Religion and Extinction

We are different to any other species in that we have evolved what we call economics, science of extending survival. Or is it a massive inter-generational war that the current political generation are guilty of, increasingly responsible for causing environmental collapse.

Why do we measure progress by growth? When we solve that one, and measure progress with an economics that includes compounding interest for any future consequence of our indulgence.

Only then we can call ourselves good Christians or good Muslims or good Jews. We remain greedy and primitive in our mutual interests. Why think like this?

Part of the lesson of certain matters remaining secular and out of the control of the driving faith or the possessors of property or the military – but that the ultimate control must remain honestly in the hands of the people. So we have countries for that. But faith is a personal matter and your path to your saviour or prophet is a relationship between your self and something all powerful. Therefore when you are praying together it is as though a casting of individual threads to your personal heaven is a revelation to the self, not to the army, not to the workforce, not to the merchants, the bankers or even the holy ones we listen to preach their secret messages in sermons to the initiated. In all religions there seems to be a strata that pulls people up – spirituality is a wonderful thing, don’t get me wrong.

Having to take sides for your whole life is the commitment of belief. But the essence of individuality is the thing. It is the most important and elusive thing. Your thread can vibrate within a group but it can also find its own pattern. It does not matter. If we align beliefs into destructive paths then as a group we start to consume that which we have no right to, we take that we have to leave alone. The first lesson in The Book of Genesis was not to take the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge or die. Not to take the irreplaceable fruit means we must consider requirements of future life in our consumption.

The ways in which competing religions have interpreted this basic tenet of their own belief is astounding. The destruction of species is wanton, selfish and will result on our own death.

These words or wisdom are drowned by the clash of battle as we fight for our set of beliefs. But this fundamental exists. If we sow extinction, then we will become extinct. I am just not sure if today’s political science really gives a damn about the future.

World at war?

John Pilger is both a respected journalist and a bit of an alarmist. And what is wrong with alarm in today’s world where American influence stamps all over alternative values. After the binary division of the world that was the Cold War, The New American Century’s New World Order briefly reigned. It seems that the American incursion into Ukraine politics is the latest in a long list of US military acts in the name of democracy overthrowing democratically elected governments that Pilger writes about, usually from a war zone.

His recent article article about Dr Strangelove raises the alarm to a new level. Are the American military a hungry lumbering beast machine that needs war to create demand for itself so it can run up more debt someone can call growth in the economy? Or is it the world’s freedom fighter, overturning injustice like some sort of Superman, knowing the results of its actions must be believed in, not only by the fundamentalists who seem to believe anything. But by the liberals as well.

Theft of a airliner a possibility

Updates

Article published 13 March 2014 1030GMT

Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370 that has disappeared, could be suspected causing engine status update blips for four hours after the flight cut all contact with the ground. Are we seeing, once again the signs of a 9/11 style event being prepared for by stealing airliners, probably murdering the passengers as human shields are no longer relevant and a big complex hostage drama is a distraction to the achievement of the end goal.

No, it is hard to admit but Osama bin Laden achieved more for Islam (most of it awful and terrible) than the Ayatollah Khomeni did in his long standoff drama with the USA and ensuing isolation. The 4 hour range of the flight takes it somewhere and the US must be concerned about. If anyone can find where its probably landed, the American security apparatus better be able to. Otherwise the world may be held to ransom. That arc of suspicion takes in Pakistan and the Arabian Sea.

The media have probably been fed red herrings when it comes to passenger information, the fake passports of two Iranian asylum seekers, or whatever they really were if they exist, as those kinds of details distract from the obvious. The search for where the plane exploded over the sea is prevents “panic”. But a jet liner being stolen in Pakistan may indeed have another purpose. If the Taleban has stolen it then it is possibly for an extraordinary ransom, to fund their war, or as an end game bargaining tool. Or indeed a weapon.

How can this kind of thing happen? The international air security apparatus is supposed to prevent this sort of incident. Of course this is purely conjecture, but it does make more sense than the plane vanishing. There has to be a logic to the explanation, and complete vanishment seems unlikely.

It would reassure the public who now possibly endangered by the stolen airliner. If it is a disparate group like the 9/11 crew rather than a political entity, for example, The Taleban, the aircraft may have a planned use. The clock is ticking.


Update Mar. 13th 1500GMT: apparently the signals from the engines did not get received, after all. Maybe officials at Mayasian Airlines have been told to deny this?


Update: Mar. 14th 0045GMT: And now The White House is exhausting all possibilities including searching over the Indian Ocean and Vietnam. Maybe my theory is correct. The simple theft of the asset means landing it and hiding it in plain sight.


Update 18 March Wired magazine publishes more sensible explanation written by a pilot. I think his explanation may likely be correct considering the non finding of evidence and silence of the passengers due to asphyxia of the entire plane who were probably never to wake up.


Ugly Politicians

Perhaps I should qualify: three ugly politicians. They are also bad politicians.

Now, I do not mean that all bad politicians are ugly, far from it. Nor that all ugly politicians are bad. Not at all. I just mean that these three and various other villains become or are ugly. This is no attempt to draw comparisons or correlations – lets leave that to the experts! No, what I want to do is purely character assassination.

Kim Jong Il – although it would be churlish to fail to acknowledge how beautiful he is considered by his own media and owned people.

