Andhra politics

Unmanned remote sensing aircraft takes flight

www.chinaview.cn 2005-08-15 15:58:24

BEIJING, Aug. 15 — China’s first high-end and multi-functional remote sensing unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) made its successful test flight on Monday in Huangguoshu Airport, Anshun City, southwest China’s Guizhou Province.

The remote sensing system, jointly developed by Peking University and Guizhou Aviation Industry (Group) Co Ltd, adopts intelligent and high-definition data retrieving technologies. According to experts, it is of a world-class standard in terms of flight function, navigation accuracy, communications, equipment as well as manufacturing cost.

The Institute of Remote Sensing and Geographic Information System of Peking University is one of the pioneering units to have engaged in developing remote sensing technologies and application research in China.

Guizhou Aviation is China’s largest aviation development and production base. It has been researching and developing UAVs for many years. The coaching and unmanned planes developed by it made successful maiden flights on December 12, 2003.

In recent years, the institute and the company have cooperated in research and development, making breakthroughs in remote sensing facilities, image recognition and processing, image resolution and downsizing facilities.

According to experts, the UAV remote sensing technology has great development potential in China. It could be widely used for land and environment surveys, meteorological research and natural disaster monitoring.

Remote sensing technology is a tool that is widely used to study, for example, the Earth’s surface and atmosphere, from a distance from an aircraft or satellite.

(Source: chinaorg.cn)

---

Northrop Grumman’s Fire Scout UAV Demonstrates Communication, Imagery-Relay and Logistic Capabilities

SAN DIEGO - Aug. 15, 2005 - Northrop Grumman Corporation’s (NYSE: NOC) MQ-8 Fire Scout unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) completed data and image relay, video transmissions and supplied delivery to a remote location during a series of tests and demonstrations Aug. 1-3 at Arizona’s Yuma Proving Ground.The tests culminated with a fully autonomous flight demonstration for senior military and government leaders.

The Fire Scout flew numerous missions using the U.S. Army’s One System ground control station, proving that the UAV can be fielded using existing Army ground control stations. Operating from the Army’s One System also illustrated the ability to easily integrate Fire Scout into the Army’s current arsenal of vehicles that gather intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance information.

“One of the most significant parts of the test series was when the test team intentionally broke communication between the ground station and the UAV, and Fire Scout proceeded to deliver supplies to a remote location,” said Joe Emerson, Northrop Grumman’s Army Fire Scout program director. “This crucial mission was completed when Fire Scout delivered supplies to a ’soldier,’ who unloaded the supply pod, then pressed a button on the outside of the vehicle, triggering its return to the launch point.”

With a payload of 600 pounds, Fire Scout can deliver a wide variety of supplies autonomously without endangering pilots or an aircrew on a manned helicopter.

Fire Scout also provided real-time, streaming video of the launch site and ‘targets’ using the Tactical Common Data Link.Army and U.S. Navy leadership viewed the live video feed on three different monitors and commented on Fire Scout’s ability to provide such a stable platform and steady imagery. This is a key function of Fire Scout’s intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance mission for the armed forces.

This continues a series of tests for Northrop Grumman’s Army and Navy customers over the recent months. “This has been a busy summer for the Fire Scout team, starting with a successful demonstration at the Navy-sponsored UAV demonstration day in Maryland, followed by weapons firing and now successfully completing a series of tests and demonstrations,” said Doug Fronius, Northrop Grumman’s Navy Fire Scout program director. “The demonstrations here in Yuma were a great opportunity to show our customers Fire Scout’s capabilities and versatility.”

Northrop Grumman is currently under contract to build four Fire Scout UAVs for the Navy and eight for the Army under development and low-rate initial production programs.

Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems is a premier aerospace and defense systems integration organization. Headquartered in El Segundo, Calif., it designs, develops, produces and supports network-enabled integrated systems and subsystems optimized for use in networks. For its government and civil customers worldwide, Integrated Systems delivers best-value solutions, products and services that support military and homeland defense missions in the areas of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; space access; battle management command and control; and integrated strike warfare.

---

Cyber Defense Systems commences shipment of CyberbugTM UAVs

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla.–Aug. 15, 2005–Cyber Defense Systems, Inc. (OTCBB:CYDF),a designer and developer of next generation unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV’s) and an operating subsidiary of Proxity, Inc. (Pink Sheets: PRXT), today announced it has begun shipment of the CyberBugTM to both US and international distributors as well as unnamed government entities as part of the initial sales announced over the last several months. The CyberBugTM is one of the most cost-effective UAV’s on the market today, capable of being launched in winds speeds in excess of 25 miles and hour and can provide the GPS coordinates of hostile or problem areas, facilitate line-of-sight communications, as well as provide day or night surveillance of remote areas.

The shipment represents the first several contracts currently in place. Through outsourcing current production the CyberBugsTM will be 20 units a month beginning October 1, 2005 with the ability to ramp up as business demands. The current initial orders will deliver units to be tested at exercises through out the world.

