That reminds me, whatever happened to the Natalie Portman and hot grits posts?
And where is signal11?
The EULA of the future will prohibit even thinking a bad thought about
Microsoft. The serial numbers will be 100 digits long, and you will be told to
post a photo of Bill Gates above your desk. Some reviewers will say that
Microsoft was very kind to include a photo in the box, so that users do not
have to buy one separately.
Microsoft EULA: "You may not use the Software in connection with any site
that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services,
infringe any intellectual property or other rights of these parties, violate
any state, federal or international law, or promote racism, hatred or
pornography."
I think the part about "racism, hatred or pornography" is only there to get
sympathy and to hide that Microsoft is trying to repeal the U.S.
constitutional right to free speech.
If Microsoft is allowed to continue this way, it will eventually be: United
States, a Microsoft company.
From the Slashdot story, "... Microsoft will never fix the problem without
making sure people have to pay a monthly subscription for their OS."
I think this is exactly the problem. That's why Windows 2000 was
reportedly shipped with 63,000 action items still unfinished. Microsoft knows
that, once they deliver one good operating system, most people wiil never buy
another. They want to make sure that they never finish the job.
Forcing users to pay for subscriptions would allow Microsoft to make money
every year even if it did no more work on the OS. That seems to be the goal:
money for nothing.
Microsoft is a very adversarial company, in my opinion. They are not
good citizens.
A good partial resolution of the US DOJ vs. Microsoft
antitrust case would be to prohibit secret file formats. Then there
could be competition again. At present, if a big customer upgrades to a new
version of Microsoft Office, and sends out files incompatible file with
previous versions, all people who receive the files are forced to upgrade.
Companies don't want to go to a good customer and ask them to re-send a
docuemnt in a former format.
Marketing in this case just means communicating with prospective users. It's sad, but open source projects are often not used because other people have no easy way of understanding them.
Sure, I could go through the source code. But that takes time, and, obviously, I can do that only with a few projects.
The term "marketing" gets a bad name because there is so much dishonest marketing. Honest communicating with prospective users is needed in any project, however.
"Just out of curiosity, it's World War II. What is your answer to Hitler's
violence? How do you think it should have been solved?"
First, you would have to start early. Non-violent methods, like violent
methods, take time to have effect.
Second, the most powerful non-violent methods would use the fact that people
are more knowledgeable about their inner reality than they were in Hitler's
time. So, what I am about to say won't sound realistic for back then, because
it presumes the knowledge that many people have today. Let's just talk about
solving the problems we have today, rather than try to transport ourselves
back to Hitler's time.
Third, achieve a complete understanding of what causes violence. Violence,
including war, is caused ONLY by a particular kind of mental illness. There is
NO other cause. If you understand that, and begin looking for that kind of
mental illness, solving the problem of violence is not so difficult. It is
still difficult, but not impossible.
When you understand that violence is cause by errors in brain processing,
stopping violence becomes a troubleshooting problem. Stopping violence is a
problem of troubleshooting errors in the human bio-computer. This is the kind
of work many Slashdot readers know. Train Slashdot readers, and we have 1,000
or 10,000 technicians to put in the field.
Many Slashdot readers already know how hard it is to find a processing error.
They have learned not to be intellectual wimps. If it takes 90 tries and two
weeks to find an error in a C++ program, they know that's what must be done.
Fourth, there needs to be a recognition of how nutty things are today. I just
watched an official on the September 19, 2001 CBS TV show "60 Minutes II" talk
about the 1998 U.S. bombing of Afghanistan.
According to the show, the U.S. sent 60 cruise missiles, each of which cost
$2,000,000, into a dry mountainous region where the total value of all the
surrounding buildings was probably less than the equivalent of $10,000.
According to the local Afghanis on the show, the missiles costing $120,000,000
destroyed part of a mosque and killed a few children and adults. This was an
expression of a need of a few people to act out inner conflict. Why do I say
that? Because $120,000,000 spent on doing good works in Afghanistan would,
literally, put you in a position to be elected president of that very, very
poor country. The people who sent the missiles did not want to solve the
problem. They wanted to act out their inner conflict, and make more problems
so they could do more trouble-making later, too. Do you see why I say the only
explanation is mental illness?
The official being interviewed saw no evidence of anything crazy about this
back then. He still didn't, even after being repeatedly questioned.
On the local news tonight, newscasters said that a huge number of jet aircraft
have been sent to the Middle East. Ships are on their way also. This when they
have absolutely no more clue about where to aim their weapons than before.
