Banner Advertiser

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

[ALOCHONA] Obama’s India visit: Lessons for Bangladesh

Obama's India visit: Lessons for Bangladesh

M. Shahidul Islam

Those who had expected to witness the grand finale of an Indo-US
ganging up against China during President Barack Obama's just
concluded Delhi visit are bound to be frustrated by the visit's
outcome. Not only the incisive US President carried a message of hope
for the region, his balancing act between antagonistic regional powers
was superbly delivered, leaving much for countries like Bangladesh to
learn from.

Kashmir dispute
In a bold and visionary move to diffuse the simmering Indo-Pak
tension that stands at the centre of the increased Chinese strategic
entanglements in South Asia, President Obama confessed that the US
cannot provide a solution to the India-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir,
but can play 'any role' if the two countries so desire.
Reiterating that the Kashmir row is a 'long-standing dispute
between India and Pakistan', Obama said it was in the interest of both
New Delhi and Islamabad to reduce tensions between them.
In response, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh addressed Obama's
concerns over Kashmir in the most subtle manner. "While India was not
scared of discussing the "K-word (Kashmir)", it could not be expected
to hold talks so long as Pakistan did not move away from
terror-induced coercion to dismantle the terror machine operating from
its soil," Singh maintained.

Pleasing overtures
Despite that, the major highlights of the visit indicated how much
of priority President Obama had attached to forging a lasting tie with
India. In pleasing overtures endorsing the Indian bid for permanent
membership at the UNSC, the US President said, "I can say today, in
years ahead, I look forward to a reformed UN Security Council that
includes India as a permanent member."
The US President also assuaged his hosts by reminding the Pakistani
leadership that, "We will continue to insist with Pakistan's leaders
that terrorist safe havens within their borders are unacceptable and
that the terrorists behind the Mumbai attacks be brought to justice."
Although the US President reassured Delhi that the US will not
'merely cheer India's rise from the sidelines but will stand
shoulder-to-shoulder with it, he also cautioned Delhi about its
deserved role in regional politics. Throwing flaks on what seems to
Washington India's double standard vis a vis Myanmar, the US President
exhorted Delhi to stand up on issues like democracy and human rights
in Myanmar.

Pakistani reactions
Expectedly, Pakistan reacted to the US President's support for
Delhi's bid for Permanent membership at the UNSC with caustic and
rebuttal-like gestures. India's 'expansionist designs' were
contradictory to the charter of the Security Council, declared
Pakistan on November 9, in response to the US stand on India's
Security Council membership bid. Hours later, leaders of the
Pakistani-administered Kashmir joined the chorus to voice similar
anti-Indian opposition.
Meanwhile, a foreign office spokesperson in Islamabad said,
"Pakistan has taken notice of the (US) president's statement because
the stance of Pakistan regarding reforms in UNSC is based on
principles." The official added, "The expansionist designs of India
are contradictory to the charter of Security Council and India's
aggression towards neighbouring countries, and the violation of UN
resolutions on Kashmir are a proof of the apprehensions of Pakistan."
The official cautioned, "The US should focus on the morals instead of
backing power politics in the region."
These hyperbolic diplomatic and geopolitical innuendos helped
little to deflect Obama's eye ball from what he wanted to achieve in
Delhi in the first place. Dogged by severe economic crisis at home,
the US President and his mammoth entourage inked, on the margins of
the president's trip, trade transactions exceeding $14.9 billion in
total, with $9.5 billion in US export content, which would support an
estimated 53,670 US jobs at a time when the US unemployment rate is
almost 10 percent.
Already, the Indo-US economic collaborations have had phenomenal
successes since Delhi decided to support Washington following
terrorist attacks in the USA in 2001, and, by 2008, U.S. exports of
agricultural products to India totalled $489 million. Leading the pack
was tree nuts ($187 million), cotton ($103 million), and pulses ($63
million), while U.S. imports of agricultural products from India
totalled $1.6 billion; India becoming the US's 16th largest supplier
of agricultural products.
Experts believe two-way trade will overshoot the $50 billion mark
by the end of the current fiscal, with investments moving in both
directions. Prior to the visit, India's Ambassador to the US, Meera
Shankar, said Indian Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) was growing so
fast in US markets that "Indian companies have created 65,000 jobs in
the USA, both in terms of green field projects and by means of mergers
and acquisitions."
Lately, Indian investment in the USA became the second largest,
with its share increasing from 5.7 percent in 2009 to 6.5 percent in
2010. Informational Technology, pharmaceuticals and manufacturing
sectors accounted for about 60 percent of the deals taking place in
2008-2009. Cumulatively, over the last decade, investment capital flow
from India to the USA grew at an annualized rate of 53 percent,
reaching an estimated $4.4 billion in 2009.

Other collaborations
According to a White House source, Prime Minister Singh and
President Obama agreed to take mutual steps to implement a four-part
export control reform program that will encompass US support for
India's membership in the multilateral export control regimes, remove
India's defence and space-related entities from the US "Entity List,"
activate export licensing policy realignment and boost export control
cooperation.
Other collaborative arrangements include, according to US
officials: (1) development, testing, and replication of transformative
technologies to extend food security in India as part of an "Evergreen
Revolution", (2) Counterterrorism Cooperation, (3) Civil Space
Cooperation, (4) Clean Energy and Climate Change, (5) Civil space
collaboration; including space exploration, earth observation, and
scientific education, (6) Cyber security and defence cooperation, etc.

Strategic tangles
If there is anything controversial, it was the signing of a
memorandum of understanding, according to Indian officials, or an
outright pact, according to Pakistani officials, to establish with the
US help what will be known as the India's Global Centre for Nuclear
Energy Partnership. This is the move that had made Islamabad too
upset, perhaps Beijing too, according to diplomatic sources.
Pakistan is upset because not only the US President expressed his
unwillingness to get involved in the long-standing dispute over Jammu
and Kashmir, the intimate US-India civil nuclear partnership—and the
symbolism of Obama starting his visit at the Taj Hotel in Mumbai which
is the site of the 2008 terror attack that has been blamed on
Pakistani militants—seemed too partisan for a US President who should
have treated both India and Pakistan as allies of similar import.
Many Pakistani analysts believe, despite the US having announced
recently a $2 billion aid package for the Pakistani army and the
signing off a staggering $7.5 billion civilian aid deal in 2009,
Washington's partnership with Islamabad remains highly questionable.
Pakistan also failed to decode what Mr. Singh and Mr. Obama meant by
agreeing to expand cooperation on strategic issues facing the US and
India and 'broadening strategic collaborations in all fronts.'
That may be the reason why Islamabad's security and intelligence
hubs are abuzz with rumours that the signing on November 9 of a 'pact'
to establish a Global Centre for Nuclear Energy Partnership in the
northern Indian state of Haryana, too close to Pakistan, is designed
as an eves dropping outpost against Pakistan. Though little is known
about the pact as yet, one source said the deal was inked by India's
Secretary of the Department of Atomic Energy, Srikumar Banerjee, and
U.S. Ambassador to India, Timothy Roemer.

China factor
The most fascinating aspect of the US President's India visit was
the conspicuous absence in the speeches and the joint communiqué of
both the leaders of any derogatory reference to China, the perceptual
nemesis they both wish to circumscribe and check mate jointly in a
broader Great Game that has been in the making for years now.
This is perhaps due to the acute awareness of the ground realities
by both the leaders. Prime Minister Singh is too mature to get
provoked against Beijing while President Obama's grasp of global
affairs is of higher merit.
Despite phenomenal improvement in US-India relations, US-China
relations have more depths; the US posting a trade figure of almost
$50 billion with China in 2009 while China fetching $298 billion from
its trade with the USA. The US has also invested more than $60 billion
in about 55,000 projects in China, mostly in outsourcing ventures,
while the corresponding figures in India are as yet negligible.
China's financial stake in the USA is another major factor. The
only economy with substantial liquid cash in hand at this precarious
economic time, Beijing's financial stake in the USA, as of early 2010,
was over $2 trillion, or the equivalent of nearly 15 percent of U.S.
public debt. Beijing's central stature lies in the fact that, the more
the trade surplus it accumulates from increased exports, the more it
invests abroad; China's currency rules not allowing foreign reserves
to be used domestically.
That allows the USA, India, as well as Bangladesh and other
economies to expect more Chinese investment, the current Chinese
reserve of nearly $3.5 trillion. If President Obama and Prime Minister
Singh understand that reality, so shall our leaders.


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

[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] China begins damming Brahmaputra

China begins damming Brahmaputra

BEIJING, Nov 17 (bdnews24.com) — China has started damming the middle
reaches of the Brahmaputra River, or the Yarlung Tsangpo as it is
known in Tibet, to begin construction on a 510MW hydropower project
that has raised concerns in India.

The government for the first time revealed that it has, since November
8, begun damming the Tsangpo's flow to allow work to begin on the
hydropower project at Zangmu, reports The Hindu.

This is the first major dam on the Brahmaputra and has been billed by
the Chinese government as a landmark hydropower generation project for
Tibet's development.

A news report on Monday said the "closure of the Yarlung Zangbo River
on November 12 marked the beginning of construction." Work is expected
to continue beyond 2014, when the first set of generators will be put
into operation. The total investment in the project is 7.9 billion
yuan ($1.2 billion).

The Indian government has raised concerns about the possible
downstream impact of this project during talks with China earlier this
year. Chinese officials have assured their Indian counterparts that
the project would be "run of the river," having little impact
downstream.

China has said that its projects were only for hydropower generation,
and were neither storage projects nor designed to divert the water.

Officials at India's Ministry of External Affairs have, however,
voiced frustration over China's general lack of willingness to share
information regarding the Zangmu project, meaning they had little
means to verify claims on the specific construction plans and impact
on flows.

According to Ramaswamy R. Iyer, former Water Resources Secretary of
the Government of India, for India "the point to examine would be the
quantum of possible diversion and the impact it would have on the
flows to India."

Usually, to ensure that the flow downstream remains unaffected during
the period of construction of a dam, the water is diverted through
streams around the construction site and returned to the river.

"Since the flow of the water cannot be stopped, the water will be
diverted so there will be no reduction of flow in this stage," Mr
Iyer, who is an authority on dams and transboundary water issues, told
The Hindu on Monday, speaking from New Delhi.

He stressed that he was speaking in general terms regarding any dam
construction, and did not have specific details regarding how China
was carrying out this particular project.

There is still some uncertainty on what China intends for the project,
and whether or not a storage reservoir, which could affect downstream
flows, will be built beyond the minimal "pondage" required to operate
the turbines.

Chinese media reports indicated that the Zangmu project is unlikely to
be the last on the Brahmaputra. A news report on the widely read
portal Tencent said the Zangmu dam was "a landmark project" for
Tibet's development, being the first major dam in Tibet, and "a
project of priority in the Eleventh Five Year Plan."

The report said that such projects would "greatly relieve the energy
stress in the middle regions of Tibet" and upgrade power capacity from
100 MW to over 500 MW.

'NO TREATY'

Mr Iyer said a larger concern for India was the absence of a
water-sharing treaty with China, which does not allow India to either
qualify or address Chinese claims regarding specific projects.

"Between India and Pakistan, we have a treaty which specifies what we
should do," he said. "We're not supposed to retain a drop, and [even]
during a stated period of construction, inflow is equal to outflow."

"But with China," he added, "we have no treaty. So what they will do,
we have no idea."

http://bdnews24.com/details.php?id=179138&cid=2


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

[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] Private television channels: Illegal activities under legal cover

Private television channels: Illegal activities under legal cover

Up to 1997, Bangladeshi television viewers were rather forced to watch
just one television channel run by the state – Bangladesh Television
(BTV). Taking such advantage of monopoly, BTV was continuing to serve
the purpose of every ruling government and regime; though people of
Bangladesh were compensating this state-run TV channel with billions
of Taka through licensing fee as well it was getting advertisement
worth a few hundred million Takas every year.

Indian government opened its sky in 1992, when satellite based
television channels like Zee TV came into operation. In the entire
sub-continent, India was the only country to have its private
television channel in addition to state controlled Dur Darshan.

Private television industry started emerging in Bangladesh in 1998,
when country's first private television channel A-21 TV came into
operation using an analog transponder with Thaicom-3 satellite. Later,
Indian owned ATN channel turned into a Bangladeshi channel with the
new name and title as ATN-Bangla. Promising entrepreneur Dr. Mahfuzur
Rahman initiated this channel. With the emergence of ATN-Bangla, the
beginning of huge growth of private television channels in the country
started in full swing. Others who joined the race are Ekushey TV (the
only terrestrial based private television channel in Bangladesh, TEN
TV (later named as NTV), Channel I (owned by TV personality Faridur
Reza Shagor and Shaikh Siraj), RTV (owned by political secretary to
the Prime Minister), Channel One (owned by a number of corrupt
'businessman' having affiliations with Hawa Bhaban), Diganta TV (owned
by a leader of Jamaat-e-Islami), Bangla Vision (owned by a leader of
Bangladesh Nationalist Party), Boishakhi TV (owned by a leader of
Bangladesh Nationalist Party) and Islamic Television (owned by younger
brother of the then Prime Minister).

When Awami League formed government in 2009, a number of broadcast
licenses were issued to few more TV channels. These are, MY TV (owned
by an activist of Awami League), Desh TV (owned by Saber Hussain
Chowdhury, a leader of Bangladesh Awami Lague), Mohona TV (owned by an
MP of Bangladesh Awami League), Masranga TV (owned by a former advisor
of the military controlled interim government), Channel 71 (owned by
Awami League leaders), Somoy TV (owned by leaders of Bangladesh Awami
League), Independent TV (owned by a policymaker of Bangladesh Awami
League) and Bijoy TV (owned by leaders of Bangladesh Awami League).

It is important to note that for past few years, no broadcast license
was ever issued to any non-partisan candidates in the country, for
reason well understood. None of the political parties aspire to see
any private television channel in the country, which would go for
accurate news coverage or in other words, telling the truth to the
viewers. Needless to mention that, most of these TV channels are mere
mouthpiece of the respective political parties.

