Israel jonesing for war with Iran

BBC News (BBC.co.uk; Wisdom Quarterly (ironically) Q: Why do wars happen?

"Rahm was right. You look cute when you cooperate." - "Hey, you're not so bad yourself."

  

"Bibi, I can back you better than Barry can."

Israel's outgoing home front defense minister says an attack on Iran would likely [only] trigger a month-long conflict that would leave [only] 500 Israelis dead.
  
[This would, of course, be in addition to countless civilian casualties, mere "collateral damage," and thousands of evil jihadi Islamist Iranian terrorists intent on threatening Israeli rule in the geopolitical Middle East. Happy reports like this leave Israel/US jonesing for war and more war].

  

Matan Vilnai told the Maariv newspaper that the fighting would be "on several fronts," with hundreds of missiles fired at Israeli towns and cities [in a desperate attempt to engage in asymmetrical warfare with a nuclear armed aggressor, Israel, and its superpower ally, the USA].

  

Israel was prepared, he said, though strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities had to be co-ordinated with the US [of course. Israel does nothing without orders or tacit approval from the USA/CIA/MIC].

   

Israeli-Palestinian peace dove (Avi Katz)

Meanwhile, a US blogger has published what he says are Israel's attack plans: Richard Silverstein (Tikun Olam blog) told the BBC he had been given an internal briefing memo for Israel's eight-member security cabinet, which outlined what the Israeli military would do to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons.

  

Tehran insists its nuclear program is entirely peaceful [But they can show the evidence to Saddam Hussein in Hades for all the international courts have in terms of an ability or eagerness to intervene]. More

  

"Oh, great god of Kolob, you know my heart. This is for the greater glory of our faith."

• [Barak and] Bibi's Secret War Plan
• This is Shock and Awe, Israel-style. It is Bibi’s effort to persuade high-level Israeli officials that Israel can prosecute a pure technology war that involves relatively few human beings (Israeli, that is) who may be put in harm’s way, and will certainly cost few lives of IDF [Israeli Defense Forces]
• Leaked memo: propaganda or war plan?
• West sabotages peace talks with Iran
• Painkiller abuse can lead to heroin addiction
  

Read More

Another MC attacks Sikh temple in US

UPDATED 8/8; Pat Macpherson, Pfc. Sandoval, Dhr. Seven, Wisdom Quarterly (ANALYSIS)

Guru Nanak and nine other famous Sikh teachers. (Dev and ji are simply Indian honorifics).

   

OAK CREEK, Wisconsin - Well that didn't take long. Two weeks ago horrified Americans were shouting "Never again," and we were adding, "until the next time." Another Manchurian Candidate (MC) has been loosed upon civil society to create random mayhem and sow the seeds of fear.

• NEVER AGAIN (until the next time)
• 7 shot dead at Sikh temple
• Sikh temple massacre by white supremacist
• Holmes: "How does 'Dark Knight' end?"

Successful PsyOps candidate Page

Islamophobia figures into it, just as it did in Norway, because the first person shooter (whom police claim to have executed or "put down" when it seems, in fact, he followed his programming and committed suicide) was a white supremacist. He, Wade Michael Page, was also a military man with a checkered past that makes ordinary who would not be expected to have moved up the ranks if he were simply an enlisted man. And what did he do for the military-industrial complex (MIC)? PsyOps!

Now PsyOps (the propaganda arm of the MIC that runs black projects under the general heading of "psychological operations") must be getting pretty sloppy. Two weeks ago their MC was triggered to attack, that is, to methodically launch a finely tuned plan with no emotion, no thought, and very little if anything to remember.

  

Holmes medicated into silence

Once in custody the MC is chemically lobotomized to prevent any uncomfortable memories from creeping in and leaking to the public. It happened to wild-eyed Jared Loughner (who is "pleading guilty" while medicated out of his mind), the Gabby Gifford shooter, and James "the Joker" Holmes, the Aurora gunman.

Why do these things happen?

