Disproving some genocide claims

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

How convenient !!

Well. one man's food is another man's poison.

Absolutely nothing of the sort.

Op. Grandslam is only comparable to EP in that covert intervention was used. However, the motives, methods, objectives and background dynamics were completely different. You are trying to compare apples and oranges here.

 

[Always Neutral]

Is this a justification for interfering in a country’s matter and establishing a network in an area which is not disputed?????????????

Afghanistan ring a bell ? All countries interfere in each others affairs both India and Pakistan have dirty hands so stop the blame game.

Regards

 

[Always Neutral]

If Pakistan and AM and others are convinced then why does not Pakistan alongwith MBI Munshi ask for an UN Inquiry and get the truth out. India cannot interfere and they will be exposed once and for all.

Regards

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If Pakistan and AM and others are convinced then why does not Pakistan alongwith MBI Munshi ask for an UN Inquiry and get the truth out. India cannot interfere and they will be exposed once and for all.

Regards

No need scratching open old wounds. What is more important is that the two nations move forward in a spirit of reconciliation, friendship and cooperation.

Atrocities were committed, though the scale is disputed, and it would seem callous to those who suffered for Pakistan to officially argue over how many. At some future date perhaps, when the wounds are not so fresh.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Afghanistan ring a bell ? All countries interfere in each others affairs both India and Pakistan have dirty hands so stop the blame game.

Regards

A quick correction on that point. Afghanistan was the first to start that as well, first with its refusal to accept Pakistan, and its subsequent support for some Baluch militant leaders, and then the failed attempt to start a seperatist movement in the NWFP. Our involvement did not arise until there was a direct threat posed to us by the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan, and the post Soviet civil war and chaos.

 

[Always Neutral]

A quick correction on that point. Afghanistan was the first to start that as well, first with its refusal to accept Pakistan, and its subsequent support for some Baluch militant leaders, and then the failed attempt to start a seperatist movement in the NWFP. Our involvement did not arise until there was a direct threat posed to us by the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan, and the post Soviet civil war and chaos.

Come on AM, I was not born yesterday. Your hands ( I mean Pakistan) are as tainted in Afghanistan as India's is in Bangladesh. You were among the three countries to recognise the Taliban lead Afghanistan. Most of your leaders justified it as the right policy for strategic depth.

Regards

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Come on AM, I was not born yesterday. Your hands ( I mean Pakistan) are as tainted in Afghanistan as India's is in Bangladesh. You were among the three countries to recognise the Taliban lead Afghanistan. Most of your leaders justified it as the right policy for strategic depth.

Regards

Incorrect comparison - India chose to destabilize the situation and intervene with the intent of dismemebering Pakistan. Pakistan did not intervene in Afghanistan until it was pushed to do so by first the Soviet invasion and then the civil war.

The idea of strategic depth arose out of the Afghan chaos and the jockeying for power between the various Afghan factions, the chaos in Afghanistan was not caused by the concept of strategic depth. On the other hand Indian intervention in EP was specifically with the intent to create chaos and dismember Pakistan. There is a world of difference here.

 

[Always Neutral]

Incorrect comparison - India chose to destabilize the situation and intervene with the intent of dismemebering Pakistan. Pakistan did not intervene in Afghanistan until it was pushed to do so by first the Soviet invasion and then the civil war.

The idea of strategic depth arose out of the Afghan chaos and the jockeying for power between the various Afghan factions, the chaos in Afghanistan was not caused by the concept of strategic depth. On the other hand Indian intervention in EP was specifically with the intent to create chaos and dismember Pakistan. There is a world of difference here.

Ha ha you can put a spin on anything. There is no difference between the Bangladesh and the Afghanistan circumstances. Both went like this.

1. Despotic regimes.
2. Genocides.
3. Refugees
4. Hostile Neighbors.
5. Foreign money.
6. Invasions by self righteous Neighbors thru proxies

Regards

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Ha ha you can put a spin on anything. There is no difference between the Bangladesh and the Afghanistan circumstances. Both went like this.

1. Despotic regimes.
2. Genocides.
3. Refugees
4. Hostile Neighbors.
5. Foreign money.
6. Invasions by self righteous Neighbors thru proxies

Regards

You can take similar incidents that occurred in both nations (no genocide in EP or Afghanistan as far as I know), and then make any list you want- it does not make the events analogous.

The background and dynamics of the Afghan conflict and the EP destabilization were completely different, and I outlined them in my post above. Feel free to argue where I was incorrect, or where I 'spun' it.

India chose to destabilize the situation and intervene with the intent of dismemebering Pakistan. Pakistan did not intervene in Afghanistan until it was pushed to do so by first the Soviet invasion and then the civil war.

The idea of strategic depth arose out of the Afghan chaos and the jockeying for power between the various Afghan factions, the chaos in Afghanistan was not caused by the concept of strategic depth. On the other hand Indian intervention in EP was specifically with the intent to create chaos and dismember Pakistan. There is a world of difference here.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Yes the Indians have done the same with our CHT by arming the insurgents there to dismember a part of BD giving them direct control and access to Chittagong Port.

 

[Vinod2070]

AM, you are doing an admirable job of defending the indefensible.

Kashmir, Bangladesh (East Pakistan) and Afghanistan all represent Pakistan overreaching itself because of it's self image that is much bigger than the reality. All of them resulted in colossal sufferings for the people involved and massive loss of life and as was inevitable all of them resulted in failures.

