What's new

When US supported Pak military bloodshed in Bangladesh

r1MM0n

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
More than four decades ago, the Nixon Administration knowingly broke US law to help Pakistani Army against Bangladesh and encouraged China to mass troops on Indian border to oppose the strong stand taken by the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, according to a new book.

In his latest book, Princeton historian Gary Bass ‘The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger and a Forgotten Genocide’ documents how the then US President Richard Nixon and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger supported Pakistan military dictatorship as it brutally quashed the results of a historic free election.

The Pakistani Army launched a crackdown on East Pakistan, killing hundreds of thousands of people and sending ten million refugees fleeing to India one of the worst humanitarian crisis of the 20th century.

The author writes in the latest book, which is scheduled to hit the book market on September 24, how Nixon-Kissinger hated both India and Indira Gandhi and tried their level best to oppose the strong moral stand taken by the then Indian Prime Minister.

Nixon and Kissinger thought in Cold War terms but also indulged in their personal disdain for India and its leader Indira Gandhi, Bass writes in the book, adding that they even secretly encourages China to mass troops on their India border, and illegally supplied weapons to the Pakistani military, all while censoring American officials who dared to speak up.

Based on previously unheard White House tapes, the book gives a fresh insight into the Nixon-Kissinger hatred against Indira Gandhi, and how the then American leadership supported the butchering of innocent people, who dared to speak their voice and vote against Islamabad.

As India under the strong leadership of Indira Gandhi decided to rescue the lives of people of then East Pakistan from the brutality of the Pakistani military, Bass writes in the book, running into nearly 500 pages, that Kissinger proposed three “dangerous” initiatives against India.

“The United States would illegally allow Iran and Jordan to send squadrons of US aircraft to Pakistan, secretly asks China to mass its troops on the Indian border, and deploy a US aircraft carrier group to the Bay of Bengal to threaten India. He urged Nixon to stun India with all three moves simultaneously,” Bass wrote.

As China showed some reluctance in amassing troops on the India border, Bass writes in the book that Nixon argued that “we can’t do this without the Chinese helping us. As I look at this thing, the Chinese have got to move to that damn border. The Indians have got to get a little scared.”

According to Bass, Kissinger agreed, proposing that they notify the Chinese about what Nixon was secretly doing, and tell them of the advantages of China moving some of its soldiers to India’s border.

On secretly supplying military equipment’s to Pakistan, Kissinger told Nixon: “We are the ones who have been operating against our public opinion, against our bureaucracy, at the very edge of legality.”

“That understates it,” Bass writes.

“In fact, to help Pakistan, Nixon and Kissinger knowingly broke US law, and did so with the full awareness of George HW Bush, HR Haldeman, Alexander Haig and others,” Bass said.

Then then Pakistani dictator, General Yahya Khan, on the second day of the war begged for US help, adding “for God’s sake don’t hinder or impede the delivery of equipment from friendly third countries.”

Kissinger told Nixon, “If war does continue, give aid via Iran.”

Nixon was relieved: “Good, at least Pakistan will be kept from being paralysed.”

According to the book, the Shah of Iran agreed to a US request to send Iranian military equipment to Pakistan, with the United States replacing whatever Iran sent.

“Jordan also got a request from Yahya, for eight to ten sophisticated US-made F-104 Starfighter fighter-interceptors. King Hussein seemed keen to move his squadrons, but, fearing congressional wrath, did not want to act without express approval. When he nervously asked the US embassy in Amman for advice, the diplomats balked,” the book says.

“Kissinger noted with exasperation that these US officials were lecturing the king of Jordan that it would be immoral to get involved in a faraway war; these diplomats had not conceived of the last-ditch possibility of using Iran and Jordan to provide US weapons to the tottering Pakistani military,” it said.

All this while, both the Pentagon and the State Department officials told both Nixon and Kissinger that this was against the US law.

But both were determined to pursue their course of action.

