Banner Advertise

Friday, May 16, 2008

[vinnomot] Fw: Does Obama Even Need The Jewish Vote?(Huffington Post Article)



---------- Forwarded Message ----------

Does Obama Even Need The Jewish Vote?

May 14, 2008 12:21 PM


Show your support.
Buzz this article up.
 
Buzz up!

About Sam Stein

Sam Stein is a Political Reporter at the Huffington Post, based in Washington, D.C. Previously he has worked for Newsweek magazine, the New York Daily News and the investigative journalism group Center for Public Integrity. He has a masters from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and is a graduate of Dartmouth College. Sam can be reached at stein@huffingtonpost.com.

Like this story? Get Alerts of big news events. Enter your email address

Over the past few days and weeks, much ink has been devoted to Barack Obama's potentially tricky relationship with the Jewish community.

Had his relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his former pastor and sympathetic voice on Palestine, caused harm? Would his pledge to meet without preconditions with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad turn off the pro-Israel crowd? Did the developed tensions between the Jewish and Black communities present a gap too wide to bridge?

Certainly the topic has been on Obama's mind, as during the course of this past week he has given several interviews to prominent Jewish journalists on the very subject.

But lost in the process is, perhaps, a broader question: Does the Jewish vote really matter all that much for the Illinois Democrat? The topic, perhaps surprisingly, carries no clear consensus among some academics and analysts.

There is wide agreement on three reasons why the Jewish vote matters. Despite lacking overall numbers, Jews participate in the political process in large percentages, representing some of the more high-profile activists. They also have, historically, been major fundraisers for both political parties. And they tend to reside -- for one reason or another -- in some of the country's most significant "swing states."

For Obama, two of those three may not be major political concerns. The senator's ability to drum up grassroots support provides him with a robust activist base, somewhat but not entirely irrespective of opinion makers. And his fundraising apparatus, which relies on more than 1.5 million donors -- many of them of the low-dollar variety -- means he doesn't have to lean on major financiers. As one prominent Jewish Democratic fundraiser told The Huffington Post, "Obama doesn't need me and that isn't necessarily a bad thing." Indeed, Obama's success in bringing in campaign cash, longtime political observers say, has fundamentally altered the relationship between candidate and constituency group.

"If you are raising $40 million and month, month after month, only some of it is coming from Jewish community," said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report. "It does dilute the importance of one group of contributors. Hollywood is, in this regard, also less important... organized labor may be less important as well."

It is in the numbers and blocs of Jewish voters (not money and activism) where Obama, theoretically, has the most to lose or gain. According the 2007 American Jewish Community Yearbook, there are approximately 6.4 million Jews in the United States, roughly two percent of the country's population. And yet Jews are more-highly concentrated in important political locales such as Florida, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

"The Jewish vote is most important as a vote," explained Mark Mellman, president of The Mellman Group, one of the nation's leading public opinion researchers. "And the truth is that in some of these swing states the difference between getting 55 and 65 percent of their votes can be the difference between winning a losing."

This synopsis is technically true. However, as other analysts note, the presidential race would ultimately have to be historically close for the Jewish vote to be numerically decisive. There are, for instance, approximately 145,000 Jews in Ohio. If 80 percent were eligible to vote and 80 percent of those eligible actually did go to the polls (both high estimates) that would mean that that roughly 93,000 votes were up for grabs in that state. If Obama won 74 percent of that vote -- the same percentage that John Kerry carried nationally in 2004 -- he would have approximately 68,000 Ohio Jewish votes. If he only received 61 percent of the vote -- which he is receiving in the most recent Gallup Poll -- that number drops to 56,700, a difference of 11,300 votes. In Ohio, such a loss could make a difference. But the state was decided by more than ten times that margin in 2004.

Jews do make up larger shares of the population in both Pennsylvania and Florida. However, in some of the "new" swing states -- Colorado, New Mexico, and Iowa, for example -- the Jewish population is only (roughly) 80,000, 11,000 and 6,000 respectively.

