[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Peace in the Middle East: Scientific solution
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , seekliberation seekliberat...@... wrote: Obama just sent in the Marines. 3 years after Bush was asked for 22,000 more troops by generals in Afghanistan, Obama is the one to fulfil that request, while the Republicans refused it. Obama was given a sinking ship on all fronts (war and economy) and he is doing the right thing on most things. Stop the ship sinking, then change things slowly and carefully. Of course no-one can save the mess that Bush made (by diverting troops and treasure to the illegal war in Iraq), but Obama has to try and this new surge will work. But it will not solve the problem completely. Obama knows that. He is smart. Not like the last bunch of crooks. So he will make headway, and then slowly pull back from these wars. He will do it slowly and meticulously, He is the best Commander in Chief for decades. Obama's done nothing good or bad in terms of military. Most guys in the military don't like him, but i've argued with others that he's done nothing wrong. He listened to Gen Mchrystal. He lowered the # that Mcrystal asked for, but in these economic times it's understandable. Obama at least acknowledges that there is a problem. He understands that the real problem is in Waziristan (region in Pakistan that is out of control). The problem is that Obama is pushing a lot of air strikes in that country right now, just like Clinton did during his time. I know, but that's not Obama doing those air strikes. That's the Generals and the stratagists for the most part. He doesn't tell them how to fight it, he may have some influence here and there, but he doesn't totally dictate, and overall he seems to be listening to the generals etc., which is why alot of people on the far left (and far right) are pissed off. That's where all the civilian casualties come from. If you don't have troops on the ground to control the aircraft, you have no way of controlling collateral damage. There are not enough troops in America to police the world, and yes, I agree, bombing that kills a lot of civilians just makes the population more angry. I can't say I agree Obama is the 'best' commander in chief yet, it's too early to tell. A couple of decisions in conjunction with his advisors doesn't necessarily qualify him as that. But when I think of his competition, you're probably right..Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, LBJ, Kennedy.not much competition there. As long as he doesn't make any extreme rash decisions, he'll come out on top easily. I think he will listen to the generals, try to weigh that up with what is practical and financially possible, and I really do believe that he is actually passionate about preserving military lives where-ever possible, except when there seems real chance of progress with some risk. That to me is a very smart commander in chief. That was not a conspiracy theory I cited. That was to rectify 200 years of revisionist history and brain-washing in America. Those were facts. I didn't mean that you were stating a 'theory' in regards to what you were talking about. I was rather stating my awareness of other theories similar to the facts you pointed out. I'm aware that we won our revolutionary war because England wasn't really trying to win, they had bigger fish to fry at the time. I can't confirm this, but supposedly England didn't even want to continue the war, but America kept pushing. King George was against the war, some in Parliament reasoned for it, and won the debate. The Marine Crops ultimately work for the Queen of England according to some theories ;-) Really? the only way possible is if the Navy was working for her too. There are times, no doubt, that we've been OPCON (Operationally committed) to English command at times, so it wouldn't surprise me. Well, I was just joking, but I wonder if the Royalty in Europe ever really gave up power. With the exception of a few minor conflicts and reaction to terrorism, I believe WWI and WWII were probably the only true honorable wars we fought in. However, there are even conspiracy theories out there that WWII could've been avoided as well. I don't have time to get into them though. Yes, and the historical fact (not theory) that GW Bush's grandfather helped fund the rise of Hitler would make a GREAT movie. The whole thing could be fascinating - but would need to be at least 3 hours long and a lot of historical research including how some bigwigs in America plotted to overthrow the US government to stop a move towards humanity - I mean caring about others - I mean socialism. You're right, it goes really deep into the Rockefellers and other bigwigs back in the 30's. I personally don't have time to do as much research as i'd like to. Regarding socialism, most I know in the military hate the idea of it. But I've argued we have no right to argue,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Peace in the Middle East: Scientific solution
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation seekliberat...@... wrote: For Americans it always seems they cry and cry about their soldiers who signed up willingly for a dangerous job, but ignore all the hundreds of thousands of innocents killed as if these people being killed are not humans yes, Americans are cry babies about a lot of things. You are only hitting the tip of the iceburg there. Regarding deaths as a result of America, there is a lot of genocide that has been going on throughout the world in the last 10-20 years. For whatever reason, it doesn't reach headlines. Sudan, Rwanda, Burma, and several other places in Africa and southeast Asia have been intentionally wiping out entire villages in the same way the Soviets did in Afghanistan in the 80's. And the Americans did in the 2000's. Once again, not trying to start an argument here. Overall, you and I don't see things quite as differently as it seems. I am all about withdrawing from the war now. But it is only because I don't really see our forces really trying to win. The only units that are really equipped to win the war in Afghanistan are Army green berets and Marsoc, but Marsoc to a lesser extent. They have been working with local villages and building up the Afghanistan infrastructure, economy, and way of life. This makes it impossible for Taliban to remain there or gain any trust of the local population, which is why they're all in Pakistan now. Now Obama wants to go into Pakistan, and I don't think he really knows what he's getting into. It's going to be 'Operation Anoconda' all over again.really ugly. That place will be out of control, and American soldiers are already burnt out as it is. Americans, much like the british in history, have always relied on conventional and technological advantage and don't do so well in UW (unconventional warfare). The brits have lost 2 wars in Afghanistan, Alexander the great lost, and the Soviets lost also. Genghis Khan had a successful battle once, but never really conquered the country. Nobody ever has. Moreover, the whole Afghan government is entirely corrupt. I believe this war is unwinnable. Obama just sent in the Marines. 