PIPISTRO

Who decides what a crime against humanity is? Human race as a whole is hit and crippled as a result of the killing of a man. Therefore the entire mankind has to blame itself for the death brought to a man by another man. Under this point of view, the killing of any man is a crime not only against that single one or his group – circumscribed and characterized for position, ethnic group, religion, or simply a bearer of the same contingent interests – but against the whole mankind as well. War is somewhat killing by following some rules that for so much time have constituted a self-absolution that the strongest group has given itself in order to commit a crime. It is not in the nature of man, it’s an invention, a device aimed at satisfying man’s instinct for embezzlement, that get him look for his presumed well-being, moreover not as an absolute but as a difference. War is considered like a viable option for the solution of reciprocal interests and/or for the maintenance of that difference. And thus we are mistaken by considering war as something different from a huge amount of crimes, for the sole fact we subordinated them to rules. It’s a fact that these so called rules have been always dictated by the strongest, the one and at the same time the first to violate them ignobly. And this fact would have made us think of the very absurdity of these rules. So we will get on talking about legal or illegal weapons, lawful or illicit behaviors, terrorists or armies, fair or bias, black or white, good or evil, acquitting ourselves and condemning the others. Until we realize that there ain’t no “others”.

Everyone would go on using every way to win a war. Since the very concept of war should be seen as unacceptable. Is this impossible? I don't think so. An actual problem: the most powerful, who never abstained from using the most shameful way to turn into what it is or to keep its position, realizes now that the "terrorist" weapon is a democratic one, and the cheapest. It does not look at power or weakness and it is neither proper to the strongest nor to the most arrogant. The system "terrorism" fits to anyone, not only to the governments. And the strongest by ancient rules (the most powerful's rules) does all it is able to, in order to convince people it can maintain its power anyway. But it finds out it is – while not caring about rules - (…ouch!) exactly in the same position as everyone else trying to get the same position or even some more. And then it gropes. It loses. It loses credibility and loses international connivings. While someone actually gets on doing of course its dirty miserable business. But actually it must undergo a lot of new rules which supervise the energy market, the human market, the market anyway, and it is always frightened by each one may choose to turn things upside down. And ooops! The power of media doesn't make things go better. The overwhelming diffusion of the internet, the lack of trust in the mass media, the speedness in spreading information all over the world, and crawling into the facts, make unbearable, impossible, one way pubblicity. And one has to rethink the concept of power and the effectiveness of war. Unacceptable because it is against life, and humanity, and mankind. In a short while, perhaps, simply because it does not work.