Malaysia and use of word Allah for God

Harsh language followed by unjust action, the burning of churches, has surrounded the debate regarding whether Malay Christians are able to use the word Allah as a translation for the word God. Some Muslims feel that Allah refers to a different God than the Christian God.

That is interesting because I have decreased some of the prejudice against Muslims among Christians by explaining that Allah is the Arabic word for God, and that with the same roots of Adam, and Abraham, that indeed they are the same God words. Now I see that Muslims unravel that mutual understanding because they confuse a linguistic situation of how to share calling on the name of the one God with specifics of Islamic or Christian doctrine.

One God.

The One God called Allah, The One God called God.

Remember, though, that Christians translate the word God into native languages throughout the world. God is the English language word for God.

Christians don't know they are Christians because they worship the divinity spelled G-O-D.

The tradition language of the Catholic Church, Latin, for example, provides the name of the divinity as Deo.

(example: Deo gratias means Thanks be to God in English. )

Followers of The One God called Allah use the word Allah because the Qur'an was given to them in the Arabic language. Thus Muslims have an official liturgical language, Arabic, just as does the Catholic Church, which is Latin.

Thus to be totally accurate in this argument (if you were having the argument with a Vatican official), you are comparing the use of Arabic Allah with Latin Deo.

Because, despite the translations of the Qur'an into many languages, the translators adhered to the word Allah (Arabic) in each translation (for example my English language Qur'an uses the word Allah), and because the only religious imagery of God that is allowed is the inscription in calligraphy of the word Allah, a linguistic word has become holy to Muslims. That is understandable.

However, being understandable does not mean that Muslims can ignore that a different model was not followed with Christianity. Christians did not make the Latin word Deo the word that must be used in every Bible translation. Further, Christians do not make religious imagery of God using his name Deo. So when a Bible is translated into English, the English language word God is used, not Deo, and likewise in every other language.

Because Christians allow religious imagery, which the Qur'an does not for Muslims, Christians have many sources of religious imagery and thus never sanctified the writing of the name Deo. This is a fundamental difference between the practice of Islam and the practice of Christianity, but it does not mean they are different Gods.

I hope that the religion of peace, Islam, will resolve this problem without disrespect, harming people, threatening, violence and, of course, burning down churches. Where are your scholars, who must surely know as much as I do and have just clearly explained here?

Second of a few end of calendar year thoughts

This will be short and to the point, but it is the "great unspoken," so I will once again speak and say it.

Another year has gone by, capping another decade that has gone by, without genuine justice, truth telling and peace in the Middle East.

I have found myself wondering often, as I see the evidence most clearly before me, if many humans have been so deluded that they genuinely prefer to see Armageddon type so called "signs" in the Middle East, rather than roll up their sleeves and achieve genuine and honorable peace and justice. You know who I mean.

The angels proclaimed their declarations from God upon the birth of Jesus of peace to men (people) of "good will." There will be no peace in the Middle East until people get back to work on it in the transparent and fresh air of truthfulness and genuine good will. Again, this comes down to living righteously, not self proclaimed self-righteousness.

Case study: Fort Hood shooting

I'm going to call this a morality case study, even though the Fort Hood shooting is obviously mostly a criminal and a psychological matter. This is because I want to help my readers, especially the young people (Hi again!) to use powers of faith and reason to understand current events and also to discern the best path to accuracy and justice.

My first point is that human nature likes, yes I would say even craves, simplicity. They will naturally want one and only one reason and cause for why the Fort Hood shooting happened. You hear this on the talk shows where certain hosts gravitate immediately to the Muslim connection, while others gravitate to the stress of exposure (even second hand) to war and post traumatic stress. Yet you must understand that this event, like so many others, are the culmination of several factors all at once. This is why I want to do this as a case study for you.

We have not yet heard from the defendant, and I'm not going to put words in his mouth, second guess him, or try to predict what decisions he will make about culpability. I'm going to teach you how to look at the facts and put yourself in the optimal frame of mind for then processing new developments and information as they occur.

Fact one: The defendant is a psychiatrist, one who is focused on treating and also being among the most grievously war wounded. Thus his contact with the military arena is not firsthand, in that he was not in combat himself (yet). Any soldier will tell you that no one understands combat until he or she is actually in it. So one cannot accurately ascribe a combat mentality to the defendant based on experience, but only his second hand information and his imagination of what it will be like when he is deployed. Think about that last point. He is on the receiving end of those who have returned from combat mentally and physically wounded. He's not treating people who returned from Iraq and Afghanistan but are OK. So he is not part of those who greet the returning veterans and active military who are OK and going home. He is treating those who are severely injured and when not treating them, he is immersed in that environment nonetheless. Thus he gets a "sampling" of combat only from those who are the most injured by combat, and that sampling is the totality of his "experience." He then deduces and imagines what combat is like based on that environment of treating and being among the most wounded and injured of the combatants.

This fact, then, is not "the" cause, but "one" cause. Why is it not "the" cause? Because we can imagine that if other things were different that he might have had more perspective and more comfort in dealing with the one sided view he was receiving of combat. I'm not saying that combat is ever great, but here is my point.

Fact two: He was a lonely and isolated individual. The defendant was never married, had no children, and was not part of a tight knit cultural local community. There are two components to this. The first is reality of military life, which is you go where you are ordered. People from strong local ethnic cultures (Native Americans, for example) often have to leave their intimate support network and be very singular when going to college, joining the military, etc. So there is a cultural isolation that is inherent in that profession. The second and more urgent point is, however, that he was not married. Again and again I have warned that not marrying, the breakdown of the family, and "sexual liberation" will only lead to isolation and ruin. Don't believe me?

Genesis 2:18, 22, 24
Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man is alone; I will make him a helper like himself." And the rib which the Lord God took from the man, he made into a woman, and brought her to him. For this reason a man leaves his father and mother, and clings to his wife, and the two become one flesh.

Let's be all grown up here. People are meant to be together, to be married, to be intimate, to have a life partner and to have sex. Society is falling apart and individuals are going crazy because this freak show society has demonized traditional families and created generations of frustrated lone wolfs. Duh. So my point is that even though fact one regarding his combat imaginings and deductions are true, we don't know that he would have had difficulty with that or indeed snapped if he also had been in a traditional loving intimate and, yes, sexual marriage. This is what I mean when I say that these events are rarely "one cause." Do you see what I mean?

