Banner Advertise

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

[chottala.com] Re: Bank loot....



Banditry involving many banks unveiled

Powerful syndicates suck them dry

Massive shady transactions of money have been done in the country's banking sector with forged and fake documents in the last three years and a half, insiders said.Powerful syndicates are allegedly engaged in swindling and siphoning off huge sums of money, and the banks concerned are helping each other in committing the crime, the sources said in the wake of detection of the biggest incident of banditry ever in the country—that in a state-owned bank.

It is learnt from the sources that an amount of Tk 10,000 crore has been swindled from different state-owned and private banks so far.Although six organizations, including Hallmark Group, have taken away Tk 4,000 crore from Sonali Bank, all the loan-recipients, excepting Hallmark, are yet to be traced.

Sources said fake deeds and documents of land property as collateral, letter of credit (LC) and bank drafts are used as instruments in bungling out the public money from banks.So-called owners of signboard-only companies have already defalcated fabulous amounts of money from various banks "with the connivance of influential persons close to the ruling quarters", the sources said.

The defalcation Tk 10,000 crore has affected negatively the banking sector and country's overall economic structure.Business leaders alleged the 'corporate robbery' going on in the name of corporate loan would cast disastrous effect on the country's economy.

Officials observed that financial irregularities are taking place for lack of regular monitoring and audit from Bangladesh Bank. Some officials of the central bank apprehended that most of these dubious loans cannot be recovered as its share lands in the pockets of people close to the powers that be.

The central bank has found involvement of 26 local and foreign banks, including the Sonali Bank, in the Hallmark loan scam, the most daring pecuniary offence in the banking sector.These banks helped each other in the surreptitious lending operations, the central bank said, quoting its investigation report.

Dr Salehuddin Ahmed, a former Bangladesh Bank governor, expressed deep concern over the rise in financial fraudulence.He held the central bank responsible for the Hallmark scam.

Bangladesh Krishi Bank chairman and former BB deputy governor Khandker Ibrahim Khaled said officials of Sonali Bank and the central bank were "equally responsible" for the Hallmark scam. "Involvement of some ruling influential in the scam is being also heard of."He demanded exemplary punishment of those involved in the loan scam, so that it stands out as a deterrent.

A BB official, wishing anonymity, said that the politically appointed directors of the Sonali Bank played a pivotal role in the lending process."Although most of these politically appointed directors are ignorant of the tricks of the trade in banking, they do not allow other efficient bankers to function well," he alleged.

http://www.daily-sun.com/details_Banditry-involving-many-banks-unveiled_260_1_1_1_2.html


On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:


http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=248964



http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=248952


On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:


http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2012-09-06/news/287037



On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:


On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:
Tk 4,000cr loan scam is nothing big: Muhith

"People for nothing are raising hue and cry on the issue and tarnishing the image of the country,"
the minister said.
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/latest_news.php?nid=40520


On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:




Muhith ridicules media outcry; experts shocked : http://www.thedailystar.net/photo/2012/09/05/2012-09-05__fr01.jpg
AL men plundering banks like in 72-75: Fakhrul
http://news.priyo.com/politics/2012/09/04/al-men-plundering-ba-58982.html
Sonali Bank Loan Scam-The enemy within



This story of corruption is part of a large, dark picture of a more than Tk 3,500-crore embezzlement by textile company Hall-Mark Group and five other companies in connivance with the bank officials and some influential political figures.

http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=248291


On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:
Bank loot....







On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:
Bank loot....










__._,_.___


[* 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] The 11th Anniversary of 9/11

Yeah but what should have USA done, ...
.
* ... when she did not know those 18 Moslim Sneak Attack Terrorists?
* ... when the only info available from Philippines was that Al Qaeda wants to recruit Pilots?
* ... when nobody could think, those Pilots were going to use the biggest Airliners as Missiles and there were no such precedents?
* ... when recruiting Pilots could be only assumed as Airliner Hijackings.?
* ... when Airliner Hijackings normally fail and do not cause that much Death & Destruction?
* ... when USA did not know she should suspect a few people, Saudi Government had backed issuance of Visas to?
* ... when USA did not know, the future Hijackers were getting training in USA?


