October 23, 2006

Dear Editor in chief,

A scholar asked: “I saw scenes about underground nuclear test in TV. It seemed that
the ground collapsed in a circular manner. I heard too that an earthquake was recorded,
and some radiation could be detected in the atmosphere. What are the chances that
nuclear technology, nuclear materials or a dirty bomb could be transferred to those
terrorists or religious fanatics and do their suicide bombing or “martyrdom”? The A.I.
answered: “The possibility of the technology of a nuclear bomb to be transferred in the
hands of suicide bomber/s is very great. With regards to the nuclear materials or the bomb
itself perhaps there is some difficulty to have them if there are many counter measures
being done to avoid being stolen or being sold or being a magnet for easy target using
small force. I heard a contributor said that in his life time he is sure that a dirty bomb
could be detonated by a terrorist. And time is now on the terrorists. The terrorists are just
waiting for the right time to buy, to steal or to get the bomb by force, to persuade others
to cooperate with their objectives as the clicking of the time clock goes on…! One of
their teachings is that modern instruments are being used by the devil to lower the
standard of their morality. And even bright and intelligent people of some major religions
especially those religious idealists and fundamentalists are convinced that many people
now are really wild and liberated because of too much liberation in morality and too
much focus on technology. They become the new angels of light; and they are fighting
even giving up their lives as “martyrs” for the sake of saving people from being deceived
of the ‘Great Satan.’
A scholar asked: “I sense that there is desperation or hopelessness about the possibility
that a nuclear bomb could be detonated by a terrorist in our life time because continuity
to have sensitivity to deter at the start or have emphasis to put or in placed counter
measure at the start of the problem or pre-empting a future problem could easily be
stopped by just changing of a leader especially if the leadership of the enemy of the
terrorist had lost his mandate in an election. But the fight of the terrorists goes on and
on…perhaps a “long time”! Because the fighting is becoming faith or religion- it is the
fight between the “infidels” vs. the “faithful and the future martyrs.” Perhaps the
extremists know already the weakness of their enemies-election is their “waterloo”.
Perhaps having a referendum or having some amendments in the constitution about
security matter if the fighting is a “long war” should now be considered. Politicians
should now be confined only temporarily for example 10 years on other things except on
war on terrorism because war on terrorism would be temporarily under the military
mostly for example 10 years blessed by a referendum. Both political parties are mandated
by the constitution to stick on fighting and putting counter measures to stop future
detonation of nuclear or dirty bomb. The pre-emption could be done especially on
suspected sanctuaries of terrorists in or outside their countries. So during elections
politician would no longer use war on terrorism as their “issues” or “Ace card” or
“political flat form” for example 10 years! Citizens could now concentrate on issues
rather than being threatened by fear to be forced to choose politicians who are more
focused on security. Both political parties would talk of other issues because both have
agreed to fight terrorism for example 10 years; and the agreement of both parties is
anointed by referendum. Citizens would now concentrate on choosing politician during
election on issues focusing on their problems but the military would be focused more on
their fighting and winning of hearts & minds of the extremists due to a “long war”. The
military could now have more concentration and enough plans and strategies to fight
back especially balancing almost all start of extreme that result to hating and also that
result to the eagerness of the terrorists to use dirty bomb or nuclear bomb. Those citizen
protests should be countered by showing to them the contract or result of the referendum!
Tell those protesters that those religious terrorists could wait and wait even a decade for
the right time to detonate a nuclear bomb because it is one of their main goals as faithful
and believer or being a martyr. Principle behind: “long war” should be balanced with
long “solutions” especially blessed by referendum; and not be forced to solve a “long
war” with “short solutions” because of panic caused by elections. Another slogan could
be thrown to others: ‘They panic when ever there is an election.’
With regards to UN ability to deter future detonation of nuclear bomb when being
challenged directly or indirectly by hardheaded government or a government is going
against UN majority consensus especially about measures against proliferation of nuclear
things, perhaps a strong leader would try to be the big brother to persuade the hard
headed leader of the government to conform now with the majority consensus before
stiffer measures could be carried out against the hard headed leader. China should be
commended if she really is responsible why a hardheaded leader is now becoming
moderate; no longer siding with extremism. Talks and dialogs are very important among
the community of leaders. Perhaps the hard headed leader’s advisers are just having some
lacking of other essential universal words that is why they are hard headed. But when
they- the hard headed leader’s advisers or supporters realized now that ordinary people
