Today, the United States military, through the now familiar vehicle of an armed observation drone, fired a missile at an American citizen and blew his ass to Hell. This was done without benefit of a trial, or any other "due process" the Constitution guarantees. I expect most of the readers here to be thinking I'm against this, that due process is the right of every American citizen and that the Obama Administration should be held accountable for war crimes.
Bullshit. Let the fucker burn in Hell. I'm GLAD they did it.
A little background is in order here.
The name of the maggot who was offed with extreme prejudice was Anwar al-Awlaki. He was born in New Mexico. He gave lectures at the same mosques attended by four of the 9/11 hijackers (at the same time they were there). He has inspired the attempt to bring down an air-liner with the now infamous "underwear bomber" (This is according to the underwear bomber himself). He forwarded the plot to send explosives-laden printer toner cartridges through various postal carriers to wreck havoc wherever they happened to be when they exploded (This is according to documents recovered in Yemen last year). And he was the inspiration for the traitor who committed mass murder of American servicemen at Fort Hood (This according to the traitor who did the crime).
He has steadfastly urged his "followers" to commit murder in the name of Islam, with a special emphasis to murdering Americans where ever they can be found. He declared war on the United States and, today, he became an extremely justified casualty of war.
I don't give a rat's ass if he was an "American citizen" or not.
No one, anywhere, has expressed remorse over Osama Bin Laudin's death. Bin Laudin was the leader of Al Qaida, the terrorist network responsible for the 9/11 attacks in New York, the Pentagon and another airliner that plunged to a fiery end in Pennsylvania when the passengers fought back. Bin Laudin didn't kill anyone, personally. He was never tired in an American court. He had no "due process". But an anonymous SEAL team hero put a bullet through his turban and offed the most evil person to ever walk the planet. Even most Muslims are glad he's dead.
My personal scale of right and wrong reserves a special place of animosity for people who sit behind the scenes and urge other people to go out and kill, or die, for a repressive, misogynistic, obsolete mythology unable to cope with the changes in the world today (Or any other cause that advocates violence in order to restrict freedom and liberty, for that matter). If they were on the front lines, risking death or doing as they urged, that at least earns them some points for putting their lives where their words are (not much, of course, but some). But hiding behind a microphone, in secret, by surprise and against civilians who have nothing more to do with the "conflict" than nationality... No. There's a special, very painful place in the afterlife for them. And if there's no Afterlife, then at least the stain of their existence on the honor of Mankind can start to be erased with their passing.
Anwar al-Awlaki (may his name be cursed by Allah and His Prophet) was EXACTLY the same as Bin Laudin. He hid behind the scenes and urged other people to kill Americans in the name of HIS religion. Bin Laudin was a Saudi Arabian, born into luxury who decided America was decadent and deserved destruction in the promotion of Islam. In some ways, that's understandable. He never lived in the US. He didn't know what the US was (supposedly) about. But the maggot al-Awlaki was an American. He was born in New Mexico. He KNEW what America was all about. And yet he decided repression, murder and violence was better than freedom, liberty and the rights he enjoyed as a citizen of the United States.
Fuck him.
ANYONE, citizen or not, who urges the murder of their fellow civilians has vacated their right to be a citizen. They have vacated their right to speak their mind. They have vacated their right to even breathe the same air as their fellow citizens. By their actions, they have vacated - no, not vacated. They have refused - the right to "due process".
In my opinion, a hellfire missile up their asses IS "due process".
I do not often advocate for the death of anyone. But like I said, some people deserve to die. Once they reach that level of animosity on my personal scale of right and wrong, I couldn't give a shit if they were citizens, my own brother or the whack-job, raving nutcase terrorist they are. Some people SHOULD die. Not because of what they've done themselves. But for the violence, death and terror they inspire others to commit.
So for those of you who think I'm a liberal, fuck you. I'm an American who loves my country.
For those of you reading only this and think I'm a conservative, fuck you, I'm an American who loves my country.
And this American who loves his country is a moderate. Moderates have points of view that align with the left or the right at times. Try to remember, we don't HAVE to be polarized as a people. Only the politicians, who live to get elected, have to appeal to a particular bias. The rest of us are free to be ourselves - and it would be nice if all of you reading this voted for a moderate.