“The question is when an American ally is being raped, whether or not the US should participate in enforcing a blockade our ally, when the other side is getting Soviet aid,” Kissinger said on December 8.

Nixon was the 37th President of the United States, serving from 1969 to 1974.

When US supported Pak military bloodshed in Bangladesh | idrw.org
 
.
In next war both US and Russia will help us! Irony is divine! :chilli:
 
. .
In the "next war", 100's of nukes will burn the sub-continent. Moronity is sublime.

India is one step ahead. The "next war" is being fought within Pakistan by Pakistanis to weaken the Pakistani state from within. India simply watches from the sidelines.

Since Pakistan got nukes, it is fighting a war that cannot be fought or won with nukes - a war with itself.
 
.
India is one step ahead. The "next war" is being fought within Pakistan by Pakistanis to weaken the Pakistani state from within. India simply watches from the sidelines.

Since Pakistan got nukes, it is fighting a war that cannot be fought or won with nukes - a war with itself.

And the war which Pakistan is winning and gaining experience. Just look around there is still a country called Pakistan which you guys claimed many many times it will not last. We will be here till Allah's will. We have survived during Soviet Era and now Bald Eagle Era. Means we are the Ultimate Survivors we adapt, Survive and come at top.

And the border skirmishes send you signal that we mean business our tank is still full. We are improvising our Deadly Toys just in case we have to play with you guys.

So please keep your threats with you.
 
.
And the war which Pakistan is winning and gaining experience. Just look around there is still a country called Pakistan which you guys claimed many many times it will not last. We will be here till Allah's will. We have survived during Soviet Era and now Bald Eagle Era. Means we are the Ultimate Survivors we adapt, Survive and come at top.

And the border skirmishes send you signal that we mean business our tank is still full. We are improvising our Deadly Toys just in case we have to play with you guys.

So please keep your threats with you.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...itary-bloodshed-bangladesh.html#ixzz2eZ9p8015
Oh you guys gain experience by killing your own people? great such very sound doctrine.... keep it up.
 
. .
And the war which Pakistan is winning and gaining experience. Just look around there is still a country called Pakistan which you guys claimed many many times it will not last. We will be here till Allah's will. We have survived during Soviet Era and now Bald Eagle Era. Means we are the Ultimate Survivors we adapt, Survive and come at top.

And the border skirmishes send you signal that we mean business our tank is still full. We are improvising our Deadly Toys just in case we have to play with you guys.

So please keep your threats with you.

I never said Pakistan will die. The question is, in what state does it live? As long as it lives in constant war with itself, bloodshed and civil strife, it poses no threat to India.

On the other hand there are so many Pakistanis who keep claiming that India will be divided into many pieces, Bengalis and tamilians and gujratis won't hold together, blah blah....And yet India has held together since independence (and even added new territories), while pak has already broken up into two, because religion was not as good a unifying factor as territorial integrity.

BTW, with the soviet era and bald eagle era,you make it sound as if Pakistan was directly waging war against the soviet union or USA. Neither of which is true. A few Pakistanis went to fight Afghanistan's war, and ended up with a huge afghan refugee problem and kalshnikov culture and the odious Taliban. And today, the USA helps take out some Pakistani terrorists using drones. If USA or even Russia waged war with you, you won't exist. One Virginia class submarine can lay waste to the entire country of Pakistan. What is happening today is a mutual relationship with USA, although Pakistanis may like to pretend that they are warring against the superpower.

My statements were not a threat. It was an observation of reality. Pakistan is in no position to wage war against India, a few beheadings on the border notwithstanding. Pakistan will never be able to steal Indian Kashmir or even make a move in that direction, as long as Pakistan is at war with itself. And by the looks of it, Pakistan will be at war with itself for a long time to come.

