally started as part of the Arab Spring with demands for the President to resign and allow democratic reform?