There needs to be recognition of how often a well-educated, well-dressed
person looks you in the eye, talks in an elegant, logical-sounding way, and
speaks complete nonsense.
I have considerable experience teaching people how much craziness there is in
the world, and how to recognize it. A good student can learn a lot in 9 months
to two years.
Fifth, recognize that the conflict in the Middle East has NOTHING to do with
religion. People have been using religion as a way of justifying violence
since before Islam existed and before Judaism existed. It's nonsense. There is
NO connection. Violence is ONLY caused by mental illness. It's that simple.
Sixth, learn enough to recognize that Arabs have a real gripe. The U.S. has
been meddling in the region for years. Saudis, for example, have a right to
complain about their government. How would you like it if you were an American
working for changes in the U.S. government, but the Saudi government was
preventing the changes? How would you like it if the Saudis who were
preventing improvements knew nothing about the politics and didn't even speak
English?
Conflicts are solved partly with personal understanding and personal
relationships.
Step seven is where it starts getting messy. An outbreak of mental illness
like a war is composed of many mini-outbreaks. Your technicians must identify
each one. Each one requires personal attention.
If it is Hitler we're discussing, it is necessary to recognize early that
there is a potential outbreak. Warn everyone. In the early days, the Nazi
movement was weak.
The result of working with each mini-outbreak is that you drain the energy out
of the mental illness, and people go back to just yelling at their kids.
To understand the present assault on freedom, it is necessary to understand
the background. There are people who want to make war, simply that, as a way
of acting out their own inner conflict.
What is the most important lesson of the terrorism? Understanding the
corruption in the secret agencies of the U.S. government. They have a conflict
of interest; they are supposed to help prevent trouble, but they get more
money if there is more trouble.
I feel really uncomfortable when people wonder whether open source software
can have a profitable business model.
My company makes plenty of money by supporting the computer operations of
businesses. My company provides the software at cost, without profit. The cost
of the software is small compared to the support costs for training, hardware
and software glitches, and specialized programs.
Open source software is more reliable, but support is still needed.
Red Hat, and other companies that provide support for open source software,
are unbelieveably terrible at marketing. They just have no clue. That's part of
the reason they have trouble making money.
If Microsoft were as bad as Red Hat at marketing, Microsoft would still be
trying to sell Microsoft Basic. What's worse, Red Hat is better than most of
the others at marketing.
When I look at most open source projects, I can't even understand the home
page! Even the home pages are written with the idea that you work on the
project, so you already know everything.
If you have a project involving GNU/free software, and need help with
communicating to your prospective users, I may be able to help, as a
volunteer. Send me email. Even when software is free, there is still a need
for marketing communication.
Want to understand the situation in the middle east? Read What Should be the Response to
Violence?. Most important lesson? Understanding the corruption in the
secret agencies of the U.S. government. They have a conflict of interest; they
are supposed to help prevent trouble, but they get more money if there is more
trouble.
Nos: "Security and freedom are inversely related."
Bistronaut: "Security and freedom are not inversely related!"
cybrthng: "It is inversely related."
Whan a discussion is confused, it is often because of discussing the wrong
issue. It is possible to have both security and freedom if you understand the
situation better:
First bombing of the World Trade Center: When followers of Osama bin
Laden bombed the WTC the first time, bin Laden, a Saudi citizen, said it was
because he wanted the U.S. government to stop interfering with politics in
Saudi Arabia. The U.S. government (not the people, most of whom who have no
idea what their government is doing) strongly supports the dictatorship there.
There is evidence that the reason is corruption of some people in the secret
agencies of the U.S. government. When dealing with a dictatorship, it is easy
to arrange embezzlement of U.S. government funds. With a democracy, or some
more representative form of government, it would be difficult.
Second bombing of the World Trade Center: bin Laden warned after the
first bombing that there would be further trouble if the U.S. did not stop
interfering.
See the headings:
There was plenty of warning.
There is in the U.S. very little attempt at understanding other
cultures.
Basically, Osama bin Laden does not want the U.S. to interfere in the
government of Saudi Arabia. Saudi friends who live here in the U.S. have told
me that they believe that Saudi Arabia should have a democratic government.
The U.S. strongly supports a dictatorship. There is evidence that the reason
is corruption of the secret agencies of the U.S. government. When dealing with
a dictatorship, it is easy to arrange embezzlement of U.S. government funds.
With a democracy, it would be difficult.
I can tell by what you wrote that you are a well-educated person.
The article I wrote is about
8,000 words long. I say that the U.S. government has killed 3,100,000 people
in the last 30 years. I say that the U.S. government has been corrupted by
secrecy.
