এই রাজাকারের বাচ্চাটা ইচ্ছা করে এগুলা বলতেছে..অবশ্যই তাদের বাপদের (আসল রাজাকার) শেখানো বুলি এগুলা।ওরা চাচ্ছে একটা যুদ্ধ লাগাতে যেভাবেই হোক।ওদের কোন প্ল্যানই এই পর্যন্ত কাজে আসে নাই..ওরা মরিয়া এখন।এই বদমাইশটা একাধারে রাজাকার,মুনাফেক, মিথ্যাবাদী, উগ্রবাদী।
I'm asking this genuinely as a non-muslim, for all the noise that practicing muslims raise regarding "blasphemy", aren't statements like these, by definition, blasphemous? Or are accusations of blasphemy made simply to harrass non-muslims?
Well c'mon man, I need the source. He posted on his Facebook page that this is made up and he never said it. Everyone should verify the authenticity of this post made by radio amaar 88.4 FM
How do you know the video is real? The footage gets circulated by only pro-BNP pages, and he himself denies saying this. Although there are other instances of other Jamati leaders saying the same thing, and even his own narrative in other places aligns closely with the photocard, it might well be true that he didn't say this exact wording, or the video is AI.
Edit: I found the video. As I suspected, the wordings are not exact. Sentences from different timelines are placed in one photocard. However, to be fair to the anti-Jamati guys, the narrative is still there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmOcBaanOJc
This barrister is the epitome of evil and propaganda. Check this post. I wouldn't believe a word coming out of his dirty mouth.
As you said, his own narrative and words said in other places aligns closely with the photo card. Other Jamaati leaders have said similar things. If people needs materials against them, there is no need to fabricate stuff as plenty of real things already exists.
And the other video you linked does not prove anything either. One can argue the uploaded edited the controversial segment. Or that he said it elsewhere, not as part of that speech (could be two different speeches in the same location or different locations).
u/fogrampercot clearly the barrister lied. But the problem is more complex. This narrative is already problematic. Why don't we hold them accountable on the basis of that? Without doing so, if one makes a photocard like this by summarizing his speech, then it gives that jamati barrister a technical advantage of rejecting the photocard and saying oh look look I didn't exactly say this, they are twisting my words, bla bla bla
I agree with you that we should not distort facts. What I am objecting to is the possibility that this was distorted. Why would someone distort and make something like this when the barrister and Jamaat leaders have said more controversial things? It doesn't add up.
The more plausible explanation is that the barrister is lying about saying it after it blew up and got some heat.
lol, very hard to hide if you are jamati bot. if some fake AI video leaked about some BAL, BNP, or freedom fighter, no verification needed, but for jannati dol 2 factor verification is not enough. the video looks very convincing to me.
There's nothing to hide. I am not pro-BNP or pro-Jamaat. And this barrister is either lying blatantly (most probably) or as I said earlier, the narrative is correct but these are not his exact words. And he is taking the benefits of this technicality.
It's shameful that your go to response is "you are jamati bot" that adds no value to the discussion.
Look at time timestamp, 13:02, there is a cut in your video that removes the part in this post where he says, voting jamaat will grant you first row in jannah.
Yes, but what appears in the photocard is not verbatim. And that's where this lier barrister would get a technical advantage. My point is that when is narrative is already hugely problematic, why give him opportunity to claim that he is being misquoted? Reject this type of photocard journalism, but at the same time call out this fraud
How do you know it's not verbatim when we established how the video was cut? Why would the video be cut after 13:02 if it was not verbatim?
Photo card journalism can be an useful tool, but also problematic if it distorts the statement and/or hides important context. I think we both can agree on this. The question is, why are you so confident that something like this happened here? If anything, the "full video" you linked above suggests the opposite.
•
u/AutoModerator Dec 18 '25
Please provide a source for the image.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.