Thread: Pakistani Genocide

Originally Posted by Jay

Idiot, then why do you keep quoting her report and findings as though they are authoratative. If she didnt interview any raped women, then it shows how stupid her systematic research is. Its as simple as that. Why do you keep on harping that Brownmiller or Joe Galloway's reports are not worthy??



Dumb ass, then what makes you to think that her report is the final word on Pakistani atrocities? DONT YOU GET IT?? SARMILA BOSE"S REPORT IS NOT THE FINAL AUTHORITY, SO IF SHE GIVES PAKISTANI ARMY A CLEAN CHIT DOESNT MEAN THAT PAKISTANI ARMY IS CLEAN, AND THERE WAS NO GENOCIDE,ALLRIGHT?


Atleast baboon's have some intellect, rather than you!


AND I ****ING CAN BELIEVE IT WHEN SHE SAYS PAKISTANI SOLDIERS DIDNT RAPE AFTER HER THOUSANDS ODF CASE STUDIES, COZ ALL OTHER REPORTS ARE POINTING THAT RAPES HAPPENED. SO IF HER CASE STUDIES DIDNT HAVE ANY RAPE VICTIM. THEN ITS HER PROBLEM AND NOT MINE.


I GUESS YOU WILL BELIEVE IF SARMILA BOSE SAYS SO!
I BELIEVE IN HAMDOOR REHMAN OFFICIAL REPORT ON PAKISTANI CONDUCT, JOE GALLOWAY, BROWNMILLER AND RASHID.


Ill let their credential speak for themselves..


Now STFU about Sarmila Bose and her undies, coz I'm quite bored by it!!

Did you know that the Hamoodor Report and the Sarmila Bose report are in complete agreement? 26,000 is the number that died in the Hamoodor Rahman Report and Bose has also come to the same conclusion unlike your quacks who claim 1-3 million.

The Hamoodor Rahman Report only says some rapes took place by West Pakistani troops. That is normal for any Army. You just have to look at the US in South Korea, you have a low level amount of rapes in any society. But this is not the same as the systematic rapes perpetrated by Indian soldiers in Kashmir as a means of punishing the victims for being suspected of sheltering militants there.

Originally Posted by Jay

Office of the Historian
Bureau of Public Affairs
United States Department of State

May 6, 2005

Foreign Relations, 1969-1976, Volume XI, South Asia Crisis, 1971
Released by the Office of the Historian

Foreign Relations, 1969-1976, Volume XI, South Asia Crisis, 1971

(This is not an official statement of policy by the Department of State; it is intended only as a guide to the contents of this volume.)

Since 1861, the Department of State's documentary series Foreign Relations of the United States has constituted the official record of the foreign policy and diplomacy of the United States. Historians in the Office of the Historian collect, arrange, and annotate the principal documents comprising the record of American foreign policy. The standards for the preparation of the series and the general deadlines for its publication are established by the Foreign Relations of the United States statute of October 28, 1991 (22 USC 4351, et seq.). Volumes in the Foreign Relations series are published when all the necessary editing, declassification, and printing steps have been completed.

.....

The trigger for the crisis in 1971 in East Pakistan was the announcement by President Yahya Khan on March 1 that the scheduled meeting of the recently elected National Assembly would be postponed indefinitely. (2) The National Assembly was scheduled to draft a new constitution for Pakistan to mark an end to martial law government. Because of the overwhelming electoral success in East Pakistan of Bengali nationalists, led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his Awami League, the constitution was also expected to reflect their demand for virtual autonomy for East Pakistan. The Consulate General in Dacca reported on March 2 that "It would be impossible to over-estimate the sense of anger, shock and frustration which has gripped the east wing" as a result of the announcement. (2) President Yahya's announcement was followed by demonstrations in East Pakistan, and on March 7 Mujibur Rahman called for a "peaceful non-cooperation" movement patterned on Mahatma Gandhi's passive resistance movement in India. (8) The martial law government responded by airlifting troops to Dacca to double the size of the 15,000-man garrison. Undaunted, Mujibur Rahman announced on March 15 that, on the basis of the December election, his party, the Awami League, was taking over the administration of East Pakistan. (9) On March 25, the army arrested Mujibur and moved to suppress what was viewed in Islamabad as a secessionist movement. (10, 11)

