Banner Advertiser

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

[ALOCHONA] Singapore: The Worlds most Efficiently Managed Company



Singapore: The Worlds most Efficiently Managed Company

A Paradigm Shift: APEC Offers No Clear Answers




__._,_.___


[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] UK inquiry shows war was preplanned: Saddam had no link with Al-Qaeda



UK inquiry shows war was preplanned: Saddam had no link with Al-Qaeda

Saddam

The UK investigated claims of links between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda but decided they were not "natural allies", the Iraq inquiry has been told.

Despite "sporadic" contacts between Al-Qaeda members and Iraq in the 1990s, there was no "serious collaboration", Foreign Office officials said.

The 9/11 attacks actually drove Iraq and Al-Qaeda further apart, they added.

In its second day of public hearings, the inquiry is looking into Iraq's weapons capability and UK policy.

Inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot said he was seeking a "clear account" of the government's assessment of the Iraqi threat in the run-up to the 2003 US-lead invasion and how that corresponded to what was discovered after the war.

The reasons for going to war in Iraq - including the now discredited claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction which could be used within 45 minutes of an order being given - are a long-standing source of controversy.

Asked about Iraq's involvement with terrorists, Tim Dowse - the Foreign Office's Director of Counter-Proliferation between 2001 and 2003 - said it had supported groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas in the past.

Following the 9/11 attacks and suggestions in the US of a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, he said the Foreign Office had looked at the matter "very carefully".

Despite reports that senior members of Al-Qaeda had visited Iraq in the late 1990s, it concluded there was "nothing that looked like a relationship between the Iraqs and Al-Qaeda".

"After 9/11 we concluded that Iraq had stepped further back and they did not want to be associated with Al-Qaeda," he said. "They were not natural allies."

Sir William Ehrman, the Foreign Office's Director General for Defence and Intelligence between 2002 and 2004, said it had discussed the issue with Washington which had put "more weight" on the claims.

But he said: "Our view was that there was no evidence to suggest serious collaboration of any sort between Iraq and Al-Qaeda."

Addressing the overall threat posed by Iraq in 2001, the Foreign Office said it was "not top of its list" of countries causing concern because of their stated desire to develop weapons of mass destruction, ranking below Iran, North Korea and Libya.

With sanctions in place against Iraq, the Foreign Office believed Saddam Hussein could not build a nuclear weapon and, even if sanctions were removed, it was estimated it would take him five years to do so.

As for biological and chemical weapons, Mr Dowse said most evidence suggested Iraq's programme had largely been "destroyed" in 1991.

However, he said recent intelligence suggested Iraq was seeking to rebuild its capacity and there were "unanswered questions" about its actual capability since weapons inspectors had been expelled in 1998.

He also said the threat posed by Iraq was viewed as "unique" from other "deliberate proliferators" as it had shown itself willing to use weapons of mass destruction on its own people and its neighbours and was flouting a range of UN disarmament resolutions.

The inquiry, looking at the whole period from 2001 to 2009, was set up by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who also chose the panel.

Mr Brown and predecessor Tony Blair are expected to be among future witnesses, with the inquiry not expected to report its full findings until the end of 2010 or early 2011.

The stated aim of the early hearings is to look at a "wide range" of factors leading up to war, including intelligence and diplomacy.

On Tuesday, the inquiry heard that the UK government had "distanced itself" from talk of removing Saddam Hussein in early 2001 despite concerns about his threat.

Previously, the Butler inquiry looked at intelligence failures before the war, while the Hutton inquiry examined the circumstances leading to the death of former government adviser David Kelly.

http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2009/11/26/news0528.htm



__._,_.___


[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] BNP's Honeymoon with the Murderers





__._,_.___


[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: US Ambassador Moriarty advocates equal rights for 'Biharis'

Friends


The Bihari issue is not a creation of Bangladesh rather it was
intentionally imposed on us as like the Rohinga refugees.