Why would anyone attack Sikhs (pronounced sEEks, not sICks), a small religion popular in India with many financially successful adherents, which seems to blend cultural elements of Hinduism and Sufism (mystic Islam). Kundalini Yoga as brought to America by the charismatic "Yogi Tea" magnate Yogi Bhajan is not "yoga" in the traditional Brahminical sense. Rather, it is a Sikh creation that has become very popular in the US thanks to female American converts like Gurmukh). Sikhism has, however, nothing to do with actual Islam. But appearances matter as much as assumptions: Turbans, uncut beards, white linen clothing -- it's all enough to earn them the pejorative "towel h*ads" and more disturbing militaristic ethnic slurs like Hajji, a term roughly equivalent to "gooks," employed by US soldiers committing war crimes during the US war on Vietnam. So was the hateful vocalist Page really out to avenge 9/11 or continue his military training as a civilian? Working in PsyOps it is more likely that he was hoisted by his own petard. He went from researcher to research subject without signing an informed consent release. The process of converting certain personality types, tested for by military psychiatrists, has been perfected since the idea of creating one or two man sleeper cells (along with their above top secret handlers) was born. The Russians apparently did it; the military-industrial complex does it. It is all part of "winning hearts and minds" (WHAM) by scaring up and inciting civilian support for US military atrocities. If draconian police state tactics are now suggested "for our security," who will oppose it? One must suppose that the NRA (National Rifle Association) will as well as both corporate wings of the Republican party (i.e., Obamas and Romneys). Gun control? Take guns out of the hands of scared citizens and put them in the hands of abusive police. This country does not grow richer every year manufacturing arms for the world by allowing greater regulations without a fight. In fact, any peace talk is actually thwarted rather than aided by US intervention, which coincidentally profits Democratic and Republican candidates' corporate supporters.

Gurmukh, owner of Golden Bridge Yoga in Hollywood, discusses friendship

  
Such events, then, pay off in many ways: the imposition of Orwellian regulations, loss of civil liberties, further encroachment of federal Big Brother style government into our lives, acceptance of endless war doctrine (fighting against tactics such as "terrorism" rather than finite countries), widespread panic, irrational fear-based behavior by citizenry (like increased gun sales to prevent more killings when guns can only attempt to do that by killing), xenophobia goes unremedied as "in" and "out" groups are further delineated, increased pharmaceutical sales (by citizens, shooters, police, military, and future candidates)... There is a great deal of money to be made because of fear, arms manufacturing being the most obvious. With that being the case, how can "peace" be tolerated?

• Man crushes cop cars after pot bust
• Doomsday Alert: the New Noah's Ark
• Global warming and FBI secrets 
• "The perfect storm is unfolding," economist warns
• [Bi] Obamas’ marriage produces WH drama, dysfunction
• Economist: “This is going to be a lot worse than 2008”

Read More

The Death of Osama bin Laden and the Middle-Path of Buddhism.

(World War II Holocaust memorial in San Francisco, California, USA.Photo by Victor Zhang).

James: I believe that we should avoid killing 99.9% of the time but sometimes it's unavoidable. However, I believe we must walk the middle-path between killing out of vengeance and killing to protect and save countless other lives. Osama bin Laden was a threat to innocent lives the world over and sometimes killing one person is the right action to protect millions. I think it comes down to what action causes the most suffering; letting a dangerous mass murdering terrorist to roam freely, killing at will, or killing that terrorist to protect the rest of the world?

In other words, avoiding the extremes of indulgence in everything from eating too much food to being cavalier about violence and death. Then there is the opposite extreme of avoidance of all pleasures in life. As well as, living in denial that we live in a violent world that sometimes requires a rigorous but measured defense against those who would enslave and murder thousands of innocent lives. Imagine if everyone in the world said during World War II that violence is never justified and Hitler was allowed to continue his brutal invasions of country after country. And, that, he would continue and expand his operations to murder millions of innocent Jews in gas chambers and by execution squads. In that instance, it seems crystal clear that to just sit in meditation and avoid an exploding world while hellish forces seek to enslave the globe, kill anyone not like them in mass numbers and cause untold amounts of suffering to men, women, children and old people is an extreme position to hold.

