Banner Advertiser

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

[mukto-mona] US supports BD war crimes trial




23 Jan 2013   11:52:19 AM   Wednesday BdST
  Print this E-mail this

যুদ্ধাপরাধের বিচারে যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের সমর্থন


স্টাফ করেসপন্ডেন্ট
বাংলানিউজটোয়েন্টিফোর.কম

ঢাকা: বাচ্চু রাজাকারের মতো মানবতাবিরোধী অপরাধীর বিচারে সমর্থন জানিয়েছে যুক্তরাষ্ট্র। তবে ফাঁসির দণ্ডাদেশ নিয়ে আপত্তি জানিয়েছে বিশ্বের এই প্রধান পরাশক্তি। 

বাংলাদেশ সময় বুধবার সকালে যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের পররাষ্ট্র মন্ত্রণালয়ের এক বিবৃতিতে বিশ্বের অন্যতম এই পরাশক্তি এ সমর্থন জানায়। একই সঙ্গে বিচার প্রক্রিয়ায় স্বচ্ছতা ও নিরপেক্ষতা বজায় রাখার তাগিদও দেওয়া হয় বিবৃতিতে। 
আন্তর্জাতিক মান বজায় রেখে বাংলাদেশের নিজস্ব আইনে এই বিচার হতে হবে বলেও বিবৃতিতে মন্তব্য করা হয়। আইনের শাসন নিশ্চিত করার আহবান জানানো হয় বাংলাদেশ সরকারের প্রতি। দেওয়া হয় আন্তর্জাতিক সনদ অনুসরণের পরামর্শ।

এতে বলা হয়, "এ ধরনের অপরাধ (মানবতাবিরোধী অপরাধ) যারা করে তাদের বিচার যুক্তরাষ্ট্র সমর্থন করে। একইসঙ্গে বিশ্বাস করে, এ বিচার অবশ্যই অবাধ, নিরপেক্ষ ও স্বচ্ছতার ভিত্তিতে হতে হবে।"

এর আগে মঙ্গলব‍ার ব্রিটিশ সরকারও এক বিবৃতিতে ১৯৭১ সালের নৃশংস কর্মকাণ্ডের জন্য দায়ীদের বিচারে বাংলাদেশের প্রচেষ্টাকে সমর্থন জানায়। তবে যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের মতোই মৃত্যুদণ্ডের বিরুদ্ধে অবস্থান নেয় এই ইউরোপীয় সুপারপাওয়ার। 

উল্লেখ্য, বাংলাদেশের মুক্তিযুদ্ধে গণহত্যা, খুন, ধর্ষণ, লুটপাট, অপহরণ ও নির্যাতনের দায়ে পলাতক আবুল কালাম আজাদ ওরফে বাচ্চু ‍রাজাকারের বিরুদ্ধে সোমবার ফাঁসির আদেশ দেন বাংলাদেশের আন্তর্জাতিক অপরাধ ট্রাইব্যুনাল।


বাংলাদেশ সময়: ১১৩৯ ঘণ্টা, জানুয়ারি ২৩, ২০১৩
জেডএম/

http://www.banglanews24.com/detailsnews.php?nssl=636340fea3a9fa8f0f7461e6faac9d2e&nttl=23012013168124

US supports BD war crimes trial

বাচ্চু রাজাকারের বিচারের রায়ে যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের সমর্থন
একাত্তরে গণহত্যা, খুন, ধর্ষণ, লুটপাটের দায়ে পলাতক আবুল কালাম আযাদের ফাঁসির দণ্ডাদেশের ব্যাপারে সমর্থন দিয়েছে যুক্তরাষ্ট্র। আজ সকালে (যুক্তরাষ্ট্র সময় মঙ্গলবার রাত) যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের পররাষ্ট্র মন্ত্রণালয়ের এক বিবৃতিতে বলা হয়, 'এ ধরনের অপরাধ (মানবতাবিরোধী অপরাধ) যারা করে তাদের বিচার যুক্তরাষ্ট্র সমর্থন করে।'... বিস্তারিত
বাংলাদেশ প্রতিদিন:


মানবতাবিরোধী অপরাধীদের বিচার সমর্থন করে যুক্তরাষ্ট্র

২৩ জানুয়ারি,২০১৩





আন্তর্জাতিক অপরাধ ট্রাইব্যুনাল কর্তৃক ধর্মীয় নেতা মাওলানা আবুল 

images

কালাম আযাদের মৃত্যুদণ্ডের রায়ের বিষয়ে প্রতিক্রিয়া জানিয়ে আমেরিকার যুক্তরাষ্ট্র বলেছে, মানবতাবিরোধী অপরাধীদের বিচারের আওতায় আনা সমর্থন করে যুক্তরাষ্ট্র। ওয়াশিংটনে স্থানীয় সময় মঙ্গলবার রাতে দেশটির পররাষ্ট্র মন্ত্রণালয় এক বিবৃতিতে একথা জানায়। . . . বিস্তারিত

যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের পূর্ণ বিবৃতি
একাত্তরে বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতাযুদ্ধকালে সংঘটিত মানবতাবিরোধী অপরাধের জন্য দেশটির আন্তর্জাতিক অপরাধ ট্রাইব্যুনাল কর্তৃক আবুল কালামের আযাদের অনুপস্থিতিতে তার বিচার শেষে সোমবার তাকে দোষী সাব্যস্তকরণ ও মৃত্যুদণ্ডের বিষয়টি খেয়াল রেখেছে যুক্তরাষ্ট্র। এ ধরণের অপরাধ যারা করেছে, তাদের বিচারের আওতায় আনা সমর্থন করে যুক্তরাষ্ট্র। তা সত্ত্বেও, এমন যেকোনো বিচার হতে হবে অবাধ, সুষ্ঠু ও স্বচ্ছ, ও জাতীয় মান এবং নাগরিক ও রাজনৈতিক অধিকারের আন্তর্জাতিক সনদসহ অন্য সব আন্তর্জাতিক চুক্তিতে অনুসমর্থন দেয়ার মাধ্যমে যে আন্তর্জাতিক মানের প্রতি সম্মত হয়েছে বাংলাদেশ- সেই মান অনুসারে।