The initial reaction in Washington to the emerging crisis was to avoid involvement in the internal politics of Pakistan. When the National Security Council's (NSC) Senior Review Group members considered the situation on March 6 they agreed with Under Secretary of State U. Alexis Johnson that it called for "massive inaction" on the part of the United States. (6) That conclusion was confirmed on March 26 when the NSC's crisis management team, the Washington Special Actions Group (WSAG), considered the crisis for the first time. Kissinger led a discussion in which there was general agreement to maintain a hands-off policy toward what was viewed as a developing civil war. The United States did not want to be open to the charge that it had encouraged the break-up of Pakistan. (11)

In East Pakistan, the army began a brutal campaign of repression designed to cow the Bengali dissidents. The Consulate General's reports from Dacca were graphic and disturbing. On March 28 the report from Dacca began: "Here in Dacca we are mute and horrified witnesses to a reign of terror by the Pak military." During the following week, the Consulate General reported that the army was setting houses on fire and shooting people as they emerged from the burning buildings and that the army had killed a large number of unarmed students at Dacca University. (13) On March 28, Nixon and Kissinger discussed the reports of atrocities in East Pakistan in a telephone conversation. Nixon said: "I wouldn't put out a statement praising it, but we're not going to condemn it either." (13) In a subsequent conversation with Kissinger on March 30, Nixon said: "we should just stay out —like in Biafra, what the hell can we do?" (15)

On April 6, most members of the Consulate General in Dacca signed a dissent channel message to Washington. The message called upon the United States Government to condemn the "indiscriminate killing" of the populace of East Pakistan by the army. Condemnation of genocide, they argued, should outweigh a reluctance to intervene in the internal affairs of another country. Consul General Archer Blood endorsed the dissent. (19)
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/xi/45650.htm

72
In the context of briefing Nixon in advance of his meeting with the Indian Foreign Minister, Keating painted a grim picture of the situation in East Pakistan. He suggested that Nixon could put pressure on Pakistan to stop what he described as genocide in East Pakistan by withholding economic assistance

/4/ The Consulate General in Dacca reported on May 14 that it had received numerous reports that the Pakistani army was systematically searching out Hindus and killing them. (Telegram 1722 from Dacca; ibid., POL 23-9 PAK)

64. Memorandum of Conversation/1/
/1/ Source: National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials, NSC Files, Box 546, Country Files, Middle East, India, Vol. III, Sept 70-30 June 71. Secret; Nodis. Drafted by Saunders on June 4. The meeting was held in Kissinger's office at the White House. The time of the meeting is from Kissinger's appointment book. (Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, Kissinger Papers, Box 438, Miscellany, 1968-1976, Record of Schedule)

Washington, June 3, 1971, 4:20-4:50 p.m.

PARTICIPANTS
Kenneth Keating, US Ambassador to India
Henry A. Kissinger, Assistant to the President
Harold H. Saunders, NSC Staff

Ambassador Keating said that, apart from the humanitarian aspects of the problem and the four million refugees, he had wanted to talk about military and economic assistance to Pakistan. He said he felt that military aid is "just out of the question now while they are still killing in East Pakistan and refugees are fleeing across the border."

....Having said that, he felt that on the merits it is wrong to resume military assistance as long as the killing continues in East Pakistan. Dacca is reasonably quiet, although only half the normal inhabitants are there. The Pakistani army is now concentrating on the Hindu population. At first the refugees crossing into India were in the same proportion of Hindu and Muslim as in the whole East Pakistani population. Now, 90% are Hindus.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/xi/45604.htm

144. Minutes of Washington Special Actions Group Meeting/1/

Washington, September 8, 1971, 3:07-4:25 p.m.

