What's new

22 killed in US missile strike in N Waziristan

"Anyhow, let's look at the facts."

O.K.

"IF Afghanistan was left to Soviet rule..."

What fact is this?:)

"IF Afghanistan was left to Soviet rule..."

and this?:agree:

"IF Afghanistan was left to Soviet rule..."

and this?:lol:

Facts? Conditional suppositions, stud. Each one and nary a fact there.

Try this- Anywhere between 900,000-1.5 million afghanis died during the Soviet-Afghan war. AT LEAST another 250,000 during the afghan civil war.

Maybe 11,000-20,000 in the last seven years.

Get serious on the googling. You're evidently clueless about that nation just over Pakistan's western border.

WTF?? That's my whole point you nit. Had the Americans and Saudis not urged the rebellion there would not have been all these statistics you put up.

Perhaps the Afghans would have accepted Communist ideology (I don't think they would have, but even if they did not, I don't think the outcome, once the Soviets had withdrawn would have been the same - the radicalization has become a problem).
 
.
The soviets would have made afghanistan a stronger nation. Communists are'nt all that bad. Look at China and its growth. USSR could have saved Afghanistan from both talibani tyranny and their american supporters who seek to dominate afghanistan and make it a puppet. ;)

What's wrong with you? Why do you always sound like the propoganda guy for some cause or the other?
Afghanistan is not China, and neither is it the USSR, or any of the central asian state Khazak/belarus etc.

Seek to dominate and make puppet? And Afghanistan under the soviets wouldn't have been a puppet?

Geez - why do I bother replyin to you posts..

Indians fear communism more than we do. The reason is the naxalites. But naxalite insurgency is homegrown actually. U guys massacre thousands of poor little women children because of the fear of communism and then their survivors become naxalites. Irony is'nt it?

Off topic but fine, lets see how many thousand poor communist women and children are being massacred in India. :rolleyes:

Welcome to my ignore list. Oops - looks like you're already on it. Got to stop clicking the "view post" button next time.
 
.
What's wrong with you? Why do you always sound like the propoganda guy for some cause or the other?
Afghanistan is not China, and neither is it the USSR, or any of the central asian state Khazak/belarus etc.

Seek to dominate and make puppet? And Afghanistan under the soviets wouldn't have been a puppet?

Geez - why do I bother replyin to you posts..

Nothing? What is wrong with u. U sound angry... need a drink? :cheers:

Propaganda guy? Damn i must be really good then... :smokin:

It wud have been if America had left the afghans alone and could leave the poor soviets alone and did'nt start jumping up and down at there mention. Theres a saying "Today's heroes are tommarow's villains" True is'nt it? Soviets and USA fought together against Germans in 1st nd 2nd world war and praised each other and were freindly more or less.... cold war began and they became hostile and both medias presented each other as villains... same case is with the bloodthirsty talibans being supported by Indian RAW and India has found an opportunity in a knack... so the situation in Pakistan is compounded by a dangerous hostile foreign nation who wants to drown the world in darkness and eliminate peace from it. this terrorist nation has 4 embassies...

Yes... make puppet and dominate the region spilling the blood of innocent afghans in the process... :agree:

Why man. Tu kyun reply karta hai yaar? Chor dey? This kind of thing is not for u... :D

Off topic but fine, lets see how many thousand poor communist women and children are being massacred in India. :rolleyes:

Welcome to my ignore list. Oops - looks like you're already on it. Got to stop clicking the "view post" button next time.

AsiaMedia Naxalbari: the naxalite movement in India

Instead of fully implementing land reforms to alleviate their grievances - as suggested by many impartial observers as well as its own previously mentioned committee of 1969 - the Indian government chose the simplistic path of military suppression of peasant grievances. It unleashed a reign of terror on the Naxalite bases and the villagers who supported them. In Srikakulam, para-military forces swooped down upon Girijan villages, arrested thousands of young tribals, captured and killed their Naxalite leaders, and resorted to the policy of setting up `strategic hamlets' (as the US did in Vietnam) where entire tribal villages were removed, so that the mass base of the CPI(M-L) could be dispersed. In Birbhum in West Bengal, the Indian army was deployed to encircle the Naxalite-controlled villages, close in and kill the leaders. Thousands of their Santhal tribal followers were thrown behind bars.

