Irene Z Khan joins Daily Star to be with mother

Gulf Times – Qatar’s top-selling English daily newspaper - SriLanka/Bangladesh



Irene Z Khan joined the Daily Star to be with her mother who lives in Bangladesh. That's a laudable motive, but she could have just said that instead of pretending to be honoured by joining a third-rate newspaper in a third-world country which nobody can name.

After chief of AI, this must be quite a comedown for the lady: surely she could have landed a better gig?

I supposed years of dissembling at AI has grown into second nature: say what sounds good, never the truth.

The Intersexuals

A businessman I know describes our intellectuals as 'intersexuals'. One can see why.

Take the two chairmen, Mozaffer Ahmed of Transparency International, and Rehman Sobhan of the Centre for Policy Dialogue. They have recently become brothers-in-law: Rehman Sobhan married the former's sister-in-law.

Rawshan Jahan, wife of Mozaffer Ahmed, is a personality in the NGO world – especially where women's affairs are concerned.

Depapriya Bhatacharya is an acolyte of Rehman Sobhan – a very beneficial nexus. The former's mother was an Awami League MP after 1996.

Rehman Sobhan's son is a big man at the Daily Star, run and partly owned by Mahfuz Anam, whose wife is the Big Woman at the mother of all NGOs 'Manusher Jonno'.

This is how 'consensus' is generated in society: western donors need to control only a few minds at the top, and the rest of the body, testicles included, follow, quite the reverse of Nixon's doctrine ("if you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow").

These people are frequently miscalled 'civil society'. In fact, they are The Intersexuals.

(Please forward any more connections in this incestuous world to yours truly.)

It wasn't the butler...

Well, it wasn't the butler - ie, the JMB.

Suppose the JMB did it: why then didn't the prime minister send the army right after the first call from General Shakil, when he sensed a mutiny in the ranks?

Second, why did it take the tanks 32 hours to get from Savar to Dhaka?

Third, how did 7,000 people escape the precincts of the BDR?

Fourth, who turned off the lights so they could escape?

Fifth, when the officers grilled the PM, they said nothing about the JMB - they are not fools, you know.

They blamed only one person - the prime minister (and General Moeen the previous day).

Sixth, Director General of RAB, Hasan Mahmud Khondoker, when asked about possible militant involvement firmly dismissed the idea: "Religious militancy in Bangladesh is under control of law-enforcing agencies at the moment (Bangladesh Observer, 12 March 2008, p 8).

However, a Daily Star report of the same day, by its journalist Anwar Ali ("back from Bagmara, Rajshahi") says: "At least four of the mutineers of the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) are believed to have been active members of Jama'atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) before they joined the paramilitary force."

And according to the Hindustan Times, Commerce Minister Lt Col (Retd) Faruq Khan said: "...some JMB connections have been found.(http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=HomePage&id=e9430d03-4297-4b5f-a48a-27e547872d91&Headline=Dhaka+sees+terror+link+in+BDR+mutiny)"

And the Daily Star, in the same issue, was quick to confirm the militant's hand in the article: "Terror struck back at its buster" (the Star covers up its poor syntax and grammar with exuberantly mysterious headlines). Translation: Colonel Gulzar, who had been instrumental in subjugating the JMB, was among the officers dead and so mutilated that it took a DNA test to identify his body; ergo, the JMB did it.

Yet in the 4th March issue, the Star had already said: " 4 more bodies identified
3 others await DNA test; 5 army officers still missing; investigators rummage through BDR HQ for evidence."

Indeed, in the 12th March issue, after describing how Colonel Gulzar's father had been killed in 1971 by the Pakistan army, the report goes on to say: " There were five unidentified bodies rescued from mass graves or sewers. These bodies bear the marks of severe brutality. Only a DNA test could confirm who is who. Gulzar's family could not say if one of those bodies was his.

"Organic samples from these bodies were collected and close relatives of the missing army officers also gave blood samples for the DNA testing. Samples were cross-checked with Gulzar's 14-year-old daughter Zahin Tasnia's genetic imprint.

"On Tuesday, two of the DNA test results popped up, one identifying Lt Col Elahi Monjur Chowdhury and the other Gulzar."

Therefore, Colonel Gulzar's body wasn't the only mutilated body found – therefore, the killers did not single him out for special mutilation.


To sum up: we have the DG Rapid Action Battalion categorically denying any militant involvement (Observer, March 12, p8); the Daily Star observed: " When asked about the involvement of Islamist militant outfits and the United Liberation Front of Assam (Ulfa) in the mutiny Rab DG averted the query and said the Islamist militants are now under complete control of the law-enforcement agencies.(12th March, p1)."

But, the Commerce Minister insinuates that there were "some" JMB links. Why was he speaking about a pending investigation in the first place?

As to intelligence failure, that's no surprise. A few years ago I was speaking to a government officer, and I was told that the intelligence branches were now totally occupied in assessing the loyalty, not only of army officers but even junior level government officers, to the two political parties.

"When would they get the time to do any intelligence work?" he asked me, rhetorically.

Many of the army's top brass are Awami League loyalists: they are leaning hard on the investigators to cover things up and lead the inquiry into another direction. Like every institution, the army is highly politicized: those loyal to Sheikh Hasina will never allow an open investigation, so it is alleged. Hence the JMB red herring, which, in fact, started off in the Indian newspapers.

"The Jamaat-e-Islami, which would suffer the most in any 1971 war crimes trial, is believed to be the main conspirator with the shadow of Pakistan, whose president has appealed to Hasina to defer the trials, lurking. ...


"If Jamaat's role in the massacre is conclusively established, Islamic radicals will risk the army's wrath. That's not bad for Hasina. Hopefully, the mutiny won't make her back out on the war crimes trials and cases related to the Sheikh Mujib murder and Chittagong arms seizure. If she doesn't go all out to decimate her Islamist rivals politically, she could be looking at another conspiracy." This was published in – of all papers – the Times of India (TOP ARTICLE Clear and Present Danger, 10 March 2009 http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=HomePage&id=e9430d03-4297-4b5f-a48a-27e547872d91&Headline=Dhaka+sees+terror+link+in+BDR+mutiny

So, the JMB-militant-Jamaat theory emanated from – where else? – India, and that's the direction the Awami League, aided by its generals and newspapers like the Daily Star, in turn backed by the western donor community, will take us – up the garden path (or is it down?).

Meanwhile, the army so despises General Moeen that even majors are reluctant to salute him. If he resigns in the next few days, he will retire with a modicum of honour. Otherwise he'll go down in ignominy in the sorry annals of this sorry nation.

It wasn't the butler that did it, though – it was the maidservant.

the lying media of Bangladesh exposed by the internet

http://thedailystar.net/magazine/2009/03/01/index.htm

(The lying document can found above)


The Daily Star lies like Pinocchio - and something worse!

"Eye witness testimony said the DG Major General Shakil spoke to the Prime Minister by phone immediately after the first shots were fired outside the Darbar hall." This according to the Star Weekend Magazine.

Now, thanks to the MP3 files circulating throughout the net, we know that General Shakil had contacted the army long before a single shot was fired. In fact, he had told the PM that a section of his soldiers were mutinous. She had said that she was sending the army.

She didn't send them.

The trouble with lying is that you become incoherent.

Tanya Yafta Chowdhury, wife of the late Colonel Elahi Manzoor, is quoted as saying: "I was told that help was on its way. I kept praying for the sound of the army rolling in. But nothing happened. I don't understand why it would take so long for troops to get to the pilkhana from the cantonment? Does it take hours? You tell me?"

The Star says: "The sequence of events clearly demonstrates that both the government and the army were aware of the fatal attacks by 9.30 AM."

But why should we go by the sequence of events?. We know from oral source what was said at the Senakunja to the PM: why didn't she send the army after General Shakil had warned her of an impending mutiny, long BEFORE the first shots were fired. Indeed, it was 1:00 pm before the mutineers could even get organized.

'Speaking to the Star, Col. Syed Quamruzzaman, GSO of the BDR headquarters described the harrowing scene. “The jawans asked us to come out and said we wouldn't be harmed. We walked out with the DG in the middle. They told us to walk in single file. We fell in line with the DG leading the way. They started firing at close range…”

So the star had access to Col. Zaman's testimony before the Senakunja grilling of the PM.


No, that's not what he said: he said four men came from outside and shot four bullets into General Shakil....Misreporting as usual, or deliberate falsification of what Col. Zaman himself saw?

"It has been suggested that an outside group might have assisted in the massacre. Since this episode has seriously weakened both the army and the BDR -- tactically and strategically -- mutterings about a conspiracy cannot be ignored. But talk about an outside group should not distract from the failings within the BDR, the army, the intelligence community, and indeed, the administration."

According to Col Zaman, the first killers did indeed come from outside.

The Star raises several questions, but never the question about how thousands of personnel could melt away into the city.

In the Star report, we find no criticism of the government at all. Instead, we find such incredible sentences as: "The PM, who has to handle such a big crisis on the 50th day of her tenure, has taken some widespread measures."

Poor PM! One's heart positively aches for the PM's onerous duties - surely the tragedy could have occurred on the 100th day, or better still, 150th day of her tenure! How inconvenient! How callous that she had to behave like a leader on her 50th day in office! Poor woman!

"There is no doubt that the crisis has been one of the toughest challenges that any new elected (sic) [leader] would want to see itself embroiled into (sic)."

Isn't that what governments are for? To handle tough challenges? And didn't this government deliberately, and with the aid of the media like the Star, fail the nation?

But, of course, since she is the member of a political dynasty, - the daughter of the "father" of the nation - she is above reproach - give me a monarchy any time!

Listen to the army and the prime minister

a diabolic editor - how newspapers back criminal governments in Bangladesh

"we praise the sagacity of the present leadership...."

http://thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=77589


I'm curious; but tell me, Mahfuz Anam, just how many dead bodies would it take for you to CEASE to praise the sagacity of the present political leadership? 200? 500? 1,000?

And how many would it take for you to begin to QUESTION the sagacity of the present political leadership? 10,000?

And how many would it take for you to IMPUGN the sagacity of the present political leadership? 100,000?



"It would have been a most satisfactory ending but for the fact that" - there were just too many dead bodies around, right?

What kind of an editor are you: can you distinguish between sagacity and stupidity? Honesty from mendacity? A mission accomplished from a bungled and botched operation?



"some unseen quarters with an ill motive..."

http://thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=77743

Well, they got all the help they needed from our government, didn't they?

They got away scot-free, with the lights turned off, after getting more than enough time to go on an orgy of killing, looting, burning, and more - from inside the city, under the gaze of the entire nation, with the military only a few blocks away!

With friends like these....


"Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina showed tremendous sagacity, farsightedness and patience in handling the crisis."

http://thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=77746

Does that include waiting 32 hours before deploying tanks, Mahfuz Anam?


"PRIME Minister Sheikh Hasina's stern call hs had the desired effect, and has led to the surrender of the rebel BDR troops. This brought to a peaceful end in Dhaka to what can be termed as the most serious...."

http://thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=77589


That giant sucking sound was that of the lips of the Daily Star editor coming off the backside of the prime minister.

It wasn't the prime minister's speech that ended the mutiny: it was the tanks.

It took 32 hours for tanks to be deployed: incredible!

The entire affair could have been ended in at most 10 minutes if the army had been allowed by the prime minister to act in its professional capacity. The army's arsenal was several thousand times that of the BDR personnel with their peashooters.

But for the amnesty and the shocking delay, the wives of the officers would have been spared the indignity they suffered. For once, Khaleda Zia has spoken the truth and put the blame where it belongs: why were the lights turned off, why were the soldiers withdrawn...?

This was not a civilian issue, but an issue for the military: yet civilians went in waving white flags and claiming to be 'like the mothers of the jawans'. There was absolutely no sense of urgency, as though a picnic had gone wrong

"We know people want martial law, but we can't print that!"

I remember, back in the late '90s, I submitted an article to the Daily Star, the last line of which Mahfuz Anam refused to publish – and I refused to alter. His sub-editor, Modon Shahu, called me once day and urged me to change the line.

He chuckled and said: "We know people want martial law, but we can't print that!"
My piece finally appeared, but – lo and behold! – when I opened the paper, I did a double-take: instead of my last line

"We can either have democracy or safety, but not both";

instead of this last line, the wise Mahfuz Anam or one of his lackeys printed the final paragraph in the picture scanned from the paper above.


Pause and ponder the implications of the sub-editor's statement and the self-censorship of the Daily Star (we were taught that only military rulers imposed censorship!).

The battle-cry of The Daily Star is "Committed to the People's Right to Know"; also, "Journalism Without Fear or Favour". Add "Not" before the first, and change "Without" to "With" in the second shibboleth, and you have an accurate idea of the newspaper's ethos.

When a newspaper knows what people want, and what they are saying, it is its duty to report that. Instead, we have a so-called newspaper in cahoots with western donors and NGOs, trying to force-feed democracy down our collective throat.

Well, we finally regurgitated on January 11, 2007 – the day democracy ended: the conclusion of a sixteen-year-old nightmare. But the nightmare has been resumed, for it seems that without a certain politician, the daughter of a certain father, in short, without a certain dynasty, there can be no democracy in Bangladesh.

And that's not a democracy, but a caricature.

"We know people want martial law, but we can't print that!"

I remember, back in the late '90s, I submitted an article to the Daily Star, the last line of which Mahfuz Anam refused to publish – and I refused to alter. His sub-editor, Modon Shahu, called me once day and urged me to change the line.

He chuckled and said: "We know people want martial law, but we can't print that!"

Pause and ponder the implications of the sub-editor's statement.

The battle-cry of The Daily Star is "Committed to the People's Right to Know"; also, "Journalism Without Fear or Favour". Add "Not" before the first, and change "Without" to "With" in the second shibboleth, and you have an accurate idea of the newspaper's ethos.

When a newspaper knows what people want, and what they are saying, it is its duty to report that. Instead, we have a so-called newspaper in cahoots with western donors and NGOs, trying to force-feed democracy down our collective throat.

Well, we finally regurgitated on January 11, 2007 – the day democracy ended: the conclusion of a sixteen-year-old nightmare.