By IANS,
Guwahati : The political dynamics in Assam are likely to change with the formation of a new party by groups representing the tea garden workers' community as plantation voters hold the key to winning elections in many parts of the state.
To fight for their rights, several frontline tea garden community groups like the All Assam Adivasi Students' Association (AAASA) and the All Assam Tea Tribe's Students' Association (AATTSA) have decided to float a political party ahead of the parliamentary elections.
"We want to have our own political party to make sure we are able to raise our political rights and work more vigorously for the overall socio-economic development of the community," AATTSA general secretary Pallab Lochan Das told IANS.
The tea garden workers' community, fighting to be accorded the status of a Scheduled Tribe which will give them reservation benefits in jobs and education, constitutes about six million of Assam's 26 million population. Most of them work in the state's 800-odd tea plantations.
The four million strong tea garden voters hold the key to winning any elections in about 32 of Assam's 126 assembly constituencies.
"Candidates from the new political party that we are forming might contest the upcoming Lok Sabha elections in Assam. We are not ruling out that option," Das said.
It is generally believed that the tea garden workers were traditionally supporters of the Congress party in Assam - an equation that is bound to change if the new party decides to contest the polls.
"More than anybody else, the new party to be formed by the tea community would adversely impact on the poll prospects of the Congress party," said Bijoya Chakraborty, former central minister and senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader in Assam.
The ruling Congress party is, however, unfazed.
"I don't think it is the right time to float a new party and even if they form a party, it would have no bearing on the elections," said Bhagirath Karan, head of the tea cell of the Congress party.
But despite the optimism, there are fears that the new party, expected to be formed soon, would cut into the Congress vote bank.
During the 2006 assembly elections, a new party called the Asom United Democratic Front (AUDF), led by perfume baron Badruddin Ajmal, won 11 seats in their first outing.
The AUDF claims to espouse the cause of the minority Muslims in Assam that accounts for about 30 percent of the total population.
"The Congress is a party that solely depends on Muslim and tea garden community votes. If you analyse how the AUDF eroded the Muslim votes of the Congress party in 2006, one wonders about the consequences now as a result of the new tea community party," Chakraborty said.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Couple from Assam killed in Afghanistan
By IANS,
Guwahati : The death of a newly married Assamese couple in Afghanistan has triggered a controversy with some family members saying that they were killed by the Taliban militia.
Family members were informed by the Indian embassy officials in Kabul that 37-year-old Abu Nasser and his 28-yr-old wife Farhin Ajmin died in an accidental fire at a guest house where they were staying on Jan 23.
Nasser was a professor of English at the Mazar-e-Sharief University in Afghanistan since November last year.
"We got conflicting reports with some saying they died in a fire, while others told us over telephone they were killed in an accident," Farhin's sister said, not wishing to be named.
The couple hailed from Tezpur town in northern Assam. Their bodies arrived in the town Thursday. Hundreds of people have been visiting their house to pay their last respects.
"We were told they died in an attack by the Taliban, probably using toxic gas in which four others were also killed," another family member said.
The couple was scheduled to head to India for a holiday on Jan 24 and were hence staying at a guest house, where the incident took place.
Naseer had passed out from Aligarh Muslim University and had done his MBA from Bhubaneswar.
"He was a brilliant student and was loved by everyone," a family friend said.
Guwahati : The death of a newly married Assamese couple in Afghanistan has triggered a controversy with some family members saying that they were killed by the Taliban militia.
Family members were informed by the Indian embassy officials in Kabul that 37-year-old Abu Nasser and his 28-yr-old wife Farhin Ajmin died in an accidental fire at a guest house where they were staying on Jan 23.
Nasser was a professor of English at the Mazar-e-Sharief University in Afghanistan since November last year.
"We got conflicting reports with some saying they died in a fire, while others told us over telephone they were killed in an accident," Farhin's sister said, not wishing to be named.
The couple hailed from Tezpur town in northern Assam. Their bodies arrived in the town Thursday. Hundreds of people have been visiting their house to pay their last respects.
"We were told they died in an attack by the Taliban, probably using toxic gas in which four others were also killed," another family member said.
