Vietnam war went for more than a decade, Bangladesh for 8-9 months. I thought you were at least partially serious. But now it seems that you are just grabbing anything to argue. These two wars, aren't comparable!

If anything, it looks like you're the one who's looking to argue. Okay, so the civil war in (what is now) Bangladesh lasted far less than the Vietnam war, that's completely irrelevant, unless you honestly think that just because a war lasts longer it means more people should die - do you?

You call it a genocide (yet you haven't proved it yet - and the fact that there's a Wikipedia article titled such doesn't prove sh*t, anyone can make an article on Wikipedia, and I feel /u/Cs-133 has already given reason enough as to why it wasn't).

What would you say the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were? The US killed an estimated 129,000 - 246,000+ (150,000 - 200,000 according to UCLA) people in just 2 days. Would you call that an apocalyptic genocide? Let's not forget than of people who didn't died die, many ended up suffering from mutations due to the radioactivity the bombs left behind (including the offspring of the victims).

By your logic, which seems to be that more deaths can only be justified by a longer war, let's ignore the 26,000 figure for the Bangladesh civil war and take the maximum 3M figure claimed by the Bangladeshi government, if America managed to kill over 100,000 people in 2 days, then surely you must think that the amount of people (combatants and non-combatants alike) who died in the civil war is relatively small?

I don't know what your agenda is, but I hope people aren't misled by the BS you're saying.