rand0M aXiS

left has been to convince folks that Hitler and facism is a right wing philosophy. How they do it is beyond my limited intelligence. Victor David Hanson, a professor from Fresno has an excellent analysis: (html number codes translate thru incorrectly, sorry about that) <font color="#800000">.....Ignorance and arrogance are a lethal combination. Nowhere do we see that more clearly among writers and performers who pontificate as historians when they know nothing about history.</font> <font color="#800000">...Entire continents can play this game. If Europe is awash in anti-Semitism, then one mechanism to either ignore or excuse it is to allege that the United States &#151; the one country that is the most hospitable to Jews &#151; is governed by a Hitler-like killer. Americans, who freed Europe from the Nazis, are supposed to recoil from such slander rather than cry shame on its promulgators, whose grandfathers either capitulated to the Nazis or collaborated &#151; or were Nazis themselves.</font> <font color="#800000">If the sick analogy to Hitler is intended to conjure up a mass murderer, then the 20th century&#146;s two greatest killers, Mao and Stalin, who slaughtered or starved somewhere around 80 million between them, are less regularly evoked. Perhaps that omission is because so many of the mass demonstrators, who bore placards of Bush&#146;s portrait defaced with Hitler&#146;s moustache, are overtly leftist and so often excuse extremist violence &#151; whether in present-day Cuba or Zimbabwe &#151; if it is decorated with the rhetoric of radical enforced equality.</font> <font color="#800000">....But something has gone terribly wrong with a mainstream Left that tolerates a climate where the next logical slur easily devolves into Hitlerian invective. The problem is not just the usual excesses of pundits and celebrities ......, but also supposedly responsible officials of the opposition such as former Sen. John Glenn, who said of the Bush agenda: &#147;It&#146;s the old Hitler business.&#148;</font> <font color="#800000">....Is there a danger to all this? Plenty. The slander not only brings a president down to the level of an evil murderer, but &#151; as worried Jewish leaders have pointed out &#151; elevates the architect of genocide to the level of an American president. Do the ghosts of six million that were incinerated &#151; or, for that matter, the tens of millions who were killed to promote or stop Hitler&#146;s madness &#151; count for so little that they can be so promiscuously induced when one wishes to object to stopping the filibuster of senatorial nominations or to ignore the objection of Europeans in removing the fascistic Saddam Hussein? </font> <font color="#800000">There is something profoundly immoral for a latte-sipping, upscale Westerner of the postmodern age flippantly evoking Hitler when we think of the countless souls lost to the historical record who were systematically starved and gassed in the factories of death of the Third Reich.</font> <font color="#800000">.....The final irony? The president who is most slandered as Hitler will probably prove to be the most zealous advocate of democratic government abroad, the staunchest friend of beleaguered Israel, and the greatest promoter of global individual freedom in our recent memory. In turn, too many of the Left who used to talk about idealism and morality have so often shown themselves mean-spirited, cynical, and without faith in the spiritual power of democracy.</font> <font color="#800000">What an eerie &#151; and depressing &#151; age we live in.</font></blockquote>

quote, but truthful. I prefer "The material world is no place for a gentleman" /images/graemlins/frown.gif

Here are the posts he made to the nazi site: Google Cache. He worshipped a man that would have stuck him in an oven in a heartbeat.

his posts. They are completely crazy. The rundown: -He's a Native American. -He's a Nazi. -He hates Capitalism. -He hates government. -He loves trees. Everybody got that? Are these things at all compatible? The only thing they seem to have in common is that they are ideologies that appeal to angry people. Hitler was not right wing. He was a left wing socialist. Got that? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

prabhu. /images/graemlins/blush.gif There are extremists on both ends of the spectrum (McVeigh on the right, Kazinsky on the left). There are two types of libertarians, the small "l" and the capitol "L". I call the capitol "L" LOSERS, as they have never won a national election, tho they are electing a few city council members and state legislators. I think the capitol Ls are too hung up on the legalization of drugs. But that is for another thread.......

