Action against Delwar Sayedee

[Navarene]

The 1971 War Criminal (Razakar) Maulana Delwar Hussain Sayedee will be in
Toronto to address the Tafsirul Quran Mahfil on 28th and 29th of August at
Salahuddin Islamic Centre, 741 Kennedy Road, Toronto.

He is the same person who issued death threats against the writer
Humayun Azad (who was knifed savagely in Feb and died recently in Germany),
Ahmadiyya & Hindu communities and against the newspaper "Prothom Alo". He
is a MP in the current Bangladesh parliament and member of the ruling
coalition.

I'm pleading all the BC forum members to write an email to the Mayor of Toronto to protest against this war criminal's preaching amongst the bengalee community in Toronto. It does not matter where you live, WRITE an email to the Mayor of Toronto:

mayor_miller@toronto.ca

Subject: PROTEST SAYEDEE,S TAFSIR

PROTEST the admittance of an Abuser of Human Rights and Preacher of
Violence, Delwar Hussain Sayedee's address at Salahuddin Islamic Centre, 741
Kennedy Road, Toronto. August 28 - 29, 2004.

Contacting Mayor David Miller
E-mail: mayor_miller@toronto.ca

Mail:
Toronto City Hall, 2nd Floor, 100 Queen St. West, Toronto ON M5H 2N2
Phone: 416-397-CITY (2489)
Fax: 416-696-3687

[Ibrahim]

Thanks for your greate initiative.

Edited on, August 25, 2004, 3:16 PM GMT, by Ibrahim.

[rafiq]

Tanweer Akram article on Azad/Sayeedi in PressAction

Did Homeland Security finally get something right?

Sayeedi banned from entering US

[oracle]

Sorry, I do not know too much about Mr. Delwar's background and probably should be more aware of what is going on. I am the silent and lethargic majority I guess. But nonetheless if his remarks about blood tests are true as indicated in the article then mathar obostha dhiki kharap. And he is a lawmaker?

[Arnab]

Oracle, tell me you are joking.

[oracle]

[nishy]

nah oracle never jokes

[nihi]

Delwar Hossain Sayeedi has been included in the "No Flying Passenger List" of the United States

if they really think he may blast himself, then this is another evidence of there inability to comprehend the suicider-psychology. No wonder they are messing up the things all so bad.

[rafiq]

I am not sure that the only ones on a no-fly list are people who will blast themselves up in the sky on that particular flight. It may be people who are suspected to have terrorist links and may enter the US to pursue such activity.

There are obviously many mistakes on any such list. Although not on a "no-fly" list, my son is on a watch list with the FAA (federal aviation authority) because his name is identical to a known terrorist. He needs to wait at the ticket counter at the airport while they check it out. I am supposed to have called the FAA to get him off the list but haven't bothered.

But the no-fly list is much more serious, even if you are holding out hope that somehow Sayeedi may be on it by mistake. As for "suicider psychology", aren't they normally associated with blasting themselves - I fail to understand the point.

[nihi]

I guess I was too abridged. Strictly speaking, when someone is on a 'no-fly list', it may mean that he may not fly into USA or fly inside USA. It may not necessarily mean that he cannot enter USA. Obviously it is expected that someone so feared as to be in a no-fly list, may be looked as threatening enough, as not to let into US anyway. Of course, one can never claim to have come up with an exhaustive list of such persons, but it may be good start for them. And there are air marshals on board to take it from there.

By mentioning 'suicider', I didn't mean the self-blasters only. The band of 19 were suiciders too. Along with all on board, they took their lives too. And I see I was kinda misleading as I talked about Sayeedi's blasting himself up. I meant using the plane the way they used on 9/11, when they blasted themselves up along with the planes (the planes really were blasted!). Sorry for the confusion there.

The point that I really wanted to make is the difference between Sayeedi and all those people, which this no-fly-list-makers have really failed to grasp. Those are the people who have, for whatever reason, devoided themselves of any kind of 'earthly' expectation or achievement. They are no way in a venture for accruing personal wealth or politically accomplishing themselves, as Sayeedi is. Which may explain, why Sayeedi would never involve himself in a suicidal enterprise, thus defeating the purpose of being in a strictly-speaking-no-fly-list.

[Ibrahim]

If he he cannot fly to USA, but how come Canada is still welcoming this dangerous person.