স্বাধীনতাযুদ্ধকালে সংগঠিত নৃশংসতার ইতিহাস যখন বাংলাদেশ মোকাবিলা করছে এবং যখন আন্তর্জাতিক অপরাধ ট্রাইব্যুনালের আরো রায়ের জন্য যুক্তরাষ্ট্র অপেক্ষা করছে, তখন আন্তর্জাতিক সনদগুলোর বাধ্যবাধকতা অংশ হিসেবে যথাযথ মানসম্মত প্রক্রিয়া মেনে চলা এবং আইনের শাসনের প্রতি পূর্ণ শ্রদ্ধা রাখার জন্য আমরা আমরা বাংলাদেশ সরকারকে বলছি।

http://www.real-timenews.com//newsdetail/detail/8/9/57746#.UP-LPh2S934

পররাষ্ট্র মন্ত্রাণলয়ের বিবৃতিযুদ্ধাপরাধীদের বিচারে যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের সমর্থন নিজস্ব প্রতিবেদক


বিচারের রায়ে যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের সমর্থন, ফাঁসির দণ্ডাদেশ নিয়ে আপত্তি যুক্তরাজ্যের:

Also read:

যুদ্ধাপরাধীর বিচারে রায় মাইলফলক ॥ বিবিসি

Bangladesh cleric Abul Kalam Azad sentenced to die for war crimes:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21118998



Convicted Jamaati Mawlana Azad aka Bacchu Rajakar - was a Habitual Rapist - নারী লোলুপতা বাচ্চুর আলাদা বৈশিষ্ট্য
 
22 Jan 2013   01:08:48 PM   Tuesday BdST
   

নারী লোলুপতা বাচ্চুর আলাদা বৈশিষ্ট্য
অশোকেশ রায় ও রেজাউল করিম বিপুল


বাংলানিউজটোয়েন্টিফোর.কম

ফরিদপুর থেকে: একাত্তরে মুক্তিযুদ্ধ চলাকালে বাচ্চু রাজাকার যেমন কয়েকজন বাঙালি নারীকে ধর্ষণ করেছেন, স্বাধীনতার পরেও তেমনিভাবে তিনি তার স্বভাব ছাড়তে পারেননি। পঁচাত্তরে স্বঘোষিত এই মাওলানা ফরিদপুর শহরের টেপাখোলা মসজিদে ইমাম থাকাকালে এক দরিদ্র কিশোরীকে ধর্ষণের চেষ্টাকালে জনতার হাতে ধরা পড়েন। এ ঘটনায় বাচ্চু রাজাকার মসজিদ থেকে বিতাড়িত ও ফরিদপুর ছাড়া হন। এরপর আর তাকে ফরিদপুরে দেখা যায়নি।.........
Read details at:

http://www.banglanews24.com/detailsnews.php?nssl=5361c9817b7c40880984c3492c934ae0&nttl=22012013167864



বাচ্চু রাজাকার পাকিস্তানে ॥ ফিরিয়ে আনতে সর্বাত্মক চেষ্টা
পরিবারের গ্রেফতার হওয়া সদস্যদের জবানবন্দী, বিভিন্ন গোয়েন্দা সংস্থার তথ্য

Related:


মানবতাবিরোধী অপরাধ: মাওলানা আযাদের ফাঁসির আদেশ

 প্রাইম রিপোর্ট 

http://www.primenewsbd.com/2013/01/21/%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%8B%E0%A6%A7%E0%A7%80-%E0%A6%85%E0%A6%AA%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A7-%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%93%E0%A6%B2/

আযাদের ফাঁসির আদেশ:

বাচ্চু রাজাকারের ফাঁসি, গণহত্যার জন্য দায়ী জামায়াত
জাকিয়া আহমেদ, জেসমিন পাঁপড়ি ও মেহেদী হাসান পিয়াস


বাংলানিউজটোয়েন্টিফোর.কম

ঢাকা: ১৯৭১ সালে মহান মুক্তিযুদ্ধে মানবতাবিরোধী অপরাধের দায়ে আবুল কালাম আজাদ ওরফে বাচ্চু রাজাকারের মৃত্যুদণ্ড ঘোষণা করলেন আন্তর্জাতিক অপরাধ ট্রাইব্যুনাল-২। দেশে এই প্রথম যুদ্ধাপরাধের বিচারের রায় ঘোষণা করা হলো। সোমবার দুপুর পৌনে ১২টায় এই ঐতিহাসিক রায় ঘোষণা করা হয়। রায়ে ১৯৭১ সালে মহান মুক্তিযুদ্ধের সময় পরিচালিত গণহত্যার জন্য দায়ী করা হয় মুক্তিযুদ্ধের সশস্ত্র বিরোধিতাকারী দল জামায়াতে ইসলামীকে। ...........


Azad to be hanged for war crimes
Mon, 21/01/2013 - 12:06pm | by priyo.news

আবুল কালাম আজাদের মৃত্যুদণ্ডের রায় ঘোষণা
সোমবার, ২১ জানুয়ারি ২০১৩
Inline image 1











__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




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: [mukto-mona] King: I Have a Dream. Obama: I Have a Drone.



Drones have killed many foreign and local terrorists in Waziristan and Mr. Khan knows it very well. Who is inviting them there and who is patronizing them in that protected area? Is it a Pakistani area? Why would Afghanistan tolerate terror attacks from that area and not be able to confront them in their little comfy village? If you are constantly pelting stones from house to your neighbor's house, do you think he would care whether you one or ten children in your house? This is not a Gandhian world, my friend.

If these thugs are hiding amongst the civilians, then there will be civilian casualties. Pakistan can't have both ways. It was harboring Osama in their military garrison while it was fighting against the terror? Does it make sense?

Yes, Imran is from that part of the world. Imran knows no better than you and me. He wants Taliban support for his next election. Taliban do not care much about civilian deaths, it only cares about its own survival. They hate drones because they know they could be gone tomorrow. And, that keeps their adrenalin flowing all the time. Not healthy at all! I too would be calling relief from damn drones.
-SD


 
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS

From: QR <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] King: I Have a Dream. Obama: I Have a Drone.

 
I guess time will tell and if history from the 80's gave us a lesson on it. I sincerely hope I am wrong on this one. Because I hate to see innocent civilian casualties in long drawn wars. Maybe Imran Khan knows a bit more about the issue than you and I. Give it a thought...

Do remember, I don't lament death of any warriors but have serious concerns about INNOCENT CIVILIANS here. Are you for killing innocent civilians?

Shalom!


-----Original Message-----
From: Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Jan 22, 2013 1:14 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] King: I Have a Dream. Obama: I Have a Drone.

 
Engaging American troops to fight hand to hand combat with Taliban would be a foolish option. And, that would be a Talabanic dream. Why grant that wish? Obama has chosen right weapons to deal with right people. If we look at Pakistani civil war, it isTaliban, who have been killing more civilians and children than Americans. If more people want to be recruited to their evil cause, so be it.  And, face the consequence! Actually, the more recruitment baloney has become a broken record theme for many implicit Taliban patronizers like Imran Khan.
-SD  

 
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS

From: QR <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] King: I Have a Dream. Obama: I Have a Drone.

 
Drone is a VERY short term "Quick-fix" for a long term issue. Obama needs to think deeply about this and so far he has not been able to understand the effect of such misguided policies. Every bomb from drone (That kills a civilian) works as a requiting tool from violence prone groups.

Shalom!


-----Original Message-----
From: Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com>
Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 4:52 am
Subject: [mukto-mona] King: I Have a Dream. Obama: I Have a Drone.

 


http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/14012-king-i-have-a-dream-obama-i-have-a-drone

King: I Have a Dream. Obama: I Have a Drone.

Saturday, 19 January 2013 09:43 By Norman Solomon, Norman Solomon's Website | Op-Ed


<< In his eleventh month as president -- while escalating the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan, a process that tripled the American troop levels there -- Obama traveled to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. In his speech, he cast aspersions on the peace advocacy of another Nobel Peace laureate: Martin Luther King Jr.

The president struck a respectful tone as he whetted the rhetorical knife before twisting. "I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naive -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King," he said, just before swiftly implying that those two advocates of nonviolent direct action were, in fact, passive and naive. "I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people," Obama added.n his eleventh month as president -- while escalating the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan, a process that tripled the American troop levels there -- Obama traveled to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. In his speech, he cast aspersions on the peace advocacy of another Nobel Peace laureate: Martin Luther King Jr.


The president struck a respectful tone as he whetted the rhetorical knife before twisting. "I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naive -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King," he said, just before swiftly implying that those two advocates of nonviolent direct action were, in fact, passive and naive. "I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people," Obama added. >>


[Read more ...]

One of the comments:
Obama has morphed into Bush.....


http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html

Among other things since becoming president, Barack
Obama has:


Signed the NDAA into law - making it legal to assassinate
Americans w/o charge or trial.
Initiated, and personally oversees a 'Secret Kill List'.
Waged war on Libya without congressional approval.
Started a covert, drone war in Yemen.
Escalated the proxy war in Somalia.
Escalated the CIA drone war in Pakistan.
Maintained a presence in Iraq even after "ending" the war.
Sharply escalated the war in Afghanistan.
Secretly deployed US special forces to 75 countries.
Sold $30 billion of weapons to the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia.
Signed an agreement for 7 military bases in Colombia.
Opened a military base in Chile.
Touted nuclear power, even after the disaster in Japan.
Opened up deepwater oil drilling, even after the BP disaster.
Did a TV commercial promoting "clean coal".
Defended body scans and pat-downs at airports.
Signed the Patriot Act extension into law.
Deported a modern-record 1.5 million immigrants.
Continued Bush's rendition program.

--
"The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the
oppressed." --Steve Biko







__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




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: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] The myth of the murderous Muslim



I must say, in a forum like this, degrees and gold medals are not much worth. It is basically making a point against another point. It would be far better for us to keep our degrees home for our friends, families and work places. If you are not making good points, your degrees would be rather your burden. Nobody really cares how hard you worked for those degrees. We have grown beyond that point.  

From member Das's postings, I know that he could be pretty rough and tough and that is alright with me. We had some arguments in the past and it was OK. If you do not like his comments, please make a counter point to show that he is wrong. He can take few punches, I suppose?
With respect and regards,
-SD  

 
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS

From: MOHAMMAD KHAN <mak_285@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] The myth of the murderous Muslim

 
Mr. Kamal Das, you should have some decency when you write in a group. Could you tell us why you think this person who is going to Columbia University is an idiot? What is your qualification also?
M. Khan. M.D., F.R.C.S.
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 21 January 2013, 18:33
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] The myth of the murderous Muslim
 
This article is written by an idiot and propagated by another.