"While a relatively moderate Republican candidate with rock-solid Israel-supporter credentials like John McCain may well reach or even surpass the Jewish-vote record for a GOP presidential contender - especially if his opponent is Barack Obama - a few extra Jewish votes in states already pretty much guaranteed as either Democratic or Republican aren't going to make that much of a difference," The Jerusalem Post's Caley Ben-David opined this past week.

Population totals asides, Jews do, according to statistics, tend to be a much more reliable constituency than say, the young. In terms of a base, it is a solid one to have. More significant, perhaps, is that the group's issues are shared by others -- meaning appeals to Jewish voters brings support from more than just Jews.

"Remember that unlike primary season, when it comes to the real thing, it is winner take all format," said Jonathan Sarna, a professor of American Jewish History at Brandeis University. "And that means that every vote will be extremely important. And I don't think Obama wants to take any chances in a critical state. Moreover, there are others who clearly care about some of the same issues that lots of Jews care about, notably Israel."

As Sarna notes, Obama stands to gain the backing of some evangelicals and a firmer base among Democrats by demonstrating support for the state of Israel. Such a stance, moreover, brings with it an image benefit, mainly, the perception of strength within foreign policy circles. But perhaps the most compelling reason for Obama to pursue the Jewish vote is to counteract the inroads that his Republican opponents are trying to make. Indeed, as recent history shows and Democrats concede, a political turf war over the Jewish community is already on hand.

"I've always said that one of the things the Republicans were trying to do under Rove and [Tom] DeLay, and I never underestimated them, was to use Israel to turn the Jewish community against the Democratic Party. That mean stopping money to Jewish Democrats but more importantly it means affecting opinion makers," said Ira Forman, head of the National Jewish Democratic Council. "This year there are some real numbers here. I think the McCain's folks are looking at these numbers and they are figuring out a micro-strategy - they are doing this with African Americans and other groups as well with the Jews. If they can drive the Jewish vote down 20 percent in these states it could make a difference. I don't know how good the McCain people are but the Rove and his minions e were doing this on every constituency out there."



_____________________________________________________________
Protect your home before it is too late. Click here for homeowner insurance information.


_____________________________________________________________
Click here for great computer networking solutions!

__._,_.___
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Yahoo! News

Kevin Sites

Get coverage of

world crises.

Yahoo! Finance

It's Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more.

Y! Messenger

Quick file sharing

Send up to 1GB of

files in an IM.

.

__,_._,___

[vinnomot] Fw: Re: [baainews] FW: Its my pleasure



---------- Forwarded Message ----------

My question to Mr. Syed Mohammadullah who is participating in the  Round Table Conference orgainzed by Hindu Boudha Christian Unity Council on 'Vested Property Act'.

When Mr. Ullah joined this Unity Council? 

Did he became a member of this organization(Hindu Bouddha Christain Oikkyo Porishod)?

Can the unity council  offer membership to Bangladeshi Muslims ?





_____________________________________________________________
All is not lost! Click now for professional data recovery.


_____________________________________________________________
All is not lost! Click now for professional data recovery.

__._,_.___
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Yahoo! News

Get it all here

Breaking news to

entertainment news

Yahoo! Finance

It's Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more.

Find helpful tips

for Moderators

on the Yahoo!

Groups team blog.

.

__,_._,___

[vinnomot] Science and Religion: Reality vs. Emotion!

Science and Religion: Reality vs. Emotion!
 

 
Mohammad Gani (USA).
 
 

People with religious faith (in God) have been going through false-beliefs or true-beliefs on Prophet's rhetoric often make some of us crucified with disbeliefs. Rhetoric is not always bad; all rhetoricians, I mean Prophets know exactly and have knowledge on justice, good, evils, right and wrong etc! So, what is the problem with religion?

