Hearsay and whosay

One of the criticisms of Sarmila Bose's intellectual mooning at the Awami death script of 1971 was that she relegated the accounts of the less educated witnesses and raised the accounts of the pakistani military, and that this was an unjust thing to do.

I think this is educated people hiding behind uneducated people, using their uneducation as a device to enrol your sympathy and cover their bare behinds.

Its a hallmark of developmentia.

One of the things that powerful and criminal have in their favour is that their centrality grants an authoratative view, which they can misuse, and claim on a hard-to-assail privileged view.

In the war crimes court transcrpts im detecting a similar occurence, educated people have been busy coaching and fabricated witnesses out of vulnerable population.These witnesses have been shown for what they have are by the defence.

It makes you wonder how the bargain was struck between the core and the periphery of the League through local MPs. This makes you wonder whther the deal can be unstruck too.

So truthers need to know, who was present in heavy decision  and death making scenarios over those 9 months and what was said by whom. This is why the Pakistani military is important  and problematic.

Accounts of events mean less if the participant wasnt there. ...of course none of this matters if you base your closed systems view on peripheral experiences, hearsay, delusions and badly imputed facts.

The backers of the bangladesh was trial have Nuremburg on their minds.  This is why the 3 million figure was important, because it was of the same order as the Holocaust and gets you to the same spaces and discursive tool book. In these Nuremberg Trials, i am told, 'hearsay' was elevated to ridiulous levels.

Officialising the Nirmul committee then?