So yes, Pakistan will continue to live. But live in such a pitiable state of existence that it is no threat to anybody but its own people. And you should disabuse yourself of the notion that India wants to see Pakistan disintegrate. It is quite the opposite today, India wants a weak Pakistani state to exist, so as to serve as a buffer from the godforsaken lands to its west. We don't want Pakistan collapsing, and all the afghan and Arab warlords taking over. The present scenario is the best one for India - a Pakistan that is too weak to pose any threat to Indian interests, but strong enough to prevent the perpetual conflicts of arabs and afghans and Persians from coming to our doorstep. A buffer state to shield us never ending conflicts of Islamic warlords in central and west asia.

The best possible arrangement for us.
 
.
I never said Pakistan will die. The question is, in what state does it live? As long as it lives in constant war with itself, bloodshed and civil strife, it poses no threat to India.

On the other hand there are so many Pakistanis who keep claiming that India will be divided into many pieces, Bengalis and tamilians and gujratis won't hold together, blah blah....And yet India has held together since independence (and even added new territories), while pak has already broken up into two, because religion was not as good a unifying factor as territorial integrity.

BTW, with the soviet era and bald eagle era,you make it sound as if Pakistan was directly waging war against the soviet union or USA. Neither of which is true. A few Pakistanis went to fight Afghanistan's war, and ended up with a huge afghan refugee problem and kalshnikov culture and the odious Taliban. And today, the USA helps take out some Pakistani terrorists using drones. If USA or even Russia waged war with you, you won't exist. One Virginia class submarine can lay waste to the entire country of Pakistan. What is happening today is a mutual relationship with USA, although Pakistanis may like to pretend that they are warring against the superpower.

My statements were not a threat. It was an observation of reality. Pakistan is in no position to wage war against India, a few beheadings on the border notwithstanding. Pakistan will never be able to steal Indian Kashmir or even make a move in that direction, as long as Pakistan is at war with itself. And by the looks of it, Pakistan will be at war with itself for a long time to come.

So yes, Pakistan will continue to live. But live in such a pitiable state of existence that it is no threat to anybody but its own people. And you should disabuse yourself of the notion that India wants to see Pakistan disintegrate. It is quite the opposite today, India wants a weak Pakistani state to exist, so as to serve as a buffer from the godforsaken lands to its west. We don't want Pakistan collapsing, and all the afghan and Arab warlords taking over. The present scenario is the best one for India - a Pakistan that is too weak to pose any threat to Indian interests, but strong enough to prevent the perpetual conflicts of arabs and afghans and Persians from coming to our doorstep. A buffer state to shield us never ending conflicts of Islamic warlords in central and west asia.

The best possible arrangement for us.


What are you saying this is Blasphemey
You Hindu Baniya you will be punished for committing this crime
Just wait till Zaid Hamid lends me one of his horse you are gonna be in trouble
 
.
More than four decades ago, the Nixon Administration knowingly broke US law to help Pakistani Army against Bangladesh and encouraged China to mass troops on Indian border to oppose the strong stand taken by the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, according to a new book.

In his latest book, Princeton historian Gary Bass ‘The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger and a Forgotten Genocide’ documents how the then US President Richard Nixon and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger supported Pakistan military dictatorship as it brutally quashed the results of a historic free election.

The Pakistani Army launched a crackdown on East Pakistan, killing hundreds of thousands of people and sending ten million refugees fleeing to India one of the worst humanitarian crisis of the 20th century.

The author writes in the latest book, which is scheduled to hit the book market on September 24, how Nixon-Kissinger hated both India and Indira Gandhi and tried their level best to oppose the strong moral stand taken by the then Indian Prime Minister.

Nixon and Kissinger thought in Cold War terms but also indulged in their personal disdain for India and its leader Indira Gandhi, Bass writes in the book, adding that they even secretly encourages China to mass troops on their India border, and illegally supplied weapons to the Pakistani military, all while censoring American officials who dared to speak up.

