RE: Angela�s Plan

"I have said for a while now that I think we need to form an umbrella
group.� But everytime I do so I have been told to calm down and chill
and wait for the bus.� Sorry, the bus passed us while we were waiting
and asleep.� It swept by with such a speed that we didn't even�
recognise its passing."

Cassandra, I understand, and you're absolutely right! I also want to
make sure you don't feel I am 'stealing' your suggestion and posting
it as My Big Idea. I hate playground politics and as adults I don't
think it's at all constructive to fall back on them, as tempting as it is.

If we were really retentive we'd be pasting and claiming: "I said it
first! No! I said it first!" And then we could all reach for our Lugers or
AK47

So, a suggestion: each of us takes time to research peace orgs and
find out what they are standing for and whether they appear to be
good targets. How does that sound? We need to put a deadline on it,
otherwise we'll just be sitting on the bus waiting for the driver
(GROAN)

Please get back to me as the more people do this, the quicker we'll
get a start.

Duende wrote: I will be posting this on the forum set up at Across The Pond as I feel that may turn out to be the natural home for Angela's Plan, since it is both British and American troops who must withdraw. But I want to have some feedback here aswell. I�ve been reading posts on other forums with nothing to do with politics (Peakoil.com) where Americans are talking a lot about the Israeli bombings of Lebanon. I�ve read comments posted by readers on news and information sites commenting on articles about Israel�s use of white phosphor, cluster bombs, targeting civilians etc. I have been shocked at the level of bloodlust some people show, who are confident in their assertions that force and war is the only answer. But most of all I have been struck by the ease with which we all judge and justify our own and other�s remarks and beliefs. It seems to me that so long as we justify our disagreement with someone/something with judgements such as: �that�s what I�d expect from a lefty/ commie peacenik coward�, or such as these: �she�s just a left-wing feminist�; �he�s a Moslem radical�; �he�s a rabid liberal� etc. there will be no progress towards settlement, there will be no negotiation. The first obstacle is oneself. We do not need to put people into boxes in order to understand what they are saying. The comment: �I see where you�re coming from� means: �Ah, I see you are a liberal/ communist/ atheist/ orthodox Jew etc. The idea that someone has �an agenda� buys into the same rigid and limited concept that we are all just defending our political or religious viewpoints, rather than defending our deeply held need to live in peace, and without the threat of war. When the Angela Plan was first mooted as a �movement� I saw nothing but difficulties and obstacles, and saw no future for any such initiative. The war in Iraq has become such a Behemoth of a problem, involving corporate plundering, the violence we all know about, and the undeclared civil/internecine war, that I saw only complicated and insurmountable problems. Now I have actually narrowed my focus and this is what I think we can do: rather than found a new organisation, we should try to bring existing organisations together under one common cause: American withdrawal. This needs to be done in America, as international viewpoints are barely taken into consideration by the xenophobic G.W. Bush admin. I feel The Pond may be the natural home for this initiative since it is both America and Britain who must withdraw, hence it is the American and British public who must form the critical mass of opposition to the American led occupation. There are many grass-roots organisations working for peace and campaigning to bring the troops home, the American public (or so we are told) are increasingly turning against the occupation, Bush has the lowest ratings of any president before him and his party are desperate to maintain their powerbases at home. Experience shows that only when opposition at home reaches a critical mass (Vietnam) does the administration start thinking about doing what the people actually want. Reaching that critical mass MUST NOT take as long as it did to end the Vietnam war. It must be reached soon, and I think one way is to draw the various groups who currently don�t have a link with one another together: strength in numbers. For this, I suggest we form the umbrella pressure group which will put these organisations together with the sole aim of becoming such a loud noise that the government will have to sit up and listen. We want the troops out of Iraq. I also want the Israeli�s and Palestinians to get back to a negotiating table, and I want all foreign troops out of Afghanistan. These don�t necessarily have to be separate issues. With a working pressure group dedicated to bringing all non-violent activists with a common- ground together, we could also turn our attention to these problems. Maybe this is a lazy way out? I mean, I�m sort of taking advantage of all the work done by those who have formed and who run the various pressure groups which already exist. But I just feel it would be a waste of hard work to set up yet another non-governmental peace organisation, and the time it would take to get it up and running is time Iraq doesn�t have. I know there are groups out there which are founded by Christians and Moslems, groups affiliated with political parties or charities owned and run by churches. I feel the organisation which brings them together should be officially neutral, without political or religious affiliations although members will of course come from all sorts of backgrounds. This is something like the negotiating table differing parties are forced to sit down at during any labour strike. It would be a little bit like the moderators sitting back and encouraging negotiation and communication between the employers and the employees. It�s not a big idea, it doesn�t involve lobbying for support from politicians or corporations. But please let me know what you think, and add suggestions. I have no need to listen to more rhetoric about why America should not withdraw now, or any other argument in favour of arms, or war. I�ve read enough and seen enough.

Bismillah,

Duende, I read this and searched for it so that I could reply to the text you wrote that I have bolded above.

I agree with this and believe it is the most important thing we can work on together here at IC and everywhere else.  That is, next to stopping the devastation of the world by American-backed bombings.

Why call each other names anyway?  People change.  That's what the forgiveness of Allah, SWT, is about.  Allah, The All-Knowing, knows human nature and has decreed that His Mercy is greater Than His Wrath.  Why do we humans have to switch this around?  Looking at the world today, the powers-that-be exercise no self-control and seek disproportionate revenge, and we the citizens of the world, are modeling this in our daily interpersonal interactions.  AstagfirAllah.

Salaamu Alaykum

Edited by herjihad

I will be posting this on the forum set up at Across The Pond as I feel
that may turn out to be the natural home for Angela's Plan, since it is
both British and American troops who must withdraw. But I want to
have some feedback here aswell.

I�ve been reading posts on other forums with nothing to do with
politics (Peakoil.com) where Americans are talking a lot about the
Israeli bombings of Lebanon. I�ve read comments posted by readers
on news and information sites commenting on articles about Israel�s
use of white phosphor, cluster bombs, targeting civilians etc. I have
been shocked at the level of bloodlust some people show, who are
confident in their assertions that force and war is the only answer.

But most of all I have been struck by the ease with which we all judge
and justify our own and other�s remarks and beliefs. It seems to me
that so long as we justify our disagreement with someone/something
with judgements such as: �that�s what I�d expect from a lefty/
commie peacenik coward�, or such as these: �she�s just a left-wing
feminist�; �he�s a Moslem radical�; �he�s a rabid liberal� etc. there will
be no progress towards settlement, there will be no negotiation. The
first obstacle is oneself. We do not need to put people into boxes in
order to understand what they are saying. The comment: �I see
where you�re coming from� means: �Ah, I see you are a liberal/
communist/ atheist/ orthodox Jew etc. The idea that someone has
�an agenda� buys into the same rigid and limited concept that we are
all just defending our political or religious viewpoints, rather than
defending our deeply held need to live in peace, and without the
threat of war.

When the Angela Plan was first mooted as a �movement� I saw
nothing but difficulties and obstacles, and saw no future for any such
initiative. The war in Iraq has become such a Behemoth of a problem,
involving corporate plundering, the violence we all know about, and
the undeclared civil/internecine war, that I saw only complicated and
insurmountable problems. Now I have actually narrowed my focus
and this is what I think we can do: rather than found a new
organisation, we should try to bring existing organisations together
under one common cause: American withdrawal. This needs to be
done in America, as international viewpoints are barely taken into
consideration by the xenophobic G.W. Bush admin. I feel The Pond
may be the natural home for this initiative since it is both America
and Britain who must withdraw, hence it is the American and British
public who must form the critical mass of opposition to the American
led occupation.

There are many grass-roots organisations working for peace and
campaigning to bring the troops home, the American public (or so
we are told) are increasingly turning against the occupation, Bush
has the lowest ratings of any president before him and his party are
desperate to maintain their powerbases at home. Experience shows
that only when opposition at home reaches a critical mass (Vietnam)
does the administration start thinking about doing what the people
actually want. Reaching that critical mass MUST NOT take as long as
it did to end the Vietnam war. It must be reached soon, and I think
one way is to draw the various groups who currently don�t have a
link with one another together: strength in numbers.

For this, I suggest we form the umbrella pressure group which will
put these organisations together with the sole aim of becoming such
a loud noise that the government will have to sit up and listen. We
want the troops out of Iraq.

I also want the Israeli�s and Palestinians to get back to a negotiating
table, and I want all foreign troops out of Afghanistan. These don�t
necessarily have to be separate issues. With a working pressure
group dedicated to bringing all non-violent activists with a common-
ground together, we could also turn our attention to these problems.

Maybe this is a lazy way out? I mean, I�m sort of taking advantage of
all the work done by those who have formed and who run the various
pressure groups which already exist. But I just feel it would be a
waste of hard work to set up yet another non-governmental peace
organisation, and the time it would take to get it up and running is
time Iraq doesn�t have.

I know there are groups out there which are founded by Christians
and Moslems, groups affiliated with political parties or charities
owned and run by churches. I feel the organisation which brings
them together should be officially neutral, without political or
religious affiliations although members will of course come from all
sorts of backgrounds.

This is something like the negotiating table differing parties are
forced to sit down at during any labour strike. It would be a little bit
like the moderators sitting back and encouraging negotiation and
communication between the employers and the employees.

It�s not a big idea, it doesn�t involve lobbying for support from
politicians or corporations. But please let me know what you think,
and add suggestions. I have no need to listen to more rhetoric about
why America should not withdraw now, or any other argument in
favour of arms, or war. I�ve read enough and seen enough.

I think that may very well be the case, Signreader, and it saddens me.  None of us can afford to regionalise our shock and dismay at what is happening in the world today.  This is clearly part of a preconceived plan to take over control the entire Middle East. I have suggested that we form an umbrella group, gather information about, and contact other grass roots groups, but so far the response has been disappointing. We are all very good at talk, not so good at action. But nothing else but people power will ever change this dominated planet.  Is this the beginning of the end, or the end of the beginning.  That's the problem, isn't it?  We just don't know what part of history we inhabit. 

In the meantime, my heart goes out to the whole Middle East.  For that reason, I am posting a petition under "A Plea for Lebanese Civilians" in Current events.  It came from Canada. Please anyone who reads it, consider and sign.  I know, we all know, that these things don't do an awful lot of good.  But doing nothing achieves nothing.  Which is better?