The non-Bengalis who sided with the brutal bestial Pakistanis n Jamtis
to kill Bangladeshis during our Liberation war in 1971. On handing
over a disgracefull defeat to the Pakis all people irrespective of
ethnic n cultural banckground were asked to accept the reality of
indepenent Bangladesh but the non-Bengalis refused to accept rather
wanted to go back to their homeland Pakistan. I think they had
inalienable right to go back as they were and still are Pakistanis by
heart n soul.

But the Pakis on one plea or other did not respond to the request of
Bangladesh n took no action making the issue a bloody headache for
us.As the newly born country was so shattered in all respect could not
afford to house n feed the Pakistanis.Since they were scatterd here n
there Bangladesh government provided all out cooperation to the UN
refugee agnecy to help these Pakistanis to group in 2/3 places to
provide good attention.

Time n again these Pakistanis expressed their desire to go to the
homeland but despite several promises by the Pakistan leadership to
take them back no concrete action was taken. At some point there were
some token repatriation under the auspices of UN but due to the
non-cooperation of the Pak authority the endeavour was nipped in bud.

I have no disagreement about their plight n I want say that for this
we are in no way responsible. There are millions of Bangladeshis who
are living on the Embankments/on road pave side/barren fields without
any help at all. To be true that they are in much worse conditions n
on the otherhand these stranded Pakistanis are in the care of many UN
agencies including many foreign NOG's.

Bangladesh since independence are being faced with problem created by
out siders to disturb is peace,security,stabilty n mainly the economic
growth.The Rohinga problem has almost become perpetual as the brute
Burmese Military junta are forcing rohinga day in n day out to flee
Arakan n adjucent areas to Bangladesh. Aganin the UN agencies n
foreign NGO's started playing dirty game n opposed repatriation of the
refugees n who remain a burden for a small n poor country like
Bangladesh.

HINDUSTAAN our best friend(??????) also created several serious
problems too in relation to refugees n insurgency.The
creation,training,funding,arming of "Shanti Banhin"(as confessed by
ex-RW stalwarts) is one of the best gift of friendship that binded us
for 25 years.

As a newly born country with it's destroyed economy,all
infrastructure,social,moral values n due to wrong politics were being
submerged in ocean of problems. So, these extra problems created
intentionally by so-called friends n HR champions caused Bangladesh to
take step backward instead of forward. These have seriously affected
our growth n we failed to put ourselve in the right standing with
other nations.

I wonder when I see the HR Champions of the world who are responbsble
of violation of HR of many many countries/nationilities here n there
in every nook n corner of the globe are advocating equal rights for
the refugee. How it is possible that a free country could grant
alliens the same rights in line line their own nationals
????????????????????????????????????????
Since these alliens have not recognized n swear alligience to the
constitution n sovereignty of the land where they are living on the
mercy of the nation under discussion.

Let these champions exert pressure of pakistan n Burma to take back
their own nationals that we are feeding for more than 3 decades n
relieve us from the financial,political burden so that we can live in
Peace concentrating on our development.But the international dirty
politics shows the backdoor to cook unholy plan to undo development of
a developing nation like ours.

