Thread: Pakistani Genocide

Originally Posted by Gabru47

Originally Posted by honkkongfuey
What you read there is a summary I would imagine, not all her results. I'm sure you could ask for a complete version of it. Names of witnesses probably wouldnt be disclosed for fear of persecution by people such as yourself though. I'm sure she asked enough people to consider it significant though. Why dont you contact the people who invited her to present these findings. They seem to consider her authoritative and authentic. You can find them here

Thats a logical fallacy. I can't believe her paper is true because she is in the company of "scholars". I can't believe her paper is true because your sure she asked enough people. Also I don't think she has released her final paper yet.

You dont have to believe anything. There's really no point in arguing with you on this. You dont even know when to apply the term logical fallacy. It's very logical to expect that in the presence of reputed historians, each and every contributor must be making a valid contribution. Hence what she said in her report is likely to be correct. Else why risk ones high reputation? I'll repear again, she's found correlates and that's an important thing when finding out the truth. If you read the reports of all the clowns you've cited, not one of them agree on any specific event. They're all very dramatic though.

The summary of her paper is enough.

Originally Posted by Gabru47

These people considered her trustworthy enough and not as much of a kook as the Brownmillers and Drings you quote from

Again a logical fallacy. Just because she is a university professor does not mean whatever she says is true. Whats wrong in asking for the sources of her claims. If she claims that people at first told stories about rape, than later took it back, she better be able to back it up. I know some people might not want to question professors, but in my judgement that is approaching idiocy. I guess thats subjective though.

Her sources are in her paper. How can she describe all her case studies if she's done thousands? What would be the point? It'd be too long.

Your other point about taking back statements is idiocy in itself. You obviously cannot grasp what her paper was about. It simply is useless discussing this with someone that has an IQ of a pygmy. I'll explain this once only. She's claiming there's a discrepancy between what was reported immediately after the war and what her case studies show. She's found a significant difference between the two. For example, in the case of rapes, rape was often associated with violence when it was reported before. But in her case studies rape was hardly ever associated with violence.

One final point about your idiotic claim, is that perhaps straight after the war there was more animosity and bitterness which tended to cloud people's thinkings, whereas later on people have admitted what really went on without the bitterness causing all the exagerrations, of which there were plenty.

Originally Posted by Gabru47

'In all of the incidents involving the Pakistan army in the case-studies, the armed forces were found not to have raped women. While this cannot be extrapolated beyond the specific incidents in this study, it is significant, as in many cases the allegation of rape was made along with allegations of killing in prior verbal discussions or in some cases even in written form in the Bengali literature. However, when Bengali eye-witnesses, participants and survivors of the incidents were interviewed they testified to the violence and killings, but also testified that no rape had taken place.'

Why no names? Why no specifics so someone else can come and corroborate her work? Thats all she has to say on the topic so far.

It's a summary. She has mentioned names actually of some of her case studies. And for the last time, you do not corroborate the n numbers. They are just extra reps in scientific work. To confirm the work, the same experiments will need to be performed with perhaps a different sample of people. I dont think you will ever understand this so let's just drop this.

Another thing is that she seems to have a interest in playing with Pakistani people's pride. Look at this article written by her. She says that the Pakistani soldiers in the 1971 war should be honoured for their bravery. It seems that she is just playing to the gallery.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...-11-2003_pg3_5

Sure seems rather biased towards Pakistan don't you say, comrade? Wouldn't you think that someone who calls the Pakistani army's actions heroic is playing to the gallery? Eh comrade? Wouldn't you say? Can you call her impartial?

Read your link She does not call them heroic, even though many people think they were to withstand the assault for over 4 weeks and hamper an armed group about 4-6 times their size.

Can you find where in that report she calls the West Pakistani Army heroic?

Not only that she's saying that the Pakistan Nation should honour them for their courage. Not her personally. Why is everything so twisted when you read it? Do you need glasses?