3 years after Bush was asked for 22,000 more troops by generals in Afghanistan, Obama is the one to fulfil that request, while the Republicans refused it. Obama was given a sinking ship on all fronts (war and economy) and he is doing the right thing on most things. Stop the ship sinking, then change things slowly and carefully. Of course no-one can save the mess that Bush made (by diverting troops and treasure to the illegal war in Iraq), but Obama has to try and this new surge will work. But it will not solve the problem completely. Obama knows that. He is smart. Not like the last bunch of crooks. So he will make headway, and then slowly pull back from these wars. He will do it slowly and meticulously, He is the best Commander in Chief for decades. Thanks for the history lesson. I am well aware of the false pretense of American history. In addition to the Revolutionary/Independance War, the Civil War has many conspiracy theories behind it as well. That was not a conspiracy theory I cited. That was to rectify 200 years of revisionist history and brain-washing in America. Those were facts. I've read sources that claim Abraham Lincoln never cared about slavery so much as he cared about the United States becoming divided. Marine Corps history that is taught in our boot camp is full of a lot of shit too. I have a friend who plans to run for congress shortly after he retires from the military. He has done quite a bit of research and has shown me sources to look up regarding the reality of past Marine Corps history. Everything he's shown indicates that the Marine Corps has been living off of a false reputation for at least 3-4 decades, if not much longer. (i'm not saying it's entirely false, but a lot of things are blown way out of proportion). The Marine Crops ultimately work for the Queen of England according to some theories ;-) With the exception of a few minor conflicts and reaction to terrorism, I believe WWI and WWII were probably the only true honorable wars we fought in. However, there are even conspiracy theories out there that WWII could've been avoided as well. I don't have time to get into them though. Yes, and the historical fact (not theory) that GW Bush's grandfather helped fund the rise of Hitler would make a GREAT movie. The whole thing could be fascinating - but would need to be at least 3 hours long and a lot of historical research including how some bigwigs in America plotted to overthrow the US government to stop a move towards humanity - I mean caring about others - I mean socialism. Just tell your superiors to learn TM and teach the troops the sidhis. Don't take no for an answer. Peace. (and keep practicing that mawashigeri.) OffWorld peace out seekliberation
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Peace in the Middle East: Scientific solution
Obama just sent in the Marines. 3 years after Bush was asked for 22,000 more troops by generals in Afghanistan, Obama is the one to fulfil that request, while the Republicans refused it. Obama was given a sinking ship on all fronts (war and economy) and he is doing the right thing on most things. Stop the ship sinking, then change things slowly and carefully. Of course no-one can save the mess that Bush made (by diverting troops and treasure to the illegal war in Iraq), but Obama has to try and this new surge will work. But it will not solve the problem completely. Obama knows that. He is smart. Not like the last bunch of crooks. So he will make headway, and then slowly pull back from these wars. He will do it slowly and meticulously, He is the best Commander in Chief for decades. Obama's done nothing good or bad in terms of military. Most guys in the military don't like him, but i've argued with others that he's done nothing wrong. He listened to Gen Mchrystal. He lowered the # that Mcrystal asked for, but in these economic times it's understandable. Obama at least acknowledges that there is a problem. He understands that the real problem is in Waziristan (region in Pakistan that is out of control). The problem is that Obama is pushing a lot of air strikes in that country right now, just like Clinton did during his time. That's where all the civilian casualties come from. If you don't have troops on the ground to control the aircraft, you have no way of controlling collateral damage. I can't say I agree Obama is the 'best' commander in chief yet, it's too early to tell. A couple of decisions in conjunction with his advisors doesn't necessarily qualify him as that. But when I think of his competition, you're probably right..Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, LBJ, Kennedy.not much competition there. As long as he doesn't make any extreme rash decisions, he'll come out on top easily. That was not a conspiracy theory I cited. That was to rectify 200 years of revisionist history and brain-washing in America. Those were facts. I didn't mean that you were stating a 'theory' in regards to what you were talking about. I was rather stating my awareness of other theories similar to the facts you pointed out. I'm aware that we won our revolutionary war because England wasn't really trying to win, they had bigger fish to fry at the time. I can't confirm this, but supposedly England didn't even want to continue the war, but America kept pushing. The Marine Crops ultimately work for the Queen of England according to some theories ;-) Really? the only way possible is if the Navy was working for her too. There are times, no doubt, that we've been OPCON (Operationally committed) to English command at times, so it wouldn't surprise me. With the exception of a few minor conflicts and reaction to terrorism, I believe WWI and WWII were probably the only true honorable wars we fought in. However, there are even conspiracy theories out there that WWII could've been avoided as well. I don't have time to get into them though. Yes, and the historical fact (not theory) that GW Bush's grandfather helped fund the rise of Hitler would make a GREAT movie. The whole thing could be fascinating - but would need to be at least 3 hours long and a lot of historical research including how some bigwigs in America plotted to overthrow the US government to stop a move towards humanity - I mean caring about others - I mean socialism. You're right, it goes really deep into the Rockefellers and other bigwigs back in the 30's. I personally don't have time to do as much research as i'd like to. Regarding socialism, most I know in the military hate the idea of it. But I've argued we have no right to argue, military IS socialism. Everyone gets a job, uniform, paycheck and medical care ISSUED TO THEM by the GOVERNMENT. That's socialism in its purest form. The only reason I don't think socialism would work in America is because it only works if everyone is contributing to the system. The military works out because everyone works, and pays taxes. They are all contributors. I saw a show about the happiest countries in the world, and Denmark comes in 1st place, a socialist country. They all pay very high taxes, but their Govt. takes care of them. But if you look at the people, they're different from Americans. They all are happy to do whatever it is that they do. They don't expect the world to fall at their feet if they're a doctor, and they don't feel inferior if they're a garbage man either. In America we're rather bi-polar. Everyone is either trying to be on top of the world, or they're too lazy to get off the couch. I know that's a little out of proportion, but somewhat true. As long as most people are either greedy or lazy, socialism, IMO, won't work here. Europeans are more balanced, and therefore it
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Peace in the Middle East: Scientific solution
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , seekliberation seekliberat...@... wrote: I remember seeing a lot of this online when I became interested in Ravi Shankar after reading about a lot of his work worldwide. I remember being somewhat excited about it, and I remember it didn't last for very long. I haven't seen any continuance of it in the really heavily war-torn provinces. I don't think anyone can function safely in a heavily war torn zone? There are other places (McCain and Bush used to claim it was safe in Iraq.) If he would've remained there much longer than he did, he would have become a target eventually, especially for being associated with groups that advocate women's rights. Remember the assassination of Bhutto in Pakistan? There are a number of groups that could have killed Bhutto, but I doubt that it was a Muslim extremist, an anti-women's rights killing, or a sectarian or religious killing. In tribal run areas where people advocate peace or women's rights, the extremist factions become infuriated. It's very similar to ignorant rednecks in America who are either racist or male chauvinists. The only difference is that we are about 50-60 years ahead of them in evolving past some of their behaviors. Although, under Butto's father in Pakistan women had many rights, and in Iran, before the Americans forced out the democratic government there, to be replaced with their own dictator, and before the Americans trained Osama Bin Laden and built the Taliban in Afhganistan, and even under the American backed dictator Saddam Hussein women had rights to become doctors, professors, etc. In Lebanon, women were gaining freedoms until the Americans forced out the Syrians who were keeping the peace there, and