Thread: Pakistani Genocide

Originally Posted by Gabru47

Stupid analogy. If a doctor says give your kidneys up, you dont need them, you wouldnt because you know that having both in is better for you. In other words you know what he is saying is incorrect. If you have a chest infection and a doctor presecribes for you 4 ml Ethidium Bromide a day with your morning coffee, you will follow his orders, but you'll end up dead within the hour. Difference is you dont know as much as he does in that instance, and that is why you listen to him. His/her knowledge on the subject surpasses your own. In the case in point, Sarmila Bose's knowledge surpasses yours and that of any other researcher on this subject, that is why she was invited to present her findings at the conference http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/46059.htm

No, in my judgement the analogy is relevant. You said that we should believe her on the account of her being an univeristy professor and also that she was invited to a seminar with other scholars. Thats a logical fallacy. It is similar to having someone telling you to give up your kidneys to a doctor because he/she knows what they are doing. Right? It's not logical.

I didnt say you should believe her. You will believe what you want to. However, she is the one who has done the scientific research, what research have you done? Being invited to a seminar full of notable scholars on the topic, including Bangladeshi ones, shows that she is a renowned name in the field, perhaps more importantly, that her work is considered to be the most credible in the world by all those who participated in it. Else they would not have turned up. Top historians, professors etc. do not put their credibility on the line by hiring quacks like Brownmiller to their meetings, else their own credibility will suffer. Your analogy isnt correct, you should give up on it. Read the last posting for why.

Originally Posted by GABRU47

Originally Posted by honkongfuey
Look at the end of her report. She cites her references. Go over those. For the case studies she sampled, noone in their right mind would reveal them, that's part of the confidentiality of such research. You try asking your doctor for a list of his other patients. Does he give them you?

Now your creating a false dillema. Its hard to believe that all of her sources would ask to keep their names secret. Its too much. I've read her sources at the end of her paper and I'm not impressed. She doesn't say anything about her sample size, something which would aid her paper's credibility.

She does not show her methodology in the paper posted on the internet. It is intended to be a summary, perhaps something that was read out or perhaps just a very sketchy preliminary report of her findings. Perhaps a fuller paper will come out soon, the findings are relatively recent. However, she would know how to sample populations with her education.

Originally Posted by Gabru47

Originally Posted by honkongfuey
Get over the case studies. No professional is going to cite names in a survey. Go up to MORI and ask them for a list of people they interviewed for their poll on Kashmir. If they give you a list, I will accept your point.
What list? Was this directed towards me?

Maybe. Though its strange that she hasn't released her sample size. Don't you find that strange? Or has she? I read your posts where you say she has interviewed thousands of people, somewhere even hundred thousands. Where are you getting these numbers from?

I've already told you about that. Read above. I do not know the sample sizes, neither do you. Both of us are speculating. Wait for a final report, or, if you like, ask here http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/46059.htm

Originally Posted by Gabru47

Originally Posted by hongkongfuey
Why do you need to know who the people are for this survey, and not for that of the MORI poll? Are you that desperate to try and discredit it?

I don't understand what this has to do with the MORI poll. I'm just asking how many people did she interview? Is that a hard question to answer? You already said she has interviewed thousands, so I was just wondering where you got that information from? I don't think I'm trying to discredit her paper, just some people's interpretation or manipulation of it.

Read above. I dont know how many people she interviewed. Neither do you, either wait or ask, your choice, but the woman knows how to sample populations.

Originally Posted by Gabru47

Originally Posted by honkongfuey
Why ask me? I didnt write it. Ask her or one of the people at the meeting. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/46059.htm

I do not know how many people she's interviewed. I'm assuming it's hundreds or might be thousands because it was researched over a 2-4 year period. Hundreds is a safe bet though, could be thousands, depends on her methodology. For that, you will have to ask someone else. I'm not her spokesman. But I'm sure she knows how to prove a statistically relevant difference between two samples

A safe bet? Thats it? Who do I go to ask? Just Bose? Don't you think thats silly? Just absolutley silly. The only person who can tell how many people she has interviewed is Bose herself. If she doesn't release how many people she has interviewed, or atleast some names, you can't test her paper. How do you know its true then? Because shes a scholar? Don't you see any fault in that logic? Do you honestly believe that her paper shouldn't be held to any criticism just on the account of her being a "scholar" and being invited to a seminar?

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/46059.htm

Originally Posted by Gabru47

Asking about how big her samples were is fine. But i think you'll find they would be of different sizes, depending on the area she has sampled. I think you'll also find that any scientist would find her samples of sufficient size to be able to draw conclusions from. If the best you can do is accuse her of making up all her results, then I guess that denial is a powerful emotion indeed

Nope, I don't think any scientist in the proper sense will draw conclusions from her paper. She even warns people not to do so. I'm not accusing her of making up all her results. They might be true. I don't know. Just pointing out that some people are manipulating her paper to be a standard on matters concerning 1971. I think she even released comments telling people not to do so, specifically the Pakistani media. I'll try to find them, hopefully sooner rather than later.

Actually, she herself draws some conclusions old chap. You will need to point out where she says you should not draw conclusions from her preliminary findings, old chap, because I cannot find it.

Here are the conclusions

Patterns of Violence: Some Preliminary Findings

1.. Multiple parties in the conflict, each both perpetrator and
victim of violence

2.. Hatred fanned by attribution of "treason" to the 'other' by both
sides

3.. Brutality and humanity evenly distributed among warring parties

4.. Contradictory evidence on targeting of Hindus

5.. Ethnicization of 'enemy' and 'ally'

6.. Pakistan army's actions marked by a pattern of targeting of adult
males while sparing women and children

7.. Mob violence involved indiscriminate killing of men, women and
children, accompanied by sexual attacks on women

8.. No rape of women by Pakistan army found in any of the cases of
conflict

Some remarks of hers include

The analysis of the conflict of 1971 through in-depth study of
ground-level incidents underlines the importance of a careful,
evidence-based approach to this subject. As the biggest losers of 1971,
West Pakistan and the Pakistan army in particular have remained defensive,
in a state of denial, or silent about the events of that year.
Bangladeshis are understandably more voluble about the birth of their
country, but have done less well at systematic historical record-keeping,
and a vast proportion of literature put out on 1971 is marred by
unsubstantiated sensationalism.

There is also the cultivation of an unhealthy 'victim culture' by some
of the pro-liberationists - hence the people of Chuknagar complain at
being left out of the official history books and vie to establish their
village as the site of the "biggest mass killing" in the country, and
people are instigated at the national level to engage in a ghoulish
competition with six million Jews in order to gain international
attention. All of these tendencies hamper the systematic study of the
conflict of 1971 and hinder a true understanding of a cataclysmic
restructuring in modern South Asian history.