View allAll Photos Tagged splinter
Sarah Splinter.
soundcloud.com/2elementsdj/hotsteppa-2elements-vs-dave-ku...
Toronto, Canada ~ April 19, 2017.
I got a flyer from my old school DCAD earlier this week telling me about their student show which got me thinking about some of my older film work. So I flipped through the old portfolios and found a few that I could scan and load up.
This shot was part of a final project centered around textures & patterns. I think I used my 85mm f/1.4 on my N80 for this shot.
After scanning it last night I made adjustments to contrast and sharpened it up a bit.
Nikon N80_Nikon 85mm f/1.4D_Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100 film
All Rights Reserved © Mike Dunckley_2013
film - sooc
it's agonizing, terrifying and undeniable yet somehow there is some intimacy to it - as though the moon and the stars knew all the secrets
as though the constellations were all made to shatter
as though you were born from the winds of the deep red sea
as though you and i were created to break
to burst into a million pieces that live on to shine
just as different particles
of which the moon and the stars know; will make up a whole
While hiking with my friend Bekki in Colorado, we happened upon the remains of a homestead or maybe a hunter's shack. It was up in the mountains and looks like it was nestled against a huge rock, most likely to protect it from the elements. I'm not sure how all that worked out considering all that was left were splinters scattered about. Still, if I was going to camp, that is where I would set up if for no other reason than the view.
This image was taken in JPG using only the settings in my camera, there was no post-processing or editing.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
In 1964 the Royal Air Force specified a requirement (Air Staff Target (AST) 362) for a new fast jet trainer to replace the Folland Gnat. The SEPECAT Jaguar was originally intended for this role, but it was soon realized that it would be too complex an aircraft for fast jet training and only a small number of two-seat versions were purchased. Accordingly, in 1968, Hawker Siddeley Aviation (HSA) began studies for a simpler aircraft, initially as special project (SP) 117. The design team was led by Ralph Hooper.
This project was funded by the company as a private venture, in anticipation of possible RAF interest. The design was conceived of as having tandem seating and a combat capability in addition to training, as it was felt the latter would improve export sales potential. By the end of the year HSA had submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Defense based on the design concept, and in early 1970 the RAF issued Air Staff Target (AST) 397 which formalized the requirement for new trainers of this type. The RAF selected the HS.1182 for their requirement on 1 October 1971 and the principal contract, for 175 aircraft, was signed in March 1972.
Design of the Hawk was conventional by any approach. The two-seat crew - made up of an instructor in the rear cockpit and his student pilot in the front - sat in tandem under a wide field-of-view canopy. Controls at each position were redundant with the instructor having the ability to override student functions as needed. The cockpit was situated well-forward in the design behind a pointed, sloped-down nose assembly. Intakes to aspirate the single engine mounting came in the form of two half-circle openings to either side of the rear cockpit. The turbofan engine was buried deep within the short fuselage which was streamlined with a certain engineering elegance common to British military aircraft.
The intake ducts bulged out at the fuselage sides but were absorbed into the fuselage proper to continue the aircraft's smooth design layout. Wings were fitted amidships and sported modest sweep along the leading edge and lesser sweep along the trailing edge. They were also low-mounted assemblies along the fuselage to help increased expediency for ground operation. The empennage was traditional with a single vertical tail fin flanked by a pair of downward-canted horizontal tail planes. The tail planes were all-moving surfaces to add to the Hawk's agility. Small ventral strakes were noted along the empennage base. The undercarriage was conventional in layout and consisted of two main single-wheeled landing gear legs and a single-wheeled nose leg. The main legs retracted inwards towards centerline while the nose leg retracted forwards.
Standard armament for the Hawk was an optional gun pod commonly fitted to the centerline hard point under the fuselage (there were, in effect, five total hard points). The gun pod housed a 30mm ADEN series cannon for close-in work but remained an optional fixture. There were originally two underwing hard points (later expanded to four) cleared for the carrying of external munitions including guided/homing missiles, rocket pods and conventional drop bombs with the two inner-most hard points plumbed to accept fuel from external drop tanks. Up to 6,800lbs of external stores could be lifted by the Hawk airframe.
