This really is a heart-rending issue, so I decided to comment on it...
First of all, our prayers go out to them, our brothers in faith in a land of terrible spiritual darkness and political uncertainty. Only God can truly provide peace of mind and safety, through his influences on the world. Yet, even as humans, we have a big part to play in this.
It's clear to me that, however unfairly, the association of the Christians with the 'regime change' operation, along with others who actually helped, such as translators, is a large part of the reason they are being singled out like this. Whilst I don't hold with Islam being a tolerant religion, based upon it's history of being quite different, in other times and places such discrimination has also happened because of the assumed 'guilt of association', which is a toxic thing to begin with. It's a horrible shock to see, but it is something that humans have been capable of for a long time. We need reasonable solutions to make sure people are safe.
Bush and Co. should never have invaded unless they were sure they could produce a stable, secular government in a short time. Still, such a government, made by Iraqis for Iraqis is the only hope that this sort of thing, which doesn't tend to happen so much in stable countries, becomes a thing of the past.
Radical groups flourish in anarchy and removing not just Saddam Hussein, but also the Baath party administrators, police and army, pretty much ensured this anarchistic situation, which Iraq is still climbing out of. He was actually putting the brakes on Islamic radicalism, as it was a threat to him too.
It seems to me that evil loves chaos, as it can fulfill it's darkest fantasies in such a time, with no-one able or even willing to stop them. Good requires a certain amount of order, as it is a constructive force. This should be a lesson to the world about attempts to make things better. They should be careful to see that they create what they really want and ensure the safety of the innocent. It seems like radical Islam is so barbaric, it requires strong governments to control. The unsavoury things such governments do may just be the lesser of two evils compared with setting it free.
Freedom, in short, is closely related to safety. If we can't guarantee this to the Iraqi Christians in their own land, then they should be granted safe asylum, as a priority, partly because it seems to me almost no-where in the middle East is truly safe for anyone not a Muslim. We can't just wash our hands of this and hope things get better there. Obama and co has inherited these problems just as much as he inherited the wars that exacerbated them- ironically, as part of their intention was (publicly at least), to create stable, viable, friendly states out of tyranny. Whether this 'lead to gold' alchemy can work is a philosophical point to those living under the effects of it.
Well, that's my two cents on the situation, anyway. Right now north Korea is hogging the headlines, but not only will these issues not go away, we should also urgently study them, to see what lessons can be learnt if we do take part in other regime changes, such as the North Korean problem. In such a case, we shouldn't just fire everyone working for Li'l Kim, as they might actually be decent individuals just doing a job, essential for rebuilding the country. We should be realistic and avoid radical actions. That way, more reasonable people are likely to come to the fore in the aftermath. Your means define your ends, not the other way around.
Showing posts with label Commentary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Commentary. Show all posts
Friday, December 24, 2010
Saturday, September 04, 2010
The End of Iraqi Combat Operations- Yet When Will They Have Their Lives Back?
The wonderful Bill Blum says about the Iraqis
"( they) have lost everything — their homes, their schools, their electricity, their clean water, their environment, their neighborhoods, their mosques, their archaeology, their jobs, their careers, their professionals, their state-run enterprises, their physical health, their mental health, their health care, their welfare state, their women's rights, their religious tolerance, their safety, their security, their children, their parents, their past, their present, their future, their lives ."
"( they) have lost everything — their homes, their schools, their electricity, their clean water, their environment, their neighborhoods, their mosques, their archaeology, their jobs, their careers, their professionals, their state-run enterprises, their physical health, their mental health, their health care, their welfare state, their women's rights, their religious tolerance, their safety, their security, their children, their parents, their past, their present, their future, their lives ."
Monday, February 15, 2010
Hope for Afghanistan
By treating the people in Afghanistan as human beings, whatever their differences in appearance and religion, we have a better chance of improving their lives. Then their culture will change, as life will be seen as something precious to be preserved, with opportunities on the horizon worth fighting for. I see the reason for corruption in such places as part of the severe scarcity of resources- if there is only a small cake, people fight over it. Starting to meet the people's basic needs would make this a thing of the past (hopefully).
In terms of the Wall Street comparisons, I think anyone can see in this the human failings that may look different in various societies but amount to the same thing. Winning gat the cost of your opponent is a short-lived, pyrrhic victory. When you allow a group of people to think they are above any kind of law, like Afghan officials or the city bankers, it's a recipe for disaster that affects the whole society. Why not have some overseers there that have the power to fire corrupt police? Even so, the basic security issue needs to be resolved before any decent authority can operate there.
So far, the failure of our efforts can be related to our own top brass being lazy to build on the initial trust we receive. The skills to help rebuild a nation are totally different from those used in capturing it. They are also a lot less news-worthy. Until recently, I sensed a certain egotism, in this addiction to activities that garner more attention whilst necessary ones go undone. The kind of speeches we are seeing now seem to take the needs of the Afghan people more seriously and aim at healing the patient (poor, unstable living conditions), rather than just suppressing his symptoms (Taliban and their sympathisers, corrupt officials).
Helping the Afghan People
I'd see the 'hearts and minds' component as far more crucial than it is often given credit for. Only if the local people can sense that they are secure with the Coalition and that their lives are noticeably improving, will they have any reason to have the loyalty to the provisional government necessary for the Taliban to be unwelcome there. This would involve great cultural sensitivity- even if we find their values too backward, that's where they are at and it needs to be respected- much like if we time-travelled back to one of our societies hundreds of years ago, when issues involving 'modesty' were more crucial (I know, the comparison is in many ways invalid, but you get the picture that it is about shoeing more empathy than apathy).
All of this holds true whatever the real intentions of the Afghanistan mission- if the people's lives, impoverished for centuries, improve too it can only be be a good thing.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Prayer for Haiti
It is when we see the terrible suffering and devestation that others suffer that we realise how lucky we comartively are. Here I would like to pray for theose caugt up in that trajedy and that we find the strength to help in whatever way we can. The country wasn't exactly in great shape in the first place and this has really compounded the situation. At least now, with the help to rebuild, they are back on the map and attracting the sympathy of the world, rather than being scornfully ignored.
It is also a chance for so many actors of the world scene to be seen to do some good, a bit like the way school kids clean up after an event. You can see theSaudi Dubaian Malaysian Indonesian Russian Chinese Israeli, European and US relief teams helping save countless lives. They can't agree on everything, but they do see the need to help out there and have cultures that teach the necessity of giving to those in need. Sorry, but some of the countries complaining the loudest are doing the least to help. Truly, by their fruits you shall know them and whatever their shortcomings, this is bringing out the best in them. Perhaps this is part of God's mysterious plan?
Life being so hard there, it is hard for the Haitians to feel safe and there does seem to be a breakdown of order. It is really important that basic needs are met as soon as possible and criminal gangs aren't allowed to run off with the donations given so kindly by millions around the world. If the US saw a need for security to stabilise the place then it is legitimate, I just hope with everyone going cold turkey when it comes to American power projection, they can still function effectively and respond to nuanced criticism, to give help where it is most needed.
So here we pray, that this will be an occasion where we can all come together, putting aside our differences to give what we can to the Haitians, to restore their island to decent conditions. We ask that we show empathy for their situation and help as much as we can, remembering our common humanity. If a hungry man is an angry man, then a starving man is a desperate man. Let us all help to meet their basic and other needs, and bring peace and safety to them.
Lets pray that all the nations can work together on this harmoniously, not just to increase their reputations, but out of compassion for the people living there every day.
God, please give us strength and love for this
Amen.
It is also a chance for so many actors of the world scene to be seen to do some good, a bit like the way school kids clean up after an event. You can see the
Life being so hard there, it is hard for the Haitians to feel safe and there does seem to be a breakdown of order. It is really important that basic needs are met as soon as possible and criminal gangs aren't allowed to run off with the donations given so kindly by millions around the world. If the US saw a need for security to stabilise the place then it is legitimate, I just hope with everyone going cold turkey when it comes to American power projection, they can still function effectively and respond to nuanced criticism, to give help where it is most needed.
So here we pray, that this will be an occasion where we can all come together, putting aside our differences to give what we can to the Haitians, to restore their island to decent conditions. We ask that we show empathy for their situation and help as much as we can, remembering our common humanity. If a hungry man is an angry man, then a starving man is a desperate man. Let us all help to meet their basic and other needs, and bring peace and safety to them.
Lets pray that all the nations can work together on this harmoniously, not just to increase their reputations, but out of compassion for the people living there every day.
God, please give us strength and love for this
Amen.
Investigating the Iraq War... Officially
Lord Goldsmith got taxpayer help for Iraq war inquiry legal advice | UK news | The Guardian
This is from the 'Chilcot Panel, set up to investigate the legality of the Invasion of Iraq. As the article says...
It seems to be turning out that the Iraq invasion, rather than being of 'dubious legality', as we have been told for so long, may actually be demonstrably illegal. The government lawyers consulted about it were actually, it seems unanimous on this point- that "without a specific UN resolution" it would be illegal. Now for many this is no news, but I hasten to add to them that their opinion is not only lacking in the legally binding power of a court, but also open to accusations of bias. The truth remains true (it is also my opinion, I might add, as it has consistently been throughout the whole affair), yet the legally enshrined powers will effect how much influence it has over decisions made.
What the inquiry is uncovering, which will probably not be the closed and toothless affair that the Labour Party wanted, is a consistent bullying from those higher up to rubber stamp an illegal invasion that wasn't just catastrophic- and I use the word advisedly, catastrophic, for the people in Iraq, but also for the reputation of the US and Britain in world affairs in general. The 'world's policemen' were seen to be bending the law in a way that suited them, even as it took place. Unprecedented demonstrations erupted as a result of this assumption of their own omnipotence. Now, tragically belatedly, but still welcome, courts are issuing verdicts that it was actually clearly illegal and as such people who lied about this will have to pay for their crimes. How far up the chain this will go is as yet unclear, though it should be remembered that Richard Nixon was impeached for far less severe offenses. Those with faith in the power of justice know that even if this particular enquiry falls short of the whole truth, others will pick up where they left off in due course. There is a word for what they got into that has stood the test of time... hubris.
