Oops, yes.
Well, in the broader strategic sense their ultimate goal was to beat back, suppress, crush any rise of a separate political identity among East Pakistan Muslims; the Hindu population probably seen as a factor reinforcing a Bengali cultural identity.
But for sure that part of it was what we now call Ethnic Cleansing (BTW has EC been formally classed as a war crime/CAH on its own right?), something not entirely alien to the region’s history. Ethnic Cleansing does melt into genocide across not always sharp lines, lying in the space between “Let’s get this identifiable People out of our way somehow” and “Let’s make them cease to exist”. I don’t doubt that to those being “cleansed” it feels like genocide (am reminded of the thread we had recently about the relocation of the Cherokee).
And they aren’t the main rebel group, which the FSA is.
Indeed, it was that thread that prompted my post. In the case of Bangladesh, I don’t know enough to be dogmatic, but everything I’ve read points in the direction of Ethnic Cleansing instead of Genocide. As you note, the boundaries between the terms aren’t rigid nor bright nor absolute.
That is a pretty rosy prediction. Neither army was at the end of its strength at that point and while India certainly had the better of things overall, the advantage on the ground in the west was not huge. And it wasn’t just the U.S. applying pressure - China was a key Pakistani ally as well ( meanwhile the the Soviets were backing up India, hence in part American agitation ).
Pakistan lost big in 1971, but that tally was mostly due to the disaster in the east. In the west it was bleeding, but wasn’t even close to collapse. And the Indian commanders in the west weren’t exactly advancing aggressively. Stalemate followed by political settlement was probably always in the cards.
Pakistan’s air force and navy were completely destroyed, india could aerial bombard their military headquater at will, India could have taken over costal cities like Karachi with the help of navy, their Karachi port was burning they would have ran out of fuel soon, their 90k PoWs were in India’s custody. After a week or two of more fighting, west pak also would have surrendered.
^ main reason was - due to western pressure, India went to the war with the aim of liberating east pak. If they’d gone in with aim of settling Kashmir also, then west would have got an excuse to attack India.
Those words are not mine. Those are Putin’s words, so they carry weight. And even if al nusra were no. 2, it doesn’t make much difference.al Qaeda is as harmful for people , esp. non-sunnis, of Syria as it is for people of America.
And Putin also happens to be Assad’s no. 1 supporter. I’m sure he is a totally non-biased and objective observer on the Syria issue. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
And america is saudi supporter, how are they unbiased and objective? Most of the rest of the world and most of american citizens are against any intervention except humanitarian int.
I’m sure you know that India and it’s history are of great interest to me; you may not know that Nixon-era politics is also a particular interest of mine (I’m very well informed about Watergate, for instance). I have The Blood Telegram on order already and would be very interested in discussing it once I’ve had a chance to read it.
I knew you liked metal, Bo but I should have remembered that most serious metalheads tend to have eclectic interests 
I look forward to your comments on the book!