The prototype aircraft first flew on 21 August 1974. All development aircraft were built on production jigs; the program remained on time and to budget throughout. The Hawk T1 entered RAF service in late 1976. The first export Hawk 50 flew on 17 May 1976. This variant had been specifically designed for the dual-role of lightweight fighter and advanced trainer. It had a greater weapons capacity than the T.1, featured a total of five hard points, avionics improvements, the ability to carry larger drop tanks of 590 liter (156 US gallon) capacity, and an uprated engine which made the Hawk 50 qualified for 30% greater takeoff weight than the RAF's Hawk T.1.
One of the initial foreign customers was the Finnish Air Force (Suomen Ilmavoimat). In January 1978, Britain and Finland announced a deal to in which the Finnish Air Force was to receive 50 Hawk Mk. 51s in 1980. The Finnish Hawk 51s had a unique avionics fit, used a Saab RS-2 gunsight, and were fitted with a VKT 12.7 millimeter gun pod instead of the 30 millimeter Aden cannon pod provided with the T.1. Interestingly, Finnish Hawks are in some cases fitted with the Russian R-60 (AA-8) AAM, and they are also used for reconnaissance, carrying Vinten optical-infrared camera pods. The first four Hawks in the Finnish order were built in the UK, with the other 46 assembled from kits by Valmet of Finland.
These aircraft were built in Finland under licence by Valtion lentokonetehdas. At that time. the Finnish Air Force was still limited to 60 first-line fighter aircraft by the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947. But by acquiring Hawks, which counted as trainers rather than fighters, capacity could be increased while continuing treaty compliance. These conditions were nullified during the 1990s by the break-up of the Soviet Union, though.
Seven additional Mk. 51As were delivered in 1993–94 to make up for losses, and due to rising levels of metal fatigue, a major structural reinforcement program was carried out to extend the operational life of Finland's Hawks during the 1990s.
More variants of the Hawk followed and common improvements to the base design typically include increased range, more powerful engines, redesigned wing and undercarriage, the addition of radar and forward-looking infrared (FLIR), GPS navigation, and night vision compatibility. Later models were manufactured with a great variety in terms of avionics and system compatibility to suit the individual customer nation. Cockpit functionality was often rearranged and programmed, too, in order to be common to an operator's main fighter fleet to increase the Hawk's training value.
General characteristics:
Crew: 2: student, instructor
Length: 12.43 m (40 ft 9 in)
Wingspan: 9.94 m (32 ft 7 in)
Height: 3.98 m (13 ft 1 in)
Wing area: 16.70 m2 (179.64 ft²)
Empty weight: 4,480 kg (9,880 lb)
Useful load: 3,000 kg (6,600 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 9,100 kg (20,000 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Rolls-Royce Adour Mk. 851 non-afterburning turbofan with 23,1 kN (5.200 lbf) static thrust
Performance:
Maximum speed: Mach 0.84 (1,028 km/h, 638 mph) at altitude
Range: 2,520 km (1,360 nmi, 1,565 mi)
Service ceiling: 13,565 m (44,500 ft)
Rate of climb: 47 m/s (9,300 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 0.65
Armament:
No internal armament, but an optional VKT 12.7 millimeter gun in a centerline pod;
Up to 2.200 lb (1.000 kg) of weapons on four underwing hard points, including 4× AAMs like
AIM-9 Sidewinder or R-60 (AA-8 'Aphid'), bombs of up to 1.000 lb (454 kg) caliber, unguided rocket
pods, drop tanks or reconnaissance pods with cameras
The kit and its assembly:
A simple build, sparked from a short-notice inspiration when I did online legwork for paint schemes. Then I stumbled upon profiles of fictional Finnish MiG-29 and Su-27, posted in 2011 by fellow member Wenzel from the CZ What if SIG a.k.a. PantherG at whatifmodelers.com, featuring interesting, fictional four-tone splinter schemes:
i730.photobucket.com/albums/ww303/PoorWhistler/Doodles/Su...
i730.photobucket.com/albums/ww303/PoorWhistler/Doodles/Mi...
