I read:
The International Court of Justice in The Hague said the massacre of 8,000 men in Srebrenica was genocide, but Belgrade was not directly responsible.

But it said Serbia broke international law by failing to stop the killings.


And my mind has started to fly. It could not be otherwise because the incrimination of a British author in Austria and his imprisonment because of his doubts on the Holocaust has been too recent.

The Nazi regime, according to the official news, massacred millions of Jews – they also killed millions of other ethnicities but this has not been stressed world-wide – during Nazism. This crime was condemned immediately after the end of the war although it had been happening before and during WWII and Germany has been made to pay dearly for it ever since, either in money or in kind. Germans are practically not allowed to raise their eyes before a Jew.

Another fascist regime ruled Serbia when the Srebenica butchery took place, and as you can see above Serbia broke international laws by failing to stop the killings.

I have some questions to ask.

1. Has the law changed so much since 1945 that its ruling considers two similar cases in a patently dissimilar way?

2. If the tribunal rules that Serbia broke the international law, why is it that it is not punished to indemnify, at least subsidiarily, what its subjects in a massive way did at that time?

3. Has the State of Israel protested against this decision?

4. All of a sudden a tribunal decides that the human life is so priceless that it cannot be compensated by any means. Are Muslim lives dearer than Jewish ones?

Sincerely I think that what The Hague Court of Justice – a U.N.’s organisation – has done is simply misadminister justice.

Something which will no doubt be voiced airily by the Muslim world, something more to add to the injustices we have been witnessing during the last times.

A doubt hovers before me, is this also a part of the fight against terror?


Equilibrium vs. Chaos

February 24, 2007

I have being going through a hurtful lumbalgia and a bothersome flu these days, which has been coincidental with my stoppage in posting, and that circumstance made me consider how important is equilibrium in everything which exists.

As we all know the universe must be perfectly balanced if we do not want that chaos prevails and everything returns to its origins, which I do not believe existed in material terms. We have been seeing for a number of years now, how the powerful of the Earth have been sending alien objects to the outer space, how they have dared to set foot on the moon, and how a series of artificial satellites are orbiting us continuously, a proof of unbalanced morality in our leaders, or is it that they know that what they are doing to our planet is not within the canons of a balanced existence and want to see what effects it could cause the Earth? Recently China has launched a missile to destroy one of its old satellites in space. The test was successful, the Chinese say. I wonder whether this test together with the rest of man-made junk material that is lost up there will not with time contribute to cause imbalance in the Universe, a universe which is ruled by unwritten laws of equilibrium.

The same thing happens with our planet, if the Earth is not perfectly balanced, if its necessary elements are not present in their exact quantity and quality then the Earth will start suffering chaos in a lesser measure that may be increased if the imbalance persists. This is what has happened with pollution, the greenhouse effect and the ozone layer. It is imperative that all the elements be brought again to a perfect equilibrium if we want to live in a durable place for us and our descendants.

Everything depends on equilibrium: wealth and poverty, war and peace, happiness and unhappiness, health, etc.

If the distribution of richness in the world is not balanced, then we have that while some have a superabundance of welfare, others, the most, have to content themselves with the crumbs that fall from the table. And even some without those miserable crumbs. Which in turn will bring delinquency, unrest and unhappiness. If a country has got superabundant quantities of a particular resource, then it is the object of envy on the part of others that have not. This envy eventually leads to war. As we are so much used to of late. This, however, is not due to the fact that the former has superabundance, it is due to the fact that the latter “want” that superabundance, because resources imply power. Again the necessary balance is not sought.

We human beings, people who are born and die, must also have all the ingredients to keep us balanced. The necessary food, the necessary vitamins, the necessary minerals, etc., but, mind you, never exceeding or lacking in quantity and quality, otherwise the imbalance would be provoked with fatal consequences if it is not redressed rightaway.

All of us should seek equilibrium in everything, otherwise nothing but chaos will wait for us at the other end of the tunnel.

Blair only deceives himself

February 23, 2007

Perhaps the most pathetic news of the week was Tony Blair claiming total innocence for the death and destruction taking place daily in Iraq. We could of course believe him if it were not for the obvious facts that sectarian violence or terrorism was not taking place in Iraq before the illegal invasion, or the fact that weapons of mass destruction didn’t exist in Iraq before depleted uranium, white phosphorus, a variant of napalm and cluster bombs had been imported by the USA and the UK.

I think most reasonable people now accept that the reason for the Iraqi invasion were all oil related and this has been confirmed recently with the announcement that a new law has been passed by the American controlled Iraqi puppet government that will ensure that at least a half of Iraqi oil revenues over the next 15 to 30 years will go to American or British oil companies, whereas before the Iraqi oil industry was state owned. That’s despite the fact that if ever there was a time when Iraq needed oil revenue it is now.

One has to ask the question as to if the USA/UK wanted to avoid sectarian violence why did they allow organisations with links to terrorism immediately return to Iraq after the illegal invasion? Organisations like the Iraqi National Congress headed by convicted fraudster Ahmed Chalabi, who was immediately put in control of the rebuilding of Iraq, we now know of course that billions of dollars of money from the “oil for food” account go unaccounted for.
Secondly the “ Iraqi National Accord” led by Iyad Allwai with a criminal past. The Badr Brigade, the armed wing of the Da’awa/SCIRI religious ‘parties’ led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, Ibrahim al-Jaafari and Nuri al-Maliki. The Kurdish militia (the Peshmerga) led by opportunist warlords, which were trained and armed by the U.S and Israel.
It’s almost as though sectarian violence in Iraq suits the occupiers, which I suspect brings us back to “Oil”.

Now of course Blair talks about withdrawing a few UK troops from Iraq, I presume that this is in readiness for the next illegal adventure by the real axis of evil in attacking Iran. The USA has already made it clear that one of two excuses could be made for the next act of genocide, either proof that Iran is providing the Iraqi resistance with arms or that Iran is building nuclear weapons. Just this week we saw a poor attempt by the USA to prove that the Iran government is providing arms when they released photographs of these supposedly Iranian arms, included was a picture of a 81mm mortar shell, which they don’t even produce, the shell inscribed with english words and the date “2006” instead of “1427” as you would expect. The credibility of the Bush Government diminishes as each day passes.
On the other hand the Iranian government has produced real evidence that terrorism in Iran is being is being encouraged and funded by the west. Since the invasion of Iraq by the United States and Britain, Iran has experienced an increasing number of explosions (or “terrorist attacks”) in Iranian border provinces and areas.

Obviously using the “American” version of International Law this evidence would authorise Iran to launch attacks against the USA and American forces. But then again Iran isn’t a militaristic nation and hasn’t attacked other nations for centuries.

The second possible excuse is that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and this is despite the obvious facts that Iran doesn’t have the facilities to develop them and has never even expressed a wish to have any. Indeed Mohamed ElBaradei, who heads the International Atomic Energy Agency said this week that Iran could be 10 years away from producing a nuclear weapon even if they started today.

So yes I do believe that Blair is responsible for what we see in Iraq today along with Bush, Cheney, Rice, Feith, Straw, Hoon, Perle, Abrams and Wolfowitz and others.

My suggestion to Tony Blair, if he’s really interested in proving his hands are clean, is to turn himself over to the International Court and put his defence forward and see how far he gets.

A very good friend of mine, an American, retired cleric has sent me the following article, which I transcribe here because I find it of interest:

Meditation on God in Daily Life
Making a Difference: Locus of Meaning
Tuesday February 20, 2007
The devil said to Jesus, “If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become a loaf of bread.” Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘One does not live by bread alone.'” (Luke 4.3-4)
By Tom Ehrich

If you are confused about declarations emanating from Tanzania, where Anglican prelates dressed down the Episcopal Church for daring to differ on matters that Jesus never addressed, perhaps this story will help.

In Spring 2003, I led a clergy retreat for the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire. It was a welcome break from isolation in an area where ministry means sitting in someone’s living room while they cry, sharing coffee on the town square, dashing at midnight to a hospital room, eating church stew on wintry nights.

Theirs is ground-level faith, not lofty religion. It happens person to person, not at microphones or in position papers.

At the center of this gathering was the bishop’s assistant, who had spent twenty years driving from town to town, visiting clergy when their lives were in crisis, encouraging vestries when times were tough, sharing meals with their families, loving them into a cohesion that is rare in t he Episcopal Church.

Several months later, this friend was elected Bishop of New Hampshire, not as an in-your-face to the Anglican world or partisan statement about homosexuality, but because he was their pastor. I couldn’t imagine their electing anyone else, for he had shown the face of Jesus Christ in their homes, church kitchens and pulpits.

That election set off a paroxysm of recrimination that dominated two General Conventions and now has produced the bizarre spectacle of “Global South” bishops shunning our Presiding Bishop — at the eucharist! — because she didn’t fit their “boys’ club” mentality.

This controversy has brought forth absurd interpretations of Scripture and tradition and elevated an artificial construct called the Anglican Communion into a global arbiter of local practices.

None of this is about faith or ministry. It is ideological bullying. People holding one viewpoint want to impose their will on others. It is holding up stones of right-opinion and saying to the hungry, “Here, eat this.”

Episcopalians, like all Christians, have divergent views about everything, including sexuality. Those divergent views make our assemblies a nightmare and frustrate those who believe that all should believe and behave alike. But that diversity flows from the way God made us, and if there be oneness, it won’t come by sword or religious orthodoxy, but by love.

We need to remember that the locus of meaning for Christian witness isn’t a procession of the elegantly robed. The locus of meaning is the homes where God’s people dwell, the hospital rooms where they are born and die, quiet walks where friend comforts friend, small circles seeking hope, people picking up tools to help others, and the lonely hill outside Jerusalem where an outcast died for us.

Image blocked.  


Who chose that name, United Nations? There was a time when what existed was the Society of Nations, another name that implies unity, but in actual fact neither name essentially reflects the actual situation in the international organism.

Apart from having been so far an instrument at the complete disposal of just 5 countries : veto-holding China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States; it has also been all the time a nest of conspiracies, a waste of money and a useless tool for all those countries with no right to veto.

Should the United Nations be the international forum where all nations have the chance of exposing their divergences, their quarrels, their predicaments, with no other option than awaiting in fundamental cases for the unison agreement in the Security Council whose power is really in the hands of those five countries I mention above?.

Or rather should the U.N. be the mother organisation where all elements concerning world peace, development, poverty, education, health, etc would be housed?

Peace is the most fundamental of all reasons for the U.N. to be, but this peace should be controlled in the proper way, not as it is now in cases of resolutions which have to be sifted in the S.C. (Security Council) with real chances of being vetoed as has happened on multiple occasions as in the case of Israel, or in the cases of Serbia, or Iran, or Iraq, where no real unanimity was achieved to solve the problems once and for ever?

Development is also a fundamental part of the mission the U.N. should have, development and eradication of poverty should be a continuous target and the implementation of this development supported by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which would also be inside the organisation with full responsibility for the Secretary General as Head of the Organisation. Today we all know how these organisations work and at the call and beck of whom they work.

The right to veto is one of the most flagrant violations of the democratic principles, principles which are so much boasted by countries that do not respect them.

Education. Why the world cannot have a unitary education with the same subjects for everybody, an education that encompasses all aspects of our lives and teaches each and every one of us how to consider the world, democracy, corruption, etc in its proper terms, is something that has never been explained and something that should be addressed with a maximum priority.

Health. The enormous profits that Pharmaceuticals return to the big corporations of that sector are the consequence of exploitation of our health by them. Prices of the medicines are, as everybody knows, extremely costly to the Health Services of all countries let alone the pockets of citizens who have not been covered by the benefits of sanitary services. The excellent services provided by the professionals of Medicine are nothing if those medicines they prescribe are too dear and if the said corporations are not duly controlled and their profits duly dealt with by the Fisc. I wonder whether taxes on those profits could help some countries give sanitary coverage to their citizens.

Against my will this post has become too lengthy and I am not for long posts when readers’ time is one of the most important factors to be taken into account nowadays.

There is much more that can be said about the U.N. but my last commentary in this post is just to sum it all up in few words: It is a completely ineffective organisation whose running costs us – tax payers – so much that the money employed in it could serve to give remedy to many ills that are overwhelming the world.

Sheer shame!

A note of gratefulness

February 18, 2007

Before going on posting, I must haste and thank all those who so graciously have offered  their comments in this blog, all of them positive and constructive in the way that becomes well educated, wise and conscious people of good.

Without your contributions this blog would have gone its lonely way through the cyberspace with occasional glances.

I can tell you that it has been a highly pleasant surprise for me.

Thank you, friends, and you know you can count on me.

Shameful! How is it possible that people who have been elected by us attend the sessions in parliament, sit down, read the papers and only work to cheer their leader in the chamber, who may happen to be the representative of another electoral district, and push the buttom when they have to vote? And for that task we pay them!

It is only their party’s politics that prevail, irrespective of what is convenient to the electoral district of each parliamentarian. And the one representative we elect shuts up and does not even budge in her/his seat.

If we are fortunate enough that our representative is at the same time a spokesperson for a particular area in the party, that fortune is rapidly thrown into the dust bin because at all moments he will voice the party’s views, not ours.

I wonder why all the persons in a parliament do not enjoy the same prerrogatives and why they cannot speak at a given moment during the session, thus behaving as their electors would like them to. The party they belong to are not aware what our real needs are, it is presumed our representative does, although at times it happens the latter may have come from a different town or any place where our worries are not known.

It seems today I have focussed my attention on our parliamentarians, the question is that too many ills that affect us are the responsibility of those who are there to solve them.

Is it not then clear that this system of political parties is really a spoke in the wheels of our democracy?

I am always reading about how our legislators proceed in questions of taxes. I also read that these very same legislators set their earnings as our representatives. I read as well that on many occasions heated debates take place of what should be the minimum wage payable to a worker. And indeed the three issues, in my opinion, clash with the quality of our representatives as such.

The issue of taxes is something that reaches the limits of ridicule, if it were not for the exaggerated rate workers have to pay to the Treasury as compared with the obligation “imposed” to Chief Executives or companies and corporations. Indeed in proportion workers due to “their faculty of appointing their representatives” bear the brunt of the tax chain. And this does not appear to show signs of changing.

But when it comes to setting salaries for our representatives at parliaments, then the media do not echo any “heated debates”, it seems on this issue politicians of any trend do agree without any further ado. And I believe this is the only issue where politicians are effectively in agreement. And of course we pay those salaries they have agreed upon.

The most shameful of the three issues, the minimum salary, is something that does not bear any criticism in that it takes sometimes months and months of occasional debate, sometimes being left for the next elected legislature to decide.

Democratically speaking I would say that legislators should be consistent with their electors’ needs and their obligations ought to be explicitly manifested in their approval of either of the three issues mentioned above, to which end they should act as follows:

1. Taxes to be paid by electors in general should take into account that they are the weakest layer of our society. Companies and corporations to meet the highest rates in the tax scale. Executives with high salaries to be in between the two layers.

2. The salaries the legislators approve for themselves should never be higher than those collected by the average of workers. That is if legislators want to give themselves a new rise that new rise exactly should also be paid to their electors.

3. The minimum salary should be consistent with the actual cost of living and the members of each family.

This is one of the ways legislators have to convince their electors that they are effectively on their side of the fence.

Otherwise we will always think we are poorly represented.

A looming war against Iran?

February 4, 2007

Again the American Administration headed by the nefarious Bush and Cheney are insistently trying to convince the world that Iran is a danger, to which end they are concocting a strange cauldron of lies and false facts, at the time that they say their intention is not invading Iran.

It is clear that the attitude of China and Russia in the United Nations and in their trade relationships with Iran, has been substantial to make Bush say that they are not invading – despite the endless tirades Israeli politicians care to launch against the Iranian regime.

In my opinion the strategy here is simply egg Iran to act by provoking it with continuous assaults on Iranian interests in Iraq, by taking Iranians as hosts for the mere fact that they are Iranians and, consequently, according to Bush/Cheney’s mentality suspects of terrorism.

So far what I have seen is real terrorism is the Israel and US’s behaviour, something that can be clearly named State Terrorism. The invasion of Lebanon by Israel, the intervention of the Israeli military advisers in the Kurdish North of Iraq, the threats Israel is uttering against the Ayatollahs’ country are to my view nothing but provocation.

The American public opinion is growing against the bellicose attitudes of their President, but their President, assuming his usual dictatorial “poise”, openly defies his “subjects” and strides forward to his pre-conceived target : dominance of Iran by any means, be them direct attack or inner subversion of the country so as to change its regime. Bush appears more and more like the classical school yard bully.

In the meantime, the European Union lying on its laurels. Or toadying to the US.

I know what I am saying is not new, but I had to say it nevertheless.

A way to let  out steam.

I read that a panel has met to reach this conclusion: humans are to blame for the warming of our planet. The emissions released by human activities are the reason we are having so many natural catastrophes and scientists of all over the world who meet regularly at the behest of the UN to say so. This is not new to me and I agree that is the “direct” reason. It is not necessary to be a scientist to get to that finding. We all know, because we have been hammered into thinking so, that we are ruining planet Earth, third big rock from the Sun.Why it is necessary that hundreds of scientists have to meet to reach this conclusion is a question that assails me. My answer to that question cannot be in my opinion other than the blame of this extraordinary circumstance be not attributed to those who really are to blame, because we have not invented those kinds of contrivances that have been put in our hands and that have made some people almighty along the centuries, some people without scruples helped by scientists without scruples, too.

Both moguls and scientists are to be held accountable for the enormous catastrophe that is looming and that may be the destruction of the planet.

There are questions as : “ Who is going to tell a billion people that they can’t have air-conditioning or an automobile? ” .

Yes, who is going to tell them that they must forget the use of everything that pollutes? Curiously enough nobody asks who is going to tell those who make those air-conditioners and automobiles that they stop production?

The human beings live longer and multiply themselves, the more human beings exist the more emissions are caused, is there no stop to this extraordinary growth? China has become a part of the capitalistic system as has India, and the capitalistic system is the indirectly responsible party of all this reasonless expenditure and waste that heats up our environment and our lives, something that will take us to inexorable mass extinction. But I wonder why China and India are taken now as main producers when we all know that so far the US and Europe have been the main industrialist sectors of the world. And this warming has been on for a long time before China and India started their industrial activities.

We are an endangered species. We have included all kinds of wild animals in our books as species worth being saved from extinction, we have not, though, included ourselves in that list and I wonder why the human beings have being so neglectful of their own existence, why they have forgotten the most elementary notions of survival.

Ultra-consumerism is the cause, people trying to become rich to be powerful are the means.

But we cannot complain at this stage of the problem, we can only act and act quickly and efficiently because time does not wait, it ticks on and on and every time more rapidly. Even these machines one of which I am using just now, are a cause for the warming, only that what I am doing I believe is useful at the present moment.

Something to thank technology for nevertheless.