Assuming it is established that it was an illegal war and that this is something they knew all along, the next question to answer- properly, not by the mob but by the jury- is why? Was it to increase the Western access to oil reserves, as is popularly believed, a classic neo-colonial war for resources much like Saddam's own invasion of Kuwait? Was it because they believed him to be a dangerous tyrant who's wings were not yet firmly clipped and that they would help the world by ridding it of him? Did they really believe that he might supply WMD's to terrorist groups to be used against Western cities (the most common reason given and one still being used for the controversial campaign or 'military adventure', depending on who you ask, in Afghanistan)? To my mind, the most plausible is the first answer- the invasion was clearly planned, both tactically and logistically well before the 'terrorist' attack of 9/11. The intention to take over the country, whether or not Saddam complied was established- if only by the moving of so many troops into position, at such great expense. It is almost inconceivable that they would be willing to go home 'empty handed'. It is also quite likely that the events of 9/11 were either permitted or even, (God forbid), staged so as to give some plausible reason for the whole invasion. Of course, all this is just my view, yet it seems to be increasingly widely accepted as more evidence emerges, most notably through inquiries such as these.
Yet it is also important to note just how badly Bush and Blair miscalculated. Their arguments failed to convince as many people or for that matter countries as they were hoping. Not only were tens of thousands of lives lost, but also their reputations. Resistance, both in the population and in the streets of Iraq was far fiercer than they anticipated and far less moderated. They succeeded in doing what many warned would happen- lionising Islamic Militancy and helping add fuel to it's fires throughout the Islamic world. They also weakened our on military deterrent by showing how our troops could be vulnerable to certain weaponry and how our strategies can be undermined by the power of the media itself to expose our hypocrisy. Rather than being lauded as heroes who understood the system enough to circumvent it, they are seen as tax avoiders who are yet to stand trial. This isn't just a 'liberal view'. It's one based around moral and legal facts, facts that are emerging ever more clearly into the limelight as I speak. I foresee a day when they really do stand trial, if for no other reason than the fact that whoever puts them on the stand will themselves be lauded as a hero and the media that supported them will have their own fresh story. Whether this is a good thing or not is another matter.
The main thing to remember is that they weren't just attacking Iraq. They were demonstrating an extreme contempt for the whole international order, including the democratic laws of their own countries. It is hard to say anything that hasn't yet been said. As a morality tale, it shows the bankruptcy of Machiavellian tactics, especially in a modern context in which information is freely available. The only hope they have is that they can demonstrate that they were sincerely pursuing 'good motives', so the judgment of history will be gentler than if it turns out to just be a search for personal profit.
Now for the most difficult question- one I have to admit I don't have a satisfactory answer for. What can we do about it all now? What would be a suitable way of finding 'closure', so that we can return to, or perhaps create in a purer way than ever before, a more honest and good government? Although many are baying for blood and crying 'war criminal' or 'traitor', I personally dislike the idea of punishments, which seem to me to be a crude way to deal with misdeeds- far better to teach by example and help others realise that lying is wrong than look for some dark satisfaction in vengeful suffering. Many say that they are responsible for immense suffering, yet I think it more the case that their miscalculations were responsible for said suffering. If it sounds like I am letting them off the hook, it's not the case. Their disregard for the law, their incompetence, is criminal. But I need to know that they really did have darker motives, darker than those publicly stated, before I can move down the path of wanting their punishment as such. We should be looking to establish ideals in government and remember important lessons learned. One is that international law is there to protect us all, if it slows the resolution of things down, than that is a necessary compromise and a path to goodness. Impatience itself demonstrates lack of compassion for those effected by it and is therefor a vice.
A civilised, nuanced approach is needed to these official investigations and thankfully, this seems to be the approach taken, even if it takes longer, it is so much more exhaustive. We should be wary of repeating the mistakes of the pair in seeking to resolve a problem faster than is possible to and thereby robbing ourselves of good results. Humiliating show trials (even if they were possible) could be a mistake, softer means need to be used to coax out the truth and hopefully- unlikely as it is- gain their repentance. I also am not sure if it is likely. Can the system really examine itself? I prefer a South African 'truth and reconciliation' approach, for being less divisive and serving the far more important goals of moving on.
If they had ruled as absolute dictators, it would be a different matter, we have to keep things in perspective if we are to make choices conductive to a better future. Justice needs to be tempered with compassion, for something good to come out of the whole, sordid affair. I am not alone in my view- it is being seen as one of the main weapons in the fight against Islamic militants, so why not use it with the neo-conservatives that paid and created them (a major problem of course is how to gauge when the repentance is genuine and when it is just 'buying time')? Maybe a compulsory spell in 'megalomaniacs anonymous', followed by international community service requiring them to go around lecturing on the importance of telling the truth and respecting human dignity. In a sense, they have already started to pay. Tony Blair lost his chance to be the President of the EU, which he would otherwise be a natural candidate for, and whilst he still gets paid millions to speak, George Bush Jr. more likely has to pay people to listen to him.
Now all these calls for moderation are what I think is best, but it has already been taking many years, with the whole world being forced to endure the most diabolical lies, just so this incompetent pair can mire us in ever-deepening quagmires of their own making. It is becoming hard for good, decent politicians such as Barak Obama to rule effectively, such is the confusion created as to right and wrong, left and right. The toxic mix of lies and military adventures have actually come close to wrecking our countries' economies, not just our reputations. Hundreds of thousands have died, millions have had their lives disrupted and even destroyed, all for 'freedom'? Really?
The only way to overcome this confusion of priorities is to put the culprits on trial- real, civilised trials, for jeopardising the greater good to their own agendas. Only then can we know for sure whether they really believed (falsely) that they were helping and then can repent for such costly, malpractice-like mistakes. Or, if as many suspect, pure greed for profit was the cause, the military-industrial complex up to it's old, dirty tricks, well then, if we can't get whichever dark actors are secretly responsible for the orders being followed, then at least we can criminalise those who go along with it and show that really, they would have been better off listening to the legal advice available to them in the first place. If such is the case, they can't claim now that they were never warned, nor can they escape censure for their attempts to 'shoot the messenger' for the news they brought.
Now for my temporary closure on this article, which turned out to be much longer than I envisioned and was not exactly easy to write. Let's remember that everything in this life is an opportunity for a learning experience. Whether it is politics, love, history, past-times, anything. Hence criticism, made in a spirit of love, is necessary, or else we can never move on. Mistakes can lead to evil- in fact they always lead to evil results, yet often their authors simply didn't foresee that, even if they should have. Intentional wrongdoing for personal gain, however, is closer to the definition of sin. Such actions are in their very nature unforgivable and the only way out of their karmic chains is repentance. The Iraq war and it's continuing counterpart, the invasion of Afghanistan, are certainly at the very least the former. In any case in which the latter is playing apart, it is absolutely imperative that we know, so that amends can be made, compensation paid, repentance started. Imperative, as we all live in a legal, faithful universe and however darkly buried, such thing simply must come to light if we are to be freed from the peril of their bad affects. Knowing, for sure, is the first step towards healing. It is my sincere wish that these inquiries do just that and unmask the truth, so we can be free from the confusion of half-truths and innuendos and, even worse, excuse-making, once and for all. We need to move on, we need closure. That will only be possible when all the facts are in the public eye, however embarrassing they may be to their actors. Living in Japan I can see the strain of a society essentially at war with itself about it's past, at least partly because it has yet to come clean about it. I want my own society to be spared the pain of this and I hope, as a democracy, we have the tools to do this and recover that most treasured virtue- clarity of mind.
May God have mercy on us all,
Amen.
Starfire
This is from the 'Chilcot Panel, set up to investigate the legality of the Invasion of Iraq. As the article says...
"At one point, as he continued to question the advice of Foreign Office lawyers, Straw accused Wood of being "very dogmatic" by warning that an invasion would be unlawful, the inquiry heard. It was told that Downing Street was reluctant to hear arguments about whether an invasion would be legal. Wood described how he received what he called a "curious request" from Straw in October 2002 asking for his views on the consequences of acting without international legal authority in using force against Iraq. He responded by saying that it was "inconceivable that a government which has on numerous occasions made clear its intentions to comply with international law would order troops into a conflict without justification in international law". He also reminded Straw that under their official code of conduct, ministers had a duty to "comply with the law, including international law".
He said his warnings were sent to Downing Street. Worried officials there asked: "Why has this been put in writing?"
Straw will give evidence on the legality of the war in a second round of evidence from him on 8 February."
It seems to be turning out that the Iraq invasion, rather than being of 'dubious legality', as we have been told for so long, may actually be demonstrably illegal. The government lawyers consulted about it were actually, it seems unanimous on this point- that "without a specific UN resolution" it would be illegal. Now for many this is no news, but I hasten to add to them that their opinion is not only lacking in the legally binding power of a court, but also open to accusations of bias. The truth remains true (it is also my opinion, I might add, as it has consistently been throughout the whole affair), yet the legally enshrined powers will effect how much influence it has over decisions made.
What the inquiry is uncovering, which will probably not be the closed and toothless affair that the Labour Party wanted, is a consistent bullying from those higher up to rubber stamp an illegal invasion that wasn't just catastrophic- and I use the word advisedly, catastrophic, for the people in Iraq, but also for the reputation of the US and Britain in world affairs in general. The 'world's policemen' were seen to be bending the law in a way that suited them, even as it took place. Unprecedented demonstrations erupted as a result of this assumption of their own omnipotence. Now, tragically belatedly, but still welcome, courts are issuing verdicts that it was actually clearly illegal and as such people who lied about this will have to pay for their crimes. How far up the chain this will go is as yet unclear, though it should be remembered that Richard Nixon was impeached for far less severe offenses. Those with faith in the power of justice know that even if this particular enquiry falls short of the whole truth, others will pick up where they left off in due course. There is a word for what they got into that has stood the test of time... hubris.
