Comments by "" (@manofsan) on "CaspianReport"
channel.
-
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
-
62
-
34
-
31
-
27
-
23
-
23
-
21
-
18
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@8:36 - Your explanation is poor and contrived. China doesn't fear Tibet being converted into an Indian military base. India historically never sought to occupy Tibet, as India was mainly just a bunch of kingdoms feuding with each other internally. It was China's invasion of Tibet in the 1950s which suddenly gave China a border with India. The reality is that China invaded Tibet because Mao's "Great Leap Forward" social experiment failed badly and caused mass famine. Anytime Beijing has run into difficulties at home, it has responded by pushing out westwards. This is what happened when China invaded Tibet in the 1950s, and this is also what has more recently been repeated with China's new Belt & Road Initiative. In both cases, India did nothing to precipitate China's actions. China invaded Tibet in the 1950s because Mao's "Great Leap Forward" failed, and then China later came up with the Belt-&-Road Initiative because of America's pushback against China's unfair trading practices. In both of these situations, China has sought to push out westwards, and in neither case has India been the cause of China's actions, but merely the recipient of them. From the Indian viewpoint, China is a wanton bully, and they're only going to keep pushing until someone else pushes back.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You sound like an expansionist. Are you hoping to push the Russians east of Vladivostok?
After the dissolution of the USSR & Warsaw Pact, NATO too should have been dissolved. Instead, pushing it farther east up to Russian borders has only led to the revival of the Cold War that was NATO's bread & butter in the first place. Many top American experts, including Henry Kissinger, George Kennan, Robert Gates, Stephen Cohen, John Mearsheimer, etc have warned that continual NATO expansion eastward would provoke war with Russia. Their advice was ignored, and war has inevitably occurred. I notice that Finland's govt is avoiding holding a referendum on NATO membership, and is making its decision to apply an act of fiat. So much for "democracy" under NATO.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1