[ALOCHONA] Compact fluorescent bulbs release cancer-causing chemicals when turned on

Compact fluorescent bulbs release cancer-causing chemicals when turned on, says new research



Are you one of the many who, in the effort to be eco-friendly and to save money, replaced your old incandescent light bulbs with environmentally-friendly compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) energy saving light bulbs? If so, beware. A new study conducted by conducted by Peter Braun at Berlin Germany's Alab Laboratory found these light bulbs contain poisonous carcinogens that could cause cancer. These include:

Phenol, a mildly acidic toxic white crystalline solid, obtained from coal tar and used in chemical manufacture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenol).

Naphthalene, a volatile white crystalline compound, produced by the distillation of coal tar, used in mothballs and as a raw material for chemical manufacture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naphth...).

Styrene, an unsaturated liquid hydrocarbon, obtained as a petroleum byproduct(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Styrene).

The German scientists involved caution to keep these light bulbs "as far away as possible from the human environment." If used, they advise that you use the bulbs sparingly, in areas with good ventilation, and "definitely not in the proximity of the head," as the bulbs generate electrical smog, impacting human health.

The new German study supports similarly disturbing findings of Abraham Haim, a professor of biology at Haifa University in Israel, who found that the light emitted by CFLs increased the likelihood of women getting breast cancer by disrupting the body's production of the hormone melatonin.

What a dilemma for Americans. Following a 2007 bill signed into law by President George W. Bush, the US government will ban the sale of 100 watt traditional incandescent light bulbs and replace them with toxic CFLs by January 1, 2012, followed by the 75-watt version in Jan. 2013, and the 60- and 40-watt bulbs in Jan. 2014. This will follow on the heels of the Europeans who began to phase out incandescent bulbs in 2009 and by 2016 the EU also plans to ban halogen bulbs, forcing people to use compact fluorescents.

This legislation pits the lawmakers against environmental groups that strongly back the new standards," states USA Today news (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washin...), "which require manufacturers to produce bulbs that use 25% to 30% less energy than standard incandescents, starting Jan. 1."

That CFLs are harmful is not new information. It is well known that they contain toxic mercury, a neurotoxin that can damage the brain, liver, kidneys and central nervous system. The bulbs are marketed as "safe" as long as the glass remains intact. The danger comes, reports FoxNews (http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/...), if the bulbs are cracked, broken or not disposed of properly causing the toxic dust to spread into the air. Just one fluorescent light bulb contains enough mercury to contaminate 6,000 gallons of water and in humans to impair motor functioning, cognitive ability and emotional stability.

Moreover, the "dirty energy" emitted by CFLs produces radiation that has been linked with migraine headaches, sleep abnormalities, fatigue, and other health defects while the flickering of fluorescent bulbs causes dizziness, headaches, weakness and illness in some sensitive people.
http://www.naturalnews.com/032451_CFLs_cancer.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.com

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Money making by Robi

Money making by Robi





http://www.mzamin.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9653:2011-05-18-16-48-35&catid=48:2010-08-31-09-43-22&Itemid=82

__._,_.___

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

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Illegal arms

Illegal arms




http://amardeshonline.com/pages/details/2011/05/19/82402

http://sonarbangladesh.com/blog/HIRDOY/41527

__._,_.___

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

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Which Path to Persia?: Syria, Libya, and beyond

Which Path to Persia?: Syria, Libya, and beyond

by Tony Cartalucci

Bangkok, Thailand May 18, 2011 - While the "easier" nations of Tunisia and Egypt were picked apart by foreign-funded color revolutions, the global corporate-financier oligarchs knew well in advance nations like Libya, Syria, and Iran would be fundamentally different. Nations including Belarus, Pakistan, Myanmar, and Thailand, come next, posing similar hurdles, and of course Russia and China remain at the end of the road and will require the most vigorous of all campaigns to effect regime change and assimilate them into the Wall Street/London corporate-financier dominated "international community."

For all intents and purposes this is the final battle between nation-states and this abhorrent, illegitimate "international community." The battle is building up to what many geopolitical analysts call World War III, but with an insidious twist. It is a battle where festering imperial networks operating under the guise of "civil society" and "NGOs" are turning populations against their governments and serving as impetus to usher in stooge replacements. National institutions will be supplanted by this global "civil society" network, which in turn will interface with contrived international institutions like the parasitic IMF, the World Bank, and the increasingly farcical United Nations.

The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt were meant to serve as the moral and rhetorical backdrop for successive and increasingly more violent and costly campaigns against Libya, Syria, and Iran. In Libya's case, nearly 30 years of on-and-off armed insurrection, fully backed by the US, UK, and America's Arabic foreign legion of Al Qaeda have defined the campaign against Qaddafi. When the call was made on February 17, for a "Day of Rage" by Libyan leaders exiled in London, war was already a foregone, fully provisioned conclusion. So too are operations against Syria and Iran. These are admitted facts articulated clearly within the global elite's own think-tanks and parroted verbatim by the feckless puppets that constitute the governments of the West.

Laying to rest any doubt regarding the global elite's designs toward the remaining sovereign nation-states of the world, is the Brookings Institution's "Which Path to Persia?" report. Previously covered, the report has more meaning now than ever, defining verbatim the approach, the tactics and the outcomes expected in this next, decidedly more violent phase of geopolitical reordering worldwide. We can see the stratagems and methodology defined within this report have played out not only in Iran, but in Libya and Syria as well, with preparations and posturing being made in regards to targets further along China's "String of Pearls" and along Russia's vast borders.

As we reexamine this treacherous plot, funded by some of the largest corporations and banking interests on earth, we can see the playbook the global elite have been clearly using, starting in Iran, and creeping its way toward Moscow and Beijing. Understanding this report, disseminating it to both the people beneath the governments criminally pursuing it and those desperately defending against it, may balk what is perhaps the greatest attempted geopolitical reordering in human history.

Which Path to Persia?

Virtually a handbook for overthrowing nations, the 156 page report focuses on effecting regime change within Iran. However, it is quite clear it draws on a body of knowledge derived from the Anglo-American empire's long history of fomenting unrest, division, insurgencies, coups, and regime change around the world. It is irrefutable proof that the global elite, not our legislators, are the arbiters of Western foreign policy.

Which Path to Persia? .pdf
....

It is also irrefutable proof that indeed the global elite are capable and willing to foment popular street protests, use murderous terrorism against sovereign nation-states, buy off treasonous legions within a foreign military to effect coups, and use violence of their own creation as a pretext to intervene with full military force.

Sanctions

Sanctions, page 39 (page 52 of PDF): "For those who favor regime change or a military attack on Iran (either by the United States or Israel), there is a strong argument to be made for trying this option first. inciting regime change in Iran would be greatly assisted by convincing the Iranian people that their government is so ideologically blinkered that it refuses to do what is best for the people and instead clings to a policy that could only bring ruin on the country. The ideal scenario in this case would be that the United States and the international community present a package of positive inducements so enticing that the Iranian citizenry would support the deal, only to have the regime reject it.

In a similar vein, any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians "brought it on themselves" by refusing a very good deal."

Regime change and perhaps even military operations against Iran are talked about as a foregone conclusion, with Brookings using the pretext of sanctions as merely a means of incremental escalation to tip-toe the world into backing regime change, including war with the nation if need be. This is exactly what has been done in regards to Libya, with disingenuous humanitarian concerns translated into a no-fly zone, which incrementally transitioned into attacks on Qaddafi's ground forces, targeted assassinations against Qaddafi himself, and now talk of destroying civilian infrastructure and a full-out ground invasion.

A repeat scenario is playing out in Syria where foreign-fueled violence is being used as a means to engage in broader intervention. While Western governments feigns inaction and hesitation in the face of a bloodbath they themselves instigated, in reality they are creating the same sense of "bringing it upon themselves" for Syria as Brookings talks about in regards to Iran.

Invasion

Justifying Invasion, page 65 (page 78 of the PDF): "If the United States were to decide that to garner greater international support, galvanize U.S. domestic support, and/or provide a legal justification for an invasion, it would be best to wait for an Iranian provocation, then the time frame for an invasion might stretch out indefinitely. With only one real exception, since the 1978 revolution, the Islamic Republic has never willingly provoked an American military response, although it certainly has taken actions that could have done so if Washington had been looking for a fight.

Thus it is not impossible that Tehran might take some action that would justify an American invasion and it is certainly the case that if Washington sought such a provocation, it could take actions that might make it more likely that Tehran would do so (although being too obvious about this could nullify the provocation). However, since it would be up to Iran to make the provocative move, which Iran has been wary of doing most times in the past, the United States would never know for sure when it would get the requisite Iranian provocation. In fact, it might never come at all."

This is nothing less than US policy makers openly talking about purposefully provoking a nation in order to justify a full-scale invasion that would otherwise be untenable. If such treachery at the cost of thousands of American lives and perhaps millions of Iranian lives is openly talked about within the halls of these corporate-funded think-tanks, what do they talk about that isn't on record? For those who reject out-of-hand the notion that 9/11 was an inside job, on grounds that Western policy makers are not capable of such a horrific calculus, the evidence is here, starring back from pages of this Brookings Institution report for all to see and to come to grips with.

In Libya, provocations for NATO bombardment were a rash of entirely unverified reports coming from the rebels themselves and verified lies about aircraft strafing unarmed protesters. With the targeted assassination of Qaddafi resulting in the death of his son and three of his grandchildren, NATO appears to have taken "actions that might make it more likely" for Qaddafi to be provoked into justifying some sort of wider NATO ground invasion. If the litany of lies that set the groundwork for the current NATO campaign is any indication, even if Qaddafi does nothing, a provocation will be manufactured for him. With the operations against Syria still in their opening phases, we can be sure as military options are brought to the table, so will appropriate provocations, induced or manufactured.

United Front Against Iran

An Iranian Sponsored 9/11 & a change of leadership throughout the Middle East, page 66 (page 79 of the PDF): "Most European, Asian, and Middle Eastern publics are dead set against any American military action against Iran derived from the current differences between Iran and the international community—let alone Iran and the United States. Other than a Tehran-sponsored 9/11, it is hard to imagine what would change their minds. For many democracies and some fragile autocracies to which Washington would be looking for support, this public antipathy is likely to prove decisive. For instance, Saudi Arabia is positively apoplectic about the Iranians' nuclear program, as well as about their mischief making in Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinian territories. Yet, so far, Riyadh has made clear that it will not support military operations of any kind against Iran. Certainly that could change, but it is hard to imagine what it would take.

Given that this situation has not been enough to push the GCC to support military operations against Iran, what would? Certainly Iran testing a nuclear device might, but at that point, it almost certainly would be too late: if the United States is going to invade Iran, it will want to do so before Iran has developed actual nuclear weapons, not after. It is hard to know what else Iran could do that would change GCC attitudes about the use of force unless new leaders took power in the Gulf who were far more determined to stop Iran than the current leadership is."

Quite obviously, "new leaders" are taking power throughout the Gulf now via the US-created "Arab Spring," with Saudi Arabia being tacitly threatened with destabilization in Bahrain and Yemen, while Iran's axis of influence through Syria and into Lebanon is being destabilized. Egypt and Northern Africa are being thrown into precarious political chaos as well, with globalist puppets poised to take over and eagerly pursue any dictate coming from Washington. This confirms the worst fears of geopolitical analysts like Dr. Webster Tarpley who predicted as far back as mid-February 2011 that the US-created "Arab Spring" was an attempt at reordering the Middle East against Iran and eventually against China and Russia.

Manufacturing Provocations

Goading Provocations for an Air Strike, page 84-85 (page 97-98 of the PDF): "...it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)

This suggests that this option might benefit from being held in abeyance until such time as the Iranians made an appropriately provocative move, as they do from time to time. In that case, it would be less a determined policy to employ airstrikes and instead more of an opportunistic hope that Iran would provide the United States with the kind of provocation that would justify airstrikes. However, that would mean that the use of airstrikes could not be the primary U.S. policy toward Iran (even if it were Washington's fervent preference), but merely an ancillary contingency to another option that would be the primary policy unless and until Iran provided the necessary pretext."

Here we see again, the plotting of a deceitful gambit to goad a sovereign nation into war, a nation Brookings notes time and time again has no interest in armed conflict with the United States. Also notice the first mention of "covert regime change efforts" used as a means to apply sufficient pressure to exact a particular reaction used for further political escalation and subsequent military intervention.

Such a gambit has been recently used in Libya and now in Syria where foreign-support created violence, to which regimes were forced to react to - the subsequent violence then serving as an impetus for expanded US intervention. Brookings notes that such goading must be done in such a way so as to not raise suspicions of the "game" throughout the world. Hopefully, as people read this written and signed confession of criminal conspiracy, they will never fall for this "game" again.

Foreign-Funded Color Revolution

Finding and Building up Dupes for a Color Revolution, page 105 (page 118 of the PDF): "The United States could play multiple roles in facilitating a revolution. By funding and helping organize domestic rivals of the regime, the United States could create an alternative leadership to seize power. As Raymond Tanter of the Iran Policy Committee argues, students and other groups "need covert backing for their demonstrations. They need fax machines. They need internet access, funds to duplicate materials, and funds to keep vigilantes from beating them up."

Beyond this, U.S.-backed media outlets could highlight regime short comings and make otherwise obscure critics more prominent. The United States already supports Persian-language satellite television (Voice of America Persian) and radio (Radio Farda) that bring unfiltered news to Iranians (in recent years, these have taken the lion's share of overt U.S. funding for promoting democracy in Iran). U.S. economic pressure (and perhaps military pressure as well) can discredit the regime, making the population hungry for a rival leadership."

Here Brookings makes outright calls to create the conditions within Iran, or any target nation for that matter, that are more likely to create unrest. They then call for funding and organizing that unrest and using domestic, and quite obviously foreign media to manipulate public perception and perpetuate US-backed propaganda. We see this in nearly every country targeted for destabilization, generally funded by organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), so-called "independent media" organizations and human rights NGOs that "make otherwise obscure critics more prominent."

The NED-funded Project on Middle East Democracy is one such propaganda outlet operating throughout the Middle East, propagating the official US narrative in regards to unrest fomented from Egypt to Syria. Voice of America is openly mentioned by Brookings within this report, while examples in Eastern Europe include Radio Free Europe, a subsidary with VOA under the Broadcasting Board of Governors upon which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sits as a member. Also note worthy is Southeast Asia's NED-funded Prachatai of Thailand.

Together this nefarious global network feeds the mainstream, corporate-owned media their talking points which are then repeated verbatim or cited outright as reputable sources. It should be remembered though, that within the 156 pages of the "Which Path to Persia?" report it is explicitly and often stated that these gambits are to protect and expand US interests throughout the region while diminishing Iran's ability to challenge said interests in any shape, form, or manner - not promote democracy, protect freedom, or even protect America from a genuine security threat.

Using Military Force to Assist Popular Revolutions, page 109-110 (page 122-123 of the PDF): "Consequently, if the United States ever succeeds in sparking a revolt against the clerical regime, Washington may have to consider whether to provide it with some form of military support to prevent Tehran from crushing it." "This requirement means that a popular revolution in Iran does not seem to fit the model of the "velvet revolutions" that occurred elsewhere. The point is that the Iranian regime may not be willing to go gently into that good night; instead, and unlike so many Eastern European regimes, it may choose to fight to the death. In those circumstances, if there is not external military assistance to the revolutionaries, they might not just fail but be massacred.

Consequently, if the United States is to pursue this policy, Washington must take this possibility into consideration. It adds some very important requirements to the list: either the policy must include ways to weaken the Iranian military or weaken the willingness of the regime's leaders to call on the military, or else the United States must be ready to intervene to defeat it."

Quite clearly, after previously conspiring to implement foreign-funded unrest, the predictable crackdown by Iranian security forces to restore order "requires" some form of deterrent or military support to be employed to prevent the movement from being crushed. We see that this exact scenario has played out verbatim in Libya, where "protesters" were in fact armed rebels from the very beginning, the recipients of decades of US and UK support, and shortly after their rebellion began, NATO forces were brought in via a clumsy series of staged pretenses to prevent the armed uprising from being crushed by Qaddafi's forces.

A lead-up to the exact same scenario is playing out in Syria, where US and UK puppet politicians are menacing the Syrian government with threats of military intervention under the "Libyan Precedence." We see in reality, this "precedence" had been clearly articulated in this 2009 report, and is based on a familiar "problem, reaction, solution" methodology used by imperialists throughout human history.

In both Libya, Syria, and Yemen, and in other immovable targeted nations like Thailand, armed militants are brought in by opposition groups to augment street protests. Often these armed elements are brought in without the knowledge of the protesters themselves, and in some cases, especially in Syria and Yemen, it appears armed groups of "mystery gunmen" are clashing with both security forces and protesters in order to escalate violence and unrest further. Should the escalating violence fail to tip the balance in the protesters' favor, the violence itself will become the pretext for the next level of more overt US intervention.

US Sponsored Terrorism & Armed Insurrection

Arming, Funding, & Using Terrorist Organizations, page 113 (page 126 of the PDF): "The United States could work with groups like the Iraq-based National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and its military wing, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), helping the thousands of its members who, under Saddam Husayn's regime, were armed and had conducted guerrilla and terrorist operations against the clerical regime. Although the NCRI is supposedly disarmed today, that could quickly be changed."

"Potential Ethnic Proxies," page 117-118 (page 130-131 of the PDF): "Perhaps the most prominent (and certainly the most controversial) opposition group that has attracted attention as a potential U.S. proxy is the NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran), the political movement established by the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq). Critics believe the group to be undemocratic and unpopular, and indeed anti-American.

In contrast, the group's champions contend that the movement's long-standing opposition to the Iranian regime and record of successful attacks on and intelligence-gathering operations against the regime make it worthy of U.S. support. They also argue that the group is no longer anti-American and question the merit of earlier accusations. Raymond Tanter, one of the group's supporters in the United States, contends that the MEK and the NCRI are allies for regime change in Tehran and also act as a useful proxy for gathering intelligence. The MEK's greatest intelligence coup was the provision of intelligence in 2002 that led to the discovery of a secret site in Iran for enriching uranium.

Despite its defenders' claims, the MEK remains on the U.S. government list of foreign terrorist organizations. In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran. During the 1979-1980 hostage crisis, the group praised the decision to take America hostages and Elaine Sciolino reported that while group leaders publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks, within the group celebrations were widespread.

Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks—often excused by the MEK's advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership's main political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on Iranian civilian and military targets between 1998 and 2001. At the very least, to work more closely with the group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign terrorist organizations."

Certainly if the United States went through with arming and funding MEK (and they apparently did), they themselves would become "state sponsors of terrorism" - even as they fight amidst a decade long war against supposedly just that. MEK is unequivocally a terrorist organization that murders and maims civilians indiscriminately along with their political opponents. MEK is even on-record having targeted and murdered Americans. Yet for some reason, they are considered a potential proxy, and considerations for their removal from the apparently meaningless "foreign terrorist organizations" list, is based solely on their utility toward advancing US foreign policy.

With this we are given full insight into the unfathomable depths of depravity from which the global elite operate from. It turns out that the degenerates behind "Which Path to Persia?" including Kenneth Pollack, Daniel Byman, Martin Indyk, Susanne Maloney, Michael O'Hanlon, and Bruce Riedel, most of whom are regular contributors to the US's largest newspapers, would see their plans brought to life. According to Seymour Hersh's New Yorker article "Preparing the Battlefield," MEK had already been receiving weapons and funding as of 2008 for the purposes described within the Brookings report that would come out a year later.

It would seem even as "Which Path to Persia?" was being compiled many of the options on the table had already gone operational. Baluchi rebels residing in eastern Iran and western Pakistan were also mentioned in both the Brookings report and Hersh's article. US support for this group is quite ambitious. In addition to using them in terrorist operations against Tehran, they are also being built up and directed toward destabilizing and Balkanizing Pakistan.

Fomenting a Military Coup

Staging a Coup, page 123-124 (page 136-137 of the PDF): "Mounting a coup is hard work, especially in a state as paranoid about foreign influence and meddling as Iran is. The United States would first have to make contact with members of Iran's military (and likely its security services as well). This by itself is very difficult. Because of Iranian hypersensitivity to Americans, the United States would likely have to rely on "cutouts"—third party nationals working on behalf of the United States—which invariably introduces considerable complexity. Then the United States would have to use those contacts to try to identify Iranian military personnel who were both willing and able to stage a coup, which would be more difficult still; it would be hard enough for Americans to make contact with Iranian military officers, let alone make contact with those specific individuals willing to risk their lives and their families in a coup attempt.

Of course, it is possible that if Washington makes very clear that it is trying to support a coup in Iran, the coup plotters will reach out to the United States. But this is very rare: history shows that coup plotters willing to expose themselves to another national government are usually discovered and killed; furthermore, most of those coming to the United States to ask for help overthrowing this or that government tend to be poseurs or even counterintelligence agents of the targeted government."

If readers are wondering whether or not there is a historical precedence of the United States "mounting a coup," the Brookings report itself provides Operation Ajax as notable example:

"Although many coups are homegrown, one obvious historic model of a foreign-assisted coup in Iran is Operation Ajax, the 1953 coup d'état that overthrew the government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq and reinstated the rule of Shah Reza Pahlavi. To carry out the coup, the CIA and British intelligence supported General Fazlollah Zahedi, providing him and his followers with money and propaganda, as well as helping organize their activities."

The uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt were apparently assisted by members of the military, with similar defections being sought out in Libya and Syria to help along the collapse of the embattled regimes. Nations of Western interest might want to take time to reevaluate military officers who have had historically close ties to the United States or who have reason or possible motivations for turning on their nation during a spate of foreign-engineered upheaval.

It should be noted that the Brookings report suggests that all of these options - popular revolution, insurgency, and coup - be used concurrently in the hopes that at least one may succeed. It also suggests that "helpful synergies" might be created among them to further mire the targeted regime. (page 150, page 163 of the PDF.)

Conclusion

It is inconceivable that one could read the pages of "Which Path to Persia?" and not understand the current "international community" as anything less than absolutely illegitimate. They contrive a myriad of laws with which to restrain and eliminate their completion with while they remain entirely uninhibited themselves in their own overt criminality. We also understand that the United States is not engaged in diplomatic relations with the world's nations as envisioned by America's Founding Fathers, but rather engaged in extorting and coercing the world to conform to it's "interests."

This report represents a full array of options not only for use in Iran, but throughout the world. In hindsight of the US-funded "Arab Spring" it is quite obvious that the methodology laid out in the report has been drawn on to destabilize and depose regimes as well as instigate wars of aggression. Upon studying this report, its implications for Iran and the surrounding region, we can understand better conflicts yet to unfold beyond North Africa and the Gulf. It is essential that reports like this are made public, their methodology exposed, and the true architects behind Western foreign policy revealed. As the report itself states numerous times, the vast majority of their gambits require secrecy, "plausible deniability," and that their dark deeds be done "without the rest of the world recognizing this game."

The world must realize who the true brokers of power are, and that by understanding their agenda, we can wholly reject it and pursue instead one of our own, locally, self-sufficiently, independently, and in true freedom.

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/05/which-path-to-persia-redux.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.com

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Immediate-past chief justice raises unpleasant questions

Immediate-past chief justice raises unpleasant questions

THE tentative response of the immediate-past chief justice, Justice ABM Khairul Haque, on Tuesday, to the question whether or not he would take charge of the next caretaker government must have taken many by surprise. According to a report front-paged in New Age on Wednesday, when talking to journalists after his ceremonial last visit to the Supreme Court, Justice Ahmed said: 'Time will say who will head the [next] caretaker government. Law will take its own course.' The roundabout answer to a reasonably straightforward question appears rather unbecoming of a judge under whose stewardship the Appellate Division declared void the 13th amendment to the constitution, which made the provision for an election-time caretaker government in the first place. Although the Justice Ahmed-led seven-member bench said the next two general elections could be held under caretaker governments, it specifically suggested that the parliament should, in the meantime, 'bring necessary amendments excluding the provisions for making the former chief justices or the Appellate Division judges the head of the non-party caretaker government.' As such, one must have expected Justice Ahmed to respond in the negative to the question for the sake of the dignity of the judiciary.

Why the immediate-past chief justice chose to evade a straightforward answer is best known to him; any attempt at discerning the reason would be speculative. However, it may be safely concluded that his evasive answer would undermine the moral stance he took on the issue of caretaker government as the chief justice when issuing the judgement. Moreover, it may give rise to the reinforce the impression that the heightened judicial activism of the apex court under his leadership, which has seen invalidation of the fifth, eighth and finally 13th amendments to the constitution and is viewed to have generally gone in favour of the Awami League's interest, may have actually been at the bidding of the ruling party. Besides, given the fact that he will also be in the reckoning for the position of the chief adviser come the next general election and that he was also appointed the chief justice in supersession of the then senior-most judge in the Appellate Division, his tentativeness could be construed as concealed ambition for state power, even if for a brief period of time.

On the whole, the immediate-past chief justice seems to have put his personal reputation and integrity and also the credibility of the highest judiciary on the line with his refusal to come up with a straightforward answer to a straightforward question. At one point of his conversation with the journalists on Tuesday, Justice Ahmed said, 'A good judge can never become popular.' He was so right because a good judge never hesitate to say the right thing, even if it puts him or her at odds with the power that be. Ironically, on his last visit to the Supreme Court, he chose not to.

http://newagebd.com/newspaper1/editorial/19187.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.com

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [ALOCHONA] Re: A response to Myth-busting of Bangladesh war of 1971 by Sarmila Bose in english.aljazeera.net

Attn. Shahadat Suhrawardy.

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

Thank you for cooly pointing out such a basic fact.

" Sharmila Bose never denied genocide. She had questioned the number of deaths as claimed by many of us as 3 million.  "

Not only Bose, anybody should have the right to discuss genocide in 1971.

What we need is not  a big mouth and loud voice......we need to learn how to debated and discuss

important issues with style , politeness and reasoning.

It is so sad we get too emotional while talking about NUMBERS of people killed

in 1971. What we have achieved so far...internationally?

I have met so many educated Bangladeshis, in Bangladesh and overseas,  with respectable jobs.......who simply think that showing cheap emotion and raw arguments will make them " a big nationalist "!

I could never convince them " whatever we say" can not be a good style of argument in any

International court, to prosecute Pakistani criminals. We will need well-prepared, evidence based documents.

How many of these documents have been prepared so far........ by various Bangladeshi govts?

Best wishes.

Khoda hafez.

Probashi Bangladeshi

Australia.

---

From: Shahadat Hussaini <shahadathussaini@hotmail.com>
To: Alochona Groups <alochona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2011 11:43 PM
Subject: RE: [ALOCHONA] Re: A response to Myth-busting of Bangladesh war of 1971 by Sarmila Bose in english.aljazeera.net

 

During Sheikh Mujib's time under the insistence of Quader Siddiqui (BU), government asked the family members of the deceased personnel to submit application for monetary help and also to get a grass root statitistics, the number of application came out to be 297, 000 (approximately 0.3 million). Therefore 3 million is a liwe as well as white papers 28,000 is a lie. There is still time for the governmemt to have correct statistics. Out of those 3 lacs, there are people who were killed by razakars and freedom fighters (of course Pakistani forces atrocities included).
Sharmila Bose never denied genocide. She had questioned the number of deaths as claimed by many of us as 3 million.
I think those who want to live a life with lie, let them live their lives their way. They are badly polarized.
Shahadat Suhrawardy.
 I hope this argument ends here.