--- In chottala@yahoogroups.com, Isha Khan <bdmailer@...> wrote:
>
> The 11th Anniversary of 9/11
>
> by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
>
> Editor's note: Our position at CounterPunch on the events of 9/11 is
> well-known to our readers and to some of our most popular writers,
> like Craig Roberts, who hold a dissenting opinion. That opinion hasn't
> changed and we wear the battle scars to prove it. Sometime in April of
> this year, when Alex was undergoing treatments in Germany for his
> cancer, he sent me a note about a recent PCR column that had
> delicately weaved a few sentences of 9/11 Trutherism into an otherwise
> cogent attack on the loss of civil liberties in America. Alex joked
> about it, saying Roberts had embedded these sentences like land mines
> for the sole purposed of wondering if we would detect them. We always
> did and promptly amputated them from the essays. In fact, Alex had
> wanted to publish a book debating the Truther's best case scenario. He
> said that Roberts had been such a good sport all these years that
> perhaps we should let one of them slip through. Indeed, Alex had
> wanted to publish a book where the Truthers' best case scenario would
> be put to the test and thoroughly debated. So here you are, Craig, a
> present from the shade of Alexander Cockburn on the eleventh
> anniversary of 9/11. –JSC
>
> The article below was written for the Journal of 9/11 Studies for the
> eleventh anniversary of September 11, 2001, the day that terminated
> accountable government and American liberty. It is posted here with
> the agreement of the editors.
>
> In order to understand the improbability of the government's
> explanation of 9/11, it is not necessary to know anything about what
> force or forces brought down the three World Trade Center buildings,
> what hit the Pentagon or caused the explosion, the flying skills or
> lack thereof of the alleged hijackers, whether the airliner crashed in
> Pennsylvania or was shot down, whether cell phone calls made at the
> altitudes could be received, or any other debated aspect of the
> controversy.
>
> You only have to know two things.
>
> One is that according to the official story, a handful of Arabs,
> mainly Saudi Arabians, operating independently of any government and
> competent intelligence service, men without James Bond and V for
> Vendetta capabilities, outwitted not only the CIA, FBI, and National
> Security Agency, but all 16 US intelligence agencies, along with all
> security agencies of America's NATO allies and Israel's Mossad. Not
> only did the entire intelligence forces of the Western world fail, but
> on the morning of the attack the entire apparatus of the National
> Security State simultaneously failed. Airport security failed four
> times in one hour. NORAD failed. Air Traffic Control failed. The US
> Air Force failed.
>
> The National Security Council failed. Dick Cheney failed. Absolutely
> nothing worked. The world's only superpower was helpless at the
> humiliating mercy of a few undistinguished Arabs.
>
> It is hard to image a more far-fetched story–except for the second
> thing you need to know: The humiliating failure of US National
> Security did not result in immediate demands from the President of the
> United States, from Congress, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and from
> the media for an investigation of how such improbable total failure
> could have occurred. No one was held accountable for the greatest
> failure of national security in world history. Instead, the White
> House dragged its feet for a year resisting any investigation until
> the persistent demands from 9/11 families for accountability forced
> President George W. Bush to appoint a political commission, devoid of
> any experts, to hold a pretend investigation.
>
> On 9/11 Doubts Were Immediate
>
> By Paul Craig Roberts
>
> On September 11, 2001, a neighbor telephoned and said, "turn on the
> TV." I assumed that a hurricane, possibly a bad one from the sound of
> the neighbor's voice, was headed our way, and turned on the TV to
> determine whether we needed to shutter the house and leave.
>
> What I saw was black smoke from upper floors of one of the World Trade
> Center towers. It didn't seem to be much of a fire, and the reports
> were that the fire was under control. While I was trying to figure out
> why every TV network had its main news anchor covering an office fire,
> TV cameras showed an airplane hitting the other tower. It was then
> that I learned that both towers had been hit by airliners.
>
> Cameras showed people standing at the hole in the side of the tower
> looking out. This didn't surprise me. The airliner was minute compared
> to the massive building. But what was going on? Two accidents, one on
> top of the other?
>
> The towers—the three-fourths or four-fifths of the buildings beneath
> the plane strikes–were standing, apparently largely undamaged. There
> were no signs of fire except in the vicinity of where the airliners
> had hit. Suddenly, one of the towers blew up, disintegrated, and
> disappeared in fine dust. Before one could make any sense of this, the
> same thing happened to the second tower, and it too disappeared into
> fine dust.
>
> The TV news anchors compared the disintegration of the towers to
> controlled demolition. There were numerous reports of explosions
> throughout the towers from the base or sub-basements to the top. (Once
> the government put out the story of terrorist attack, references to
> controlled demolition and explosions disappeared from the print and TV
> media.) This made sense to me. Someone had blown up the buildings. It
> was completely obvious that the towers had not fallen down from
> asymmetrical structural damage. They had blown up.
>
> The images of the airliners hitting the towers and the towers blowing
> up were replayed time and again. Airliners hit the top portions of
> the towers, and not long afterward the towers blew up. I turned off
> the TV wondering how it was that cameras had been ready to catch such
> an unusual phenomenon as an airplane flying into a skyscraper.
>
> I don't remember the time line, but it wasn't long before the story
> was in place that Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda gang had attacked
> the US. A passport had been found in the rubble. Another airliner had
> flown into the Pentagon, and a fourth airliner had crashed or been
> shot down. Four airliners had been hijacked, meaning airport security
> had failed four times on the same morning. Terrorists had successfully
> assaulted America.
>
> When I heard these reports, I wondered. How could a tiny undamaged
> passport be found in the rubble of two skyscrapers, each more than 100
> stories tall, when bodies, office furniture and computers could not be
> found? How could airport security fail so totally that four airliners
> could be hijacked within the same hour? How could authorities know so
> conclusively and almost immediately the names of the perpetrators who
> pulled off such a successful attack on the world's only superpower,
> when the authorities had no idea that such an attack was planned or
> even possible?
>
> These questions disturbed me, because as a former member of the
> congressional staff and as a presidential appointee to high office, I
> had high level security clearances. In addition to my duties as
> Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, I had FEMA responsibilities in
> the event of nuclear attack. There was a mountain hideaway to which I
> was supposed to report in the event of a nuclear attack and from which
> I was supposed to take over the US government in the event no higher
> official survived the attack.
>
> The more the story of 9/11 was presented in the media, the more
> wondrous it became. It is not credible that not only the CIA and FBI
> failed to detect the plot, but also all 16 US intelligence agencies,
> including the National Security Agency, which spies on everyone on the
> planet, and the Defense Intelligence Agency, Israel's Mossad, and the
> intelligence agencies of Washington's NATO allies. There are simply
> too many watchmen and too much infiltration of terrorist groups for
> such a complex attack to be prepared undetected and carried out
> undeterred.
>
> Washington's explanation of the attack implied a security failure too
> massive to be credible. Such a catastrophic failure of national
> security would mean that the US and Western Europe were never safe for
> one second during the Cold War, that the Soviet Union could have
> destroyed the entire West in one undetected fell swoop.
>
> As a person whose colleagues at the Center for Strategic and
> International Studies in Washington were former secretaries of state,
> former national security advisors, former CIA directors, former
> chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I was troubled by the story
> that a collection of individuals unsupported by a competent
> intelligence service had pulled off the events of 9/11.
>
> As a person with high level government service, I knew that any such
> successful operation as 9/11 would have resulted in immediate demands
> from the White House, Congress, and the media for accountability.
> There would have been an investigation of how every aspect of US
> security could totally fail simultaneously in one morning. Such a
> catastrophic and embarrassing failure of the national security state
> would not be left unexamined.
>
> NORAD failed. The US Air Force could not get jet fighters in the air.
> Air Traffic Control lost sight of the hijacked airliners. Yet, instead
> of launching an investigation, the White House resisted for one year
> the demands of the 9/11 families for an investigation. Neither the
> public, the media, nor Congress seemed to think an investigation was
> necessary. The focus was on revenge, which the Bush neocon regime said
> meant invading Afghanistan which was alleged to be sheltering the
> perpetrator, Osama bin Laden.
>
> Normally, terrorists are proud of their success and announce their
> responsibility. It is a way to build a movement. Often a number of
> terrorist groups will compete in claiming credit for a successful
> operation. But Osama bin Laden in the last video that is certified by
> independent experts said that he had no responsibility for 9/11, that
> he had nothing against the American people, that his opposition was
> limited to the US government's colonial policies and control over
> Muslim governments.
>
> It makes no sense that the "mastermind" of the most humiliating blow
> in world history ever to have been delivered against a superpower
> would not claim credit for his accomplishment. By September 11, 2001,
> Osama bin Laden knew that he was deathly ill. According to news
> reports he underwent kidney dialysis the following month. The most
> reliable reports that we have are that he died in December 2001. It is