These got me thinking, but instead of building one of the Russian fighters I wondered how this camouflage concept would look on a smaller aircraft already in Ilmavoimat service. This led directly to the Hawk 51!
Thankfully, there are several kits available for this aircraft, and I settled upon the relatively new Airfix kit from 2007. It's main selling point was that it actually contains parts and decals for a Finnish aircraft, esp. a set of the modern, very tiny roundels.
Good experience with recent Airfix offerings were confirmed. Effectively, the Airfix Hawk is a nice and simple build, done in just one and a half day. One of the kit’s positive features is the crew: there are actually two modern and well-sculpted pilot figures included, a rarity these days.
The kit was mostly built OOB, only mods are a cover inside of the ventral air brake (which can be built into open position, but this leaves an ugly seam visible) and some extra antennae. Fit is good (not perfect, though), and only little PSR was needed - biggest issue was the ventral wing/fuselage intersection, esp. its rear end.
One truly tricky feat is the mounting of the protective clear separating screen between the cockpit seats – the clear wall has (somehow) to be glued into the clear canopy, without any reference where to actually place it. Altogether a risky business, and I was lucky to get the wall into place with only a little white glue so that a total mess could be avoided. The positive thing about this construction is that you can mount the canopy in open position with the wall inside.
The engraved panel lines appear a little massive at first glance (far from Matchbox' trenches on the Hawk 200, though!), but once you add paint the kit this evens out and looks much better than on the sprues. A nice and literally simple kit!
Painting and markings:
The more challenging part of the build - and I stuck closely to the inspiring profiles and their color choice, choosing a pattern of diagonal "splinter stripes" in rather unique tones:
• FS 35042 (USN Sea Blue; Humbrol 181)
• FS 34227 (Intermediate Green; Humbrol 120)
• FS 30118 (US Field Drab; Humbrol 142)
• FS 35622 (IDF Pale Blue; Humbrol 122), which was also used for the undersides
Painting was done free-handedly, with brushes and some tape for masking, and I stuck to the original color suggestions except for the pure FS35622 on the upper surfaces: I toned it slightly down with a little RLM76 (Humbrol 247), but it is still very bright and the contrast between all colors is really harsh.
Anyway, painting the splinter scheme was easier than it seems, since the areas of each of the four upper side tones was rather small, so that the straight lines were rather short. Only the tight edges needed some corrections, but that was mostly mended during the washing/shading process.
As a design twist, the drop tanks (taken OOB, these are the bigger tanks for the Hawk's export versions) and their respective pylons received the colors of the standard Ilmavoimat Hawks: the pylons were painted in a light olive green (Humbrol 159) while the tanks were painted in a murky, dark brown (a mix of Humbrol 10 and 66) with pale grey (Humbrol 166) undersides.
The cockpit interior was painted in Gull Gray (FS 36231), while other interior surfaces and the landing gear were kept in lighter RAF Aircraft Grey.
For the markings I relied upon the OOB decal sheet; deviating from the inspiring profiles I stuck to the OOB tiny Finnish roundels that were introduced in the Nineties, and they go well with this experimental scheme. Otherwise, markings are rather minimal, just a lot of stencils were applied, the Airfix OOB sheet is pretty exhaustive (with a zillion of stencils, merely 1x1mm in size… There are even decals to be placed on landing gear joints!? Seriously?). As a side benefit, the OOB Finnish aircraft comes with low-viz stencils, placed on a green background. On the fictional splinter livery of my build they blend well into the overall look, the whole aircraft looks very natural (but still original).