The report you cite suggests to me that Niazi was no friend of hers as he fought against her uncle.

Seems like i missed one or two things whilst laughing my head off going through what Jay was saying.

Originally Posted by Jay

Originally Posted by Hongkongfuey
Which report? Can you show me one not written by a Bangladeshi, not written by an Indian, and not written by a journalist with a vested interest such as Aubrey Menon or Simon Dring? It doesnt matter. Regardless of nationality, if the report has facts and pictures and eye witness reports, I would consider it as authentic. I cannot go and look for a Chinese or a Russian for these reports. Indians and Bangladeshis are eye witness to the event.

no, he didnt change his mind. He still said that Pakistani army are indeed killing Bengali muslims and vice versa and Bengali hindus.

It's really VERY simple. Report = http://www.drishtipat.org/1971/sarmila_paper.html
Report, Read.

End of Report the citation is from Archie Blood's memoirs (2002).

[33] US Consul-General Archer Blood revised his initial assessment as
civil war ensued: ". we realized that the term 'genocide' was not
appropriate to characterize all killings of Muslim Bengalis. Atrocities
were being committed on both sides .. it seemed to us that Army violence
was increasingly being used for military purposes." However, Blood still
felt the term 'genocide' could be applied to the targeting of Hindus.
(Blood, (2002), p. 216-217).

It's really very simple. Archie Blood described the events of the 25th and 26th of March as genocidal/one-sided, and then realized that the rest of the war was not genocidal. Atrocities were committed on both sides. It sounds like the man was a bit quick in jumping the gun, and he even admits this. Niazi himself condemned what happened on the 25th and the 26th in April.

Originally Posted by Jay

Just one would be a start. Archie Blood seemed to have changed his mind

No, none of those reports are dismissed. show me a something from the policy archives that says the reports were false. Indeed it was Kisinger, who tried to save Yahaya's a$$ hence downplayed Archie's reports.

If you didnt know the context of these reports, some information has recently been declassified, including what Archie Blood wrote to the US Senate, known as the "Blood Telegram" which was signed by 20 US officials and swung US Congress to support the Bengalis. Archie Blood only admitted that it wasnt a genocide in 2002. In other words he knew all along for all those years in between that there was no genocide, yet stayed quiet till he wrote his memoirs!!

Does Archie Blood deny that Bengali Muslims were killed by Pakistani Punjabi Army ?

OfCourse , people would kill back if you are raping their women , killing their kids et all.Therefore it doesnt surprise me.

Originally Posted by Hongkongfuey

[33] US Consul-General Archer Blood revised his initial assessment as
civil war ensued: ". we realized that the term 'genocide' was not
appropriate to characterize all killings of Muslim Bengalis. Atrocities
were being committed on both sides .. it seemed to us that Army violence
was increasingly being used for military purposes." However, Blood still
felt the term 'genocide' could be applied to the targeting of Hindus.
(Blood, (2002), p. 216-217).

It's really very simple. Archie Blood described the events of the 25th and 26th of March as genocidal/one-sided, and then realized that the rest of the war was not genocidal.

1. Archie Blood's initial assessment was based on the incidents in Dacca on 25th/26th Mar 1971. He was however, asked by Nixon to reduce the pressure on Niazi, this hand written note is available on the net. So it is possible that Archie Blood had to alter his assessment to reduce the impact of his earlier reports.
2. After the pogrom in Dacca, there was not much left to destroy there. The students and politicians were sorted out. When the country side exploded after the 25th Mar military crack down, there was no way for the US embassy to know what was happening there.
3. The EBR/EPR/police and most other bengali service men had revolted due to the military crackdown. There was no way for the US embassy to know what happened to the bengali soldiers of 2 Bn SSG or the soldiers and officers of the regimental center of EBR.

Atrocities were committed on both sides.

Yes there is no doubt in that, but these were in retaliation for what was perpetrated on the bengalis. In particular biharis who were pro West Pakistanis were targeted by the Mukhti Bhaini, there was also a case of a PA officers teenage daughter who was raped and muredered in Dacca cantonment in revenge.