If the U.S. government has been corrupted by secrecy, it is an extraordinary
matter.
You give no response to this opinion. Instead you only talk about my criticism
of the Jewish culture.
Do you see how what you wrote is an example of what I said? People of the
Jewish culture often give the impression that they care only about themselves.
That's part of what caused the problems of the last 3,100 years, in my
opinion.
I am very much against ANY unpleasantness toward Jews. But I don't think the
U.S. has any answers. The problems between Jews and Arabs are not problems
about which the U.S. seems to have creative ideas.
In your comment, you have painted a picture of the Jews as being a gentle
group who only want to live in peace. However, I have seen Israeli helicopters
shooting at Arab buildings.
I said, "If you have alternate explanations, please provide them." I'm not
in love with anything I said. If there is a better explanation, I will support
that. But you ignored the fact that people have been persecuting the Jews for
about 3,100 years, not just the last few hundred. What other group has
inspired such dislike? Could people of the Jewish culture examine themselves
to see if they could improve their relations with other cultures?
Yes. The only point, which I did not make very well, was that any damage might
be such that it would be possible for guerillas to continue fighting. Because
the guerillas have no way to take radiation measurements, they would not have
any knowledge that they were at risk of radiation damage, and, as someone
commented earlier, they would not die immediately of radiation exposure.
I had hoped to make the point that is not possible to stop war in the
mountains with nuclear bombs.
The ONLY purpose in this is to demonstrate a few of the HUGE number of
negative side-effects of war. I think stronger, better ways can be found to be
powerful and to assure security, if only there were an initiative to do the
research.
Maybe the difference between "war" and "terrorism" is whether there is advance notice. War is engaged in a public fashion; citizens have a right to make comment. Terrorism is hidden from as many people aa possible.
I wasn't saying that the weapons makers own the media, as in "owning" a
politician. I was saying the weapons makers own the media, as in it is
legally theirs. For example, Westinghouse and GE both own TV stations. They
therefore have a "duty to the stockholders" to "maximize their profits". This
means that they have a "duty to the stockholders" to encourage war. Do they do
this consciously? Maybe not. But it happens that the really negative issues of
war are not fully discussed.
War for the corporate executive is a way of temporarily relieving the pressure
of his anger by acting it out. He views killing people in poor countries as
better than having a fight with his wife.
They must be poor countries, however, like Sudan, Cuba, Granada, Vietnam, and
Afghanistan. He wouldn't make war on a customer country, because that would
not be "maximizing profits".
Is this cynical? No, it seems to be a description of the facts. You can watch
news shows all day and not see one instance of someone demonstrating a
thorough knowledge of the cultures they are discussing bombing. Tonight on the
CBS TV show "60 Minutes", former CIA officials said that very few in the CIA
even speak Arabic.
"Undefined skirmish" has such a nice ring to it. It reminds me of "surgical
strike".
When the U.S. government bombed the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, it was
called a "surgical strike" in the United States. But suppose you lived in
Sudan, and every day when you went to work you passed the pharmaceutical
plant. One day you passed by and the plant was gone! I suppose that would make
you feel terror. Does that mean the U.S. government is a terrorist
organization? Hmmmh.
I was speaking of physical damage only. The damage from radioactivity from a nuclear detonation punishes everyone in the world for centuries.
The intent was to demonstrate that even huge bombs don't stop fighting in a mountainous area. Those who have watched too many war movies think that bombing is more powerful than it is.
I was trying to demonstrate that many people have a profound ignorance of war. The people of the U.S. cannot be said to have agreed to war when they are agreeing to something they don't understand well.
Oh, well, I didn't do a very good job of achieving my intent. Thanks for making things clear.
"I'm curious as to whether anyone knows if there is a significant
difference in the quality of living between people living under Taliban rule
and those living in northern Afghanistan."
I'm curious about that too. My guess is that life is miserable in both
places.
"What should the US do if the foreign government engages in bad public policy
that results in food shortages. Should the U.S. charge in and change the
policy?"
You brought up some interesting thoughts.
I think the U.S. cannot try to solve all the world's problems. We have
extremely severe problems at home. We have the highest divorce rate in the
world. We have the highest percentage of our citizens in prison of any country,
ever, in the history of the world. We have the highest percentage of obese
people. We need to help ourselves.
Where the U.S. feels able to help, the help should come before there are
severe social problems, not after. The problems with bin Laden have existed
for years; the U.S. government helped him by its meddling and backward
policies in the region.