Fact three: He is a Muslim and relationships with Muslims can be, but are not required to be, more complex since the reality of September 11, 2001. Further, Muslim attitudes toward themselves and others can be, but are not required to be, more complex since the reality of September 11, 2001. It is a fact that the defendant joined the military and became a psychiatrist before September 11, 2001. The terrorism of September 11, 2001 is also a fact. Thus one must recognize, without excusing, the significance of timing. Suppose he were a younger man and was not ready to either go to college or enlist until 9/11/2001 had happened. Someone of a more timid character might well have decided, "Hey, I'm a Muslim and I'm not sure I can handle entering the military with all the limelight and pressure on any Muslim, so I'm going to go to school or whatever and not enlist." Those Muslim Americans who felt the patriotic call to the Armed Services went ahead and enlisted, during and post 9/11/2001. This guy, had he been younger, might have recognized that he was not cut out to be in the pressure cooker of belonging to the broad "category" of "Muslim" at the height of justifiable suspicion AND draw further attention to one's self by enlisting where one is going to get pressure, either intentional or unintentional. I'm not saying I believe he was harassed. I'm saying that when one is Muslim, or any other minority, one stands out and one must have a certain strength of character to function accordingly and appropriately. So my third point is the significance of timing of global events and the way people's character is tested by the luck of the draw regarding where they were and what decisions they made, and then subsequent events.

Fact four: Isolated and troubled people easily gravitate to increasingly extreme views, in both politics and their faith. When I say "troubled" I do not mean mentally or emotionally disturbed, in this case study. I mean that they are uneasy about something. As a psychiatrist the defendant would have heard disturbing events and feelings expressed by and experienced by his wounded warrior patients, and the others around him, even if he was not actually treating them. This creates an inherent tension that some can handle, while some cannot. Here's an exercise to help you to imagine the situation I am describing.

Suppose that you are a female counselor and all your patients have had violent encounters with females and here I don't mean battering. What if every one of your patients returned from combat where their injuries were inflicted by women soldiers on the other side? Suppose that you are a gay man who is a counselor. Suppose that every one of your patients had issues because they had been beaten up by gay men, and in return had sometimes done some very bad things?

Do you see what I mean? Some people, particularly those who are isolated (as described above) find themselves identifying more and more with a category of people rather than humanity as a whole when they have to deal with repeated examples of unsuccessful outcomes with their "category." In other words, the defendant would feel more and more "Muslim" and less and less "Army officer," less and less "counselor," less and less "American," less and less "humanitarian." The female counselor in my example above would likewise feel more and more "female" and less and less "officer" or "humanitarian" or "American." Also a well adjusted gay guy who is a regular ordinary counselor might start feeling more and more as being "gay" because patient after patient is describing combat or trauma with or at the hands of gays. Again, this is not an excuse at all. I am explaining why members of all groups find themselves more and more isolated and more and more radical if they are exposed to "bad outcomes" in relationships with their "category" of person.

This is different from the phenomenon that many discuss, and I allude to in fact one, where counselors who counsel certain cases of trauma over and over pick up, like second hand smoking, some of that trauma themselves. I don't think that we can conclude that about the defendant based on the facts, beyond what I said in fact one, which is that lacking first hand combat experience, his entire set of information and opinion is based on the trauma of his patients. So what I am saying is that I am skeptical that he is receiving second hand trauma in the classic way that let's say domestic violence counselors often start to pick up residue of trauma from repeated treatment of domestic violence victims. I am saying that based on the facts that 1) he was not in combat himself and 2) all of what he heard was based on wounded and traumatic experience we can deduce that he had a "sampling" of what combat in predominately Muslim countries was like, rather than first hand experience.

Thus when one is isolated (not married, no children, not in a strong local community network) and one receives troubling information about a category of person (in this case, his faith) that one belongs to, one often has the problem of becoming less, instead of more, integrated with humanity as a whole, and often more radicalized in one's perception of one's own category, with potential for feeling part of a one-sided situation with no neutral ground.

We know that some of the most troubling radicalization of Muslim children occurs when they are in dire poverty and the radical groups feed them, clothe them and send them to school, becoming their caregivers and family. This is what I mean that those who are isolated (without family) and/or troubled (in this example, suffering from poverty) are often quite naturally radicalized as they feel either 1) more isolated due to their "category" and 2) "rescued" by zealotry and "belonging."

I could continue with this but I want to wrap up this blogging here because my purpose is a case study, not an analysis with conclusions, since we simply do not know yet, and may never really know all the facts and perspectives. Again, this is by no means a defense of him but, rather, I am taking advantage of a situation to teach you, especially young people, how to understand the combinations of facts and opportunities/situations that mixed together result in a person's actions or an event.

Our society has become so overwhelmingly complex and false that people have "complexity fatigue" and yearn, unrealistically, for "one cause" and "one reason" factors and that simply is not the case for most events. It is usually a progression and a combination that results in such events and they must be understood as such if they are to be reduced or somehow "fixed."

Here is another fact, published in the New York Times. There are just over four hundred psychiatrists to treat a military of over 500,000 men and women. Whether the pressure of such shockingly few counselors for so many military (particularly during several hot wars) is part of the "cause" or not of the Fort Hood incident, I do not have to psychically channel the genius Albert Einstein to tell you that is far from being enough resources, period.

Further, I cannot believe the foolishness of an incredibly sexualized society that while promoting and pushing sex in all ways and forms except long term marriage allows the isolation of so many single frustrated males and females while they are under pressures of career, combat, and whatever. This is why arranged marriages took place in many societies so that people didn't "demand their rights" to "choose their own partner" and then instead drink, do drugs and end up going to bed alone or with "hook ups," all the while being saturated by the media about how "hot" and alluring one should be.

God ordained marriage as a coping mechanism. Life is a miserable drag (and I don't mean cross dressing, ha, no hate mail please) without the majority of people being married. Again, I don't need to channel Einstein to tell you that. People need stable and intimate spousal relationships and access to expression of their normal sexual needs.