We can not sit in far-removed cloisters and monasteries and look down upon that kind of suffering with a detached view to avoid violence at all costs. How is it compassionate to allow the entire world to be plunged into a hellish realm of global warfare and extreme suffering out of an absolutist attitude against violence? Is that the approach we should take if we come along an adult raping a child or attempting to violently hurt them? Is it really compassionate to just look the other way and ignore that kind of suffering? That seems completely nihilistic to me. There is a famous poem about avoidance in the face of unrelenting violence and absolute suffering. It was written by Pastor Martin Niemöller who sought to describe the dangers of inactivity by German intellectuals during the rise and reign of terror by the Nazis:

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

James: I believe that being interconnected means being responsible for the suffering of others. This isn't simply about not hurting others but includes helping those in need when they are suffering at the hand of others. And, ending the suffering of those being murdered in their beds at night by terrorism or mass murdered in gas chambers by Nazis falls within that field of being responsible for their suffering. If we are called upon to help end suffering of others than we can't absolutely, categorically avoid violence.

We are to respect life but not cling to it at all costs. The same for death, thus, the importance of the middle-path. I believe it is one of the most important, helpful and practical teachings the Buddha taught to assist us in living in a complicated world. Still, as I said, violence should only be used when all other means of solving violence are extinguished. And, it should never be done with hatred in your heart. It should only be used to protect the greater populations of innocent beings. And, I believe that one's intention behind the violence is vital. If it is out of protection of innocents then I believe that it causes less heavy karma than doing so out of glee or hatred. Also, when violence is necessary, it should be done with as much compassion as possible. That may sound strange but let me explain; when having to kill, one shouldn't maim or torture in the process.

It's not something to rejoice in, or celebrate though I must admit I felt a twinge of joy when I heard Osama was dead. I'm not perfect and I have since tried to temper my emotions in regards to his death. It's a horrible thing to have to kill another being but this world isn't as clear cut as "good or evil." The teaching of the middle path shows that life requires a more nuanced approach to events that often requires actions we may dislike.

Perhaps some might see this as odd considering I'm a vegetarian but animals do nothing to harm us or cause us suffering. Whereas, mass murderers, terrorists and armies bent on world domination threaten all of us. If we truly believe in interconnection then a threat to one person is a threat to us all. I know some purists will disagree with me but I do think rare violence is justified if it avoids the suffering of masses of innocent lives. Something else to consider, even the most Buddhist countries on Earth like Thailand and Korea have a military. Unfortunately, we can't pretend to live in a world that is rainbows and unicorns. There are violent people out to destroy millions of lives and to allow them to do so would be extremely nihilistic.

Still, violence should be avoided in 99.9% of circumstances. I don't support war just to go to war such as the Iraq war but there are times, I believe, that we must act in order to avoid the greatest amount of suffering (World War II). I know some of you might think this doesn't make me a very good Buddhist but I think it's being realistic. I feel it's walking the middle path of balance and reason to deal with a very complicated world that requires avoiding absolutism. I know this is a sensitive topic and I don't mind if you disagree with me. However, I would hope that my readers are mature enough to discuss this matter without resorting to insults. Please, be as respectful as you would want people to be toward you.

~Peace to all beings~

Read More

Arizona Bans Karma--Seriously.

Since the dark days of the attacks on America by radical, Islamic terrorists on September 11th 2001, there has been a growing intolerance here for non-Judeo-Christian religions. This has, unfortunately, been mostly aimed at the American-Muslim community in a misguided attempt to combat radical Islam.

Unfortunately, there are numerous people in America who can't seem to make a distinction between an Islamic terrorist and an Islamic moderate practicing their religion freely as allowed under the American Constitution. But I digress. One of the targets of the this fear of anything Islamic has come in the form of a wide-spread paranoia of Sharia law.