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:48 PM, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 
Dear members,

This is a good article to read. We spend so much time about history and Islam, it will be helpful to get a different perspective.


Shalom!


----
 
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/01/2013127211920494.html
 
Haroon Moghul Haroon Moghul is a Fellow at New America Foundation and the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. He is an author and a graduate student at Columbia University.

Haroon Moghul

The myth of the murderous Muslim


Islamophobia promotes a "racialised view of Islam" - the actions of the few represent the "intentions" of the whole.
 
The West has invented weapons of mass destruction and "used them in ways no other parts of the world have" [AP]
Muslims are subversive jihadists. The Middle East is perpetually unstable. "Islam has bloody borders." If you've already made up your mind, you'll find a way to twist the facts to support your conclusion. And if the facts don't do the job, you can always hire new ones. In the last year, American anti-Muslim hate groups have increased threefold. As playwright Wajahat Ali and others have found, the farther we move away from the September 11 terrorist attacks, the worse discrimination, prejudice and violence against Muslims become. There's a simple enough reason for this: Islamophobia has become an industry. In the absence of alternative narratives, which can make sense of Muslim extremism, place it into context and guide American domestic and foreign policy, we are stuck with the voices we have - too often, these have been unqualified and uninformed. It will take us a long time to get past the damage done by years of well-funded Islamophobes, who have dominated the media landscape (finally answering, incidentally, why it is that "Muslims don't do more to condemn terrorism" - nobody was listening). But the resistance to bigotry has already begun and has already scored a number of successes. There is only so long, after all, you can lie to people.The boy who cried Islamist
Islamophobia promotes a racialised view of Islam, viewing Arabs and Middle Easterners and Muslims generally as one interchangeable, subversive, homogenous mass; the actions of the few represent the intentions and aspirations of the whole. Thus we were led to believe there could be a plausible connection between bin Laden and Saddam. The resulting cost in American lives, treasure and credibility, is hard to quantify. This is Islamophobia's fruit: poisonous policies. For reasons of strategic shortsightedness alone, Islamophobia would be discredited soon enough. But there's another reason: Islamophobia doesn't correspond to reality. The more likely an American is to know a Muslim, the more likely she is to have a positive view of Islam. Exposure undermines prejudice. That is, meeting real Muslims pushes aside the media narrative that is so pernicious and harmful. Why? Because much of what Islamophobia peddles is hyperbolic, fanciful, or meaningless. Let's see how Islamophobia does its damage. The value extends beyond anti-Muslim bigotry, by the way. The same type of "reasoning" is employed by all bigotries - radical Muslim voices, who require a conflict between a homogenous West and an ideally homogenous Islam, make the same types of arguments, often down to the disturbing details. But then it shouldn't be any surprise that extremisms are broadly similar, or that they need to see opposites in the world, for their own identities to take root and thrive.

A lie told often enough feels true
Consider this interview from The New York Times, in which a prominent anti-Muslim voice makes the following remark:
Why isn't it a shrine dedicated to the victims of 9/11 or the 270 million victims of over a millennium of jihadi wars, land appropriations, cultural annihilations and enslavements?
The woman behind these words, who I have no interest in naming (I don't want to give her any more attention than she already has), used to be a regular on Fox News, but has lost even that perch. Her extremism was too extreme. (Indeed, one of the best ways to fight Islamophobia is to give the bigots a microphone and let them keep talking. Their disturbing rhetoric will soon unsettle the overwhelming majority of people, who recoil from such extremism.)
But let's spend a moment to reflect on this allegation; namely, that "270 million" are victims of a homogenous jihadi juggernaut. It is certainly an amazingly precise claim. It is often frequently repeated - Islamophobia resembles nothing if not an echo chamber of incorrectness. In the months since, I've encountered many anti-Muslim voices repeat or inflate this number. Most recently, I've been challenged to explain the "300 million" killed by "jihad".
Even if we stick with the lower number, I can tell you that this number was probably pulled out of thin air. (Even if it wasn't, as I will show, it doesn't matter.) But for the sake of argument, let's take this claim seriously. Namely, that "Muslims" killed somewhere between two or three hundred million. Can that be possible? Where does this number come from? Does it reveal a uniquely and dangerously recurrent Islamic aptitude for mass violence? In short, no, out of nowhere, and no.
1,000 years of jihad
First, I think, it'd make sense to choose a time period. We're told there were 1,000 years of jihad, although to be fair, elsewhere the same person described millions of years of jihad, but this is a thought exercise. I imagine she means the period from roughly 600 to 1600 AD, which covers the time when Muslim states were generally not (as was subsequently true) on the receiving end of colonial conquest.
When Islam emerged in western Arabia, around 610 AD, the total population of the world was likely between 300 and 400 million. Fast forward to right past our period. The United Nations Census Report suggests that the world's total population in the year 1800 was 1 billion; since then, of course, it has shot up to some seven billion.
At that point, the world's largest Muslim population, which would be located in South Asia, was almost entirely under British rule. (In 1947, the population of the Indian subcontinent was under 350 million.) We are being asked to believe that jihadis killed, by the year 1600, more people than lived in South Asia in the year 1600. Keep in mind that India is one of the most densely populated parts of the planet and has long been a centre of world culture and civilisation.
How did Muslims kill so many people?
India, or properly most of northern India, was under Muslim rule from 1200 to 1800. By the Islamophobe's logic, millions of these Indians should have been slaughtered. But by whom? Muslims were never more than a minority and Islam was never imposed by force. The proof for this is in the geography - the capitals of Muslim India rotated between cities like Delhi and Agra, but conversion proceeded most widely on the fringes of these empires, in what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh. This is like saying the Roman Empire imposed Christianity and Christian populations were found farthest from the centre of imperial power.
Further, under Muslim rule, India became increasingly wealthy. (The same happened, by the way, in Muslim Spain, as Arab rule brought with it an agricultural revolution and an urbanising boom.) How was India becoming increasingly wealthy while its Muslim rulers were slaughtering Indians left, right and centre? How were they able to cause so much damage, for so long, without being overthrown? Muslims never enjoyed the kind of decisive advantage in military technology the West enjoyed after 1800. And the organisation of Muslim India gives the lie to the entire edifice of eternal jihadism.
 
