Banner Advertiser

Sunday, October 14, 2007

[vinnomot] Re: General Moeen

Hello Everyone,

I'm sure most of you have already seen this. If not, page 29 of this document shows that Moeen had a loan outstanding from the Trust Bank in the amount of Tk 99 lakh on December 31st, 2005. One year later, on December 31st 2006 the loan amount was down to Tk 33 lakh.
 
How does a General, on a General's salary, pay off Tk 66 lakh in one year?
 
-MA
 


Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! __._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[vinnomot] Fwd: Invitation to join Art Asia



Art Asia <art2asia@yahoo.com> wrote:

Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Art Asia <art2asia@yahoo.com>
Subject: Invitation to join Art Asia
To: art2asia@yahoo.com

Invitation to join Art Asia
 
 
With the moderator's permission I would like to inform the members about Art Asia; a forum on art & creative activity by and of the people from Bengal in general. If art & creative practices is your thing, please join in; participate and enrich the forum.
 
 
 
 
Sincerely,
Art Asia
Moderator.
 

Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more!


Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos. __._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [vinnomot] Re: [khabor.com] Oli demands arrest of Bhuiyan

Mr. Shafique Bhuiyam

Many thanks for providing corruption practice of Colonel OLi Ahmed Bir Bikrom.

Most people of Bangladesh knew that Polticians money is supplied by ghost. We know how they acquire money to benifit themselves. You will find few politician in Bangladesh who are really honest. Most are corrupt. I can provide the names of  honest politicians like Motia Chowdhury, Dr. Moin Khan and few more. Even if you search their 'dishonesty' with binocoular you will find nothing. But those politicians are minority. Power won't change their fortune. We have to elect real honest politicians to serve us. Can we do that ?

Thanks,

Sincerely,

Mohiuddin Anwar

__._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[vinnomot] Humanism and Sprituality: (Intro 1): Developing Human Potential

