Banner Advertise

Saturday, November 8, 2008

RE: [chottala.com] Private car Control

Comparing car with gun is really a laughing stalk. Until public transportation systems evolve, car is the only means of transportation in most part of the country. I believe this is true for all countries, except where donkeys, camels, bullock catrs etc. are the only means. Social progress made the easy and less time consuming means of transportation a part and parcel of the society. Time is money except in the remotest places where work is primitive and very limited. Gun provides security only when the intruders attack. But car is required for normal life situations. Big city people can move using the trains, buses, taxis, rickshaws but people living in the suburbs who mostly commute to the nearest city have no other valternatives than using the cars. For these people, cars are no longer for extra advantage but for day to day requirements for being able to work and earn livlihood.
 
Present reciprocating gas/diesel operated automobile engines are only 50% efficient in using the energy. They have to be converted to electric motor operated engines to raise the efficiency to 95%. Thereby we may control pollutiuons and reduce the cost of operations, eliminating 45% unused energy.
 
Cars shall stay, by number more or less, but needs improverments for saving energy, protecting the environment, and for using as the convenience of transportations. CNG is good for environmrnt. But gas is limited and also for the CNG use in the reciprocating engines, the efficiency is maximum 50%.
 
This is a worldwide issue. Let everybody try in improving it.
 
Regards,
KR




To: notun_bangladesh@yahoogroups.com; bdresearchers@yahoogroups.com; bdresearchers@gmail.com; chottala@yahoogroups.com; alochona@yahoogroups.com; dahuk@yahoogroups.com; dhakamails@yahoogroups.com; bangla_ict@yahoogroups.com; banglarnari@yahoogroups.com; bangla-vision@yahoogroups.com; banglaict@gmail.com; khabor@yahoogroups.com; mybangla@yahoo.com
From: shovan1209@yahoo.com
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 05:15:10 -0800
Subject: [chottala.com] Private car Control


Private car Control

                                               by Edwin J.Feulner, Ph.D.
 
Cars are a menace to society. Every year they lead to thousands of deaths. Criminals use them in committing crimes. And when mixed with drugs or alcohol, their deadly potential increases. In short, cars should be banned.
Sounds crazy, right? But substitute "guns" for "cars" and you have the gun-control argument in a nutshell.

Gun-control advocates will argue that the comparison is unfair, and it is: To guns. The truth is, cars are more dangerous than firearms. In 1997 there were 43,458 motor vehicle deaths in the United States, according to the National Center on Health Statistics. By comparison, there were 32,436 firearms deaths—and fully half of those were suicides.
Notice I said motor vehicle deaths, not motor vehicle accidents. Some will say that gun victims are murdered while car-crash victims are "accidentally" killed, an argument designed to make guns look "bad" and cars "neutral." But 39 percent of all fatal crashes involve drunk drivers using their cars as deadly weapons. By the numbers, criminals kill about 15,000 people a year with guns, and drunk drivers kill about 15,000 people a year with two-ton machines that can travel at more than a hundred miles per hour. Perhaps we should pass a law banning "Saturday Night Chryslers."

Not only do guns cause fewer deaths than the activists would have us believe, they can also be life-savers. According to John Lott, a professor at the University of Chicago, as many as 2 million crimes a year are prevented in the United States because the potential victim is armed. In Canada and Great Britain, for example, where gun controls are stringent, 50 percent of all break-ins occur while the victims are at home. In the United States, where many homeowners own weapons—and the criminals are aware of this—87 percent of all home burglaries occur when the residents are away, Lott notes in his book "More Guns, Less Crime." Is there a lesson here?

For his contribution to the gun-control debate, Professor Lott has become an intellectual pariah. Elite opinion-shapers, who have embraced gun control with religious fervor, want nothing to do with him. In their view, if you have something nice to say about guns you're one of those people—the kind who hunt ducks with bazookas, worry about Communists invading their cul-de-sac, and name their kids "Smith" and "Wesson."

Of course, gun-control snobs are seldom at risk of serious crime themselves. It's easy to preach against guns from gated communities protected by private police forces. But suggest that the $8-an-hour rent-a-cop who guards these neighborhoods be allowed to have a gun to protect his own family, and the gun-control zealots wax hysterical.
Witness today's political debate, which is rife with talk of rights—a "Patients' Bill of Rights" for those who want their insurance plans to cover liposuction, an "Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights" for those who want more (or fewer) peanuts in their in-flight snacks. Mention constitutional rights, however, including the right to own a gun, and you'll be accused of being a Neanderthal.

