A Call to Lament and Repent: Guide Our Feet to the Path of Peace
By the tender mercy of our God, the dawn from on high will break upon us, to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace. Luke 1:78-79 (NRSV)
This season of Lent, we are truly living in darkness and in the shadow of death as we mark, on March 19, 2008, the fifth anniversary of the war with Iraq. It is a war that is being waged by our country, financed by our taxes, and fought by our sisters and brothers. As U.S. Christians, we issue a call to the American church to lament and repent of the sin of this war.
We lament the suffering and violence in Iraq . We mourn the nearly 4,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died, the unknown numbers of both who are wounded in body and mind, and the more than 4 million Iraqis who are displaced from their homes. With the families of U.S. soldiers torn apart, our families are also torn apart.
We lament the effects of this war on our country. The war has undermined our religious and national values. International perceptions of the U.S. churchs support for the war have hurt the cause of Christ. The abuse of prisoners and use of torture have damaged the U.S. moral standing in the world. The war is squandering billions of dollars that are urgently needed for other domestic and international needs. (march 19, 2008)
We repent of our failure to fully live the teaching of Jesus to be peacemakers. Some of us believe our faith leads to a rejection of war, while others affirm just war principles but after five years of conflict, we are convinced that continuing occupation and war in Iraq cannot be reconciled with just war teaching, and it is the obligation of Christians to help bring unjust wars to an end. The U.S. occupation must end; a transition to an international solution to Iraq must be found. A peaceful resolution is possible and must be pursued. Our country should end this war, not try to win it, and we must help the Iraqi people build a safer and more peaceful country.
We believe repentance means more than just being sorry. Repentance requires a change of heart and a commitment to a new direction. Repentance means transformation breaking out of our conformity to a foreign policy based on fear and war to a policy that is rooted in seeking justice and pursuing peace. There is a better way and the U.S. church must take the lead.
We dedicate ourselves to the biblical vision of a world in which nations do not attempt to resolve international problems by waging war on other nations. We believe the followers of the Prince of Peace should be the hardest ones, not the easiest, to convince to go to war. We are not utopians we acknowledge that human beings and nations will have conflicts. But given the toll that the habit of war has taken in our violence-torn world, we must begin to learn to resolve our inevitable conflicts by learning the arts and skills of conflict resolution and a new international approach to just peace-making and law enforcement. We must seek a world in which we allow our Lord to guide our feet into the path of peace.
As a sign of repentance and commitment to lead our nation toward a new path, I pledge to:
● Pray for our nation to learn lasting lessons from th e tragedy of the war in Iraq and commit to greater wisdom in the future.
● Help heal our nation by talking and listening to our fellow Christians, finding better ways to resolve conflicts by seeking the reconciliation of our divisions and working together for a more peaceful world.
Reach out to the veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, who often, after making terrible sacrifices, feel abandoned.
Urge our elected representatives to:
pursue a foreign policy consistent with moral principles, wise political judgments, and international law
ensure that veterans and their families are provided with the medical, psychological, financial, and spiritual support they need
fulfill our responsibility, working with the international community, to stabilize and rebuild Iraq, provide humanitarian support, and resettle those displaced by war.
Repentance requires a change of direction and a new commitment to follow Jesus, who tells us very clearly, Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.
2009 As for war costs, Mr. Obama’s campaign projected that withdrawing combat troops from Iraq would save about $90 billion a year. But it is not clear how much any savings would be offset by increased spending in Afghanistan, where Mr. Obama has ordered an additional 17,000 troops, bringing the total there to 56,000. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/us/politics/22budget
Republican PR Firm Said to Be Behind 'Inconvenient Truth' Spoof
By JAKE TAPPER and MAX CULHANE
Aug. 4, 2006 —
A tiny little movie making fun of Al Gore, supposedly made by an amateur filmmaker, recently appeared on the popular Web site YouTube.com.
At first blush, the spoof seemed like a scrappy little homemade film poking fun at Gore and his anti-global warming crusade.
In the movie, Gore is seen boring an army of penguins with his lecture and blaming global warming for everything, including Lindsay Lohan's thinness.
But when the Wall Street Journal tried to find the guy who posted the film "Al Gore's Penguin Army" -- listed on YouTube as a 29-year-old -- they found the movie didn't come from an amateur working out of his basement.
The film actually came from a slick Republican public relations firm called DCI, which just happens to have oil giant Exxon as a client.
Exxon denies knowing anything about the film, and DCI says, DCI_Group "We do not disclose the names of our clients, nor do we discuss the work we do on behalf of our clients."
Distrust of Mainstream Media
Media ethicists say that if DCI is behind the spoof, they should fess up.
"Without the disclosure, it's really ethically questionable," said Diane Farsetta, a senior researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy.
Another question is why would this movie be done in a seemingly unprofessional way, to be shown alongside YouTube's mostly amateur videos, which feature lip-synching, odd performances and funny satires?
"They want it to look like this came from someone who really believes this, who is really critical of Al Gore and global warming," Farsetta said.
Ana Marie Cox, the Washington editor of Time.com, said Americans have come to distrust the mainstream media.
"They're more likely to believe something that comes straight from the horse's mouth," Cox said.
Public relations firms have long used computer technology to create bogus grassroots campaigns, which are called "Astroturf."
Now these firms are being hired to push illusions on the Internet to create the false impression of real people blogging, e-mailing and making films.
"People will become more savvy, and then the people who are making the fake videos will become more savvy about how to cover it up," Cox said.
So next time you're reading something on the Internet from a "real person" pushing a movie or defending an actor's alcohol-fueled rant -- be wary. That real person might actually be a hired gun, selling you an idea through deception.
"This site is amazing! It is exactly what I have been looking for. I love how all of your information is backed by reliable and verifiable sources. It is just what we need. Thank you for caring." Alicia R. "This is the best website of its kind in the world." Byron B. "I am passing your website on to everyone I know. You have really made changes in many people's lives. It is the most important work being done in the world at this time!" John H. (more rave reader reviewshttp://www.wanttoknow.info/ This website provides a concise, reliable introduction to vital information of which few are aware. We specialize in providing fact-filled news articles and concise summaries of major cover-ups which impact our lives and world. All information is taken from the most reliable sources available and can be verified using the links provided. Sources are always noted, with links direct to the information source provided when possible. The WantToKnow.info team presents this information as an opportunity for you to educate yourself and others, and to inspire us to strengthen democracy and to work together for the good of all.
Did you know that: usa military government lie censor (9-11)
Twenty leading journalists, including winners of several Emmys and a Pulitzer, have described being prevented by corporate media ownership from reporting riveting stories on major cover-ups.
BBC News has exposed plans of the U.S. military to provide maximum control of the Internet, as detailed in a declassified secret Pentagon document signed by the U.S. Secretary of Defense in 2003.
A CBS News report quotes former U.S. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, "According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." That's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America.
Government documents released through the Freedom of Information Act show that the top Pentagon generals once approved plans to foment terrorism in major U.S. cities and even kill innocent civilians.
Multiple, reliable sources show that you may be eating genetically modified food every day which scientific experiments have repeatedly demonstrated can cause sickness and even death in lab animals.
Detroit's leading newspaper reported that the 1908 Ford Model T boasted a fuel economy of 25 miles per gallon. Yet 100 years later, the EPA average mileage for all cars is under 21 mpg.
A highly decorated US General wrote a book titled War is a Racket, which clearly depicts how he was manipulated and how most wars are waged largely to keep the coffers of some big corporations filled.
The former chief of a prestigious medical journal has revealed that the total profits of the ten drug companies in the Fortune 500 were more than the profits of the other 490 businesses combined.
The Times of London reported that several 9/11 hijackers listed in the 9/11 Commission Report are alive. "Five of the alleged hijackers have emerged, alive, innocent and astonished to see their names and photographs appearing on satellite television. [They] were using stolen identities. See also BBC report.
More than 50 senior government officials and 100 professors have publicly expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. Many even allege government complicity in the 9/11 attacks.
For more highly revealing media articles hidden in plain sight with links for verification, click here.
Note: If you are already aware of these cover-ups, please visit our page which will take you even deeper.
If the facts presented above were reported in headline news where they belong, concerned citizens would be astounded and demand to know more. This has not happened, which is why we felt compelled to create this website. The verifiable information presented here may at first disturb you. It may even change the way you look at the world. Yet we invite you to see this as a powerful opportunity for building a brighter future. By sharing this vital information with your friends and colleagues, you can play a key role in restoring a true democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people.
We encourage you to be skeptical in exploring this information. Some of what you read may at first seem quite unbelievable. Yet we also encourage you to keep an open mind and do a little research using the links to the reliable sources provided and determine for yourself whether there is truth to the information provided. And as some of the material can be difficult to digest, we invite you to explore this website at a pace that is appropriate for you. If you find yourself feeling upset or overwhelmed, consider taking a break and possibly enjoying some of the excellent inspirational articles and resources provided at the top and in the left column of every page to keep things in perspective. We also encourage you to open to divine guidance as you explore this material.
Many people don't want to know about the major cover-ups going on in our world. Feeling relatively secure and content in their personal lives, they choose to avoid matters which might disturb their contentment. Yet as long as we choose complacency over awareness, these major cover-ups will continue. In fact, they will likely grow in magnitude until people are finally forced to open their eyes and deal with the consequences. The sooner each of us decides that we do want to know, and that we are willing to invite others to open their eyes, the more easily we will be able to build a world that supports the good of all of us.
If you find yourself slipping into fear or anger with this material, remember that we now have an opportunity to do something about it. The Internet and email are remarkable tools for use both in our personal lives and in the world. The fact that you are reading this now is an excellent example of that. Simply by sending this information to your friends and colleagues, you can make a difference. Using this link, you can also easily contact your political and media representatives. By emailing this vital information and posting it widely on the Internet, we can quickly and easily spread this important news around the globe. We have already reached over three million readers, but we need your help to reach many millions more.
We are convinced that once a critical mass of people are aware of this powerful information, the media will be forced to report these major cover-ups in news headlines where they belong. Once these verifiable facts reach the headlines, concerned citizens around the world will stand up and demand that we all work together to find a better way. If each of us makes a commitment to spread this information and to present it as a powerful opportunity to strengthen democracy, we can and will build a brighter future for all of us.
The WantToKnow.info team is a group of dedicated researchers from around the globe. We compile and summarize important, verifiable facts and information being hidden from the public. We are deeply committed to building a brighter future for us, for our children, and for our world.
http://www.corporations.org/media/ In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called "alarmist" for pointing this out in his book, The Media Monopoly. In his 4th edition, published in 1992, he wrote "in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media" -- controlling almost all of America's newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies. He predicted then that eventually this number would fall to about half a dozen companies. This was greeted with skepticism at the time. When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market. More than 1 in 4 Internet users in the U.S. now log in with AOL Time-Warner, the world's largest media corporation.
In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth.
May 1999 Congressional Testimony of Henry Labalme, Executive Director of TV-Free America"Millions of Americans are so hooked on television that they fit the criteria for substance abuse as defined in the official psychiatric manual, according to Rutgers University psychologist Robert Kubey. Heavy TV viewers exhibit six dependency symptoms--two more than necessary to arrive at a clinical diagnosis of substance abuse. These include using TV as a sedative; indiscriminate viewing; feeling loss of control while viewing; feeling angry with oneself for watching so much; inability to stop watching; and suffering withdrawal when forced to stop watching TV."
Obama's Vietnam? obama no peace - obama no money us miltary - obama kids bombs boma bombs Friday's airstrikes are evidence Obama will take the hard line he promised in Pakistan and Afghanistan. But he should remember what happened to another president who inherited a war.
On Friday, President Barack Obama ordered an Air Force drone to bomb two separate Pakistani villages, killing what Pakistani officials said were 22 individuals, including between four and seven foreign fighters. Many of Obama's initiatives in his first few days in office -- preparing to depart Iraq, ending torture and closing Guantnamo -- were aimed at signaling a sharp turn away from Bush administration policies. In contrast, the headline about the strike in Waziristan could as easily have appeared in December with "President Bush" substituted for "President Obama." Pundits are already worrying that Obama may be falling into the Lyndon Johnson Vietnam trap, of escalating a predecessor's halfhearted war into a major quagmire. What does Obama's first military operation tell us about his administration's priorities?
The tribal notable Khalil Dawar, who lived near the village of Mir Ali in Pakistan's North Waziristan Agency, hosted a party of five alleged al-Qaida operatives in the guesthouse on his property. An American drone hit the site with three Hellfire missiles. According to the Pakistani press, the strike not only killed the four Arab fighters and a Punjabi militant, but also the Pashtun host and some of his family members. A few hours later, missiles slammed into another residence near the village of Wana in a nearby tribal agency, South Waziristan, killing 10. Pakistani sources disagreed over whether there had been any foreign fighters at all at the second target, with locals claiming that 10 family members, including women and children, were the only victims. Villagers in Pakistan's northwestern tribal belt sometimes rent to the Arab fighters because they are sympathetic to their struggle, but sometimes they just need the money.
The U.S. committed itself, when it overthrew the largely Pashtun Taliban in 2001, to building up a new government in Afghanistan and restoring the country to stability. The new government of President Hamid Karzai, however, was viewed as disproportionately benefiting northern ethnic groups such as the Tajiks, Hazara and Uzbeks. NATO search and destroy missions in the ethnically Pashtun south of the country alienated villagers, as did forcible eradication of lucrative poppy crops. The Taliban revived, and new groups emerged allied with them, turning to suicide bombings and attacks on the new Afghan army and on NATO and U.S. troops. Obama has committed to dealing with this problem by increasing the size of the U.S. and NATO troop contingent in Afghanistan, which already stands at more than 50,000, but the plan is facing stiff resistance from NATO allies and their publics.
Sandwiched between the lush river-fed plains of Pakistan and the deserts and mountains of southern Afghanistan, the 13 Federally Administered Tribal Areas are a no-man's land that is technically part of Pakistan but seldom truly controlled by Islamabad. Ethnically, the inhabitants are Pashtuns, the same group that dominates southern Afghanistan, and many of them deeply sympathize with those Afghan neighbors who are fighting Western troops and the Karzai government. In recent years, tribal and village organizations in FATA have been shunted aside by Muslim radicals who formed the Pakistan Taliban movement, emulating the Taliban of Afghanistan. They not only raid into southern Afghanistan but have also committed terrorist acts in Pakistani cities such as Peshawar and Islamabad.
The Bush administration launched 30 air attacks on targets in Pakistan in 2008, killing 220 persons. The strikes seem to have started in the summer, during the presidential campaign, about a year after candidate Obama began urging this policy. Bush may have instituted the aerial attacks to deny Obama a campaign talking point and to prevent him from out-hawking John McCain. That is, Obama may have pushed Bush -- who had earlier been wary of alienating Pakistan -- to the right. The American bombing of the tribal areas occurs with tacit Pakistani government acquiescence as a result of a secret agreement reached last September, despite the sometimes vehement public denunciations that Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani issues after they've occurred.
In this instance, a spokesman for the Pakistani foreign ministry complained to Ambassador Anne W. Patterson, saying, "With the advent of the new U.S. administration, it is Pakistan's sincere hope that the United States will review its policy and adopt a more holistic and integrated approach towards dealing with the issue of terrorism and extremism."
The Pakistani government is now ruled by the largely secular, left-of-center Pakistan People's Party, and President Asaf Ali Zardari blames the Taliban for the assassination of his wife, Benazir Bhutto, late in 2007. Any dispute between Islamabad and the Obama administration centers on issues of national sovereignty, not on the question of whether the Taliban should be crushed. Pakistan's own military is also fighting the Pakistan Taliban Movement and its tribal supporters. Early last week, Islamabad's Frontier Corps pounded several villages of the Mohmand Agency, killing 60 militants. In the course of the past five months, Pakistani military operations against the Pakistani Taliban in the neighboring Bajaur Agency have left hundreds dead and hundreds of thousands homeless and displaced.
The risk Obama takes in continuing the Bush administration policy of bombing Pakistani territory is provoking further anger in the public of that country against the United States and harming the legitimacy of Zardari's fragile elected government. A Gallup poll done last summer found that 45 percent of Pakistanis believe that the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan poses a threat to their country. Of Pakistanis who expressed an opinion on the matter, an overwhelming majority believed that the cooperation between the U.S. and the Pakistani military in the "war on terror" has mainly benefited Washington. If a more muscular American policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan sufficiently angers the Pakistani public, they could start voting for religious parties, delivering a nuclear state into the hands of Muslim fundamentalists.