 
Developing Human Potential Without Religion
 
Introductory Module
 
Humanism believes in the dignity of individuals, both males and females,  and in their right to develop their own individual personalities and potentials in positive ways, free from any constraints that might be imposed on them by such things as medieval-minded and mentally-socially bacward organized religions like Christianity, Islam etc. or political repressive ideologies like Communism edtc. How far you, yourself, are a humanist will depend partly on just how you prepare and view yourself as a dignified human being.
Do you, for example, believe that you are a result of the genetic inheritance acquired from your parents and your ancestors, emerging through the combining of your mother 's and father's genes to become the unique person you are today?
Do you think that you, as a distinct individual, have unique self-value, and that your personality is of value to your family, friends, society and nation? If you answered affirmatively to these questions, then you hold some of the basic beliefs of humanism about human beings.
Humanism has a way of making you face a good many questions about the nature of your own self, about your particular beliefs about life, and about your own potentials. Human beings are immensely resourceful and resilient, and are full of hidden potentials that humanism asks to be brought forth. In this study of your Introductory Module we shall explore this humanist view of people -- and why the classical religion is rejected by humanists as inhibiting the full development of each individual. In the next study we shall then look at ideas about the presumption of an afterlife, and humanist rejection of a life beyond death.
Part 1: Religious humility or humanist self-assertion and autonomy?
Religionis a Roman word which, according to « A History of the Holy Roman Empire » means « the physical and spiritual obligations to and of the hierarchy». Romasns had different religious obligations for Romans and different for their diffefent colonies. Christianity and Islam were essentially Roman-influenced religions ; read Sura RÜm in Quran, and see history books about 313 C.E. ,Roman Emperor making Christianity the official religion of the ancient Roman Empire 400 B.C.E. to 450 C.E.. After conquest of nearly the whole Europe and Middle East, Egypt and parts of Africa by the Holy Roman Christian Empire ; the conquest of the Americas, Asia and the rest of the world by the Holy Roman German Empire of 800-1813, an dits continuation the Holy Roman British Empire 1817- continues in our days ; it changed its name of the Holy Roman British Empire to (Holy Roman) British Commonwealth, to make it look democratic… ! Out of these political and religious conquests and colonization of minds, all nations now accept « Religion » as equivalent to Deen, Lifestance, set of ideas of spiritual nature etc.
A religion may be a set of common beliefs and practices, based on natural or supernatural ideas, generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.
Spirituality, on the other hand, concerns itself with matters of the spirit. The spiritual, involving (as it may) perceived non-physical eternal verities (or even abilities) involving humankind's rather absurd and irrationally concieved ultimate nature, often contrasts with physical or the earthly, with the material, or with the worldly. A perceived but bizarre subjective sense of connection forms a central defining characteristic of spirituality — connection to a metaphysical reality greater than oneself, which may include a subjective emotional experience of religious awe and reverence, or such states as satori or Nirvana. Equally importantly, spirituality as psychology relates to matters of mental sanity and of psychological health. Like some forms of subjective religion, spirituality often focuses on personal experience (like mysticism) and prayer. Spirituality may involve perceiving or wishing to perceive life as more important ("higher"), more complex or more integrated with one's peculair world view; as contrasted with the merely sensual.
Many spiritual traditions, accordingly, share a common spiritual theme: the "path", "work", practice, or tradition of perceiving and internalizing one's "true" nature and relationship to the rest of existence (God, creation (the universe), or life), and of becoming free of the lesser egoic self (or ego) in favor of being more fully one's "true" "Self".
Whereas religion held sway over personal lives resulting in  Europe's« Medieval Age of Darkness », burning of hundreds of thousands of European women and heretics as witches and 16th century Religious Wars in Europe causing lots of suffereings in the past, today we live in a more secular, rational, reasonable and responsdible society. Older ignorance and taboos about human rights, civil liberties, women's rights, human dignity, and many such aspects of life are being broken down and are much more openly debated than they were even a quarter of a century ago. In today's more rational and secular society, we have moved to a more responsible and less critical view of our fellow humans and to a "live and let live" attitude to others.
But it is particularly supernatural religious dogmas and beliefs that maintain many of the older taboos and attitudes, speaking out against such issues as, human rights, civil liberties, women's equal rights, and so on. Many religions suggest that there is a divine being watching our every move, who is ready to punish our sins, and that there are medieval and dognatic moral "norms" by which we have to abide in order to win his favour.
Humanists are opposed to such fascist and restrictive religious ideas, which they see as partly responsible for guilt-ridden consciences in people past and present. Indeed, there has been a long tradition of prudery and subjection to outmoded dogmatic religious morality. Soon morals became codified according to the particular religious denomination or culture. Because humanism rejects belief in an fictional Allah / God, its view is that if we make mistakes in life we have to live with them or sort them out. But we don't have to experience the deep-rooted guilt or even sinfulness in a more rational and secular world, in the same way as in the medieval dogmatic anf fascist past.
Unluckily, medieval religious principles became part of the psyche of our culture, part of the instilled inheritance. With the concept of a so-called  suffering God, Christianity, for example, can hardly expect to nurture a happy humanity. Indeed, suffering has been a major part of the Christian ethos throughout history. So is in Islam ; an irrational Almighty Allah forcing Muslims to follow his sombre dogmas on the terror of the pain of sufferings in the hell. Religious life has always been a preparation for what follows in the fictional life after death, and what is suffered in this one is rewarded in the next. For many Christians suffering is so essential to religious life that we should feel guilty if we did not make others suffer or about ourselves having a good day! Consider the words of C. S. Lewis, the author of the timeless Chronicles of Narnia taken from his book Mere Christianity:
« Whenever we find that our religious life is making us feel that we are good -- above all, that we are better than someone else -- I think we may be sure that we are being acted on, not by God or Allah, but by the devil or Satan. The real test of being in presence of God/Allah is, that you either forget about yourself altogether or see yourself as a small, dirty object … ! »  
Such words illustrate all too well how religion has conditioned people to feel that human dignity, self-assertion and self-affirmation are sins about which we should feel a considerable amount of guilt ! And the effects of such religious conditioning have not altogether disappeared from contemporary life.
Christianity has also instilled into human values an idea of striving for imperfection, yes imperfection !. There is nothing concerning humanist ideals of perfection at one's job, or at school, or as a mother, or as chairperson of a local something or other, but imperfection in suffering, in denial of the self-respect, in humilition, in weekness, in killing enemies, and in increasing the suffering of the poor. In other words, the human being is to be a evil saint: Be imperfect! is the command of Christianity.
Under religions, we cannot be struggle to be perfect, not in any sense at all. And in the existential life-conditions in which we find ourselves, the humanist goal of perfection is as realizable as reaching the stars. If we set ourselves such a rational goal, as a Chrisrian we must fail, for it is not in our religious natures to be perfect unless we follow Humanism. The pleasure with this kind of realizable goal is that it engenders a sense of worthiness as well as a sense of dignity that we can ever be any different.
Of course, not all Christians would see their role in life as pessimistically as religons demand, and the younger generation, which is developing in a more rational and secular age, might be partially free of the cultural overtones of self-degradation religions demand, and that which generations past and lost have found embedded in their collective subconscious.
Human life is a privilege and it is important how we live it. It is also important that all human beings be allowed to njoy such a privilege. We should have the privilege to shape our own lives, to work at them in every possible way. And we should also work to ensure that others can shape their lives to bring quality and value to them.
The important corollary of this kind of humanist view of life is that we have choices: we can choose to change our lives, we can choose what we wish to believe, we can have opinions about ourselves, others, and issues with which we identify. And we can reject what we find is not worthy in life, and that may well exclude some of the absurd old religious traditions and expectations that we find are no longer relevant to the way in which we want to shape our lives. A good deal of self-assertion is necessary in life.
There are few that would make the claim that life is particularly easy. As human beings we find ourselves faced with the many good things in life, but also with its vicissitudes. Some of us regard the difficulties of life as interesting challenges; others find such difficulties burdensome and stressful. While we may now feel that Rousseau's celebrated words that man is "born free, but is everywhere in chains"  are just superficial in that »we are born with the chains of religious dogmas-which we have to shed struggling all the way in our lives ». There are many in contemporary society who would agree with tthis. Human beings do suffer, and life is not easy. But the answers to the problems of life cannot be solved by passive acceptance and hope for reward in the hereafter.
Life is epitomized by struggle, but humanists believe that it is important to move forward in life and to have the courage to do so. There is much that is tragic and unfulfilled in life, but there is also much that is brave, good, and forward moving. It is in the nature of human beings to be try to be absolutely perfect, and to strive for this kind of perfection in any area of life is to strive for the ideal, for the possible and to place a necessary and positive-resulting stress on oneself.