Assuming it is established that it was an illegal war and that this is something they knew all along, the next question to answer- properly, not by the mob but by the jury- is why? Was it to increase the Western access to oil reserves, as is popularly believed, a classic neo-colonial war for resources much like Saddam's own invasion of Kuwait? Was it because they believed him to be a dangerous tyrant who's wings were not yet firmly clipped and that they would help the world by ridding it of him? Did they really believe that he might supply WMD's to terrorist groups to be used against Western cities (the most common reason given and one still being used for the controversial campaign or 'military adventure', depending on who you ask, in Afghanistan)? To my mind, the most plausible is the first answer- the invasion was clearly planned, both tactically and logistically well before the 'terrorist' attack of 9/11. The intention to take over the country, whether or not Saddam complied was established- if only by the moving of so many troops into position, at such great expense. It is almost inconceivable that they would be willing to go home 'empty handed'. It is also quite likely that the events of 9/11 were either permitted or even, (God forbid), staged so as to give some plausible reason for the whole invasion. Of course, all this is just my view, yet it seems to be increasingly widely accepted as more evidence emerges, most notably through inquiries such as these.
Yet it is also important to note just how badly Bush and Blair miscalculated. Their arguments failed to convince as many people or for that matter countries as they were hoping. Not only were tens of thousands of lives lost, but also their reputations. Resistance, both in the population and in the streets of Iraq was far fiercer than they anticipated and far less moderated. They succeeded in doing what many warned would happen- lionising Islamic Militancy and helping add fuel to it's fires throughout the Islamic world. They also weakened our on military deterrent by showing how our troops could be vulnerable to certain weaponry and how our strategies can be undermined by the power of the media itself to expose our hypocrisy. Rather than being lauded as heroes who understood the system enough to circumvent it, they are seen as tax avoiders who are yet to stand trial. This isn't just a 'liberal view'. It's one based around moral and legal facts, facts that are emerging ever more clearly into the limelight as I speak. I foresee a day when they really do stand trial, if for no other reason than the fact that whoever puts them on the stand will themselves be lauded as a hero and the media that supported them will have their own fresh story. Whether this is a good thing or not is another matter.
The main thing to remember is that they weren't just attacking Iraq. They were demonstrating an extreme contempt for the whole international order, including the democratic laws of their own countries. It is hard to say anything that hasn't yet been said. As a morality tale, it shows the bankruptcy of Machiavellian tactics, especially in a modern context in which information is freely available. The only hope they have is that they can demonstrate that they were sincerely pursuing 'good motives', so the judgment of history will be gentler than if it turns out to just be a search for personal profit.
Now for the most difficult question- one I have to admit I don't have a satisfactory answer for. What can we do about it all now? What would be a suitable way of finding 'closure', so that we can return to, or perhaps create in a purer way than ever before, a more honest and good government? Although many are baying for blood and crying 'war criminal' or 'traitor', I personally dislike the idea of punishments, which seem to me to be a crude way to deal with misdeeds- far better to teach by example and help others realise that lying is wrong than look for some dark satisfaction in vengeful suffering. Many say that they are responsible for immense suffering, yet I think it more the case that their miscalculations were responsible for said suffering. If it sounds like I am letting them off the hook, it's not the case. Their disregard for the law, their incompetence, is criminal. But I need to know that they really did have darker motives, darker than those publicly stated, before I can move down the path of wanting their punishment as such. We should be looking to establish ideals in government and remember important lessons learned. One is that international law is there to protect us all, if it slows the resolution of things down, than that is a necessary compromise and a path to goodness. Impatience itself demonstrates lack of compassion for those effected by it and is therefor a vice.
A civilised, nuanced approach is needed to these official investigations and thankfully, this seems to be the approach taken, even if it takes longer, it is so much more exhaustive. We should be wary of repeating the mistakes of the pair in seeking to resolve a problem faster than is possible to and thereby robbing ourselves of good results. Humiliating show trials (even if they were possible) could be a mistake, softer means need to be used to coax out the truth and hopefully- unlikely as it is- gain their repentance. I also am not sure if it is likely. Can the system really examine itself? I prefer a South African 'truth and reconciliation' approach, for being less divisive and serving the far more important goals of moving on.
If they had ruled as absolute dictators, it would be a different matter, we have to keep things in perspective if we are to make choices conductive to a better future. Justice needs to be tempered with compassion, for something good to come out of the whole, sordid affair. I am not alone in my view- it is being seen as one of the main weapons in the fight against Islamic militants, so why not use it with the neo-conservatives that paid and created them (a major problem of course is how to gauge when the repentance is genuine and when it is just 'buying time')? Maybe a compulsory spell in 'megalomaniacs anonymous', followed by international community service requiring them to go around lecturing on the importance of telling the truth and respecting human dignity. In a sense, they have already started to pay. Tony Blair lost his chance to be the President of the EU, which he would otherwise be a natural candidate for, and whilst he still gets paid millions to speak, George Bush Jr. more likely has to pay people to listen to him.
Now all these calls for moderation are what I think is best, but it has already been taking many years, with the whole world being forced to endure the most diabolical lies, just so this incompetent pair can mire us in ever-deepening quagmires of their own making. It is becoming hard for good, decent politicians such as Barak Obama to rule effectively, such is the confusion created as to right and wrong, left and right. The toxic mix of lies and military adventures have actually come close to wrecking our countries' economies, not just our reputations. Hundreds of thousands have died, millions have had their lives disrupted and even destroyed, all for 'freedom'? Really?
The only way to overcome this confusion of priorities is to put the culprits on trial- real, civilised trials, for jeopardising the greater good to their own agendas. Only then can we know for sure whether they really believed (falsely) that they were helping and then can repent for such costly, malpractice-like mistakes. Or, if as many suspect, pure greed for profit was the cause, the military-industrial complex up to it's old, dirty tricks, well then, if we can't get whichever dark actors are secretly responsible for the orders being followed, then at least we can criminalise those who go along with it and show that really, they would have been better off listening to the legal advice available to them in the first place. If such is the case, they can't claim now that they were never warned, nor can they escape censure for their attempts to 'shoot the messenger' for the news they brought.
Now for my temporary closure on this article, which turned out to be much longer than I envisioned and was not exactly easy to write. Let's remember that everything in this life is an opportunity for a learning experience. Whether it is politics, love, history, past-times, anything. Hence criticism, made in a spirit of love, is necessary, or else we can never move on. Mistakes can lead to evil- in fact they always lead to evil results, yet often their authors simply didn't foresee that, even if they should have. Intentional wrongdoing for personal gain, however, is closer to the definition of sin. Such actions are in their very nature unforgivable and the only way out of their karmic chains is repentance. The Iraq war and it's continuing counterpart, the invasion of Afghanistan, are certainly at the very least the former. In any case in which the latter is playing apart, it is absolutely imperative that we know, so that amends can be made, compensation paid, repentance started. Imperative, as we all live in a legal, faithful universe and however darkly buried, such thing simply must come to light if we are to be freed from the peril of their bad affects. Knowing, for sure, is the first step towards healing. It is my sincere wish that these inquiries do just that and unmask the truth, so we can be free from the confusion of half-truths and innuendos and, even worse, excuse-making, once and for all. We need to move on, we need closure. That will only be possible when all the facts are in the public eye, however embarrassing they may be to their actors. Living in Japan I can see the strain of a society essentially at war with itself about it's past, at least partly because it has yet to come clean about it. I want my own society to be spared the pain of this and I hope, as a democracy, we have the tools to do this and recover that most treasured virtue- clarity of mind.
May God have mercy on us all,
Amen.
Starfire
Friday, January 15, 2010
Google Evolves
The politics around Google are interesting. They seem to be starting along an assertive path after for so many years being in the background. Hi-profile news about their willingness to defy the Chinese government is perhaps a part of a wider strategy to somehow 'make a difference', perhaps in different ways to the generally private philanthropy of Bill Gates, or the Messianic leanings of Steve Jobs. It seems that they feel they are so big and vitally important now, they are sick of being pushed around.
Their low profile has ensured people have very little emotional reaction to them Yet, I for one find their blatant disregard for Motorola, who have just launched the Droid, disturbing. Suddenly releasing a 'better phone' in the shape of the Nexus One could infuriate new buyers. People buy a phone for years and only upgrade to new generations. Blurring the lines and cheapening people's investments seems to me to be a bad way to go about doing business. Almost like a stance saying, 'we're not doing business. you're not customers- this is progress for it's own sake'. Yet it also has to be said that they have such deep pockets that they could well make a better deal for new technologies as a way to expand their reach, as Sony did with the PS3, than by letting others do the development. If you want something done right, do it yourself- yet it is the timing that bothers me here.
Torture in the US Media
Ever since I saw '24', I've seen a rash of TV shows from the US portraying graphic torture scenes with hardly any moral examination. The torturer is often portrayed as a dutiful man doing what needs to be done, and I am expected to draw some vicarious enjoyment, mixed with my natural horror for what is going on.
Torture has to be rejected, as not only does it breach basic human rights, including those protecting against 'cruel and unusual punishments', but is also counter-productive. Information gained could well be wrong (something the TV shows shy away from) and the tortured is sure to be an implacable enemy, in the political field if not becoming a terrorist/torturer himself.
To be fair to the shows, my window into the American psyche, they generally have an awareness that it is wrong. But by consistently portraying it as effective, they are essentially attempting to legitimise it. Morally speaking, how is that essentially different from TV programs in the Islamic world, trying to justify suicide bombers by calling them martyrs?
