Comments by "" (@manofsan) on "CaspianReport" channel.

  1. Shirwan, your analysis and retelling of the story is completely false and propagandist. I have totally lost faith in your objectivity and professionalism. You are telling the story from a Pakistani point of view, literally depending on false information provided by Pakistan. Your commentary was complete propaganda. Jinnah was not motivated by Junagadh or Hyderabad - the conflict over Hyderabad only broke out after after the Kashmir conflict did, and was resolved after the Kashmir ceasefire. Furthermore, the "Muslim nobleman" ruling Hyderabad had already started massacring many Hindus using his Razakar army. The Kashmir issue is driven by the Durand Line (so-called Afghan-Pak "border"). During the period of British rule, they had conquered part of the Pashtun lands through imperial war, and these conquered areas were constantly rebelling against British control. After independence and partition, the new state of Pakistan inherited those Pashtun lands and their ethnic nationalist unrest. When Kashmir decided to go the route of becoming an independent state, Pakistan leader Jinnah was terrified that the Pashtuns would quickly follow suit and pursue independence for themselves, and so he decided to kill 2 birds with one stone by despatching the Pashtun tribal militias to attack Kashmir, on the pretext that "Islam was in danger". It's important to understand that the decision by Kashmir to go the route of being an independent state was undertaken by mutual agreement between "Hindu nobleman" Maharaja Hari Singh and Muslim political leader Sheikh Abdullah. After Pakistan invaded Kashmir using the Pashtun militias (forerunners of today's Taliban), both the "Hindu nobleman" Hari Singh and Sheikh Abdullah signed the Instrument of Accession to India - both of them, not one of them. India has held numerous elections in Kashmir over the decades, without incident or problems. It's only once the US began backing Pakistan closely during the Afghan War against the Soviets, while turning a blind eye as Pakistan nuclearized itself, that Pakistan became bold enough to pursue an intense insurgency strategy against India. Pakistan backed insurgency not only inside Kashmir but also in other parts of India, including the Indian state of Punjab which it destabilized first before doing the same in Kashmir. Once again, to repeat - the root of all of Pakistan's conflicts with neighbors lies in the Durand Line (so-called Afghan-Pak "border") and its unsustainability. Pakistan equally pursues a policy of destabilization and insurgency in Afghanistan, just as it does in India. Both of these insurgency wars in Afghanistan and Indian Kashmir are the legacy of US support to Pakistan during the 1980s for the purpose of bleeding and defeating the Soviet Union.
    69
  2. 62
  3. 34
  4. 31
  5. 27
  6. 23
  7. 23
  8. 21
  9. 18
  10. 16
  11. 16
  12. 15
  13. 15
  14. 12
  15. 11
  16. 11
  17. 10
  18. 9
  19. 9
  20. 9
  21. 9
  22. 9
  23. 9
  24. 9
  25. 8
  26. 8
  27. 8
  28. 8
  29. 7
  30. 7
  31. 7
  32. 7
  33. 6
  34. 6
  35. 6
  36. 6
  37. 6
  38. 5
  39. 5
  40. 5
  41. 5
  42. 5
  43. 5
  44. 5
  45. 5
  46. 5
  47. 5
  48. 5
  49. 5
  50. 4
  51. 4
  52. 4
  53. 4
  54. 4
  55. 4
  56. 4
  57. 4
  58. 3
  59. 3
  60. 3
  61. 3
  62. 3
  63. 3
  64. 3
  65. 3
  66. 3
  67. 3
  68. 3
  69. 3
  70. 3
  71. 3
  72. 3
  73. 3
  74. 3
  75. 3
  76. 3
  77. 3
  78. 3
  79. 3
  80. 3
  81. 3
  82. 3
  83. 3
  84. 3
  85. 2
  86. 2
  87. 2
  88. 2
  89. 2
  90. 2
  91. 2
  92. 2
  93. 2
  94. 2
  95. 2
  96. 2
  97. 2
  98. 2
  99. 2
  100. 2
  101. 2
  102. 2
  103. 2
  104. 2
  105. 2
  106. 2
  107. 2
  108. 2
  109. 2
  110. 2
  111. 2
  112. 2
  113. 2
  114. 2
  115. 2
  116. 2
  117. 2
  118. 2
  119. 2
  120. 2
  121. 2
  122. 2
  123. 2
  124. 2
  125. 2
  126. 2
  127. 2
  128. 2
  129. 2
  130. 2
  131. 2
  132. 2
  133. 2
  134. 2
  135. 2
  136. 2
  137. 2
  138. 2
  139. 2
  140. 2
  141. 2
  142. 2
  143. 2
  144. 2
  145. 2
  146. 2
  147. 2
  148. 2
  149. 2
  150. 2
  151. 2
  152. 2
  153. 2
  154. 2
  155. 2
  156. 2
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. ***** you Russophobes keep oscillating between contradictory arguments. On the one hand you typically claim that Putin is an expansionist dictator who is unpopular at home. Then on the other hand, you say that Russians are actually in love with Putin and his expansionism, and this is all very popular among Russians. Please make up your mind on which fiction you wish to peddle - they both can't work at the same time, because they're contradictory. I sense that you want to trot out a cocktail of different arguments, and then switch between them regardless of the lack of internal consistency. I don't think you Socialist One Worlders will succeed in subverting either American national sovereignty or anyone else's, because local people know better than to be sucked in by your claptrap. I also see that you want to adopt the methods of your alleged enemies - you want to create socialist dictatorship in America and steer it into war against your hated Russian enemy, whom you also imagine to be a socialist dictatorship. Nobody wants to be hijacked by you and your socialist jihad. Just remember - Stalin himself was a minority, and that's why he committed so many abuses, since he was trying to build up his massive dictatorship state to impose his will on larger ethnic groups that he himself traditionally saw as threatening to himself. Obama the minority has sought to do the same in America, treating the bulk of the American population as his adversaries - like a Tail Which Wants to Wag the Dog.
    1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. 1
  247. 1
  248. 1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. 1
  269. 1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. ​ @Filip Tůma - NATO is oriented against Russia. Naturally, Russia will object to such an arrangement. The question is why does NATO continue to exist when the Soviet Union no longer exists? The answer was provided by NATO's original framer, President Eisenhower, who darkly warned of a military-industrial complex which fed off war. So the goal is to treat Russia antagonistically, and when Russia responds in kind, then cite that as justification for hostilities, in a never-ending loop of Cold War. Meanwhile, Biden and his spokesperson Psaki publicly welcome "stiff competition from China". So China's glass is treated as half-full, while Russia's glass is treated as half-empty. Single-minded focus on Russia as a central threat while ignoring the rise of the authoritarian Chinese Communist Party govt, in spite of the fact that China's economy is an order of magnitude larger than Russia's. This lopsided asymmetry is a recipe for disaster. Nixon's overtures to China were meant to contain the Soviets, and helped to make China into the huge economic dragon it is today. I'm reminded of President Theodore Roosevelt's private letters confiding that he had supported Imperial Japanese militarism in order to distract Russia in the Far East. What could go wrong? People found out at Pearl Harbor. Later, Carter's National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski thought it would be a great idea to support jihadists to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. What could go wrong? People found out on 9-11. Likewise, in the years and months to come, people in Taiwan may find out what else can go wrong, when it comes to current US policies.
    1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. 1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. 1
  289. 1
  290. 1
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1