Every one ccan have perfect health, perfect mental stability, perfect interpersonal relationships, and few would be able to claim that they are not totally in control of their own lives. Sometimes most of us get anxious, have too much to do, have difficult spells in life and encounter problems at home, at school, at work, or with our friends. This is the existential life-condition in which human beings find themselves struggling for humanist ideals of near perfection.
No one has a monopoly on problems -- they come to us all. But they are balanced by the more positive elements of life and, most importantly, we have to learn to accept the negative aspects of life and still develop the kind of self-assertion that enables us to develop as individuals and to evolve personally in this lifetime. Any idea that what one suffers in this life will be balanced out in the fictional next one is anathema to the humanist. Humanism asks every one to stand firmly on one's own two feet and face the present and the future with confidence and courage.
Human beings have considerable innate abilities both collectively and individually. Humanism believes very profoundly in the development of such abilities to enrich the life of each person and the wider context of family, society and the world. And what is more, human beings have the ability to see quality in their experiences and achievements. It is this quality as a dimension of human life that individuals search out, recapture and develop in the rich variety of experiences that life offers. It is a "feeling good" about things, and a measure of satisfaction with oneself that encourages further vision forward. It is the development of self-assertion and self-confidence that is opposed to the denial of the self, which Humanism so frequently expects.
One of the problems with religious institutions and cultures is that they are usually dogmatic and prescriptive about the way life ought to be lived. They perpetuate traditions that are obsolete and difficult to change, that run deep in the personal and societal psyches, and they seek to impose on those outside their folds the same absurd beliefs and practices. We know from today's world events more than ever how religion has divided countries and splintered humanity as a whole. But the fact that we have terms like humankind and humanity suggests a certain intimate linking of human beings globally. The simple, basic linking factor of humanity is that it comprises a species that is a part of the natural world.
On the one hand, humanity is intimately linked with the natural world on which it is dependent for its existence, but on the other hand, it is sufficiently distinct from it to be able to make conscious changes in the natural environment. Moreover, each individual cannot really become human unless there is some interaction socially with other human beings -- unless an individual is part of humanity.
"Society" is a nebulous term that cannot exist independently of individuals. It is the actions, transactions and interactions of individuals that make society -- and humanity -- what it is. And if this is so, then we can make of society and humanity what we wish, providing our aims and objectives have some degree of commonality. In fact, we create the environments in which we exist in the present, and we are, then, certainly capable of changing them for the better in the future. To form a secure and positive society we have to act, react, interact, and transact with care, sensitivity, informed knowledge, and skill, eschewing greed, insensitivity, ignorance, and destructiveness. We can make of society what we will, but religious traditions inhibit this by their respective prescriptiveness.
Eastern Romanized-religions also take a poor view of human self-assertion and autonomy. Most Roman-influenced sects of Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism, for example, see loss of the egoistic self as the whole aim of human life, as if , through them, some Roman or Christian religious colonizer was fulfilling this agenda of degradation of colonized humanity. For the ego, proponents of these religions claims, is the source of all suffering and pain in existence through the desires and aversions that surround individual life. Giving up desires and aversions is what these Romanized religious thuggery is all about in the Roman-colonized-Eastern spiritual  sense. It is a denial of individuality, so essential for the dignity of the self.
To the humanist each individual is a dignified and valuable being that needs to develop his or her individuality to the full, even if it is common sense to suggest that we don't always have the freedom to make this possible. Our dreams may not be fulfilled because of constraints in our own mental and physical beings, or restraints that are placed on us by aspects of religious or semi-religious society. But not al our dreams fall into this category. Each person usually possesses some dormant or little developed potential which, with some effort, can evolve.
Humanism, on the other hand doesn't demand the sacrificing of  individuality for the common good. But individuality and the common good are almost two sides of one coin, for we do not learn to be autonomous individuals outside the common good, and the common good can only be reinforced by the projection of the quality of individual lives into the social sphere.
Because humanism is a fierce defender of human potential, it has to begin with the individual. And the fact that it is so much associated at an organizational level with the defence of human rights and cicil liberties reiterates its concern for individuality alongside its concern for society and global issues. Unlike religions that prescribe absurd egoistic religious beliefs and moral behaviour, humanism calls for fully autonomous, self-reflective individuals, who choose to believe and act in the right way for their own good and that of others.
Religion inhibits individuality in favour of God or Allah-oriented collective, communal reéigious group. Nowhere is this more evident than in Islam, where five times a day all Muslims pray at the same time, in the same format, with the same postures and the same words. This is supposed to establishes an in-group uniformity, group-solidarity hegempny, exclusivity – not positive individuality. But this is npn-natural. Each person has his or her own distinct individuality and character as well as a community-culture group identity. We may be similar to others in some ways but are never identical.
Some people are like plants: they follow the sun, turning only where life drifts. They imitate others rather than develop  their own innate potentials and personalities. Others are highly dynamic and live life to the utmost, striving forward in many directions. Some overdo life, and some hardly get going. People are highly complex, and while some will explore the latent and innate abilities of their own selves, others need the catalyst from outside themselves, they need the opportunities presented to them, and encouragement on the way at almost every turn. But given the differences in each individual there are latent and innate potentials in all of us. And life is not lived to the full unless at least some of these potentialities are explored -- not necessarily fulfilled entirely, but at least developed from the status quo.
But if one is to do the best for oneself it follows that individual life needs to be active and dynamic in order to reach its full or even part potential. This means being alert to the challenges of life and being capable of living life with positive courage and worthwhile, creative action. We cannot be dependent on a fictional life after death or on the so-called immortality, for we are not immortal and fulfilment has to come from this real life. Each individual is responsible for achieving such fulfilment of his or her own self, but is also responsible for facilitating the achievements of others.
All this os not very idealist although we know that the existential life-conditions of so many human beings are anything but perfect, and that the necessary conditions for such men and women to develop full potential may not be there. Humanists would answer this challenge in two ways. One would be philosophical, in that there would be an attempt to understand why individuals themselves and society at large are so capable of such a goal. Another would be active, in that action needs to be taken to ensure that the right kind of conditions obtain in society and the world at large in order to promote the development of "whole" men and women.
The "whole" man/woman is a human person with mental and material well-being, one capable of rational choices, an ethical person, one who in some measure realizes his or her potentialities both intellectually and physically. Importantly, the "whole" man or woman is a questioning one, one who submits beliefs to constant examination and who, therefore, will not accept blindly the religious or political dictates of others. This is a happy person who can face the vicissitudes of life with courage and optimism. Essential to such "wholeness" is reflective self-awareness of the type that enables analysis of one's own values and beliefs.
Tradional and organized Religions impose medieval and socially backward values and beliefs from without. To be truly self-assertive, one needs to acquire beliefs and values from within the human dealings.
Human personality is constantly changing and never becomes a finished product: it is always in a state of becoming, but it is this fact which, to a humanist, is so exciting. Individuals can shape their own destinies; they do not need a fictional Allah, God or son of God or religious prescriptions to do this for them. They can be optimistic about the future, and they can take charge of the world and steer it to a better future. What is essential is to be open to the opportunities for the development of one's own individuality and personhood -- to travel with an open mind.
The fully mature individual is an autonomous person. Autonomy is a word that suggests self-government and personal freedom, so an autonomous person is one who is in a position to make, freely and responsibly, reflective and informed choices about life and one who is critically reflective about the outcomes of those choices.
No one is ever completely free and it is rare that a person is able to make choices without taking into account restrictions that affect such choices. The truly autonomous person knows this but accepts that, given a variety of pathways, he or she is free to make choices as a result of his or her own personal experiences. People who simply obey rules or who just follow a prescribed religious or ideological code are a long way from developing any kind of autonomy. The autonomous person makes ressponsible, intelligent, rational decisions before acting, understands what he or she is doing, and has valid reasons for doing it.
This kind of autonomous person is the highest outcome of education and society: it is the aim of humanists for all individuals. But this does not compromise the distinct individuality of a person -- indeed, it enhances it. One needs to be a fulfilled individual first and foremost, not in the sense of having completed that fulfilment, but in the sense of knowing that one is travelling in the right directions. Only then, when the individual has value in him or her self, can that person make a valuable contribution to society.
 


Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos. __._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[vinnomot] EID MUBARAK!!!

Wish you ALL a very happy and peaceful Eid.
May Allah accept your good deeds, forgive your transgressions and
ease the suffering of all peoples around the globe.


Eid Mubarak!


Wish you a very happy Eid to you from Shujan.



-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shushashoner Jonnoy Nagorik (SHUJAN)
3/7 Asad Avenue (2nd Floor)
Mohammadpur, Dhaka-1207
Bangladesh
ph: 8112622, 8127975 fx: 8116812
web: http://www.shujan.org __._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[vinnomot] Eid Mubarak

Dear,

Assalamu alikum

No shadows to depress you, Only joys to surround you, God himself to
bless you, these are my wishes for you, Today, tomorrow, and every
day. Eid Mubarak.


Thanks
Rakib Khan
CEO
www.host4bd.com
(your trusted hosting partner)
Cheapest Web Hosting Service Provider in Bangladesh


Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vinnomot/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vinnomot/join

(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:vinnomot-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:vinnomot-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vinnomot-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[vinnomot] From the corrupt system arises a Muslim billionaire.

From
October 14, 2007

Arsenal billionaire, Alisher Usmanov, recalls six years in penal colony

WHEN Alisher Usmanov was sent to an Uzbek penal colony stuffed with 3,500 inmates, including murderers and rapists, he came face to face with two dozen hardened criminals who had been prosecuted by his father. Few thought he would get out alive.
"When they realised that my dad was Uzbekistan's deputy prosecutor-general they wanted to rip me to shreds," Usmanov recalled last week in his first full interview since he bought a £120m stake in Arsenal football club.
"My life was in serious danger and I was shocked at what had happened to me. After a privileged upbringing I suddenly found myself in a tuberculosis-infested maximum security penal colony. Conditions were appalling and I had to survive day by day. But in time the inmates learnt to respect me and I managed to stay true to myself. I stayed alive and remained an honest person."
Usmanov was 33 when he was released, six years into an eight-year sentence for fraud and embezzlement, in 1986. The convictions were later overturned by Uzbekistan's Supreme Court, which ordered his police record to be expunged.