Faruque Alamgir

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Md. Aminul Islam
<aminul_islam_raj@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The Biharis are compelled to live a very very inhuman life.many people live
> in  a small room ,insufficient toilets are there.They need more space more
> toilets.
> But nobody come forrowed rather they face fire several times at their
> camps.  i came to know that some political mastans r behind the fire!
>  THe UN should do smething for them.Thanks to Moriaty and thanks to brother
> Anis ahmed
>
> ________________________________
> From: Anis Ahmed <anis.ahmed@netzero.net>
> To: khabor@yahoogroups.com; Diagnose@yahoogroups.com; alochona
> <alochona@yahoogroups.com>; Bangla Zindabad
> <Bangladesh-Zindabad@yahoogroups.com>; wideminds
> <WideMinds@yahoogroups.com>; Sonar Bangladesh
> <sonarbangladesh@yahoogroups.com>; Dhaka Mails <dhakamails@yahoogroups.com>;
> notun_bangladesh@yahoogroups.com; baainews@yahoogroups.com;
> mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com; vinnomot <vinnomot@yahoogroups.com>
> Cc: aminul_islam_raj@yahoo.com; faruquealamgir@gmail.com; sbguha@yahoo.com;
> nurannabi@aol.com
> Sent: Wed, November 25, 2009 8:39:43 AM
> Subject: US Ambassador Moriarty advocates equal rights for 'Biharis'
>
> To All;
>
> As a Bangladeshi American, I fully support US Ambassador to Bangladesh Mr.
> Moriarty's advocacy and the Bangladesh Supreme Court ruling on "Biharis"
> issue. Bangladesh Government must comply with this if it respects human
> rights and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh.
>
> If all Bangladeshi Americans and American Bangladeshi can expect and enjoy
> equal rights like all other US citizens in the USA, all Biharis and their
> children born in Bangladesh should have equal rights as Bangladeshi citizen
> in Bangladesh.
>
> For detail information about the US Ambassador Moriarty's advocacy, please
> visit the following linkage
> http://www.bdnews24.com/details.php?cid=2&id=147598&hb=5
>
> Anis Ahmed
>
> Member
>
> National Association of Human Rights Worker, USA
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Health Insurance Savings
> Get affordable Health Insurance - Blue Cross, Aetna, Humana, & More.
>
>


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

[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.comYahoo! 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:
alochona-digest@yahoogroups.com
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] Killer of Siraj Sikdar should be punished?



Siraj Sikdar is the greatest leader, he was commited to his ideology, he sacrificed his life for the poor people. Siraj Sikdar monument should be raised from Mujib's grave, a leader rises from the greatness.
 
Mujib is a killer, Mujib was a pimp of Indira Gandhi. Indira fuked Mujib, Mujib's rulling is a total disaster. From 72 to 75, untill he was killed by revolution, Mujib was a Nazi dictator of BAKSAL. Mujib is a freak like Hitlar, he shouted same as Hitlar. Mujib was a 3rd class student, he failed in BA, just could not pass his exam without copying. Mujib has done nothing for the people, except stealing Kombol (blanket) donated by foreign countries, extortion and killing was rampage, Mujib is the worst leader in the history of bangladesh, Mujib should stand trial same as Rajakars. Mujib killed 10,000 workers of Siraj Sikdar. No bloody Mujib can go unpunished. Hasiaana should stand trail for the crime of Mujib.
 
magir put mirza, what you know about  of Mujib? Mujib only bravery is fuked by  Indira Gandi, everything else is a big failure, Mujib is a Nazi, so he paid his price, same as Hitlar. Why cry?


From: Syed Mirza <mirza.syed@gmail.com>
To: khabor@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, November 25, 2009 8:23:13 AM
Subject: Re: [khabor.com] Killer of Siraj Sikdar should be punished?

 
What else, or what more can any one expect from a supporter (Mo Assghar) of a heinous killer terrorist like Siraj Sikdar? He also must be a terrorist like Siraj Sikdar who wanted to kill Bangladesh at its infancy! Which fool can compare a small candle (Terrorist S. Sikdar) with the mightiest shiny Sun (Sheik Mujib) of Bangladesh other than a small fry terrorist like this Assghar? We should just ignore his uncivilized ranting. He also sounds like an Islamic terrorist to me. He could be a son of a razakar too! He needs some shunting from our Saif Devdas. I am urging kind attention by Saif Devdas to give this terrorist a lesson of his life-time.
 
 
SKM

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Mo Assghar <moassghar@yahoo. com> wrote:
 

Those moderchod should be fully fuked till death who thinks Killing is Siraj Sikadr is justified. Killing a comrade by Nazi dicatator like Mujib should be punished. Siraj is a great leader, bigger than Seikh Mujib, more educated than Seikh Mujib. Mujib was a 3rd grade student in BA. He was a mice when Surwardi was a leader in Awami Muslim League.
 
Mujib is a coward, he took flight quickly in 7 March from Paltan Maidan. Mujib talk big, he only got a big mouth like a street hawker. Becase of magi Indira gandhi, Pakis lost. Not because of Mujib, he was a coward leader. Mujib surrenderd to paki army, he knew he will be safe there. tajuddin did all the work for mujib. and Mujib throw out taijuddin after the war is over. Same like Hasian, she threw tajuddin's son Sohel Taj from ministry.
 
 
 
These fuking Mirza





__._,_.___


[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

__,_._,___

Re: [ALOCHONA] Re: [Dahuk]: Can an Execution Help Heal Bangladesh?



Dear Hakka Hua Alamgir:

One cannot expect any other response from you. But no frets without a howler like you life would be so boring. Your Hashu Apu would be beside herself.

 

Lets all have a rolicking Hakka Hua time!!!

Howoooool

 



 

-----Original Message-----
From: Faruque Alamgir
Sent: Nov 24, 2009 2:23 PM
To: dahuk@yahoogroups.com, notun_bangladesh@yahoogroups.com, Bangla Zindabad , Sonar Bangladesh , alochona , Anis Ahmed , "Md. Aminul Islam" , ayubi_s786@yahoo.com, wideminds , diagnose@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Re: [Dahuk]: Can an Execution Help Heal Bangladesh?

 

IN  ONE WORD  A  BIG  " NO ". UNLESS THERE IS A  START OF POLITICS OF TRUTH,JUSTICE N MAINLY TO UPHOLD THE DIGNITY N HONOUR OF THE "LAL  SABUJ PATAKA" N OUR MANCHITRA SHUN POLITICS OF HATRED/KILLING/ COERCION N COVER THE GOONS ABOVE THE LAW.

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Isha Khan <bd_mailer@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

Can an Execution Help Heal Bangladesh?

By Ishaan Tharoor  Nov. 20, 2009

The home of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founding father of Bangladesh, sits down a tree-lined street in an affluent corner of the capital, Dhaka. Tourists and locals file into the compound daily to view its insides and his personal belongings — a dressing gown, old books, his favorite pipe. But they also come to see signs of his death. On Aug. 15, 1975, soldiers rushed into the house at dawn, shooting indiscriminately, killing Mujib — as he is known — and 19 others. Traces of the blood that splattered the staircase where he fell are preserved beneath panes of glass, as are bullet holes on the opposite wall. But while Bangladeshis have gathered here often over the years to mourn Mujib's passing, it has taken more than 30 years for some of his assassins to finally face justice.

On Thursday, with the backing of the government led by Mujib's daughter, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, the Bangladesh Supreme Court rejected the appeal of five former army officers convicted of killing him and participating in a coup that toppled his rule 34 years ago. They had been sentenced to death in 1996, but a change in government led to the case being stymied in court. Now, the five are to be hanged. (Seven others who were convicted in absentia in 1996 remain fugitives overseas, although one is thought to be dead.) Thousands cheered the verdict outside the court, while some lawmakers broke down in tears of triumph. "The judgment ... is a new milestone for the nation," hailed an editorial in the Daily Star, a leading Dhaka-based English-language daily. (See pictures of Bangladesh.)


To outsiders, this celebration of a justice long deferred may seem a bit too rapturous. But it cuts at the heart of the political traumas that have plagued Bangladesh since its bloody independence from Pakistan in 1971. Mujib had been President of the new country for just four years before a coup hatched by disgruntled military officers, some of whom harbored Islamist or pro-Pakistani sentiments, led to his assassination and the installation of a military government. Since then, Bangladesh has endured a succession of army-run regimes, as well as a period of dysfunctional democratic rule marred by corruption and partisan bickering. "What you're dealing with is a very fractured, highly politicized society," says Ali Riaz, chair of the Department of Politics and Government at Illinois State University.


The case against Mujib's suspected killers only moved forward when his daughter Hasina rose to power in 1996 as head of the secular, center-left Awami League party he had founded. Hasina's government lifted the legal ordinance put into place by Mujib's usurpers that protected the coup's conspirators. But in 2001, Hasina was ousted in an election by her bitter rival, Khaleda Zia, the widow of Ziaur Rahman, a general who ruled Bangladesh not long after Mujib's death and who was also killed by a group of rebellious army officers. The case fell into legal limbo, and the feuding between the two women and their political parties grew so rancorous over the years that the military once again stepped in, throwing both Hasina and Zia temporarily into jail. (Read: "Keeping Dhaka's Ghosts Alive.")


This time, though, the generals relented and democratic elections were held in late 2008. Hasina took office again with a massive mandate, giving many Bangladeshis hope that the country could finally put its destructive, divisive politics behind it. Years of political upheaval, analysts say, have damaged the rule of law in Bangladesh and created a culture of impunity for both powerful politicians as well as for a military that has often acted as a law unto itself. The Supreme Court verdict was a sign, says the Daily Star editorial, "that the wheels of justice have finally rolled."


Still, much more needs to be done in a country beset by corruption and wracked by poverty. While Hasina's government now intends to pursue the other fugitive army officers convicted of killing Mujib — they are rumored to be in countries like Libya and Zimbabwe — it has also gone about shielding some of its own leaders from charges of graft, an ominous return to past practices. More worryingly, it has done little to rein in the military, which was accused earlier this year by Human Rights Watch of participating in extrajudicial killings, torture and disappearances. (See pictures of political high tension in Zimbabwe.)


Some suggest that true stability will never exist in Bangladesh as long as an incident even older than Mujib's assassination remains buried. When Bangladesh — then East Pakistan — split from West Pakistan in 1971, the Pakistani army embarked on a killing campaign, leaving as many as 3 million people dead. Many Bangladeshis who abetted and served alongside the West Pakistani army remained in key positions of power in the years following Mujib's death. Now, there's a growing call for the government to launch an inquiry into those suspected of war crimes and eventually set up tribunals. It's unclear whether Hasina's government will risk reopening the country's many old wounds by ordering a fresh investigation into the killings. "Still, to make progress, you have to address the past," says Riaz. "They have to do it for the sake of Bangladesh."







__._,_.___


[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] Maudud on Mujib!!!




The
unmitigated gall, the audacity, the chutzpah, the tawdriness--is truly lamentable indeed. How else one can respond to this invective, vituperative and blatantly partisan diatribe by anti-Mujib forces in Bangladesh. Let the forum members judge Bongobondoo after reading a excerpt from Barrister Maudud Ahmed's
book--writes Maudud, "Greatest Bengali of All Time…Mujib is the greatest phenomena of our history. His death was not his end. He will continue to remain as a legend in the political life of Bangladesh. No body gave so much to the Bengalis political independence and national identity. He was the symbol of Bengalee Nationalism. The fact that there is a country called Bangladesh is a sufficient testimony to Mujib's status as a legend of our age.  Despite Mujib's many failures, the fact that Mujib was sincere and his intentions were genuine and that he loved his people should not be questioned. As a Nationalist he tried his best to bring Bangladesh out of the Indian subjugation. He was able to send out the Indian army from the soil of Bangladesh within 2 months after his arrival. He flew over Indian Territory to their utter disgust to attend the Islamic summit in Lahore. He established the Aid to Bangladesh Consortium in 1974. He removed Tajuddin to reduce the weight of Indo-Soviet influence. Mujib's return to Bangladesh in itself saved the new country from further and perpetual subjugation. Had Mujib been killed by the Pakistani Junta he would have been immortal and would have become the greatest martyr of our history. If he had been killed by the Pakistanis---there would have been a civil war and the country would still be under Indian Army's control. Mujib's arrival from Pakistan brought a deep sense of relief to all the people of Bangladesh who were living in the midst of most dangerous uncertainties.  It seems that Mujib came back from the pedestal of an immortal betting only to die for saving the independence for which he struggled. It is true that Mujib faced a tragic death but he left Bangladesh free and independent. Maudud Ahmed P 313-318 'Era of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman". 'Mujib's arrival from Pakistan brought a deep sense of relief to all the people of Bangladesh, who were living in the midst of most dangerous uncertainties'.
 
