Rama's WMD

Most people in the world can remember where they were and what they were doing when they heard about the planes terrorists flew into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, DC. This Thursday marks the seventh anniversary of the disaster, and since then a global "war on terror" has been waged -- but not won.


With NATO support, the US has toppled the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and established a new government, but not stabilized the country. A second war was started in Iraq with 9/11 as a justification -- but on false premises, as most of the world knows now and many people already understood in 2003.
Most of the world now has a new understanding of "security." Global terrorism of the sort practiced by al-Qaida finds targets that are not always easy to comprehend: a Danish embassy in Pakistan, nightclubs on Bali, trains in London and Madrid, wedding parties in Jordan, a synagogue in Tunisia, a British bank in Istanbul.

To protect themselves, Western as well as non-Western states have passed new laws, some of them draconian. The United States set up a prison at Guantánamo Bay which has yet to be dismantled.

The CIA has kidnapped and transported terror suspects all over the world, including people who weren't especially suspect and have long been proved innocent. Arab nations have signed dubious extradition treaties to move terrorist suspects back and forth. Russia and China use the "war on terror" for their own purposes -- to declare Chechens and Uighurs potential terrorists, for example. The debate over torture, once thought to be settled in civilized nations, has enjoyed an unexpected and in some ways ignoble renaissance.

And al-Qaida?

Al-Qaida is not beaten. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are still at large. A number of high-ranking members of the organization have been killed or arrested, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi bin al-Shibh and others. But terrorism hasn't stopped. Al-Qaida has retreated in Iraq, perhaps, but in Pakistan as well as North Africa, it has gained influence and space.

But there is no single, clear image of al-Qaida or its current status. It has changed from an organization of militias into something nobody recognizes. Is it more of a movement? Are al-Qaida's capabilities weaker than before, or is another 9/11 still possible? Are there fewer members of al-Qaida now, or more?

For the seventh anniversary of 9/11, SPIEGEL ONLINE has asked seven renowned terrorism experts from seven different countries for their opinions of the threat al-Qaida still poses. They are all influential analysts, authors and observers of the global jihad movement. They agree on many things, but disagree on such basic principles as the network's future goals and the success of Western measures against terrorism.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,577459,00.html

I like you better this way, Rama.

FWIW,

Rock

I am here to expose my ignorance and thereby get some help to JOIN THE MAJORITY sir.
Join the majority= death

Don't mistake me for the majority, Jack...

No
I will never meashure the sky with my small hands nor judge other's with my pathetic brain.
Just below I had revived my own post which shows my ignorance.
I make it a point not to indulge in villification, vituperation or vainglorius verbal vomitation.

Rama,

Yer not always wrong, and sometimes you can be Really right...

You are over zealous, and you need to learn to listen...

Quit calling me sir, it makes me nervous, and old...

In German language there is one saying which is somewhat like this.
One who wish to feel should listen.
I always listen and thereby i feel a lot about the life of the innocents.
I am ready to learn and enrich my experience by learning.
But i am not a coward to swollow all the hypocracies around us and say Amen.
Here is one hypocracy in full text.

Why did Osama bin Laden choose September 11 for his attack on America?

On September 11, 1973 a military coup d'état supported by the administration of President Richard M. Nixon in the United States put an end to the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile. After the coup Nixon supported both diplomatically and economically the military Junta that seized power. The junta, led by Augusto Pinochet, arrested, tortured and murdered thousands of Allende's supporters.

It is not farfetched, therefore, to suppose bin Laden chose September 11 in order to make us look like the pot calling the kettle black when we charged him with being an antidemocratic religious fundamentalist. And if that is the case the choice was well made.

In the past the U.S. supported the repressive regimes of Anastasio Somoza in Nicaragua, Fulgencio Batista in Cuba, Suharto in Indonesia and Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. In addition it helped to overthrow the democratically elected governments of Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran and Jacobo Árbenz in Guatemala. Yet as a textbook example of how the U.S. has violated human rights and the enlightenment ideals embodied in its constitution while undermining democracy and the rule of law in another country nothing surpasses Chile.

Chile before the coup was the most democratic country in Latin America and one of the most democratic countries in the world. It had a democratically elected President and a democratically elected two house legislature, an independent judiciary, a free and active press, and prestigious universities. Allende ran for President in 1952, 1958, and 1964 but it wasn't until 1970 when he ran as the candidate of a coalition of parties called the Popular Unity that he finally won.

During the time Allende was President the opposition published six daily newspapers in Santiago with a weekday circulation of 541,000 while pro-government forces published only 5 with a circulation of 312,000. Additionally, the opposition controlled the majority of radio stations and most of the newspapers and magazines circulating outside of Santiago. Nevertheless, in the congressional elections that took place six months before the coup the Popular Unity parties that supported Allende picked up six seats in the house and two seats in the Senate.

Yet despite Allende's popularity and respect for the democratic process, powerful heads of multinational corporations with disproportionate influence in Washington were hostile to him. They were hostile before he was elected because he threatened to nationalize their investments in Chile and hostile after he was elected because he carried out his threats.

Consequently, when Allende ran for President in 1964 President Johnson ordered the CIA to support a propaganda campaign to discredit him. Then, after a similar campaign failed in 1970 President Nixon and his national security advisor Henry Kissinger directed the CIA to promote a coup d'état. And finally, after the coup took place, Nixon and Kissinger looked the other way as the military Junta led by Pinochet unleashed a wave of violence and repression far worse than anything Chileans imagined could occur.

Thousands of Allende's supporters were arrested, tortured and murdered. Thousands more were exiled. The Congress and labor unions were abolished. Political parties were banned. The press was censored. Military officials were appointed as rectors of the universities. Books were burned. The music of popular folk singers was prohibited and Victor Jara, one of the best known of those singers, was arrested, tortured and killed.

Hence if Osama bin Laden wanted to make the point that the United States lacks credibility as an arbiter of democracy he could not have chosen a better date to carry out his attack on America than September 11. That may be a hard pill for us to swallow but swallow it we must if we are to learn from the past and work to change our image so others view us as a country whose actions in the international arena reflect our democratic ideals.http://www.counterpunch.org/cantor09112008.html

I swallow very little...

You will have to find somebuddy else to argue with, I just do the other crap...

I prefer to discuss but not argue.
Argument is to substantiate one#s rigid policy/view.
Discussion is an art of conversation thro which one get new ideas.

70 percent of my views are open for correction but not the rest 30 persont. because 30 percent is based on my research.
As a mark of respect i beg to draw your kind attention about 11th september. Here is one

On this 7th year anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon, we re-read Michel Chossudovsky's research and report on who in the U.S. Government had advance knowledge of the attacks. Read the evidence, meticulously gathered by Chossudovsky and form your own conclusions.

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_28174.shtml

With the rise of Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska, as partner on the John McCain ticket, the issue has been limited to the immediate sphere of personal emotions. It is like a return to the pre-Woodrow Wilson era, with full international isolation of the U.S. Without entering into the arena of prejudice, with Sarah Palin emerges a political figure evoking a mix of Doris Day and Connie Francis. The Republicans are masters in this sense. They brought out Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, all at appropriate times, faced with this the Democrats could do little.

People and Not Politics

The Republican bet consists of highlighting the war experience of McCain and the pathos of Palin as a woman, converting into decisive factors for this election. It is not the content of the public politics which is the topic of interest for the voter, but rather the values that the candidates represent.
That is to say, what started and emerged in this election with the rise of Palin to counteract the substance of Barack Obama, is not a U.S. parted in two because of a polarization of political or ideological character, but rather is something worse: in the methodology of the Republican which dominates the political scene, public politics are separated from the individual condition.

A return to the origins of the formation of the U.S. soul: the strictest individualism, exacerbated in a world that is becoming every moment more interdependent. In this sense, the McCain"Palin ticket would be an anathema with regard to the times. “For the Republicans this election is not about issues, but about people,” comments an expert. “No longer is Iraq important, Osama Bin Landen remains at large and the economy matters little,” he emphasizes
With the rise of Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska, as partner on the John McCain ticket, the issue has been limited to the immediate sphere of personal emotions. It is like a return to the pre-Woodrow Wilson era, with full international isolation of the U.S. Without entering into the arena of prejudice, with Sarah Palin emerges a political figure evoking a mix of Doris Day and Connie Francis. The Republicans are masters in this sense. They brought out Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, all at appropriate times, faced with this the Democrats could do little.

People and Not Politics

The Republican bet consists of highlighting the war experience of McCain and the pathos of Palin as a woman, converting into decisive factors for this election. It is not the content of the public politics which is the topic of interest for the voter, but rather the values that the candidates represent.
That is to say, what started and emerged in this election with the rise of Palin to counteract the substance of Barack Obama, is not a U.S. parted in two because of a polarization of political or ideological character, but rather is something worse: in the methodology of the Republican which dominates the political scene, public politics are separated from the individual condition.

A return to the origins of the formation of the U.S. soul: the strictest individualism, exacerbated in a world that is becoming every moment more interdependent. In this sense, the McCain"Palin ticket would be an anathema with regard to the times. “For the Republicans this election is not about issues, but about people,” comments an expert. “No longer is Iraq important, Osama Bin Landen remains at large and the economy matters little,” he emphasizes

On the Seventh Anniversary of 9/11, The Truth is Still Not Unequivocal, And the Mystery Remains"
"On the seventh anniversary of the September 11 events, the truth is still not unequivocal, and the mystery remains. The immediate and simple explanation according to the official version of the events is, to this day, the object of criticism and sometimes even of derision.

"The world may have to wait 25 years for the truth to come to light and for the secret documents and information about what happened to be presented. But who cares about the truth?

"What is important, always, is the use of the events in order to carry out a strategy planned in advance - which raises the possibility that the injured party itself carried out the deed, especially if the matter concerns a country with great strategic interests such as the U.S.

"Many are the instances of violence and terror in the land of Uncle Sam, and no one knows what is behind them. Who killed President Kennedy? To date, no one knows the truth. Who is behind the Oklahoma [City] bombing? Who is behind the many instances of violence that made possible [the implementation of] aggressive strategies and policies prepared in advance?...

"Today too, there are still those who seriously raise [the possibility] that American intelligence agencies were behind the September 11 events - whether directly by means of facilitating Al-Qaeda's plot or [indirectly] by means of involving [Al-Qaeda] in the events."


"The Mere Fact That These Questions Are Being Raised Means That There Is Doubt Regarding the Official Version [Of Events]"

"French journalist Thierry Meyssan was the first to raise this possibility and to try to prove it. [The Syrian government] newspaper Al-Ba'th published [Meyssan's] book in serial form in early 2002. After that, this possibility was also raised by Michael Moore in his famous film 'Fahrenheit 9/11.' Likewise, recently one of the Arab satellite channels showed a documentary film called 'September 11 - Another Story.'

"The mere fact that these questions are being raised means that there is doubt regarding the official version [of events], [even] without real proof that American intelligence agencies were involved [in the attacks]. But a logical analysis of the instrumentalist 'pragmatic' philosophy that leads the thinking of American politicians reinforces the possibility that the American establishment is involved in this act of terror."


"These Plans Were Ready and Prepared [In Advance] - And All That Was Needed Was to Find a Pretext to Begin Their Immediate Implementation"

"The American instrumental approach is based on the Machiavellian principle of 'the end justifies the means.' The aim was to invade Afghanistan... to get close to the Caspian Sea gas and oil pipelines, and then to invade Iraq and to fix the poles of the tent of unipolarity in the ground.

"These plans were ready and prepared [in advance] - and all that was needed was to find a pretext to begin their immediate implementation. Indeed, the shock following 9/11 created an American public opinion that supported the war, aggression, and madness of our time, to which Afghanistan, Iraq, and all global stability fell victim.

"No one believes that it was possible to invade Afghanistan and Iraq in the same way and so fast had it not been for the 9/11 attacks. That's how it always is: the end justifies the means."

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD204808
V r not fools to follow your views.
pakc your box and behave if you can.
Death levels all.

Terrorists: We condemn them all


Friday, September 12, 2008


ON THE the seventh anniversary of 9/11 the world remembers the cowardly act of hardcore terrorists who were responsible for over 3,000 innocent civilian deaths especially in New York in the United States of America. We remember with horror the sight of the burning twin towers of the World Trade Centre which crashed as well the heroic acts of the New York Fire and Rescue services and others without whose courage many more lives would have been lost. We also remember the attack on the Pentagon and the heroic determination of the passengers on the plane bound for the White House who took the battle to the terrorists resulting in the plane crashing miles from the intended target killing all aboard.

The Brunei Times condemns all forms of terrorism and attacks on the innocent. There is no heroism in any terrorist act and all terrorist acts must be condemned no matter under what guise they are perpetrated. No amount of time will dilute such heinous murder of innocent lives. An age of Man may pass and we may forget but that does not make the crime any less than when it was fresh in our minds. The Brunei Times did recently carry an opinion article where the writer tried to "justify" the action of the 9/11 terrorists. We have banned that writer and the publication he writes for from the pages of The Brunei Times.

The Brunei Times is relentless in its condemnation of people who perpetrate terror no matter who they are and under whatever guise. In this respect we condemn government-backed acts which result in innocent deaths; and here the example that stands out is the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Many a time we find that it is the very victims of terror who become perpetrators. It is as though being a victim justifies one to commit acts of terror entitling one to take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Israel in its subjugation of the Palestinian people has made the entire Palestinian population suffer for every single affront to its role as prison warden.

Our compassion for the Israelis when they lost six million of their people to the Nazis in the years of the Holocaust in Europe during the Second World War of the last century has hardened to condemnation for the Zionists who are in turn perpetrating genocide if only on retail scale on the Palestinians. Palestinians are prisoners in their own land which was stolen from them and many of these homeless people and their descendants are languishing in refugee camps in broad daylight with the full support of the mighty United States of America.

Rights groups and many newspapers, including The Brunei Times have tried to demonstrate the plight of Palestinians in Gaza who are living even as this is being written under the yoke Israeli oppression in the biggest open prison in the world. Israel is able to commit acts of terror while casting that very cloak of terror on its victims for retaliating against government sponsored acts of terror. to peace pledges encroaches like a cancer onto Palestinian lands so much so that Palestinians now only occupy walled out, ghetto-like enclaves. The Israelis will go on talking peace until there is no more Palestine to talk about. Life has been terrible over the last eight years under the Bush admnistration. It is understood that Tel Aviv and Israel lobby has such a vice-like grip over Capitol Hill without their blessings neither McCain nor Obama can hope to become president of the United States.

So Palestinians hoping for relief under an Obama administration will hope in vain as he it appears has sold his soul to the Israel lobby.

The Brunei Times also condemns the illegal invasion of Iraq for its oil under the guise of removing weapons of mass destruction, military action where it appears that there are as many or more more victims of "collateral damage" than enemy combatants as well as the illegal extraordinary renditions of alleged terrorists to third countries where they are subjected to torture.

The US has for years, as the world's only superpower, played policeman to the world but over the last eight years of the Bush administration it has lost much of its high moral ground. Now, even Obama's "Change we can believe in" sounds empty somewhat.


http://www.bt.com.bn/en/editorial/2008/09/12/terrorists_we_condemn_them_all

Even amid the presidential campaign tensions, both candidates should make sure to affirm their and their country's consensus against terror and for civil liberties. Barack Obama should give a speech detailing where he agrees with George W. Bush's anti-terror strategy - before highlighting the disagreements. John McCain should identify what constitutional limitations he accepts when fighting terrorism - before justifying the emergency measures he feels the war warrants. Such statements would shrink the partisan battlefield, emphasizing the consensus Americans share with their two presumptive nominees in abhorring terror and cherishing the Constitution.

Seven years ago, on a beautiful September Tuesday, Osama bin Laden's terrorists did not distinguish between Democrats and Republicans, blacks and whites, Muslims or non-Muslims, or even Americans and non-Americans. They killed indiscriminately, brutally. Living as we all do in a post 9/11 world, those who aspire to lead Western countries responsibly must reaffirm a common commitment to combating Islamist terrorism - and ensure that the nightmare of 9/11 never recurs.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1220802300904&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

I am Rama fuchs
and not new Rama.
Correct your views.
Computer intellectuals are there in Israle, brazil, and in india..
make yourself to face me who is not ashamed to expose his ignorance.
Ramafuchs

belittle not the participants of A2K who strive hard to enthuse thenew members.

I am ready to quit this forum if it goes on like this.

I feel pity for those Americans who are misled by the so called republicans.
Though I am a critical reader of NYT I found these words are from my heart.

"As we watched Sarah Palin on TV the last couple of days, we kept wondering what on earth John McCain was thinking.
If he seriously thought this first-term governor " with less than two years in office " was qualified to be president, if necessary, at such a dangerous time, it raises profound questions about his judgment. If the choice was, as we suspect, a tactical move, then it was shockingly irresponsible.

It was bad enough that Ms. Palin’s performance in the first televised interviews she has done since she joined the Republican ticket was so visibly scripted and lacking in awareness.

What made it so much worse is the strategy for which the Republicans have made Ms. Palin the frontwoman: win the White House not on ideas, but by denigrating experience, judgment and qualifications.

The idea that Americans want leaders who have none of those things " who are so blindly certain of what Ms. Palin calls “the mission” that they won’t even pause for reflection " shows a contempt for voters and raises frightening questions about how Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin plan to run this country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/opinion/13sat1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
"to run the country= to ruin the country.

for your consumption.


Use of Force Against RNC Protesters 'Disproportionate,'
Charges Amnesty International

LONDON - September 5 - Amnesty International is concerned by allegations of excessive use of force and mass arrests by police at demonstrations in St. Paul, Minnesota during the Republican National Convention (RNC) from September 1-4, 2008. The human rights organization is calling on the city and county authorities to ensure that all allegations of ill-treatment and other abuses are impartially investigated, with a review of police tactics and weapons in the policing of demonstrations.

The organization's concerns arise from media reports, video and photographic images which appear to show police officers deploying unnecessary and disproportionate use of non-lethal weapons on non-violent protestors marching through the streets or congregating outside the arena where the Convention was being held.

Police are reported to have fired rubber bullets and used batons, pepper spray, tear gas canisters and concussion grenades on peaceful demonstrators and journalists. Amnesty International has also received unconfirmed reports that some of those arrested during the demonstrations may have been ill-treated while held at Ramsey county jail.

Amnesty International is also concerned at reports that several journalists who were covering the RNC were arbitrarily arrested while filming and reporting on the demonstrations. They include host of independent news program Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman, and two of the program's producers, Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar, who were both allegedly subjected to violence during their arrest. A photographer for the Associated Press (AP) and other journalists were also arrested while covering the demonstrations.

Kouddous described his arrest to media, "...two or three police officers tackled me. They threw me violently against a wall. Then they threw me to the ground. I was kicked in the chest several times. A police officer ground his knee into my back...I was also, the entire time, telling them, ‘I'm media. I'm press....,' but...that didn't seem to matter at all."

Amnesty International urges that an inquiry be carried out promptly, that its findings and recommendations be made public in a timely manner. If the force used is found to have been excessive and to have contravened the principles of necessity and proportionality, then those involved should be disciplined, measures put in place and training given to ensure future policing operations conform to international standards.

Amnesty International recognizes the challenges involved in policing large scale demonstrations and that some protestors may have been involved in acts of violence or obstruction. However, some of the police actions appear to have breached United Nations (U.N.) standards on the use of force by law enforcement officials. These stipulate, among other things, that force should be used only as a last resort, in proportion to the threat posed, and should be designed to minimize damage or injury. Some of the treatment also appears to have contravened U.S. laws and guidelines on the use of force. The U.N. standards also stress that everyone is allowed to participate in lawful and peaceful assemblies, in accordance with the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2008/0905-9

A thought to ponder over for the european audience here.

"We in Europe cast a purely European glance at the American presidential election now reaching its climax. That means we confuse the problems we have in our relations with the U.S. with those problems the Americans have with themselves. Therefore, we think the Iraq war will be a decisive factor in the U.S. elections. The majority of Europeans are against that war. We think we know that America has lost the war in Iraq without winning the peace. We Europeans think that whoever didn’t win the peace must also lose the election.

But in America, the clocks tick differently. There, whoever isn’t solidly behind the boys in Iraq will lose the election. America is at war. The Americans aren’t a warrior people, but they are a people with warriors. To give them the cold shoulder means to lose the presidency. The Iraq question will have no meaning in the election because neither candidate will withdraw support for the troops. The hope that a Democratic victory in November will lead to a quick end to the war in Iraq speaks volumes about the naiveté with which many Europeans view America. The same goes for the idea that a Democratic victory would mean the beginning of improved relations between the U.S. and the European Union.

A Democratic president will mean Europeans will be asked for greater allegiance to the United States and increased participation in the fighting in Afghanistan. But Europeans have reached the limits of their military capacity and can only react negatively to demands for more troops. Their already predictable “we can’t” will lead a Democratic White House to publicly conclude that the world can’t count on the Europeans. Trans-Atlantic concerns that the U.S. will tend towards protectionism " a tendency already apparent - will become increasingly visible and will obviously be directed toward Europe. The bottom line: Europeans dream of a genial post-Bush era but the reality is it’s unlikely to be genial."
http://watchingamerica.com/News/6033/elections-don%E2%80%99t-change-the-world-much/

There is no new Rama nor Rama is so banal to change his spots.
This is a political platform/forum and my WMD is better than Bin laden's one
or Sadam#s one or the newly found Gaddafi's one.
I beg the adminstrator to delete the computer intellectual WORD( new Rama) which is absolutely worng.
I mean in this post