• Blog Stats

    • 153,272 Visitors
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 1,075 other followers

  • Google Translator

    http://www.google.com/ig/adde?moduleurl=translatemypage.xml&source=imag

  • FaceBook

  • Islamic Terror Attacks

  • Meta

  • iPaper Embed

  • Calendar

    November 2017
    M T W T F S S
    « Sep    
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    27282930  
  • Authors Of Blog

  • Monthly Archives

Ram Setu. A truth


Rama’s_bridge.jpghttp://www.google.com/images?q=ramsetu&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7TSNB_enUS357US357&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=yXuHTJGhBMPwngf1kuHwCw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQsAQwAA&biw=999&bih=411

SOME TIMES BY ; SANTOSH BHATT

Rama's Bridge. A subset of Landsat 5 TM true c...

Rama’s Bridge. A subset of Landsat 5 TM true color composite of Rama’s bridge or Ram Setu (referred by British cartographers as Adam’s Bridge). Path 142 Row 54; Bands 742 (RGB); Resolution 30 meter. Original image acquired on 6 February, 1988 at 4:42:00 GMT. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

Rama’s_bridge.jpg

Ram Setu Bandh ( Bridge ) and Lord Rama took birth at the end of Trta Yuga and Begining of Dwapar Yuga some 8,64000 Plus Krishna era or Kaliyuga i.e 7571 years ( 5561 BC +2010 AC = 7571 ) Ago Hinduism: Age of the earth according to Vedic chronology and Dating of Maha Bharat and Krishna.

The Scientific Dating of the Mahabharat War 4th Dec. 7571

These are satelite Images of Ram Setu Bandh taken by NASA and ISRO http://www.google.com/images?q=ramsetu&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7TSNB_enUS357US357&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=yXuHTJGhBMPwngf1kuHwCw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQsAQwAA&biw=999&bih=411

The bridge was first mentioned in the ancient Sanskrit epic Ramayana of Valmiki[Ramayana]. The western world first encounters it in “historical works in the 9th century” by Ibn Khordadbeh in his Book of Roads and Kingdoms (ca. 850 CE), referring to it is Set Bandhai or “Bridge of the Sea”.

[7] Later, Alberuni described it.

The name Rama’s Bridge or Rama Setu (Sanskrit; setu: bridge) was given to this bridge of shoals in Rameshwaram, as Hindu legend identifies it with the bridge built by the Vanara (monkey-men) army of Rama , which he used to reach Lanka and rescue his wife Sita from the Rakshasa king, Ravana, as stated in the Sanskrit epic Ramayana.

[8] The sea separating India and Sri Lanka is called Sethusamudram “Sea of the Bridge”. Maps prepared by a Dutch cartographer in 1747, available at the Tanjore Saraswathi Mahal Library show this area as Ramancoil, a colloquial form of the Tamil Raman Kovil (Rama’s Temple)

[9] Another map of Mogul India prepared by J. Rennel in 1788 retrieved from the same library called this area the area of the Rama Temple

[10] Many other maps in Schwartzberg’s historical atlas[11][12] and other sources call this area with various names like Koti, Sethubandha and Sethubandha Rameswaram along with others.

[13][14][15][16] Valmiki’s Ramayana attributes the building of the bridge to Lord Rama in verse 2-22-76.[17]

The earliest map that calls this area Adam’s bridge was prepared by a British cartographer in 1804, probably referring to an Islamic legend, Islamic apeasing was conspiracy of British and Moslims to steal any thing and every thing good of others and Renamed with fake stories.

According to which Adam used the bridge to reach Adam’s Peak in Sri Lanka, where he stood repentant on one foot for 1,000 years, leaving a large hollow mark resembling a footprint. Both the peak and the bridge are named after this legend.[2][8][18]

Indian Historians: Notorious or Ignorant

More than a hundred years ago, when History of India was written under British influence, there was no room for Ramayan and Mahabharat as historical events. They were epics and of no importance for students. It is surprising that India is one country whose history has been written by its enemies and the whole nation yet follows it.

No doubt the history was a strategic attack on Indian civilization and culture that paved way for western culture into the nation. With time, truth is evolving back. Science of India that was denied is now accepted through western influence.

The myths are suddenly appearing to be history. And one such history is Ram Sethu. Since, it is a history of Hindus, politics and literates are not ready to accept it as truth.

If they are so intelligent, let them go through this article. I challenge them through few questions mentioned in bold in this article.

Let us have a background of what politicians and historians (British written history literates) say about Ram Sethu.

Historian B.D. Chattopadhyay of Jawaharlal Nehru University says the archaeological record says nothing of the sort.

There is no evidence of a human presence in the subcontinent, he says, before roughly 250,000 to 300,000 years ago. It is generally believed man’s hominid ancestors did not leave their African home until about two million years ago.

Very important point here is that Mr. Chattopadhyay has forgot to note that what is said of hominid ancestors is also a belief – a belief generated by Western people and followed by Mr. Chattopadhyay – not Truth, not Science.

Surely Ramayan, if a belief is a belief of eastern people – Indian People. Mr. Chattopadhyay is trying to introduce a belief clash.

Why Mr. Chattopadhyay wants to defy a true instance with a false belief? Does Mr. Chattopadhyay want to say that Lord Rama is deep in the heart of billions of Indians to this date without any truth? Can false beliefs find so deep root in society and for so long time?

I read a similar comment from N Ramanujam. Head, Post Graduate Department of Geology and Research Centre, V.O. Chidambaram College, Tuticorin.

He said that Adam’s Bridge is only a chain of shoals between the Palk Strait and the Gulf of Mannar, created by sedimentation owing to long shore currents.

Explaining the bridge’s geological history, he said both the Palk Strait and the GoM were once part of the Cauvery basin, which was formed during the separation of India and Antarctica about 70 million years ago during the `Gondwana period.’

They were combined till a ridge was formed in the region owing to thinning of earth’s crust. The development of this ridge augmented the coral growth in the region.

“The coral cover acted as a `sand trapper’ leading to the formation of Rameswaram Island,” Dr. Ramanujam said.

The long shore currents on the southern side of island created a discontinuous shoreline eastward from Dhanuskodi to Talaimannar, which’s the Adam’s Bridge.

Let us see what Mr. Ramanujam has said:

How many such Chain of Shoals bridging two nations is known to Dr. Ramanujam? Is there any other Geographical construct anywhere in the world – deposits of shoals along the coast doesn’t say that it bridges two land pieces?

Again Mr. Ramanujam is taking support of another belief to beat the truth. He is talking of Gondwana theory, a theory that has no concrete proof – an imaginary thesis with some scientific logic behind it. Hundreds of such theory can be generated based on Geographical principles, but that do not defy a concrete reason of existence.

Why did Gondwana theory leave a trace of only One Bridge on the Globe?

Very important – Ramanujam is unable to change the names of two places as Dhanuskodi and Talaimannar which are not English names as they already exist, and hence successfully accepts a controversial English name of Adam’s Bridge instead of Ram Setu. Mr. Ramanujam could very easily put his theory with the name of the Bridge still as Ram Setu. But he ends up in saying that is Adam’s Bridge – WHY?