SaifDevdas
islam1234@msn.com


To: khabor@yahoogroups.com
CC: dahuk@yahoogroups.com; mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com; witness-pioneer@yahoogroups.com; progressive-muslim@yahoogroups.com; political_analysts@yahoogroups.com
From: enayet_2000@yahoo.com
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:50:23 -0800
Subject: [khabor.com] General Zia was in the thick of 1975 killings in Dhaka: Zia is the savior!

 

Zia saved the country from the anarchy, Zia is the true savior. Zia is the most post-liberation progressive leader of bangladesh. While Seikh Mujib has a premitive thinking of Hitlar to be a dictator, and destroy democracy to instill his kingdom in Bangladesh, Zia thrives the country in the right direction.

Truth has to be told, history need to be said properly.

--- On Sat, 11/21/09, S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com> wrote:

From: S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com>
Subject: RE: [khabor.com] FW: [Mukto-Mona] Re: General Zia was in the thick of 1975 killings in Dhaka
To: khabor@yahoogroups.com
Cc: dahuk@yahoogroups.com, "mukto-mona@yahoogroups" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>, witness-pioneer@yahoogroups.com, "progressive-muslim@yahoogroups" <progressive-muslim@yahoogroups.com>, political_analysts@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, November 21, 2009, 11:46 AM

 


Dear sirs,

 

Assalamu Alaikum.General Zia did nothing on 15th Auguast. There is no proof.Even the case in which Bangladesh Supreme Court has given judgment , there is no mention of Zia,.As Maudud Ahmad has said the judgment shows that Zia had no role.

 

Zia saved the country from falling back to Awami League's BAKSHAL rule, one party dictatorship and also re-asserted the Islamic identity of the nation.

 

No other nation or group other than Bangladesh Army was involved. All other things are just Awami propaganda.

 

Shah Abdul Hannan

 

-----Original Message-----
From: khabor@yahoogroups. com [mailto:khabor@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of kaljatri@emailme. net
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 1:02 AM
To: khabor@yahoogroups. com
Subject: [khabor.com] FW: [Mukto-Mona] Re: General Zia was in the thick of 1975 killings in Dhaka

 

 


WRT: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/mukto- mona/message/ 52503

> The agents of Pakistan had already infiltrated into the army and
> started conspiring to kill the nascent democratic process brought
> on under the civilian political rule. The killers got support from
> the conspirator of all times named Gen. Ziaur Rahman.

  Pakistani agents infiltrated Baksali supported army in 1975 ??
  What a
  ridiculous claim. No scholarly article/book has ever made such a
  funny claim. The BD army in 1975 was very much a pro-Bangladeshi
  force who had played the leading role in the war of liberation
  against the Paki army. The officers who killed Mujib and toppled
  Baksali regime were all active freedom fighters with missionary
  zeal, unlike many AL leaders who were enjoying the sensuous
  pleasures in Kolkata the entire time during the liberation
  struggle). These army officers were all against Pakistani Gov. and
  supportive of liberation war. They staked their life for it. Why
  would they suddenly become Paki lovers in 1975? Doe it make sense?
  It makes sense for them to become anti Mujib/Baksal. They were not
  anti-AL even. They installed an AL gov. headed by Balist Moshtaque
  comprising majority of then then AL parliament members

