Skip to main content

37 dead, several thousand injured, where to from here?

While it’s not a patch on the number of innocent civilians killed and injured worldwide every day by land-mines alone — some of them no doubt manufactured, brokered, shipped or whatever by London-based companies — deliberately setting out to kill more innocent civilians has to be the single stupidest way I can think of to get one’s point across.

If the London attacks really are Al Quaeda (and if not, it will be someone of similar stripe), then of course they need to be stopped — but how? All of the simple answers have been tried, and have failed. To be merciless enough to exterminate every potential terrorist simply kills, you guessed it, still more innocent civilians and generates the resentment needed to form the next generation of indignant murderers, and anything less than that won’t have a measurable effect.

Education hasn’st worked. It is seen (and rightly so) as an attempt to replace one extreme ideology with another, and will provoke a corresponding reaction. If it’s missionaries, the threat is a competing religion (Christianity). If it’s &non-religious” educators, the threat is still a competing religion (Atheism). The way either form of the threat will be met is predictable: violently.

At first glance, a look under the surface of any terrorist will show someone with nothing left to lose. But there is almost always a second layer of people who have plenty of physical resources, directing things. It seems to me that the answer is simple: enrich them.

What?

Provide the underlings (“It’s so tempting to say ‘minions’ instead”) the opportunity to earn possessions and freedoms which they will then be in a position to lose. Make them materially compatible with their overlords, too, more inclined to think about what they’re being told instead of accepting it blindly. Stinking rich is unnecessary — at least, not “stinking rich” by our standards — just as wealthy as a dole-bludger in a typical Western society would do. This will have three effects: to make them less desperate, and more willing to argue with the ringleaders, and eventually more self-educated. In short, more reasonable.

The horror in London is not the fruits of reasonable actions by reasonable men. If we make the men reasonable, we take away the motivation that produces terrorism.

There is one major and obvious shortcoming to this grand yet simple plan: How?

Even if you had the material resources to just hand them a lifestyle on a platter, that wouldn’t work. They would need to earn it themselves, to truly own it, or at least feel that they have.

Any ideas?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

An Open and Shut response to Darl McBride

Hi, Darl. I see you’re being dishonest again . It’d be really nice if you could shoot straight for a change, but I think Kerry’s Dad will be selling snowplows in Hell first. Three years ago, when I first joined The SCO Group, we focused the company on the area that was most profitable and provided the most benefit to customers, investors, resellers, developers and employees: UNIX No, you focused the company on suing people, which was most profitable to lawyers and provided some golden parachutes for your buddies. People thought we were crazy. They were right. But since SCO owns the UNIX operating system The SCO Group does not own UNIX® in any sense of the word. The Open Group owns the UNIX trademark, definition and other rights , The SCO Group does not. The SCO Group doesn’t even own the UnixWare® or OpenServer® code, the rights to those are held by Novell and TSG use them only by permission and under certain conditions — which they have violate...

5x7 text dot-matrix in five minutes...

This is a fairly primitive toy I threw together today for a specific purpose, published in case it’s any use to others... feed it a list of words as command arguments, which it will then display as a 5x7 ASCII dotmatrix with ‘#’ as a dot & ‘_’ as a blank. /* * display text using a 5x7 bitmap font in ASCII letters */ static unsigned char font [] [5] = { { 0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00 }, // 0x20 32 { 0x00,0x00,0x6f,0x00,0x00 }, // ! 0x21 33 { 0x00,0x07,0x00,0x07,0x00 }, // " 0x22 34 { 0x14,0x7f,0x14,0x7f,0x14 }, // # 0x23 35 { 0x00,0x07,0x04,0x1e,0x00 }, // $ 0x24 36 { 0x23,0x13,0x08,0x64,0x62 }, // % 0x25 37 { 0x36,0x49,0x56,0x20,0x50 }, // & 0x26 38 { 0x00,0x00,0x07,0x00,0x00 }, // ' 0x27 39 { 0x00,0x1c,0x22,0x41,0x00 }, // ( 0x28 40 { 0x00,0x41,0x22,0x1c,0x00 }, // ) 0x29 41 { 0x14,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x14 }, // * 0x2a 42 { 0x08,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x08 }, ...

Citizens Augmenting Government Waste

So here we have Microsoft-funded “ Citizens Against Government Waste ” (CAGW) heavily criticising Massachusetts’s switch to an internationally accepted and open document standard (not open source, open standard — but I seem to remember a large monopolist who frequently confuses the two when it suits them). I remember CAGW, they were the organisation who had dead people writing in to support Microsoft in court a few years ago — thanks to sbergman27 for the link — is this “the dead hand of CAGW” at work again? Let’s follow the money and find out. Who stands to lose the most money and control if Massachusetts switches to an unencumbered document format? Big surprise, it’s CAGW sponsor Microsoft, through their dominant MS-Office suite. Why did CAGW list Microsoft’s suite last, after two other much-less-dominant examples which are waning anyway? If you’re inclined to wallow in additional irony, consider that at leas...