The Separation between State and Religion

In time we will realize that Democracy is the entitlement of individuals to every right that was in its times alloted to kings. The right to speak and decide, to be treated with decency, to serve and be served by people in a State of “love” that is, to serve with one’s work for the development of ‘life’. To belong to the Kingdom of Human Beings without racial, national, social or academic separations. To love and be loved. To die at the service of the whole and be honored in one’s death, for one’s life and work was legitimately valued. To be graceful and grateful. To have the pride and the humility of being One with the Universe, One with every realm of Existence, One with every living and deceased soul. To treat with dignity and be treated with dignity for One is dignified together with All others and Life itself. To walk the path of compassion, not in the sorrow of guilt but in the pride of being. To take responsability for one’s mistakes and sufferings and stand up again and again like a hero and a heroine and face the struggle that is put at one’s feet and in one’s hands. Millions of people, millions and millions of people might take many generations to realize the consciousness of our humaneness but there is no other dignified path for the human being.

The “work” as I conceive it is psychological and political. Psychology is the connection between the different dimensions within one’s self and Politics is the actualization of that consciousness in our practical lives. Religion is the ceremony that binds the connectedness between the individual and the Universe. The separation between religion, politics and science, the arts and sports is, in the sphere of the social, the reflection of the schizophrenia within the individual and the masses. The dialogue between individuality and the "human" belongs to consciousness. The tendency to develop cults resides in the shortcomings we’are finding in life as it is structured today. “Life” has become the private property of a few priviledged who cannot profit from it because as soon as it is appropriated it stops to be “life” or “life-giving”.

We are all the victims of our own invention and each one is called upon to find solutions. The only problem is believing our selves incapable of finding them. We are now free to use all Systems of knowledge objectively, sharing them without imposing our will on each other. To become objective about our lives means to understand that the institutions that govern its experience are critically important. That we are one with the governments, one with the religious activities that mark its pace, that the arena’s in which we move our bodies and the laboratories in which we explore our possibilities are ALL part and parcel of our own personal responsibility. That WE ARE ONE WITH EACH OTHER AND EVERYTHING AROUND US and acknowledge for ourselves a bond of love in conscious responsibility. That we human beings know ourselves part of each other and are willing and able to act on our behalf for the benefit of each and every individual. That we no longer allow governments, industries, universities or any other institution to run along unchecked by the objective principles of humaneness. That we do not allow gurus to abuse their power or governors to steal the taxes and use them to their personal advantage in detriment of the whole. That we do not allow abuse from anyone anywhere because life is too beautiful to do so and that we are willing to stop the rampant crime with the necessary compassion Conscious knowledge is every individual's right. Conscious action is every individual's duty.

Blog Archive

Thursday 24 March 2011

THE “KILL TEAM” PHOTOGRAPHS


http://www.readersupportednews.org/off-site-news-section/122-122/5383-the-qkill-teamq-photographs


THE “KILL TEAM” PHOTOGRAPHS

SLIDE 1 OF 4
PREVIOUS
NEXT
  • 110328_soldier-corpse-one_p465.jpgLa Mohammed Kalay, Afghanistan, 2010.
  • harman1.jpgAbu Ghraib, Iraq, 2003.
  • my_lai_soldiers.pngSoldiers rest just after the My Lai massacre, 1968.
  • My_Lai_massacre.jpgMy Lai 4, Vietnam, 1968.
It’s the smile. In photographs released by the German weekly Der Spiegel, an American soldier is looking directly at the camera with a wide grin. His hand is on the body of an Afghan whom he and his fellow soldiers appear to have just killed, allegedly for sport. In a sense, we’ve seen that smile before: on the faces of the American men and women who piled naked Iraqi prisoners on top of each other, eight years ago, and posed for photographs and videos at the Abu Ghraib prison outside of Baghdad.
It’s also the cameras. Der Spiegel reported this week that it had obtained four thousand photographs and videos taken by American soldiers who referred to themselves as a “kill team.” (Der Spiegel chose to publish only three of the photographs.) The images are in the hands of military prosecutors. Five soldiers, including Jeremy Morlock, the smiling man in the picture, who is twenty-two years old, are awaiting courts-martial for the murder of three Afghan civilians; seven other soldiers had lesser, related charges filed against them, including drug use. On Tuesday, Morlock’s lawyer said that he would plead guilty.
We saw photographs, too, at My Lai 4, where a few dozen American soldiers slaughtered at least five hundred South Vietnamese mothers, children, and old men and women in a long morning of unforgettable carnage more than four decades ago. Ronald Haeberle, an Army photographer, was there that day with two cameras. He directed the lens of his official one, with black-and-white film in it, away from the worst sights; there is a shot of soldiers with faint smiles on their faces, leaning back in relaxed poses, and no sign of the massacre that has taken place. But the color photos that Haeberle took on his personal camera, for his own use, were far more explicit—they show the shot-up bodies of toddlers, and became some of the most unforgettable images of that wasteful war. In most of these cases, when we later meet these soldiers, in interviews or during court proceedings, they come across as American kids—articulate, personable, and likable.
Why photograph atrocities? And why pass them around to buddies back home or fellow soldiers in other units? How could the soldiers’ sense of what is unacceptable be so lost? No outsider can have a complete answer to such a question. As someone who has been writing about war crimes since My Lai, though, I have come to have a personal belief: these soldiers had come to accept the killing of civilians—recklessly, as payback, or just at random—as a facet of modern unconventional warfare. In other words, killing itself, whether in a firefight with the Taliban or in sport with innocent bystanders in a strange land with a strange language and strange customs, has become ordinary. In long, unsuccessful wars, in which the enemy—the people trying to kill you—do not wear uniforms and are seldom seen, soldiers can lose their bearings, moral and otherwise. The consequences of that lost bearing can be hideous. This is part of the toll wars take on the young people we send to fight them for us. The G.I.s in Afghanistan were responsible for their actions, of course. But it must be said that, in some cases, surely, as in Vietnam, the soldiers can also be victims.
The Der Spiegel photographs also help to explain why the American war in Afghanistan can probably never be “won,” in my view, just as we did not win in Vietnam. Terrible things happen in war, and terrible things are happening every day in Afghanistan, as Americans continue to conduct nightly assassination raids and have escalated the number of bombing sorties. There are also reports of suspected Taliban sympathizers we turn over to Afghan police and soldiers being tortured or worse. This will be a long haul; revenge in Afghan society does not have to come immediately. We could end up not knowing who hit us, or why, a decade or two from now.

POSTED IN

 

Comments

31 COMMENTS |
@ChristianGains I really don't want to be seen as flaming in any way, but the sheer ignorance of your extended diatribe absolutely demands a rebuttal. Rather than waste my - and your - time with a response as long and involved as your original post, I'll confine myself to two points. Firstly, using CAPITALS does not give your argument more force. Secondly, your closing argument - that WAR should be separated from POLITICS - sums up all that is wrong with your reactionary rant. Warfare is, and always has been, a tool of politics. Sadly, Western democracies have chosen to use this tool all too readily in the last 20 years. And the reason the US and its allies - although, as far as I can tell, Britain is the only one still deluded enough to be there - are in these countries in the first place is down to the decision of a man who dodged the draft. If he has the right to order the war in the first place, how does that square with your depressingly predictable argument about combat virgins commenting on operational decisions and morality? Sickening, and deeply, deeply sad.
POSTED 3/24/2011, 8:04:32AM BY RJH
There is little or no doubt that, out of 50 to 100 Thousand troops, there are several Jeremy Marlocks, (or, whatever his last name is). That is NOT sufficient evidence as to the "rightness" -- or not -- of a war. War is, by definition, (General G.T.Sherman), "HELL"...unleashed upon humankind, here on Earth! It RARELY is TRULY & HONESTLY justified -- (WWII was probably our last one), and it is NEVER without atrocities on BOTH (or ALL) sides in the conflict. The balance here is the swift justice applied, and Jeremy's honest plea. And Semore,(sp? -- sorry) You REALLY ought to bring this factiod out as a MAJOR reality of the STILL existant difference between our forces and those of our enemies. While what he and his "comrades", (BTW, I am a Warrior, and neither he, nor his kind, are our "comrades"...they do not deserve all this attention...they simply deserve to be "put down", out of their misery), did IS genuinely despicable and unacceptable, it is NOT A JUST JUDGMENT of the training given, and discipline expected of our troops -- whether "ground pounders", "Air Born", Sea born, or "SPEC-OPS"! Our troops are STILL among the best trained and disciplined out there. But! A LOT of the problems that they face are perpetrated by "REMFs" and "P.C. career climbers", and "Beltway warriors" -- ALL of whom have NOT A CLUE what it means to take life! Nor a CLUE what it does to the soul! NOR that their "Political correctness" corrupts the values and reasoning and "mission purpose" of WARRIORS! KILLING, (for whatever reason or necessity) is to step into hell, and observe "Dante's Inferno", and then, to be expected to simply shrug it off, and go home to a good meal & sleep. Trust me...the average combat experienced grunt, who has had to kill, does NOT know what an uninterrupted sleep is...and, if YOU, dear reader, have NEVER had to kill...do NOT think yourself capable of judging the general population of Military Troops. ESPECIALLY not by the aberration...but, rather, by the exceptional! "Greater Love has No Man Than This, That A Man Lay His Life Down For His Friend" is still the motto and principle of the UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES! Unfortunately, SOME never took my training. POLITICS NEEDS to be separated from WARFARE, but, (due to human nature), it never will be, so the WARRIOR simply goes on doing what is necessary to maintain your freedom to openly criticise what you know NOTHING about.
POSTED 3/24/2011, 2:05:35AM BY CHRISTIANGAINS
Notice they have the victim's pants off? What is it with these guys, the torturers, even the directives from the CIA, and the jailers of Bradley Manning? All these guys love to see another man tortured naked. It's just creepy.
POSTED 3/24/2011, 1:29:05AM BY KREV
Afghanistan is Obama's War
POSTED 3/24/2011, 1:16:50AM BY ZOHAR
Jeff - thank you for momentarily breaking me/us out of this worthless media coma. People do care, people do want Rumsfeld dug out his Hussein hole on his ranch and cuffed, people do want their one-per-lifetime minute and question to a politician answered - the media just keeps us fragmented and diverted.. Please keep it up… I’ll take the extra JOBS baggage just to get a taste of ACCOUNTABILITY, and don’t get me going again (too late) about war profiteering. God, isn’t it great, isn’t it cool, that we’re bombing people half way around world AGAIN, those neato middle of night soirées on the telly and that somber generic newscaster. What a load of crap.. Done. What else ya got? You blog? Scott
POSTED 3/24/2011, 12:31:10AM BY SBKTEX
These soldiers need not be necessarily villains. I'm sure they were normal civilians, yet the situation they have been through in this war-- as well as every other war-- has had such a psychological effect that we are now brought with these shameful pictures. And every single day that we waste in that cursed country, we shall see more and more of our innocent young men and women either dead or turned into such the executors of such horrible actions.
POSTED 3/23/2011, 8:24:46PM BY ANDREW93
Read the next two posts in proper chronological order.
POSTED 3/23/2011, 6:39:32PM BY JEFF_DAVIS
"The Accountability Party? What's that?" you ask, puzzled, thinking you've missed some newsworthy "announcement". You haven't. The Accountability Party is my little fantasy, created at this most opportune moment, when the Dems and Repubs are both out of favor. The Accountability Party is intended to be broad-based, having only two planks, so as to be robustly resistant to destruction -- or irrelevance -- by fragmentation. The AP's two planks are Accountability and Jobs. Every other issue is relevant ONLY as seen through the lens of these two concerns. Otherwise the AP takes no position. "No position" means NO POSITION. No position means being "agnostic" on EVERYTHING else. Individual AP members have their own views of course, but as a unified organization, the AP takes no position on: abortion, taxes, gay marriage, gun rights, defense policy, campaign finance, racial discrimination, immigration, terrorism, hate-speech, Israel, education policy, environmentalism, global warming, etc. The two issues to which the AP devotes its exclusive focus are: accountability and jobs. ACCOUNTABILITY No one is above the law. Everyone, but in particular persons in high position who have traditionally 'enjoyed' immunity from prosecution, will now have their get out of jail free cards voided. And JOBS: everyone who wants a paycheck gets a paycheck. EV-REE-ONE. Now you might well ask -- certainly others will -- "How you gonna implement the jobs program, and more to the point, how you gonna pay for it?" To which I reply, "You must always remember that the AP subordinates ALL OTHER ISSUES to paychecks/jobs and accountability, so the details of the fiscal policy behind the "JOBS" commitment is for the most part irrelevant. That said, the Treasury has a machine that prints checks, so the policy is secured, "Move right along. Nothing to see here." Whatever may be the details required to reconcile the jobs program with fiscal reality, the program itself is in stone, and non-negotiable. For the curious though, I would state the obvious: print the money, borrow the money, or tax someone. In terms of practical economics, it would be quite simple: The more robust the private sector economy, the greater the proportion of jobs it provides. The rest to be provided by govt, and financed,... however. (Personally, I like a progressive income tax, or a flat tax based on net worth, or a financial transaction tax, but I'll go along with whatever the AP figures out AFTER THE ELECTIONS HAVE BEEN WON.) A major innovation: the AP does not conduct its campaigns by traditional methods. No TV, no radio, no interviews with mainstream journalists. TV, radio, and other conventional media are corporate. They are part of the illegitimate mainstream corporate and political power. They are part of the political opposition, they are gatekeepers of the process, and if you pay them for TV and radio ads, then you are feeding your political adversaries. The AP therefore, chooses to conduct its campaigns DIRECTLY with the voters, over the internet, no gatekeeper, no middleman -- no corporate mediation-for-profit of the political process. A not-for-profit political process is crucial to eliminating corporate/govt corruption and restoring a healthy society. In this way, the AP takes money out of the political process. There's more, but this is a start. Jeff Davis: jrd1415@yahoo.com
POSTED 3/23/2011, 6:37:54PM BY JEFF_DAVIS
Why is the face of the dead Afghan obscured? Sensitivity? I don't think so. Why are the other 3996 photos being withheld? Sensitivity? I don't think so. Why did the flag-draped coffins arrive at Dover Air Force Base in the middle of the night, with photographs disallowed? Sensitivity? I don't think so. I think the answer is blatantly clear to absolutely everyone, both war supporters and war opponents. And it's not sensitivity. It's consequences. The war makers (political profiteers), war supporters (emotional profiteers), war reporters (media profiteers), and the war-equipment suppliers (commercial profiteers) require the up-close-and-personal horror of war be concealed from the view of regular folk. Because... well, I hardly have to state the obvious, do I? Personally, I want every gout of blood, every bit of ripped flesh, every bit of burned flesh, every grotesquely shattered body, the face every corpse, frozen in a rictus of horror and pain, every scream, moan, wail, and gukking, gurgling, choking last gasp recorded, and presented for viewing in full motion video to every person on the planet. Sensitivity notwithstanding. For the leadership of the war, I want their presence at the public viewing of these records to be compulsory. Likewise for the publishers and corporate owners of media (presumably the reporters and editors will have already seen these materials). Likewise for the war-for-profit "businessmen". Then, I'd like to see some accountability. (You have heard of the Accountabilty Party, haven't you?)
POSTED 3/23/2011, 6:37:39PM BY JEFF_DAVIS
". . . As far as I know, there was no recreational killing of civilians on the scale of My Lai during the American civil war, but it did occur on a smaller scale . . ." You need to review your history a touch more. Do you actually think foragers under orders from Sheridan and Sherman in the Shenandoah Valley to leave a "scorched earth" in the valley or on Sherman's march to the sea did not have My Lai scale massacres by troops foraging for the only food they had to eat and also under orders to leave a "scorched earth" behind them did not have My Lai scale massacres? They just didn't have Matthew Brady with them.


Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/03/the-kill-team-photographs.html#ixzz1HWQswNIW

No comments:

Post a Comment