Yes, I can hear some of you think, "Yeah, but what about those losers who nearly every day shoot their own wife and children and then commit suicide? If marriage is so great why do these people kill what they have?" This is what I mean by the complexity of real situations. There is rarely "one cause." Often there is a "trigger" or to use the old expression "The last straw" (referring to loading straw on a camel until the final straw added makes the whole load too heavy and breaks the camel's back). When we hear about events such as murder-suicides and the Fort Hood shooting, there is usually a final "trigger" event but that is rarely the "cause." The "cause" is usually an amalgamation of several fundamental facts.

Any good counselor can tell you that there is usually a combination of these factors: isolation, lack of consistent intimacy (love and sex), trauma (first hand or second hand), stress (workload and/or economic), violence (first or second hand, including media exposure) and addictions. What is the tipping point where one "snaps?" It is usually despair.

See, this is why it is so important to have a stable, normal, marriage and children based society. It is the ultimate and only bulwark against despair. Despair can be fleeting, just a moment of pure desperation, in which case if the person is able to be supported through that moment it passes. Or despair can be accumulating and grinding when the person is in a position of having "their back against a wall," such as we see with people who slowly slide into poverty due to years of economic collapse and ruin. An example of that is the many farmers in India who have been committing suicide in despair as they are ruined. So despair can be either "a moment" or "a long grinding path."

It is not enough to have economic governmental "safety nets." The problem is that the safety net against despair has been nearly totally ruined by this freak show modern society. The safety net of neighborhood, community, family, children and committed intimacy (sex is not a commodity to be obtained but part of the overall spousal intimacy) has been almost totally unraveled.

Again, I'm not excusing by any means or condoning any of the tragic and criminal events that we hear about these days. What I am trying to do is finally get your attention that this is a crisis beyond anyone's full comprehension. I come from a heavy World War II generation and I know what I'm talking about: the change from then to now regarding the "despair" safety net is almost indescribably vast.

I don't, however, want to further dilute the case study by going into my general rant about how these "do your own thing" generations have instead of being liberating have enslaved themselves to modern idolatry, isolation and despair. I concluded with those observations so that one can understand the fact finding that I have demonstrated in this case study about the tragic and criminal Fort Hood shooting against the panoply of so many of these "events" that seem to defy having a simple one source "cause" or "reason." Life and human needs and health are remarkably simple; it is the way that humans are tempted to self destruct and self delude that are astonishingly complex. I hope that this has helped some in regaining some reality based comprehension of what is going on.

A idea to find someone missing

This guy looks like the guy who invented USB, who stars in a Microsoft ad where he is like an incredible celebrity just slaying his fans as he saunters to go get a coffee.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8233815.stm


Maybe if Microsoft thought it was actually him, they'd darken the sky with airplanes and other resources to find him, using their intellectual and IT and resources prowess.

On a serious note, I sincerely hope he and the others are found alive and well, but I am realistic, it's a very tough area.

NO saved Christian can persecute non Christians

Anyone who calls themselves a Christian, who then persecutes ANY non-Christian (but most especially heinously, one of the Abrahamic faiths) and who thinks that they are either righteous in God's eyes or going to be "saved" when they die is incredibly deluded and totally in error.

Jesus explicitly forbade the disciples from wishing physical harm upon those who rejected his message, stating that he came to save and not to destroy.

You cannot call yourself a Christian on the one hand and then oppress a non-believer, or a believer of another faith, on the other hand.

I should not even have to explain that murder in the name of killing non-Christians is breaking a Commandment AND an unspeakable abomination, but read this article and you will see why I am posting this DIRE WARNING.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090817/scahill

I have suspected this kind of alleged mindset for quite some time, most particularly after reading the abominable "Left Behind" series with their cartoonish evil foolishness and total dog dirt ignorance about the Muslim faith.

I marvel that God has not struck everyone dead already by now, for the horror that so many have allowed this world to become, a dirt ball of evil and hypocrisy.

Diplomacy case study: political parties

I want to use the occasion of President Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton (congratulations by the way!) meeting with career diplomats at the State Department to offer another, hopefully helpful, case study. This case study, I think, is essential to speedy and fruitful progress in the Middle East, especially regarding Israel and Palestine, but also the Taliban in Afghanistan and all the groups, including Al Qaida, in Pakistan.

By the way, I remember watching George Mitchell’s great work as diplomatic envoy during The Troubles in Ireland and am glad to see him, and Richard Holbrook, back in the saddle again!

This case study is to help you to have clearer and more productive vision, and thus dialogue, with civilian populations who support radical organizations who regularly or occasionally engage in terrorism.

When an organization, such as Hamas, engages in terrorist activities, such as shooting rockets into civilian parts of Israel, it is natural that a certain skewing of viewpoint takes place by even the most seasoned diplomats. However, this skewing has become entirely too unconscious and routine and thus brings an error into the logical and the feelings that are brought to the diplomatic table. This case study is to help you to eliminate the skewing in perception that takes place when one contemplates or dialogues with an organization that is civilian based but conducts some or many terrorist activities. When you eliminate that skewing of perception, which is based on error, you can make greater progress in your objectives, including the halting of the terroristic component of their activities.

Let’s use some silly examples first. Suppose you are speaking to someone who is just wonderful but has bad breath. Doesn’t the bad breath totally mess up your encounter with them, and doesn’t it ruin your appreciation of their finer qualities? The person with the bad breath could be a beauty queen, or a young Einstein, or the holiest person you know, but you can’t appreciate any of those qualities so long as you are suffering from their bad breath!

This is what a civilian population who supports an organization with a terroristic component is like. Just because they have bad breath in their encounter, this does not mean they are not worthy and wonderful people. Thus, the people of Gaza, by having elected Hamas, are being treated as if they are nothing but gas bags of bad breath. That is unjust, incorrect and unfair.

Let us return to the bad breath example. Coffee, a wonderful beverage, is the cause of much bad breath. So there is an example of a great gift to humanity-coffee-having an unfortunate and often unconscious side effect in many, bad breath. I could not stand the breath of my ex- after he had drunk coffee; it was actually worse than how he smelled after smoking cigarettes. But that does not mean that he was no longer an intelligent person, or one who could look nice, or one that could be kind. He was all of those things, but with bad breath after drinking coffee. So coffee, a genuine gift to humanity and a beneficial thing, can, if not monitored, have an unpleasant side effect that masks all the other good, for those moments, in the person. We can also list other foods like this, such as onions and garlic, feta cheese and so forth.