In Maryland, Attorney General Joseph Curran can't be bothered with the Second Amendment. He wants laws that would ban all handguns in the state. Never mind that Curran is sworn to uphold the Maryland constitution, which guarantees Maryland citizens the protections of the U.S. Constitution. When it comes to the Bill of Rights, some politicians defend only the parts they like.

That's the way the gun-control crowd wants it. No 225-year-old scrap of parchment will stand in the way of their drive to banish guns—but not cars, rocks, knives, baseball bats, or any other object used to inflict harm—from the face of the earth. It's that kind of thinking that poses the real threat to Americans.

Edwin Feulner is president of The Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org), a Washington-based public policy research institute.
Distributed nationally by the Scripps Howard News Service
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed113099b.cfm



Syed Siful Alam Shovan
shovan1209@yahoo.com



--- On Sat, 11/8/08, syed saiful alam <shovan1209@gmail.com> wrote:




Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger  Get it now! __._,_.___

[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




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

__,_._,___

[chottala.com] FW: [ALOCHONA] FW: Why gender equity trumps religious rights

Dear All,
 
Gender equity does have any connections with any religious rights. So, no question arises for triumphing or not triumphing. However, when we see superficially, it appears so. Because, all religions consider the females to be in the second tier of the society. All religions are chauvinist. All religions have been established by the males. Christianity by Jesus, Judaism by Moses, Islam by Mohammad, Hinduism by Rama-Krishna, Buddhism by Gautama, Confucsiasm by Confucius, etc. Spread of all religions have been through pressure, opportunities, activists, sufis, wars, colonialism, etc. where males took the major roles. So, overtime the male influence became so intense that the females slowly got out of the equations. Then the males started to control them as being under them and the tradition turned into chauvinism.
 
It is only recently, about 50 to 100 years ago, the women renaissance started. Moderate and progressive men supported the women's emancipation, avoiding the religious threats of being sinner. The stronger and dedicated women activists around the world started connecting together where some men also played the great roles. All men and women must live as equals. They should not be called man or woman, just human being; and definitely the word "MEN" should not be used to cover all males and females. A poet of Bengal said, "Shobar Upore Manush Shotthyo, Tahr Upore Keu Nai", means, Human being is above all, and no is above the humans. Most all religions except Buddhism, will not agree to the saying of this Bangla Poet, but I do buy into it. And only agreeing upon this fact, one can accept the notion of the equality of Man and Woman. Do we become sinner by doing it? Perhaps, so. But I care more for the equality, peace, and tranquility in this world, being quite ready to surrender any after world dream of the beauties and buffets.
 
Thanks and have great times.
 
Regards,
KR




From: kraisuddin@hotmail.com
To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [ALOCHONA] FW: Why gender equity trumps religious rights
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:32:05 -0400

 
 
--------------------------------------
Cyrus wrote:
 
I second that.



----- Original Message ----
From: "zsyed01@aol.com" <zsyed01@aol.com>
To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2008 10:09:18 AM
Subject: Re: [ALOCHONA] FW: Why gender equity trumps religious rights

Dear Alochoks:

It is appalling how women have always had to bear the brunt of all injustices in this world, be it religious or social. The fact that people are using religious discrimination as a means to obfuscate any rape trial is absolutely disturbing.  
 
In my humble opinion any man accused of rape regardless of what religious or social background he comes from should be castrated especially since certain countries do not believe in capital punishment. But, castration is the type of punishment that would prevent men from committing such heinous crimes!!!
 
Zeenat
Atlanta, GA


-----Original Message-----
From: Farida Majid <farida_majid@ hotmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 3:31 pm
Subject: [ALOCHONA] FW: Why gender equity trumps religious rights

   Subjugation of women is symptomatic of a retarded civil society.
    A retarded civil society is a prerequisite for politics of religious fundamentalism to prosper -- be it in U. S. of America, India, Pakistan or Bangladesh.
     Religious fundamentalism- dependent politics helps keep a nation destabilised and ultimately leads to its ruination.  Look what Bush/Rove fundamentalism has done to America!
     