The fundamentalist Jamaat-i Islami (JI), led by Qazi Husain Ahmad, held a rally of several thousand protesters in the Pakistani capital on Friday to protest the drone attacks and the ongoing military campaigns in FATA. (I saw the demonstration on satellite television, and it was clearly bigger than the wire services reported.) The coalition of religious parties of which the JI formed part was dealt a crushing rejection by the Pakistani electorate last February, but for the U.S. to continually bombard Pakistani territory could be a wedge issue whereby they return to political influence. Whereas the Jamaat-i Islami had welcomed Obama's new path in the Muslim world before the strikes, the JI leader blasted the new president in their aftermath.
Obama's policy toward Pakistan is not solely military. He appointed as his special advisor on Pakistan and Afghanistan veteran diplomat Richard Holbrooke, who played an important role in peace negotiations over Bosnia in the 1990s. The new president, who has praised Pakistan's return to civilian parliamentary rule, has pledged to triple civilian aid. Opinion polling shows that more civilian development monies and less focus on military equipment are precisely what a majority of the Pakistani public want. Obama also intends to tie the annual amount of military aid released to the actual performance of the Pakistani military in preventing cross-border raids of FATA militants into Afghanistan. Allegations have swirled for the past year that rogue cells in the feared Inter-Services Intelligence of the Pakistani military have been actively sending the militants to hit targets inside Afghanistan, including the Indian embassy at Kabul.
Despite the positive harbingers from Obama of a new, civilian-friendly foreign policy that will devote substantial resources to human development, the very first practical step he took in Pakistan was to bomb its territory. This resort to violence from the skies even before Obama had initiated discussions with Islamabad is a bad sign. It is not clear if Obama really believes that the fractious tribes of the Pakistani northwest can be subdued with some airstrikes and if he really believes that U.S. security depends on what happens in Waziristan. If he thinks the drone attacks on FATA are a painless way to signal to the world that he is no wimp, he may find, as Lyndon Johnson did, that such military operations take on a momentum of their own, and produce popular discontents that can prove deadly to the military mission. http://www.unhcr.se/http://www.newsweek.com/id/182642
Will Obama slash the military budget?
Pentagon fighting to maintain military spending
There has been much speculation as to the new President's orientation toward the US military budget, which has been estimated at a total cost of one trillion dollars per year. As government spending takes center stage in Washington, President Obama is being called on by some to cut the military budget, an idea that has been largely absent from US politics for many years. Nancy Youssef explains how this is affecting the mood inside the Pentagon, while Miriam Pemberton debunks the supposed defense spending 'cut' that has been seen in various media reports of late.http://therealnews.com/t/
Nearly 5,000 American servicemen and women have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001.
Yet the photographic record documents only a tiny fraction of those who have given their lives for their country.
There’s a propaganda component to waging every war, but the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to hide the human cost of these conflicts. It aggressively enforced a ban on photos of the coffins of military casualties returning home.
Finally, it looks as if this misguided policy — which dishonors the war dead may be changing.
At a news conference last week, President Obama promised to review the ban, first imposed during the 1991 Persian Gulf war. If his commitment to greater transparency in government has any meaning, he will quickly reverse the photo blackout.
There seems to be no serious objection from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who told reporters that he inquired about changing the policy last year, when President George W. Bush was still in office and that he would expedite Mr. Obamas request for a new review.
Mr. Gates appropriately wants to make sure that privacy and other concerns of the grieving families are answered. Other administration officials have said they see no serious impediments to a policy change. It should be remembered that during the Vietnam War, photographs of the flag-draped coffins were routinely permitted when the dead arrived home.
If the ban is not lifted, Congress should act quickly to adopt legislation introduced for a second time by Representative Walter Jones, Republican of North Carolina. It would permit the press to cover the arrival ceremonies for the remains of the war dead at American military installations, including Dover Air Force Base, where the military coffins from Iraq and Afghanistan first arrive back in the United States. Without a loved one serving in the military, it is sometimes possible for Americans to overlook the sacrifices that have been made — and continue to be made — by members of the Armed Forces on behalf of our nation, he said.
Pictures are powerful. Newspapers seek to commemorate the war dead by running photos of their often smiling faces. The country should also see the reality of their coffins when they make their final journey home.
I think I feel here in Washington some new trends. First of all, there is more sensitivity to the issue of settlements. I think there is more inclination to accept our view, our point of view, that Palestinians are—should be allowed to have a national unity government, and thirdly, that we should allow Palestinian democracy to be revived. You know that Israel has slaughtered the democratic transformation in Palestine by arresting our members of parliament. And if Israel is entitled to democratic elections, then I think we, as Palestinians, are entitled to that. I believe this is just a beginning. I hope we will go in the right direction. And maybe these results of elections in Israel will show everybody the time has come for a real change in the American policy.
Every value that President Obama spoke about—values of respect of human rights, of democracy, of respect for Geneva Convention, avoiding torture, justice, equality, equal opportunity—every value of those are violated by Israel. - Dr. Mustafa Barghouti,
President-elect Obama Comments on Violence in Gaza January 07, 2009
HOPE President-elect Obama no PEACE
Why are Obama & Clinton Silent about Israel's Massacre of Palestinians in Gaza?
Obama & UN Calls For Unrestricted Gaza Access January 23, 2009
So is there a way out of this maelstrom of death and destruction? I think there is, but the bloodshed has spiraled for so long as to be almost unstoppable at this point. Still the effort must be made. If Northern Ireland could reach a peaceful solution to its seemingly intractable conflict after centuries of religious/class/nationalistic warfare, other bedeviled regions might be able to do the same.
In the Middle East, there are those on both sides who understand the futility of the current paths each side has chosen. We call them "Israeli moderates" and "Palestinian moderates," but, more correctly, they should be called Middle East realists in this horrific situation.