> simply not credible that bin Laden denied responsibility because he
> feared Washington.
>
> But Osama bin Laden was too useful a bogeyman, and Washington and the
> presstitute media kept him alive for another decade until Obama needed
> to kill the dead man in order to boost his sinking standings in the
> polls so that Democrats would not back a challenger for the Democratic
> presidential nomination.
>
> Numerous bin Laden videos, every one pronounced a fake by experts,
> were released whenever it was convenient for Washington. No one in the
> Western media or in the US Congress or European or UK parliaments was
> sufficiently intelligent to recognize that a bin Laden video always
> showed up on cue when Washington needed it. "Why would the
> `mastermind' be so accommodating for Washington?" was the question
> that went through my mind every time one of the fake videos was
> released.
>
> The 9/11 "investigation" that finally took place was a political one
> run from the White House. One member of the commission resigned,
> declaring the investigation to be a farce, and both co-chairman and
> the legal counsel of the 9/11 Commission distanced themselves from
> their report with statements that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to
> fail," that resources were withheld from the commission, that
> representatives of the US military lied to the commission and that the
> commission considered referring the false testimony for criminal
> prosecution.
>
> One would think that these revelations would cause a sensation, but
> the news media, Congress, the White House, and the public were silent.
>
> All of this bothered me a great deal. The US had invaded two Muslim
> countries based on unsubstantiated allegations linking the two
> countries to 9/11, which itself remained uninvestigated. The
> neoconservatives who staffed the George W. Bush regime were advocating
> more invasions of more Muslim countries. Paul O'Neill, President
> Bush's first Treasury Secretary, stated publicly that the Bush regime
> was planning to invade Iraq prior to 9/11. O'Neill said that no one at
> a National Security Council meeting even asked the question, why
> invade Iraq? "It was all about finding a way to do it."
>
> The leaked top secret Downing Street Memo written by the head of
> British intelligence (MI6) confirms Paul O'Neill's testimony. The
> memo, known as the "smoking gun memo" whose authenticity has been
> confirmed, states that "President George W. Bush wants to remove
> Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction
> of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed
> around the policy." In other words, the US invasion of Iraq was based
> on nothing but a made up lie.
>
> As an engineering student I had witnessed a controlled demolition.
> When films of the collapse of WTC building 7 emerged, it was obvious
> that building 7 had been brought down by controlled demolition. When
> physics instructor David Chandler measured the descent of the building
> and established that it took place at free fall acceleration, the case
> was closed. Buildings cannot enter free fall unless controlled
> demolition has removed all resistance to the collapsing floors.
>
> If airliners brought down two skyscrapers, why was controlled
> demolition used to bring down a third building?
>
> I assumed that structural architects, structural engineers, and
> physicists would blow the whistle on the obviously false story. If I
> could see that something was amiss, certainly more highly trained
> people would.
>
> The first physicist to make an effective and compelling argument was
> Steven Jones at BYU. Jones said that explosives brought down the twin
> towers. He made a good case. For his efforts, he was pressured to
> resign his tenured position. I wondered whether the federal government
> had threatened BYU's research grants or whether patriotic trustees and
> alumni were the driving force behind Jones' expulsion. Regardless, the
> message was clear to other university based experts: "Shut up or we'll
> get you."
>
> Steven Jones was vindicated when chemist Niels Harrit of the
> University of Copenhagen In Denmark reported unequivocally that the
> scientific team in which he participated found nano-thermite in the
> residue of the twin towers. This sensational finding was not mentioned
> in the US print and TV media to my knowledge.
>
> Several years after 9/11, architect Richard Gage formed Architects and
> Engineers for 9/11 truth, an organization that has grown to include
> 1,700 experts. The plans of the towers have been studied. They were
> formidable structures. They were constructed to withstand airliner
> hits and fires. There is no credible explanation of their failure
> except intentional demolition.
>
> I also found disturbing the gullibility of the public, media, and
> Congress in the unquestioning acceptance of the official stories of
> the shoe-bomber, shampoo and bottled water bomber, and underwear
> bomber plots to blow up airliners in transit. These schemes are
> farcical. How can we believe that al Qaeda, capable of pulling off the
> most fantastic terrorist attack in history and capable of devising
> improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that kill and maim US troops and
> destroy US military vehicles would rely on something that had to be
> lighted with a match? The shoe and underwear bombers would simply have
> pushed a button on their cell phones or laptops, and the liquid bomb
> would not have required extended time in a lavatory to be mixed (all
> to no effect).
>
> None of this makes any sense. Moreover, experts disputed many of the
> government's claims, which were never backed by anything but the
> government's story line. There is no independent evidence that
> anything was involved other than firecracker powders.
>
> The case of the underwear bomber is especially difficult to accept.
> According to witnesses, the underwear bomber was not allowed on the
> airliner, because he had no passport. So an official appears who walks
> him onto the airliner bound for Detroit on Christmas day. What kind of
> official has the authority to override established rules, and what did
> the official think would happen to the passenger when he presented
> himself to US Customs without a passport? Any official with the power
> to override standard operating practices would know that it was
> pointless to send a passenger to a country where his entry would be
> rejected.
>
> The circumstantial evidence is that these were orchestrated events
> designed to keep fear alive, to create new intrusive powers for a new
> over-arching federal policy agency, to accustom US citizens to
> intrusive searches and a police force to conducting them, and to sell
> expensive porno-scanners and now more advanced devices to the
> Transportation Safety Administration. Apparently, this expensive
> collection of high-tech gadgetry is insufficient to protect us from
> terrorists, and in August 2012 the Department of Homeland Security put
> in an order for 750 million rounds of ammunition, enough to shoot
> every person in the US 2.5 times.
>
> Naive and gullible Americans claim that if some part of the US
> government had been involved in 9/11, "someone would have talked by
> now." A comforting thought, perhaps, but nothing more. Consider, for
> example, the cover-up by the US government of the 1967 Israeli attack
> on the USS Liberty that killed or wounded most of the crew but failed
> to sink the ship. As the survivors have testified, they were ordered
> in a threatening way not to speak about the event. It was twelve years
> later before one of the USS Liberty's officers, James Ennes, told the
> story of the attack in his book, Assault on the Liberty. I continue to
> wonder how the professionals at the National Institute of Standards
> and Technology feel about being maneuvered by the federal government
> into the unscientific position NIST took concerning the destruction of
> the WTC towers.
>
> What will be the outcome of the doubts about the official story raised
> by experts? I worry that most Americans are too mentally and
> emotionally weak to be able to come to grips with the truth. They are
> far more comfortable with the story that enemies attacked America
> successfully despite the massive national security state in place. The
> American public has proved itself to be so cowardly that it willingly,
> without a peep, sacrificed its civil liberty and the protections of
> law guaranteed by the Constitution in order to be "safe."
>
> Congress is not about to expose itself for having squandered trillions
> of dollars on pointless wars based on an orchestrated "new Pearl
> Harbor." When the neoconservatives said that a "new Pearl Harbor" was
> a requirement for their wars for American/Israeli hegemony, they set
> the stage for the 21st century wars that Washington has launched. If
> Syria falls, there is only Iran, and then Washington stands in direct
> confrontation with Russia and China.
>
> Unless Russia and China can be overthrown with "color revolutions,"
> these two nuclear powers are unlikely to submit to Washington's
> hegemony. The world as we know it might be drawing to a close.
>
> If enough Americans or even other peoples in the world had the
> intelligence to realize that massive steel structures do not
> disintegrate into fine dust because a flimsy airliner hits them and
> limited short-lived fires burn on a few floors, Washington would be
> faced with the suspicion it deserves.
>
> If 9/11 was actually the result of the failure of the national
> security state to deter an attack, the government's refusal to conduct
> a real investigation is an even greater failure. It has fallen to
> concerned and qualified individuals to perform the investigative role
> abandoned by government. The presentations at the Toronto Hearings,
> along with the evaluations of the Panel, are now available, as is the
> documentary film, "Explosive Evidence–Experts Speak Out," provided by
> Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
>
> The government's agents and apologists try to deflect attention from
> disturbing facts by redefining factual evidence revealed by experts as
> the product of "a conspiracy culture." If people despite their
> brainwashing and lack of scientific education are able to absorb the
> information made available to them, perhaps both the US Constitution
> and peace could be restored. Only informed people can restrain
> Washington and avert the crazed hegemonic US government from
> destroying the world in war.
>
> Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury
> and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. His latest book,
> Wirtschaft am Abgrund (Economies In Collapse) has just been published.
>
> http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/11/the-11th-anniversary-of-911/
>