In brief, Sharia law is law based on the Islamic holy book, the Qur'an (koran). The Islamophobia is so rampant in America these days that states have taken to banning Sharia law in a preemptive move to prevent such law from taking root. This is occurring despite no movement to impose or establish Sharia law in America. The silliness of it all is that such moves by these states are a waste of time since the American Constitution supersedes any other form of law within America!!

But the politicians of Arizona didn't stop there. They wanted to make sure ALL non-Christian religious beliefs would have no influence in Arizona state law. This included banning karma, which I didn't even know was possible considering karma is basically the idea of, "cause and effect" or causality. So, in one sense, by banning karma, these politicians are essentially trying to ban the scientific law of cause and effect. They seriously banned karma within the state of Arizona, which for a Buddhist is all rather odd considering karma isn't really a form of law to base a government around, but rather a natural consequence of our actions. I'm not angry or offended by their attempt to ban karma but I am certainly amused by it all!! It makes me laugh because banning karma is like banning gravity.

However, what I do take seriously is the generalized intolerance of anything that's not Christian or of Anglo-Saxon cultural origin. The last thing we need in this already complicated world of suffering is additional reasons to divide ourselves and fuel hatred. It truly makes my heart ache to see such narrow-minded thinking in my country, which has often been the example of tolerance in the world.

~Peace to all beings~

Read More

Ground Zero Mosque Gets "O.k." but Still Faces Opposition.

So the much ballyhooed "Ground Zero Mosque" will go ahead and be built, which isn't just the right thing to do--It's the American thing to do. The opposition to this mosque said that it was too close to the "Ground Zero" site and was thus a slap in the face to the memorial of those Americans who died during the September 11th terrorist attacks. First of all let's clear something up right away; there were Muslims who died on 9/11 along side Christians and Jews. Including innocent Muslims upon the planes used as missiles. So when they say this mosque is spitting upon the memory of those who died I guess they only mean Judeo-Christians. This is intolerance disgustingly hidden behind the American flag to soften the face of their hatred toward all Muslims. Increasingly Americans are packaging radical beliefs behind symbols of good old Americana, which unfortunately often legitimizes such extremist ideologies to the vulnerable.

The people who are opposing the building of this mosque and cultural center are also standing in opposition to religious freedom in America, which we supposedly hold dear. This reverence for the freedom of religion is ironically often espoused by the very same people who are protesting this mosque!! They say this mosque is a monument to radical Islamic terrorism, which is beyond insulting and embarrassing to listen to as an American who works hard to be inclusive. It is the height of arrogance, stupidity and bigotry to lump all Muslims of the world in with Islamic terrorists who probably consist of less than one percent of the worlds BILLIONS of Muslims. Sadly, however, this is the kind of ugliness you often hear from Americans whose only connection with Islam is the 9/11 terrorists and the wars against al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Anyone who has interacted with an average Muslim knows the truth; that most Muslims are peaceful, kind and tolerant of others. I spent two years living in West Africa where Islam is a popular belief system, and some of the nicest people I met there were in fact Muslim. The Muslims I met would invite me into their homes off the street and feed me like a welcome guest. And the irony perhaps to some was that I was there in West Africa as an official Christian missionary!! But that wasn't important to them or myself. I was a guest in their country and guests are treated with great respect in many Muslim households.

Out of respect for that invitation I refrained from talking religion but when the subject was raised by them, I would discuss it. However, it was always respectfully discussed by both sides. And interestingly, when we did converse about faith it was often about what we had in common rather than apart. Rather than preached to or insulted for my religion at the time, I was often shown the passages within the Qu'ran that speak reverently about Jesus Christ. And I, in turn, asked respectful questions to learn about a religion that was new to me at the time. Islam isn't an "evil" religion and most people would find that if they had an open, respectful and honest dialogue with the average Muslim that they'd find more in common than not.

In the end, Americans need to come to terms with what it means to be an American. If you think it's o.k. to ban a mosque because of 9/11 then by that same logic we should ban churches close to the sites of abortion clinic bombings too.

Read More