They realize that the current spiral of violence twists and turns on itself and gets them nowhere but back to where they started. There must be some way out of here, but the voices of courage and clarity are few and far-between in Israel, Palestine and even here in the U.S. Hate, rage, mistrust, slaughter -- these dominate the Middle East's politics and policies. It seems clear that there will be no significant progress toward peace and justice under the current leadership in Israel and Gaza. They are like two tarantulas locked in a death embrace; even if they wanted to separate, they no longer know how to release. It will take a "neutral" outside force to help them and guide them to a different, more hopeful reality.
CAN U.S. BE "HONEST BROKER"?
Conceivably, that outside agent could be the European Union or the United Nations or the Arab League (there already is some talk of an international peace -keeping force), working in concert with "inside" forces, meaning new leadership in Israel and Hamas. There is a strong peace faction inside Israel, but it's been marginalized lately and the hardliners seem poised to win the upcoming election. The Palestinian Authority under Abbas seems on some level to understand the futility of the current struggle and probably would be willing to settle with the Israelis, given good-faith negotiations. Hamas seems incapable of major change at this point, which is why Israel is bent on destroying it as a viable military/political force.
But the key to any positive movement would be, would have to be, the United States. Claiming the role of an "honest broker" won't be easy for the incoming Obama Administration, given the incendiary role played by the CheneyBush regime during the past eight years in Israel/Palestine and in the Greater Middle East, in effect pouring gasoline on the embers of despair. The moral power of the U.S. is at its nadir in the region.
Then, too, Obama, during the presidential campaign, seemed to indicate little more than unquestioning approval of Israeli policies, which would not bode well for assuming the "honest broker" role. But Obama was a candidate then, he will be president now and must put America's national-security interests first. Tamping down the tension and reasons for violence and extremist terrorism in the Middle East, with its spillover effect on terrorists angry at the U.S., certainly qualifies under that charge, and polls show that most Americans agree.
THE SITUATION LOOKS BLEAK
Regardless of the difficulties involved and the fact that Obama already has a lot on his incoming plate, he should make Middle East peace a top priority. If the Israel/Palestine conundrum can be solved, many other pieces will start falling into place throughout the region. That can only be good for Israel, the Arab world, the Greater Middle East, and the U.S. itself. (And bad for Al-Qaida and extremist Islamist fanatics.)
But right now, things don't look good for any kind of settlement of the dispute. Extremist mentalities on both sides continue to repeat the mental-illness loop mentioned in the first paragraph. The Israeli government thinks its bombing and invasion of Gaza will influence the local population to abandon the Hamas leadership voted into power in the most recent election. It won't. Hamas thinks if it continues sending rockets and suicide bombers into Israel, it will dissuade the Israelis from its over-the-top military assault on Hamas. It won't. (As I write this, Israel, having run out of sites to attack from the air, is now on the ground with a massive ground force in Gaza, tasked to destroy even more of Hamas' infrastructure, tunnels, hierarchy, ability to govern. The Palestinians, remembering how Hizbullah in Lebanon bloodied the invading Israeli forces last year, may have some military surprises in store for the occupying Israeli troops, including suicide bombers in great numbers and even longer-range rockets to send deep into Israel. But Israel is the big kahuna in the region and its firepower, and willingness to use it against a vastly devastated foe, would seem to lead Israel to a short-term victory. However, as many occupying armies have discovered, it's easier to get into a country than it is to get out. And Israel, seen worldwide as a giant bully, is losing friends and supporters everywhere.)
WHAT IS REQUIRED
No, for any hope of a peaceful solution, it seems to me, a number of tumblers need to click into place:
1. A respected outside force must somehow arrange, encourage, coerce a cessation of hostilities, and probably set up some kind of peace-keeping buffer zone, using some palatable excuse: "for humanitarian reasons," or whatever. And the Palestinian Authority will have to be involved and in the room of any talks.
2. Hamas and the Israeli government must be willing to negotiate with The Other, maybe not face-to-face at first, but eventually. Such willingness to negotiate would signify an implicit recognition that the other side exists and must be talked with and listened-to. Israel says it will never negotiate with Hamas and doesn't recognize its authority over Gaza, despite its overwhelming popular electoral victory there. Israel will have to change its mind. Hamas says it will not negotiate with "Zionist criminals" since Israel has no legitimacy and should not exist. Hamas will have to alter that position.
If those two pre-requisites don't happen, there is no alternative but another generation of slaughter, endless recrimination, vengeance extracted forever. When enough blood has been spilled in the years that follow, perhaps more (probably younger) realists will emerge on both sides who are willing to face the truth of the matter: that neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis are going to disappear, that no amount of violence will accomplish that fantasy of disappearance, and that both sides are right and that both sides are wrong.
If that point ever can be reached (and it's in America's best interests to make sure that point arrives sooner rather than later), then comprehensive negotiations can take place that could eventuate in a just peace for both parties. Neither side would get everything they want, of course, but both would get enough of what they need.
THE OUTLINE FOR PEACE
It's been clear for decades what the outlines of a just peace might look like and what each side would have to do to get there:
1. Both sides would have to abandon their "I'm the true victim" and "you started it" loops. Each side has some history on its side, each side has behaved abominably, each side has some justice in its arguments. Both sides would have to stipulate, so to speak, to these recognitions and vow not to get bogged down in whose claim is the more righteous but stick to how to make living together in the same region workable and mutually beneficial.