The couple was scheduled to head to India for a holiday on Jan 24 and were hence staying at a guest house, where the incident took place.
Naseer had passed out from Aligarh Muslim University and had done his MBA from Bhubaneswar.
"He was a brilliant student and was loved by everyone," a family friend said.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Hamas: France helps Israel in Gaza siege
Hamas has condemned the deployment of a French frigate off the coast of Gaza, saying it would reinforce an Israeli blockade on the strip. Prime Minister Ismail Haniya lashed out at French President Nicolas Sarkozy over the deployment of the warship to the area allegedly to fight 'arms smuggling' into the coastal region. "We expected France, whose motto is 'liberty, equality, fraternity' to send hospital ships to treat the children burned by banned weapons or to set up a humanitarian bridge... rather than deploy a navy ship to reinforce the blockade," said Haniya in a statement Tuesday. Israel's 18-month old blockade and its 22-day military campaign has created an unprecedented humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian coastal silver. The deployment was ordered Friday in cooperation with Israel and Egypt as part of "immediate actions to fight against the smuggling of weapons towards Gaza." "We are astonished by the European position which blames the victims and the oppressed people for the tragedy that befell the Gaza Strip," said Haniya. After having failed to prevent Hamas arming through a 22-day full-scale offensive against the movement, Israel signed a deal with the United Stated to stop arrival of arms into the region. Following the agreement, Sarkozy ordered the deployment of a frigate to international waters off the coast of Gaza, saying the warship will conduct "surveillance in international waters off Gaza, in full cooperation with Egypt and Israel." Sarkozy had also told Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, to "coordinate closely" with the US and Europe as soon as possible to propose other ways to prevent Palestinians from obtaining arms. Hamas says that as a democratically elected government it is entitled to have weapons in order to “defend” Palestinians against their enemy. "No one has the right to prevent the Palestinians from equipping themselves with weapons as long as the occupation continues," Hamas representative Osama Hamdan said in Lebanon. Source: Press TV
Monday, January 26, 2009
Olmert Reminds the World, "We, the Jewish People, Control America"
By Mark Glennccun.org, January 25, 2009
Amidst all the bombs raining down upon the civilian population of the world’s largest outdoor concentration camp known as Gaza, another bomb–1000 times as devastating as those detonated over Japan in 1945–was dropped on the American people but which did not make much discussion in the mainstream news, despite the shock waves it caused in political circles worldwide.
At the height of Israel’s bombing campaign against the Palestinian civilians of Gaza that (as of this moment) has resulted in almost 1,500 deaths of mostly women and children, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert convened a press conference in the southern Israeli town of Ashkelon to “explain” things to the world. The subject matter was the most recent vote taking place in the United Nations on Security Council Resolution 1860 mandating an immediate cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hamas, the brainchild of US Sec. Of State Condoleeza Rice who drafted it after close consultation with other Arab diplomats from the region. Due to the heavy civilian deaths being suffered by the Palestinians, again, over 1,000, compared to little over a dozen suffered by the Jewish state, such a resolution was for all intents and purposes the most humane, moral and fair thing to do that in effect called upon Israel to stop hacking innocent civilians to pieces.
Israel for her part would have nothing of it. Drunk on the bloodshed and suffering she was causing to innocent civilians, she was not going to step away from the buffet table until she had reached her limit. A mere moments before the vote was to take place, the US Sec. of State received a call from her boss, George W Bush and was told to ditch the deal and abstain from voting on the very resolution she herself had penned.
