http://funhike.blogspot.com/2007/09/ram-setu-according-to-records.html
Ram’s Bridge, also called Adam's Bridge is a chain of limestone shoals, between the islands of Mannar, near northwestern Sri Lanka, and Rameswaram, off the southeastern coast of India. The bridge is 30 miles (48 km) long and separates the Gulf of Mannar (southwest) from the Palk Strait (northeast). Some of the sandbanks are dry and the sea in the area is very shallow, being only 3 ft to 30 ft (1 m to 10 m) deep. It was reportedly passable on foot up to the 15th century until storms deepened the channel: temple records seem to say that Ram’s Bridge was complete above sea level until it broke in a cyclone in 1480 AD.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Sethusamudram Controversy - My Ram
http://funhike.blogspot.com/2007/09/sethusamudram-controversy-my-ram.html
It is a situation for which most Indians – regardless of religion and community – are not prepared. Imagine someone stating on oath that Ramayana and Ram are fictional characters and there is no ‘scientific basis’ for their existence hundreds of thousands years ago.
And what rubs salt in the wound is the fact that this statement comes from an agency of the Government of India.
In an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, the Director-general of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has said on Wednesday (11 September) that there was no archaeological evidence to establish the existence of Lord Ram or other characters of the Ramayan.
Denying that Ram Sethu or Adam’s Bridge is a man-made structure, the ASI argued that ’Ramcharitmanas’ by Tulsidas cannot be taken as a historical record.
The ASI filed the affidavit in response to three petitions, transferred from the Madras High Court to the apex court, challenging the government’s decision to construct the Sethusamudram Canal Project on the Tamil Nadu coast.
Although the UPA government and specifically Sonia Gandhi were quick to react to the widespread angry reaction by saying that the affidavit shall be amended, the damage, it appears, has been done. Union Law Minister H.R. Bharadwaj has been quick to admit that he himself was a ‘devotee of Ram’ and there was no question of commenting on the veracity of Ramayana and its characters. Railways Minister Lalu Prasad also spoke out saying that the existence of Ram was beyond any scientific inquiry.
Hindus – and in fact most Indians -- believe that Ram Setu was built by Lord Rama with the help of Hanuman’s ’Vanar Sena’ to cross over to Sri Lanka to free his wife Sita from the captivity of ’demon king’ Ravana.
“It is amazing how the people of your community can take this news lying down and without getting agitated to the core,” said Mohd. Anwar, officer in a Central Government undertaking based in Gorakhpur, who was in Lucknow on tour. “It is unimaginable that a similar statement could have been made about any community,” he said matter-of-factly.
Predictably, it has led to angry protests among sections of the majority community in the form of street protests in cities across India. H.N. Singh, a Bharatiya Janata Party activist, said that the party was not going to sit idle on this ‘onslaught’ on sentiments of the majority community.
Hriday Narain Dikshit, spokesman of the BJP in Uttar Pradesh, in a scathing reaction said that the move was a ‘self-destructive misadventure’ as it had no right to attack the symbols of faith of the Hindu community.
Even historians are aghast at the ASI observations. Says Prof Tapas K Roy Choudhury, an eminent historian, “It is not proper to look for scientific evidence in matters of faith because then it degenerates into a confrontation between believers and non-believers. Even scientists and researchers can believe in God, despite knowing that scientific evidence about the existence of God may never be found.”
People generally are not ready to believe that the language of the affidavit was ‘a mistake’ on the part of the ASI officials. The debate on the environmental and other impact of the proposed Sethusamudram project is a different matter, but when and how did the government get a right to attack the faith of the Hindus, ask the people. It is believed that although the ‘anti-Hindu’ acts and decisions of the UPA government had been continuing for a long, this time it had become too much to tolerate.
The protests spread across cities in Uttar Pradesh in no time. The impact on Ayodhya was one of stunned disbelief. Ayodhya is a place that owes its existence, culture, life-style and much of its economy to Ram. The dispute over Ram Janmabhumi has altered the pace of life in Ayodhya forever. The ubiquitous presence of security forces, the unending stream of Ram devotees, other pilgrims and tourists and hundreds of shops selling Ram icons all over Ayodhya are inextricably linked to the presence of Ram. If there is no evidence of the existence of Ram and all literature pertaining to Ram is fiction, then what is the reason for the Ram Janmabhumi dispute?
In the narrow lanes of Ayodhya, in ashrams, temples, ponds and structures like Seeta Rasoi, Hanauman Garhi, the throngs of pilgrims and devotees are not there because they have studied some scientific evidence about the existence of Ram. And they cannot be termed ignorant simply because they pay obeisance at places associated with the life of Ram.
Crores of rupees have been spent – and are being spent – on maintaining a security cover for ‘Rama Lala virajman’ – the small idols of Ram Lala at the Ram Janmabhumi site, with every inch of the premises being guarded round-the-clock by heavily-armed paramilitary personnel. Isn’t everything irrelevant – and even ridiculous -- if Ramayana is fiction and Ram never existed?
“Doesn’t the complicated legal battle that is being fought in various courtrooms in Lucknow, Ayodhya and elsewhere over the issue of Ram Janmabhumi lose all its relevance with the Government of India affidavit,” asks R.K. Singh, a High Court lawyer?
Ram Vilas Vedanti, a trustee of Ram Janmabhumi Trust and former MP, has been reported saying that it was time to launch a ‘decisive struggle’ to protect the sanctity of Indian culture. The BJP, right from L.K. Advani to the street-level worker, has recognized that the UPA has given it a live issue on a platter. It will be self-destructive for the BJP if it does not take it up aggressively.
It is a situation for which most Indians – regardless of religion and community – are not prepared. Imagine someone stating on oath that Ramayana and Ram are fictional characters and there is no ‘scientific basis’ for their existence hundreds of thousands years ago.
And what rubs salt in the wound is the fact that this statement comes from an agency of the Government of India.
In an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, the Director-general of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has said on Wednesday (11 September) that there was no archaeological evidence to establish the existence of Lord Ram or other characters of the Ramayan.
Denying that Ram Sethu or Adam’s Bridge is a man-made structure, the ASI argued that ’Ramcharitmanas’ by Tulsidas cannot be taken as a historical record.
The ASI filed the affidavit in response to three petitions, transferred from the Madras High Court to the apex court, challenging the government’s decision to construct the Sethusamudram Canal Project on the Tamil Nadu coast.
Although the UPA government and specifically Sonia Gandhi were quick to react to the widespread angry reaction by saying that the affidavit shall be amended, the damage, it appears, has been done. Union Law Minister H.R. Bharadwaj has been quick to admit that he himself was a ‘devotee of Ram’ and there was no question of commenting on the veracity of Ramayana and its characters. Railways Minister Lalu Prasad also spoke out saying that the existence of Ram was beyond any scientific inquiry.
Hindus – and in fact most Indians -- believe that Ram Setu was built by Lord Rama with the help of Hanuman’s ’Vanar Sena’ to cross over to Sri Lanka to free his wife Sita from the captivity of ’demon king’ Ravana.
“It is amazing how the people of your community can take this news lying down and without getting agitated to the core,” said Mohd. Anwar, officer in a Central Government undertaking based in Gorakhpur, who was in Lucknow on tour. “It is unimaginable that a similar statement could have been made about any community,” he said matter-of-factly.