"Yes, the U.S. should be involved in influencing other peoples
politics where they differ from the fundamental freedoms..."
I completely agree with this. However, the way to have influence is through
understanding 10 years before problems might occur, and then doing something
to help. Violence is not a cure for violence. War is not a cure for war.
"Don't bring up the old Cold War coups that the CIA cooked up."
The CIA acted AGAINST the best interests of the the country it was supposed to
serve. We tend to hear about things the CIA did about 30 years after they were
done. We don't know what they are doing now, but that doesn't mean they've
stopped the corrupt activity. Don't forget, the CIA and other even more secret
U.S. government agencies are secret. It is difficult to know what they are
doing; that means that we don't have a voice. It means that, in that area,
we don't have a democracy.
As I've mentioned before: The laws of Physics are against this. Nuclear bombs
work on cities. In the countryside, a 100 Megaton bomb does surprisingly
little damage. The damage spreads only about 15 miles from the center of the
blast.
In the mountains, as in Afghanistan, the energy of a nuclear blast would be
deflected upward.
Nuclear blasts also make all the air everyone breathes radioactive. Thus
everyone is punished, even people who haven't been born yet.
I hope you will read, Limbs of
no body, one of the stories referenced in the Slashdot story above.
The people of Afghanistan are among the most unfortunate people in the world.
Here is a quote from the article: "But why didn't anybody except UN High
Commissioner Ogata express grief over the pending death of one million Afghans
as a result of severe famine?"
Unhappiness breeds war. Maybe if we had fed these people, they would not
support terrorism. If we had gone in with our billions 20 years ago, and
helped in a big way, would there be problems now? I think not. Why so much
enthusiasm for killing and so little for helping?
Wars fought in Afghanistan, and their outcomes:
British, 19th century -- British DEFEATED.
British, 19th century, 2nd conflict -- British DEFEATED.
Russian Imperial Army, 19th century -- Russia DEFEATED.
Soviet Red Army, 1979 -- Russia DEFEATED.
Wars fought in Vietnam, and their outcomes:
Some I don't remember -- They were DEFEATED.
French, 20th century -- France DEFEATED.
U.S., 20th century -- U.S. DEFEATED.
I presume that your enthusiasm for war comes from the fact that you are
thinking of watching it on television. But suppose it was you who lost a limb.
Suppose it was you who was starving. Would you feel differently?
The weapons makers and the military and the media owned by weapons makers have
encouraged you to believe lies about war. A new war would be long and
expensive, and that's what the weapons makers want.
I don't think Arabs would give the U.S. much attention, except that there has
been U.S. interference in the region.
Walk into any bar and start throwing your weight around. Someone will pick a
fight with you. Stay out of the bar, no fight.
If you really understand what bin Laden is saying, and you understand the
culture of the region, and you understand the long history of U.S. involvement
in Saudi Arabia, it is not as crazy as it sounds at first. But, I agree with
you, there is a LOT of craziness.
In earlier posts, some people have mis-understood my comments. So, I repeat,
I'm against terrorism. I'm not agreeing with Arab politics. Osama bin Laden wants to unite all the Arab nations. His method is force. I don't like that method.
There are at least 50 destructive governments in the world. The world is an imperfect place. We cannot intervene in every bad situation. If we do intervene, is our violence really better than their violence?
"Trading one dictator for another doesn't seem very productive."
I agree with that. But some Arabs want to decide this question for themselves.
My guess is that I would probably strongly disagree with their politics. A lot
of the statements I've seen Arabs say on television seem to me to be foolish
at best.
However, the first question is whether the U.S. government has the right
decide everyone else's politics.
The second question is whether you personally are willing to risk your
own life and spend your own money for the principle that they don't have the
right to decide their own politics.
"The fundamental problem is that the Saudis do not have a non-violent
mechanism for settling their political differences."
Very true!!!! They don't. That is absolutely right. Excellent insight.
But, will killing some of them help them find a non-violent mechanism?
Slashdot Mirror
"All your thoughts are belong to us!"
That reminds me, whatever happened to the Natalie Portman and hot grits posts? And where is signal11?
The EULA of the future will prohibit even thinking a bad thought about Microsoft. The serial numbers will be 100 digits long, and you will be told to post a photo of Bill Gates above your desk. Some reviewers will say that Microsoft was very kind to include a photo in the box, so that users do not have to buy one separately.
What Should be the Response to Violence?
Microsoft EULA: "You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services, infringe any intellectual property or other rights of these parties, violate any state, federal or international law, or promote racism, hatred or pornography."
