India and Pakistan – at War?

While the elected and paid Democrat officials who have apparently done absolutely nothing of consequence since being elected are busily using Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, make a jack of himself while spouting character assassinations, a war erupted.  Syria and ISIS have stabilized, Venezuela is a Socialist nightmare, but another nightmare, one that could escalate rapidly within a blink, is erupting.

Pakistan and India are bombing each other – and few seem interested enough to take notice before it becomes a thriving cancer.   But they should be – both these countries, which have despised each other for centuries, possess nuclear weapons.

Jaish, a terrorist group that is an offshoot of Al Qaeda and resides in India’s Kashmir is defiantly working diligently to separate their Kashmir from India and create their own Pakistan aligned, sharia law statehood.  It is a stronghold, and it was divied up after WWII by the every arrogant – British.

The land is jointly owned by India, Pakistan and China. India’s portion is occupied and ruled by its historical Hindu and Buddhist community.  Pakistan is Muslim.  While China controls roughly 20% of the land area.  No one has any intention of relinquishing one hectar – ever.

Historically, Kashmir was Hindu/Buddhist until Muslim rule in 1339.  Since then it has been conquered and ruled by Turks, Afghans, and Sikhs again, in the 1800’s.  In 1846 the British took over and later partitioned the country between Pakistan and India completely ignoring China’s possession. Thus skirmishes and wars have erupted  since.

Jaish was formed as an adjunct to the Pakistan military in the late 1990’s and subsequently has been a lead terrorist group in over six attacks including the most recent suicide bombing over India in which 40 security personnel were killed.

India retaliated unleashing a payload of bombs over Jaish strongholds in Kashmir.   The strike caused Pakistani air forces to scramble.  Pakistan’s Prime Minister has issued a statement that they will“respond decisively and comprehensively to any aggression or misadventure” by India.

Pakistan is well aware that Kashmir is a Jaish stronghold, and has done nothing to mitigate this terrorist group.   Historically, funding has surreptitiously been made through principles from Saudi Arabia and the US, particularly under Bush and the former Monarchial Cabal of Saudi Arabia.  Bush is gone and the Saudi Cabal was ousted and sanctioned by Prince Mohammed Bin Salmon who recently visited India and pledged to fight terrorism alongside India.

It is another shift in the allies that were, and the allies that are now in place under regime changes in both the US and Saudi Arabia. 

Numerous information outlets have previously alluded to collusion and funding between various terrorist organizations and Israel’s Netanyahu, Qatar, Saudi Arabia under a legion of rulers including Muhammed Bin Nayef, Mugrin, Salman, Nayef and Sultan, all of whom died in 2011 except for the Crown Prince’s father, Salman, as well as the US under Bush and Obama.

Jaish included.  Why?  To foment chaos, war, and disrupt the balance so as to create a Cabal unified.

Both Prime Ministers are tense with dialogue a possibility, although none has been established.  The primary issue is the fact that Pakistan continues to protect Jaish despite their terrorist label, and despite their repeated skirmishes against India.   As such, India believes Jaish is a representative of Pakistan.

Reminiscent of the Israeli/Palestinian regurgitation of hate; bombs are levied, casualties are now civilian, and there is no one who wants to intervene and take sides.

But this is what happens when boundaries are redrawn… and allotments are arbitrarily contrived.  It is why Africa remains under-developed, corrupt, and slaves within their own governments.  This is what the Cabal wants to create in the US, the EU, India, etc…   Only slaves can be ruled under a Dictatorship.  Only a Dictatorship can support Socialism and Marxism.

Peace, Truth and The Peacemakers Calling

We are called to be ‘peacemakers’. But what is Peace? How is it defined? Is it the absence of conflict or is it the aggressive actionable stance of creating relationship?

We are all ‘a chip off the block’, fragments of God, with jagged edges and jigsaw puzzle pieces. But when we come together as a family, with mother, father and children, we smooth these edges and become more like God. The pieces fit together to make a larger more whole piece closer, more like, the image of God. When we fragment the family, our edges are sharper, more pronounced, and our piece withers in a kaleidescope of warped imagery.

Peacemakers do not avoid conflict they confront it with love and compassion, they resolve it and use the strength of God to absolve the issue each and every time. To hold it like a knight, not a coward, to seek the truth within the conflict and make it known. This world we live in is an example of what it means to not face the truth, because it is the truth that will create peace. Taking responsibility. Owning what is your sin. Looking at the log that gauges your eye.

The UN was created in 1945 to end conflict and bring peace to the world. But it has failed miserably. In fact, between 1946 and 2013, there were 331 incidences of armed conflict. Why? Because the method, the rationale for prevention is not rooted in the core cause – individual emptiness, a Godlessness that permeates the very heart and soul of humanity. How can we possibly stave off conflict if we don’t address the truth of the cause?

When I Googled, ‘how to achieve peace’, most of the entries were Buddhist in nature and reflected a desire for inner peace. There were a few political adjuncts that claimed peace was achieved through freedom and a barrage of solid rules imposed by government. Other sites stressed ‘the avoidance of war’ as a means of peace. Still another site claimed that satisfying one’s own desires first will ultimately lead to peace with others. YIKES!

But men are flawed, and when they rely on their own person to achieve that which has never been known to mankind, they will fail. Again and again. And yet, we continue to believe that man is the solution. That avoidance is the solution. That independence is the solution. That if we avoid conflict, it will disappear.

Ten thousand years later, it still has not worked. So why do we keep butting our heads against this wall of thorns when it has never worked?

The false premise is that since man is the creator of chaos, man must be the source of peace. From the outside. But it cannot happen when the outside is ruled by pride and arrogance and vengeance and immorality. It simply will not work.

Then of course, there is the step-by-step instructions on how to achieve peace with ‘no compromising’ being fundamental to the doctrine. But ‘no compromising’ begs pride, arrogance, rightness, the moral depravity that creates the conflict in the first place. It is a very naïve approach to a very complicated issue. Recently, my husband invoked the ‘Christians don’t compromise’ doctrine in the midst of a fight. Really? I had to look that one up.

The first problem came up in the definition of compromise. Some believed it to mean ‘caving in’, while others observed that it was a give and take, a leaning in and out. I suppose they are both right in a sense, but circumstances are so diverse and broad, an absolute is definitely NOT the rationale.

Biblically, the phrase, “Christians Don’t compromise”, is addressed in the Bible, but it is in the context of there is no compromise with regard to God. No compromise with regard to the commandments of God. And no compromise with regard to sin. It’s a bit like the statement, “I’m sort of pregnant”. You can’t be in a gray area within these black and whites. But that does not mean that there aren’t vast gray areas of issue to mediate within Christianity that are a product of individual circumstances. So to make the statement in the context of a marriage dispute is somewhat …well, out of context.

My husband attempted to invoke ‘truth’ as his and his alone within the frame of not compromising. Truth belonged to him and no one else.  Uh oh…   And in so doing completely missed the point. There are hard truths, absolute facts, and then there are perspective truths, subject to interpretation. By invoking his truth, he was avoiding conflict (his fallback) by refusing to hear me. In so doing, we had no peace, what we had was a dictatorship rule.

While this earth may never find worldly peace, we are still called to understand that we must try. We are called to try as peacemakers.  Not peace as a form of government rule and protocol and doctrine and punishment and judgment, but peace that is based on the values and morals and integrity and spirituality of God and His Word.

And ultimately, Peace will only be had when we have Truth – not your truth or my truth – but THE Truth.

Drones – Civilian Casualties A Moot Point

Battles used to be fought on foot with soldiers staring icily at their foe across a field waiting for the cry to “GO”. They saw the whites of their enemies eyes and the ensuing battles were horrifically bloody and psychologically devastating. Many stories rose of soldiers realizing that they were killing another human being whom they didn’t even know and questioning the order.  More soldiers lived a nightmare that never ended.

Now we use drones. There is no psyche involved because the act now takes on more of a game-like phenomena. Piloting a drone from a distance takes away the reality. And taking away the reality alleviates the ethical and moral feelings that are associated with killing.

The biggest, most controversial consequence of drones is the civilian casualties. No one really knows any true ‘count’, the numbers are simply not available, but we do know that it is a common occurrence. We can be sure that numbers released by the government have been well scrubbed. The offsetting argument in favor of drones is that fewer soldiers are injured or killed. But drones are hardly as accurate as we are led to believe and frequently target the wrong people. That’s called ‘human error’. And sometimes, entire peace loving families become the unintended casualty.

The media rarely report about the negative aspects of the the drone program. It’s called censorship.

Two drone targets: Ayman Zawahiri and Qari Hussain. Two attempted strikes on Zawahiri left 76 children and 29 adults dead. Casualties. Zawahiri is still alive. Six drone strikes on Hussain have left him dead, but additional casualties included 115 adults and 13 children. Sacrifices? Or sacrificial lambs? Either way you look at it, these people were according to Hillary Clinton’s heart wrenching compassion – ‘casualties of war – it happens’.

In Pakistan, in Yemen, in Somalia, the strikes are reported but rarely are the ‘casualties’ identified. As of November, attempts to kill 41 ‘targets’ resulted in the death of nearly 1150 civilians. It’s easy to sit in the White House and offer condolences, but the Play Station module is making death a robotic unemotional act. As for the media, each time a drone targets a particular ‘Player’ the press release states that the ‘Player’ is dead, only to have him come alive again – oops.

Because the strikes need to be supported, the government and the press don’t discuss the misses, the children, the women. Instead they merely relay the information from a purely war worn statement indicating ‘target’ or ‘signature strike’ or some such military definition. Convoys are typically targeted, but wedding parties have become the casualty as they resemble a convoy from thousands of miles away in a small room where Play Stations take out their orders.

And while breaches in information have given us some insight into the killings, there is still much more that is not disclosed. A few legalities have surfaced in that drones have accidentally killed a number of Americans, but shouldn’t the legalities extend to ALL casualties? Shouldn’t concern be more widespread? How many have died? We don’t even know, we have no names, but we can be sure it is multiple thousands. Injuries are not even tallied. Maiming.

The other casualties are the homes, the farms, the oilfields, the animals, the infrastructure, the antiquities, the historic. Cities lay in ruble. Livelihoods are decimated. Food becomes scarce. Water a shortage. Deaths rise as these costs take their toll as well. But we don’t think about it because it isn’t happy news, it isn’t in our neighborhood, it isn’t our children.

At $6.5 million for the Reaper drone, they are roughly 1/3 the cost of their piloted counterpart. But that doesn’t bear the entire picture. Engines of drones, like all aircraft, have a lifespan. Drone hours logged in are spectacular, for example the MQ-1’s have logged in over a million hours of flight time. The newer MQ-9 Reaper has logged in over 220,000 hours already. To put that in perspective, the operational lifespan of the Predator drone engine is 1080 miles. Between 2009 and 2011, 31 drones crashed due to ‘joystick’ errors. The cost per hour to fly a drone ranges from a low of $3700ish to a high of nearly $50,000 for the RQ-4B Global Hawk Drone. Perspective: on the low side, 1 million hours of flight time for one class of drones x the lowend cost of $3700 per hour = $3.7billion.

Lastly, while the US is ignoring the casualty losses, the countries hit are not. Anti-American sentiment has grown considerably. And one military advisor to the WH speaking at a Congressional hearing stated that drones will never win a war, only troops on the ground.

War is supposed to be horrific so that we learn it must be avoided at all costs. That’s changed, and the casualties are the fault line.