Predictably, it has led to angry protests among sections of the majority community in the form of street protests in cities across India. H.N. Singh, a Bharatiya Janata Party activist, said that the party was not going to sit idle on this ‘onslaught’ on sentiments of the majority community.
Hriday Narain Dikshit, spokesman of the BJP in Uttar Pradesh, in a scathing reaction said that the move was a ‘self-destructive misadventure’ as it had no right to attack the symbols of faith of the Hindu community.
Even historians are aghast at the ASI observations. Says Prof Tapas K Roy Choudhury, an eminent historian, “It is not proper to look for scientific evidence in matters of faith because then it degenerates into a confrontation between believers and non-believers. Even scientists and researchers can believe in God, despite knowing that scientific evidence about the existence of God may never be found.”
People generally are not ready to believe that the language of the affidavit was ‘a mistake’ on the part of the ASI officials. The debate on the environmental and other impact of the proposed Sethusamudram project is a different matter, but when and how did the government get a right to attack the faith of the Hindus, ask the people. It is believed that although the ‘anti-Hindu’ acts and decisions of the UPA government had been continuing for a long, this time it had become too much to tolerate.
The protests spread across cities in Uttar Pradesh in no time. The impact on Ayodhya was one of stunned disbelief. Ayodhya is a place that owes its existence, culture, life-style and much of its economy to Ram. The dispute over Ram Janmabhumi has altered the pace of life in Ayodhya forever. The ubiquitous presence of security forces, the unending stream of Ram devotees, other pilgrims and tourists and hundreds of shops selling Ram icons all over Ayodhya are inextricably linked to the presence of Ram. If there is no evidence of the existence of Ram and all literature pertaining to Ram is fiction, then what is the reason for the Ram Janmabhumi dispute?
In the narrow lanes of Ayodhya, in ashrams, temples, ponds and structures like Seeta Rasoi, Hanauman Garhi, the throngs of pilgrims and devotees are not there because they have studied some scientific evidence about the existence of Ram. And they cannot be termed ignorant simply because they pay obeisance at places associated with the life of Ram.
Crores of rupees have been spent – and are being spent – on maintaining a security cover for ‘Rama Lala virajman’ – the small idols of Ram Lala at the Ram Janmabhumi site, with every inch of the premises being guarded round-the-clock by heavily-armed paramilitary personnel. Isn’t everything irrelevant – and even ridiculous -- if Ramayana is fiction and Ram never existed?
“Doesn’t the complicated legal battle that is being fought in various courtrooms in Lucknow, Ayodhya and elsewhere over the issue of Ram Janmabhumi lose all its relevance with the Government of India affidavit,” asks R.K. Singh, a High Court lawyer?
Ram Vilas Vedanti, a trustee of Ram Janmabhumi Trust and former MP, has been reported saying that it was time to launch a ‘decisive struggle’ to protect the sanctity of Indian culture. The BJP, right from L.K. Advani to the street-level worker, has recognized that the UPA has given it a live issue on a platter. It will be self-destructive for the BJP if it does not take it up aggressively.
Sethusamudram project - the details
http://funhike.blogspot.com/2007/09/sethusamudram-project-details.html
The Sethusamudram ship canal project, first approved by the NDA regime in October 2002, was formally inaugurated by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on July 2 2005. Here's a look at what the project is actually about:
The Sethusamudram shipping canal project proposes linking the Palk Bay and the Gulf of Mannar between India and Sri Lanka by creating a shipping canal.
The project involves dredging 82.5 million cubic metres of the Adam's Bridge or the Ram Setu. When completed, the canal will be 167 kilometers long and its estimated cost is approximately Rs 2427 crores.
This is the country's first effort at dredging a navigation channel that is 30-40 kilometres offshore. The project promises to save travel time and cost drastically.
As of now, ships traversing from India's east coast to the west coast have to circumnavigate Sri Lanka due to this bridge located southeast of Rameswaram.
Once the canal is ready, ships can navigate through the Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay, and enter the Bay of Bengal directly, thereby reducing the distance for ships by 780 kilometres and sailing time by up to 30 hours.
But the project has been challenged in the Supreme Court. Besides Janata Party President Subramanian Swamy, the Sangh Parivar, too, is opposed to it because of its supposed links with Lord Ram and his vanarasena.
Dredging parts of the bridge they say would only destroy the remnants of Ram's legacy. The Government has told the Supreme Court that the Adam's bridge is merely a sand and coral formation and not a man-made structure.
While the Sangh and the Government slug it out in court over the historicity of the bridge, there are some who think the project is a recipe for ecological disaster.
Ecologists say the effect of the 2004 tsunami was cushioned by Adam's Bridge and dredging would only make coastal areas more vulnerable in the event of another tsunami.
They also add that the bridge maintains the ecological balance necessary for marine life by checking the rough waters of the Bay of Bengal.
The Sethusamudram ship canal project, first approved by the NDA regime in October 2002, was formally inaugurated by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on July 2 2005. Here's a look at what the project is actually about:
The Sethusamudram shipping canal project proposes linking the Palk Bay and the Gulf of Mannar between India and Sri Lanka by creating a shipping canal.
The project involves dredging 82.5 million cubic metres of the Adam's Bridge or the Ram Setu. When completed, the canal will be 167 kilometers long and its estimated cost is approximately Rs 2427 crores.
This is the country's first effort at dredging a navigation channel that is 30-40 kilometres offshore. The project promises to save travel time and cost drastically.
As of now, ships traversing from India's east coast to the west coast have to circumnavigate Sri Lanka due to this bridge located southeast of Rameswaram.
Once the canal is ready, ships can navigate through the Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay, and enter the Bay of Bengal directly, thereby reducing the distance for ships by 780 kilometres and sailing time by up to 30 hours.
But the project has been challenged in the Supreme Court. Besides Janata Party President Subramanian Swamy, the Sangh Parivar, too, is opposed to it because of its supposed links with Lord Ram and his vanarasena.
Dredging parts of the bridge they say would only destroy the remnants of Ram's legacy. The Government has told the Supreme Court that the Adam's bridge is merely a sand and coral formation and not a man-made structure.
While the Sangh and the Government slug it out in court over the historicity of the bridge, there are some who think the project is a recipe for ecological disaster.
Ecologists say the effect of the 2004 tsunami was cushioned by Adam's Bridge and dredging would only make coastal areas more vulnerable in the event of another tsunami.
They also add that the bridge maintains the ecological balance necessary for marine life by checking the rough waters of the Bay of Bengal.
Sethusamudram - The real story - Ram Setu
http://funhike.blogspot.com/2007/09/sethusamudram-real-story.html
Ram Setu consists of two words, viz ‘Ram’ and ‘Setu’, where ‘Ram’ is the name of Hindu God Ram and ‘Setu’ means bridge. A project called Sethusamudram was launched to create an alternative shorter route for ships to cross the Gulf of Mannar. The channel, originally an idea of a British commander named A D Taylor was put forth in 1860. In 1955, the Government of India set up the Sethusamudram project committee to look into the feasibility of the project and five routes were discussed till 2001 but nothing happened. The National Democratic Alliance government sanctioned a few crore rupees to study the project but before a final decision on the route could be taken, the government lost power.