Why did Mr. Ramanujam accept Adam’s theory to be correct? Does Mr. Ramanujam want to support that Adam and Eve existed and Lord Rama didn’t exist?

If yes, then Adam and Eve existed in India alone as the bridge is in India – Again controversy – as Manu Shatrupa would be more known names in this region and analogy to Adam and Eve. Moreover, acceptance of Adam’s Bridge is acceptance that it was build by Adam. Actually, the logic fits opposite to them – how can the first man on earth build a bridge of that volume? He would be immature at first place, he is alone at second place and why will he ever endeavor to bridge the sea?

Though the only evidence is with India, no logic fits to the name as ‘Adam’s Bridge’. This clearly reflects the Christian mentality trying to impose and kill Hindu greatness. And poor Historians of India, brought up in the education system of English, unable to break the boundary of false arrogance of being high literary, seems to be helplessly saying that Ram Setu Bandh is not historical.

They cannot even hold a petty vision that humans have build wall of length of Great wall of China that is visible from even Satellite; what would stop humans to build Ram Setu Bandh and what is surprising or opposing to the fact that it was built as a part of Ramayan as a history.

Does Mr. Ramanujam want to say that if Adam built it, it is history, but if Lord Rama built it it is a Myth and a natural construct?

Professor Dupey says that as per Archeological survey, remains from Ayodhya controversial site has found temple remains whose age do not go beyond 600 B.C.

Mr. Dubey: Do you want to say that if I build a temple today, you will conclude that Lord Rama existed since today and not before?

Temples are build and rebuild and their age can only say about the age of the temple and the age of the personality whose worship is done in the temple.

We need to understand certain points here, modern Archeology and Science is far different than what used to exist in ancient India. For instance, old temples of India, yet existing, were built on a different technology than what we find in modern civil engineering.

This doesn’t mean that ancient archeology was not having mathematics maturity – in fact, if we look at Temples of India, Jagannath Puri temple for instance, we do not find any iron or pillars used to build the temple – yet it stands from hundreds of years to a height of around 200 ft.

Assume that Puri temple would have been razed some 10000 years ago, what technology or archaeological proofs would be derived to conclude that the temple was 200 ft high?

Similarly, the Ram Setu bandh has seen ages, and that too not on land, but in sea – a turbulent sea. The major of the mass is already washed off – a question to be pondered is that what remains is just a trace of the actual bridge – not the whole bridge as it was.

Ramayan mentions that the bridge was built over the sea water, with support of Sea – this implies that there was no supporting archeology involved in constructing the bridge – this is easily supported by the failure of Archeology ground to trace such constructs under ground. Yet the presence of shoals below the bridge and their type indicate that they cannot be found in sea in the manner it exists at Ram Sethu.

Now, Mr. Dubey accepts that the age of Shoals found at Ram Sethu goes around 1 million years. He misguides people, as he is a literate of History written by British, that Ramayan was first written around 10000 years ago and not 1 million years ago. Mr. Dubey, here is a simple calculation for you to further investigate:

The age of the bridge as per scientific dating comes to around 1 million years. As per Hindu scriptures, Ramayan took place in ‘Treta Yug’.

Calculating by Hindu scriptures (Treta Yug with a tenure of 12,96,000 years,

 Dwapar Yug with a tenure of 8, 64,000 years,

Kali Yug has just seen 12,013 years): 

We know that Treta Yug was before Dwapar Yug.

So, one thing is quite evident. The Bridge was constructed at least 8,64,000 years ago, i.e., 0.86 million years ago, which is pretty close to 1 million years.

Treta Yuga itself is 1.3 million years of age.

How is that scientific age of the shoals and the Hindu calendar age of Lord Rama matches exactly? Will Mr. Dubey and other historians dare to come out of the falsehood of our enemy teachings and try to explore some mathematics of Hindus before they say make such stupid comparison of scientific ages?

2. Analysis of Valmiki Ramayan over RAM SETHU

Now, let us go into the Valmiki Ramayan and dig out more history out of it. Let us be sure that if we want to dig history, we have to touch Valmiki Ramayan alone and not any other Ramayan, because all other Ramayan are written with purpose of promoting Ramayan and recording the event.

Here are certain points from Valmiki Ramayan to be considered:

1. There is no other book than Ramayan that has put into scriptures describing such geographical constructs.

2. Ramayan says that it was build under the supervision of an Architect Nala – son of the greatest Architect of all times ‘Vishwakarma’ (Note: ‘Vishwakarma’ is a designation given to the greatest archeologist and builder of the era in ancient Hindu society, a similar practice as we have in modern world of ‘Nobel Prize’). Thus, the book makes sure that such a bridge can be constructed by only architect of highest skill.

Why do the politicians mislead the nation by saying that Lord Rama was a Superman who build the bridge, when Ramayan clearly says that it is not Lord Rama but the Architect Nala and Neela who build the bridge?

3. The bridge was (Ramayan mentions the bridge constructed in 5 days: 14 + 20 + 21 + 22 + 23 = 100 yojans) 100 Yojans long and 10 Yojans wide. Data to be considered here:

4. The data starts from 14 yojans as first day, which is less than other day’s data, confirming a logic that first day as a beginning had taken time to gear up all Vanars. Second day it took momentum and rest of the days the distance of the bridge constructed is found to be nearly same. A logical conclusion of this sort is made only when the event have occurred in reality.

Why did Valmiki thrust his imagination to get the bridge completed only in 5 days? He could have well increased the number of days to help people of today understand it more logically. Or he could have even reduced the number of days to highlight the power of Lord Rama.

5. The data that more than a crore (10 million) Vanaras were involved in building it, seems to be logical to fit to support the volume of the bridge constructed. Now, the count may not be exact, but surely Valmiki wants to say that there was a huge task force working for the bridge.

Valmiki could have easily shown Lord Rama winning the battle with few hundred Vanars as his soldiers – why 10 million?

6. The width vs. length ratio also looks scientific and supportive to help carry such a huge mass across the bridge. The bridge is wide enough so as to withstand the weight of crores of Vanaras and allow passage to all of them.

7. The bridge is said to be built in 5 days, giving an idea that bridge had to be built in a very short period of time, failing which the Opponent King Ravana would have come to know about it and would have attacked never allowing the bridge to be constructed. Thus, the period fits the war logic.

8. The bridge is said to be constructed by around a crore Vanaras, the count fits the possibility of getting the bridge constructed in such a small time – a huge task force doing it. Though, the methodology of construction is not elaborated and shortened by mentioning that various ‘Yantras’ or Machinery were used to build the bridge, but it gives an indication that machinery were applied to do the task. It should be a subject to study about our past. Valmiki Ramayan: Yuddha Kanda, 22.60:

‘Hastimatran Mahakayah Pashananshch Mahabalah

Parvatanshch Samutpatya Yantraiyah Parivahanti Cha’

What was the need to mention that certain Machineries were used for constructing the bridge? How did an ancient man imagine of machineries?

9. Very interestingly, Rama is not said to have built the bridge and the point clarifies that building it was the skill of an architect – Nala and not Rama or Hanuman, the hero of the book. Had Ramayan been a fantasy of Maharishi Valmiki, he would easily fantasized and written something like Rama built a bridge of Arrows as Rama was the hero in fantasy. But it is not so, making one think that it is not fantasy writing.

