Banner Advertiser

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

[vinnomot] Noun + Verb + 9/11 + Iran = Democrats’ Defeat? [NYT op-ed]

The New York Times
November 4, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist

Noun + Verb + 9/11 + Iran = Democrats' Defeat?

WHEN President Bush started making noises about World War III, he only confirmed what has been a Democratic article of faith all year: Between now and Election Day he and Dick Cheney, cheered on by the mob of neocon dead-enders, are going to bomb Iran.
But what happens if President Bush does not bomb Iran? That is good news for the world, but potentially terrible news for the Democrats. If we do go to war in Iran, the election will indeed be a referendum on the results, which the Republican Party will own no matter whom it nominates for president. But if we don't, the Democratic standard-bearer will have to take a clear stand on the defining issue of the race. As we saw once again at Tuesday night's debate, the front-runner, Hillary Clinton, does not have one.
 
The reason so many Democrats believe war with Iran is inevitable, of course, is that the administration is so flagrantly rerunning the sales campaign that gave us Iraq. The same old scare tactic — a Middle East Hitler plotting a nuclear holocaust — has been recycled with a fresh arsenal of hyped, loosey-goosey intelligence and outright falsehoods that are sometimes regurgitated without corroboration by the press.
 
Mr. Bush has gone so far as to accuse Iran of shipping arms to its Sunni antagonists in the Taliban, a stretch Newsweek finally slapped down last week. Back in the reality-based community, it is Mr. Bush who has most conspicuously enabled the Taliban's resurgence by dropping the ball as it regrouped in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Administration policy also opened the door to Iran's lethal involvement in Iraq. The Iraqi "unity government" that our troops are dying to prop up has more allies in its Shiite counterpart in Tehran than it does in Washington.
 
Yet 2002 history may not literally repeat itself. Mr. Cheney doesn't necessarily rule in the post-Rumsfeld second Bush term. There are saner military minds afoot now: the defense secretary Robert Gates, the Joint Chiefs chairman Mike Mullen, the Central Command chief William Fallon. They know that a clean, surgical military strike at Iran could precipitate even more blowback than our "cakewalk" in Iraq. The Economist tallied up the risks of a potential Shock and Awe II this summer: "Iran could fire hundreds of missiles at Israel, attack American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, organize terrorist attacks in the West or choke off tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the world's oil windpipe."
 
Then there's the really bad news. Much as Iraq distracted America from the war against Al Qaeda, so a strike on Iran could ignite Pakistan, Al Qaeda's thriving base and the actual central front of the war on terror. As Joe Biden said Tuesday night, if we attack Iran to stop it from obtaining a few kilograms of highly enriched uranium, we risk facilitating the fall of the teetering Musharraf government and the unleashing of Pakistan's already good-to-go nuclear arsenal on Israel and India.
 
A full-scale regional war, chaos in the oil market, an overstretched American military pushed past the brink — all to take down a little thug like Ahmadinejad (who isn't even Iran's primary leader) and a state, however truculent, whose defense budget is less than 1 percent of America's? Call me a Pollyanna, but I don't think even the Bush administration can be this crazy.
 
Yet there is nonetheless a method to all the mad threats of war coming out of the White House. While the saber- rattling is reckless as foreign policy, it's a proven winner as election-year Republican campaign strategy. The real point may be less to intimidate Iranians than to frighten Americans. Fear, the only remaining card this administration still knows how to play, may once more give a seemingly spent G.O.P. a crack at the White House in 2008.
 
Whatever happens in or to Iran, the American public will be carpet-bombed by apocalyptic propaganda for the 12 months to come. Mr. Bush has nothing to lose by once again using the specter of war to pillory the Democrats as soft on national security. The question for the Democrats is whether they'll walk once more into this trap.
 
You'd think the same tired tactics wouldn't work again after Iraq, a debacle now soundly rejected by a lopsided majority of voters. But even a lame-duck president can effectively wield the power of the bully pulpit. From Mr. Bush's surge speech in January to Gen. David Petraeus's Congressional testimony in September, the pivot toward Iran has been relentless.
 
Reinforcements are arriving daily. Dan Senor, the former flack for L. Paul Bremer in Baghdad, fronted a recent Fox News special, "Iran: The Ticking Bomb," a perfect accompaniment to the Rudy Giuliani campaign that is ubiquitous on that Murdoch channel. The former Bush flack Ari Fleischer is a founder of Freedom's Watch, a neocon fat-cat fund that has been spending $15 million for ads supporting the surge and is poised to up the ante for Iran war fever.
 
There are signs that the steady invocation of new mushroom clouds is already having an impact as it did in 2002 and 2003. A Zogby poll last month found that a majority of Americans (52 percent) now supports a pre-emptive strike on Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons.
 
In 2002 Senators Clinton, Biden, John Kerry, John Edwards and Chris Dodd all looked over their shoulders at such polls. They and the party's Congressional leaders, Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt, voted for the Iraq war resolution out of the cynical calculation that it would inoculate them against charges of wussiness. Sure, they had their caveats at the time. They talked about wanting "to give diplomacy the best possible opportunity" (as Mr. Gephardt put it then). In her Oct. 10, 2002, speech of support for the Iraq resolution on the Senate floor, Mrs. Clinton hedged by saying, "A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war."
We know how smart this strategic positioning turned out to be. Weeks later the Democrats lost the Senate.
 
This time around, with the exception of Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic candidates seem to be saying what they really believe rather than trying to play both sides against the middle. Only Mrs. Clinton voted for this fall's nonbinding Kyl-Lieberman Senate resolution, designed by its hawk authors to validate Mr. Bush's Iran policy. The House isn't even going to bring up this malevolent bill because, as Nancy Pelosi has said, there has "never been a declaration by a Congress before in our history" that "declared a piece of a country's army to be a terrorist organization."
 
In 2002, the Iraq war resolution passed by 77 to 23. In 2007, Kyl-Lieberman passed by 76 to 22. No sooner did Mrs. Clinton cast her vote than she started taking heat in Iowa. Her response was to blur her stand. She abruptly signed on as the sole co- sponsor of a six-month-old (and languishing) bill introduced by the Virginia Democrat Jim Webb forbidding money for military operations in Iran without Congressional approval.
 
In Tuesday's debate Mrs. Clinton tried to play down her vote for Kyl-Lieberman again by incessantly repeating her belief in "vigorous diplomacy" as well as the same sound bite she used after her Iraq vote five years ago. "I am not in favor of this rush for war," she said, "but I'm also not in favor of doing nothing."
 
Much like her now notorious effort to fudge her stand on Eliot Spitzer's driver's license program for illegal immigrants, this is a profile in vacillation. And this time Mrs. Clinton's straddling stood out as it didn't in 2002. That's not because she was the only woman on stage but because she is the only Democratic candidate who has not said a firm no to Bush policy.
 
That leaves her in a no man's — or woman's — land. If Mr. Bush actually does make a strike against Iran, Mrs. Clinton will be the only leading Democrat to have played a cameo role in enabling it. If he doesn't, she can no longer be arguing in the campaign crunch of fall 2008 that she is against rushing to war, because it would no longer be a rush. Her hand would be forced.
 
Mr. Biden got a well-deserved laugh Tuesday night when he said there are only three things in a Giuliani sentence: "a noun and a verb and 9/11." But a year from now, after the public has been worn down by so many months more of effective White House propaganda, "America's mayor" (or any of his similarly bellicose Republican rivals) will be offering voters the clearest possible choice, however perilous, about America's future in the world.
 
Potentially facing that Republican may be a Democrat who is not in favor of rushing to war in Iran but, now as in 2002, may well be in favor of walking to war. In any event, she will not have been a leader in making the strenuous case for an alternative policy that defuses rather than escalates tensions with Tehran.
 
Noun + verb + 9/11 — also Mr. Bush's strategy in 2004, lest we forget — would once again square off against a Democratic opponent who was for a pre-emptive war before being against it.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com __._,_.___

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

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Video clips of Probashis in Minnesota

I just wanted to invite our friends in Alochona to check out some of
the video work done by Probashi's in Minnesota.

See [http://www.youtube.com/group/probashi]

[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

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

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

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

(Yahoo! ID required)

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

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

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

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

[vinnomot] Mukto-Mona Extends Full Support & Cooperation to the Sector Commanders Forum

Mukto-Mona Extends Full Support & Cooperation to the Sector Commanders Forum (SCF)
 
People often say, "It is never too late to begin a good task." And when such work involves the issue of a country's birth, sovereignty, independence and fundamental ideals,  it becomes a collective responsibility of the nation. The rationale here is not any thing incomprehensible, rather, it is simple: any person or group who do not have faith in a country's sovereignty and independence are not a friends to the nation. We know it took lives, the ultimate sacrifice of millions of men and women for the creation of Bangladesh as an independent country. It is also no hidden fact as to who actively opposed the birth of independent Bangladesh and helped its enemies (West Pakistani rulers and their army) at that time. There is no scarcity of references, literature and other documentation to recognize such persons. Suffice it to say, it is our misfortune that even 36 years after the independence, we could not ensure justice to a country that we call our "motherland." In this context we are delighted and encouraged by the formation of the "Sector Commanders Forum (SCF)", consisting of the Sector Commanders of the 1971 liberation war, to initiate the trials of war criminals and collaborators of 1971. Our only hope is that the forum and its organizers would live up to the expectations of a nation that has been deprived of justice for too long a period and adhere to the issue until the job is completed in full. 
 
Mukto-Mona feels privileged to extend its support and cooperation in every possible way to the Sector Commanders Forum. We believe that we would not have to wait long, anymore, for stringent action to be taken against the nation's enemies, especially the 'proven' ones.  
 
Sincerely,
Moderation Team
November 07, 2007


"I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; and because I cannot do
everything I will not refuse to do the something that I can do."
-Edward Everett Hale
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com __._,_.___

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] Re: Third town in Swat falls to militants: What's happening in Pakistan ?

Islamic Republic of Pakistan is a failed and dangerous state. Existence of such country is a severe risk for world security.

 

I hope UN takes all out safety measure to take control of Pakistan's atomic bomb. A bomb in their hand could turn out to any terrorist outfit.

 

It is just a question of time before Pakistan turns into pieces and the time is ticking very fast toward that to happen. Bangladesh was blessed to be out of that equation in time. I wonder about those who supported united Pakistan has to say now seeing miserable life led by Pakistan people in this top to bottom failed state, people dies like mosquito and blood spills like river any day, everyday.

 

Thanks

Shamim Chowdhury

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message ----
From: "mohiuddin@netzero.net" <mohiuddin@netzero.net>
To: khabor@yahoogroups.com
Cc: vinnomot@yahoogroups.com; khabor@yahoogroups.com; AChowdhury@atpco.net; Santa.mustafa@hotmail.com; notun_bangladesh@yahoogroups.com; dahuk@yahoogroups.com; gopalsengupta@aol.com; vinnomot@yahoogroups.com; mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com; MuktoChinta@yahoogroups.com; Arahim.azad@gmail.com; abuilla@yahoo.com; veirsmill@yahoo.com; syed.aslam3@gmail.com; rubel_ahsan@yahoo.com; suvassingho@gmail.com; shaugat@gmail.com; Fazlulbari2005@yahoo.com; nybangla@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2007 2:48:23 PM
Subject: Third town in Swat falls to militants: What's happening in Pakistan ?


Third town in Swat falls to militants


PESHAWAR, Nov 6: Militants seized the town of Madyan in Swat on Tuesday and hoisted their flags over buildings after security forces surrendered, police and residents said.

Madyan is the third town to come under the effective control of followers of Maulana Fazlullah, who is demanding enforcement of Sharia in Swat.

"They seized Madyan town today, they have overrun Matta and Khwazakhela towns in their earlier push," a police official said.

Police gave up their weapons, vehicles and control of local police stations, the officer and local residents said.

The militants are continuing their advance, the official said.

Residents said the militants were patrolling the town.

Witnesses said Fazlullah's supporters hoisted their flags over government buildings and guarded important sites, such as banks and bazaars.

At least 37 police and paramilitary soldiers left the main police station without a fight after militants surrounded the town and assured them that they would not be harmed, residents said.

A militant source said police turned over 35 Kalashnikovs. Police also retreated from two more police posts in nearby villages.

Earlier, the militants seized the Matta town after outnumbered security forces laid down their arms, militants and police said.

About two dozen police officers and several troops offered no resistance to militants who seized three police stations and a military post in and around Matta.

A Swat police official said authorities had sent helicopter gunships to target militant positions in the area.—Agencies



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com __._,_.___

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] Re: [notun_bangladesh] Re: Why Sk Mujib was disliked and killed by freedom fighters?

dear mr Ayubi,
i agree with you.
our people fought for freedom and liberty.but he chained people through BALSAL.he snached our right join political party. he banned newspapers .In this way he turned our  country into a jail.
People could not voice their opinion.it was the dark days in history of Bangladesh.1972- 1975 period is called" Dusasoner sare tin bochor"

ayubi_s786 <ayubi_s786@yahoo.com> wrote:
I guess he was killed because he went against the very
principles we fought to defend and fought the liberation war( Mukti
judhdher chetona). His one party rule, giving a blind eye to the
corruption of his near and dear ones. He exactly knew who are the
corrupt ones in his party and yet he chose not to take any action
against them. To him his coterie was more important than anything
else in the country. Finally he ignored the army and tried to raise
Rakkhi Bahini a para militarty force raised by SK. Mujib from among
the BAL cadres. Rakkhi Bahini got more importance than the regular
army rhat fought the libeeration war. These in brief brought his down
fall. At his killing Men of the street of the time were happy.
Government that was formed on the dead body of Sk. Mujib was an Awami
league government even they were freedom fighters.
Salahuddin Ayubi

--- In notun_bangladesh@yahoogroups.com, "Md. Aminul
Islam" <aminul_islam_raj@...> wrote:
>
> Why Sk Mujib was disliked and killed by freedom fighters?
> dear all,
> do you know that all15 person accused for killing
sk mujib are great freedom fighters including major dalin bir protik.
> but why they didnt like him?
> i heard by my own ear from great freedom fighter colonel (rtd)
akbar hossain'15 august is not a killing but a punishment"
> why gen osmany back khandoker mustak when he was in power after
15august?
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com __._,_.___

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] Bangabandhu should be father of the nation :Says his condemned killer

mr gopal. many thanks for ur posting.
you say:
Bangabandhu should be father of the nation :Says his condemned killer
 
yes you are right
killers can say Mujib father of the nation not the general citizen
gopalsengupta@aol.com wrote:
Says his condemned killer

Condemned Bangabandhu killer Khandaker Abdur Rashid has told a private satellite television channel that leader of the country's independence Sheikh Mujibur Rahman should be the father of the nation.

"Those who are trying to glorify the role of Ziaur Rahman to match the stature of Sheikh Mujib are mean minded," Lt Col (retd) Rashid said during an interview aired on Channel i on Wednesday night.

Rashid also said Zia's radio speech encouraged the people during the Liberation War in 1971.

Channel i did not disclose where it recorded the interview of Rashid, who has remained a fugitive for about a decade.

In 1998, a trial court awarded death penalty to 15 former army officers, including Rashid, in the Bangabandhu murder case. Later in 2001, the High Court upheld the death sentences of 12 and Rashid is among those living abroad.

Earlier, the TV channel announced that it would broadcast a five-part series of the interview but yesterday it said it cannot air the programme for "problems" in the tape.

Following is the translation of the interview.

How are you?
"I am well. But I always remember the people of Bangladesh. Thank you for organising today's programme, because people of Bangladesh as of now do not know clearly about the events of August 15, [1975]--how it was organised and what happened, like betrayal, later. And those truths could not be told for want of time and opportunity.

"The current situation in Bangladesh, I think, has totally unmasked all those who have done politics in Bangladesh till date. So, I think it is an opportunity and it is time to speak the truth, and I believe the people of Bangladesh will benefit from it. I have never done anything or said anything in my own interest."

How can you stay well with the accusation of a murder and with death sentence in a life quite like a fugitive?
"I feel, and I believe, I am responsible to Allah for everything. I have not done anything so far that might harm the country or the people. And I have confidence that I can justify my actions before Allah--that I was true and sincere in my purpose and actions. I feel I am well even after the damage done to me in different ways because I have confidence and inner strength and because I always work for truth and because the people of Bangladesh love me."

Don't you now feel any tension and think such obstacles come in everyone's life?
"Yes, I have the strength by the grace of Allah. I rather took more risks earlier when I went to the Liberation War because I did not know whether I would survive or not. Even on August 15 I was not certain whether we would survive or not or whether the mission would be successful or not. If compared, the risk is much less now. So, I am not at all worried although you have mentioned that I have been condemned to death. But I believe no one can do anything to anyone for doing anything. Everything will happen according to Allah's desire."

How many times have you appeared on television since 1975?
"On a CNN interview in 1979. Before that, Anthony Mascarenhas was scheduled to do a small interview. [Col] Faruk contacted him and gave an interview. But I did not like him personally when I first talked to him. So, I did not think it would be a good idea to talk [with Mascarenhas] freely and refrained from doing that. That was a special programme of 'World in Action'. When he wrote a book, 'Legacy of Blood', he also did not write a lot about me. He wrote about Faruk and mostly his own opinion."

When did that interview take place? Have you talked with any other TV channel since then or with any Bangladeshi TV channel?
"No, I have not talked with any TV channel since then. This is the first time that I am talking with any Bangladeshi TV channel."

Have you spoken with any newspaper about August 15?
"As a matter of fact, no newspaper came up to ask me for a detail interview although I have held press conferences on contemporary politics when I was involved in politics in Bangladesh. But I did not talk about August 15, nor did anyone show interest to ask me about it."

When were you born?
"I was born on December 6, 1946 at Chhayghoria village in Chandina, Comilla."

Would you tell something about your childhood, your parents?
"My father was a schoolteacher. In my childhood, I studied in my village school--I would go to school with my father. I appeared in matriculation examinations from Chandina, then studied at Dhaka College, then studied soil science at Dhaka University. I could not complete my master degree because I joined the Pakistan Army after the 1965 war. I was commissioned in 1966. I am the younger of us two brothers. My brother lives in Bangladesh."

When did you marry?
"In 1969."

When did you first come to know Col Faruk Rahman, the other condemned in Bangabandhu murder case?
"We lived close in Pakistan Military Academy. He was in the second war course and I was on the fourth war course. He was senior to me. Then we met again during the Bangladesh Liberation War. Faruk defected [from Pakistan Army] and went to Dubai first and then to India...I also went to India. Later, when we were in Bangladesh Army we used to meet always."

When did he marry?
"In 1973. He used to come to my house as a friend and got to know my sister-in-law. And then they married."

You joined the Liberation War in November 1971 and Col Faruk Rahman on December 12. Why did you delay?
"My posting was in Pakistan at that time and it was not an easy job to join the Liberation War from there. So, you see, most of those posted in Pakistan did not go back after coming to Bangladesh, and a few--five or six--went back but were not in a good condition. So, I think I am lucky that I could join the Liberation War although late."

How did you come from Pakistan and join the Liberation War?
"I went on leave in October and went to India not to go back. Then I joined the Liberation War. I was in Z Sector; Ziaur Rahman was the sector commander. Khaled Mosharraf was also in the camp. He was injured and was in hospital."

Do you know anything about Col Faruk's delay? How did he join?
"He was in Abu Dhabi on deputation. I do not know why he delayed coming to India from Abu Dhabi. He found a way because he had the will to do it. I cannot recall clearly. Major Jalil raised the armour unit and I do not know when exactly Faruk joined."

What was your thought about Bangladesh's Liberation War then?
"Many thoughts came to my mind--I should be a freedom fighter, whether Bangladesh should get freedom. Both Faruk Rahman and I were captain then.

"The war for freedom was a necessity. Once it starts, it should not be let fail. It became a responsibility of all Bangladeshi people to join and fight the war until independence. And I believe the people had the same feeling and so we succeeded to emerge victorious. I was looking for opportunity and joined the war as soon as I got it."

Do you think the war was inevitable? Do you think any special incident stirred it?
"The situation took such a turn that there was no alternative to war. Political struggle reached a final stage where people from all walks of life joined it after Awami League was denied power even after winning majority. It was seen as denial of democratic rights. It was a suitable time to march forward as far as is necessary to establish democracy and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman did so.

"As no agreement could be reached, he made it clear in the March 7 speech that the fight would be a war for freedom. I was present at the Dhaka racecourse [ground] on that day. The spirit of people on the day demonstrated that they were ready for the war for complete freedom.

"After the March 7 meeting, I, then serving in the EPI, was asked to join my old unit in Pakistan. So, I had to go. During my six-month job in EPI, I felt that Bangladesh was going towards the Liberation War and I also felt that Bangladesh this time will be liberated."

Did you talk among yourselves? Did you think that there could a federation with East and West Pakistan to ensure unity?
"Yes, we Banglaee army officers used to talk among ourselves. At first, many of the army officers believed that such an understanding would not be bad, many were hopeful that it would happen but it did not happen. Even though it was the responsibility of the then Pakistani government to implement it, it was clear that no understanding was possible after the party that won majority was denied power."

Do you think such a solution would have been good?
"I think that would not have been bad. After all, we were Muslims in both East and West Pakistan. A good cooperation would have been there between the two parts. In a confederation, Bangladesh would have had indirect independence and that would not have been that bad. But, when the war started there was no alternative."

Do you think Pakistan forced us to the war? What do you think about Oli Ahmed's statement in his doctoral thesis that the skirmishes during March 25-April 17 was controlled by a military leadership?
"In my judgement, such claims are only made by people who want to glorify themselves. There is no truth in that statement. If the army thinks they are going to start a war inside the country it becomes a revolt, a defection not Liberation War. It would also be wrong if they say there was no role of politicians or the people in it. The country marched towards the Independence War gradually because people's democratic rights were denied.

"Many, nowadays, try to glorify the role of Ziaur Rahman to match the stature of Sheikh Mujib and it has truly no legal validity. Even though many want to say that he delivered the speech on radio in Chittagong but what happened earlier--the events of several days after March 7, the Pakistan army's threat on Mujib and his arrest? Did te Pakistan army fight with the Bangladesh army or the Awami League workers or people? Who barricaded the roads, army or the people?

"And who delivered the historic March 7 speech at Suhrawardy Uddyan? Was it Zia or Mujib? It is mean-minded to portray Zia this way. I do not deny that Zia has a contribution. Sheikh Mujib has contribution, Zia also has contribution. So, we should give the respect Sheikh Mujib deserves, and also what Zia deserves."

What do they deserve? Many say Mujib proclaimed it, many say Zia while many say Zia's proclamation as an army officer gave people courage while many say it was done earlier? How do you want to respect them?
"The Awami League thinks Sheikh Mujib is the father of the nation as he won the Liberation War, and I also believe this. He should be respected for his role in earning the independence. I do not have any objection to term him father of the nation."

"And what Ziaur Rahman had said played a role to strengthen it. Most of those who firstly defected and went to India are students, Awami League workers or elected MPs. They went there fearing the Pakistan army's wreath. It might have been possible for them to form a liberation army but that would have taken a long time. At that moment, when Major Zia expressed his keenness to join the Liberation War in his speech, all in Bangladesh army did a united defection and it gave courage to the students and politicians who left the country."

"It is true that there were many senior officers in the army including Major Shafiullah, General Osmani, Khaled Mosharraf, and then Major Zia. But if compared, Major Zia should be respected for his one-minute radio speech, which provided a supplementary force. People and the BNP will decided what to call him for this.”

Did army officer or jawans take part in the war willingly or were they forced to? Were the Bangalees in the army deprived?
"The Pakistani government committed a blunder which made the defection 100 percent. Otherwise, it might have been a fraction, like some people defecting at one time and others later at different stages. But Pakistan government asked Bangalees in the army, the EPR and the police, I mean military and paramilitary, to surrender saying they have been disbanded. A trained person with arms does not surrender to anybody on a radio announcement… it never happened in history. A detailed preparation was necessary to make it successful, which they did not have. They just made a radio announcement that all Bangladeshis have been disbanded and they should surrender their arms. So, those in the army and the EPR had to defect, and that is why the army defection and the EPI defection was 100 percent."

What would have happened if the announcement had not been done?
"If the Pakistan government had not done this announcement, maybe five percent would have defected at first, then 20, 30 or 50 percent would have defected. The rest 50 percent would have continued in their jobs. There would have been a question of doubt as to how many would take part in the Liberation War and how many would remain with Pakistan Army.

Did you have any contact with politicians during the Liberation War?
"When I was in Kolkata headquarters in the beginning, I came in contact with all--General Osmani, Khondoker Mushtaq, Tajuddin, Nazrul Islam, and many others. But I did not have very intimate contact with anyone except General Osmani because, you know, army personnel do not mix up with politicians much. They normally talk with other army persons."

Do you have any relation with Khondoker Mushtaq Ahmed?
"No."

Do you think the Liberation War ended very quickly? How do you see India's role, the fact that Pakistan Army surrendered before an Indian General?
"India would definitely utilise the opportunity when they got it. Announcement of Pakistan's disarming made it easy for Banglaees in the army and paramilitary to participate in the Liberation War and the war became strong. Military, paramilitary, politicians defected, and went to India and formed a government. Asked by that government, India started helping directly. However, it was a burden on India to support all the people, provide them with shelter, food and armours. India did not have the economy to bear the burden for a few years.

"Although India and Pakistan had several wars, no one came fully victorious in that sense. So, India was thinking to take the chance to have a victory on Pakistan. Although we take it as an independence war, India had plans from the very beginning that they would intervene directly, fight with the Pakistan Army and make them surrender before the Indian Army. India had a huge psychological gain that thousands of Pakistan Army members surrendered before them for the first time.

"But it would never happen that India wins over Pakistan if we were not in the war. It became easy for the Indian Army to enter Bangladesh as Bangladeshi people allowed to do so."

Why many Bangladeshis have a negative idea about India despite their assistance during the Liberation War? How do you evaluate the role of Bangabandhu in sending back the Indian Army?
"No matter how victorious India was over Pakistan Army, they could not win among Bangladeshis. We can thank everyone including India for helping us. But it does not mean that that country would sit in my country in the name of Liberation War. If that is taken for granted, it was not Liberation War.

"So, Sheikh Mujib had no option but taking the decision to send them back. If the Indian Army had not gone, they would have had to fight with Bangladeshi people."

Did you meet Bangabandhu anytime after the independence until August 15?
"No, I did not meet him. I never had any acquaintance with him. I gave him guard of honour when a state guest from Yugoslavia once visited Bangladesh and I met him again when he went to visit each unit at Dhaka Cantonment. But we had no conversation. He was there for five minutes and talked with army chief Shafiullah and deputy chief Ziaur Rahman."

What was your attitude towards India then?
"I thank India for its help until the Liberation War. But after the war, they worked against the people of Bangladesh. They took away all the armaments left by the Pakistan Army and machinery and equipment of different industries. They should not have done this. Besides, India printed the Bangladesh taka at that time and there were many duplicate prints. That harmed our economy a lot.

"In the 25-year treaty, there was a provision for regular consultation about foreign relations, which was not right for an independent country. India did not give Bangladesh anything other countries gave us, including trucks and buses. They never wanted to see Bangladesh becoming independent economically."

Was Bangladesh any threat to India ever for any reason?
"No, and Bangladesh will never be a threat to them ever. One reason may be that India may have thought that some Indian states may bolster their suppressed movements for autonomy or freedom if they see that Bangladesh has successfully become an independently rising country."

What do you think about the government decision to forgive the anti-Liberation forces, about the war criminals and the present demand of their trial?
"Those who acted against the Liberation War did it politically. People can make mistakes and do injustice in personal life and politically. But it is always good to forgive when there is any such doubt."

Do you think Bangabandhu's amnesty was a right decision?
"I think that was a right decision. And once you have pardoned somebody, you should not want to try him for a second time. Yes, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman should have tried those war criminals then, but he did not. And as he forgave them, no one will gain by making this an issue to belittle one. The people of Bangladesh have nothing but loss to gain from it. Politicians of Bangladesh did not always work for the people of Bangladesh. They remain busy in minor issues. Leaving it, we need a unity to develop the nation. We ourselves destroy this unity by bringing such issues.

Was the start of Bangladesh as an independent nation right under the leadership of Awami League or a national government could be formed after independence?
"The Awami League started its journey well as it had won elections before the war. They were right in forming the government. Then the constitution was formulated following democratic processes. That also went in line with the spirit of Bangladesh's Liberation War. But that government faltered later and made mistakes.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com __._,_.___

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] Indian Food Export Ban Causing Food Price Inflation in BD?

I understand that India has banned certain food items for export to
Bangladesh since October 2006 and that it increased the price of rice
recently by almost $100 for the export market. Are these measures
having an adverse affect on food prices in Bangladesh so that we may
consider India as taking a deliberately anti-Bangladesh stance and
trying to influence political developments in the country or are these
issues completely unrelated? If there is in fact some relationship
between the export ban and the rise of food prices here how could
Bangladesh offset these problems and why is not the Interim Government
making any comment on this unfriendly gesture by our big neighbour?

I would appreciate some comment on this issue as I am not entirely
clear on the matter and I am under the distinct impression that the
food price inflation is being artificially created although the two
floods this year had something to do with it but is that not also
caused by India by its unnecessary, unpredictable and often motivated
release of water from its side during the summer months. Also will
this not be a more serious problem after the Tipaimukh Dam
construction and when other river linking projects are complete? Does
the Interim Government have any policy to overcome these hostile and
distinctly unfriendly gestures of India or is Bangladesh to be to be
led by backboneless leaders lacking in national spirit and who are
apparently being advised by fifth columnist elements? How else can one
explain the Dr. Debapriya Bhattacharya appointment to the United
Nations as our permanent representative? Is this not a national
shame?

Comments are welcome on all these subjects and issues.

Regards



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/

[ALOCHONA] Indian Food Export Ban Causing Food Price Inflation in BD?

I understand that India has banned certain food items for export to
Bangladesh since October 2006 and that it increased the price of rice
recently by almost $100 for the export market. Are these measures
having an adverse affect on food prices in Bangladesh so that we may
consider India as taking a deliberately anti-Bangladesh stance and
trying to influence political developments in the country or are these
issues completely unrelated? If there is in fact some relationship
between the export ban and the rise of food prices here how could
Bangladesh offset these problems and why is not the Interim Government
making any comment on this unfriendly gesture by our big neighbour?

I would appreciate some comment on this issue as I am not entirely
clear on the matter and I am under the distinct impression that the
food price inflation is being artificially created although the two
floods this year had something to do with it but is that not also
caused by India by its unnecessary, unpredictable and often motivated
release of water from its side during the summer months. Also will
this not be a more serious problem after the Tipaimukh Dam
construction and when other river linking projects are complete? Does
the Interim Government have any policy to overcome these hostile and
distinctly unfriendly gestures of India or is Bangladesh to be to be
led by backboneless leaders lacking in national spirit and who are
apparently being advised by fifth columnist elements? How else can one
explain the Dr. Debapriya Bhattacharya appointment to the United
Nations as our permanent representative? Is this not a national shame?

Comments are welcome on all these subjects and issues.

Regards

MBI Munshi

[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

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

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

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

(Yahoo! ID required)

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

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

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

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

[ALOCHONA] When emergency will be withdrawn, where will they hide ?

 Nater guru of traitors Mannan bhuyan, Asraf hossain  did not go to the majar of zia to place  flower being afraid of  honour with shoes.
 
 
 
 
 Where will they hide when there will have no emergency?
 
 
 How will they campaign for election??????????????//


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subhan Allah-  Only Allah flawless 
           Alhamdulillah - All praise to be of Allah 
                   Allahhuakbar - Allah, the Greatest
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Would Be Mahathir of BD
------------------------------------------------------------------
If it can be imagined, it is possible- NEC

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com __._,_.___

[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




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] Re: Bangabandhu should be father of the nation :Says his condemned killer

This man tried to kill Hasina twice in the past..

http://www.lankalibrary.com/pol/hasina.html

What is worst about these poeple?
They think they will only abide by the laws made in heaven and not on
the earth. This is ailing nation of Islam although such fanatics are
common in other religion as well.

Biplab

--- In vinnomot@yahoogroups.com, gopalsengupta@... wrote:
>
>
> Bangabandhu should be father of the nation
> Says his condemned killer
> Star Report
>
>
>
> Condemned Bangabandhu killer Khandaker Abdur Rashid has told a private
> satellite television channel that leader of the country's
independence Sheikh
> Mujibur Rahman should be the father of the nation.
>
> "Those who are trying to glorify the role of Ziaur Rahman to match the
> stature of Sheikh Mujib are mean minded," Lt Col (retd) Rashid said
during an
> interview aired on Channel i on Wednesday night.
>
> Rashid also said Zia's radio speech encouraged the people during the
> Liberation War in 1971.
>
> Channel i did not disclose where it recorded the interview of
Rashid, who
> has remained a fugitive for about a decade.
>
> In 1998, a trial court awarded death penalty to 15 former army
officers,
> including Rashid, in the Bangabandhu murder case. Later in 2001, the
High Court
> upheld the death sentences of 12 and Rashid is among those living
abroad.
>
> Earlier, the TV channel announced that it would broadcast a
five-part series
> of the interview but yesterday it said it cannot air the programme for
> "problems" in the tape.
>
> Following is the translation of the interview.
>
> How are you?
> "I am well. But I always remember the people of Bangladesh. Thank
you for
> organising today's programme, because people of Bangladesh as of
now do not
> know clearly about the events of August 15, [1975]--how it was
organised and
> what happened, like betrayal, later. And those truths could not be
told for want
> of time and opportunity.
>
> "The current situation in Bangladesh, I think, has totally unmasked
all
> those who have done politics in Bangladesh till date. So, I think
it is an
> opportunity and it is time to speak the truth, and I believe the
people of
> Bangladesh will benefit from it. I have never done anything or said
anything in my
> own interest."
>
> How can you stay well with the accusation of a murder and with death
> sentence in a life quite like a fugitive?
> "I feel, and I believe, I am responsible to Allah for everything. I
have not
> done anything so far that might harm the country or the people. And
I have
> confidence that I can justify my actions before Allah--that I was
true and
> sincere in my purpose and actions. I feel I am well even after the
damage done
> to me in different ways because I have confidence and inner
strength and
> because I always work for truth and because the people of
Bangladesh love me."
>
> Don't you now feel any tension and think such obstacles come in
everyone's
> life?
> "Yes, I have the strength by the grace of Allah. I rather took more
risks
> earlier when I went to the Liberation War because I did not know
whether I
> would survive or not. Even on August 15 I was not certain whether
we would
> survive or not or whether the mission would be successful or not.
If compared, the
> risk is much less now. So, I am not at all worried although you have
> mentioned that I have been condemned to death. But I believe no one
can do anything
> to anyone for doing anything. Everything will happen according to
Allah's
> desire."
>
> How many times have you appeared on television since 1975?
> "On a CNN interview in 1979. Before that, Anthony Mascarenhas was
scheduled
> to do a small interview. [Col] Faruk contacted him and gave an
interview. But
> I did not like him personally when I first talked to him. So, I did
not
> think it would be a good idea to talk [with Mascarenhas] freely and
refrained
> from doing that. That was a special programme of 'World in Action'.
When he
> wrote a book, 'Legacy of Blood', he also did not write a lot about
me. He wrote
> about Faruk and mostly his own opinion."
>
> When did that interview take place? Have you talked with any other TV
> channel since then or with any Bangladeshi TV channel?
> "No, I have not talked with any TV channel since then. This is the
first
> time that I am talking with any Bangladeshi TV channel."
>
> Have you spoken with any newspaper about August 15?
> "As a matter of fact, no newspaper came up to ask me for a detail
interview
> although I have held press conferences on contemporary politics when
I was
> involved in politics in Bangladesh. But I did not talk about August
15, nor did
> anyone show interest to ask me about it."
>
> When were you born?
> "I was born on December 6, 1946 at Chhayghoria village in Chandina,
Comilla."
>
> Would you tell something about your childhood, your parents?
> "My father was a schoolteacher. In my childhood, I studied in my
village
> school--I would go to school with my father. I appeared in
matriculation
> examinations from Chandina, then studied at Dhaka College, then
studied soil science
> at Dhaka University. I could not complete my master degree because I
joined
> the Pakistan Army after the 1965 war. I was commissioned in 1966. I
am the
> younger of us two brothers. My brother lives in Bangladesh."
>
> When did you marry?
> "In 1969."
>
> When did you first come to know Col Faruk Rahman, the other
condemned in
> Bangabandhu murder case?
> "We lived close in Pakistan Military Academy. He was in the second war
> course and I was on the fourth war course. He was senior to me.
Then we met again
> during the Bangladesh Liberation War. Faruk defected [from Pakistan
Army] and
> went to Dubai first and then to India...I also went to India.
Later, when we
> were in Bangladesh Army we used to meet always."
>
> When did he marry?
> "In 1973. He used to come to my house as a friend and got to know my
> sister-in-law. And then they married."
>
> You joined the Liberation War in November 1971 and Col Faruk Rahman on
> December 12. Why did you delay?
> "My posting was in Pakistan at that time and it was not an easy job
to join
> the Liberation War from there. So, you see, most of those posted in
Pakistan
> did not go back after coming to Bangladesh, and a few--five or
six--went back
> but were not in a good condition. So, I think I am lucky that I
could join
> the Liberation War although late."
>
> How did you come from Pakistan and join the Liberation War?
> "I went on leave in October and went to India not to go back. Then I
joined
> the Liberation War. I was in Z Sector; Ziaur Rahman was the sector
commander.
> Khaled Mosharraf was also in the camp. He was injured and was in
hospital."
>
> Do you know anything about Col Faruk's delay? How did he join?
> "He was in Abu Dhabi on deputation. I do not know why he delayed
coming to
> India from Abu Dhabi. He found a way because he had the will to do
it. I
> cannot recall clearly. Major Jalil raised the armour unit and I do
not know when
> exactly Faruk joined."
>
> What was your thought about Bangladesh's Liberation War then?
> "Many thoughts came to my mind--I should be a freedom fighter, whether
> Bangladesh should get freedom. Both Faruk Rahman and I were captain
then.
>
> "The war for freedom was a necessity. Once it starts, it should not
be let
> fail. It became a responsibility of all Bangladeshi people to join
and fight
> the war until independence. And I believe the people had the same
feeling and
> so we succeeded to emerge victorious. I was looking for opportunity
and
> joined the war as soon as I got it."
>
> Do you think the war was inevitable? Do you think any special incident
> stirred it?
> "The situation took such a turn that there was no alternative to war.
> Political struggle reached a final stage where people from all
walks of life joined
> it after Awami League was denied power even after winning majority.
It was
> seen as denial of democratic rights. It was a suitable time to
march forward
> as far as is necessary to establish democracy and Sheikh Mujibur
Rahman did so.
>
> "As no agreement could be reached, he made it clear in the March 7
speech
> that the fight would be a war for freedom. I was present at the Dhaka
> racecourse [ground] on that day. The spirit of people on the day
demonstrated that
> they were ready for the war for complete freedom.
>
> "After the March 7 meeting, I, then serving in the EPI, was asked
to join my
> old unit in Pakistan. So, I had to go. During my six-month job in
EPI, I
> felt that Bangladesh was going towards the Liberation War and I
also felt that
> Bangladesh this time will be liberated."
>
> Did you talk among yourselves? Did you think that there could a
federation
> with East and West Pakistan to ensure unity?
> "Yes, we Banglaee army officers used to talk among ourselves. At
first, many
> of the army officers believed that such an understanding would not
be bad,
> many were hopeful that it would happen but it did not happen. Even
though it
> was the responsibility of the then Pakistani government to
implement it, it
> was clear that no understanding was possible after the party that
won majority
> was denied power."
>
> Do you think such a solution would have been good?
> "I think that would not have been bad. After all, we were Muslims
in both
> East and West Pakistan. A good cooperation would have been there
between the
> two parts. In a confederation, Bangladesh would have had indirect
independence
> and that would not have been that bad. But, when the war started
there was no
> alternative."
>
> Do you think Pakistan forced us to the war? What do you think about
Oli
> Ahmed's statement in his doctoral thesis that the skirmishes during
March
> 25-April 17 was controlled by a military leadership?
> "In my judgement, such claims are only made by people who want to
glorify
> themselves. There is no truth in that statement. If the army thinks
they are
> going to start a war inside the country it becomes a revolt, a
defection not
> Liberation War. It would also be wrong if they say there was no
role of
> politicians or the people in it. The country marched towards the
Independence War
> gradually because people's democratic rights were denied.
>
> "Many, nowadays, try to glorify the role of Ziaur Rahman to match the
> stature of Sheikh Mujib and it has truly no legal validity. Even
though many want
> to say that he delivered the speech on radio in Chittagong but what
happened
> earlier--the events of several days after March 7, the Pakistan
army's threat
> on Mujib and his arrest? Did te Pakistan army fight with the
Bangladesh army
> or the Awami League workers or people? Who barricaded the roads,
army or the
> people?
>
> "And who delivered the historic March 7 speech at Suhrawardy
Uddyan? Was it
> Zia or Mujib? It is mean-minded to portray Zia this way. I do not
deny that
> Zia has a contribution. Sheikh Mujib has contribution, Zia also has
> contribution. So, we should give the respect Sheikh Mujib deserves,
and also what Zia
> deserves."
>
> What do they deserve? Many say Mujib proclaimed it, many say Zia
while many
> say Zia's proclamation as an army officer gave people courage while
many say
> it was done earlier? How do you want to respect them?
> "The Awami League thinks Sheikh Mujib is the father of the nation
as he won
> the Liberation War, and I also believe this. He should be respected
for his
> role in earning the independence. I do not have any objection to
term him
> father of the nation."
>
> "And what Ziaur Rahman had said played a role to strengthen it.
Most of
> those who firstly defected and went to India are students, Awami
League workers
> or elected MPs. They went there fearing the Pakistan army's wreath.
It might
> have been possible for them to form a liberation army but that
would have
> taken a long time. At that moment, when Major Zia expressed his
keenness to join
> the Liberation War in his speech, all in Bangladesh army did a united
> defection and it gave courage to the students and politicians who
left the country."
>
> "It is true that there were many senior officers in the army
including Major
> Shafiullah, General Osmani, Khaled Mosharraf, and then Major Zia.
But if
> compared, Major Zia should be respected for his one-minute radio
speech, which
> provided a supplementary force. People and the BNP will decided
what to call
> him for this.”
>
> Did army officer or jawans take part in the war willingly or were they
> forced to? Were the Bangalees in the army deprived?
> "The Pakistani government committed a blunder which made the
defection 100
> percent. Otherwise, it might have been a fraction, like some people
defecting
> at one time and others later at different stages. But Pakistan
government
> asked Bangalees in the army, the EPR and the police, I mean
military and
> paramilitary, to surrender saying they have been disbanded. A
trained person with
> arms does not surrender to anybody on a radio announcement… it
never happened
> in history. A detailed preparation was necessary to make it
successful, which
> they did not have. They just made a radio announcement that all
Bangladeshis
> have been disbanded and they should surrender their arms. So, those
in the
> army and the EPR had to defect, and that is why the army defection
and the EPI
> defection was 100 percent."
>
> What would have happened if the announcement had not been done?
> "If the Pakistan government had not done this announcement, maybe five
> percent would have defected at first, then 20, 30 or 50 percent
would have
> defected. The rest 50 percent would have continued in their jobs.
There would have
> been a question of doubt as to how many would take part in the
Liberation War
> and how many would remain with Pakistan Army.
>
> Did you have any contact with politicians during the Liberation War?
> "When I was in Kolkata headquarters in the beginning, I came in
contact with
> all--General Osmani, Khondoker Mushtaq, Tajuddin, Nazrul Islam, and
many
> others. But I did not have very intimate contact with anyone except
General
> Osmani because, you know, army personnel do not mix up with
politicians much.
> They normally talk with other army persons."
>
> Do you have any relation with Khondoker Mushtaq Ahmed?
> "No."
>
> Do you think the Liberation War ended very quickly? How do you see
India's
> role, the fact that Pakistan Army surrendered before an Indian General?
> "India would definitely utilise the opportunity when they got it.
> Announcement of Pakistan's disarming made it easy for Banglaees in
the army and
> paramilitary to participate in the Liberation War and the war
became strong.
> Military, paramilitary, politicians defected, and went to India and
formed a
> government. Asked by that government, India started helping
directly. However, it
> was a burden on India to support all the people, provide them with
shelter,
> food and armours. India did not have the economy to bear the burden
for a few
> years.
>
> "Although India and Pakistan had several wars, no one came fully
victorious
> in that sense. So, India was thinking to take the chance to have a
victory on
> Pakistan. Although we take it as an independence war, India had
plans from
> the very beginning that they would intervene directly, fight with
the Pakistan
> Army and make them surrender before the Indian Army. India had a huge
> psychological gain that thousands of Pakistan Army members
surrendered before them
> for the first time.
>
> "But it would never happen that India wins over Pakistan if we were
not in
> the war. It became easy for the Indian Army to enter Bangladesh as
Bangladeshi
> people allowed to do so."
>
> Why many Bangladeshis have a negative idea about India despite their
> assistance during the Liberation War? How do you evaluate the role
of Bangabandhu in
> sending back the Indian Army?
> "No matter how victorious India was over Pakistan Army, they could
not win
> among Bangladeshis. We can thank everyone including India for
helping us. But
> it does not mean that that country would sit in my country in the
name of
> Liberation War. If that is taken for granted, it was not Liberation
War.
>
> "So, Sheikh Mujib had no option but taking the decision to send
them back.
> If the Indian Army had not gone, they would have had to fight with
Bangladeshi
> people."
>
> Did you meet Bangabandhu anytime after the independence until
August 15?
> "No, I did not meet him. I never had any acquaintance with him. I
gave him
> guard of honour when a state guest from Yugoslavia once visited
Bangladesh and
> I met him again when he went to visit each unit at Dhaka
Cantonment. But we
> had no conversation. He was there for five minutes and talked with
army chief
> Shafiullah and deputy chief Ziaur Rahman."
>
> What was your attitude towards India then?
> "I thank India for its help until the Liberation War. But after the
war,
> they worked against the people of Bangladesh. They took away all the
armaments
> left by the Pakistan Army and machinery and equipment of different
industries.
> They should not have done this. Besides, India printed the
Bangladesh taka
> at that time and there were many duplicate prints. That harmed our
economy a
> lot.
>
> "In the 25-year treaty, there was a provision for regular
consultation about
> foreign relations, which was not right for an independent country.
India did
> not give Bangladesh anything other countries gave us, including
trucks and
> buses. They never wanted to see Bangladesh becoming independent
economically."
>
> Was Bangladesh any threat to India ever for any reason?
> "No, and Bangladesh will never be a threat to them ever. One reason
may be
> that India may have thought that some Indian states may bolster their
> suppressed movements for autonomy or freedom if they see that
Bangladesh has
> successfully become an independently rising country."
>
> What do you think about the government decision to forgive the
> anti-Liberation forces, about the war criminals and the present
demand of their trial?
> "Those who acted against the Liberation War did it politically.
People can
> make mistakes and do injustice in personal life and politically.
But it is
> always good to forgive when there is any such doubt."
>
> Do you think Bangabandhu's amnesty was a right decision?
> "I think that was a right decision. And once you have pardoned
somebody, you
> should not want to try him for a second time. Yes, Sheikh Mujibur
Rahman
> should have tried those war criminals then, but he did not. And as
he forgave
> them, no one will gain by making this an issue to belittle one. The
people of
> Bangladesh have nothing but loss to gain from it. Politicians of
Bangladesh
> did not always work for the people of Bangladesh. They remain busy
in minor
> issues. Leaving it, we need a unity to develop the nation. We
ourselves destroy
> this unity by bringing such issues.
>
> Was the start of Bangladesh as an independent nation right under the
> leadership of Awami League or a national government could be formed
after
> independence?
> "The Awami League started its journey well as it had won elections
before
> the war. They were right in forming the government. Then the
constitution was
> formulated following democratic processes. That also went in line
with the
> spirit of Bangladesh's Liberation War. But that government faltered
later and
> made mistakes.
>



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/

[ALOCHONA] CEC digging himself a deeper hole

Editorial
CEC digging himself a deeper hole

The invocation of the infamous 'doctrine of necessity' by the chief election commissioner, ATM Shamsul Huda, as the basis on which the Saifur Rahman-led faction of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party was invited to sit for dialogue with the Election Commission, while altogether absurd, exposes the extent to which the commission is collaborating with the military-driven interim government in political engineering and the restructuring of the polity. It is absurd because the doctrine of necessity would only apply if the commission was left with no other apparent option but to send its letter of invitation to Hafizuddin Ahmed, 'acting' secretary general of the Saifur-led faction. However, such a stark scenario was not even close to being the case, as Khandaker Delwar Hossain had been legally appointed as the party's secretary general by Khaleda Zia through the powers vested in her as chairperson by the BNP constitution.
   Huda's reference to the doctrine of necessity, however, does suggest to us that an intricate plan had been set in motion by the military-driven regime in conjunction with the Election Commission to subtract Khaleda Zia from the political equation and to sideline her followers. Last week, a so-called meeting of the BNP standing committee was orchestrated at the residence of former finance minister M Saifur Rahman, even though only the chairperson can call a meeting of the party's standing committee, according to the BNP constitution. At that gathering, Saifur was appointed acting chairperson of the party and Hafiz acting secretary general replacing Delwar, also in total disregard for the party's constitution. This week, through sending its letter to Hafiz, the commission has given credence to what many had already suspected: The standing committee members, many of whom were reportedly accompanied to the gathering by members of intelligence agencies, were hurriedly brought together last week only so that the commission could send its letter to the 'reformist' faction of the BNP which is opposed to Khaleda, rather than those loyal to her leadership. The doctrine of necessity, from the point of view of the military-driven government and the Election Commission, might, therefore, refer to the whole set of events in the past week or so leading to the sending of the commission's letter, given that the perceived attempts to liquidate the political career of Khaleda Zia and to promote alternative leadership within the BNP which will be loyal to this government appear to be on at full steam.
   The invocation of the doctrine of necessity, notably, has been a common practice, from the time of the Romans emperors, by authoritarian rulers and regimes in order to explain actions and decisions that typically contradict the general will and in many cases are against the interests of the people. Most infamously, the doctrine was widely invoked by the autocratic regime of Ayub Khan in the fifties. The chief election commissioner, by referring to it in the present case, has expressly signed up to that authoritarian legacy of the doctrine. Also, by attempting to give judgement on the inner workings and processes of the BNP and by trying to define the party's conventions, which Huda unashamedly did on Tuesday, he has done tremendous harm to his own credibility and reputation. The onus, therefore, is squarely on the Election Commission in general, and the chief election commissioner in particular, to dispel the ever-growing public suspicion that they are working neither independently of government control nor impartially to hold credible parliamentary elections.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subhan Allah-  Only Allah flawless 
           Alhamdulillah - All praise to be of Allah 
                   Allahhuakbar - Allah, the Greatest
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Would Be Mahathir of BD
------------------------------------------------------------------
If it can be imagined, it is possible- NEC

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com __._,_.___

[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




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

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Re: Video clip of Dhaka University Massacre in 1971

Many many thanks to you. There are other video links in that site
related to the 1971 liberation war. One of those is on Khulna massacre:

http://mx.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z6SgETOjug&NR=1

I know these videos will be denied by our own holocaust deniers and war
crime sympathizers. Many still want to be ruled by the criminal
collaborators and go back to Shadher Pakistan.

--- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, "rajib2k5" <rajib2k5@...> wrote:
>
> I saw this rare footage at
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMg9Ly9nK0g
>
> Feel free to check it out.
>


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

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

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

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

(Yahoo! ID required)

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

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

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

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

[vinnomot] Please check if you are in the terrorist watch list before you travel

If your name is included in the terrorist watch list mistakenly  you can appeal to the government to remove your name from the list.:

Go to www.tsa.gov/travellers:

click on Traveller Redress Inquiry Program.

File a complain online or by e-mail

Send copies of identity documents.

If you want to check  whether your name is listed go to:

www.tsa.gov and click your name immediately.

 you will know whether your name is listed.

Thanks

M.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] Why BTV off the air in North America(Copy of letter emailed to Chief Advisor Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed)

Honorable Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed

Chief Advisor of the Care Taker Government

Peoples Republic of Bangladesh

Dhaka, Bangladesh

  Honorable Dr. Ahmed,

  We in the United States used to enjoy BTV program during the year 2005/2006. Globe Cast World TV used to transmit BTV programs  without any cost to BTV on c their channel # 704. This channel was FTA(Free to Air) like  all other government run TV challels of the World. Just before the departure of the past BNP led government Globecast World TV requested BTV authorities for new  permission to Air BTV program (free of cost)and sent their agent to Dhaka for approval from BTV DG. Unfortunately ex-BTV DG did not authorize Globe cast to air BTV program for unknown reason(?). Globecast agent strongly believe that wiothout any finanacial kick back paid directly to BTV DG, he failed to get authorization from BTV DG. There was a time limit for such authorization. As a result of BTV DG's refusal for authorization BTV's channel# 704 givem to another TV.

We Bangladeshis lost our BTV program forever due to the greedness of ex-BTV DG.

Since then BTV authorities never tried to telecast their program to U.S. viewers.

I fervently request to your honor  to kindly investigate the role played by the ex-BTV DG as well as to act urgently to re-telecst BTV programs for U.S. viewers as soon as possible.

Bangladeshis living in the United States will apprecate your intervention.

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

__,_._,___