It appears that the lady's (Sam Bose) views are the sole authorative account and the only researched account.

To base all discussion on solely one source as the only authorative account indicates the myopic vision that is being applied.

Originally Posted by Hongkongfuey

Seems like i missed one or two things whilst laughing my head off going through what Jay was saying.

Lucky you, its LMAO for the rest of us

It's really VERY simple. Report = http://www.drishtipat.org/1971/sarmila_paper.html
Report, Read.

The same report again. First read all tghe other reports that we have posted, then we will give a fair chance. See, Sarmila Bose's word is not the end of world here.

It's really very simple. Archie Blood described the events of the 25th and 26th of March as genocidal/one-sided, and then realized that the rest of the war was not genocidal. Atrocities were committed on both sides. It sounds like the man was a bit quick in jumping the gun, and he even admits this. Niazi himself condemned what happened on the 25th and the 26th in April.

Yes, indeed its very simple. As Archie said it was a genocide. Retracting reports is just so easy and its done for political compulsions. Like when JKLF leader said Pakistani minsiter was running terrorist camps and then later retracted it. Atrocities indeed were committed on both sides, but Pakistani soldiers started out first.

If you didnt know the context of these reports, some information has recently been declassified, including what Archie Blood wrote to the US Senate, known as the "Blood Telegram" which was signed by 20 US officials and swung US Congress to support the Bengalis.

So Archir Blood brainwashed the other 20 US officials as well? If Archie Blood retracted it later, did the other 20 officials also did the same in one way or another??

Archie Blood only admitted that it wasnt a genocide in 2002. In other words he knew all along for all those years in between that there was no genocide, yet stayed quiet till he wrote his memoirs!!

Read US Foreign policy summary, they say US did not act to save Bengali population, coz of the nexus they had with Yahaya.

It was a genocide with thousands raped, hundreds of thousands jkilled and maimed.

There Blood witnessed the beginning of a massacre that would take hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives. The Pakistan army, faced with an incipient rebellion among the Bengalis, slaughtered thousands in a pre-emptive attack on the University of Dacca and the barracks of Bengali police. Columns of troops followed the roads throughout the country, burning and killing.

Blood in his first cable described what he termed a "selective genocide," alerted President Richard Nixon and national security adviser Henry Kissinger to what was happening and urged them to pressure Gen. Yahya Khan, the Pakistani dictator, to stop the killing.

His cable, dated March 28, 1971, was declassified last year. In it Blood wrote: "Here in Dacca we are mute and horrified witnesses to a reign of terror of the Pak military ..."

The trouble was that Nixon and Kissinger had tilted toward Pakistan as a counter to Soviet influence in the subcontinent. The administration didn't want to hear what Blood was reporting.

That cable was followed by another, signed by 20 Americans stationed in East Pakistan with various U.S. government agencies, decrying the official American silence as serving "neither our moral interests broadly defined nor our national interests narrowly defined ..."

Blood did not sign that cable, but he added a footnote subscribing fully to the views it expressed and then wrote prophetically: "I believe the most likely eventual outcome of the struggle under way in East Pakistan is a Bengali victory and the consequent establishment of an independent Bangladesh." He argued strongly against "pursuing a rigid policy of one-sided support to the likely loser."

Nixon chose an option of trying to help Khan negotiate a settlement with the Bengalis, but added, in his own handwriting, "To all hands: DON'T squeeze Yahya at this time." So nobody in authority squeezed Yahya Khan, the killings continued and 20 million Bengali refugees poured into India.

>>At this time, I'll post Nixon's handwritten note about Yahaya, which makes it more appropriate.


To counter reports of the army's massacre, the Pakistanis brought in a few foreign journalists for a tightly controlled tour that it said would prove that it was actually Bengali Hindus slaughtering non-Bengali Muslims. At the end of the tour the reporters would be packed off without hearing any other stories.