 

We may not argue on or about the determinations made by science as it is almost always based on proofs. In this secular world, it is quite understandable to question the existence of God, especially since we can't see Him, touch Him or have any other communication with Him. Those of us who believe in existence of God, yet the mystery is not over; we have no idea in what form He exists, how He came into existence and what His existence means to our life and also to the universe. The ideological conflicts or disagreement on stance in existence of God and its support from science is huge. Being a liberal Muslim in faith with average education, I read with great interest and try to understand the available meanings and teachings of all religions those give me their insights and any conflicts with science on some issues, especially on God. There are so many scholars, philosophers and scientists who worked on and evaluated religions to discover God those have expressed their penchant towards God as well as established their own faiths in God. All religions have delivered incremental codes of civilizations and humanity to the human habitats in this planet for thousands of years. On the other hand, our science's visible contributions to the mankind are also so meaningful that it has become almost impossible to outright ignore it with its arguments on grounds of admissibility in existence of God. This on going dilemma shall remain open unresolved for many thousands years to come until our own planet becomes a dead one.

Questions that religious philosophy cannot answer about the nature of existence and the origin of God; just as there are many questions that scientists cannot answer about the nature and origins of physical laws. The main difference between the two is that the scientists only address what can be seen and proven while the religious philosophy relies on its creativity to find the balance between what is known and what can only be derived. Clearly some do better then others but only the ignorant would dismiss the probability of God and His divinity just based on only theories of science.
 

Science has no room for creating something from nothing and our theory of "Infinite Density Mass and Zero Volume" theory (known as Singularity) as science describes; has many fundamental flaws. 2nd law of thermodynamics, Energy conservation law and Newton's first law of motion have clear conflicts in supporting Big Bang theory. For example, Newton's 1st law of motion states that "an object stays at rest or in uniform motion unless the object is acted upon by an external force to change that state". Today it is proven (?) that many galaxies are drifting apart and that everything in space is getting farther apart from each other. The 'Big Bang' set everything into motion but based on Newton's law; an "outside force" had to cause the Big Bang; because the masses in space were in composite form to a state of "Infinite Density/Zero Volume" as well as at the "State of Rest or in motion" immediately before the Big Bang. Logically and in accordance with Newton's law of motion; there still had to be "Something in Existence to conduct this manipulation of Big Bang". What exactly was the "outside force" that caused the Big Bang? Was it God, whatever shape or form God is? At some point one has to simply accept "some type of belief" in the topic of the "beginning moment" of Big Bang.". There is still so much science hasn't even touched that may or may not solve the mystery of the beginning.


This is not the end of the puzzle; our cosmology also has its own problem; like where does "mass" come from, at the most fundamental level? To find that answer physicists try to find via large accelerators that should be a spin-zero particles with nonzero mass. The central point of this approach is that "mass" is created by a very special non-Euclidian manifold. This experiment of creating mass from nothing has eventually ended up as a miscarriage at the maternity! Now, if someone asks on who or what put energy and matter into the universe, what is antimatter and where did it come from are only theories. Science cannot answer these questions, because in the first moments of its existence the universe was probably compressed to such an extraordinary degree and consumed by the heat of a fire beyond human imagination!

Though science can only PREDICT (no proof) what happened in the universe immediately after the Big Bang, it does not explain what happened at the instant of creation. Also, physicists so far could not pass through the "singularity state of the universe" to find out what happened before the Big Bang. Also, our universe logically, physically and even theoretically can not be so-called infinite because anything with "infinite size" would never support its continuous motion (in infinite space!) in its real term! If so, all laws of our existence would be incompatible. Therefore, the expression "Infinite" cannot be applied as a measure for the concept of Space and time. Our scientists at present have not yet developed anything enough to accommodate specific yardsticks necessary for comprehension of the limits or limitlessness of the depths of paths within the physical coordinates of the six degrees of oscillatory freedom, not even in its any mathematical form.

The scientific community has however arrived at an organizational format not much different from a religious one. When the religious institutions used to tell us the earth is flat, the masses followed. When Copernicus and Galileo started to look at things closer, Newton and others developed calculating tools, few of the masses jumped on their wagons of different thinking about our planet. Our current secular community has arrived at such a stagnation point similar to those religious institutions, off course in a coalesced scientific format!