Dutch photographer was held by "Jihadis" on Turkey-Syria border
The capital of the world
We often look to the Ottomans as the world's most powerful pre-modern Muslim dynasty. But the Mughals, rulers of much of South Asia, ruled over far more people and were far wealthier - compare Istanbul's monuments to the Taj Mahal and you'll see what I mean. There is however one thing both empires had in common: both ruled over majority non-Muslim populations.
Under the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan, who built the Taj Mahal, some 30 percent of this Muslim dynasty's nobility were not Muslim, a proportion that had risen to 50 percent in the reign of his son Aurangzeb (1658-1707). By nobility, I mean those individuals given land and status based on their ability to muster troops to defend and expand the realm. If Islam was perpetual jihadism, why would so many non-Muslims join in - and be allowed to join in? If Muslims were savages bent on perpetual terror, by what moronic logic would they arm their enemies, teach them to fight and incorporate them into their armies? What would we make of the fact that the greatest threat to late 17th century Mughal rule was the remarkable rebellion of a Hindu king named Shivaji, who was finally captured and defeated by the Mughals' senior most general, whose name was Jai Singh - he, too, was not a Muslim.
Somewhere jihadis are killing everyone they come across, more or less, but still Muslim dynasties remain in power, their wealth increases, the urbanisation of their population increases and they leave behind magnificent public and private structures, which suggests they had quite a bit of free time. When the Ottoman Empire finally collapsed at the end of World War I, its capital, then called Constantinople, was over 50 percent non-Muslim. This is not to suggest the Ottomans were liberal democrats. But it also suggests they were remarkably tolerant for their time. Probably no other city in Europe was so diverse.
And we're not even talking about most of the planet.
Muslims aren't everywhere
Many of the territories conquered, ruled or dominated by Muslims, such as Central Asia, North Africa and Arabia were comparatively empty. Muslim dynasties never touched the Americas, Australia or East Asia; the last of these undoubtedly held a significant percentage of the world's population throughout the last 1,000 years plus.
So Muslims, who ruled over vast desert spaces and many sparsely populated areas of the world, still killed something of the equivalent of one-quarter of the world's population in 1800. When the first Mughal emperor Babur conquered north India - from another Muslim dynasty, I might add - his army is estimated to number around 10,000; his opponent's army is estimated at several times than that.
Is it conceivable that Muslim empires, such as the Umayyads, Ottomans and Mughals, who ruled over majority non-Muslim populations, could have contributed to the killing of huge percentages of the world's population while staying in power for centuries? How would they, as minorities, have been capable of sustained carnage for decades at a time? When did they get the time to build huge public works projects, establish towns, rebuild cities, fund wells, hospitals, mosques, pools and fountains?
What technological advantage did they have that made them so superior to their enemies that they could sustain such a bloody and vicious record - for 1,000 years? The Mongols exploded out into the world and caused horrific damage, but they managed that for only a few centuries and left nothing of the kind of legacy the great Muslim empires did. Indeed, the Mongols ended up adopting the religion of the peoples they conquered, whereas the reverse happened early in the Muslim period.
A most post-modern warfare
And thus we are left with an implausible and absurd suggestion that jihad killed 270 million people. But even with all this, still three more points need to be stressed, because in recognising their significance, we recognise the ultimate absurdity of the Islamophobic worldview.
First, more Muslims died fighting each other than died in battles against non-Muslim dynasties. Armies were often mixed too, which drives bigots off the wall; when the Ottomans were defeated at Vienna in 1683, they were finished off by a charge of Polish Muslim cavalry, allied with their enemies. Where do these casualties fit in? Should we arbitrarily decide that "intra-Muslim jihad" killed 50 percent of the total number? Why not, considering most of Islamophobia's made up? How were Muslims who so often fought each other also able to fight everyone else? Unless of course it's not about Islam versus non-Islam.
"Islamophobes link events that take place across the planet and hundreds of centuries apart and want us to take it seriously."
Second, this isn't real history. It's dumping "facts" on the unawares, hoping that the sheer flood of information covers up the lack of an explanatory framework. Not only does the Islamophobe play loose and fast with very different eras, places and peoples, but she ties events together without attempting to explain why. If jihad is really the most murderous ideology ever and it is equal to Islam, then why would so many people become Muslim? What motivated their violence? What sustained it? And how come most Muslims live peaceable lives? Bigots make up history because actual history undermines them.
Third, let's say for the sake of argument Muslims killed 300 million people over a 1,000 year span. That doesn't mean anything. One could just as easily construct a counter-narrative that works like Islamophobia does: arbitrarily, ignorantly and entirely unself-consciously. I mean, we'd link disparate events based on the religious (or cultural) identity of the culprit.
We could construct a narrative of Western perfidy in response.
According to Charles Mann's 1491, which explores the pre-Columbian Americas, nearly 100 million perished during the European "Age of Discovery", making that the most violent contact between peoples in human history. Nothing in Islamic history remotely compares. With the typical sloppiness of the Islamophobe, we could note how Western ideologies like Communism and Nazism led conservatively to the deaths of another 120 million people; we could note the brutal colonial exploitation of Africa and Asia, in which millions more perished and then breathlessly announce, "Five Hundred Years of Western Civilisation Kills Hundreds of Millions!"
We could toss in the fact that the West has invented weapons of mass destruction and used them in ways no other parts of the world have. (Chemical weapons in World War I; aerial bombing was invented by the Italians against Libyan civilians; and, of course, only America has used nuclear weapons, and twice, both times against civilian targets.) But this would be stupid, because it assumes that people in different times and places are the same, responsible for each other's actions and should only be judged by the dark chapters of their history.
Osama bin Laden portrayed the history of Islam and the West as one long narrative of confrontation, as do many intemperate and extremist voices. He chose to ignore all the countervailing evidence and ignored the differences between times and places, peoples and their leaders. He downplayed and dismissed the achievements of Western culture and civilisation, of which there are so many I'm hard-pressed to know where even to begin. Penicillin? Goethe? The modern museum? Islamophobes play a similar game, linking events that take place across the planet and hundreds of centuries apart, and they want us to take this seriously. And so you get numbers like "270 million" or "300 million". And these are brought up talismanically, as if they constitute overwhelming proof. The Islamophobe is completely and congenitally incapable of reflexivity. They cannot, in other words, look in the mirror; their mind has been made up, and what history is marshalled is not to engage in discussion but to preclude it.
The jihad on accuracy There is this last little problem. The Muslim proportion of the world's population has accelerated dramatically in the past centuries and continues to do so today; during our 600-1600 AD window, there were far fewer Muslims in the world, proportionally speaking. Which means we have to figure out what everyone else was up to. What about the people killed by other peoples - or, the biggest killer of all back then - disease and its most vulnerable victims, infants and the young? Where do we put the Crusades, the Aztecs and the Incans, the Eastern Roman Empire, the Mongols (good heavens), Slavs and Byzantines, the Chinese, Korean and Japanese?
Add them all together, and more people were probably killed than ever lived, which is about as accurate as you can expect this kind of nonsense to be.
Haroon Moghul is a Fellow at New America Foundation and the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. He is an author and a graduate student at Columbia University.
Follow him on Twitter: @hsmoghul
2858
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.




__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




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: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] The myth of the murderous Muslim



The author has no sense of history.  He believes that Islam was a peaceful creed, thoughout history it had been otherwise.  Mr. Khan, you look like a new contributor in this forum. I am here for about a decade, and nobody considers me decent here.  With decency, no opinion gets through.  No decent person enters in any forum with the degrees he/she has earned over the years.  I happen to be an ignorant professor of chemistry in a third world university with a few years of graduate school attendance in United States.  However, history is a discipline completely different from medicine or chemistry.  One has to learn the subject before writing anything on it.

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 3:15 AM, MOHAMMAD KHAN <mak_285@yahoo.com> wrote:
 


Mr. Kamal Das, you should have some decency when you write in a group. Could you tell us why you think this person who is going to Columbia University is an idiot? What is your qualification also?
M. Khan. M.D., F.R.C.S.

From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 21 January 2013, 18:33
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] The myth of the murderous Muslim
 
This article is written by an idiot and propagated by another.

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:48 PM, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 
Dear members,

This is a good article to read. We spend so much time about history and Islam, it will be helpful to get a different perspective.


Shalom!


----
 
 
Haroon Moghul Haroon Moghul is a Fellow at New America Foundation and the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. He is an author and a graduate student at Columbia University.

Haroon Moghul

The myth of the murderous Muslim


Islamophobia promotes a "racialised view of Islam" - the actions of the few represent the "intentions" of the whole.
 
The West has invented weapons of mass destruction and "used them in ways no other parts of the world have" [AP]
Muslims are subversive jihadists. The Middle East is perpetually unstable. "Islam has bloody borders." If you've already made up your mind, you'll find a way to twist the facts to support your conclusion. And if the facts don't do the job, you can always hire new ones. In the last year, American anti-Muslim hate groups have increased threefold. As playwright Wajahat Ali and others have found, the farther we move away from the September 11 terrorist attacks, the worse discrimination, prejudice and violence against Muslims become. There's a simple enough reason for this: Islamophobia has become an industry. In the absence of alternative narratives, which can make sense of Muslim extremism, place it into context and guide American domestic and foreign policy, we are stuck with the voices we have - too often, these have been unqualified and uninformed.It will take us a long time to get past the damage done by years of well-funded Islamophobes, who have dominated the media landscape (finally answering, incidentally, why it is that "Muslims don't do more to condemn terrorism" - nobody was listening). But the resistance to bigotry has already begun and has already scored a number of successes.There is only so long, after all, you can lie to people.The boy who cried Islamist
Islamophobia promotes a racialised view of Islam, viewing Arabs and Middle Easterners and Muslims generally as one interchangeable, subversive, homogenous mass; the actions of the few represent the intentions and aspirations of the whole. Thus we were led to believe there could be a plausible connection between bin Laden and Saddam. The resulting cost in American lives, treasure and credibility, is hard to quantify. This is Islamophobia's fruit: poisonous policies.For reasons of strategic shortsightedness alone, Islamophobia would be discredited soon enough. But there's another reason: Islamophobia doesn't correspond to reality. The more likely an American is to know a Muslim, the more likely she is to have a positive view of Islam. Exposure undermines prejudice. That is, meeting real Muslims pushes aside the media narrative that is so pernicious and harmful. Why? Because much of what Islamophobia peddles is hyperbolic, fanciful, or meaningless.Let's see how Islamophobia does its damage. The value extends beyond anti-Muslim bigotry, by the way. The same type of "reasoning" is employed by all bigotries - radical Muslim voices, who require a conflict between a homogenous West and an ideally homogenous Islam, make the same types of arguments, often down to the disturbing details. But then it shouldn't be any surprise that extremisms are broadly similar, or that they need to see opposites in the world, for their own identities to take root and thrive.