As outrageous as this was, amidst all the human suffering taking place as Israel and her “most moral army in the world” rained down outlawed phosphorous bombs on innocent civilians, schools, mosques, churches and food stores, what was to follow was even worse. Prime Minister Olmert, in behavior similar to that of some wise guy/mob boss who has just beat the rap as a result of yanking the chain of some judge or prosecutor on his payroll, stated in plain language at the convened press conference in Ashkelon that it was he, acting on behalf of Israel, who “made the call” to Bush and brought about the US abstention of vote at the UN. In his own words, upon learning of the “unacceptable” language contained in the resolution, (no doubt obtained by spies working within the State Dept who got their grubby little hands on a pilfered copy) he dropped a dime and put in a call to Bush only to learn that the President was busy giving a speech. Olmert‘s response–in demeanor all-too-typical for Zionists, was “I don’t care; I have to talk to him.” According to Olmert, Bush was called off the podium, given the phone and told in no uncertain language that “the US cannot possibly vote in favor of this resolution”. Olmert than stated with barely-concealed glee that Bush “Gave an order to the secretary of state, and she did not vote in favor of it — a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organized and maneuvered for. She was left pretty shamed, and abstained on a resolution she arranged…”
And the rest “is history,” as the old saying goes.
For its part, when asked about the exchange and subsequent abstention on the vote, the US denied Olmert’s claims. The US State Department characterized Olmert’s version of the events as “inaccurate, totally and completely untrue” while Rice herself called it “Fiction”. When asked to comment on the US’s response, Olmert’s version remain unchanged, in effect– “That’s my story and I’m sticking to it”.
Reaction on the part of organized Jewish groups to the story was mixed. The ADL, adjunct to Israel’s spy agency Mossad, rather than denying the obvious–that this recent event is a reaffirmation of what others have maintained for some time concerning Israel’s ability to yank the foreign policy apparatus of the United States around like a poodle on a leash (something which the ADL loudly denies as it did over the release of Walt and Mearsheimer’s book “The Israel Lobby” with dramatic wailing and gnashing of teeth) shrugged it off. Notorious windbag Abe Foxman, head of the ADL was quoted saying “I have no problem with what Olmert did, but I think the mistake was to talk about it in public” adding “This is what friendships are about. He was not interfering in political issues. You have a relationship, and if you don’t like what is being done, then you go to the boss and tell him.”
Douglas Bloomfield, a former chief lobbyist for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee all but gloated over the effect such a story would have in demonstrating to the world raw Jewish power over the United States saying “This reinforces the perception that the Israeli prime minister and Israeli leaders have easy access to the leaders of the U.S.. It is a fact that the Israeli prime minister can get the president on the phone. Not every prime minister in the world can do that. It is no secret that Israel tried to influence the U.S. regarding U.N. votes. It reinforces what the rivals of Israel say about the enormous clout Israel has in Washington, and I see nothing wrong with that.”
While Foxman and Bloomfield differ on some of the finer points of this event, where they agree however is that, like all criminal organizations who cannot exist in the light of day, “It is a mistake to talk about it.”
Some might make the claim that Israel decided to capitalize on the event by embellishing a few of the details in her favor. Such speculation is neither out of the question nor out of place, given Israel’s well-established history of lying to fit with her agenda, including but not limited to “Holocaustianity” and its seemingly never-ending expansion of the envelope to include grander and grander details of distinctly “Jewish” suffering.
Whether events actually took place in exactly the manner as Olmert described however is irrelevant at this point. The “facts on the ground” are that the US DID abstain from the vote at a time when worldwide outrage over Israel’s deliberate targeting of civilians in Gaza was boiling over and when the US had absolutely NOTHING to gain diplomatically by supporting the carnage. At a time when America is isolated, despised and alone as a result of its “special relationship” with the Jewish state, remaining silent as women and children are hacked to pieces of flesh and bone by Israel certainly does not make things better.
Those hoping in the “change” promised by the new president while on the campaign trail should think twice before investing themselves in such business. Remember the words of Barack Hussein Obama to AIPAC in June 2008 when he had the following to say–
“Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security. That starts with ensuring Israel’s qualitative military advantage. I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat — from Gaza to Tehran. As president, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade — investments to Israel’s security that will not be tied to any other nation. We must approve the foreign aid request for 2009. We should export military equipment to our ally Israel under the same guidelines as NATO. And I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself in the United Nations and around the world.”
In other words, the only difference between former president George W. Bush and the current president Barack Hussein Obama with regards to American foreign policy in the Middle East is that one is named George W. Bush and the other is named Barack Hussein Obama.
It is a law in organized crime circles that “silence is golden” if the syndicate is to survive. When once speaking about AIPAC and the power of organized Jewry in affecting US policy in the Middle East, Steve Rosen (former AIPAC caporegime currently under indictment for espionage against the United States) said Israel and her machinations are like a “night flower” that “thrives in the dark and withers in the light of day”.
What is more important though, and the more telling of it all is the contempt which the Jewish state holds for America as demonstrated by her willingness to gloat over sticking a knife in the back of her “friend”. Although lost on Americans who stay glued to their tv sets keeping up on the latest earth-shaking events on American Idol or Desperate Housewives, what this latest event shows is that in the world of organized crime there is no such thing as loyalty. It is a dog-eat-dog world, and Israel’s recent actions have demonstrated that truly she is not “man’s best friend” but rather, as former Defense Minster Moshe Dayan said “A mad dog, too dangerous to bother”.
Mark Glenn
Correspondent, American Free Press Newspaper
www.americanfreepress.net
nomorewarsforisrael@gmail.comhttp://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/olmert-reminds-the-world-%e2%80%9cwe-the-jewish-people-control-america%e2%80%9d/
Amidst all the bombs raining down upon the civilian population of the world’s largest outdoor concentration camp known as Gaza, another bomb–1000 times as devastating as those detonated over Japan in 1945–was dropped on the American people but which did not make much discussion in the mainstream news, despite the shock waves it caused in political circles worldwide.
At the height of Israel’s bombing campaign against the Palestinian civilians of Gaza that (as of this moment) has resulted in almost 1,500 deaths of mostly women and children, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert convened a press conference in the southern Israeli town of Ashkelon to “explain” things to the world. The subject matter was the most recent vote taking place in the United Nations on Security Council Resolution 1860 mandating an immediate cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hamas, the brainchild of US Sec. Of State Condoleeza Rice who drafted it after close consultation with other Arab diplomats from the region. Due to the heavy civilian deaths being suffered by the Palestinians, again, over 1,000, compared to little over a dozen suffered by the Jewish state, such a resolution was for all intents and purposes the most humane, moral and fair thing to do that in effect called upon Israel to stop hacking innocent civilians to pieces.
Israel for her part would have nothing of it. Drunk on the bloodshed and suffering she was causing to innocent civilians, she was not going to step away from the buffet table until she had reached her limit. A mere moments before the vote was to take place, the US Sec. of State received a call from her boss, George W Bush and was told to ditch the deal and abstain from voting on the very resolution she herself had penned.
As outrageous as this was, amidst all the human suffering taking place as Israel and her “most moral army in the world” rained down outlawed phosphorous bombs on innocent civilians, schools, mosques, churches and food stores, what was to follow was even worse. Prime Minister Olmert, in behavior similar to that of some wise guy/mob boss who has just beat the rap as a result of yanking the chain of some judge or prosecutor on his payroll, stated in plain language at the convened press conference in Ashkelon that it was he, acting on behalf of Israel, who “made the call” to Bush and brought about the US abstention of vote at the UN. In his own words, upon learning of the “unacceptable” language contained in the resolution, (no doubt obtained by spies working within the State Dept who got their grubby little hands on a pilfered copy) he dropped a dime and put in a call to Bush only to learn that the President was busy giving a speech. Olmert‘s response–in demeanor all-too-typical for Zionists, was “I don’t care; I have to talk to him.” According to Olmert, Bush was called off the podium, given the phone and told in no uncertain language that “the US cannot possibly vote in favor of this resolution”. Olmert than stated with barely-concealed glee that Bush “Gave an order to the secretary of state, and she did not vote in favor of it — a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organized and maneuvered for. She was left pretty shamed, and abstained on a resolution she arranged…”
And the rest “is history,” as the old saying goes.
For its part, when asked about the exchange and subsequent abstention on the vote, the US denied Olmert’s claims. The US State Department characterized Olmert’s version of the events as “inaccurate, totally and completely untrue” while Rice herself called it “Fiction”. When asked to comment on the US’s response, Olmert’s version remain unchanged, in effect– “That’s my story and I’m sticking to it”.