I think the part about "racism, hatred or pornography" is only there to get sympathy and to hide that Microsoft is trying to repeal the U.S. constitutional right to free speech.
If Microsoft is allowed to continue this way, it will eventually be: United States, a Microsoft company.
What Should be the Response to Violence?
From the Slashdot story, "... Microsoft will never fix the problem without making sure people have to pay a monthly subscription for their OS."
I think this is exactly the problem. That's why Windows 2000 was reportedly shipped with 63,000 action items still unfinished. Microsoft knows that, once they deliver one good operating system, most people wiil never buy another. They want to make sure that they never finish the job.
Forcing users to pay for subscriptions would allow Microsoft to make money every year even if it did no more work on the OS. That seems to be the goal: money for nothing.
Microsoft is a very adversarial company, in my opinion. They are not good citizens.
A good partial resolution of the US DOJ vs. Microsoft antitrust case would be to prohibit secret file formats. Then there could be competition again. At present, if a big customer upgrades to a new version of Microsoft Office, and sends out files incompatible file with previous versions, all people who receive the files are forced to upgrade. Companies don't want to go to a good customer and ask them to re-send a docuemnt in a former format.
What Should be the Response to Violence?
You are making nonsense of what I said. I don't have time to defend it, but it really does work.
You said, "Thousands of Jews are being gassed every day. What's your non-violent solution?
This ignored my first statement. To completely prevent violence, it is necessary to start years before.
Thanks for the thanks.
Marketing in this case just means communicating with prospective users. It's sad, but open source projects are often not used because other people have no easy way of understanding them.
Sure, I could go through the source code. But that takes time, and, obviously, I can do that only with a few projects.
The term "marketing" gets a bad name because there is so much dishonest marketing. Honest communicating with prospective users is needed in any project, however.
"Just out of curiosity, it's World War II. What is your answer to Hitler's violence? How do you think it should have been solved?"
First, you would have to start early. Non-violent methods, like violent methods, take time to have effect.
Second, the most powerful non-violent methods would use the fact that people are more knowledgeable about their inner reality than they were in Hitler's time. So, what I am about to say won't sound realistic for back then, because it presumes the knowledge that many people have today. Let's just talk about solving the problems we have today, rather than try to transport ourselves back to Hitler's time.
Third, achieve a complete understanding of what causes violence. Violence, including war, is caused ONLY by a particular kind of mental illness. There is NO other cause. If you understand that, and begin looking for that kind of mental illness, solving the problem of violence is not so difficult. It is still difficult, but not impossible.
When you understand that violence is cause by errors in brain processing, stopping violence becomes a troubleshooting problem. Stopping violence is a problem of troubleshooting errors in the human bio-computer. This is the kind of work many Slashdot readers know. Train Slashdot readers, and we have 1,000 or 10,000 technicians to put in the field.
Many Slashdot readers already know how hard it is to find a processing error. They have learned not to be intellectual wimps. If it takes 90 tries and two weeks to find an error in a C++ program, they know that's what must be done.
Fourth, there needs to be a recognition of how nutty things are today. I just watched an official on the September 19, 2001 CBS TV show "60 Minutes II" talk about the 1998 U.S. bombing of Afghanistan.
According to the show, the U.S. sent 60 cruise missiles, each of which cost $2,000,000, into a dry mountainous region where the total value of all the surrounding buildings was probably less than the equivalent of $10,000.
According to the local Afghanis on the show, the missiles costing $120,000,000 destroyed part of a mosque and killed a few children and adults. This was an expression of a need of a few people to act out inner conflict. Why do I say that? Because $120,000,000 spent on doing good works in Afghanistan would, literally, put you in a position to be elected president of that very, very poor country. The people who sent the missiles did not want to solve the problem. They wanted to act out their inner conflict, and make more problems so they could do more trouble-making later, too. Do you see why I say the only explanation is mental illness?
The official being interviewed saw no evidence of anything crazy about this back then. He still didn't, even after being repeatedly questioned.
Read Limbs of no body: World's indifference to the Afghan tragedy A million people died of starvation! This article was referenced in an earlier Slashdot story.
On the local news tonight, newscasters said that a huge number of jet aircraft have been sent to the Middle East. Ships are on their way also. This when they have absolutely no more clue about where to aim their weapons than before.
There needs to be recognition of how often a well-educated, well-dressed person looks you in the eye, talks in an elegant, logical-sounding way, and speaks complete nonsense.
I have considerable experience teaching people how much craziness there is in the world, and how to recognize it. A good student can learn a lot in 9 months to two years.