           --- Farida Majid



To: muslimchronicle@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 07:15:14 -0400
Subject: Why gender equity trumps religious rights


October 2, 2008

Why gender equity trumps religious rights


Janet Keeping

Freedom of religion is an important principle in a free society, but it should not override the rights of women.
From rapes that go unreported because the victim is a female Muslim to the legal enforcement of arbitrations based on religions which seriously disadvantage women in matters such as divorce and child custody, we have seen increased tension between accommodation of religious difference and women's right to equality in our laws, public institutions and society more broadly. This increased tension is due, in part, to greater religious diversity in Canada. Many of the religious groups which have grown in recent years -- for example, some Muslim and Evangelical Christian sects -- don't hold as progressive views on women's rights as some of those that have historically been dominant in Canada, such as the United Church.
But the increased tension is also due to the "global resurgence of religious orthodoxy."
Janice Stein, political scientist at University of Toronto, says this should not surprise us. "When rights in a liberal democratic state bump up against deeply embedded religious-cultural traditions, the hot spot of contention is the rights of women." This is not a slam against Islam. As Stein also points out: "The three great monotheistic religions -- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- all have foundational texts which are profoundly patriarchal . . . which profoundly discriminate against women."
The question is not, why do some religious groups oppress women? That's easy -- their religion tells them to: women can't be priests or bishops or conduct prayer. Women can't enter the temple during menstruation. Women must defer to their male relatives. Women must "dress modestly." We are all aware of the gender discrimination that passes for religion, but as Stein observes, "We rarely speak in public about the coincidence that it is women who are covered, not men, irrespective of religious tradition. Nor do we talk about the belief, common to all religions, that it is women who are responsible for inciting lust or violence in men."
Nor is this a slam against religion per se. Our social institutions might have evolved differently, as in some cultures they did. But facts are facts -- historically most religions have greatly disadvantaged women. Nor does freedom of religion help out here. Freedom of religion and conscience has usually been seen as a way of keeping government from meddling in religion, not as an excuse for religion to dictate to our public institutions.
Besides, in a multicultural society, how could laws and public policy be subject to religion? Which religion, when there is such a variety of them and many people who are not at all religious?
The real question is, what kind of thinking leads a person to conclude that gender equality in our public institutions could ever yield to religious belief? The answer is "bad" thinking, which -- sadly enough -- comes in many forms. For example, it is bad thinking to shy away from the truth that some religious traditions are more humane than others. Some Christian, Jewish and Muslim groups are leaders in the advancement of women's rights. They don't try to bend laws to oppress women -- quite the contrary. But it is just a fact that others treat women as the property of their male relatives. Some practices -- such as "honour" killings of women who have "strayed" -- must never be allowed to influence Canadian laws so as to accommodate these murders.

It is also bad thinking to claim that, generally speaking, women have "made it" in Canada and so compromise with religious fundamentalists on the rights of "their" women is no big deal. (Think of recently arrived burka-clad immigrants or refugees who may be subject to genital mutilation.) Whether in terms of incomes earned, adequacy of child-care facilities or representation in government or on the boards of major corporations, Canadian women are a long, long way from equality. Any loss of ground is a major deal, and "their" rights are just as important as mine.
Not many of our laws state a simple, unassailable moral truth. But Section 28 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does just that. It says that all rights protected by the charter are, "notwithstanding anything else in this charter," "guaranteed equally to male and female persons." When it comes to our laws and public institutions, gender equity must always trump religious doctrine that discriminates against women. In ethics and law, women are entitled to an equal shot at a life worth living.
------------ ---------
Janet Keeping is president of the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership, which is hosting a symposium on diversity issues, Identity and Polarization: Implications for our Ability to Live Well.
 


Discover the new Windows Vista Learn more! __._,_.___

[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




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

__,_._,___

[chottala.com] Private car Control

Private car Control

                                               by Edwin J.Feulner, Ph.D.
 
Cars are a menace to society. Every year they lead to thousands of deaths. Criminals use them in committing crimes. And when mixed with drugs or alcohol, their deadly potential increases. In short, cars should be banned.
Sounds crazy, right? But substitute "guns" for "cars" and you have the gun-control argument in a nutshell.

Gun-control advocates will argue that the comparison is unfair, and it is: To guns. The truth is, cars are more dangerous than firearms. In 1997 there were 43,458 motor vehicle deaths in the United States, according to the National Center on Health Statistics. By comparison, there were 32,436 firearms deaths—and fully half of those were suicides.
Notice I said motor vehicle deaths, not motor vehicle accidents. Some will say that gun victims are murdered while car-crash victims are "accidentally" killed, an argument designed to make guns look "bad" and cars "neutral." But 39 percent of all fatal crashes involve drunk drivers using their cars as deadly weapons. By the numbers, criminals kill about 15,000 people a year with guns, and drunk drivers kill about 15,000 people a year with two-ton machines that can travel at more than a hundred miles per hour. Perhaps we should pass a law banning "Saturday Night Chryslers."

Not only do guns cause fewer deaths than the activists would have us believe, they can also be life-savers. According to John Lott, a professor at the University of Chicago, as many as 2 million crimes a year are prevented in the United States because the potential victim is armed. In Canada and Great Britain, for example, where gun controls are stringent, 50 percent of all break-ins occur while the victims are at home. In the United States, where many homeowners own weapons—and the criminals are aware of this—87 percent of all home burglaries occur when the residents are away, Lott notes in his book "More Guns, Less Crime." Is there a lesson here?

For his contribution to the gun-control debate, Professor Lott has become an intellectual pariah. Elite opinion-shapers, who have embraced gun control with religious fervor, want nothing to do with him. In their view, if you have something nice to say about guns you're one of those people—the kind who hunt ducks with bazookas, worry about Communists invading their cul-de-sac, and name their kids "Smith" and "Wesson."

Of course, gun-control snobs are seldom at risk of serious crime themselves. It's easy to preach against guns from gated communities protected by private police forces. But suggest that the $8-an-hour rent-a-cop who guards these neighborhoods be allowed to have a gun to protect his own family, and the gun-control zealots wax hysterical.
Witness today's political debate, which is rife with talk of rights—a "Patients' Bill of Rights" for those who want their insurance plans to cover liposuction, an "Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights" for those who want more (or fewer) peanuts in their in-flight snacks. Mention constitutional rights, however, including the right to own a gun, and you'll be accused of being a Neanderthal.

In Maryland, Attorney General Joseph Curran can't be bothered with the Second Amendment. He wants laws that would ban all handguns in the state. Never mind that Curran is sworn to uphold the Maryland constitution, which guarantees Maryland citizens the protections of the U.S. Constitution. When it comes to the Bill of Rights, some politicians defend only the parts they like.

That's the way the gun-control crowd wants it. No 225-year-old scrap of parchment will stand in the way of their drive to banish guns—but not cars, rocks, knives, baseball bats, or any other object used to inflict harm—from the face of the earth. It's that kind of thinking that poses the real threat to Americans.

Edwin Feulner is president of The Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org), a Washington-based public policy research institute.
Distributed nationally by the Scripps Howard News Service
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed113099b.cfm



Syed Siful Alam Shovan
shovan1209@yahoo.com



--- On Sat, 11/8/08, syed saiful alam <shovan1209@gmail.com> wrote:

__._,_.___

[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




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

__,_._,___

[chottala.com] Prisoner 650: I can hear her screams [from New Nation, Bangladesh]

Prisoner 650: I can hear her screams

Yvonne Ridley

I FIRST came to Pakistan seven years ago following the horrific events of 9/11 - I am sure every single one of you can remember that day very well.

It was the dawn of a frightening new era - it was the time when George W Bush said: You are either with me or with the terrorists.

Who is with George W Bush now? Who in Pakistan still stands shoulder to shoulder with the President of the United States?

He will be gone from The White House soon, but his rotten legacies will live on. And one of those legacies is his never-ending War on Terror.

His War on Terror gave birth to the cages of Cuba - to Guantanamo Bay where hundreds of our brothers were sold like slaves to the Americans.

I wish this obscenity had happened somewhere else, but the stark reality is retired General Pervez Musharraf and his men got rich on the back of this vile trade - he even admitted it in his autobiography In The Line of Fire.

How could Muslims sink so low as to sell their brothers like parcels of meat?

Slavery was abolished two centuries ago and now we have the US resurrecting it again - shipping captives in shackles once more across the Atlantic.

Because of this outrage, an international organization called Cage Prisoners was launched from London and its work initially focused on the torture and detention of those brothers held in Guantanamo, a boil on the face of humanity.

I became one of the patrons of Cage Prisoners and tried to raise awareness to get justice for our brothers in Islam.

Never in my wildest dreams did I ever believe that sisters would also be swept up in the War on Terror. Never did I ever in my darkest nightmares imagine they would be brutalized, raped and tortured … but they have.

I suppose we should not have been too surprised, after all it seems the US President is totally disinterested in the suffering of others, especially when it comes to Muslims.

Muslim blood is cheap as far as the US military is concerned. The rivers of blood in Iraq and Afghanistan have now been swollen with the blood of innocent Pakistanis.

How did we allow ourselves to sleepwalk into this outrageous state of affairs.

But what still catches my breath is the disinterest expressed by brothers and sisters across the Muslim world to the plight of sisters … and I am talking about all corners of the Muslim world, including here in Pakistan, a country I have grown to love and regard as my second home.

I salute those dear sisters in Lal Masjid who were mocked and ridiculed for trying to close down a brothel - they were mocked and ridiculed for their piety and many of them were martyred as they fought for common decency.

How did we allow that to happen? How did we sink so low?

Newspaper columnists here in Pakistan sneered at their efforts and called their work the Talibanisation of Pakistan.

Anywhere else in the world they would have been praised as feminists and as righteous individuals for trying to close down the sex industry which clearly exploits women.

The Red Mosque has now been painted white - a white wash t how symbolic.

But it's not just the heroic sisters from Lal Masjid which brings me here today.

Five years ago when Cage Prisoners first brought the mystery disappearance of Dr Aafia Siddiqui to the attention of the media no one listened?

OK - five years ago few of us believed that the Bush Administration could really sanction the kidnapping of a mother and her three children.

I know because I was one of those doubters but what changed for me was my own journey to Guantanamo earlier this year. For some bizarre reason the Americans agreed to give me and film-maker David Miller unprecedented access to the world's most notorious prison - and even more amazingly they let us out again.

I am probably one of the few Muslims who flew half way across the world to get to Guantanamo without having to be shackled, shaved and abused.

The experience as brief as it was left me shocked - in fact as I left the maximum security block at Camp Delta one of the young guards asked me how I felt. I told him I was speechless, lost for words. He said proudly: Yup, it's awesome isn't it?

And that is basically the sentiment in there from the most basic recruit, through to the medical staff, the psychiatrists, right up to the Rear Admiral. There is nothing temporary about Guantanamo. Do not expect it to be closed down when the new man steps into The White House.

I don't know who will sit in The White House - Barak Obama or John McCain and the US media can't decide either. They're waiting for a message from Usama bin Ladin. Can you believe it?

One of the first people I interviewed when I returned home from Guantanamo was brother Moazzam Begg, a British detainee who went through untold atrocities at the hands of the so-called civilized American military.

He was kidnapped in the middle of the night from his home in Islamabad and sold to the Americans for 5,000 dollars.

And while we've spoken many times before this latest interview triggered something new inside me.

I had read his book Enemy Combatant and often heard him talk about the screams of a female prisoner in Bagram but in truth, while I would never question Moazzam's story, I did assume that what he heard was a series of pre-recorded tapes performed by actors as part of the CIA/FBI mental torture program.

So in this latest interview I threw this theory at Moazzam and he responded saying he knew the screams were real because other brothers in Guantanamo talked about it when he arrived there and, more importantly there were eye witness accounts, brothers who had actually seen the woman detainee.

Bagram, he said, was far worse than anything in Guantanamo. Did you know four Arab brothers escaped from Bagram in July 2005? Did you? Well this is something the Americans do not want you to know, but they did and when they fled that hell hole one brother gave an interview to talk about the plight of one prisoner in particular.

This prisoner was the woman that Moazzam Begg heard scream throughout the night, every night without fail. When the Arab brother saw her he said she had clearly lost her mind. She had been raped, abused and used without mercy by those dogs in Bagram.

Her state was so wretched the male detainees in Bagram went on hunger strike.

Without giving away sources, we soon established that the woman in Bagram was registered in US intelligence documents as Prisoner 650 - I was horrified. I suddenly realized that the screams Moazzam had heard were real.

As you know I was held in Afghanistan by the Taliban for 10 days. They were 10 terrifying days even though I was given the key to lock my own door, even though my captors always knocked and asked permission to enter my room. Whenever I needed to use the bathroom, I only had to ask and I was escorted to the bathroom and an armed guard remained outside while I washed and showered in complete privacy.

But no such respect and decency was given to Prisoner 650 - no, this sister was brutalized. She had to share the same open toilet as the men and there were no closed doors, or shower curtains when she wanted to wash.

No wonder Moazzam still hears her cries and screams today.

I also began to hear her cries and screams and so I came to Pakistan in July to ask for help.

I turned to Imran Khan, a great politician and a man of integrity - he agreed to organize a press conference, and was so moved by the mission to find Prisoner 650. I begged the media to help demand the release of Prisoner 650.

I pointed out that my story had made headlines and front page news for the entire 10 days of my captivity when I was captured by the Taliban after 9/11 simply because I am a white, western woman.

Back in Britain, Lord Nazir Ahmed answered my call for help. Not only did he submit a series of hard-hitting questions to the British Government, he roused the Pakistan media in London and announced that if Prisoner 650 was not released then he and I would go to the gates of Bagram and demand her release.

It was inevitable that people would assume Prisoner 650 was Dr Siddiqui and the awkward questions started to be asked after more than 100 media turned up at our scrambled press conference. A Cage Prisoner report was handed out giving the wider picture of the disappeared in Pakistan.

Then suddenly Dr Aafia Siddiqui emerged as though a magician had pulled a rabbit out of a hat - she emerged in a dazed and confused state outside the Governor of Gardez's offices in Afghanistan.

Imagine that … FIVE years after her disappearance in Karachi. And according to the FBI she was carrying in her handbag pieces of bomb-making equipment and photographs of various landmarks in New York City.

What nonsense and how dare the FBI insult our intelligence this way.

Of course the FBI lost much of its credibility when its chief J Edgar Hoover was revealed to be a transvestite who preferred to wear a red dress and be called by the name of Mary.

Hoover, probably one of the most powerful men in America was the originator of dirty tricks campaigns, lies and deceits and his legacy lives on.

Even today US intelligence officers live in a fantasy world but instead of mincing around in red frocks they spend their time dressing up the truth with layer after layer of lies.

Sadly most of the American people have no idea what has, and still is, being done in their name. If they knew the truth they would be disgusted like the rest of us, so please do not vent your anger on ordinary US citizens, they are as much victims of the Bush Administrations lies as the rest of us.

This was quite evident with the story of Dr Aafia Siddiqui.

It is no coincidence that Cage Prisoners had raised the issue of Dr Siddiqui less than two weeks before.

Many of you know Dr Siddiqui's story - she had been shot by a brave US soldier at close range after she managed to overpower one of his colleagues and fire a gun twice. This woman is less than 70 pounds. This story is rubbish.

If you want the truth she was shot three times - once in the back, by two US soldiers and she NEVER attempted to wrestle any of them or disarm them.

They actually left her for 15 minutes to bleed to death - they shot to kill, but it was the insistence of Afghans at the scene that resulted in medical treatment and surgery.

The US authorities had no right under international law to then cart off this injured victim to America - imagine that t the victim is now back in the hands of her abusers.

But you know what makes this even worse - while our sister lies in agony waiting to be tried for nonsense charges in an American court, two of her children, a babe in arms and toddler (at the time of their disappearance), are still missing. Where are they?

And I'll tell you something else which should make your blood run cold. The Americans have now admitted that the Grey Lady of Bagram does exist.

But Dr Aafia Siddiqui is NOT Prisoner 650, the Grey Lady of Bagram. We still do not know who Prisoner 650 is. We do not know where she is, and we do not know how many other Pakistani women are being held as female enemy combatants - yes, that is what the pentagon calls them: Female Enemy Combatants.

Today I am begging each and every one of you, as your sister in Islam, to help me find Prisoner 650.

If you remain silent I may never find her. But I tell you something now - I can hear her screams and when you go to bed tonight so will you.

Have we all sunk so low that the cries of this sister remain unanswered? The time has come when the people of Pakistan need to restore pride to this great country. You here today can set the agenda. You here today can make a change. You here today can get rid of those rotten politicians and their weasel words.

Those in power only seem great because they try and keep you on your knees. Rise up and bow to no one but Allah. When the people lead, the leaders will follow.



(Yvonne Ridley is a British renowned journalist, captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan, while on assignment with the London's Sunday Express in 2001. She subsequently converted to Islam and now works for the Iranian-based 24-hour English language news channel Press TV, where she fronts her own London-based current affairs show, The Agenda. She was a regular contributor and columnist of defunct Muslims Weekly-New York, the parent newspaper of DailyMuslims.com. She continues her column for DailyMuslims.com.)
 
 
Prisoner 650: I can hear her screams
The New Nation, Bangladesh - Nov 3, 2008
Five years ago when Cage Prisoners first brought the mystery disappearance of Dr Aafia Siddiqui to the attention of the media no one listened? ...
__._,_.___

[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




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

__,_._,___