Related Links

·                            Arsenal tycoon in diamond 'fraud' row
·                            Usmanov not giving up hope on Arsenal
Little more than 20 years after he was freed, he has amassed an estimated £5 billion fortune and is ranked 18th in the list of Russia's richest.
He runs a metals to media business empire that spans three continents. There are properties in Moscow, Surrey and Sardinia and a "mega-yacht" with its own helipad.
As a senior adviser to Gazprom, the world's biggest extractor of natural gas, and the president of one of its subsidiaries, Usmanov also maintains regular contact with influential figures in the Russian government.
He is on good personal terms with President Vladimir Putin and is often summoned to the Kremlin by officials seeking his opinion.
Unlike some Russian tycoons who dabbled in politics, angered Putin and ended up in exile or in jail, Usmanov has stuck to business. He describes Putin as a "blessing for Russia" and spends £20m a year supporting Russian sport and culture, including the Bolshoi ballet.
Last month he bought the entire art collection of the late cellist Mstislav Rostropovich for a reported £30m to stop it being broken up and sold abroad. The 450 works were donated to the Russian state.
Now 53, Usmanov appears to have led a charmed existence since he was released from detention. But he remains haunted by his years of incarceration on the outskirts of Tashkent, the Uzbek capital.
Although he was fully absolved in 2000 and no longer has a criminal record, rumours about his past persist. Usmanov believes they are promulgated by business rivals and feels wronged by his portrayal in Britain since he bought 23% of Arsenal during the summer.
Craig Murray, the outspoken former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, has accused Usmanov of links with organised crime but has offered no proof. Usmanov rejected the charges and threatened to sue Murray "if he can first prove that he is completely sane".
It was partly in an attempt to curb claims of a shady past that he invited me to his Moscow mansion and agreed to talk for the first time about the circumstances that led to his being imprisoned in 1980.
"I was jailed on trumped-up charges and lost six years of my life as a result of infighting within the KGB," he said. "It took another 14 years to clear my name and prove that I was framed. All my career I've been confronted with prejudiced people who are determined to turn me into a stereotype, a central Asian thief.
"I'm fed up with having to answer these slurs. Not only did I never do anything criminal but I managed to stay honest and become one of the world's most successful businessmen, despite being locked up with criminals for six years. It's high time that those who continue to insinuate things about me recognised that."
Usmanov runs his empire from the headquarters of Metal-loinvest, his main company, in a lavish building in central Moscow fitted with Italian marble and heavy chandeliers. From there I was driven 30 miles along Rublovka, a road that cuts through a forest of firs to a "billionaires' row" where Usmanov has a 30-acre estate beside the Moscow river. A 16ft-high metal fence encircles the property.
Usmanov, who never leaves home without a retinue of bodyguards armed with machine-guns, was working in a large, single-storey wooden villa which he has built as a private office next to his palatial house.
Casually dressed in a Lacoste polo shirt, tracksuit bottoms and leather slippers, he was sitting in an armchair, advising a friend on the telephone on how best to clinch a £1m deal. In front of him was a small table and a bell with which to summon staff.
In the next room, his personal adviser on equities was checking the latest share prices on a 30in computer screen.
Sipping tea after his phone call, Usmanov studied the screen with the analyst as they discussed whether to sell a large holding in a Russian bank. A butler delivered frequent messages or passed on one of several mobile phones on which the tycoon fielded further calls.
"I'm less excited now by day-to-day business," he explained as he kept an eye on a news bulletin on a gigantic flat-screen television.
"One thing I'll always have a drive for, though, is the equity market. Intellectually I find the markets deeply stimulating. And then there are things like Arsenal. That's a passion. It's a fantastic team and a wonderful game I want to be a part of."
Usmanov said that when the chance of buying into the club arose, he consulted Roman Abramovich, the owner of Chelsea, who told him: "It's a great club, go for it."
"I'm very surprised by all the press hostility," Usmanov added. "The more I say that I've no intention of launching a hostile bid, the more people claim that it's precisely what I want to do. I just don't get it."
It is all a far cry from the teenaged Usmanov's dream of becoming a diplomat. His father held a powerful post in the Uzbek judicial system, his mother was a Russian language teacher and as a child of the elite, he was sent away at the age of 18 to study at the State Institute for International Relations in Moscow.
There, he read international law, Arabic and French and planned to join the Soviet diplomatic service in the Middle East.
He also became close friends with fellow students Sergei Yastrzhembsky and Sergei Prikhodko, both now aides to Putin, and was later a pupil of Yevgeny Primakov, who went on to head Russia's foreign intelligence service and was subsequently appointed foreign minister and prime minister.
"People say now that I'm well connected in the Kremlin," he said over a lunch of lamb stew and red wine served by the butler in one of his private dining rooms, a hall lined with gilded central Asian vases.
"Some of the people I know in the Kremlin have been close friends for decades. I'm not an oligarch because I've never received any favours from the state. I'm a businessman and don't do politics." After graduating in 1976 Usmanov returned to Uzbekistan where he worked for the Komsomol, the Communist party youth organisation. But his ambitions of travelling the world as a diplomat came to an abrupt end when he was 27.
A power struggle broke out between the KGB in Moscow and its Uzbek arm over the appointment of a new chairman of the Uzbek KGB.
The local secret police backed a general who was the father of Bakhodir Nasimov, one of Usmanov's closest childhood friends. But Moscow favoured another candidate, who saw Nasimov's father as a potential threat.
According to Usmanov, the Moscow nominee sought to destroy his rival's career by framing his son, the young Nasimov, who was a junior KGB officer.
"Nasimov was sent on a covert operation," recalled Usmanov as we strolled under the watchful eye of a guard from the wooden villa into his mansion, a two-storey stone and marble building with seven bedrooms, several large halls decorated with mosaics, a lift, an indoor swimming pool and a small cinema where the tycoon watches Arsenal's matches.
"His bosses told him he was to accept a bribe from a guy involved in contraband so as to catch him red-handed. The point was to prosecute him for bribery. Nasimov told me that since the guy knew we were friends he might try to pass me the money. 'If he does – take it,' he told me, 'and bring it to me'."
As Usmanov was able to prove two decades later when he was finally cleared, the man with the money was a KGB agent posing as a criminal who had been instructed to frame Nasimov.
He approached Usmanov and offered him cash for Nasimov. Usmanov duly took it. Nasimov, Usmanov and another third friend who was the son of a high-ranking party official were arrested.
"I was hauled in and told to sign a confession," the billionaire recalled. "'Confess that you took a bribe to pass on to Nasimov for his father.' I refused and went on an eight-day hunger strike, fearing that they would try to poison me.
"Then they told me that they'd just get rid of me. I thought they'd kill me so I signed."
The three young men were sentenced by a military court to eight years for fraud and embezzlement of state property. That they were jailed despite being the children of high-ranking officials demonstrated that the charges were politically motivated, Usmanov said.
"If I'd really committed a crime, my father, as deputy prosecutor, was sufficiently influential to have spared me an eight-year sentence. He couldn't come to my rescue because the charges were trumped up for political reasons."
Instead of being sent to a relatively safe penal colony for state officials, he was locked up in an ordinary one. He survived after a prison strongman took a liking to him and warned others not to harm him.
Nasimov was less fortunate. He lost his mind and according to Usmanov is still in a mental institution.
"Prison is a world apart. It has its own rules and its own reality," Usmanov said. "I was strong, believed in myself and didn't get corrupted.
"I was helped by people inside and the fact that they were criminals is no reason to forget that they saved my life. To this day I'm angry that all those years were taken away from me and wasted."
Released as a result of reforms introduced by Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union, Usmanov married his teenage sweetheart, Irina Viner, who later became an Olympic gymnast.
He had proposed to Viner from prison. "He sent me a handkerchief which, according to Uzbek tradition, is a proposal of marriage," she said recently. "I still keep it."
Having lost any chance of a diplomatic career, Usmanov quickly took advantage of the business opportunities that opened up in the early days of perestroika. His first venture was making plastic shopping bags.
"It was a lucrative business which taught me a lot," he said. When Russian banks began to offer loans in the early 1990s, he borrowed several million dollars and displayed a talent for share-dealing.
"I quickly realised that the equity market offered a sea of opportunities. We sold and bought whatever we could. We had a few failures and many suc-cesses. To me it was like an education and few things are as intellectually stimulating as getting a deal right."
Usmanov bought up former Soviet assets. He engineered leveraged buy-outs of the Oskolsky Electric Metallurgical Combine, the Lebedinsky Mining Combine and the Olenegorsk Combine. The deals made him a leading force in the iron and steel industry.
"Those were tough and dangerous times," he recalled. "Getting the right security and protection was paramount. Everything is much easier now. The legal framework is there and thanks to Putin, the country is back on track."
Usmanov snapped up another lucrative 15% stake in the UK-based steel maker Corus in 2002. He bought Gazprom shares, at a time when others had little faith in the gas giant's future and went on to become president of GazpromInvest-Holding and owner of the Gaz-Metall/Metalloinvest Group, which controls 40% of iron ore production in Russia and two of the country's largest steelworks.
He has since expanded his empire by buying a stake in Russia's third-largest mobile phone network and recently purchased Kommersant, an influential daily newspaper, for £100m. The paper used to be owned by Boris Berezovsky, the London-based tycoon and fierce critic of Putin.
"I've been very blessed in life," said Usmanov as he showed me a collection of Soviet art, a cellar stacked with rare wines, and a large mural depicting figures from Uzbek folklore.
"I have everything, except children. That's the only thing missing in my life. Those who know me and have done business with me know that I'm an honest person. I've proven that what happened to me as a young man was the result of political infighting.
"I was a victim and when I came out I realised I had one last chance to make a success of my life. I won't fall so low as to fight those who want to blacken my name. Let their slurs weigh on their conscience. Mine is clean."
Making of a tycoon
1953 Born in Uzbekistan, son of former Soviet republic's deputy prosecutor. Enjoys a privileged upbringing
1971 Moves to Moscow to study at State Institute for International Relations
1977 Works for Komsomol, Communist party youth organisation
1980 Sentenced to eight years in penal colony for fraud and embezzlement
1986 Released two years early and goes into business
2000 Convictions quashed and criminal record expunged
2002 Buys 15% of UK-based steelmaker Corus
2004 Awarded presidential Medal of Honour by Vladimir Putin for services to business and charity
2006 Buys Kommersant, a newspaper formerly owned by Boris Berezovsky
 


For ideas on reducing your carbon footprint visit Yahoo! For Good this month. __._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[vinnomot] Britain's dirty secret!

Britain's dirty secret
 Exculsive - Secret papers show how Britain helped Israel make the A-bomb in the 1960s, supplying tons of vital chemicals including plutonium and uranium. And it looks as though Harold Wilson and his ministers knew nothing about it. By Meirion Jones
Mirage jets swoop from the sky to destroy the Egyptian air force before breakfast; tanks race across the desert to the Suez Canal; Moshe Dayan, the defence minister, poses with eyepatch after the Jerusalem brigade has fought its way into the Old City. These are the heroic images of the Six Day War and they defined Israeli daring: here was a people who, it seemed, risked everything on a throw of the dice. Years later the world discovered that there was an insurance policy.

They had a secret weapon - two, to be precise. In the weeks before
Israel
took on the Arab world in June 1967 it put together a pair of crude nuclear bombs, just in case things didn't go as planned. Making them required not only Israeli ingenuity but also plenty of help from abroad. It has been known for some time that the French helped build Israel's reactor and reprocessing plant at Dimona, but over the past year our research team at BBC Newsnight has unearthed something no less astonishing and much closer to home - top-secret files which show how Britain helped Israel get the atomic bomb.

We can reveal that while Harold Wilson was prime minister the
UK supplied Israel with small quantities of plutonium despite a warning from British intelligence that it might "make a material contribution to an Israeli weapons programme". This, by enabling Israel to study the properties of plutonium before its own supplies came on line, could have taken months off the time it needed to make a weapon. Britain also sold Israel a whole range of other exotic chemicals, including uranium-235, beryllium and lithium-6, which are used in atom bombs and even hydrogen bombs. And in Harold Macmillan's time we supplied the heavy water that allowed Israel to start up its own plutonium production facility at Dimona - heavy water that British intelligence estimated would enable Israel
to make "six nuclear weapons a year".

After we exposed the sale of the heavy water on Newsnight last August, the government assured the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that all Britain did was sell some heavy water back to Norway. Using the Freedom of Information Act, we have now obtained previously top-secret papers which show not only that Norway was a mere cover for the Israel deal, but that Britain made hundreds of other secret shipments of nuclear materials to Israel in the 1950s and 1960s.

Tony Benn became technology minister in 1966, while the plutonium deal was going through. Though the nuclear industry was part of his brief, nobody told him we were exporting atomic energy materials to
Israel
. "I'm not only surprised," he says, "I'm shocked." Neither he nor his predecessor Frank Cousins agreed to the sales, he insists, and though he always suspected civil servants of doing deals behind his back, "it never occurred to me they would authorise something so totally against the policy of the government".

The documentary evidence is backed by eyewitness testimony. Back in August 1960, when covert photographs of a mysterious site at Dimona in
Israel arrived at Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) in Whitehall, a brilliant analyst called Peter Kelly saw immediately that they showed a secret nuclear reactor. Today Kelly, physically frail but mentally acute, lives in retirement on the south coast, and as he leafs through the "UK Eyes Only" reports he wrote about Israel for MI5 and MI6, he smiles. "I was quite perceptive," he says. Kelly recognised that the Dimona reactor was a French design, and he very soon discovered where the heavy water needed to operate it had come from. When we explain that the government has told the IAEA that Britain thought it was selling the heavy water to Norway
he laughs heartily.

What really happened was this:
Britain had bought the heavy water from Norsk Hydro in Norway for its nuclear weapons programme, but found it was surplus to requirements and decided to sell. An arrangement was indeed made with a Norwegian company, Noratom, but crucially the papers show that Noratom was not the true buyer: the firm agreed to broker a deal with Israel in return for a 2 per cent commission. Israel paid the top price - £1m - to avoid having to give guarantees that the material would not be used to make nuclear weapons, but the papers leave no doubt that Britain knew all along that Israel wanted the heavy water "to produce plutonium". Kelly discovered that a charade was played out, with British and Israeli delegations sitting in adjacent rooms while Noratom ferried contracts between them to maintain the fiction that Britain had not done the deal with Israel
.

The transaction was signed off for the Foreign Office by
Donald Cape, whose job it was to make sure we didn't export materials that would help other countries get the atom bomb. He felt it would be "overzealous" to demand safeguards to prevent Israel using the chemical in weapons production. Cape is 82 now, tall, clear-headed and living in Surrey. He told us the deal was done because "nobody suspected the Israelis hoped to manufacture nuclear weapons", but his own declassified letters from March 1959 suggest otherwise. They show, for example, that the Foreign Office knew Israel had pulled out of a deal to buy uranium from South Africa when Pretoria asked for safeguards to prevent it being used for making nuclear weapons. It also knew the CIA was warning that "the Israelis must be expected to try and establish a nuclear weapons programme". Just weeks later, however, Britain started shipping heavy water direct to Israel
: the first shipment left in June 1959 and the second in June 1960.

There was another problem: the Americans. There was no US-Israeli alliance in those days and
Washington was determined to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation. If Britain told the Americans about the Israeli deal they would stop it. Donald Cape
decided on discretion: "I would rather not tell the Americans." When Newsnight told Robert McNamara - John F Ken-nedy's defence secretary - about this he was amazed. "The fact Israel was trying to develop a nuclear bomb should not have come as a surprise, but that Britain should have supplied it with heavy water was indeed a surprise to me," he said.

Kelly's reports for the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) on "secret atomic activities in
Israel" show that Britain's defence and espionage establishment had no doubt about what was going on in Israel. Kelly wrote of underground galleries at the Dimona complex; there were such galleries. He correctly described the French role in the project. He identified the importance of the heavy water: with 20 tons of this material, he estimated, Israel could have a reactor capable of producing "significant quantities of plutonium". British intelligence also knew about the reprocessing facility at Dimona and stated: "The separation of plutonium can only mean that Israel intends to produce nuclear weapons." Kelly even discovered that an Israeli observer had been allowed to watch one of the first French nuclear tests in Algeria
.

Kelly and his colleagues, however, found their views were being challenged. Chief of the challengers was Michael
Israel Michaels (such was his middle name, literally), who was a senior official at the science ministry under Lord Hailsham during the Macmillan government, and went on to serve at the technology ministry under Benn. He was also Britain
's representative at the IAEA.

In 1961 Michaels was invited to
Israel by the Israeli nuclear chief Ernst David Bergmann, and while there was given VIP treatment. He met not only Bergmann but Shimon Peres, the deputy defence minister, and David Ben-Gurion, the prime minister - the three fathers of the Israeli atomic bomb. Peter Kelly had warned his superiors that Israel might use the Michaels trip as part of a disinformation campaign to show "everything is above board", and this is what appears to have happened. Michaels's report gave Israel the all-clear, and he handed it to Hailsham at an important moment, two days before Ben-Gurion met Macmillan at Downing Street. Kelly later took the report apart line by line and concluded by offering his own prediction that Israel
might have a "deliverable warhead" by 1967.

In 1962 the Dimona reactor started operating (thanks to the heavy water
Britain had delivered), yet Michaels continued to protest Israel's innocence. The Israelis, meanwhile, were allowing the US
to make inspection visits to Dimona once a year to demonstrate that it was not being used for military purposes, but Kelly saw that this, too, was a con. The tours were "heavily stage managed", he wrote in 1963, and "important developments were concealed". He was right: we now know that false walls screened parts of the plant from the inspectors.

Three years later, at the beginning of 1966, something extraordinary happened. The
UK Atomic Energy Authority made what it called a "pretty harmless request" to the government: it wanted to export ten milligrams of plutonium to Israel. The Ministry of Defence strongly objected, with Defence Intelligence (Kelly's department) arguing that the sale might have "significant military value". The Foreign Office duly blocked it, ruling: "It is HMG's policy not to do anything which would assist Israel
in the production of nuclear weapons."

Michaels was furious. He wrote "to protest strongly" against the decision, saying that small quantities of plutonium were not important and anyhow if we didn't sell it to the Israelis someone else would. Michaels could be a bulldozer - he was short and bald, described as pugnacious and hard-headed by colleagues - and he won his battle. Eventually the Foreign Office caved in and the sale went ahead.

What is most surprising about the position adopted by Michaels is that, as the new documents show, a few years earlier he had taken the direct opposite view of the value of small quantities of plutonium. In 1961 he received a JIC report suggesting that
Israel
would take at least three years to make enough plutonium and then another six months to work out how to make a bomb. In the margin beside the claim about the six months he wrote: "This surely is an understatement if the Israelis have no plutonium on which to experiment in advance." Then it occurred to him that a friendly power might give Israel a sample of plutonium to speed up the process: "Perhaps the French have supplied a small quantity for experimental purposes as we did to the French in like circumstances some years ago" (see panel, above). What this shows is that Michaels, in the full knowledge of how useful it could be for weapons development, went on to persuade the British government to sell Israel a sample of plutonium.

Today, Tony Benn can hardly believe that Michaels never referred the nuclear sales to him. Going through his diaries, Benn finds dozens of references to meetings with Michaels which show that he didn't trust him even then. "Michaels lied to me. I learned by bitter experience that the nuclear industry lied to me again and again." Kelly believes that Michaels knew all along what
Israel was doing, but since he died in 1992 we can't ask him. According to his son Chris, after Michaels retired from the IAEA in 1971 the Israelis found him a job in London
for a couple of years.

The atomic files give details of hundreds more nuclear deals with
Israel. Many are small orders for compounds of uranium, beryllium and tritium, as well as other materials that can be used for both innocent and military purposes. In November 1959 someone at the Foreign Office allowed through the export of a small quantity of uranium-235 to Israel
, apparently without realising that it was a core nuclear explosive material just like plutonium.

Some materials may have been for advanced bombs. In 1966 UKAEA supplied
Israel with 1.25 grams of almost pure lithium-6. When combined with deuterium, this material provides the fusion fuel for hydrogen bombs. Britain also supplied two tons of unenriched lithium, from which lithium-6 is extracted - enough for several hydrogen bombs. Deuterium, incidentally, is normally extracted from heavy water, which, of course, Britain had already shipped to Israel
.



Throughout this period, Defence Intelligence repeatedly complained that
Israel was the only country getting nuclear export licences "on the basis of the meaningless phrase 'scientific and research purposes'". The Department of Trade tried to exempt Israeli deals completely on the grounds that these were government-to-government transactions, but DIS was outraged, saying such deals were meant only for "people like most of our Nato partners who can be trusted . . . Israel however is a very different kettle of fish." In August 1966 the Israeli armed forces ordered advanced radiation dosimeters. The Foreign Office said yes and overruled the strong objections of the British MoD that they were obviously for use by troops. DIS wanted to know why Israel
was always given special treatment, adding: "We feel quite strongly about all this."

Tony Benn wonders whether these deals could have gone ahead without the knowledge of the British prime ministers of the time, Macmillan, Sir Alec Douglas-Home and Wilson. The evidence is unclear. The newly declassified papers show that in 1958 a member of the board of UKAEA said he was going to refer the heavy-water deal to the authority's executive, which reported directly to Macmillan, but there is no record that this happened. We know that Lord Hailsham learned about the heavy-water deal after it had gone through and concluded that
Israel
was "preparing for a weapons programme".

Benn's initial reaction to whether
Wilson knew about the atomic exports to Israel was that it was "inconceivable". Then he hesitated, observing, "Harold was sympathetic to Israel
," but concluded that no, he probably did not know. Benn believes that the exports were probably pushed through by civil servants working with the nuclear industry.

There was no plausible civilian use for heavy water, plutonium, U235, highly enriched lithium and many of the other materials shipped to
Israel. The heavy water allowed Israel to fire up Dimona and produce the plutonium that still sits in Israel
's missile warheads today. The small sample of plutonium could have shaved months off the development time of the Israeli atomic bomb in the run-up to the Six Day War.

In a letter this year to Sir Menzies Campbell, the Foreign Office minister Kim Howells has quietly conceded
Britain knew the heavy water was going to Israel. He has yet to find time to tell the IAEA that, or indeed to tell it about the plutonium or the uranium-235 or the enriched lithium. Howells and his boss, Jack Straw, are too busy telling the IAEA about the dangers of nuclear proliferation in another corner of the Middle East
.

Meirion Jones produced Michael Crick's report for Newsnight (BBC2) on the Israeli nuclear sales, which is broadcast on 9 March



How we helped the French


In May 1954 the French were fighting and losing their colonial war against Ho Chi Minh's armies in
Vietnam. At home they were slowly establishing a nuclear infrastructure, but the setbacks in Indochina convinced some that they needed the atomic bomb and they needed it quickly.

On 6 May, therefore, as the final battle at
Dien Bien Phu neared its climax, France's nuclear bosses sent a request to the chairman of the British Atomic Energy Authority. It was a shopping list of items that would help them build nuclear weapons, including a sample quantity of plutonium "so we can take the steps preparatory to the utilisation of our own plutonium". Britain knew about these things: it had exploded its own bomb less than two years earlier.

Before the letter even arrived the French had lost the battle and the war. Later that year the French prime minister,
Pierre Mendes France, made the formal decision to build the atomic bomb. It took another year to negotiate the deal, but in the end Britain agreed to supply nuclear materials, including enriched uranium. Among the most important parts of the agreement was an arrangement for the British to check the blueprints and construction of French plutonium production reactors.

According to one source, this not only helped the French get their military plutonium reactor at Marcoule into operation quickly but it also averted a disaster, for the British found defects which could have caused a catastrophic explosion at the Rhone Valley site. The same source says that when Charles de Gaulle came to power in 1958 he personally thanked Harold Macmillan for the team's work.

There remained
France's request for plutonium. In 1955 Britain agreed to export ten grams but "we would not tell the US that we were going to give the French plutonium nor about any similar cases". France exploded its first atomic bomb in 1960.
 
 
 
 


Nervous about who has your email address? Yahoo! Mail can help you win the war against spam. __._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___