But if u want more evidence of indian oppression of the poor helpless naxalites who are killed in scores i cud do a quick article or video on it and post it here? If u want me to go f4 it i cud??? :)

Also this is off topic so u want another thread for it? I have many more links for u that iu are dying to read i am sure...

Indian oppression is a threat to world peace. India must be stopped or the entire world will be in peril. We must act now... :)

Damn am i great or am i great and then i even have family on the other side there... wow. I can tell the world the reality... damn that must be hard for people like u... but the best is my freind f4m hyd'z. He a nationalist 2 now b8 he stayed for 3/4 of his life there but his sister got killed by indian terrorists. He is good at telling facts to indians... Wish he was here... :(

Well I think u should spend more time playing with street children than debating... U need a break... wash ur face and come back then u can debate with people like me... :D
 
.
You're living in a fantasy. The afghan rebellion was on by August 1978 against a regime that was ostensibly friendly to the Soviet Union. You presume an alternative outcome from thin air. It didn't go down as you'd like and you can't lift it out of context.

You have tried though. I'm sorry but you're the one who wishes to look at facts. Remember this-

"Afghanistan would have been better off under the Soviets, imo. Compared to the genocidal state it's become."

Your original supposition remains sadly ludicrous. Time for you to understand the depth of that tragedy and the subsequent civil war-nevermind the aftermath of the taliban gov't.

When you can display some modicum of accurate understanding of the past we can then get to your next pathetically gross distortion of truth- GENOCIDE.

There we can discuss the amazing effects of war on the afghans. Yes, it's true. Even including the Soviet Afghan war, civil war, taliban government, and this latest war the afghan population has doubled since 1979. Most say about 17 million then. What? 34-36 million now.

Despite the horrible carnage of WAR, it's hardly a genocide under those realities. Not then and not now.

What's up with that? GENOCIDE this and HOLOCAUST that? You guys cheapen language with ease it might seem.
 
Last edited:
.
You're living in a fantasy. The afghan rebellion was on by August 1978 against a regime that was obstensibly friendly to the Soviet Union. You presume an alternative outcome from thin air. It didn't go down as you'd like and you can't lift it out of context.

You have tried though. I'm sorry but you're the one who wishes to look at facts. Remember this-

"Afghanistan would have been better off under the Soviets, imo. Compared to the genocidal state it's become."

Your original supposition remains sadly ludicrous. Time for you to understand the depth of that tragedy and the subsequent civil war-nevermind the aftermath of the taliban gov't.

When you can display some modicum of accurate understanding of the past we can then get to your next pathetically gross distortion of truth- GENOCIDE.

There we can discuss the amazing effects of war on the afghans. Yes, it's true. Even including the Soviet Afghan war, civil war, taliban government, and this latest war the afghan population has doubled since 1979. Most say about 17 million then. What? 34-36 million now.

Despite the horrible carnage of WAR, it's hardly a genocide under those realities. Not then and not now.

What's up with that? GENOCIDE this and HOLOCAUST that? You guys cheapen language with ease it might seem.

Millions of Afghans were killed in the Soviet-Afghan war. Genocide, yep, I'll call it one.

Your logic is stupid. Alright, so the Afghan population increased. They were having 6 or 8 kids per family. That doesn't mean on average even 4 of those kids werent killed, making it a total of several million killed. That could easily account for genocide.

You'd best read up on the sieges of Kabul following the withdrawal of the Soviets. If it wasn't genocide, you better take it up with the humanitarian agencies. They'd described it.

Afghanistan would have been a progressive society if the Soviets, Saudi, Iran, Pakistan (though it suffered also due to Zia's foolishness), but most of all the USA had stuck to their borders.

If anything the result of Afghanistan should send warning signs to Pakistan to search for allies minus the US. Thankfully that day isn't far off, as US hegemony is like the setting sun. China is on the other side of the horizon, so there's hope.
 
.
When you can display some modicum of accurate understanding of the past we can then get to your next pathetically gross distortion of truth- GENOCIDE.

:what::what::what:

WHAT? What else is it?

Afghan-American lovestory? Jirga-the love jirga? Bin Laden Bush raindance?