---

To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
From: Ezajur@yahoo.com
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 07:25:50 +0000
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Re: A response to Myth-busting of Bangladesh war of 1971 by Sarmila Bose in english.aljazeera.net

 

Dear Shafiq

 

No, I am not trying to undermine a crime against humanity. I have already called the murders of 1971 a crime against humanity and genocide. I would have to be a cannibal to side with willful mass murder and rape. I hope you do not think of me so poorly - I could never assume such a thing about you.

 

I do not care for what the Pakistanis think as they were the aggressors. I hardly ever mention that country. Of course they cover up even their own estimate of the true numbers. The number of 28,000 killed in The Hamoodur Report must be most grossly understated.

 

But our victims deserve reparations, admission and apologies from Pakistan. Why should Pakistan get away with it just because we cannot demand or present our case properly?

 

I ask because I don't know what the correct figure is and because the number has been made sacred by the very same people (BNP and AL) who have brought our country to its current condition. And I don't believe them. And I don't buy it when those who are the most senior defenders of this number defend it only with a calculator and simplistic assumptions.

 

I apologise for using the word exaggeration as it offends you. It was not my intention. But the political classes of my country are prone to exaggeration, sometimes out of sentimentality (I am one of them too!) and sometimes for political gain (unforgiveable).

 

Come on Shafiq. Let us not pick on the limitations of mere words. What do you think we get our facts right on? The environment? The population? The stock market manipulators? The BDR tragedy? Smuggling? Black money? The deals that our politicians have made? The deals our businessmen make? The deals our Army makes? Corruption?

 

The electorate does not get the facts.

  

It is not enough, for me at least, that a Pakistani soldier, however honest, said this and that a UN report, informed by any of our governments, said that. What about my country? Why can't my country get even this most important subject right?

 

I am facing a lot of abuse (not from you) but that's okay. I'm nobody and I can easily be ignored. But I think the next generation must, and will, question everything. If they do then we stand a fighting chance of building the nation that so many gave their lives for in 1971. God knows those who followed them have made an almighty mess of it.

 

This is more about us and the way we conduct ourselves than about the Pakistanis. Just because we hate the Pakistanis does not mean that we cannot establish, with the best of our efforts, a formal estimate of the number of our countrymen murdered in 1971. But we are simply happy that Time and Newsweek gave some estimates. The best estimate may turn out to be 5 millions. And it may turn out to be 1 million (personally, I don't think it can be less). We should be serious about the number of our dead.

 

Life has always been cheap in our country. The truth has always been manipulated. We should try to change that. Let's count our dead. Everybody else tries.

 

You see Shafiq, sometimes no matter what we say, people see what they want to see. I'm sure I am guilty of the same sometimes. I am not a freak of nature (you did not say it, I am saying it). My opinions and my politics are fuelled by the people I meet everyday, of every age and class. I find disagreement only with those who are locked into a political party – be it BNP, AL, JP or JI. And, in my life experience, such locked people are in the vocal minority – not the silent majority.

 

I have no reason to think I am better informed or even of sounder mind than you. But if I differ with anyone it is only, in essence, because they are not protesting against our politics. Perhaps they do and I could be wrong in a particular case. But I have found people choose to be silent regarding their party no matter how bad things might be. That's why there is no meaningful reform in the country.

 

I often choose to be obnoxious because I find the silence of those who are better informed and better placed than me to be obnoxious. Its good to hear their voice, no matter how hostile.

 

I have written to you sincerely. Even though we may continue to differ I hope you will consider my failings to be those of a sincere man.

 

Best wishes

 