Our Astrophysics is more poetic and sophomoric than coming up with any empirical evidences on Universe and Space, thus lacking proofs of "abstract and applied science". Here, I shall bring something to think about from religious perspectives. In the Islamic Holy book, the Quran mentions things 1400 years ago those were not known to man at that time frame. In the Quran, it says (The Prophets / 21:30), "Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before We clove them asunder, and We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" This "seems" to be a reference of the 'Big Bang'. Now in reference to the continuous expansion of the universe, The Quran says (The Winds/51:47), "And it is We who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily it is We who are steadily expanding it." Hindu "religious thought" denies that the world of nature stands on its own feet. It clearly says that it is grounded in God; if He were removed, it would collapse into nothingness. In Christian religion; "God is creating the entire universe; fully and totally, in this present now. Everything God created. God creates now all at once'. All religions have given remarkably similar descriptions of the universe and the life force that pervades it.

Our cosmos is not any lifeless machine but is instead a unified and living organism (reproductive). Although it appears new for our times; the idea that the universe is alive is an ancient one. More than two thousand years ago, Plato described the universe as one Whole of wholes and a single living creature which encompasses all of the living creatures that are within it. Science presumes life to be a cosmic accident and hence assumes that our consciousness will cease to exist after our death. According to science millions of years ago, under certain favorable climatic conditions, life was born in the form of unicellular organism and ever since evolution of life progressed, to bring living beings as complicated as human beings. Even though there is adequate evidence to support this concept, it is still difficult to believe that all this ecological balance we are seeing in this world and its perfection, with which our internal and external systems are working, is an accident. It seems that behind the evolution there could be a spiritual force that has given some directions.

Though our science is able to explain the consciousness; as caused by physical activity in the brain and our nervous system; we cannot disregard the concept of soul. May be we feel our soul or have consciousness through physical activity during our life in a physical state. In the same way, possibly both the theory of evolution and concept of God could be true. May be God created life through the process of evolution. Therefore, the concepts of religion and science can co-exist. Our brain and the mind are two different entities. While the brain is an organic and tangible element locked within the confines of our cranium; the mind is not. The mind is an entity of our existence that possibly roams the astral world. Our minds world is actually a universe in its own right; fathomless, mysterious and much like our physical universe but that only the eye cannot see. If there is a soul that could outlive our body; during life it is in the form of consciousness but it is to that heavenly universe to where the soul may go to after we die.

We do have an intuitive connection with the universe and our capacity to use our intuition is still in its infancy given our early stage of learning. An empathic connection with the universe is nothing special; it is built into the systems of the cosmos. Our physical body does not stop at the edge of our skin, in stead extends into and is inseparable from the universe. Consciousness is found at every level of the cosmos and is not confined only within our brains, but extends beyond the body and can meaningfully interact with the rest of the universe in both sending and receiving communications. Our cosmos is responsive, conscious and alive as we are! Thus it is reasonable to believe in the existence of a mental component of the universe. If we believe in this mental component of the universe, then we can say that we are small pieces of God's mental apparatus.

 

My wife for last 27 years mentioned to me that we are actually prisoners of our physical body and work entire life to feed it, we plan and work towards a comfortable life and then leave behind material fortunes for our children to do the same as we did all our life. Thus we are slaves of our biological body for average 75 earth years which shall decompose in our absence within 24 hours. Without this biological body we are free and free from what? Free from everything EXCEPT knowledge, love, attraction and mobility. We need all those qualities to enjoy entire creation being creations ourselves which are so vast and endless. We shall only then know the mysteries of these creations and our life will be truly meaningful only after passing through the gate of death; a journey which no body should miss the taste of, in any way by assuming death as cruel and painful. We shall be then in our real consciousness for which we were born! Actually Mohammad Gani has no interest to know or wish to know of his exact moment of death at this time but the problem is, the City officials recently fined a woman in a housing project for not giving 30 days notice before dying and I also may come across something of that nature from different entity!