Damn u r angry... anger is bad... u shud get a girlfriend... u need to get out there for it not hide behind a pc and shoot off all day about ur lack of knowledge about the damage u r doing in the war on terror. :lol:

I cud create a list of american attrocities for u if u want till the time u cool off nd find a woman? I am also a journalist other than a right wing pakistani nationalist... u want me to send u a list of ur attrocities?? Afghans say its genocide anyway...

Survey: 88% of Afghans want US forces to leave

A new survey suggests Afghans are increasingly unimpressed with the direction their country is headed, and more than a third of its participants claim to be worse off today than when the Taliban ruled the war-torn country.

38 per cent of Afghans said they agreed with the direction Afghanistan was headed, compared to 44 per cent in 2006

32 per cent of Afghans said they disagreed with the direction Afghanistan was headed, versus 21 per cent in 2006

36 per cent of Afghans said they are less prosperous today than when they lived under Taliban rule, compared to 26 per cent who made the same claim in 2006



Despite the horrible carnage of WAR, it's hardly a genocide under those realities. Not then and not now.

What's up with that? GENOCIDE this and HOLOCAUST that? You guys cheapen language with ease it might seem.

It is a genocide. It is genocide of iraqis afghans and Pakistanis while USA sits on the sidelines and enjoys the show. No one dies but Non Americans. Thats the idea u c... u have ur troops with their bulletproof vests... u come there turn beautiful afghanistan into a little battlefield to fight ur own petty little war against people u urself funded and created draining the blood of innocent afghans in the process... even look at the poor canadians.

Even my Canadian friends r pissed with u saying their troops are taking the damage caused by America and they have to suffer 100 war losses cauz of u... even they understand that they are getting killed because of u guys. damn is anyone ever happy with USA or r they always laughing behind ur backs and calling USA an angry drunken bull... i doubt obama will change that if there are still people like u who cant help but defend every stupid policy ever made by USA...

I have heard this "u guys" before... what do westerners mean by it I always wonder... pakistanis, immigrants? What?
 
.
"Millions of Afghans were killed in the Soviet-Afghan war."

Really? And yet I think you said this-

"Afghanistan would have been better off under the Soviets, imo..."

You might wish to remember what exactly you are arguing about. Full circle. No flights of fantasy about "if this then this".

Just millions dead but they'd be better off under the Soviets.

900,000-1.5 million isn't quite millions. Hyperbole just FLOWS through your blood. Logic clearly doesn't.
 
.
Top US Lawyer And UNICEF Data Reveal Afghan Genocide

By Dr Gideon Polya

08 February, 2008
Countercurrents.org

The United States invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 with the ostensible excuse of the Afghan Government’s “protection” of the asserted Al Qaeda culprits of the 9/11 atrocity that killed 3,000 people. In the light of as many as 6.6 million post-invasion excess deaths in Occupied Afghanistan as of February 2008 (see below), it is important to consider the major problems with this Bush-ite and neo-Bush-ite version of events as summarized below:

1. The US has a long history of “questionable” excuses for war e.g. the explosion of the Maine (the Spanish-American War), the sinking of the US arms-carrying Lusitania (entry into World War 1), the Pearl Harbor attack with now recognized US foreknowledge (entry into World War 2), North Koreans provoked into invading their own country (the Korean War), the fictitious Gulf of Tonkin incident (the Vietnam War; recently similarly but unsuccessfully attempted in the Persian Gulf as an “excuse” to attack Iran) and the extraordinary 1,000 post-9/11 lies told by Bush Administration figures, most notoriously about non-existent Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction (the Iraq War; post-invasion excess deaths now about 1.5-2 million).

2. The US supported and funded Al Qaeda and the Taliban from the late 1970s to the early 1990s associated with its anti-Soviet policies (see William Blum’s “Rogue State”).

3. Oil- and hegemony-related plans for the invasion of Afghanistan were all ready to go before 9/11.

4. No Afghans were involved in the 9/11 attack according to the “official 9/11 story” of the egregiously dishonest Bush Administration.

5. Even the right-wing, neo-Bush-ite Democrat Al Gore in his recent book “The Assault on Reason” (Chapter 6, National Insecurity, pp178-179) condemns the Bush Administration for effective passive complicity in the 9/11 atrocity i.e. they let it happen, just as a fore-warned US Administration permitted the Pearl Harbor attack to happen in 1941: “Their behaviour, in my opinion, was reckless, but the explanation for it lies in hubris, not in some bizarre conspiracy theory …These affirmative and repeated refusals to listen to clear warnings [prior to 9/11] constitute behaviour that goes beyond simple negligence. At a minimum, it represents a reckless disregard for the safety of the American people.”

6. However, further to point #5, the extremely eminent former 7-year President of Italy, law professor, senator for life and long-term Western intelligence intimate Francesco Cossiga recently (November 2007) told one of Italy's top newspapers that (a) the US CIA and Israeli Mossad committed the 9/11 outrage in order to further US and Zionist aims and that (b) major Western intelligence agencies are well aware of this (for details and documentation see: MWC News - A Site Without Borders - - Were US & Israel Behind the 9/11? ).

As of February 2008, analysis of UNICEF data (see UNICEF statistics on Occupied Afghanistan: UNICEF - Afghanistan - Statistics ) allows the following estimate of 3.3-6.6 million post-invasion excess deaths (avoidable deaths, deaths that should not have happened) in Occupied Afghanistan:

1. annual under-5 infant deaths 370,000.

2. post-invasion under-5 infant deaths 2.3 million (90% avoidable).

3. post-invasion avoidable under-5 infant deaths 2.1 million.

4. post-invasion non-violent excess deaths 3.2 million (2.3 million /0.7 = 3.3 million; for impoverished, worst case Third world countries the under-5 infant deaths are about 0.7 of total non-violent excess deaths (see A Layperson’s Guide to counting Iraq deaths: MWC News - A Site Without Borders - - Layperson’s guide to counting Iraq deaths ).

5. post-invasion violent deaths about 3.3 million (assuming roughly 1 violent death for every non-violent avoidable death i.e. roughly as in US-occupied Occupied Iraq where the ratio of violent deaths to non-violent excess deaths is 0.8-1.2 million to 0.7-0.8 million; see Continued Australian and US Coalition war crimes in Occupied Iraq: Rudd Australia Report Card: Rudd Australia Report Card #1. Continued Australian and US Coalition war crimes in Occupied Iraq ).
6. upper estimate of non-violent plus violent post-invasion excess deaths 3.3 million + 3.3 million = 6.6 million excess deaths.


For detailed documentation of the above see “Australian complicity in continuing Afghan genocide”: Rudd Australia Report Card . A major cause of the carnage is revealed by WHO (see: WHO | World Health Organization ) – the “total annual per capita medical expenditure” permitted by the Occupiers in Occupied Afghanistan is a mere $19 – as compared to as compared to $2,560 (the UK), $3,123 (Australia) and $6,096 (the US). This is in gross contravention of Articles 55 and 56 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (see: Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War ) which unequivocally demands that the Occupier must provide life-sustaining food and medical requisites to its Conquered Subjects “to the fullest extent of the means available to it”. Compounding this is the appalling reality of 4 million Afghan refugees.

What is happening in Afghanistan is an Afghan Holocaust. One sees that post-invasion under-5 infant deaths in Occupied Afghanistan (2.3 million) vastly exceeds the number of Jewish children murdered by the Nazis in World War 2 (1.5 million). The upper estimate of post-invasion violent and non-violent excess deaths in Occupied Afghanistan (6.6 million out of an average 2001-2008 Afghan population of about 25 million) exceeds the number of Jews murdered by the Nazis in World War 2 ( 5.6 million out of 8.2 million Jews in German-occupied Europe in the period 1941-1945) (see: Gilbert, M. (1969), Jewish History Atlas (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London) and Gilbert, M. (1982), Atlas of the Holocaust (Michael Joseph, London)).

Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention (see: The UN Genocide Convention ) states “In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: a) Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

From the data summarized above, it is apparent that the Afghan Holocaust is also an Afghan Genocide as defined by the UN Genocide Convention.

Outstanding US Law academic Professor Ali Khan of the Washburn University School of Law, Topeka, Kansas has also described what is going on in Afghanistan as genocide i.e. an Afghan Genocide (see “NATO Genocide in Afghanistan”: MWC News - A Site Without Borders - - NATO Genocide in Afghanistan ).

The key legal verdict of Professor Khan is as follows: “The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (entered into force, 1951) is binding on all states including the 26 member states of NATO. The Genocide Convention is jus cogens, the law from which no derogation is allowed. It provides no exceptions for any nation or any organization of nations, such as the United Nations or NATO, to commit genocide. Nor does the Convention allow any exceptions to genocide "whether committed in time of peace or in time of war." Even traditional self-defense - let alone preemptive self-defense, a deceptive name for aggression – cannot be invoked to justify or excuse the crime of genocide.”

