Iranian سونر

When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men’s weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened.
If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.
Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.
Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity.
Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue…

Some times the right side and the wrong side can be separated by as much as the 'backslash' in the title to this current entry. This usually takes place when the decision-making atmosphere is chaotic: when there are 'trusted' figures on both sides of the line, when wrong things happen at both ends, etc.

Could it be that there just isn't a "right side"?

Perhaps it's not as easy to take out the paint brush and go for a broad stroke. In fact, it can't be like that at all. Duality, in the common sense, is what makes the world go 'round. It's how we are able to make decisions... there's the beneficial and the detrimental path. Going through most--if not all--philosophical thought, we see that there's always the notion of "what is good" and "what is bad". Of course, the means to which those definitions are made are subject to philosophical debate.

The most sound point of view, in my opinion, would be that ultimately the right and wrong side are not quite up for man himself to determine. Without guidelines of a higher order not bound by the same constraints as we are, we cannot truly profess to identify a right or wrong side.

But that is a much broader discussion.

Sometimes, the right side is chosen by a third-person who gets the impression that that particular side is being wronged. It's a safe assumption I would say, as it correlates with much of what we have seen in history. At times, however, it could be a very dangerous assumption that would lead appropriately directed sympathy to be blurred with overall decision-making.

The phenomenon that one needs to be aware of in decision-making is that it is indeed possible for those who profess to be on the right side to do wrong. The act of right or wrong itself is not mutually exclusive to a particular party. There is as much chance for those who are on the "wrong side" to do the right things as there is for those on the "right side" to do wrong things.

Shameful acts by some on the "right side" do not destroy the legitimacy of that sides principles just as much as correct deeds by some on the "wrong side" does not add to the veracity of that sides principles.

In a chaotic situation, the best thing to do would be to simplify. The best example would probably be a math problem that looks like a complete mess and is disastrous to solve. The golden rule most instructors would preach is to simplify.

In the case of determining who is right and who is wrong, the best thing one could do would be to simplify the equation. What are the principles? What is being worked at? What is the ultimate goal?

Sometimes the inquiry of these simple questions can make the difference between simply disassociating with wrong doing, and joining the wrong side due to drawing the hasty relation of "wrong deeds = wrong side".