  The reason they turned against Mujib and Baksal is manyfold. But
  none of those manyfold reasons had anything to do with
  infiltration by Pakistani elements. The manyfold reasons have all
  been well documented by many scholarly writings by professional
  journalists and intellectuals/ historians. In a nutshell the reason
  were the rampant corruption by AL/Baksal, the undemocratic
  measures widely adopted by Mujib to silence/torture opposition and
  keep his power through using Rakkhi Bahini and other private
  armies (like Lal Bahini, Awami Shechchha Shebok Bahini etc). There
  was widespread public resentment against the Mujib regime from
  1974 onwards. So much so that ASM Rob could declare "Mujib, we
  will peel your skin and make shoes out of it" to the thunderous
  applause of hundreds of thousands attending his rally in Paltan.
  Adding fuel to fire was the insulting of some army officers by
  some AL hooligans and Mujib's siding with the hooligans. None of
  these had anything to do with Pakistani elements. As I said the
  army  majors who fought against Pakistan in 1971 had no reason to
  suddenly become Pakistan lovers in 1975. In fact majors Farook and
  Rashid were very much nationalists then as they were during 1971
  and totally opposed to the idea of reverting to one Pakistan. On
  page 87 of Anthony Mascarenhas' "Bangladesh: A legacy of Blood"
  Mascarenhas mentions that if Moshtaq had dared to unite BD with
  Pakistan (There were rumours to that effect at that time) then "he
  would have been immediately killed by Majors Farook and Rashid,
  both staunch nationalists"

  Zia was no Paki lover either, nor had any reason to be either. Zia
  mentioned to Mascarenhas that he had been 'extremely suspicious
  about Moshtaq hobnobbing with Pakistanis' (mentioned on page 88 of
  Legacy of Blood).

  The fact is they had every reason to become anti Mujib in 1975,
  not pro pakistan. Anti Mujib does not mean Pro-Pak, a simple logic
  that does not get through the skull of Awamists, just like
  criticising Islam does not mean being pro-Christian/ pro-American/
  Pro-India, a logic that does not get through the thick skull of
  Islamists. In fact by diverting the blame to fictitious Pro-paki
  elements the Awamist try to deflect the attention away from their
  own misdeeds that led to the revolution and subsequent killing
  in 1975.

>"conspiring to kill the nascent democratic process brought on
> under the civilian political rule"
>

 ??? What a joke. It is pathetic how unabashedly one can make such a
  remark. It was Baksal who killed democracy. Does democracy mean
  installing a one party rule? Does democracy mean banning all
  newspapers except four that toes the official line? Does democracy
  mean raising private militia to suppress political opposition.
  Maybe thats what Awamists define as democracy. Just like the
  Islamists declare an Islamic state as the true form of democracy
  to them, the Awamists/Balists equate AL/Baksal rule as democracy.
  Any other option is undemocratic to Awamists just as it is to
  Islamists.

  "The killers got support from the conspirator of all times named
  Gen. Ziaur Rahman."??

  Another unsubstantiated claim by the Awamists. If by supporting
  means "not preventing the killing of Mujib" then not just Gen Zia,
  then the entire nation, including the majority of the then AL
  parliament members who joined the "killers" supported Mushtaq
  government can be said to have supported the killers. None did
  anything to protest/prevent the killing of Mujib. The ONLY person
  who laid down his life to protect Mujib was an army officer who
  was not even a freedom fighter, made no attempt to escape Pakistan
  in 1971 and was repatriated after independence. He was Colonel
  Jamil. He was just doing his duty as professional army offcier
  assigned to protect the presdient.

  Gen Zia did not do anything pro-active to support the killers nor
  did he do anything to stop them. But in no way did he offer
  support to the killers. In fact in Mascarenhas' Legacy of Blood on
  page 51 Mascarenhas mentions that Gen Zia was one among major
  Farook's hit list of army officers potentially offering resistance
  to their missions thus may have to be eliminated. Mascarenhas
  mentions on page 91 that Farook and Rashid had even considered
  arresting Zia along with Khaled Mosharraf.