Billy Robinson, CEO of Cyber Defense Systems commented, “We are very pleased to have begun shipment of the CyberBugTM to our distributors and the various government agencies. This order reinforces Cyber’s leadership in the small Unmanned Aerial Vehicle markets and we look forward to ramping up sales and marketing efforts around the world.”

About Cyber Defense Systems:

Cyber Defense Systems, Inc. is designing and building a new generation of UAV’s. Cyber Defense also has the global government and military marketing rights to Techsphere Systems International LLC Spherical and Semi-spherical airships. Cyber Defense is currently marketing the airships and their CyberBugTM UAV’s to various branches of the U.S. government and U.S. allies as multi-use platform vehicles capable of deployment in surveillance and communication operations. http://www.cyberdefensesystems.com

Cyber Defense Systems, Inc. (OTCBB: CYDF) is an operating subsidiary of Proxity, Inc. (Pink Sheets: PRXT).

About Proxity:

Proxity, Inc. is a developmental holding company specializing in the deployment and marketing of security protection technology and government contract fulfillment. With 18,750,000 shares in CYDF, Proxity is the Company’s majority shareholder. Proxity seeks to acquire and develop security technology. The Company plans to enter into teaming and exclusive and nonexclusive marketing and distribution agreements with products developed for commercial, military and homeland defense. http://www.proxity.com.

This release contains statements that constitute forward-looking statements. These statements appear in a number of places in this release and include all statements that are not statements of historical fact regarding the intent, belief or current expectations of the Company, its directors or its officers with respect to, among other things: (i) the Company’s financing plans; (ii) trends affecting the Company’s financial condition or results of operations; (iii) the Company’s growth strategy and operating strategy; and (iv) the declaration and payment of dividends. The words “may,” “would,” “will,” “expect,” “estimate,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “intend,” and similar expressions and variations thereof are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Investors are cautioned that any such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the Company’s ability to control and those actual results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements as a result of various factors.

---

Northrop Grumman to Deploy Two More Global Hawks in Global War on Terrorism

SAN DIEGO - Aug. 10, 2005 - Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) has received a contract from the U.S. Air Force to deploy two production RQ-4A Global Hawk aerial reconnaissance systems early this fall. The air vehicles will join an advanced concept technology demonstration version of the Global Hawk currently in theatre supporting the global war on terrorism.

To date deployed Global Hawks have flown more than 4,300 combat hours in 200 missions.

The $21 million contract was awarded on June 2.

Global Hawk flies autonomously at an altitude of 65,000 feet, above inclement weather and prevailing winds for more than 35 hours. During a single mission, it provides detailed intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance information on a 40,000 square mile area in near-real time.

Northrop Grumman is the leading producer of unmanned systems for the U.S. military with a portfolio that spans a broad spectrum of capabilities. Current systems in service, production or development include the combat-proven Air Force RQ-4 Global Hawk and U.S. Army RQ-5 Hunter unmanned reconnaissance systems currently supporting the global war on terrorism; the BQM-34 and BQM-74 aerial targets; the RQ-8 Fire Scout vertical take-off and landing tactical UAV in low-rate initial production for the Navy and for U.S. Army Future Combat Systems Class IV unmanned air vehicle program; the multi-role Hunter II proposed for the Army’s next-generation, extended-range, multi-purpose UAV program; and the X-47 Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Air Force and Navy; and advanced systems like the KillerBee program being developed for low-altitude, long endurance missions.

Unmanned remote sensing aircraft takes flight

www.chinaview.cn 2005-08-15 15:58:24

BEIJING, Aug. 15 — China’s first high-end and multi-functional remote sensing unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) made its successful test flight on Monday in Huangguoshu Airport, Anshun City, southwest China’s Guizhou Province.

The remote sensing system, jointly developed by Peking University and Guizhou Aviation Industry (Group) Co Ltd, adopts intelligent and high-definition data retrieving technologies. According to experts, it is of a world-class standard in terms of flight function, navigation accuracy, communications, equipment as well as manufacturing cost.

The Institute of Remote Sensing and Geographic Information System of Peking University is one of the pioneering units to have engaged in developing remote sensing technologies and application research in China.

Guizhou Aviation is China’s largest aviation development and production base. It has been researching and developing UAVs for many years. The coaching and unmanned planes developed by it made successful maiden flights on December 12, 2003.

In recent years, the institute and the company have cooperated in research and development, making breakthroughs in remote sensing facilities, image recognition and processing, image resolution and downsizing facilities.

According to experts, the UAV remote sensing technology has great development potential in China. It could be widely used for land and environment surveys, meteorological research and natural disaster monitoring.

Remote sensing technology is a tool that is widely used to study, for example, the Earth’s surface and atmosphere, from a distance from an aircraft or satellite.

(Source: chinaorg.cn)

---

Northrop Grumman’s Fire Scout UAV Demonstrates Communication, Imagery-Relay and Logistic Capabilities

SAN DIEGO - Aug. 15, 2005 - Northrop Grumman Corporation’s (NYSE: NOC) MQ-8 Fire Scout unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) completed data and image relay, video transmissions and supplied delivery to a remote location during a series of tests and demonstrations Aug. 1-3 at Arizona’s Yuma Proving Ground.The tests culminated with a fully autonomous flight demonstration for senior military and government leaders.

The Fire Scout flew numerous missions using the U.S. Army’s One System ground control station, proving that the UAV can be fielded using existing Army ground control stations. Operating from the Army’s One System also illustrated the ability to easily integrate Fire Scout into the Army’s current arsenal of vehicles that gather intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance information.

“One of the most significant parts of the test series was when the test team intentionally broke communication between the ground station and the UAV, and Fire Scout proceeded to deliver supplies to a remote location,” said Joe Emerson, Northrop Grumman’s Army Fire Scout program director. “This crucial mission was completed when Fire Scout delivered supplies to a ’soldier,’ who unloaded the supply pod, then pressed a button on the outside of the vehicle, triggering its return to the launch point.”

With a payload of 600 pounds, Fire Scout can deliver a wide variety of supplies autonomously without endangering pilots or an aircrew on a manned helicopter.

Fire Scout also provided real-time, streaming video of the launch site and ‘targets’ using the Tactical Common Data Link.Army and U.S. Navy leadership viewed the live video feed on three different monitors and commented on Fire Scout’s ability to provide such a stable platform and steady imagery. This is a key function of Fire Scout’s intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance mission for the armed forces.

This continues a series of tests for Northrop Grumman’s Army and Navy customers over the recent months. “This has been a busy summer for the Fire Scout team, starting with a successful demonstration at the Navy-sponsored UAV demonstration day in Maryland, followed by weapons firing and now successfully completing a series of tests and demonstrations,” said Doug Fronius, Northrop Grumman’s Navy Fire Scout program director. “The demonstrations here in Yuma were a great opportunity to show our customers Fire Scout’s capabilities and versatility.”

Northrop Grumman is currently under contract to build four Fire Scout UAVs for the Navy and eight for the Army under development and low-rate initial production programs.

Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems is a premier aerospace and defense systems integration organization. Headquartered in El Segundo, Calif., it designs, develops, produces and supports network-enabled integrated systems and subsystems optimized for use in networks. For its government and civil customers worldwide, Integrated Systems delivers best-value solutions, products and services that support military and homeland defense missions in the areas of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; space access; battle management command and control; and integrated strike warfare.

---

Cyber Defense Systems commences shipment of CyberbugTM UAVs

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla.–Aug. 15, 2005–Cyber Defense Systems, Inc. (OTCBB:CYDF),a designer and developer of next generation unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV’s) and an operating subsidiary of Proxity, Inc. (Pink Sheets: PRXT), today announced it has begun shipment of the CyberBugTM to both US and international distributors as well as unnamed government entities as part of the initial sales announced over the last several months. The CyberBugTM is one of the most cost-effective UAV’s on the market today, capable of being launched in winds speeds in excess of 25 miles and hour and can provide the GPS coordinates of hostile or problem areas, facilitate line-of-sight communications, as well as provide day or night surveillance of remote areas.

The shipment represents the first several contracts currently in place. Through outsourcing current production the CyberBugsTM will be 20 units a month beginning October 1, 2005 with the ability to ramp up as business demands. The current initial orders will deliver units to be tested at exercises through out the world.

Billy Robinson, CEO of Cyber Defense Systems commented, “We are very pleased to have begun shipment of the CyberBugTM to our distributors and the various government agencies. This order reinforces Cyber’s leadership in the small Unmanned Aerial Vehicle markets and we look forward to ramping up sales and marketing efforts around the world.”

About Cyber Defense Systems:

Cyber Defense Systems, Inc. is designing and building a new generation of UAV’s. Cyber Defense also has the global government and military marketing rights to Techsphere Systems International LLC Spherical and Semi-spherical airships. Cyber Defense is currently marketing the airships and their CyberBugTM UAV’s to various branches of the U.S. government and U.S. allies as multi-use platform vehicles capable of deployment in surveillance and communication operations. http://www.cyberdefensesystems.com

Cyber Defense Systems, Inc. (OTCBB: CYDF) is an operating subsidiary of Proxity, Inc. (Pink Sheets: PRXT).

About Proxity:

Proxity, Inc. is a developmental holding company specializing in the deployment and marketing of security protection technology and government contract fulfillment. With 18,750,000 shares in CYDF, Proxity is the Company’s majority shareholder. Proxity seeks to acquire and develop security technology. The Company plans to enter into teaming and exclusive and nonexclusive marketing and distribution agreements with products developed for commercial, military and homeland defense. http://www.proxity.com.

This release contains statements that constitute forward-looking statements. These statements appear in a number of places in this release and include all statements that are not statements of historical fact regarding the intent, belief or current expectations of the Company, its directors or its officers with respect to, among other things: (i) the Company’s financing plans; (ii) trends affecting the Company’s financial condition or results of operations; (iii) the Company’s growth strategy and operating strategy; and (iv) the declaration and payment of dividends. The words “may,” “would,” “will,” “expect,” “estimate,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “intend,” and similar expressions and variations thereof are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Investors are cautioned that any such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the Company’s ability to control and those actual results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements as a result of various factors.

---

Northrop Grumman to Deploy Two More Global Hawks in Global War on Terrorism

SAN DIEGO - Aug. 10, 2005 - Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) has received a contract from the U.S. Air Force to deploy two production RQ-4A Global Hawk aerial reconnaissance systems early this fall. The air vehicles will join an advanced concept technology demonstration version of the Global Hawk currently in theatre supporting the global war on terrorism.

To date deployed Global Hawks have flown more than 4,300 combat hours in 200 missions.

The $21 million contract was awarded on June 2.

Global Hawk flies autonomously at an altitude of 65,000 feet, above inclement weather and prevailing winds for more than 35 hours. During a single mission, it provides detailed intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance information on a 40,000 square mile area in near-real time.

Northrop Grumman is the leading producer of unmanned systems for the U.S. military with a portfolio that spans a broad spectrum of capabilities. Current systems in service, production or development include the combat-proven Air Force RQ-4 Global Hawk and U.S. Army RQ-5 Hunter unmanned reconnaissance systems currently supporting the global war on terrorism; the BQM-34 and BQM-74 aerial targets; the RQ-8 Fire Scout vertical take-off and landing tactical UAV in low-rate initial production for the Navy and for U.S. Army Future Combat Systems Class IV unmanned air vehicle program; the multi-role Hunter II proposed for the Army’s next-generation, extended-range, multi-purpose UAV program; and the X-47 Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Air Force and Navy; and advanced systems like the KillerBee program being developed for low-altitude, long endurance missions.

– N S Rajaram

Some people in India has stated that “The western governments with their homogenising and de-nationalising mission are as much a threat to Hindu India as the jihadis. So please take the report seriously as an indicator of both contemporary and future foreign policy trends of the US.”

I am not sure I agree. I have close ties with the U.S. military among others and I don’t see it that way. In any event, what is the alternative? Not work with them but shun them as untouchables and cry among ourselves?

I have worked with RAND and nothing is accomplished by talking among ourselves. Also I don’t hold on to the belief that the U.S. is driven by white racism. If anything, it is India that has excessive precoccupation with white people– be it Sonia Gandhi, Michael Witzel or Jean Dreze. None of them would be taken seriously in the West. We are creating these white monsters. We needn’t scare ourselves so much.

See how the Japanese defeated them, but went and begged Mountbatten. We need to get out of this fear psychosis. As Franklin Roosevelt once said: “There is nothing to fear but fear itself.”

Rajaram

---

Seconded by
– by Ram Narayanan

“If anything, it is India that has excessive precoccupation
with white people” You are exactly right! 

The fact is that India started its independence with  a huge burden – a morbid sense of inferiority complex in relation to the white man!! My estimate or guesstimate will be that 80 percent of educated Indians of that time suffered from this complex. However, the new generation that has largely replaced the first post-independence generation, is full of self confidence and knows it has the ability to beat the white man in the global game that’s unfolding. India’s is, therefore, now well set on the road to its tryst with destiny! Yet, I guess probably  20 percent of the educated guys in India today may still be suffering from that “disease”. It’s that section that one often comes across in various walks of life including the media.

Ram Narayanan

– N S Rajaram

Some people in India has stated that “The western governments with their homogenising and de-nationalising mission are as much a threat to Hindu India as the jihadis. So please take the report seriously as an indicator of both contemporary and future foreign policy trends of the US.”

I am not sure I agree. I have close ties with the U.S. military among others and I don’t see it that way. In any event, what is the alternative? Not work with them but shun them as untouchables and cry among ourselves?

I have worked with RAND and nothing is accomplished by talking among ourselves. Also I don’t hold on to the belief that the U.S. is driven by white racism. If anything, it is India that has excessive precoccupation with white people– be it Sonia Gandhi, Michael Witzel or Jean Dreze. None of them would be taken seriously in the West. We are creating these white monsters. We needn’t scare ourselves so much.

See how the Japanese defeated them, but went and begged Mountbatten. We need to get out of this fear psychosis. As Franklin Roosevelt once said: “There is nothing to fear but fear itself.”

Rajaram

---

Seconded by
– by Ram Narayanan

“If anything, it is India that has excessive precoccupation
with white people” You are exactly right! 

The fact is that India started its independence with  a huge burden – a morbid sense of inferiority complex in relation to the white man!! My estimate or guesstimate will be that 80 percent of educated Indians of that time suffered from this complex. However, the new generation that has largely replaced the first post-independence generation, is full of self confidence and knows it has the ability to beat the white man in the global game that’s unfolding. India’s is, therefore, now well set on the road to its tryst with destiny! Yet, I guess probably  20 percent of the educated guys in India today may still be suffering from that “disease”. It’s that section that one often comes across in various walks of life including the media.

Ram Narayanan

Please read Page 57 of the report, the very last paragraph:

Exploring Religious Conflict
Gregory F. Treverton, Heather S. Gregg, Daniel Gibran and Charles Yost

“For the intelligence community, a different set of conceptual tools must be employed to better understand this new reality. It requires both understanding of religions and knowledge of non-Western culture and history as seen through a non-Western lens. For an analyst who is American by culture and training, this is a formidable task but one that is not insurmountable. The lens through which one views cosmic war and state response can be helpful. The next steps in building a framework for thinking about religion and conflict or violence might be to look in more depth at the particulars of religious extremists – such as their leadership or their patterns of education and indoctrination.”

ANALYSIS :

If someone translate this into plain English it appears that the recommendation is to target the leadership. As was done recently with Kanchi Shankaracharya who was identified as an accused even before Sankararaman was murdered. If such thundering recommendations can come as a result of mere ‘conversations’ (this is what Greg claims) in a RAND workshop with wackos, woe unto the ‘informed’ policy-making process in USA.

Please read Page 57 of the report, the very last paragraph:

Exploring Religious Conflict
Gregory F. Treverton, Heather S. Gregg, Daniel Gibran and Charles Yost

“For the intelligence community, a different set of conceptual tools must be employed to better understand this new reality. It requires both understanding of religions and knowledge of non-Western culture and history as seen through a non-Western lens. For an analyst who is American by culture and training, this is a formidable task but one that is not insurmountable. The lens through which one views cosmic war and state response can be helpful. The next steps in building a framework for thinking about religion and conflict or violence might be to look in more depth at the particulars of religious extremists – such as their leadership or their patterns of education and indoctrination.”

ANALYSIS :

If someone translate this into plain English it appears that the recommendation is to target the leadership. As was done recently with Kanchi Shankaracharya who was identified as an accused even before Sankararaman was murdered. If such thundering recommendations can come as a result of mere ‘conversations’ (this is what Greg claims) in a RAND workshop with wackos, woe unto the ‘informed’ policy-making process in USA.

Co(s)mic war

‘GREGORY TREVERTON’S CO(S)MIC WAR’ – HINDU REVIEW OF THE RAND REPORT

Story Religious expert Mark Juergens Meyer and his other religious expert friends

Script Gregory F Treverton & Co. of the RAND National Security Research Division

Directors Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Commands, the defense agencies, Department of the Navy, the U.S. intelligence community, allied foreign governments, and Foundations.

Producer CIA’s Directorate of Intelligence

Cast Christian God and Muslim God, Christian terrorist groups, Islamic Jihadi outfits, White Christian and Islamic Governments overtly and overtly supporting religious terrorism, New Religious Movements belonging to Christianity and Islam and the Jewish, Hindu and other victims of Islam and Christianity, and Rand’s ‘religious experts’ and US intelligence analysts.

Now showing in some theatre near your home.

The lasting impression of the average viewer is confusion followed by outrage. The Hindu critic sat through two-thirds of the movie for an agonizing 2 hours and then conducted an exit poll outside a cinema hall showing Gregory Treverton’s ‘Cosmic War’, questioning viewers as they emerged after the show. 83% of those questioned told us they did not know even at the end of the movie if the war or the story had ended when it ended while 17% expressed the view that the movie must be renamed ‘comic war’. While 42% thought the story of ‘cosmic war’ was boring old stuff redeemed however in small measure by excellent modern special effect visuals provided by White Christianity’s nuclear weapons and the Islamic world’s other weapons of mass destruction, 36% thought the ‘cosmic war’ between the Christians and Muslims was action like they get to see on WWF on the small screen where two fat men in funny underclothes and gaudy painted faces merely pretend to kill each other and that it was a lot of fun; 22% told us they were not sure if the film was meant to amuse them, scare them or bore them. All of them agreed that Jurgensmeyer story and Treverton’s script sucked and that the Directors were trying to sell them a lemon and that they would think twice before watching a Rand Corporation movie again.

The story in brief: The Christian God wants Christians to believe just as the Muslim God wants Muslims to believe that He alone is God and therefore ‘good’. It follows therefore that the God who is not God is not good but evil and this depends on which God shouts louder. Both Gods want the same cosmos for their kingdom and decide to fight to the finish for it. That is why the movie is named ‘Cosmic War’ and that is why Treverton, the principal author calls the war between the two ‘only me God’, a war of good and evil. The story is straight forward up until here.

After a while both these ‘only me God’s get weary of beating up each other to a pulp and call off their war to take a breather. They declare the first of their several cease-fire agreements, agree that fighting each other to death is silly when they can get others to do it for them and so come to a mutually beneficial agreement to convert the ‘Cosmic War’ from the metaphysical into the physical. Both ‘only me God’s begin the process of creating their own terrorist armies who from now on will not only fight each other to the finish, but will also exterminate from the earth those who refuse to join them. From fighting an invisible war in some remote corner of the cosmos, both Gods create their own terrorists to fight the wars on their behalf and descend invisibly to earth to oversee the acts of murder, mayhem, rape, plunder, loot and destruction performed for them and in their name.

The biggest disappointment of the story and the script and the film is that just as the two ‘only me God’s could not fight each other to the finish, their terrorist armies too cannot seem to fight each other to the finish. And so Jurgensmeyer, seeks to present a twist in the tale. He advocates the two terrorist armies of the two ‘only me Gods’ to declare yet another cease-fire, to realize that they are the children of Siamese twins separated at birth and to turn as one against those that refuse to join either army. The ‘Siamese Twins’ lie must be exposed, the Hindu critic thought. Jurgensmeyer forgot the Jews. It should actually be Siamese Twins of three Gods and their armies.

Obedient to the Jurgensmeyer exhortation, as the two (should be three) ‘only me God’s look around the as yet unconquered cosmos, their attention is caught by a bare-chested Hindu dwarf clad in a small piece of white cloth from the waist down sporting a wooden umbrella, who was pressing the Christian and Muslim nether world firmly under one small foot while the other small foot effortlessly soared over their own heads to span the cosmos which both ‘only me God’ s hoped some day to control. The act of spanning the cosmos with one small foot was one of the several stupendous visual treats of the film and the fury of the ‘only me God’ s, understandably, knew no bounds.

Jurgensmeyer points to the dwarf and tells the two ‘only me God’ s that it is the dwarf which poses the biggest challenge to their military power and cosmic hegemony and that the Siamese twins instead of trying to finish each other off which in any case they cannot do, must try to finish off the followers of this dwarf whom he calls the RSS. From then on the film rapidly descends into bathos. The third part of the Siamese Twins decides to strike a tactical alliance with the army of the Hindu Dwarf. At intermission, the viewers are left with the question, who, for God’s and Cosmos’ sake, is the bad guy in all this. If both ‘only me God’s want the same Cosmos, if both think they are Good while the other is Evil, if the madmen and women who constitute the terrorist armies of these Gods cause the same death and destruction, who, asks the Hindu critic, is good and who evil?

Jurgensmeyer’s answer to that one – Ravana, the metaphysical ‘evil one’ and his terrorist army, the RSS! Even as the Hindu critic rubbed his ears and eyes in total disbelief, Jurgensmeyer and Co. present Ayodhya as Kurukshetra the Cosmic battlefield at which point the Hindu critic walks out of the hall in disgust. He like many others is considering suing the Rand Corporation to get his money back. This can’t be serious, agree those questioned by the exit poll. If the Rand wants to avoid litigation it must first rename ‘Cosmic War’ to ‘Comic War’ which should not be too difficult and then have the film certified as ’spoof’ so that viewers are not deceived.

Viewer Rating: *

Critic rating: */2

16th August, 2005.

Co(s)mic war

‘GREGORY TREVERTON’S CO(S)MIC WAR’ – HINDU REVIEW OF THE RAND REPORT

Story Religious expert Mark Juergens Meyer and his other religious expert friends

Script Gregory F Treverton & Co. of the RAND National Security Research Division

Directors Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Commands, the defense agencies, Department of the Navy, the U.S. intelligence community, allied foreign governments, and Foundations.

Producer CIA’s Directorate of Intelligence

Cast Christian God and Muslim God, Christian terrorist groups, Islamic Jihadi outfits, White Christian and Islamic Governments overtly and overtly supporting religious terrorism, New Religious Movements belonging to Christianity and Islam and the Jewish, Hindu and other victims of Islam and Christianity, and Rand’s ‘religious experts’ and US intelligence analysts.

Now showing in some theatre near your home.

The lasting impression of the average viewer is confusion followed by outrage. The Hindu critic sat through two-thirds of the movie for an agonizing 2 hours and then conducted an exit poll outside a cinema hall showing Gregory Treverton’s ‘Cosmic War’, questioning viewers as they emerged after the show. 83% of those questioned told us they did not know even at the end of the movie if the war or the story had ended when it ended while 17% expressed the view that the movie must be renamed ‘comic war’. While 42% thought the story of ‘cosmic war’ was boring old stuff redeemed however in small measure by excellent modern special effect visuals provided by White Christianity’s nuclear weapons and the Islamic world’s other weapons of mass destruction, 36% thought the ‘cosmic war’ between the Christians and Muslims was action like they get to see on WWF on the small screen where two fat men in funny underclothes and gaudy painted faces merely pretend to kill each other and that it was a lot of fun; 22% told us they were not sure if the film was meant to amuse them, scare them or bore them. All of them agreed that Jurgensmeyer story and Treverton’s script sucked and that the Directors were trying to sell them a lemon and that they would think twice before watching a Rand Corporation movie again.

The story in brief: The Christian God wants Christians to believe just as the Muslim God wants Muslims to believe that He alone is God and therefore ‘good’. It follows therefore that the God who is not God is not good but evil and this depends on which God shouts louder. Both Gods want the same cosmos for their kingdom and decide to fight to the finish for it. That is why the movie is named ‘Cosmic War’ and that is why Treverton, the principal author calls the war between the two ‘only me God’, a war of good and evil. The story is straight forward up until here.

After a while both these ‘only me God’s get weary of beating up each other to a pulp and call off their war to take a breather. They declare the first of their several cease-fire agreements, agree that fighting each other to death is silly when they can get others to do it for them and so come to a mutually beneficial agreement to convert the ‘Cosmic War’ from the metaphysical into the physical. Both ‘only me God’s begin the process of creating their own terrorist armies who from now on will not only fight each other to the finish, but will also exterminate from the earth those who refuse to join them. From fighting an invisible war in some remote corner of the cosmos, both Gods create their own terrorists to fight the wars on their behalf and descend invisibly to earth to oversee the acts of murder, mayhem, rape, plunder, loot and destruction performed for them and in their name.

The biggest disappointment of the story and the script and the film is that just as the two ‘only me God’s could not fight each other to the finish, their terrorist armies too cannot seem to fight each other to the finish. And so Jurgensmeyer, seeks to present a twist in the tale. He advocates the two terrorist armies of the two ‘only me Gods’ to declare yet another cease-fire, to realize that they are the children of Siamese twins separated at birth and to turn as one against those that refuse to join either army. The ‘Siamese Twins’ lie must be exposed, the Hindu critic thought. Jurgensmeyer forgot the Jews. It should actually be Siamese Twins of three Gods and their armies.

Obedient to the Jurgensmeyer exhortation, as the two (should be three) ‘only me God’s look around the as yet unconquered cosmos, their attention is caught by a bare-chested Hindu dwarf clad in a small piece of white cloth from the waist down sporting a wooden umbrella, who was pressing the Christian and Muslim nether world firmly under one small foot while the other small foot effortlessly soared over their own heads to span the cosmos which both ‘only me God’ s hoped some day to control. The act of spanning the cosmos with one small foot was one of the several stupendous visual treats of the film and the fury of the ‘only me God’ s, understandably, knew no bounds.

Jurgensmeyer points to the dwarf and tells the two ‘only me God’ s that it is the dwarf which poses the biggest challenge to their military power and cosmic hegemony and that the Siamese twins instead of trying to finish each other off which in any case they cannot do, must try to finish off the followers of this dwarf whom he calls the RSS. From then on the film rapidly descends into bathos. The third part of the Siamese Twins decides to strike a tactical alliance with the army of the Hindu Dwarf. At intermission, the viewers are left with the question, who, for God’s and Cosmos’ sake, is the bad guy in all this. If both ‘only me God’s want the same Cosmos, if both think they are Good while the other is Evil, if the madmen and women who constitute the terrorist armies of these Gods cause the same death and destruction, who, asks the Hindu critic, is good and who evil?

Jurgensmeyer’s answer to that one – Ravana, the metaphysical ‘evil one’ and his terrorist army, the RSS! Even as the Hindu critic rubbed his ears and eyes in total disbelief, Jurgensmeyer and Co. present Ayodhya as Kurukshetra the Cosmic battlefield at which point the Hindu critic walks out of the hall in disgust. He like many others is considering suing the Rand Corporation to get his money back. This can’t be serious, agree those questioned by the exit poll. If the Rand wants to avoid litigation it must first rename ‘Cosmic War’ to ‘Comic War’ which should not be too difficult and then have the film certified as ’spoof’ so that viewers are not deceived.

Viewer Rating: *

Critic rating: */2

16th August, 2005.

From: N.S. Rajaram
To: Gene_Gritton@rand.org
Cc: Nurith_Berstein@rand.org ; gregt@rand.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: RAND report ‘Exploring Religious Conflict’– better work needed
N.S. Rajaram, Ph.D.
13908 Plantation Way
Edmond, OK 73103

(405) 749 7811

August 16, 2005

Mr. Gene Gritton
NSRD Vice President and NDRI Director
RAND National Security Research Division
1776 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 9040 - 2138

Dear Mr. Gritton:

SUBJECT: RAND Report– Exploring Religious Conflict and need for a conference

As one who has had a fruitful association with RAND, not recently but years ago when Tony Hearn used to be the head of the Computer Science Division, it was with high expectations that I looked up your new report Exploring Religious Conflict by Gregory F. Treverton, Heather S. Gregg, Daniel Gibran and Charles Yost released on August 8, 2005. There is no more important subject for study and anlysis in today’s world, and no better organization to do it than RAND with its reputation for scholarship depth of analysis.

Imagine my disappointment when I found not a sharp analytical study but a metaphysical polemic that trivializes the threat before the world with obscure statements like: “NRMs (New Religious Movements) can be found in Hinduism— the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh or RSS, Israel (Gush Emunim), Christianity (the US-based Identity Movement) and Islam, including Al-Qaeda, a global network with a transcendant vision that draws support in the defence of Islam.”

Someone unfamaliar with RAND’s sterling reputation could easily draw the conclusion that the whole exercise is meant as a whitewash of Al Qaeda by comparing it to other religious (and non-religious) organizations like the RSS, Eminum et al which, unlike the Al Qaeda, have no international terror network and are not engaged in terrorist attacks like 9/11 or the London tube stations. I am surprised that the authors have not bracketed the YMCA also with Al Qaeda.

I am partcularly appalled that Mark Juergensmeyer’s personal and partisan views of Indian politicians like Vajpayee and Advani (both out of power) should have found their way into what should be an objective assessment to help policy-makers. The report is put together in haste by inexperienced workers (probably graduate students) unfailiar with the area. This alone can account for howlers like the one on pages 48-9 where the BJP Government that came came to power in 1996 and 1998 is contrived to be responsible for Mahatma Gandhi’s death in 1948! I can uderstand a novice making a blunder like that, but not a supposed ‘expert’ like Juergensmeyer. It is a complete waste of taxpayer’s money.

At the same time, it is of paramount importance to study the impact of religious conflict, especially of Jihad, which is the openly proclaimed ideology of Al Qaeda. Jihad is the basis of all conflict in the world today. Note that none of the other so-called religious groups mentioned by Juergensmeyer—not even the YMCA—has anything comparable to Jihad. So Al Qaeda and other similar terrorist outfits cannot be swept under the carpet as just another religious group.

I suggest that the threat of religious conflict cannot be isolated in space or time, but needs to be studied in its proper historical setting. (See The Legacy of Jihad by Andrew Bostom, 2005, Phoenix Books.)

I feel that RAND should explore the possibility of organizing a major international conference on the subject with participation by internationally known experts in the field. It should not be partisan and should involve scholars of independent views and substance, not lightweight academics and graduate students. The idea should be to make the public and policy-makers aware of the nature of the conflict, not to sweep unpleasant truths under the rug with metaphysical generalizations false history and faulty comparisons.

I feel that both the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security might be interested in sponsoring such a conference or workshop. If you feel it can be useful, I am willing to help you in preparing the proposal. It is only fair to inform you that I will be approaching other U.S. and other organizations with such a proposal. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
N.S. Rajaram (nsrajaram@vsnl.com)

From: N.S. Rajaram
To: Gene_Gritton@rand.org
Cc: Nurith_Berstein@rand.org ; gregt@rand.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: RAND report ‘Exploring Religious Conflict’– better work needed
N.S. Rajaram, Ph.D.
13908 Plantation Way
Edmond, OK 73103

(405) 749 7811

August 16, 2005

Mr. Gene Gritton
NSRD Vice President and NDRI Director
RAND National Security Research Division
1776 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 9040 - 2138

Dear Mr. Gritton:

SUBJECT: RAND Report– Exploring Religious Conflict and need for a conference

As one who has had a fruitful association with RAND, not recently but years ago when Tony Hearn used to be the head of the Computer Science Division, it was with high expectations that I looked up your new report Exploring Religious Conflict by Gregory F. Treverton, Heather S. Gregg, Daniel Gibran and Charles Yost released on August 8, 2005. There is no more important subject for study and anlysis in today’s world, and no better organization to do it than RAND with its reputation for scholarship depth of analysis.

Imagine my disappointment when I found not a sharp analytical study but a metaphysical polemic that trivializes the threat before the world with obscure statements like: “NRMs (New Religious Movements) can be found in Hinduism— the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh or RSS, Israel (Gush Emunim), Christianity (the US-based Identity Movement) and Islam, including Al-Qaeda, a global network with a transcendant vision that draws support in the defence of Islam.”

Someone unfamaliar with RAND’s sterling reputation could easily draw the conclusion that the whole exercise is meant as a whitewash of Al Qaeda by comparing it to other religious (and non-religious) organizations like the RSS, Eminum et al which, unlike the Al Qaeda, have no international terror network and are not engaged in terrorist attacks like 9/11 or the London tube stations. I am surprised that the authors have not bracketed the YMCA also with Al Qaeda.

I am partcularly appalled that Mark Juergensmeyer’s personal and partisan views of Indian politicians like Vajpayee and Advani (both out of power) should have found their way into what should be an objective assessment to help policy-makers. The report is put together in haste by inexperienced workers (probably graduate students) unfailiar with the area. This alone can account for howlers like the one on pages 48-9 where the BJP Government that came came to power in 1996 and 1998 is contrived to be responsible for Mahatma Gandhi’s death in 1948! I can uderstand a novice making a blunder like that, but not a supposed ‘expert’ like Juergensmeyer. It is a complete waste of taxpayer’s money.

At the same time, it is of paramount importance to study the impact of religious conflict, especially of Jihad, which is the openly proclaimed ideology of Al Qaeda. Jihad is the basis of all conflict in the world today. Note that none of the other so-called religious groups mentioned by Juergensmeyer—not even the YMCA—has anything comparable to Jihad. So Al Qaeda and other similar terrorist outfits cannot be swept under the carpet as just another religious group.

I suggest that the threat of religious conflict cannot be isolated in space or time, but needs to be studied in its proper historical setting. (See The Legacy of Jihad by Andrew Bostom, 2005, Phoenix Books.)

I feel that RAND should explore the possibility of organizing a major international conference on the subject with participation by internationally known experts in the field. It should not be partisan and should involve scholars of independent views and substance, not lightweight academics and graduate students. The idea should be to make the public and policy-makers aware of the nature of the conflict, not to sweep unpleasant truths under the rug with metaphysical generalizations false history and faulty comparisons.

I feel that both the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security might be interested in sponsoring such a conference or workshop. If you feel it can be useful, I am willing to help you in preparing the proposal. It is only fair to inform you that I will be approaching other U.S. and other organizations with such a proposal. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
N.S. Rajaram (nsrajaram@vsnl.com)