Why didn’t he tell the world that it was Lord Rama who builds it and give the credit to someone else of this great happening? After all, Lord Rama was the hero of his imagination.

10. Ramayan also depicts the materials used in making the bridge clarifying that it was a possibility, but not under imagination of human capacity under technology support of today.

11. Seeing the time constraint, it looks logical to have Vanars who are brisk in their movement collecting materials and fitting it in place as directed.

12. The places mentioned in Ramayan exactly matches to the current location of the bridge, thus confirming that the book is not a story.

13. The length of the bridge matches to what is mentioned in Ramayan.

So, looking at Ramayan alone one can conclude that the Bridge is not a natural construct. Having proven on the point of Bridge alone that Ramayan is not a book of myth, but a book of History, it straight away brings the truth that Maharishi Valmiki was the first Historian known to man kind

3. Current Findings on RAM SETHU and their analysis

However, we need to further analyze current findings as well.

The first thing to consider is that under the current scientific evaluation, the bridge is proved to have a chain of shoals is 30 to 35 km long in Palk Street, and its unique curvature confirms that it is man made, and is not a Geographical Construct at all.
Archeological findings have proven that first signs of human inhabitants in Sri Lanka date back to primitive age of about 1,750,000 years of the same era as Ramayan (‘Treta Yug’, which lies exactly mid way to above number).
Sri Lankan Government has done Archeological Survey and found some very interesting data:
A mountain covered completely with herbal plants of same type that is found in Himalayas. There is no other mountain in whole Sri Lanka of that kind.

This stands as an evidence that the mountain was brought by Lord Hanuman to Sri Lanka – How was this done is subject to study? To my knowledge, Sri Yantra of Hindu myth (or may be similar constructs) is actually a anti-gravitation theory which was know to our Rishis in those days and these things were possible only by such means. Someday,

science will surely understand this.
Ashok Vatika is traced with complete Greenery and while soil. With a gap of hardly 10-20 meters, soil suddenly turns to be black and burnt and it stretches to miles. This highly unnatural and it stands to prove that Lord Hanuman had burnt Lanka.
There are many other proofs that have come up, but I consider these two points as strong as the Bridge itself.

Can our Historians consult the British again and create more theory around these evidences, so that they can be included in History books against Ramayan?

From Ayodhya to Sri Lanka, most of the places still hold the names as it was around a million years ago. Even the devastating Muslim invasion could not eliminate the names. Ayodhya, Chitrakut, Panchvati, Rameswaram, Lanka – all the names are as mentioned in the book. Rameswaram is the place where Lord Rama worshipped Lord Shiva and established the idol ‘Shiv Lingam’, exist to date as a place of worship.

Ramayan talks about Mahendragiri Mountain as the highest point and best point to watch across the sea. Geographically, it is proven that Mahendragiri is the highest mountain in that area and gives a visibility of around 60 km range.
Why don’t these politicians and historians say how are these mentioned in Ramayan? Did these places pre-existed and Valmiki traveled a lot to create this story? Or these places were named after people read Valmiki Ramayan?

The more logical answer is, these places pre-existed and the event took place which Valimiki wrote as poetic history.

Another important fictitious topic of Ramayan is ‘Pushpak Viman’ – a vehicle that could take aerial route to travel. No doubt the Pusphak Viman no more exists, but it cannot be fantasy as we have similar air planes telling about it. What challenges the concept of Viman is the understanding that technology has developed in current era and people were devoid of such high-tech products in ancient India. But then Ramayan gives a background of Pushpak Viman in terms of how it was acquired, thereby making one think that it was not a mere fantasy. It should not be expected from the book Ramayan to describe the details of Pushpak Viman creation. The question that should be asked is where the actual scientific data of Hindu researches about building the Pushpak Viman got lost – and true history of India and world will evolve.
Do our Historians want to say that if Pushpak Viman existed then Valmiki would have mentioned how it was built? How many history book of today contains the scientific methodology of building machinery – why don’t our historians first do this?

What seems to be mythical to the Historians and Science is the concept of Monkey building the Bridge. But they forget to expand the vision on this, purely because of their biased attitude to defeating Hindu faith. We all know now that there are many species that do not exist now and the largest known to human is Dinosaur. Why can’t different specie exist around 1 million years ago with the capacity of human intelligence and monkey like physical structure – something that was called as Vanars in those days? Science do not forget to mention that man evolved out of monkeys – but defeats Hindus to consider that Vanars were the in between form of the evolution the evidence present in those days. But no view would consider this, simply because then the religion of peace would win then. Yet, there is no doubt that evolution theory is again a controversial theory existing and taught to people, without any scientific evidence around it.
No historian can deny the fact that there is a coincidence and only one coincidence between a reality and its occurrence in a book called Ramayan. Instead, of now having set a direction to find out how such thing took place, these catholic followers are simply applying all forces and theories to falsify a fact.
Science is now saying that the age of earth is around 4 billion years – can science produce a history of 4 billion years with concrete proof – no one asks this question and believes science. No one knows how many generation of humanity evolved and got destroyed since the earth was formed. No one knows when the earth was exactly formed. Actual fictions and stories lie on this side as well – but our dear Historians do not have the courage to flatter about it.

I do not understand, if such an amazing construct is not within the reach of modern science, why can’t this bridge be put as one of the Wonders? Why can’t it be listed under World Heritages (yet maintain it as Hindu sacred place)? Instead, the anti-Hindu moves are motivating Congress to destroy the bridge.

If the destruction of a 500 year old Babri Masjid is not tolerable and it created havoc in the world, why is million year old constructs not protected? Thousands of Hindu temples have been destroyed and are being destroyed to date in Kashmir, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and so many other countries. Neither media nor politics talks about it. Why shouldn’t Hindus stand now to protect Ram Sethu, which is a direct proof of One million year old history of India?

Read more: http://www.articlesbase.com/religion-articles/ram-sethu-proof-of-great-science-of-ancient-past-499823.html#ixzz0ywTx2q1O
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

Read more: http://www.articlesbase.com/religion-articles/ram-sethu-proof-of-great-science-of-ancient-past-499823.html#ixzz0ywTLjllv

Advertisements

The limits of tolerance


A Pakistani author writing in Pakistan’s leading newspaper shows more sense in what he has written than a lot of others.

The limits of tolerance

By Irfan Husain Thursday, 26 Aug, 2010

Dawn
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/irfan-husain-the-limits-of-tolerance-680

The ongoing furore over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque shows no sign of abating after weeks of noisy controversy. In a sense, it has become a litmus test of America’s cherished freedom of worship, as well as its tolerance of other people and other faiths.

But to put things in perspective, I would like to invite readers to imagine that a group of Christians asked for approval to build a church close to the site of an iconic building in Pakistan some of their fellow-believers had destroyed, killing thousands. How would we have responded?

Actually, this scenario is so implausible as to be practically meaningless. The sad reality is that non-Muslims in Pakistan live on sufferance, and it would be unthinkable for them to even dream of expanding their places of worship, let alone constructing new ones. A few years ago, I recall writing about the trials and tribulations of Christians trying to build a church in Islamabad despite having received official permission. They were bullied by a local mullah, and found no support from the city administration. Since then, things have got worse for the minorities.

The ongoing dispute in New York is another reminder of how civilized societies treat those citizens who do not subscribe to the majority faith. Much to his credit, New York’s Mayor Bloomberg (a Jew, by the way) approved the project, despite opposition from right-wing groups. It is President Barack Obama who has been a disappointment to liberals with his equivocation over the issue: after appearing to endorse it at an iftar event for Muslim ambassadors, he backtracked swiftly in the face of shrill and expected criticism from the right.

In a controversial article that appeared recently in the Ottawa Citizen (Mischief in Manhattan; 7 August), Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, two Muslims who live in Canada, argued that proceeding with the project is tantamount to mischief-making, an act prohibited in Islam. The authors have been attacked for their stance on the Internet, with readers accusing them of taking a reactionary line.

The truth is that the issue has become highly divisive, with over 60 per cent of Americans opposing the project. Before readers think this reflects poorly on secular attitudes in the country, please recall that there are some 30 mosques in New York. What is really giving offense is the location of the proposed Muslim community center as it is a couple of blocks from where the Twin Towers stood before 9/11.

For weeks now, this controversy has been in the news with talking heads on TV from across the political spectrum reviling or defending the project, initially dubbed the Cordoba Initiative. Critics have attacked the name of the centre for serving as a reminder of Muslim conquests in Europe. In response, the developer has said the name has been changed to Park51.

In such an emotionally charged debate, it’s hard to be rational. Logically, the location should be immaterial: after all, there is already a mosque in the area, not far from Ground Zero. So why should another make any difference? The truth is that the 9/11 attacks continue to resonate deeply in America, so what’s the point in insisting on a project that is like a red flag to a bull?

The project is expected to cost around $100 million, and many think the bulk of the money will come from Saudi Arabia, even though the source of the funds has not been made public yet. If this is indeed so, Raza and Fatah consider this would be a slap in the face of Americans as “nine of the jihadis in the Twin Towers calamity were Saudis”. More to the point for me is that the Saudis have been funding mosques and madressahs around the world, in addition to paying for chairs for Islamic studies at major universities. Many of these have been used to project the country’s official Wahabi version of Islam that has fuelled the rising tide of extremism and jihadi fervour. Against this backdrop, the question to ask is whether we need yet one more such mosque.

Raza and Fatah ask why the $100 million can’t be put to use to help people in Darfur and Pakistan instead? This is especially relevant in the context of the floods that are devastating much of Pakistan today. My own question is about reciprocity: if the Saudis can aggressively spread their ideology abroad, why can’t other beliefs build their places of worship in Saudi Arabia?

Currently, it is illegal to build a church, synagogue or temple in the country. Even importing copies of the Bible or the Torah is forbidden. Granted, Saudi Arabia is not an example of tolerance and freedom of worship. In fact, it is one of the most benighted societies on the planet where the royal family rules with an iron hand in partnership with the clergy. Nevertheless, every time the government or individual members of the ruling House of Saud wish to fund a religious centre abroad, they should be asked to open up their country to other faiths.

Liberal Americans will respond – to their everlasting credit – that their constitutional guarantee of freedom of worship should not be hostage to mediaeval attitudes in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere. Ironically, given the choice between living in a religiously ordered state or in a secular country like America, Muslims have voted with their feet in the hundreds of thousands. Most of them are happier in their adopted home, and are free to worship as they please.

This is America’s major strength, and it would be a pity if the events of 9/11 were to erode it. Despite the strong religious strand in American society, it welcomes all faiths. All the more reason, then, for everybody in this melting pot to be respectful of others.

If I am having a meal with a devout Hindu friend at a restaurant, I would not dream of ordering a steak because I am aware that for him or her, cows are sacred. While we all have certain rights, we often do not choose to exercise them so as not to cause offence. This is what living in a heterogeneous society like America entails, so if Muslims opt to live there out of their own free will, it seems to me that they would be wise not to test the limits of tolerance.

Obama’s Visit To India


Obama’s Visit To India

BY ;  Jay Shah on Saturday, November 6, 2010 at 4:57pm      Jay Shah

Obama’s Visit To India

U.S. President Barack Obama begins a four-day visit to India today (on Nov. 6), heading a 375-member entourage of security personnel, policymakers, business leaders and journalists to demonstrate to the world that the U.S.-Indian relationship is serious and growing.

 Obama will begin his visit in the financial hub of Mumbai, where he will make a symbolic show of solidarity with India on the counterterrorism front by staying at the Taj Mahal Palace hotel, which came under attack in 2008, and highlight corporate compatibility between the two countries.

 Obama will spend the rest of the trip in New Delhi, where he will address a joint session of Parliament, a reciprocal gesture following Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s address to Congress in November 2009.

Most Indians and Americans think and hope that Indo-US relations could be much better and closer than what it is now. However, regardless of what one may want the relations to be like, the geopolitical needs of both the countries are different and there are and will be numerous issues on which India and America will have to agree to disagree on.

 How did the biggest and largest democracies of the world drifted apart and failed to build close and deep relationship is a matter of historical and geopolitical analysis and beyond the scope of current article.

But in spite of that, there is little doubt that the United States and India are sounding a much deeper and strategic relationship, as illustrated by their bilateral civilian nuclear agreement, growing business links, arms deals and a host of military exercises taking place over the next several months.Still, very real and unavoidable constraints on ties remain in place, constraints that will hamper this already uneasy partnership from developing into a robust alliance. 

 The immediate hindrance lies in the U.S. strategic need to bolster Pakistan to shape a U.S. exit strategy from Afghanistan and try to shore up the balance of power on the subcontinent. In the longer term, however, India could use the threat of Chinese expansion in Beijing’s perceived sphere of influence to enhance its relationship with Washington.

 Strategic Motivations

India does not make friends easily (or has failed to recognize and make friends easily), particularly friends with militaries capable of reaching the subcontinent. India grew closer to the Soviets during the Cold War out of fear of the U.S. relationship with Pakistan, but only because Moscow’s military reach into the subcontinent was limited.

After the Soviet Union collapsed, India was left without a meaningful ally, all the while becoming deeply resentful of the blind eye Washington turned toward the rise of Pakistan’s Islamist proxies in Kashmir and Afghanistan.

The 9/11 attacks finally created an opportunity for a U.S.-Indian relationship to materialize. Both countries had common cause to cooperate with each other against Pakistan, neutralize the jihadist threat and embark on a real, strategic partnership. For the United States, this was the time to play catch-up in balance-of-power politics in South Asia.

The U.S. interest at any given point on the subcontinent is to prevent any one power from becoming strong to the point that it could challenge the United States, while at the same time protecting vital sea lanes running from East Asia to the Persian Gulf via the Indian Ocean basin.

The United States has the naval assets to guard these maritime routes directly, but as it extends itself more and more worldwide, its need for regional proxies grows. Though India’s capabilities remain quite limited given its domestic challenge, it is an aspiring naval power with a deep fear of Chinese encroachment and Islamist militancy.

India also has a massive consumer market of 1.2 billion people and has the United States at the top of its list of trading partners. A roughly balanced and diversified relationship exists between the two economies, even as protectionist tendencies run heavily on both sides of the trade divide.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the United States exported $16.4 billion worth of goods and services to India, mostly aircraft, fertilizers, computer hardware, scrap metal and medical equipment, while India exported $21 billion worth of goods and services to the United States, mostly information technology services, pharmaceuticals, textiles, machinery, gems and diamonds, iron and steel products, and food products.

 India thus makes a strong candidate for a regional U.S. proxy.

But this is where a fundamental U.S.-Indian disconnect arises. India is far from interested in molding itself into a proxy of the global hegemon. India’s self-enclosed geography and internal strengths permit it to remain fiercely independent in its foreign policy calculations, unlike much weaker Pakistan, which needs an external patron to feel secure.

 The United States has been caught off guard every time New Delhi takes a stance that runs counter to U.S. interests, something that has happened despite the U.S. charm offensive toward India that revved up in 2005 with a civilian nuclear deal. India has refused to comply with U.S. sanctions on Iran, still has reservations about allowing U.S. firms into the Indian nuclear market after the bilateral nuclear deal, and protests what New Delhi perceives as U.S. interference in the Kashmir dispute.

 As a former Indian national security adviser put it, India is happy to have its partnership with the United States, but Washington is going to have to get used to hearing “no” from India on numerous issues.

The Pakistan Problem

The much more urgent misalignment of interests hindering the U.S.-India relationship concerns Pakistan and the future of Afghanistan. In 2001, when al Qaeda struck the United States and Pakistan-backed militants attacked the Indian parliament soon after, India sensed an opportunity.

The Cold War shackles on ties were broken as the urgency of a broader Islamist militant threat drove New Delhi and Washington together. India hoped the bond would sustain itself, keeping Pakistan isolated over the long term, but it was only a matter of time before U.S. efforts to balance India against Pakistan disappointed New Delhi.

The United States has now reached a saturation point in its war in Afghanistan. While short-term military victories have provided Washington useful political cover as they do in all unpopular wars, they obscure the core disadvantage occupiers face against the insurgents when it comes to on-the-ground intelligence, corruption, population control, and the insurgent luxury of choosing the time and place of battle.

Washington is thus shaping an exit strategy from Afghanistan. This necessarily will involve some sort of accommodation with the Taliban that only one power in the region has the relationship to orchestrate: Pakistan.

Pakistan has every interest in having the United States as its patron and keeping it involved in the region, but not to the extent that U.S. military activity in the Pakistani-Afghan borderland risks severely destabilizing the Pakistani state.

 For its part, the United States does not want India to become the unchallenged hegemon of the subcontinent at the expense of a much weaker Pakistan. This means that in return for Pakistani cooperation in tying up loose ends in the jihadist war, Pakistan will expect the United States to facilitate a restoration of Pakistani influence in Afghanistan.

This would extend Pakistan’s strategic depth, stifling any Indian attempt to develop a foothold in the region that could see Pakistan wind up in a pincer grip.

This naturally upsets New Delhi, which maintains that Islamabad will continue to compensate for its military weakness by backing militant proxies to target the Indian state, something Washington is ignoring to achieve its goals in Afghanistan. India sees a Taliban political comeback in Afghanistan as setting the stage for Pakistan-backed militants to regroup.

 More worryingly for New Delhi, a number of these militants have been drawn into a much more unpredictable, lethal jihadist network that makes it harder for New Delhi to blame Pakistan for terrorist acts in India.

India’s strategic interest calls for taking advantage of Islamabad’s sour relationship with the current Afghan government to build a foothold in Afghanistan with which to create an additional lever against Islamabad along Pakistan’s northwestern rim. India has done so primarily through a number of development projects.

 Besides being one of the top five bilateral donors to the war-torn country, India has thousands of laborers in Afghanistan building schools, hospitals, roads and power plants. One of the most notable projects India has been involved in is the funding and construction of a 218-kilometer (about 135 miles) highway from Zaranj in Afghanistan’s southwestern Nimroz province to Delaram in Farah province.

Since Afghanistan forms a land bridge between South Asia and Central Asia, where vast amounts of energy and mineral resources are concentrated, India has a deeper interest in developing the necessary transit links to access the Central Asian energy market, which the Chinese already have tapped into extensively.

 India cannot rely on its Pakistani rival to allow Indian goods to flow overland. Under a current arrangement, Afghan goods to India must pass through Pakistan. But Pakistan does not allow Indian goods to transit Pakistan overland to Afghan markets. Instead, India relies on its favorable trading terms with Iran to transport Indian goods via the Iranian port of Chabahar to Afghanistan and on to Central Asia.

 In creating transit infrastructure in Afghanistan, like the Zaranj-Delaram highway, and between Afghanistan and Iran, India is developing alternative trade routes in the region that will allow it to bypass Pakistan.

The Question of Indian Troops for Afghanistan

Whether India should elevate its support for Afghanistan, to include deploying Indian forces to the country, has been the subject of quiet debate among Indian defense circles. The public rationale given for such a plan is that insurgents have targeted Indian laborers involved in reconstruction projects in Afghanistan, and that the small contingent of Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) in Afghanistan has proven insufficient to protect the laborers.

 In addition to regular attacks on Indian construction crews, the 2008 and 2009 bombings on the Indian Embassy in Kabul highlighted the threat that Pakistan could use its militant connections in Afghanistan to try and drive India out of the country.

Those arguing for an Indian military deployment to Afghanistan believe that placing Indian troops in the country would sufficiently alarm Pakistan to divert forces from its east, where Pakistani forces are concentrated in Punjab along the Indo-Pakistani border, to its northwestern border with Afghanistan.

 This (they hope) would shift some of the focus of Pakistani-Indian conflict away from Kashmir and the Indian homeland. Those calling for Indian troops are making a dangerous assumption, however, that the United States will remain in Afghanistan for the long haul and will be there to contain attempts by Pakistan to act against Indian military overland expansion in the region.

There are a number of reasons why this troop scenario is unlikely to play out. The most obvious constraint is the enormous logistical difficulty India would have in supplying troops in Afghanistan.

 If India cannot convince Pakistan to allow overland trade to Afghanistan, it can certainly rule out Pakistan agreeing to an Indian military supply line to Afghanistan. India is also extremely risk-averse when it comes to military deployments beyond its borders.

 It already is struggling with a counterinsurgency campaign in Kashmir and in Naxalite territory along the country’s eastern belt and remembers the deadly fiasco that followed the Indian deployment of forces to Sri Lanka to counter the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in the late 1980s. And Indian troops in Afghanistan would make prime targets for hardened jihadists receiving support from Pakistan.

 At the same time, India is unwilling to bow to Pakistani pressure by downgrading its presence in Afghanistan. An inevitable U.S. drawdown from the region and a Pakistani return to Afghanistan translates into a bigger security threat for India. The more India can dig its heels in Afghanistan, primarily through reconstruction projects, the better the chances it will develop some say in Afghan affairs with which to check Pakistan’s regional ambitions.

For its part, Pakistan will continue to demand that the United States use its leverage with New Delhi to minimize the Indian presence in Afghanistan and hand over the task of shaping the future Afghan government to Islamabad.

Though little of this discussion will hit the headlines, the disconnect in U.S.-Indian strategic interests — in which India wants the United States to sustain pressure on Islamabad and serve as a check on Pakistan-backed militancy while Washington needs to bolster Pakistan to withdraw from Afghanistan and maintain some balance in the region between the two nuclear rivals — will put a cloud over Obama’s high-profile visit. India might even have to share the spotlight during Obama’s tour, as rumors are circulating that the U.S. president may make a surprise visit to Afghanistan to show his dedication to the war effort. 

The U.S. administration has debated whether the president could make such a trip without stopping over in Pakistan to reduce the fallout that could emerge from having Air Force One bypass Pakistan in an Afghan-India trip. The delicate nature of these issues illustrates just how high-maintenance the region is for the United States, and how urgent Washington’s need is to keep relations with Pakistan on steady footing.

 Leveraging a Mutual Concern Over China

 While Pakistan and Afghanistan are pulling India and the United States apart, China could keep the emerging U.S.-India partnership from derailing.China’s insatiable appetite for resources, heavy reliance on export trade and overarching need to protect those vital commercial supply lines has driven Chinese naval expansion into the Indian Ocean Basin, namely through ports in Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Pakistan and overland linkages through Pakistan and Myanmar on India’s flanks.

 Indian fears of Chinese encirclement have prompted New Delhi to modernize and expand the Indian navy. Just as the United States is interested in bolstering Japan’s naval defenses, Washington (along with Japan) views Indian military expansion in the Indian Ocean as a useful hedge against China.

India has watched with concern as China has become more aggressive in asserting its territorial claims in Arunachal Pradesh and Kashmir and has broached the suspect of more robust military assistance to Pakistan during its present time of need. Moreover, while India’s Nepal policy has largely been on autopilot, China has quietly built up its clout in the small Himalayan kingdom, threatening to undermine New Delhi’s influence in a key buffer state.

 China also has attempted to create a closer relationship with the junta and ethnic factions in Myanmar, where Beijing seeks oil and natural gas pipelines that will give some of its energy imports an overland route that will allow it to replace the Strait of Malacca.

Meanwhile, the United States is engaged in a standoff with China as it tries to end Beijing’s currency manipulation policies while Beijing is unwilling to comply due to the social and political costs of rapidly reforming its financial system. As bilateral trade tensions continue to simmer, China has sought to take advantage of the U.S. preoccupation with wars in the Islamic world to assert itself in areas of strategic interest, including the South China Sea and East China Sea and in territories it disputes with India.

 China’s sovereignty claims and military capability in the South China Sea are of particular concern to the United States. This level of assertiveness can be expected to grow as the People’s Liberation Army Navy continues to increase its clout in political affairs, though Beijing knows it must avoid provoking an outright confrontation with the United States.

Though U.S. attention is currently absorbed in trying to work out an understanding with Pakistan on Afghanistan (an understanding that will severely undermine the U.S.-Indian relationship in the near term,) it is only a matter of time before U.S. attention turns back toward countries like China whose interests potentially are on a collision course with U.S. interests.

 As U.S. attention on China increases, India can highlight its own fears of Chinese expansion in South Asia to bolster the Indian relationship with Washington, especially if China is able to maintain its internal stability long enough to sustain a bold foreign policy. 

The China factor could prove particularly useful for New Delhi to voice its concerns over more pressing threats, like Pakistan, as India and the United States attempt to work out the kinks of their bilateral relationship. Ultimately, India and the United States will have to agree to disagree on a number of issues, relying on high-profile state visits to keep up appearances. 

But a mutual concern over China may help reduce some of the current tensions between New Delhi and Washington over Pakistan in the future.

If I am A Terrorist I would Attack USA Now. … Why ? Read On…


If I am A Terrorist I would Attack USA Now. … Why ? Read On… This is from My friend http://callofthepatriot.blogspot.com/2010/09/so-is-bho-greatest-potus-ever-29.html callofpatriot’s Blog. Reposted as it is..

So is BHO the greatest potus ever? 29 perfect reason if you are a libtard

So is BHO the greatest potus ever? 29 perfect reason if you are a libtard

Posted by PatriotUSA at 10:11 AM Labels: ,

 

Normally not on the wave this early but everyone is back in school and I have the house to myself. It is just me and the editor, AJ who is grumpy for his first walkie of the day/night. I have placated him with a cookie and got his leash out so he knows we will be going soon. I can have a cigar and offend some folks who ride bicycles, think they own the path and are better than the rest of us in the skin tight
reptilian riding clothes.

This is a great article by Doug Giles and I cannot add anything to this except that it a great expose’ and the left, demosocialistacrats, and our muslim terrorist enemies are all foaming at the mouth as the mullah in the White House makes this country weaker with each passing wee. No too hard to see why
gun and ammo sales have been going through the roof is it?

 Rest well Komrades, progress marches on and you can sleep well tonight with BHO in Kontrol.


29 Reasons Why BHO Is the Greatest President Ever (If You Hate America)
By Doug Giles

Y’know, if I were a terrorist I think I’d hit America right now because I don’t think we’ve been this vulnerable since Clinton gutted our military, worked against our national security, and paved the way for 9/11.

For the record, I am not a terrorist, no matter what the mutant Janeane Garofalo says. How do I know I’m not a terrorist? Well, you pretty much have to be a Muslim or a progressive to be one, and I’m not Islamic but rather a Christian and a conservative.

For those unfamiliar with Christianity, one of the tenets of this faith disallows its followers to blow innocent people up while they’re working, riding a bus, flying home to see Granny for Christmas, or getting a slice of pepperoni at Famous Ray’s. The Koran, on the other hand is, how shall I say … more lenient … when it comes to such issues, and so are the likes of toads such as Bill Ayers. But I digress.

Regarding my assessment of our nation’s security (or lack thereof), I am not the only one out there with this opinion. Oh, no Spanky. There are more of us. Many more. As in many, many more.

Matter of fact, bestselling author and military analyst, Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson, formerly Clinton’s senior military aide in charge of the “nuclear football” (which is not code for Monica’s plus-size lingerie bag), also thinks we’re incredibly susceptible to being attacked on a scale much larger that 9/11. He also believes … wait for it … that BHO is America’s biggest national security threat.

Who’s this “Buzz” guy, and why should we perk up and listen to what he says? Well, he’s not an obese commie who does shoddy documentary crap films, for one thing; nor is he a chunky, redheaded, unfunny, nerve-grating female comic who likes to spew her ill-informed views on HLN.

Nope, the good Colonel is a man who has honorably served our nation and was Billy’s top gun during the Clinton Administration. Patterson witnessed firsthand how William J. whittled away our military might, which Buzz meticulously documented in his New York Times bestselling book, Dereliction of Duty. Did you miss that one?

Patterson, however, in his latest tome, Conduct Unbecoming: How Obama is Destroying the Military and Endangering Our Security, says to the effect that Clinton looks like Genghis Khan on HGH compared to how Obama is dismantling the U.S. and thereby setting us up to be brutalized by those who detest the U.S. and that for which it stands.

Don’t believe me, MSNBC’er? Well check out these ditties I gleaned from Buzz’s most recent in regard to how Obama has gutted us from a security standpoint in just his first eighteen months (oh, how giddy Bin Laden must be seeing us morphing into a weak horse).

1. January – December 2009: The Administration refuses to detain the vast majority of illegal workers they find by drastically revising policy, such as halting workplace raids and stripping local law enforcement of the ability to pursue illegals. Also, terrorist detainees are ordered to be tried in civilian courts.

2. February 26, 2009: White House announces plans to slash defense budget, which undermines the U.S. military’s ability to meet its commitments.

3. March 13, 2009: No longer “enemy combatants,” terrorist supporters have new legal protections against being detained.

4. April 6, 2009: Obama gives speech in Turkey, apologizing for America, even as Turkey embraces Iran and Syria.

5. April 16, 2009: The Justice Department’s legal opinions on terrorist interrogations are disclosed and overruled by the Obama Administration.

6. May 21, 2009: President signs the US-UAE Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, which is intended to clear the way for the United Arab Emirates to gain access to sensitive U.S. nuclear technology.

7. May 2009: Obama Administration slashes missile defense funding and capabilities.

8. June 2009: CIA director Panetta kills program to explore options for assassination of Osama Bin Laden.

9. September 17, 2009: Obama Administration abandons Poland and Czech missile defense.

10. October 19, 2009: White House floats Iranian nuclear fuel swap offer, saying that it is willing to give Iran all of the enriched uranium they need to run Iran’s nuclear plant in Natanz.

11. December 2, 2009: Obama announces Afghanistan surge and prompt withdrawal of troops, with will expose U.S. troops to higher levels of risk.

12. December, 4, 2009: End of U.S . on-site inspection activities in Russia.

13. December 8, 2009: President sends U.S. Ambassador to North Korea for direct one-on-one negotiations.

14. December 29, 2009: National declassification order, which results in the release of over 400 million pages of Cold War-era records, exposing a wealth of secret data on U.S.-Soviet relations.

15. January 7, 2010: Obama blames “Christmas Day Bomber” on intelligence instead of fixing the problem.

16. January 20, 2010: China is no longer a Top Intelligence Priority.

17. March 25, 2010: U.S. backs away from tougher components of nuclear Iran sanctions proposal.

18. April 7, 2010: Terms “Islam,” “Jihad” banned from National Security Strategy.

19. April 8, 2010: New Gates-Obama plan announced to gut military.

20. April 17, 2010: Secretary of Defense Gates warns that U.S. has no long-range plan to deal with nuclear Iran.

21. April 27, 2010: Obama Administration refuses to release documents on the Fort Hood shooting to Senate Committee.

22. April 30, 2010: Department of Defense announces obesity as major security threat.

23. May 2, 2010: U.S. publicly reveals the size of nuclear arsenal, which until now has been a closely-guarded secret.

24. May 8, 2010: Secretary of Defense Gates calls for more sweeping cuts to the defense budget—around $10 billion for 2012.

25. May 24, 2010: Counter-terrorism Advisor Brennan praises foreign terrorist group Hezbollah.

26. May 27, 2010: Counter-terrorism Advisor Brennan says Jihadists are not America’s enemy.

27. May 27, 2010: Obama Administration’s new national security strategy is to focus on homegrown threats, says terror is not an enemy.

28. June 11, 2010: Obama White House seeks to ease U.S. sanctions against Iran.

29. July 6, 2010: Obama Administration sues Arizona over immigration legislation.

Do you feel safer after reading that partial list, children? I know I don’t. If you want to be even more freaked out—as in freaked out to do something like vote BHO out and champion those who still dig America and think national security ought to be a major issue (duh)—you must log on to Amazon.com, find Buzz’s book, Conduct Unbecoming, and then click your mouse and melt your plastic and buy this razor-sharp, easy-to-read and comprehensive book on how Barack is setting us up to be crushed.

Original article is here

Geert Wilders Speech at Ground Zero on 9/11/10


The following is the text of Geert Wilders speech today at Ground Zero in lower Manhattan from  the PVV Freedom Party website.  You may listen to the 

Geert Wilders Speech at Ground Zero on 9/11/10

The following is the text of Geert Wilders speech today at Ground Zero in lower Manhattan from  the PVV Freedom Party website.  You may listen to the audio of Wilders speech, here. 

Dear friends,  

May I ask you to be silent for ten seconds? Just be silent and listen. Ten seconds. And listen… What we hear are the sounds of life in the greatest city on earth. No place in the world, no place in human history, is as richly varied and vibrant and dynamic as New York City. You hear the cars, you hear the people, you hear them rushing to their various destinations, you hear the sounds of business and of pleasure, you hear the cheers, you hear the cries, the buzzing sounds of human activity. And that is how it should be. Always.  

Now close your eyes – I know it’s a beautiful day, but close your eyes. I have been told that this day nine years ago was just such a beautiful day — and remember, or try to remember, or try to imagine the sounds which were heard here on this spot under this same blue sky exactly nine years ago. The sound of shock, the sound of destruction, the sound of panic, the sound of pain, the sound of terror.  

Did New York deserve this? Did America deserve this? Did the West deserve this? What, my friends, would you say to people who argue that New York, that America, that the West had itself to blame for those horrible sounds? There are people in this city who argue this. And they are angry because we are gathered here today to commemorate, to make a stand, to draw the line.  

My friends, I have come from the other side of the Atlantic to share your grief for those who died here nine years ago.I have not forgotten how I felt that day. The scenes are imprinted on my soul, as they are on yours. But our hearts were not broken in the same way as the hearts of the relatives and friends of those who lost their lives here. Many relatives of the victims are here in our midst today. I wish to take this opportunity to express my deepest and most heartfelt condolences to them and to all of the people of New York and America. 
Darryl Worley – Have You Forgotten?
 

Humbly, I stand here before you as a Dutchman and a European. I, too, however, cannot forget. How can anyone forget? Let me remind you of the words from Darryl Worley’s 9/11 song. 

Have you forgotten how it felt that day? 
To see your homeland under fire 
And her people blown away 
Have you forgotten when those towers fell? 
We had neighbors still inside going thru a living hell 
 

Worley’s response is our response: No, we will NEVER forget. We are here today because we have not forgotten all the loved ones that were lost and those left to carry on. And neither has the world. When the forces of Jihad attacked New York, they attacked the world.  

Among those lost were people from 55 nations, people of every religion and every persuasion. No place on earth had a more multi-ethnic, multi-racial, and multi-lingual workforce than New York’s proud towers. That is exactly why they were targeted. They constituted an insult to those who hold that there can be no peaceful cooperation among people and nations without submission to Sharia; to those who wish to impose the legal system of Islam on the rest of us. But New York and Sharia are incompatible.  

New York stands for freedom, openness and tolerance. New York’s Mayor recently said that New York is “rooted in Dutch tolerance”. Those are true words. New York is not intolerant. How can it be? New York is open to the world. Suppose New York were intolerant. Suppose it only allowed people of one persuasion within its walls. Then it would be like Mecca, a city without freedom. Whatever your religion, persuasion or gender is, in New York you will find a home. In Mecca, if your religion isn’t Islam, you are not welcome.  

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf claims the right to build a mosque, a house of Sharia here – on this hallowed ground. But, friends, I have not forgotten and neither have you. That is why we are here today. To draw the line. Here, on this sacred spot. We are here in the spirit of America’s founding fathers. We are here in the spirit of freedom. We are here in the spirit of Abraham Lincoln, the President who freed the slaves. President Lincoln said: “Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves.” These words are the key to our survival. The tolerance that is crucial to our freedom requires a line of defense.  

Mayor Bloomberg uses tolerance as an argument to allow Imam Rauf and his sponsors to build their so-called Cordoba Mosque. Mayor Bloomberg forgets, however, that openness cannot be open-ended. A tolerant society is not a suicidal society. It must defend itself against the powers of darkness, the force of hatred and the blight of ignorance. It cannot tolerate the intolerant – and survive. This means that we must not give a free hand to those who want to subjugate us. An overwhelming majority of Americans is opposed to building this mosque. So is an overwhelming majority everywhere in the non-Islamic world. Because we all realize what is at stake here. We know what this so-called Cordoba mosque really means. 

Imam Rauf maintains that American secular law and Sharia law are based on the same principles. He refuses to condemn terrorists because he says terrorism is “a very complex question”. He says America is “an accessory to the crime that happened on 9/11.” “In fact,” he literally said, “in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.”He also says that “terrorism will only end when the West acknowledges the harm it has done to Muslims.”  

That is why this man should not play the game he has in mind here in Manhattan. His “Blame the West, Blame America”-message is an insult. Americans – and by extension, all of us whose civilization was also attacked on 9/11/2001 – are not to blame for what happened here nine years ago today.  

Osama bin Laden is not made in the USA. The West never “harmed” Islam before it harmed us. Most Americans do not want this so-called Cordoba Mosque to be built here. They understand that it is both a provocation and a humiliation. They understand the triumphant narrative of a mosque named after the Great Mosque of Cordoba which was constructed where a Christian cathedral stood before the land was conquered by Islam.  

An overwhelming majority of Americans is opposed to building an Islamic cultural center close to Ground Zero. There is no lack of mosques in New York. There are dozens of buildings in which Muslims can pray. It isn’t about a lack of space for prayers. It’s about the symbolic meaning.  

We who have come to speak today, object to this mosque project because its promoter and his wealthy sponsors have never suggested building a center to promote tolerance and interfaith understanding where it is really needed: In Mecca – a town where non-Muslims are not even allowed to enter, let alone build churches, synagogues, temples or community centers. So why should we do that? 

Ordinary Americans object to the mosque project because currently no fewer than ten major multi-million dollar mosque projects are being planned in the United States as well as dozens in Europe, while not a single church is allowed in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia,while Jews are not even allowed to move their lips in prayer on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem,while the oldest Christians in the world, the Copts, are not free to renovate their churches, let alone to build one in Egypt. 

My friends, that is why we are here today. What happens in New York must be seen in the perspective of the world. The events nine years ago made an enormous impact everywhere. Most people shared your pain, but, unfortunately, some did not. Nine years ago, when the news of the terrible atrocity in New York reached Europe, Muslim youths danced in the streets.  

In a poll, two thirds of the Muslim immigrants in the Netherlands expressed partial or full understanding for the 9/11 terrorists.If a mosque were built here on Ground Zero such people would feel triumphant. But we, we will not betray those who died on 9/11. For their sakes we cannot tolerate a mosque on or near Ground Zero. For their sakes loud and clear we say: No mosque here! For their sakes, we must draw the line. So that New York, rooted in Dutch tolerance, will never become New Mecca.  

But, let us also express our gratitude for the heroes of 9/11, those who went down in that Pennsylvania field, those who were standing freedom’s watch at the Pentagon, and those who were here in New York nine years ago to risk and lose their lives for the victims. Friends, in honor of these victims, these heroes and their families, I believe that the words of Ronald Reagan, spoken in Normandy on the 40th anniversary of D-Day, resonate with new purpose on this hallowed spot.  

President Reagan said: “We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free.” And, we, too, will always remember the victims of 9/11 and their loved ones who were left behind;We, too, will always be proud of the heroes; We will always defend liberty, democracy and human dignity. 

                    

 

       

 

Hinduism: Age of the earth according to Vedic chronology


 

 

Hinduism: Age of the earth according to Vedic chronology

by Sam Hindu on Friday, July 30, 2010 at 6:36am
Hinduism:
Age of the earth according to Vedic chronology
“The Hindu religion is the only one of the world’s great faiths dedicated to the idea that the Cosmos itself undergoes an immense, indeed an infinite, number of deaths and rebirths. It is the only religion in which the time scales correspond, to those of modern scientific cosmology. Its cycles run from our ordinary day and night to a day and night of Brahma, 8.64 billion years long. Longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang. And there are much longer time scales still.”

“A millennium before Europeans were willing to divest themselves of the Biblical idea that the world was a few thousand years old, the Mayans were thinking of millions and the Hindus billions.”
Dr. Carl Sagan, (1934-1996) famous astrophysicist
According to Vedic chronology, Hinduism describes the age of the earth in detail. Details can be found in the Bhagwat Maha Purana or Bhagwatam.

Our earth is part of a material manifestation called a BRAHMANDA, a group of interrelated but separate regions or abodes called lokas, each conditioned by its respective quality of material time and space. In other words, what would be equivalent to one year in one of these lokas may be correspond to 12,000 of our earth years.

Most of our brahmandais subtle and imperceptible to us. Our earth planet is part of this configuration. A brahmanda is basically comprised of one planetary system with an earth inhabited by living beings, a sun and the above described regions.

According to the chronology of Hinduism, the divine personality who creates this with God‘s grace and who oversees it is called “Brahma” (the creator). This is a seat or position located in the subtle or celestial regions of a brahmanda (Brahma – name of the creator), anda – his spherical creation, literally ‘egg’.)

In one galaxy, there is an inestimable number of brahmandas (earth planet + other interrelated and subtle abodes) and their corresponding Brahmas.

The supreme creator or original inspiration for the creation of the entire universe is God.

How old is the earth? The earth came into existence with Brahma and will exist as long as he does. As long as Brahma lives, his creation continues to exist. When his term ends, this brahamanda will enter into absolute dissolution.

In between, there are periodic episodes of dissolution and creation of a lesser order, in which the earth enters a period of dormancy, when all life ends, but is again restored. Brahma is the personality that observes and maintains this schedule.

A soul incarnates in a particular brahmanda and remains there until its end. After this, that soul will enter another brahmanda. This has happened eternally for all the souls and will continue eternally. Only the soul who becomes liberated from maya is exempted from this.

We can calculate the age of the earth from the age of Brahma. The Vedic chronology of Hinduism uses a base unit of calculation called a chaturyugi. This is comprised of 4 yugas (periods of time). Their lengths and corresponding names are:

1,728,000 years = sat yuga

1,296,000 = treta yuga

864,000 = dwapar yuga

432,000 = kali yuga

——————————————————————————–

4,320,000 years = one charturyugi (one 4-yuga cycle)

——————————————————————————–

1000 chaturyugis = one day of Brahma

1000 chaturyugis = one night of Brahma

8,640,000,000 years = one full day (24 hours) of Brahma

100 celestial years = age that Brahma lives to

50 celestial years = Brahma’s current age, or,

155.5 trillion years = the current age of this earth. bold

OM
%d bloggers like this: