Sunday, September 8, 2013


12 ANGRY MEN is one of the great classics of American cinema. It shows the jury of a murder case arguing heatedly for two hours (of movie time) on a few fine points that would determine the innocence or guilt of the accused. The key clauses are "Innocent unless proven guilty", "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "due process", for which I admire the US Constitution, the Bill of rights and the spirit of justice.

My first question is whether this applies only on American citizens, or to the US as a whole when dealing with other nations. Apparently not.

In the case of Iraq, the accusation was possession of WMDs. The verdict, however, was: "Invade first, confirm later", and as it happened, no WMDs were later found. It has now been widely established that Bush and Rice had known about the absence of evidence, though perhaps not Blair, BEFORE the invasion. This I allocate to ulterior motives, and most of us now know what they were/are. I have to admit, I was fooled at the time, but, as The Who blasted out, "We won't be fooled again."

Now, the case of Syria. So far, in spite of international and citizen demands, the current administration has failed to produce one shred of evidence to prove its case that it was the Assad government that used the chemical weapon. See the article [US: Proven link of Assad to gas attack lacking] -
in which a top White House aide is quoted as saying, "... the administration lacks 'irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence' that skeptical Americans, including lawmakers who will start voting on military action this week, are seeking..."

In the article [US: 'Common-sense test' holds Assad responsible] -
for every "test result" that says yes, there is one or more that says no - e.g. that one faction of the rebels using it against another, or that the Assad regime was framed as a pretext for war.

There is another point that is of immense importance but generally overlooked. The following article
presents a timeline as follows:

"1991: Paul Wolfowitz, then Undersecretary of Defense, tells US Army General Wesley Clark that the US has 5-10 years to 'clean up those old Soviet client regimes, Syria, Iran, Iraq, before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.'

"2001: A classified plot is revealed to US Army General Wesley Clark that the US plans to attack and destroy the governments of 7 nations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.

(Fora.TV: Wesley Clark at the Commonwealth Club of California, October 3, 2007.

"2002: US Under Secretary of State John Bolton declares Syria a member of the 'Axis of Evil' and warned that 'the US would take action'.

This smells of premeditation since the Bush era and even earlier. In fact, it stinks to high heaven.

As for the upcoming UN report, as I understand it, it is only to determine whether chemical weapons had been used, but not by whom. This appears to be a foregone conclusion.

Anthony Marr, Founder and President
Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE)
Global Anti-Hunting Coalition (GAHC)

14 reasons to oppose the war on Syria

According to the Newsmax poll, in which some 120,000 people voted, 89% are against a US military strike against Syria, and I'm one of them.

I'm sure everyone has his/her reason(s) for voting NO. Here are mine:

1. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." (The Who) This has often if not always been the result of forced regime change, especially in the Middle East. If brutality is in their blood, then the regime may change, but the brutality will remain.

2. The rebels are not a unified entity. There are some 1200 groups/factions/sides among them. ( For the moment, they have a common enemy and act in alliance, but if/when the Assad regime is toppled, these groups/factions/sides would/will turn on each other in a bloody power struggle resulting in a civil war which the most brutal would/will win.

3. The current Syrian government is secular. Among the 1200 factions are Al Qaeda and Islamic extremists. How would you like a new regime that is brutal, Islamic AND Jihadist?

4. I don't see too many "limited wars" remaining limited. The Iraq War was said to be "Get in, depose, get out". Remember G.W. Bush's huge banner saying "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"? 10 years later... In the case of a civil war after the deposition of Assad, will the US stay in Syria "to keep the peace"? How many American lives will this then entail?

5. The congressional hearings have grossly underplayed and even buried the Russian factor, while as we speak, Russia is sending warships to the eastern Mediterranean where the US warships are massed. Should there be any direct conflict between the US and Russian forces, especially if it results in damage, ships sunk or fatalities on either side, by accident or intent, could the consequences be contained?

6. And then there is Iran, who vows to intervene should an attack against Syria occur. I doubt that it would directly tangle with the US, but it could certainly retaliate on Israel. If this happens, could the US not engage Iran as well, meaning, escalate the conflict?

7. I don't see too many "surgical strikes" that do not incur civilian casualties. General Martin Dempsey himself talked about "acceptable collateral damage." Where the victims are concerned, is it better to be killed by a bomb than by a gas?

8. Striking chemical weapon stockpiles with explosives risk releasing the poisonous gas among the populace. If that happens, who will bomb the US? China?

9. In the G20 summit, most countries question that the chemical weapons were necessarily unleashed by the Assad government and not by the rebels. This needs to be firmly resolved. So far, not a single shred of evidence has surfaced either way. Whatever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"? As is, the Obama posture is "Shoot, aim, ready", or "Shoot first, ask questions later", the key word being of course "Shoot". (I used to side with Obama over the Republicans on most issues, e.g. climate change, but not in this case. He is losing me, not that he cares.)

10. The US is already cash-strapped and debt-laden. According to Dempsey, a "surgical strike" alone, with "no boots on the ground", will cost "tens of millions of dollars". Is the US going to borrow more money to fund this new action? Or else take it from the poor and the elderly? Rest assured that the top 1% won't have to pay; on the contrary, they stand to gain.

11. What if the situation "gets out of hand" (a phrase that cropped up more than once in the congressional hearing)? How many more "tens of millions of dollars" is the US ready, able and willing to shell out?

12. If Assad is cornered and toppling is imminent, he might fire his chemical-weapons-loaded missiles at Israel, or worse, at a US warship. What would be the consequence of this, considering that the Middle East is already a powder keg waiting to explode?

13. Finally, what is the true motive of the US? Righteousness or Dominance? The invasion of Iraq was justified by assertions of presence of WMDs when none were found. We've been fooled too many times to not be skeptical.

14. There is in fact one more MAJOR reason, perhaps THE major reason, but one too big for this post. See:

Anthony Marr, Founder and President
Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE)
Global Anti-Hunting Coalition (GAHC)

On the Soul and Soul Mates

"Soul mates don't follow each other everywhere. They don't always reincarnate together or even on the same planet." - Shannon Wright

This piece is about the soul, but first, behold the Andromeda galaxy, one among the 100-300 billion galaxies in the known PHYSICAL Universe. It comprises 400 billion stars, many with planets. Many of these billions of planets, I believe, have given rise to life, some of which have given rise to civilization, such as our Planet Earth of our Milky Way Galaxy.

Among those planets with civilization, which I estimate to be in the billions, there are those with ultra-primitive civilizations and those with super-advanced civilizations. Of course advanced civilizations were once primitive. Ours is somewhat-advanced, but not super-advanced. In transition from somewhat-advanced to super-advanced, the civilization would necessarily encounter a bottle-neck, a global crisis, which the civilization, even the species that created it, may or may not survive.

The billions of planets in the Universe do not have the same time frame. Some were formed earlier, or later, than others. Therefore, various planets with civilization go through their crises at different times. The time of planetary crisis for the planet Earth of the Milky Way Galaxy is now.

And I believe it was my choice, for my own purpose, to incarnate into my body on this planet at this time. Considering how my life has developed since the birth of my body, is still developing today, and will continue to develop until my death, my self-given mission appears to be to help the Earth survive its current crisis.

Though I do not subscribe to the [One life on Earth (and only the planet Earth), followed by eternal Heaven or Hell] dogma, nor the kind of deity inherent therein, and I embrace Evolution, I do believe in the existence of the soul (and I have logical proof of this, just ask). When I say "my body", it is my soul speaking; when I say "my soul", it is my body speaking. So I'm not strictly an Atheist either, who does not believe in the existence of the soul. Call me an Independent.

The closest religious model I can relate to is one that espouses Reincarnation in the context of the Universe as modeled by Science, and at that with modifications to suit my logic.

Without scientific support, since the soul appears beyond the reach of contemporary science (my degree is in physics), I venture to say that there exists a parallel plane, or higher dimension, to the 4-dimensional physical world in which our bodies live. Allow me to call it the "Soul Plane", suffused by a "Soul Pool", or populated by a "Soul Community".

My AR friends will agree that we humans do not have a monopoly to the Soul. Other sentient beings - dolphins, elephants, chimpanzees - also have souls. By the same token, we can project that the sentient beings on other planets of other galaxies have souls as well.

By nature, sentient beings go through birth, life and death. While it lives, I believe that it maintains contact, or even oneness, with the soul community, by soul means. Some may lose or sever contact, which may make them spiritually adrift; some may be born without any soul re-incarnated into them, and be soulless, literally. When a sentient being dies, its soul is released back to rejoin the soul community, which in fact its has never left.

Since Time is the 4th-dimension, it does not apply to the Soul Dimension. In other words, to the soul, existence is timeless. When returned to the soul community, the soul may rest a day, or an eon, before being reincarnated into the body of some new born sentient being somewhere in the physical universe. My soul is in my human body as we speak, but after my body has passed, it may reincarnate into the body of some alien beauty on some planet in the Andromeda galaxy, there to perform another planet-healing mission. But regardless, since the soul of a sentient being is in touch with the soul community, which in turn is in touch with the soul of another sentient being, the souls of these two sentient beings can be in touch with each other through the soul community, whether on different parts of the same planet or on different planets in distant galaxies.

Given the existence of the soul, do Soul Mates exist? I believe they can. The Taoist symbol portrays that in everything there are dual Yin/Yang halves, each on its own being incomplete. If this applies to the soul as well as the body, then the soul-halves would be incomplete without their Yin/Yang soul mates.

It could be rare for two soul mates to be in the same time and space, but if they are in touch via the soul community, they could hold hands and embrace at will, although their bodies could be epochs and/or lightyears apart. It is like two lovers in the same house working on different tasks on their computers, or watching different movies.

So why are soul mates not together all the time? It comes to how a certain soul is committed to its own body for a lifetime. On to which planet in which galaxy at which time could be assigned by some higher power on the soul plane, but I believe that the choice can also be made by the soul itself. As I mentioned before, my soul may have chosen my body to re-incarnate into at this time of Planet Earth, for a certain purpose, which I believe is both higher-determined and self-determined.

A soul mate may want eternal peace on the soul plane and never want to reincarnate ever again. Her soul mate may want to go back down and heal a few more critical planets. This means that the body of her soul mate will never find a sentient being in which she inhabits, on the same planet or in the universe, period. But this does not mean that they are separate since his soul is in touch with the soul community, and the soul community is where she is.

Blessed are those soul mates whose bodies find one another on the same planet, at the same time. Might I say that they have good fortune and excellent timing. Those who believe that they have found their soul mates under the same roof ought to celebrate this blessing in every thanksgiving and anniversary.

For two soul mates to meet in body on the physical plane, I believe it is as easy, or as difficult, as to agree on a common PURPOSE.

Anthony Marr, Founder and President
Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE)
Global Anti-Hunting Coalition (GAHC)