You clearly have a comprehension problem. At no point I defended Saidee in my post, because I don't know if he has committed the crimes for which he was being accused or even those he may have not been accused of.
I can say the same about you. You can also re-read my previous post cause you're repeating same thing again. You've clearly ignored lots of part and stuck to your own opinion and tell me I am in denial? I told you to mark the part of BAL's position but you didn't.
I gave you appellate division's copy but you kept crying about judge's position. That's your only point and it's not exactly a strong defense against all other factors. If this is not defending then I don't know what else is, Quit advising me about word play trickery when you're doing the exact thing.
You are accusing me for being fixated on my opinion that trial was not fair. Yet you have not produced a single shred of evidence to prove the judicial system was unbiased and independent. Instead you are trying to sell me on Saidee's crime by referring to the crimes he was proven guilty of. I ask you a simple question - if your judicial system is considered biased and politically motivated, if due process has not been followed - where is the credibility of the judgements coming out of such institutions?
Ok, let's say that trial was not fair. Who would hold a fair trial? Certainly not BNP since people were attacked when they protested and demanded justice against Jamat. Unfortunately, ICJ wouldn't hold a fair trial either as it issued political statement in support of Jamat and telling us not to pursue vengeance when they are not even involved in this case?! Also, US wants Jamaat to survive. So expecting a fair trial from them is a foolish thought or cunning attempt to save these scums head.
And screw HRW!! They will issue statement any person, minority that's in opposition, even if it's Hasina against govt. And the defense lawyers were given more time than prosecution and there was not limit in witness. You really expect me to accept HRW's statement seriously when you refuse Nijhum's argument? I can get you any foreign statement with enough money and lobbying.
Were we talking about "BAL was really against Jamat and the true flag bearer of liberation"? BAL-Jamat alliance was only against Ershad that even confirmed by Saidee himself so why are you crying about it? Speaking of persecuting political opponents, what BNP did to BAL during their last rule?
Seven months after the international crimes tribunal was set up for trying war criminals, Jamaat-e-Islami leader Mir Quasem Ali schemed to foil the trial by playing his trump card: Money.
In its campaign against the war crimes trial, Jamaat-e-Islami organised a seminar yesterday at Oxford University, UK under the banner of Bangladesh Crisis Group. John Cammegh, one of the defence lawyers for Jamaat, was the key speaker at the seminar titled "The Bangladesh War Crimes Tribunal and...
It was you who got triggered and assumed I am defending the cases against him and started with your accusations.
Again you're the one responded to me, I joked about him and was minding my own business. The way you confronted me makes it quite obvious that you're the one who got triggered. I was only sarcastic through my whole response to you. I know what I called you, don't twist my word.
If I wanted to call you razakar I could've simple done that from the start but I was trying to be nice by putting you in the grey line, doesn't matter what everyone knows. Did anyone ask you to waste your time? You can drop the neutral act given how desperate you're to prove that the trial was biased and defending all including Saidee. You can check your own post if you disagree.