2. Israel would have to return to its pre-1967 borders, fully end its occupation and control of the West Bank and Gaza, abandon its settlements on Palestinian land and make sure no new ones are allowed to intrude into the new viable Palestine state, which Israel would officially recognize. (In terms of Gaza and the West Bank, Israel would cease its ruthless policy of "a hundred eyes for an eye" overkill, which constantly reminds the Palestinians of their utter powerlessness.)
3. The Palestinians (both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority or, better yet, Hamas inside the Palestinian Authority) would have to officially recognize the de facto State of Israel and its right to exist within secure borders. No more rockets, no more suicide bombers inside Israel, no more calling for Israel's destruction, etc.
4. Realizing that there are crazy fanatics on each side, acting out of religious zealotry or ultranationalist urgings, both sides would have to agree to crack down on those extremists and not let occasional militant violence interfere with the peace process as it unfolds and in living together after the peace treaty has been signed.
5. Jerusalem, prized for historical and religious reasons by both sides (and by Christians as well), would become an international city, administered by the U.N. and/or a tri-religious civic council agreed to by all. Both Israel and Palestine might well have their administrative capitals in the new, calmer city.
6. If Israel will not permit the "right of return" of Palestinians forced off their lands by the original establishment of the Jewish state or by the Separation Wall, they will pay fair compensation for the land and homes. Perhaps Arab nations separately and the Arab League collectively can aid in this regard as well.
7. Treaties would be worked out regarding the free-travel rights of Palestinian workers inside Israel, the fair allocation of precious water resources, sharing technological developments, etc.
IMAGINING THE FUTURE
The fact that these, and other, topics over the past decades have been widely discussed and recognized as potential solutions to the Middle East conflict suggests their viability still today. If you can imagine it, it can happen. But, as so many politicians and diplomats have discovered, the situation in the region is so explosive and tenuous that it's extremely difficult to get from here to there. But, for the sake of the future of both societies, peace in the region and the globe, and for America's future as well, President Obama must become more even-handed in the Middle East and must be willing to dive in and try once and for all to help move the crisis to its peaceful, just end point. To do otherwise is to ensure more terrorism emanating from that region, and generations of children devoid of hope and opportunity. The candidate of "change" and "hope," and love of children, simply cannot let that happen.
Israel and even some Arab leaders still speak fancifully about putting Fatah in charge of rebuilding Gaza, but that’s a dangerous fallacy. The reality on the ground is that no progress is possible in Palestinian political life – from Gaza’s ceasefire and reconstruction to meaningful peace negotiations with Israel – without the consent and support of Hamas. Tying progress on those fronts to efforts to marginalise Hamas gives Hamas an incentive to play the spoiler, and with the credibility of Abbas and Fatah in Palestinian eyes now at an all-time low, it simply isn’t smart politics.
Hamas has to be involved, but that requires finding a formula to deal with the prohibitions imposed by the US and its allies on engaging Hamas until the movement symbolically renounces violence, recognises Israel and embraces past peace agreements. Hamas is unlikely to make declarations that it would deem a symbolic surrender, and nor is the US likely to reverse itself on those preconditions, as President Barack Obama has now twice made clear.
The art of diplomacy, in such an instance, is to find a way for both sides to compromise without appearing to do so. And the good news is that there’s plenty of scope for closing the gap. Israel and even some Arab leaders still speak fancifully about putting Fatah in charge of rebuilding Gaza, but that’s a dangerous fallacy. The reality on the ground is that no progress is possible in Palestinian political life – from Gaza’s ceasefire and reconstruction to meaningful peace negotiations with Israel – without the consent and support of Hamas. Tying progress on those fronts to efforts to marginalise Hamas gives Hamas an incentive to play the spoiler, and with the credibility of Abbas and Fatah in Palestinian eyes now at an all-time low, it simply isn’t smart politics.
Hamas has to be involved, but that requires finding a formula to deal with the prohibitions imposed by the US and its allies on engaging Hamas until the movement symbolically renounces violence, recognises Israel and embraces past peace agreements. Hamas is unlikely to make declarations that it would deem a symbolic surrender, and nor is the US likely to reverse itself on those preconditions, as President Barack Obama has now twice made clear.
The art of diplomacy, in such an instance, is to find a way for both sides to compromise without appearing to do so. And the good news is that there’s plenty of scope for closing the gap.
Ariel Sharon still sleeps peacefully on life-support three years after suffering a massive stroke, but you could be forgiven for thinking he was still at the helm in Israel — because today, the Israeli government appears to have only tactics to fight the next battle, but no strategy beyond an improvisational combination of expanding the occupation of the West Bank, cynically chanting the benedictions of a two-state divorce that will come, one day (like the moshiach) while getting on with the “iron wall” business of creating expansive “facts on the ground” and trying to crush Palestinian resistance. There’s no “peace process” at work in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, nor as there been for the past eight years.
Perhaps Benjamin Netanyahu’s victory in next weekend’s Israeli election will provide what George W. Bush liked to call a “moment of clarity”, by making it unmistakably clear that Israel’s leaders are not, in any meaningful sense, a “partner” for a credible two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (Then again, you’re more likely to hear more wishful spin about how Bibi, precisely because he’s so hawkish, is a better bet for making peace — which sort of dodges the inconvenient truth that Bibi has no intention of doing so.)
So, what’s Obama to do?
Obama’s Administration could argue that the U.S. may have its preferences, but it can’t choose Israel’s leaders; it has to work with whomever Israel elects. Indeed. But the same is true for the Palestinians. And a major reason for the steady deterioration of the Israeli-Palestinian situation over the past eight years has been Washington’s efforts to choose the Palestinians’ leaders for them, with increasingly disastrous effects.
The catastrophe in Gaza has, counterintuitively enough, presented President Barack Obama with an opportunity to restart the peace process — precisely because it has demonstrated the catastrophic failure of the approach adopted by the Bush Administration…. …The Gaza debacle has made one thing perfectly clear: any peace process that seeks to marginalize, not integrate, Hamas is doomed to fail — and with catastrophic consequences.
Repeating behaviors that have produced catastrophic failures and expecting a different result is insane; and when a person’s psychotic behavior puts himself those around him in immediate physical danger, the responsibility of those who claim to be his friends is to restrain him. But even as Waltz With Bashir shows in multiplexes across the world as a grim reminder of the precedent for Israel’s brutal march of folly in Gaza, the U.S. (and the editors of the New York Times and Washington Post) insist that there is a sanity and rationality to sending one of the world’s most powerful armies into a giant refugee camp to rend the flesh and crush the bones of those who stand in its way — whether in defiance or by being unlucky enough to have been born of the wrong tribe and be huddling in the wrong place. By fighting its way to their citadel, they would have us believe, Israel can destroy Hamas and usher in a golden age of peace. Or, to borrow from the casual callousness of Condi Rice during the last such display of futile brutality, we are witnessing, again, the “birth pangs of a new Middle East.” Israel failed in 2006, just as in 2002 and 1982. This time, they tell us, will be different.
And then the horror unfolds, as it always does — the hundreds of civilians accidentally massacred as they cowered in what they were told were places of safety, mocking the Israel’s torrent of self congratulation over its restraint and its brilliant intelligence — and the hopelessly out-gunned enemy manages to survive, as he does every time. And by surviving, grows stronger politically. No matter how many are killed, the leaders targeted by Israel’s military are endlessly regenerated in the fertile soil of grievance and resentment born of the circumstances Israel has created. Circumstances it has created, but which it, and its most fervent backers refuse to acknowledge, much less redress.
Soon enough, the bloody mess in Gaza will end in another cease-fire, having hardly changed the political equation in Gaza — much as the opposite might have been hoped for by the Bush Administration, the Israeli government and the regimes in Cairo and Ramallah who are quietly cheering Israel’s assault in the hope that it fatally weakens Hamas. The cease-fire, when it comes, will end rocket fire on Israel, but will also likely require the opening of the border crossings into Gaza (Hamas’ basic demand for a renewed truce). If so, that’s an outcome that could have been achieved without the killing of close to 400 people. And my money says that this cynical show of force by Barak and Tzipi Livni won’t even stop Bibi Netanyahu from winning Israel’s February election. The killing in Gaza, in other words, has been utterly senseless by even the most cynical measure.
If Condoleezza Rice had been looking for some in-flight movies pertinent to her mission in South Asia over the past few days, she ought to have considered Rambo III. Or Pinocchio. Or Frankenstein. Aladdin, even.
All four could help explain the background to the Mumbai massacre that has brought India and Pakistan to the brink of confrontation. Pinocchio and Frankenstein, after all, are cautionary tales about how those who fabricate creatures to do their bidding are often forced to reckon with the often vindictive impulses of their creations. Aladdin unleashes a genie who has his own agenda. And Rambo III, in which Sylvester Stallone’s action-hero joins up with the Afghan mujahideen to fight the Soviets (just like a certain Mr Bin Laden) should serve as a timely reminder that support for holy warriors waging jihad had been an article of faith in Ronald Reagan’s Washington.
Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI, had served as the conduit for Washington to use the Afghan mujahideen and the Arab volunteers who joined them, to wage a proxy war on the Soviets. And from the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 to the 9/11 attacks, the monster created by assembling an Islamist International for combat and training in Afghanistan turned on its erstwhile patron to deadly effect.
But after the US walked away when the Soviets limped out of Afghanistan, the Pakistanis used the proxy war model to pursue their own regional agenda.
Secretary of State Condi Rice, with the blessing of Barack Obama, has flown off to South Asia charged with the mission of preventing tensions between India and Pakistan from escalating in the wake of the Mumbai massacre. Both the current and the incoming U.S. Administrations consider that a matter of urgency in light of their shared Afghanistan outlook: Both are well aware that the key to stabilizing Afghanistan is not sending more Western troops (although both are committed to doing so anyway), but resolving the conflict between India and Pakistan, of which Afghanistan has lately emerged as a primary theater. And so, the U.S. is putting pressure on the Pakistani government to cooperate with India in investigating the Mumbai outrage that very probably originated on Pakistani soil. The problem is that the Pakistani government doesn’t control the Pakistani military, which doesn’t share the political leadership’s enthusiasm for the “war on terror” — or for making nice with India.
The suggestion that al Qa’eda poses more danger to the well-being of ordinary Americans than a tanking economy that threatens the jobs and homes of millions seems preposterous to any sober observer: al Qa’eda is a small conspiratorial organisation that once, seven years ago, managed to pull off a spectacular attack on US soil, and has over the same period pulled off a few more such grisly stunts in London, Madrid, Casablanca and Bali. It controls no territory and is incapable of disrupting the defences of even the weakest states on the planet, much less the most powerful. To suggest it poses a greater risk than the most profound slump in three generations made a good Halloween story, nothing more.
But if McCain was simply trying to scare people into voting for him, he was inadvertently laying bare the fallacy at the heart of the Bush administration’s “War on Terror”, which made the organising principle of US foreign policy a campaign against a handful of extreme jihadists.
McCain regularly repeats the preposterous mantra that the struggle against Islamist radicalism is the “transcendent challenge of the 21st century,” but make no mistake, Barack Obama falls victim to the same flawed logic when he proclaims Afghanistan “the right war” and promises to get out of Iraq in order to free up more troops to send to “stamp out the Taliban”, as he put it one of the presidential debates.