For this blog post, you get to see my conservative side, my Pro-American side, my love of country and the ideals for which it stands side. It's also my "yeah, go ahead and kill the fucker" side most people would associate with conservatives. I do have that side. Everyone does to some extent. I just try to reserve it for the most deserving of those who should be poster children for retroactive birth control, rather than some average fellow citizen whose politics differ from mine (which is what some other conservatives often do).
Some of my views defy categorization altogether. But regardless of our political differences, our religious differences and even our social differences, in my mind, if you don't put the good of the country ahead of all, then you don't deserve to live here, let alone be a citizen of my country.
Sometimes I'm a flaming asshole. But I'm a proud AMERICAN flaming asshole. Fuck with my country, you will die.
It's times like this that I wish I believed in the Christian Hell and I hope Anwar al-Awlaki is burning there. At the very least, I'm glad he's resting in pieces. Those who think the rule of law has been broken, the Constitution violated and the government on some slippery slope of offing American citizens on a whim anywhere in the world, I simply say that if Anwar al-Awlaki had his way, there would only be Sharia Law and a hell of a lot more people would be killed for a lot less reason and with a lot less "due process" than waging war against the United States. The ONLY "mistake" I can think of is that the United States didn't strip this filth of his citizenship BEFORE the missiles flew. If they had, Anwar al-Awlaki would have had no more legal standing in the U.S. than Osama Bin Laudin.
Maybe the U.S. government will remember that for the next time it happens - assuming it ever happens again. It's a minor formality - proving treason and pronouncing a death sentence - but it's "due process". I expect that will shut up the bleeding hearts who think the government is out to get everyone who criticizes it.
Some people deserve to die. Bin Laudin is dead. Anwar al-Awlaki was next in line. I hope #3 on the list is shitting little green kittens and is constantly looking over his shoulder right about now. Maybe if we kill enough of the ones urging others to go out and kill people over religion, politics or ideology, they'll stop trying to urge others to go out and kill people over religion, politics and ideology. But even if not, there's one less maniac in the world tonight and I'm good with that.
Showing posts with label terrorist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terrorist. Show all posts
Friday, September 30, 2011
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Mandate for terrorist eradication - 8/26/2006
Mandate for terrorist
eradication:
Definitions:
1. Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments.
2. Propaganda: Any distortion of the truth for the purposes of influencing people.
3. Insurrection: The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.
In general, the difference between a terrorist and an insurrectionist is mostly one of history. The founding fathers of the United States were terrorists as far as the British were concerned until the US won the war of independence. Then they were insurrectionists. But for the purposes of this missive, insurrectionists aren’t generally out to change society, only governments, and do it by confronting the governmental forces sent to stop them. Terrorists are out to change everything and don’t care who they kill in the process, usually avoiding direct confrontation with civil or governmental forces.
Propaganda, on the other hand, is used by both sides in a conflict. Any distortion of the truth means telling part of the truth (a common ploy for politicians campaigning for re-election), applying a truth to a situation which has no bearing on that truth such as deliberately using information that is outdated and even telling the whole truth without any context such as quoting biblical verses without relating the context in which the verse was said. Another form of propaganda is taking the truth and spinning it so that it sounds less than it actually is. Language is imprecise, but when a headline that reads, “Target America: Terror in the Skies” is a story about a foiled terrorist plot which had originated in another country whose intended targets were American-bound and mostly US-based airliners that was stopped before even a rehearsal was conducted, let alone the act carried out, you have a case of egregious propaganda. America wasn’t the target. American airliners were. The terror was a plot, not an actuality. No one ever made it into the skies and except for the inconvenienced passengers, no one was even close to being hurt.
Terrorists use fear as a weapon, as does the government. But that’s a different subject. For the purposes of this paper, I am laying out the way to combat terrorism at its roots and bring it under control. The sad fact is that as long as we have people, we will have terrorists and terrorism. There is no escaping that fact. Having acknowledged it, we move on to dealing with the current situation.
