What if all terrorists were just bloggers?

What if all extremists and fundamentalists were given a soapbox and / or a computer and they just wrote? Then we would all be able to debate on the grounds of opinion, and all opinion could be tolerated and argued. All opinion could come up for discussion. No-one would be looking for power or Holy revenge or converts or anything. Each person equal in the realm of their own blog, and the blog community. Regardless of whether the belief seems "right" or "wrong" at first glance, the concepts of "truth always triumphing in a free and open encounter"(as Irvine says in an article on John Stuart Mil) could be exercised. The war could be waged on paper, on our soap boxes, and in cyberspace. This would save so many lives.

The tendency to violence and the fear that drives these terrorists is not productive. But it is real. There are people out there who are afraid and angry and they deal with it in outwardly violent bursts, and ways some of us think illogical. We can teach these people differently before they begin to act and think and feel this way. Murdering the innocent individual is just pure rage. There is no Religion there. Yet these people are allowed to continue by their governments. Toleration, yes, but not of physical crimes that punish the innocent. Toleration of opinion. Not violence. When violence occurs, governments should carry out their responsibility to their people to protect them. Whether or not they value individual human life as much as the next country, because if your own country is rife with violence, all the citizens may kill each other, and you. Then you have no country. So if governments carry out their responsibility to do everything necessary to eliminate those who commit violent acts, they will also be protecting themselves. Self preservation and survival! That will allow the country to live another day.

What does that involve? Not more chains. Stopping the crimes before they start. Educate all citizens so that they may have freedom of opinion, and not be cornered and feeling fearful and furious. Instructing people to deal with their anger in ways different than with weaponry whether within or outside their boundaries. This would seem to include the U.S. The have given, or sold, other countries weapons, as well as its own citizens. These are not the right tools to be giving out. I am interested in hearing opinions. I believe whole-heartedly that there are tools that can achieve the same result as some people believe weapons achieve, but they do so without costing innocent lives. They include Time and Co-operation, Opinion and Verbal Argument. This isn't just some strange romance. It is a reality in several countries within themselves and in their international efforts. I do not understand why other countries feel that weapons are the way to the truth, or peace, etc. Is this a form of censorship of opinion where the opinion on the bad end of the barrel of the gun will be silenced? Look at what that is doing to us! Is this what the U.S. wants? "Oh, now look, we gave them weapons for our own reasons, but now they are learning from our example -- you take weapons and use them to silence wrong opinion -- we don't like what they are doing. That's wrong. So we will take our weapons and use them to silence that wrong opinion". Does anyone see a pattern here?!?!?

(My God, if you know Terry Prachett's Masquerade, you'll know what state I'm in by the punctuation at the end of that last sentence!)

There is at least one person who might disagree with me, and he has an impressive BLOG. But it's a BLOG. Not a bomb on a bus, or any other form of outright violence.