Professor Jeffrey Sachs Speaks Truth About Syria on CBNC?
Syria: 600,000 killed, 14 million displaced (Admiral statement)
Listening carefully, note the critical thinking of the commentators. Look beyond words and really listen to what is being said. Ask questions. Ask – is it true?
The interviewees are an Admiral and Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Centre for Sustainable Development, Earth Institute from Columbia University.
There are cynical comments re: paid commentary. There are comments due to illegality on the part of the US being revealed. It is noteworthy that the Admiral refers to the gas attacks (see previous blog). He speaks of Middle Eastern fatigue. This in my view is a shallow insensitive statement given the murders of innocent people, soldiers and the reality of war crimes.
So the truth is that the US look for a reason to be in Syria. So what is the motive? The arms traders were mentioned. What do you think or feel?
Jeffrey Sachs talks about regime change shrouded in secrecy and never explained, he states this creates chaos. He contends that more bombings is not the response. He advises to go to UN Security Council to speak with Russia to agree on a strategy to end the fight. The US stop overthrowing a government or support rebels committed to overthrowing a government. This is contrary to International Law, common sense. He says we (US) can’t do it, it creates ongoing crisis and facing an imminent confrontation with Russia, he states.
Robert Mueller, FBI Director video testimony is shown with commentaries and how his statement is received. The commentators demonstrate their perspective and point the finger back to the US. This is important as there is significant denial in the United States regime which has enabled endless wars and suppression of critiques and more public commentary around freedom of speech as a real value that is supported.
The key is to listen to hear what is actually being said and then feel beneath words. This is discerning for truth.
I think Rotary’s Four Way Test is the best way to assess and question if it moves us towards peace.
- Is it the truth?
- Is it fair to all concerned?
- Will it build goodwill and better friendships?
- Will it be beneficial to all concerned?
Do wars do this? What do YOU think or feel?
The commentators reveal the awakening that is occurring across the planet. People are starting to question seriously their leaders as they seek to determine what is true and what is not. There is anger and outrage.
Moreover, there are courageous intellectuals coming out against the prevailing discourse, this is a sign of the times as people are no longer towing the line and realising they have a duty to inform the public.
This is another video critiqued by commentators in assessing the news media.
Note: I don’t support or agree with the abusive criticism or put downs as it is a form of bullying, it will not serve his point of view. I do laugh in a light hearted way but don’t condone it. I think a neutral commentary is better as people are open to hear the commentator and the facts presented. The commentator is being emotional, righteous and outraged in his tone which does create and continue conflict (opposition) rather than highlight truth and resolution about the matter. What you resist persists what you look at disappears is the universal law.
I note the commentator is divisive not unifying and ‘us and them’. I note there is no mention of drivers of the conflict, what are the motives? and what are the solutions? That would be helpful and empowering. His vitriol in the end is really concerning as he rants and the extreme right and left become the same. He doesn’t realise his energy is war like and this is the mirror. He is at war.
I reflect on the Rotary Four Way test. I see conflict and anger escalating as truths are revealed and inflamed. The show is feeding off negative news and declares their truth is the truth and puts down those who differ.
Peace journalism reports both sides impartially.
Conflict resolution in the media is the way to discern truth from propaganda to objectively evaluate. However, this is democracy and these are alternate voices. Again, what do YOU think or feel about what you are viewing?