Libertarian National Socialist Green party Lets's see... Green Party, right wing??? Socialist, right wing??? Libertarian, right wing??? A little bit I suppose. Nationalist, right wing??? I'll claim patriotism rather than nationalism. /images/graemlins/cool.gif "Libertarian National Socialist Green party" Can't get much more LEFT WING than that! The paper's bias is obvious. It does show one thing......liberals have very oppressive visions. The liberal who wrote the report just wanted to find someway to blast the right wing. Even if it means making the reporter look stupid. But deep down inside of the reporter and the reporter's liberal pals...........they quite possibly have the same eilitist/oppressing vision that the shooter had. Would explain a lot of anti American/anti Liberty statements that a lot of democrats make. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I can't. What a waste of time talking to moonbats that equate Bush and Binladen as morally equivalent. I've got better projects. /images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif Here's some more good news from Iraq: Baghdad Christians celebrate Palm Sunday without fear Asia News ^ | March 21, 2005 Baghdad (AsiaNews/Agencies) – Iraqi Christians crowded Palm Sunday services in Baghdad. “We are not afraid,” said Mayssoun Ishoo, a Syriac Catholic who, with other faithful, attended services at Our Lady of Deliverance in Baghdad to start Holy Week celebrations. The church was one of the five Christian places of worship hit by bomb attacks in August 2004. It was further targeted by another bomb last October. But yesterday, Palm Sunday, it was hit by throngs of people, families with their children. Arriving at the church the faithful performed the traditional act of reverence before the statue of Our Lady which stands in the Church yard, now protected by cement blocks to discourage car bombs. Hundreds of people, olive branches in their hands, eagerly participated in the mass service. They were relaxed and their faces did not have that edginess of some months ago. During the procession, many reached out to touch the bronze cross carried by the celebrating priest. “Attacks in the last few months have not stopped us from attending service,” many of them said. Still, Mgr Shaba Matoka, head of the Syriac Catholic Church, said that “we are not always certain that we can live in peace”. In his opinion, the “troublemakers are not true Iraqis, but foreigners and those who serve foreign interests”. Speaking about the country’s many religious groups, he stressed that “everyone in Iraq in Iraq has expressed the desire to live together”. Even talk about introducing Sharia law in Iraq has not raised concerns among Iraqi Christians. “I don’t cover my head like Muslim women,” said a Christian woman, who was wearing smart make-up and was accompanied by her two daughters clad in jeans. Christians were also delighted to hear that Minas al-Yousifi, a Christian political leader abducted in Baghdad on January 28, was released last Friday. The ‘Iraqi Vengeance Brigades’ had claimed the kidnapping and demanded a US$ 4 million ransom and the withdrawal of foreign troops. Eventually, the kidnappers asked only for US$ 400,000. In a dramatic video footage al-Yousifi, who had spent 20 years in exile in Sweden, appealed to the Pope and the King of Sweden. Upon his liberation Mr Yousifi, who heads Iraq’s Christian Democratic Party, said no ransom was paid.

<center></center>

How to Find a Sadhu? Questions and Answers with Sri Srimad Gour Govinda Swami Maharaja Devotee: How does one recognize a sadhu? Gour Govinda Swami: Cry before Krishna. Only He can help you to find a sadhu. You can’t recognize a sadhu. You have no vision to see the sadhu. If you try by yourself to recognize sadhu, then you will be cheated. If you are serious, then cry before Him. “O Krishna! I am your servant!” ay nanda-tanuja kinkaram patitam mam visame bhavambudhau krpaya tava .-pankaja- stita-dhuli-sadrsam vicintaya Mahaprabhu has taught us this. This is crying before Krishna. “O nanda-tanuja, son of Nanda Maharaja, I am your kinkara, your sevant. Somehow or other I am fallen here in this dreadful ocen of material existence and I have been drowning from time immemorial. But I want to serve you. How can I serve you? How can I become a speck of dust at Your lotus feet? Please help me.” Just cry. Without the help of sadhu you cannot approach Krishna. You can’t utter Krishna’s name. When you cry like that, Krishna is there in your heart as paramatma. He will say, “Oh now he is crying for Me.” Then he makes an arrangement. This is the proper way. If by your own effort you try to recognize a sadhu, you will be cheated. You can’t see a sadhu. You have no vision at all. You see only all outward, external things. You can’t see the real thing. There are many persons who are only outwardly sadhus. You will be enchanted by their external activities: “Oh, he is a great sadhu! Yes, he is producing gold!” You will be cheated. You can’t get a real sadhu [in this way]. A real sadhu is one who is competely absorbed in Krishna, day and night, twenty-four hours. He has gotten Krishna. He is with Krishna. He can give you Krishna. You can’t see him. You have no vision. Only you can cry for Krishna from the core of your heart. This is not an external cry. It is internal. Then Krishna, who is in your heart, will see that you are crying and he will help you. He will make arrangement for you to meet such a sadhu. That is the arrangement of Krishna. When you meet such a person you will feel some spontaneous attraction from the core of your heart. That attraction is the proof. Devotee: To meet a sadhu is so rare. How can one get the opportunity? Gour Govinda Swami: It’s a fact that it is rare, but if you are really crying for it then Krishna can make an arrangement. It is impossible for you, but nothing is impossible for Krishna. ----- Home program in Vancouver, Canada: May 1993

at the Sproul Plaza drum circle tonight. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif /images/graemlins/laugh.gif /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Nepal By Ramtanu Maitra The developments in Nepal since February 1, when King Gyanendra seized dictatorial powers in an effort to quell a Maoist insurgency, have put the foreign policy machinery in Washington into high gear. On March 2, in a statement before the US House of Representatives Committee on International Relations, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Donald Camp told legislators, "I want to assure you and the committee that the administration is deeply engaged in helping to resolve the current crisis in Nepal. President [George W] Bush's declaration of the United States's support for freedom around the world very much extends to Nepal." The pressure is on New Delhi to bring the Nepali king to heel, and is expected to mount further when US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visits India for a day on March 16. Announcing her visit, which was set up on short notice, an Indian Foreign Ministry spokesman said March 4 that the discussions between Rice and Indian authorities would include Nepal. The ball has also started rolling in Kathmandu. Nepali Foreign Minister Ramesh Nath Pandey held talks with Indian leaders during his "working visit" which began March 7, the first high-level trip to India after King Gyanendra's takeover of power, it was announced. "Pandey is paying a working visit to India and the current political situation of Nepal will naturally dominate the bilateral talks in Delhi," Nepal's Foreign Secretary Madhuraman Acharya, who is accompanying Pandey, said. Shared concerns In New Delhi, External Affairs Minister K Natwar Singh told news reporters on March 6 that "the developments in Nepal constitute a serious setback to democracy and bring the monarchy and mainstream political parties in direct confrontation with each other". "In view of the current disturbed conditions in Nepal, the question of military supplies to Nepal is under constant review," Singh added. "India is concerned that a further deterioration of the situation in Nepal will result in spill-over effects across the open border, particularly in the neighboring states. We have taken steps to strengthen security in border areas." New Delhi's concerns about the suppression of democracy and the deterioration of the security situation along the India-Nepal border echo Washington's concerns. In his testimony to American lawmakers, Camp stated, "We are concerned about abuses and atrocities by Maoists and human rights abuses by government security forces including extra-judicial killings and 'disappearances'. We continue to vet units receiving US assistance to ensure that none is implicated in human rights violations. An amendment to the FY 2005 Senate Appropriations bill stipulated that Foreign Military financing could be made available to Nepal if the secretary of state determined that Nepal was taking a number of steps to improve the human rights practices of the security forces. We have made it clear to the government of Nepal that we expect to see appropriate, timely and transparent investigations of any credible allegations of abuse and that failure to do so could jeopardize our ability to continue assistance. We will continue to convey our strong concern about human rights violations by the security forces to the highest levels of the Nepal government and urge swift investigation and punishment." Within hours of King Gyanendra's dramatic move, New Delhi sent a clear message concerning the abolition of constitutional fundamental rights and the suspension of the democratic system in Nepal. India's call for the restoration of democracy may not be viewed seriously by the Nepali king - or by the international community, for that matter, as Delhi has never been a stickler for democracy in other countries - but the fact remains that it was New Delhi who played the key role in helping bring down the absolute monarchy in Kathmandu in 1990 and establish a parliamentary democracy in Nepal in the first place. The latest reports indicate that India has stopped arms shipments to the Nepali king. A complex coup The "royal coup" has triggered a torrent of confusion, and raised many questions. What or who led the king down this turbulent path? Does he know how to avoid falling into the snake pits strewn across the garden path? Who should he trust? Analysts point out that the real intent of King Gyanendra was never a secret. On that fateful Friday night, June 1, 2001, in Narayanhiti Palace in Kathmandu, when the then-Crown Prince Dipendra reportedly wiped out almost his entire family and then took his own life, Prince Gyanendra became King Gyanendra. Soon after taking over, in a rare press interview, King Gyanendra said that unlike his brother, the murdered King Birendra, he would not be an onlooker and allow the growth of violent Maoists. New Delhi, of course, did not like the Friday night massacre, but quietly liked the new king's determination to eliminate the Maoists. After all, India's Maoists were gaining ground and it is hardly in New Delhi's interest to see Kathmandu soft-pedaling a Maoist movement along its border. In fact, when the Indian ambassador to Nepal, Shiv Shankar Mukherjee, who was withdrawn in the wake of the king's takeover but returned to Kathmandu on February 20, met Royal Nepali Army (RNA) chief General Pyar Jung Thapa in his Kathmandu headquarters soon after the royal takeover, Thapa hinted at invoking the 1950 India-Nepal Friendship Treaty to seek Indian troops to deal with the Maoist insurgency. Officials say New Delhi was immediately divided on the request: Natwar Singh insisted that no assistance be given, while Prime Minister Manmohan Singh urged a gentle, more measured response, in view of the Royal Nepal Army's extraordinary past contribution in working in tandem with the Indian army. The Indian position, as