However, bad breath can also be a warning sign of a health problem. Every mindful and caring parent of a small child knows this. When your child suddenly has bad breath, they are not doing it to annoy you or to be “dirty.” A child with bad breath usually has a nasal drip or an allergy, thus a respiratory health matter. Bad breath is a sign that is supposed to be helpful, to alert someone to a problematic health condition. So you don’t want to be angry at the small infant with bad breath, or just “cover it up,” but look as to why they have the bad breath so that the health matter can be attended to.

Thus the Gaza people with Hamas can be viewed as being like a person with bad breath, and one must see if it is an unconscious side effect of a good thing (coffee) or the sign of a health problem (respiratory distress). By the way, I am not saying Hamas is the bad breath, LOL! I am saying their terroristic actions are the bad breath. Separate from the terroristic acts Hamas members are the same as Gaza civilians, the good that is being masked by the bad breath.

So the first job of the diplomat is to recognize that the terroristic acts that one observes, whether by Hamas or any other group, is like “bad breath.” It has a disproportionate effect of masking the vast majority of normalcy and goodness, with common aspirations, of the people “underneath” the bad breath. Too often diplomats, to say nothing of the reactionary governments, not only just focus on the bad breath but they seem to have entire conversations (mostly threats) with the bad breath (the acts of terrorism) rather than the lips, mouths, brains and hearts of the people behind the terrorism bad breath. I’m faintly amazed that I have to explain this to so many people who think they are otherwise so intelligent.

This is one of the things that the diplomats of, in particular the British Empire, for all their faults well understood. These foreign servants lived among the local people so much that many were accused of “going native” or “going bush,” which is that they embrace the local culture. Thus they were not reactionary when there were “bad breath” incidents, because they maintained their 80 percent to 20 percent understanding of the people who are behind the bad breath and the bad breath acts itself. This was one of the great attributes of the golden age of diplomacy, this ability to maintain vision on not only the “bad breath,” but keep the majority of one’s understanding on the people and the underlying reasons for the bad breath acts.

Now, here is another analogy to help you to understand. There are certain things that the Republican party tends to do that makes me just vomit in disgust, just as there are certain things that the Democrat party does that also makes me vomit. But I do not reduce all the millions of people who agree in each party with those particular positions into thinking of them as just barf making sub-humans, LOL. I know that behind the party platforms and individual heinous viewpoints are, in general, a bunch of individual people who share aspirations and are trying to do the best that they can.

Here is a related analogy. Let’s look at the political party affiliation of the ten Presidents after our first, George Washington.

John Adams: Federalist

Thomas Jefferson: Democratic-Republican

James Madison: Democratic-Republican

James Monroe: Democratic-Republican

John Quincy Adams: Federalist until 1808, Democratic-Republican until 1825, National Republican (Whig) thereafter

Andrew Jackson: Democratic

Martin Van Buren: Democratic (during Presidency); Free Soil (from 1848)

William Henry Harrison: Whig

John Tyler: Whig

James Knox Polk: Democratic

Now, from this list you can observe without reading a “too long” dissertation that political parties came into being and evolved at a rapid rate. Democratic-Republican used to be one party, and they evolved and split. Federalists were the party of our country’s founding, yet even though they were the “original” they did not maintain a mandate once the country was well established. Other parties such as “Free Soil” sprang up in response to current conditions, yet they are forgotten today. Political parties and affiliations are a living and vibrant thing. Likewise people like the Palestinians have an evolving attempt to organize around “parties,” for lack of a better word, that reflect their aspirations and their current reality. Yet countries such as the United States and Israel act like they should be frozen in time.

It is a diplomatic error to think that, “Well, the Palestinians had the PLO, which we denounced since they were terrorists, but they gave up terrorism to become Fatah and thus they are ‘OK’ and we will ‘allow’ the Palestinians to ‘have’ Fatah and Fatah alone.” Huh? What if the United States was forced to only have the Federalist party, one party, the “first and only” alone? After all, the USA was formed by the Federalists. Shouldn’t the USA be forced to have only one party, the Federalists? Are not the Democratic and Republican parties invalid?

When Gaza people voted Hamas into power they were doing so because they were frustrated with the shortcomings, including financial corruption, of Fatah. Yet to this day western diplomats are mouthing off that Hamas is not “legitimate?” Well, I don’t think that any USA political party since the Federalists is valid. I’m not joking. If you are going to tell me that people halfway around the world do not live like the rest of us, having evolving needs and evolving responses in affiliation (and yes, some of them have some bad breath) then I think we should live by the same “rules,” else we are shameless hypocrites. So I am quite serious that I believe that all political parties since the Federalist Party are invalid.

If a diplomat cannot look at a people, such as the Palestinians in Gaza, and have the most fundamental understanding that despite the terroristic actions that are the bad breath of the party in power that this is part of normal democracy and the urges of the people, then one can neither achieve peace nor even have correct vision of the problems, challenges and opportunities. You are punishing the Gaza people for trying to self correct what they thought was a problem with the ruling party, Fatah. You are enabling Israel, by focusing only on the bad breath terrorism, to bomb the hell out of people to punish them for trying to “kick the bums out of office and elect new people,” which was just what they did. It is one of the democratic hypocrisies of the century, in my opinion.

So to wrap up this case study, the point I am trying to make is that politicians, most especially diplomats, must learn to recognize normal democratic process in the natural form that it takes place in other countries and cultures, such as the forming and electing of new parties. Second one must recognize if the bad breath of terrorism of those parties are due to systemic health problems which must be addressed, rather than punching the teeth and gums of innocent men, women and children out of their mouths to “cure the bad breath” and then blame them for it to boot. Third, one must look at the diplomatic challenge and see the parallels in our own history (the British thought we were terrorists, by the way) and respond with a resonance and firm guidance in more fruitful channels rather than denial. Fourth, we need to invest in people’s political interest and participation, not discourage it when we don’t like the results. Fifth we must not have dialogue with the bad breath acts and, instead, go back to having dialogue with the people, friend and foe alike. Sixth, just as the USA would resent being told we must go back to Federalist party alone, so too we must not expect people to have “one size fit all” political parties that meet our (or Israel’s) approval.

I hope that you have found this helpful. I have a lot more to say about how to get going in productive diplomacy but I don't want to make this "tl/dr" (too long; didn't read).

Gaza death toll makes me retch

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/world/middleeast/19gaza.html

snip

More than 20 of them were from the Samouni family, whose younger members were digging with shovels and hands for relatives stuck in rooms inside. Faris Samouni, 59, sat alone, watching them. He had lost his wife, daughter-in-law, grandson and nephew, and he was heartbroken.

“Twenty-one are down there,” he said, starting to cry. “One is my wife. Her name is Rizka.”

snip

“They killed the elders, the children, the women, the animals, the chickens,” said Subhi, 55, Rizka’s brother. “It’s a nightmare. I never thought I would lose all of them.”

snip

The house had a special meaning. The family had lived for generations in a refugee camp, and six years ago had saved enough money to build it. This morning they came to find it in shambles, a crushing discovery.

“It was my dream and now it is erased,” said Hadija Saker, 55, who ticked off the evidence, as she saw it, of Israel’s unjust actions. She said Hamas lacked influence in the area. A teacher at a United Nations school lived on one side. A journalist on the other. Most painful, she said, were her lemon trees, which she had nurtured for years and now lay crushed under the sandy soil crisscrossed with the marks of tank treads.

Gaza doctor's three daughters killed

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50F6ML20090116

snip

The deaths of more than 1,150 Palestinians, some 700 of them civilians by one independent count, have left the Israeli public largely unmoved.

Israel bombs Gaza Catholic med clinic, no surprise

Is anyone surprised by anything that is coming out of the humanitarian disaster in Gaza? I'm not, anymore.



I have to admit, the pregnant woman being shot on her way to the clinic to give birth is kind of a unique low that raises an eyebrow or two. As you can read in the article, mother and baby are dead. But then again, a "military operation" that nods and winks at 900+ dead with a third of them children and women just keeps "delighting" us with how low they can go "But we cannot allow those missiles!"



And then there is the burning phosphorous, but that's in other news coverage.



How can the Israeli government and military sleep at night? I honestly wonder how they could have such hard hearts.





http://www.zenit.org/article-24760?l=english



snip





Israeli Bomb Destroys Caritas Medical Clinic
Aid Group Launches $2M Appeal


GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip, JAN. 12, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Caritas Internationalis is launching an emergency appeal for the suffering people of Gaza after a bomb on Friday destroyed one of the aid organization's medical clinics.


The clinic, in the Al Maghazi district of Central Gaza, was completely destroyed in a bombing that also flattened four homes. At least another 20 homes sustained heavy damage in the blast. Families had already fled the area, so Caritas reported no injuries.


The aid organization has five other medical clinics in Gaza. With their appeal, they are hoping to raise more than $2 million for a seven-month program.


Close to 900 Palestinians have died after two weeks of fighting, and U.N. officials say that 40% of the dead are women and children.


Meanwhile, the priest of Gaza's Catholic parish, Father Manuel Musallam, spoke of the "extreme fear" of the Gazans.


He told Caritas by telephone from Beit Hanoun in Gaza today, "There is extreme fear everywhere here. The bombs the Israelis are dropping are literally cutting through people and through homes. Night and day the sound of children crying is everywhere. The people here don't sleep. They have lost everything.


"70,000 people are living in schools and they are very cold. The ones who haven't gone to schools are living in their bathrooms or stairwells because they are afraid of being injured by shattering glass from bombs. There is no water here. We are almost out of diesel for our generator that we have allowed people to come and cook from. When the diesel runs out, we will have nothing. [...]


"There are dead bodies lying on the streets. The clinics are carrying out operations on the floor.



Women have no place to give birth. One pregnant woman was shot on her way to a clinic to give birth. They tried to save the baby but he, too, was dead.


"Life and death for people in Gaza is the same."

Maybe a new political party in Israel?

Maybe Mr Mubarak and Ms Rice are planning to run together in Israel's upcoming elections.

Just a thought based on their mind boggling lack of conscience regarding Gaza.


((((((((((((((((((What would they call their new party, I wonder?)))))))))))))))))))))))


PUCG? (Party United to Crush Gazans?)

HNH? (Ham Not Hamas?)

SIG (Silence Is Golden?)

DONJ? (Decades Of No Justice?)

NMNRNP? (No Mercy: No Rockets, No Problem?)

Lowest of King David's soldiers would be ashamed

If we told the lowest of the foot soldiers in the army of King David about how their descendants are conducting themselves, they would be in disbelief and in shame.

It's not like they would have dropped a bomb or a shell on a gathering place of frightened refugees at a school even if there were enemy firing on them from behind. I guess the only place that honorable hand to hand combat exists is in your filthy video games.

The lowest of the lowest soldier of King David or Solomon's time would spit on all of you today.

Cultural diplomacy tutorial and RANT

This is another in my series regarding how to understand and achieve successful cultural diplomacy. Here I will explain to you things you must understand about how resistance, subversive and even “terroristic” organizations arise and important characteristics to keep in mind to achieve peace. I have Hamas in the Gaza strip in my mind as the specific case study, but will reference the wide range of groups in history who have been in a revolutionary or uprising role. The only group I want to reserve for separate consideration because they are totally unique is Al Qaeda.

The main point of this tutorial and case study will be to refute the modern assumptions by many, especially those in the western world, that a resistance, subversive or terrorist organization is a separate entity from the civilian population. All resistance, subversive and terrorist organizations arise from the populace; they are not “imposed” on an unwilling population nor are they “side by side” with the populace. Thus Israel and the United States are being deliberately dishonest to imply that Hamas is an organization that can be “rooted out” of the populace, like weeds being pulled from among good corn. Think of Hamas as corn with guns. The same is true of Hezbollah in Lebanon and of course the PLO, now Fatah, the legitimate government, before Fatah lost credibility. One would be more accurate to understand such organizations, with the exception of Al Qaeda, as being violent political parties that non-violent people also support or they would not be on the “ballot” of public opinion.