I believe in God not to rescue myself just from the misery of death; not to justify my hedonistic desires or to triumph over the evil. I believe in a Creator (God) because I see the creation around me everyday. I see all its order, I see the existence and I see the creativity. What could create orders those are not ordered? What could create existence that does not exist? The overall philosophy of science has given me the understanding to believe that it is not within sciences realm to prove or to disprove God and also that it is wholly unscientific to believe that science in any measure discounts God and His divinity. To the contrary, science suggests the implementation of all elements of our knowledge and wisdom more advanced and forcefully than our own mind in explaining our existence. Thus it would be a brutal scientific irresponsibility if we conveniently use (abuse) philosophy of science to disprove the existence of creator (God).

 

 

[Ref: Plato/Gorgias for logical concept, Stephen Hawkings's Essays and several scientific/research journals/paoers].

 

 

Mohammad Gani

Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

__._,_.___
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Yahoo! News

Get it all here

Breaking news to

entertainment news

Yahoo! Finance

It's Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more.

Lawn & Garden

on Yahoo! Groups

For all things

green and growing.

.

__,_._,___

[vinnomot] Article 2 : Does science make belief in Allah/God obsolete?

Be careful, what you say about Jinn of Science. Humans err, not Science. 2 + 2 are always going to be 4.
 
Allah said in Qoraan, "Can they tell tomorrow's weather?"
You know now we can. Allah said in Qoraan, "Can they tell gender of fetus in the womb?"
Of course we can now using Ultra Sound. Yesterday's Mollaa's said, "Can Science create Life?"
Of course now we can. By Cloning. Why are you so ignorant?
Which world do you live in sir?
Don't you know, Sheeps had been cloned more than a decade ago?
We can even create Humans by Cloning but since its un-ethical, USA and European Governments have banned Human Cloning.
 
If you are so much against Science, why don't you go back to Bull Cart and Kerosene Lamp days because you are using everything that Science created including your Keyboard and Computer ...! 
 
Allah says, 'Learn ...!'. He does not say deny existance of Science.

mahathir of bd <wouldbemahathirofbd@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is science itself an entity?????????????????????????????????????????????
 
Science itself is not an entity.
 
Scienence is nothing  but human knowledge about something.  And human knowledge is always is erronous. Human knowldge  about human body is called Human biology or something like that.
 
Science does not create human body , it just study human body and acquire knowledge through this study that is called science.
 
 
 
 
.Actualy science can not create anything. Science it self has declared that the is no creation of energy, mere transformation. And energy is central to all, so science can create nothing. 
 
 
 So should  we be boastful  so much on being scientist?
 
 
 


Moham Engineer <moham_engineer@yahoo.com> wrote:
Article 2 : Does science make belief in Allah/God obsolete?
Yes, of course  - speaks a psychologist
While discussing "Science" I mean the entire enterprise of secular reason and knowledge (including history and philosophy), not just people who working in their white lab coats,
create babies within test tubes.
Traditionally, a belief in an Allah/God was attractive because it promised to explain the deepest puzzles about origins. Where did the world come from? What is the basis of life? How can the mind arise from the body? Why should anyone be moral?

Yet over the millennia, there has been an inexorable trend: the deeper we probe these questions, and the more we learn about the world in which we live, the less reason there is to believe in an Allah/God.

Start with the origin of the world. Today no honest and informed person can maintain that the universe came into being a few thousand years ago and was made by an Allah/God in six days (to say nothing of the questions like day and night existing before the sun was created). Nor is there a more abstract role for an Allah/God to play as the ultimate first cause. This trick simply replaces the puzzle of "Where did the universe come from?" with the equivalent puzzle "Where did Allah/God came from/who created this Allah/God?"

What about the fantastic diversity of life and its ubiquitous signs of design? At one time it was understandable to name an Allah/God designer as creatoe of it all. No longer. Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace showed how the complexity of life could arise from the physical process of natural selection among replicators, and then Watson and Crick showed how DNA replication itself could be understood in physical terms. Notwithstanding religious creationist propaganda, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, including our DNA, the fossil record, the distribution of life on earth, and our own anatomy and physiology.