  The responsibilty for stopping the majors from their mission lied
  not on Zia, but on Army Chief Gen Shafiullah, a veteran freedom
  fighter and AL's pick at that time. Even he must have felt so
  disgusted with AL/Baksal not to have risked going against the tide
  of Baksal Hotao operation. The entire events of 1975 had nothing
  to do with Pro-Pak or pro- anything. Most people who welcomed the
  elimination of Mujib were not pro-Pak, they were anti Mujib (Mujib
  as known b/w 1972-75). Many of them were Mujib lovers up until
  1973. There was no need or reason for Mujib killers to be Pro-Pak.
  Mujib had already offered Bhutto a red carpet reception, got
  Pakistan's recognition of BD, and wooed the Islamic countires for
  joining OIC, which he did. And Pakistan then was ruled by Bhutto's
  PPP party, Bhutto was an atheist and PPP was clearly soft towards
  socialist ideas. So what's there for the killers to be pro Pak
  unless they wer also very much an admirer of Bhutto, they
  obviously were not. The unpleasant bitter pill of truth that
  Awamists would not rather have people know is that there was
  exchanging of sweets after the news of Mujib's death. Majority
  were heaving a sigh of relief. A general sense of relief was felt
  among the mass. The only feeling of fear and uncertaintly that the
  Awamist is referring to was in fact a fear of reverting to status
  quo through some counter coup, or of a civil war between the
  supporters of AL and the new regime, which did not happen at all.
  The BAL/Baksal supporters simply had no moral courage to fight
  back knowing full well what kind of misdeeds they had committed
  between 1972-75 and the level of public resentment/disencha ntment
  against them. There is no need to have been alive and witnessed it
  first hand to see that. If the valiant freedom fighters and the
  people fought against the Pak military and laid down 3 million (an
  exaggeration but touted by Awamists, even if it was hundreds of
  thousands still a huge sacrifice) then if the killing of Mujib was
  unpopular with the people and was actually committed by Pro-paki
  elements, then there would surely would have been a similar mass
  movement against it. If popular uprising could defeat a formidable
  and unified Pak army with all their military machine and numbers,
  such a mass movement surely could have defeated a handful of
  junior officers with six antiquated tanks (The bulk of the army
  navy air force were not even under the command of those four
  majors). That in itself proves the lack of popular outcry against
  the killing of Mujib and against the end of Baksal. It is the
  condoning and tacit support by the masses for which the 1975
  revolt and killing met with no resistance. Anyone with a
  common sense can put two and two together and come to that
  conclusion.

  It is ironic that this Awamist and many others shed crocodile
  tears for Col Taher for being hanged by Zia's military court. Do
  they shed tears for Siraj Sikdar when he was killed by simply
  shooting on his back at Mujib's behest, which later Mujib bragged
  about saying "Kothay aaj Siraj Sikdar?". Taher did the most
  unprofessional thing in the army and he received army punishment
  for that. It was not Zia who used Taher but the other way around.
  It was Taher and the red brigade of Jashod who used Zia's
  popularity in the army to accomplish their red revolution using
  Zia as the front man knowing full well that he (Taher) or the
  Jashod brigade would not command that level of respect or
  acceptibility because of their bloody agenda of mass slaughter of
  entire army officer corps and elite of the society eventually if
  successfull. Zia tactfully managed Taher in turn to save the army
  from such a massacre and anarchy, or stop the massacre from
  further spreading. It is more ironic that Awamists praise Taher
  when in fact Taher and Jashod symbolized anti Mujibism. They would
  also have killed Mujib had thay gotten the opportuine moment.
  (Remenember Rob's declaration of peeling Mujib's skin to make
  shoes out of?) In fact they did not condemn or protest killing of
  Mujib but considered it as the first dirty step done by others so
  they could proceed with their own bloody red scheme, exploiting
  Zia's popularity.

  The rest of the ramblings about Zia's role in August killing is
  the Awamists personal spin on the events in 1971. It shows lack of
  professionalism and objectivity. One can only hope to get the best
  picture of what happened in 1975 and beyond by reading
  professional articles and books, not spin stories by Awami
  bigots,leftist Jashod fanatics or the Islamists. History is
  merciless, it does not necessarily favour one side or the other or
  all.

  - Jamil Asgor






Windows 7: It works the way you want. Learn more.

__._,_.___


[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

__,_._,___