Ezajur Rahman

Kuwait   

--- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, shafiq013@... wrote:
>
>
>
> You are still trying to undermine the crime committed against humanity.
> The 3 million figures is an estimate and are not only mentioned in some
> UN reports but even in some Pakistani reports. You call it an
> exaggeration absolutely like the official Pakistani stand.
>
> Knowing Pakistani mentality, there is no reason to believe this
> "exaggerated figure" being the reason for no reparations or
> apologies from Pakistan. Let them apologies even for 28 thousands, they
> estimate were killed per Hamoodur Rahman commission report. Again, this
> also is an estimate only. Do you believe this being the correct figure?
>
> And why you believe that 3 million figure is exaggerated like the
> official Pakistani stand? Then what is the correct figure?
>
> It was nice to know that we never get our facts right on anything. What
> it is? News or your desire
> Shafiq
> --- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, "ezajur" Ezajur@ wrote:
> >
> > The reason why the number 3 million is important is that this number
> is symbolic of our societal and politcal failures. If we can lie about
> this number we can lie about anything. A nation that exaggerates its
> dead for political gain and dramatic effect, and does not count its
> dead, is doomed to rotteness.
> >
> > And are we in a rotten condition or not?
> >
> > Many good people are sleeping or have given up hope or have been
> beaten into submission. If yelling about this 3 million annoys them
> enough to make them yell back - then thats just fine!
> >
> > The fact is that there were crimes against humanity. Of course this is
> true. The fact also is that the exaggeration of those crimes actually
> diminshes the crimes.
> >
> > Which is why we have no reparations or apologies from Pakistan.
> >
> > We never get our facts right on anything.
> >
> >
> > -- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, shafiq013@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What a logic. You said "There was killing by Pakistani army as they
> > > were tried to protect Pakistan and that's fact." Gentleman, Can you
> > > explain why women were raped? Which Pakistan they were trying to
> protect
> > > by raping women? Why there was loot and arson? Was this another
> attempt
> > > to protect Pakistan? Yes, we killed Urdu speaker after the war and
> > > that's a fact. But if you were old enough to see the war in 1971,
> you
> > > should be able to answer why. The story of the Balouch Pakistani
> soldier
> > > is just a story. Even at present there are not many Balouchs in
> Pakistan
> > > Army not to talk about in 1971. Yes, there was a Balouch regiment
> but
> > > was occupied by Punjabis mostly. And Ziaur Rahman was not setting up
> the
> > > radio at Kalurghat in the middle of war. And above everything, a
> single
> > > soldier cannot help you in this situation like this even if he wants
> to.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The famous Hamoodur Rahamn commission said around 28-30 thousand
> > > Bengalis were killed. The official Bangladeshi stand is that 3
> million
> > > Bengalis were killed. The fact is that there were crimes against
> > > humanity. Don't try to exploit the number of people killed to dilute
> > > the issue. The biggest truth of 1971 is 16th December. Nothing less
> > > nothing more. Sorry you did not like it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Shafiq
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, "ezajur" <Ezajur@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Of course the Pakistanis committed massacres - enough for the word
> > > genocide to be used. And they killed many more Bengalis than vice
> versa.
> > > The issues are:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Were 3 million Bengalis killed?
> > > > 2. How has this number been exploited by polictians?
> > > > 3. What have the lies about 1971 - by BNP and AL - cost our
> country
> > > since 1971?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, Jamil Ahmed jamil_dhaka@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I was old enough to see the war in 1971. There was killing by
> > > Pakistani army as they were tried to protect Pakistan and that's
> fact.
> > > We killed Urdu speaker after the war and that's a fact. In a war,
> it's
> > > the general people who gives a lot of sacrifice.There story will
> be
> > > never told. Just to add one fact that I had seen is that in the
> middle
> > > of war as Ziaur Rahman was setting up the radio at Kalur ghat and
> > > Pakistani army took over our area. Obviously we all are shaken, one
> > > Pakistani solder told us not to be afraid, and added that he is a
> > > baluch. I am sure there is lotof stories like that and those will be
> > > covered by weight of atrocities of other Pak solders.
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > > Â
> > > > > --- On Sat, 5/14/11, Dr. M. Mohsin Ali drmohsinali@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Dr. M. Mohsin Ali drmohsinali@
> > > > > Subject: [ALOCHONA] A response to Myth-busting of Bangladesh war
> of
> > > 1971 by Sarmila Bose in english.aljazeera.net
> > > > > To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Date: Saturday, May 14, 2011, 12:58 PM
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > SO, MR. EZAJUR, YOU BELIEVE THE STORY OF MS. SHARMILA BOSE WHICH
> IS
> > > THE STORY OF THE PAKISTANI MILITARY ABOUT OUR GREAT LIBERATION WAR.
> YOU
> > > ARE SIGNING WITH THE PAKISTANIS AND THE RAZAKARS. THAT'S WHY YOU
> NEVER
> > > LIKED SHEIKH MUJIB AS HE BROKE YOUR BELAOVED PAKISTAN. THAT IS YOUR
> REAL
> > > FACE.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- On Sat, 5/14/11, ezajur Ezajur@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: ezajur Ezajur@
> > > > > Subject: [ALOCHONA] Re: A response to Myth-busting of Bangladesh
> war
> > > of 1971 by Sarmila Bose in english.aljazeera.net
> > > > > To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Date: Saturday, May 14, 2011, 10:25 AM
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > >
> > > > > Sarmila Bose has made a stand against the myth of 1971 and the
> > > dominant post war narrative and those who have profited from it.
> > > > >
> > > > > The myth of 1971 is that 3 million people Bengalis were
> > > exterminated. As proven by the lack of any meaningful effort to
> measure
> > > the number of deaths by successive governments of Bangladesh.
> > > > >
> > > > > The dominant narrative of 1971 has been that the myth of 1971 is
> > > real and that those who shout about it are those who are fit to
> govern
> > > best. As proven by the behaviour of every successive government.
> > > > >
> > > > > Those who have profited are those who have publicly promoted the
> > > myth and privately benefitted with power and money. As proven by the
> > > behaviour of every successive government.
> > > > >
> > > > > What Farida cannot abide is that anyone can question anything
> about
> > > 1971 because it is the myth of 1971 that, in her mind, empowers her
> and
> > > her politics, to focus on what they want, ignore what they want and
> rule
> > > as they see fit. Screw them.
> > > > >
> > > > > The creation of the myth of 1971 was the first step in the
> ruination
> > > of our country. We have been on our knees ever since. Bridges and
> export
> > > earnings cannot measure our people. Our people deserve better. And
> as AL
> > > and BNP and Jammat relish the orgy of their gross self indulgence
> they
> > > ignore the future at the nation's peril.
> > > > >
> > > > > If BNP of JI thugs commit rape, murder and extortion, as they
> do,
> > > the Farida Majids of our country will protest. If AL thugs commit
> rape,
> > > murder and extortion, as they do, the Farida Majids of our country
> keep
> > > quiet. There are Farida Majids in BNP and JI.
> > > > >
> > > > > Screw all these bloody hypocrites. They believe they are true to
> > > their dead leader, their dead father and their dead values.
> > > > >
> > > > > They, and the rest of us, will soon enough return to the soil of
> our
> > > country, in which lies buried the truth and best spirit of our
> people
> > > and our beautiful country.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just look at the condition of our country! You know why there is
> no
> > > class war in Bangladesh? You know know why our guitarists can't bend
> > > their knees?
> > > > >
> > > > > May our soil accept our flesh and bones as payment for the truth
> and
> > > may that truth embrace the next generation.
> > > > >
> > > > > To all hypocrites - ££££ you!
> > > > >
> > > > > Ezajur Rahman
> > > > >
> > > > > Its so loud, inside in my head
> > > > > With words that I should have said.
> > > > > As I drown in my regrets
> > > > > I can't take back
> > > > > the words I never said.
> > > > > Lupe Fiasco
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, Farida Majid <farida_majid@>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/05/20115983958114219.h\
> \
> > > tml
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bangladesh war of 1971 Myth-busting Piece by Sarmila Bose in
> Al
> > > Jazeera.net :
> > > > > > Farida Majid
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here we have Sarmila Bose whining on and on against the
> `dominant
> > > narrative' and pushing her insubstantial book, Dead Reckoning:
> Memories
> > > of the 1971 Bangladesh War, as a scholarly work that is meant to
> bust
> > > the myth of Bangladesh war of independence in 1971. Her book's spin
> is
> > > strung around a few instances of atrocities committed by Mukti
> fighters
> > > upon non-Bengali collaborators of Pakistan at the time. No one
> denies
> > > those cruel acts of retaliation. All wars are cruel and ugly. But by
> > > themselves those acts, or her other fieldwork denying widespread
> rape
> > > and murder (questioning the occurrence of any rape by Pakistani
> soldiers
> > > since she could not get figures of exact date, time and place of
> each
> > > sexual assault), have not been able to disprove any of the
> well-known
> > > incidences of crimes against humanity committed by an uniformed,
> fully
> > > equipped with modern arms and ammunition, professionally trained
> > > Pakistani army and its Bengali collaborators in 1971. I
> > > > > doubt whether any of the `uncomfortable truth' she has unearthed
> > > could be presented at a War Crimes Tribunal as legal defense against
> the
> > > charges brought by the Prosecution at such a Tribunal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The harder Sarmila Bose whines about the `dominant narrative'
> the
> > > fuzzier gets her rationale for wanting to debunk it. Her citing of
> the
> > > example of Lara Logan, the CBS correspondent haplessly caught in the
> > > melee of Tahrir Square in Cairo in the spring uprising of 2011,
> shows to
> > > what pathetic extent Bose lacks sympathy and imagination in
> assessing
> > > the overall reality of people's struggle for freedom from
> oppression.
> > > Such struggles in the annals of history are messy, never
> picture-book
> > > perfect. Sarmila though is unforgiving, and is too mean-spirited to
> > > tolerate "freedom and democracy-loving people rising up against
> > > oppressive dictators." She has to take up the arms of a `scholarly
> > > study' to bust the myth!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is the 'myth' that she is so anxious to bust?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is genocide in Bangladesh, 1971, a myth?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If it is a myth then are we to understand, after Ms Bose's
> > > so-called `research' and report, that genocide did not take place at
> all
> > > in 1971 in the then East Pakistan? The "dominant narrative" is all
> about
> > > partisan exaggeration and no one in the international community but
> her
> > > could detect the "uncomfortable truth" in all these 40 years.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who does she mean by those "who have profited for so long from
> > > mythologising the history of 1971"?
> > > > > > Does she mean the people of Bangladesh, the world's eighth
> most
> > > populous nation? Does `profit' mean gaining the sovereignty and
> > > independence as a nation?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If so, then all nations who have had to fight for independence
> > > from a colonized condition ought to be labeled as having "profited
> from
> > > mythologizing history." And that would include United States of
> America.
> > > > > > Go tell an American that the chronicles of wars and battles
> fought
> > > in the American War of Independence during 1775-1783 are all
> > > mythologised history, and hence a `dominant narrative', a myth that
> is
> > > in dire need of busting!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let us remind ourselves of the announcement of Gen. Yahya Khan
> at
> > > a radio interview at the launching of the Operation Searchlight in
> > > March, 1971 in East Pakistan: "We will kill three million of them,
> and
> > > they will eat out of our hands!" The number â€"3 million â€"
> is
> > > immaterial, though admittedly there is an irresolvable argument that
> > > swirls around it. What is legally relevant here, however, is the
> clear
> > > expression of goal and intent to commit genocide by Pak military
> > > apparatus in East Pakistan.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > New evidences are emerging, not just from the victims of the
> war
> > > crimes of 1971, but from the perpetrators themselves. Eye witnesses
> and
> > > personal encounters from among the Pakistani military personnel are
> > > coming up with accounts of General Niazi, General Rao Farman Ali, et
> al,
> > > exhibiting fierce anti-Bengali racism that underscored activities
> > > against unarmed, unthreatening civilians. Such activities were
> regarded
> > > as reprehensive by even the soldiers who carried out the orders
> because
> > > they violated the rules and norms of engagement in warfare. Several
> > > books have come out over the years by various Pakistani army
> personnel
> > > including one by the infamous General Niazi. They are all replete
> with
> > > quotations and records of utter racial contempt for the Bengalis of
> East
> > > Pakistan on the part of top brass military officers in the Pakistani
> > > army who wanted at least a partial destruction of the whole race of
> > > Bengalis as a punitive measure for their rebellion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We can then proceed to take a peek at the following U. N.
> > > Convetion:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
> of
> > > Genocide (For full text click here)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of
> the
> > > following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in
> part, a
> > > national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (a) Killing members of the group;
> > > > > > (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the
> group;
> > > > > > (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
> > > calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in
> part;
> > > > > > (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the
> group;
> > > > > > (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another
> group.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (a) Genocide;
> > > > > > (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
> > > > > > (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
> > > > > > (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
> > > > > > (e) Complicity in genocide. "
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let us all work for peace as best as each of us can.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Salutes!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Farida Majid
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

__._,_.___

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

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___