For many people the human soul feels like a divine spark within us. But neuroscience has shown that our intelligence and emotions consist of intricate patterns of activity in the trillions of connections in our brain thus creating the so-called divine spark. However, relabeling the brain activity with the word "soul" adds nothing to our understanding.

People used to think that biology could not explain why we have a conscience. But the human moral sense can be studied like any other mental faculty, such as thirst, color vision, or fear of heights. Evolutionary psychology and cognitive neuroscience are showing how our moral intuitions work, why they evolved, and how they are implemented within the brain.

This leaves morality itself—the benchmarks that allow us to criticize and improve our moral intuitions. It is true that neither science nor an Allah/God can show what is right or wrong. It's not just that the traditional Judeo-Christian God or Islamic Allah endorsed genocide, slavery, rape, and the death penalty for trivial insults. It's that morality cannot be grounded in a fictional divine decree, not even on mere abstract principle. Why did a fictional Allah/God arbitrarily deem some acts moral and others immoral? When even his existance is an illusion, we have no reason to trust such a divine whim, why should we take this fictional being's commandments seriously?

Those reasons are found in the nature of rationality as it is exercised by any intelligent human society. The essence of morality is the concept of reciprocity and the collectivity of humans being watchful of other's behaviour. The fact that as soon as I appeal to you to help me when I am in need, or not to hurt me for no reason, I have to be willing to apply the same standards to you. That is the only policy that is logically consistent and makes both of us as well as the society in geberal better off. And an Allah/God plays no role in it.

For all these reasons, it's no coincidence that European democracies have experienced three sweeping trends during the past few centuries: barbaric religious practices (such as slavery, sadistic criminal punishment, and the mistreatment of children) have decreased significantly; scientific and scholarly understanding has increased exponentially; and belief in an Allah/God has decreased. Science, in the broadest sense, is making belief in God obsolete, and we are the better for it.





তত্ববধায়কদের তাবেদারদের জুতা দিয়ে পিটাও, জেলে যাও, তিনবেলা নিশ্চিন্তে খাও

__._,_.___
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Yahoo! News

Get it all here

Breaking news to

entertainment news

Yahoo! Finance

It's Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more.

Yahoo! Groups

Home Improvement

Learn and share

do-it-yourself tips.

.

__,_._,___

[vinnomot] Re: [notun_bangladesh] Re: [khabor.com] A pro-people leader .....from the Daily New Age, Publ ished on May 3,2008

Ayubi Bhai

Just ignore the pure and simple Bastard who can malign his dad or mom the same way like this.. This is the characteristics of the BAL oriented hooligans.

Faruque Alamgir

Salahuddin Ayubi <s_ayubi786@yahoo.com> wrote:

Ahammak,
              Are you the autistic childn of your arents that you do not understand simplest of things. Can you tell me what are you trying to achieve by sending the same stupid message innumerable number of times. This is usually done by retarded children and they derive pleasure from their stupidity.  I will expect a reply if you are not a retarded baby.
                Salahuddin Ayubi

--- On Fri, 5/16/08, Arif Ahamed <ahamed.ahmed@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Arif Ahamed <ahamed.ahmed@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [notun_bangladesh] Re: [khabor.com] A pro-people leader .....from the Daily New Age, Publ ished on May 3,2008
To: notun_bangladesh@yahoogroups.com, khabor@yahoogroups.com, mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com, chottala@yahoogroups.com, vinnomot@yahoogroups.com, Diagnose@yahoogroups.com, uttorshuri@yahoogroups.com, hazarikaa@hotmail.com
Date: Friday, May 16, 2008, 5:19 AM

 
Liar,    RAZAKAR,    Stupid,    Bastard
 
 
"Izhar  Ahmad / Salahuddin  Ahmad / Salahuddin  Ayubi"
 