>> I see the above very familiar to Hongkongdong's posts. Awfully similar that Bengalis are slaughtering Bengali Biharis or Bihari Bengalis

I was on that trip. At the end of the tour, on ancient crop-duster planes literally coated with DDT, I simply declared myself deathly ill and refused to leave. Security was heavy when I left the hotel and so it was too dangerous to interview on the streets, but they couldn't follow me into the American consulate.

There I met Arch Blood, who told me that he had been officially "silenced" by Washington, but that my suspicions of a continuing slaughter of Bengalis by the Pakistan army were quite correct.

Blood said he couldn't speak, but he had scores of Bengalis on the consulate staff. He pointed to an office across the hall and said: "It's yours for as long as you need it. Those staffers who want to tell you their stories will come visit you there."

For the better part of a day I listened to men and women who wept as they told how parents, siblings, even children had died in Dhaka and in towns from Chittagong to Naryanganj to the hill country tea plantations. When my plane lifted off from Dhaka I began banging out a lead I still remember:

"Fear, fire and the sword are the only things holding East and West Pakistan together ... "

I never saw Arch Blood again, but I never met a more upright and courageous diplomat. Not long after that he was called back to Washington and put in the doghouse, for as long as Nixon was in the White House.

In 1971 his colleagues in the American Foreign Service voted Arch K. Blood the recipient of the Christian A. Herter Award for "initiative, integrity, intellectual courage and creative dissent."

His death made headlines in Bangladesh, the nation that emerged in 1971 as Blood predicted. A delegation of Bengalis attended his memorial service in Fort Collins, Colo. His wife, Margaret, has been swamped with mail from Bangladesh.

Arch Blood spread the news of a new nation being born amid calamity. He ought to be remembered as an American hero as well.

http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,...110304,00.html

Archie never retracted the telegrams he sent behalf of the Consulate, did he?

Read, Read and Read them again.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/BEBB1.pdf

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/BEBB2.pdf

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/BEBB3.pdf

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/BEBB4.pdf

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/BEBB5.pdf

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/BEBB6.pdf

This is the best of all,
U.S. Department of State Cable, USG Expression of Concern on East Pakistan; April 6, 1971, Confidential, 8 pp.
During a conversation with Assistant Secretary Sisco, Pakistani Ambassador Agha Hilaly asks that "due allowance be made for behavior of Pak officials and others during what had amounted to civil war for a few days," because the "army had to kill people in order to keep country together." Expressing concern over the situation and bloodshed as well as use of U.S. arms in repression, Sisco observed that the US is "keenly sensitive to problems and feelings on developments [in East Pakistan]."
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/BEBB7.pdf

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/BEBB8.pdf
The list of Consul officers that signed the dissent telegram are listed in this document. Blood endorsed and subscribed their views.

As I see none of them has retracted their statements so far.

Originally Posted by Samudra

Does Archie Blood deny that Bengali Muslims were killed by Pakistani Punjabi Army ?

OfCourse , people would kill back if you are raping their women , killing their kids et all.Therefore it doesnt surprise me.

Lol, you lot do not seem to get the point of all this. People DID die. That is what happens during wars. Your assertions, or those of Jay that 3 million were killed though, are ridiculous and those photographs of dead bodies which lemontree and whoever else are showing around for their own political gains could well have been of Biharis killed by the Bengalis as there was a lot of communal rioting before the 25th March, 1971, and as retribution for the war after 25th December, 1971.

Actually your second sentence is not entirely true now. Here is an exerpt from two speeches by the Benagli side's leaders on the 25th and 26th March, 1971 (West Pakistani forces were ordered to re-take control of Bangladesh on the night of 25th March, 1971.)

"Today Bangladesh is a sovereign and independent country. On Thursday night West Pakistani armed forces suddenly attacked the police barracks at Razarbagh and the EPR headquarters at Pilkhana in Dhaka. Many innocent and unarmed have been killed in Dhaka city and other places of Bangladesh. Violent clashes between EPR and Police on the one hand and the armed forces of Pindi on the other, are going on. The Bengalis are fighting the enemy with great courage for an independent Bangladesh."

This is Shadhin Bangla Betar Kendro. I, Major Ziaur Rahman, at the direction of Bangobondhu Mujibur Rahman, hereby declare that the independent People's Republic of Bangladesh has been established. At his direction, I have taken command as the temporary Head of the Republic. In the name of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, I call upon all Bengalis to rise against the attack by the West Pakistani Army. We shall fight to the last to free our Motherland. By the grace of Allah, victory is ours. Joy Bangla.

This was a call to arms to forcibly kill the enemy (namely the West Pakistani Army), not to mention an act of civil war and a coup. You state that Bengalis were being raped and killed by West Pakistani soldiers, and so they started fighting back. These radio messages clearly show differently. There was a call to arms.

Prior to the 25th of March, 1971 (when this radio message was released), the Bengali population had "massacred" many Biharis. These Biharis were loyal to the West Pakistanis and Urdu speakers. So two points are against your theory that the Bengalis fought back because they were being killed. 1) It was the Bengalis that were doing the killing of the Biharis before the 25th March, 1971 and 2) It was the Bengali leader that declared independence on the 25th March, 1971 and called to arms on the 26th March, 1971.

An excerpt from Samila Bose's paper on the mob violence of the Bengalis against the Biharis before the 25th March, 1971

2. Mob violence by Bengalis on non-Bengalis Prior to Military Action

The postponement of the national assembly followed by the call to
observe 'hartal' given by Sheikh Mujib led to widespread lawlessness
during March, when the Pakistan government effectively lost control of
much of the territory of East Pakistan. Many accounts, both Bangladeshi
and Pakistani, have recorded the parallel government run on Sheikh Mujib's
decrees.

Apart from sporadic incidents of violence in Dhaka, there was arson,
looting and attacks by Bengali mobs on non-Bengali people and property in
many parts of the province, some with casualties. The White Paper
published by the Pakistan government in August 1971 lists such incidents,
of which the worst loss of life appears to have occurred in Khulna and
Chittagong in the first week of March. That "the government's writ had
ceased to function in most parts of the province" and that there were
attacks upon non-Bengalis by Bengalis on the rampage, is acknowledged by
critics of the government too.[6]

Most of these attacks were on civilians and commercial properties, but
some were directly on the army, which remained curiously unresponsive
under orders. Mostly the army suffered from the refusal of Bengalis to
sell them food and fuel, being jeered and spat at, and the widespread
disregard of curfew orders, but some encounters were more deadly. "The
murder of army personnel, caught in ones and twos, became an everyday
occurrence," writes Maj. Gen. H. A. Qureishi, "In our area we lost Lt.
Abbas of 29 Cavalry. With an escort of Bengali soldiers, he had ventured
out of the unit lines to buy fresh vegetables for the troops. The escort
was "rushed" by the militants, the officer was killed, weapons were
'confiscated' and the Bengali members of the guard sent back unharmed."[7]
"It speaks volumes for the discipline of the West Pakistan army," wrote
Mascarenhas, "that its officers were able to keep the soldiers in check
during what was to them a nightmare of 25 days."[8]
http://www.drishtipat.org/1971/sarmila_paper.html

That looks like a lot of killing of unarmed Biharis (pro Pakistanis) in East Pakistan just prior to the 25th March, 1971 and the Declaration of Independence, above.

Originally Posted by Hongkongfuey

Your assertions, or those of Jay that 3 million were killed though, are ridiculous and those photographs of dead bodies which lemontree and whoever else are showing around for their own political gains...

I am surprised you did not mention that the photos were of people killed in the cyclone the previous year.
I have no political gains by posting these photos, this thread was started to show the true meaning of genocide to people who feel that Indians are carrying genocide in Kashmir.