But due to political expediency and a pathetic problem of a 'secular amnesia' about heritage matters, it has got a controversial hue, which could have been avoided if some transparency was maintained and points of collective sensitivities and faith were not ignored. The project is fine, but the present route is not, as it involves destruction of a bridge believed to have been built by Lord Rama and Muslims and Christians believe it to be Adam's creation.
The official web site of the project says, 'Ships originating from the west of India and destined for Chennai, Ennore, Vishakapatnam, Paradeep, Haldia and Kolkata have to travel around the Sri Lankan coast resulting in increase of travel distance and time. Apart from this ships belonging to Indian Navy and Coast Guard need also to traverse around Sri Lanka. In order to reduce the steaming distances between the east and west coast of India and to improve the navigation within territorial waters of India, a navigation channel connecting the Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay through Adam's Bridge has been envisaged so that the ships moving between the east and west coasts of India need not go around Sri Lanka.' The total cost of the project is Rs 2,427 crores (Rs 24.27 billion).
Foreigners and Indians alike have described it as Rama's bridge since ancient times in their maps and travelogues. The first time someone called it Adam's Bridge was in 1804 by James Rennell, the first surveyor general of the East India Company. Even if the Government of India prefers to use the name Adam's Bridge, it simply proves that not only Hindus but Muslims and Christians too have a reverence for the bridge it is going to destroy.
Now when the media and political leaders are busy with the Uttar Pradesh election and exit polls, the Sethusamudram dredgers are busy destroying a great world heritage site India has. The Ram Setu or Adam's Bridge connects India's Rameshwaram to Sri Lanka's Talaimannar. A movement has begun to safeguard it at the shores of Rameshwaram on April 18. Two former judges of the Supreme Court, Justice K T Thomas and Justice V R Krishna Iyer, none of them close to the saffron side, have warned the government against destroying the Ram Setu.
It is ironical that a government which changes the metro rail route to protect the Qutub Minar, built with the material of destroyed temples, stops a corridor to protect the Taj Mahal's surroundings and spends crores of rupees to showcase ancient potteries and jewellery in heavily guarded museums, is destroying a unique symbol of national identity and an icon well preserved in our minds since ages. Even a child knows that a bridge was built by the friends of Lord Rama using floating stones and Rama's army marched over it to Lanka to rescue Sita and destroy the evil regime of Ravana.
Hence during Dussehra every year and in dance dramas depicting Rama's life enacted across the globe, specially in East Asia, they never ever fail to mention the Setu Bandhan or the construction of Rama's bridge. Apart from the Ramayana, the Mahabharata also refers to the continued protection of Nala Setu following Sri Rama's command. Kalidasa's Raghuvamsham also refers to the Setu. So does the Skanda Purana (III 1.2.1-114), the Vishnu Purana (IV 4.40-49), the Agni Purana (V-XI), the Brahma Purana (138.1-40).
That is the memory so beautifully adopted by the Geological Survey of India in its logo, which describes India in this line etched at the bottom of its insignia -- Aasetu Himachal, meaning India is spread between the Bridge and the Himalayas. That is the Ram Setu Bridge on the southern tip of our motherland, an identity of the nation, under destruction now.
The Encyclopedia Britannica describes the bridge thus, 'Adam's Bridge also called Rama's Bridge, chain of shoals, between the islands of Mannar, near northwestern Sri Lanka, and Rameswaram, off the southeastern coast of India.'
The credit of digging up material regarding the Ram Setu and providing impeccable factual content goes to Kalyan Raman, a former senior executive of the Asian Development Bank. He astounded even the government with his material on the entire project. His findings have stirred up protests from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha. Ashok Singhal of the VHP is spearheading a movement to protect the Ram Setu. He addressed a big public meeting in Rameshwaram with religious heads and Dr Subramanian Swamy. BJP leader and former Union human resources development minister Dr Murli Manohar Joshi has written to the prime minister, urging him to stop the destruction of the great heritage site.
Apart from such issues of heritage and belief, there are genuine concerns regarding security and the tsunamis' impact increasing in case the Ram Setu is destroyed. If the new channel is created through the present Rama's bridge, international ships would pass through it making a de facto international boundary between India and Sri Lanka, facilitating an increased alien presence, burdening our navy to a great extent.
So far the sea between India and Sri Lanka has been recognised as historic waters, though the United States has been pressurising to have it declared as international waters and said in a naval notification in 2005 that it does not accept the sea between India and Sri Lanka as 'historic'. The US declaration and the role of the Tuticorin Port Trust, the nodal agency to implement the Sethu Samudram Canal Project coupled with the haste with which the project was inaugurated, has given rise to many unanswered questions.
Local fishermen, Hindus, Muslims and Christians alike oppose the present route and are demanding alternative channels, which are available. They say the present channel would destroy marine life and corals. This will kill the trade in shankas (shells) that has a turnover in excess of Rs 150 crore (Rs 1.5 billion) per annum. Invaluable thorium deposits would be affected, which are too important for our nuclear fuel requirements.
Professor Tad Murthy, the world renowned tsunami expert, who advised the Government of India on the tsunami warning system and edited the Tsunami Journal for over 20 years, has also warned that the present Setu Samudram route may result in tsunami waves hitting Kerala more fiercely. In a reply to a query regarding the Sethusanmudram's impact, he wrote, 'During the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 26, 2004, the southern part of Kerala was generally spared from a major tsunami, mainly because the tsunami waves from Sumatra region travelling south of the Sri Lankan island, partially diffracted northward and affected the central part of the Kerala coast. Since the tsunami is a long gravity wave (similar to tides and storm surges) during the diffraction process, the rather wide turn it has to take spared the south Kerala coast. On the other hand, deepening the Sethu Canal might provide a more direct route for the tsunami and this could impact south Kerala.'
The issue concerns us all, and should be taken up as Indians, without getting entangled in party lines and political games. The Ram Setu or Adam's Bridge belongs to all humanity, being an important heritage site; hence the government should not allow it to become another issue affecting Hindu sensitivities. Nobody is opposing the Sethu Samudram Project, only a realignment of the route is being asked, as the present one destroys the Ram Setu.
Ram Setu consists of two words, viz ‘Ram’ and ‘Setu’, where ‘Ram’ is the name of Hindu God Ram and ‘Setu’ means bridge. A project called Sethusamudram was launched to create an alternative shorter route for ships to cross the Gulf of Mannar. The channel, originally an idea of a British commander named A D Taylor was put forth in 1860. In 1955, the Government of India set up the Sethusamudram project committee to look into the feasibility of the project and five routes were discussed till 2001 but nothing happened. The National Democratic Alliance government sanctioned a few crore rupees to study the project but before a final decision on the route could be taken, the government lost power.
But due to political expediency and a pathetic problem of a 'secular amnesia' about heritage matters, it has got a controversial hue, which could have been avoided if some transparency was maintained and points of collective sensitivities and faith were not ignored. The project is fine, but the present route is not, as it involves destruction of a bridge believed to have been built by Lord Rama and Muslims and Christians believe it to be Adam's creation.