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

[* 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]
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chottala/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chottala/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
chottala-digest@yahoogroups.com
chottala-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
chottala-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [chottala.com] The hijacked victory of Bangladesh - Major Faruk Ahmed (Retd)..Comments



Despite Pakistan have and was separated from India..supposedly Democracy..and it did have civilian rule for a while, but experiment with Democracy lasted as UCCHABHILASHI Military individual Governed the, One of the most startling issue may not find in any other country is..Awami Leagues 6 Dhafa, based on which Awami League won the election prior to independence..One of the Crucial demand was CONTROL OF ARMED FORCES..

I was telling a Pakistani gentleman that military does the best with what ever they have, but the fact if Military does not always get the best and brightest...I even quipped story has it..some of the Military does not have brain in their head just METAL PLATES..I guess heads had that many implants..I guess this is where one see the dilemma, of OSMANI< ZIA and even successive Military Chiefs..in real sense Gen Ershad is only exception..I think he has learned to adjust with the situation..Well I guess as I mentioned in earlier email this involves trip of Sheikh Mujib..trip to AGARTALA..

The thing is Dr Kamal left him, Osmani left him, Zia ascended to power..I guess Joke most probably..is MUJIBBAD as it was called....I guess it meant WITH OUT MUJIB..may wonder why certain segment still  today..just cannot tolerate Sheikh Mujib and AWAMI LEAGUE..taking on Military..the other issue is its platform called SECULARIST form of Govt..same people that dislike Awami League dislike Indira too..the thing is they were also in secularist mold..that means Old ALL INDIA CONGRESS...

It as I last night heard IC...that is finally  The Character on..Bangladesh Surrender picture this individual on the far right...his name is JACOB..a Indian Jew..he is the designer and architect of the most of these..Military ambitious activity..him blessed by ISREAL loobby arroud the world.

Debasish Barua


From: kabeerul islam <kabeerulislam@yahoo.com>
To: "chottala@yahoogroups.com" <chottala@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:16 AM
Subject: Re: [chottala.com] The hijacked victory of Bangladesh - Major Faruk Ahmed (Retd)

 
Thanks for sharing a nice write up.
The actual martyrs were 0.3 million( Must have a Survey), (01 million= 10 lac)
The known figure is 3 millions.( as per politician)
But Martyrs as per Major Faruk  is  30 millions( Must be a mistake !!)
 
best regards
From: Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 7:46 AM
Subject: [chottala.com] The hijacked victory of Bangladesh - Major Faruk Ahmed (Retd)
 
The hijacked victory of Bangladesh - Major Faruk Ahmed (Retd)    
 
 

Major Faruk Ahmed (Retd)
Introduction
 
 Bangladesh has achieved her Independence through a bloody War of
Liberation continued for 9 months from March to December of the year 1971. The victory was achieved by fighting against the West Pakistani occupation Forces sacrificing blood of 30 million martyrs. Bangladesh is indebted to India for the support that she provided during this war but the nation cannot accept that our hard-earned victory should be hijacked by India as an exchange of the given assistance.
 
Today, it is imperative for us to see - how our victory was hijacked by India on the very Victory Day in 1971. Such study will help in identifying difference between agendas of India and Bangladesh in 1971. In order to determine today’s Bangladesh-India relations, we cannot overlook such a significant event of our history.
 
This paper will endeavour to briefly highlight followings :
 
a. How the concept of an Independent nation was conceived.
b. How were the people of the then East Pakistan forced to start armed resistance?
c. India’s motive behind supporting Bangladesh’s Independence.
d. How the Victory of Bangladesh was hijacked on the very Victory Day.
   
How the concept of an Independent nation was conceived
 
We need to recognize which historic event was the turning point for achieving our separate identity. Following event will make it clear why today Bangladesh, the then East Bengal of British-India is an Independent country and why West Bengal of India is not.
 
The historic Lahore Resolution.
 
The Lahore Resolution1, commonly known as the Pakistan Resolution was a formal political statement adopted by the All-India Muslim League on the occasion of its three-day general session on March 22-24, 1940. It called for the creation of 'independent states' for Muslims in British India. The constituent units of these states were to be autonomous and sovereign. This was later interpreted as a demand for a separate Muslim state, Pakistan. The resolution was presented by Abul Kashem Fazlul Huq, the then Chief Minister of Bengal who is titled ‘Sher-e-Bangla’ meaning ‘Tiger of Bengal’.
 
Muslim League working Committee at the Lahore session
(Sher-e-Bangla at the centre of front row)
 
The statement declared :
 
“No constitutional plan would be workable or acceptable to the Muslims unless geographical contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary. That the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in majority as in the North-Western and Eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.�
 
The Resolution rejected the concept of United India and recommended the creation of an independent Muslim state consisting of Punjab, N. W. F. P., Sindh and Baluchistan
in the northwest, and Bengal and Assam in the northeast.
 
On the basis of this Lahore resolution, on 14th August, 1947- the state of Pakistan emerged on the map of the world. Thus, the then East Bengal; later East Pakistan which is today’s Bangladesh has achieved independence jointly with West Pakistan.
 
 
Later on, in 1971, through an armed struggle- we have partitioned from West Pakistan and the then East Pakistan emerged as a sole Independent country of today’s Bangladesh.
 
Our nation will remain ever indebted to Sher-eâ€"Bangla Abul Kashem Fazlul Hoq for his great contribution in laying the foundation stone of Independence through Lahore Resolution without which we could never get separated from India and would have remained as a mere province of India same as West Bengal. This is why the Lahore Resolution is the fundamental source of spirit and a prime enabling factor behind the achievement of Independent Bangladesh.
 
How were the people of the then East Pakistan forced to start armed resistance?
 
a.
Cultural and economic deprivation. The declaration of Urdu to be Pakistan’s only state-language and economic deprivation caused grievances in the minds of East Pakistani people. Detail description of this is avoided here.
     
b.
Political deprivation. In the General Election of Pakistan held in December 1970, Awami League led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman won majority seats. But President
 
Yahiya was not handing over the power to Sheikh Mujib as the Prime Minister of Pakistan as West Pakistani leader Zulfikar Ali Bhutto opposed to accepting Sheikh Mujib as the Prime Minister of Pakistan.
In order to exert pressure on Pakistani Govt to expedite the handing over of power, Sheikh Mujib held meeting in Dhaka Race Course Ground on 7th March 1971 and placed 4 points demand in his speech2. The first demand was:Immediate handover of power to the elected representatives.  Of course, in the last sentence of his speech, he mentioned that this time our movement is for freedom and independence.
     
 
As a democratic leader of Pakistan, Sheikh Mujib’s politics was based on united Pakistan. After the meeting of 7th March 1971, he sat for round table dialogue with President Yahiya Khan and West Pakistani leader Zulfikar Ali Bhutto which continued till 23rd March 1971 at Dhaka Sheraton Hotel (now Ruposhi Bangle Hotel).
     
 
Though separation was not an agenda of democratic movement of East Pakistani people but it was imposed on the nation by brutal armed massacre conducted on 25th March 1971.
     
c.
Conduct of the massacre leading to armed resistance and separation. West Pakistani Army launched Operation Search Light on the night of 25th March 1971 and killed thousands in Dhaka and Chittagong. That very night, Sheikh Mujib surrendered from his Dhanmondi residence and later taken to West Pakistan.
     
 
The massacre by West Pakistani soldiers made the separation of East Pakistan from West Pakistan inevitable. Nation was at a loss because of the absence of
direction as all political leaders took shelter in India and Sheikh Mujib surrendered. At that juncture, Major Zia, Secondâ€"in-Command of the 8th Bengal Regiment stationed in Chittagong, revolted and claiming himself as the Provisional Head of State, he declared Independence4 through Chittagong Kalur Ghat Radio Station3. Later on, he amended the message and re-declared the Independence on behalf of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.
This declaration was broadcast hourly and the impact of this broadcast, which were picked up by the civilians and isolated Bengali units fighting the West Pakistanis, was significant.
     
India’s motive behind supporting Bangladesh’s Independence
     
The 7 point Agreement that India compelled the exile Bangladeshi Govt led by our great leader Tajuddin Ahmed, to sign which planned to convert Bangladesh into a semi-state of India devoid of any sovereign right. Let us have a glance on that secret Agreement4: (Quote)
   
 
(1) A para-military armed force for Bangladesh will be raised under supervision of the Indian military experts; this force shall be stronger and more active than the regular armed forces of Bangladesh.
     
 
(2) Bangladesh shall procure all military equipment from India and under planned supervision of the Indian military experts.
     
 
(3) Bangladesh shall direct her foreign trade under supervision and control of the Indian government.
     
 
(4) Yearly and five-yearly development plans for Bangladesh shall conform to Indian development plans.
     
 
(5) Foreign policy of Bangladesh must be compatible with and conform to that of India.
     
 
(6) Bangladesh shall not unilaterally rescind any of the treaties without prior approval of the Indian government.
     
 
(7) In accordance with the treaties signed before December (1971) war of Pakistan and India, Indian force shall enter into Bangladesh at any time and shall crush any resistance that may erupt there. (Unquote)
     
Such motive of India encouraged her to hijack the victory of Bangladesh.
     
How the Victory of Bangladesh was hijacked on the very Victory Day
     
 
The armed resistance was joined by all units of the East Bengal Regiment (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th unit), EPR (East Pakistan Rifles), Police and youths from all over the country which continued for 9 months. The Freedom Fighters inflicted heavy casualties on West Pakistani Forces and shattered their morale to fight which compelled them to accept surrender.
     
 
Though Bangladesh has come into being through armed resistance at the cost of 3 million martyrs’ blood and enormous sacrifices put by the whole nation but the victory of our Freedom Fighters was hijacked by Indian Forces during signing of the instrument of surrender in Dhaka on 16th
December 19715. The Pakistani Forces were compelled to surrender to Indian Eastern Command Commander General Amrit Sing Arora instead of the C-in-C of Bangladesh Freedom Fighters General Ataul gani Osmani. Even no Sector Commander of the Freedom Fighters was allowed to remain present in the surrender programme. India’s investment in sheltering few million Bangladeshi refugees and providing material support to the Freedom Fighters might worth a million USD; but what India took from Bangladesh worths more than thousand trillion USD
Photo: Commander of Pakistan’s Eastern Command- General AK Niazi forced to surrender to General Jagzit Singh Arora, Commander of Indian Eastern Command instead of Bangladesh Prime Minister in exile Tajuddin Ahmed or General AG Osmani, C-in-C of the Freedom Fighters
   
and that was the victory over Pakistan which was earned by Bangladeshi nation through 9 months long struggle sacrificing 30 million martyrs.
 
Conclusion
 
Around 94000 Pakistani soldiers were taken to India as prisoners. All arms and ammunition left by Pakistani Forces worth more than a billion dollar were also taken
away by India. Sector Commander Major MA Jalil (Sector-9) was arrested for resisting the looting of our assets by Indian Forces. (Image of Major MA Jalil) Since 1972, every year India observes Victory Day in the Eastern Sector against Pakistan. After 1971, the then Prime Minister of India- Ms Indira Gandhi declared in the parliament saying ‘Hazar Saal ka badla le lia’ meaning India has taken revenge of thousand years (of Muslim rule in India).
 
The investment made by India during our Liberation War in 1971, has been taken return with million times profit.
 
India has successfully created Bangladesh as her economic colony as the market of Bangladesh is inundated by Indian goods.
 
Indian culture on Bangladesh is dominant with ruling regime’s assistance.
 
Bangladesh is militarily dominated by India as the later is bleed by India’s proxy war launched in CHTs. Bangladesh’s border is fenced by birbed wire and Indian trigger happy BSF has created a killing zone at our border by killing and injuring Bangladeshi
citizens like Felani which depicts today’s  Bangladesh-India relation. Our Govt is very submissive to India in protesting such killings, torture and rapes on our citizens. India controls the lives and livelihood of Bangladeshi people by controlling 54 international river waters through constructing dams and barrages such as Farakka. Every year half of Bangladesh can be submerged by water released at a time from Farakka point causing prolonged flood. India’s political influence on Bangladesh’s current regime is so obvious that some Indian writer wrote an article about the current Bangladeshi regime terming Awami League regime as ‘Friendly Govt in an enemy nation’.
 
The corridor facilities given to India through ‘Framework Agreement of Co-operation’ signed by Hasina and Monmohon in September 2011 will facilitate India in implementing the ‘7 point Agreement’ signed in 1971 as this corridor will seriously impact our economic interest including national security and sovereignty.
 
Now it is up to the Bangladeshi people to resist such selling out of national interests in order to safeguard our Independence and sovereignty.
 
India should no longer deceive the world claiming that in 1971- it was sole India’s victory over Pakistan. The study of the then situation in Bangladesh indicates that India only committed her troops when the defeat of West Pakistani Forces was inevitable in the hands of few lac Freedom Fighters supported by 75 million population of Bangladesh.
 
Bangladesh has every legitimate right to claim back the assets taken by India including the document of the ‘Surrender of Instrument’ signed by Pakistani Eastern Commander on 16th December 1971 as our victory should be only our’s.
 
Writer: Major Faruk Ahmed (Retd)
Email: farukbd5@yahoo.com
9 September 2012
 
References :
 
1. The Lahore Resolution.
2. Speech of Awami League leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on 25th March 1971.
3. Declaration of Independence by Major Zia.
4.
Oli Ahad, Jatio Rajniti (1945 to 1975), 2nd Ed., Bangladesh Cooperative Book Society, Dhaka , p. 450.
5. The signing of the ‘Surrender of Instrument’ on 16th December 1971.

http://www.voiceofbangladesh.info/details_all.php?id=187&table_name=essays&writer_id=43




__._,_.___


[* 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] The 11th Anniversary of 9/11

The 11th Anniversary of 9/11

by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Editor's note: Our position at CounterPunch on the events of 9/11 is
well-known to our readers and to some of our most popular writers,
like Craig Roberts, who hold a dissenting opinion. That opinion hasn't
changed and we wear the battle scars to prove it. Sometime in April of
this year, when Alex was undergoing treatments in Germany for his
cancer, he sent me a note about a recent PCR column that had
delicately weaved a few sentences of 9/11 Trutherism into an otherwise
cogent attack on the loss of civil liberties in America. Alex joked
about it, saying Roberts had embedded these sentences like land mines
for the sole purposed of wondering if we would detect them. We always
did and promptly amputated them from the essays. In fact, Alex had
wanted to publish a book debating the Truther's best case scenario. He
said that Roberts had been such a good sport all these years that
perhaps we should let one of them slip through. Indeed, Alex had
wanted to publish a book where the Truthers' best case scenario would
be put to the test and thoroughly debated. So here you are, Craig, a
present from the shade of Alexander Cockburn on the eleventh
anniversary of 9/11. –JSC

The article below was written for the Journal of 9/11 Studies for the
eleventh anniversary of September 11, 2001, the day that terminated
accountable government and American liberty. It is posted here with
the agreement of the editors.

In order to understand the improbability of the government's
explanation of 9/11, it is not necessary to know anything about what
force or forces brought down the three World Trade Center buildings,
what hit the Pentagon or caused the explosion, the flying skills or
lack thereof of the alleged hijackers, whether the airliner crashed in
Pennsylvania or was shot down, whether cell phone calls made at the
altitudes could be received, or any other debated aspect of the
controversy.

You only have to know two things.

One is that according to the official story, a handful of Arabs,
mainly Saudi Arabians, operating independently of any government and
competent intelligence service, men without James Bond and V for
Vendetta capabilities, outwitted not only the CIA, FBI, and National
Security Agency, but all 16 US intelligence agencies, along with all
security agencies of America's NATO allies and Israel's Mossad. Not
only did the entire intelligence forces of the Western world fail, but
on the morning of the attack the entire apparatus of the National
Security State simultaneously failed. Airport security failed four
times in one hour. NORAD failed. Air Traffic Control failed. The US
Air Force failed.

The National Security Council failed. Dick Cheney failed. Absolutely
nothing worked. The world's only superpower was helpless at the
humiliating mercy of a few undistinguished Arabs.

It is hard to image a more far-fetched story–except for the second
thing you need to know: The humiliating failure of US National
Security did not result in immediate demands from the President of the
United States, from Congress, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and from
the media for an investigation of how such improbable total failure
could have occurred. No one was held accountable for the greatest
failure of national security in world history. Instead, the White
House dragged its feet for a year resisting any investigation until
the persistent demands from 9/11 families for accountability forced
President George W. Bush to appoint a political commission, devoid of
any experts, to hold a pretend investigation.

On 9/11 Doubts Were Immediate

By Paul Craig Roberts

On September 11, 2001, a neighbor telephoned and said, "turn on the
TV." I assumed that a hurricane, possibly a bad one from the sound of
the neighbor's voice, was headed our way, and turned on the TV to
determine whether we needed to shutter the house and leave.

What I saw was black smoke from upper floors of one of the World Trade
Center towers. It didn't seem to be much of a fire, and the reports
were that the fire was under control. While I was trying to figure out
why every TV network had its main news anchor covering an office fire,
TV cameras showed an airplane hitting the other tower. It was then
that I learned that both towers had been hit by airliners.

Cameras showed people standing at the hole in the side of the tower
looking out. This didn't surprise me. The airliner was minute compared
to the massive building. But what was going on? Two accidents, one on
top of the other?

The towers—the three-fourths or four-fifths of the buildings beneath
the plane strikes–were standing, apparently largely undamaged. There
were no signs of fire except in the vicinity of where the airliners
had hit. Suddenly, one of the towers blew up, disintegrated, and
disappeared in fine dust. Before one could make any sense of this, the
same thing happened to the second tower, and it too disappeared into
fine dust.

The TV news anchors compared the disintegration of the towers to
controlled demolition. There were numerous reports of explosions
throughout the towers from the base or sub-basements to the top. (Once
the government put out the story of terrorist attack, references to
controlled demolition and explosions disappeared from the print and TV
media.) This made sense to me. Someone had blown up the buildings. It
was completely obvious that the towers had not fallen down from
asymmetrical structural damage. They had blown up.

The images of the airliners hitting the towers and the towers blowing
up were replayed time and again. Airliners hit the top portions of
the towers, and not long afterward the towers blew up. I turned off
the TV wondering how it was that cameras had been ready to catch such
an unusual phenomenon as an airplane flying into a skyscraper.

I don't remember the time line, but it wasn't long before the story
was in place that Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda gang had attacked
the US. A passport had been found in the rubble. Another airliner had
flown into the Pentagon, and a fourth airliner had crashed or been
shot down. Four airliners had been hijacked, meaning airport security
had failed four times on the same morning. Terrorists had successfully
assaulted America.

When I heard these reports, I wondered. How could a tiny undamaged
passport be found in the rubble of two skyscrapers, each more than 100
stories tall, when bodies, office furniture and computers could not be
found? How could airport security fail so totally that four airliners
could be hijacked within the same hour? How could authorities know so
conclusively and almost immediately the names of the perpetrators who
pulled off such a successful attack on the world's only superpower,
when the authorities had no idea that such an attack was planned or
even possible?

These questions disturbed me, because as a former member of the
congressional staff and as a presidential appointee to high office, I
had high level security clearances. In addition to my duties as
Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, I had FEMA responsibilities in
the event of nuclear attack. There was a mountain hideaway to which I
was supposed to report in the event of a nuclear attack and from which
I was supposed to take over the US government in the event no higher
official survived the attack.

The more the story of 9/11 was presented in the media, the more
wondrous it became. It is not credible that not only the CIA and FBI
failed to detect the plot, but also all 16 US intelligence agencies,
including the National Security Agency, which spies on everyone on the
planet, and the Defense Intelligence Agency, Israel's Mossad, and the
intelligence agencies of Washington's NATO allies. There are simply
too many watchmen and too much infiltration of terrorist groups for
such a complex attack to be prepared undetected and carried out
undeterred.

Washington's explanation of the attack implied a security failure too
massive to be credible. Such a catastrophic failure of national
security would mean that the US and Western Europe were never safe for
one second during the Cold War, that the Soviet Union could have
destroyed the entire West in one undetected fell swoop.

As a person whose colleagues at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies in Washington were former secretaries of state,
former national security advisors, former CIA directors, former
chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I was troubled by the story
that a collection of individuals unsupported by a competent
intelligence service had pulled off the events of 9/11.

As a person with high level government service, I knew that any such
successful operation as 9/11 would have resulted in immediate demands
from the White House, Congress, and the media for accountability.
There would have been an investigation of how every aspect of US
security could totally fail simultaneously in one morning. Such a
catastrophic and embarrassing failure of the national security state
would not be left unexamined.

NORAD failed. The US Air Force could not get jet fighters in the air.
Air Traffic Control lost sight of the hijacked airliners. Yet, instead
of launching an investigation, the White House resisted for one year
the demands of the 9/11 families for an investigation. Neither the
public, the media, nor Congress seemed to think an investigation was
necessary. The focus was on revenge, which the Bush neocon regime said
meant invading Afghanistan which was alleged to be sheltering the
perpetrator, Osama bin Laden.

Normally, terrorists are proud of their success and announce their
responsibility. It is a way to build a movement. Often a number of
terrorist groups will compete in claiming credit for a successful
operation. But Osama bin Laden in the last video that is certified by
independent experts said that he had no responsibility for 9/11, that
he had nothing against the American people, that his opposition was
limited to the US government's colonial policies and control over
Muslim governments.

It makes no sense that the "mastermind" of the most humiliating blow
in world history ever to have been delivered against a superpower
would not claim credit for his accomplishment. By September 11, 2001,
Osama bin Laden knew that he was deathly ill. According to news
reports he underwent kidney dialysis the following month. The most
reliable reports that we have are that he died in December 2001. It is
simply not credible that bin Laden denied responsibility because he
feared Washington.

But Osama bin Laden was too useful a bogeyman, and Washington and the
presstitute media kept him alive for another decade until Obama needed
to kill the dead man in order to boost his sinking standings in the
polls so that Democrats would not back a challenger for the Democratic
presidential nomination.

Numerous bin Laden videos, every one pronounced a fake by experts,
were released whenever it was convenient for Washington. No one in the
Western media or in the US Congress or European or UK parliaments was
sufficiently intelligent to recognize that a bin Laden video always
showed up on cue when Washington needed it. "Why would the
'mastermind' be so accommodating for Washington?" was the question
that went through my mind every time one of the fake videos was
released.

The 9/11 "investigation" that finally took place was a political one
run from the White House. One member of the commission resigned,
declaring the investigation to be a farce, and both co-chairman and
the legal counsel of the 9/11 Commission distanced themselves from
their report with statements that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to
fail," that resources were withheld from the commission, that
representatives of the US military lied to the commission and that the
commission considered referring the false testimony for criminal
prosecution.

One would think that these revelations would cause a sensation, but
the news media, Congress, the White House, and the public were silent.

All of this bothered me a great deal. The US had invaded two Muslim
countries based on unsubstantiated allegations linking the two
countries to 9/11, which itself remained uninvestigated. The
neoconservatives who staffed the George W. Bush regime were advocating
more invasions of more Muslim countries. Paul O'Neill, President
Bush's first Treasury Secretary, stated publicly that the Bush regime
was planning to invade Iraq prior to 9/11. O'Neill said that no one at
a National Security Council meeting even asked the question, why
invade Iraq? "It was all about finding a way to do it."

The leaked top secret Downing Street Memo written by the head of
British intelligence (MI6) confirms Paul O'Neill's testimony. The
memo, known as the "smoking gun memo" whose authenticity has been
confirmed, states that "President George W. Bush wants to remove
Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction
of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed
around the policy." In other words, the US invasion of Iraq was based
on nothing but a made up lie.

As an engineering student I had witnessed a controlled demolition.
When films of the collapse of WTC building 7 emerged, it was obvious
that building 7 had been brought down by controlled demolition. When
physics instructor David Chandler measured the descent of the building
and established that it took place at free fall acceleration, the case
was closed. Buildings cannot enter free fall unless controlled
demolition has removed all resistance to the collapsing floors.

If airliners brought down two skyscrapers, why was controlled
demolition used to bring down a third building?

I assumed that structural architects, structural engineers, and
physicists would blow the whistle on the obviously false story. If I
could see that something was amiss, certainly more highly trained
people would.

The first physicist to make an effective and compelling argument was
Steven Jones at BYU. Jones said that explosives brought down the twin
towers. He made a good case. For his efforts, he was pressured to
resign his tenured position. I wondered whether the federal government
had threatened BYU's research grants or whether patriotic trustees and
alumni were the driving force behind Jones' expulsion. Regardless, the
message was clear to other university based experts: "Shut up or we'll
get you."

Steven Jones was vindicated when chemist Niels Harrit of the
University of Copenhagen In Denmark reported unequivocally that the
scientific team in which he participated found nano-thermite in the
residue of the twin towers. This sensational finding was not mentioned
in the US print and TV media to my knowledge.

Several years after 9/11, architect Richard Gage formed Architects and
Engineers for 9/11 truth, an organization that has grown to include
1,700 experts. The plans of the towers have been studied. They were
formidable structures. They were constructed to withstand airliner
hits and fires. There is no credible explanation of their failure
except intentional demolition.

I also found disturbing the gullibility of the public, media, and
Congress in the unquestioning acceptance of the official stories of
the shoe-bomber, shampoo and bottled water bomber, and underwear
bomber plots to blow up airliners in transit. These schemes are
farcical. How can we believe that al Qaeda, capable of pulling off the
most fantastic terrorist attack in history and capable of devising
improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that kill and maim US troops and
destroy US military vehicles would rely on something that had to be
lighted with a match? The shoe and underwear bombers would simply have
pushed a button on their cell phones or laptops, and the liquid bomb
would not have required extended time in a lavatory to be mixed (all
to no effect).

None of this makes any sense. Moreover, experts disputed many of the
government's claims, which were never backed by anything but the
government's story line. There is no independent evidence that
anything was involved other than firecracker powders.

The case of the underwear bomber is especially difficult to accept.
According to witnesses, the underwear bomber was not allowed on the
airliner, because he had no passport. So an official appears who walks
him onto the airliner bound for Detroit on Christmas day. What kind of
official has the authority to override established rules, and what did
the official think would happen to the passenger when he presented
himself to US Customs without a passport? Any official with the power
to override standard operating practices would know that it was
pointless to send a passenger to a country where his entry would be
rejected.

The circumstantial evidence is that these were orchestrated events
designed to keep fear alive, to create new intrusive powers for a new
over-arching federal policy agency, to accustom US citizens to
intrusive searches and a police force to conducting them, and to sell
expensive porno-scanners and now more advanced devices to the
Transportation Safety Administration. Apparently, this expensive
collection of high-tech gadgetry is insufficient to protect us from
terrorists, and in August 2012 the Department of Homeland Security put
in an order for 750 million rounds of ammunition, enough to shoot
every person in the US 2.5 times.

Naive and gullible Americans claim that if some part of the US
government had been involved in 9/11, "someone would have talked by
now." A comforting thought, perhaps, but nothing more. Consider, for
example, the cover-up by the US government of the 1967 Israeli attack
on the USS Liberty that killed or wounded most of the crew but failed
to sink the ship. As the survivors have testified, they were ordered
in a threatening way not to speak about the event. It was twelve years
later before one of the USS Liberty's officers, James Ennes, told the
story of the attack in his book, Assault on the Liberty. I continue to
wonder how the professionals at the National Institute of Standards
and Technology feel about being maneuvered by the federal government
into the unscientific position NIST took concerning the destruction of
the WTC towers.

What will be the outcome of the doubts about the official story raised
by experts? I worry that most Americans are too mentally and
emotionally weak to be able to come to grips with the truth. They are
far more comfortable with the story that enemies attacked America
successfully despite the massive national security state in place. The
American public has proved itself to be so cowardly that it willingly,
without a peep, sacrificed its civil liberty and the protections of
law guaranteed by the Constitution in order to be "safe."

Congress is not about to expose itself for having squandered trillions
of dollars on pointless wars based on an orchestrated "new Pearl
Harbor." When the neoconservatives said that a "new Pearl Harbor" was
a requirement for their wars for American/Israeli hegemony, they set
the stage for the 21st century wars that Washington has launched. If
Syria falls, there is only Iran, and then Washington stands in direct
confrontation with Russia and China.

Unless Russia and China can be overthrown with "color revolutions,"
these two nuclear powers are unlikely to submit to Washington's
hegemony. The world as we know it might be drawing to a close.

If enough Americans or even other peoples in the world had the
intelligence to realize that massive steel structures do not
disintegrate into fine dust because a flimsy airliner hits them and
limited short-lived fires burn on a few floors, Washington would be
faced with the suspicion it deserves.

If 9/11 was actually the result of the failure of the national
security state to deter an attack, the government's refusal to conduct
a real investigation is an even greater failure. It has fallen to
concerned and qualified individuals to perform the investigative role
abandoned by government. The presentations at the Toronto Hearings,
along with the evaluations of the Panel, are now available, as is the
documentary film, "Explosive Evidence–Experts Speak Out," provided by
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

The government's agents and apologists try to deflect attention from
disturbing facts by redefining factual evidence revealed by experts as
the product of "a conspiracy culture." If people despite their
brainwashing and lack of scientific education are able to absorb the
information made available to them, perhaps both the US Constitution
and peace could be restored. Only informed people can restrain
Washington and avert the crazed hegemonic US government from
destroying the world in war.

Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury
and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. His latest book,
Wirtschaft am Abgrund (Economies In Collapse) has just been published.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/11/the-11th-anniversary-of-911/


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

[* 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]
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chottala/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chottala/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
chottala-digest@yahoogroups.com
chottala-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
chottala-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/