March 24th, 2004

peace

eye for an eye..

For some reason, few ever seems to want to discuss the reason why terrorists exists and what they want to achieve with their terror..

I seriously doubt they're doing terrorist attacks just for the fun of it..

One intersting thing is that a major reason for terrorism to still be an option, is because the result of a terroristact is so totally predictable..

All say they won't give in for terrorism, which ironically is exactly the effect terrorists wants.

Does this mean I approve of terrorism? Nope.. even if I refuse to call it terrorism, since what it really is, is a war with the means possible, and those having read my journal know that war is one of the things I despice the most. At least violence. Technically Gandhi was a terrorist, but didn't use violence.. (Which I'd like to see the Palestinians do as well.. If all Palestininans went out and sat down at all the (few) border crossings.. Whatever could Israel do, really.. They obviously could shoot some or use caterpillars etc.. but exactly how good PR would that be for Israel.. "Israel slaugthers peaceful Palestinians... ").

At the same time.. Modern Terrorism started back at the Olympics in München in 1972. The thing is.. before that, nobody even knew about Palestinia or those who did know about it didn't care at all about it. After that, everybody knew about Palestinia, and the situation they were living in. In that sense it was an understandable act. Doesn't make it less horrendous and awful in every way possible. That they did it, that they were forced to do it, that it was the only way possible to get someone to listen to them etc.

It's understandable, in that sense. Doesn't make it the least more justified since violence in any form, always (and always will) feed more violence... and violence never solves a single thing. Ever!

The one and only thing that always will solve things are, in my view, love, understanding and acceptance.. and the most important thing.. That, never is a sign of weakness, of giving in to something, because the ability to accept and understand, to respect other views (if you agree with it or not) is a really difficult thing to do, while reacting with violence always is a very easy and cheap way to take and doesn't demand much.

The thing is that it's only those who could afford to respect others, that can afford to start. Those are usually the same that should know better, and if they doesn't they deserve far less respect than those who are in a situation where they can't afford to give in or it'll be the end of them.
camera

Quality

The absolutely worst thing you can ask an artist is what kind of equipment he/she uses.. Because the quality is with the artist, not the equipment..

As in.. a good photographer will take good photographs whatever equipment he uses.. To ask that question is as if one was saying that they doesn't know one thing. That it is the equipment that does it, and that everyone using that equipment would be equally good.

Then one could always discuss "quality". In what sense? Technical quality or artistic quality.. Technical quality is just technical quality, and technical quality doesn't automatically mean artistic quality, while artistic quality could be in a photo that does have or doesn't have technical quality.

Artistic quality is entirely in the intent. What you want with the image, and how good you are in making the point.

Artistic quality is how good you are at communicating. Technical quality is only in how good you are at using the tools..

If you write a very engaging story, you have artistic quality, even if it's filled with misspellings and bad grammar.. If you write a story without errors, but it doesn't engage the reader, you have technical quality.