Look at the two historical examples of the American Revolution and the overthrow of the Czars by the Communists. It’s not like a bunch of people in what would become the United States imposed their will to revolt against England on top of the citizen populace. The delegates to the Congress from the states and then the men who fought in the armies all were drawn from and empowered by the people. Imagine if England thought that the Revolutionaries were a distinct group that they could “kill off” and then the desire for freedom would just die out in America. That would have been a huge military error one that, obviously, they did not make. The English understood very well that the civilian populace fueled and supported the revolution and were part of it, not a separate entity. Those of the civilians who disagreed with the Revolution either remained in place silently and accepted the tide of change, or left for England or Canada. Likewise in the former USSR, one must understand that the populace was behind and part of the Communists who overthrew the monarchy. The problem is that they didn’t know what they were bargaining for, how ruinous Communism would be for body and soul. But the excesses of the monarchy and their ignoring of the extreme and dire poverty of the people allowed the Bolsheviks to arise from among the populace, not as a superimposed force.

Another example is “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland, the conflict between paramilitary Protestant Irish and paramilitary Catholic Irish. Again, right or wrong, it’s not like these groups fell out of the sky and imposed their will on the people. They were members of the populace who felt the need for resistance (Catholic minorities) and counter resistance (the ruling Protestants). That is why one simply could not “go in” and “jail or kill” every paramilitary IRA member, for example, without at the same time pursuing genuine diplomacy. Because these extremist organizations arise from and belong to the populace, one cannot EVER pursue a “sequential” process where “step one” is “stop the violence” and then step two as the “reward” is the diplomacy.

The United States is guilty of naïve and even stupid beliefs such as that. I cannot remember the last time we had “diplomats” who were actually even adequate in understanding the principles of diplomacy and the origins of revolutionary, subversive or terrorist movements. Israel knows darn well the difference but they have made a cultural decision to have a “backs against the wall” stance that insists on total “peace” before social injustice is addressed. Thus Israel is delighted at the naiveté of the past several generations of US “diplomats” who they view as public relations mouthpieces and “defensive” weapons suppliers. I mean, give me a break. Any diplomat worth his or her salt realizes that one cannot “wait” for a total “cease fire” before diplomacy while at the same time one side is turning up the heat of the social injustice that, genuine or perceived, is the result of the valid or invalid violence. It is like expecting a pit bull to stop biting while you are still hitting it with a stick. Israel knows full well that they have tightened the screws on the Palestinians to make their day to day economic life a misery and, in fact, a gulag and thus they continue to poke the pit bull while loudly screaming with feigned senses of grievance that “total peace” is needed before “diplomacy can begin.”

President Bush and his “expert on Russia,” Condoleezza Rice, have not earned one penny of their paychecks regarding the Middle East. What an embarrassment they have been.

Notice I have mixed examples of what people could say are “justifiable” revolution, subversion and while terrorism is never justified one must acknowledge that obviously someone thinks it is or they’d be home planting grape vines, with examples that obviously came to very unhappy fruition, such as the Bolshevik Revolution that brought Communism to power. You don’t “agree” with the people you are engaging in diplomacy with, for cripes sake. Golda Meir (the last Israeli leader that I think understood diplomacy) herself said that you negotiate with your enemies, not your friends. Diplomats should not be “step and fetch its” for one side in the diplomatic endeavor.

I mean, think about this slowly and carefully. In resolving a dispute, how reasonable and fair can that diplomat be if they are supplying one side with the weaponry? The idea of the USA being a diplomat in the Middle East problem is a joke and always has been. All the USA does is supply Israel with weapons and pats on the back. That’s fine if that is the foreign policy stance of the USA but what nerve they have to call themselves “partners in a peace process” and “diplomats.”

Europeans used to be very savvy about diplomacy, having centuries of genuine experience, and they used to laugh at Americans being clods and naïve. In turn, in fairness, Americans spotted the mote in the Europeans’ own diplomatic eye with their soft stance toward the grave and mortal dangers of Communism. But because the Americans were right about Communism, the Europeans shut up and just let it slide as the Americans make a mess of the Middle East. In turn the Americans think that they are foreign policy geniuses (for recognizing that Communism is bad, duh) and as a result have missed cultivating at least three generations of genuine diplomats.

There is another cultural problem with Americans. Because they have experienced over the past forty years the freakish forming of cults and criminal individuals or groups that are terrorists, they have done an unconscious and totally invalid pattern matching in their minds. Thus when America had domestic terrorists such as the SLA (the folks who kidnapped Patty Hearst back in the 60's) who are a few nuts who united for havoc, the lack of diplomatic savvy in the government resulted in Americans just assuming that all terrorists throughout the world are a loose coalition of "nuts" "imposing” terrorism on the populace. In other words, Americans have become so simplistic that they have only two models of understanding of armed resistance: a group of criminal nuts like the SLA from the 60's, or Al Qaeda from 2001. Americans seem to understand absolutely nothing in between which is where all the conflicts in the world actually reside, in that space in between.

Therefore, to summarize my points:

1) You cannot have a valid diplomatic role if you are supplying weaponry to one side, period. I mean, duh, how difficult is that to understand? Step aside and let real genuine neutral diplomats take over your "role."

2) We need genuine diplomats who understand cultural and historical contexts and who understand the actual diplomatic process and are not just “advocates with agendas for one side.”

3) All enduring organizations that are based on armed resistance are not separate from the populace and cannot be extracted from the populace.

4) There is no example of diplomacy where negotiation “waits” until “after” violence has “completely stopped,” particularly if the aggrieved side experiences continual pressure and provocation.

5) Do not say you are for “democracy” and “free elections” and then declare the winners “terrorists.” Hamas was elected into office, deal with it, not whine and try to kill them off while calling yourselves "pillars of democracy."

The diplomatic ignorance and willful collusion of the Americans in injustice in many forums around the world has been a source of excruciating embarrassment for me for decades now. We don’t have diplomats; we have empty suits with big egos who fly around like celebrities. It’s embarrassing.

Israeli government/military have lost their minds

Pray for them. They have completely lost their way.

I would thought that had been obvious after Lebanon, but the defensive killing mentality just keeps rolling on, aided and abetted by deliberately unseeing Western governments.

Logic, decency, justice and humanitarianism is not working with the Israelis.

Only God can change their hearts.

How has Israel gotten to this point where those in the government who still believe in God at all think that God approves a mindless, vengeful killing machine?

Pray, pray, pray.

Cultural diplomacy: points to remember

The event in Mumbai is a good opportunity to restate some of what I have already discussed, and put it in an easy reference list. Here I want to focus with you on how to understand and deal with terrorism. Here are the points you must always keep in mind, and then flesh out your policy, strategy and tactics based on this understanding.