Presently there are 20 plus private television channels in Bangladesh,
while a few more TV channels will commence broadcast soon. This figure
is really huge for a country like Bangladesh, which is no bigger than
the geographical area of West Bengal in India or Iowa in United
States. And of course, this is the point of huge concern for those
program directors and especially producers, who are involving their
skill and money in making programs for these private television
channels. According to press reports, most of these private TV
channels owe millions to Takas to the program makers in the country.
Owners of the TV channels have greatly failed in even giving any
specific schedule of payment to the makers. On the other hand,
advertisement revenue from the local market is not enough even to feed
more than 7 private channels, while 20 plus channels will stand as
potential burden for the advertisers in the country. It is anticipated
that many of the TV channels with political might may flex muscles in
extracting advertisements from the entrepreneurs in future, if not
doing it already.

But, the most important point here, which needs to be addressed by the
Bangladesh Bank and the ministries concerned is, each of the private
television channels are paying at least US$ 25,000 per month as rental
of satellite transponders. In this case, an amount of US$ 500,000 plus
is going abroad to various satellite operators in the world, as rental
for the transponders. On the other hand, several TV channels, such as
Channel I, ATN-Bangla, NTV, Diganta, Ekushey TV etc are using multiple
satellites and fiber optic highways for spreading its signals to
various continents in the world, with the aim of getting more viewers.
According to Bangladesh Bank, none of the private television channels
ever approached them for any permission for regular remittance of such
huge amount of foreign currency for paying satellite transponder
rentals. Bangladesh government is also running a satellite based
channel named BTV-World, from which they will come to verify the
figure and fact about monthly rental of satellite transponders.

On the other hand, all the private television channels are required to
pay 15% of its total advertisement revenue as Value Added tax to the
National exchequer. According to latest statistics, the pending
amounts of VAT of the private television channels are:

ATN-Bangla: TK. 98.55 crore
Channel I: TK. 117.43 crore
NTV: TK. 41.76 crore
RTV: TK. 29.92 crore
Boishakhi: TK. 23.30 crore
Bangla Vision: TK. 19.54 crore
Islamic TV: TK. 3.11 crore
Diganta TV: TK. 4.07 crore
MY TV: 6.16 crore
Desh TV: TK. 5.43 crore

Departments concerned confirmed that, none of the private television
channels are paying the amount of VAT, which is mandatory on all.

Immediate investigation into the matter of payment of VAT by the
private television channels as well as legal actions for illegally
transferring huge amount of foreign currency every year in paying the
rental of satellite transponders should be initiated by the government
for the sake of transparency in this sector.

http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2010/11/bangladesh-illegal-activities-under.html


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

[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] The war of 1971: Civil War or Liberation War?

In the 1st war ever to be called 'Civil War', USA's Army had fought against seceding Confederate's Army, who sat in the same Parliament before that.
It has nothing common with 1971.
1857 Rebellion was called Liberation War before your grandfathers were born and 1971 was similar to that so shut up. 1971 was not a Civil War.
Army does not start looting, raping and killing un-armed innocent people in a Civil War like Pak Army. There was nothing 'Civil' about West Pakistan attacking majority of Pakistanis because Army was made up of West Pakistani Punjabis, who's ancestors had opposed formation of Pakistan.
--------
--- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, "ezajur" <Ezajur@...> wrote:
>
> What's with the "you people" business? Contempt for AL hoodlums and idiots does not always automatically translate into support for the hoodlums and idiots of other parties. Unless of course one is a hoodlum or idiot of AL and BNP in the first place.
>
>
>
> --- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, "ANDREWL" <turkman@> wrote:
> >
> > Oh sure and you people never chant any slogans, never come on streets and never vandalize. You just sit in your Mosques and pray for man-kind everyday, right?
> >
> > --- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, "Emanur Rahman" <emanur@> wrote:
> > >
> > > This calls for an Awami League "missil" surely? They can burn cars, buses, books and fight running battles with a few policemen (unlikely) and chant great slogans about Mujib and his dynasty. In fact, anything but....
> > >
> > > ....lodge any kind of meaningful protest with these respected academics and publishers.
> > >
> > > After all, who apart from themselves would take any of their drivel seriously??
> > >
> > >
> > > Emanur Rahman | m. +447734567561 | e. emanur@
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: "Mahbubur Razzaque" <mmrazzaque@>
> > > Sender: alochona@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:48:00
> > > To: <dahuk@yahoogroups.com>; <alochona@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Reply-To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
> > > Cc: <banglarnari@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: [ALOCHONA] The war of 1971: Civil War or Liberation War?
> > >
> > > The war of 1971: Civil War or Liberation War?
> > >
> > > M. Mahbubur Razzaque
> > >
> > > The recent incidents related to the international war-crime tribunal in
> > > Bangladesh led me to look into the academic records on the war of 1971.
> > > Though the Bangladeshi people considers the war as "liberation war" of
> > > Bangladesh, the academic records of all international institutions generally
> > > mentions it as either civil war or India-Pakistan war.
> > >
> > > I browsed a number of popular encyclopedia such as:
> > >
> > > 1. Encyclopedia Britannica of Encyclopedia Britannica Inc.,
> > >
> > > 2. World Encyclopedia, A Dictionary of World History, The Oxford
> > > Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World and Concise Oxford Companion to the
> > > English Language of Oxford University Press,
> > >
> > > 3. The Columbia Encyclopedia of Columbia University Press,
> > >
> > > 4. Banglapedia: National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh of the Asiatic
> > > Society of Bangladesh and
> > >
> > > 5. MSN Encarta of Microsoft Inc.
> > >
> > > The records under the entry Bangladesh are listed below:
> > >
> > > 1. Bangladesh emerged as an independent and sovereign country on 16
> > > December 1971 following a nine month WAR OF LIBERATION.
> > >
> > > Source: Banglapedia: National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh, Vol. 1, Published
> > > by the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, March 2003.
> > >
> > > 2. In 1971, the territory seceded from Pakistan during a short war
> > > and became independent.
> > >
> > > Source: Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language, 1998, Author: TOM
> > > McARTHUR
> > >
> > > 3. The Awami League a political party campaigned openly for
> > > Bengali autonomy. In 1970 the Awami League won a majority of seats in the
> > > National Assembly, but the Pakistan government postponed convening the
> > > Assembly. Violence erupted and guerrilla warfare resulted. Millions of
> > > refugees fled to India, which finally entered the war on the side of the
> > > Bengalis and ensured West Pakistan's defeat. On December, 16, 1971, East
> > > Bengal became the independent nation of Bangladesh, with the capital at
> > > Dhaka.
> > > S
> > > ource: The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 1, Published by: Encyclopedia
> > > Britannica Inc., 1994.
> > >
> > > 4. In 1970 elections, the Awami League, led by Mujibur Rahman, won a
> > > landslide victory. In March 1971, the League unilaterally declared
> > > independence and civil war ensued. During nine months of fighting, more than
> > > one million East Bengalis were killed and millions more forced into exile,
> > > mainly to India. With Indian military assistance, East Bengal defeated
> > > Pakistan and gained independence as Bangladesh.
> > >
> > > Source: World Encyclopedia, Published by Oxford University Press, 2005.
> > >
> > > 5. In 1966 the Awami League put forward a demand for greater
> > > autonomy which it proposed to implement after its victory in the 1970
> > > elections. In March 1971, when this demand was rejected by the military
> > > government of Pakistan, civil war began, leading to a massive exodus of
> > > refugees to India. India sent help to the East Pakistan guerrillas (the
> > > Mukti Bahini). In the war of December 1971, Indian troops defeated the
> > > Pakistan forces in East Pakistan. The independence of Bangladesh was
> > > proclaimed in 1971 and recognized by Pakistan in 1974.
> > >
> > > Source: A Dictionary of World History, Published by Oxford University Press,
> > > 2000.
> > >
> > > 6. The government's attempts to forestall the autonomy bid led to
> > > general strikes and nonpayment of taxes in East Pakistan and finally to
> > > civil war on Mar. 25, 1971. On the following day the Awami League's leaders
> > > proclaimed the independence of Bangladesh. During the months of conflict an
> > > estimated one million Bengalis were killed in East Pakistan and another 10
> > > million fled into exile in India.
> > > Source: The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed., 2007, Columbia University Press.
> > >
> > > 7. By the mid 1950s Bengali enthusiasm for the Muslim League, which
> > > had spearheaded Pakistani independence, became deeply eroded. The growing
> > > rift between Pakistan's eastern and western wings broke into rebellion in
> > > 1971, and, led by the secular nationalist Awami League, an independent
> > > Bangladesh was born.
> > >
> > > Source: The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, Vol. 1: Editor
> > > in chief: J. L.
> > > Esposito, Published by: Oxford University Press, 1995.
> > >
> > > Whether we like it or not, it is only the Banglapedia where the war of at
> > > the birth of Bangladesh is reported as the WAR OF LIBERATION. This
> > > encyclopedia is published by the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh.
> > > Unfortunately other encyclopedias published by famous academic publishers
> > > associated with renowned academic institutions reported the war as either a
> > > civil war or a rebellion.
> > >
> > >
> > > The records of other entries under Mujibur Rahman, Dhaka, India, Pakistan
> > > and India Pakistan Wars are listed below:
> > >
> > > Entry: Mujibur RahmanThe conflict between East and West Pakistan climaxed
> > > after the Dec., 1970, elections, in which the Awami League won a majority.
> > > Zulfikar Ali Bhutto , leader of West Pakistan, refused to agree to demands
> > > for autonomy, and Mujib was imprisoned in West Pakistan. Civil war broke out
> > > in Mar., 1971, when Pakistani troops were sent to put down protests in East
> > > Pakistan. With the aid of India, East Pakistani guerrillas proclaimed an
> > > independent Bangladesh , and defeated the Pakistani army in late 1971.
> > >
> > > Source: The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2007
> > >
> > > Entry: Dhaka
> > > Severely damaged during the war of independence from Pakistan, it became
> > > capital of independent Bangladesh (1971).
> > >
> > > Source: World Encyclopedia, Published by Oxford University Press, 2005.
> > >
> > > Entry: India
> > > But these years also witnessed three brief wars between India and Pakistan,
> > > the last of which resulted in an independent Bangladesh in 1971.
> > >
> > > Source: The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 6, Published by: Encyclopedia
> > > Britannica Inc., 1994.
> > >
> > > Entry: Pakistan:
> > > In East Pakistan demands grew for Bengali autonomy, and civil war between
> > > East and West erupted in 1971. Aided by an invasion of the Indian army, East
> > > Pakistan became the independent county of Bangladesh in 1972.
> > >
> > > Source: The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 9, Published by: Encyclopedia
> > > Britannica Inc., 1994.
> > >
> > > East Pakistan declared its independence as Bangladesh on Mar. 26, 1971, but
> > > was then placed under martial law and occupied by the Pakistani army, which
> > > was composed entirely of troops from West Pakistan. In the ensuing civil
> > > war, some 10 million refugees fled to India and hundreds of thousands of
> > > civilians were killed. India supported Bangladesh and on Dec. 3, 1971, sent
> > > troops into East Pakistan. Following a two-week war between Pakistan and
> > > India, in which fighting also broke out along the India-West Pakistan
> > > border, Pakistani troops in East Pakistan surrendered (Dec. 16) and a cease-
> > > fire was declared on all fronts.
> > >
> > > Source: The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2007
> > >
> > > Entry: India-Pakistan Wars The third war arose out of the civil war between
> > > East and West Pakistan in 1971. India intervened in support of East Pakistan
> > > (Bangladesh), and (West) Pakistan suffered a decisive defeat.
> > >
> > > Source: World Encyclopedia, Published by Oxford University Press, 2005.
> > >
> > > The 1971 War
> > >
> > > Indo-Pakistani relations deteriorated when civil war erupted in Pakistan,
> > > pitting the West Pakistan army against East Pakistanis demanding greater
> > > autonomy. The fighting forced 10 million East Pakistani Bengalis to flee to
> > > India.
> > >
> > > Source: The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed., 2007, Columbia University Press.
> > >
> > > Article: Pakistan : wars : secession of Bangladesh: 1971: Pakistan
> > > This year the differences between East Pakistan and West Pakistan erupted
> > > into a civil war that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands in the
> > > eastern part of the country, which is divided from West Pakistan by 1,000
> > > miles and by profound differences in culture and language.
> > >
> > > Source: MSN Encarta
> > > http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=Bangladesh+war
> > >
> > >
> > > Other than in the entry Dhaka in the World Encyclopedia of Oxford University
> > > Press, the liberation war of Bangladesh is described as a civil war. It may
> > > be concluded that Bangladesh has failed to make majority of the academicians
> > > of the west recognize Bangladesh liberation war in the academic records.
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > [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@! Groups Links
> > >
> >
>


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

[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] Iraq: Toppling a Country: from Statue to Legality

So, what do you want?
You want nobody to bother Tyrants?
Saddam's Tyranny was legal because USA's Tyranny is not?

--- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, Isha Khan <bdmailer@...> wrote:
>
> Iraq: Toppling a Country: from Statue to Legality
>
> by Felicity Arbuthnot
>
>
> "*The welfare of the people, in particular, has always been the alibi of
> tyrants."* (Albert Camus, 1913-1960.)
>
>
> Throughout Iraq, Americans bringing "freedom from tyranny", with their
> British auxiliaries, and their few arm twisted "coalition", largely morphed
> in to tyrants overnight. As with Saddam Hussein's statue, the U.S., simply
> covered legality with an American flag - and toppled it. And as across the
> country, indiscriminate, unaccountable killing sprees started early on - and
> continue still.
>
> U.S., wickednesses in Fallujah, the district by district liquidations, have
> probably been documented in more detail, than any other city, town or
> village, in deaths, injuries and deformities, so serves one tragic service -
> as an invaluable test case for war crimes and crimes against humanity in
> Iraq. Whilst the recent, chilling Report by Busby, et al., (1) in the
> International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, has
> received deserved publicity, and been presented to the U.N., another,
> presented to the 15th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in
> Geneva (13th September-1st October) has received less so.
>
> "Testimonies of Crimes Against Humanity in Fallujah - Towards a Fair
> International Criminal Trial"(2): "... pleads and implores", the United
> Nations in : ".. respect for the memory (of the) victims, to investigate the
> crimes and violations", in the document, and all that: "has been inflicted
> upon Iraq, placing the country at the top of the world's daily list for
> deaths, displaced persons, both internally and externally, the ensuing
> savage corruption, child molestation, rape, rampant kidnapping, contrary to
> the noble goals and (founding aspirations) of your Organisation."
>
> After the invasion and fall of Baghdad, the document records, Fallujah
> remained calm, escaping the turmoil engulfing the rest of Iraq. Exactly two
> weeks after the toppling of the statue, on 23rd April 2003, when a group of
> students peacefully demonstrated outside Al Quds school, for its return by
> the U.S., soldiers, who had - without consultation - taken it over as a
> base, so they could resume studies. The response was massive violence.
>
> The troops fired "indiscriminately" killing thirteen and wounding seventy
> five. Three of the dead were children under eleven. In a depressingly
> familiar story, according to Dr Ahmed Ghanim Al-Ali, the then hospital
> Director, they also fired on the medical staff who came to rescue the
> injured.
>
> A week later, troops fired on a funeral, the first such occurrence in Iraq,
> which, with Afghanistan, along with wedding parties and mourning gatherings,
> have become a disgraceful litany. Two were killed and fourteen wounded,
> including children.
>
> In the early hours of the second anniversary of the falling of the Twin
> Towers, a group driving a blue BMW, fired on the offices of the Mayor of
> Fallujah. Chased by the Fallujah Protection Force, the car disappeared in to
> a U.S., camp just outside the city. Returning, they came under heavy fire,
> eight were killed and two wounded. Again the ambulances were fired on and
> prevented assisting.
>
> Those marking an atrocity at home, with executions abroad, transpired to be
> both U.S., forces and allegedly, with much substantiating evidence,
> mercenaries of the notorious Blackwater Security (now XL.) It took repeated
> demands by Fallujah's Mayor and others for the U.S., military to finally
> hand back the bodies (which: " ... had been left in the back of crushed
> vehicles in the burning sun") and two traumatised injured.
>
> Acts of violence, murders, arrests, incarceration without trial and general
> acts of terror, are the hallmark of the freedom promised to the people of
> Iraq.
>
> Ironically, American forces, with representatives from then U.S., "Viceroy"
> Paul Bremer's Office, in a meeting with the City Council, tried to recruit
> locals as agents, for protection. Seemingly, they were told that according
> to the Geneva Conventions, protection of Iraqis lay with the occupying
> forces. Outside, were BMWs - driven by Blackwater staff. Bremer had given
> the company its first contract (for a reported $21 million) in Iraq.
>
> It was against the background the brutal, deviant behaviour, that, on 31st
> March 2004, four Blackwater employees, Scott Helvenston, Jerko Slovko,
> Wesley Bataloni and Mike Teague, were brutally murdered, dragged through the
> streets, their bodies hung over a bridge spanning the Euphrates.
>
> The action was presented to the world, largely, as an example of the
> irrational endemic violence in Iraqis. The brutal treatment of Iraqis, at
> the hands of the invading forces and Blackwater, had scant mention in the
> main stream media.
>
> Little can be found about the last three victims - but surreally,
> Helvenston, a former U.S., Navy SEAL, had been a personal trainer for
> Hollywood celebrities, including Demi Moore and had taken to reality shows
> such as: "Combat Missions", and: "Man vs Beast", where he completed an
> obstacle course faster then a chimpanzee. Tragically, though, not faster
> than the Fallujans. His last reality show appearance: "Extreme Expeditions :
> Model Behaviour", had still to be shown at the time of his death.(3)
>
> The revenge April retaliation, came in spite of attempts by the City Council
> to mediate and negotiate. "U.S., troops rejected the intervention of and
> presence of the U.N." A tape recording of their refusal to negotiate and
> stated determination to strike the city, is witness to their lawless
> rejection.
>
> U.S., troops gave orders that no one was to leave the city. The population
> was trapped, reminiscent of General Norman Schwartzkopf's "turkey shoot" on
> the Basra Road, in 1991, with the road blocked at both ends and no escape.
> The bridge to the hospital was cut off, condemning the wounded to death,
> with five hundred pound bombs, and cluster bombs being dropped on Fallujah's
> families - who had nowhere to hide.
>
> That attack, with the subsequent one in October-November 2004, were compared
> to Guernica, and without doubt equal some of history's most shameful
> episodes. The people besieged in a reign of terror, of pure, primitive,
> savagery - targeted with weaponry of mass destruction.
>
> Instructed by the troops to hold a white flag if they ventured out,
> sickeningly, U.S., snipers, then targeted heads of those who dared, in
> desperation, for help, food, water, medical aid, water and telephones having
> been cut, in contravention to the Geneva Convention. Also in contravention,
> is fact the forces had anyway, prevented essential foodstuffs and medicines
> from coming in.
>
> The Report to the Human Rights Commission further reminds of the ongoing
> bombing between the two major assaults, which has continued, year on year.
> Whilst the two major attacks on Fallujah have been recorded in acres of
> newsprint (see also 4) the voices of the survivors have been largely absent.
> The document records those of one hundred and sixteen, from April's
> onslaught, with several earlier ones. Just some of the newly enfranchised,
> collaterally damaged, disposable Iraqis, include:
>
> *Ahmed Hassan Shaker was killed on 6th January 2004, on going outside his
> home to find the cause of bullets "which were ringing out." A missile killed
> him and his wife, Sihan, instantly. They left six orphans, the eldest six,
> the youngest, just seven months. (Witness, Ahmed Hassan's father.) The U.S.,
> military apologized to the family. No compensation has been forthcoming.
>
> *Montaser Sami Hammad Ali al-Awani, killed, on 7th June 2003: " .. by random
> firing of U.S., troops on civilians", in Fallujah's Nazzal district.
> (Witness, his father.)
>
> *Ahmed Obaid M'hidi Saud Issawi, died on 27th October 2003, when: "U.S.,
> forces opened fire indiscrimately at everyone ..." (Witness, his brother.)
>
> *In April 2004, Ali Dahi Abd Muflih lost fifteen members of his family, the
> majority women and children, when their home was completely destroyed by a
> U.S., missile. (Witness, surviving family member.)
>
> *April 2004, Alaa Najim Abdullah Al-Issawi shot in the head by a U.S.,
> sniper. (Witness, his brother.)
>
> * St Valentine's Day, 14th April 2004, Fatah Saad Abbas al-Issawi, eight
> years old, killed as a result of "indiscriminate firearm" discharge.
> (Witness, her father.)
>
> * Heba Abd Awda Jafil al-Halbusi, twenty, killed by U.S., sniper, whilst
> trying to escape "hell of U.S., fire", with her family. (Witness, her
> father.)
>
> *Marwa Mohammed Khalif, her age not recorded, by a bullet to the head.
> (Witness, her mother.)
>
> *17th April 2004, Ali Ismail Obeid Jassim Salman al-Issawi, aged five, and
> his brother, Hakki, Ismail Obeid Jassim Salman al-Issawi, ten, both killed
> by a sniper, whilst playing in front of their house. Buried together in the
> same grave. (Witness, their father.)
>
> Throughout the testimonies, the words "indiscriminate", "random", "rampage"
> and "sniper" come up unceasingly. Other victims of this very democratic kind
> of killing, since there was no discrimination, included: Ayah (six);
> Fadhela, (thirteen); Mohammed, (nine); Shaimaa (fifteen); Alia (thirteen);
> Bushra (fifteen); Naba (three); Salwa (twelve); Baida (eleven); Hanin
> (seven.) As in the following November's psychopathic purge, the football
> pitch became a cemetery - but in November, they would need two.
>
> The reign of terror in this city, which has existed since - and in some
> linguistic and archeological evidence, maybe before - Babylonian times, has
> continued, with "arbitrary arrests", "systematic torture", and allegations
> "of a policy of humiliation."
>
> Dogs were unleashed by both military and often those accompanying them in
> plain clothes, suspicions falling on Blackwater again, in a litany. Just one
> victim was thirteen year old Ameen, whose twenty two year old university
> student and bread winner brother, Sineen, was shot "in a hail of bullets"
> when these mixed forces broke in to their home, after blowing out the door.
>
> Ameen was beaten, his hand badly damaged by dogs, the all, he described
> carried out by men with beards and ear rings. As he was being beaten, it
> transpired, others were putting his brother's bloodied, mutilated body under
> a mattress, behind the curtains. This was after their father had been killed
> in the April 2004 bombardment.
>
> Leaving the house ransacked and belongings smashed, the group allegedly
> rampaged through the neighbourhood, injuring, "robbing and stealing ...
> money and jewellery .." The U.S., forces, has thus taken a town which had
> escaped the invasion's murderous chaos, but has it rained upon them by the
> occupying forces, for now, approaching eight years.
>
> As Dirk Adriaensens (5) has written: "The latest 'incident' occurred on
> Wednesday 15 September 2010 (following the official 'withdrawal' of US
> troops.) Seven civilians were killed and four injured. Their names will be
> added to the endless list of victims of the U.S., aggression against this
> troubled city. May they never be forgotten."
>
> Killed during the raid by US/Iraqi forces on 15 September 2010
>
> * Humadi Jassim Ahmed..........old man
> * Manzel Humadi Jassim Ahmed.........youngster
> * Sameer Humadi Jassim Ahmed........youngster
> * Sadiek Humadi Jassim Ahmed.........youngster
> * Abid Swissan Ahmed.........old man
> * Yassein Abid Swissan Ahmed.......youngster
> * Yassein Kassar Saad........Former Iraqi officer in Iraqi army
> • Injured civilians
> * Omar Humadi Jassim.......youngster
> * Ibrahim Abid Kassar.........youngster
> * Hathima Jassim (85 years old)
> * Ahmed Humadi Jassim ....youngster
>
>
> Whilst the people of Fallujah are stalked by visible killers in the form of
> Americans with their hardware, they live with an invisible one, in the
> residues left by the weapons used, including depleted uranium, the
> radioactivity and toxicity of which they eat, breathe and drink, since it
> can be measured in air and seeps in to the water table, affecting fauna and
> flora.
>
> "In 2006, 5,928 cases of previously unknown, or rarely seen diseases were
> diagnosed (in Fallujah)", records the Report. "In the first half of 2007,
> 2,447 seriously ill patients were admitted, showing mostly little known
> symptoms. Fifty percent were children ... five years after the 2004 attacks,
> cancers had multiplied by four." In five years: "a twelve fold incident in
> fourteen year olds was noted." Birth defects rose by twenty five percent in
> a six year period.(See 4 and 5 for detail.)
>
> Dr Bill Wilson, a Member of the Scottish Parliament, who is determined to
> see Tony Blair in Court on war crimes charges, also has the British
> government's culpability in using depleted uranium (DU) high on his agenda.
> In 1996 and again in 1997, the UN Human Rights Committee included DU., in
> their list of weapons of mass destruction, urging all States to curb the
> spread and production of these weapons.
> On 19th October 2010, Dr Wilson wrote to the (UK) Nuclear Decommissioning
> Authority, the successor to British Nuclear Fuels Limited, asking for
> details of all the documents it holds pertaining to the effects of spent or
> "depleted" uranium on health.
>
> Dr Wilson comments: "Depleted uranium, high in the U-238 isotope, is what is
> left after uranium has been used to generate power. The nuclear industry,
> rather than putting this still radioactive and potentially lethal material
> out of harm's way, however, sells it on to the arms industry and it is used
> to make armour-piercing or anti-tank shells. It has been doing this for
> decades, as a way of decreasing the financial losses associated with what I
> regard as an unnecessary and dangerous way of generating electricity.
>
> "Such shells produce 3000oC fireballs and the resultant black uranium oxide
> particles get everywhere; they are blown hundreds of miles and are inhaled
> and ingested. There is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that the
> cavalier use of depleted-uranium weaponry in Iraq and Afghanistan has caused
> a massive increase in cancers (particularly amongst children) and horrific
> birth defects, both in civilians living there and in service personnel and
> their families. What's more, it has a half-life of almost 4.5 billion years!
>
> "The US and UK Governments have been warned of all this, but appear to have
> ignored such warnings and have done practically nothing to clear up the mess
> they have left, not even fencing off highly radioactive destroyed tanks to
> stop children playing on them. It doesn't take a genius to understand the
> issues at stake here and the potential for legal action.
>
> "As part of my ongoing campaign for justice and to prevent further massive
> human rights abuses, I am seeking clarity on what the UK Government has
> historically known about the health effects of depleted uranium.
> A refusal to answer my Freedom-of-Information request will tell its own
> story."
>
> The Decommissioning Authority, he comments: "should come clean on dirty
> fuel." Indeed: "In the wake of America's "shock and awe" bombing campaign to
> take Baghdad, radiation detectors as far away as the United Kingdom noted a
> fourfold spike in radioactivity in the atmosphere." (6) The pregnant women,
> for whom it to too dangerous to undergo an X-ray for fear of of damaging the
> unborn baby, receives ongoing doses, courtesy the weapons industry, from
> Fallujah to Florida, from Baghdad to Belfast.
>
> Two letters might be of use to Dr Wilson, written, respectively, immediately
> after and shortly after, the 1991 attack on Iraq. They are self explanatory.
> The late Leonard Dietz, to whom the second letter is addressed, was an
> eminent nuclear physicist and expert on the dangers of inhaled or ingested
> DU particles. They are typed exactly as written in the originals:
>
>
>
>
> Los Alamos
>
> Los Alamos National Laboratory
> Los Alamos New Mexico 87545 memorandum
>
> To: Studies and Analysis Branch (wr 13) (or may be 10, slightly eroded)
> Attn: Maj Larson I Mar 1991
>
> From: Lt Col M.V. Ziehman
> STOP/Telephone: F668/(505) 665 19??
>
> Symbol: MCLn0
>
> Subject: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DEPLETED URANIUM PENETRATORS
>
> There is a relatively small amount of lethality data for uranium
> penetrators, either the tank fired long version or the GAU-8 round fired
> from the A10 close air support aircraft. The recent was has likely
> multiplied the number of du rounds fired at targets by orders of magnitude.
> It is believed that du penetrators were very effective against Iraqi armor;
> (sic) how-ever, assessments of such will have to be made.
>
> There has been and continues to be a concern regarding the impact of du on
> the environment. Therefore, if no one makes a case for the effectiveness of
> du on the battlefield, du rounds may become politically unacceptable and
> thus,be deleted from the military arsenal.
>
> If du penetrators proved their worth during our recent combat activities,
> then we should assure their future existence (until something better is
> developed) through
> Service/DOD proponency. If proponency is not garnered, it is possible that
> we stand to lose a valuable combat capability.
>
> I believe we should keep this sensitive issue at (sic) mind when after
> action reports are written.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> (signed) Lt Col Z
>
> Department of Defense, United States of America (seal.)
>
> Office of the Director of
> Defense Research and Engineering
> Washington, DC 20301 - 3030
>
> 15th August 1991
>
> Mr. Leonard A. Dietz
> 1124 Mohegan Road
> Schenectady, NY 12309
>
> Dear Mr Dietz:
>
> Your letter of 30th July 1991 concerning depleted uranium was brought to my
> attention by Dr. Osterman.
>
> In this letter you posed the question of the "probability that lung cancer
> could develop: after inhalation of depleted uranium. As you are no doubt
> well aware, since this material is a source of ionizing radiation, the
> potential for carcinogenicity
> is real. The same holds true for nephro-toxicity which, in most of the
> literature available to me, seems to be the greater limiting health endpoint
> of concern, protection from which requires a much lower ambient
> concentration in drinking water or foodstuffs.
>
> The potential risk to human health from exposure to depleted uranium is, of
> course, dose and time related, both of which must be measured, approximated,
> or assumed.
>
> Let me assure you that we feel that your concern, which parallels our own,
> is real and we thank you for sharing that with us.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> (Signed)
>
> John W. Kolmer, MD.,
> Military Ass't for Medical
> and Life Sciences.
>
> Keen as Colonel Ziehman might have been to water down the dangers, so as not
> to "lose a valuable combat capability", regardless of the health of allied
> troops or invaded citizens, the U.S., Army's own manuals are more
> forthcoming. As has been written in these columns before:
>
> "If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate significant medical
> consequences. The risks associated with DU are both chemical and
> radiological. Personnel in or near vehicles struck by DU penetrators could
> receive significant internal exposures." (7) Or indeed those near bombed
> homes, streets, schools, mosques ... Further: "Short term effects of high
> doses can result in death, while long term effects of low doses have been
> implicated in cancer." (8) This warning was sounded by the giant, US
> government contracted, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)
> in July 1990, six months before Desert Storm.
>
> Further, shortly after Desert Storm, the UK Atomic Energy Authority "self
> initiated a Report", warning of half a million extra cancer deaths in by
> 2000, if just fifty tonnes of residual DU dust had been left "in the
> region."
>
> For either government to claim they were unaware of the apocalyptic
> consequences of further use, would be, as UK Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robert
> Armstrong admitted, in another cover up a couple of decades ago, to be
> "economical with the truth."
>
> *Notes
> *
> 1. http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828
> 2.
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/38397725/Testimonies-of-Crimes-Against-Humanity-in-Fallujah
> 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Helvenston
> 4. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21212
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21370
> 5.http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21131
> 6.
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/07/study-health-effects-felt-fallujah-widespread-nuking-hiroshima-nagasaki/
> 7. (US) Army Environmental Policy Institute: "Health and Environmental
> Consequences of Depleted Uranium Use in the US Army", 1995.
> 8. SAIC : "Kinetic Energy Penetrator Long Term Strategy Study", Danesi, July
> 1990.
>
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21545
>