Reaction on the part of organized Jewish groups to the story was mixed. The ADL, adjunct to Israel’s spy agency Mossad, rather than denying the obvious–that this recent event is a reaffirmation of what others have maintained for some time concerning Israel’s ability to yank the foreign policy apparatus of the United States around like a poodle on a leash (something which the ADL loudly denies as it did over the release of Walt and Mearsheimer’s book “The Israel Lobby” with dramatic wailing and gnashing of teeth) shrugged it off. Notorious windbag Abe Foxman, head of the ADL was quoted saying “I have no problem with what Olmert did, but I think the mistake was to talk about it in public” adding “This is what friendships are about. He was not interfering in political issues. You have a relationship, and if you don’t like what is being done, then you go to the boss and tell him.”
Douglas Bloomfield, a former chief lobbyist for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee all but gloated over the effect such a story would have in demonstrating to the world raw Jewish power over the United States saying “This reinforces the perception that the Israeli prime minister and Israeli leaders have easy access to the leaders of the U.S.. It is a fact that the Israeli prime minister can get the president on the phone. Not every prime minister in the world can do that. It is no secret that Israel tried to influence the U.S. regarding U.N. votes. It reinforces what the rivals of Israel say about the enormous clout Israel has in Washington, and I see nothing wrong with that.”
While Foxman and Bloomfield differ on some of the finer points of this event, where they agree however is that, like all criminal organizations who cannot exist in the light of day, “It is a mistake to talk about it.”
Some might make the claim that Israel decided to capitalize on the event by embellishing a few of the details in her favor. Such speculation is neither out of the question nor out of place, given Israel’s well-established history of lying to fit with her agenda, including but not limited to “Holocaustianity” and its seemingly never-ending expansion of the envelope to include grander and grander details of distinctly “Jewish” suffering.
Whether events actually took place in exactly the manner as Olmert described however is irrelevant at this point. The “facts on the ground” are that the US DID abstain from the vote at a time when worldwide outrage over Israel’s deliberate targeting of civilians in Gaza was boiling over and when the US had absolutely NOTHING to gain diplomatically by supporting the carnage. At a time when America is isolated, despised and alone as a result of its “special relationship” with the Jewish state, remaining silent as women and children are hacked to pieces of flesh and bone by Israel certainly does not make things better.
Those hoping in the “change” promised by the new president while on the campaign trail should think twice before investing themselves in such business. Remember the words of Barack Hussein Obama to AIPAC in June 2008 when he had the following to say–
“Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security. That starts with ensuring Israel’s qualitative military advantage. I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat — from Gaza to Tehran. As president, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade — investments to Israel’s security that will not be tied to any other nation. We must approve the foreign aid request for 2009. We should export military equipment to our ally Israel under the same guidelines as NATO. And I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself in the United Nations and around the world.”
In other words, the only difference between former president George W. Bush and the current president Barack Hussein Obama with regards to American foreign policy in the Middle East is that one is named George W. Bush and the other is named Barack Hussein Obama.
It is a law in organized crime circles that “silence is golden” if the syndicate is to survive. When once speaking about AIPAC and the power of organized Jewry in affecting US policy in the Middle East, Steve Rosen (former AIPAC caporegime currently under indictment for espionage against the United States) said Israel and her machinations are like a “night flower” that “thrives in the dark and withers in the light of day”.
What is more important though, and the more telling of it all is the contempt which the Jewish state holds for America as demonstrated by her willingness to gloat over sticking a knife in the back of her “friend”. Although lost on Americans who stay glued to their tv sets keeping up on the latest earth-shaking events on American Idol or Desperate Housewives, what this latest event shows is that in the world of organized crime there is no such thing as loyalty. It is a dog-eat-dog world, and Israel’s recent actions have demonstrated that truly she is not “man’s best friend” but rather, as former Defense Minster Moshe Dayan said “A mad dog, too dangerous to bother”.
Mark Glenn
Correspondent, American Free Press Newspaper
www.americanfreepress.net
nomorewarsforisrael@gmail.comhttp://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/olmert-reminds-the-world-%e2%80%9cwe-the-jewish-people-control-america%e2%80%9d/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)