The official web site of the project says, 'Ships originating from the west of India and destined for Chennai, Ennore, Vishakapatnam, Paradeep, Haldia and Kolkata have to travel around the Sri Lankan coast resulting in increase of travel distance and time. Apart from this ships belonging to Indian Navy and Coast Guard need also to traverse around Sri Lanka. In order to reduce the steaming distances between the east and west coast of India and to improve the navigation within territorial waters of India, a navigation channel connecting the Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay through Adam's Bridge has been envisaged so that the ships moving between the east and west coasts of India need not go around Sri Lanka.' The total cost of the project is Rs 2,427 crores (Rs 24.27 billion).
Foreigners and Indians alike have described it as Rama's bridge since ancient times in their maps and travelogues. The first time someone called it Adam's Bridge was in 1804 by James Rennell, the first surveyor general of the East India Company. Even if the Government of India prefers to use the name Adam's Bridge, it simply proves that not only Hindus but Muslims and Christians too have a reverence for the bridge it is going to destroy.
Now when the media and political leaders are busy with the Uttar Pradesh election and exit polls, the Sethusamudram dredgers are busy destroying a great world heritage site India has. The Ram Setu or Adam's Bridge connects India's Rameshwaram to Sri Lanka's Talaimannar. A movement has begun to safeguard it at the shores of Rameshwaram on April 18. Two former judges of the Supreme Court, Justice K T Thomas and Justice V R Krishna Iyer, none of them close to the saffron side, have warned the government against destroying the Ram Setu.
It is ironical that a government which changes the metro rail route to protect the Qutub Minar, built with the material of destroyed temples, stops a corridor to protect the Taj Mahal's surroundings and spends crores of rupees to showcase ancient potteries and jewellery in heavily guarded museums, is destroying a unique symbol of national identity and an icon well preserved in our minds since ages. Even a child knows that a bridge was built by the friends of Lord Rama using floating stones and Rama's army marched over it to Lanka to rescue Sita and destroy the evil regime of Ravana.
Hence during Dussehra every year and in dance dramas depicting Rama's life enacted across the globe, specially in East Asia, they never ever fail to mention the Setu Bandhan or the construction of Rama's bridge. Apart from the Ramayana, the Mahabharata also refers to the continued protection of Nala Setu following Sri Rama's command. Kalidasa's Raghuvamsham also refers to the Setu. So does the Skanda Purana (III 1.2.1-114), the Vishnu Purana (IV 4.40-49), the Agni Purana (V-XI), the Brahma Purana (138.1-40).
That is the memory so beautifully adopted by the Geological Survey of India in its logo, which describes India in this line etched at the bottom of its insignia -- Aasetu Himachal, meaning India is spread between the Bridge and the Himalayas. That is the Ram Setu Bridge on the southern tip of our motherland, an identity of the nation, under destruction now.
The Encyclopedia Britannica describes the bridge thus, 'Adam's Bridge also called Rama's Bridge, chain of shoals, between the islands of Mannar, near northwestern Sri Lanka, and Rameswaram, off the southeastern coast of India.'
The credit of digging up material regarding the Ram Setu and providing impeccable factual content goes to Kalyan Raman, a former senior executive of the Asian Development Bank. He astounded even the government with his material on the entire project. His findings have stirred up protests from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha. Ashok Singhal of the VHP is spearheading a movement to protect the Ram Setu. He addressed a big public meeting in Rameshwaram with religious heads and Dr Subramanian Swamy. BJP leader and former Union human resources development minister Dr Murli Manohar Joshi has written to the prime minister, urging him to stop the destruction of the great heritage site.
Apart from such issues of heritage and belief, there are genuine concerns regarding security and the tsunamis' impact increasing in case the Ram Setu is destroyed. If the new channel is created through the present Rama's bridge, international ships would pass through it making a de facto international boundary between India and Sri Lanka, facilitating an increased alien presence, burdening our navy to a great extent.
So far the sea between India and Sri Lanka has been recognised as historic waters, though the United States has been pressurising to have it declared as international waters and said in a naval notification in 2005 that it does not accept the sea between India and Sri Lanka as 'historic'. The US declaration and the role of the Tuticorin Port Trust, the nodal agency to implement the Sethu Samudram Canal Project coupled with the haste with which the project was inaugurated, has given rise to many unanswered questions.
Local fishermen, Hindus, Muslims and Christians alike oppose the present route and are demanding alternative channels, which are available. They say the present channel would destroy marine life and corals. This will kill the trade in shankas (shells) that has a turnover in excess of Rs 150 crore (Rs 1.5 billion) per annum. Invaluable thorium deposits would be affected, which are too important for our nuclear fuel requirements.
Professor Tad Murthy, the world renowned tsunami expert, who advised the Government of India on the tsunami warning system and edited the Tsunami Journal for over 20 years, has also warned that the present Setu Samudram route may result in tsunami waves hitting Kerala more fiercely. In a reply to a query regarding the Sethusanmudram's impact, he wrote, 'During the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 26, 2004, the southern part of Kerala was generally spared from a major tsunami, mainly because the tsunami waves from Sumatra region travelling south of the Sri Lankan island, partially diffracted northward and affected the central part of the Kerala coast. Since the tsunami is a long gravity wave (similar to tides and storm surges) during the diffraction process, the rather wide turn it has to take spared the south Kerala coast. On the other hand, deepening the Sethu Canal might provide a more direct route for the tsunami and this could impact south Kerala.'
The issue concerns us all, and should be taken up as Indians, without getting entangled in party lines and political games. The Ram Setu or Adam's Bridge belongs to all humanity, being an important heritage site; hence the government should not allow it to become another issue affecting Hindu sensitivities. Nobody is opposing the Sethu Samudram Project, only a realignment of the route is being asked, as the present one destroys the Ram Setu.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
A dog named SEX.
http://funhike.blogspot.com/2007/09/dog-named-sex.html
Everybody I know who has a dog usually calls him "Rover" or "Boy." I call mine "Sex."
Now,Sex has been very embarrassing to me. When I went to the City Hall to renew his dog license, I told the clerk that I would like a license for Sex. He said, "I'd like to have one too." Then I said, "You don't understand. I've had Sex since I was nine years old." He said, "You must have been quite a kid!"
When I decided to get married, I told the minister that I would like to have Sex at the wedding. He told me to wait until after the wedding was over. I said, "But Sex has played a big part in my life and my whole world revolves around Sex." He said he didn't want to hear about my personal life and would not marry us in his church. I told him everyone would enjoy having Sex at the wedding. The next day we were married at the Justice of the Peace. My family is barred from the church from then on.
When went on my honeymoon, I took the dog with me. I told the hotel clerk that I wanted a room for my wife and me, and a special room for Sex. He said, "Every room in the place is for sex." I said, "You don't understand. Sex keeps me awake at night." The clerk said, "Me too."
One day I entered Sex in a contest, but before the competition began, the dog ran away. Another contestant asked me why I was just looking around. I told him I had planned to have Sex in the contest. He told me that I should have sold tickets. "But you don't understand," I said, "I had hoped to have Sex on T.V." He called me a show-off.
When my wife and I separated, we went to court to fight for custody of the dog. I said, "Your Honor, I had Sex before I was married."The judge said, "Me too." Then I told him that after I was married, Sex left me. He said, "Me too."
Last night Sex ran off again. I spent hours looking around town for him. A cop came over to me and asked, "What are you doing in the alley at 4 o'clock in the morning?"I said, "I'm looking for Sex." ...
My case comes up Friday.
:)
Everybody I know who has a dog usually calls him "Rover" or "Boy." I call mine "Sex."
Now,Sex has been very embarrassing to me. When I went to the City Hall to renew his dog license, I told the clerk that I would like a license for Sex. He said, "I'd like to have one too." Then I said, "You don't understand. I've had Sex since I was nine years old." He said, "You must have been quite a kid!"
When I decided to get married, I told the minister that I would like to have Sex at the wedding. He told me to wait until after the wedding was over. I said, "But Sex has played a big part in my life and my whole world revolves around Sex." He said he didn't want to hear about my personal life and would not marry us in his church. I told him everyone would enjoy having Sex at the wedding. The next day we were married at the Justice of the Peace. My family is barred from the church from then on.
When went on my honeymoon, I took the dog with me. I told the hotel clerk that I wanted a room for my wife and me, and a special room for Sex. He said, "Every room in the place is for sex." I said, "You don't understand. Sex keeps me awake at night." The clerk said, "Me too."
One day I entered Sex in a contest, but before the competition began, the dog ran away. Another contestant asked me why I was just looking around. I told him I had planned to have Sex in the contest. He told me that I should have sold tickets. "But you don't understand," I said, "I had hoped to have Sex on T.V." He called me a show-off.
When my wife and I separated, we went to court to fight for custody of the dog. I said, "Your Honor, I had Sex before I was married."The judge said, "Me too." Then I told him that after I was married, Sex left me. He said, "Me too."
Last night Sex ran off again. I spent hours looking around town for him. A cop came over to me and asked, "What are you doing in the alley at 4 o'clock in the morning?"I said, "I'm looking for Sex." ...
My case comes up Friday.
:)
Monday, September 10, 2007
Story of Rambo 4
http://funhike.blogspot.com/2007/09/story-of-rambo-4.html
If watching the Rocky Balboa has you asking how long until Sylvester Stallone resurrects John Rambo, that monosyllabic ex-GreenBeret last seen in 1988 shouting profanity at an approaching Soviet army in Afghanistan, you're not alone.
Okay, we may be alone, but i am going to tell you anyway. First announced in 2005, production on Rambo IV (final title to bedetermined) is finally expected to commence Oct. 1 in Thailand. But while America braces Balboa's hangover, Rambo has yetto land a domestic distributor. Why have studios had a tough time picturing the old guy back in battle? Maybe because the writer-director - that would be Mr. Stallone - couldn't figure out which war he'd be waging.
''You know, it's hard,'' says the 60-year-old star. ''Politics have changed so much. Who do we fight? The Finns? You can't do that. TheDutch? That's not gonna work. Wooden shoes are not gonna look cool.'' Stallone may be joking, but finding Rambo a fresh foe was actuallya serious problem for the Nu Image/ Millennium Films production. After ruling out the Mideast, Africa, and Korea, the actor finally hiton a solution. ''I called Soldier of Fortune magazine and said, 'What is the most critical man-doing-inhumanity-to-man situation rightnow in the world? Where is it?''' The answer was Burma.
So, the script that emerged - a ''first draft'' Stallone has written with Art Monterastelli (The Hunted) - finds Rambo living a monasticlifestyle in Bangkok and salvaging old PT boats and tanks for scrap metal. (''It's like he's stripping himself down,'' says the actor,pensively. ''That old piece of military equipment.'') When a group of volunteers bringing supplies into Burma disappears, a relative ofone of the missing missionaries begs Rambo to find them. He heads off with a team of young guns, a plot point required by thefinanciers, who wanted to hedge against Rambo's possible mono-generational appeal.
''It might work,'' Stallone says, laughing. And if not, we will dream for Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot 2: Granny's Revenge.
Arun
If watching the Rocky Balboa has you asking how long until Sylvester Stallone resurrects John Rambo, that monosyllabic ex-GreenBeret last seen in 1988 shouting profanity at an approaching Soviet army in Afghanistan, you're not alone.
Okay, we may be alone, but i am going to tell you anyway. First announced in 2005, production on Rambo IV (final title to bedetermined) is finally expected to commence Oct. 1 in Thailand. But while America braces Balboa's hangover, Rambo has yetto land a domestic distributor. Why have studios had a tough time picturing the old guy back in battle? Maybe because the writer-director - that would be Mr. Stallone - couldn't figure out which war he'd be waging.
''You know, it's hard,'' says the 60-year-old star. ''Politics have changed so much. Who do we fight? The Finns? You can't do that. TheDutch? That's not gonna work. Wooden shoes are not gonna look cool.'' Stallone may be joking, but finding Rambo a fresh foe was actuallya serious problem for the Nu Image/ Millennium Films production. After ruling out the Mideast, Africa, and Korea, the actor finally hiton a solution. ''I called Soldier of Fortune magazine and said, 'What is the most critical man-doing-inhumanity-to-man situation rightnow in the world? Where is it?''' The answer was Burma.
So, the script that emerged - a ''first draft'' Stallone has written with Art Monterastelli (The Hunted) - finds Rambo living a monasticlifestyle in Bangkok and salvaging old PT boats and tanks for scrap metal. (''It's like he's stripping himself down,'' says the actor,pensively. ''That old piece of military equipment.'') When a group of volunteers bringing supplies into Burma disappears, a relative ofone of the missing missionaries begs Rambo to find them. He heads off with a team of young guns, a plot point required by thefinanciers, who wanted to hedge against Rambo's possible mono-generational appeal.
''It might work,'' Stallone says, laughing. And if not, we will dream for Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot 2: Granny's Revenge.
Arun
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Pakistan is US’s second worst ally
Pakistan was rated as the US’s second-worst ally in this year’s Terrorism Index. Pakistan was also rated the country most likely to become the next Al-Qaeda stronghold and the most likely to transfer nuclear technology to terrorists.
The index, a survey of 100 leading US foreign policy experts, indicates a growing concern in Washington circles at the inability of Pakistan’s military regime to control its Islamicist terror problem.
The survey is carried out by the liberal Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy magazine. The respondents come from a variety of ideological positions.
While Russia was rated by a third of the respondents as the ally that least serves the US national security interest, Pakistan came in second at 22%. Saudi Arabia was third at 17%. Liberals were more skeptical about Pakistan’s status as an ally than conservatives.
The report focused on Iraq, a crisis that elicited overwhelming pessimism. Over 90% of the respondents argued the Iraq war was negatively affecting US national security and over half said the present US policy of sending in more troops was a mistake.
Despite this bleak point of view, when asked “which country is most likely to become the next Al Qaeda stronghold?” more cited Pakistan (35%) than any other country. Iraq (22%), Somalia (11%) and even troubled Afghanistan (8%) didn’t fare as badly.
Pakistan was seen as the greater menace when it came to the transfer of nuclear technology. A remarkable 74% said Pakistan is likely to be the source of such technology for terrorists in “the next three to five years.” Even perennial bad boy North Korea only notched a 42% rating and Iran a mere 31%. Liberal and moderates were far more pessimistic about “loose nukes” in Pakistan than conservatives.
The index said the combination was “a terrifying nightmare.”
There is some evidence Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf’s threat to the US that “after me, comes the nuclear Taliban” is wearing thin. Two-thirds of the respondents didn’t think Musharraf’s fall would mean nuclear-armed terrorists.
What was evident is that while over half the respondents believed the current Pakistan policy was damaging to US security, there was no consensus about the alternatives. Equal numbers supported the applying sanctions against Pakistan and providing more aid to Islamabad. The index says, “Such a muddled response underscores the puzzle that Pakistan presents to American policymakers.”
Generally, conservatives preferred to provide carrots to Pervez Musharraf, while liberals favoured sticks. But there was no clear position even within ideological groups. About 16% of the respondents were fatalistic: “There is nothing effective the US can do.”
news desk
The index, a survey of 100 leading US foreign policy experts, indicates a growing concern in Washington circles at the inability of Pakistan’s military regime to control its Islamicist terror problem.
The survey is carried out by the liberal Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy magazine. The respondents come from a variety of ideological positions.
While Russia was rated by a third of the respondents as the ally that least serves the US national security interest, Pakistan came in second at 22%. Saudi Arabia was third at 17%. Liberals were more skeptical about Pakistan’s status as an ally than conservatives.
The report focused on Iraq, a crisis that elicited overwhelming pessimism. Over 90% of the respondents argued the Iraq war was negatively affecting US national security and over half said the present US policy of sending in more troops was a mistake.
Despite this bleak point of view, when asked “which country is most likely to become the next Al Qaeda stronghold?” more cited Pakistan (35%) than any other country. Iraq (22%), Somalia (11%) and even troubled Afghanistan (8%) didn’t fare as badly.
Pakistan was seen as the greater menace when it came to the transfer of nuclear technology. A remarkable 74% said Pakistan is likely to be the source of such technology for terrorists in “the next three to five years.” Even perennial bad boy North Korea only notched a 42% rating and Iran a mere 31%. Liberal and moderates were far more pessimistic about “loose nukes” in Pakistan than conservatives.
The index said the combination was “a terrifying nightmare.”
There is some evidence Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf’s threat to the US that “after me, comes the nuclear Taliban” is wearing thin. Two-thirds of the respondents didn’t think Musharraf’s fall would mean nuclear-armed terrorists.
What was evident is that while over half the respondents believed the current Pakistan policy was damaging to US security, there was no consensus about the alternatives. Equal numbers supported the applying sanctions against Pakistan and providing more aid to Islamabad. The index says, “Such a muddled response underscores the puzzle that Pakistan presents to American policymakers.”
Generally, conservatives preferred to provide carrots to Pervez Musharraf, while liberals favoured sticks. But there was no clear position even within ideological groups. About 16% of the respondents were fatalistic: “There is nothing effective the US can do.”
news desk
Friday, September 7, 2007
USA vs. Iran : India vs. Pakistan Anew?
The scenario: Militants wage a proxy war for a budding nuclear power, pinning down a more formidable enemy army. If that appears to be the Iranian game-plan in Iraq, it isn't an original one. The paradigm for the emerging U.S.-Iranian contest has clear parallels with the struggle between Pakistan and India.
As early as 1990, a full eight years before the subcontinent went nuclear, Pakistani military leaders began to view the massive army India kept at the border less as potential invaders and more as a target. The likely reason: Islamabad felt empowered by its secret nuclear weapons program. Even as a hypothetical shield against Indian retaliation, it lessened the Pakistani military's sense of vulnerability. Soon, militants trained and armed by Pakistan began appearing in Indian territory in increasing numbers, and violence spiked. By 1998, when both India and Pakistan formally unveiled their nuclear arsenals, India and Pakistan showed how regional rivals could wage up-close, bloody struggles against each other — both in conventional and asymmetrical warfare — undeterred by the specter of a nuclear exchange.
The view from Tehran these days probably looks much like the view from Islamabad in the early 1990s. By most estimates, Iran is now roughly five years away from having nuclear weapons. The United States, a nuclear power and sworn enemy, has tens of thousands of troops at Iran's borders. The mullahs and military strategists in Tehran undoubtedly realize that they cannot defeat the U.S. forces arrayed against them, just as military leaders in Islamabad knew they could not beat the Indian forces at Pakistan's border. Courting all-out war is obviously a mistake for Iran. But so is doing nothing, as Washington increases the number of troops in Iraq and foments international opposition to Iran's nuclear program. Faced with such a situation, it's easy to see how hawkish elements of the Iranian government find the prospect of arming and training guerrillas in Iraq appealing. The expectation of having nuclear wapons just a few years from now — which would mean any strike against Iran could trigger retaliation against the attacker or its allies — may give Tehran's strategists a sense of confidence in supporting bolder and bolder assaults. It is, in effect, a nuclear umbrella under which Iran can sponsor guerrilla warfare.
U.S. military officials have aired their strongest accusations yet against Iran, saying 170 troops from the U.S.-led force in Iraq have died as a result of sophisticated bombs that could be traced back to Iran. The claim follows a string of incidents in Iraq involving suspected Iranian agents over the past two months. In December, American forces announced the capture of four Iranians, two of whom are thought to be members of the Quds Force, Iran's paramilitary arm around the Middle East. Then, on Jan. 11, U.S. forces in Iraq raided a house in Irbil, capturing a number of other alleged Iranian operatives. The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, said one of the men arrested in that raid was the director of operations for the Quds Force. Many observers believe the Quds Force was responsible for an attack on U.S. troops Jan. 20 in Karbala, in which four American soldiers were kidnapped and murdered, though just who carried out the Karbala murders remains unclear.
All of this, combined with longstanding U.S. suspicions of Iran, are following the pattern of hostility between India and Pakistan, two countries who remain locked in a bloody struggle even now. Sometimes India and Pakistan fight each other directly with their militaries in border skirmishes and artillery duels. More often the fighting goes on as part of a kind of shadow war in which Indian forces struggle to capture and kill militants linked to Pakistan in various ways. The United States and Iran appear to be following a similar path together in Iraq.
reference : india today
As early as 1990, a full eight years before the subcontinent went nuclear, Pakistani military leaders began to view the massive army India kept at the border less as potential invaders and more as a target. The likely reason: Islamabad felt empowered by its secret nuclear weapons program. Even as a hypothetical shield against Indian retaliation, it lessened the Pakistani military's sense of vulnerability. Soon, militants trained and armed by Pakistan began appearing in Indian territory in increasing numbers, and violence spiked. By 1998, when both India and Pakistan formally unveiled their nuclear arsenals, India and Pakistan showed how regional rivals could wage up-close, bloody struggles against each other — both in conventional and asymmetrical warfare — undeterred by the specter of a nuclear exchange.
The view from Tehran these days probably looks much like the view from Islamabad in the early 1990s. By most estimates, Iran is now roughly five years away from having nuclear weapons. The United States, a nuclear power and sworn enemy, has tens of thousands of troops at Iran's borders. The mullahs and military strategists in Tehran undoubtedly realize that they cannot defeat the U.S. forces arrayed against them, just as military leaders in Islamabad knew they could not beat the Indian forces at Pakistan's border. Courting all-out war is obviously a mistake for Iran. But so is doing nothing, as Washington increases the number of troops in Iraq and foments international opposition to Iran's nuclear program. Faced with such a situation, it's easy to see how hawkish elements of the Iranian government find the prospect of arming and training guerrillas in Iraq appealing. The expectation of having nuclear wapons just a few years from now — which would mean any strike against Iran could trigger retaliation against the attacker or its allies — may give Tehran's strategists a sense of confidence in supporting bolder and bolder assaults. It is, in effect, a nuclear umbrella under which Iran can sponsor guerrilla warfare.
U.S. military officials have aired their strongest accusations yet against Iran, saying 170 troops from the U.S.-led force in Iraq have died as a result of sophisticated bombs that could be traced back to Iran. The claim follows a string of incidents in Iraq involving suspected Iranian agents over the past two months. In December, American forces announced the capture of four Iranians, two of whom are thought to be members of the Quds Force, Iran's paramilitary arm around the Middle East. Then, on Jan. 11, U.S. forces in Iraq raided a house in Irbil, capturing a number of other alleged Iranian operatives. The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, said one of the men arrested in that raid was the director of operations for the Quds Force. Many observers believe the Quds Force was responsible for an attack on U.S. troops Jan. 20 in Karbala, in which four American soldiers were kidnapped and murdered, though just who carried out the Karbala murders remains unclear.
All of this, combined with longstanding U.S. suspicions of Iran, are following the pattern of hostility between India and Pakistan, two countries who remain locked in a bloody struggle even now. Sometimes India and Pakistan fight each other directly with their militaries in border skirmishes and artillery duels. More often the fighting goes on as part of a kind of shadow war in which Indian forces struggle to capture and kill militants linked to Pakistan in various ways. The United States and Iran appear to be following a similar path together in Iraq.
reference : india today
Who Bombed The World Trade Center?
Two cassette tape recordings, obtained by SHADOW reporter Paul DeRienzo of telephone conversations between FBI informant Emad Salem and his Bureau contacts reveal secret U.S. Government complicity in the February 26, 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City in which six people were killed and more than a thousand were injured.
After careful deliberation, the SHADOW believes the question regarding the bombing boils down to the following: Did the FBI do the bombing, utilizing informant Salem as an "agent provocateur" or did it fail to prevent an independent Salem and his associates from doing it? The taped conversations obtained by the SHADOW seem to indicate the former:
FBI Informant Edam Salem: "...we was start already building the bomb which is went off in the World Trade Center. It was built by supervising supervision from the Bureau and the DA and we was all informed about it and we know that the bomb start to be built. By who? By your confidential informant. What a wonderful great case!"
Who is Emad Salem? FBI bomber, Arab double-agent or just greedy? Possibly a combination of all three. Salem is a former Egyptian Army officer who is currently the U.S. government's star witness against Egyptian cleric Dr. Omar Abdel Rahman, whom the FBI says was the ringleader in several bombing plots, including the World Trade Center. Shortly after the bombing at the Twin Towers (World Trade Center) the U.S. government moved to take Salem into the Witness Protection program.
According to the FBI, Salem was aware of the plot ostensibly because he had infiltrated Sheik Rahman and his associates. He was recruited as a government informant shortly after the 1991 assassination of of right- wing militant Rabbi Meir Kahane. As an associate of Rahman, Salem traveled in the cleric's inner circle, surreptitiously recording conversations, and selling his information to the Bureau. But unknown to his FBI handlers, Salem was also secretly recording his conversations with them, most likely to protect himself.
According to attorney Ron Kuby, after Salem was taken into the Witness Protection program on June 24, 1993, he told the feds about the more than 1,000 conversations he had recorded sometime between December, 1991 and June, 1993. Kuby says that while some of these tapes are not significant, others contain substantive dealings with Salem and his FBI handlers. Salem was actually bugging the FBI.
The World Trade Center bombing, along with subsequent alleged plots to bomb prominent targets in New York City, spawned a number of federal indictments and trials resulting in the conviction of more than a dozen men, all of Arabic descent. Salem's exposure as a government informant who had a year earlier infiltrated the group of men later charged in the bombing conspiracy caused many to wonder why he and the FBI failed to provide any warning of the pending World Trade Center bombing.
The answer now appears self-evident. According to William Kuntsler, attorney for Ibrahim El-Gabrowny, one of those accused in the larger bombing case, the entire conspiracy was the product of Salem, the government informant. Kuntsler's law partner Ronald Kuby told the SHADOW that within hours of the World Trade Center blast, Salem checked into a midtown hospital, complaining of a loud ringing in his ears. There is a growing belief that some of the four men charged and since convicted and jailed for the World Trade Center bombing, Mohammed Aboulihma, Mohammed Salameh, Nidal Ayyad and Ahmad Ajaj, may be innocent [victims] of a government frame-up.
Attorneys for those convicted have maintained that the government's case is circumstantial at best, with no evidence or motive linking the accused with the bombing. The FBI and federal prosecutors have not as yet responded to questions over the lack of warning of the attack on the Twin Towers, despite the strategic placement of their informant.
Two possible scenarios emerge. One: Salem is a rogue FBI informant who created the conspiracy to bomb the World Trade Center for the money his information about the plot (minus his role) would bring. An attorney for one of the convicted men told the SHADOW that Salem was an FBI informant from November of 1991 to the summer of 1992. The attorney says that the FBI became aware of the World Trade Center bombing plot through informant Salem during this period, but they refused to believe his information or pay Salem's exhorbitant fees. In fact, the feds claimed that they dropped Salem as an informant during the summer of 1992 after he refused or failed a lie detector test. This left Salem with a bombing plot but no one to sell it to.
According to the attorney, Salem let the plot that he hatched go forward and the World Trade Center was bombed so that he could get money and publicity. The attorney says that within 48 hours of the bombing, the FBI requested Salem to help them solve the case. Salem quickly pointed the fingers at the defendants, all followers of Sheik Rahman.
So, who did it? From the above point of view, Salem constructed the bomb plot with those whom he subsequently set up. The U.S. government and its FBI were innocent bystanders who failed to prevent the carnage due to their unwillingness to take Salem's claims seriously, despite his close collaboration with Bureau agents for the better part of a year.
The other scenario looks like this: Informant Salem organized the bomb plot with the "supervision" of the FBI and the District Attorney as part of a classic entrapment setup. He befriended certain individuals, possibly some of the defendants, convinced them that his intentions to bomb the World Trade Center were sincere, and convinced them to get involved. The bomb goes off. Greedy Salem, with his ears still ringing, sells out his accomplices while attempting to sell more information to the Bureau. In order to protect him and their relationship, the FBI sequesters Salem and utilizes him against the real target of the FBI, Sheik Rahman.
In one of the taped conversations between Salem and "Special Agent" John Anticev, Salem refers to him and the Bureau's involvement in making the bomb that blew up the World Trade Center. As Salem is pressing for money while emphasizing his value as a Bureau asset, the conversation moves in and out of references to the bombing and the FBI's knowledge of the bomb making:
FBI: But ah basically nothing has changed. I'm just telling you for my own sake that nothing, that this isn't a salary but you got paid regularly for good information. I mean the expenses were a little bit out of the ordinary and it was really questioned. Don't tell Nancy I told you this. (Nancy Floyd is another FBI agent who worked with Salem in his informant capacity. The second tape obtained by the SHADOW is of a telephone conversation between Salem and Floyd -Ed.)
SALEM: Well, I have to tell her of course.
FBI: Well then, if you have to, you have to.
SALEM: Yeah, I mean because the lady was being honest and I was being honest and everything was submitted with receipts and now it's questionable.
FBI: It's not questionable, it's like a little out of the' ordinary.
SALEM: Okay. I don't think it was. If that what you think guys, fine, but I don't think that because we was start already building the bomb which is went off in the World Trade Center. It was built by supervising supervision from the Bureau and the DA and we was all informed about it and we know what the bomb start to be built. By who? By your confidential informant. What a wonderful great case! And then he put his head in the sand I said "Oh, no, no, that's not true, he is son of a bitch." (Deep breath) Okay. It's built with a different way in another place and that's it.
FBI: No, don't make any rash decisions. I'm just trying to be as honest with you as I can.
SALEM: Of course, I appreciate that.
source : http://pdr.autono.net/WhoBombedWTC.html
After careful deliberation, the SHADOW believes the question regarding the bombing boils down to the following: Did the FBI do the bombing, utilizing informant Salem as an "agent provocateur" or did it fail to prevent an independent Salem and his associates from doing it? The taped conversations obtained by the SHADOW seem to indicate the former:
FBI Informant Edam Salem: "...we was start already building the bomb which is went off in the World Trade Center. It was built by supervising supervision from the Bureau and the DA and we was all informed about it and we know that the bomb start to be built. By who? By your confidential informant. What a wonderful great case!"
Who is Emad Salem? FBI bomber, Arab double-agent or just greedy? Possibly a combination of all three. Salem is a former Egyptian Army officer who is currently the U.S. government's star witness against Egyptian cleric Dr. Omar Abdel Rahman, whom the FBI says was the ringleader in several bombing plots, including the World Trade Center. Shortly after the bombing at the Twin Towers (World Trade Center) the U.S. government moved to take Salem into the Witness Protection program.
According to the FBI, Salem was aware of the plot ostensibly because he had infiltrated Sheik Rahman and his associates. He was recruited as a government informant shortly after the 1991 assassination of of right- wing militant Rabbi Meir Kahane. As an associate of Rahman, Salem traveled in the cleric's inner circle, surreptitiously recording conversations, and selling his information to the Bureau. But unknown to his FBI handlers, Salem was also secretly recording his conversations with them, most likely to protect himself.
According to attorney Ron Kuby, after Salem was taken into the Witness Protection program on June 24, 1993, he told the feds about the more than 1,000 conversations he had recorded sometime between December, 1991 and June, 1993. Kuby says that while some of these tapes are not significant, others contain substantive dealings with Salem and his FBI handlers. Salem was actually bugging the FBI.
The World Trade Center bombing, along with subsequent alleged plots to bomb prominent targets in New York City, spawned a number of federal indictments and trials resulting in the conviction of more than a dozen men, all of Arabic descent. Salem's exposure as a government informant who had a year earlier infiltrated the group of men later charged in the bombing conspiracy caused many to wonder why he and the FBI failed to provide any warning of the pending World Trade Center bombing.
The answer now appears self-evident. According to William Kuntsler, attorney for Ibrahim El-Gabrowny, one of those accused in the larger bombing case, the entire conspiracy was the product of Salem, the government informant. Kuntsler's law partner Ronald Kuby told the SHADOW that within hours of the World Trade Center blast, Salem checked into a midtown hospital, complaining of a loud ringing in his ears. There is a growing belief that some of the four men charged and since convicted and jailed for the World Trade Center bombing, Mohammed Aboulihma, Mohammed Salameh, Nidal Ayyad and Ahmad Ajaj, may be innocent [victims] of a government frame-up.
Attorneys for those convicted have maintained that the government's case is circumstantial at best, with no evidence or motive linking the accused with the bombing. The FBI and federal prosecutors have not as yet responded to questions over the lack of warning of the attack on the Twin Towers, despite the strategic placement of their informant.
Two possible scenarios emerge. One: Salem is a rogue FBI informant who created the conspiracy to bomb the World Trade Center for the money his information about the plot (minus his role) would bring. An attorney for one of the convicted men told the SHADOW that Salem was an FBI informant from November of 1991 to the summer of 1992. The attorney says that the FBI became aware of the World Trade Center bombing plot through informant Salem during this period, but they refused to believe his information or pay Salem's exhorbitant fees. In fact, the feds claimed that they dropped Salem as an informant during the summer of 1992 after he refused or failed a lie detector test. This left Salem with a bombing plot but no one to sell it to.
According to the attorney, Salem let the plot that he hatched go forward and the World Trade Center was bombed so that he could get money and publicity. The attorney says that within 48 hours of the bombing, the FBI requested Salem to help them solve the case. Salem quickly pointed the fingers at the defendants, all followers of Sheik Rahman.
So, who did it? From the above point of view, Salem constructed the bomb plot with those whom he subsequently set up. The U.S. government and its FBI were innocent bystanders who failed to prevent the carnage due to their unwillingness to take Salem's claims seriously, despite his close collaboration with Bureau agents for the better part of a year.
The other scenario looks like this: Informant Salem organized the bomb plot with the "supervision" of the FBI and the District Attorney as part of a classic entrapment setup. He befriended certain individuals, possibly some of the defendants, convinced them that his intentions to bomb the World Trade Center were sincere, and convinced them to get involved. The bomb goes off. Greedy Salem, with his ears still ringing, sells out his accomplices while attempting to sell more information to the Bureau. In order to protect him and their relationship, the FBI sequesters Salem and utilizes him against the real target of the FBI, Sheik Rahman.
In one of the taped conversations between Salem and "Special Agent" John Anticev, Salem refers to him and the Bureau's involvement in making the bomb that blew up the World Trade Center. As Salem is pressing for money while emphasizing his value as a Bureau asset, the conversation moves in and out of references to the bombing and the FBI's knowledge of the bomb making:
FBI: But ah basically nothing has changed. I'm just telling you for my own sake that nothing, that this isn't a salary but you got paid regularly for good information. I mean the expenses were a little bit out of the ordinary and it was really questioned. Don't tell Nancy I told you this. (Nancy Floyd is another FBI agent who worked with Salem in his informant capacity. The second tape obtained by the SHADOW is of a telephone conversation between Salem and Floyd -Ed.)
SALEM: Well, I have to tell her of course.
FBI: Well then, if you have to, you have to.
SALEM: Yeah, I mean because the lady was being honest and I was being honest and everything was submitted with receipts and now it's questionable.
FBI: It's not questionable, it's like a little out of the' ordinary.
SALEM: Okay. I don't think it was. If that what you think guys, fine, but I don't think that because we was start already building the bomb which is went off in the World Trade Center. It was built by supervising supervision from the Bureau and the DA and we was all informed about it and we know what the bomb start to be built. By who? By your confidential informant. What a wonderful great case! And then he put his head in the sand I said "Oh, no, no, that's not true, he is son of a bitch." (Deep breath) Okay. It's built with a different way in another place and that's it.
FBI: No, don't make any rash decisions. I'm just trying to be as honest with you as I can.
SALEM: Of course, I appreciate that.
source : http://pdr.autono.net/WhoBombedWTC.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- RyDER
- The Man who has never been tired of enjoying the wonders of the world. Beauty, Technology and Love Powers his actions.