And the two on this sorry tale of appeasement. The sad figure is now bankrupt non-player and BNP leader Nick Griffin who seems to desperately try to take Britain back to the middle ages when a man could have surfs basically defending cruel dictator “I have a right to murder all my people” Bashar Assad because Damascus is not in ruins (as if he would bomb himself) but is leading a bustling life. Because Mr Griffin is able to deny what he sees he is able to maintain a set of beliefs.

How much of our image of Assad is formed by propaganda? Or is he the real thing, more evil than ugly but about as evil looking as Hitler?

Pause and win

How Obama could deal with Syria. Play the long game and make Assad do it. Invasion seems pointless. Everyone appears to be at war with everyone else – want to join in? Get the chemical weapons out of the equation

President Obama drew a red line in the sand and to maintain any dignity he has to make good his threat. That is yesterday’s thinking. The need to retaliate for the use of chemical weapons by someone in Syria points to one thing. Syria has illegal weapons and he needs to be made to get rid of them. Not by invasion, that is too expensive. Not by trying to blow Damascus into the ground – you would kill large numbers of civilians, too.

But by negotiation. Imagine this?

President O: President Assad, you are guilty of possessing chemical weapons and they are being used. We suggest that you have lost control of your weapons and are therefore now a danger to the world. You have to now stop your war and we have to destroy your weapons or the world will force my hand and we will have to hunt you down. Your crimes against humanity are well documented, both before and largely since the war.

President A: We will never hand over our weapons. If you attack us, we will defend ourselves.

President O: We have heard that one before, and look what our generals did to Saddam. Now we have nothing against the good people of Syria. We have a problem with you harbouring and allowing or using deadly gas against any people. We can destroy them safely and if you hand them over now, we will do it for no charge and help the new Government rebuild.

President A: I will never agree to this.

President O: Then I would not stand so close to the window, Bashar. [CLICK!]

Twenty years ago, that would be pure paranoid conspiracy. Today, that is probably how this will pan out. Bombing Damascus would simply be sad. It is not the fault of the inhabitants. Destroy Syrian air=power – now if that was achieved then more chemical weapon attacks would be a significant risk. The only strategy is to force the most influential actor in this, Assad, to rid Syria of Chemical Weapons so when he inevitably faces trial for his crimes against humanity, there would be something positive in the balance.

USA in undeclared war?

Ron Paul says that the US is in an undeclared war after the French incursion to rescue Mali from Islamic invasion, now being backed by the junior horse in the “Special Relationship” between the UK and USA may start to imply US involvement. Perhaps in an “Expendables” kind of way, a secret order of ageing knights gather in a glade on horseback are rearranging pieces in case USA involvement in a declared “war on terrorism” and invasion is one of those things that the West sees as troublesome and terrifying to swathes of civilisation.

Iran is angry that Israel conducts a military attack on a convoy of weapons headed toward Lebanon. Syria’s borders are not exactly secure with a vicious civil war that the West maybe can not justify an intervention as the rebellion does not appear to be one that will bring peace.

The emtremities of war

So now we have a war of assassins.

While the West attacks the Taliban leadership with remotely controlled preditory model aircraft attempting to pin-point terrorists they still managed to kill random civilians and innocents. It is brutal but compared to territorial fighting it out, wars of attrition, tank battles or the most extreme forms using WMD – it is essentially an attempt to assissinate. To chop the head off the snake. And from the other side, suicide bombers with increasingly bizarre ways to conceal explosives attempt to assassinate a leader of the Afghan military. Recruitment for these two armies seems a little lopsided. On one we have something like video game playing soldiers. On the other, self mutilation.

Syria and Iraq

In the New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/world/middleeast/chemical-weapons-wont-be-used-in-rebellion-syria-says.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120724 – it is evident that Syria has a large cachet of WMD.  Why?  Well Saddam’s stock must have gone somewhere when sabrés were rattled.

Syria is all that is left of the common Ba-athist political party that fell with Saddam in Iraq.  What is Ba’athism?  It is an Islamic form of Socialism.  Possibly a good thing for the Arab World to balance the many dynastic totalitarian ruled cultures that seem stuck in feudal existence.  That Syria has many weapons of mass destruction was predicted.  It was reported on the news that weapons were probably hidden in Syria, the storage place inheriting  Saddam’s WMD.  There may well have been much political cooperation between their governments both under the iron grip of a leader past his use by date, slaughtering dissidents.  His domination of a country by going to war with factions is in common.

And now the Assad regime is bombing Allepo. And denying that they would use chemical weapons on Syrians.  Foreign invaders would be a completely other matter.  Will Romney start to threaten to invade Syria?  Seems a natural.  Or he will he be beaten to it.  The temptation must be terrible on both candidates.  They see it in different terms.

All the more so as it is probably quite correct – that Syria indeed has WMD and that someone is going to do the equation that constructed history.  The problem is going to be  the brutal Assad regime.  It is going to be the WMD, and now it seems only natural that the UN will demand that Syria give them up.   Or face terrible consequences.

Who would America trust in such a scenario.  The guy who killed that terrorist guy.

 

 

 

Syria shoots down Turkish jet

Syria has shot down a Turkish jet without warning after the jet had allegedly entered Syrian airspace when it was flying low 1km off the coast. The Turkish government has vowed “necessary action” in response. Syria has issued some apologies but face international condemnation for killing thousands of protesters and those fighting the Assad regime. What happens next may help oust Assad from power or it may even drag NATO into the conflict.

Guardian article