In order to emphasize the engraved panel line the kit received a black ink wash and some panel shading through dry-brushing on the upper surfaces, with only slightly lighter tones (e. g. RAL 5008 on the dark blue and RAF Cockpit Green on the FS 34227). I just wanted a subtle effect. Finally, after the decals had been applied, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).
A quick and pleasant build, and it's actually a relaxing experience to build something OOB, without transplants, major, Frankenstein-ish surgery and endless PSR sessions. In fact, the Airfix Bae Hawk kit makes it easy for the builder to create a decent model with little effort. You see that some thought went into the moulds and the kit’s construction.
The fictional four-tone splinter scheme looks really weird, though, almost like an anniversary scheme? O.K., it is, according to its creator, actually based/inspired by a pre-WWII Fokker D.VII fighter in Finnish service, but this real life version was created from different and less “loud” colors! Anyway, this Hawk is colorful in a certain way, even though I have doubts concerning its camouflage’s effectiveness? However, it’s a nice, bright addition to the whif collection. :D
This is the first time I've ever done this, I was sitting at the computer idly stroking my left forefinger with my thumb and a sliver of nail broke off and stuck in my finger. I got the tweezers from my new SAK and removed this unusual splinter.
NGC 5907 is one of the most impressive edge-on spiral galaxies in the night sky. It is a marvel in my 18-inch Dobsonian under a dark sky but proved to be a real challenge during this drawing made with a 110mm Refractor from the semi-dark sky at Alpha Ridge Park.
This galaxy goes by a couple common names all of which tries to capture its needle-like appearance. Take your pick – Splinter Galaxy, Knife-edge Galaxy or Cat Scratch Galaxy – they all reflect on the visual presence of the galaxy in the eyepiece.
In the small refractor only the bright northeastern edge of the galaxy’s core could be seen at a magnification of 59x (the power used for the drawing circle). It took some additional effort at a higher magnification of 171x to tease out the needle-like extensions on either side of the brighter core. Therefore, the drawing represents the field of view at 58x, but the galaxy’s details at 171x.
To see additional astronomy drawings visit: www.orrastrodrawing.com
[crosseye stereograph, see 3D with your right eye on the left image, and left on right.]
CABLE CAR.
One of the famed San Francisco Cable Cars. The first cable car operated in 1873, and was developed by Andrew S. Hallidie. Three foot six inch gauge.
==================.
San Fransisco Municipal Railway #21
[A 55.04.04]
Just as it had a subway long ago - Los Angeles of the past boasted cable cars.
The first forms of public transit in Los Angeles were stagecoaches and wagons. Two omnibus-type wagons were set up for operation on a set schedule in 1873, and not too long after that, the first horse-drawn street cars finally made an appearance on the streets of Los Angeles. The next step in the mechanical evolution of mass transit was the cable car. Pulling small railroad cars along with a cable or steel rope had been used in San Francisco for many years before investors tried the technology in Los Angeles. With the most desirable residential subdivisions being laid out atop the rolling hills of the Los Angeles basin, cable car technology was a smart and efficient way to provide commuter access to the hilltops.
Use of cable cars required an up-front investment in the cable and the cars of course, but also in electric power plants that supplied the power to run the cables.
Thereafter, cable cars were cheaper and cleaner to run simply because there were no horses to feed or clean up after. A cable railway could also offer safe group travel up an down steep hills which would have been too hard for horses. Cable cars were limited, however, to the length of a cable (10,000 or 20,000 feet). Even in the short run, this did not work well in the Los Angeles of the 1880s, which kept sprawling out further and further. Cable cars also used a huge amount of the electricity generated in the power plants.
.
This particular car came not from Los Angeles, but from the more famous city known for its cable cars, San Fransisco. In 1952, even before Travel Town formally opened, founder Charley Atkins asked the Mayor of San Francisco for a cable car to display, but was told, with apology, that cable cars could not be sold or given away. Three years later, a solution was found: a cable car was placed on loan as the center piece of the 1955 International Flower Show in Los Angeles. Afterwards, it moved to permanent loan at Travel Town.