it was eventually communicated, was that India could not deny troops if asked. Indeed, neither India nor the US or the United Kingdom would like to see the Maoists gaining ground in Nepal. If Gyanendra's purpose is to go after the Maoists, none of these countries would be expected to protest. The China factor But there are wheels within wheels. To begin with, some analysts in New Delhi claim the February 1 coup by King Gyanendra had the blessings of Beijing. These analysts point to the fact that Gyanendra forced the Nepali cabinet to shut down the Tibetan cultural center affiliated to the Dalai Lama following the Christmas weekend visit to Hong Kong of King Gyanendra's son, Crown Prince Paras, and the fact that the coup itself took place after his second trip to Hong Kong in January. The same analysts cite another reason for believing King Gyanendra got some vocal support from China: namely, the king's decision to open the Lhasa-Kathmandu Road. This road had been built but never opened. New Delhi thought it had a say on this matter; but the king clearly thought otherwise. These two "events" preceding the coup gave the impression to the US and the UK that China was meddling in Nepal's affairs. This was particularly upsetting for these two Western powers and to India as well, because the Nepali king was getting arms and weapons from all three for his army. The UK, the US and several European countries have already expressed reservations about continued arms assistance to Nepal. This raises a possibility that the king may turn toward China. China does not seem to share the concerns of the other neighbors for a situation it deems to be Nepal's internal affair. What troubles New Delhi even more is the response of Islamabad to the coup. Islamabad summarily dismissed the fretting of New Delhi, Washington and London by calling the coup the "internal affair" of Nepal. New Delhi cannot forget that during a visit to Kathmandu last June, Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz offered to sell defense equipment to Nepal and was also ready to provide financial assistance in this regard. He said on that occasion that Pakistan was willing to offer military aid to support defense and security cooperation. What New Delhi notes ruefully is that Pakistan never really condemned the Maoist movement within Nepal. China, by contrast, was always categorical in condemning the Nepali Maoists and supporting the royalty. Following a mid-June trip to Beijing last year, Nepali General Pyar Jung Thapa revealed to state radio and television that China would step up "security cooperation" with Nepal. This will improve Kathmandu's ability to militarily counter the anti-monarchy insurgency that started in 1996, Thapa said. In Beijing for a week, Thapa held talks with top military officials such as Defense Minister General Cao Gangchuan and General Liang Guanglie, chief of staff of the People's Liberation Army. Neither side has revealed the extent of China's military assistance to Nepal. US aid to Nepal "King Gyanendra himself is reported to favor moving toward a closer relationship with China, and has recently conducted a high profile trip to [China]," said US legislators Frank Wolf and Mark Udall in a letter to colleagues criticizing the harassment of Tibetans in Nepal. But beyond the China and Pakistan factors, India and others feel betrayed by the king. The US has also become a major provider of military assistance to Nepal, allocating over US$29 million in grants to pay for US weapons, services and training from October 2001 to October 2004. US military assistance to Nepal increased dramatically after 2001: in mid-2001, Washington anticipated spending some $225,000 the following fiscal year (October 2001-September 2002) on the military training of Nepalese troops and did not plan to provide any financing (via grants and loans) for military purchases by Nepal. After September 11, $20 million was added in a supplemental allocation. In fiscal 2003, Nepal received $3.15 million from the Foreign Military Funding program and $500,000 under another program. For fiscal 2004, the Bush administration asked Congress for $10.6 million financing. The US had allocated $45 million in aid for Nepal in the year to September 2004, 10% of which was reportedly for security. For fiscal 2005, $44 million has been set aside with only one third for security-related activities. Following the royal coup, US Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca went to consult with European allies on Nepal, among other issues. Washington has a series of military arrangements with countries bordering China, stretching from its new bases in the Central Asian republics through Southeast Asia to its formal allies in northeast Asia: Japan and South Korea. The Bush administration sees the Nepal insurgency as another "domino" in its international "war on terrorism", arguing that the country could become a "failed state" and hence a haven for terrorists. It is not unlikely that Washington will exercise its oft-used weapon of sanctions against Kathmandu. Some time ago, it was reported that the US was threatening to raise the issue of human rights in Nepal in the United Nations and other world forums. Nepal was threatened with expulsion from the UN, the World Trade Organization, and so on. According to Indian intelligence, Nepal has approached China to veto any such threat. US ambassador to Nepal James Moriarty, who was recalled to the US for consultations in the wake of the royal coup but has since returned, recently hinted to the media that the US, India, the European Union and others who have been supporting Nepal's government will be looking for action soon if the country is to avoid punitive action, including aid cutbacks. Ramtanu Maitra writes for a number of international journals and is a regular contributor to the Washington-based EIR and the New Delhi-based Indian Defence Review. He also writes for Aakrosh, India's defense-tied quarterly journal.

What the Iraqis think about US peaceniks and other socialist trash.

have a funny mustache? /images/graemlins/grin.gif Most people who throw the aryan word around do. And I believe you about being a far right winger.

or under Saddam is the question. It is obvious. The photos of the masses giving the insurgents the purple finger is the proof. If it was about oil, then we would have left Iraq alone and ended the sanctions. But I'm not bothering to answer the lunatic leftists.

Condi is India's friend HT.com ^ | March 17, 2005 | Binay Kumar As I write this column today, the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is visiting New Delhi, her latest stopover in a South Asia tour that will take her to six countries including India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Going by the press reports from the subcontinent, there is an air of heightened expectations swirling over Raisina Hills, and perhaps justifiably so. This is her first tour of South Asian since taking oath of office on January 28. As part of a new charm offensive for the second term of President Bush aimed at undoing the severe damage done to American image abroad in the aftermath of the unilateral declaration of war on Iraq, Rice has already visited Israel, the West Bank and Europe (but a larger Middle East tour was called off last week apparently after reports of differences with Egypt over a political prisoner). Why should we treat Rice differently? We haven't forgotten the avoidable demonstration of double standards by Colin Powell when he visited the subcontinent last. Let bygones be bygones! Rice is made differently. Notwithstanding the enormous goodwill democrat Clinton had earned in India, as the main foreign policy adviser to the presidential republican candidate George Bush in the election campaign of 2000, Rice had forcefully argued in an article published in Foreign Affairs that America "should pay closer attention to India's role in the regional balance." She had argued: ''There is a strong tendency conceptually (in America) to connect India with Pakistan and to think only of Kashmir or the nuclear competition between the two states. But India is an element in China's calculation, and it should be in America's, too. India is not a great power yet, but it has the potential to emerge as one.'' It was her recognition of India's prospect as a global power that has shaped the contours of US policy towards India in the last four years since Bush assumed the presidency. What Rice was saying in 2000 assumes significance today as she steers America's foreign policy at its forefront. It also underlines her prudent acceptance of India's perception of itself as a country destined to achieve major power status. That Rice should recognize this aspiration as legitimate and valid is indeed a major shift in American establishment's view of India in the comity of nations. In fact, it was quite late in coming but this is not the place to lament the fallacies that hurt India-US relations for over fifty years. India's aspirations to be a global player was evident in the world view of its first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, the architect of India's post-independence foreign policy. His pursuit of non-alignment was not so much an attempt at 'aligning' India with the Soviet Union as it was essentially an endeavor to enter the world stage on its own terms. Non-alignment is a forgotten idea these days. America's ties with India have improved greatly since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the mid 1990s. Recently, Washington signed an agreement allowing India to purchase sensitive technology from the United States, something that looked almost impossible only a few years ago. On Friday, India and the United States agreed to hold joint workshops on missile defense at a two-day meeting that concluded in Hyderabad. Last month, the United States indicated that it may sell Patriot missile defense system to India. While Indian officials have also shown interest in buying F-16 fighter jets from the United States, US officials have said they want to be a major supplier of weapons to India, which has one of the largest armed forces in the world. The Indo-US Defense Policy Group, the highest policy making body that coordinates defense ties between the two countries, is reviewing various proposals to expand bilateral defense cooperation. All these new initiatives stem from the the controversial National Security Strategy document unveiled by the Bush Administration in September 2002, in which the White House, for the first time, put India in the section of global powers rather than in the traditional chapters reviewing US regional policy. Rice's unconventional view of India prevailed despite the fact that the US needed Pakistan to pursue its objectives in Afghanistan after September 11, 2001. Despite the well-known American disappointment with India's refusal to send troops to Iraq in the summer of 2003, Rice persisted with the implementation of President Bush's commitment to end the nuclear dispute with India. Together with Robert Blackwill, the US Ambassador to India at that time, Rice prevailed upon the American administration to 'certify' that the elections in Jammu and Kashmir in 2002 were free and fair. It was a very important endorsement, which helped shape the cricket diplomacy of 2005. Rice is no stranger to New Delhi. She may not have visited the place but is up to speed on its political and geo-strategic interests in that part of the world and beyond. It is crucial that India leverages the new correlation of forces in Washington to its advantage. And we wish both parties lots of luck in their interactions.

about the dark side being relative. I forgot to add the < /facetious> tag to my post. He had some pretty far out stuff every now and then. He also got sucked into that whole homo debate, which is best ignored, IMNSHO /images/graemlins/cool.gif

VNN when he went over to the dark side and published lots of nonsense. The good articles were lectures from Srila Narayana Mj, and those are available widely thru the mailing lists and at PureBhakti.com.

lost in South America by his own admission. Another who cares?

in the wilds of Brazil with no net access. Or he got a wakeup call in the middle of the night after posting neo-nazi nonsense. Who cares?

<h3>France Says Anti-Veil Law Success, Muslims Complain</h3> Reuters ^ | 03/15/05 | Tom Heneghan Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:55 AM ET By Tom Heneghan PARIS (Reuters) - A senior official declared France's law against Muslim headscarves in schools a success on Tuesday, one year after the bill was passed, while a pro-veil group said the new line had claimed what it called 806 victims. Hanifa Cherifi, inspector general at the Education Ministry, said the law had eased tensions at state schools and reconfirmed the separation of church and state as an essential rule. After the stormy debate over the law, France now understood its Muslim population better and was more able to distinguish between radicals and moderates, she said. "In terms of the numbers, the result is quite positive," Cherifi told Radio France Internationale. "Beyond that, the general atmosphere is quite positive and satisfactory for all, both the schools and the pupils. We are quite pleased." "Remember what it was like before this law. For the past 15 years, we had permanent tensions, sessions in administrative courts, headlines that gave France a terrible image." The March 15 Freedom Committee, a Muslim group supporting schoolgirls who defied the law, said in a report that 806 pupils had been what it called "victims" of the new policy. It said 47 had been expelled from school and 533 agreed under pressure to shed their headscarves and were now "in a deplorable psychological state," said the report cited in the daily Le Monde. To continue wearing their headscarves, others had dropped out of school, switched to correspondence courses or moved to countries such as Britain, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany and Turkey where they are not banned in schools, it said. SEPARATING RADICALS FROM MODERATES France passed the law last March and applied it at the reopening of school in September to check what teachers said was the growing influence of radical Islamic groups among disaffected Muslim youths. Some Islamic groups opposed the law, which includes Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses but was mainly aimed at Muslim headscarves, but kept quiet when it was applied last September as a sign of support for two French hostages in Iraq. Cherifi questioned the committee's figures and cited Education Ministry statistics showing that 639 pupils -- "and not just veiled young girls," she said -- came to state schools last September wearing banned clothing. Education Minister Francois Fillon said in January that 48 pupils had been banned for wearing religious symbols, including three Sikh boys who refused to remove their turbans. Cherifi said reaffirming the official separation of church and state, which Muslim activists have criticized as too strict, had helped France get through the latest headscarf controversy. "I have 15 years of experience with the headscarf issue and we have had tenser periods than this," she said. Contrary to warnings the Muslims would revolt if headscarves were banned, most have accepted the policy, she said, adding: "We have a more realistic view of this population now. We can identify the radical currents and the moderate currents."

India's matchmaker(transforming ties with the US & Israel) macleans.ca ^ | 11/03/05 | CLEO PASKAL March 11, 2005 Behind the scenes, Madhav Das Nalapat is transforming diplomacy CLEO PASKAL While China is hogging the headlines, the other billion-plus Asian giant is quietly making friends and influencing economies. Once-sleepy India has visibly changed in the last decade as it begins the process of joining up with the global marketplace. Its economy is opening up, it is a declared nuclear power, its software and biotech industries are booming, and it is increasingly being seen as a safe investment alternative to China. But India's new diplomatic initiatives are also leading to some dramatic shifts in the global balance of power, and a case in point is the evolving relationships, watched over by a mysterious backroom matchmaker, between India and the United States and Israel. Ties were once strained because of the Cold War: India was close to the Soviet Union; Israel and the U.S. were allies (until 1992, the Jewish state was not even allowed to set up an embassy in India). Washington's enduring coolness toward New Delhi after the collapse of the Soviet Union didn't help. But there were individuals who saw the need for closer relations. Among them was Martin Sherman, a lecturer in political science at Tel Aviv University. He recalls being at a conference in New Delhi in 1998, just after the Indians had exploded their first nuclear device. "The American ambassador for non-proliferation and I were the only non-Indians attending," Sherman says. "He was very harsh with the Indians. I just applied the basic principles of balance of power and profitability of the Indian sector." In other words, the increasing geopolitical weight of India could be used to advantage by the West, even as the country's growing middle class was becoming a desirable market. In Sherman's eyes, Israel and India had much in common. Both were concerned with Islamic fundamentalism, both were developing high-tech economies, and both were democracies among autocratic states. But in part because of the Cold War past, it was difficult to bring the two countries together, and also warm relations between New Delhi and Washington. Enter the matchmaker: Madhav Das Nalapat. Formerly the editor of the Times of India, and now a professor of geopolitics at Manipal Academy of Higher Education (an elite private university in southern India), Nalapat has no formal role in government, although he influences policy at the highest levels. During the days when India was frozen in the Cold War block, there was not much attention being paid to his view that closer economic ties with the U.S. would be better than ties to the U.S.S.R. But in 1991, one of his mentors, P. V. Narasimha Rao, took over as prime minister and put together an informal "kitchen cabinet," including Nalapat, to develop new ideas on economics and national security. Nalapat knew, as he now recalls, that "the only countries that made rapid economic progress in the 1980s were those friendly to the U.S." But with the U.S. and Indian foreign policy establishments still allergic to each other, an icebreaker was needed. The Indian diaspora in the U.S. -- one of the most prosperous and educated groups in that country -- was seemingly made-to-order, not only in helping convince Washington to forgive India's pro-Moscow Cold War tilt, but also using networks of family and friends in India to chip away at the hostility of several key officials toward a warming of ties with the U.S. Nalapat started promoting the creation of formal networks among Americans of East Indian descent in 1992. By 1995, Indian-Americans had formed lobbying organizations in Washington that were modelled -- not accidentally -- on the successful Jewish-American groups. Here also was a backdoor way to encourage closer relations between Israel and India: Nalapat saw Jewish-Americans as the perfect ally for Indian-Americans in Washington. "Indians and Jews shared a sense of humour and slightly chaotic minds," he says. "They were born to be close." By 1999, the alliance between the two diasporas had begun to resonate on Capitol Hill. The relationship became so strong that, in 2003, they played a large part in successfully lobbying the American government to allow Israel to sell Phalcon airborne early warning radar systems to India. In fact, in a decade India and Israel have gone from the skimpiest official relationship to Jerusalem being the second largest defence supplier to India (after Russia). The new Indo-Israeli-U.S. security trio came out of the closet in 2003, with Nalapat hosting a high-level trilateral conference in New Delhi. The following year the conference was held in Herzliyya, Israel; a third will be held this month in Washington. Nalapat has also turned his gaze toward Taiwan, a country he considers important to the balance of power in Asia. Because of a hesitation to provoke China -- which shares a 3,400-km border with India -- New Delhi had gingerly avoided closer contact with the island powerhouse whose exports are more than double India's. However, because of concern about China's growing might, several policy-makers in New Delhi are appreciative of Nalapat's call to develop close scientific and business links with Taiwan. Since 2003, some key officials from both countries have been quietly visiting each other, and more than 5,000 Indian high-tech personnel now work in Taiwan. To the Taiwanese, Nalapat has stressed commonalities: India and Taiwan are both democracies, something important to the Americans; India excels in software, Taiwan dominates in hardware; India needs investment, Taiwan is looking to diversify. Some of that investment would be in India's high-tech sector. And there is also the lure of India's $150-billion infrastructure market: India needs roads, ports and the like -- projects in which the Taiwanese have much experience. But the matchmaker is playing an even larger game. His new proposal, pitched to Pentagon officials in September 2003, is for a North America-Asia Treaty Organization (NAATO), anchored by the U.S. and India, that would serve as a security system for Asian democracies. Canada would also be a partner, along with Japan, Singapore, Australia and South Korea. The Americans may be listening. The "core coalition" announced in December 2004 by George W. Bush to fight the effects of the killer tsunami was comprised of the very same countries intended to form the heart of NAATO: the U.S. and India, along with Japan and Australia. While the latter two are no surprises, the presence of India, and the exclusion of China, is indicative of the future direction of alliances between North America and Asia. This is the first time that India has been at the core of a U.S. alliance. And the announcement of the tsunami coalition was closely followed by the visit of a U.S. delegation to New Delhi to discuss integrating India into the Bush administration's missile defence plan. That India has a vital role to play in U.S. strategic interests is clear. "Who controls the Indian Ocean is very important," Sherman notes. "It is a major passage for smuggling arms and equipment for terrorist activity. It is preferable for India to control it than Iran. A strong Indian navy in the Indian Ocean is important for Israel and the United States. India is a strong source of stability in the area." Informally, NAATO is already starting to come together. The Singaporean military now trains in India. American warships refuel at Indian ports. Indian ships escort U.S. vessels through parts of the region. Both Japan and Australia have begun joint military exercises and intelligence sharing with India. Anything seems possible, as long as the matchmaking continues.

Mystery of Delhi's Iron Pillar unraveled Press Trust Of India Thursday, July 18, 2002 New Delhi, July 18: Experts at the Indian Instituteof Technology have resolved the mystery behind the 1,600-year-old iron pillar in Delhi, which has never corroded despite the capital's harsh weather. Metallurgists at Kanpur IIT have discovered that a thin layer of "misawite", a compound of iron, oxygen and hydrogen, has protected the cast iron pillar from rust. The protective film took form within three years after erection of the pillar and has been growing ever so slowly since then. After 1,600 years, the film has grown just one-twentieth of a millimeter thick, according to R. Balasubramaniam of the IIT. In a report published in the journal Current Science Balasubramanian says, the protective film was formed catalytically by the presence of high amounts of phosphorous in the iron—as much as one per cent against less than 0.05 per cent in today's iron. The high phosphorous content is a result of the unique iron-making process practiced by ancient Indians, who reduced iron ore into steel in one step by mixing it with charcoal. Modern blast furnaces, on the other hand, use limestone in place of charcoal yielding molten slag and pig iron that is later converted into steel. In the modern process most phosphorous is carried away by the slag. The pillar—over seven metres high and weighing more than six tonnes—was erected by Kumara Gupta of Gupta dynasty that ruled northern India in AD 320-540. Stating that the pillar is "a living testimony to the skill of metallurgists of ancient India", Balasubramaniam said the "kinetic scheme" that his group developed for predicting growth of the protective film may be useful for modeling long-term corrosion behaviour of containers for nuclear storage applications. ++++++++++++++++++++++ And this today: More research needed on Delhi Iron Pillar: experts: [india News]: New Delhi, March 13 2005 The Delhi Iron Pillar, which has withstood corrosion for over 1,600 years, continues to attract the attention of archaeologists and scientists who want to undertake a systematic study to unfold the secret behind its strength. A panel of scientists from across the country has recommended that the Government allow research on the pillar, a symbol of Indian metallurgical excellence, to ascertain its age, as well as for conservation of its underground part and the passive film that has preserved it through the ages. "The Archaeological Survey of India has agreed to allow the use of well-established non-invasive techniques to ascertain as to when was the pillar built and its material aspects. But the efficacy of the techniques should be established by testing other ancient iron objects such as Iron Pillar at Dhar and Iron Beams at Konark," Director, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Dr Baldev Raj, who was a member of the panel that made the recommendations, said. The panel had gathered here to review the status of scientific research on the pillar and make recommendations to the Government to initiate systematic scientific studies to gain more information about it. Earlier studies, beginning in 1961, have thrown some light on the composition and the microstructure of the "rustless wonder", but difference versions exist on the scientific dating of the pillar, Professor R Balasubramaniam, a scientist at IIT Kanpur who has conducted extensive research on the pillar, said. PTI

http://www.timesonline.co.uk March 13, 2005 Revealed: Israel plans strike on Iranian nuclear plant Uzi Mahnaimi ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans for a combined air and ground attack on targets in Iran if diplomacy fails to halt the Iranian nuclear programme. The inner cabinet of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, gave “initial authorisation” for an attack at a private meeting last month on his ranch in the Negev desert. Israeli forces have used a mock-up of Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment plant in the desert to practise destroying it. Their tactics include raids by Israel’s elite Shaldag (Kingfisher) commando unit and airstrikes by F-15 jets from 69 Squadron, using bunker-busting bombs to penetrate underground facilities. The plans have been discussed with American officials who are said to have indicated provisionally that they would not stand in Israel’s way if all international efforts to halt Iranian nuclear projects failed. Tehran claims that its programme is designed for peaceful purposes but Israeli and American intelligence officials — who have met to share information in recent weeks — are convinced that it is intended to produce nuclear weapons. The Israeli government responded cautiously yesterday to an announcement by Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, that America would support Britain, France and Germany in offering economic incentives for Tehran to abandon its programme. In return, the European countries promised to back Washington in referring Iran to the United Nations security council if the latest round of talks fails to secure agreement. Silvan Shalom, the Israeli foreign minister, said he believed that diplomacy was the only way to deal with the issue. But he warned: “The idea that this tyranny of Iran will hold a nuclear bomb is a nightmare, not only for us but for the whole world.” Dick Cheney, the American vice-president, emphasised on Friday that Iran would face “stronger action” if it failed to respond. But yesterday Iran rejected the initiative, which provides for entry to the World Trade Organisation and a supply of spare parts for airliners if it co-operates. “No pressure, bribe or threat can make Iran give up its legitimate right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes,” said an Iranian spokesman. US officials warned last week that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities by Israeli or American forces had not been ruled out should the issue become deadlocked at the United Nations.

http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html You're Welcome.