Based on previously unheard White House tapes, the book gives a fresh insight into the Nixon-Kissinger hatred against Indira Gandhi, and how the then American leadership supported the butchering of innocent people, who dared to speak their voice and vote against Islamabad.

As India under the strong leadership of Indira Gandhi decided to rescue the lives of people of then East Pakistan from the brutality of the Pakistani military, Bass writes in the book, running into nearly 500 pages, that Kissinger proposed three “dangerous” initiatives against India.

“The United States would illegally allow Iran and Jordan to send squadrons of US aircraft to Pakistan, secretly asks China to mass its troops on the Indian border, and deploy a US aircraft carrier group to the Bay of Bengal to threaten India. He urged Nixon to stun India with all three moves simultaneously,” Bass wrote.

As China showed some reluctance in amassing troops on the India border, Bass writes in the book that Nixon argued that “we can’t do this without the Chinese helping us. As I look at this thing, the Chinese have got to move to that damn border. The Indians have got to get a little scared.”

According to Bass, Kissinger agreed, proposing that they notify the Chinese about what Nixon was secretly doing, and tell them of the advantages of China moving some of its soldiers to India’s border.

On secretly supplying military equipment’s to Pakistan, Kissinger told Nixon: “We are the ones who have been operating against our public opinion, against our bureaucracy, at the very edge of legality.”

“That understates it,” Bass writes.

“In fact, to help Pakistan, Nixon and Kissinger knowingly broke US law, and did so with the full awareness of George HW Bush, HR Haldeman, Alexander Haig and others,” Bass said.

Then then Pakistani dictator, General Yahya Khan, on the second day of the war begged for US help, adding “for God’s sake don’t hinder or impede the delivery of equipment from friendly third countries.”

Kissinger told Nixon, “If war does continue, give aid via Iran.”

Nixon was relieved: “Good, at least Pakistan will be kept from being paralysed.”

According to the book, the Shah of Iran agreed to a US request to send Iranian military equipment to Pakistan, with the United States replacing whatever Iran sent.

“Jordan also got a request from Yahya, for eight to ten sophisticated US-made F-104 Starfighter fighter-interceptors. King Hussein seemed keen to move his squadrons, but, fearing congressional wrath, did not want to act without express approval. When he nervously asked the US embassy in Amman for advice, the diplomats balked,” the book says.

“Kissinger noted with exasperation that these US officials were lecturing the king of Jordan that it would be immoral to get involved in a faraway war; these diplomats had not conceived of the last-ditch possibility of using Iran and Jordan to provide US weapons to the tottering Pakistani military,” it said.

All this while, both the Pentagon and the State Department officials told both Nixon and Kissinger that this was against the US law.

But both were determined to pursue their course of action.

“The question is when an American ally is being raped, whether or not the US should participate in enforcing a blockade our ally, when the other side is getting Soviet aid,” Kissinger said on December 8.

Nixon was the 37th President of the United States, serving from 1969 to 1974.

When US supported Pak military bloodshed in Bangladesh | idrw.org



1971 Indo -Pakistan conflict that hinged on Bangladesh liberation is one of the most blatant example of how US has committed blunders in past . frankly speaking it is a great embarrassment to US . US has always tried to dictate terms to rest of the world based on its priorities and interests . It tried to change the course of 1971 war by pressurizing India . Any other Indian PM would have immediately bowed to American threat but thanks to Madam Indira Gandhi who showed great guts to take this war to its logical conclusion despite hostile world around it !

American stance during this war is also quintessential example of the fact that US foreign policy is not neither institutionalized nor guided by Principles as it claims but largely Personality driven .

Funny to hear Obama say that, "US is not world's Police but our principles are at stake ..."

while fact is that US has always acted like Bully Police and hardly ever cared for principles ....


Syria crisis: Obama blends threat of attack, hope of diplomacy - The Times of India



This is what I say is the magnificent example of Grand Hypocrisy of US administration .
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom