Dear Mr……….(Since you did not give a name),
I read your response with interest. I must appreciate your efforts to twist and turn my posts in your own tune. Let me give you few examples:
You wrote:
"how are you jumping into the conclusion regarding the aircraft's accident due to bad weather?"
My Response:
How did you conclude that I was "jumping into conclusion". Please read what I wrote:
"However, in this case it was (as the preliminary findings suggest) not a problem with the aircraft but with bad weather and very poor visibility."
I highlighted what the preliminary findings were based on the conditions and narrations of the eyewitnesses that I had the privy of knowing very first hand – just after the crash. For your information, last Thursday, I was on a helicopter flight from Dhaka to Chittagong
Again You wrote:
"Army's corruption, I tend to agree with his observation based on analyzing the past actions of Army in the last few decades. Since you have been in defence for the last 25 years, I am sure you remember Gen Ershad's regime during the 80s. In comparison with the democratically elected Civilian Govt (e.g Khaleda Admin for 10 yrs and AL 5 yrs), Ershad and his croonies were less corrupt but they were no angels either. They were involved in the fair share of corruption even though they were paid handsomely and were given all the wonderful amenities given by the Govt."
My Response:
This part of your mail had two misleading thoughts that you very cunningly wanted to use at your own advantage. You perhaps did not care to read my mail. I have no problem to live with facts like "Army is Corrupt" if only you could validate your hypotheses of such "corruption in the Army" using appropriate research methodology tools. Please note what I wrote to Mr Abul. Here's is it for you again:
"…How did you reach such conclusion? Did you do any research on the military or was it limited to your knowledge of your own family and friends that you terms as "personal contact"? Can you tell me the sample size of your research? What was the significance level of your findings? Do you even know how many personnel are there in the Army?"
Sadly, you have not answered any of these vital research questions that were essential to prove that what you "tend to agree" was a product of your research. I am sure you are not suggesting that whatever comes from "dure Kothao" or Mr Abul's perception has to be taken for granted to be authentic like the Bible. Well, in case you did not notice, this forum even debates scriptures and verses. It is people like you I am challenging who use their brain and efforts to project their personal opinion and try to generalize it without being rationale in a forum that is meant for the rationalists! The standards are high here and any amount of fabrication, generalized personal opinion and blaming without proper justifications are bound have response, – and you can count on that.
Again, you very cunningly bring the issue of Ershad (of whom I am not a great supporter, and don't consider I'm defending him) and connect it with Mr Abul's post and use it for your argument ignoring the context. Please note that Mr Abul was talking about the (alleged) corruption in the Army during the "CTG regime" and your 'blaming' was related to Ershad's regime. The context is different here. Mr Abul's observations were based on his personal contacts while you did not refer anything (presumably literature review). Your efforts to connect 'CTG regime' with 'Ershad's regime' to refute my arguments appears misleading and outright deception.
Nevertheless, since you bring Ershad into it, I will request you to add one more fact in your analysis that you very cunningly forgot to mention in your post. No matter how much we loath or hate Ershad, he was elected from all three places and many of his corruptions charges has been acquitted by the court. Thus, while you measure the corruption level in the Army during Ershad's period (based on literature review) please consider this fact (as it is also literature and deserves counting unless your prejudiced). You may add a 'value' for this (i.e. acquittal by the court ) in your research tool. That will give you more unbiased findings.
Regarding the BDR incident you wrote:
"I understand that you are reluctant to rule out involvement of ISI, RAW, LET and other outside agencies, but I would ask you to shed some light about how (like many others) are so tempted to putt he blame on them instead of waiting out on the investigation report?"
I don't know what you meant here. Are you suggesting me to comment on others views? Yes I did that but only when I saw them projecting partial view and playing the blame game supporting either India AL
Your understanding on the use (or abuse) of the military reaches its nadir when you commented:
"… I don't recall BD Army or Airforce ever involving herself in any war other than killing their own kinda (as in original) and the Father of the NATION!!)"
This surely reflects your understanding as you seem to see the military only as a war making machine. I don't blame you. This is a limitation of many who are tempted to generalize everything from their narrow perspective. Suffice to say that power of a nation state emanates from her political, diplomatic, economic, informational and military might. All these powers are fungible to some degree. However, the symbiotic relationship between the military and the other instruments of power is worth examining as it undergirds the total national power. The general perception that military power is only for war coupled with its misuse by dictatorial regimes in many small states like Bangladesh have hindered the growth of military power in right direction. But, states remain in peace more often than war and military power, particularly in case of small nations, is crucial to preserve and protect peace through its fungible nature. You may read more on this in BIISS JOURNAL, VOL. 27, NO. 1, January 2006, article 'Fungibility of Military Power and Imperatives fro Small Nations' (http://www.biiss.org/BIISS_JOURNAL.php?filename=journal/January2006_issue.html). I will be happy to debate on it.
In essence, you tried to twist my words and tried to put words into my mouth. Let you be your own judge whether you succeeded in that or not. I am happy (not hurt) that you gave an opportunity to reveal your ill intentions wide open with sufficient clarity. I hope you have got my views and questions more clearly this time and I hope you will not attempt such twist and turns in future and try to mislead people.
Regards
Zahid Khan