 
  ER   DUI   GALE  
 
JUTA    MARO    BARE    BARE
 
 
***
 
 
RAZAKAR,   LIAR    &   TADER    STUPID    SUPPORTER
 
 
   DER   DUI   GALE
 
 
JUTA    MARO    TALE    TALE
 
 


On 5/4/08, Salahuddin Ayubi <s_ayubi786@yahoo.com> wrote:
Motia Chowdhury is not adi BAL ponthi and that is the
reason she could remain honest. BAL is basically a
party of petty bourgoise and its members are out there
to change their status to nuevo rich. How do you
expect them to reamin honest.
So far Dr. Kamal Hussain is concerned he was a
close confidante of Sk, Mujib besides I did not hear
in Charampatra Dr. Kamal referred to as razakar
kamailla. Thoughn I remeber hearing Islamer jom golam
Azam, Gen Piyaji, Bajjat hussain etc. etc.
Salahuddin Ayubi
--- "mohiuddin@netzero.com" <mohiuddin@netzero.com>
wrote:

> Although Motia Chowdhury is pro-Balshal politician,
> she is the most honest politician of awami group
> make no doubt about it. I salute her honesty,no
> politician in Awami league can be compared to her
> honesty.
> Still there are few honest politicians serving the
> nation and we must elect them to guide the nation.
> Regarding Dr. Kamal Hossain I can remember once
> Chorompotro reader used to call him Razakar
> Kamailla, Is this Kamailla is Dr. Kamal Hossain as
> described by Chorompotro reader and brodcasted by
> Shadhin Bangla Betar Kenfrs?
>
>
__________________________________________________________
> Click here for discounted prices on quality Dansko
> shoes and sandals!
>
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2221/fc/Ioyw6i4uLHMXBrBQZTfoI0tQjSofIM7ExuQ4MWtjlyox7pmAouaKg0/?count=1234567890
>

__________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ




__._,_.___
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Yahoo! News

Odd News

You won't believe

it, but it's true

Yahoo! Finance

It's Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more.

Y! Messenger

Group get-together

Host a free online

conference on IM.

.

__,_._,___

[vinnomot] Re: [notun_bangladesh] Demand to change the national anthem. Is it justified?

Friends

As I wrote few minutes back in response to Mr.Raisuddins comments that ignorant people should not object change necessary for Bangladesh as Bangladesh is fore Bangladeshis and only Bangladeshis has the right to doo whatever deems fit for dignified standing be it  national anthem or political party or anything.

National anthem must bear the hopes and aspiration of the people with forward look not sad and stagnant motivation.

Faruque Alamgir

Salahuddin Ayubi <s_ayubi786@yahoo.com> wrote:

Mr. Prodhan,
                 It is a well known fact that our present national anthem was written by Tagore lamenting the Banga bhanga of 1905. The Banga bhanga was the only good thing that the British did for the Muslims of the region in their 200 years  rule of this part of the Indian subcontinents. This bangabhanga was undone under intense politial movement of the caste hindus of bengal in 1911. Tagore was a part of it. Our national anthem bears testimony to that.
              I do not think that there is any debate necessary to discard present national anthem which is contrary to the spirit of Muslims of bengal and replace with an appropriate national anthem.
                     Salahuddin Ayubi

--- On Fri, 5/16/08, Musfique Prodhan <chena_kew@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Musfique Prodhan <chena_kew@yahoo.com>
Subject: [notun_bangladesh] Demand to change the national anthem. Is it justified?
To: "notun Bangladesh" <notun_bangladesh@yahoogroups.com>, banglarnari@yahoogroups.com, "Biplob Kuddus" <vinnomot@yahoogroups.com>, "dahuk dahuk" <dahuk@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, May 16, 2008, 11:27 AM

A debate about the demand to change the national anthem. Let the views decide.
 
 
 
 
Musfique.


__._,_.___
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Yahoo! News

Odd News

You won't believe

it, but it's true

Yahoo! Finance

It's Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more.

Dog Groups

on Yahoo! Groups

Share pictures &

stories about dogs.

.

__,_._,___