Professor Khan proceeds to analyse the campaign of extermination of the Indigenous Afghan Taliban in Afghanistan in relation to International law. He states that in relation to Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention “In murdering the Taliban, NATO armed forces systematically practice on a continual basis the crime of genocide that consists of three constituent elements - act, intent to destroy, and religious group.” His detailed analysis can be succinctly summarized as follows:

1. “The Genocidal Act” is prohibited as defined in the Genocide Convention as “a) Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” – but is is clearly occurring on a huge scale as indicated by the above data.

2. “The Genocidal Intent” is expressed in the Genocide Convention as “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”- but is clearly present in the statements of the NATO leaders. The “Intent” is also apparent from the sustained, resolute conduct of this horrendously bloody war for over 6 years.

3. “The Genocidal targeting of a Religious Group” is clearly prohibited by the Genocide Convention by “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group” – but is clearly being carried out with the accompaniment of immense Islamophobic propaganda in the West.

Professor Khan concludes: “It may, therefore, be safely concluded that NATO combat troops and NATO commanders are engaged in murdering the Taliban, a protected group under the Genocide Convention, with the specific intent to physically and mentally destroy the group in whole or in part. This is the crime of genocide.”

As an agnostic humanist I certainly don’t care for the Taliban beliefs – but what agnostic humanists (such as myself) or people of other philosophic persuasions think about the religious beliefs and interpretations of the Taliban is beside the point from the perspective of the UN Genocide Convention.

And while I strongly object to human rights violations by the Taliban (especially in relation to women and application of their extreme interpretations of Sharia Law) one has to objectively give credit to the Taliban for (a) bringing Peace through victory in the middle 1990s and (b) for destroying 95% of the Afghan opium production in 2001 (as well of course banning the vastly more deadly use of alcohol and for prohibiting Afghan Government employees from the even more deadly practice of smoking tobacco in 1997). Smoking, alcohol and illicit drugs kill about 7 million people annually, the breakdown being 5 million (tobacco), 1.8 million (alcohol) and 0.2 million (from illicit drugs, about half opiate drug-related).

It can be estimated that 0.6 million people have died world-wide due to opiates in the last 6 years, about 0.5 million of these deaths being due to US Alliance restoration of the Taliban-destroyed Afghan opium industry from 5% of world market share (2001) to 93% (2007) (see UN Office on Drugs and Crime, UNODC, World Drug Report 2007: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/world_drug_report.html ).

The 0.5 million global US-NATO-linked opiate drug-related deaths plus 6.6 million post-invasion Afghan excess deaths bring an upper estimate of the carnage due to the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan to 7.1 million deaths. If we include excess deaths associated with UK-US actions against Iraq in the period 1990-2008 (about 4 million) then the gruesome carnage of the Bush I plus Bush II Asian Wars now totals about 11 million excess deaths (and this ignores the impact of the Bush Wars through oil price rises and other factors on Third World avoidable deaths).

Occupied Afghanistan is the New Auschwitz of the US and its complicit allies (including former Axis countries Germany and Japan who have on US instigation joined the US-NATO Afghan Genocide) (see: MWC News - A Site Without Borders - - US-corrupted Germany & Japan ).

Those Bush-ite and neo-Bush-ite politicians, military and Mainstream media executives complicit in the Afghan Genocide should be arraigned before the International Criminal Court (see: Rudd Australia Report Card ).

In his 2005 Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech (see: Art, Truth And Politics By Harold Pinter The Nobel Prize lecture ), UK playwright Harold Pinter urged the arraignment of Bush and Blair before the International Criminal Court for war crimes and stated “How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought.”

Eleven million? More than enough, I would have thought.

A brilliant article is'nt it... S2 this is specially for americans in denial like u. Infact if i were u i wud have a change of heart by now... :P

Damn 11 Million. That is definately a genocide and holocaust by a country that has gone mad. U guys remind me of a charging bull... one 9/11 and this is what u do to the world. People who have nothing to do with it become victims... ur allies who help u in the war thinking about those 3000 innocent souls feeling sorry for u and joined with u guys and u hold absolutely no value for them.. u stab them in the back and run off ignoring them...