If it's said that the torturers are trying to save lives, well then the counterproductive potential of it should be noted. No doubt it's use can be related to the growth of 'insurgencies' being faced, but this recieves little press. Let us remember that the so-called 'protectors' in the CIA et all, helped and armed the followers of a younger Bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein- forces that the regular US forces later confronted. Their excuse of a near-incompetent 'not knowing what would happen' have to be taken with a grain of salt, or two. They are professionals, right, why else would they dabble in such 'dark magic'. Apparently, evidence is even emerging that they funded the early Viet Cong- all of which makes me wonder. Could the dependence of the military-industrial complex for 'hot wars' to try out new tactics and machinery play some part in this? No-one with any sense would confront the vast armies of the US.
Even a child can see that evil means lead to similar ends. The law of karma won't be abrogated just for 'special countries' like the US. It may not effect them directly, but it will certainly affect those they are trying to protect. So it is quite sad that the freedom-loving US is trying to see if the means of tyrants can prove effective. They will have to find other ways to deal with implacable opponents.
Torture has to be rejected, as not only does it breach basic human rights, including those protecting against 'cruel and unusual punishments', but is also counter-productive. Information gained could well be wrong (something the TV shows shy away from) and the tortured is sure to be an implacable enemy, in the political field if not becoming a terrorist/torturer himself.
To be fair to the shows, my window into the American psyche, they generally have an awareness that it is wrong. But by consistently portraying it as effective, they are essentially attempting to legitimise it. Morally speaking, how is that essentially different from TV programs in the Islamic world, trying to justify suicide bombers by calling them martyrs?
If it's said that the torturers are trying to save lives, well then the counterproductive potential of it should be noted. No doubt it's use can be related to the growth of 'insurgencies' being faced, but this recieves little press. Let us remember that the so-called 'protectors' in the CIA et all, helped and armed the followers of a younger Bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein- forces that the regular US forces later confronted. Their excuse of a near-incompetent 'not knowing what would happen' have to be taken with a grain of salt, or two. They are professionals, right, why else would they dabble in such 'dark magic'. Apparently, evidence is even emerging that they funded the early Viet Cong- all of which makes me wonder. Could the dependence of the military-industrial complex for 'hot wars' to try out new tactics and machinery play some part in this? No-one with any sense would confront the vast armies of the US.
Even a child can see that evil means lead to similar ends. The law of karma won't be abrogated just for 'special countries' like the US. It may not effect them directly, but it will certainly affect those they are trying to protect. So it is quite sad that the freedom-loving US is trying to see if the means of tyrants can prove effective. They will have to find other ways to deal with implacable opponents.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Comment On- Lost boys of Utah
Faith Central - Times Online - WBLG: Lost boys of Utah
I read the article. That really is appalling, even more so that the sect has so far gotten away with it, shirking their responsibilities towards the children in their care. To my mind, the whole practice of threatening 'banishment to hell' for disobeying a religious leader's commands opens up Pandora's box so far as abuse of power is concerned.
It also reminds me a little of the film 'The Beach'. Assuming people join the sect because they feel it will give them a sense of family and community that they can't find in the wider society. Perhaps, if they are Mormons, they also think the (presumably charismatic) prophet there speaks for God.
But in such a situation, what happens to the people who don't fit in, who choose to accept things from outside, or who just violate one rule or another that no longer means anything to them? It seems that they get 'banished' to a wider society that they have been told is terrifyingly immoral- with the irony being that this society is left with the bill of looking after such people and cleaning up the mess.
Something is very fishy about a 'prophet' who takes all the attractive women for himself or his closest followers and then finds himself with an 'excess' of males.
Religious freedom being so sacrosanct, the state but be loath to intervene. It sounds like, laws of the land having been broken. they have decided to do just that, so hopefully in time things will get better for these boys...
I read the article. That really is appalling, even more so that the sect has so far gotten away with it, shirking their responsibilities towards the children in their care. To my mind, the whole practice of threatening 'banishment to hell' for disobeying a religious leader's commands opens up Pandora's box so far as abuse of power is concerned.
It also reminds me a little of the film 'The Beach'. Assuming people join the sect because they feel it will give them a sense of family and community that they can't find in the wider society. Perhaps, if they are Mormons, they also think the (presumably charismatic) prophet there speaks for God.
But in such a situation, what happens to the people who don't fit in, who choose to accept things from outside, or who just violate one rule or another that no longer means anything to them? It seems that they get 'banished' to a wider society that they have been told is terrifyingly immoral- with the irony being that this society is left with the bill of looking after such people and cleaning up the mess.
Something is very fishy about a 'prophet' who takes all the attractive women for himself or his closest followers and then finds himself with an 'excess' of males.
Religious freedom being so sacrosanct, the state but be loath to intervene. It sounds like, laws of the land having been broken. they have decided to do just that, so hopefully in time things will get better for these boys...
Comment On- Sex and marriage - things you didn't know about Sharia
Faith Central - Times Online - WBLG: Sex and marriage - things you didn't know about Sharia
Reading these comments, I am struck by the common denominator, which goes beyond cultures. This is in the fact that all the people speaking are doing so in attempts to improve the human rights situation. The cases where people are abused or neglected, especially women, the 'fairer sex' are seen as the most exploitative.
Each legal system, in terms of their fair-minded proponents, evolved to do just that. The relative ease of divorce in the West is seen as a guarantee of women's safety, a kind of 'right to veto' the marriage. Yet, there is still abuse of women, when men feel insecure or threatened. In the Islamic model, divorce is harder, but there is pressure to provide for multiple wives and treat them equally. Whether this is really possible or not is hard to know, but it seems to be a solution to the same problem- in which the ideal of monogamy is hard to fully live up to.
In each culture, there is the idea that a man who plays around is 'a stud' and a woman who does so is 'a slut'. This is pretty widespread as a notion- in a post-feminist world, this needs to be questioned and it seems to be based around biological assumptions of the male as more the 'hunter', which may or may not be true.
The answer to this is, variously, multiple marriage or serial monogamy. Man is unable to be faithful to the monogamous ideals. We face the great gap between reality and ideals- surely this is an essential part of the human condition.
To simply import the legal system that has evolved under the name of 'sharia' would be horrendous. Partly because in the areas of personal freedom, freedom of religion, freedom for women, it is light-years behind the western ideals. but in the areas of family relationships, respect for the bonds of mothers and their children, I suggest that, whilst importing may be a bad idea, there are lessons to be learnt.
Why do I say this? Because at this juncture in time the Western countries really do have terrible social problems- problems with broken families, delinquent youths, street gangs, drugs, abusive employers, poverty, crime. how can anyone in good conscious deny these failings, or the moral decline that has lead to them. People are losing their sense of community responsibility and caring for one another. The deification of profit (mammon) that capitalism teaches has been allowed to spread from the free-market into areas where it no longer belongs.
Whilst I am firmly against the specter of introducing Sharia laws because of their human rights failings, I am very much in favour of the West learning from Asia's close family structures and the sense of community to be found there, whilst the Eastern countries learn Western technology and of the respect for individual rights.
We need to learn from one another and try and make a peaceful place, whilst also guarding the evolution of the UK's own 'common law' for all. Attitudes should be the focus, as should education. This, to my mind, is the progressive path.
Reading these comments, I am struck by the common denominator, which goes beyond cultures. This is in the fact that all the people speaking are doing so in attempts to improve the human rights situation. The cases where people are abused or neglected, especially women, the 'fairer sex' are seen as the most exploitative.
Each legal system, in terms of their fair-minded proponents, evolved to do just that. The relative ease of divorce in the West is seen as a guarantee of women's safety, a kind of 'right to veto' the marriage. Yet, there is still abuse of women, when men feel insecure or threatened. In the Islamic model, divorce is harder, but there is pressure to provide for multiple wives and treat them equally. Whether this is really possible or not is hard to know, but it seems to be a solution to the same problem- in which the ideal of monogamy is hard to fully live up to.
In each culture, there is the idea that a man who plays around is 'a stud' and a woman who does so is 'a slut'. This is pretty widespread as a notion- in a post-feminist world, this needs to be questioned and it seems to be based around biological assumptions of the male as more the 'hunter', which may or may not be true.
The answer to this is, variously, multiple marriage or serial monogamy. Man is unable to be faithful to the monogamous ideals. We face the great gap between reality and ideals- surely this is an essential part of the human condition.
To simply import the legal system that has evolved under the name of 'sharia' would be horrendous. Partly because in the areas of personal freedom, freedom of religion, freedom for women, it is light-years behind the western ideals. but in the areas of family relationships, respect for the bonds of mothers and their children, I suggest that, whilst importing may be a bad idea, there are lessons to be learnt.
Why do I say this? Because at this juncture in time the Western countries really do have terrible social problems- problems with broken families, delinquent youths, street gangs, drugs, abusive employers, poverty, crime. how can anyone in good conscious deny these failings, or the moral decline that has lead to them. People are losing their sense of community responsibility and caring for one another. The deification of profit (mammon) that capitalism teaches has been allowed to spread from the free-market into areas where it no longer belongs.
Whilst I am firmly against the specter of introducing Sharia laws because of their human rights failings, I am very much in favour of the West learning from Asia's close family structures and the sense of community to be found there, whilst the Eastern countries learn Western technology and of the respect for individual rights.
We need to learn from one another and try and make a peaceful place, whilst also guarding the evolution of the UK's own 'common law' for all. Attitudes should be the focus, as should education. This, to my mind, is the progressive path.
Comment On- Sharia in Britain? We think not..
Faith Central - Times Online - WBLG: Sharia in Britain? We think not..
(The Archbishop of Canterbury recently called for some accommodation of Sharia law in Britain in an ill-advised lecture, which caused an uproar of condemnation. Trying to make sense of his presumably good intentions, this was my commentary on a Times Blog)
I'm pretty sure the archbishop just mainly referring to efforts to accommodate civil things like marriage customs, that the Muslim/Asian population will follow anyway and to help them do so legally. Civil courts to arrange such matters so that the minority can feel safe and that their personal preferences are legalised could, in such personal matters, be a good and progressive thing.
Yet this is a far cry from trying to be an apologist for even a small-scale implementation of 'Sharia Law'. The problem is that the 'Sharia' is not something to be trifled with, as overwhelming evidence from the Islamic world shows. Even allowing the traditional marriage styles opens up the problem of inbreeding causing birth defects, unreasonable welfare requirements for multiple wives and so on. Yet there needs to be some kind of accommodation in a multicultural world and the messenger who reminded us of this should not be shot, but rather thanked. In fact, he is really just explaining a process that will happen regardless of what anyone says.
On the one hand I am glad that so many people know how dangerous the notions of 'Sharia' law actually are and how antithetical they are to Jesus' teachings of forgiveness and love. I hope this never takes root in our free country as it clearly leads to unimaginable suffering. Yet I am saddened that his thoughtful attempts at commentary, even if seen as misguided, can be attacked so viscously. Perhaps the instinct to protect ourselves and the children in those communities from such dangers was awoken. He should make clear the civil and limited nature of his proposals and that they are for reasons of multicultural harmony. He should criticise the breaches of human rights in 'Islamic countries' and show his credentials as a supporter of human rights. Otherwise, he should probably resign.
However- this will not change anything, as ideas are more powerful than positions. It is quite possible that his deeper intention is to make sure that people can follow civil laws in a slightly exceptionalistic way, so as to be true to their religious beliefs, as some other posters have indicated. Now, this may be unpopular with the majority, especially if they feel that their values are accurately reflected by our secular society.
But democracy is all about protecting the rights of minorities, each person being in a sense a minority inasmuch as they are an individual. So there needs to be some conscientious opt-outs to be negotiated. Yet they need to be very limited in nature and not at all infringe on the rights of the majority, or of the innocent inside such communities.
(The Archbishop of Canterbury recently called for some accommodation of Sharia law in Britain in an ill-advised lecture, which caused an uproar of condemnation. Trying to make sense of his presumably good intentions, this was my commentary on a Times Blog)
I'm pretty sure the archbishop just mainly referring to efforts to accommodate civil things like marriage customs, that the Muslim/Asian population will follow anyway and to help them do so legally. Civil courts to arrange such matters so that the minority can feel safe and that their personal preferences are legalised could, in such personal matters, be a good and progressive thing.
Yet this is a far cry from trying to be an apologist for even a small-scale implementation of 'Sharia Law'. The problem is that the 'Sharia' is not something to be trifled with, as overwhelming evidence from the Islamic world shows. Even allowing the traditional marriage styles opens up the problem of inbreeding causing birth defects, unreasonable welfare requirements for multiple wives and so on. Yet there needs to be some kind of accommodation in a multicultural world and the messenger who reminded us of this should not be shot, but rather thanked. In fact, he is really just explaining a process that will happen regardless of what anyone says.
On the one hand I am glad that so many people know how dangerous the notions of 'Sharia' law actually are and how antithetical they are to Jesus' teachings of forgiveness and love. I hope this never takes root in our free country as it clearly leads to unimaginable suffering. Yet I am saddened that his thoughtful attempts at commentary, even if seen as misguided, can be attacked so viscously. Perhaps the instinct to protect ourselves and the children in those communities from such dangers was awoken. He should make clear the civil and limited nature of his proposals and that they are for reasons of multicultural harmony. He should criticise the breaches of human rights in 'Islamic countries' and show his credentials as a supporter of human rights. Otherwise, he should probably resign.
However- this will not change anything, as ideas are more powerful than positions. It is quite possible that his deeper intention is to make sure that people can follow civil laws in a slightly exceptionalistic way, so as to be true to their religious beliefs, as some other posters have indicated. Now, this may be unpopular with the majority, especially if they feel that their values are accurately reflected by our secular society.
But democracy is all about protecting the rights of minorities, each person being in a sense a minority inasmuch as they are an individual. So there needs to be some conscientious opt-outs to be negotiated. Yet they need to be very limited in nature and not at all infringe on the rights of the majority, or of the innocent inside such communities.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Towards Peace in the Middle East
Starfire Thinks having been established, here we can return to what seems to be the most important issues at hand. Reaching a state of peace and understanding in this life, and helping that to be reached on in the planet we live on. This is the mission, this is worth talking about.
The nexus of world conflict is that in the so-called Holy Lands of the Middle-East, the approximate location of the ancient Mesopotamian civilisations and around the original land of 'Eden'. Despite repeated attempts to bring peace through holy messengers there, we are even now in a position in which their messages are being used for separation and conflict- there is little honesty as to the fact that we are as our hearts are and the veil of religion is no excuse for hypocrisy.
The answer is quite clear- crafty politics, emotional manipulations aside, what is needed is a real, loving acceptance of one another, an embracing of common humanity and also of differences inherent in being human. Central to this is the Arab-Israeli/ Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a microcosm of the sea of misunderstanding between the West and the 'Near-East'. The little states there have to move on from their nationalistic aims and think of working together, or they will forever be a figure of fun to the rest of the world, that watches them in a shocked, horrified but nevertheless fascinated way as embodying the very worst example of a region unable to adjust to today's multicultural world.
That region is generally seen as a home to religious hypocrisy and negative emotion. I will go further and say that the people are simply lying not only to one another, but actually to themselves. They are holding back their natural, loving feelings because they think it 'unmanly', in their patriarchal system, in which honour, revenge and the law of survival looms so high. To change from this backwards and terrible misconception is not something that can be done unilaterally. It is not even something that this important region can do alone. It necessitates a wide reassessment and evolution of the masculine-centered world-view that pits the strong against the weak, with no mind for the consequences.
We need to all do this in our own lives. the evolution of the whole race begins in it's members. We have to put aside our addiction to bullying and revenge and speak out against it. We need to push for the acceptance of many different types of persons, all along the lines of 'if they hurt no-one by doing something, let them be free to live their lives as they choose'. However, those that are causing pain or hurt, whether by negligence or intent need to change their ways.
Whoever you are and wherever you are, you need to help balance the world by bringing back a feminine understanding of the need to accept others, along with a masculine urge to build and progress. We are not calling for some kind of soppy, purely feeling-based way of being- we all have a responsibility to better ourselves and those around us. What we are speaking for is a feeling-based way of doing this, a warm and caring way, one which is consistent with our true natures.
As the Dao De Ching teaches, virtue comes when we stop talking about morals. We need to do, to be, not just to talk- for just talking is the way of hypocrisy. As Jesus taught, the spirit behind the law is what matters and not just it's letter. As I say here, being true to our feelings means reaching beyond the influences that try to make us negative-feeling, which is actually an inversion of feeling and a lack of it.
Feeling is life and life feeling. Riches, victories, are a feeling of mutual gain, or shared happiness. This is a dream we all share and we need to set aside whatever is in us that blocks it's fruition.
To these goals and to the aim of the Middle-East embodying them as the spiritual teachers sent there have ever hoped, we must work tirelessly, with endless joy. To this we must commit, as does the work of The Foundation, a fountain-spring of unchanging truth, an umbrella to the needy now as ever before.
Amen.
The nexus of world conflict is that in the so-called Holy Lands of the Middle-East, the approximate location of the ancient Mesopotamian civilisations and around the original land of 'Eden'. Despite repeated attempts to bring peace through holy messengers there, we are even now in a position in which their messages are being used for separation and conflict- there is little honesty as to the fact that we are as our hearts are and the veil of religion is no excuse for hypocrisy.
The answer is quite clear- crafty politics, emotional manipulations aside, what is needed is a real, loving acceptance of one another, an embracing of common humanity and also of differences inherent in being human. Central to this is the Arab-Israeli/ Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a microcosm of the sea of misunderstanding between the West and the 'Near-East'. The little states there have to move on from their nationalistic aims and think of working together, or they will forever be a figure of fun to the rest of the world, that watches them in a shocked, horrified but nevertheless fascinated way as embodying the very worst example of a region unable to adjust to today's multicultural world.
That region is generally seen as a home to religious hypocrisy and negative emotion. I will go further and say that the people are simply lying not only to one another, but actually to themselves. They are holding back their natural, loving feelings because they think it 'unmanly', in their patriarchal system, in which honour, revenge and the law of survival looms so high. To change from this backwards and terrible misconception is not something that can be done unilaterally. It is not even something that this important region can do alone. It necessitates a wide reassessment and evolution of the masculine-centered world-view that pits the strong against the weak, with no mind for the consequences.
We need to all do this in our own lives. the evolution of the whole race begins in it's members. We have to put aside our addiction to bullying and revenge and speak out against it. We need to push for the acceptance of many different types of persons, all along the lines of 'if they hurt no-one by doing something, let them be free to live their lives as they choose'. However, those that are causing pain or hurt, whether by negligence or intent need to change their ways.
Whoever you are and wherever you are, you need to help balance the world by bringing back a feminine understanding of the need to accept others, along with a masculine urge to build and progress. We are not calling for some kind of soppy, purely feeling-based way of being- we all have a responsibility to better ourselves and those around us. What we are speaking for is a feeling-based way of doing this, a warm and caring way, one which is consistent with our true natures.
As the Dao De Ching teaches, virtue comes when we stop talking about morals. We need to do, to be, not just to talk- for just talking is the way of hypocrisy. As Jesus taught, the spirit behind the law is what matters and not just it's letter. As I say here, being true to our feelings means reaching beyond the influences that try to make us negative-feeling, which is actually an inversion of feeling and a lack of it.
Feeling is life and life feeling. Riches, victories, are a feeling of mutual gain, or shared happiness. This is a dream we all share and we need to set aside whatever is in us that blocks it's fruition.
To these goals and to the aim of the Middle-East embodying them as the spiritual teachers sent there have ever hoped, we must work tirelessly, with endless joy. To this we must commit, as does the work of The Foundation, a fountain-spring of unchanging truth, an umbrella to the needy now as ever before.
Amen.
Monday, August 20, 2007
The Horror of the Middle East
It seems that there is one region of the world, or at least one region of the world exposed by our media, in which horrors never seem to cease. People will blame politicians, history, geographic boundaries and these are indeed all factors to be considered. Yet in this blog one of the primary aims is get right, deep down at the very core reasons as to why man treats man so inhumanely there. I intend to use all my intelligence (what there is of it) and aptitude for discerning truth to discover this. For we need something more than blame and rumours- we need truth. Peace- lasting peace- requires truth. So it must be the absence of truth that is making this region bleed tears of sorrow.
Now for some, the reason for the problems there can be explained quite simply- the very existence of Israel, a foreign implant in the Arab territorial sphere, that pushed aside native people in order to establish herself. Yet, considering that so little of the killing going on there is actually done by Israel, this claim necessitates wild conspiracy theories of terrorism solely being the work of Zionist agent-provocateurs. This is a real possibility- but at the same time an outrageous one and not much different from the historical penchant for 'blaming the Jews' whenever something goes wrong. The plain fact is that not only does Israel have a large Arab population- far larger than any Jewish population in any Arab country at present, but that they are too busy trying to survive and have a normal country to be responsible for absolutely everything that goes wrong there. Much less the atrocities being committed by 'militants' in the region. Something deeper is going on.
We have to see what is going on in the hearts of the people to see how they can act this way. There are an array of terrible emotions- fear, hatred, feeling of betrayal, false hopes in the success of violence. Yet, all of this is taking place in the 'Holy Lands', if one believes in such a thing. The cradle of the three 'great' monotheistic religions. Who could spoil all this work to make a paradisaical Earth for us all?
The answer, simply, is Satan. He, ultimately, is responsible for putting the evil thoughts in mens minds to do atrocious things. He is quite clearly corrupting the minds of the people there whose fear lets him in, so as to block as well as he can the dreams they have of a better life there. Of course, this all has a childish simplicity to it. But, it is the most basic truth of them all and the reason so much anger and confusion arises around this topic.
You can blame Israel or America. You can blame Britain's colonial legacy. You can blame the extremists and opportunists in Iran or Syria, or the displaced Palestinian refugees that have been treated so coldly by Arab and Jew alike. But it will do no good, it will only add fuel to the fire and another partisan voice to the cacophony.
Satan wants to wreck God's plans. Right there, in the middle of the Earth, the middle that we still instinctively place this way on our maps, was not just the cradle of the great religions, but also the cradle of civilisation. The first humans evolved there and were bred with by the 'gods'- advanced, angelic extra-terrestrials, who infused them with advanced DNA and taught them the basics of civilised life.
A little remains- the aforesaid religions, the Bible, things like the Pyramids and Karnak temple complex in Egypt. But this was once the area of Eden, the Arcadian beginning of it all. Part of a a kingdom that Satan would rather corrupt than serve under. So corrupt it he and his kingdom does- and no people would he more dearly love to turn from their maker than the Jews, the people who the living God chose to show and spread his messages. How could he bear to let them live in peace and prosperity so that God's plans be fulfilled?
Yet, at every turn, there is the constant stream of love, the stream of the spirit, around us. always, everywhere and every time. If we listen to it's voice, we too can be saved. The reason Jesus came, right back to this region, was to show quite clearly the appropriate way to live and know God. This isn't to say that Christians are necessarily closer to these teachings than other people- they could just be hypocrites or culturally respectful of them, but, as the Western nations, they are custodians of the way forward, whether they know it or not. This also isn't to detract from secular efforts- religion, especially wrong-headed religion can do the worst damage of all and to live Jesus' teachings is not to be religious in the conventional sense of that term- hence his constant refutation of the legalistic Pharasies who put the law and their traditions before love.
We have the way forward, we have the holy spirit- yet we also have a region of the world where not only are Christ's teachings as recorded in the gospels actually illegal to distribute in many countries- a sad fact and one no apologetics will do away with- but they are quite simply not being followed. The fact that certain aggressive westerners have given a bad image of these teachings here and elsewhere doesn't help- but the people deserve the chance to see them for themselves. In fact, ironic though it may be, the last place for these teachings to spread and be commonplace is the area from which they arose.
Hence we have the continual terrible events of the middle-East, a sandstorm of chaos hiding God's promises from view. But one day it will clear. One day the promises will come true. Which is why the peace of the middle-east, the mutual survival of her peoples and the preservation of their multicultural heritage is something worth fighting for. Something that will always be worth fighting for, at least until it fully arrives and the peacemakers' blessed mission is complete.
Now for some, the reason for the problems there can be explained quite simply- the very existence of Israel, a foreign implant in the Arab territorial sphere, that pushed aside native people in order to establish herself. Yet, considering that so little of the killing going on there is actually done by Israel, this claim necessitates wild conspiracy theories of terrorism solely being the work of Zionist agent-provocateurs. This is a real possibility- but at the same time an outrageous one and not much different from the historical penchant for 'blaming the Jews' whenever something goes wrong. The plain fact is that not only does Israel have a large Arab population- far larger than any Jewish population in any Arab country at present, but that they are too busy trying to survive and have a normal country to be responsible for absolutely everything that goes wrong there. Much less the atrocities being committed by 'militants' in the region. Something deeper is going on.
We have to see what is going on in the hearts of the people to see how they can act this way. There are an array of terrible emotions- fear, hatred, feeling of betrayal, false hopes in the success of violence. Yet, all of this is taking place in the 'Holy Lands', if one believes in such a thing. The cradle of the three 'great' monotheistic religions. Who could spoil all this work to make a paradisaical Earth for us all?
The answer, simply, is Satan. He, ultimately, is responsible for putting the evil thoughts in mens minds to do atrocious things. He is quite clearly corrupting the minds of the people there whose fear lets him in, so as to block as well as he can the dreams they have of a better life there. Of course, this all has a childish simplicity to it. But, it is the most basic truth of them all and the reason so much anger and confusion arises around this topic.
You can blame Israel or America. You can blame Britain's colonial legacy. You can blame the extremists and opportunists in Iran or Syria, or the displaced Palestinian refugees that have been treated so coldly by Arab and Jew alike. But it will do no good, it will only add fuel to the fire and another partisan voice to the cacophony.
Satan wants to wreck God's plans. Right there, in the middle of the Earth, the middle that we still instinctively place this way on our maps, was not just the cradle of the great religions, but also the cradle of civilisation. The first humans evolved there and were bred with by the 'gods'- advanced, angelic extra-terrestrials, who infused them with advanced DNA and taught them the basics of civilised life.
A little remains- the aforesaid religions, the Bible, things like the Pyramids and Karnak temple complex in Egypt. But this was once the area of Eden, the Arcadian beginning of it all. Part of a a kingdom that Satan would rather corrupt than serve under. So corrupt it he and his kingdom does- and no people would he more dearly love to turn from their maker than the Jews, the people who the living God chose to show and spread his messages. How could he bear to let them live in peace and prosperity so that God's plans be fulfilled?
Yet, at every turn, there is the constant stream of love, the stream of the spirit, around us. always, everywhere and every time. If we listen to it's voice, we too can be saved. The reason Jesus came, right back to this region, was to show quite clearly the appropriate way to live and know God. This isn't to say that Christians are necessarily closer to these teachings than other people- they could just be hypocrites or culturally respectful of them, but, as the Western nations, they are custodians of the way forward, whether they know it or not. This also isn't to detract from secular efforts- religion, especially wrong-headed religion can do the worst damage of all and to live Jesus' teachings is not to be religious in the conventional sense of that term- hence his constant refutation of the legalistic Pharasies who put the law and their traditions before love.
We have the way forward, we have the holy spirit- yet we also have a region of the world where not only are Christ's teachings as recorded in the gospels actually illegal to distribute in many countries- a sad fact and one no apologetics will do away with- but they are quite simply not being followed. The fact that certain aggressive westerners have given a bad image of these teachings here and elsewhere doesn't help- but the people deserve the chance to see them for themselves. In fact, ironic though it may be, the last place for these teachings to spread and be commonplace is the area from which they arose.
Hence we have the continual terrible events of the middle-East, a sandstorm of chaos hiding God's promises from view. But one day it will clear. One day the promises will come true. Which is why the peace of the middle-east, the mutual survival of her peoples and the preservation of their multicultural heritage is something worth fighting for. Something that will always be worth fighting for, at least until it fully arrives and the peacemakers' blessed mission is complete.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Comment- A Reply to Ratbert's Comment
Thank you for getting back to my comment on your blog. I partly wrote on yours because the monologues we construct can easily become esoteric if we are not careful. I do however realise the context in which you are writing and the intended audience.
As Derrida says, the ancient Greeks referred to writing as a gift with mixed implications, a ‘Pharmakon’- something somewhere between a medicine and a poison- something like a ‘drug’. We seem to need it to communicate over the distances we have built between one another, over time and space, yet I fear it induces as much misunderstanding as understanding in the way we tend to use it, whether it be on the side of writing or reading. Like Socrates advised, it always needs to be balanced with the living appreciation of truth, with philosophy, with ultimate values.
Fortunately, your writing has enough a mix of creativity and articulation for the meaning to be clear to any fair-minded reader, even those who may not agree with the conclusions reached there. It brings clarity, not confusion. But we need to be careful, lest we mistakenly communicate something less than our highest intentions and become no more than just another opinion writer. I think we need to always remember our ultimate values, to balance our views with reference to them.
Right now, through the Internet, we have an incredible opportunity for people to share their views like never before; but like any technology, it all depends upon how we use it. Seeing our recent surge in technology being utilised as much for war as for medicine makes me realise that this world will be defined by what is written in our hearts, where the essential progress lies. Our cleverness must be ruled by our compassion.
As Derrida says, the ancient Greeks referred to writing as a gift with mixed implications, a ‘Pharmakon’- something somewhere between a medicine and a poison- something like a ‘drug’. We seem to need it to communicate over the distances we have built between one another, over time and space, yet I fear it induces as much misunderstanding as understanding in the way we tend to use it, whether it be on the side of writing or reading. Like Socrates advised, it always needs to be balanced with the living appreciation of truth, with philosophy, with ultimate values.
Fortunately, your writing has enough a mix of creativity and articulation for the meaning to be clear to any fair-minded reader, even those who may not agree with the conclusions reached there. It brings clarity, not confusion. But we need to be careful, lest we mistakenly communicate something less than our highest intentions and become no more than just another opinion writer. I think we need to always remember our ultimate values, to balance our views with reference to them.
Right now, through the Internet, we have an incredible opportunity for people to share their views like never before; but like any technology, it all depends upon how we use it. Seeing our recent surge in technology being utilised as much for war as for medicine makes me realise that this world will be defined by what is written in our hearts, where the essential progress lies. Our cleverness must be ruled by our compassion.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Comment- Feeling Alive
(This is in response to a piece about having a wonderful spring day in Valdez, but hearing the same old songs on the radio)
Here we have a conundrum- how do we keep feeling alive in a world that we have populated with so much sameness? On the one hand, each new day the bright sun unveils new wonders for us, the weather is so-slightly like never before- the snow, or rain, or clear skies beckon us to a new sense of wonder.
Yet the human society is in its usual patterns. The same songs being played, we are almost being asked, 'be small, be temporary, fit into the system- who do you think you are, supposing something new and incredible is happening today? It's the same old stuff and here is the same old song, just to prove it!'
The irony is that like any art, that song was a work of revolution, of evolution, bursting free from the mundane, with all is deadness-of-heart. Yet put in a picture frame, played endlessly on a radio, it gets subsumed into 'the establishment', the ordinary, the mundane, making us feel lifeless again.
We are truly lost if we allow ourselves to be subsumed into society. Society is there to protect us, not us it. It has no rights, no legitimate opinions. We need a life lived beyond the media, a life filled with the mysterious wonder of each new day. Such is the real life. Such is the life the artists beckon us to, time after time, eon after eon.
Life only has a meaning, if we feel alive.
Here we have a conundrum- how do we keep feeling alive in a world that we have populated with so much sameness? On the one hand, each new day the bright sun unveils new wonders for us, the weather is so-slightly like never before- the snow, or rain, or clear skies beckon us to a new sense of wonder.
Yet the human society is in its usual patterns. The same songs being played, we are almost being asked, 'be small, be temporary, fit into the system- who do you think you are, supposing something new and incredible is happening today? It's the same old stuff and here is the same old song, just to prove it!'
The irony is that like any art, that song was a work of revolution, of evolution, bursting free from the mundane, with all is deadness-of-heart. Yet put in a picture frame, played endlessly on a radio, it gets subsumed into 'the establishment', the ordinary, the mundane, making us feel lifeless again.
We are truly lost if we allow ourselves to be subsumed into society. Society is there to protect us, not us it. It has no rights, no legitimate opinions. We need a life lived beyond the media, a life filled with the mysterious wonder of each new day. Such is the real life. Such is the life the artists beckon us to, time after time, eon after eon.
Life only has a meaning, if we feel alive.
Comment- Finding Peace in the Middle East
Note- this is a comment I left on A Sofa in the Sky, here-
As usual, I am impressed by the articulation of your writing, something rare to be found in this age of 'sound-bites' and entertainment passing for information. Even though I am not totally in agreement with what you are saying, at least I can see what you are saying without feeling I'm being 'lead somewhere' by it.
What you say regarding red herrings has some truth- in these political battles, even though I personally am morally opposed to the use of violence, the presence of violence shouldn't blind us to underlying facts, by it's shock factor. Of course violence is shocking- but it has been around as long as people. The question is whether the situation justifies it or not, whether it is morally defensible violence, or simply indefensible.
I'll admit, even though I can see that it has grown though factors such as Western neglect/self-centeredness and, conversely, the desire of their clerical class to keep a privileged position in a secularising world, I do feel threatened by Islamic extremism. When I say, 'I', I mean not just myself, but also all those I care for, especially minorities such as the Christians and Baha'is in the middle East, or people who just want a peaceful life.
To an extent this leads me to a sympathetic position with those opposing such people, wherever they are- they are 'me', if you like. I suppose I am in this sense an internationalist, though I can't pretend to sympathise with everyone.
It seems to me that we are all built this way, with our sympathies. What is important is that we are not led to follow someone's personal agenda by this. The fact that some things prick our consciences should not lead us to have the 'wool' pulled over our eyes by those who have more hate of their enemies than a desire to build a stable reconciliation with them.
In this case, the enemies must be those who really don't wish for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, but instead wish for the dominating victory of one or the other. I hate to say it, but the so-called 'two-state solution' could even institutionalise the hatred (actually a relatively young one, if you start looking at the events from 1948 onwards instead of from BC 1948 onwards), if there are not enough trade and cultural links.
So let's build a multi-state, secular, Middle-Eastern solution, where people relate without their religion being the dominant factor. They can even embrace one another's religions, it just won't divide them anymore. If people wonder how this could happen, just look at all the Western countries where this has long been the case.
How can we build such a thing? The same way we sustain or influence anything else- by doing our part, however small. We just have to make sure to align ourselves with those who truly care about the future and about precious human rights. To do this we need very clear thinking people, who actually have the courage to care. Then, ultimately we will find that it isn't the violent people who make history. It's the people who know how to wield a pen.
As usual, I am impressed by the articulation of your writing, something rare to be found in this age of 'sound-bites' and entertainment passing for information. Even though I am not totally in agreement with what you are saying, at least I can see what you are saying without feeling I'm being 'lead somewhere' by it.
What you say regarding red herrings has some truth- in these political battles, even though I personally am morally opposed to the use of violence, the presence of violence shouldn't blind us to underlying facts, by it's shock factor. Of course violence is shocking- but it has been around as long as people. The question is whether the situation justifies it or not, whether it is morally defensible violence, or simply indefensible.
I'll admit, even though I can see that it has grown though factors such as Western neglect/self-centeredness and, conversely, the desire of their clerical class to keep a privileged position in a secularising world, I do feel threatened by Islamic extremism. When I say, 'I', I mean not just myself, but also all those I care for, especially minorities such as the Christians and Baha'is in the middle East, or people who just want a peaceful life.
To an extent this leads me to a sympathetic position with those opposing such people, wherever they are- they are 'me', if you like. I suppose I am in this sense an internationalist, though I can't pretend to sympathise with everyone.
It seems to me that we are all built this way, with our sympathies. What is important is that we are not led to follow someone's personal agenda by this. The fact that some things prick our consciences should not lead us to have the 'wool' pulled over our eyes by those who have more hate of their enemies than a desire to build a stable reconciliation with them.
In this case, the enemies must be those who really don't wish for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, but instead wish for the dominating victory of one or the other. I hate to say it, but the so-called 'two-state solution' could even institutionalise the hatred (actually a relatively young one, if you start looking at the events from 1948 onwards instead of from BC 1948 onwards), if there are not enough trade and cultural links.
So let's build a multi-state, secular, Middle-Eastern solution, where people relate without their religion being the dominant factor. They can even embrace one another's religions, it just won't divide them anymore. If people wonder how this could happen, just look at all the Western countries where this has long been the case.
How can we build such a thing? The same way we sustain or influence anything else- by doing our part, however small. We just have to make sure to align ourselves with those who truly care about the future and about precious human rights. To do this we need very clear thinking people, who actually have the courage to care. Then, ultimately we will find that it isn't the violent people who make history. It's the people who know how to wield a pen.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
The Fall of Gaza
Seeing the horror unfolding in Iraq, Gaza, and Lebanon, which does seem to be sourced from Iran, I can only say that this so-called Islam-derived pseudo-religion of the terrorists is a force of nothing more than misguided evil. Sure, they have had hard times, but all this ransacking and cruelty is nothing more than chaos for it's own sake, the end of civilised norms; I weep for the innocent caught up in the midst of it. I can only hope that peace, order and justice can return... the 'justice' offered by such terrorist groups is really only dismal revenge, offering no hope of a better world.
Unfortunately, with the war in Iraq and it's subsequent break-down, more fools have been attracted to such apocalyptic cults and have been brain-washed into giving their lives to them. I wonder how it is that people can stoop so low- maybe primitive, reptilian parts of the brain take over and our usual human conscience gets short-circuited? Of course, there are probably politics going on here I don't understand, but that doesn't mean I need to excuse it, any more than I excuse heroine-addiction, which is also seen as 'a way out'.
We need to minimise the spread of this virus and also inoculate the population against it, with real education, of how to love other people more and how to practice sincere communication, of how to face life bravely rather than retreating into suicidal cowardice. As, ultimately, all this violence is fear and cowardice, avoiding what being a human is about. We have to also change the social environment so people are treated fairly and have something to live for. Equal rights and right education are the keys to a better future for all.
The violence has to be blamed squarely on those perpetrating it, yet at the same time, the mismanagement of the region by George Bush (and, less so, several of his predecessors), was criminally incompetent. He poured oil on the fire, by ignoring all the professional advice as to what would be unleashed, should the Iraqi army be dissolved and the forces of anarchy set free. How will we put the genie back in the bottle? We just have to show that terrorism doesn't pay and then no-one will support it. We have to set up systems guaranteeing equal rights so there is hardy any 'recruitment ground' for such groups. Presently, people seek to gain profit from the uncertainty- no doubt some of them being quite unsupected people, fueling pointless conflicts for their own selfish ends. Force may restrain terror, barriers may minimise it, but in the final analysis these won't be enough to end it. There is only one plan that can accomplish that.
That is God's own plan- to teach the peoples of the Middle-East to love one another, as if they are all one family. To have a peaceful social system that embraces all, whatever their creed, whatever their historical roots- To end this pseudo-religion that 'preaches' hatred and replace it with real religion, divine religion, that preaches endless love. One Nazarene introduced this fresh idea over 2,000 years ago to this region, indeed to the world. Let us pray humanity, especially Middle-Eastern humanity, listens to this vital Gospel message, before it is too late.