the American backed corrupt Olmert government of Israel who bombed the shit out of Lebanon because after the Americans forced out the Syrians the extremist Hezbollah took over Lebanon.. Anywhere else? Yes, in the American backed extreme dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, there are many Indians working as second class citizens in a partitioned society. This is part of the reason i've always preferred Ravi's point of view. Not because it justifies my own, but more so because it is balanced. He understands peace must be brought to these areas, but at least acknowledges that in the beginning stages there will be a formidable resistance that has to be dealt with. Although he praises Islam as a whole, he will still make occasional remarks of how many of these terrorists are misguided. But his point of view is unlike many people who believe we can just send doctors, teachers and other healers without any risk or serious threat. They often think they can just walk into these villages without someone disliking them to a point of serious mistreatmentor much worse. At least Sri Ravi is a bit of a realist in the midst of his idealism. The good thing is that there are provinces in Afghanistan that are becoming much safer, mostly in the northeast though. But in the south, and southwest civilians are still being killed by Taliban. If they are seen seeking medical care by American military doctors they can be executed. Just like Kansas. Perhaps you are not aware of this, but numerous people have been killed for seeking medical care in America, and recently a doctor was murdered in Kansas for practicing medicine. I've heard from someone overseas now that they tried to blame civilian casualties on American aircraft bombings somewhere out west, problem is they were killed by Chinese grenades, which no NATO forces carry at all. They will kill civilians to make it look like us. Yes, American forces can drop bombs on houses and kill rebels and spare the women and children in there. They have smart bombs. It's often times their best chance of victory. There is no victory in these wars. There never was, and there never will be. No-one will be victorious or claim victory. This Bush/Cheney debacle will drag on for 30 years (unless there is some massive change in world consciousness that completely re-arranges matter itself. I also remember a village about 30-40 miles from where I was based that a 15 year old boy was hung to death for carrying American currency. The accusations about the practices of SOME American soldiers in Iraq and elsewhere are just as brutal and more widespread. That doesn't mean everywhere American soldiers go are like that does it? or that that is representative of the whole US military? These are not safe places for anyone who is not Islamic, or anyone not living in accordance with the warlord faction's guidelines. Yes, you are right, they are not safe places. If only America had not ignored world opinion and international law and sent Iraq back to the stone age, and if only they had let the international community focus on Afghanistan, then the world would be a better place. Unfortuantely it will take decades to mend
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Peace in the Middle East: Scientific solution
Offworld, For the sake of simplicity, I deleted a lot your comments to make this an easier read. Re: our alliance with Saudi, and our backing of other countries Our alliance with Saudi Arabia started with Franklin Roosevelt. He felt whoever has the strongest alliance would eventually be the world's economic superpower, and he was right. But he also put us at the mercy of a region that is unstable, and a culture that is unreliable and for the most part hates our culture. Regarding Osama Bin Laden, he did not build the Taliban. He built Al Qaeda. The Taliban only gave Al Qaeda refuge because they were pissed at Hillary Clinton and Margaret Thatcher for pleading to the UN council regarding the Taliban's treatment of women. The Taliban didn't necessarily like Bin Laden, but they rather saw him as a bartering element. The Taliban wanted the UN and USA off their backs. So they allowed Bin Laden to stay. It didn't end up working out to well for them in the long run. You also claimed that USA built the Taliban. I'm not trying to win an argument here, but rather communicate inform, since I had no choice but to learn a lot of this over the last 4 years. USA helped support the 'Mujahedeen', but we didn't 'build' them. They were already together and built to fight the Soviets, we just armed them with anti-aircraft weapons. After the Soviet occupation, the Mujahedeen became very corrupt and that's when the Taliban were formed. USA had nothing to do with it. Just like Kansas. Perhaps you are not aware of this, but numerous people have been killed for seeking medical care in America, and recently a doctor was murdered in Kansas for practicing medicine. Yes, there are some dipshits in America. Percentage wise, I doubt it's nearly as bad as the rest of the countries i've been to (not including Europe). I would have to read the news and check the internet to find names of people killed for such things. In some countries i've been to, I could walk into any village and talk to a village elder and hear plenty of stories about local militias committing atrocities towards civilians. It is becoming a lot less common in the middle eastern countries that are moving towards being a 1st world country, which i'm glad for. But it's common in the 2nd/3rd world countries in the middle east. Besides, in America, it's usually a nut case or psychopath that commits some of these ridiculous murders. In some of the Middle Eastern countries where this occurs, it is implied policy. I've heard from someone overseas now that they tried to blame civilian casualties on American aircraft bombings somewhere out west, problem is they were killed by Chinese grenades, which no NATO forces carry at all. They will kill civilians to make it look like us. Yes, American forces can drop bombs on houses and kill rebels and spare the women and children in there. They have smart bombs. This is obviously sarcasm, but still there seems to be no acknowledgement that Taliban are killing their own civilians 'INTENTIONALLY', whereas if civilians are killed by Americans it is due to a firefight breaking out in the midst of civilians. There seems to be this thought going around in the minds of 'Michael Moore' type people that want to believe that Soldiers and Marines are intentionally killing women and children. What they fail to understand is the luring of US forces into villages and towns with the intention of civilian casualties taking place. Also, don't get me wrong, there have been a few cases of us making big mistakes in the past. But I have been in the presence of some of the most ignorant redneck type Marines out there, and I can assure you that not even the most ignorant US soldier/Marine has any desire to kill women or children in another country. It's often times their best chance of victory. There is no victory in these wars. There never was, and there never will be. No-one will be victorious or claim victory. This Bush/Cheney debacle will drag on for 30 years (unless there is some massive change in world consciousness that completely re-arranges matter itself. Yes there is victory, but not for us. The Taliban may be able to claim victory after this is all over. Al Qaeda is still recovering from being hit hard during the Bush/Cheney period, but they'll rebound. I have argued this with many soldiers and Marines that we are going to lose this war, most likely. Iraq is negotiable whether we won or not, and for now leans towards losing unless the Iraq Army becomes fully established. We are losing in Afghanistan now, and the troop surge Obama approved of will not solve the problem. America had little or no idea what they were getting into when this whole thing started. The US armed forces are simply not willing to go the same distance that our declared enemies are willing to go. If our economy was kicking ass right now, we'd stand a
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Peace in the Middle East: Scientific solution
