California Free Press

Off the Top of My Head

What To Do About Religious Intolerance Leading to War

by John Lawrence

The current situation in the Middle East is a reminder that throughout history war has been religious based. Think of the wars in Europe between Protestants and Catholics or the Crusades which were wars between Christians and Muslims or the persecution of Jews throughout history. If we are ever to have peace in this world, religious tolerance is paramount. So there should be religious studies in schools at all levels, but not studies about one religion. Students should be required to study all the major religions which are Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. Not only that, but students should be required to attend religious services in all these religions. Only by understanding the different religions can one develop a tolerance for them all. Only when we come to a time when it doesn't matter what religion a person espouses will we be able to all get along. It shouldn't matter what one's religion is. They shouldn't be perceived as "the other." All human beings need to get to the point where they are human beings first and their religion is a matter of indifference.

I think this can only be accomplished by an educational system in which a student becomes familiar with all the different religions, has friends who are members of different religions and comes to see that, regardless of one's religion, human beings are all basically the same. In other words all societies should become secularized. It would help greatly if all students were required to attend religious services of all the five great religions mentioned earlier. What is more important than peace on earth, and to accomplish this tolerance of all religions must be inculcated in students everywhere. Tolerance of other religions is more important than the beliefs of any particular religion. As long as one perceives that someone is a member of a different religion than their own and is perceived as "the other," there will be suspicion, fear, tension, hatred and war. World peace is something that needs to be worked at to be accomplished and understanding and tolerance of religion is a good place to start.

In addition to tolerance of different religious views, an uplifting of the economic circumstances of the world's poorest citizens will do more to create peace than anything else. War is often the result of the perceived superiority of living conditions of one group of people by another group. One group is the downtrodden and one group has all the advantages and is living the good life. Everyone in the world needs to be brought up to at least a decent standard of living before there will be peace in the world. So religious tolerance brought about by education regarding all the world's religions and attendance at all religious services combined with an all out effort to bring all the world's peoples up to a decent standard of living will do much to bring about world peace. These efforts have to be done at the same time that the earth itself must be protected from environmental degradation especially with regard to climate change. The old paradigm in which earth's resources were to be exploited without consequence, in which humans were told that they had "dominion" over earth's resources, must go to be replaced with an ethic not of exploitation but of respect for the planet and all its resources including its human resources.

Off the Top of My Head

Was Biden Supposed to Micromanage the Logistics of the Withdrawal?

by John Lawrence

What were all those people in the Pentagon doing once Biden announced the end of the war? Biden announced on July 8, 2021 that the war would end as of August 31. Why wasn't the US Defense Department working overtime to do contingency and logistics planning. Why weren't Americans and Afghans who helped us being taken out of the country as of that date? Why did they wait for Kabul to fall? This is incompetency on the part of the Pentagon and the Defense Department. Biden shouldn't have had to micromanage the logistics. Why didn't they expect chaos? Why didn't our military hold Kabul until everyone was out safely? Instead they let the Taliban waltz into Kabul. It just goes to show the incompetency of the top echelon of US military planners.

Hopefully, the secure air corridor, similar to the Berlin airlift, will be sufficient to get most of the people, who need to get out, out. The troops Biden sent in will have to do crowd control and secure the airport for the next few weeks. The whole operation in Afghanistan was a disaster. Evidently, the Afghan military couldn't do anything without the support of American contractors? You mean that the bloated American military is incompetent to do anything without private contractors? Evidently, so. Now a bunch of war apologists are rueing the day that the American military is leaving Afghanistan. Oh, Al Qaeda will come back; ISIS will establish themselves there. Why don't they stop and ask the question why all these Islamists are so upset with the US? Is it because the US has been killing them for years. It's not too late for the US to become a constructive force in the world instead of just trying "to protect American interests." China is building infrastructure throughout Asia and beyond. The US could cooperate with China in becoming a builder rather than a destroyer. Besides, unless the two major polluting countries of the world get together, the earth is already doomed to a climate catastrophe.

It's not about forcing the rest of the world to bow down to us. It's about time that the world's wealthiest country becomes a constructive player on the world scene instead of threatening everyone with sanctions or our military might. It's time to guarantee the Palestinians their own homeland. This would do a lot to dispel the rancor against the US. Instead of "defund the police" we should be chanting "defund the military". The 800 military bases around the world need to be abandoned and the troops sent home from there just like they were abandoned in Afghanistan. By the way why wasn't all the military equipment and resources just left there to fall into the hands of the Taliban? Oh I see. There will be money to procure a lot more once the Defense Department submits its budgetary needs post Afghanistan. When the US becomes a force for peace in the world and uses its abundant resources to alleviate poverty and fight climate change, then the US will be playing a constructive role in the world and not just defending US interests.

Off the Top of My Head

The US is Now Arming ISIS After Spending Trillions Trying to Get Rid of ISIS

by John Lawrence

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is the only Democrat bringing up the absurdity of the US continuing to arm terrorists, whom we spent trillions to eradicate, in their efforts to overthrow Assad in Syria. Since Assad is allied with Iran (his religion is a variation of Shiite Islam which is espoused by Iran), all of a sudden it's not ISIS that are the terrorists, it's Iran and everyone allied with Iran who are the terrorists. This is all a game designed to spend trillions of dollars and destroy millions of lives just so the US can maintain its military spending at a high level while accomplishing nothing but death and destruction. What the US foreign policy experts don't seem to understand is that what is going on in the Middle East is fundamentally a continuation of the Sunni-Shiite split that happened centuries ago. Add to that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and you have a real mess.

Tulsi Gabbard understands the ridiculousness of this continued mucking around in this conflict which has produced nothing but death and destruction and wasted trillions of dollars:

Under U.S. law it is illegal for any American to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda, ISIS or other terrorist groups. If an American citizen gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, he or she would be thrown in jail. Yet the U.S. government has been violating this law for years, quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and other terrorist groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government. The CIA has also been funneling weapons and money through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and others who provide direct and indirect support to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. This support has allowed al-Qaeda and their fellow terrorist organizations to establish strongholds throughout Syria, including in Aleppo.

Since the US has redefined Iran as the enemy and undertaken a series of provocations towards Iran, all of a sudden anyone who is fighting Iran's friend Assad, namely ISIS is a friend of ours. All of a sudden Iran is the biggest sponsor of terrorism and not ISIS. It all depends whose side you're on how you define who is and who isn't a terrorist. Since the brou ha ha over Jamal Khashoggi's death at the hands of Saudi Arabia has died down, we can now get on with our close relationship with the Sunni country of Saudi Arabia which spawned ISIS (who are Sunnis) in the first place. Now it's Sunnis good, Shiites bad although by taking out Saddam in Iraq we created a Shiite state affiliated with Iran since the majority of Iraquis are Shiites (Saddam was a Sunni).

So there's this big realignment of US foreign policy since Trump backed out of the JCPOA, the nuclear arms deal with Iran. This deal made Iran a partner instead of an adversary. Now Trump has accomplished the goal of turning them into an adversary and may even start a war with them. At the same time he is doubling down on his efforts to oust Assad in Syria since Assad is an ally of Iran.

Tulsi continues:

The CIA has long been supporting a group called Fursan al Haqq, providing them with salaries, weapons and support, including surface to air missiles.  This group is cooperating with and fighting alongside an al-Qaeda affiliated group trying to overthrow the Syrian government. The Levant Front is another so-called moderate umbrella group of Syrian opposition fighters. Over the past year, the United States has been working with Turkey to give this group intelligence support and other forms of military assistance. This group has joined forces with al-Qaeda’s offshoot group in Syria.

Why is she the only Democrat talking about this stuff? Who is going to define who is and who is not a terrorist? A terrorist is in the eyes of the beholder and has become a meaningless term used to justify every side in a conflict. As Tulsi points out, "Our limited resources should go toward rebuilding our communities here at home, not fueling more counterproductive regime change wars abroad."

At the root of the conflict is the continually festering situation between the Palestinians and Israel. Even though the Palestinians are essentially Sunnis, the Shiite nation of Iran is supporting them in a proxy war against Israel through its proxy, Hezbollah. If this issue were to be resolved, then maybe all parties could get along, and Sunnis, Shiites and Jews could all be friends. In any event the US mucking around in the Middle East has only made the situation worse while spending trillions of dollars that could have been better spent at home.

Off the Top of My Head

Omar Accused of Being Anti-Semitic for Suggesting that the US Contributes Too Much Money to Israel?

by John Lawrence, March 11, 2019

Yes, Israel has a lobby called AIPAC. It's purpose is to get American lawmakers to contribute more money to Israel, already a very prosperous country. Omar tweeted, "It's all about the Benjamins, baby," which some have taken to be anti-semitic. I thought the word "Benjamin" was an anti-semitic slur that I'd never heard of. But it turns out to be a reference to Benjamin Franklin on the $100 bill. Meanwhile, the US gives nothing to Israel's poor neighbors, the Palestinians having cut the relatively meager $200 million it had been giving out of the budget at the urging of Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner. NPR reported: "The Trump administration announced Friday that it has cut nearly all the money the U.S. had planned to spend on aid projects for the Palestinians this year —including money to address a humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip."

So why is the American media jumping all over Omar, a Muslim, for supporting her Muslim fellow religionists in Palestine which is suffering a humanitarian crisis? It seems that the slightest criticism of Israel will get the powers-that-be jumping all over you and calling you anti-semitic. Omar has a right to call out the US for giving a huge amount of foreign aid to a country that doesn't need it while totally neglecting its poorer neighbor. Her problem is that she and the other Muslim woman in Congress, Rashida Tlaib, will be attacked any time they take a pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel stand. This cuts off debate; it cuts off discussion about how to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem and bring peace to that region. It shuts the mouths of anyone daring to be pro-Palestinian.

However, Rabbi Jill Jacobs writes in the Washington Post:

Despite what some pro-Israel organizations would have us believe, not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. Like all countries, Israel has a duty to uphold international human rights laws and to protect the rights of those living under its control. One may protest the use of live fire on unarmed protesters, the closure of the Gaza border and the subsequent humanitarian crisis, the military occupation of the Palestinian territories, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s attacks on democracy and incitement against human rights leaders without invoking anti-Semitic tropes. Such policies would be wrong in any country, whether carried out by Jews or other people.

However, there is legitimate criticism of Israel, which the two Muslim Members of Congress should not suppress. The government of Israel has been criticized for issues regarding Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories, its treatment of Palestinian Arabs, the conduct of Israeli Defense Forces during conflicts and the blockade of the Gaza Strip.  Other historic issues with ongoing consequences have also been criticized including: the refusal to allow post-war Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, and the prolonged occupation of territories gained in war and the construction of settlements therein.

Among the most controversial policies enacted as part of its occupation, Israel has established numerous Israeli settlements throughout the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. The international community considers these settlements illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this. The United Nations Security Council has consistently reaffirmed that settlements in that territory are void of legality and are a "flagrant violation of international law", most recently with United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334. The creation and ongoing expansion of the settlements have led to Israel's policies being criticized as an example of colonialism.

Perhaps if Israel did something nice for the Palestinians like easing the humanitarian crisis, lifting the plight of those living in absolute poverty or reducing settlements in disputed lands, then the conflict between Palestine and Israel could start to be ameliorated. As long as both sides are intransigent, this area of the world will remain mired in conflict and war. The two Muslim women in Congress should continue to speak out on a more even handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli situation. They are the only ones representing the Palestinian point of view.

Off the Top of My Head

How George W Bush's Iraq War Wasted a Trillion Dollars, Killed Thousands of People, Spawned ISIS, Caused the European Refugee Crisis and Turned Iraq into a Client State of Iran

by John Lawrence

Before the US invasion Iraq was a majority Shiite country ruled by a Sunni elite. Naturally, the US in its never ending efforts to spread democracy in the world, was happy to see the democratic (Shiite) country ruled by a Shiite government after it eliminated Saddam Hussein. But wait. Iran is a majority Shiite country and they're our supposed enemy. The US is allied with Saudi Arabia which is Sunni and an enemy of Shiite Iran. So naturally when Sunni terrorists groups like ISIS started operating in and taking over Iraq, who came to the rescue and forced ISIS out?

Of course, you can't make this stuff up. It was the US enemy Iran who came to Iraq's rescue with its Popular Mobilization Force (PMF). They, not the US, rescued Iraq from ISIS. So now everybody is happy, right? Iran, which is Shiite, has enormous influence in Iraq, which is majority Shiite and they both are adjacent to Syria which is ruled by a Shiite variant al-Assad.

Net net: The US invasion of Iraq helped create a Shiite dominated middle east controlled by the US enemy Iran while undercutting the US ally, Saudi Arabia. Are we happy now? Can the bloodshed stop now? After an enormous price was paid in money and blood, the US weakened the position of its ally and strengthened the position of its enemy. Iran, by the way is allied with Russia, which now the US is trying to recreate as its enemy. The US needs enemies in order to justify more trillions of dollars in expenditures on its military-industrial complex and more bloodshed among the hoi polloi of the world, the little people.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton completed the destabilization of the middle east with their efforts in Syria, which came to nought, and Libya which spawned another terrorist movement. But terrorism is good for the economy because it justifies more dollars spent on the military-industrial complex.

In the meantime the destruction in the middle east gave all the ones there who survived the US onslaught the idea that Europe with its progressive and humane vales might just be a better place to live after their homes and businesses were destroyed and their friends and relatives killed. So Europe is now not only overwhelmed by refugees but is suffering the brunt of the terrorist attacks. They have the US to thank for this starting with George W Bush's efforts after 9/11. He couldn't attack Saudi Arabia where the majority of the hijackers were from because the US was allied with them because of oil so he had to attack some country and Iraq was the logical choice.

Oh, the tangled web we weave. This is what happens when we elect a narcissist, egotist, ignorant ignoramus for President. Oh wait, we've elected two of them lately.

Off the Top of My Head

Sunnis and Shiites Fight, Children Starve in Yemen

by John Lawrence

It's the same old story. Two different religious factions are at war with each other, and children starve as a consequence. The Protestants and the Catholics fought decades long wars in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. Two sects of Islam - Sunnis and Shiites - have been fighting for more than a thousand years. The latest version is the war in Yemen between the Shiite minority (the Houthis) and the Sunni majority. Yemen borders on Saudi Arabia which is Sunni, so naturally the US-allied Saudis are using their American supplied military might to fight the Houthis, who took over the government in 2015, and restore a Sunni led government.

Iran which is Shiite supports the Houthis and in general Shiites wherever they are located like in Iraq which now has a Shiite government whereas before the US invasion, they had a Sunni government. So the result of the US led war in Iraq was to change the government from Sunni to Shiite, not exactly the US' intention since the US is effectively allied with Sunnis because of their alliance with Saudi Arabia, which beheads non-violent violators of its laws in public. Then the US goes around the world accusing other nations of being human rights violators. Hypocrites.

If there is ever to be peace in the Middle East, the nut that has to be cracked is the Shiite-Sunni conflict which is at the heart of all the wars in the region. But nobody is concerned about that. Each side is concerned about winning. The US is allied with one of the biggest human rights violators in the world, Saudi Arabia, which makes it effectively allied with the Sunnis while Russia is allied with Iran which makes Russia effectively allied with the Shiites. Instead of creating peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia - between Sunnis and Shiites - both sides are intent on subsidizing the conflict.

The two sides in the conflict and all their proxy groups are just like two teen age gangs fighting each other. Rather than being the world's policeman, the US is being the world's protagonist. If the US and Russia got together as friends and allies, a lot of these problems could be solved. But that's the last thing the US military-industrial complex wants. Peace would cost them too much money. So they continue to promote and subsidize war.

Meanwhile, children continue to starve to death because of Saudi Arabia's blockade of Yemen. The Saudis cannot tolerate a Shiite led Yemen because then they would have Shiites to their north and Shiites to their south. The Muslims need to get their act together and make peace like the Protestants and the Catholics eventually did. That's what the US initially stood for - a refuge from the religious wars in Europe. In that spirit the US should be cooperating with the United Nations to bring peace to the Middle East. Until they do, we will have perpetual conflict in that part of the world combined with a widening refugee crisis and children starving to death beset by disease combined with terrorism. Death and destruction is the price to be paid for continuing conflict. We need more adults in the room.

Bill Maher on Radical Islam