/1/ Source: National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials, NSC Files, NSC Institutional Files (H-Files), Box H-115, WSAG Minutes, Originals, 1971. Secret. No drafting information appears on the source text. The meeting was held in the White House Situation Room. Another record of the meeting was prepared on September 13 by James Noyes (OASD/ISA). (Washington National Records Center, OSD Files, FRC 330 76 0197, Box 74, Pakistan 381 (Jan-Nov) 1971)

Mr. Williams: Yes-it's a battle for the life-line, with the guerrillas trying to cut the railroad and blow up the bridges. This will make the East Pakistanis dependent on water transport. In the north, the bands seem to be operating independently. To the south, there are bands of 3-600, well equipped and using sophisticated tactics. Their targets are transportation lines, bridges, police stations and the administrative structure generally. The first step in the communal violence may have been the killing by the Bangla Desh of the Urdu-speaking Bihari Minister. The counter-reaction when the Pak troops arrived led to the communal riots. The exact number of casualties is not known, but the deaths in the communal riots were probably in the thousands and in the later attacks on the Hindus, probably in the ten-thousands.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/xi/45607.htm

You also missed this gem from a report which YOU quoted from :-

/4/ See Document 19.
-Another problem is the quality of political reporting in Dacca. The reporters there are missionaries without significant practical experience. They have never before seen war and are grossly exaggerating the amount of killing and bloodshed there.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/xi/45604.htm

Originally Posted by Hongkongfuey

The Hamoodor Rahman Report only says some rapes took place by West Pakistani troops. That is normal for any Army.

How come its ok for Pak troops to rape and not for Indian troops? This is discrimination, I protest

But this is not the same as the systematic rapes perpetrated by Indian soldiers in Kashmir as a means of punishing the victims for being suspected of sheltering militants there.

Bunch of lies by a bunch of liars. .... just refer to Musharrafs statements today in NY, and you know what you are made off.

Originally Posted by Hongkongfuey

You also missed this gem from a report which YOU quoted from :-

I guess, you missed the part about joe Galloway as well,

Joseph Galloway is a military affairs correspondent for Knight Ridder's Washington bureau. He was a war correspondent in Vietnam and was the only civilian decorated with the medal of valor for his actions during the Vietnam war, rescuing wounded soldiers under fire in the Ia Drang Valley. Galloway also covered the first Gulf War. Recently Galloway was special consultant to Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Originally Posted by Hongkongfuey

You also missed this gem from a report which YOU quoted from :-

And always post it in full context,

42. Memorandum of Conversation/1/

Palm Springs, California, May 7, 1971, 2:50-5:45 p.m.

/1/ Source: National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials, NSC Files, Box 138, Kissinger Office Files, Country Files, Middle East, Farland, Amb. (Pakistan). Top Secret; Sensitive; Nodis. The meeting took place at the home of Theodore Cummings.

PARTICIPANTS
Joseph S. Farland, U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan
Henry A. Kissinger, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
David R. Halperin (notetaker)

After an exchange of pleasantries, Ambassador Farland stated that the State Department had accepted his cover story without question./2/ Mr. Kissinger expressed appreciation for the cables sent by Ambassador Farland, and for his loyalty over the past weeks.

/2/ According to a May 4 memorandum from Haig to Nixon, the meeting between Kissinger and Farland was arranged as a "covert meeting" on Nixon's instructions. Farland accordingly "arranged a personal pretext" for an urgent visit to California. (Ibid.)

Mr. Kissinger then stated that McNamara/3/ was preparing to submit a devastating report concluding that it would take $250 million to give Pakistan breathing room; he then asked Ambassador Farland whether it is, in fact, possible to provide breathing room, and whether $250 million is a realistic estimate of the support required. Ambassador Farland replied that although he thought it would be possible, there are some real problems to contend with:

/3/ Robert McNamara, president of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank).

-Ambassador Keating seems to have gone berserk; he has violated security and appears determined to break Pakistan. For example, he recently called in a New York Times reporter and, although he did not release the text, he did tell him the essence of Blood's report./4/ Ambassador Farland is convinced that Keating is determined to make a political issue out of the Pakistani situation, and is attempting to discredit the Administration in the process.

/4/ See Document 19.
-Another problem is the quality of political reporting in Dacca. The reporters there are missionaries without significant practical experience. They have never before seen war and are grossly exaggerating the amount of killing and bloodshed there.

Who gave this expert opinion?? Farland or Kissinger?? As we have discussed it to death, the Nixon administration down played the Pakistani Army killings all along, and its no wonder that they say reporters in Bangladesh are over reacting it.

Originally Posted by Hongkongfuey

Did you know that the Hamoodor Report and the Sarmila Bose report are in complete agreement? 26,000 is the number that died in the Hamoodor Rahman Report and Bose has also come to the same conclusion unlike your quacks who claim 1-3 million.

The Hamoodor Rahman Report only says some rapes took place by West Pakistani troops. That is normal for any Army. You just have to look at the US in South Korea, you have a low level amount of rapes in any society. But this is not the same as the systematic rapes perpetrated by Indian soldiers in Kashmir as a means of punishing the victims for being suspected of sheltering militants there.

See here for example for rape cases even during peacetime, without all the anarchy that comes with war.

Study by Ministry of Justice of south Korea shows that among the 39,452 cases (45,183 US soldiers involved) of crimes committed by US soldiers from 1967 to 1987, south Korea was able to exercise its jurisdiction only in 234 cases, punishing only 351 US soldiers. Among them, 84 US soldiers were convicted of rape and 89 US soldiers were convicted of murder and robbery. Taking into account the fact that rape cases were more common before 1967, and that many rape cases were intentionally hidden and forgotten, the actual number of rape cases committed by US soldiers will be much higher than what official figures suggest.

Countless cases of rape were committed by US soldiers, including a woman gang raped by 4 soldiers' in March 1946, a 14-year-old schoolgirl raped in 1956, a daughter and a mother both raped in 1967, a woman raped by 8 soldiers in the mountains in 1971, a month pregnant teacher raped in 1986 by 5 soldiers in the middle of Team Spirit military exercise, a handicapped schoolgirl sexually harassed in 1996, and a 6-year-old girl sexually harassed in May 1997.
http://www.iacenter.org/ktc-civilnetwork.htm

http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/us-army.htm

Japanese at Nanjing etc. List goes on.

Originally Posted by Jay

And always post it in full context,



Who gave this expert opinion?? Farland or Kissinger?? As we have discussed it to death, the Nixon administration down played the Pakistani Army killings all along, and its no wonder that they say reporters in Bangladesh are over reacting it.

The same could be said of your own "expertly" quoted opinion

Originally Posted by Jay
Office of the Historian
Bureau of Public Affairs
United States Department of State

May 6, 2005

Foreign Relations, 1969-1976, Volume XI, South Asia Crisis, 1971
Released by the Office of the Historian

Foreign Relations, 1969-1976, Volume XI, South Asia Crisis, 1971

(This is not an official statement of policy by the Department of State; it is intended only as a guide to the contents of this volume.)

Since 1861, the Department of State's documentary series Foreign Relations of the United States has constituted the official record of the foreign policy and diplomacy of the United States. Historians in the Office of the Historian collect, arrange, and annotate the principal documents comprising the record of American foreign policy. The standards for the preparation of the series and the general deadlines for its publication are established by the Foreign Relations of the United States statute of October 28, 1991 (22 USC 4351, et seq.). Volumes in the Foreign Relations series are published when all the necessary editing, declassification, and printing steps have been completed.

.....

The trigger for the crisis in 1971 in East Pakistan was the announcement by President Yahya Khan on March 1 that the scheduled meeting of the recently elected National Assembly would be postponed indefinitely. (2) The National Assembly was scheduled to draft a new constitution for Pakistan to mark an end to martial law government. Because of the overwhelming electoral success in East Pakistan of Bengali nationalists, led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his Awami League, the constitution was also expected to reflect their demand for virtual autonomy for East Pakistan. The Consulate General in Dacca reported on March 2 that "It would be impossible to over-estimate the sense of anger, shock and frustration which has gripped the east wing" as a result of the announcement. (2) President Yahya's announcement was followed by demonstrations in East Pakistan, and on March 7 Mujibur Rahman called for a "peaceful non-cooperation" movement patterned on Mahatma Gandhi's passive resistance movement in India. (8) The martial law government responded by airlifting troops to Dacca to double the size of the 15,000-man garrison. Undaunted, Mujibur Rahman announced on March 15 that, on the basis of the December election, his party, the Awami League, was taking over the administration of East Pakistan. (9) On March 25, the army arrested Mujibur and moved to suppress what was viewed in Islamabad as a secessionist movement. (10, 11)

The initial reaction in Washington to the emerging crisis was to avoid involvement in the internal politics of Pakistan. When the National Security Council's (NSC) Senior Review Group members considered the situation on March 6 they agreed with Under Secretary of State U. Alexis Johnson that it called for "massive inaction" on the part of the United States. (6) That conclusion was confirmed on March 26 when the NSC's crisis management team, the Washington Special Actions Group (WSAG), considered the crisis for the first time. Kissinger led a discussion in which there was general agreement to maintain a hands-off policy toward what was viewed as a developing civil war. The United States did not want to be open to the charge that it had encouraged the break-up of Pakistan. (11)

In East Pakistan, the army began a brutal campaign of repression designed to cow the Bengali dissidents. The Consulate General's reports from Dacca were graphic and disturbing. On March 28 the report from Dacca began: "Here in Dacca we are mute and horrified witnesses to a reign of terror by the Pak military." During the following week, the Consulate General reported that the army was setting houses on fire and shooting people as they emerged from the burning buildings and that the army had killed a large number of unarmed students at Dacca University. (13) On March 28, Nixon and Kissinger discussed the reports of atrocities in East Pakistan in a telephone conversation. Nixon said: "I wouldn't put out a statement praising it, but we're not going to condemn it either." (13) In a subsequent conversation with Kissinger on March 30, Nixon said: "we should just stay out —like in Biafra, what the hell can we do?" (15)

On April 6, most members of the Consulate General in Dacca signed a dissent channel message to Washington. The message called upon the United States Government to condemn the "indiscriminate killing" of the populace of East Pakistan by the army. Condemnation of genocide, they argued, should outweigh a reluctance to intervene in the internal affairs of another country. Consul General Archer Blood endorsed the dissent. (19)
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/xi/45650.htm

72
In the context of briefing Nixon in advance of his meeting with the Indian Foreign Minister, Keating painted a grim picture of the situation in East Pakistan. He suggested that Nixon could put pressure on Pakistan to stop what he described as genocide in East Pakistan by withholding economic assistance

/4/ The Consulate General in Dacca reported on May 14 that it had received numerous reports that the Pakistani army was systematically searching out Hindus and killing them. (Telegram 1722 from Dacca; ibid., POL 23-9 PAK)

64. Memorandum of Conversation/1/
/1/ Source: National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials, NSC Files, Box 546, Country Files, Middle East, India, Vol. III, Sept 70-30 June 71. Secret; Nodis. Drafted by Saunders on June 4. The meeting was held in Kissinger's office at the White House. The time of the meeting is from Kissinger's appointment book. (Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, Kissinger Papers, Box 438, Miscellany, 1968-1976, Record of Schedule)

Washington, June 3, 1971, 4:20-4:50 p.m.

PARTICIPANTS
Kenneth Keating, US Ambassador to India
Henry A. Kissinger, Assistant to the President
Harold H. Saunders, NSC Staff

Ambassador Keating said that, apart from the humanitarian aspects of the problem and the four million refugees, he had wanted to talk about military and economic assistance to Pakistan. He said he felt that military aid is "just out of the question now while they are still killing in East Pakistan and refugees are fleeing across the border."

....Having said that, he felt that on the merits it is wrong to resume military assistance as long as the killing continues in East Pakistan. Dacca is reasonably quiet, although only half the normal inhabitants are there. The Pakistani army is now concentrating on the Hindu population. At first the refugees crossing into India were in the same proportion of Hindu and Muslim as in the whole East Pakistani population. Now, 90% are Hindus.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/xi/45604.htm

144. Minutes of Washington Special Actions Group Meeting/1/

(This is not an official statement of policy by the Department of State; it is intended only as a guide to the contents of this volume.)

Where did I say anything about OFFICIAL US FOREIGN POLICY STATEMENT?? We all know what official US policy was at 1971. Nixon displayed it very well thro his note about not squeezing Yahaya's balls.

I was referring to original reports and telegrams that were submitted to the Congress and State dept which talks about Pakistani Army atrocities, rapes and killings.

I quoted the world OFFICLA HISTORIAN, so as to prove the authenticity of the reports and telegrams, nothing less, nothing more.

You are either runnning out of arguements or so confused that you cudnt comprehend what you read and reply back.

Originally Posted by Jay

Where did I say anything about OFFICIAL US FOREIGN POLICY STATEMENT?? We all know what official US policy was at 1971. Nixon displayed it very well thro his note about not squeezing Yahaya's balls.

I was referring to original reports and telegrams that were submitted to the Congress and State dept which talks about Pakistani Army atrocities, rapes and killings.

I quoted the world OFFICLA HISTORIAN, so as to prove the authenticity of the reports and telegrams, nothing less, nothing more.

You are either runnning out of arguements or so confused that you cudnt comprehend what you read and reply back.

You highlighted "official record" in red and in bold type in your original document, idiot. The reason why you did this was because you thought you could convince me everything you said was official, but being the idiot you are, you did not forsee another person with an extra digit for an IQ.

And if you can only read, NSC Official Sam Hoskinson cites other situation awareness reports and cables that they got from Dacca that <Actual words>"Pakistani Army has embarked in a reign of terror aimed at eliminating the core of future resistance".

So the NSC Officials situational awareness reports are also BS, becoz Sarmila Bose has said this did not happen??

http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEB...BB79/BEBB2.pdf

Originally Posted by Hongkongfuey

You highlighted "official record" in red and in bold type in your original document, idiot. The reason why you did this was because you thought you could convince me everything you said was official, but being the idiot you are, you did not forsee another person with an extra digit for an IQ.

You dumb ass, if only you can read. As I said in my previous post, the only reason I highlighted it in red coz to prove the authenticity of contents. Indeed they are from State Dept's website. And the reports and cables and telegrams are all original.

Where did I or any one else talked about US Foreign Policy here?? We didnt say anything about their policy statements. Did I?

tsk tsk tsk. You are getting pathetic. You "thot" that I'm out here to convince you. Stupidity at its best. And I guess I will not be able to convince a person whose intellect matches with a single celled organism. So yes, you are right, I will not be able to convince you.

As I said in my post, You are either runnning out of arguements or so confused that you cudnt comprehend what you read and reply back.

Originally Posted by Hongkongfuey

Yes, yes, the usual drivel. DO THE MATH FOR YOURSELF. 3 million people killed by th West Pakistan Army in 9 months. Shouldnt that be a record in itself?

If the Hutus in Rwanda could kill 1 million Tutsis in 1993 genocide just by using Machete and Stick for weapon in just 3 months, then why not the Pakistan army, equiped with the state of the art killing machine of 1971, could kill 3 million in 9 months? You do the math.

In fact it with all the machine guns, it should be an easy task compared to what the Hutus in Rawanda did to the Tutsis in just 3 months.

In any case 3 million is established figure, universally quoted by all media when a reference to the 1971 genocide is made, also Bangladesh's official figure.

Originally Posted by konkerer

If the Hutus in Rwanda could kill 1 million Tutsis in 1993 genocide just by using Machete and Stick for weapon in just 3 months, then why not the Pakistan army, equiped with the state of the art killing machine of 1971, could kill 3 million in 9 months? You do the math.

In fact it with all the machine guns, it should be an easy task compared to what the Hutus in Rawanda did to the Tutsis in just 3 months.

In any case 3 million is established figure, universally quoted by all media when a reference to the 1971 genocide is made, also Bangladesh's official figure.

muahahaaha!! are you related to Jay?

3 million people in 9 months. About 30,000 people per day would be being knocked off. You think that Nixon would support a man who did that? Would there in fact be any doubt whatsoever that 30,000 people were being killed each day? Would Archer Blood change his mind during this time and say that it wasnt a genocide if 30,000 Bengalis were being slaughtered each day by West Pakistani troops? Would the Military expert at the Guiness Book of Records have no doubt that the West Pakistani troops committed a record for killing by any Army? Would human rights groups not be all over this? How was the 3 million figure worked out? Did they meticulously work out who was killed by Biharis, Razakhars, Bengalis and the Mukthi Bahini? How come you are such an idiot, are you related to Jay, this is a genetic defect, I'm convinced? Only a semi literate like yourself could believe a figure of 3 million

I guess you are still reeling from the bloody nose you got in various threads of this forum. right from JF-17 to Genocide.

I feel yar pain, mate, I feel for you. But I guess all barkin head have to go through this.

Let me give a verse for ya,
"Listen, thou babbling abigail, for you will be licked by a Fessacchione !"