A lie told often enough feels true
Consider this interview from The New York Times, in which a prominent anti-Muslim voice makes the following remark:
Why isn't it a shrine dedicated to the victims of 9/11 or the 270 million victims of over a millennium of jihadi wars, land appropriations, cultural annihilations and enslavements?
The woman behind these words, who I have no interest in naming (I don't want to give her any more attention than she already has), used to be a regular on Fox News, but has lost even that perch. Her extremism was too extreme. (Indeed, one of the best ways to fight Islamophobia is to give the bigots a microphone and let them keep talking. Their disturbing rhetoric will soon unsettle the overwhelming majority of people, who recoil from such extremism.)
But let's spend a moment to reflect on this allegation; namely, that "270 million" are victims of a homogenous jihadi juggernaut. It is certainly an amazingly precise claim. It is often frequently repeated - Islamophobia resembles nothing if not an echo chamber of incorrectness. In the months since, I've encountered many anti-Muslim voices repeat or inflate this number. Most recently, I've been challenged to explain the "300 million" killed by "jihad".
Even if we stick with the lower number, I can tell you that this number was probably pulled out of thin air. (Even if it wasn't, as I will show, it doesn't matter.) But for the sake of argument, let's take this claim seriously. Namely, that "Muslims" killed somewhere between two or three hundred million. Can that be possible? Where does this number come from? Does it reveal a uniquely and dangerously recurrent Islamic aptitude for mass violence? In short, no, out of nowhere, and no.
1,000 years of jihad
First, I think, it'd make sense to choose a time period. We're told there were 1,000 years of jihad, although to be fair, elsewhere the same person described millions of years of jihad, but this is a thought exercise. I imagine she means the period from roughly 600 to 1600 AD, which covers the time when Muslim states were generally not (as was subsequently true) on the receiving end of colonial conquest.
When Islam emerged in western Arabia, around 610 AD, the total population of the world was likely between 300 and 400 million. Fast forward to right past our period. The United Nations Census Report suggests that the world's total population in the year 1800 was 1 billion; since then, of course, it has shot up to some seven billion.
At that point, the world's largest Muslim population, which would be located in South Asia, was almost entirely under British rule. (In 1947, the population of the Indian subcontinent was under 350 million.) We are being asked to believe that jihadis killed, by the year 1600, more people than lived in South Asia in the year 1600. Keep in mind that India is one of the most densely populated parts of the planet and has long been a centre of world culture and civilisation.
How did Muslims kill so many people?
India, or properly most of northern India, was under Muslim rule from 1200 to 1800. By the Islamophobe's logic, millions of these Indians should have been slaughtered. But by whom? Muslims were never more than a minority and Islam was never imposed by force. The proof for this is in the geography - the capitals of Muslim India rotated between cities like Delhi and Agra, but conversion proceeded most widely on the fringes of these empires, in what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh. This is like saying the Roman Empire imposed Christianity and Christian populations were found farthest from the centre of imperial power.
Further, under Muslim rule, India became increasingly wealthy. (The same happened, by the way, in Muslim Spain, as Arab rule brought with it an agricultural revolution and an urbanising boom.) How was India becoming increasingly wealthy while its Muslim rulers were slaughtering Indians left, right and centre? How were they able to cause so much damage, for so long, without being overthrown? Muslims never enjoyed the kind of decisive advantage in military technology the West enjoyed after 1800. And the organisation of Muslim India gives the lie to the entire edifice of eternal jihadism.
 
