WRT: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/26258

[BP] How do I evaluate your statements in page5 & 6 of the articles?
What is the best description of these two page other than a
criticism on American war crimes? .... You are not distinguishing among the
supporters, cause of supports etc. Besides, it also means all the wars waged by
the Americans are wrongful wars!

[Response] In Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, Cambodia, Vietnam,
Nicaragua, Columbia, El Salvador, Grenada countless civilians were
indiscriminately killed by US invasion, bombing etc. Whatever "cause
of support" you provide, fact remains the same.

[BP] I am repeatedly telling you that I am not criticizing what you
wrote. I am no lover of American Foreign policy either. But it
supports my statement that I made no factual error. We attribute an
article based on its content and not on its tittle.

[Response] Unfortunately you did. You said in the previous post that
he (Avijit) forced the issue that America should be equated with
Islamic terrorist, which I actually did not. You are putting words
in my mouth. What I suggested based on the gory details of US
invasion, she should not be considered as "the world's greatest
force for peace" or our "savior".

[BP] End of page 5 and beginning of page 6, your statement is
clearly against the people who are supporting the US war against
terrorism ( or we may call it imperialism). Kuddus is admittedly one
of those. What made you think that he will not react in his self-
defense?

[Response] Just see : what made you think that Mohiuddin will not
react in his self-defense when you defame his country's image? or
what made you think that an Islamist will not react in his self-
defense when you defame his "religion of peace"? You will find the
answer here. Apologetic defense is emotional, not logical.

[BP] Kuddus was out of emotion as usual--I am condemning that too.
But you never condemned the personal attack by Ananta and cheered
him in support.

[Response] Your condemnation came only when Ananta's article has
been published. Before that you kept silent. As if nothing happened
then. To be frank, compared to Khan's, I did not find much personal
attack in Ananta's piece, though I admit he used some strong
language. I am not supporting it, but I also don't find any reason
to condemn it as well, as his write-up came as a reaction.

[BP] I personally think Ananta's article was against the spirit of
Mukto-mona.

[Response] That's what is your opinion. Many members may not agree
with this view. In fact many of the members of our forum thinks just
opposite. They found Ananta's write-up as informative and highly
accurate. They already expressed this view. You may differ. We have
to live with that.

[BP] Kuddus did provide some numbers and economic theory which would
have been refuted scientifically. Ananta took a humanist turn--which
is not a proper rebuttal to the point.

[Response] Situation was just opposite. There was no "economic
theory" in my write-up. I did some political analysis based on Dr.
ShahidulIslam's work. It was Kuddus Khan who took a twisted turn,
and tried to take us to economics as he thinks he is a "specialist"
in this area. Ananta pulled him back to our original discussion of
US aggression and interventionism towards the weaker counterparts, as Kuddus was
in denial.

[BP] He wanted to show how blind is Kuddus against American
agrression with some events. He did that and then started a personal
attack.

[Response] I disagree. Ananta just responded boldly to Mr. Khan's
attack.

[BP] I expected that you would protest against Ananta' personal
attack! Then Titu instead of providing any logic against my rebuttal
sent a cartoon as if we are on American Payroll! How is that with
true spirit of Mukto-mona?

[Response] Titu's opinion is entirely his. I did not follow his
post. If he did any personal attack, he should have condemned. And
mind it - many Cartoon was published in MM before, ridiculing Muhammad, Quran,
Gita etc. It seems, objection is being raised when only America is involved.

[BP] Under no condition personal attack on any writer should be
tolerated. That should be the spirit.

[Response] I agree. However, personal attack has always been in MM,
no matter how small it is. It sometimes goes beyond control. You may
check your previous posts too. Remember, how you attacked Tushar
Sarkar once mentioning his old age etc, and suggested that he has no
place in future world. Your response was rude and I did not see you
condemned though. Ananta's writeup is much milder in current
context.

[BP] Anyhow, by unity I meant that activities of personal attacks
against each other must be stopped!

[Response] Amen to Biplab at last! I think we can move forward
leaving these silly issues behind.


-Biplab