Fifth, recognize that the conflict in the Middle East has NOTHING to do with religion. People have been using religion as a way of justifying violence since before Islam existed and before Judaism existed. It's nonsense. There is NO connection. Violence is ONLY caused by mental illness. It's that simple.
Sixth, learn enough to recognize that Arabs have a real gripe. The U.S. has been meddling in the region for years. Saudis, for example, have a right to complain about their government. How would you like it if you were an American working for changes in the U.S. government, but the Saudi government was preventing the changes? How would you like it if the Saudis who were preventing improvements knew nothing about the politics and didn't even speak English?
Conflicts are solved partly with personal understanding and personal relationships.
Step seven is where it starts getting messy. An outbreak of mental illness like a war is composed of many mini-outbreaks. Your technicians must identify each one. Each one requires personal attention.
If it is Hitler we're discussing, it is necessary to recognize early that there is a potential outbreak. Warn everyone. In the early days, the Nazi movement was weak.
The result of working with each mini-outbreak is that you drain the energy out of the mental illness, and people go back to just yelling at their kids.
This isn't complete, but it is enough for a Slashdot post. There's more in the article: What Should be the Response to Violence? .
To understand the present assault on freedom, it is necessary to understand the background. There are people who want to make war, simply that, as a way of acting out their own inner conflict.
What is the most important lesson of the terrorism? Understanding the corruption in the secret agencies of the U.S. government. They have a conflict of interest; they are supposed to help prevent trouble, but they get more money if there is more trouble.
I have tried to pull together information about this in an article: What Should be the Response to Violence? . The article is now considerably improved.
I feel really uncomfortable when people wonder whether open source software can have a profitable business model.
My company makes plenty of money by supporting the computer operations of businesses. My company provides the software at cost, without profit. The cost of the software is small compared to the support costs for training, hardware and software glitches, and specialized programs.
Open source software is more reliable, but support is still needed.
Red Hat, and other companies that provide support for open source software, are unbelieveably terrible at marketing. They just have no clue. That's part of the reason they have trouble making money.
If Microsoft were as bad as Red Hat at marketing, Microsoft would still be trying to sell Microsoft Basic. What's worse, Red Hat is better than most of the others at marketing.
When I look at most open source projects, I can't even understand the home page! Even the home pages are written with the idea that you work on the project, so you already know everything.
If you have a project involving GNU/free software, and need help with communicating to your prospective users, I may be able to help, as a volunteer. Send me email. Even when software is free, there is still a need for marketing communication.
Want to understand the situation in the middle east? Read What Should be the Response to Violence? . Most important lesson? Understanding the corruption in the secret agencies of the U.S. government. They have a conflict of interest; they are supposed to help prevent trouble, but they get more money if there is more trouble.
From the comments above:
Nos: "Security and freedom are inversely related."
Bistronaut: "Security and freedom are not inversely related!"
cybrthng: "It is inversely related."
Whan a discussion is confused, it is often because of discussing the wrong issue. It is possible to have both security and freedom if you understand the situation better:
First bombing of the World Trade Center: When followers of Osama bin Laden bombed the WTC the first time, bin Laden, a Saudi citizen, said it was because he wanted the U.S. government to stop interfering with politics in Saudi Arabia. The U.S. government (not the people, most of whom who have no idea what their government is doing) strongly supports the dictatorship there. There is evidence that the reason is corruption of some people in the secret agencies of the U.S. government. When dealing with a dictatorship, it is easy to arrange embezzlement of U.S. government funds. With a democracy, or some more representative form of government, it would be difficult.
Second bombing of the World Trade Center: bin Laden warned after the first bombing that there would be further trouble if the U.S. did not stop interfering.
The article, What Should be the Response to Violence? explains the entire situation. See the heading, "There was plenty of warning."
ALL violence is 100% reprehensible and crazy. However, it does help to understand the people who think violence is the answer.
"Your post is the first I have seen stating this goal..."
The article, What Should be the Response to Violence? explains the U.S. goals in the middle east, and the entire situation.
See the headings:
There was plenty of warning.
There is in the U.S. very little attempt at understanding other cultures.
Basically, Osama bin Laden does not want the U.S. to interfere in the government of Saudi Arabia. Saudi friends who live here in the U.S. have told me that they believe that Saudi Arabia should have a democratic government. The U.S. strongly supports a dictatorship. There is evidence that the reason is corruption of the secret agencies of the U.S. government. When dealing with a dictatorship, it is easy to arrange embezzlement of U.S. government funds. With a democracy, it would be difficult.