1) You cannot ever "kill all of the terrorists."

It is tempting to think that they are a certain number of people who can be hunted down and killed, but they are a process, not a generation. Erroneous strategy results if one imagines that there is some fixed number of terrorists who can be killed. Here is a mental exercise to help from falling into that mind trap. Imagine if you are in charge of domestic war against gangs. Can you kill every youth who is in a gang, and think that the phenomenon of gangs then disappears? Of course not. Gangs are a substitute structure for something, reasonable or totally unreasonable, that is lacking in the lives of potential members. Terrorism is likewise a continuing process that draws new generations, not a specific number of people. So it is essential that you do not confuse a policy of vigorously going after "all" terrorists with the delusion that if you kill enough of them that terrorists and terrorism as a concept goes away.

2) Terrorists tend to be morally very conservative.

This is true not only of Islamic extremists, but many of the other problems with terrorism, such as "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland. One must always bear this in mind because it is essential to both understanding terrorists and, if one ever gets to the fortunate point of direct dialogue, negotiating with them. This is because you must understand that moral conservatism is an incentive for peace in negotiating with terrorists. For example, I commented before that I wish that Pope John Paul II had gone further in excommunicating not only IRA members, but those of the flock who supported them. It is important that diplomatic and religious leaders maintain their own moral high ground in dealing with terrorists. Not only do they respect that, but yielding on certain morality issues is a genuine bargaining chip in negotiations. I mean, what is more important, having peace in some region of the Middle East, or insisting that we are only free if we have XXX rated video stores on every corner? Terrorists do not understand or accept the "lowest common denominator" of morality. That "translated" means that terrorists, in general, do not understand why westerners want morals to be invisible or at the level of the lowest practitioner in an area. Western society has this weird view that all of society should be receptive to immoral business and activities in advance of their actually being in an area. Community morals are very important to terrorists.

By the way, this is true even among terrorists who belong to cults who seem to have practices that many view as morally questionable. It is not important that you, as a diplomat, or a combatant of terrorism, judge if the terrorist is truly "morally conservative" or not. What is important is that you understand that he or she fervently believes that they are morally conservative.

As a corollary to this lesson, it is incorrect to say that terrorists only want to "impose their morals on others." Sometimes that is true, but often it is actually the terrorists who want to preserve what had been traditional community standards of morality, which westerners seek to erode for money/business and also a libertine view of "progressive" society. You cannot negotiate with terrorists, in general, if you do not have as background an understanding of this difference.

3) Terrorists recruit from among the poor, the desperate and the disenfranchised.

While their leaders may have access to personal fortunes, it is the poor and the desperate, often as children, who listen to their message and enlist. One useful analogy is to think of terrorists as community organizers and activists, who then go to "the dark side." Terrorists tend to take the problems of poverty and being disenfranchised from the majority very seriously. It is while they remedy these problems, for example setting up their own schools and welfare programs, that continuing more militant youthful terrorists join their ranks. One cannot effectively combat terrorism while there is rank and mind boggling poverty among large groups of disenfranchised people. Many terrorists start out as children in the worst nameless and faceless poverty that few in the west where even the poorest has a social security card can understand. Generations of Palestinians have demonstrated this, and we are now seeing generations of poor children who become terrorists in Asia, such as Pakistan, India and other countries. The continent of Africa has many examples of this too, fueling tribal conflict and horrible recruitment of child soldiers. One cannot effectively combat terrorism without at the same time and with equal, not less, vigor combat poverty in the home grown terrorist nations.

I could offer more suggestions, but I remember from my corporate presentation days that three points are the ideal number for maximum memory and effectiveness of implementation. I hope that you have found this helpful.

Song I often think of in times like these

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Child-in-Time-lyrics-Deep-Purple/73E46DE8313164A54825695E0004DA1A


Sweet child in time,
you'll see the line
(the) Line that's drawn between
(the) good (in us) and (the) bad (in us)
See the blind man
shooting at the world
Bullets flying,
ooh taking toll
If you've been bad -
Oh Lord I bet you have
And you've not been hit
oh by flying lead
You'd better close your eyes,
aahaouho bow your head
Wait for the ricochet

Ooo-ooo-ooo-ooo..
Ooo-ooo-ooo-ooo..
Aaa-aaa-aaa..
Oh, I wanna hear you sing..
Aaa-aaa-aaa..
Oaoh..
AAA-AAA-AAA!!
AAA-AAA-AAA!!

More from Mumbai, motivations?

I don't know about you, but I've been frustrated by the chaos, particularly as reported here on the news networks, claiming that the terrorists have not spoken and not given a motive.

Yet here is this snip from the Times of India.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Release_all_mujahideen_Terrorist/articleshow/3762100.cms

We want all Mujahideen released: Terrorist inside Oberoi

MUMBAI: A militant holed up inside Mumbai's Oberoi Hotel told a television news channel on Thursday that seven attackers were holding hostages


Firemen try to douse fire at the Taj Hotel in Mumbai. (Reuters Photo)

"There are seven of us inside hotel Oberoi," the man identified as Sahadullah told the channel. "We want all Mujahideens held in India released and only after that we will release the people."

The terrorist said he belonged to an Indian Islamist group that is seeking an end to the persecution of Indian Muslims.

Identifying himself as a member of a group calling itself Deccan Mujahedeen, the gunman, who was holed up in the Oberoi Trident Hotel, called for the release of all fellow Islamic militants detained in India.

"Muslims in India should not be persecuted. We love this as our country but when our mothers and sisters were being killed, where was everybody?" he told the channel by phone from inside the hotel, which is surrounded by army commandos. "Release all the Mujahideens, and Muslims living in India should not be troubled," he said.

***
OK, my point in posting this is that I'm suspicious that Indian officials might not release all that they know about the motives of the terrorists. They are riding a wave of understandable worldwide sympathy and condemnation of the attacks... but they are also kind of making it look like these guys are killing for no "reason" (no matter how mistaken the reason may be). Britain and the USA in particular must be a little wary in future days of how much they are actually obtaining in good intelligence regarding motives. I suspect the lack of hostage negotiating is kind of going both ways, if you know what I mean.