Well, I respect your in-depth answer Seeker, but I refuse to argue this while you are still in the military. I know that you personally and thousands like you are doing good, but I don't see the big picture that way. In my mind America created 9/11 by all the interference in the middle east for decades. We have different views, and we will just have to agree to disagree. The bottom line is, that every time you say that grotesque and unnecessary violence is wide-spread in these places, and that America is not as dangerous a place, you forget that I see the mass killings of innocents by the US military as being the same thing. Bush is a mass murderer in my eyes and a wanted criminal. You say it is not as violent in America as these places, but that is because America has exported its violence on a much larger scale -- abroad. 3,000 Americans died in 9/11. Estimates are that in Afghanistan and Iraq hundreds of thousands of innocents - that's iINNOCENTS - either as a direct kill, or as a result of the ensuing violence and displacement and disease, have been killed by the warmongers. An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind -- Mahatma Gandhi Just tell your superiors to learn TM and teach the Sidhis to their troops. Don't take no for an answer. OffWorld --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , seekliberation seekliberat...@... wrote: Offworld, For the sake of simplicity, I deleted a lot your comments to make this an easier read. Re: our alliance with Saudi, and our backing of other countries Our alliance with Saudi Arabia started with Franklin Roosevelt. He felt whoever has the strongest alliance would eventually be the world's economic superpower, and he was right. But he also put us at the mercy of a region that is unstable, and a culture that is unreliable and for the most part hates our culture. Regarding Osama Bin Laden, he did not build the Taliban. He built Al Qaeda. The Taliban only gave Al Qaeda refuge because they were pissed at Hillary Clinton and Margaret Thatcher for pleading to the UN council regarding the Taliban's treatment of women. The Taliban didn't necessarily like Bin Laden, but they rather saw him as a bartering element. The Taliban wanted the UN and USA off their backs. So they allowed Bin Laden to stay. It didn't end up working out to well for them in the long run. You also claimed that USA built the Taliban. I'm not trying to win an argument here, but rather communicate inform, since I had no choice but to learn a lot of this over the last 4 years. USA helped support the 'Mujahedeen', but we didn't 'build' them. They were already together and built to fight the Soviets, we just armed them with anti-aircraft weapons. After the Soviet occupation, the Mujahedeen became very corrupt and that's when the Taliban were formed. USA had nothing to do with it. Just like Kansas. Perhaps you are not aware of this, but numerous people have been killed for seeking medical care in America, and recently a doctor was murdered in Kansas for practicing medicine. Yes, there are some dipshits in America. Percentage wise, I doubt it's nearly as bad as the rest of the countries i've been to (not including Europe). I would have to read the news and check the internet to find names of people killed for such things. In some countries i've been to, I could walk into any village and talk to a village elder and hear plenty of stories about local militias committing atrocities towards civilians. It is becoming a lot less common in the middle eastern countries that are moving towards being a 1st world country, which i'm glad for. But it's common in the 2nd/3rd world countries in the middle east. Besides, in America, it's usually a nut case or psychopath that commits some of these ridiculous murders. In some of the Middle Eastern countries where this occurs, it is implied policy. I've heard from someone overseas now that they tried to blame civilian casualties on American aircraft bombings somewhere out west, problem is they were killed by Chinese grenades, which no NATO forces carry at all. They will kill civilians to make it look like us. Yes, American forces can drop bombs on houses and kill rebels and spare the women and children in there. They have smart bombs. This is obviously sarcasm, but still there seems to be no acknowledgement that Taliban are killing their own civilians 'INTENTIONALLY', whereas if civilians are killed by Americans it is due to a firefight breaking out in the midst of civilians. There seems to be this thought going around in the minds of 'Michael Moore' type people that want to believe that Soldiers and Marines are intentionally killing women and children. What they fail to understand is the luring of US forces into villages and towns with the intention of civilian casualties taking place. Also, don't get me wrong, there have been a few cases of us making big mistakes in the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Peace in the Middle East: Scientific solution
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_re...@... wrote: Not a bad idea Off, you're right that this discussion could go on forever, and it's perhaps better off to agree to disagree. I don't mean to open up another can of worms here, but regarding America being dangerous, it's only in high crime areas that's dangerous. I know very few people who've been attacked and nobody who has been killed. I think you're comparing America to your country, whether it is Scotland or England, which I'm quite certain has less crime and is safer. You're culture seems to have grown out of some negative traits that ours hasn't. I can tell when I meet people from Europe that there is less of the Us Vs. Them state of mind that Americans often thrive on. seekliberation Well, I respect your in-depth answer Seeker, but I refuse to argue this while you are still in the military. I know that you personally and thousands like you are doing good, but I don't see the big picture that way. In my mind America created 9/11 by all the interference in the middle east for decades. We have different views, and we will just have to agree to disagree. The bottom line is, that every time you say that grotesque and unnecessary violence is wide-spread in these places, and that America is not as dangerous a place, you forget that I see the mass killings of innocents by the US military as being the same thing. Bush is a mass murderer in my eyes and a wanted criminal. You say it is not as violent in America as these places, but that is because America has exported its violence on a much larger scale -- abroad. 3,000 Americans died in 9/11. Estimates are that in Afghanistan and Iraq hundreds of thousands of innocents - that's iINNOCENTS - either as a direct kill, or as a result of the ensuing violence and displacement and disease, have been killed by the warmongers. An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind -- Mahatma Gandhi Just tell your superiors to learn TM and teach the Sidhis to their troops. Don't take no for an answer. OffWorld --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , seekliberation seekliberation@ wrote: Offworld, For the sake of simplicity, I deleted a lot your comments to make this an easier read. Re: our alliance with Saudi, and our backing of other countries Our alliance with Saudi Arabia started with Franklin Roosevelt. He felt whoever has the strongest alliance would eventually be the world's economic superpower, and he was right. But he also put us at the mercy of a region that is unstable, and a culture that is unreliable and for the most part hates our culture. Regarding Osama Bin Laden, he did not build the Taliban. He built Al Qaeda. The Taliban only gave Al Qaeda refuge because they were pissed at Hillary Clinton and Margaret Thatcher for pleading to the UN council regarding the Taliban's treatment of women. The Taliban didn't necessarily like Bin Laden, but they rather saw him as a bartering element. The Taliban wanted the UN and USA off their backs. So they allowed Bin Laden to stay. It didn't end up working out to well for them in the long run. You also claimed that USA built the Taliban. I'm not trying to win an argument here, but rather communicate inform, since I had no choice but to learn a lot of this over the last 4 years. USA helped support the 'Mujahedeen', but we didn't 'build' them. They were already together and built to fight the Soviets, we just armed them with anti-aircraft weapons. After the Soviet occupation, the Mujahedeen became very corrupt and that's when the Taliban were formed. USA had nothing to do with it. Just like Kansas. Perhaps you are not aware of this, but numerous people have been killed for seeking medical care in America, and recently a doctor was murdered in Kansas for practicing medicine. Yes, there are some dipshits in America. Percentage wise, I doubt it's nearly as bad as the rest of the countries i've been to (not including Europe). I would have to read the news and check the internet to find names of people killed for such things. In some countries i've been to, I could walk into any village and talk to a village elder and hear plenty of stories about local militias committing atrocities towards civilians. It is becoming a lot less common in the middle eastern countries that are moving towards being a 1st world country, which i'm glad for. But it's common in the 2nd/3rd world countries in the middle east. Besides, in America, it's usually a nut case or psychopath that commits some of these ridiculous murders. In some of the Middle Eastern countries where this occurs, it is implied policy. I've heard from someone overseas now that they tried to blame civilian casualties on American aircraft bombings somewhere out west, problem is they were killed by Chinese
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Peace in the Middle East: Scientific solution
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , seekliberation seekliberat...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Not a bad idea Off, you're right that this discussion could go on forever, and it's perhaps better off to agree to disagree. I don't mean to open up another can of worms here, but regarding America being dangerous, it's only in high crime areas that's dangerous. I know very few people who've been attacked and nobody who has been killed. Unless you are like me and you think that Bush is a criminal who has killed hundreds of thousands of innocents in just a few years. Worse crome rate than any other country in the last 20 years. I think you're comparing America to your country, whether it is Scotland or England, which I'm quite certain has less crime and is safer. Not much less, and I was'nt talking about domestic crime. When a child is killed in Iraq, that is MY child that was killed. For Americans it always seems they cry and cry about their soldiers who signed up willingly for a dangerous job, but ignore all the hundreds of thousands of innocents killed as if these people being killed are not humans You're culture seems to have grown out of some negative traits that ours hasn't. Like Scotland outlawing slavery in 1300. The basis of the first anti-slavery court case in the world -- which was in England -- was based on the fact that Scotland had outlawed slavery hundreds of years before (these court cases scared the American slave owners, so the American land-owners started a false flag operation against the British (who were governed by a Parliament for the people, not by King George as your historians have falsely claimed), in order to keep the slaves without which they would have gone bankrupt. The Brits were too busy at war with the Papists who wanted to ban all religion except Catholicism in the world and governments who did not serve the Pope) . America would be under the Pope if Britain had not gone off to beat the French and the Spanish in what Winston Churchil called the real First World War because it was fought all over the world. The American War of Independence was in insignificant battle within that much more important war, which if the British had lost, there would be no United States of America at all. And the Americans refused to pay taxes or supply men for all that defense had been done for them for over a century. After the British defeated the Papist France and Spain, the British then had to go off and defeat Napolean, who would also have destroyed the USA had he become Emporor of Europe. Peace. :-) OffWorld seekliberation Well, I respect your in-depth answer Seeker, but I refuse to argue this while you are still in the military. I know that you personally and thousands like you are doing good, but I don't see the big picture that way. In my mind America created 9/11 by all the interference in the middle east for decades. We have different views, and we will just have to agree to disagree. The bottom line is, that every time you say that grotesque and unnecessary violence is wide-spread in these places, and that America is not as dangerous a place, you forget that I see the mass killings of innocents by the US military as being the same thing. Bush is a mass murderer in my eyes and a wanted criminal. You say it is not as violent in America as these places, but that is because America has exported its violence on a much larger scale -- abroad. 3,000 Americans died in 9/11. Estimates are that in Afghanistan and Iraq hundreds of thousands of innocents - that's iINNOCENTS - either as a direct kill, or as a result of the ensuing violence and displacement and disease, have been killed by the warmongers. An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind -- Mahatma Gandhi Just tell your superiors to learn TM and teach the Sidhis to their troops. Don't take no for an answer. OffWorld --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , seekliberation seekliberation@ wrote: Offworld, For the sake of simplicity, I deleted a lot your comments to make this an easier read. Re: our alliance with Saudi, and our backing of other countries Our alliance with Saudi Arabia started with Franklin Roosevelt. He felt whoever has the strongest alliance would eventually be the world's economic superpower, and he was right. But he also put us at the mercy of a region that is unstable, and a culture that is unreliable and for the most part hates our culture. Regarding Osama Bin Laden, he did not build the Taliban. He built Al Qaeda. The Taliban only gave Al Qaeda refuge because they were pissed at Hillary Clinton and Margaret Thatcher for pleading to the UN
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Peace in the Middle East: Scientific solution
For Americans it always seems they cry and cry about their soldiers who signed up willingly for a dangerous job, but ignore all the hundreds of thousands of innocents killed as if these people being killed are not humans yes, Americans are cry babies about a lot of things. You are only hitting the tip of the iceburg there. Regarding deaths as a result of America, there is a lot of genocide that has been going on throughout the world in the last 10-20 years. For whatever reason, it doesn't reach headlines. Sudan, Rwanda, Burma, and several other places in Africa and southeast Asia have been intentionally wiping out entire villages in the same way the Soviets did in Afghanistan in the 80's. Once again, not trying to start an argument here. Overall, you and I don't see things quite as differently as it seems. I am all about withdrawing from the war now. But it is only because I don't really see our forces really trying to win. The only units that are really equipped to win the war in Afghanistan are Army green berets and Marsoc, but Marsoc to a lesser extent. They have been working with local villages and building up the Afghanistan infrastructure, economy, and way of life. This makes it impossible for Taliban to remain there or gain any trust of the local population, which is why they're all in Pakistan now. Now Obama wants to go into Pakistan, and I don't think he really knows what he's getting into. It's going to be 'Operation Anoconda' all over again.really ugly. That place will be out of control, and American soldiers are already burnt out as it is. Americans, much like the british in history, have always relied on conventional and technological advantage and don't do so well in UW (unconventional warfare). The brits have lost 2 wars in Afghanistan, Alexander the great lost, and the Soviets lost also. Genghis Khan had a successful battle once, but never really conquered the country. Nobody ever has. Moreover, the whole Afghan government is entirely corrupt. I believe this war is unwinnable. Thanks for the history lesson. I am well aware of the false pretense of American history. In addition to the Revolutionary/Independance War, the Civil War has many conspiracy theories behind it as well. I've read sources that claim Abraham Lincoln never cared about slavery so much as he cared about the United States becoming divided. Marine Corps history that is taught in our boot camp is full of a lot of shit too. I have a friend who plans to run for congress shortly after he retires from the military. He has done quite a bit of research and has shown me sources to look up regarding the reality of past Marine Corps history. Everything he's shown indicates that the Marine Corps has been living off of a false reputation for at least 3-4 decades, if not much longer. (i'm not saying it's entirely false, but a lot of things are blown way out of proportion). With the exception of a few minor conflicts and reaction to terrorism, I believe WWI and WWII were probably the only true honorable wars we fought in. However, there are even conspiracy theories out there that WWII could've been avoided as well. I don't have time to get into them though. peace out seekliberation
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Peace in the Middle East: Scientific solution
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation seekliberat...@... wrote: there is a minor problem with getting meditators in the middle east.the possibility that they would be killed by muslims that are aware someone is practicing something other than Islam. Heresy. Don't you read the TM dogma? They would be invincible. Nothing bad could possibly happen to them. That, after all, is how the TMO presents the benefits of butt-bouncing to countries that it's trying to get to pay big bucks to sponsor mass butt-bouncing. Should not the TMO prove that it *believes* the stuff about invincibility it preaches and *sells* by sending its own invincible troops into the heart of conflicts?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Peace in the Middle East: Scientific solution
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Dick Mays dickm...@... wrote: The following article summarizes findings of the TM-Sidhi Program's beneficial societal influence from 50 studies. The article also describes new findings that this peace-giving influence is two to five times as powerful as conventional military and political factors. Very encouraging! Jai Guru Dev. I'm afraid world peace shall never be achieved, because many of the richest and most powerful people on Earth may hate it, like Big(gish) Pharma would hate some methods to cure people without pills... :(
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Peace in the Middle East: Scientific solution
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation seekliberation@ wrote: there is a minor problem with getting meditators in the middle east.the possibility that they would be killed by muslims that are aware someone is practicing something other than Islam. Heresy. Don't you read the TM dogma? They would be invincible. Nothing bad could possibly happen to them. That, after all, is how the TMO presents the benefits of butt-bouncing to countries that it's trying to get to pay big bucks to sponsor mass butt-bouncing. Should not the TMO prove that it *believes* the stuff about invincibility it preaches and *sells* by sending its own invincible troops into the heart of conflicts? You know, you and I don't always see things the same way, but this time you've really brought me back down to earth. I can't believe how stupid I was to forget the 'invincible' principle. Thanks, now my head is back on right.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Peace in the Middle East: Scientific solution
I'm afraid world peace shall never be achieved, because many of the richest and most powerful people on Earth may hate it, like Big(gish) Pharma would hate some methods to cure people without pills... :( I agree that world peace may never be achieved, but not necessarily due to rich or powerful people. That is almost like saying poor and underprivelaged individuals are in a perfectly peaceful state of mind. I grew up in a poor neighborhood and lived in poor areas most of my life until about 5 years ago. I do not see any more peacefulness in the hearts of poor or powerless people than I do in their opposite (Fairfield, some countries in Europe, and a few other countries are obvious exceptions). Many people would create the same problems, if not more if they were in a powerful position. One Hindu priest explained that this world is a place where younger souls incarnate until they mature as a soul and move on to bigger and better places. The only way to have true heaven on earth is to deny this world to the younger souls. Kind of like a 3rd grade classroom. The only way to have perfect orderliness is to kick out all the trouble makers, and that presents a serious problem because then the ignorant people remain ignorant. seekliberation
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Peace in the Middle East: Scientific solution
On Dec 2, 2009, at 8:37 PM, yifuxero wrote: Peace in the Middle East is easily within our grasp, as indicated by a new scientific paper recently published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. Bogus science. Flying smart bombs would be more effective. Hilarious journal publication though. The Journal of Scientific Exploration is a pseudoscience journal: ...the JSE was initially established to provide a forum for three main fields that had largely been neglected by mainstream science: ufology, cryptozoology, and parapsychology. They have also published research articles, essays and book reviews on many topics, including the philosophy of science; pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact; astrology, alternative medicine; the process of peer review for controversial topics; astrology; consciousness; reincarnation, minority opinion scientific theories; and paranormal phenomena. The current issue has papers on the Loch Ness monster and several UFO papers. It's always a hoot to look at when you need a good laugh. And of course MUM researchers publish there now. It looks like they've finally found their niche in the scientific community! http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Peace in the Middle East: Scientific solution
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation seekliberat...@... wrote: there is a minor problem with getting meditators in the middle east.the possibility that they would be killed by muslims that are aware someone is practicing something other than Islam. You can say science this, science that, but it came from an eastern Indian. Anything coming from a predominantly Hindu country justifies the most horrifying and brutal killings in their mind. Deepak Chopra said something similar, that Afghanistand doesnt need soldiers, they need doctors and teachers. I so badly wanted to offer him a personal flight to Kandahar and buy him a vehicle and let him drive himself up and down the only highway in the country and see how long an eastern Indian doctor/teacher lives in that country. seekliberation Hm Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's organization started an operation in Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq in 2003, aimed at relieving the war-ravaged Iraqi population of stress.[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Sri_Ravi_Shankar#cite_note-11 [13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Sri_Ravi_Shankar#cite_note-12 A Program was implemented in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2006 teaching to war victims, UN and ngo personnel. In 2007, Sri Sri visited Iraq at the invitation of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, and also met with Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish leaders.[14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Sri_Ravi_Shankar#cite_note-13 [15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Sri_Ravi_Shankar#cite_note-14 He visited Pakistan in 2004 and met with some political and religious leaders there as a part of his efforts to promote global peace.[16] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Sri_Ravi_Shankar#cite_note-15 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Sri_Ravi_Shankar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Sri_Ravi_Shankar http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3393327.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3393327.stm OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Peace in the Middle East: Scientific solution
I remember seeing a lot of this online when I became interested in Ravi Shankar after reading about a lot of his work worldwide. I remember being somewhat excited about it, and I remember it didn't last for very long. I haven't seen any continuance of it in the really heavily war-torn provinces. If he would've remained there much longer than he did, he would have become a target eventually, especially for being associated with groups that advocate women's rights. Remember the assassination of Bhutto in Pakistan? In tribal run areas where people advocate peace or women's rights, the extremist factions become infuriated. It's very similar to ignorant rednecks in America who are either racist or male chauvinists. The only difference is that we are about 50-60 years ahead of them in evolving past some of their behaviors. Another thing to consider is that he was only in areas that were currently under control and had ample security. He would've never made it into the Helmand or Farah Province of Afghanistan; it would've been too risky. Moreover, Ravi Shankar understands the need for military forces in these countries, as indicated in the quote below: Interacting with the media here, Sri Ravi Shankar said: India believes that international forces have played a major role in Afghanistan and they need to continue to play a major role. And I hope countries, including the US should stay in Afghanistan to bring about a balance. This is part of the reason i've always preferred Ravi's point of view. Not because it justifies my own, but more so because it is balanced. He understands peace must be brought to these areas, but at least acknowledges that in the beginning stages there will be a formidable resistance that has to be dealt with. Although he praises Islam as a whole, he will still make occasional remarks of how many of these terrorists are misguided. But his point of view is unlike many people who believe we can just send doctors, teachers and other healers without any risk or serious threat. They often think they can just walk into these villages without someone disliking them to a point of serious mistreatmentor much worse. At least Sri Ravi is a bit of a realist in the midst of his idealism. The good thing is that there are provinces in Afghanistan that are becoming much safer, mostly in the northeast though. But in the south, and southwest civilians are still being killed by Taliban. If they are seen seeking medical care by American military doctors they can be executed. I've heard from someone overseas now that they tried to blame civilian casualties on American aircraft bombings somewhere out west, problem is they were killed by Chinese grenades, which no NATO forces carry at all. They will kill civilians to make it look like us. It's often times their best chance of victory. I also remember a village about 30-40 miles from where I was based that a 15 year old boy was hung to death for carrying American currency. These are not safe places for anyone who is not Islamic, or anyone not living in accordance with the warlord faction's guidelines. seekliberation Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's organization started an operation in Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq in 2003, aimed at relieving the war-ravaged Iraqi population of stress.[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Sri_Ravi_Shankar#cite_note-11 [13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Sri_Ravi_Shankar#cite_note-12 A Program was implemented in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2006 teaching to war victims, UN and ngo personnel. In 2007, Sri Sri visited Iraq at the invitation of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, and also met with Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish leaders.[14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Sri_Ravi_Shankar#cite_note-13 [15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Sri_Ravi_Shankar#cite_note-14 He visited Pakistan in 2004 and met with some political and religious leaders there as a part of his efforts to promote global peace.[16] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Sri_Ravi_Shankar#cite_note-15 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Sri_Ravi_Shankar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Sri_Ravi_Shankar http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3393327.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3393327.stm OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Peace in the Middle East: Scientific solution
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Dick Mays dickmays@ wrote: The following article summarizes findings of the TM-Sidhi Program's beneficial societal influence from 50 studies. The article also describes new findings that this peace-giving influence is two to five times as powerful as conventional military and political factors. Very encouraging! Jai Guru Dev. I'm afraid world peace shall never be achieved, because many of the richest and most powerful people on Earth may hate it, like Big(gish) Pharma would hate some methods to cure people without pills... :( ...and the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, the biggest company in the world by assetts, and Barclays bank, the second biggest company in the world by assetts (The Royal Bank of Scotland Group is the biggest of those that were named as Too big to fail ) Barclays Links to the arms trade In December 2008 the British anti-poverty charity War on Want http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Want released a report documenting the extent to which Barclays and other UK commercial banks invest in, provide banking services for and make loans to arms companies. The charity writes in its report that Barclays is the world's largest arms investor, holding £7.3 billion in shares in the arms manufacturers. The report also details Barclays' dealings with known producers of cluster munitions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_munitions and depleted uranium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium .[69] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barclays_Bank#cite_note-68 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barclays_Bank#Links_to_the_arms_trade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barclays_Bank#Links_to_the_arms_trade http://www.waronwant.org/news/press-releases/16333-banks-slated-on-arms-\ sales http://www.waronwant.org/news/press-releases/16333-banks-slated-on-arms\ -sales This is one of the reasons why Maharishi railed against the UK for it being the biggest arms deal clearing house in the world. But the good news that they wiil not succeed in these endevours anymore. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Peace in the Middle East: Scientific solution
Bogus science. Flying smart bombs would be more effective. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Dick Mays dickm...@... wrote: The following article summarizes findings of the TM-Sidhi Program's beneficial societal influence from 50 studies. The article also describes new findings that this peace-giving influence is two to five times as powerful as conventional military and political factors. Very encouraging! Jai Guru Dev. From: Ken Chawkin kchaw...@... http://www.thecolombotimes.com/ http://thecolombotimes.com/international/10354-president-obama-peace-in-the-middle-east-scientific-solution-to-your-political-problem.htmlPresident Obama, Peace in the Middle East: Scientific solution to your political problem? Wednesday, 02 December 2009 17:52 Peace in the Middle East is easily within our grasp, as indicated by a new scientific paper recently published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. The study addresses the possibility that a relatively small group of people practising the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi programme®, as founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, twice daily together in a group can create peace in the Middle East. The hypothesis is not new. Fifty studies have found that when 1% of the population practises Transcendental Meditation, or sufficiently large groups practise the TM-Sidhi programme together twice daily, it can have a positive influence on society as a whole. The studies show, for example, decreased violence, crime, car accidents, and suicides, and improved quality of life in a society. Critics had questioned the credibility of the evidence in light of the unconventional nature of the proposition. Reduced conflict and improved quality of life in the Middle East: August-September 1983 A composite sociological index closely tracks the size of a group practising the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi programme. (See details in text below.) The new analysis addresses this question more thoroughly than previously. It presents new statistical evidence that all credible conventional explanations - such as military and political events, public holidays, and the weather - could not explain the observed statistically significant changes in sociological variables shown in an earlier study on the influence of groups practising the TM-Sidhi programme (Orme-Johnson DW, Alexander CN, Davies JL, Chandler HM, Larimore WE. International peace project in the Middle East: The effect of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field. Journal of Conflict Resolution 1988 32:776-812, findings illustrated above). The observed changes in the Middle East included reductions in war deaths of 75%, war intensity of 45%, in crime of 12%, in fires of 30%, plus there were improvements in national mood of 27% and the stock market of 7% during the experimental period. Although conventional factors did have a measureable influence on the level of violence and other sociological variables, the effect of the Transcendental Meditation group was, according to the researchers, both independent of these other factors and approximately two to five times stronger. Brain research has found that Transcendental Meditation increases coherence in brain functioning. Lead author of the new study David Orme-Johnson, former Chairman of the Psychology Department at Maharishi University of Management, suggests that: Given the assumption of Maharishi's theory that individuals are the units of collective consciousness, increased coherence at the individual level could be expected to have a positive effect on the population level. According to a number of earlier studies, this effect is magnified when, in addition to Transcendental Meditation, the more advanced TM-Sidhi programme, which includes Yogic Flying, is practised in a group. In this case, the square root of 1% of a population practising Yogic Flying in a group is the threshold at which changes in social trends begin to be observed. Interestingly, this effect appears to be irrespective of national borders and different cultures. According to the theory, a group of 10,000 generating such an influence of coherence would be sufficient to noticeably influence the collective consciousness of the whole world. If the science is so watertight, and the potential benefits so great, the obvious question, then, is: Why has no one yet established such a group anywhere in the world? One reason why policy makers have been reluctant to do so is that they take the view that conventional military and political factors must have more influence than Transcendental Meditation and Yogic Flying. However, the new research has shown that this assumption is quite incorrect. A coherence-creating group of 10,000 people could be established for less than 0.2% of the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Peace in the Middle East: Scientific solution
there is a minor problem with getting meditators in the middle east.the possibility that they would be killed by muslims that are aware someone is practicing something other than Islam. You can say science this, science that, but it came from an eastern Indian. Anything coming from a predominantly Hindu country justifies the most horrifying and brutal killings in their mind. Deepak Chopra said something similar, that Afghanistand doesnt need soldiers, they need doctors and teachers. I so badly wanted to offer him a personal flight to Kandahar and buy him a vehicle and let him drive himself up and down the only highway in the country and see how long an eastern Indian doctor/teacher lives in that country. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Dick Mays dickm...@... wrote: In case any of you want to look more closely, I've just found a very comprehensive website that presents the first 49 studies at http://www.davidleffler.com/sapraalternative.html#Review_of_Maharishi_Effect_Research. The following article summarizes findings of the TM-Sidhi Program's beneficial societal influence from 50 studies. The article also describes new findings that this peace-giving influence is two to five times as powerful as conventional military and political factors. Very encouraging! Jai Guru Dev. From: Ken Chawkin kchaw...@... http://www.thecolombotimes.com/ http://thecolombotimes.com/international/10354-president-obama-peace-in-the-middle-east-scientific-solution-to-your-political-problem.htmlPresident Obama, Peace in the Middle East: Scientific solution to your political problem? Wednesday, 02 December 2009 17:52 Peace in the Middle East is easily within our grasp, as indicated by a new scientific paper recently published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. The study addresses the possibility that a relatively small group of people practising the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi programme®, as founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, twice daily together in a group can create peace in the Middle East. The hypothesis is not new. Fifty studies have found that when 1% of the population practises Transcendental Meditation, or sufficiently large groups practise the TM-Sidhi programme together twice daily, it can have a positive influence on society as a whole. The studies show, for example, decreased violence, crime, car accidents, and suicides, and improved quality of life in a society. Critics had questioned the credibility of the evidence in light of the unconventional nature of the proposition. Reduced conflict and improved quality of life in the Middle East: August-September 1983 A composite sociological index closely tracks the size of a group practising the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi programme. (See details in text below.) The new analysis addresses this question more thoroughly than previously. It presents new statistical evidence that all credible conventional explanations - such as military and political events, public holidays, and the weather - could not explain the observed statistically significant changes in sociological variables shown in an earlier study on the influence of groups practising the TM-Sidhi programme (Orme-Johnson DW, Alexander CN, Davies JL, Chandler HM, Larimore WE. International peace project in the Middle East: The effect of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field. Journal of Conflict Resolution 1988 32:776-812, findings illustrated above). The observed changes in the Middle East included reductions in war deaths of 75%, war intensity of 45%, in crime of 12%, in fires of 30%, plus there were improvements in national mood of 27% and the stock market of 7% during the experimental period. Although conventional factors did have a measureable influence on the level of violence and other sociological variables, the effect of the Transcendental Meditation group was, according to the researchers, both independent of these other factors and approximately two to five times stronger. Brain research has found that Transcendental Meditation increases coherence in brain functioning. Lead author of the new study David Orme-Johnson, former Chairman of the Psychology Department at Maharishi University of Management, suggests that: Given the assumption of Maharishi's theory that individuals are the units of collective consciousness, increased coherence at the individual level could be expected to have a positive effect on the population level. According to a number of earlier studies, this effect is magnified when, in addition to Transcendental Meditation, the more advanced TM-Sidhi programme, which includes Yogic Flying, is practised in a group. In this case, the square root of 1% of a population practising Yogic Flying in a group is the threshold