It’s long been established that people who are satisfied don’t resort to terrorist acts. It takes disaffection and dissatisfaction to drive someone into the arms of people whose purposes are to change the world by any means. If people are satisfied, they don’t kill other people. To obtain satisfaction, people need only a few basic things - food, clothing, shelter, the regard of one’s peers and a sense of purpose. Given the world today, the first three aren’t easy and the last two are next to impossible. But these must be addressed in order to curtail terrorism.
Notice, please, that none of this involves killing anyone.
Food, clothing and shelter are great, but if you don’t consider the regard of one’s peers and the sense of purpose, just handing out these things aren’t going to make anyone satisfied. You’re going to piss them off. Especially if these people aren’t treated with courtesy. Yes, this makes things hard but they are essential.
What kind of things contribute to the regard of one’s peers and a sense of purpose? Education, and the opportunity to use it in a way meaningful to the individual for starters. This means good schools for everyone so inclined and jobs that are not just manual labor or worse. It also involves a certain amount of truth-telling. Another thing that helps are governments which are willing to put the welfare of the people ahead of restrictive ideologies and political or religious rhetoric. If the two mesh well - welfare of the people and governmental ideologies - then it’s not a problem. If they don’t, then it’s a problem.
Another ingredient in the formula is cooperation. This means international cooperation. Again, the world being how it is, you’re not going to get a universal consensus. But there has to be a majority consensus as to some foundation rules. Where is the line drawn for tolerating the kind of thing that falls within the boundaries of terrorism? More importantly, perhaps, who draws it?
Let’s look at the situation today: It’s mostly Middle East versus the West, with Asia neutral at best, but more often siding with the Middle East. There are political and economic realities that these countries have to deal with, which is why they so often drag their heels when the rest of the world seems set on a reasonable course. If we can’t get world unity on the terrorist issue, we will never be able to deal with it effectively. And it all boils down to one single, simple word:
Energy.
Today, the world’s energy production relies primarily on oil, coal and natural gas. The vast majority of this is supplied from the Middle East. I actually believe that Iran is using its resources to build nuclear power, despite having some of the largest oil reserves in the world. Once their country is nuclear, it will cease production of oil and let the rest of the world strangle. It’s just a theory, but one which highlights the fact that much of the world’s ‘terrorist’ activities are driven by the hunger for oil and energy. It’s either condoned by other governments because they can’t risk antagonizing their supply of oil and natural gas, or it’s openly (or not so openly) bought and paid for by money earned from selling oil and natural gas.
So the first thing that needs to be done is to find a viable, clean and cost-effective alternative to oil and natural gas for energy production. If anyone has ever read Frank Herbert’s Dune series, they know that in the book, interstellar travel and trade depends on ‘spice’ mined from the bodies of huge sand worms found only on the planet nicknamed Dune. The planet is taken over by the indigenous population driven by religious furor and the overly militaristic and self-interested government (an empire) is over-run by wackos who eventually see the error of their ways but by then, most of the galaxy is in ruins. There are a lot of parallels in that story which apply to today’s world. Spice made interstellar travel possible. Oil makes today’s world move. Unlike the Dune series, we have options to wean ourselves off the ‘spice’ habit. So strange as it may seem on the face of it, the first thing we need to do to combat terrorism is find better ways of making energy.
Of course, the oil companies are going to do whatever it can to oppose this kind of thing. This is where enlightened governments come in. They need to fund, encourage and promote viable alternative energy sources that are in no way connected to or driven by oil company interests. Ethanol was once touted as a great alternative, but the world’s production of the ingredients for ethanol is limited, and though it’s more renewable than oil, it has too many limits to meet demand and mostly contribute to oil company profits more than actually reducing dependence on oil. As a means to an ends, it may be useful, but as an ends in and of itself, it’s not going to work.
Oil companies aren’t going to be the only ones fighting this trend. Energy companies are going to stand with the oil companies as well. While I’d rather see all coal-fired energy plants shut down, coal is also a limited energy source and needs to be done away with. Natural gas is the primary source of energy production today, with nuclear and hydro-electric generation coming in second and third. Wind and solar power bring up a very distant fourth. What replaces hydrocarbon fuel burning (coal, included) should also replace our reliance on a ‘power grid’ as our primary source of power. Each home and business should have its own way of generating power. A power grid is too fraught with issues (lack of maintenance and the failure of a 40 cent fuse plunged the northeast into darkness for three days) to be sustained. New technologies which are more reliable should replace it.
But however it’s done, money, time and research must be invested in eliminating our dependence on oil and natural gas as sources of energy production and fuel. It CAN be done within 20 years, if given the chance. It would be best if it was an international effort, but if the technology is shared internationally, then you’d end up with pretty much the same result.
Unfortunately, in the meantime, terrorists will continue to murder innocent people. So something must be done about that. Psychologically speaking, people are stupid. Individuals are smart. People are dumb as compost. This is because people, in general, are incredibly uneducated. The better educated the society, the smarter the people are and the better decisions they collectively make. In countries, like the United States, Iran, Somalia and others where education isn’t a given or is too expensive for the average person to get and people’s desire to be knowledgeable is ambivalent at best, you have to do things very simply or they fail to follow along. Without the cooperation of the people, none of this is possible. So you have to treat people, in general, as utterly retarded and unable to comprehend anything more than the most basic of situations.
In short, you treat people as you would a donkey. A carrot at one end and a stick at the other. Religions have been doing this for years, but that’s mostly for secular power for the religious hierarchy and is also the subject of another paper. Suffice it to say that the carrot and stick method works. The trick is in application.
Now, one must remember that individuals are smart - which creates something of a paradox in the application of the carrot and stick approach to social change. So the approach to dealing with terrorism’s roots is a multi-pronged one, rather than a single-minded, inflammatory, simplistic one.
Thus far, terrorism has been countered symptomatically. Tighter security, wire-taps (probably illegal ones), the trampling of human and civil rights, invading sovereign nations. Pretty much the kind of things that the terrorists want to do to the rest of the world, but for different reasons. Morally speaking, there’s no difference between what the terrorists are trying to do and what governments are trying to do and the people are confused. There is no clear mandate. There is no clear message.
It needs to be made clear. And the clearest messenger is the one who will be heard. So far, the terrorists have an in to that. They seem to have the hearts of the people because they use their propaganda (and in some cases pure truth) to sway the people. They have the local ‘home court’ advantage. But the world is increasingly global and that fact must be acknowledged. Further, it must be encouraged. This is the one weakness the terrorists have. They do not want to change with the times and the times WILL change.
The first step to stopping terrorism is to internationally define what it is. My definition is used strictly to clarify what I mean by terrorism. The definition that is internationally agreed upon may be different, but there MUST be a majority agreement. It’s not necessary to have unanimity among the world’s nations. Next, a set of rules prohibiting the promotion and abetting of terrorism should be agreed upon. It should say in essence that any government or region in which the promotion and abetting of terrorist activities is not actively prohibited and diligently dealt with is actually abetting and promoting terrorism. The rules define what steps need to be taken to be diligent about combating terrorism in that region or country. Finally, a set of international guidelines must be clearly defined which addresses the promotion of adequate housing, food, education and economic development within all countries.
These are not easy things to do, but it’s important that a majority of the world agrees to them. Consensus in the world toward what to do about terrorism is a must.
Once these guidelines are made available, every country in the world must agree to abide by them. An international committee will oversee their implementation and adherence on an annual basis. Those countries which agree to abide by them will be given all the social aid the oversight committee deems necessary to meet the minimum guidelines. This aid will NOT be in the form of repayable loans, but results will be expected and reparations made in the event of a lack of performance, greed, graft or any other use not in keeping with the goals of the guidelines.
Those countries which do not perform according to the guidelines are quarantined from the rest of the world. Given that the United States has irreparably tarnished its image in the international community, the role of enforcer of the quarantine seems fitting.
What is a quarantine? Very simply, nothing in, nothing out of a given country or region. No exports, no imports, no movement of people across borders. No refugees. No infiltrators. No aid caravans. All communications out are controlled. The oversight committee has absolute power over the quarantine. They and they alone will determine if the country or region is prepared to begin adhering to the guidelines. If so, the aid flows. If not, the quarantine stays in place.
There is NO in between. There is a 180 day period in which substantive action must be taken. After that, if the oversight committee deems it inadequate, quarantine is imposed. A quarantine lasts no less than 365 days. The oversight committee has the option of lifting the quarantine earlier in the event of a radical change for the better in a quarantined area.