Real power is not adversarial:
What Should be the Response to Violence?
I can tell by what you wrote that you are a well-educated person.
The article I wrote is about 8,000 words long. I say that the U.S. government has killed 3,100,000 people in the last 30 years. I say that the U.S. government has been corrupted by secrecy.
If the U.S. government has been corrupted by secrecy, it is an extraordinary matter.
You give no response to this opinion. Instead you only talk about my criticism of the Jewish culture.
Do you see how what you wrote is an example of what I said? People of the Jewish culture often give the impression that they care only about themselves. That's part of what caused the problems of the last 3,100 years, in my opinion.
I am very much against ANY unpleasantness toward Jews. But I don't think the U.S. has any answers. The problems between Jews and Arabs are not problems about which the U.S. seems to have creative ideas.
In your comment, you have painted a picture of the Jews as being a gentle group who only want to live in peace. However, I have seen Israeli helicopters shooting at Arab buildings.
I said, "If you have alternate explanations, please provide them." I'm not in love with anything I said. If there is a better explanation, I will support that. But you ignored the fact that people have been persecuting the Jews for about 3,100 years, not just the last few hundred. What other group has inspired such dislike? Could people of the Jewish culture examine themselves to see if they could improve their relations with other cultures?
What Should be the Response to Violence?
Yes. The only point, which I did not make very well, was that any damage might be such that it would be possible for guerillas to continue fighting. Because the guerillas have no way to take radiation measurements, they would not have any knowledge that they were at risk of radiation damage, and, as someone commented earlier, they would not die immediately of radiation exposure.
I had hoped to make the point that is not possible to stop war in the mountains with nuclear bombs.
The ONLY purpose in this is to demonstrate a few of the HUGE number of negative side-effects of war. I think stronger, better ways can be found to be powerful and to assure security, if only there were an initiative to do the research.
What Should be the Response to Violence?
"Maybe this will mean cheaper G4s for those of us who buy computers somewhat lower on the food chain, too."
You know you are heavily involved with computers when you call them "food".
What Should be the Response to Violence?
Maybe the difference between "war" and "terrorism" is whether there is advance notice. War is engaged in a public fashion; citizens have a right to make comment. Terrorism is hidden from as many people aa possible.
What Should be the Response to Violence?
I wasn't saying that the weapons makers own the media, as in "owning" a politician. I was saying the weapons makers own the media, as in it is legally theirs. For example, Westinghouse and GE both own TV stations. They therefore have a "duty to the stockholders" to "maximize their profits". This means that they have a "duty to the stockholders" to encourage war. Do they do this consciously? Maybe not. But it happens that the really negative issues of war are not fully discussed.
War for the corporate executive is a way of temporarily relieving the pressure of his anger by acting it out. He views killing people in poor countries as better than having a fight with his wife.
They must be poor countries, however, like Sudan, Cuba, Granada, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. He wouldn't make war on a customer country, because that would not be "maximizing profits".
Is this cynical? No, it seems to be a description of the facts. You can watch news shows all day and not see one instance of someone demonstrating a thorough knowledge of the cultures they are discussing bombing. Tonight on the CBS TV show "60 Minutes", former CIA officials said that very few in the CIA even speak Arabic.
What Should be the Response to Violence?
Whoa, I hope I never see a war, then.
"Undefined skirmish" has such a nice ring to it. It reminds me of "surgical strike".
When the U.S. government bombed the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, it was called a "surgical strike" in the United States. But suppose you lived in Sudan, and every day when you went to work you passed the pharmaceutical plant. One day you passed by and the plant was gone! I suppose that would make you feel terror. Does that mean the U.S. government is a terrorist organization? Hmmmh.
I completely agree with what you said.
I was speaking of physical damage only. The damage from radioactivity from a nuclear detonation punishes everyone in the world for centuries.
The intent was to demonstrate that even huge bombs don't stop fighting in a mountainous area. Those who have watched too many war movies think that bombing is more powerful than it is.
I was trying to demonstrate that many people have a profound ignorance of war. The people of the U.S. cannot be said to have agreed to war when they are agreeing to something they don't understand well.
Oh, well, I didn't do a very good job of achieving my intent. Thanks for making things clear.
"I'm curious as to whether anyone knows if there is a significant difference in the quality of living between people living under Taliban rule and those living in northern Afghanistan."
I'm curious about that too. My guess is that life is miserable in both places.
What Should be the Response to Violence?
"What should the US do if the foreign government engages in bad public policy that results in food shortages. Should the U.S. charge in and change the policy?"