No amount of "lipapoti" (whitewashing) will take away from the basic facts of the case. These were big bets taken by the ruthless Pakistani rulers of the time and they failed in all the bets.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM, you are doing an admirable job of defending the indefensible.

Kashmir, Bangladesh (East Pakistan) and Afghanistan all represent Pakistan overreaching itself because of it's self image that is much bigger than the reality. All of them resulted in colossal sufferings for the people involved and massive loss of life and as was inevitable all of them resulted in failures.

No amount of "lipapoti" (whitewashing) will take away from the basic facts of the case. These were big bets taken by the ruthless Pakistani rulers of the time and they failed in all the bets.

I extend the offer to you as I did to AN, I made my arguments above, you can try and logically and rationally refute them, instead of these platitudes, rhetoric and flawed opinions, which is all that your post here is.

My job is made easier precisely because of posts like these by the way, since most of you choose to ignore the central argument and go off on banal tangents.

I notice that RR's original post that formed the substance of this thread also remains unanswered.

 

[Vinod2070]

I extend the offer to you as I did to AN, I made my arguments above, you can try and logically and rationally refute them, instead of these platitudes, rhetoric and flawed opinions, which is all that your post here is.

My job is made easier precisely because of posts like these by the way, since most of you choose to ignore the central argument and go off on banal tangents.

Do point me to your post containing the arguments and I will try my hand.

Well, the feelings of banal tangents is reciprocated. Some of the most heinous crimes of recent history are being sought to be buried under banal arguments in some of the comments here.

I notice that RR's original post that formed the substance of this thread also remains unanswered.

I can see that post as nothing but hogwash that is so typical of him. He is mathematically disproving the genocide! There are millions of people who saw that happen and are even now alive!

There were 10 million refugees in India alone. What were they doing if not escaping a terrible suppression and massacre?

These things can't be disproved with unsubstantiated data and figures and sleight of hand. They need to be proved and disproved on the ground with scholarly research. I am yet to see that and no amount of jugglery on some threads can change the reality of what happened in 1971. I shared some excerpts from your own commission's report earlier.

Repeating some of that here:

Here are some quotes from the Hamoodur Rahman Comission.

"How many Hindus have you killed?"

It was a process euphemistically called "being sent to Bangladesh". The killing and torture of respectable citizens of East Pakistan incensed an already hostile people. A host of army officers who were ordered to -- and carried out -- these atrocities, provided details to the commission. "Brigadier Arbab told me to destroy all houses in Joydepur. To a great extent I executed this order," said Lt-Colonel Aziz Ahmad Khan, then commanding officer (CO) of 8 Baluch in his deposition. "General Niazi asked as to how many Hindus we had killed. In May, there was an order in writing to kill Hindus. "According to Brigadier Iqbalur Rehman Shariff, GSO Division-I, Lt-General Gul Hasan (later army chief) while visiting troops in East Pakistan used to routinely ask, "How many Bengalis have you shot?"

The report said a high-powered inquiry was needed to inquire into "persistent allegations of atrocities said to have been committed by the Pakistan Army in East Pakistan during its operations from March to December 1971". It further said that those responsible must be tried; they had "brought a bad name for the Pakistan Army and alienated the sympathies of the local population by their wanton cruelty and immorality against our own people".

India Today Magazine

These are stark facts. One can't shy away from them by nitpicking about the improbability of some numbers or some mathematical manipulations.

 

[Patriot]

so the army had 267 days...lets say there were abt 100,000 of the army positioned in East pakistan...shall we...yes?okay...

to kill 1500,000 ppl, every army person had to kill at least 15 ppl on average...makes me wonder...the indian army with total control over kashmir in last 50 years with 5-6 lakh army of hers hasnt been able to kill more than 100,000 kashmiries and our army killed 1500,000 ppl in less than 10 months...that too without using any nerve gas......surely they cudnt have used normal bullets...yes/no?...think abt it...
where did they bury those bodies...?have the indians/bangalians located any huge piles of bodies buried/burnt? surely a huge pile of 1500,000 bodies canot be just wiped under the carpet...10,000,000 regugees...hmm...so this means 10,000,000 refugees crossed the birders in 267 days...and that too successfully...does this really sound possible...i mean comon...indian borders wree not open for them or were they? lets suppose they crossed the borders to india...do they still live there...u have surely heard of afghani refugees in pakistan...ever heard of bangali refugees in india? or did they come back after the war?
do you really think that an army of 100,000 can push 10,000,000 ppl across the birder...i mean comon...
combined...a loss of 1500,000 + 10,000,000 means that a huge and noticable drop in the bangali population...hmm....that too just with an army of 100,000...i m wondering what is india doing in kashmir with an army over 500,000 for past 50 years...and remember also...there were soldiers there...not mercenaries...they were sent as an army not on a death mission...
according to the stats, the army cudnt have had time to **** even but wud have been busy all the time in either killing, raping or bullying ppl out of bangla...

 

[Vinod2070]

the indian army with total control over kashmir in last 50 years with 5-6 lakh army of hers hasnt been able to kill more than 100,000 kashmiries and our army killed 1500,000 ppl in less than 10 months

That is the difference. Indian army is not there to kill the Kashmiris but to protect them from terrorists and mercenaries. That's why the difference.

Even the Hurriyat leadership is protected by the same Indian army otherwise they would not live for a day.