The theory is that the people have the power in a country. I’m not a big fan of democracy, mostly because people are dumb. But when their own self-interests are being destroyed, their lives ruined and taken and made miserable by the policies of their own government or rulers, then they tend to be less complacent about what’s going one and take action to change things. The “stick” is making the lives of the people miserable enough to force change on their government or rulers.
It’s extremely harsh and inhumane and some might say that it’s no better than the terrorists themselves. And they’d be right. But people are dumb. If they see the rest of the world prospering under the guidelines and their own area going down the toilet, they’ll eventually do something about it. It’s important that the contrast and comparison is made obvious to the people, so part of the quarantine is what their leaders would call propaganda, but is the actual truth. SHOW the people inside the quarantined area what’s happening in the cooperating nations and regions. Be very clear that they could have the same conditions if their leaders cooperated.
If they don’t make the change, their ideologies, population and lifestyles will eventually settle into a repressed state and they will remain so, isolated from the rest of the world. If they don’t want the carrot, so be it. The stick stays.
Notice that this is a multipronged attack on the roots of terrorism. Reliable, oil-free energy, education, economic development and a harsh dose of reality for those who refuse to play nice with the rest of the world.
Now, the oversight committee will, obviously, be extremely powerful. It must be composed of a mix of global representatives. Maybe the entire UN should be the committee. I’d prefer it to be a large, international group whose members are rotated every few years than a small one which can be bribed, corrupted or coerced. Obviously, any country or region represented in the UN who does not abide by the guidelines will be removed from the UN. And obviously, too, no region or country under quarantine will be represented in the oversight committee.
These are the bare bones plans for combating terrorism. It’s harsh and extreme, but there are important differences between terrorist activities and this plan.
First of all, the plan makes mandatory what governments should be doing already: Promoting the welfare of the people. Economic development, open education, providing jobs and opportunity for the people is the business of government. If they need help doing this, then help should be given. This addresses the essentials for helping people find satisfaction in their lives, reducing the drive to change the world in those who are given to such thoughts.
It defines what is and isn’t terrorism. After all, it’s hard to stop what isn’t defined and there are places where ‘freedom fighters’ are called terrorists when in fact all they are are insurrectionists.
It doesn’t interfere with the government of the region or country. Whether radical Islamics or Western-style democracies, this plan in no way says what kind of government must be installed. It only says that it must adhere to a set of guidelines with the expressed purpose of combating terrorism. If the government itself is terrorist in nature, well, then that’s a different story. But it doesn’t say what government must be in power so whatever form of government the region wishes, as long as it adheres to the guidelines, is entirely up to the people.
It is impartial and internationally based. This isn’t one country trying to dictate to the rest of the world what they should and shouldn’t be doing. This is the world policing itself. With greater consensus comes greater cooperation and less of a focal point for contention. The propaganda can’t point just to the West when it’s the East and North and South all involved.
Finally, it doesn’t need propaganda to win. All it needs is the truth. People will get tired of being left out, of being repressed, of being without and will take the steps necessary to be included in the rest of the global community.
Yes, a lot of details need to be worked out. Chances are the guidelines will be pretty meager and enforcement of them spotty. But it’s a start.
Assuming the world has the balls to do it.
Definitions:
1. Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments.
2. Propaganda: Any distortion of the truth for the purposes of influencing people.
3. Insurrection: The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.
In general, the difference between a terrorist and an insurrectionist is mostly one of history. The founding fathers of the United States were terrorists as far as the British were concerned until the US won the war of independence. Then they were insurrectionists. But for the purposes of this missive, insurrectionists aren’t generally out to change society, only governments, and do it by confronting the governmental forces sent to stop them. Terrorists are out to change everything and don’t care who they kill in the process, usually avoiding direct confrontation with civil or governmental forces.