Originally posted by rafiq
Tanweer Akram article on Azad/Sayeedi in PressAction

Did Homeland Security finally get something right?

Sayeedi banned from entering US

[Zobair]

First of all let me say I don't like this man or his politics, or his record during 1971. I am aware of some of the tripe he has spewed over the years. To be frank I detest him. But let us keep things in perspective.

First of all, please correct me if I am wrong, he along with all razakars were given amnesty by the Bangabandhu Sheik Mujibur Rahman soon after independence. So legally he doesnot have a case to answer to anyone. I don't see how stopping him from speaking serves anyone any good. Aren't we trying to do to him what he is trying to do to freedom of speech and thought in Bangladesh?

Second of all, I am surprised that you guys are actually supporting the flying ban imposed on this MP. I know we don't like this guy, but this is ridiculous. How is he a danger to the US and how would banning him from flying stop him from being any less of a danger? I mean today we are cheering this decision because we don't like the guy but tomorrow it could be anyone whose ideology differs from that of US. I say this because I believe US is doing this not so much that this MP is security threat to the US but because they want to "punish" him for his fundamentalist views. Much as we hate Jamaat-e-Islami for their politics, few sane people will say that their venom is directed at any external enemy, much less the US! God help us, if this is the level of research/thought that goes into deciding who is a threat to US security. But I wouldn't be too surprised if it is indeed so, every other day I hear about another innocent dude who has been arrested and held without trial for being a threat to US for the most ridiculous of reasons.

And I wouldn't be so eager about US or any other western power to pass judgement for us on our criminals and our citizens. Before you know it, we will have US bombing us senseless, in order to protect us from our monsters. Of course, we dont have the oil but who knows what compelling reason someone like Bush can come up with.

[potshot]

Are you sure that War Criminals such as him were exonerated by Sk. Mujib. The history being taught now may mention it so, but I think war criminals were granted amnesty after Sk. Mujib and most of his party members were assassinated in 1975 and it was done by the rulers who grabbed power after assasinating Sk. Mujib

[Arnab]

First of all, please correct me if I am wrong, he along with all razakars were given amnesty by the Bangabandhu Sheik Mujibur Rahman soon after independence. So legally he doesnot have a case to answer to anyone.

Interesting logic. So, let me see, since the murderer, the war criminal was given amnesty by a magnanimous president, that alone somehow qualifies him to become the minister of a country he originally opposed to even exist?

Do you think it EVER crossed Mujib's mind to make this guy a law-making minister in our country? Does amnesty from crime means the convict can become the judge later, even though publicly confessing, remaining remorseless, even boasting of his crime?

You cannot insinuate that Mujib's action of amnesty is the cause of Sayedee's ascension to power. There is no causal relationship between the two. Your "reasoning" is conveniently skewed to drag Mujib into something that he was NEVER primarily responsible for.

Edited on, August 27, 2004, 5:03 PM GMT, by Arnab.

[Zobair]

I wasn't even born until the 1980, so I have no first hand knowledge of what exactly happened. I guess we have a few members here who have more exact and impartial (at least better than our history books back home) knowledge about this.

Originally posted by potshot
Are you sure that War Criminals such as him were exonerated by Sk. Mujib. The history being taught now may mention it so, but I think war criminals were granted amnesty after Sk. Mujib and most of his party members were assassinated in 1975 and it was done by the rulers who grabbed power after assasinating Sk. Mujib

[Zobair]

Dude! you have got me completely wrong. I am not justifying his rise to political power! sheesh! Sometimes you make me wonder...Anyways I am saying that calling him a war criminal and hoping to get him barred from visiting a place, when his own country hasn't even bothered to put him on the dock for a single charge (as far as I know) for 30 odd years is rather futile. Try and read the sentence in the context of the paragraph.This is the context! Hope that clarifies things.

Originally posted by Arnab

Interesting logic. So, let me see, since the murderer, the war criminal was given amnesty by a magnanimous president, that alone somehow qualifies him to become the minister of a country he originally opposed to even exist?

Do you think it EVER crossed Mujib's mind to make this guy a law-making minister in our country? Does amnesty from crime means the convict can become the judge later, even though publicly confessing, remaining remorseless, even boasting of his crime?

You cannot insinuate that Mujib's action of amnesty is the cause of Sayedee's ascension to power. There is no causal relationship between the two. Your "reasoning" is conveniently skewed to drag Mujib into something that he was NEVER primarily responsible for.

Edited on, August 27, 2004, 5:03 PM GMT, by Arnab.

Edited on, August 27, 2004, 5:24 PM GMT, by pompous.

[Arnab]

Anyways I am saying that calling him a war criminal and hoping to get him barred from visiting a place, when his own country hasn't even bothered to put him on the dock for a single charge (as far as I know) for 30 odd years is rather futile. Try and read the sentence in the context of the paragraph.This is the context!

Aha! We are backtracking now, aren't we? If you REALLY believed in your context of "30-odd years" of "no charge", then WHY did you single out Sheik Mujib? Why not mention ALL the governemnts since independence?

BTW, you post-hoc face-saving "context" is wrong. The "country" HAS bothered to put him on the dock. After all, how come you even KNOW that he is a remorseless war criminal. It is because he has been exposed over and over again by a history-aware, conscientious section of the Bangladeshi media/authors. But it is also undeniable that not only has he been protected from any of these charges, he has also been abetted by the governments that came to power since, hence his ascension to power.

So please, save your "dude!" and "sometimes you make me wonder.." rhetorics.

And the logic in your "context" is also hopelessly false. It's like Europeans back in WW2 saying "Hey, even the Germans didn't manage to put Hitler on trial, so who are we to do something about it? Let him invade us and do whatever he wants." That's precisely your logic. You're saying, hey, if even the Bengalis couldn't take care of Sayedee in Bangladesh for 30 years, it's futile to stop him from coming in and letting him spew his reactionist agenda here in the United States and Canada.

Look, I don't have anything personal against you. But I quite strongly disagree with your logic of how things should be done, at least in this particular case.

You can now backtrack and throw in more post-hoc contexts and redefine your positions if you want to. I don't think I care that much.

Edited on, August 27, 2004, 6:57 PM GMT, by Arnab.

[Bangla Mostan]

Sayeedi has offended many people...even people of sylheti background...so its only natural and human emotion to express such negative voice against him.

[Zobair]

Haha! you crack me up! so good at hijacking a thread! Backtracking hah! Now if I do even attempt to explain my position it's called backtracking?! why do I even bother explaining myself to you?! Anyways for the saner minds who understand, I was just adding on to the fact this guy along with other rajakars was never put on the LEGAL dock by Sheik Mujib AND as it turns out neither by ANYONE ELSE after, thus further REINCFORCING the lack of legal culpability. Now listen carefully. Contrary to what you think I am saying, I am NOT saying that we should NOT do anything about this man! For starters, we can actually NOT elect this man, or at least campaign against him, and educate people about their choices. What I was ACTUALLY saying in the first paragraph was that before we cry to the foreigners we should do something ourselves, otherwise this is just a futile exercise. As I continue on to say in my next few lines and paragraphs this line of action for us can be dangerous in the future as recent history has shown that no nation "helps" another simply out of of pure human kindness, and often at a terrible cost to the "helpee". I just hate it when Hasina (or whoever is in the opposition) goes and cries to every western diplomat about Bangladesh being repressive and all things negative. hah! What benefit has that brought to our nation? I would hate us all to become little Hasinas or Khaledas or whoever.

I don't have anything against you either but, frankly I don't think much of your ability to see any reasoning except your own. Its quite funny seeing you trying to cover your tracks with "you can now go and re-define your positions...blah blah"! In my book, you are have all the necessary attributes of a good debater but not much beyond.

PS: I hate for this to become another Arnab vs. X (X is usually fab ) thread. I hate them and I want no part of one. I have made my point and I am done with this thread. My apologies in advance.

Originally posted by Arnab

Aha! We are backtracking now, aren't we? If you REALLY believed in your context of "30-odd years" of "no charge", then WHY did you single out Sheik Mujib? Why not mention ALL the governemnts since independence?

BTW, you post-hoc face-saving "context" is wrong. The "country" HAS bothered to put him on the dock. After all, how come you even KNOW that he is a remorseless war criminal. It is because he has been exposed over and over again by a history-aware, conscientious section of the Bangladeshi media/authors. But it is also undeniable that not only has he been protected from any of these charges, he has also been abetted by the governments that came to power since, hence his ascension to power.