.
This car is also a good example of a type of early in-town passenger car called a "California" car, with some interior space. inside a compartment, and other benches open to the weather, this type of exposure was not practical in most areas of the country besides California.
.
BUILT: C. 1880.
LENGTH: 30'.
GAUGE: 3' 6".
PERMANENT LOAN: CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO.
==========.
This car differs from those still in daily service. It has long boards attached to the sides like shelves, for a problem that no longer exists, they are fenders to protect the curved sides of the car from wagon wheels. Wagon wheel fenders are unnecessary today. The bumpers on the end sill are narrow and relatively unprotected, whereas today's Cable Cars are operating in the midst of six and seven thousand pound personal automobiles, as well as much more massive buses and trucks. At the turn of the 20th century, horse drawn carts and carriages were not as likely, in a collision, to reduce a cable car to splinters so there are now tremendous wooden bumpers built up and covered with thick steel straps rolled tight on each end to thicken them. One problem remains from the past, lights. Not only for safety, headlights and tail lights, but lamps inside for general illumination are required, and those are powered by batteries under the seats. Many more batteries were added under the seats for the small fleet of San Francisco Cable Cars that were powered along by electric motors, operated at Knott's Berry Farm, in Buena Park, California, and many more panels covered them. This cable car has those extra wooden panels that most San Francisco cars do not cover the underside of every seat. There is another indicator told me late one night between parking Cable Cars at the Car Barn in San Fransisco by the turntable operator. The Cable Car conversions that had been at Knott's Berry Farm, which had been used for a short time in San Francisco after the great earthquake, came originally from Oakland and ran on roads that were straight from end to end, the support from the trucks reflected that. The trucks in service today must twist very tight curves, the tightest curves are nearest the powerhouse/yard/museum. The bolsters under the frame are flat iron pads cut in a curve that rest on the trucks supporting the frame, and those curves are cut larger on the cars built for the current system. Also the underside of the cars have many points of interference with the trucks on those tight curves. Because the cars were rejected when Knott's offered them back, primarily because the wheel flanges couldn't clear the frame, and knowing that the cars went SOMEWHERE, (one was put on a truck frame) leads me to believe that the discrepancy of the number on the Travel Town sign (#21) doesn't match the number painted on the end which is a number known to have run at Knott's (#28) leads me to believe that this may be a car I rode as a child through the Knott's parking lot to get to the Henry's Auto Livery and drive Tin Lizzie's, from the barn at the North-West corner of Beach Bl. and Crescent.
On the cars in service today, there is a metal plate protecting the front of this truck assembly from debris which could damage running gear and brakes. The hole in the center of that plate must be to access the nut shown here in the center, to tighten the brake bar.
dsc00018, 2009:07:19 15:52:24, 3D, R, Los Angeles, Griffith Park, Travel Town, Cable Car, San Francisco Municipal Railway #21
It was 5.23 pm on 21st august 2004 when Awami League chief Sheikh Hasina was wrapping up a rally protesting Sylhet blasts. A wave of grenade attacks on her left at least 16 people killed and left around 200 persons critically injured including top Awami League leaders Abdur Razzak, Amir Hossain Amu, Suranjit Sengupta, Ivy Rahman and Kazi Zafarullah.
The party secretary on Women affairs Ivy Rahman died in the Hospital later in the day. The unknown assailants fired seven bullets at the bulletproof SUV that Hasina boarded immediately after the blast.
The unusually poor deployment of police at the rally and the absence of forces on nearby building rooftops are a remarkable deviation from the usual practice.
Motaher Hossain, general secretary of AL Krishak League said some people on the roof of Ramna hotel and adjacent building were throwing bombs. At least 13 grenades exploded one after another, and also who were present on the spot told a white Microbus carried of some injured person who were among the assailant and were wounded by their own bomb.