Propaganda, on the other hand, is used by both sides in a conflict. Any distortion of the truth means telling part of the truth (a common ploy for politicians campaigning for re-election), applying a truth to a situation which has no bearing on that truth such as deliberately using information that is outdated and even telling the whole truth without any context such as quoting biblical verses without relating the context in which the verse was said. Another form of propaganda is taking the truth and spinning it so that it sounds less than it actually is. Language is imprecise, but when a headline that reads, “Target America: Terror in the Skies” is a story about a foiled terrorist plot which had originated in another country whose intended targets were American-bound and mostly US-based airliners that was stopped before even a rehearsal was conducted, let alone the act carried out, you have a case of egregious propaganda. America wasn’t the target. American airliners were. The terror was a plot, not an actuality. No one ever made it into the skies and except for the inconvenienced passengers, no one was even close to being hurt.
Terrorists use fear as a weapon, as does the government. But that’s a different subject. For the purposes of this paper, I am laying out the way to combat terrorism at its roots and bring it under control. The sad fact is that as long as we have people, we will have terrorists and terrorism. There is no escaping that fact. Having acknowledged it, we move on to dealing with the current situation.
It’s long been established that people who are satisfied don’t resort to terrorist acts. It takes disaffection and dissatisfaction to drive someone into the arms of people whose purposes are to change the world by any means. If people are satisfied, they don’t kill other people. To obtain satisfaction, people need only a few basic things - food, clothing, shelter, the regard of one’s peers and a sense of purpose. Given the world today, the first three aren’t easy and the last two are next to impossible. But these must be addressed in order to curtail terrorism.
Notice, please, that none of this involves killing anyone.
Food, clothing and shelter are great, but if you don’t consider the regard of one’s peers and the sense of purpose, just handing out these things aren’t going to make anyone satisfied. You’re going to piss them off. Especially if these people aren’t treated with courtesy. Yes, this makes things hard but they are essential.
What kind of things contribute to the regard of one’s peers and a sense of purpose? Education, and the opportunity to use it in a way meaningful to the individual for starters. This means good schools for everyone so inclined and jobs that are not just manual labor or worse. It also involves a certain amount of truth-telling. Another thing that helps are governments which are willing to put the welfare of the people ahead of restrictive ideologies and political or religious rhetoric. If the two mesh well - welfare of the people and governmental ideologies - then it’s not a problem. If they don’t, then it’s a problem.
Another ingredient in the formula is cooperation. This means international cooperation. Again, the world being how it is, you’re not going to get a universal consensus. But there has to be a majority consensus as to some foundation rules. Where is the line drawn for tolerating the kind of thing that falls within the boundaries of terrorism? More importantly, perhaps, who draws it?
Let’s look at the situation today: It’s mostly Middle East versus the West, with Asia neutral at best, but more often siding with the Middle East. There are political and economic realities that these countries have to deal with, which is why they so often drag their heels when the rest of the world seems set on a reasonable course. If we can’t get world unity on the terrorist issue, we will never be able to deal with it effectively. And it all boils down to one single, simple word:
Energy.
Today, the world’s energy production relies primarily on oil, coal and natural gas. The vast majority of this is supplied from the Middle East. I actually believe that Iran is using its resources to build nuclear power, despite having some of the largest oil reserves in the world. Once their country is nuclear, it will cease production of oil and let the rest of the world strangle. It’s just a theory, but one which highlights the fact that much of the world’s ‘terrorist’ activities are driven by the hunger for oil and energy. It’s either condoned by other governments because they can’t risk antagonizing their supply of oil and natural gas, or it’s openly (or not so openly) bought and paid for by money earned from selling oil and natural gas.
So the first thing that needs to be done is to find a viable, clean and cost-effective alternative to oil and natural gas for energy production. If anyone has ever read Frank Herbert’s Dune series, they know that in the book, interstellar travel and trade depends on ‘spice’ mined from the bodies of huge sand worms found only on the planet nicknamed Dune. The planet is taken over by the indigenous population driven by religious furor and the overly militaristic and self-interested government (an empire) is over-run by wackos who eventually see the error of their ways but by then, most of the galaxy is in ruins. There are a lot of parallels in that story which apply to today’s world. Spice made interstellar travel possible. Oil makes today’s world move. Unlike the Dune series, we have options to wean ourselves off the ‘spice’ habit. So strange as it may seem on the face of it, the first thing we need to do to combat terrorism is find better ways of making energy.
Of course, the oil companies are going to do whatever it can to oppose this kind of thing. This is where enlightened governments come in. They need to fund, encourage and promote viable alternative energy sources that are in no way connected to or driven by oil company interests. Ethanol was once touted as a great alternative, but the world’s production of the ingredients for ethanol is limited, and though it’s more renewable than oil, it has too many limits to meet demand and mostly contribute to oil company profits more than actually reducing dependence on oil. As a means to an ends, it may be useful, but as an ends in and of itself, it’s not going to work.
Oil companies aren’t going to be the only ones fighting this trend. Energy companies are going to stand with the oil companies as well. While I’d rather see all coal-fired energy plants shut down, coal is also a limited energy source and needs to be done away with. Natural gas is the primary source of energy production today, with nuclear and hydro-electric generation coming in second and third. Wind and solar power bring up a very distant fourth. What replaces hydrocarbon fuel burning (coal, included) should also replace our reliance on a ‘power grid’ as our primary source of power. Each home and business should have its own way of generating power. A power grid is too fraught with issues (lack of maintenance and the failure of a 40 cent fuse plunged the northeast into darkness for three days) to be sustained. New technologies which are more reliable should replace it.
But however it’s done, money, time and research must be invested in eliminating our dependence on oil and natural gas as sources of energy production and fuel. It CAN be done within 20 years, if given the chance. It would be best if it was an international effort, but if the technology is shared internationally, then you’d end up with pretty much the same result.
Unfortunately, in the meantime, terrorists will continue to murder innocent people. So something must be done about that. Psychologically speaking, people are stupid. Individuals are smart. People are dumb as compost. This is because people, in general, are incredibly uneducated. The better educated the society, the smarter the people are and the better decisions they collectively make. In countries, like the United States, Iran, Somalia and others where education isn’t a given or is too expensive for the average person to get and people’s desire to be knowledgeable is ambivalent at best, you have to do things very simply or they fail to follow along. Without the cooperation of the people, none of this is possible. So you have to treat people, in general, as utterly retarded and unable to comprehend anything more than the most basic of situations.
In short, you treat people as you would a donkey. A carrot at one end and a stick at the other. Religions have been doing this for years, but that’s mostly for secular power for the religious hierarchy and is also the subject of another paper. Suffice it to say that the carrot and stick method works. The trick is in application.
Now, one must remember that individuals are smart - which creates something of a paradox in the application of the carrot and stick approach to social change. So the approach to dealing with terrorism’s roots is a multi-pronged one, rather than a single-minded, inflammatory, simplistic one.
Thus far, terrorism has been countered symptomatically. Tighter security, wire-taps (probably illegal ones), the trampling of human and civil rights, invading sovereign nations. Pretty much the kind of things that the terrorists want to do to the rest of the world, but for different reasons. Morally speaking, there’s no difference between what the terrorists are trying to do and what governments are trying to do and the people are confused. There is no clear mandate. There is no clear message.
It needs to be made clear. And the clearest messenger is the one who will be heard. So far, the terrorists have an in to that. They seem to have the hearts of the people because they use their propaganda (and in some cases pure truth) to sway the people. They have the local ‘home court’ advantage. But the world is increasingly global and that fact must be acknowledged. Further, it must be encouraged. This is the one weakness the terrorists have. They do not want to change with the times and the times WILL change.
The first step to stopping terrorism is to internationally define what it is. My definition is used strictly to clarify what I mean by terrorism. The definition that is internationally agreed upon may be different, but there MUST be a majority agreement. It’s not necessary to have unanimity among the world’s nations. Next, a set of rules prohibiting the promotion and abetting of terrorism should be agreed upon. It should say in essence that any government or region in which the promotion and abetting of terrorist activities is not actively prohibited and diligently dealt with is actually abetting and promoting terrorism. The rules define what steps need to be taken to be diligent about combating terrorism in that region or country. Finally, a set of international guidelines must be clearly defined which addresses the promotion of adequate housing, food, education and economic development within all countries.
These are not easy things to do, but it’s important that a majority of the world agrees to them. Consensus in the world toward what to do about terrorism is a must.
Once these guidelines are made available, every country in the world must agree to abide by them. An international committee will oversee their implementation and adherence on an annual basis. Those countries which agree to abide by them will be given all the social aid the oversight committee deems necessary to meet the minimum guidelines. This aid will NOT be in the form of repayable loans, but results will be expected and reparations made in the event of a lack of performance, greed, graft or any other use not in keeping with the goals of the guidelines.
Those countries which do not perform according to the guidelines are quarantined from the rest of the world. Given that the United States has irreparably tarnished its image in the international community, the role of enforcer of the quarantine seems fitting.
What is a quarantine? Very simply, nothing in, nothing out of a given country or region. No exports, no imports, no movement of people across borders. No refugees. No infiltrators. No aid caravans. All communications out are controlled. The oversight committee has absolute power over the quarantine. They and they alone will determine if the country or region is prepared to begin adhering to the guidelines. If so, the aid flows. If not, the quarantine stays in place.
There is NO in between. There is a 180 day period in which substantive action must be taken. After that, if the oversight committee deems it inadequate, quarantine is imposed. A quarantine lasts no less than 365 days. The oversight committee has the option of lifting the quarantine earlier in the event of a radical change for the better in a quarantined area.
The theory is that the people have the power in a country. I’m not a big fan of democracy, mostly because people are dumb. But when their own self-interests are being destroyed, their lives ruined and taken and made miserable by the policies of their own government or rulers, then they tend to be less complacent about what’s going one and take action to change things. The “stick” is making the lives of the people miserable enough to force change on their government or rulers.
It’s extremely harsh and inhumane and some might say that it’s no better than the terrorists themselves. And they’d be right. But people are dumb. If they see the rest of the world prospering under the guidelines and their own area going down the toilet, they’ll eventually do something about it. It’s important that the contrast and comparison is made obvious to the people, so part of the quarantine is what their leaders would call propaganda, but is the actual truth. SHOW the people inside the quarantined area what’s happening in the cooperating nations and regions. Be very clear that they could have the same conditions if their leaders cooperated.
If they don’t make the change, their ideologies, population and lifestyles will eventually settle into a repressed state and they will remain so, isolated from the rest of the world. If they don’t want the carrot, so be it. The stick stays.
Notice that this is a multipronged attack on the roots of terrorism. Reliable, oil-free energy, education, economic development and a harsh dose of reality for those who refuse to play nice with the rest of the world.
Now, the oversight committee will, obviously, be extremely powerful. It must be composed of a mix of global representatives. Maybe the entire UN should be the committee. I’d prefer it to be a large, international group whose members are rotated every few years than a small one which can be bribed, corrupted or coerced. Obviously, any country or region represented in the UN who does not abide by the guidelines will be removed from the UN. And obviously, too, no region or country under quarantine will be represented in the oversight committee.
These are the bare bones plans for combating terrorism. It’s harsh and extreme, but there are important differences between terrorist activities and this plan.
First of all, the plan makes mandatory what governments should be doing already: Promoting the welfare of the people. Economic development, open education, providing jobs and opportunity for the people is the business of government. If they need help doing this, then help should be given. This addresses the essentials for helping people find satisfaction in their lives, reducing the drive to change the world in those who are given to such thoughts.
It defines what is and isn’t terrorism. After all, it’s hard to stop what isn’t defined and there are places where ‘freedom fighters’ are called terrorists when in fact all they are are insurrectionists.
It doesn’t interfere with the government of the region or country. Whether radical Islamics or Western-style democracies, this plan in no way says what kind of government must be installed. It only says that it must adhere to a set of guidelines with the expressed purpose of combating terrorism. If the government itself is terrorist in nature, well, then that’s a different story. But it doesn’t say what government must be in power so whatever form of government the region wishes, as long as it adheres to the guidelines, is entirely up to the people.
It is impartial and internationally based. This isn’t one country trying to dictate to the rest of the world what they should and shouldn’t be doing. This is the world policing itself. With greater consensus comes greater cooperation and less of a focal point for contention. The propaganda can’t point just to the West when it’s the East and North and South all involved.
Finally, it doesn’t need propaganda to win. All it needs is the truth. People will get tired of being left out, of being repressed, of being without and will take the steps necessary to be included in the rest of the global community.
Yes, a lot of details need to be worked out. Chances are the guidelines will be pretty meager and enforcement of them spotty. But it’s a start.
Assuming the world has the balls to do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)