In any case its like a son forgetting his father man...

S2 what do u think of the article. Amazing is'nt it? Fellow americans f4m ur place themselves are exposing ur terroristic attitudes to the rest of the world. What do u say? :azn:

I am not saying holocaust and genocide i am just telling u ur own american fellas know the reality... they r saying holocaust and genocide... :agree:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
"Millions of Afghans were killed in the Soviet-Afghan war."

Really? And yet I think you said this-

"Afghanistan would have been better off under the Soviets, imo..."

You might wish to remember what exactly you are arguing about. Full circle. No flights of fantasy about "if this then this".

Just millions dead but they'd be better off under the Soviets.

900,000-1.5 million isn't quite millions. Hyperbole just FLOWS through your blood. Logic clearly doesn't.

I'm suggesting the Afghans didn't fight the Soviets, in that instance. Things would have been better for them.

In the second instance, had the Afghans been under Soviet rule, I think their infrastructure would have been better than it is now, their security would have been better, their lives would have been better, and their whole society would have had a lot less extremism.

Therefore, yes, those points seem contradictory when someone lifts them out of context.
 
Last edited:
.
11 million people 'killed' by the US??

A closer look at the quoted 'statistics' and their interpretation:

==============================================

I. (Quoted from above post)"1. annual under-5 infant deaths 370,000.

2. post-invasion under-5 infant deaths 2.3 million (90% avoidable).

3. post-invasion avoidable under-5 infant deaths 2.1 million."


If we follow the figures (and logic) cited above for Afghanistan, then here are the statistics for Pakistan (UNICEF - Pakistan - Statistics)for the same period, calculated in a similar fashion:

1. annual under-5 infant deaths ~423,000
2. post-invasion under-5 infant deaths 2.62 million (90% avoidable).
3. post-invasion avoidable under-5 infant deaths 2.4 million

Has GoP 'killed' 2.4 million Pakistani children (2001-2006)? I hope you don't blame the U.S for these too...

(In fact if you google and do a little more research on Dr Polya, you'll find that he says the most number of 'avoidable deaths' are in Africa.....which surely is out of the American ambit!)

So please, let's all be a bit mature about bandying about 'statistics'. There's enough blame to go around without having to resort to creative interpretation of 'figures'....!

========================================================

Sorry, I didn't read the rest of the article.....
 
Last edited:
.
Each drone strike makes it abundantly clear to the Pakistani people that our Political and Military leadership are not working for Pakistan. They are timid, incompetent and greedy. The policy of slavish support is just not sustainable.

The most disgraceful aspect of the drone strikes is that they happen with the full connivance of those whose job is to defend the country. Occasionally they even operate from Pakistani bases!. This proves that as a nation we have about as much sovereignty as Babrak Karmel under the Soviets, or Hamid Karzai under the US rule.

These drone strikes have made it abundantly clear to the people of FATA that they have to rely on themselves, and get even where it hurts the most. This has helped TTP to emerge as the rallying point for the victims.
 
.
11 million people 'killed' by the US??

A closer look at the quoted 'statistics' and their interpretation:

==============================================

I. (Quoted from above post)"1. annual under-5 infant deaths 370,000.

2. post-invasion under-5 infant deaths 2.3 million (90% avoidable).

3. post-invasion avoidable under-5 infant deaths 2.1 million."


If we follow the figures (and logic) cited above for Afghanistan, then here are the statistics for Pakistan (UNICEF - Pakistan - Statistics)for the same period, calculated in a similar fashion:

1. annual under-5 infant deaths ~423,000
2. post-invasion under-5 infant deaths 2.62 million (90% avoidable).
3. post-invasion avoidable under-5 infant deaths 2.4 million

Has GoP 'killed' 2.4 million Pakistani children (2001-2006)? I hope you don't blame the U.S for these too...

(In fact if you google and do a little more research on Dr Polya, you'll find that he says the most number of 'avoidable deaths' are in Africa.....which surely is out of the American ambit!)

So please, let's all be a bit mature about bandying about 'statistics'. There's enough blame to go around without having to resort to creative interpretation of 'figures'....!

========================================================

Sorry, I didn't read the rest of the article.....

I haven't checked your links or dimension's.

But Pakistan is 8 times bigger than Afghanistan.

If it's the case that the same number of avoidable infant deaths occur, it's about right to say that war in Afghanistan has smashed the infratrsture till 8 times worse than Afghanistan (there wasn't much difference prior to this).

So either way, all this Saudi and US inspired religious spread of Islamist teaching hasn't helped Afghanistan one bit.

As for the figures. I think it's a genocide. Afghanistan is not a country comparable with some subsaharan African pile of dung. It's very capable of becoming a successful country, but Saud-US interference, along with Soviet interference has turned it into what it is today. So those 2.4 million that should have been around 0.5 million, the extra 2 million count as genocide because of the war. If the war did not happen, radicalization did not occur, Afghanistan kicked the Soviets out, so that everyone dropped their weapons instead of started sectarian violence etc, those 2 million would be alive today.
 
.
Gross data of excess deaths would be 1-2% of Afghan pop. per CIA factbook (June 2008). I found no survey methodology or supporting research behind the conclusions. As such, your numbers are a gross extrapolation using (crudely) the methodology (I presume) behind Lancet.

That's probably not best but to extend it's findings to Afghanistan is worse again. I think that there are enough Afghan-specific outliers to disqualify any gross transfer of LANCET methodology en toto across the board. Even then we're absent the sampling, however biased. Show me a study and it's supporting methodology if you wish to start this discussion. It'll take that to move forward unless you've original research here.:lol:

It was the only claim by Mr. Polya that I found relevant to this discussion. Even it is suspect for a variety of reasons to include the aforementioned.

I'm not in denial. I fully understand the impact of our occupation. It bears no similarity to the destruction reaped by either the Soviet-Afghan War nor the subsequent Afghan Civil War.

Here are some numbers too. Maybe you can explain to me how, despite war and carnage countrywide, Afghanistan can display this data. Go to demographics-

Afghan Demographics-UNICEF

UNICEF indicates 26,000,000 pop. as of 2006. CIA says 32,000,000 as of 2008. Crude death rate has fallen 9 per 1000 (29-20 per thousand) in 36 years per UNICEF. Population has doubled. Crude birth rate has fallen only 3 per 1000 (52-49 per thousand) in 36 years per UNICEF. This is good but needs pre-natal and infant/1 or less mortality data over the same period to fully reconcile. Life expectancy has INCREASED by 8 years (23% 35-43) in 36 years between 1970 and 2006.

Had to laugh. This boob assigns the afghan taliban "legal protection" as a religious entity under persecution.

No genocide in Afghanistan. No holocaust in Afghanistan. Not in Gaza either.

Quit using big words that you little understand.
 
Last edited:
.
1. "But Pakistan is 8 times bigger than Afghanistan. "

- Surely not population wise, or area wise.


2. "So either way, all this Saudi and US inspired religious spread of Islamist teaching hasn't helped Afghanistan one bit. "

- I'm glad to know that Pakistan had no hand in this.


3. "It's very capable of becoming a successful country, but Saud-US interference, along with Soviet interference has turned it into what it is today."

- See my response in #2 above.


4."So those 2.4 million that should have been around 0.5 million, the extra 2 million count as genocide because of the war. If the war did not happen, radicalization did not occur, Afghanistan kicked the Soviets out, so that everyone dropped their weapons instead of started sectarian violence etc, those 2 million would be alive today."

- As you said in your post above: "I haven't checked your links or dimension's.". Please familiarize yourself with the statistics, the methodology, and their interpretations before weighing in on this. Also, I think you have got your time-lines mixed up....

It seems to suggest that you've made up your mind before looking at the figures.
 
Last edited:
.
Not disagreeing. I have nothing to thank the US for, in other words, since you do everything in your own interests.
Yes, but in that bargain Pakistan benefited as well, which wouldn't have been possible otherwise, so there's certainly that to be thankful for. There was after all a reason why the Pakistani leaders were clamoring for US patronage after independence.

roadrunner said:
I'd disagree with that.

The US Pakistani relationship has been always about interests rather than economics. Economics have been important, but most importantly the US saw the Indians lurch for the Soviet Union early on. Had the Indians extended its branch to the US, they'd have taken it, leaving Pakistan for the Soviet Union.

In that case, it would have been India with all thw F-16s and Pakistan with the MiG-29s. The client-patron relationship is as a result of these political interests.
The economic relationship never took off because nothing worthwhile ever came out of Pakistan. The US is/was always on the lookout for mutually beneficial economic relationships and had high hopes for Pakistan through the 50s as potentially being a stable nation which could make significant contributions to the western controlled economy. But that didn't happen. Industry within Pakistan never took of despite multiple tries (and hasn't to this day), and the USA is not to blame. Pakistan's initial approach to the US was for the most part a disconnected tri-arm approach in which Ayub Khan won out. Subsequently most of the emphasis was put on military assistance with a strategic mindset. The US was also unhappy with how the civil aid was being fettered away and were constantly worried about military aid sought under the banner of the anti-communist threat being directed at India (Shuja Nawaz: "Crossed Swords") Eventually all faith was lost and despite occasional episodes of self deception for ad-hoc purposes, the trust worthiness of Pakistan's leadership and its industrial potential have always remained abysmally low.

Also, I don't think you really know the details of the Indo-US relations. Nehru didn't go rushing for the Soviets as a foil to the US. He was a staunch NAM supporter; which unlike the US was a stance the Soviet Union respected since he took over as PM in 1947.

Nehru initially favored the US by a long shot; other than the obvious affinity for a large democratic government he admired the liberal technocratic and industrious nature of American society which had brought about significant wealth thereby enabling them to attain a high standard of living (Jawaharlal Nehru: "The Discovery of India"). But his 1949 visit yielded in nothing of substance given the impasse over the support for the impending Korean war which had ticked off Truman. Also, the US leadership was for some reason convinced that Nehru had come to ask for their patronage; his not having done so in addition to his "non subservient affect" enraged many in the US diplomatic and policy cadres (especially an up and comer Republican Richard Nixon and a rising analyst Kissinger). After Nixon became VP under Eisenhower the US-India relationship tanked and the NAM was suddenly projected as a pro-Soviet position. Nixon was also extremely impressed with the Pakistani delegations who had from the outset presented themselves in the manner he desired. (Shuja Nawaz has made references to these events his book as well).

India as a matter of national policy had no intention of being a client state (essentially because it is logistically impossible), so the F-16s were out of the question. And contrary to what many (including the USA circa 1953-1991) believe(d), India unlike the iron curtain states was never a Soviet vassal given the obvious contradictory political/philosophical systems and the elaborate economic mechanism which guided their relationship (I have addressed this issue and listed the sources in other threads) .

roadrunner said:
Bull. Pakistan was sanctioned by the US upon demonstrating atomic power. That is not the mark of someone allowing the other to get away with something. The Canadians provided Pakistan's first atomic reactor, but this was not anything like ToT.
Reagan lied to congress a record number of times claiming that Pakistan wasn't trying to obtain nuclear weapons despite having insurmountable evidence to the contrary. He also knew that a large chunk of the program was being financed by siphoning off funds meant for Afghanistan, but said nothing because he didn't mind Pakistan having latitude provided they helped fight the Soviets. He also made sure the CIA warned Pakistan of India's plans to hit Kahuta and threatened direct military intervention if the IAF did strike Pakistan's officially non existent nuclear infrastructure. Please read the book I have referred to above, it goes into excruciating detail about how Pakistan's nuclear program directly benefited from the US' voluntary inaction.

What is important to understand is that being a US vassal as a fledgling state isn't necessarily always a bad thing. Had Pakistan used US capital to build civilian institutions which would have then driven their social and industrial growth further attracting more investment and capital to establish a cycle of prosperity, it would be a whole different situation today. South Korea serves well as an example. And this could have certainly been achieved through sensible priority setting, wise allocation of resources and strong leadership. But again this didn't happen and the US is not solely at blame.

The same goes with the rampant and virulent Islamization in Pakistan. This is what the Pakistani leadership wanted probably in the hopes of turning it into a binding factor in an otherwise fractional society and most of all to counter India's superior military might. Saudi and the other Arab states were matching the US funds dollar for dollar and took a greater lead in the Islamization process at Zia's behest (Steve Coll: Ghost Wars).

So while I'm not denying the negative role the US has played in this mess the onus eventually falls on to Pakistan (as it does for every developing nation) where there has always been the propensity to voluntarily make industrial quantities of bad decisions in pursuit of phantasmagoric short term gains and then categorically blame everything on the US while still expecting timely financial handouts.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom