United Nations Achieves, Yet Far From Realizing Potential.

Posted on August 16, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

ocean33If the United Nations (UN) had reached the full potential it’s capable of before Colin Powell presented false allegations resulting in the Iraq War, the effort to fully confirm his assertions would have been undertaken and proven Mr. Powell’s claims false, and the Iraq War would have never occurred. The United Nations organization has great potential, chiefly its yet-to-become realized capacity for bringing all member states to the table of absolute truth.

In order for the UN to reach that great potential by building a global “table of absolute truth”, the focus of the organization should be on creating conditions where dialogue/discussion of issues become organized in ways that go a great deal further, and much more in-depth, than has been the case. Historically, United Nations dialogue and communications between member states have fallen short of achieving the qualities of completeness, full exposure of all relevant facts, views, and circumstances, and resulted in less-than-ideal understanding; less-than-ideal proposals and actions becoming implemented and taken.

The word truncated comes to mind when stressing UN potential, precisely descriptive of member states ambassadors’ discussions which become “shortened by cutting”, thereby preventing, at times, the “going all the way” to practical, fact-based, reasonable solutions. The recent UN Security Council (UNSC) passage of Resolution 2170, calling for condemnation of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and its acts of terrorism, presents an excellent example of the UN’s at times truncated status.

In an interview after UNSC Resolution 2170 passed, Syrian Ambassador to the UN Bashar Ja’afari shared his perceptions about the meeting. He spoke to the Security Council during that meeting, and asked why his nation’s continuous warnings about the same terrorist groups attacking Syria over the last 3 1/2 years became ignored, when taking those warnings seriously years ago would have made the recent meeting and ISIL resolution unnecessary. While Israel’s massacre of over 1,900 Palestinian people has led to worldwide opposition and calls for Israel’s leaders to face war crimes prosecution, in Syria over the last 3 1/2 years an estimated 160-200,000 have lost their lives.

Mr. Ja’afari believes the UNSC reacts to terrorism on a selective basis, once again noting the non-reaction to Syria’s repeated concerns about terrorism over the past 3 1/2 years. He sees Resolution 2170 as certain member states’ addressing Western/European public opinion, instead of concern for the people of Iraq, Syria, and the Middle East. He points out that Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and Western/European governments have trained, supplied, and paid mercenaries from over 80 countries to fight in Syria to overthrow the government. He connects former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s use of the phrase “creative chaos” to the past 3 1/2 years of “creative terrorism” – which certain UN member states are today trying to “wash their hands of”.

Mr. Ja’afari points out that during the UNSC meeting he asked about ISIL’s selling of captured Syrian oil and gas through Turkish mediators and European buyers, specifically who was purchasing those stolen-by-ISIL resources. He notes that, at that very moment, the UNSC acting President – the British UN Ambassador – interrupted him and “truncated”/stopped the line of inquiry. Mr. Ja’afari believes the British ambassador doesn’t want citizens of Western/European nations to hear, then know, what has occurred for nearly four years related to ISIL. He reiterates his belief that Resolution 2170 has more to do with solving problems related to Western/European popular public opinion.

During a short UN press conference with the media after the UNSC meeting, Bashar Ja’afari told reporters that Britain failed to consult with either Iraq or Syria on the language of the resolution, and that neither nation’s UN ambassador was given an opportunity to share concerns with the Security Council. This treatment of Iraq’s and Syria’s UN ambassadors, in effect cutting them out of discussions and negotiations directly affecting their nations, provides an example of how the United Nations has not yet reached its promising, powerful potential.

The United Nations can improve its peacekeeping mission through recognizing the limitations of discussions which fail to place all facts, circumstances, viewpoints, and solution-focused ideas “on the table”. This suggests the need for much lengthier meetings and discussions which are intent on achieving the greatest degree possible of inclusion from every member having concerns on the issue(s) at hand. A spirit of problem-solving with the paramount quality being willingness to exhaust every effort in coming to mutually satisfactory agreement – a “whatever it takes” commonly held attitude – will place the United Nations firmly on the road leading to its highest peacekeeping potential.

When comparing protracted wars fought with bullets, bombs, and their destructive consequences to lengthy wars fought with words, facts, and ideas, reasonable men and women immediately see the wisdom in choosing the latter.


(Thank you to Press TV News Videos at YouTube)

Middle East Peace Possible With Absolute Truth.

Posted on August 12, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

earthblog3This interview of Sami Ramadani, senior lecturer at London Metropolitan University, occurred around the third week of June when ISIS/ISIL/IS (Islamic State) began terrorizing Iraq. It was saved here in draft status for over a month until the United States announced an air campaign against the terrorist group, suggesting the interview become reviewed. Mr. Ramadani’s interview of roughly seven weeks ago contains statements that looking back now seem prophetic.

The interview begins with the host asking Sami Ramadani (SR) about media reports claiming that violence in Iraq has been caused by Sunni-Shia sectarian conflict:

(SR)    “I don’t think so. I think they stress this because this is what they did before they invaded Iraq in 2003 as well. They did that when they bombed Iraq in 1991. This type of scenario suits them, suits their line that this is a place of very backward people, medieval people, that have been waiting centuries just to slaughter each other – completely ignoring the history of the area, and the way these communities have co-existed for a very, very long time. And in terms of modern Iraq, there hasn’t been any communal conflict – people against people fighting – for maybe a hundred, two hundred years.”

Every report talks of festering sectarianism?

(SR)    “There are political forces in Iraq – political leaders who are part of the so-called political process that the United States set off after occupying Iraq in 2003. The leaders of this so-called political process have been selected, chosen, and funded and backed so as they represent different sects and communities, so, the United States created the institutions that are led by sectarian leaders. So when they talk about sects in Iraq and sects hating each other, what they mean is the quarrel, the competition, between these different political figures that they themselves backed and financed and brought to power eventually. So the scene they have created is the scene they want to project to the outside world, that this is the Iraqi society in general.”

Divide and rule?

“Divide and rule. Old colonial process. And in the context of Iraq – because immediately after they occupied Iraq – United States, Britain, and so on, they were faced with massive popular opposition and a rising resistance. What better way to control the place but divide and rule policies, and this is precisely what they did. Because United States occupation forces were facing enormous difficulties in Iraq, the only way they could control the place is rely on these sectarian elements in Iraqi society. They did not create these sectarian elements, but they backed them, they nurtured them, and they made them lead the so-called political process – encouraging this festering wound, if you like, in the Iraqi political body.”

ISIS and Syria?

“Isn’t it ironic? Good thing you mention Syria. They backed these same terrorist groups in Syria, but now they’re talking about limiting their influence or hitting them in Iraq. There’s another side to this story, which is that these terrorist organizations – particularly ISIS – is being used within this regional power conflict as well. They are using these terrorist organizations to affect regime change in Syria, it has failed so far. And they want also to use them to remove Maliki from power. This is the subtext you could see in the news. The United States, through its various factions in the U.S. administration and outside it, calling on Maliki to resign. So really, ISIS has become the stick with which to influence policy in Iraq even further.”

“They are a bit unhappy that Maliki is friendly to Iran, has refused to coöperate with the United States to bring down Bashar Al-Assad’s regime in Syria, so they are very unhappy about that, and they want him to be weakened and create a new government in Baghdad much more pliable and listening to U.S. interests. If that happens, then they are ready to weaken ISIS in Iraq.”

(Comment: When ISIS started terrorizing Iraq around two months ago, there were reports of possible U.S. air strikes to stop ISIS, U.S./Iran coöperation, etc.. The U.S. didn’t announce air strikes against ISIS until the past few days, after Nouri al-Maliki had been removed from power. Maliki apparently is going to start a legal challenge. This is the prophetic aspect of Sami Ramadani’s interview mentioned.)

“They affected regime change in Afghanistan through occupation, Iraq through occupation, and Libya through bombing and encouraging terrorist organizations. And Syria through armed groups, and Iraq through armed groups again. It’s a scenario to affect regime change whenever there’s a situation that does not suit them. And there is the elephant in the room as well which is that those developments do suit Israeli interests in the area as well. It weakens any potential for peoples in the region to support the Palestinians and so on and so forth.”

Who’s controlling who… monarchies?

“Very complex here… Again, back to Syria, because Qatar spent $2 billion – $3 billion according to Financial Times – funding and arming groups in Syria within 2 years. And Saudi Arabia has done the same, if not more, but different. Saudi Arabia backs different groups from those that Qatar backs, hence there is a friction between these two royal families. They are the same groups, but the media want to tell us that there are moderate and extremists. Well, if you throw arms into a conflict like that, who is to say which weapon is going to which party? The essential thing is they wanted to overthrow the Syrian regime, so they armed various groups in Syria, and they’re doing the same in Iraq.”

“In fact, this group that is sort of spearheading the onslaught in Iraq through the Syrian borders got its strength and power from the Syrian conflict itself. It got its arms through Turkey, it got its funds from the Saudi and Qatari and other Gulf sheiks. So, there is this combination of work which is aimed at weakening any potential for politics which does not suit U.S. or British interests in the area.”

U.S., British intervention?

“I don’t think they need to intervene directly at the moment because ISIS is doing the job of ultimately weakening Maliki, but they don’t want ISIS to control Iraq. They want to control it themselves, but they are using this context to potentially try to intervene – to consolidate their position…”

400 British ISIS mercenaries threat when returning to Britain?

“If it’s 40 or 4,000, I don’t think they know really, because this is a very volatile area. But one thing is sure. Initially, within the context of Syria, they allowed hundreds, if not thousands from across the world – many thousands if you count across the world, including the Arab world, Libya, etc. – volunteering to go and fight to topple Bashar Al-Assad. These fighters came through Turkey. It was a very well-organized operation in which the CIA itself intervened, and Britain. And the media here (Britain) encouraged people to go and volunteer, more or less, in Syria.”

“But you play with fire… There are risks here because they have been playing with fire, they have been encouraging extremist ideologies, especially the so-called Wahabi perspective of the Saudi royal family.. Qatari royal family. These are the forces that the United States, Britain and others are relying on in the Middle East.”

Thank you Sami Ramadani.

“Thank you.”

Searching for recent press conferences/addresses/talks by Nouri Al-Maliki with English translation or subtitles has thus far been unsuccessful. The history of Middle East war, and what is occurring now, becomes explained by control of colossal oil and natural gas resource wealth as the basis for violence, competition over market share – especially the European market now, with essential differences between opposing groups being all about how $multi-billions in profits from the sale of those resources become distributed.

A Middle East – North Africa Peace Conference attended by all stakeholders and genuine leaders – with the paramount goal of solving historic violence problems in the region through agreements on peaceful, fair, and honorable extraction of the resource wealth – would greatly benefit all men, women, and children living in those lands. Holding such a conference offers the best opportunity to significantly lessen the overwhelming level of war and violence experienced for far too long by innocent people living in the region.

A Middle East – North Africa Peace Conference is guaranteed to become profoundly successful – a historic accomplishment – if but one criterion becomes met. Each participant shall speak absolute truth.


(Thank you to goingundergroundRT at YouTube)

MintPress Destroys Corporate ISIL/Middle East News Narrative.

Posted on June 30, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

aaa-44What is truly astounding about the discussion between friends from MintPress News Mnar Muhawesh and Mahdi Nazemroaya is how in such a profoundly simple manner they decimate extremely powerful international media corporations’ – let’s call it what it is – lies about ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant).

The so-called mainstream/corporate media have unanimously portrayed the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as being a consequence of ancient sectarian rivalry between Middle East Sunni and Shia populations, as if that were the sole factor for their (ISIL) actions, all in an intentional effort to keep millions of viewers ignorant of the reality in the Middle East.

ISIL is a mercenary army paid, trained, supplied, and directed by Gulf monarchies Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others, along with government entities in Turkey, Israel, the United States, Britain and others, to destabilize nations and peoples who choose not to go along with imperialist agendas. There is nothing new about ISIL except that it represents a new strategy for powerful people having the desire to control the Middle East region’s vast oil/natural gas/energy resource wealth.

Ms. Muhawesh and Mr. Nazemroaya precisely identify what is occurring in Iraq and the region: a “divide and conquer” strategy perhaps as old as the hills. It is a historically deadly and vicious strategy that has destroyed and/or ended the lives of millions of innocent human beings in the Middle East. Those responsible for military intervention in the Middle East for manipulation and control have no concern for the men, women and children who live there, have to be described accurately based on their actions, and must be stopped through worldwide popular resistance.

The video discussion between Ms. Muhawesh and Mr. Nazemroaya could very well be misperceived and underestimated because of its lack of “slick” production and simplicity of communication. Apparently they spoke through a Skype connection that millions use every day when speaking to distant relatives and friends. What is highly beneficial to acknowledge and remember – especially for men and women who have become frustrated or disappointed in the slow pace of truth’s emergence on Earth –  is that the simple but profound message Ms. Muhavesh and Mr. Nazemroaya deliver here is easily replicated by any persons with minimal technology.

They have shown that it’s possible for average men and women to “speak truth to power”, that the truth is held up more highly by humanity than at any time in history,  and when truth gets spoken – just like the movie “Field of Dreams” –  they will come. Will this simple discussion exposing the truth about ISIL and the Middle East, correcting the false narrative of corporate media go viral? There is no doubt that it will.

After it goes viral will there, because of the truth exposed, be a positive change on the ground in Iraq and the Middle East? No doubt.

Is it possible for ordinary men and women to create a better world? Yes.

In 2014 humanity rejects any further killing for profit

To those who find war and killing an acceptable power/business tactic:  Admit the inhumanity, absence of compassion for your fellow brothers and sisters, and moral bankruptcy of what you are advocating. Think again on how your thoughts, words, and actions affect others in devastating and harmful ways and what the consequences of your actions will be for future generations on this Earth.

See the death, destruction, sadness, and pain your actions have caused, then ask yourself if you have “done unto others” as “you would have done to you.”  If after consideration of that question you find yourself still advocating war and killing, please offer the people in the Middle East along with other war-torn regions a rational and reasonable explanation of your philosophical and spiritual thoughts which lead you to such conclusions.

Explain to all people how more war – mankind’s greatest failure – can possibly be seen as a source of some type of success, exactly the opposite of its reality. This is Orwellian logic summed up in the writer’s famous line from “1984” – War is Peace – or the idea that by “killing you, you will become saved” or from the Vietnam War, where soldiers came to “destroy the village to save it.” Connect the dots that run from your reasoning to the assessment that “war is good.”

To those who agree with war and killing: 99.9% of humanity disagrees with war and killing, and are becoming aware of the warmonger’s completely indefensible logic. What is occurring in the Middle East and other regions on Earth is the direct result of your application of that indefensible logic. You are directly accountable for the criminal harm done to men, women, and children in these lands. Perhaps now would be a good time to come clean, speak the truth, and start being a peacemaker instead of a purveyor of death.

To the masters of war: Ask yourself the question, “What did you do for your fellow-man?” Some believe this question is one of the first, if not the first, ones asked of those who leave the physical body in what people call death. Masters of war, does this question seem like perhaps the ultimate one? And should you or I, or any man, woman or child, wait until that inevitable transition to the world of spirit to think deeply about what it asks of us?

Masters of war, wouldn’t it be a good thing if you can answer that question as follows?:

“I did everything possible to prevent the harming and suffering of human beings. I did everything possible to help people live their lives in peace, brotherhood, and joy. I did everything possible to increase love’s manifestation and presence on this Earth. And to accomplish these I always spoke from my heart and spirit…  total truth.”


(Thank you to MintPressNews at YouTube)

For more information, please visit mintpressnews.com

Middle East Peace Inititative 2014.

Posted on June 23, 2104

by Jerry Alatalo

“He is not a lover who does not love forever… Love is all we have; the only way that each can help the other.”

– Euripides (480 B.C.-406 B.C.) Greek dramatist

ripple22With the tragic events that are occurring today in Iraq, Syria and the Middle East (ME), along with the seeming lack of good solutions coming from politicians, the corporate world or the media, this post’s sole purpose is to ask for potential solutions. After men and women around the Earth see what has happened in the Middle East – including recent history, long history, and today – almost every one of them have given thought toward solutions which would bring peace to that region. What complicates the Middle East situation is obviously the region’s possession of large energy resources, and the competition for control and profit from oil and natural gas.

The hope behind this post – “Global Middle East Peace Initiative 2014” –  is to begin an effort to identify ideas that would have practical and applicable results of increasing peace in the region. So, another way of wording/describing this effort is asking the question: “what needs to occur for true peace to come forth in the Middle East?” Is this an extremely challenging assignment?

No doubt about it.

Some may see such a proposal and immediately feel that there is no real chance to bring peace to the Middle East, that the ME has always been ravaged by war, and there is nothing anyone, or any group, can do to change that perennial condition. “Those people have fought each other for 1,000’s of years, there’s nothing you or I can do about it” is the view that many people have when Middle East violent events get brought up in discussions. Many, if not most, people (at least in America) have in this sense resigned themselves to the fact that war in the ME is just a forever thing.

Some percentage of people will have some inkling of possible peaceful solutions for the region but, probably because they’ve attempted to convey those thoughts without success: more war and killing seems like on an unstoppable march, have basically given up on peace in the ME even though their ideas have offered real potential. This percentage of men and women gave it their best effort for varying lengths of time and in small to large levels of intensity and focus, then became burnt out after seeing those benevolent works basically come to naught.

And then on the scale and measure of people concerned about the warring in the ME, there are those, probably because they have first-hand experience of tragedy and loss in the region. or a greater base of knowledge from much deeper/broader than average study of the history and facts, will never stop working for peace. This percentage of the population consists of men and women who live in the ME, veterans and military leaders (from both “sides” of battles), academicians/experts in the fields of Middle East Studies, history, economics, international relations, comparative religions, etc., politicians from all nations, peace and journalism activists, writers and artists, religious leaders, business leaders, and so on.

So, basically, when one looks at the various camps in the population on Earth, there are roughly three divisions when it comes to war and peace in the ME:

Those who’ve given up on peace in the Middle East – 100% cynical

Those who’ve become partially cynical, but will at times offer potential solutions – lukewarm

Those who’ve, because of profound direct experience, higher than average knowledge of Middle East reality, or an intense dedication to peace,, made up their minds to exert great effort to bring peace to the people living in the Middle East

Humanity must come together to create peace in the Middle East and everywhere on Earth

This post, this initiative intended to find ways to create a peaceful Middle East, may result in nothing in the way of real solutions for the men, women, and children of the Middle East region. On the other hand, depending on the contributions and subsequent discussion from men and women readers (hopefully from all nations and regions of the Earth), truly feasible Middle East peace solutions will become unveiled/discovered, relayed widely, and peace will come.

“The holiest of all spots on Earth is where an ancient hatred has become a present love.”

– A Course In Miracles

Let us begin.

Would a meeting like this bring peace to the Middle East?

The world’s first live meeting broadcasted to the entire human race over satellite/cable television and the internet. At this meeting will be the elected leader, or monarchical head, of each Middle East nation and the leaders of the permanent members (P5) of the United Nations Security Council. The meeting can take place in person at the United Nations in New York or via satellite or other means from remote locations.

The attendees will understand that the meeting has one purpose and one purpose only: “Peace in the Middle East.”

The start of the meeting will consist of talks without any readable material or notes. In other words, the first part of the meeting will be from each person’s heart. During this part of the meeting, each participant will be given unlimited time to share their views/proposals.

After each attendee is given sufficient time to speak, in the next portion of the meeting attendees can use written/presentation materials to clarify their spoken words – with time limits.

After that then, each participant will once again be given unlimited time to talk – without notes or reading material – ending their talk with their best general proposal for peace in the Middle East.

After each participant has spoken, each member will vote on each proposal that has been offered/made. If there is 100% agreement on any proposal then the meeting has achieved its highest possible success. The attendees will agree on the general proposal and pledge their personal honor to help with the drafting of a specific-language peace treaty.

If 100% agreement is not reached on any general proposal suggested by any of the participants, then the proposal with the highest number of “yes” votes will be then further discussed by those who voted “no” only. The “no” voters will be given unlimited time to suggest improvements to the one general proposal that received the highest number of “yes” votes, then any one of the “yes” voters will be given unlimited time to discuss the suggested improvements to the proposal and another vote will take place.

If any/all the original “no” voters change their votes to “yes” that will be seen as good and very positive. If the “no” voters once again vote “no” then it will become felt as disappointing, but they will have the option to decline signing the eventually drafted peace treaty.

This meeting proposal offers a good chance for peace in the Middle East because the format is one which emphasizes honor, truth, and coöperation.

The attendees will understand that their views/proposals will become known by the entire human race.


(Thank you to DogSwede1 at YouTube)