http://www.buyandhold.com/bh/en/education/history/2000/boesky.html
Archives
Ivan Boesky
Brian Trumbore
President/Editor, StocksandNews.com
I started my Wall Street career in November of 1982, which, since the Bull Market began in August of that year, makes me a Bull Market baby. Oh, to think that the market was around 770 that summer. Also in 1982, an arbitrageur by the name of Ivan Boesky decided that he didn't exactly always have the magic touch in selecting deals to invest in so he switched tactics, thus earning his place in the annals of Wall Street History.
Boesky was the son of a Detroit bar owner who had come to the Street in 1975. Setting up shop in relative obscurity and having attended a law school no one on the Street had ever heard of, Boesky used his family's money to enter the arbitrage business. He quickly built a reputation for himself as a shrewd operator.
Boesky used to bet on takeover situations, mostly after a deal had been announced, thereby assuring the arb of a profit if the deal went through at the announced price. For example, Co. X announces a takeover of Co. Y at $70 a share. Co. Y stock, which had been $40 before the announcement, climbs to $65. An arb may step in at that point (or as it is climbing to that level) and place a heavy bet that the deal gets done at the announced $70 a share, thereby assuring him a $5 profit. Now if you leverage that bet, the percentage gain could be much greater than the simple $5 and sometimes a competing offer would enter the picture at, let's say, $75 or higher. All the better for the arb.
But there were other times when the announced deal would fall through. In these cases the arb could get squeezed. This was the case in May of 1982 when Gulf Oil's announced takeover attempt of Cities Service failed. Boesky lost $24 million on this deal. And it was this loss that apparently led Ivan to build a secret network of investment bankers and brokers, simply to improve his odds. This network would then supply Boesky with insider information. Two of the key figures were Martin Siegel of Kidder Peabody and Dennis Levine of Drexel, Burnham, Lambert - both old and respected firms.
Using inside information supplied by Siegel, Boesky made $28 million from Nestle's acquisition of Carnation in 1984. They were heady times for many on Wall Street. It was the time of "Master's of the Universe," and much cruder labels. The big money guys on the Street worked hard. "Lunch is for wimps," said Gordon Gekko in the movie "Wall Street," a great depiction of that era. Boesky was one who worked 21-hour days. Hard work, a product of the trader culture, came to replace play as the motif of the super-rich.
It was also the time when the LBO, or leveraged buyout, took off. LBO's were ways to make money by taking public companies private. Companies would float bonds to buy up a controlling interest in the stock and then use the company's cash flow to finance the debt. The secret was forecasting out the company's cash flow, the measure of how much debt it could support.
Dennis Levine of Drexel and Boesky became fast friends by 1986. Boesky had opened an investment fund called the Hudson Fund. Drexel agreed to raise over $600 million for him through a junk offering provided that it was paid almost $24 million fees. And later, even the notorious Charles Keating of Lincoln S&L fame contributed $100 million to Boesky's arbitrage partnership.
Boesky began to work some deals but he was building an empire built on tips more than doing his homework. And he invested a portion of his gains in ways that only enhanced his reputation. For example, Boesky owned the Beverly Hills Hotel in L.A., site of Michael Milken's Predator's Ball which spoke of the virtues of junk bonds as dozens of politicians and academics feasted on sumptuous dinners amid a bevy of Trump-like arm candy. (Even Bill Bradley found himself delivering a speech to Milken's audience.)
But during the course of 1986, the Fed's were growing increasingly leery of the trading activity in some of the deals that Boesky was investing in. He was soon indicted on a variety of charges in an insider-trading scandal that was to stain the industry for the rest of the decade.
The most notorious of the Boesky allegations involved an engineering company, Fischbach, that had been subject to a hostile raid by a Drexel client. As described in Charles Morris' book, "Money, Greed, and Risk," the deal went down like this:
"(Fischbach) bought back the raider's stock, and negotiated a standstill agreement, barring another takeover attempt unless some new raider acquired a 10% stock position in the company. Boesky later acquired a 10% position in Fischbach, allegedly at the behest of Michael Milken, and made a takeover declaration, opening the door to an eventual takeover by another Milken client. Milken allegedly guaranteed Boesky against any losses, which would have been illegal. Milken said he never made any such guarantees, that he merely advised Boesky that Fischbach was a great opportunity, but that he never made guarantees. Boesky's testimony went like this."
Q: O.K. And did Milken say to you in that conversation that he would guarantee you against loss?
A: These were not the words, never were the words.
Q: It's the code you were talking about, the Wall Street code?
A: I never used that word either. It was an understanding.
Q: O.K. What were the words you remember Milken using?
A: "Just buy it, don't worry about it," something to that effect…I've forgotten the exact language of the conversation.
Officials at Fischbach ended up being indicted for bid rigging. A deal eventually went through but not at the level that Boesky had even paid. Allegedly, Boesky had bought the stock at $50 with the final sale being at $45 compared with current market value of $40.
Boesky admitted to numerous offenses and then turned state's evidence, primarily against Milken. He received a 3 1/2 year prison sentence and $100 million fine after admitting to the charges and reached a plea bargain with Rudy Giuliani, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of N.Y. Giuliani was to draw criticism because Ivan was allowed to unload his holdings before his indictment was officially announced, realizing profits from it before being convicted. Others considered the sentence and fine as being too light. But Giuliani and company was after a much bigger fish, namely Milken.
As Boesky left federal court in 1987, he proclaimed, "Greed is all right…everybody should be a little greedy." The man who once paid for secret information with a suitcase full of cash was off to the slammer.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Ivan Boesky - The Symbol of Greed
http://law.jrank.org/pages/12164/Boesky-Ivan-symbol-greed.html
In 1985 the SEC began an investigation after detecting suspicious activity on the stock market. With insiders trading privileged information, various company stocks were being purchased in a dramatic fashion just before a major announcement about a merger or sale of the company was made. The Southern District of New York also conducted an investigation at the same time as the SEC. The prosecutor in charge of the case was U.S. attorney and future mayor of New York City Rudolph "Rudy" Giuliani (1944–).
In 1986 the SEC investigation trail led to Dennis Levine. As a result, Levine made a deal with authorities and turned in his partner, Ivan Boesky. With solid evidence that Boesky was trading insider information, he entered a guilty plea on November 14, 1986. Boesky struck a bargain with Giuliani and the SEC that included a $100 million fine and a three-year prison sentence, served mostly at California's Lompoc Federal Prison Camp. As part of the deal, Boesky agreed to act as a government informer to help break up the illegal activities of others on Wall Street.
Because of Boesky's cooperation, subpoenas (court orders requiring testimony in court) were issued to some of America's wealthiest financiers, including Michael Milken. Boesky himself went from being one of the wealthiest and most successful figures on Wall Street to being banned from the securities industry. His name would forever be linked with scandal and corruption. Following his prison time Boesky continued living on his great wealth but avoided public attention.
Many saw Boesky as the visible symbol of the greed and excess of the 1980s. Oliver Stone directed a movie called Wall Street, inspired by the financial crimes of the decade. The script's main character was a high-powered financier who steals a line from Ivan Boesky himself when he announces that "greed is good."
Citing this material
Please include a link to this page if you have found this material useful for research or writing a related article. Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information.
Highlight the text below, right-click, and select “copy”. Paste the link into your website, email, or any other HTML document.
Ivan Boesky - The Symbol Of Greed
In 1985 the SEC began an investigation after detecting suspicious activity on the stock market. With insiders trading privileged information, various company stocks were being purchased in a dramatic fashion just before a major announcement about a merger or sale of the company was made. The Southern District of New York also conducted an investigation at the same time as the SEC. The prosecutor in charge of the case was U.S. attorney and future mayor of New York City Rudolph "Rudy" Giuliani (1944–).
In 1986 the SEC investigation trail led to Dennis Levine. As a result, Levine made a deal with authorities and turned in his partner, Ivan Boesky. With solid evidence that Boesky was trading insider information, he entered a guilty plea on November 14, 1986. Boesky struck a bargain with Giuliani and the SEC that included a $100 million fine and a three-year prison sentence, served mostly at California's Lompoc Federal Prison Camp. As part of the deal, Boesky agreed to act as a government informer to help break up the illegal activities of others on Wall Street.
Because of Boesky's cooperation, subpoenas (court orders requiring testimony in court) were issued to some of America's wealthiest financiers, including Michael Milken. Boesky himself went from being one of the wealthiest and most successful figures on Wall Street to being banned from the securities industry. His name would forever be linked with scandal and corruption. Following his prison time Boesky continued living on his great wealth but avoided public attention.
Many saw Boesky as the visible symbol of the greed and excess of the 1980s. Oliver Stone directed a movie called Wall Street, inspired by the financial crimes of the decade. The script's main character was a high-powered financier who steals a line from Ivan Boesky himself when he announces that "greed is good."
Citing this material
Please include a link to this page if you have found this material useful for research or writing a related article. Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information.
Highlight the text below, right-click, and select “copy”. Paste the link into your website, email, or any other HTML document.
Ivan Boesky - The Symbol Of Greed
The Importance of Edward Mandell House
http://www.gemworld.com/EdMandellHouse.htm
Edward Mandell House
In 1913, Colonel Edward Mandell House helped to pick the charter members of the original Federal Reserve Board.
Edward Mandell House (originally “Huis” which became “House”) was born July 26, 1858 in Houston, Texas. He became active in Texas politics and served as an advisor to President Woodrow Wilson, particularly in the area of foreign affairs. House functioned as Wilson's chief negotiator in Europe during the negotiations for peace (1917-1919), and as chief deputy for Wilson at the Paris Peace Conference. He died on March 28, 1938 in New York City.
Edward and his father had friends in the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan dispensed vigilante justice after the Civil War. In 1880 a new legitimate group was in charge of dispensing justice in Texas -- the Texas Rangers. Many of the Texas Rangers were members of the Klan. Edward was the new master. Edward gained their loyalty by stroking their egos. Edward would use his money and influence to try and make them famous. Edward eventually inherited the Texas Ku Klux Klan.
Edward Mandell House helped to make four men governor of Texas: James S. Hogg (1892), Charles A. Culberson (1894), Joseph D. Sayers (1898), and S. W.T. Lanham (1902). After the election House acted as unofficial advisor to each governor. Hogg gave House the title "Colonel" by promoting House to his staff.
Edward wanted to control more than Texas, Edward wanted to control the country. Edward would do so by becoming a king maker instead of a king. Edward knew that if he could control two or three men in the Senate, two or three men in the House; and the President, he could control the country.
Edward would influence the candidate from behind the scenes. The people would perceive one man was representing them, when in reality; an entirely different man was in control. House didn't need to influence millions of people; he need only influence a handful of men. Edward would help establish a secret society in America that would operate in the same fashion -- the Council on Foreign Relations.
Edward Mandell House was instrumental in getting Woodrow Wilson elected as President. Edward had the support of William Jennings Bryan and the financial backing of the House of Rockefeller's National City Bank. Edward became Wilson's closest unofficial advisor.
Edward Mandell House and some of his schoolmates were also members of Cecil Rhodes Round Table group. The Round Table Group, the back bone of the Secret Society, had four pet projects, a graduated income tax, a central bank, creation of a Central Intelligence Agency, and the League of Nations.
Between 1901 and 1913 the House of Morgan and the House of Rockefeller formed close alliances with the Dukes and the Mellons. This group consolidated their power and came to dominate other Wall Street powers including: Carnegie, Whitney, Vanderbilt, Brown-Harriman, and Dillon-Reed. The Round Table Group wanted to control the people by having the government tax people and deposit the peoples money in a central bank. The Group would take control of the bank and therefore have control of the money. The Group would take control of the State Department and formulate government policy, which would determine how the money was spent. The Group would control the CIA which would gather information about people, and script and produce psycho-political operations focused at the people to influence them to act in accord with Round Table Group State Department policy decisions. The Group would work to consolidate all the nations of the world into a single nation, with a single central bank under their control, and a single International Security System. Some of the first legislation of the Wilson Administration was the institution of the graduated income tax (1913) and the creation of a central bank called the Federal Reserve. An inheritance tax was also instituted. These tax laws were used to rationalize the need for legislation that allowed the establishment of tax-exempt foundations. The tax-exempt foundations became the link between the Groupmember's private corporations and the University system. The Group would control the Universities by controlling the sources of their funding. The funding was money sheltered from taxes being channeled in ways which would help achieve Round Table Group aims.
Edward Mandell House had this to say in a private meeting with President Woodrow Wilson:
“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will effect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions.
Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.”
Edward Mandell House
In 1913, Colonel Edward Mandell House helped to pick the charter members of the original Federal Reserve Board.
Edward Mandell House (originally “Huis” which became “House”) was born July 26, 1858 in Houston, Texas. He became active in Texas politics and served as an advisor to President Woodrow Wilson, particularly in the area of foreign affairs. House functioned as Wilson's chief negotiator in Europe during the negotiations for peace (1917-1919), and as chief deputy for Wilson at the Paris Peace Conference. He died on March 28, 1938 in New York City.
Edward and his father had friends in the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan dispensed vigilante justice after the Civil War. In 1880 a new legitimate group was in charge of dispensing justice in Texas -- the Texas Rangers. Many of the Texas Rangers were members of the Klan. Edward was the new master. Edward gained their loyalty by stroking their egos. Edward would use his money and influence to try and make them famous. Edward eventually inherited the Texas Ku Klux Klan.
Edward Mandell House helped to make four men governor of Texas: James S. Hogg (1892), Charles A. Culberson (1894), Joseph D. Sayers (1898), and S. W.T. Lanham (1902). After the election House acted as unofficial advisor to each governor. Hogg gave House the title "Colonel" by promoting House to his staff.
Edward wanted to control more than Texas, Edward wanted to control the country. Edward would do so by becoming a king maker instead of a king. Edward knew that if he could control two or three men in the Senate, two or three men in the House; and the President, he could control the country.
Edward would influence the candidate from behind the scenes. The people would perceive one man was representing them, when in reality; an entirely different man was in control. House didn't need to influence millions of people; he need only influence a handful of men. Edward would help establish a secret society in America that would operate in the same fashion -- the Council on Foreign Relations.
Edward Mandell House was instrumental in getting Woodrow Wilson elected as President. Edward had the support of William Jennings Bryan and the financial backing of the House of Rockefeller's National City Bank. Edward became Wilson's closest unofficial advisor.
Edward Mandell House and some of his schoolmates were also members of Cecil Rhodes Round Table group. The Round Table Group, the back bone of the Secret Society, had four pet projects, a graduated income tax, a central bank, creation of a Central Intelligence Agency, and the League of Nations.
Between 1901 and 1913 the House of Morgan and the House of Rockefeller formed close alliances with the Dukes and the Mellons. This group consolidated their power and came to dominate other Wall Street powers including: Carnegie, Whitney, Vanderbilt, Brown-Harriman, and Dillon-Reed. The Round Table Group wanted to control the people by having the government tax people and deposit the peoples money in a central bank. The Group would take control of the bank and therefore have control of the money. The Group would take control of the State Department and formulate government policy, which would determine how the money was spent. The Group would control the CIA which would gather information about people, and script and produce psycho-political operations focused at the people to influence them to act in accord with Round Table Group State Department policy decisions. The Group would work to consolidate all the nations of the world into a single nation, with a single central bank under their control, and a single International Security System. Some of the first legislation of the Wilson Administration was the institution of the graduated income tax (1913) and the creation of a central bank called the Federal Reserve. An inheritance tax was also instituted. These tax laws were used to rationalize the need for legislation that allowed the establishment of tax-exempt foundations. The tax-exempt foundations became the link between the Groupmember's private corporations and the University system. The Group would control the Universities by controlling the sources of their funding. The funding was money sheltered from taxes being channeled in ways which would help achieve Round Table Group aims.
Edward Mandell House had this to say in a private meeting with President Woodrow Wilson:
“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will effect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions.
Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.”
Indian View: Cover-up in Mumbai
Sandhya Jain
1 December 2008
While stock-taking has only just begun, it already appears as if some things are being covered up. In these circumstances, the retention of Narayanan who was invisible during the entire crisis though he was too visible in the hated Indo-US nuclear deal does nothing to inspire confidence. In an atmosphere when media hype persistently reminds us of the Twin Towers tragedy in New York, one can only think of the success of Prince Bandar in escorting all well-connected Saudi youth out of America in the immediate aftermath of 11 September 2001.
Some things deserve an immediate answer – how many terrorists were there actually; how did they reach their respective destinations inland; and is it possible that "super-terrorists" simply walked out with the real survivors after having utilised the "mercenaries" to the hilt, just as they had murdered the navigators of the boats that brought them to Mumbai?
Current media reports and government sources say that the terrorists came by sea, landing near the Gateway of India or Colaba. This certainly explains the attacks on the sea front hotels like Taj, Oberoi and the Nariman House. But the question remains – how did they get to the CST station, Cama Hospital, and other places inland? Someone must have provided transport and back-up.
By no logic can anyone believe that nine separate sites in a city could be held to ransom by just 10 men. It is particularly difficult to believe that gigantic hotels like the Taj could be ruined and scores of guests killed or injured by just two men (sometimes the figure goes to six). Even two men per floor could not have caused the kind of death and destruction that did happen. A small place like Nariman House, yes, but Taj and Oberoi – I don't believe it. And if there were six persons at Taj and at least two at Nariman House, that means only two persons destroyed the Oberoi?
Rediff.com has interviewed the doctors who conducted the post-mortems on the dead hostages and terrorists, and it is their expert opinion that a battle of attrition took place over three days at the Oberoi and Taj hotels. The mutilation of the bodies was unlike anything they had seen in their careers in forensics.
For one, the bodies of the victims bore horrible signs of torture. Now this is understandable if the victims are being tormented by half-human beasts, but it seems strange that two terrorists could simultaneously fight and keep Indian commandos at bay for 62 hours, and also have the time to torture their victims. Yet the doctors were emphatic that:
"It was apparent that most of the dead were tortured. What shocked me were the telltale signs showing clearly how the hostages were executed in cold blood."
To my mind, it seems apparent that the terrorists who kept the NSG commandos engaged and those who tortured and killed the hotel staff and guests were two separate groups.
This suspicion is intensified by the startling revelation that the terrorists also did not meet a clean death. Doctors who conducted the post-mortem said the bodies of the terrorists – especially their faces - were beyond recognition. The security forces identified the bodies as those of terrorists [on TV they said it was because of the presence of weaponry near the bodies].
One terrorist was shot through either eye (i.e., both eyes!!!). As the NSG commandos never got to such close range with the terrorists, and nobody commits suicide by shooting both his own eyes, it follows that the killers were somebody else. Since none of the hotel guests could have the kind of weaponry used in the conflict, this suggests the presence of a mysterious third party, making the terrorists the victims of a classic double-cross – the stuff of spy thrillers. Actually, it reminds one of the convenient murder of the alleged killer of President John F. Kennedy.
Hence it would be entirely in order to closely interrogate each and every guest, especially the foreign guests, before allowing them to leave the country. Without false emotionalism, we should also fingerprint them for the future; who knows what Interpol cooperation may throw up.
Top Russian counter-terrorism expert, Vladimir Klyukin, an Afghan war veteran, opines that the Mumbai attackers were not "ordinary terrorists" and were probably trained by the special operations forces set up in Pakistan by US intelligence prior to the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. In his view, the nature of the Mumbai events suggests the signature of the 'Green Flag' special operations forces created by the Americans in Pakistan, just a year before the Soviet withdrawal.
Guerrilla operations of the Mumbai kind require at least two-three years of preparatory work with experienced instructors. Raw trainees cannot hold four huge complexes in a city to ransom for so long. The Russian Interfax news agency reported the former KGB veteran as surmising the involvement of at least 50 terrorists, given the geography and sheer scale of the attacks. This seems like a legitimate estimation.
What is more, the only way 9 coordinated attacks can occur simultaneously is by using Global Positioning Systems (GPS) or live maps for communication and control. These are not normally owned by private parties. Initial investigations also suggested that as many as seven terrorists included mostly British-born Pakistanis, and one does hope that these leads are not covered up. The reports also suggested some gunmen were captured, but later media reports highlighted that only one terrorists was caught alive at the railway station. So there is a lot of confusion here that needs to be cleared up.
Certainly the hints about British involvement, openly asserted by the outspoken Lyndon LaRouche, need investigation.
Media has been heavily criticized in some quarters for airing visuals of NSG commandos dropping on the hotel roofs from helicopters, and thus giving operational secrets away to the militants watching TV inside. If the criticism is to be valid, however, we will have to accept that the terrorists had more men inside who could be deployed to watch TV and give information which would enable them to react and rebuff the aerial assault. There is no way 2 to 6 terrorists could torture victims sadistically and kill them brutally, watch TV, fight and keep the security forces at bay for 62 hours, and then kill themselves or each other in impossible ways.
The death of terrorists points to a clear double-cross and also the possibility of the involvement of more than one religious denomination. That the terrorists did not prepare for death by carrying potassium cyanide is well known; nor did they simply intend to blow themselves up like the usual suicide bombers. The surviving terrorist has revealed that they were told of an escape plan – and no doubt that plan was used by those who killed their fellow terrorists and walked out free!
This writer has consistently stated that modern, late 20th-21st century jihad is qualitatively different from the medieval jihad in which Muslim armies led by generals or kings ran over much of the world in Europe, North Africa, and Asia. Contemporary jihad is a mercenary tool of Western colonialism, serving a colonial intent with devout slavishness, and this seems borne out by the events of Mumbai.
What remains to be seen, however, is whether or not the Islamic world wakes up to the reality of its own self-enslavement. India on its part has demonstrated that no matter how long it takes to get operational, no matter the cost in terms of life and property, the territory of Bharat Mata will be protected.
It is more than likely that Pakistan was rebuked by its British and American 'friends' (read Masters) for agreeing to send the ISI chief to assist in the investigations, and forced to backtrack on a solemn assurance. The teams from Scotland Yard and America, ostensibly coming to assist India in the probe, are more likely trying to ascertain the extent of evidence with India.
It is pertinent that the recovery of a satellite phone from the trawler abandoned with the body of the Gujarati captain revealed that the trawler had been hijacked to Karachi Port, and while there, calls were made even to Australia (where the CIA has a famous outpost!)
Interestingly, General Leonid Ivashov, who was Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces when the Twin Towers tragedy happened on 11 September 2001, insists that there is no such thing as international terrorism and that "the September 11 attacks were the result of a set-up. What we are seeing is a manipulation by the big powers; this terrorism would not exist without them." Instead of faking a "world war on terror", the best way to reduce such attacks is through respect for international law and peaceful cooperation among countries and their citizens [http://www.voltaire net.org/article1 33909.html]
Globalization creates the conditions for the emergence of this terror. It seeks to design a new world geo-strategic map; appropriate the resources of the planet; erase cultural identities; and subjugate States before a global oligarchy. Thus, terrorism, according to Gen. Ivashov, is an instrument of world politics, "a means to install a unipolar world with a sole world headquarters, a pretext to erase national borders and to establish the rule of a new world elite. It is precisely this elite that constitutes the key element of world terrorism, its ideologist and its "godfather".
Contemporary international terrorism combines the use of terror by State and non-State political structures to attain political objectives through intimidation of people, psychological and social destabilization, elimination of resistance inside power organizations, and the creation of appropriate conditions for the manipulation of the countries' policies and the behaviour of people. Media complicity helps. But terrorism is not possible without the support of political and business circles that wield the funds to finance it – and Pakistan is notoriously bankrupt.
More pertinently, only secret services and their current or retired chiefs have the ability to plan and execute an operation of such complexity and scale. It is secret services that create, finance and control extremist organizations.
Is it possible that M.K. Narayanan has been retained by the current pro-Western dispensation to "help" the Western secret services (State actors) in the current mess, to facilitate their long-term agenda by manipulating and misleading the nation and the people? We deserve an answer; we demand to know.
The author is Editor, www.vijayvaani. com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seven Questions
Neelabh Mishra
After various conjectures, speculations and angry or anguished advice had eaten up miles of footage and reams of newsprint in the wake of the nightmarish Mumbai carnage, a colleague still asked, ‘So, what is your conspiracy theory about these horrible happenings?’ Conspiracy theory I have none, but I do have a set of seven questions that have elicited no definitive answer in the current chatter and intrigue me no end. Here they are.
How many terrorists struck Mumbai on the fateful night of November 26? We are sure about minimum 10 as the security personnel managed to slay nine in fierce encounters and capture one alive. But the police claim to have found 15 sets of blankets and winter jackets on the speedboat that witnessed the murder of its crew members and is supposed to have been hijacked by the terrorists for transporting themselves to Mumbai from Porbandar in Gujarat. Besides, News Channel Aaj Tak telecast the interview of a supposedly rescued victim Sajan Kapur, who claimed he was sent to the Taj hotel by ATS officer Vijay Salaskar and had seen around 17 terrorists there and not just four as claimed the security agencies. Will anyone explain these different figures?
Coming to Sajan Kapur, a friend points out in a write up on the web that this guy just vanished from the scene after the Aaj Tak telecast. No other channel or newspaper pursued him nor did Aaj Tak follow up on his claims. Why this blackout? Did he prove to be a phony witness who gave a misleading account? If so, with what intent? Or was he whisked away by the security agencies for investigation and they are keeping it hush-hush?
Kapur’s account on Aaj Tak was interesting. He claimed to have overheard an exchange between two of the terrorists, who openly flaunted their Pakistani links, in which one asked how much money these Indian politicians had and the other replied what is that to do with you as you have received your amount. Did Kapur imply that the attackers were Pakistanis paid off by Indian politicians? With Kapur vanishing from the scene, there is nobody to explain this part of his story either or his credibility or motive.
Coming to the hijacked boat, the police account reported in the media suggests a mystery in the nature of its ownership and control. The legal owner Masani disclaims any knowledge about its actual operations as he had handed over its control to his brother through a power of attorney. The brother had in turn sublet it to somebody else who hired other people to run it. What is this mystery of legal ownership being at four removed from the people who operated the boat? And what kind of operations was the boat usually involved in?
The boat’s hijacking at Porbandar in Gujarat testifies to a local support structure for the terrorists. Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi does not tire of continuously claiming to have generally rolled up terrorist networks in his state. He has also been very vehement in blaming the center and the Maharashtra government for the attackers being able to reach Mumbai unhindered. He also claims to have warned the Maharashtra government about the possibility of an attack on Mumbai launched from the sea. How come the terrorists found themselves bold enough to launch the attack from the coast of Gujarat, a state he rules with an iron hand?
The question of the strange coincidence of Pakistani terrorists finishing off the top leadership, including Hemant Karkare, of the ATS involved in probing a supposedly Hindutva terrorist cell whose avowed aim was to retaliate violently against Pakistan sponsored terrorism is also intriguing and needs explanation. I am not suggesting that the Hindutva extremists hired Pakistanis to do their hatchet job and in the process gave them the bonus of additional carnage to satisfy their murderous instincts but wondering about the circumstances of ATS leadership being led into a position of extreme vulnerability to terrorist fire.
And finally, how is it that whenever the Hindu rightist extreme seems to be in dire straits as with the current Sadhvi-Purohit- Pandey terror investigations, some violent action undertaken supposedly on behalf of Muslims or Pakistan, as the case may be, comes to their aid and also vice versa? For instance, recent Delhi blasts overshadowed the violence against Christians by Hindutva extremists in Orissa, burning of karsevaks on a train in Godhra and Akshardham attack respectively helped Narendra Modi in elections. And Kargil had helped both the BJP and Musharraf in their bid for power in their respective countries. Who plays whom or is there another unseen puppeteer?
Indian View: Cover-up in Mumbai
Sandhya Jain
1 December 2008
While stock-taking has only just begun, it already appears as if some things are being covered up. In these circumstances, the retention of Narayanan who was invisible during the entire crisis though he was too visible in the hated Indo-US nuclear deal does nothing to inspire confidence. In an atmosphere when media hype persistently reminds us of the Twin Towers tragedy in New York, one can only think of the success of Prince Bandar in escorting all well-connected Saudi youth out of America in the immediate aftermath of 11 September 2001.
Some things deserve an immediate answer – how many terrorists were there actually; how did they reach their respective destinations inland; and is it possible that "super-terrorists" simply walked out with the real survivors after having utilised the "mercenaries" to the hilt, just as they had murdered the navigators of the boats that brought them to Mumbai?
Current media reports and government sources say that the terrorists came by sea, landing near the Gateway of India or Colaba. This certainly explains the attacks on the sea front hotels like Taj, Oberoi and the Nariman House. But the question remains – how did they get to the CST station, Cama Hospital, and other places inland? Someone must have provided transport and back-up.
By no logic can anyone believe that nine separate sites in a city could be held to ransom by just 10 men. It is particularly difficult to believe that gigantic hotels like the Taj could be ruined and scores of guests killed or injured by just two men (sometimes the figure goes to six). Even two men per floor could not have caused the kind of death and destruction that did happen. A small place like Nariman House, yes, but Taj and Oberoi – I don't believe it. And if there were six persons at Taj and at least two at Nariman House, that means only two persons destroyed the Oberoi?
Rediff.com has interviewed the doctors who conducted the post-mortems on the dead hostages and terrorists, and it is their expert opinion that a battle of attrition took place over three days at the Oberoi and Taj hotels. The mutilation of the bodies was unlike anything they had seen in their careers in forensics.
For one, the bodies of the victims bore horrible signs of torture. Now this is understandable if the victims are being tormented by half-human beasts, but it seems strange that two terrorists could simultaneously fight and keep Indian commandos at bay for 62 hours, and also have the time to torture their victims. Yet the doctors were emphatic that:
"It was apparent that most of the dead were tortured. What shocked me were the telltale signs showing clearly how the hostages were executed in cold blood."
To my mind, it seems apparent that the terrorists who kept the NSG commandos engaged and those who tortured and killed the hotel staff and guests were two separate groups.
This suspicion is intensified by the startling revelation that the terrorists also did not meet a clean death. Doctors who conducted the post-mortem said the bodies of the terrorists – especially their faces - were beyond recognition. The security forces identified the bodies as those of terrorists [on TV they said it was because of the presence of weaponry near the bodies].
One terrorist was shot through either eye (i.e., both eyes!!!). As the NSG commandos never got to such close range with the terrorists, and nobody commits suicide by shooting both his own eyes, it follows that the killers were somebody else. Since none of the hotel guests could have the kind of weaponry used in the conflict, this suggests the presence of a mysterious third party, making the terrorists the victims of a classic double-cross – the stuff of spy thrillers. Actually, it reminds one of the convenient murder of the alleged killer of President John F. Kennedy.
Hence it would be entirely in order to closely interrogate each and every guest, especially the foreign guests, before allowing them to leave the country. Without false emotionalism, we should also fingerprint them for the future; who knows what Interpol cooperation may throw up.
Top Russian counter-terrorism expert, Vladimir Klyukin, an Afghan war veteran, opines that the Mumbai attackers were not "ordinary terrorists" and were probably trained by the special operations forces set up in Pakistan by US intelligence prior to the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. In his view, the nature of the Mumbai events suggests the signature of the 'Green Flag' special operations forces created by the Americans in Pakistan, just a year before the Soviet withdrawal.
Guerrilla operations of the Mumbai kind require at least two-three years of preparatory work with experienced instructors. Raw trainees cannot hold four huge complexes in a city to ransom for so long. The Russian Interfax news agency reported the former KGB veteran as surmising the involvement of at least 50 terrorists, given the geography and sheer scale of the attacks. This seems like a legitimate estimation.
What is more, the only way 9 coordinated attacks can occur simultaneously is by using Global Positioning Systems (GPS) or live maps for communication and control. These are not normally owned by private parties. Initial investigations also suggested that as many as seven terrorists included mostly British-born Pakistanis, and one does hope that these leads are not covered up. The reports also suggested some gunmen were captured, but later media reports highlighted that only one terrorists was caught alive at the railway station. So there is a lot of confusion here that needs to be cleared up.
Certainly the hints about British involvement, openly asserted by the outspoken Lyndon LaRouche, need investigation.
Media has been heavily criticized in some quarters for airing visuals of NSG commandos dropping on the hotel roofs from helicopters, and thus giving operational secrets away to the militants watching TV inside. If the criticism is to be valid, however, we will have to accept that the terrorists had more men inside who could be deployed to watch TV and give information which would enable them to react and rebuff the aerial assault. There is no way 2 to 6 terrorists could torture victims sadistically and kill them brutally, watch TV, fight and keep the security forces at bay for 62 hours, and then kill themselves or each other in impossible ways.
The death of terrorists points to a clear double-cross and also the possibility of the involvement of more than one religious denomination. That the terrorists did not prepare for death by carrying potassium cyanide is well known; nor did they simply intend to blow themselves up like the usual suicide bombers. The surviving terrorist has revealed that they were told of an escape plan – and no doubt that plan was used by those who killed their fellow terrorists and walked out free!
This writer has consistently stated that modern, late 20th-21st century jihad is qualitatively different from the medieval jihad in which Muslim armies led by generals or kings ran over much of the world in Europe, North Africa, and Asia. Contemporary jihad is a mercenary tool of Western colonialism, serving a colonial intent with devout slavishness, and this seems borne out by the events of Mumbai.
What remains to be seen, however, is whether or not the Islamic world wakes up to the reality of its own self-enslavement. India on its part has demonstrated that no matter how long it takes to get operational, no matter the cost in terms of life and property, the territory of Bharat Mata will be protected.
It is more than likely that Pakistan was rebuked by its British and American 'friends' (read Masters) for agreeing to send the ISI chief to assist in the investigations, and forced to backtrack on a solemn assurance. The teams from Scotland Yard and America, ostensibly coming to assist India in the probe, are more likely trying to ascertain the extent of evidence with India.
It is pertinent that the recovery of a satellite phone from the trawler abandoned with the body of the Gujarati captain revealed that the trawler had been hijacked to Karachi Port, and while there, calls were made even to Australia (where the CIA has a famous outpost!)
Interestingly, General Leonid Ivashov, who was Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces when the Twin Towers tragedy happened on 11 September 2001, insists that there is no such thing as international terrorism and that "the September 11 attacks were the result of a set-up. What we are seeing is a manipulation by the big powers; this terrorism would not exist without them." Instead of faking a "world war on terror", the best way to reduce such attacks is through respect for international law and peaceful cooperation among countries and their citizens [http://www.voltaire net.org/article1 33909.html]
Globalization creates the conditions for the emergence of this terror. It seeks to design a new world geo-strategic map; appropriate the resources of the planet; erase cultural identities; and subjugate States before a global oligarchy. Thus, terrorism, according to Gen. Ivashov, is an instrument of world politics, "a means to install a unipolar world with a sole world headquarters, a pretext to erase national borders and to establish the rule of a new world elite. It is precisely this elite that constitutes the key element of world terrorism, its ideologist and its "godfather".
Contemporary international terrorism combines the use of terror by State and non-State political structures to attain political objectives through intimidation of people, psychological and social destabilization, elimination of resistance inside power organizations, and the creation of appropriate conditions for the manipulation of the countries' policies and the behaviour of people. Media complicity helps. But terrorism is not possible without the support of political and business circles that wield the funds to finance it – and Pakistan is notoriously bankrupt.
More pertinently, only secret services and their current or retired chiefs have the ability to plan and execute an operation of such complexity and scale. It is secret services that create, finance and control extremist organizations.
Is it possible that M.K. Narayanan has been retained by the current pro-Western dispensation to "help" the Western secret services (State actors) in the current mess, to facilitate their long-term agenda by manipulating and misleading the nation and the people? We deserve an answer; we demand to know.
The author is Editor, www.vijayvaani. com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seven Questions
Neelabh Mishra
After various conjectures, speculations and angry or anguished advice had eaten up miles of footage and reams of newsprint in the wake of the nightmarish Mumbai carnage, a colleague still asked, ‘So, what is your conspiracy theory about these horrible happenings?’ Conspiracy theory I have none, but I do have a set of seven questions that have elicited no definitive answer in the current chatter and intrigue me no end. Here they are.
How many terrorists struck Mumbai on the fateful night of November 26? We are sure about minimum 10 as the security personnel managed to slay nine in fierce encounters and capture one alive. But the police claim to have found 15 sets of blankets and winter jackets on the speedboat that witnessed the murder of its crew members and is supposed to have been hijacked by the terrorists for transporting themselves to Mumbai from Porbandar in Gujarat. Besides, News Channel Aaj Tak telecast the interview of a supposedly rescued victim Sajan Kapur, who claimed he was sent to the Taj hotel by ATS officer Vijay Salaskar and had seen around 17 terrorists there and not just four as claimed the security agencies. Will anyone explain these different figures?
Coming to Sajan Kapur, a friend points out in a write up on the web that this guy just vanished from the scene after the Aaj Tak telecast. No other channel or newspaper pursued him nor did Aaj Tak follow up on his claims. Why this blackout? Did he prove to be a phony witness who gave a misleading account? If so, with what intent? Or was he whisked away by the security agencies for investigation and they are keeping it hush-hush?
Kapur’s account on Aaj Tak was interesting. He claimed to have overheard an exchange between two of the terrorists, who openly flaunted their Pakistani links, in which one asked how much money these Indian politicians had and the other replied what is that to do with you as you have received your amount. Did Kapur imply that the attackers were Pakistanis paid off by Indian politicians? With Kapur vanishing from the scene, there is nobody to explain this part of his story either or his credibility or motive.
Coming to the hijacked boat, the police account reported in the media suggests a mystery in the nature of its ownership and control. The legal owner Masani disclaims any knowledge about its actual operations as he had handed over its control to his brother through a power of attorney. The brother had in turn sublet it to somebody else who hired other people to run it. What is this mystery of legal ownership being at four removed from the people who operated the boat? And what kind of operations was the boat usually involved in?
The boat’s hijacking at Porbandar in Gujarat testifies to a local support structure for the terrorists. Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi does not tire of continuously claiming to have generally rolled up terrorist networks in his state. He has also been very vehement in blaming the center and the Maharashtra government for the attackers being able to reach Mumbai unhindered. He also claims to have warned the Maharashtra government about the possibility of an attack on Mumbai launched from the sea. How come the terrorists found themselves bold enough to launch the attack from the coast of Gujarat, a state he rules with an iron hand?
The question of the strange coincidence of Pakistani terrorists finishing off the top leadership, including Hemant Karkare, of the ATS involved in probing a supposedly Hindutva terrorist cell whose avowed aim was to retaliate violently against Pakistan sponsored terrorism is also intriguing and needs explanation. I am not suggesting that the Hindutva extremists hired Pakistanis to do their hatchet job and in the process gave them the bonus of additional carnage to satisfy their murderous instincts but wondering about the circumstances of ATS leadership being led into a position of extreme vulnerability to terrorist fire.
And finally, how is it that whenever the Hindu rightist extreme seems to be in dire straits as with the current Sadhvi-Purohit- Pandey terror investigations, some violent action undertaken supposedly on behalf of Muslims or Pakistan, as the case may be, comes to their aid and also vice versa? For instance, recent Delhi blasts overshadowed the violence against Christians by Hindutva extremists in Orissa, burning of karsevaks on a train in Godhra and Akshardham attack respectively helped Narendra Modi in elections. And Kargil had helped both the BJP and Musharraf in their bid for power in their respective countries. Who plays whom or is there another unseen puppeteer?
1 December 2008
While stock-taking has only just begun, it already appears as if some things are being covered up. In these circumstances, the retention of Narayanan who was invisible during the entire crisis though he was too visible in the hated Indo-US nuclear deal does nothing to inspire confidence. In an atmosphere when media hype persistently reminds us of the Twin Towers tragedy in New York, one can only think of the success of Prince Bandar in escorting all well-connected Saudi youth out of America in the immediate aftermath of 11 September 2001.
Some things deserve an immediate answer – how many terrorists were there actually; how did they reach their respective destinations inland; and is it possible that "super-terrorists" simply walked out with the real survivors after having utilised the "mercenaries" to the hilt, just as they had murdered the navigators of the boats that brought them to Mumbai?
Current media reports and government sources say that the terrorists came by sea, landing near the Gateway of India or Colaba. This certainly explains the attacks on the sea front hotels like Taj, Oberoi and the Nariman House. But the question remains – how did they get to the CST station, Cama Hospital, and other places inland? Someone must have provided transport and back-up.
By no logic can anyone believe that nine separate sites in a city could be held to ransom by just 10 men. It is particularly difficult to believe that gigantic hotels like the Taj could be ruined and scores of guests killed or injured by just two men (sometimes the figure goes to six). Even two men per floor could not have caused the kind of death and destruction that did happen. A small place like Nariman House, yes, but Taj and Oberoi – I don't believe it. And if there were six persons at Taj and at least two at Nariman House, that means only two persons destroyed the Oberoi?
Rediff.com has interviewed the doctors who conducted the post-mortems on the dead hostages and terrorists, and it is their expert opinion that a battle of attrition took place over three days at the Oberoi and Taj hotels. The mutilation of the bodies was unlike anything they had seen in their careers in forensics.
For one, the bodies of the victims bore horrible signs of torture. Now this is understandable if the victims are being tormented by half-human beasts, but it seems strange that two terrorists could simultaneously fight and keep Indian commandos at bay for 62 hours, and also have the time to torture their victims. Yet the doctors were emphatic that:
"It was apparent that most of the dead were tortured. What shocked me were the telltale signs showing clearly how the hostages were executed in cold blood."
To my mind, it seems apparent that the terrorists who kept the NSG commandos engaged and those who tortured and killed the hotel staff and guests were two separate groups.
This suspicion is intensified by the startling revelation that the terrorists also did not meet a clean death. Doctors who conducted the post-mortem said the bodies of the terrorists – especially their faces - were beyond recognition. The security forces identified the bodies as those of terrorists [on TV they said it was because of the presence of weaponry near the bodies].
One terrorist was shot through either eye (i.e., both eyes!!!). As the NSG commandos never got to such close range with the terrorists, and nobody commits suicide by shooting both his own eyes, it follows that the killers were somebody else. Since none of the hotel guests could have the kind of weaponry used in the conflict, this suggests the presence of a mysterious third party, making the terrorists the victims of a classic double-cross – the stuff of spy thrillers. Actually, it reminds one of the convenient murder of the alleged killer of President John F. Kennedy.
Hence it would be entirely in order to closely interrogate each and every guest, especially the foreign guests, before allowing them to leave the country. Without false emotionalism, we should also fingerprint them for the future; who knows what Interpol cooperation may throw up.
Top Russian counter-terrorism expert, Vladimir Klyukin, an Afghan war veteran, opines that the Mumbai attackers were not "ordinary terrorists" and were probably trained by the special operations forces set up in Pakistan by US intelligence prior to the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. In his view, the nature of the Mumbai events suggests the signature of the 'Green Flag' special operations forces created by the Americans in Pakistan, just a year before the Soviet withdrawal.
Guerrilla operations of the Mumbai kind require at least two-three years of preparatory work with experienced instructors. Raw trainees cannot hold four huge complexes in a city to ransom for so long. The Russian Interfax news agency reported the former KGB veteran as surmising the involvement of at least 50 terrorists, given the geography and sheer scale of the attacks. This seems like a legitimate estimation.
What is more, the only way 9 coordinated attacks can occur simultaneously is by using Global Positioning Systems (GPS) or live maps for communication and control. These are not normally owned by private parties. Initial investigations also suggested that as many as seven terrorists included mostly British-born Pakistanis, and one does hope that these leads are not covered up. The reports also suggested some gunmen were captured, but later media reports highlighted that only one terrorists was caught alive at the railway station. So there is a lot of confusion here that needs to be cleared up.
Certainly the hints about British involvement, openly asserted by the outspoken Lyndon LaRouche, need investigation.
Media has been heavily criticized in some quarters for airing visuals of NSG commandos dropping on the hotel roofs from helicopters, and thus giving operational secrets away to the militants watching TV inside. If the criticism is to be valid, however, we will have to accept that the terrorists had more men inside who could be deployed to watch TV and give information which would enable them to react and rebuff the aerial assault. There is no way 2 to 6 terrorists could torture victims sadistically and kill them brutally, watch TV, fight and keep the security forces at bay for 62 hours, and then kill themselves or each other in impossible ways.
The death of terrorists points to a clear double-cross and also the possibility of the involvement of more than one religious denomination. That the terrorists did not prepare for death by carrying potassium cyanide is well known; nor did they simply intend to blow themselves up like the usual suicide bombers. The surviving terrorist has revealed that they were told of an escape plan – and no doubt that plan was used by those who killed their fellow terrorists and walked out free!
This writer has consistently stated that modern, late 20th-21st century jihad is qualitatively different from the medieval jihad in which Muslim armies led by generals or kings ran over much of the world in Europe, North Africa, and Asia. Contemporary jihad is a mercenary tool of Western colonialism, serving a colonial intent with devout slavishness, and this seems borne out by the events of Mumbai.
What remains to be seen, however, is whether or not the Islamic world wakes up to the reality of its own self-enslavement. India on its part has demonstrated that no matter how long it takes to get operational, no matter the cost in terms of life and property, the territory of Bharat Mata will be protected.
It is more than likely that Pakistan was rebuked by its British and American 'friends' (read Masters) for agreeing to send the ISI chief to assist in the investigations, and forced to backtrack on a solemn assurance. The teams from Scotland Yard and America, ostensibly coming to assist India in the probe, are more likely trying to ascertain the extent of evidence with India.
It is pertinent that the recovery of a satellite phone from the trawler abandoned with the body of the Gujarati captain revealed that the trawler had been hijacked to Karachi Port, and while there, calls were made even to Australia (where the CIA has a famous outpost!)
Interestingly, General Leonid Ivashov, who was Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces when the Twin Towers tragedy happened on 11 September 2001, insists that there is no such thing as international terrorism and that "the September 11 attacks were the result of a set-up. What we are seeing is a manipulation by the big powers; this terrorism would not exist without them." Instead of faking a "world war on terror", the best way to reduce such attacks is through respect for international law and peaceful cooperation among countries and their citizens [http://www.voltaire net.org/article1 33909.html]
Globalization creates the conditions for the emergence of this terror. It seeks to design a new world geo-strategic map; appropriate the resources of the planet; erase cultural identities; and subjugate States before a global oligarchy. Thus, terrorism, according to Gen. Ivashov, is an instrument of world politics, "a means to install a unipolar world with a sole world headquarters, a pretext to erase national borders and to establish the rule of a new world elite. It is precisely this elite that constitutes the key element of world terrorism, its ideologist and its "godfather".
Contemporary international terrorism combines the use of terror by State and non-State political structures to attain political objectives through intimidation of people, psychological and social destabilization, elimination of resistance inside power organizations, and the creation of appropriate conditions for the manipulation of the countries' policies and the behaviour of people. Media complicity helps. But terrorism is not possible without the support of political and business circles that wield the funds to finance it – and Pakistan is notoriously bankrupt.
More pertinently, only secret services and their current or retired chiefs have the ability to plan and execute an operation of such complexity and scale. It is secret services that create, finance and control extremist organizations.
Is it possible that M.K. Narayanan has been retained by the current pro-Western dispensation to "help" the Western secret services (State actors) in the current mess, to facilitate their long-term agenda by manipulating and misleading the nation and the people? We deserve an answer; we demand to know.
The author is Editor, www.vijayvaani. com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seven Questions
Neelabh Mishra
After various conjectures, speculations and angry or anguished advice had eaten up miles of footage and reams of newsprint in the wake of the nightmarish Mumbai carnage, a colleague still asked, ‘So, what is your conspiracy theory about these horrible happenings?’ Conspiracy theory I have none, but I do have a set of seven questions that have elicited no definitive answer in the current chatter and intrigue me no end. Here they are.
How many terrorists struck Mumbai on the fateful night of November 26? We are sure about minimum 10 as the security personnel managed to slay nine in fierce encounters and capture one alive. But the police claim to have found 15 sets of blankets and winter jackets on the speedboat that witnessed the murder of its crew members and is supposed to have been hijacked by the terrorists for transporting themselves to Mumbai from Porbandar in Gujarat. Besides, News Channel Aaj Tak telecast the interview of a supposedly rescued victim Sajan Kapur, who claimed he was sent to the Taj hotel by ATS officer Vijay Salaskar and had seen around 17 terrorists there and not just four as claimed the security agencies. Will anyone explain these different figures?
Coming to Sajan Kapur, a friend points out in a write up on the web that this guy just vanished from the scene after the Aaj Tak telecast. No other channel or newspaper pursued him nor did Aaj Tak follow up on his claims. Why this blackout? Did he prove to be a phony witness who gave a misleading account? If so, with what intent? Or was he whisked away by the security agencies for investigation and they are keeping it hush-hush?
Kapur’s account on Aaj Tak was interesting. He claimed to have overheard an exchange between two of the terrorists, who openly flaunted their Pakistani links, in which one asked how much money these Indian politicians had and the other replied what is that to do with you as you have received your amount. Did Kapur imply that the attackers were Pakistanis paid off by Indian politicians? With Kapur vanishing from the scene, there is nobody to explain this part of his story either or his credibility or motive.
Coming to the hijacked boat, the police account reported in the media suggests a mystery in the nature of its ownership and control. The legal owner Masani disclaims any knowledge about its actual operations as he had handed over its control to his brother through a power of attorney. The brother had in turn sublet it to somebody else who hired other people to run it. What is this mystery of legal ownership being at four removed from the people who operated the boat? And what kind of operations was the boat usually involved in?
The boat’s hijacking at Porbandar in Gujarat testifies to a local support structure for the terrorists. Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi does not tire of continuously claiming to have generally rolled up terrorist networks in his state. He has also been very vehement in blaming the center and the Maharashtra government for the attackers being able to reach Mumbai unhindered. He also claims to have warned the Maharashtra government about the possibility of an attack on Mumbai launched from the sea. How come the terrorists found themselves bold enough to launch the attack from the coast of Gujarat, a state he rules with an iron hand?
The question of the strange coincidence of Pakistani terrorists finishing off the top leadership, including Hemant Karkare, of the ATS involved in probing a supposedly Hindutva terrorist cell whose avowed aim was to retaliate violently against Pakistan sponsored terrorism is also intriguing and needs explanation. I am not suggesting that the Hindutva extremists hired Pakistanis to do their hatchet job and in the process gave them the bonus of additional carnage to satisfy their murderous instincts but wondering about the circumstances of ATS leadership being led into a position of extreme vulnerability to terrorist fire.
And finally, how is it that whenever the Hindu rightist extreme seems to be in dire straits as with the current Sadhvi-Purohit- Pandey terror investigations, some violent action undertaken supposedly on behalf of Muslims or Pakistan, as the case may be, comes to their aid and also vice versa? For instance, recent Delhi blasts overshadowed the violence against Christians by Hindutva extremists in Orissa, burning of karsevaks on a train in Godhra and Akshardham attack respectively helped Narendra Modi in elections. And Kargil had helped both the BJP and Musharraf in their bid for power in their respective countries. Who plays whom or is there another unseen puppeteer?
Hawaii is not legally a state/The Bayonet Constitution
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/hawaii-petition/
EXCERPT:
Between September 11 and October 2, 1897, the two groups collected petition signatures at public meetings held on each of the five principal islands of Hawaii. The petition, clearly marked "Petition Against Annexation" and written in both the Hawaiian and English languages, was signed by 21,269 native Hawaiian people, or more than half the 39,000 native Hawaiians and mixed-blood persons reported by the Hawaiian Commission census for the same year.
>>>>>>>>>>
Hawaii is not legally a state!
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/HAWAII/hawaii.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1887_Constitution_of_the_Kingdom_of_Hawaii
The 1887 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi stripped the Hawaiian monarchy of much of its authority, disenfranchising most of the native population and initiating a transfer of power to American, European and native Hawaiian elites. It became widely known as the Bayonet Constitution, due to the use of intimidation by the armed militia which forced King Kalākaua [1] to sign it or be deposed. The document created a constitutional monarchy like Great Britain's, stripping the King of most of his personal authority, empowering the Legislature and establishing cabinet government.
The Constitution, dated July 6, 1887, was written by Lorrin A. Thurston and imposed on the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi and its monarch David Kalākaua by the armed militia of the Honolulu Rifles and politicians who later formed the Reform Party of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Most were also associated with a secret society called the Hawaiian League, which was in favor of annexation to the United States.
At the time Kalākaua had been forced to sign the constitution under threat of arms, military rifles were commonly fixed with bayonets[1].
[edit] Provisions
Asians, including subjects who previously enjoyed the right to vote, were specifically denied suffrage simply on the basis of race. Only Hawaiian, American, and European males in Hawaiʻi were granted full voting rights if they met the economic and literacy thresholds. At the time this constitution came into effect, native Hawaiians, both full and part, accounted for less than one-half of the total population, yet enjoyed significant electoral advantage because of the disenfranchisement of Asians.
At the end of the Kingdom, about 75% of ethnic Hawaiians could not vote at all because of the gender, literacy, property, and age requirements. However, because of the racial disenfranchisement of Asians, ethnic Hawaiians still amounted to about two-thirds of the electorate for representatives and about one-third of the electorate for Nobles. (Kuykendall, Hawaiian Kingdom at 453. The rest of the voters were male residents of European or American ancestry.)
The 1887 Constitution imposed a very strict threshold for voter eligibility, by requiring that individuals generate annual income of at least US$600, or own private property worth at least US$3000. This rule was very effective in limiting voter eligibility to wealthy businessmen and landowning Hawaiian elites. The 1887 Constitution also removed the monarch's power to appoint members of the House of Nobles (the upper house of the Hawaiian legislature).
A comparison between the 1864 and 1887 Constitutions is illustrative:
1864 Constitution
Article 62.
Every male subject of the Kingdom, who shall have paid his taxes, who shall have attained the age of twenty years, and shall have been domiciled in the Kingdom for one year immediately preceding the election; and shall be possessed of Real Property in this Kingdom, to the value over and above all incumbrances of One Hundred and Fifty Dollars or of a Lease-hold property on which the rent is Twenty-five Dollars per year—or of an income of not less than Seventy-five Dollars per year, derived from any property or some lawful employment, and shall know how to read and write, if born since the year 1840, and shall have caused his name to be entered on the list of voters of his District as may be provided by law, shall be entitled to one vote for the Representative or Representatives of that District. Provided, however, that no insane or idiotic person, nor any person who shall have been convicted of any infamous crime within this Kingdom, unless he shall have been pardoned by the King, and by the terms of such pardon have been restored to all the rights of a subject, shall be allowed to vote.
1887 Constitution
ARTICLE 59.
Every male resident of the Hawaiian Islands of Hawaiian, American or European birth or descent, who shall have attained the age of twenty years, and shall have paid his taxes, and shall have caused his name to be entered on the list of voters for Nobles for his District, shall be an elector of Nobles, and shall be entitled to vote at any election of Nobles, provided:
First: That he shall have resided in the country not less than three years, and in the district in which he offers to vote, not less than three months immediately preceding the election at which he offers to vote;
Second: That he shall own and be possessed, in his own right, of taxable property in this country of the value of not less than three thousand dollars over and above all encumbrances, or shall have actually received an income of not less than six hundred dollars during the year next preceding his registration for such election;
Third: That he shall be able to read and comprehend an ordinary newspaper printed in either the Hawaiian, English or some European language:
Fourth: That he shall have taken an oath to support the Constitution and laws, such oath to be administered by any person authorized to administer oaths, or by an Inspector of Elections;
Provided, however, that the requirements of a three years residence and of ability to read and comprehend an ordinary newspaper, printed in the Hawaiian, English or some European language, shall not apply to persons residing in the Kingdom at the time of the promulgation of this Constitution, if they shall register and vote at the first election which shall be held under this Constitution.
EXCERPT:
Between September 11 and October 2, 1897, the two groups collected petition signatures at public meetings held on each of the five principal islands of Hawaii. The petition, clearly marked "Petition Against Annexation" and written in both the Hawaiian and English languages, was signed by 21,269 native Hawaiian people, or more than half the 39,000 native Hawaiians and mixed-blood persons reported by the Hawaiian Commission census for the same year.
>>>>>>>>>>
Hawaii is not legally a state!
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/HAWAII/hawaii.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1887_Constitution_of_the_Kingdom_of_Hawaii
The 1887 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi stripped the Hawaiian monarchy of much of its authority, disenfranchising most of the native population and initiating a transfer of power to American, European and native Hawaiian elites. It became widely known as the Bayonet Constitution, due to the use of intimidation by the armed militia which forced King Kalākaua [1] to sign it or be deposed. The document created a constitutional monarchy like Great Britain's, stripping the King of most of his personal authority, empowering the Legislature and establishing cabinet government.
The Constitution, dated July 6, 1887, was written by Lorrin A. Thurston and imposed on the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi and its monarch David Kalākaua by the armed militia of the Honolulu Rifles and politicians who later formed the Reform Party of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Most were also associated with a secret society called the Hawaiian League, which was in favor of annexation to the United States.
At the time Kalākaua had been forced to sign the constitution under threat of arms, military rifles were commonly fixed with bayonets[1].
[edit] Provisions
Asians, including subjects who previously enjoyed the right to vote, were specifically denied suffrage simply on the basis of race. Only Hawaiian, American, and European males in Hawaiʻi were granted full voting rights if they met the economic and literacy thresholds. At the time this constitution came into effect, native Hawaiians, both full and part, accounted for less than one-half of the total population, yet enjoyed significant electoral advantage because of the disenfranchisement of Asians.
At the end of the Kingdom, about 75% of ethnic Hawaiians could not vote at all because of the gender, literacy, property, and age requirements. However, because of the racial disenfranchisement of Asians, ethnic Hawaiians still amounted to about two-thirds of the electorate for representatives and about one-third of the electorate for Nobles. (Kuykendall, Hawaiian Kingdom at 453. The rest of the voters were male residents of European or American ancestry.)
The 1887 Constitution imposed a very strict threshold for voter eligibility, by requiring that individuals generate annual income of at least US$600, or own private property worth at least US$3000. This rule was very effective in limiting voter eligibility to wealthy businessmen and landowning Hawaiian elites. The 1887 Constitution also removed the monarch's power to appoint members of the House of Nobles (the upper house of the Hawaiian legislature).
A comparison between the 1864 and 1887 Constitutions is illustrative:
1864 Constitution
Article 62.
Every male subject of the Kingdom, who shall have paid his taxes, who shall have attained the age of twenty years, and shall have been domiciled in the Kingdom for one year immediately preceding the election; and shall be possessed of Real Property in this Kingdom, to the value over and above all incumbrances of One Hundred and Fifty Dollars or of a Lease-hold property on which the rent is Twenty-five Dollars per year—or of an income of not less than Seventy-five Dollars per year, derived from any property or some lawful employment, and shall know how to read and write, if born since the year 1840, and shall have caused his name to be entered on the list of voters of his District as may be provided by law, shall be entitled to one vote for the Representative or Representatives of that District. Provided, however, that no insane or idiotic person, nor any person who shall have been convicted of any infamous crime within this Kingdom, unless he shall have been pardoned by the King, and by the terms of such pardon have been restored to all the rights of a subject, shall be allowed to vote.
1887 Constitution
ARTICLE 59.
Every male resident of the Hawaiian Islands of Hawaiian, American or European birth or descent, who shall have attained the age of twenty years, and shall have paid his taxes, and shall have caused his name to be entered on the list of voters for Nobles for his District, shall be an elector of Nobles, and shall be entitled to vote at any election of Nobles, provided:
First: That he shall have resided in the country not less than three years, and in the district in which he offers to vote, not less than three months immediately preceding the election at which he offers to vote;
Second: That he shall own and be possessed, in his own right, of taxable property in this country of the value of not less than three thousand dollars over and above all encumbrances, or shall have actually received an income of not less than six hundred dollars during the year next preceding his registration for such election;
Third: That he shall be able to read and comprehend an ordinary newspaper printed in either the Hawaiian, English or some European language:
Fourth: That he shall have taken an oath to support the Constitution and laws, such oath to be administered by any person authorized to administer oaths, or by an Inspector of Elections;
Provided, however, that the requirements of a three years residence and of ability to read and comprehend an ordinary newspaper, printed in the Hawaiian, English or some European language, shall not apply to persons residing in the Kingdom at the time of the promulgation of this Constitution, if they shall register and vote at the first election which shall be held under this Constitution.
Gentleness/A fruit of the Spirit in you
http://www.spirithome.com/gentleness.html
Gentleness
A fruit of the Spirit in you
ver.: 06 November 2008
This harvest of spiritual fruit is ripe for the picking :
love (agape);
joy (chara);
peace (eirene);
patience (makrothumia);
kindness (chrestotes);
goodness (agathosune);
faithfulness (pistis);
self-control (egkrateia).
Gentleness
Gentleness : [ < href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+5:22" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Galatians 5:22 is prautes, which is about mildness or meekness of spirit, taking care not to cause harm. The Hebrew word is 'anî, which refers mostly to the poor and the humble.
The Bible says this about gentleness:
Jesus was gentle
when restoring a follower to the fellowship
way of life within a marriage
pursue it!
how God treats us by forgiving us
Gentleness As A Fruit
'Gentleness' is an interesting fruit of the spirit. It has a direct tie-in to Jesus, too, for didn't he speak of the meek inheriting the earth? In the Revelation, John looks for a lion but finds a Lamb. Like the other spiritual fruit, gentleness is an aspect of God's character which God's followers take on as they follow Christ. The fruit of 'gentleness' isn't about being wishy-washy, indecisive, unassertive, or just plain wimpy. Instead, it's a refusal to use power to harm anyone, an unwillingness to cut and slash at people, wounding them for vengeance, spite or control. Gentleness is a desire that no harm be done. There are gentle ways to be bold, non-violent ways to stand up for what is right, and non-manipulative ways to lead and to convince. But it is not human nature to be gentle. It goes beyond 'instinct', or 'education', or 'society's influence'. We are simply not gentle creatures. Certainly not males, despite the term 'gentleman'. Males are quick with the fists and the guns. Women have historically been more gentle, but that's a relative matter; they have their own ways of being vicious and destructive. Today's world gives rewards to hostility and going to a extreme. If we are to bear the fruit of gentleness, we need the Spirit to give us the ability to be gentle when it's hardest to be that way.
Gentleness is when you care enough to choose not to be harsh, rash, angry, or rough. Gentleness is when you know and use the best way to hold an egg or a butterfly. A gentle person knows better than to harm others, and so chooses to act in a way that does not. A gentle person does not seek to make other people angry. Gentleness may lose battles, but it helps win the overall struggles. A gentle response tends to create fewer enemies, and more friends.gently go to top
top
Gentleness
A fruit of the Spirit in you
ver.: 06 November 2008
This harvest of spiritual fruit is ripe for the picking :
love (agape);
joy (chara);
peace (eirene);
patience (makrothumia);
kindness (chrestotes);
goodness (agathosune);
faithfulness (pistis);
self-control (egkrateia).
Gentleness
Gentleness : [ < href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+5:22" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Galatians 5:22 is prautes, which is about mildness or meekness of spirit, taking care not to cause harm. The Hebrew word is 'anî, which refers mostly to the poor and the humble.
The Bible says this about gentleness:
Jesus was gentle
when restoring a follower to the fellowship
way of life within a marriage
pursue it!
how God treats us by forgiving us
Gentleness As A Fruit
'Gentleness' is an interesting fruit of the spirit. It has a direct tie-in to Jesus, too, for didn't he speak of the meek inheriting the earth? In the Revelation, John looks for a lion but finds a Lamb. Like the other spiritual fruit, gentleness is an aspect of God's character which God's followers take on as they follow Christ. The fruit of 'gentleness' isn't about being wishy-washy, indecisive, unassertive, or just plain wimpy. Instead, it's a refusal to use power to harm anyone, an unwillingness to cut and slash at people, wounding them for vengeance, spite or control. Gentleness is a desire that no harm be done. There are gentle ways to be bold, non-violent ways to stand up for what is right, and non-manipulative ways to lead and to convince. But it is not human nature to be gentle. It goes beyond 'instinct', or 'education', or 'society's influence'. We are simply not gentle creatures. Certainly not males, despite the term 'gentleman'. Males are quick with the fists and the guns. Women have historically been more gentle, but that's a relative matter; they have their own ways of being vicious and destructive. Today's world gives rewards to hostility and going to a extreme. If we are to bear the fruit of gentleness, we need the Spirit to give us the ability to be gentle when it's hardest to be that way.
Gentleness is when you care enough to choose not to be harsh, rash, angry, or rough. Gentleness is when you know and use the best way to hold an egg or a butterfly. A gentle person knows better than to harm others, and so chooses to act in a way that does not. A gentle person does not seek to make other people angry. Gentleness may lose battles, but it helps win the overall struggles. A gentle response tends to create fewer enemies, and more friends.gently go to top
top
Friday, December 5, 2008
The Template/A Leap of Faith
http://www.thetemplate.org/
The Template™A Holonomic Model Of TranscendenceThe Reconnection Of The Human Bio-CircuitryThrough Coded Ceremony
The Template™A Holonomic Model Of TranscendenceThe Reconnection Of The Human Bio-CircuitryThrough Coded Ceremony
Islam/The file
A little while ago, educated people had been discussing a paper prepared by the Institute for American Values entitled "What We're Fighting For" which was signed by sixty American intellectuals. It centers on a number of issues, among the most important of which is to explain the morality behind America's war on what they call terrorism and to call the Muslims to stand with them, adopt American values, and fight against what they describe as Islamic radicalism. We welcome dialogue and exchange. Dialogue, in principle, is a noble endeavor where we can take a good look at our moral foundations and discuss them with the intent of establishing a more just and equitable relationship between our nations and peoples. From this point of departure, we the signatories to this letter - from the land of the two mosques and the cradle of Islam, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - present our point of view as an informed alternative with the intent of establish an atmosphere of mutual understanding that can be adopted by organizations and governments. The Dialogue We are firmly convinced that it is necessary for people of knowledge and probity to enjoy a far-reaching depth of vision. Thit will not permit them to pursue choices made by individuals and circles, under the pressure of circumstances, that fail to take ethics and human rights into consideration. Such are the choices that lead societies to perpetual anxiety, deprivation, and inhuman conflict. The language of their discourse is the language of power. This is a mistake, since making power the language of dialogue tends to permit the forces of conflict to play a difficult and uncertain role in the future. At this important juncture in history, we call upon unbiased thinkers to engage in earnest dialogue to try and bring about better understanding for both sides that will keep our peoples away from the domain of conflict and prepare the way for a better future for the generations to come who are expecting a lot from us. We must invite everyone to the process of dialogue that we present to our world, and do so under the umbrella of justice, morality, and human rights, so we can give glad tidings to the world of a process that will bring about for it peace and tremendous good. To the extent that dialogue is necessary and effective, it must maintain a tone of respect, clarity, and frankness. These are the prerequisites for its success. Dialogue itself can only be built upon such a foundation, and those participating in it must be willing to accept criticism and correction unflinchingly. Therefore we say clearly and in total frankness that we are prepared to discuss any issue raised by the West, realizing that there are a number of concepts, moral values, rights, and ideas that we share with the West and that can be nurtured to bring about what is best for all of us. This means that we have common objectives. Nevertheless, we, just like you, possess our own governing principles and priorities and our own cultural assumptions. Our Values and Guiding Principles There are a number of basic principles and moral values that govern our dealings with other nations. These were set forth fourteen centuries ago by the messenger of Islam, Muhammad. This was before human rights organizations existed and before there was a United Nations with its international charters. Let us look at some of these: 1. The human being is inherently a sacred creation. It is forbidden to transgress against any human being, irrespective of color, ethnicity, or religion. The Qur'ân says: "We have honored the descendants of Adam." [17:70] 2. It is forbidden to kill a human soul unjustly. Killing a single person is to God as heinous as killing all of humanity, just as saving a single person from death is as weighty as saving the lives of all humanity. The Qur'ân says: "If anyone killed a person except as recompense for murder or spreading havoc in the land, then it would be as if he killed all of humanity. And if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the lives of all humanity." [5:32] 3. It is forbidden to impose a religious faith upon a person. The Qur'ân says: "There is no compulsion in religion." [2:256] A person will not even be considered a Muslim if he or she accepted Islam under duress. 4. The message of Islam asserts that human relationships must be established on the highest moral standards. Muhammad said: "I was only sent to perfect good conduct." The Qur'ân says: "We sent aforetime our messengers with clear signs and sent down with them the scripture and the balance so the people could establish justice. And We sent down iron wherein is mighty power and many benefits for mankind." [57:25] We read in another place in the Qur'ân: "God does not restrain you with regard to those who do not fight you on account of your faith nor drive you out of your homes from dealing kindly and justly with them, for God loves those who are just." [60:8] 5. All the resources of the Earth were created for humanity. The Qur'ân addresses this when it says: "It is He who has created for you all that is on the Earth." [2:29] These resources were only created for human beings to benefit from them within the limits of justice and for the betterment of humanity. Therefore, spoiling the environment, spreading havoc on Earth, perpetrating violence against weaker nations and fighting to wrest from them their wealth and the fruits of their prosperity, is conduct that is reviled by God. In the Qur'ân we read: "When he turns his back, his aim is to spread mischief throughout the Earth and destroy crops and cattle, but Allah does not love mischief." [2:205] and: "Do not make mischief in the Earth after it has been set in order." [7: 56] 6. Responsibility for a crime rests solely upon the perpetrator of that crime. No one may be punished for the crimes of another. The Qur'ân says: "No bearer of burdens must bear the burdens of another." [35:18] 7. Justice for all people is their inalienable right. Oppressing them is forbidden, irrespective of their religion, color, or ethnicity. The Qur'ân states: "And whenever you speak, speak justly, even if a close relative is concerned." [6: 152] 8. Dialogue and invitation must be done in the best possible manner. The Qur'ân says: "Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good preaching and argue with them in the best manner" [16:125] We believe in these principles, as our religion commands us to. They are the teachings of Muhammad. They agree to some extent with some of the principles that the American intellectuals put forth in their paper. We see that this agreement gives us a good platform for discussion that can bring about good for all of mankind. The Events of September 11 and their Implications It is completely unreasonable to turn the tragic events of September 11 into a means of categorizing our world's ideologies, civilizations, and societies. Those attacks were unwelcome to many people in the Muslim world due to the values and moral teachings of Islam that they violated. At the same time, we find strange the hasty conclusions made about the motivations of the attackers, restricting them to an attack on American society and its universal human values. Without going into a lengthy argument about the matter, we see it as our right and the right of all impartial thinkers, as well as the right of all Americans, to inquire as to why the attackers did not choose some other country that adheres to the same Western values? Why did they not turn their attention to other nations and societies in Asia and Africa that subscribe to idolatrous religions, for they would have been more deserving of attack if the issue with the attackers was to fight against those who disagreed with their values. Moreover, Islam teaches that the Christians are closer to the Muslims than any other people. History tells us that the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, during the early years of Islam, sent a group of his followers to one of the Christian kings of Ethiopia, because his kingdom enjoyed an unparalleled recognition of rights. It also tells us that Prophet Muhammad sent a letter to the Christian king of Rome and one to the Christian king of the Copts. Both letters were received graciously. The Qur'ân speaks about the Christians as being the most morally virtuous in their dealings of all religious societies outside of Islam: "You will find that the strongest among men in enmity to the believers are the Jews and pagans, and you will find that the nearest of them in love to the believers are those who say: 'We are Christians'." [5:82] Why must we ignore this history and permit a superficial and premature reading of events? This is not all. The laws that Islam came with are there to establish a stable life for both those who believe in it and those who do not. Furthermore, the Qur'ân describes the Prophet Muhammad a "a mercy to all humanity". Yet, when one faction prefers to create a conflict with the Muslims or to ignore their rights, then Islam responds by resistance and self defense, which are among the objectives of jihad. The West must realize that by blocking the specific options and moderate aspirations of the Muslim world and by creating conflicts, they will bring about perspectives in the Muslim world that will be hard to overcome in the future and will create problems for generations to come all over the world. It is unreasonable to assume that those who attacked the United States on September 11 did not feel in some way justified for what they did because of the decisions made by the United States in numerous places throughout the world. We by no means hold the view that they were justified in striking civilian targets, but it is necessary to recognize that some sort of causative relationship exists between American policy and what happened. From another angle, if we were to assume that the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks against the United States were the work of some special faction from within Europe, China, or Japan, or even a religious faction of the Jews, would America's decision then have been to subject them and their nations to the type of aggression that they are now confronting the Muslims with? This policy only supplies more evidence to the alleged perpetrators and their sympathizers for their claim that America is oppressing and aggressing against the Muslim world. The events of September 11 should be an impetus for establishing a new assemblage of international institutions to establish justice and secure people's rights. They are needed to supplant institutions like the United Nations General Assembly and the UN Security Council that were established after the two World Wars to defuse the war between imperious nations. Those institutions failed to realize justice and security for the weaker peoples or protect their countries. Institutions are needed that will not act merely as a theatre for extending the reach of the great powers. How many peoples have become wretched and had their resources stripped away from them by force for the benefit those overbearing powers. Likewise, those events should make us turn our attention to the fact that exaggerated strength, no matter how many ways it might manifest itself, is never a sufficient guarantee of security. A small group, if they have the will, can cause massive harm and injury to their opponents, no matter how strong those opponents might be. We have learned from history that power is not the only way to guarantee security, since the types of guarantees that come with sheer power carry with them the seeds of failure and collapse and are always accompanied by resentment and discontent from one side and arrogance from the other. But when those guarantees are built upon justice, then the possibility of their success is far greater. If the Americans view what happened on September 11 as a turning point for them in how they define their relationship with the Muslims generally, not merely with the group of people that actually carried it out, then can we be blamed when we see that the presence of the Jewish state of Israel on Palestinian land and the control they hold over it through the support of the major powers was and still is a decisive factor in defining and shaping our relationship with the West, as well as with its values and institutions? Our Position on America We can easily see today that the Eastern block - Japan and China - seems more alien to the understanding of the Islamic World than does the West. There are many more bridges connecting the Islamic World to the West than there are connecting it to the East. There likewise exist mutually beneficial relationships and common interests between the Muslim world and the West. It should be assumed that the West perceives it in their best interests for there to be balance and stability in the Muslim World and that it knows that the Muslim lands have provided much for them, especially economically. The West is the primary beneficiary of Muslim economic strength. In spite of this, every individual in the Muslim World perceives that China and Japan have not caused the Muslim World any clear problem, nor have they done anything detrimental to its concerns, countries, and societies. The average Muslim perceives Easterners to be more just, balanced, and more clement than the West. This feeling has been instilled in the minds of the individual members of Muslim society by the West itself. If the United States sought to withdraw from the world outside its borders and removed its hand from inflammatory issues, then the Muslims would not be bothered whether or not it is a progressive, democratic, or secular nation. The disagreement between us and American society is not about values of justice or the choice of freedoms. Values, as we see it, are of two types. First there are those basic human values shared by all people, values that are in harmony with the innate nature of the human being and that our religion calls us to. Then there are those values that are particular to a given society. That society chooses those values and gives preference to them. We do not wish to compel that society to abandon them since our religion teaches us that there is no compulsion in religion. It goes without saying that a number of those values are social preferences that are drawn from their given environment. Likewise, we do not accept that others can force us to change our values or deny us the right to live by them. We see it as our right - and the right of every people - to make clear to others what we believe in order to foster better understanding between the people of the Earth, bring about the realization of world peace, and create opportunities for those who are searching for the truth. The United States, in spite of its efforts in establishing the United Nations with its Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other similar institutions, is among the most antagonistic nations to the objectives of these institutions and to the values of justice and truth. This is clearly visible in America's stance on the Palestinian issue and its unwavering support for the Zionist occupation of Palestinian land and its justification of all the Zionist practices that run contrary to the resolutions passed by the United Nations. It is clearly visible in how America provides Israel with the most advanced weapons that they turn against women, children, and old men, and with which they topple down people's homes. At the same time, we see the Bush administration mobilizing its military strength and preparing for war against other countries like Iraq, justifying its actions with the claim that these countries are perpetrating human rights abuses and behaving aggressively towards their neighbors. This conduct of theirs creates in others a mental image of the United States of America as a nation that respects neither international organizations nor the moral principles upon which democracy rests. A number of the values mentioned by those American thinkers are not exclusively American values. They come from many sources and represent the contributions of many civilizations, among them the Islamic civilization. Muslims and many others throughout the world do not see these values in America, because those values are effectively concealed by America's actions. The ideal circumstances for cooperation will not be realized as long as American civilization remains in perpetual fear of growing weak or losing its hold on the world, and is perpetually concerned with keeping others from developing, especially the nations of the so-called third world. Islam and Secularism The signatories to the American paper focused on the necessity of the separation of church and state, and they considered this to be a universal value that all the nations of the Earth should adopt. We Muslims approach the problem of the relationship between religion and the state differently. Our understanding is to protect the will of the majority and their rights while also protecting the rights of the minority. Islam is a comprehensive religion that has specific laws addressing all aspects of life. It is difficult for a nation to be respected and taken seriously by its people in an Islamic environment without adopting the laws of that religion in general. State adoption of the religion does not mean an infringement on the particular needs of the minorities who live within it or their being forced to abandon their religion and embrace Islam. The idea that there is no compulsion in religion is firmly planted in the Muslim mindset and is clearly stated in the Qur'ân. The separation of church and state that the American thinkers are calling to in their letter shows a lack of understanding of how religion acts as a formative basis for culture in Islamic societies. We see secularism as inapplicable to Muslim society, because it denies the members of that society the right to apply the general laws that shape their lives and it violates their will on the pretext of protecting minorities. It does not stand to reason that protecting the rights of the minority should be accomplished by violating the rights of the majority. We see that the real concern of a religious minority is the protection of its rights and not the violation of the rights of the majority, since infringing upon the rights of the majority is not conducive to social stability and peace, whereas the rights of the minority in Muslim society are protected. We believe that Islam is the truth, though it is not possible for the entire world to be Muslim. It is neither possible for us to force others to think the way we do, nor would Islamic Law allow us to do so if we were able to. This is a personal choice in Islamic Law. The thing that we have to do is explain the message of Islam, which is a guidance and a mercy to all humanity. However, we are not heedless of the necessities brought about by the present state of humanity and of the need to remove the obstacles that prevent people from properly understanding the message of Islam so they can, if they choose, adopt it of their own free will. The Muslims have the right to adhere to their religion, its values, and its teachings. This is an option that it will be difficult to try and withhold from them. Nevertheless, what we present is a moderate and balanced understanding and go forward to propagate it, and the West shall see that it is very different than the notions that they have about Islam. This is if the West is truly willing to afford us, our religion, and our abilities proper recognition, or at least willing to study the facts of our religion and our values in a rational and objective manner. Islam is not an enemy of civilization, but it rejects utilizing the notion of civilization for negative ends. Nor is Islam an enemy of human rights and freedoms, but it rejects transforming freedoms and rights into a tool for conflict just as it rejects relying upon a limited cultural vision as if it is a universal law that must be generally applied to all, forcibly if need be. Continuing to insist upon this vision, even if it is depicted as religiously tolerant, is no less extreme than what goes on in those radical religious groups. Oppressing others necessarily means that a choice in favor of conflict has been made. It is the catalyst that inflames the strength of resistance, which crates conditions where causing injury to others takes little instigation. The West has to realize that destruction is the least technologically dependant product in the world. It can be produced in countless ways. This will give birth to more forms of radicalism within all societies, including those that adopt separation of church and state. Those might actually turn out to be the most proficient practitioners of this type of extremism. The Just War and Terrorism The West often speaks of the problem of terrorism and radicalism. In our view, this problem is a serious one for the world and a number of measures must be taken to deal with it. At the same time, we wish to emphasize the following points that appear to us very reasonable: First, radicalism is not intrinsically tied to religion. Radicalism can take many forms, political, economic, or ideological. These should be given the same level of attention, because they seek to overturn the moral principles and the systems that secure human rights throughout the world. Also, religious radicalism is not restricted to one particular religion. We admit there are radical elements among Muslims; we are also well aware that every religious persuasion in the world has its radical elements. Those who study religious thought and culture attest to this fact. Therefore, it is both unreasonable and unjust to irrationally push the issue of Islamic radicalism and then take a course of action that will further instigate it without dealing with all forms of radicalism in the world, both religious and otherwise. Second, while we believe that the world is confronted by terrorism and radicalism in the broad sense that we have just described, we should also consider that there are a host of other problems that the world is facing with respect to rights, freedoms, and basic human needs like education, health, and nutrition. All of these need to be addressed. We are on the realization that many of the extremist Islamic groups - as they are called - did not want to be that way when they started, but were forced into that category by political or military forces or their media machinery that blocked their access to channels of peaceful expression. Such powers were able to do away with any possible opportunity for moderation and to strike at the rights of people. This is the major cause for the extremism of Islamic movements and groups. We are also on the realization that this same situation is right now occurring under the guise of the Western program known as the War on Terror. Stability is the basis for rights and freedoms throughout the world. When we deny people stability and force them to live in perpetual anxiety, oppression, and misery, then they become more likely to act in an immoral and unethical manner. Bitter reality is what sets down decisions. Moreover, it is sometimes what shapes people's thoughts. When people wait a long time without their rights being addressed, it becomes highly likely that they will behave in ways that are difficult to predict and that lead to uncertain consequences. We seriously call upon the West to become more open to Islam, look more seriously at its own programs, and behave more mildly with the Islamic world. We also call upon them to earnestly review their position on Islam and to open channels of dialogue with prominent Islamic thinkers representing the broad current of Islamic thought and intellectuals and decision makers in the West. It is important for the West to realize that most of the Islamic movements throughout the Muslim world and elsewhere are essentially moderate. It is necessary to maintain this situation. Moderate movements should have their rights respected. Nothing should be allowed to inflame situations for any reason. People need to be able to conduct themselves rationally and with a sense of security. We are committed to fighting against terrorism, whether it comes from the Muslims or elsewhere. However, as long as the matter is being referred back to moral values, then why not mention other radical extremists? Why not talk about the Palestinians who are exposed, especially in these days, to most loathsome kind of terrorism possible? Their cities and refugee camps are being torn to the ground, mass murder is being carried out against them, and a suffocating siege is being imposed upon their innocent civilians. This is not being carried out by some individuals or secret organizations. It is being executed by the state of Israel, a member of the United Nations. If the purpose is to pull up terrorism from its roots, then all out war is not the appropriate course of action, but peace and justice is. The world must seek this in Palestine and elsewhere. Terrorism, according to the restricted meaning that it is being used for today, is but one of the forms of wrongful aggression being carried out against lives and property. It is immoral to focus on one form of aggression and turn a blind eye to all others, even though they might be more destructive and repugnant. This is a clear case of selective vision and the use of double standards. Third, concocting conflicts does no good for either side. Those who represent conflict are not always the best representatives of this faction or that. There is nothing better than justice, consideration of the people's rights and adhering to our moral values to dispel the specter of conflict. These principles must be maintained even in times of war when we are forced to go down that road. In the West, instigating conflict stems from considering and protecting national - if not partisan - interests, even at the expense of the rights of others. The truth is that this policy is what creates a dangerous threat to national security, not only for the West, but for the entire world, not to mention the tragic and inhuman conditions that it produces. The men throughout the world who are behind these conflicts are, by their decisions and their policies, preparing the masses to turn against them. We must intelligently monitor their behavior and protect our civil societies and the rights and security of our people. We must realize that having conflict mongers in power around the world will bring about the worst situation possible for us in the present, as well as for the future generations who will have to face the effects of our personal calculations. Yes, we should be optimistic, but we must also be clear in accounting for our actions and assessing their affects. Civil security is in a perilous situation throughout the world in the shadow of this scramble to create conflicts and draw up programs for dealing with them. We have to move beyond the slogans and realize that policies of conflict in the West are bringing about the destruction of civil security throughout the world in the name of fighting terrorism. The number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan because of American bombing increases without the American administration showing any kind of strain on its mores and values from its so-called "just war". In reality, it seems like they are merely creating circumstances in order to give a new validation for more confrontations here and there. And if the West considers September 11 as an affront to civil security in the West, then we can share with it that feeling and even the stance of rejecting attacks against civil security throughout the world. But it is important for the West to realize that civil security in the Islamic World has not seen stability for decades and a lot of the impediments to civil security have come about under the umbrella of Western policy and quite possibly due the direct actions of the West. It is about time we realize that the use of military force or the power of the media provides no real guarantee for the future. Often matters take surprising turns, going off in directions that defy our estimation. It is as if the events of September 11 showed the uncertainty in this estimation. Therefore, creating more avenues for dialogue and the exchange of ideas where scholars and thinkers can meet with each other is, in our opinion, the alternative to the language of violence and destruction. This is what compels us to write this letter and to participate in this discussion.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
FBI WATCH : Making Cruelty Visible
http://www.dallasnews.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3656&start=540
A good read on Clinton and Russia and Bush.
A good read on Clinton and Russia and Bush.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Failure stared him in the face... Martina McBride - God's Will
John Lennon stand by me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4_ghOG9JQM
When I came to this earth I came alone only to be joined a few years later on earth by my male counterpart.
We went about our lives unbeknownst to each other for many decades. Voila in my 50's, we met.
We danced around in our own worlds for still a few more years before uniting in our joint quest for PEACE.
FAILURE
stared him in the face
Mocking all that he has ever tried to do,
Seeking to lead him down the path of regret,
That eventually can mature into despair.
Leading into the world that is colored ever so softly
In shades of grey. Easy on the eye but lifeless and silent,
The wrong kind that leads into nihilism.
A world in which nothing matters
Nothing lasts or is important
The man was used to the world of soft shadows
Knowing well the dust filled land
A drought that chokes out all life,
The water of life elsewhere, far distant, that could wash the dust away
A place that he knows exists from his younger days when hope flourished, Ideals high and the good sought in a land of bright colors filled with life
That is until his weakness and inner conflict became something
more real than life itself
The wheel has turned many times
always returning to this conversation
The man knows this place well
This time he smiled
At the insults slung
Finally coming to the point of seeing what failure really is.
A simple chance of listening to the right voice
God's Will
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJnoBbueEc0&feature=related
And the faith and courage to continue and simply move on.
He reached out to whom he knew not
The light came quietly; softly whispering hope.
The future bright if only his heart turned
From mediating upon his failure,
toward the light that all should see, the divine presence that is love that brings good out of all things.
I wonder what he'd write today....... a few years down the rode from when he wrote this????????
I love him still and still believe in our united journey!!! PEACE my luv.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4_ghOG9JQM
When I came to this earth I came alone only to be joined a few years later on earth by my male counterpart.
We went about our lives unbeknownst to each other for many decades. Voila in my 50's, we met.
We danced around in our own worlds for still a few more years before uniting in our joint quest for PEACE.
FAILURE
stared him in the face
Mocking all that he has ever tried to do,
Seeking to lead him down the path of regret,
That eventually can mature into despair.
Leading into the world that is colored ever so softly
In shades of grey. Easy on the eye but lifeless and silent,
The wrong kind that leads into nihilism.
A world in which nothing matters
Nothing lasts or is important
The man was used to the world of soft shadows
Knowing well the dust filled land
A drought that chokes out all life,
The water of life elsewhere, far distant, that could wash the dust away
A place that he knows exists from his younger days when hope flourished, Ideals high and the good sought in a land of bright colors filled with life
That is until his weakness and inner conflict became something
more real than life itself
The wheel has turned many times
always returning to this conversation
The man knows this place well
This time he smiled
At the insults slung
Finally coming to the point of seeing what failure really is.
A simple chance of listening to the right voice
God's Will
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJnoBbueEc0&feature=related
And the faith and courage to continue and simply move on.
He reached out to whom he knew not
The light came quietly; softly whispering hope.
The future bright if only his heart turned
From mediating upon his failure,
toward the light that all should see, the divine presence that is love that brings good out of all things.
I wonder what he'd write today....... a few years down the rode from when he wrote this????????
I love him still and still believe in our united journey!!! PEACE my luv.
The Earth Charter
http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/2000/10/the_earth_charter.html
The Earth Charter
PREAMBLE
We stand at a critical moment in Earth's history, a time when humanity must choose its future. As the world becomes increasingly interdependent and fragile, the future at once holds great peril and great promise. To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.
Earth, Our HomeHumanity is part of a vast evolving universe. Earth, our home, is alive with a unique community of life. The forces of nature make existence a demanding and uncertain adventure, but Earth has provided the conditions essential to life's evolution. The resilience of the community of life and the well-being of humanity depend upon preserving a healthy biosphere with all its ecological systems, a rich variety of plants and animals, fertile soils, pure waters, and clean air. The global environment with its finite resources is a common concern of all peoples. The protection of Earth's vitality, diversity, and beauty is a sacred trust.The Global SituationThe dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation, the depletion of resources, and a massive extinction of species. Communities are being undermined. The benefits of development are not shared equitably and the gap between rich and poor is widening. Injustice, poverty, ignorance, and violent conflict are widespread and the cause of great suffering. An unprecedented rise in human population has overburdened ecological and social systems. The foundations of global security are threatened. These trends are perilous—but not inevitable. The Challenges AheadThe choice is ours: form a global partnership to care for Earth and one another or risk the destruction of ourselves and the diversity of life. Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living. We must realize that when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more. We have the knowledge and technology to provide for all and to reduce our impacts on the environment. The emergence of a global civil society is creating new opportunities to build a democratic and humane world. Our environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual challenges are interconnected, and together we can forge inclusive solutions.Universal ResponsibilityTo realize these aspirations, we must decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility, identifying ourselves with the whole Earth community as well as our local communities. We are at once citizens of different nations and of one world in which the local and global are linked. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of the human family and the larger living world. The spirit of human solidarity and kinship with all life is strengthened when we live with reverence for the mystery of being, gratitude for the gift of life, and humility regarding the human place in nature.We urgently need a shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical foundation for the emerging world community. Therefore, together in hope we affirm the following interdependent principles for a sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions is to be guided and assessed.PRINCIPLESI. RESPECT AND CARE FOR THE COMMUNITY OF LIFE1. Respect Earth and life in all its diversity.a. Recognize that all beings are interdependent and every form of life has value regardless of its worth to human beings.b. Affirm faith in the inherent dignity of all human beings and in the intellectual, artistic, ethical, and spiritual potential of humanity.2. Care for the community of life with understanding, compassion, and love.a. Accept that with the right to own, manage, and use natural resources comes the duty to prevent environmental harm and to protect the rights of people.b. Affirm that with increased freedom, knowledge, and power comes increased responsibility to promote the common good.3. Build democratic societies that are just, participatory, sustainable, and peaceful.a. Ensure that communities at all levels guarantee human rights and fundamental freedoms and provide everyone an opportunity to realize his or her full potential.b. Promote social and economic justice, enabling all to achieve a secure and meaningful livelihood that is ecologically responsible.4. Secure Earth's bounty and beauty for present and future generations.a. Recognize that the freedom of action of each generation is qualified by the needs of future generations.b. Transmit to future generations values, traditions, and institutions that support the long-term flourishing of Earth's human and ecological communities. In order to fulfill these four broad commitments, it is necessary to:II. ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY5. Protect and restore the integrity of Earth's ecological systems, with special concern for biological diversity and the natural processes that sustain life.a. Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations that make environmental conservation and rehabilitation integral to all development initiatives. b. Establish and safeguard viable nature and biosphere reserves, including wild lands and marine areas, to protect Earth's life support systems, maintain biodiversity, and preserve our natural heritage.c. Promote the recovery of endangered species and ecosystems.d. Control and eradicate non-native or genetically modified organisms harmful to native species and the environment, and prevent introduction of such harmful organisms.e. Manage the use of renewable resources such as water, soil, forest products, and marine life in ways that do not exceed rates of regeneration and that protect the health of ecosystems.f. Manage the extraction and use of non-renewable resources such as minerals and fossil fuels in ways that minimize depletion and cause no serious environmental damage.6. Prevent harm as the best method of environmental protection and, when knowledge is limited, apply a precautionary approach.a. Take action to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible environmental harm even when scientific knowledge is incomplete or inconclusive.b. Place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm, and make the responsible parties liable for environmental harm.c. Ensure that decision making addresses the cumulative, long-term, indirect, long distance, and global consequences of human activities.d. Prevent pollution of any part of the environment and allow no build-up of radioactive, toxic, or other hazardous substances.e. Avoid military activities damaging to the environment.7. Adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction that safeguard Earth's regenerative capacities, human rights, and community well-being.a. Reduce, reuse, and recycle the materials used in production and consumption systems, and ensure that residual waste can be assimilated by ecological systems.b. Act with restraint and efficiency when using energy, and rely increasingly on renewable energy sources such as solar and wind.c. Promote the development, adoption, and equitable transfer of environmentally sound technologies.d. Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price, and enable consumers to identify products that meet the highest social and environmental standards.e. Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction.f. Adopt lifestyles that emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency in a finite world.8. Advance the study of ecological sustainability and promote the open exchange and wide application of the knowledge acquired.a. Support international scientific and technical cooperation on sustainability, with special attention to the needs of developing nations.b. Recognize and preserve the traditional knowledge and spiritual wisdom in all cultures that contribute to environmental protection and human well-being.c. Ensure that information of vital importance to human health and environmental protection, including genetic information, remains available in the public domain.III. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE9. Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative.a. Guarantee the right to potable water, clean air, food security, uncontaminated soil, shelter, and safe sanitation, allocating the national and international resources required.b. Empower every human being with the education and resources to secure a sustainable livelihood, and provide social security and safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves.c. Recognize the ignored, protect the vulnerable, serve those who suffer, and enable them to develop their capacities and to pursue their aspirations.10. Ensure that economic activities and institutions at all levels promote human development in an equitable and sustainable manner.a. Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.b. Enhance the intellectual, financial, technical, and social resources of developing nations, and relieve them of onerous international debt.c. Ensure that all trade supports sustainable resource use, environmental protection, and progressive labor standards.d. Require multinational corporations and international financial organizations to act transparently in the public good, and hold them accountable for the consequences of their activities.11. Affirm gender equality and equity as prerequisites to sustainable development and ensure universal access to education, health care, and economic opportunity. a. Secure the human rights of women and girls and end all violence against them.b. Promote the active participation of women in all aspects of economic, political, civil, social, and cultural life as full and equal partners, decision makers, leaders, and beneficiaries.c. Strengthen families and ensure the safety and loving nurture of all family members.12. Uphold the right of all, without discrimination, to a natural and social environment supportive of human dignity, bodily health, and spiritual well-being, with special attention to the rights of indigenous peoples and minorities.a. Eliminate discrimination in all its forms, such as that based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, language, and national, ethnic or social origin.b. Affirm the right of indigenous peoples to their spirituality, knowledge, lands and resources and to their related practice of sustainable livelihoods.c. Honor and support the young people of our communities, enabling them to fulfill their essential role in creating sustainable societies.d. Protect and restore outstanding places of cultural and spiritual significance.IV. DEMOCRACY, NONVIOLENCE, AND PEACE13. Strengthen democratic institutions at all levels, and provide transparency and accountability in governance, inclusive participation in decision making, and access to justice.a. Uphold the right of everyone to receive clear and timely information on environmental matters and all development plans and activities which are likely to affect them or in which they have an interest.b. Support local, regional and global civil society, and promote the meaningful participation of all interested individuals and organizations in decision making.c. Protect the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, peaceful assembly, association, and dissent.d. Institute effective and efficient access to administrative and independent judicial procedures, including remedies and redress for environmental harm and the threat of such harm.e. Eliminate corruption in all public and private institutions.f. Strengthen local communities, enabling them to care for their environments, and assign environmental responsibilities to the levels of government where they can be carried out most effectively.14. Integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and skills needed for a sustainable way of life.a. Provide all, especially children and youth, with educational opportunities that empower them to contribute actively to sustainable development.b. Promote the contribution of the arts and humanities as well as the sciences in sustainability education.c. Enhance the role of the mass media in raising awareness of ecological and social challenges.d. Recognize the importance of moral and spiritual education for sustainable living.15. Treat all living beings with respect and consideration.a. Prevent cruelty to animals kept in human societies and protect them from suffering.b. Protect wild animals from methods of hunting, trapping, and fishing that cause extreme, prolonged, or avoidable suffering.c. Avoid or eliminate to the full extent possible the taking or destruction of non-targeted species.16. Promote a culture of tolerance, nonviolence, and peace.a. Encourage and support mutual understanding, solidarity, and cooperation among all peoples and within and among nations.b. Implement comprehensive strategies to prevent violent conflict and use collaborative problem solving to manage and resolve environmental conflicts and other disputes.c. Demilitarize national security systems to the level of a non-provocative defense posture, and convert military resources to peaceful purposes, including ecological restoration.d. Eliminate nuclear, biological, and toxic weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.e. Ensure that the use of orbital and outer space supports environmental protection and peace.f. Recognize that peace is the wholeness created by right relationships with oneself, other persons, other cultures, other life, Earth, and the larger whole of which all are a part.THE WAY FORWARDAs never before in history, common destiny beckons us to seek a new beginning. Such renewal is the promise of these Earth Charter principles. To fulfill this promise, we must commit ourselves to adopt and promote the values and objectives of the Charter.This requires a change of mind and heart. It requires a new sense of global interdependence and universal responsibility. We must imaginatively develop and apply the vision of a sustainable way of life locally, nationally, regionally, and globally. Our cultural diversity is a precious heritage and different cultures will find their own distinctive ways to realize the vision. We must deepen and expand the global dialogue that generated the Earth Charter, for we have much to learn from the ongoing collaborative search for truth and wisdom.Life often involves tensions between important values. This can mean difficult choices. However, we must find ways to harmonize diversity with unity, the exercise of freedom with the common good, short-term objectives with long-term goals. Every individual, family, organization, and community has a vital role to play. The arts, sciences, religions, educational institutions, media, businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and governments are all called to offer creative leadership. The partnership of government, civil society, and business is essential for effective governance.In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.Let ours be a time remembered for the awakening of a new reverence for life, the firm resolve to achieve sustainability, the quickening of the struggle for justice and peace, and the joyful celebration of life.Click here to endorse the Earth Charter. Please click here to download the text of the Charter in more than 30 languages.Please click here to download brochures in English that include the full text of the Charter.
Posted on October 4, 2000 11:33 AM Permalink
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.~Herm Albright~
The Earth Charter
PREAMBLE
We stand at a critical moment in Earth's history, a time when humanity must choose its future. As the world becomes increasingly interdependent and fragile, the future at once holds great peril and great promise. To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.
Earth, Our HomeHumanity is part of a vast evolving universe. Earth, our home, is alive with a unique community of life. The forces of nature make existence a demanding and uncertain adventure, but Earth has provided the conditions essential to life's evolution. The resilience of the community of life and the well-being of humanity depend upon preserving a healthy biosphere with all its ecological systems, a rich variety of plants and animals, fertile soils, pure waters, and clean air. The global environment with its finite resources is a common concern of all peoples. The protection of Earth's vitality, diversity, and beauty is a sacred trust.The Global SituationThe dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation, the depletion of resources, and a massive extinction of species. Communities are being undermined. The benefits of development are not shared equitably and the gap between rich and poor is widening. Injustice, poverty, ignorance, and violent conflict are widespread and the cause of great suffering. An unprecedented rise in human population has overburdened ecological and social systems. The foundations of global security are threatened. These trends are perilous—but not inevitable. The Challenges AheadThe choice is ours: form a global partnership to care for Earth and one another or risk the destruction of ourselves and the diversity of life. Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living. We must realize that when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more. We have the knowledge and technology to provide for all and to reduce our impacts on the environment. The emergence of a global civil society is creating new opportunities to build a democratic and humane world. Our environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual challenges are interconnected, and together we can forge inclusive solutions.Universal ResponsibilityTo realize these aspirations, we must decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility, identifying ourselves with the whole Earth community as well as our local communities. We are at once citizens of different nations and of one world in which the local and global are linked. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of the human family and the larger living world. The spirit of human solidarity and kinship with all life is strengthened when we live with reverence for the mystery of being, gratitude for the gift of life, and humility regarding the human place in nature.We urgently need a shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical foundation for the emerging world community. Therefore, together in hope we affirm the following interdependent principles for a sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions is to be guided and assessed.PRINCIPLESI. RESPECT AND CARE FOR THE COMMUNITY OF LIFE1. Respect Earth and life in all its diversity.a. Recognize that all beings are interdependent and every form of life has value regardless of its worth to human beings.b. Affirm faith in the inherent dignity of all human beings and in the intellectual, artistic, ethical, and spiritual potential of humanity.2. Care for the community of life with understanding, compassion, and love.a. Accept that with the right to own, manage, and use natural resources comes the duty to prevent environmental harm and to protect the rights of people.b. Affirm that with increased freedom, knowledge, and power comes increased responsibility to promote the common good.3. Build democratic societies that are just, participatory, sustainable, and peaceful.a. Ensure that communities at all levels guarantee human rights and fundamental freedoms and provide everyone an opportunity to realize his or her full potential.b. Promote social and economic justice, enabling all to achieve a secure and meaningful livelihood that is ecologically responsible.4. Secure Earth's bounty and beauty for present and future generations.a. Recognize that the freedom of action of each generation is qualified by the needs of future generations.b. Transmit to future generations values, traditions, and institutions that support the long-term flourishing of Earth's human and ecological communities. In order to fulfill these four broad commitments, it is necessary to:II. ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY5. Protect and restore the integrity of Earth's ecological systems, with special concern for biological diversity and the natural processes that sustain life.a. Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations that make environmental conservation and rehabilitation integral to all development initiatives. b. Establish and safeguard viable nature and biosphere reserves, including wild lands and marine areas, to protect Earth's life support systems, maintain biodiversity, and preserve our natural heritage.c. Promote the recovery of endangered species and ecosystems.d. Control and eradicate non-native or genetically modified organisms harmful to native species and the environment, and prevent introduction of such harmful organisms.e. Manage the use of renewable resources such as water, soil, forest products, and marine life in ways that do not exceed rates of regeneration and that protect the health of ecosystems.f. Manage the extraction and use of non-renewable resources such as minerals and fossil fuels in ways that minimize depletion and cause no serious environmental damage.6. Prevent harm as the best method of environmental protection and, when knowledge is limited, apply a precautionary approach.a. Take action to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible environmental harm even when scientific knowledge is incomplete or inconclusive.b. Place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm, and make the responsible parties liable for environmental harm.c. Ensure that decision making addresses the cumulative, long-term, indirect, long distance, and global consequences of human activities.d. Prevent pollution of any part of the environment and allow no build-up of radioactive, toxic, or other hazardous substances.e. Avoid military activities damaging to the environment.7. Adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction that safeguard Earth's regenerative capacities, human rights, and community well-being.a. Reduce, reuse, and recycle the materials used in production and consumption systems, and ensure that residual waste can be assimilated by ecological systems.b. Act with restraint and efficiency when using energy, and rely increasingly on renewable energy sources such as solar and wind.c. Promote the development, adoption, and equitable transfer of environmentally sound technologies.d. Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price, and enable consumers to identify products that meet the highest social and environmental standards.e. Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction.f. Adopt lifestyles that emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency in a finite world.8. Advance the study of ecological sustainability and promote the open exchange and wide application of the knowledge acquired.a. Support international scientific and technical cooperation on sustainability, with special attention to the needs of developing nations.b. Recognize and preserve the traditional knowledge and spiritual wisdom in all cultures that contribute to environmental protection and human well-being.c. Ensure that information of vital importance to human health and environmental protection, including genetic information, remains available in the public domain.III. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE9. Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative.a. Guarantee the right to potable water, clean air, food security, uncontaminated soil, shelter, and safe sanitation, allocating the national and international resources required.b. Empower every human being with the education and resources to secure a sustainable livelihood, and provide social security and safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves.c. Recognize the ignored, protect the vulnerable, serve those who suffer, and enable them to develop their capacities and to pursue their aspirations.10. Ensure that economic activities and institutions at all levels promote human development in an equitable and sustainable manner.a. Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.b. Enhance the intellectual, financial, technical, and social resources of developing nations, and relieve them of onerous international debt.c. Ensure that all trade supports sustainable resource use, environmental protection, and progressive labor standards.d. Require multinational corporations and international financial organizations to act transparently in the public good, and hold them accountable for the consequences of their activities.11. Affirm gender equality and equity as prerequisites to sustainable development and ensure universal access to education, health care, and economic opportunity. a. Secure the human rights of women and girls and end all violence against them.b. Promote the active participation of women in all aspects of economic, political, civil, social, and cultural life as full and equal partners, decision makers, leaders, and beneficiaries.c. Strengthen families and ensure the safety and loving nurture of all family members.12. Uphold the right of all, without discrimination, to a natural and social environment supportive of human dignity, bodily health, and spiritual well-being, with special attention to the rights of indigenous peoples and minorities.a. Eliminate discrimination in all its forms, such as that based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, language, and national, ethnic or social origin.b. Affirm the right of indigenous peoples to their spirituality, knowledge, lands and resources and to their related practice of sustainable livelihoods.c. Honor and support the young people of our communities, enabling them to fulfill their essential role in creating sustainable societies.d. Protect and restore outstanding places of cultural and spiritual significance.IV. DEMOCRACY, NONVIOLENCE, AND PEACE13. Strengthen democratic institutions at all levels, and provide transparency and accountability in governance, inclusive participation in decision making, and access to justice.a. Uphold the right of everyone to receive clear and timely information on environmental matters and all development plans and activities which are likely to affect them or in which they have an interest.b. Support local, regional and global civil society, and promote the meaningful participation of all interested individuals and organizations in decision making.c. Protect the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, peaceful assembly, association, and dissent.d. Institute effective and efficient access to administrative and independent judicial procedures, including remedies and redress for environmental harm and the threat of such harm.e. Eliminate corruption in all public and private institutions.f. Strengthen local communities, enabling them to care for their environments, and assign environmental responsibilities to the levels of government where they can be carried out most effectively.14. Integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and skills needed for a sustainable way of life.a. Provide all, especially children and youth, with educational opportunities that empower them to contribute actively to sustainable development.b. Promote the contribution of the arts and humanities as well as the sciences in sustainability education.c. Enhance the role of the mass media in raising awareness of ecological and social challenges.d. Recognize the importance of moral and spiritual education for sustainable living.15. Treat all living beings with respect and consideration.a. Prevent cruelty to animals kept in human societies and protect them from suffering.b. Protect wild animals from methods of hunting, trapping, and fishing that cause extreme, prolonged, or avoidable suffering.c. Avoid or eliminate to the full extent possible the taking or destruction of non-targeted species.16. Promote a culture of tolerance, nonviolence, and peace.a. Encourage and support mutual understanding, solidarity, and cooperation among all peoples and within and among nations.b. Implement comprehensive strategies to prevent violent conflict and use collaborative problem solving to manage and resolve environmental conflicts and other disputes.c. Demilitarize national security systems to the level of a non-provocative defense posture, and convert military resources to peaceful purposes, including ecological restoration.d. Eliminate nuclear, biological, and toxic weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.e. Ensure that the use of orbital and outer space supports environmental protection and peace.f. Recognize that peace is the wholeness created by right relationships with oneself, other persons, other cultures, other life, Earth, and the larger whole of which all are a part.THE WAY FORWARDAs never before in history, common destiny beckons us to seek a new beginning. Such renewal is the promise of these Earth Charter principles. To fulfill this promise, we must commit ourselves to adopt and promote the values and objectives of the Charter.This requires a change of mind and heart. It requires a new sense of global interdependence and universal responsibility. We must imaginatively develop and apply the vision of a sustainable way of life locally, nationally, regionally, and globally. Our cultural diversity is a precious heritage and different cultures will find their own distinctive ways to realize the vision. We must deepen and expand the global dialogue that generated the Earth Charter, for we have much to learn from the ongoing collaborative search for truth and wisdom.Life often involves tensions between important values. This can mean difficult choices. However, we must find ways to harmonize diversity with unity, the exercise of freedom with the common good, short-term objectives with long-term goals. Every individual, family, organization, and community has a vital role to play. The arts, sciences, religions, educational institutions, media, businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and governments are all called to offer creative leadership. The partnership of government, civil society, and business is essential for effective governance.In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.Let ours be a time remembered for the awakening of a new reverence for life, the firm resolve to achieve sustainability, the quickening of the struggle for justice and peace, and the joyful celebration of life.Click here to endorse the Earth Charter. Please click here to download the text of the Charter in more than 30 languages.Please click here to download brochures in English that include the full text of the Charter.
Posted on October 4, 2000 11:33 AM Permalink
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.~Herm Albright~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