Blame game started at the very moment Hasina spoke out loud about government’s conspiracy to kill the remaining member of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujiber Rahman’s remaining family members, BNP leaders hold back and Abdul Mannan Bhuiyan commented that they have blamed the government out of emotion. But soon BNP leaders changed their tone and started to blame AL for attacking their own rally, they argued AL had done it to destabilize the country and discredit the government only to grab the power.
Fiction and conspiracy theories were put forward by various columnists in the media. Pro Awami columnists blamed the fundamentalist forces and the right wing coalition government for this attack while pro BNP columnists blamed AL and pointed finger towards the country’s biggest neighbor India.
However most columnists inclined towards Awami league and left parties and leaders and activists of these parties discovered a pattern in the bomb blasts. In most cases secular forces and those who believe in culture, tradition and democratic values had been the target. The same group was behind the attack on Hasina’s rally.
Those pro BNP columnists pick up the same incident and argued Hasina was not the target of those assailants, if she were their target then why none of those grenades fall on the truck and also wrote thousand pages about AL’s possible motive behind this?
Some suspected it as a plot by international Muslim extremist groups; some pointed towards the association of ISI (Inter Services Intelligence); while Jamaat leader Matiur Rahman Nizami believes it is the work of “well known enemies of Islam” who masterminded, through various covert organizations, to carry out such brutal murders.
It became increasingly hard to dig out the truth from these fictions. With conspiracy theories you can use any piece of evidence to either prove or disprove your opinion and you can pick up any particular incident to strengthen your position. Truth has many faces but with conspiracy theory all you can achieve is a thousand shade of the truth and all these are equally probable and could be equally false.
In this present regime we have finally a charge sheet that clearly indicates Awami Leagues position is correct in this issue, RAB and other government intelligence agency finally concluded that Islamic militants are behind this attack and also a small fraction of BNP activists patronized this attack.
But is it the whole truth or only a facade? Lets look at the proceedings of the investigations.
To investigate 21st August 2004 bomb blast then BNP government first employed metropolitan police’s detective branch to investigate this incident, then this case was handed over to the criminal investigation department of Bangladesh Police. Five investigating officer under 3 officers in charge investigated this incident for over 4 years and they had submitted two charge sheet contradicting each other.
What is the progress in this case? When ever you ask this question to a law enforcement officer, a certain reply will be that “we are still investigating this matter. We had some lead but for the sake of this on going investigation we can not tell you anything.” Even after submitting charge sheet against 22 person in June 11, 2008 and acquitting all other person found guilty (on the first charge sheet presented by the CID), still the investigation has not been closed. So far we have 2 persons who claimed that they had actively participated in this failed assassination. On 26th June, 2005 Joj Miah from Noakhali confessed to police that for 5000 taka he carried out this attack under the order of Subrata Bain, a top terrorist. Subrata Bain and his group had close ties with some notorious AL leaders and they fled to India after alliance government took over the state in October 2001. He confessed to a magistrate that he had never seen any grenade before but Subrata Bain, Joy, Molla Masud ordered him to participate in this assassination. ASP of Police [CID] Abdur Rashid was the investigation officer then.
But the government were not satisfied with this finding so led by Munsi Atikur Rahman the investigation continued. The investigation found a paved path established by the coalition government.
So far we have two investigation reports, one of them was by Justice Jaynul Abedin, chairman of the one man investigation committee formed by the government to investigate 21st august grenade attack on Awami leagues rally. Awami League has rejected this report claiming it lacks neutrality. And another one was submitted by the Supreme Court Bar Association. According to Moudud Ahmed, who was Law minister at that time, claimed that this inquiry committee is illegal.
Jaynul Abedin’s investigation report:
Justice Jaynul Abedin had submitted his 162 pages manuscript of coalition governments collective story on 2nd October 2004. He was the member and chairman of one man inquiry committee formed by the government to investigate the grenade attack on Awami League rally on 21st august. On the eve of this submission those authorities in concern had invited journalist to give some insight of the report.
After scrutiny, critical and painstaking analysis, Jaynul Abedin did omit the possibility that coalition government and his ally, some extremist religious group and a part of Awami League was behind this heinous attack on Awami League activists.
But he did claim with certainty that a foreign intelligence agency actively participated in this event. They trained those assailants and equipped them with necessary ammunitions. He described this event on that informal press conference, “this incident is a naked attack on the independence and sovereignty of the country.”
Because Jaynul Abedin was a BNP activist in the past, Awami League questioned the neutrality of the investigation committee. Even though 123 people given their statement to this committee but that does not include Sheikh Hasina, who was the prime target of this massacre. Sheikh Hasina rejected the call for her statement.
In that one and half hour informal briefing on the report prior to its submission Jaynul concluded “the commission may not have received cooperation from all, which may have somewhat hindered the investigation, but the inquiry is in no way incomplete.”
Like any other investigation report submitted by any government formed investigation committee it also embraced the fate to remain unpublished till-to-date.
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) inquiry committee report:
On 22nd august, 2004, immediately after the grenade attack, The Supreme Court Bar Association formed an inquiry committee. Barrister Kamal Hossain was elected as the chairman of that committee and the other members of this committee were Rokonuddin Mahmud, Abdul Malek, Amir-ul-Islam, M Zahir and Muhammad Ayenuddin.
While Hasina wrapped up the rally, at that very moment a grenade went off loud and it was followed by at least 10 such explosions. Awami League leaders formed a human shield to cover Hasina from the splinter, they were injured in this process and soon after they escorted Hasina to her bullet proof SUV and Hasina left for Sudha Sadan, while on the move that SUV was attacked by bullets. Witnesses on their statement confirmed the SCBA inquiry committee that they had not seen any member of the law enforcing agency in action there.
After inspecting the place of occurrence on 27th august 2004 they went to Sudha Sadan, where Hasina assured the committee her full cooperation to find out the truth. Hasina’s security personal and her driver gave their statement to this committee and this committee also inspected the SUV.
Driver on his statement told the committee that he drove towards the east, then took a left turn and then he drove towards Sudha Sadan through zero point. But police officers deployed at the rally on 21st August on their statement said to inquiry committee, SUV carrying Sheikh Hasina away from that place drove westward, took a right turn, and then went to Sudha Sadan through zero point.
On 16th, 17th, 18th September the committee watched the video tape recorded by ATN, Channel I and NTV. On ATN video tape they saw a young man purposefully looking towards the multi storied Dhaka City Bhaban. Apart from this, on Channel I and NTV footage some suspicious incidents were seen by the committee members.
The inquiry committee sent two letters to Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, requesting her to extend cooperation for the inquiry and to direct the law enforcing agency to cooperate with them in interest of its work.
A letter was sent from the inquiry committee to IGP Shahudul Huq on 29 August 2004 requesting him to direct the police authorities to inform the inquiry committee of the number of persons who were deployed for maintaining the law and order in the public meeting on 21st August 2004 with the descriptions of their duties and locations.
After 3 weeks another letter was sent to him, requesting for his interview. The inquiry committee requested state minister of home affairs, but all of them turned down their request further more the law minister Moudud Ahmed on several occasion said that this inquiry committee had no legal basis and any report of any such illegal committee should not be recognized.
But the government did inform the SCBA inquiry committee that they had done every thing that is possible for them and sent a copy of the statement made by the State Minister for Home Affairs in the Parliament. In that speech the State Minister mentioned that the police made all out efforts to identify the culprits immediately after the incident and within 24 hours a Judicial Inquiry Commission was constituted with a judge of the Supreme Court as the sole Member. He also mentioned that the Government also arranged for an “international” inquiry into the 21st August incident side by side with Bangladesh police investigation and in response to the Government invitation 3 (three) teams from Interpol visited Bangladesh and helped the inquiry. Besides this, the government had also taken cooperation of FBI of USA.
The SCBA inquiry committee made repeated requests at the highest levels of the government for obtaining copies of reports of earlier bomb-blasts, the report of the ‘judicial inquiry’ into the 21 August, 2004 constituted by the Government, and other documents and information, but such requests have till-to-date were turned down.
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) inquiry committee concluded it was a pre-planned attack, carried out on the basis of a carefully prepared plan, targeting Sheikh Hasina and other leaders and persons attending the rally. The firing of the bullets and grenades on the vehicle by which she was leaving the place of occurrence, confirms that she was the target.
The committee urged government to publish all reports of investigation within one month or else public may lead to believe attempt on Sheikh Hasina’s life was to some extent was patronized by this government.
The alleged HUJI rage against Awami League:
Some columnists claimed in the media that the AL government, after assuming power in 1996 barred Islamic scholars from issuing fatwa’s through a High Court order. The government also came on strong against the right wing protesters and arrested hundreds across the country. This had angered HUJI.
Mufti Abdul Hannan, the operative commander of the banned Harkatul Jihad-al-Islami revealed on 19th November 2006.
“I masterminded all grenade attacks across the country excepting the August 21, 2004 gruesome attack on the AL rally, and three people financed the outfit for carrying out the attacks”
Hannan gave another detailed statement on 1st November 2007:
“Kajol was given the responsibility to collect funds and grenades for the attack. They decided that 12 persons would carry out the attack and Kajol and Abu Jandal would select the commanders of the operation. It was decided that Kajol and Jandal brief the attackers about their positions and Jandal would throw the first grenade after getting instruction from Sayeed. The others would throw their grenades at around the same time. Hannan said the attackers targeted the truck and left the spot individually after the operation.”
However question remains as why HUJI chose to attack Hasina after all those years and during the period when there was a row of political killings of Awami League leaders (Kibria, Ahsan Master etc.) were happening. HUJI members were used but who masterminded the attack?
The BNP connection:
In January 2008, former deputy minister for information of the BNP government Abdus Salam Pintu was arrested for his involvement with the grenade attacks on Awami League rally on August 21 in 2004. He was arrested on the basis of confessional statement made earlier by detained Mufti Hannan who claimed that the attack on the AL rally was planned at the official residence of the former Deputy Minister. Hannan said that Pintu was present at the meeting and later supplied the grenades.
He made startling disclosure to interrogators about the involvement of former State Minister of Home Lutfuzzaman Babar and ‘Hawa Bhaban’ in the grenade attacks. From The New Nation:
“The CID officer said they were certain after the arrest of Mufti Hannan and Pintu that the attack on the AL rally had been aided and abetted by Lutfuzzaman Babar and the Hawa Bhaban.
“To hide the truth, former investigation officer Ruhul Amin, a CID officer, had gone to Pintu’s house several times,” he said, and added, “former State Minister of Home Babar was involved in the entire process and Pintu would regularly inquire with him about the progress.”
Pintu’s counsel Advocate Sanaullah Mia, however, told : “He was implicated only because his cousin Maulana Tajul Islam, a militant leader and an accused in the grenade attack case, had visited his house when Pintu was a Minister,”
HUJI is the culprit but who used them and why?
On June 11, 2008 charges were finally made against 22 persons including top Harkat-ul-Jihad (Huji) leader Mufti Abdul Hannan and BNP leader and former deputy minister Abdus Salam Pintu. Newspaper reports say:
“CID Chief Additional Inspector General Jabed Patwari said HUJI top leaders planned and carried out the attacks to kill Hasina as a few arrested attackers said in their confessional statements that Hasina would harm Islam if she was alive and came to power again.
BNP leader Pintu is not involved with Huji but he has been charged since the attackers had held two meetings at his residence to take decision about the attack.”
But the question remains whether HUJI tried to kill Hasina on their own or it was a political assassination plot linked by BNP to take out the opposition. Like every other political massacre the 21st August grenade attack on Hasina has no clear motive whatsoever and after 4 years of investigation we are not certain whether those who were behind this ghastly attack have finally been exposed. Will we be able to know the truth?