Unfortunately, with the war in Iraq and it's subsequent break-down, more fools have been attracted to such apocalyptic cults and have been brain-washed into giving their lives to them. I wonder how it is that people can stoop so low- maybe primitive, reptilian parts of the brain take over and our usual human conscience gets short-circuited? Of course, there are probably politics going on here I don't understand, but that doesn't mean I need to excuse it, any more than I excuse heroine-addiction, which is also seen as 'a way out'.
We need to minimise the spread of this virus and also inoculate the population against it, with real education, of how to love other people more and how to practice sincere communication, of how to face life bravely rather than retreating into suicidal cowardice. As, ultimately, all this violence is fear and cowardice, avoiding what being a human is about. We have to also change the social environment so people are treated fairly and have something to live for. Equal rights and right education are the keys to a better future for all.
The violence has to be blamed squarely on those perpetrating it, yet at the same time, the mismanagement of the region by George Bush (and, less so, several of his predecessors), was criminally incompetent. He poured oil on the fire, by ignoring all the professional advice as to what would be unleashed, should the Iraqi army be dissolved and the forces of anarchy set free. How will we put the genie back in the bottle? We just have to show that terrorism doesn't pay and then no-one will support it. We have to set up systems guaranteeing equal rights so there is hardy any 'recruitment ground' for such groups. Presently, people seek to gain profit from the uncertainty- no doubt some of them being quite unsupected people, fueling pointless conflicts for their own selfish ends. Force may restrain terror, barriers may minimise it, but in the final analysis these won't be enough to end it. There is only one plan that can accomplish that.
That is God's own plan- to teach the peoples of the Middle-East to love one another, as if they are all one family. To have a peaceful social system that embraces all, whatever their creed, whatever their historical roots- To end this pseudo-religion that 'preaches' hatred and replace it with real religion, divine religion, that preaches endless love. One Nazarene introduced this fresh idea over 2,000 years ago to this region, indeed to the world. Let us pray humanity, especially Middle-Eastern humanity, listens to this vital Gospel message, before it is too late.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
7 Facts You Might Not Know about the Iraq War
We are becoming pretty accustomed to hearing reports in the media as to the grim events in Iraq, often accompanied with claims from 'Coalition of the Willing' politicians as to how the situation is 'getting better'. Yet in reality, as people there report, it has been getting steadily worse and the 'Iraqi Army' or 'Iraqi Government' we hear mentioned so often is in reality no where near as representative as such terms might indicate. In fact, at any time it could well lose control of vast swarths of the country if the Coalition forces were to leave.
We are getting used to hearing lies, damned lies and statistics- well here instead is a bit of analysis. I'm not really in a position to verify or otherwise what the following author has to say, but the gist of it is that the Western, primarily American forces being stationed there, with enormous international opposition and an increasingly vocal one within the US itself, may in fact be doing more harm than good as far as stablising the county goes. So here are his- 7 Facts You Might Not Know about the Iraq War.
We are getting used to hearing lies, damned lies and statistics- well here instead is a bit of analysis. I'm not really in a position to verify or otherwise what the following author has to say, but the gist of it is that the Western, primarily American forces being stationed there, with enormous international opposition and an increasingly vocal one within the US itself, may in fact be doing more harm than good as far as stablising the county goes. So here are his- 7 Facts You Might Not Know about the Iraq War.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Comment for The Campaign against Antisemitism
Whilst Googling for "BBC antisemitism", so as to draw some light on what I consider the deep prejudice against Israel in some, but perhaps not all elements at the 'Beeb', I came across a very erudite pledge by one Steven Hoffman. Here is my entire contribution (only short comments are allowed on that site, but links to longer ones such as this one are encouraged.)
Stephen-
Thank you so much for bringing attention to this pressing problem. I also think anti-semitism is very prevalent and not always immediately obvious due to political correctness and the fact that, thankfully, there are nowadays also a lot of people who strongly oppose antisemitism, so it has to hide itself more. One of the ways it appears to do this is by not just criticising Israel, which is legitimate, but by doing so in an extreme and unfair manner. You can tell by the way people phrase things and the way their face srews up.
After seeing the way the BBC covered the war in Lebanon, I was left with the sickly impression that they cared less for the ruined lives in the region, than for using the situation as propaganda 'ammunition', to undermine Israel. They tried to present Israeli strikes as random, ignoring the fact that they were on sites from which deadly missiles were launched or guided, or at least thought to be such. Now this may be, as many have reported, because they were actually set up by Hezbollah, who organised rushing ambulances and got people to pose with the rubble, even hinting at death-threats to make reporters toe the line-
'Green Helmet Man' staging the scene
(To be fair the BBC did after a time have reporters covering the situation in Israel and interviewing people there, though these were more like normal reporting than propaganda pieces.)
This is all not to defend needless harm to civilians, but to draw attention to the way the reporting was twisted to undermine Israel rather than present a balanced view. Why does the BBC and so much of the mass media so often do this? Why can't they show a natural respect for Israel for managing in such a difficult situation, or even show a desire to make things better? Isn't this extreme lack of sympathy for Israel a kind of anti-semitism in itself? For example, your comment about Israel offering to help develop Lebanon, which pretty much proves they would like it to be a successful country, just so long as it isn't being used as a base by Iranian-sponsored groups like Hezbollah as a base, didn't appear in a single report.
I really think that for some reason they and many others, want to undermine Israel and try to present as somehow acceptable truly vicious regimes and organisations in the Middle East such as Hezbollah, which care nothing for their own people (if they did, they wouldn't set up bases amongst civilians). The reason I suspect the BBC does this is to appeal to mainstream conservative Arab opinion and to people who don't care about Israel. It's not to help British people understand the crisis and it's not to do their job well. I'm not saying everyone at the BBC is antisemitic but some of them must be, and this bothers me a lot.
Let's not forget that as a modern democracy Israel could really help the people in the region and use her energy in a positive way this way. All this demonising of Israel by the Arab dictatorial regimes is just a waste of time and energy and I hope the people in the region finally wake up to this. They could be going to university and enjoying life, instead of being subjected to a stream of medievalist, hate-saturated propaganda. This is the real story of the Middle-East.
So once again, Steven, thanks for exposing these issues to the light.
Stephen-
Thank you so much for bringing attention to this pressing problem. I also think anti-semitism is very prevalent and not always immediately obvious due to political correctness and the fact that, thankfully, there are nowadays also a lot of people who strongly oppose antisemitism, so it has to hide itself more. One of the ways it appears to do this is by not just criticising Israel, which is legitimate, but by doing so in an extreme and unfair manner. You can tell by the way people phrase things and the way their face srews up.
After seeing the way the BBC covered the war in Lebanon, I was left with the sickly impression that they cared less for the ruined lives in the region, than for using the situation as propaganda 'ammunition', to undermine Israel. They tried to present Israeli strikes as random, ignoring the fact that they were on sites from which deadly missiles were launched or guided, or at least thought to be such. Now this may be, as many have reported, because they were actually set up by Hezbollah, who organised rushing ambulances and got people to pose with the rubble, even hinting at death-threats to make reporters toe the line-
'Green Helmet Man' staging the scene
(To be fair the BBC did after a time have reporters covering the situation in Israel and interviewing people there, though these were more like normal reporting than propaganda pieces.)
This is all not to defend needless harm to civilians, but to draw attention to the way the reporting was twisted to undermine Israel rather than present a balanced view. Why does the BBC and so much of the mass media so often do this? Why can't they show a natural respect for Israel for managing in such a difficult situation, or even show a desire to make things better? Isn't this extreme lack of sympathy for Israel a kind of anti-semitism in itself? For example, your comment about Israel offering to help develop Lebanon, which pretty much proves they would like it to be a successful country, just so long as it isn't being used as a base by Iranian-sponsored groups like Hezbollah as a base, didn't appear in a single report.
I really think that for some reason they and many others, want to undermine Israel and try to present as somehow acceptable truly vicious regimes and organisations in the Middle East such as Hezbollah, which care nothing for their own people (if they did, they wouldn't set up bases amongst civilians). The reason I suspect the BBC does this is to appeal to mainstream conservative Arab opinion and to people who don't care about Israel. It's not to help British people understand the crisis and it's not to do their job well. I'm not saying everyone at the BBC is antisemitic but some of them must be, and this bothers me a lot.
Let's not forget that as a modern democracy Israel could really help the people in the region and use her energy in a positive way this way. All this demonising of Israel by the Arab dictatorial regimes is just a waste of time and energy and I hope the people in the region finally wake up to this. They could be going to university and enjoying life, instead of being subjected to a stream of medievalist, hate-saturated propaganda. This is the real story of the Middle-East.
So once again, Steven, thanks for exposing these issues to the light.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
In Lebanon, a Ceasefire Declared
A guerrilla army can be fought but not militarily dismantled and war is a game men play just like any other, with it's own rules and rhythms. Therefor it is wisest not to escalate and rather to appear strong, relying on the consent of the enemy to moderate itself. Absolute force, total war... such things are mere tragedies. Israel appears a lot stronger when she shows her strength with restraint- for then the measure of her strength is unguessable and her comparative nobility clear.
Of course, many other countries do far worse and cruder things than Israel and I fully believe her sovereignty and dignity should be respected, yet Israel is at heart a finer country than the others, who would react far worse to similar provocations. It is love for Israel that make us all instinctively hold her to a higher standard, not a spirit of injustice. Special standards for special people... a law followed by the universe and only interpreted by humankind.
Of course, many other countries do far worse and cruder things than Israel and I fully believe her sovereignty and dignity should be respected, yet Israel is at heart a finer country than the others, who would react far worse to similar provocations. It is love for Israel that make us all instinctively hold her to a higher standard, not a spirit of injustice. Special standards for special people... a law followed by the universe and only interpreted by humankind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)