You brought up some interesting thoughts.
I think the U.S. cannot try to solve all the world's problems. We have extremely severe problems at home. We have the highest divorce rate in the world. We have the highest percentage of our citizens in prison of any country, ever, in the history of the world. We have the highest percentage of obese people. We need to help ourselves.
Where the U.S. feels able to help, the help should come before there are severe social problems, not after. The problems with bin Laden have existed for years; the U.S. government helped him by its meddling and backward policies in the region.
What Should be the Response to Violence?
"Yes, the U.S. should be involved in influencing other peoples politics where they differ from the fundamental freedoms..."
I completely agree with this. However, the way to have influence is through understanding 10 years before problems might occur, and then doing something to help. Violence is not a cure for violence. War is not a cure for war.
"Don't bring up the old Cold War coups that the CIA cooked up."
The CIA acted AGAINST the best interests of the the country it was supposed to serve. We tend to hear about things the CIA did about 30 years after they were done. We don't know what they are doing now, but that doesn't mean they've stopped the corrupt activity. Don't forget, the CIA and other even more secret U.S. government agencies are secret. It is difficult to know what they are doing; that means that we don't have a voice. It means that, in that area, we don't have a democracy.
What Should be the Response to Violence?
"Just make the whole Middle East a parking lot.."
As I've mentioned before: The laws of Physics are against this. Nuclear bombs work on cities. In the countryside, a 100 Megaton bomb does surprisingly little damage. The damage spreads only about 15 miles from the center of the blast.
In the mountains, as in Afghanistan, the energy of a nuclear blast would be deflected upward.
Nuclear blasts also make all the air everyone breathes radioactive. Thus everyone is punished, even people who haven't been born yet.
I hope you will read, Limbs of no body , one of the stories referenced in the Slashdot story above. The people of Afghanistan are among the most unfortunate people in the world. Here is a quote from the article: "But why didn't anybody except UN High Commissioner Ogata express grief over the pending death of one million Afghans as a result of severe famine?"
Unhappiness breeds war. Maybe if we had fed these people, they would not support terrorism. If we had gone in with our billions 20 years ago, and helped in a big way, would there be problems now? I think not. Why so much enthusiasm for killing and so little for helping?
Wars fought in Afghanistan, and their outcomes:
British, 19th century -- British DEFEATED.
British, 19th century, 2nd conflict -- British DEFEATED.
Russian Imperial Army, 19th century -- Russia DEFEATED.
Soviet Red Army, 1979 -- Russia DEFEATED.
Wars fought in Vietnam, and their outcomes:
Some I don't remember -- They were DEFEATED.
French, 20th century -- France DEFEATED.
U.S., 20th century -- U.S. DEFEATED.
I presume that your enthusiasm for war comes from the fact that you are thinking of watching it on television. But suppose it was you who lost a limb. Suppose it was you who was starving. Would you feel differently?
The weapons makers and the military and the media owned by weapons makers have encouraged you to believe lies about war. A new war would be long and expensive, and that's what the weapons makers want.
What Should be the Response to Violence?
I don't think Arabs would give the U.S. much attention, except that there has been U.S. interference in the region.
Walk into any bar and start throwing your weight around. Someone will pick a fight with you. Stay out of the bar, no fight.
If you really understand what bin Laden is saying, and you understand the culture of the region, and you understand the long history of U.S. involvement in Saudi Arabia, it is not as crazy as it sounds at first. But, I agree with you, there is a LOT of craziness.
In earlier posts, some people have mis-understood my comments. So, I repeat, I'm against terrorism. I'm not agreeing with Arab politics. Osama bin Laden wants to unite all the Arab nations. His method is force. I don't like that method.
There are at least 50 destructive governments in the world. The world is an imperfect place. We cannot intervene in every bad situation. If we do intervene, is our violence really better than their violence?
I tried to gather together what I think is relevant information: What Should be the Response to Violence?
"Trading one dictator for another doesn't seem very productive."
I agree with that. But some Arabs want to decide this question for themselves. My guess is that I would probably strongly disagree with their politics. A lot of the statements I've seen Arabs say on television seem to me to be foolish at best.
However, the first question is whether the U.S. government has the right decide everyone else's politics. The second question is whether you personally are willing to risk your own life and spend your own money for the principle that they don't have the right to decide their own politics.
"The fundamental problem is that the Saudis do not have a non-violent mechanism for settling their political differences."
Very true!!!! They don't. That is absolutely right. Excellent insight. But, will killing some of them help them find a non-violent mechanism?