My thoughts about Mumbia, India situation

No one has official word about who is behind the terrorist attacks, so to give advice I have to make some assumptions. I'll assume that they represent Islamic believers on the extreme end of the faith scale.

India has put itself into quite a pickle with their deliberate ignoring of their own Christians being tortured, killed, raped, publicly paraded naked, and driven out of their homes into the jungle and camps, where they are homeless and sick. Why does this have an impact on the terrorist attacks? Disdain. One cannot negotiate with Islamic extremists if you are demonstrated unbelievers, who persecute other believers. While many assume that Islamic terrorists only consider fellow Muslims to be believers, when negotiating, one still wants to avoid their contempt and disdain that has resulted from showing that you are a persecutor of believers, especially in such an immodest way. The USA learned that to their extreme discomfort in what they did to some Iraqi prisoners, making them be naked and depraved in prison. Remember also that Islam is a belief based on total equality, where there is no class system, unlike the most repressive class system what was ever created, which still exists in India.

So while I am not saying that the terrorists made their action for any reason other than their own cause, I am giving India some cultural diplomacy advice that they have ignored, including in their dealings with me, at their peril. I find it interesting that there are reports of a Jewish prayer center being occupied with hostages of a rabbi, his wife and others. If true, I think the odds of the hostages surviving are best if they are perceived as believers rather than political representatives. You see what I mean? But this is all guesswork at this point, is it not?

My point is that the "land of Gandhi" has no credibility as far as being perceived by those who have devout and even fanatic motivation by their serving God, whether their actions bring credit to God or not in fact. There is no Muslim who would not be horrified at what treatment the Indian government has ignored (and even the police encouraged), when priests and nuns were stripped, sexually assaulted, tortured, murdered, paraded and defamed. Muslim extremists would make note of the weakness and complicity of the police in attacking Christians. Notice that high ranking police were quickly killed in the assault. You are in a difficult position, in both battle and negotiation, if your opponent has total contempt for you. It creates an "anything goes" mentality in achieving one's objectives, one that is difficult to either thwart or negotiate with, especially as they will gladly achieve what they consider to be martyrdom.

Ten years ago I had a job where I had dozens of Indian green card holders working for me. I was fond of them and defended them against those who poked fun at their Hindu beliefs. Yet, my sense of fondness was drained away as I found that Indian occult beliefs (astrology) informed many of those who stalked and persecuted me. Indians, behind the scenes, stalked and persecuted me, making my life miserable, because of their imaginary beliefs in crazy reincarnation, and their ambition at trying to manipulate the future, rather than trusting in God and having any sort of humility.

One must remember that the way you treat your own people opens the door for how extremists will treat you. That is called "escalation." Even if there is no common ground between people your country persecutes, Christians, in this example, and the presumed Islamic terrorists in Mumbai, they watch TV, they read the papers, they do their research, and they observe whenever a country, especially its police, loses the moral high ground due to their own disgraceful behavior. This is why the terrorists will usually fight to the death, since they are confident they have the moral high ground. It is never helpful in fighting terrorism or negotiating if a country inflates the terrorists perception that indeed, they are fighting immoral and corrupt institutions.

That said, it is never right to take innocent life. But again, we look around the world and see those areas where life is perceived as being "cheap." The tone is first set by the home culture, not by the intruder.

More detailed Mumbai attack coverage

The Times of India has an article that gives much more information about what has happened and what is going on in Mumbai.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Terrorists_strike_Mumbai_80_dead_900_hurt/articleshow/3761410.cms

Taliban sympathizers spray girls with acid

What kind of men are these? Who spray girls with acid just because they are going to school AND they are modest and fully veiled? What more were the girls supposed to do? Oh, that's right, these extremists don't believe in education for girls.

Well, ask yourselves, why then would they disfigure and possibly blind these girls, so that then these so called pious men can say they are "not suitable for marriage?" Which way do you want it, extremists? You do not want girls to go to school, yet then you "punish" them by endangering their lives, their beauty and their chances at marriage? You hypocrites!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/world/asia/13afghan.html

My comment about the Pakistan bombing

I deplore all terrorism and terrorist acts. They are not God's will and will be severely judged by him when the time comes. I feel deeply for all the victims and their families, many of whom were modest people just trying to provide for their families. I think about that security guard who we see on the video tape bravely trying to extinguish the fire in the truck, before the one ton of explosives hidden inside detonated.

Commentators are quick to simplify, to put into black and white, why these things happen. I just listened to a report that jumps to the conclusion that it is because of the Pakistan-American alliance. Such simplifications obscure what is really going on, and therefore hinders resolution or at least de-escalation.

It is the escalation that I want to speak of today. It is never a good thing when a government, regardless of the provocation, invades a mosque where militants reside and results in the deaths of many people, as I recall, it was a hundred or so. Pakistan did just that, invading a militant occupied mosque, not so long ago. This is something the United States learned (but the lessons have not been plumbed fully enough) when it fired upon a cultist sect compound that resulted in a huge loss of life, including children inside, when it burned to the ground. Humans have historically understood the importance of patience, of laying siege when one must, but not recently, when both Western and Eastern politicians and military people seem to not "wait" and just turn to the gun. That is escalation.

Then, the terrorists feel it becomes "no hold barred" combat. If a mosque can be attacked and many inside killed and wounded, including naive students under the sway of the militants, then why not bomb during Ramadan? That is the terrible step by step "logic" of the escalation of terrorism. Also, each of these events become touchstones and reference points for future revenge and "anniversary" violence, as we see in both the United States after the Waco siege and now in Pakistan after the Red Mosque siege. (Read about these and follow up events in the links below).

It seems that no government today understands how you can be firm but also grounded securely on morals and good example, and thus prevent escalation of the violence.

Again, prayers and condolences to all who have been harmed in this dastardly turn of events. But I urge everyone to remember that every step "across the Rubicon" tends to bring an equal escalation and hardening of heart by humans in opposition and return. The military of Pakistan, the real power holders, must decide how to respond. I urge them to reconsider a policy of using even greater force and greater ferocity, because that sows the dragons teeth that are never ending into the ground of violence. To the terrorists I say that you should beware of turning your piety toward God into a war machine that then becomes incapable of feeling piety, even if they think they still do.

Resources for young people and students who wish to understand more about the two events I referenced above:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Mosque

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege