"To those who doubt, to those who ask is it possible, or those who do not believe, I say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible."
 - President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the conference without America and Zionism on 2005.

After the exposure of Iran's nuclear program in 2002, the Iranian terrorist regime hid stuff about their nuclear program and was caught repeatedly lying about it.

However, a secret memo was leaked revealing that Iran had another plan for building nuclear weapons, a plan approved by the Supreme leader himself Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. 

Many liberals and apoligists of the Iranian terrorist regime has asked for "proof" about Iran developing nuclear weapons despite the fact that it was secret for decades, that Iran wasn't fully cooperating with the IAEA and that Iran was caught repeatedly lying about the nuclear program. The secret memo was just more proof.  AKI [Adnkronosinternational] was the news agency that leeked the secret memo to the world. The memo was based on a meeting by Iran's leaders on a plan to help develop nuclear weapons.

AKI reported:

A few weeks later in Iranian capital Tehran, Khamenei gathered a group of senior officials responsible for national security and nuclear power, including Mohsen Fahrizadeh, entitled Project III - the programme suspected of planning the development of nuclear arms.

On that occasion, according to the memorandum, Khamenei spoke of the need to accelerate the military project in such a way that it did not run the risk of breaching the rules of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.

During the meeting several proposals were discussed and at the end of the talks, "Khamenei called for a plan to be drawn up to exploit the nuclear material of the Bushehr plant to obtain plutonium".

AKI also reported:

Under the plan submitted, options included heating bars of material for 300 days, producing plutonium but of an inferior quality to military fuel to produce 600 kilogrammes to make 75 bombs of low quality. 

Under a second option, the reactor would be activated to its maximum power for two months to produce 120 kilogrammes of material for 15 nuclear bombs. 

This article concluded:

The memorandum is in marked contrast to the many official pronouncements by the Iranian government that it only intends to use nuclear material for peaceful purposes.

Iran is ruled by a radical Islamist regime. They publicly chant in their sponsored demonstrations,"Death to America," and "Death to Israel.'' Iran views America as the great satan and Israel as the small satan.

Iran obtaining nuclear weapons will result in them using it on America and Israel and supplying terrorist groups who'll use it on America and its allies including Israel.

Iran will also use nuclear weapons to help spread radical Islamist rule to the world. Radical Islam doesn't care about destroying their countries as long as they succeed in their global aims. After all, they believe that they and the Muslims killed will go to heaven while the infidels go to hell. That's where the suicide bombers and 9/11 hijackers come from. 

Alireza Jafarzadeh, in his book "The Iran Threat", said this:

Iran's inimitable stance is made even more dangerous because the Iranian regime will not hesitate to use a nuclear bomb. Nothing in the regime's history supports the idea that Tehran would merely build up an arsenal to use for political leverage or as a deterrent from attack. The mullahs have no ethical scruples with a nuclear first-strike policy; in fact, their ideology urges them to use such a weapon to annihilate what both Khomeini and Khamenei called the ''Great Satan'' and what former president Rafsanjani called ''global arrogance.'' [page 204]

This leaked memo is part of the proof that Iran seeks to build nuclear weapons and this claim about Iran just wanting nuclear technology for ''peaceful purposes'' is bogus.      

The lottery, better known as, "The ticket to a better life", by Californians is also recognized by many other names, nationwide, as Power ball, Mega Millionaire, etc. The relevance of its name is minuscule, the connotation is what is of great magnitude. The universal meaning between the different kinds of lotteries, is, that good things happen to the winner, in Jackson's, “Lottery”, it is the reverse; horrific things happen to the winner. The actual winners are the losers. The villagers' version of the socially acceptable, "our", version requires that the winner be stoned to death. A ritual sacrifice that would appease the Gods, blessing the next year's harvest. “Although the villagers had forgotten the ritual and lost the original black box, they still remembered to use stones.” (Jackson p. 280). Even though the villagers do not continue to practice the entireties of the traditional rite, the end always remains the same, the winner dies. Violence is the longest standing tradition, and the substantiation to that information is that the end is the only portion of the ritual that the villagers are interested in.

Jackson does; however, make the correlation between the villagers, and present day people. Violence. It is a driving force that draws everyone toward it. The village is not real, it is only a figment of the author's imagination; nevertheless, it's identity is the1948 treatment of minority groups. In most cases, the minority group is subject to much harshness, harassment, and ridicule. Somewhat similar to the lottery players. The lottery players draw to see who dies, and the minority groups have already drawn and won. Especially now, with the war on terror, the Muslim minority has been targeted by the rest of the nation as the base for ridicule, harassment, false accusation, and hatred. A group of Muslim people may have been involved in sparking the war on terror, but that does nothing to justify the actions taken against Muslims as a whole, by the rest of the world. Jackson's version of the Muslims would more than likely be the Hutchinson family. Who, in, “The Lottery”, was the family randomly selected to be sacrificed, but only one of the family members was going to be the sacrifice. (Jackson p. 280) The family member that was sacrificed in the end of the story was Tessie, the wife and mother of the family. She, can be compared to every individual that has to deal with nonsensical violence because of what a few other people have done. The people that suffer are, more often than not, innocent of what they are being persecuted for. Do we draw the line here? Is this the unacceptable point of the issue? Or, is there more to the problem?

In the average Lottery, there are the players, and then there are those who sanction the Lottery. Jackson has that covered as well, in her short story. The character's name is Mr. Summers, he is the community organization coordinator. He runs the lottery, he is symbolic of those who want to continue persecuting people. The same people who add fuel to the ever burning fire of dim-witted man. In the story, Mr. Summers is composed, very professional, and seems to enjoy what it is that he does, even though the activity being enjoyed is macabre and sadistic. Mr. Summers is a perfect example of the present day United States, who is evidently unhappy with fighting just one war, needs to fight three wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the war on terror. The United States allow its citizens to look down on their own citizens who identify with an enemy nationality, regardless, of their true diplomatic stance. It is random, depending on who the enemy is, just like the lottery in Jackson's story is dependent on the family that is chosen. The disturbing part is the lack of concern that the US and Mr. Summers have on their respective lotteries. After the drawing of Tessie Mr. Summers says, “All right folks, let's finish quickly.”(Jackson p. 280). The US version of that would be the patriot act, which allows selective surveillance on people who are deemed dangerous. Is this where the line should be drawn? Could it get any worse?

True equal treatment is an improbability. However we could work to be friendlier with each other, more human. Slaves of a system, remain slaves of the system forever, “ "Seventy-seventh year I been in the lottery" Old Man Warner said as he went through the crowd. "seventy-seventh time."” (Jackson p.278). In order to remain free the chains must not be allowed to be locked, of course they will always be on, but not locked…Where to draw the line? How about before it is necessary? This is a tough enough world to live in, without the self-imposed hates, but that is the world we live in, it isn't fair, it isn't right, it just isn't. (Jackson).

Some blame riots for such mindsets but before anything else, a person himself should be blamed. Killing innocents to satisfy one's ego is not justified in any sense. If such people are really hurt by riots, then why don't they spend the time and energy which they use for killing innocents to search those who cause the riots? I would request these heartless people to ask the dead souls of their loved ones if they would ever feel happy about the survivors for killing others in the same way as they themselves had lost their lives.

If not afraid of anyone else, at least be afraid of the God before the thought of killing others and devastating this beautiful earth. If you can't add to the beauty then who are you to bring the destruction? By doing all this, you may satisfy your missions and fill your pockets but always keep in mind the Day of Judgment on which none is forgiven.

Who is it then that gets to decide which groups are terrorists and what criteria are they using? This becomes increasingly confusing when you look at different militant groups from different regions and eras. For example, what differences are there between Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shi’a Islamic political and paramilitary organisation, and the French Resistance, which formed during the Second World War to fight against the Nazi occupation?

Both are or were national movements defending their sovereign territory from foreign occupation. Both used similar tactics of assassinations and bombings which are considered to be terrorist tactics of ‘unlawful violence’ as opposed to ‘lawful acts of war’ according to those who attempt to define it. The only real difference between the two is the use by Hezbollah of suicide attacks; a concept quite alien to European and American culture although they themselves have histories of human sacrifice for national causes.

Maybe then it is not such much what you do as who you know? Hezbollah is a sworn enemy of Israel, who in turn is a close ally of the USA and who in turn is a close ally of the UK. Strangely enough these three countries account for three of the six which consider it to be a terrorist organisation.

Hezbollah is also supported by Iran and Syria neither of which is likely to be invited to a White House garden party any time soon. It would seem an obvious conclusion that this more then anything helped Hezbollah achieve terrorist group status.

By labelling a group or organisation as terrorists you seek to undermine the legitimacy of their cause, depicting them as immoral or unjustified. Whoever uses the term is aligning themselves to a particular side. Quite simply in its modern day usage anyone who uses violence against you is a terrorist whatever their purpose or ideology. The Palestinians fire rockets or launch a suicide attack against Israel and are denounced by the Israelis as terrorists. The Israelis respond by bulldozing refugee’s homes and killing civilians in military attacks and are in return also denounced as terrorists by the Palestinians.

All acts of violence are intended to terrorise and intimidate people so surely anyone who engages in violence is a terrorist. Once terrorism was seen as an attack on Governments and society but now we have state-sponsored terrorism and entire countries condemned as terrorists. Where is the dividing line between ‘unlawful violence’ and ‘legitimate acts of war’ when civilians are killed in order to liberate them and governments indulge in kidnapping and torture, although now re-branded as extra-ordinary rendition, and detain people for years without trial.

Has a word that is liberally used to conduct wars and violate international law now lost all its meaning since it was first coined to describe the nineteenth century anarchists who embraced its label? It is easy to understand why the notion of a war on terror or terrorism is highly controversial to some people. There is no tangible enemy in a war on terrorism, when anyone who is an enemy is also a terrorist. It gives governments a license to attack anyone for any reason and then to use terrorism as an excuse to hide their truer hidden motives.

America faced one September 11 attack and that was enough for them to encourage them for a constant fight against terrorism. And I respect the American government for the tight measures taken against such ant-social elements. But, what can we say about India? People face 9/11 attacks on a weekly basis and still the government keeps on giving repetitive consolations. It seems so surprising that terror mails are sent to police offices before the blasts and then also the police remain inefficient. The political parties keep blaming each other for the blasts and the government shows grief by declaring some amount of money for the dead and the injured people. It's not a matter of shame only for India but for the whole world that the greatest democracy suffering so badly. Does it show the inefficiency of the democratic form of government or the crowd of the greedy people who represent such government? Or, does it show the disinterestedness of the over 100 million Indian population with the highest number of colleges and universities to choose the right form of government?

We vote for the parties for which our ancestors have been voting with out applying our own sense of discretion. Do you ever think about the past history of those leaders who roam around you for your votes at the time of elections? And the foremost question, are we bound to vote for those representatives whom parties select for us? Can't we select an educated and a more efficient person to rule over us?

The whole world would have seen the ministers of the Indian parliament buying and selling each other for millions of rupees in order to gain the maximum majority and rule over the nation. Think Indians, whose choice is that? Today, the nation is suffering because the terrorists are roaming free. Yes, everyone else suffers in such blasts except the parties and their representatives. So, it's the time to think and review the past and refine our future to make our motherland a better place to live in.

Editor-in-Chief of “US News & World Report, Mortimer B. Zuckerman has defined the goal of Terrorists quite thoroughly in his article, The Tyranny of Imagery in the October 30th, 2006 edition of his publication. In brazen, bold red letters at the center of page one: “Perhaps better than anyone, terrorists understand how pictures of violence amplify their cynical message, paralyzing democracies around the globe,” is the explanation we need in the report regarding whether we accomplished our mission in Iraq or against terror once this war, if ever, comes to an end. “Now players can surprise the enemy for the ultimate advantage in firefights, leading a fire team throughout the entire Normandy campaign. For the first time, players will also be able to lead a bazooka team, order their squad on an MG42, or fire mortar rounds. An enhanced co-op mode (Skirmish) offers players a 12-mission campaign,” is the description available on www.Gameseek.com.uk which describes the Playstation Portable video game, “Brothers in Arms”.

To a parent at Christmas; this is harmless. Who among our generation does not have parents or guardians that watched war movies where soldiers would not bleed when shot? Differences here are noted. First, the level of interaction that your impressionable child has over a virtual character that is made to look exactly like a living human. Second, the realistic gore of violence included in video games that depicts war-like scenarios of mine explosions, rocket explosions, gunfire, wounded comrades, decapitation, dismemberment, organ trauma, etc. Third yet not last is the obvious way in which stimulating visual and audio media affects our immediate, real-life circumstance. Watch “Cold Mountain” again and decide not to feel disheartened at the end. Do not laugh through any of Abbott and Costello's comedy routines. Do not laugh at Mitch Hedberg or Dane Cook.

Do not laugh at Eddie or Charlie Murphy. In fact, don't laugh at all. Sickening truth is, your children are doing the laughing for you as they put bullets in each other's heads without repercussion. What is scarier than that is that simulated military violence is not where it ended. It has come to our streets in the virtual world through games like “Grand Theft Auto: Vice City”.

Terrorism refers to acts of violence which are global in terms of aims organization and impact. These acts can lest social bonds of the people in a multiracial society and can divide the people. Race and religion may be used to create ill feelings among the different ethnic groups and in turn pose threat to the racial and religious harmony which threatens the peace in a multiracial society.

One example of terrorism threat includes threats from the group Jemaah Islamiyah (JI). Members of the JI are involved in fund raising and purchase of materials for making weapons such as bombs. Targets were made to bomb the US embassy and some governmental buildings such as Ministry of Education. Therefore such threats disrupt the peaceful harmony.

The arrest of members of terrorist groups may strain the relationship between racial and religious groups. People of different racial and religious groups might be suspicious of each other especially when the arrested member may be of a certain religious group or race. People may not want to live or work with someone who may be suspicious of being in cahoots with terrorists. Thus there is an urgent need to ensure social cohesion is not affected by JI arrests. The existence of strained relationships can cause peace to be much threatened when such a threat continues to be left attended by authorities.

However, the perception of different racial groups is also a factor that could pose a threat to a multiracial society. The lack of understanding among racial gropes can create suspicion and unhappiness among the people. This could then lead to outbreaks of violence among racial groups; creating the impression of the society being chaotic.

For example, in 1964, Singapore experienced racial riots which resulted in 36 people dead and over 500 others injured simple because there was a different perception of different social groups. The racial riots came about when People's Action Party (what is known as PAP nowadays) participated in the Federal Election in Malaysia calling for a non-communal approach to Malaysian politics and the creation of a Malaysia where everyone would be given equal rights and privileges. As a result, the United Malays National Organization (UMNO) felt that their existence was being threatened by such a request and they immediately called for an ‘Anti-PAP' campaign which involved the portrayal of the PAP resettlement and redevelopment programs as ‘Anti-Malay'.

In addition, the Malay newspaper-Utusan Melayu was used by the UMNO to spread anti-PAP messages. Ultimately, the racial riots broke out after a clash between a Chinese policeman and a group of Malay participants of Prophet Muhammad's birthday. However, the different perceptions of different racial could be in turn be used by the terrorists to create a racial riot or to wreck havoc and create chaos in the country.

Also, the differences in religious beliefs and practices are also issues that can be used to create tension among people in Singapore. This can elevate to become and outbreak of violence among religious groups.

One example is the Maria Hertogh riots in the 1950s. In 1940, a Dutch couple was imprisoned by the Japanese Troops. They place their daughter, Maria Hertogh, under the care of a Malay lady, Aminah. Maria was raised as a Muslim and was married to a Muslim teacher at the age of 13.

However, after World War II, her parents demanded Maria to be returned to them, and a court trial followed. The court trial had wide media coverage and this provoked much unhappiness among the Muslim community as the custody was given to the Hertoghs.

The large Muslim crowd outside the court felt that the British legal system had sided with the western and was unfair to the Muslims. This sparked off hatred and anger towards the Eurasian community. Finally when the new about Maria's marriage with the Muslim teacher was annulled ad Maria admitted to the Christian convert, the Muslims felt betrayed and a violent riot broke out.

Thus this shows that the difference in religious beliefs can pose a threat to a multiracial society. If the interests of religious groups are not managed properly, violence would still strike off. However, terrorists groups like the JI are always trying a recreate such violent histories over the time which could then allow them to weaken the government; giving them a chance to completely wreck havoc on the country.

As a result, it is agreeable to a large extent that terrorism poses the greatest threat to peace in a multi-racial society because terrorism is all around us; we can never predict what may be the next course of plans set by these terrorist organizations. In addition, we can never be able to completely crush terrorism since there will always contradicting ideologies which can lead to further seeding of more terrorist groups arising; therefore, though we may have many ways to ethnical problems and counter-terrorism, we can and will never be able stop terrorism from happening all around us.