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

[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/

Re: [ALOCHONA] Re: The war of 1971: Civil War or Liberation War?

While we are at it the war of 1971 was neither a civil war nor a war of liberation. It was a change in yoke only - India for Pakistan. Unless having a flag is the definition of freedom!

Mind you, the way our politicians abuse us and the way we accept nee encourage and defend that abuse either there is an epidemic of Stockholm Syndrome or we are literally little more than cattle.


Emanur Rahman | m. +447734567561 | e. emanur@rahman.com

-----Original Message-----
From: "ezajur" <Ezajur@yahoo.com>
Sender: alochona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 09:27:54
To: <alochona@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Re: The war of 1971: Civil War or Liberation War?

What's with the "you people" business? Contempt for AL hoodlums and idiots does not always automatically translate into support for the hoodlums and idiots of other parties. Unless of course one is a hoodlum or idiot of AL and BNP in the first place.

--- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, "ANDREWL" <turkman@...> wrote:
>
> Oh sure and you people never chant any slogans, never come on streets and never vandalize. You just sit in your Mosques and pray for man-kind everyday, right?
>
> --- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, "Emanur Rahman" <emanur@> wrote:
> >
> > This calls for an Awami League "missil" surely? They can burn cars, buses, books and fight running battles with a few policemen (unlikely) and chant great slogans about Mujib and his dynasty. In fact, anything but....
> >
> > ....lodge any kind of meaningful protest with these respected academics and publishers.
> >
> > After all, who apart from themselves would take any of their drivel seriously??
> >
> >
> > Emanur Rahman | m. +447734567561 | e. emanur@
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "Mahbubur Razzaque" <mmrazzaque@>
> > Sender: alochona@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:48:00
> > To: <dahuk@yahoogroups.com>; <alochona@yahoogroups.com>
> > Reply-To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
> > Cc: <banglarnari@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [ALOCHONA] The war of 1971: Civil War or Liberation War?
> >
> > The war of 1971: Civil War or Liberation War?
> >
> > M. Mahbubur Razzaque
> >
> > The recent incidents related to the international war-crime tribunal in
> > Bangladesh led me to look into the academic records on the war of 1971.
> > Though the Bangladeshi people considers the war as "liberation war" of
> > Bangladesh, the academic records of all international institutions generally
> > mentions it as either civil war or India-Pakistan war.
> >
> > I browsed a number of popular encyclopedia such as:
> >
> > 1. Encyclopedia Britannica of Encyclopedia Britannica Inc.,
> >
> > 2. World Encyclopedia, A Dictionary of World History, The Oxford
> > Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World and Concise Oxford Companion to the
> > English Language of Oxford University Press,
> >
> > 3. The Columbia Encyclopedia of Columbia University Press,
> >
> > 4. Banglapedia: National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh of the Asiatic
> > Society of Bangladesh and
> >
> > 5. MSN Encarta of Microsoft Inc.
> >
> > The records under the entry Bangladesh are listed below:
> >
> > 1. Bangladesh emerged as an independent and sovereign country on 16
> > December 1971 following a nine month WAR OF LIBERATION.
> >
> > Source: Banglapedia: National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh, Vol. 1, Published
> > by the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, March 2003.
> >
> > 2. In 1971, the territory seceded from Pakistan during a short war
> > and became independent.
> >
> > Source: Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language, 1998, Author: TOM
> > McARTHUR
> >
> > 3. The Awami League a political party campaigned openly for
> > Bengali autonomy. In 1970 the Awami League won a majority of seats in the
> > National Assembly, but the Pakistan government postponed convening the
> > Assembly. Violence erupted and guerrilla warfare resulted. Millions of
> > refugees fled to India, which finally entered the war on the side of the
> > Bengalis and ensured West Pakistan's defeat. On December, 16, 1971, East
> > Bengal became the independent nation of Bangladesh, with the capital at
> > Dhaka.
> > S
> > ource: The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 1, Published by: Encyclopedia
> > Britannica Inc., 1994.
> >
> > 4. In 1970 elections, the Awami League, led by Mujibur Rahman, won a
> > landslide victory. In March 1971, the League unilaterally declared
> > independence and civil war ensued. During nine months of fighting, more than
> > one million East Bengalis were killed and millions more forced into exile,
> > mainly to India. With Indian military assistance, East Bengal defeated
> > Pakistan and gained independence as Bangladesh.
> >
> > Source: World Encyclopedia, Published by Oxford University Press, 2005.
> >
> > 5. In 1966 the Awami League put forward a demand for greater
> > autonomy which it proposed to implement after its victory in the 1970
> > elections. In March 1971, when this demand was rejected by the military
> > government of Pakistan, civil war began, leading to a massive exodus of
> > refugees to India. India sent help to the East Pakistan guerrillas (the
> > Mukti Bahini). In the war of December 1971, Indian troops defeated the
> > Pakistan forces in East Pakistan. The independence of Bangladesh was
> > proclaimed in 1971 and recognized by Pakistan in 1974.
> >
> > Source: A Dictionary of World History, Published by Oxford University Press,
> > 2000.
> >
> > 6. The government's attempts to forestall the autonomy bid led to
> > general strikes and nonpayment of taxes in East Pakistan and finally to
> > civil war on Mar. 25, 1971. On the following day the Awami League's leaders
> > proclaimed the independence of Bangladesh. During the months of conflict an
> > estimated one million Bengalis were killed in East Pakistan and another 10
> > million fled into exile in India.
> > Source: The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed., 2007, Columbia University Press.
> >
> > 7. By the mid 1950s Bengali enthusiasm for the Muslim League, which
> > had spearheaded Pakistani independence, became deeply eroded. The growing
> > rift between Pakistan's eastern and western wings broke into rebellion in
> > 1971, and, led by the secular nationalist Awami League, an independent
> > Bangladesh was born.
> >
> > Source: The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, Vol. 1: Editor
> > in chief: J. L.
> > Esposito, Published by: Oxford University Press, 1995.
> >
> > Whether we like it or not, it is only the Banglapedia where the war of at
> > the birth of Bangladesh is reported as the WAR OF LIBERATION. This
> > encyclopedia is published by the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh.
> > Unfortunately other encyclopedias published by famous academic publishers
> > associated with renowned academic institutions reported the war as either a
> > civil war or a rebellion.
> >
> >
> > The records of other entries under Mujibur Rahman, Dhaka, India, Pakistan
> > and India Pakistan Wars are listed below:
> >
> > Entry: Mujibur RahmanThe conflict between East and West Pakistan climaxed
> > after the Dec., 1970, elections, in which the Awami League won a majority.
> > Zulfikar Ali Bhutto , leader of West Pakistan, refused to agree to demands
> > for autonomy, and Mujib was imprisoned in West Pakistan. Civil war broke out
> > in Mar., 1971, when Pakistani troops were sent to put down protests in East
> > Pakistan. With the aid of India, East Pakistani guerrillas proclaimed an
> > independent Bangladesh , and defeated the Pakistani army in late 1971.
> >
> > Source: The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2007
> >
> > Entry: Dhaka
> > Severely damaged during the war of independence from Pakistan, it became
> > capital of independent Bangladesh (1971).
> >
> > Source: World Encyclopedia, Published by Oxford University Press, 2005.
> >
> > Entry: India
> > But these years also witnessed three brief wars between India and Pakistan,
> > the last of which resulted in an independent Bangladesh in 1971.
> >
> > Source: The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 6, Published by: Encyclopedia
> > Britannica Inc., 1994.
> >
> > Entry: Pakistan:
> > In East Pakistan demands grew for Bengali autonomy, and civil war between
> > East and West erupted in 1971. Aided by an invasion of the Indian army, East
> > Pakistan became the independent county of Bangladesh in 1972.
> >
> > Source: The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 9, Published by: Encyclopedia
> > Britannica Inc., 1994.
> >
> > East Pakistan declared its independence as Bangladesh on Mar. 26, 1971, but
> > was then placed under martial law and occupied by the Pakistani army, which
> > was composed entirely of troops from West Pakistan. In the ensuing civil
> > war, some 10 million refugees fled to India and hundreds of thousands of
> > civilians were killed. India supported Bangladesh and on Dec. 3, 1971, sent
> > troops into East Pakistan. Following a two-week war between Pakistan and
> > India, in which fighting also broke out along the India-West Pakistan
> > border, Pakistani troops in East Pakistan surrendered (Dec. 16) and a cease-
> > fire was declared on all fronts.
> >
> > Source: The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2007
> >
> > Entry: India-Pakistan Wars The third war arose out of the civil war between
> > East and West Pakistan in 1971. India intervened in support of East Pakistan
> > (Bangladesh), and (West) Pakistan suffered a decisive defeat.
> >
> > Source: World Encyclopedia, Published by Oxford University Press, 2005.
> >
> > The 1971 War
> >
> > Indo-Pakistani relations deteriorated when civil war erupted in Pakistan,
> > pitting the West Pakistan army against East Pakistanis demanding greater
> > autonomy. The fighting forced 10 million East Pakistani Bengalis to flee to
> > India.
> >
> > Source: The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed., 2007, Columbia University Press.
> >
> > Article: Pakistan : wars : secession of Bangladesh: 1971: Pakistan
> > This year the differences between East Pakistan and West Pakistan erupted
> > into a civil war that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands in the
> > eastern part of the country, which is divided from West Pakistan by 1,000
> > miles and by profound differences in culture and language.
> >
> > Source: MSN Encarta
> > http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=Bangladesh+war
> >
> >
> > Other than in the entry Dhaka in the World Encyclopedia of Oxford University
> > Press, the liberation war of Bangladesh is described as a civil war. It may
> > be concluded that Bangladesh has failed to make majority of the academicians
> > of the west recognize Bangladesh liberation war in the academic records.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > [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@! Groups Links
> >
>


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

[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

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

[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/