Quizzes, Guns, Grenades, Jihad, and Ramadan

Somalia is a violent place, and with those who remain steadfast in their determination to meet and defeat the enemies of Allah wherever they maybe found in Somalia, it would not seem that the place is going to become any more peaceful, at least not in the short-term.

Sheikh Andullahi Alhaq was presenting the prizes to a group of winners in a recent Ramadan quiz contest organized by the Al-Shabaab insurgents where he hoped that their prizes would encourage and facilitate their participation in the Jihad against Allah's enemies. So, what sort of prizes might be so encouraging and facilitating, you ask; well, for the winners it was an AK-47, two hand-grenades, an anti-tank landmine, and some office supplies. The runners-up were not quite so lucky. They received just an AK-47 and some ammunition.

The quiz was a radio broadcast and consisted of questions on science, culture, and the Al-Quran.

I always was led to believe that Ramadan was the holiest of months, a month for reflection, and in essence a jihad of its own as one resists the everyday temptations of food and other things. A quiz where the prizes are weapons to be used in violent jihad seems to run counter to what many claim Islam to be about. I am not Muslim so perhaps I am missing something with respect to my understanding of how this quiz fits into the spirit of the holiest of months.

The question in my mind is this, "How do you convince people that a religion is a religion of peace if there is a concurrent promotion of violence or violent conflict?"

This does not have to be a question exclusively directed at Muslims or Islam. It just so happens that this is the context in this case. The question could be posed equally to other religions that have used violence as a means of resolving conflict. I do not think that any religion is immune, is it?

Babysitter Needed?

Here is a story out of Jackson, Ohio in the USA. Is it any wonder it is tough to find someone willing to babysit your kids?

A four-year-old boy, that is right, four-years-old, has grabbed a loaded and unsecured shotgun and shot his 18-year-old babysitter in the arm and side. Apparently, the babysitter accidentally stepped on the four-year-old's foot. This infuriated him so that he responded with a shotgun blast.

There are a couple of issues here, like what was an loaded and unsecured shotgun doing in the home in the first place and can a four-year-old have the legal or mental capacity to be responsible for his or her actions?

The four-year-old has not been charged. This suggests that the possibility of a four-year-old having the mental capacity to understand right and wrong does not exist. Nevertheless, on the bare facts available to date, the idea that the kid got a little angry when the babysitter stepped on his foot and then decided to shoot the babysitter would suggests that there is some capacity there in terms of understanding revenge, maybe.

I do not own any guns so there is not much chance of you being shot when you're babysitting for us.

Stupid is as Stupid Does 2!

Is there no end to human stupidity?

I was surfing the net and came across news that an 8-year-old had shot and killed himself with an Uzi (picture from here). The first question was always going to be, "what was an 8-year-old doing with an Uzi in the first place?"

As I read a little further it turns out that this occurred in Connecticut in the US, and I am guessing on a rifle range, under supervision, and with the child's father taking pictures.

I do not know if any of you have fired guns, but the Uzi has a kick (recoil) and for an automatic weapon once the kick starts it will keep kicking until you pull the finger off the trigger.

My understanding is the kid pulls the trigger, the Uzi recoils, the kid loses control, the Uzi spins backwards, and the kid shoots himself in the head. Game over!

The next question that comes to mind is, "what were the boy's father and instructor thinking?"

What was no doubt intended to be a good day out has ended in tragedy for no other reason that the stupidity of a gun instructor and father. Uzis are weapons of war and not toys for children, it is tragic that the boys father had to learn this lesson this way!

Virtual Strip Search

It was only a matter of time before Australian airports started to trial virtual strip search technology. The virtual strip search is a low strength x-ray machine that can see under one's clothes.

The picture (courtesy of AP) shows what the image is supposed to look like. I do not know enough about the technology but I wonder if the strength of the x-ray is upped a little bit do you get to see more of the traveller than either the scanner or the traveller bargained for?

The two extremes on this technology are:

* those that say the technology is necessary to screen for explosives and other weapons; and
* those that say this technology is nothing more than an invasion of privacy.

Nevertheless, the question is one that should be asking how much are travellers prepared to give up in order that they travel without fear of people bringing explosives and other weapons on to a flight?

The NSW Council for Civil Liberties main complaint is that the images could be highly embarrassing for travellers as it shows in reasonable detail their body shape. The Council is also worried that this will become the norm. Currently, strip searches are not required to board an aircraft so why should a virtual strip search be mandatory?

This is a trial so the emphasis is on travellers opting in to try the new technology. Travellers not into being stripped searched virtually can opt to go through regular scanning procedures. My guess is that the trial lines will always be shorter.

So, if you are in a hurry it is certainly going to be decision time. I do not carry explosives or other weapons when I am walking around the place and definitely do not carry them onto planes. I know I am an ugly bastard so I am more likely to ruin the virtual strip searchers day rather than provide them with any form of amusement or heaven forbid, arousal.

There will be strict rules in place about the storing of images and it is unlikely that the images are to be stored. There would be no valid reason to store images that did not show someone trying to smuggle something illegal on board.

Besides if these images were to find their way onto the Internet or into the public domain, then there would be claims galore for the invasion of privacy. It should be noted that the faces of the scanned individuals are to be blurred. However, it should also be noted that there is software available to "unblur" these faces (or at least this is what I am told).

The word is that the low dose of radiation associated with the scan is harmless. It is said that to get anywhere near the maximum permissible level of radiation exposure would require upwards of 10,000 scans. This would make you a very frequent traveller.

The technology is to be trialled in Sydney, Melbourne, and Adelaide. I won't be home anytime soon, so I guess I will have to wait until they start trialling it here in Indonesia.