The war in Iraq is drawing to a close — and hardly on the terms of those who initiated it. It’s end is being hastened by Iraqi democracy, and by the retrenchment of U.S. power globally, accelerated by the sharp economic downturn
This page provides links to a variety of sources of reliable, verifiable information dealing with mind control. Our most basic material is listed first, followed by other resources which delve deeper for those interested in more. We recommend reading through this entire page before exploring the links provided. The WantToKnow.info team presents this mind control information as an opportunity for you to educate yourself and others, and to inspire us to work together to strengthen democracy and build a brighter future for us all.
Mind Control Information Summaries: For the best, most concise introduction to the mind control information, we highly recommend our mind control summaries. These fact-filled summaries provide revealing mind control information from both landmark books and declassified government mind control documents. An abundance of footnotes back up the information presented and provide links direct to government documents and other reliable sources for verification of information presented. The first two listed are general summaries. The following three are 10-page summaries of excellent, well researched books on mind control.
Most Important Mind Control Information Document: A declassified CIA mind control document describes an experiment involving two women with relevance to the creation of unsuspecting assassins: Miss [whited out] was instructed (having previously expressed a fear of firearms) that she would use every method at her disposal to awaken Miss [whited out] (now in a deep hypnotic sleep). Failing this, she would pick up a pistol nearby and fire it at Miss [whited out]. She was instructed that her rage would be so great that she would not hesitate to “kill” [whited out] for failing to awaken. Miss [whited out] carried out these suggestions to the letter including firing the (unloaded) gun at [whited out] and then proceeded to fall into a deep sleep. Both were awakened and expressed complete amnesia for the entire sequence. Miss [whited out] was again handed the gun, which she refused (in an awakened state) to pick up or accept from the operator. She expressed absolute denial that the foregoing sequence had happened.”
Top Mind Control Information News Articles: We have collected many news articles from highly respected media sources which contain eye-opening information exposing various aspects of the mind control cover-up. Links are always provided to the original sources for verification. The first link below contains one-paragraph excerpts from incredibly revealing news articles with the most important articles listed first. The second link provides the same article excerpts listed by order of date posted to WantToKnow.info, while the third lists them by the article date. The fourth link below contains a list of only headlines and links to some of the most important articles. Below these four links, headlines and links to the entire text of several of the very best articles are also provided.
Mind Control Information Resources: Our mind control resource list contains one-paragraph summaries of the best books, videos, and websites we've found which provide reliable mind control information. Ratings are given on both interest and reliability for each resource listed. Links are always provided for purchase or free viewing.
Best Free Mind Control Video: The History Channel produced a riveting documentary titled: Mind Control America's Secret War. This astounding program powerfully reveals the U.S. government’s top-secret program to develop control over people’s minds. LSD and electroshock therapy in huge doses given to unsuspecting citizens are only a part of this unbelievable program. Interviews with top doctors, psychiatrists, and victims send chills up the spine. Incredibly well researched and broadcast by the respected History Channel, this is a must see if you want to understand the secret wars going on. Available for free viewing at the link below.
Other Free Videos Related to Mind Control: National Geographic's excellent documentary CIA Secret Experiments probes the murder of a CIA agent and its connections to the shadowy world of mind control. "Conspiracy of Silence" is a powerful, disturbing documentary revealing a nationwide child abuse and pedophilia ring that leads to the highest levels of government. Featuring intrepid investigator John DeCamp, a highly decorated Vietnam war veteran and 16-year Nebraska state senator, "Conspiracy of Silence" reveals how rogue elements at all levels of government have been involved in systematic child abuse and pedophilia to feed the base desires of key politicians.
For Survivors of Mind Control Programs: We are not able to offer professional advice for those seeking help in recovering from mind control trauma. We can, however, recommend some excellent resources which provide information, assistance, and support. Besides reviewing the many documents recommended in this information center, we highly recommend the excellent, supportive website NAFF at http://naffoundation.org. Other potentially useful websites for survivors are http://www.survivorship.org,http://www.aches-mc.org, and href="http://ritualabuse.us/newsletter/">http://ritualabuse.us/newsletter. We also highly recommend opening fully to divine guidance, and asking only for guidance that serves what is best for all of us. For more on this, see href="http://www.weboflove.org/simplekeys">www.weboflove.org/simplekeys. If you spend time with these recommended resources, though there may be setbacks at times, we know that you will move more towards ever greater healing, integration, and connection in your life.
By far the best video exposing top secret government mind control programs is the History Channel's excellent documentary Mind Control: America's Secret War. Though available for purchase on the History Channel website,http://shop.history.com/detail.php?a=73738
What You Can Do About the Mind Control Cover-up. We have no doubt that by working together we can and will build a brighter future. When we step out of fear, secrecy, and polarization, we choose to join with the ever increasing numbers of people dedicated to working together for the good of all in our world. You can make a difference right now by sharing this mind control information with your family, friends, and colleagues. Click on the Email page link at the top or bottom of any page on this website to send an email giving the Internet address of that page.
To contact your political representatives and the media, click here. All pages, especially our summaries, are also designed to print well so that you can copy and share the information given. If you would like to send a short email introducing powerful information on the mind control cover-up, click on the link below. And thanks for caring! http://www.WantToKnow.info/emailmk
Denny Carr, MFA
Photographer and Video Artist
BIKE !!!! hase lepus trike (stroke-paralysis)
age 61 eco-friendly no-car
"I am a stroke survivor and deal daily with a speech disorder called Aphasia. This disorder is a result of my stroke in 2005. I am thankful God has given me the ability to express myself through my images and films." For more information, visit these websites: http://www.azimagery.com/
Independent/Alternative Media Advocates
Posts