are no longer blind followers because universal words could easily be accessible to
internet and wireless communication instruments, they-the hardheaded leader and his
supporters would realize that brain washing ordinary people to instill their hidden
motives and ambitions is no longer key factor in leading ordinary people. Ordinary
people are already knowledgeable and even movers and initiators. Empowering ordinary
people with internet, wireless internet and mobile phone is the key to deter tyrants or
dictators who have me ‘only’ and I ‘only’ syndrome. But sometimes there are or is really
charismatic leader who could ‘hypnotize’ his fellowmen to be his blind followers; and
could persuade people that modern communication instruments are the friends and allies
of the negative forces or instruments of the devil. He would do everything that his
fellowmen would not be able to have access to internet, mobile phone, international cable
TV, etc.
A scholar asked: “What practical ways one could counter a trap in the making?” The
A.I. answered: “I think the best way of pre-empting “trap in the making” is letting
children study, work, and play, pray with other children of different religion. Imagine
Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims or with other faiths whose children
especially in places where suicide bombings occur or conflicts occur would have cultural
play together on stage from time to time, enhancing their talents; and their parents are
watching side by side with other parents of different beliefs and cultures, and
appreciating, respecting each other. They could appreciate each other’s uniqueness; they
could smile and could look at each other eyes with appreciation. Perhaps, if all the
textbooks or sacred books of any belief of children would have drawings that described
people with different culture holding each other’s hand, playing, respecting each others
on how they manifest their beliefs then perhaps if ever there is or are other ideas that
contradict those good ideas, the bad idea would have a hard time to change the good
ideas. Books of children should be focused on appreciating, respecting, tolerating others
uniqueness; or “always considering others better than ourselves” should be taught very
early in life than hating, than exalting ones way of believing. Those teachings that say
‘our religion is the ‘only’ and ‘right’ way’ should be discouraged at children textbook but
instead ‘each other beliefs should be respected’ or should be emphasized to balance the
extremes. Men need uniqueness to have variations, balance, harmony, and if one abuses
his culture or belief the other could rebuke, reprimand, check, and balance.
Perhaps teaching ones religion that it is the ‘only’, ‘right’ and ‘true’ should be placed
in proper perspective. There is no wrong to say that our product is ‘number one’; it
encourages competition which is healthy. But what is wrong is: when hate enters in that
creates chaos. I think sportsmanship could be a balancing factor that should be taught
first in class especially on children before teaching of its religion’s right to be number
one. It is to teach the brain that defeat, failures, pain and struggle is part of man’s growing
in a day to day basis. To be a member of the number one, the ‘only’,’ right’ and ‘true’ is
not a ticket for success in life but the participation, the struggle. It is shown in
sportsmanship and in games that if one should be a champion and number one, the team
should practice hard. And becoming a part of the member is not a license that one could
be champion. The essence in sportsmanship is not the defeat but the struggle, the
willingness to do the best defeating others and appreciating others. Perhaps religion and
politics could or should be like sports also.
I think it is perhaps thru changing of textbooks, and editing or explaining properly
sacred books of controversial words that causes hating, educational system that put
emphasis on respecting, tolerating other beliefs, culture and enhancing playing or sports,
working together example in stage drama or perhaps even praying together in a universal
way of praying that children of different beliefs could change hate to care, change envy to
appreciation, change grudge to helping hand, ignoring old people bad teachings of hating
of other religion. If children were seen caring others with different religion perhaps those
old hardheaded extremists would fade away.
A scholar asked: “I heard that some political exercises or elections are really like cats
and dogs- they are by instinct or without thinking automatically would fight against each
other in gestures, in voice, and in words but not in issues. Could there be scientific
mechanism so that candidates would not result to shout, to raise his voice, to be sarcastic
or to be very personal on attacking?” The A.I. answered: “Perhaps microphone should
have sensor that the more a politician would raise his voice the microphone is
programmed to modulate his voice. And also if his voice become harsh or wild, the
program would let his tune be sweet. And if there is some anguish or hatred in his face
the program could project the player or the politician as calm.
Perhaps another rule could be violated because it is not projecting to the audience the
true and real sentiments of the political players. But there could be in the future law to
use program to censure wild gestures, wild voice or wild words for the sake of
minimizing scandals and bad examples on some exceptional debates.
From RV

ngsforum@nationalgeographic.com
ireport@cnn.com