So please, save your "dude!" and "sometimes you make me wonder.." rhetorics.

And the logic in your "context" is also hopelessly false. It's like Europeans back in WW2 saying "Hey, even the Germans didn't manage to put Hitler on trial, so who are we to do something about it? Let him invade us and do whatever he wants." That's precisely your logic. You're saying, hey, if even the Bengalis couldn't take care of Sayedee in Bangladesh for 30 years, it's futile to stop him from coming in and letting him spew his reactionist agenda here in the United States and Canada.

Look, I don't have anything personal against you. But I quite strongly disagree with your logic of how things should be done, at least in this particular case.

You can now backtrack and throw in more post-hoc contexts and redefine your positions if you want to. I don't think I care that much.

Edited on, August 27, 2004, 6:57 PM GMT, by Arnab.

Edited on, August 28, 2004, 7:41 AM GMT, by pompous.

[Nasif]

Originally posted by pompous
I just hate it when Hasina (or whoever is in the opposition) goes and cries to every western diplomat about Bangladesh is repressive and all things negative. hah! I would hate us all to become little Hasinas or Khaledas or whoever.

Spot on!

Agreed 100%.

Edited on, August 28, 2004, 7:39 AM GMT, by nasif.

[Ibrahim]

Originally posted by pompous

.......he along with all razakars were given amnesty by the Bangabandhu Sheik Mujibur Rahman soon after independence.
.................

I used to hear same thing again and again from my friends. I think it is the fault of Bangabandhu Sheik Mujibur Rahman for giving amnesty.

It is also his fault for ranking the Bangladesh # 1 corrupted country in the world, because if he did not separate the East Pakistan from west, it would not happen. Same way he is responsible for the grenade attack .. too.. and everything bad happening in Bangladesh. How about that??

[Arnab]

I hate for this to become another Arnab vs. X (X is usually fab ) thread. I hate them and I want no part of one.

Haha! I have a personal label for this kind of people: Anti-intellectual [] with fragile egos.

Fabrina can hold her ground without taking everything personally. You can't. That's the difference.

Edited on, August 28, 2004, 6:34 PM GMT, by chinaman.

[rafiq]

You guys who are paranoid about the whining to foreigners are missing a point. You assume some kind of utopian model nation in Bangladesh, where all legitimate complaints will be heard, and justice will prevail. Well of course justice does not prevail in most cases. With all the paranoia about the image of Bangladesh, exactly what good has it done to have the brain dead amnesia that the current government has regarding all these issues? It's always "we don't have a problem", "we will look into it", blah blah. How many problems have Bangladeshis been able to collaborate on and solve? Zero would be my guess. We're good at hartals, bhondami, pulling down a good effort when we see one, and opining ad nauseum as I am doing now.

I think whining to foreigners and informing the Canadians that they have a wicked man like Sayeedi coming to speak in public are 2 different things.

Ultra nationalism sucks, whether we see it in Bush's America or in this Bangladesh whose squeaky clean image many would like to fabricate because anything less is not patriotic. How many of you living in the US have been hearing about patriotism lately?


I also agree with the earlier point that Sheikh Mujib is not the be all and end all of war crimes related justice. He didn't have a monopoly on it. It's ridiculous to say that his pardons of Pak war criminals and their associates (we can revisit the nitty gritty details later) is a forever binding decision. And besides he is dead and can't do much about it anymore so I don't care what he did or didn't do beyond the obvious historical context.

But I care what you do, because you are very much alive and your opinion counts and you are Bangladesh so why don't you do something about it today?

[Zobair]

I take it you are the intellectual with an almighty powerful and secure ego. Isn't that why you need to make sure that you come on top in every arguement?! hah! got three words for you "delusions of grandeur". And perhaps you should let Fab say what she exactly thinks of the pointless debates you engage her in. I suspect she might not be as charitable as you think. Anyways, I have been on this board long enough to know I can't ever penetrate that ego buffered thick skull of yours.

Originally posted by Arnab

Haha! I have a personal label for this kind of people: Anti-intellectual [] with fragile egos.

Fabrina can hold her ground without taking everything personally. You can't. That's the difference.

Edited on, August 28, 2004, 6:34 PM GMT, by chinaman.

[chinaman]

Guys, we are discussing Sayedee, remember?