Why do political groups frequently resort to violence?
Perhaps it's because armed conflict or resistance is on of the few things that will draw a significant response from our sensationalize ratings-driven media. It causes more of a stir among the international community than thoughtful, measured, non-violent action. Examples? Tibet, Burma - their struggles have only resurfaced when violence broke out in one form or another, otherwise they seem to be forgotten.
So resorting to violence. Is this then a learned response formed by years of indifference and foreign policies with dubious motives?
No comments:
Post a Comment