Dutch photographer was held by "Jihadis" on Turkey-Syria border
The capital of the world
We often look to the Ottomans as the world's most powerful pre-modern Muslim dynasty. But the Mughals, rulers of much of South Asia, ruled over far more people and were far wealthier - compare Istanbul's monuments to the Taj Mahal and you'll see what I mean. There is however one thing both empires had in common: both ruled over majority non-Muslim populations.
Under the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan, who built the Taj Mahal, some 30 percent of this Muslim dynasty's nobility were not Muslim, a proportion that had risen to 50 percent in the reign of his son Aurangzeb (1658-1707). By nobility, I mean those individuals given land and status based on their ability to muster troops to defend and expand the realm. If Islam was perpetual jihadism, why would so many non-Muslims join in - and be allowed to join in?If Muslims were savages bent on perpetual terror, by what moronic logic would they arm their enemies, teach them to fight and incorporate them into their armies? What would we make of the fact that the greatest threat to late 17th century Mughal rule was the remarkable rebellion of a Hindu king named Shivaji, who was finally captured and defeated by the Mughals' senior most general, whose name was Jai Singh - he, too, was not a Muslim.
Somewhere jihadis are killing everyone they come across, more or less, but still Muslim dynasties remain in power, their wealth increases, the urbanisation of their population increases and they leave behind magnificent public and private structures, which suggests they had quite a bit of free time. When the Ottoman Empire finally collapsed at the end of World War I, its capital, then called Constantinople, was over 50 percent non-Muslim. This is not to suggest the Ottomans were liberal democrats. But it also suggests they were remarkably tolerant for their time. Probably no other city in Europe was so diverse.
And we're not even talking about most of the planet.
Muslims aren't everywhere
Many of the territories conquered, ruled or dominated by Muslims, such as Central Asia, North Africa and Arabia were comparatively empty. Muslim dynasties never touched the Americas, Australia or East Asia; the last of these undoubtedly held a significant percentage of the world's population throughout the last 1,000 years plus.
So Muslims, who ruled over vast desert spaces and many sparsely populated areas of the world, still killed something of the equivalent of one-quarter of the world's population in 1800. When the first Mughal emperor Babur conquered north India - from another Muslim dynasty, I might add - his army is estimated to number around 10,000; his opponent's army is estimated at several times than that.
Is it conceivable that Muslim empires, such as the Umayyads, Ottomans and Mughals, who ruled over majority non-Muslim populations, could have contributed to the killing of huge percentages of the world's population while staying in power for centuries? How would they, as minorities, have been capable of sustained carnage for decades at a time? When did they get the time to build huge public works projects, establish towns, rebuild cities, fund wells, hospitals, mosques, pools and fountains?
What technological advantage did they have that made them so superior to their enemies that they could sustain such a bloody and vicious record - for 1,000 years? The Mongols exploded out into the world and caused horrific damage, but they managed that for only a few centuries and left nothing of the kind of legacy the great Muslim empires did. Indeed, the Mongols ended up adopting the religion of the peoples they conquered, whereas the reverse happened early in the Muslim period.
A most post-modern warfare
And thus we are left with an implausible and absurd suggestion that jihad killed 270 million people. But even with all this, still three more points need to be stressed, because in recognising their significance, we recognise the ultimate absurdity of the Islamophobic worldview.
First, more Muslims died fighting each other than died in battles against non-Muslim dynasties. Armies were often mixed too, which drives bigots off the wall; when the Ottomans were defeated at Vienna in 1683, they were finished off by a charge of Polish Muslim cavalry, allied with their enemies. Where do these casualties fit in? Should we arbitrarily decide that "intra-Muslim jihad" killed 50 percent of the total number? Why not, considering most of Islamophobia's made up? How were Muslims who so often fought each other also able to fight everyone else?Unless of course it's not about Islam versus non-Islam.
"Islamophobes link events that take place across the planet and hundreds of centuries apart and want us to take it seriously."
Second, this isn't real history. It's dumping "facts" on the unawares, hoping that the sheer flood of information covers up the lack of an explanatory framework. Not only does the Islamophobe play loose and fast with very different eras, places and peoples, but she ties events together without attempting to explain why. If jihad is really the most murderous ideology ever and it is equal to Islam, then why would so many people become Muslim? What motivated their violence? What sustained it? And how come most Muslims live peaceable lives?Bigots make up history because actual history undermines them.
Third, let's say for the sake of argument Muslims killed 300 million people over a 1,000 year span. That doesn't mean anything. One could just as easily construct a counter-narrative that works like Islamophobia does: arbitrarily, ignorantly and entirely unself-consciously. I mean, we'd link disparate events based on the religious (or cultural) identity of the culprit.
We could construct a narrative of Western perfidy in response.
According to Charles Mann's 1491, which explores the pre-Columbian Americas, nearly 100 million perished during the European "Age of Discovery", making that the most violent contact between peoples in human history. Nothing in Islamic history remotely compares. With the typical sloppiness of the Islamophobe, we could note how Western ideologies like Communism and Nazism led conservatively to the deaths of another 120 million people; we could note the brutal colonial exploitation of Africa and Asia, in which millions more perished and then breathlessly announce, "Five Hundred Years of Western Civilisation Kills Hundreds of Millions!"
We could toss in the fact that the West has invented weapons of mass destruction and used them in ways no other parts of the world have. (Chemical weapons in World War I; aerial bombing was invented by the Italians against Libyan civilians; and, of course, only America has used nuclear weapons, and twice, both times against civilian targets.) But this would be stupid, because it assumes that people in different times and places are the same, responsible for each other's actions and should only be judged by the dark chapters of their history.
Osama bin Laden portrayed the history of Islam and the West as one long narrative of confrontation, as do many intemperate and extremist voices. He chose to ignore all the countervailing evidence and ignored the differences between times and places, peoples and their leaders. He downplayed and dismissed the achievements of Western culture and civilisation, of which there are so many I'm hard-pressed to know where even to begin. Penicillin? Goethe? The modern museum? Islamophobes play a similar game, linking events that take place across the planet and hundreds of centuries apart, and they want us to take this seriously. And so you get numbers like "270 million" or "300 million". And these are brought up talismanically, as if they constitute overwhelming proof. The Islamophobe is completely and congenitally incapable of reflexivity. They cannot, in other words, look in the mirror; their mind has been made up, and what history is marshalled is not to engage in discussion but to preclude it.
The jihad on accuracyThere is this last little problem. The Muslim proportion of the world's population has accelerated dramatically in the past centuries and continues to do so today; during our 600-1600 AD window, there were far fewer Muslims in the world, proportionally speaking. Which means we have to figure out what everyone else was up to. What about the people killed by other peoples - or, the biggest killer of all back then - disease and its most vulnerable victims, infants and the young? Where do we put the Crusades, the Aztecs and the Incans, the Eastern Roman Empire, the Mongols (good heavens), Slavs and Byzantines, the Chinese, Korean and Japanese?
Add them all together, and more people were probably killed than ever lived, which is about as accurate as you can expect this kind of nonsense to be.
Haroon Moghul is a Fellow at New America Foundation and the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. He is an author and a graduate student at Columbia University.
Follow him on Twitter: @hsmoghul
2858
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.




__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




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

__,_._,___