a message of peace

[DaVinci]

Not entirely agreeing. There is science that a baby fresh born has not automatically "the will" to be evil. the opinion that a child of a killer must probable have more gens to be aggresive too, is wrong. there is evidense for this, ,a long science about this theme proofed this.
As said, the nature-laws aren't "evil". "Evilness" is an "invention" by humans (it's a term only made by our morale imaginations), an animal is never evil, it functions after the nature-laws. As we are indeed a kind of an advanced animal, we learn by the environment (as animals, but in a kind of a perverted way, unfortunately), but that's still the evolution, we are entirely trapped also in this nature function, but we have indeed the ability to judge on things (what animals have not, that's the difference). But or and: If the evolution would show us, that the "evil" factor is just bad for us, and will lead inevitable to our destruction, it is possible that humans learn this by this evolution, and make it better ... theoretically at least, i'm convinced on this.
And again, as the human is agressive to a degree by nature-law, we can or could though direct this inevitable emotion to certain things, and if people must go crazy, they can fight in martial art sports games, for example. Also, this aggro-factor is needed, if we wouldn't have it, there would be less progress, it is also a motivator for the humanity, so: the agressivity in the human gen is not "evil" in its own nature, humans become "evil" through the social environment.

[Amorphos]

i agree in the main, although some people i think are naturally less aggressive than others, so it must have something to do with genes. there are hardmen and nerds yes, which one is most likely to cause violence? sure nerds could be violent and maybe it is only because hardmen are bigger that they are not. ...but i doubt it i just think highly intelligent humans are comparatively non-violent, whilst still having the necessary aggression.

i only used the term ‘evil’ for shortness. according to science our thoughts are produced by our genes, so even though we cannot get rid of ‘evil’ genes ~ as they don’t exist, we can change the constitution.

i am not sure if we should though, it is just a possible solution [partial].

things like what is going on in india could be ‘nipped-in-the-bud’ ~ stopped closer to the source. i have been watching the indian news channel and it appears there was quite a lot of dialogue before all this horror happened. governments have a lot of arrogance towards these people, this attitude doesn’t work! we saw it in ireland when conservatives in the 80’s tried the hardline approach, all they got in return was a lot more violence.

[Legio]

This absolutely can be nipped in the bud! People should look at the big picture, and try to find parallels ("Has this happened before? How can I stop it?").
If only people thought more!

[Amorphos]

indeed. of course we have to look at the basis of their complaint, i think it is to do with a region in the north west of india [forgot name] that is mainly islamic. the terrorists want it to become a part of pakistan ~ i presume. this is difficult to work with, just as requests to dismantle israel and give it back to palestinians is a difficult request.

i don’t know how we can work with that, however it is the general theme, there were it seams more specific aspects which led up to this, and it is they which could have been worked with ~ at least i expect. it is a bit like making deals with hitler, what can one actually achieve when the barbarity will continue whatever we do. having said this, a few concessions go a long way.

[Legio]

The region is Kasmir.
Maybe one or two concessions, but what we really need right now is another Gandhi.
Kind of makes you wish there was force diplomacy in real life, eh?

[Amorphos]

do you think someone like that would change things, ~ maybe but it is people generally that need to change especially the leaders of nations. there is a force for diplomacy [or at least universal equilibrium of a kind], that is why humanity is where it is.

[DaVinci]

Hmm ... Jesus, Ghandi etc. (we had a few more of that type) indeed changed the world. But, they were just very few, compared to the ones who led the world to a far greater impact down to its "evil" side. On the other also those "evil" leaders and their impacts had positive side-affects on the human history, example: colonisation=imperialism of the 19th c. led not only to negative things in the opressed lands, same as basic impact the greek or roman imperialism ... in the last consequence every exchange of differences has a reaction, the reaction as result has (probably always) positives and negatives.
We had this theme "violence becomes obsolete in front of demonstrative non-violence" already, right? It works to a cetain degree. But for the long-term-development to get a real ongoing durative impact on the history, it would need the adoption by the states-leaders (respectively judicative, executive & legislative institutions), and by all of them in the world (see also the thread "comparative politics...").

In fact it would help to bring the humanity further, if people like Ghandi would be kept in the heads of the humans by education, there is no doubt.
But it helps not so much, as long the states-executive is likely more prepared to pay everything back in 1:1 (violence:violence=violence increasing).

In the last item, we go around in circles here, it all comes back to education imo.. The higher the education level and the more spread, the higher the chances that people understand what's going on, paired with certain values that are proofed to be helpful for the humanity. This education level needs always interpretation, means explanation "humans are structured like that, and so they will do this, as long they aren't informed about this and that" besides learning 'social-behaviour-skills' or also known as 'soft-skills' ... a pure education via school etc. won't help much, but is still better than none

As for terrorists: the only way to decrease it is communication, as you have mentioned already. As long the states leaders only fight back, the struggle lives on and on, and will increase. I remember Osama Bin Laden said (in this sense) "... they have to count with us, as long they refuse to see our motivation/opinions, they will suffer from us ..." simple truth, i think.