May 2003:
Question: A recent (Dutch) newspaper article showing close-up
photos of Saddam Hussein and one of his doubles pointed up the physical
differences although the likeness was remarkably good. The article claimed
that Saddam Hussein might already be dead, possibly killed in early
bombing. Is this true?
Answer: Yes. It is my information that Saddam Hussein was badly
injured in the bombing of Baghdad on 20 March and died subsequently
from his injuries. The man seen recently on Iraqi television is therefore
(and I think obviously so) a ‘look-alike’ acting the part
of Saddam.
Question: Why should people around the world go on demonstrating
— after all, it didn’t stop the war?
Answer: Did anyone really believe that a march or two, even
if across the globe, would stop the war? It was obvious from the beginning
that the Bush administration was determined to get rid of Saddam Hussein
with or without UN sanction. Mr Bush is determined to do what his father
‘failed’ to do and so prove himself as big as, or bigger than,
his father. The people behind him have their eyes on Iraqi oil.
But this should not stop the demonstrating, therefore. On the contrary,
the People’s Voice should be heard louder than ever. Peace and
justice depend on it, ultimately. And — most importantly —
it invokes Maitreya. It is essential to keep informing governments that
peace, and justice, and freedom are demanded by the people as their
right. That when governments opt for war while often the majority of
the people are against, the governments are not serving the peoples’
needs and must go. These continuous demonstrations also speed up Maitreya’s
emergence.
Question: There have been millions of people marching in more
than 600 cities in the world. This shows a new level of consciousness,
but still the war began in Iraq. Why?
Answer: It wasn’t the soldiers who are now invading Iraq
who did the marching. Millions of people — according to my Master
12.5 million people — demonstrated on 15 February and, with the
people who were sympathetic, that amounts to about 1 billion 28 million
people. It didn’t stop the invasion. Why should it? Humanity marches,
demonstrates, and some people think that this should immediately result
in peace — that the Masters can give them peace. They [the Masters]
cannot give them peace if men want war. The US were planning to invade
Iraq before 15 February — why didn’t the marching start before
then? Why didn’t the marching start right at the very beginning
of the thoughtform of invasion — a year ago, at least months and
months ago? Marching every day, not one day, but every day — millions
of people marching, demonstrating every day and demanding peace. Then
the Masters can do something more. It is a question of the intensity
of the demand, the desire.
Peace does not lie in the hands of the Masters — They don’t
have peace to hand out. We have to create it. We have to force the
governments which break the law — because that is what they have
done, they have broken the law — which if kept would automatically
create peace. They break and defy the law and invade another country.
They have freewill. But that freewill can be curtailed by humanity itself,
if there is enough intensity, if enough people demonstrate their will
that the law should be upheld.
Q. What is your, and your Master’s, reaction to the worldwide
peace demonstrations?
A. They are necessary, relevant and timely. And they must continue and
GROW to produce change.
Q. (1) Do you think the mass call for peace and justice is having any
effect on the US administration and on Tony Blair? (2) Can Tony Blair
afford to ignore the people’s will?
A. (1) There is little sign of it. (2) If a war is short, perhaps. In
the longer term though, it is not likely.
Q. What has happened to Tony Blair? Has power corrupted him?
A. I believe he is confused and does not know what to do — whether
to follow the American or the European view on Iraq.
Q. (1) Is war with Iraq now inevitable? (2) Do you think Saddam Hussein
will survive the war?
A. (1) No, but more likely than not. Mr Bush and his entourage seem
absolutely determined to get rid of Saddam Hussein. (2) Yes. He has
a specially built ‘bunker’ which is literally impregnable
to the heaviest bombing, and in which a sizeable army can live for many
months.
Q. Is there a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda?
A. No.
Q. Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction? (1) biological? (2) chemical?
(3) nuclear?
A. Yes. Not necessarily usable. (2) Yes. Not necessarily usable. (3)
No.
Q. How many countries have ‘weapons of mass destruction’ —
nuclear and/or chemical/biological?
A. 28.
Q. Do you think Iraq’s stockpile of ‘weapons of mass destruction’
is the real reason for the US Government’s apparent eagerness to
attack Iraq?
A. No. I think that is a convenient excuse to satisfy: a) Mr Bush’s
obsession to topple Saddam Hussein which his father failed to do; and
b) the long-standing ambition of the US Republican Government to replace
Saddam Hussein with a ‘puppet’, so-called democratic, government
which would give the US access to, and control of, Iraqi oil reserves
— the second-largest known reserves in the world. The upcoming
Congressional elections in November also provide the Republican Party,
if it can achieve victory over Saddam Hussein, with an excellent chance
of gaining absolute control at home.
Q. How dangerous is Iraq if attacked by the USA? What would the consequences
be for the Middle East, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the wider
world?
A. Disastrous.
Q. How dangerous is Iraq if not attacked by the USA?
A. Iraq has attacked her neighbours before — Iran, Kuwait —
so needs close watching, but would be much more dangerous, for example
to Israel, if attacked by the USA. An attack by the US on Iraq would
also have a disastrous effect on much of the Arab world. President Mubarak
of Egypt and others have warned the US that the Arab world is against
such an attack.
Q. (1) Are there advisers close to the US President who are against
attacking Iraq? (2) Is the President open to reason? (3) Is he capable
of heeding warnings?
A. (1) Yes. (2) He appears not to be open to reason. (3) Yes, but I
think he will need some persuading to abandon his obsession with Iraq.
Q. How would you describe the US President’s psychology or mind-set
at the moment?
A. Power-drunk.
Q. How does the Hierarchy view the purported legality of a war against
Iraq and the aims of the US regime to effect a “regime change”
in Iraq?
A. They see that as totally illegal, and the result of the US President’s
obsession with Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
Q. (1) What will be the consequences if Saddam Hussein is removed from
office? (2) Is he really a threat to US security?
A. (1) It would be a very bloody removal. Have the people of Iraq been
asked for their approval? (2) No, not at all. The antagonism is in the
mind of the US President.
Q. (1) If the Sharon regime in Israel says it will respond with all
force if attacked by Iraq what exactly do they mean? (2) And what would
the consequences be?
A. (1) Sharon is not explicit but it must mean that Israel would respond
to an attack with nuclear weapons if necessary. (2) Disastrous.
Q. Will Israel be in danger during the Iraq-US conflict?
A. If it spreads, yes.
Q. Why doesn’t Maitreya come forward now on television to prevent
a war with Iraq?
A. For the Masters, human free will is sacrosanct: They never infringe
our free will. Maitreya makes a plan and there may be thousands of different
aspects to take into account in deciding what and when to do a certain
thing. That plan is not set in stone, it is pliable, flexible —
but human free will would never be infringed.
To initiate a war on Iraq is a decision which seems to have been taken
by the US Government (no-one else wants such a war) and for Maitreya
to appear openly ‘to prevent it’ would be an infringement
of our free will, however misguided or destructive such aggression might
be. It is not up to Maitreya to make or unmake our decisions. Besides,
when He does come forward, He will not immediately have the influence
the questioner seems to ascribe to Him.
The Law has to be obeyed. The Masters are Masters because They live
by the Law — the Law of Life, of evolution. There are things which
you can do, must do, and things you must not do. We do anything. We
infringe each other’s free will — we murder, injure, maim
— we do it with words and deeds. That is why we have problems,
why we have illness, why we suffer.
Q. Many believe that oil is a major factor behind what passes for foreign
policy and also on the world’s stock markets: (1) Is it? (2) And
will it play a key role in bringing the world’s economic structure
down?
A. (1) Yes. (2) No. Essentially, the catalyst for collapse and change
is the insatiable greed of the currency speculators who exist in every
country.
Q. Do you think the possible war with Iraq will negatively influence
the world's stock markets? Or will the markets rally as they sometimes
do once war becomes inevitable?
A. If there is war – which looks extremely likely – the time
factor becomes very important. If, as I am sure the American military
hope, it is short, sharp and clinical, the markets would probably rally
for a time. If, on the other hand, it is long drawn out and costly in
terms of – American – lives, then it would, I believe, have
a very negative effect on the world's stock markets and economy. Either
way, of course, it is folly.
Q. The US Budget deficit is at its highest level ever; is the Iraq conflict
partly a "weapon of mass distraction" to take attention away
from the weak economic situation?
A. In part, yes.
Q. When will America start showing more of its soul aspect and less
of its immature trigger-happy personality aspect?
A. Over the next three years, beginning in about a year from now.
Q. What is the best way to deal with dictators: (1) Offer them safe
passage and a haven elsewhere, or, (2) if possible, use a sort of international
arrest warrant and thake them to court and trial in The Hague, or (3)
leave them in place and let the people of the country deal with them
as they see fit?
A. A combination of (1) and, if necessary (according to the circumstances
of crime), (2).
