Youtube comments of (@manofsan).
-
2700
-
1800
-
1700
-
1700
-
1600
-
1500
-
1000
-
955
-
934
-
843
-
792
-
790
-
772
-
760
-
739
-
718
-
613
-
601
-
595
-
578
-
532
-
532
-
493
-
465
-
454
-
411
-
407
-
404
-
402
-
397
-
388
-
378
-
370
-
367
-
361
-
359
-
355
-
I've met Jagmeet Singh personally and shaken hands with him when he visited a gurdwara. He's literally the dumbest guy in Canadian politics. He's a martial arts enthusiast who somehow got a law degree. When you see him talk about Canadian problems like the economy, he offers only the dumbest and most simple-minded answers, like "we'll just tax the rich and use their money to pay for our agenda". He has a friendly personal style, but is very dumb and ignorant. He publicly wallows in his personal sense of victimhood, like how he was molested as a teenager by his martial arts instructor. He's embraced this far-left "woke" politics, where they pander to every single fringe vote bank, including transsexuals, and ignore mainstream political needs.His political party, the NDP have gone out of their way to make him their leader, because they've now decided that vote bank politics is the only future for their far-left party, since they have no answer for the problems of citizens, and have been steadily losing popular support. Because of his low intelligence, unsurprisingly he knows very little about India, other than what his left-wing coterie feed him.
351
-
350
-
342
-
335
-
312
-
301
-
284
-
281
-
272
-
269
-
247
-
239
-
238
-
237
-
235
-
229
-
227
-
225
-
225
-
215
-
211
-
206
-
204
-
196
-
191
-
184
-
178
-
173
-
169
-
168
-
167
-
166
-
160
-
160
-
157
-
154
-
152
-
146
-
144
-
143
-
143
-
142
-
142
-
142
-
141
-
141
-
140
-
138
-
138
-
134
-
133
-
130
-
127
-
126
-
124
-
122
-
120
-
119
-
118
-
117
-
116
-
114
-
114
-
114
-
113
-
112
-
107
-
107
-
105
-
104
-
104
-
104
-
103
-
101
-
100
-
99
-
99
-
98
-
97
-
97
-
97
-
97
-
96
-
94
-
94
-
94
-
93
-
93
-
92
-
92
-
89
-
88
-
88
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
84
-
83
-
82
-
81
-
80
-
80
-
79
-
78
-
78
-
77
-
77
-
75
-
74
-
74
-
72
-
72
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
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
-
69
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
62
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
Overthrow of Bangladesh PM was indeed a US-sponsored regime change, maidan-style. Had less to do with China, and more to do with putting India in its place, after Modi's recent trip to Russia. Washington doesn't like India tipping the balance in favour of the other side, and feels India needs to be locally counter-balanced by a hostile Bangladesh. Students started protesting over hiring quota laws, and so the PM removed the quotas. But the courts, which aren't controlled by the PM, strangely decided to reinstate them and that brought the protesters back into the streets. PM petitioned the courts to reverse their decision, but in the meantime the protests got violent and so did the police response, and they started calling for the PM's resignation. She then fled the country yesterday for India, which she has very friendly ties with. It may no longer be possible for Indo-US ties to have a good future because of this. US & UK have both simultaneously announced they're withdrawing visas to Hasina, to prevent her from living in exile with them.
The last time India and the US clashed over Bangladesh was during its 1971 war of independence, when US & British fleets sailed into the Bay of Bengal, and China began a military buildup on the border with India. Moscow then ordered its own fleet into the area and began its own military buildup on its border with China to warn them all off. If they hadn't done that, millions would have died, and India would have been disintegrated. To this day, that timely intervention by Moscow is always cited by Indians as proof of why Russia will always be a better friend to India than the USA.
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
🧐 And a dig at US/West too, since they always preferred military banana republic flunkies who were more obedient, in contrast to democracies which were more outspoken and messier to deal with. We need to revive NAM, even if under a new name. We helped co-found NAM originally to build solidarity against being co-opted into Cold War games by the larger powers. After USSR & Warsaw Pact dissolved, US didn't dissolve NATO but told India that NAM was no longer needed, claiming there was no longer anything for India to be non-aligned in relation to. But now that the US has gotten all it wanted, with NAM now all but defunct, the US and its undying Cold War institutions have inevitably succeeded in bringing back the Cold War again. America's Euro-centrist Atlanticist Cold Warriors have climbed back into power in Washington mainly by riding on the back of Left-wing politics as their quickest route to power. So ironically, they've used minorities ("People of Colour") as their primary Vote Bank & footsoldiers, in order to put themselves in the driver's seat and pursue Euro-centrist foreign policy goals that marginalize non-white countries, especially those in Asia (How very colonial of them!) So there's a basic contradiction there that's unsustainable, but nevertheless aggressively indulged in by the self-indulgent Atlanticist lobby, who will pursue it to the hilt for as long as they can get away with it.
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
Kashmir is already part of India, having merged with it back in 1947, and Article 370 was introduced in 1954 as a "temporary and transitional" law. Modi isn't an extremist and has overwhelming support all over India for the removal of the 370 law. Imran Khan is neither a moderate nor elected, he was installed by Pakistan's military after it got the previous serving Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif arrested to oust him from power.
Kashmir joined India in 1947, yet Article 370 was created in 1954 -- what happened in between? Something happened right next to Kashmir -- the Chinese invasion of Tibet. The whole reason the "temporary and transitional" Article 370 was even created at all, was after US Ambassador to India, Adlai Stevenson tried in mid-1953 to instigate a key local Kashmiri political leader into declaring independence from India. The US was hoping to use an independent Kashmir as a launchpad for activity against Chinese control over Tibet. The Chinese invasion of Tibet is the reason for the creation of Article 370 -- ie. the US wanted to oppose this invasion, and couldn't get India's Nehru to take a stronger stand against it, because Nehru feared a Chinese military backlash. So the US tried to do an end-run around Nehru, hoping that if they could create an independent Kashmir, then it would be more pliable in doing Washington's bidding than much larger India. Note that the US didn't care to do the same on the Pakistan-controlled side of Kashmir, since it had no border with Tibet.
Nehru would never have had to create Article 370, if it weren't for US stuntsmanship on Kashmir. He did it to stave off an imminent US-sponsored independence movement there. India's first Law Minister and author of India's Constitution, Dr B R Ambedkar was famously and vehemently opposed to the creation of Article 370, and refused to even draft the law. Nehru pushed it through anyway, arguing it was a "temporary and transitional" law.
To stave off a US-sponsored independence movement in Kashmir, India's Nehru was forced to do 2 things. He was forced to distort India's constitution by creating Article 370 to give Kashmir special autonomy. He also had to buckle to US pressure in facilitating CIA operations in Tibet. This led to the feared military backlash from China in the form of the 1962 Sino-Indian War over Kashmir, in which thousands of Indians were killed in the fighting after China seized one-fifth of Kashmir's territory. China still holds this fifth of Kashmir even today, and claims it as its own Chinese territory.
China, rather than India or Pakistan, is the most particularly adamant and insistent that Kashmir never be an independent state. China's official position is that in principle Kashmir can go to either India or Pakistan but cannot be an independent country. They're very firm yet very quiet about this, of course - they'd rather let India and Pakistan duke it out, while watching from a more comfortable position.
The 370 law has enshrined discrimination for generations. It codified inferior property rights for women compared to men. It disenfranchised generations of refugees from Pakistan who'd settled in the state since the 1947 partition, as well as the impoverished Hindu Valmikis, none of whom were allowed the right to vote. It gave inferior representation to the nomadic Gujjar Muslims. Even same-sex relationships, which are allowed under the Indian Constitution, were banned in Kashmir. 370 allowed Kashmir to degenerate into a fiefdom under the thumb of a few rich and powerful families in Srinagar who monopolized power and routed money and opportunity to themselves and their cronies. They were even importing in and alotting land to Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar, which is nowhere near Kashmir, running a human trafficking operation through the rest of India's territory.
Modi has now removed this temporary and transitional law, which was an artificially imposed distortion of the Indian Constitution. But you'll claim it's all due to "Hindu extremism" because it fits your caricatured narrative.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
I have nothing against a Muslim being elected mayor, but Sadiq Khan in particular has done things which cause me concern. When hate preacher Rev. Louis Farrakhan was banned from entering Britain, Sadiq Khan campaigned for overturning the ban. Khan has also provided legal defense to various Islamists charged with terrorism, including one held at Guantanamo - I've never seen him do anything similar for skinheads, or the IRA, etc - he only does it for his own co-religionists. The mosque he prays at in his home district of Tooting has been mired in controversies relating to promoting intolerance against others sects of Islam. Why doesn't Khan dissociate himself from them?
Trump already says he's got nothing against Muslims - his only reason for the entry ban is because it's the only way to prevent more San Bernardinos from happening until a better way can be found to detect Islamic terrorists.
Khan feels it's wrong for himself or his fellow Muslims in being prevented from going to Disneyland or studying in the US. Well, why is it that Islam bans us non-Muslims from going to Mecca? If I want to travel to Mecca to take a look, then that's my business and I shouldn't have to justify myself any more than a Muslim who wants to travel to the US to see Disneyland. Why does being tolerant towards Islam always have to turn into a one-way appeasement policy? Why can't Muslims likewise do some introspection on their end, just as they'd like us to do on our end, and then we can all visit each other's cities, instead of it just being a one-way street?
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
LegalEagle - You sound like a political hack spewing sensationalist innuendo, including of the McCarthyite variety. Flynn's alleged lie was not material to any investigation, and Flynn had not committed any crime warranting an investigation to begin with. There was no legal predicate, and the FBI was supposed to have closed down the case. The interview with Flynn was clearly unjustified and illegal, and was the result of a political frame-up. Flynn as the incoming NSA was totally justified in talking to the Russians, as part of Transition of Power. There was no criminal violation being investigated. I'm no fan of Erdogan, but Turkey is a NATO ally, and is not Russia. Flynn was not the victim of a honeytrap, but rather a victim of an Obama-orchestrated FBI trap intended to mask Obama's wrongful surveillance of the Trump campaign for political purposes. Flynn pleaded guilty as a result of plea-bargaining which saved his own son from possible prosecution. The story is back in the news due to revelations about Obama's Jan-5-2017 meeting with AG Yates, FBI director Comey & VP Biden in which he told them about surveillance of Flynn and discussed withholding that info from the incoming Whitehouse administration. Note that Obama's national security officials have all testified under oath that, contrary to their misleading statements to the media they'd seen no evidence of Russia collusion by the Trump campaign. This situation has become a modern day Dreyfuss Affair, and you are unfortunately contributing to muddying the waters about it through your slanted propaganda.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@Anthony Kight - that story was a lie, just a fake rumor which the New York Times pounced on and trumpeted, because they're in the hip pocket of lobbies that need to stoke up hostilities with Russia. Taliban work for Pakistan, which created them. Similarly, when China was dominating the headlines over the Alaska meeting, for retorting back to Biden officials about how the American people didn't see them as a legitimate democratically elected govt, likewise the same media shills tried to change the headlines by cooking up some incident with Russia. George Stephanopoulos interviewed senile Biden and asked him whether Putin was a "killer", using deliberately inflammatory language. Senile Biden meekly replied "yup", and the media shills were all suddenly crowing that "Biden Calls Putin a Killer". Senile Biden was literally an empty vessel whom Stephanopoulos could pour his own words into. Media shills love to play these stupid games, with increasing frequency. This is the stuntsmanship of the ruling elites, which has brought the country and the world to new lows.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Kashmir joined India in 1947. Article 370 of India's constitution was pushed through parliament by Nehru in 1954, over huge objections by many other Indian leaders, with Nehru arguing that it was "temporary and transitional." That law was only created by Nehru as a response to US stuntsmanship. What had happened was that China had invaded Tibet right nextdoor to Kashmir in 1949, which caused the US a lot of concern. The US wanted India to help it oppose China's invasion, but Nehru was standoffish, as he was fearful of a military backlash from China. In mid-1953, US Ambassador to India, Adlai Stevenson, met with local Kashmiri political leader Sheikh Abdullah and promised him lots of aid and support if he declared independence from India. The US wanted to do an end-run around Nehru, believing that a smaller independent Kashmir would be much more pliable to facilitating US operations against China in Tibet, as compared to a much larger India. Note that the US didn't engage in any similar meddling on the Pakistani-controlled side of Kashmir, as it wasn't really adjacent to Tibet. Faced with an imminent US-supported independence campaign, Nehru was forced to propose Article 370 granting Kashmir special autonomy it did not already possess, nor was allowed for other states in the Union of India. Not only was Nehru forced to distort India's constitution with this law, but Nehru also had to agree to facilitate CIA operations in Tibet, which later led to the feared Chinese military response through the 1962 Sino-Indian War over Kashmir, in which thousands of Indian troops were killed in fighting, after China seized one-fifth of Kashmir's territory. China still holds this fifth of Kashmir today, and claims it as its own territory.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@Pedro Daniel - no, China attacked India in 1962 in the same border area. My own father's military unit suffered many casualties in that brief border war, although he was no longer enlisted in the army by then. China has also armed & supported India-hating Pakistan for decades, even proliferating nuclear warheads & missiles to it. You need to understand that Xi Jinping carried out this recent 2020 attack on purpose. He did this because after the COVID virus escaped from his Wuhan lab and caused a global pandemic, he realized that his own position & neck were in jeopardy. He therefore decided to initiate a series of external escalations as diversions. This included an immediate and sudden crackdown on Hong Kong freedoms, aggressive intrusions into the airspace and waters of Taiwan, Philippines and Japan, and of course the border clash with India. Like any dictator, Xi Jinping values his own neck first, and for him soldiers are just sacrificial pawns. He later made speeches praising the sacrifice of Chinese soldiers who were killed in the clash with India. Dictators would rather start wars to rally their people around them, than face the instability and possible wrath of their people over govt bungling that resulted in a man-made pandemic. Xi has made many enemies in his rise to the top of China's power structure, and so he has good reason to fear for his own future, should he lose his apex position at the top.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Muslims aren't a "minority" in India, they are the largest ethnic group in a sea of smaller ethnic groups. It was Middle Easterners who encountered inhabitants near the river Indus, and decided to call them "h-Indus", mispronouncing the name of the river and putting that name onto inhabitants actually encompassing a wide variety of ethnic groups. It's no different than Columbus slapping the name "Indians" onto the various tribes inhabiting North America. So there is no "big bad Hindu majority", in spite of what Muslims and Leftists insist.
But one thing here is that imported MiddleEastern cultures and also Western cultures are starkly different than the various ethnicities/cultures which originated locally. I'm an atheist and a rationalist, and beef is my favourite food. But I don't understand why Muslims insist on eating beef as if their religion commands them to. The thing is that Muslims simply don't like humoring or accommodating the religious sensitivities of others. They want others to accommodate their tastes when they are in the majority - they don't want even the non-Muslims to eat pork, nor do they want non-Muslim women to be without veils. And yet when they are asked to accommodate, they instantly talk about THEIR sensitivities, THEIR nervousness, THEIR feelings, THEIR this and THEIR that.
Well, accommodation and compromise can't always be about just THEM, or only THEIR desires. They need to see the other sides wishes too, but they won't. This amounts to a double standard, and the whole reason this special word "minority" is being constantly rammed down the throats of everyone else, is to create some excuse for justifying double standards. Using this special word "minority" to create a special class of people who can practice double standards and claim special exemptions from reciprocity -- well, that's just not a recipe for a viable society. Society must not be based on double standards, and Muslims must likewise learn to accommodate others even as they ask others for accommodation, rather than quickly trying to keep the conversation exclusively focused on their own sensitivities, feelings and wishes.
Btw, do you ever hear our Indian media talking about "fears and nervousness" of minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh when covering those countries? Never - and it's because those minorities aren't from a religion which the Indian media cares to sympathize with. The way Muslim-majority countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh treat their minorities never seems to prevent our left-leaning Indian media from embracing those countries as our close kin. Again, it's because only when the minority is from a particular religion that the minority deserves sympathy, and when they aren't then they are negligible in the eyes of the media.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Overthrow of Bangladesh PM was indeed a US-sponsored regime change. Had less to do with China, and more to do with putting India in its place, after Modi's recent trip to Russia. Washington doesn't like India tipping the balance in favour of the other side, and feels India needs to be locally counter-balanced by a hostile Bangladesh. Students started protesting over hiring quota laws, and so the PM removed the quotas. But the courts, which aren't controlled by the PM, decided to reinstate them and that brought the protesters back into the streets. PM petitioned the courts to reverse their decision, but in the meantime the protests got violent and so did the police response, and they started calling for the PM's resignation. She then fled the country yesterday for India, with which she has very friendly ties. It may no longer be possible for Indo-US ties to have a good future because of this.
The last time India and the US clashed over Bangladesh was during its war of independence, when US & British fleets sailed into the Bay of Bengal, and China began a military buildup on the border with India. Moscow then ordered its own fleet into the area and began its own military buildup on its border with China to warn them all off. To this day, that timely intervention by Moscow is always cited by Indians as proof of why Russia will always be a better friend to India than the USA. If they hadn't done that, millions would have died, and India wouldn't exist today.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@munstrumridcully the judge never gave reasoning on why it was material, and what it was material to. We do know that Sullivan directly called Flynn a traitor during his preliminary filing, before even having heard the facts of the case. The DOJ has withdrawn the case, and Judge Sullivan has no basis for hearing it. Instead of giving leave, Judge Sullivan has taken the highly dubious unprecedented step of soliciting an Amicus brief to seek justification on whether DOJ's withdrawal is acceptable. The Supreme Court through its very liberal Justice Ginsburg had just a week earlier written its very clear ruling against this very issue of such creative Amicus solicitations. In Ginsburg's own words: "[C]ourts are essentially passive instruments of government … They ‘do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. [They] wait for cases to come to [them], and when [cases arise, courts] normally decide only questions presented by the parties.” Listen to the prescient words of the very liberal Justice Ginsburg, and see their unavoidable meaning. By disregarding the Supreme Court's 9-0 unanimous ruling on this, Judge Sullivan is clearly thumbing his nose at the highest court in the land, while inviting disgrace for himself.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Xi is now deliberately stirring up conflicts all around China's periphery, hoping that one or more of these gambits will pay off with a war. South China Sea, HongKong crackdown, threats against Taiwan, against Australia, now Japan, North Korea, intrusion into Indonesia's waters, seizing Malaysian oil platform, etc, etc. Xi needs war to serve as a distraction and rally the people around his regime. This will help him preserve his position, which he fears is in danger due to unprecedented economic slowdown and worldwide backlash over COVID19.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Look, I've got nothing against someone who wants to do this. After all, your life belongs to you, and you have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. But I find this desire to lower age-of-consent barriers for this, to be a surrender to glandular impulsiveness. These age thresholds exist for a reason, and while youth will always demand lowering of age barriers (I'm sure plenty of 14-year-olds will insist they should be allowed to vote, consume alcohol, etc), these practical limits shouldn't just be changed on a whim. I don't see why teens whose surging hormones always tell them Now-Now-Now should be reflexively catered to, in lieu of forcing them to wait until age of majority, as is the case for all life-altering decisions.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Zelensky was a TV show star who never had actual experience in politics, and then ran for president in 2019, campaigning on a core promise of vowing to end the govt's war on the ethnic Russian separatist Donbass region. But just like in Pakistan, he found that as President he did not have power over the army, which was supporting radical extremist groups who likewise were answerable to nobody. These extremist neo-Nazi militias were only interested in killing Russian minorities and ethnically cleansing them, to establish an ethnically pure Ukrainian state. So just like a Pak leader, Zelensky quietly bowed to Army and its radical militants, and let them continue their war to crush Russian minorities. It's just like Pak army have ties to Lashkar-e-Taiba or Haqqani network, and refuse to break ties or crack down on them. Zelensky loves to pose on TV while shaking his fist at larger nextdoor neighbor Russia, but meanwhile he is scared of his own army and its extremist groups, and cannot stop them from oppressing Russians. Same situation as Pakistan. Both are failed states.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Bomba_drastic - I find your reply to be horribly ignorant, just like Imran Khan himself. I've watched Imran Khan own statements and utterances, and I find the guy to be horribly ignorant. He has no actual experience in governance. Also, very importantly, he's not really the guy in charge - it's the military who are. And now they're stuck with each other, because military doesn't have any alternatives to Imran, to be able to throw him away, like they always do to politicians sooner or later. It's really ridiculous that Imran can shout loudly on Kashmir but then he goes absolutely silent on Uighurs -- it shows naked hypocrisy in front of the world, and things like that are what the world talks about. China will own Pakistan completely sooner or later, and I think that will be best, since Pakistan doesn't want to develop itself, and only wants to travel back toward 7th century.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@da bo - that's not true - you're speaking without knowing what happened, and are spontaneously making things up. I've experienced this problem a lot with Chinese posters. China never gave any ultimatum, they just showed up on the disputed land. Mao wasn't the kind of guy who gave advance notice, he just grabbed things. Whole reason China invaded Tibet is because Mao's reforms failed badly, and caused mass starvation. So he bailed himself out by marching into country nextdoor and saying "it was always ours". Similar thing going on with BRI. China found trade situation challenging with Trump, and so it suddenly decided to march west again, and is now harassing India once more. Now Trump is gone, and suddenly Beijing is much less interested in BRI, and is now interested in cutting deals with Putin. These are all just stunts, and not some wise foolproof plan. If Russia collapses, NATO could be on China's western border, asking Mongolia to join.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Sowmitri Swamy - no, Imran Khan does not deserve automatic citizenship in India, because as a Muslim he already has a country called Pakistan. That's not religious discrimination by us, that's a reflection of reality. Meanwhile, persecuted minorities inside of Pakistan are victims of the partition India helped carry out, and so therefore they are owed remedy by India, which helped put them in the predicament they're in. If I give blood transfusion to someone who has lost blood, and don't give it to someone who hasn't, then you want to craftily call that discrimination. That is a crooked definition by you, and a misapplication of the concept of discrimination. You sound as ridiculous as King Solomon, who declared a baby must be split in 2 halves for each of the disputing parents.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Backhoes can dig ditches faster than we can.
Look, all tools can just amplify what humans do. Cars and planes help us move faster than running on our own. Computers help us calculate faster and do more complicated calculations than we can easily do on our own. AI will just become another tool for us, enabling us to get more work done than we could before. That can mean we can work less hard and accomplish more. AI doesn't have to just work in the back office replacing office workers. AI can operate miles underground, or at the bottom of the sea, or on the surface of the Moon or Mars, or out in the asteroid belt -- because it doesn't need air, water, food, or rest, like we do. So it can be our tool to get all sorts of things done that we couldn't do before. It will still likely always need our supervision, so in the future we can all be management, and the machines will be our peons.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I live abroad, and one of the bigger pro-Khalistani gurudwaras is near where I live, which I occasionally visit just to socialize and enjoy some langar food. Soon after AAP first appeared, all the Khalistanis became very strong AAP supporters, and were wearing AAP badges, and putting up AAP banners, and handing out AAP brochures. They wanted AAP to come to power in Punjab, because they felt it could create space for Khalistan movement to be revived again. This is the reason why AAP decided to campaign in Punjab in particular, because they felt that Khalistani support for them would make the difference. At the gurdwara these days they always have propaganda campaigns for "Referendum 2020" which is an independence vote they want to hold in various gurdwaras to affirm independence for Punjab.
The main thing driving some overseas Sikhs towards Khalistan, is that lesser acceptance of them in their surrounding society means they turn inward, and are easy prey for Khalistan recruitment. It seems like Pakistan is trying to revive Khalistan in order to facilitate Kashmir separatism, which is what Pak did during the 80s also. India needs to put pressure on the govts of foreign countries where Khalistan groups operate out of.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Afghan National Army suffered over 66,000 dead and many more wounded, while US military suffered 2500 dead and over 20,000 wounded -- no small number for either. But they were being forced to fight a war with one arm tied behind their backs. Remember that same phrase being used in war 50 years ago? I'm talking about the Vietnam War, where US military forces fought alongside their local military allies ARVN, against communist insurgents. The problem in both wars was that the insurgents were coming in across the "border" from the country nextdoor. The enemy combatants were likewise being supplied from that country nextdoor. I'm talking about North Vietnam in that war from 50 years ago, and Pakistan in this latest Afghan conflict. Those countries were serving as sanctuaries and staging grounds for the enemy to attack from, and continually regenerate themselves with more manpower and supplies for warfighting. But in both cases, political and military decision-makers in Washington refused to expand the war to include those areas, because they wanted to avoid escalating the war, which allowed the enemy to keep fighting and not be defeated, thus cutting off any path to victory for US and its local partners. Is it any wonder then that ARVN and ANA both folded like a cheap suit when they saw the US withdrawing from their respective conflicts? What if this kind of approach had been taken in WW2? What if the US & Allied powers had sent troops to liberate France, but decision-makers had told those troops that they could not take the fight into German territory, because "it could unnecessarily escalate the war" , "could make the situation messier", "could make the Germans angrier", "and destabilize the situation"? Would the outcome of WW2 in Europe have been the same? I doubt it.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
No, she didn't lie the whole time. She's just using the fiction defense to avoid political prosecution. I'm fine with that - I'd have done the same as her. It's not okay to prosecute Sidney Powell for political reasons, as is being done here, and therefore it's okay for her to deflect this political prosecution by any means necessary, such as claiming she didn't mean it. Let's be clear - Dominion hasn't suffered any "loss of business", it's really political interest groups aligned with the Democrats who are putting up Dominion into suing Powell, in order to silence her political views. Therefore, because of this wrongful politically-motivated litigation, she is entitled to use any defense she finds convenient, including saying the Martians had possessed her body. When you're engaging in dishonest politically-motivated "justice" like Dominion and the Left are, then you're not entitled to honesty from the other side. That's my staunch view. Democrats have declared war, and want to win by hook or by crook, so let them be replied to in kind.
4
-
Hi, regarding India, I just want to clarify: out of a total available 543 parliamentary seats, Modi's BJP got 240, the main opposition Congress Party got 99. Modi's party will lead a governing coalition of 293 seats, while the opposition Congress Party and affiliated parties would have a total of 232 seats. There are some other parties which make up the remainder. Even before these latest elections, while Modi's BJP had an absolute majority, it was still in a coalition govt with the same allied parties, because the BJP prefers to keep other parties out of the hands of the opposition Congress Party. It should be noted that this election saw certain militant secessionists being elected, both in Punjab and adjoining Kashmir -- both states which have been used as pressure points against India in the past. In the mid-1980s, a bloody insurgency by Sikh militants erupted in the Indian state of Punjab, and those insurgents then set the neighboring state of Kashmir on fire, so that Kashmir became afflicted with its own insurgency by radical Muslim jihadists. It's believed that neighboring Pakistan had gone out of its way to support Sikh militants with the goal of using them to set Kashmir on fire nextdoor. Once Kashmir was gripped by insurgency from radical Muslim jihadists, then Pakistan simply discarded the Sikh militants, and put all its support into the insurgency in Kashmir, which it claims as its own.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The arrest should be of those who have perpetrated fraud in the 2020 elections. The 2020 elections were not held according to the same rules, practices and standards of past US elections (2016, 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992). Had the 2020 elections been held to those same past standards, then the result would be accepted by those like me, no matter who won. But because the 2020 electoral vote count is the result of these completely new and unprecedented practices, then it is not credible and will not be accepted.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Out of all panelists, I found Siddartha Varadarajan to be the stupidest. When the other panelists have pointed out the govt simply filed a case, Varadarajan is claiming that the arrest and treatment of Kanhaiya was at the hands of politicians.
As far as BJP-PDP political alliance is concerned, the clear fact is that this alliance only exists because BJP has no other partners through which to pursue governance in the state. The fact is that BJP has to operate within a Congress-created system - a system which allowed PDP and other anti-nationals to flourish. Therefore BJP has to work with the options available. But while PDP crooks have power through elections in Kashmir, this by no means justifies JNU trying to imitate PDP, because JNU and its embedded radicals have no mandate or authority in this regard.
"PDP beats his wife, so I can beat my wife too!"
Such thinking amounts to a Race to the Bottom.
Whether or not Kanhaiya is the right person to arrest is one matter - but I feel that when soldiers are dying for this country at the hands of separatists, it's unacceptable to be rallying in support of their killers or those causes. It amounts to spitting in the faces of those who've died to protect this country and its territorial integrity.
Varadarajan wrongly uses the phrase "patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels" - that phrase refers to those who routinely scorn patriotism but who suddenly profess newfound love for patriotism in furtherance of their own politicail expediency. The BJP and other nationalists are normally on the side of nationalism, and haven't suddenly become nationalists overnight for opportunistic reasons. In short, patriotism and nationalism actually means something to many people in India, whether Varadarajan likes that or not.
BJP hasn't manufactured this incident - they didn't secretly orchestrate these offensive protests. It is the radical protesters themselves who've created this incident.
Crooks like Varadarajan restrict sedition to incitement of violence, but he fails to notice how protesters were calling for war on India ("jang rahegi, jang rahegi").
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Ari Dude - was what the Taliban did about fighting colonialism? Taliban are the instruments of a new colonizer: Pakistan. Taliban were created by Pakistan to colonize and subjugate its neighbor, Afghanistan. The Pakistani military created Taliban, named Taliban, recruited for Taliban, indoctrinated Taliban, armed & trained Taliban, logistically supplied Taliban, funded Taliban, and even orchestrated their battle plans for them. When Taliban fighters get injured, they get treated in hospitals & clinics in Pakistan. Taliban are simply the henchmen of a foreign power. They are not some natural phenomenon native to Afghanistan. Taliban murder Afghans for playing music - but Afghans have been playing their own music for thousands of years, even in rural villages - how are Taliban a native phenomenon? They're not.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I feel that in long run, Bollywood tries to follow Hollywood. Likewise, business for Hollywood has changed. Because of pandemic, movie theatres closed down while home streaming services became much bigger. Even before pandemic, big-budget TV serials like Game of Thrones had already become a big hit, showing that it could eclipse big cinema movies with its success. Many tried to imitate Game of Thrones and failed, because they didn't really understand its formula, which was based on political intrigue. But now lessons have been learned, and there are a number of new hit shows from Hollywood which have reproduced that strong success through better writing. I enjoyed shows like Stranger Things, Cobra Kai, and now Andor. Audiences have become more discriminating, and Bollywood has to improve its offering.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@1:15 - Every presidential library in USA is created and run on private money, and therefore the govt cannot control or change it. But in India, our Congis all sought to use the taxpayer's money to build all sorts of monuments in the name of the Nehru-Gandhis. So if it's under the govt's budget, then it's subject to the govt's control. If you don't want that, then make your monuments with your own money, rather than glorifying yourselves on the backs of the taxpayer. Washington was a much better man than Nehru, because he left office of his own accord, after serving a single term as President of the United States. Nehru, on the other hand, clung to power until his death. Mahatma Gandhi even said the Congress Party should be dissolved after the independence struggle was completed, but of course the power-hungry Nehru wanted to be emperor. Nehru even had the family of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose put under surveillance out of fear that Bose would return -- such was Nehru's jealous desire to guard his own power. Did George Washington ever do anything like that?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
This is a BS allegation. How many Coronavirus outbreaks did Obama, or Bush, or Clinton have to handle? None. So it's ridiculous to judge Trump on something that nobody's ever had to deal with before. Everybody judging here is playing Monday-morning quarterback. Based on what was known, I'd have reacted the same way as Trump: I wouldn't have taken the drastic step of shutting down the economy on just the earliest rumors. Then when the disease picture became more clear, then yes, it was appropriate to shut down the economy, based on the emerging picture. Later on, as the wider implications of shutdown became clear, along with the selectivity of the deaths, then it has indeed become appropriate to want to re-open the economy, while promoting special precautions for those who are especially vulnerable. I think the economy has to be re-opened ASAP, due to the danger to people's livelihoods.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
:face-fuchsia-poop-shape:South Korea doesn't have the ability to arm both Ukraine and itself at the same time. The North is overwhelmingly devoted to arms production, and they've got the bigger weapons - like the ones that can reach US mainland. The more South Korea drains itself to supply Ukraine, the more easily the North will be able to shove them around - and they have a reputation for crazy antics. China can out-produce and out-supply everyone, and they're backing Russia, regardless of US threats. Putin is preparing for a looming fight with a NATO whose escalationism shows no sign of abating. Ukraine is right nextdoor - and it's full of Russians - always has been, that's its history. Western Ukraine was part of Poland, the other half was part of Russia. Both countries referred to their respective halves as their "borderlands". (that's what "Ukraine" means, you can try to lip-flap and deny as much as you want, but those are the facts.) Fastest way to start a fight or a war is to put a knife to someone's throat -- and that's what Victoria Nuland & her NeoCons did when they decided to overthrow the elected govt of Yanuckovitch. Why did they do that? Because Putin blocked them in Syria, where they were trying to overthrow Assad by backing ISIS, etc against him. This was after Nuland & NeoCons overthrew and killed Qadafi, which was after they overthrew and killed Saddam. (Basically, the NeoCons were "trying to make the world safe for Israel" - a crusade they've been on ever since the catastrophic collapse of the Oslo "peace process".) But Putin dared to block the NeoCons in Syria by deplying the Russian military there. So Nuland & NeoCons decided to go after Russia via its sensitive point - Ukraine. They overthrew Yanuckovitch, and the rest is history. Putin has had to invade Ukraine to head off the obvious attempt to destroy Russia. If a hostile anti-American power were to overthrow and install a hostile anti-American govt in Mexico, the United States would invade in a heartbeat. Major powers don't tolerate a knife being put to their throat. The US wouldn't, and neither should Russia.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
No, it's necessary to stand up for the nation. China is not some meek victim, here - they are stirring up conflicts everywhere on their periphery: South China Sea, Scarborough Shoal by Philippines, raiding a Malaysian oil platform, intruding into Indonesian waters, cracking down on HongKong, increasing threats against Taiwan, announcing economic sanctions on Australia, instigating Nepal against India, massing troops on our borders, instigating North Korea to raise tensions with South Korea, and now killing Indian troops. Sorry, but China is not a victim, they are a victimizer. We need to rouse our spirits to fight back, or we will be trampled by them if we're meek.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Maybe what we need is Quad+ in order to give the organization more weight and momentum. We need other countries to be added into the organization, like Vietnam, Philippines, South Korea, Indonesia, etc. After all, those other countries likewise also face threats from China, and not just ourselves, USA, Japan, Australia. NATO is likewise composed of more than just Britain, France, Germany, USA -- there are various other smaller countries too.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@aasthashah5625 No, out of the 2 parties, the Republicans have better internal party democracy, to enable more robust leadership challenges. That's why party outsider Trump was able to take the top leadership spot, as did Reagan in 1980.The Democrats, by contrast, are very phony and rigged, to prevent challenge against internal party hierarchy. So Democrats will automatically block people like Bernie, Tulsi, etc. It's like comparing BJP and Congress. BJP has better practices for internal leadership contests, so that Modi was able to push his way up the ranks and unseat Advani. But Congress is totally rigged around the Nehru-Gandhi family, whose members are merely coronated. You saw what happened to Scindia.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
To lying host Kyle Kulinski,
You talk like a fundamentally dishonest jerk. That 11th-hour accusation was obviously a political gambit, as were the delays continuously called for by the accuser Ford. Why didn't Feinstein call for that FBI investigation months earlier, when she already had the letter? That's because they wanted to delay the proceedings. The FBI doesn't have jurisdiction on a rape allegation in Maryland - it's the Maryland police which do - the FBI only does history checks, in terms of checking the existing records, and taking down statements. The Dems didn't obstruct Gorsuch, because they didn't see him as tilting the court - but Anthony Kennedy's retirement and Kavanaugh's subsequent appointment was something they didn't foresee. The Dems have then been desperate to derail Kavanaugh's nomination at all costs. Accusing someone of rape as part of a political power game is far over the line . Show me which Democrat nominee Lindsey Graham accused of rape and tried to destroy his reputation. Lindsey Graham voted for Kagan and Sotomayor, nominees from Obama. Regarding Iraq and Afghanistan - Hillary voted for those things too, along with all the Dems. SecState Hillary casually overthrew Qaddafi's govt in Libya after the US had long since buried the hatchet with them, and this created a huge upsurge in ISIS over there. Bill Clinton's whitehouse bombed and invaded Serbia, yet you conveniently forget to mention it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
2
-
***** The thing is that when anyone questions individual Muslims about their behavior- the answer always comes back that it's because of the infallible Islam. Other people don't do that. If a Muslim person says something racist and you ask them why they said that, the automatic answer is "I can't be racist, because I'm a Muslim, and Islam doesn't permit racism". They won't answer on what they themselves did, they'll simply quote their religion/ideology (Islam seems to be a combination of both). I once worked in a Call Centre long ago, and a Muslim called in to pay his overdue bill, but refused to pay the interest charges. When I asked him why, he said that interest charges were against Islam. I firmly told him that if interest charges were against his religion, then he should PAY THE BILLS ON TIME.
That's just one example - but I find that any time you ask a Muslim about something they did that was wrong, they'll hide behind Islam, and talk about what Islam says, instead of talking about what they themselves did. It's really ridiculous. It's like dealing with a robot which can't cite anything but its programming.
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
-
+ThewayICit No, I don't agree with what you've said at all. You ignored the part where I mentioned that Khan has only defended extremists of the Muslim faith, and not any British skinheads, or IRA, or any non-Muslim extremists. Khan's own brother-in-law is a co-founder of Al-Mohajiroun, the extremist group led by the notorious Anjem Choudhry. They are the most vocal and high-profile Islamist extremist group in Britain.
Why is it absurd to compare Mecca with Disneyland? I could have just as easily said Salt Lake City, for example, which is the spiritual capitol for Mormons. As an atheist, I do happen to believe that Islam, Christianity, Shintoism, etc are fairytales, but don't blame me for mentioning Disneyland - it was Khan who mentioned it in his comments that I was responding to - and don't blame me for mentioning Mecca, since it's a famous example of an Islamic entry ban. The fact is that you can't have one-way double-standards whereby Muslims can go wherever they please in the non-Muslim world even while forbidding non-Muslims from going wherever they wish in the Muslim world. That's a double-standard which amounts to "What's Mine is Mine, What's Yours We Share". If someone can rationalize bans against others in the name of their religion, then they have no credibility in complaining about bans against themselves. If someone can hide behind their religion in justifying discrimination against women or homosexuals then they have no credibility in complaining about discrimination against themselves. Hypocrisy has no credibility.
The best course of action is for Muslims to make compromises in their faith, just as Christians, Jews, etc have also done in learning how to co-exist with others.
2
-
SulubuTheScavenger It doesn't matter whether I mention Disneyland or whether I mention Salt Lake City, the spiritual capitol of Mormons. Again, as I said before and which you keep ignoring - it's Sadiq Khan who mentioned Disneyland in complaining about not being able to go there. If you feel Disneyland is a frivolous example to raise, then blame Khan not me, since he's the one who raised it. Why should any city be off-limits to non-Muslims, but meanwhile Muslims should face no restrictions. Sorry, but you can't have a one-way street. You talk as if Mecca is more important to Muslims than other cities are to other faiths. Hey man, guess what, there are plenty of non-Muslim religions which have places holy to them, but we don't see Muslims being banned from there - and I bet Muslims would be the first to loudly complain if they were. You keep trying to rationalize one-way double-standards, and that's completely ridiculous and unethical. Nobody's going to accept double standards. Muslims should be willing to see things from other people's perspective, and make compromises just like all the other religions have done. In this regard, the Baathists were a big improvement over Islamic theocracy, and I'm sorry they've been dismantled by Bush and now Obama. At least Trump called it right on that.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Moghuls slapped this label "Hindu" onto all the native kaffirs (non-Muslims). When Moghuls saw a Buddhist, they didn't call them a Buddhist, they called them a "Hindu"(kaffir unbeliever). When Moghuls saw a Sikh, they didn't call them a Sikh, they called them a "Hindu"(kaffir unbeliever). When Moghuls saw a Jain, they didn't call them a Jain, they called them a "Hindu"(kaffir unbeliever). So "Hindu" in this context refers to native kaffir beliefs which come from the local soil, as opposed to being imported from the Middle Eastern Holy Land. So in this context, Sikhs are kaffirs/Hindus native to the soil just like the rest of us. "Hindu rashtra" refers to governance for the natives, as opposed to appeasement of foreign colonizers, and is fully in line with the Indian constitution. Similarly, the word "Man" can refer to the male gender, but it can also refer to humanity in general, regardless of gender.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
I don't think Carlson mocked women in the armed forces, he just contrasted political correctness with the actual need for an armed forces - which is to KILL PEOPLE. The armed forces don't exist to be friendly and egalitarian, but exist to be lethal. The reason why that's important, is because war is unforgiving - it's a KILL OR BE KILLED situation. So it's a complete contradiction to have a kinder, gentler, forgiving military, if they're going to be sending their people into situations that will be very unforgiving. However, if the purpose of having a military is for something other than war -- such as just being for show, then by all means, do whatever cute, picturesque stuff you want. However, you might then want to redirect your spending priorities away from having a military. You could instead take that money and spend it on giving everybody a free education, for example. But if you're going to be concerned about war, then you'd better have a military that's based on being lethal, and not on being sweet and kind.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Big John - when it comes to territorial disputes, you Chinese want to use Chinese drawn maps to legitimize your claims to Tibetan land, Indian land, Vietnamese land, Mongolian land, and even international waters. India certainly doesn't claim any international waters as its own. Nobody in India says "Indian Ocean belongs to India" -- that would be riidiculous. Only China has suddenly started pushing these new claims of South China Sea belonging to them, and and nobody accepts your ridiculous "9-dashed line". China is clearly territorially expansionist, and that's why it's in conflict with so many countries. China's corrupt dictator is now trying to use these territorially expansionist claims along with threats of war to divert attention from economic troubles at home. Notice that when Beijing was caught covering up the escape of COVID19 from lab in Wuhan, then Beijing immediately began simultaneous military escalations, including crackdown on HongKong, escalations in SouthChinaSea, intrusions into airspace & waters of Taiwan, Japan, Philippines and even Indonesia. All of these suddenly happened together, because Xi Jinping was afraid of worldwide backlash over COVID.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@VIsionsOfJenna I'm not arguing for mob rule. What happened following the murder of George Floyd is distinct from the murder itself. Murder by police officer is still wrongful, and legitimately calls into question the system itself. Those who are empowered and have authority have a responsibility not to misuse their power or authority. To accept anything less is to encourage the misuse of power and authority. If someone writes in a police manual that putting a knee on the neck of a handcuffed man is legitimate, then that manual writer needs to be held accountable. Accountability doesn't magically disappear between the pages of manuals. When OJ Simpson escaped a murder conviction and got off because the jury acquitted him, it certainly caused the biggest of uproars rather than passing quietly without incident or commentary. At that point, nobody was claiming "oh well, we have an imperfect system, juries are what they are, let's live with it and move on" - no, at that point, many people were on the airwaves publicly calling for the system itself to be overhauled. I guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn't it?
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
-
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
-
@shreeyanshcool4604 Nehru was only a lawyer and not an economist or businessman, so he wasn't smart on how to improve the economy. Mao was only a soldier and not an economist, so he wrecked his economy with idiotic "reforms" (Great Leap Forward). In order to save himself from his folly, he came up with new stunt to invade Tibet and take its riches (they literally referred to Tibet as "great western treasurehouse" because they saw it as a good place to raid). That's what brought China right up to India's borders, and led to 1962 War. Every time China's govt ends up in trouble like this, then they try to push westward, like they did with their invasion of Tibet. China's more recent trouble was that US was pushing back against China's ever-expanding trade imbalance, and this forced China's Xi to come up with new stunt called Belt-&-Road, which was about pushing westward toward Middle East & Europe. Now China's latest biggest trouble was due to COVID-19 which they stupidly tried to cover up, and made worse by infecting the world. So that's why China's Xi is becoming even more pushy by authorizing military clash with India, and also interfering in Nepal's politics. China has also forced Pakistan to amend its constitution to give highest control to CPEC Authority (which is basically China - so China now has legal control over Pakistan)
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
-
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
-
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
-
This was not purely some internal domestic civil war. This was a war where a smaller country (Afghanistan) was being invaded by a larger country (Pakistan). Same thing as the Vietnam War, which was also lost. Smaller South Vietnam was being invaded by larger North Vietnam. So the insurgents they were fighting were not merely just locals, but there were also lots of enemy combatants flooding in across the border from North Vietnam nextdoor. Likewise, in this latest war, Pakistan nextdoor was hosting the bulk of the Taliban insurgents. In both wars, decision-makers in Washington didn't want to invade the country nextdoor where all the enemy support was coming from, because that would "dilute the war", "expand the war", "escalate the war", "destabilize the region", etc, etc. So obviously then the enemy had a sanctuary from which they could continue to get lots of support and regenerate their manpower and supplies to keep fighting indefinitely. That meant the path to victory was cut off. You can't win a war by fighting with one arm tied behind your back. And this war was fought more stupidly than Vietnam -- at least in the Vietnam War, US taxpayers weren't funding the North Vietnamese. In this war, Pakistan was funding, recruiting, arming, training, supplying the Taliban -- and the United States was funding Pakistan! WTF?! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q84yN8ZFd8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTAIGtMlLdg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXnYggE1y6c
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Nuland and her NeoCons are motivated by the collapse of the Oslo Peace Process which triggered the Palestinian Intifada. With the timely coincidence of 9/11 and the ensuing US invasion of Afghanistan, the NeoCons sought to run away from Afghanistan as quickly as possible, looking to run toward their preferred war with Saddam Hussein. After failing to pin the blame for 9/11 on Saddam, they they falsely accused him of building nukes ("WMD"), to ram through their war on the MiddleEast. However, the Europeans, who'd become very invested in the Oslo Peace Process, became fierce opponents of the NeoCons. By the time the Bush admin left office, the angry Europeans tracked down various NeoCons (eg. Paul Wolfowitz) to impose punitive action on them. The NeoCons were then forced to bide their time waiting for a chance to come back and take their own revenge. They'd planned to do this through Jeb Bush, but unfortunately the arrival of Trump on the political scene thwarted their plans, as Trump trounced Jeb. The angry NeoCons then teamed up with Democrats to make common cause against Trump. After having ousted him from office, the NeoCons then set up shop inside the Biden whitehouse and resumed their revenge plan against Europe by having their colleague Nuland foment war between Russian and Ukraine. When Putin reacted strongly by invading eastern Ukraine, the NeoCons sought to parlay that into an opportunity to collar Europe, even at the cost of wrecking European economies, while also funneling money into their own coffers via the military-industrial complex.
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
-
@edyr - Victoria Nuland caused those things to happen, just like she showed up in Kyiv's Maidan in 2014 to overthrow Yanuckovitch and sew the seeds of Ukraine war. She started Ukraine game in order to put pressure on Russia and force it out of Syria whose Assad regime was her real target. (Saddam, Qadafi, Assad) Her Ukraine game has suceeded, and all of Israel's enemies are gone. Victoria went to Washington to embark on a career there, because she was upset over the start of the Palestinian Intifada uprisng. It was then that she decided that all threats to Israel must be destroyed, no matter what the cost. The big Arab strongmen (Saddam, Qadafi, Assad) were to be targeted first. Putin got in the way by deploying Russian military to defend Assad in Syria. So Victoria Nuland had to push harder for Ukraine war, to put more presure on Russia. The strategy has succeded, since all of Israel's enemies are now destroyed. Ukrainians have suffered collateral damage from this strategy of course. The proud Ukrainians are easily manipulated.
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
-
@cana dude - Afghan army were being told to fight with one arm tied behind their backs, just like ARVN & US Army were told to in Vietnam. ANA fled because they knew that as soon as US military withdrew, the Taliban would be in a position to overrun them. Why? Because the Taliban were being funded by the world's biggest superpower, the USA. America was funding Pakistan and Pakistan was funding, organizing, training, arming the Taliban. And America didn't care much that Pakistan was doing this. Why? Because unlike in Vietnam, where both ARVN & US Army fought & died together, America got craftier this time and decided to have ANA do the bulk of the fighting against Taliban and kept US Army at a much safer distance to reduce their casualties. Afghan National Army suffered ~65,000 dead in the fight against Taliban. American policymakers weren't willing to take the steps necessary for a proper victory in Afghanistan, but were content to let the war go on as long as they could get ANA to fight and die for them. That's why the Afghan troops cut & ran, because they knew they were being suckered into fighting a losing strategy. Washington was fine with fighting a losing war, because their goal wasn't to wipe out the Taliban (who were really fronting for Pakistan).
NATO should have been superceded by OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) after the end of the Cold War. Continuing to rely on Cold War instruments like NATO has only served to revive the Cold War -- which is exactly what some entrenched interests want. They need that NATO gravy train no matter what, and the fact that a rising China now has an economy over an order of magnitude larger than Russia's seems to be totally lost on the NATO-first navel-gazers.
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
-
@MrStevesequeira no man, demonetisation happened years ago, and has no relevance to today. You've simply lazily latched onto this word 'demonetisation', which you hope to parrot for the next 50 years. Even if another economic downturn occurs 50 years from now, you'll still be blaming it on 'demonetisation' and Modi, because that's all you simple-mindedly know to do. China is already far stronger economically, having an economy 6 times larger than India's - don't you know this? India was set to quickly follow China's rise during the economic reforms being pursued by Narasimha Rao, but the crooked predatory Sonia Gandhi backstabbed him and ousted his govt. This is why China continued to grow far beyond India in economic size, while India remained mired in low growth. You should understand where the problems really happened, instead of rubbish theories about demonetisation. Modi showed an excellent track record in Gujarat, whereas Sonia has shown no economic track record anywhere. She is the Jian Qing of India.
2
-
India's BrahMos supersonic anti-ship missile is a 1-shot-1-kill weapon capable of destroying any ship in China's surface fleet. China prefers to use submarine warfare, which is what it has practiced for against USA. In order to defeat India, China would have to divert so many forces that it would leave its other numerous fronts vulnerable. In order to hold any territorial gains, China would have to expend disproportionate resources. Do a google search for an image of the border as seen from space at nighttime - you'll see plenty of lights on the Indian side, but the Chinese side is dark like an empty ocean - no Chinese live near the border, but plenty of Indians do. India has enough bomb-making potential from military(submarine) nuclear reactors which cannot be inspected - it's really a matter of India carrying out a thermonuclear test, which it retains the right to do in an emergency situation. China knows that if it attacks, this would give India the excuse it needs to carry out such a test. Meanwhile, time is on India's side - China's population has been rapidly aging due to the legacy of commie schemes like One Child Policy, but meanwhile India's overall population is much younger. Even economically India's growth rate has now overtaken China's, so that it's only a matter of time until India narrows the gap.
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
-
Unprecedentedly, Judge Sullivan has appointed retired former Judge Gleeson to issue an Amicus brief. But here's something interesting:
In a July 1, 2013, memo and order in the case of U.S. v. HSBC, then-U.S. District Court Judge Gleeson seemed to side with the idea that prosecutors have “near-absolute power” to drop a case.
“The government has absolute discretion to decide not to prosecute,” Gleeson wrote at the time. “Even a formal, written agreement to that effect, which is often referred to as a ‘non-prosecution agreement,’ is not the business of the courts.”
Gleeson went on to say that “the government has near-absolute power under [the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure] to extinguish a case that it has brought.” He cited Rule 48(a), which says: “The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information or complaint.”
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
-
@The Silenced Opposition - Russia is just reacting to being put under seige by USA. In case you haven't noticed, there are many in America who feel that their own country has become a criminal state. Their media have consolidated themselves into a single chorus, which has never been seen before in US history. The US capitol is suddenly occupied by thousands of armed troops and ringed by barbed wire, which has never been seen before in US history. A massive purge is being carried out in the US military & even capitol security forces, installing loyalists for the ruling party under the pretext of uprooting "racism", which has never been seen before in US history. US electoral laws across the country have suddenly undergone large modifications, and are now even about to be completely federalized, which has never been seen before in US history. The now ousted president was hounded by some kind of inquisition campaign designed to cripple him by calling him an agent of Russia, when no proof of this was provided - looking suspiciously like a soft coup - something which has never been seen before in US history. The new US president looks like a half-dazed senile mental incompetent, similar to Boris Yeltsin or India's own Manmohan Singh ("Teekh hai?"). Things are far from well in America. There's an old saying "when you stare into the Abyss, the Abyss stares back" - by which I mean that America's own intense pursuit of Cold War hostilities has gradually corrupted its own political system. The United States needs to extricate itself from this Cold War, before it gets completely destroyed by it from within.
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
-
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
-
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
-
@allenbenjamin4997 because you didn't want to bite off more than you could chew. Because once you got rid of your main thorn Trump, you felt you could co-opt enough of the others, through Sw@mp fraternization. The others were already there before Trump came along, and you saw them as people you could work with, through Sw@mp backchannels. It's Trump who was the bone in your throat, whom you couldn't swallow. His policy views were too incompatible with yours, too outsider. The arrival the outsider has totally thrown the Sw@mp into disarray and upheaval, thus triggering extreme response by them. Sleepy Biden gets pushed upward, like some suppository capsule remedy. But riddle me this, Riddler - then why are all the stops being pulled out against Trump - surveilling him and his incoming cabinet, launching Mueller inquisition to handicap his presidency based on a complete h0ax, suddenly re-litigating the US Civil War from 165 years ago, "de-fund the police", etc, etc, ad infinitum ad nauseum? Why has SeeNN or Youtube just deleted this very reply comment of mine - multiple times - so that I'm now having to re-post it multiple times now?
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bercardimathis4302 "water under the bridge" -- more like democracy thrown under a bus, by ruthless left-wingnuts who want to seize power at all costs, that they're willing to rig the election. The 2020 election should have been held under the same rules, practices and standards as all the previous elections (2016, 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, etc) and then we wouldn't have the problem we have now. But you arrogant leftists wanted to change the rules purely to benefit yourselves, and that's why the result now lacks credibility.
2
-
2
-
@allenbenjamin4997 Trump has generated the healthiest economy America has seen in a long time. The Chinavirus damaged that economy, but he's helping to make it come back. Unlike community organizer Obama, a businessman like Trump understands economics. Obama let ISIS grow and spread for years, while Trump stamped them out in mere weeks. Obama-Biden-Kerry were strengthening Iran through appeasement, but Trump pulled the rug out from under that. Look at the Middle East peace treaties being signed between Israel & Arabs, moving past decades of deadlock and wasteful conflict. Trump gets things done, and that's the bottom line. He inherited a sick country and a sickening world, and repaired the situation. He's not magical - nobody could foresee the Chinavirus and its bad consequences. But Trump's right in trying to bring us back to the life we had before COVID, instead of perversely trying to create some new lockdown society, where we all meekly obey our govt masters in the name of health. What is this - medical fascism? Democracy can't survive in that type of environment. The United States of America cannot exist as a United States of Corona. Every political dirty trick is now being trotted out and boldly played, in the name of fighting COVID. This mass-mail-in voting scam is a way to perpetrate an election fraud against the American people.
2
-
@allenbenjamin4997 don't wisecrack your way past legitimate points - Trump is helping economic prosperity come back, not Chinavirus. You must hate prosperity. There can be no economic prosperity under perpetual lockdown. The best way is to let people get out and live life while taking certain precautions, instead of shutting down society. Trump's track record of business is far better than Obama-Biden's with zero track record and zero attempts at it. You're mocking someone for the footraces they lost, when your guys have never put on any running shoes even once in their lives. That first interview Obama did with 60 Minutes disappointed me badly, his answers on economic policy were terrible. Trump's economic policies were meaningful and solid. His economic advisors were also solid. Yeah, Trump was going to meet with Taliban because he was trying to end America's longest war, but when they killed a US serviceman he slammed the door. No, COVID wasn't any plot by political partisans, but Beijing's govt behaved very irresponsibly in suppressing news of their outbreak, instead of warning the world. Mail-in voting has been done, but never on such an unprecedented scale, creating so much opportunity for fraud. We wouldn't be facing the problem we're now in, had the current 2020 elections been held according to the exact same rules, practices and standards that were used in all the past elections (2016, 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, etc). But because your side got too greedy and pushy with your ruthless brinksmanship, you decided to tamper with those rules and have now pushed us into this showdown. You are the Fools Who Rush in Where Wiser Men Fear to Tread.
2
-
@AnkitKumar-dl2oo so when you say "both sides", you should understand this isn't about just one "petty" man here. There is an entire half of the country which feels cheated, not just one man at the top. You need to understand this, instead of just talking about "one petty man". Democrats were very arrogant, and thought they could resort to stunts like radically changing the voting process, under the fake pretext of fighting COVID. It was all just a stunt for them to skew the voting process. If these current 2020 elections had been held according to the same rules/practices/standards of all the past elections (2016, 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, etc) then we wouldn't be having this current problem.
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
🧐 Jaishankar is right -- West always preferred military banana republic flunkies who were more obedient, in contrast to democracies which were more outspoken and messier to deal with. We need to revive NAM, even if under a new name. We helped co-found NAM originally to build solidarity against being co-opted into Cold War games by the larger powers. After USSR & Warsaw Pact dissolved, US didn't dissolve NATO but told India that NAM was no longer needed, claiming there was no longer anything for India to be non-aligned in relation to. But now that the US has gotten all it wanted, with NAM now all but defunct, the US and its undying Cold War institutions have inevitably succeeded in bringing back the Cold War again. America's Euro-centrist Atlanticist Cold Warriors have climbed back into power in Washington mainly by riding on the back of Left-wing politics as their quickest route to power. So ironically, they've used minorities ("People of Colour") as their primary Vote Bank & footsoldiers, in order to put themselves in the driver's seat and pursue Euro-centrist foreign policy goals that marginalize non-white countries, especially those in Asia (How very colonial of them!) So there's a basic contradiction there that's unsustainable, but nevertheless aggressively indulged in by the self-indulgent Atlanticist lobby, who will pursue it to the hilt for as long as they can get away with it.
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
-
@joeisawesome540 - what about the United States killing Osama Bin Laden on Pakistani soil, in a military-run town, right across from their national military academy? That happened because Pakistan's govt was harbouring a wanted terrorist who was actively waging war against another state. Likewise, Canada should not have been harbouring Nijjar who was actively waging war against another country, and was already wanted for murder before being given Canadian citizenship. Nijjar had not settled down to a quiet life in Canada. Instead, he was running a training camp in the woods of BC, recruiting and training Sikh youth on how to use sniper rifles. Canadian authorities were fully aware of this, but were turning a blind eye. This is in spite of the fact that Khalistanis carried out the worst act of terrorism in Canada's history, with the Air India bombing, for which nobody was convicted. Canadian authorities feel no shame, and no sense of duty or responsibility for the lack of accountability. They likewise continued to turn a blind eye to what Nijjar was doing on Canadian soil. Canada's political establishment pretend they're building a "diverse" Babylon - when they're actually building a Tower of Babel that will come crashing down.
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
-
@c-man2475 you mean Trump asked them to follow the same standards as the elections of 2016, 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1976, 1972, 1968, 1964, 1960, 1956, 1952, etc, etc?
It's the 2020 elections which have been carried out according to completely different rules than all those past elections. I can win the US elections too, if I change the rules in just the right way for my benefit. Where are my keys to the Whitehouse?
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sauron2000000 do you see any Son of Modi, Grandson of Modi, etc claiming some natural right to rule India, as if all 1.3 billion people are their family property? Why doesn't that idiot Rahul get himself an actual job, instead of pretending he has some special family role to run our lives? Modi has proven himself by starting out as a Chief Minister in Gujarat. He is a self-made person, who came up from chaiwalla, and was not born into some privileged lifestyle like your arrogant Congi royals (they think they're royal, but to me they're nothing). Modi has achieved things himself, which is why he's more popular than your Congi royals, who've done nothing in life. Sonia should just go back to Italy, instead of trying to colonize a poor country and keep it down.
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
-
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
-
Unprecedentedly, Judge Sullivan has appointed retired former Judge Gleeson to issue an Amicus brief on Flynn's case. But here's something interesting:
In a July 1, 2013, memo and order in the case of U.S. v. HSBC, then-U.S. District Court Judge Gleeson seemed to side with the idea that prosecutors have “near-absolute power” to drop a case.
“The government has absolute discretion to decide not to prosecute,” Gleeson wrote at the time. “Even a formal, written agreement to that effect, which is often referred to as a ‘non-prosecution agreement,’ is not the business of the courts.”
Gleeson went on to say that “the government has near-absolute power under [the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure] to extinguish a case that it has brought.” He cited Rule 48(a), which says: “The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information or complaint.”
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@delphi-moochymaker62 - Khalistanis hate Gandhi, and assassinated Indira Gandhi in 1984. Please stop importing KhalistanTaliban and other wanna-be BinLadens, and then giving them protective cover with citizenship, just to harvest their votes. Canadian citizenship has become very cheap these days, with any terrorist fugitive running to Canada to find sanctuary. How was Nijjar a "Canadian" when he didn't even care to learn either of the national languages, and was busy fighting to carve out a homeland elsewhere? How did that qualify him as "Canadian"? NDP have likewise elected Khalistan-supporter Jagmeet Singh as their leader. NDP just want an ethnic Vote Bank, just like Biden & Co who keep yapping about Slavery & Jim Crow ever 5 minutes, to suck up to the black vote. In Canada, the black vote isn't large enough, so Justinder found himself another ethnic group to suck up to, by supporting Khalistan and relying on Jagmeet to be his faithful sepoy.
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
-
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
-
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
-
Nope - Democrats rigged the vote by changing the rules. The 2020 elections should have been held according to the same rules, standards and practices of all the past elections (2016, 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, etc, etc). The fact that vote was won by mail-in makes it a farce.
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
-
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
-
@elchippe haha - dream the hell on - they couldn't even develop basic fission bomb technology on their own, and the Chinese proliferated it to them. Likewise, even their enrichment technology was stolen from the Dutch. Neither China nor its flunky North Korea will dare proliferate H-bomb technology to Pakistan, given the likely reaction from the USA. Besides, H-bomb arsenal costs more, and Pakistan can't even stay afloat financially as it is. North Korea can force its people to eat grass, but can Pakistan? Even if Pakistani leaders promised they'd compete with India even by having to eat grass, it's a hard promise to live up to. That's why Pak's figurehead PM Imran Khan is running around desperately with a begging bowl. ("Muh people are starving! Please help me to pay for muh nukes!") India doesn't run around with a begging bowl. India is being invited to join G7, because its economy is now larger than Britain's or France's, even in nominal terms. There's no possibility that Pakistan can compete. China is now buying up Pakistan, putting it into a debt trap. The first loan payments are coming due in just a few years, and they are staggering. It'll be very interesting to see how hapless Pakistan deals with that. Time to eat grass.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
What's happening is that Democrats & Republicans are competing ferociously for power in the 2020 election year, and Democrats are very anxious to throw Trump out of power. So Democrats are sparing no effort to court every vote bank, especially the larger vote banks like black community in America. Therefore, Democrats are trying to go Full Shah Bano, and are going out of their way to stir up any emotions among blacks, using issues like racism & slavery, in the hopes that blacks will then rush out to vote for Democrats and against Trump. Remember that Hillary Clinton lost her election bid for the Whitehouse in 2016, mainly because traditional vote banks like black Americans didn't vote for her in large numbers, as they had done for Obama. Therefore, black votes are seen as the key to Democrats winning the Whitehouse, and therefore every attempt is being made to stir up communal assertiveness among black Americans.
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hillary is just a tool of NeoCon warmongers who exist on both sides of the aisle. She's just an accomplice.
The NeoCons first emerged in the aftermath of the catastrophic collapse of hubby Bill's ill-fated Oslo "peace process", which only triggered the Palestinian Intifada against Israel.
NeoCons are devoted to using American hard power (courtesy of the US military) to "make the world safe for Israel". The 9/11 attacks were an opportune windfall which they exploited to hijack the War on Terror, which they did with a sudden diversion away from Afghanistan in 2003 ("Mission Accomplished"), so that they could run to make war on their preferred target of Iraq & Saddam Hussein ("making the world safe for Israel"). After killing Saddam, they then exploited the protests in Egypt's Tahrir Square, using that to launch "Arab Spring" as a pretext to re-draw the political map of the Middle East. With that they next invaded Libya to kill Qadafi ("making the world safe for Israel"), and quickly moved to launch an insurgency war in Syria to do the same to Assad ("making the world safe for Israel"). But Putin stepped in by deploying the Russian military to block them and save his valued Syrian client. This then put Putin and Russia in the crosshairs of the NeoCons, who then immediately began hammering on the sensitive fault-line of Ukraine by overthrowing the elected Yanuckovitch govt in Kyiv in 2014. That's now given us the Russia-Ukraine war. NeoCons also helped launch the Russia Collusion Hoax against Trump, whom they swa as an unwelcome interloper getting in the way of their return to power. The problem is that after every NeoCon debacle, they're always able to come back, because they never face any consequences or punishment for their actions. So even if Trump wins this time, the NeoCons can still attack him again, unless he takes them down. I don't think Jared will like that, and he'll intercede with Trump on their behalf.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
:face-blue-smiling: ISRO personnel, including the current ISRO chairman, have given their explanation of what went wrong with the Chandrayaan-2 lander. They said that as the lander descended, the attitude deviations ("errors") began accumulating faster than expected, necessitating larger sharper corrections by the thrusters. At the same time, there was a bug in the software that manifested itself due to these larger sharper corrections being required. This software bug was not allowing for larger corrections by the thrusters beyond a certain amount. Had the attitude errors/corrections been smaller in size, then the software bug would not have been encountered, but because they were large enough, that software flaw came into play. Therefore the lander was unable to properly perform the required attitude corrections on the way down, causing the resulting crash. ISRO personnel refer to this problem as "dispersion" handling, meaning that those attitude errors/deviations were larger (ie. had a larger dispersion) than anticipated, which the software was unable to handle. That has now been corrected, along with other improvements and upgrades made to this Chandrayaan-3 lander.
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Xi is a bully and a megalomaniac. He's desperate to preserve his dictatorship from severe economic slowdown and worldwide backlash over COVID19. He's been stirring up conflicts all along China's periphery, in the hopes that one or more of these gambits will give him a war he needs. South China Sea, crackdown on HongKong, threats against Taiwan, sanctions on Australia, raid on Malaysian oil platform, intrusion into Indonesian waters, even North Korea acting up, and now a military clash with india. Xi is suddenly doing all these things simultaneously, to create distractions and to rally the people around his regime in war. Dictatorships always survive on stuntsmanship, and Xi heads the biggest dictatorship of all.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@vickrant3523 Your umbilical cord is your own personal extra-constitutional interpretation. In that case, any Union territory should be able to cut ties with the Union. Furthermore, sub-provincial/sub-state entities should also likewise be able to complain of their "lack of self rule" and similarly cut ties to the Union. Kashmiris have no more or less right to self-rule than anyone else, and even then their self-rule must be subject to checks and balances. Ethnically cleansing Pandits from the state is not a prerogative of self-rule. Denying citizenship to refugees settled in the state, including their children, is not a prerogative of self-rule. Denying citizenship to Valmikis and other Dalits settled in the state, including their children, is not a prerogative of self-rule. Furthermore, even many in the Valley believe that oligarchist dynastic rule monopolized by Abdullahs, Muftis, and few other families does not amount to self-rule among the people. If Ladakhis were getting all this "self-rule" under 370, then why were they so insistent in their demands that they no longer be kept under it, or even part of J&K? You mean Kashmir is just the Valley? That Sheikh Abdullah just drew up an agreement to make his own fiefdom, and Nehru got it rubber-stamped just to placate him. That's not any principled agreement even worth the paper it's written on.
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Afghan National Army lost over 66,000 lives and far more injured. The failure happened for the same reasons as with Vietnam. In both wars, the US military and its allies were fighting enemy insurgents on the soil of a certain country -- and meanwhile large numbers of enemy were flooding in from across the other side of a "border" - ie. there was a neighboring country involved in the fight. In the case of the Vietnam War, that was North Vietnam, and in the case of this Afghan War, it was Pakistan. In both wars, the enemy had their main bases, training camps, supplies, etc on the other side of that "border". When the enemy was injured fighting US troops, the enemy could get treatment in medical hospitals on the other side of that border. But decision-makers in Washington decided that US military forces should not invade those places on the other side of the "border", which were kept largely safe from attack -- and so the enemy was able to continue regenerating itself over there in their safe haven. Therefore the enemy could never be defeated, and therefore there was no path to victory.
As soon as US decided to pull out of Vietnam, their local ally ARVN (Armee Republique Vietnamien) folded immediately, because they knew their goose was cooked without US air support. As soon as US decided to pull out of Afghanistan, their local ally ANA folded immediately, because they saw the handwriting on the wall, and knew they'd all inevitably be killed. Nobody wanted to die in a war where there was no possibility of victory.
What if WW2 had been fought that way? What if US & Allied powers had decided to send troops to France to liberate it, but refused to take the fight into Germany, for fear of really p!ssing off the Germans? "Hey, we can't go invade Germany! That might make the war more messy! It might destabilize Germany - and we wouldn't want that!!" With that kind of thinking, WW2 would have turned out very differently.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The US avoided hitting the Taliban headquarters in Pakistan, the Taliban arms dumps that were in Pakistan, the Taliban training grounds in Pakistan, the Taliban seminaries that were in Pakistan. Basically the entire Taliban's warfighting infrastructure was in Pakistan, feeding combatants and weapons into the Afghan battlefield nextdoor, and the US did nothing against it. You don't have to reach all the way back to the Vietnam War, when all of this was happening in Af-Pak just barely 6 months ago. But whereas in Vietnam, the US and its local partner ARVN fought and died together, this time in Afghanistan the US tried to get the Afghan National Army to take on the bulk of the warfighting burden instead -- which is why they folded like a cheap suit and ran away the moment they heard the US was withdrawing. They didn't support the losing US strategy of avoiding hitting the Taliban warfighting machine which was mostly in Pakistan, but they were hostage to what their American patrons insisted on. So when the Afghan military heard their American patrons were pulling out of the war, they voted voted with their feet and likewise ran away to save their own lives.
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
-
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
-
US President Donald Trump asked Indian PM Narendra Modi for help in providing supplies of hydrochloroquine, the anti-malaria drug which has been effective against COVID-19:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWLqJb9k7TM
I'm glad at least somebody's trying to find ways to address this crisis, as contrasted with the professional propagandists at CNN. They are constantly peddling their political narrative - Trump is evil, Trump caused this problem, Trump is perpetuating this problem - etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. They just won't shut up with their political gamesmanship. To keep doing this relentlessly and during a crisis is really vile. Their goal is not to inform, it's to disinform, it's to continually advance a slanted narrative in service of a slanted agenda, come hell or high water. CNN is certainly not a news organization, it's a propaganda organization. They see this COVID-19 crisis just like they saw the Russia hoax - as an opportunity to effect regime change and overturn an election result they didn't like. Globalization has caused this current crisis - the global flow of people and goods has aided the spread of this virus, and yet CNN is steadfastly avoiding this fact, instead trying to flip the script to peddle its globalist agenda.
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
-
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
-
Carl Higbie needs to understand that "Black Lives Matter" is mainly a slogan, and is not a classical organization with a formal leadership. There are a broad spectrum of people who have used that slogan, including even some whites on the Left, and so there are a wide variety of views in this very loose movement. As we've seen, some using that slogan have directly made sharp threats against the police and/or against whites while indulging in brazen acts of lawlessness, and yet at the same time there are others who are complete pacifists and universalists, and people from the middle class, not just the poor. Therefore there may not be one narrow set of representatives that Trump can sit down with to hammer out a deal, or to demand proposals from. Ironically, the loose nature of this movement could afford the opportunity to engage with those who are more moderate, to encourage them to at least vocalize support for non-violence while more tangible solutions are worked out. I feel solutions are available - eg. police more routinely/openly/aggressively repudiating misconduct, and likewise crime-affected communities more routinely/openly/aggressively repudiating criminal activity. Repudiation, where appropriate, is a tool of credibility. The naturally rising use of cameras should be embraced by all, helping to deter crime as well as potential professional misconduct. Nothing sanitizes like sunlight - aka. "The truth shall set you free." American values are pragmatically based on freedom and transparency, which can be applied as a remedy for all kinds of societal troubles, including the ones currently dominating the headlines.
I'm not AfAm myself - I'm Asian - and I'd very much like to see Donald J Trump as the next president of the United States. #TRUMP2016
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
-
Waitasec - if Trump is Putin's "Manchurian Candidate" then why would Trump openly advertise such a thing by saying "I won't defend NATO countries"? If Trump were Putin's stooge, then logically he would keep a low profile about it, and not even bother mentioning Putin, or mentioning NATO, etc, etc.
From what I see, Trump feels that America is being ripped off by a lot of countries, whether on trade, or whether on military alliance subsidies. Nextly, Trump is the kind of negotiator who uses the threat of walking out of a deal to compel the other side to make concessions. Whether it's the threat of walking out of NATO, or the threat of letting Japan go nuclear, Trump is saying this as a negotiating tactic. Why would a nuclear Japan be in Russia's interest? Doesn't make sense - Russia would be alarmed at the prospect of a nuclear Japan. Trump has repeatedly said he wants to make the American military the strongest it can possibly be - why would Russia want that? They wouldn't.
What I see is that Leftists everywhere, including TYT, are against nationalists and against those who lean towards national sovereignty. So anytime they see someone supporting a nationalist platform in a backlash against the excesses of globalization, then the Leftists will pile on and use any argument to quickly declare that person to be evil, dangerous, crazy, etc, etc. For the Left, "all roads lead to Rome" - ie. all roads lead away from national sovereignty.
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
-
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
-
Afghan National Army suffered 66,000 dead and many more wounded, while US military suffered 2500 dead and over 20,000 wounded -- no small number for either. But they were being forced to fight a war with one arm tied behind their backs. Remember that same phrase being used in war 50 years ago? I'm talking about the Vietnam War, where US military forces fought alongside their local military allies ARVN, against communist insurgents. The problem in both wars was that the insurgents were coming in across the "border" from the country nextdoor. The enemy combatants were likewise being supplied from that country nextdoor. I'm talking about North Vietnam in that war from 50 years ago, and Pakistan in this latest Afghan conflict. Those countries were serving as sanctuaries and staging grounds for the enemy to attack from, and continually regenerate themselves with more manpower and supplies for warfighting. But in both cases, political and military decision-makers in Washington refused to expand the war to include those areas, because they wanted to avoid escalating the war, which allowed the enemy to keep fighting and not be defeated, thus catting off any path to victory for US and its local partners. Is it any wonder then that ARVN and ANA both folded like a cheap suit when they saw the US withdrawing from their respective conflicts? What if this kind of approach had been taken in WW2? What if the US & Allied powers had sent troops to liberate France, but decision-makers had told those troops that they could not take the fight into German territory, because "it could unnecessarily escalate the war" , "could make the situation messier", "could make the Germans angrier", "and destabilize the situation"? Would the outcome of WW2 in Europe have been the same? I doubt it.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
The comment @0:50 is ignorant - India didn't carry out the test as an act of political posturing. India has a relatively large satellite infrastructure in space, but no way to deter any hostile power from destroying all that infrastructure. Meanwhile, the US is in the process of trying to set up a possible global treaty on Anti-Satellite (ASAT) weapons. In order for India to develop a credible deterrent, it would have to do an actual test before any such global moratorium came into place. Nextly, another major event had happened:
There was a severe high-deathtoll terrorist attack on an Indian military base, in which not only soldiers but even their family members were targeted and killed. The jihadist attack was believed to have come from across the border, from the soil of a neighboring country. In response, India soon carried out a retaliatory cross-border ground strike to destroy the terrorist training camp across the border. That commando raid was aided by Indian ground-imaging satellites overhead. About 24 hours after this military operation occurred, US Space Command detected a "fragmentation event" in orbit at one of the Indian imaging satellites (RISAT-1), which simultaneously went dead. It is not known what caused this "fragmentation event", but the timing of this event invites natural suspicion. It was 2½ years after this particular event that India's recent ASAT test has occurred, which is about the amount of time it would take for India to set up such a test from scratch, once a go ahead was given.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@grapejuiceboy no, I know that Kitty Cat is CHINESE, and that's why she's suddenly chiming in on India's domestic matters. Her ass is burning because China has received criticism over Hong Kong, over withdrawal of basic democratic rights to the people there, in violation of basic guarantees given in connection with the handover of Hong Kong. In India's case, we're talking about a change in the price subsidies given to farmers, which has been a key demand of the Canadian govt. Now that India has enacted that measure, it's caused farmers to protest, and Justin Trudeau is now expressing support for the farmers - even while his govt had been demanding for years that those subsidies be removed. Talk about hypocrisy, and trying to have your cake and eat it too! Wow, just look at your own hypocrisy and ignorance!
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
-
"There are very few countries in the world which have developed this technology" :body-green-covering-eyes:
That's because hydrogen is a waste of money. It's a very difficult to store gas, which is very flammable and very corrosive.
"Hydrogen is a very, uhh, fuel-efficient, uhh, uhh, kind of fuel, because, uhh, first of all it's a green fuel" :body-green-covering-eyes:
Just a bunch of bunk. Being "green" means being environmentally friendly / non-polluting, and has nothing to do with being energy-efficient.
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
-
@Gwo-Shyan Han - next you will also tell me that Qing Dynasty never accepted South China Sea is open territory for all. It's true that so-called "Communist" Party of China is just another Imperial govt, and these claims are just Imperialism. The people of Ladakh are Indian citizens and they vote their representatives into the Indian Parliament. They call themselves Indian, not Chinese. Nobody in Beijing speaks for them. The fact is that Xi Jinping attacked India at Galwan because he was scared of COVID crisis unleashed on the world by his govt's lab in Wuhan. Xi was so scared that he decided to create multiple distractions simultaneously, in order to divert attention away from pandemic caused by Wuhan lab. Xi simultaneously launched crackdown in HongKong, and also started territorial violations in South China Sea, intruding into waters claimed by Philippines, and also into Taiwanese airspace, and Japan's waters too. Then he also launched military clash against border with India. All these things happened simultaneously, done by Xi following COVID outbreak. Dictators like Xi are always scared for their own necks. always afraid of losing their position, because then they could lose their neck. So they try to create stunts to save their necks. They don't care about wasting lives of soldiers or others, whom they only see as sacrificial pawns.
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
-
This 2020 election was held under extraordinary unprecedented new rules, practices and standards that have never been used before in past elections (2016, 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, etc, etc). The extraordinary amount of mail-in balloting created unprecedented opportunity for fraud. It's therefore absolutely imperative to exercise extraordinary scrutiny on the veracity of the results.
Democrats: Whatever. Some counting happened, of some kind. Let's not worry about how accurate it is. Let's move on.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@rajat91181 Kejriwal is a foreign agent who is targeting Delhi because it's the national capitol of India, and not because he cares about Delhiites. He was given money by Ford Foundation, which is a known CIA front with a track record of starting movements around the world. You've seen how he's quickly tried to run off to other places - running to Varanasi, even talking to Khalistanis in Punjab, etc. He's only looking to spread himself around like a disease, and not for the purpose of uplifting anyone. He doesn't even have an ideology. A politician should have an ideology. He doesn't because he's a foreign-sponsored mercenary. Look at all the people who started out with him in his Anti-Corruption campaign - he backstabbed and eliminated all of them. What happened to Anna Hazare, Yogendra Yadav, Prashant Bhushan, Kiran Bedi, Swami Agnivesh, Admiral Ramdas, Kumar Vishwas, Kapil Mishra, etc, etc? All backstabbed and eliminated by your "hero" Kejriwal. The foreign agent survives by sacrificing his pawns. When he sacrifices you too, then you'll also learn the same lesson too late.
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
-
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
-
@pakese30 don't patronize me with your alleged greater concern for human life. Viruses are only one way to die - people can get killed by civil wars too. You never cared for anti-virus lockdown when your fellow protesters want to riot and burn and loot, with your moral support. Your side wasn't interested in make voting safer for the public, you were interested in grabbing the Whitehouse by any means possible. Like I said to @allenbenjamin, your side knows it can do business with the Swamp across both sides of the Congressional aisle -- it's the arrival of an outsider in the Whitehouse that has the Swamp panicked, and ready to root him out by any means they can get away with. This means calling him a Russian agent and trying to cripple his presidency with a Russia investigation inquisition. This means calling him KGB, Nazi, KKK, whatever. This means fanning flames of racial division, promoting rioting, looting chaos in the streets while deactivating police. There's a very famous phrase for that strategy coined by the French -- "politique du pire" -- from when Europe was first threatened by rising communist guerrilla wars in the early 1900s. To overthrow a govt, you try to make life as miserable as possible for everybody everywhere, to the point where they just lose track and say "throw the current bums out!"
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
-
look, Trump isn't perfect - but "perfect is the enemy of the good" - Trump should first be allowed to complete the many good things he's doing (Wall, economy, jobs, tax cuts, deregulation, immigration reform, safety & security, military, anti-terrorism, ISIS, Iran, North Korea, China, etc) - Bannon should have worked quietly in the background to help get this agenda completed, before he decides to challenge Trump. Otherwise, this situation looks like a 3 Stooges episode where they're all whacking each other. Talk about grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory. Stupid clash of egos.
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
-
@holycow131 - sure, and separatist leader Bouchard's mysterious near-fatal case of p̶o̶l̶o̶n̶i̶u̶m̶ p̶o̶i̶s̶o̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ "flesh-eating bacteria" was just a convenient coincidence -- "separatists are viewed diferently" - my a$$. Canada's solution to Quebec separatism was to import large numbers of foreigners, both to dilute the Anglo-French divide (really UpperCanada Vs LowerCanada) as well as to suck in lots of new taxpayers to fund the social services to bribe Quebecers into staying in Canada (welfare-addicition). At some point, the human-traffickers became addicted to their own products -- ie. the ruling politicians became addicted to the free votes they could get by importing new loyalists from abroad. Normally, politicians are supposed to earn votes mainly by providing good governance. But building better roads, schools, hospitals, etc is hard. Canadian politicians have learned to short-circuit that by importing voters to harvest their votes, which is a lot easier. Democracy is when citizens/voters choose their ruling politicians. What Canada has morphed into is the inverse of that -- ie. the ruling politicians get to choose their voters by simply importing them, and growling at the others to shut up about it. That's the inverse of democracy, and native born Canadian populace have been slow to catch onto that. Get over yourself and take that halo off your head. You people are running a human-trafficking racket -- and the wheels are falling off it, while you pretend everyone else is to blame for it.
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
-
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
-
The world is an increasingly volatile place, and India needs to keep its guard up, to ensure it doesn't get sucker-punched or subjected to coercion, whether by force or even economic arm-twisting. Independence and self-sufficiency in defence production can meet dual needs of defence and job creation, while reducing vulnerability to arm-twisting by foreign govt suppliers.
SWIFT cannot be done purely indigenously, as it's a multi-lateral payment network, meaning it needs participation of multiple countries to be useful. The BRICS grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa have made their own alternative to SWIFT.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Nah, Leftists started the ethnic-baiting first - parties like communists, Janata Dal, Samajwadi, BSP. The co-opted Muslim voters in this direction.
But when they do it, then you pretend not to notice, and turn a blind eye.
So now the other side are fighting back, and then you call it extremism and sectarianism.
When you only notice what other side is doing and totally ignore what your own side is doing, then you're setting the stage for conflict.
The Left don't know about education, don't care about it. They've destroyed education, perverting it into an ignorant racket by andolan jeevi activists.
Your side have set the stage for backlash. You won't win.
Middle Eastern channel has a lot of gall and hypocrisy to call other people religious fanatics. Look at their own region. Al-Jazeera never criticizes Emir of Qatar, we all know.
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
-
I don't agree with them that the identity politics rainbow of oppression is some new invention. Identity politics dominated the Colonial era, where control was maintained through divide-and-rule. It's no coincidence that the American Revolution, one of the first major blows against colonialism, happened very quickly after the start of the Industrial Revolution. The onset of the Industrial Revolution triggered the decline of the Colonial era, and the rise of communism brought about its demise by expressly inverting class politics and promoting class warfare. It's due to the decline of industrialism in the West that the preceding Colonial era practices of identity politics for divide-and-rule have returned. Industrial decline has driven a forced migration up the value chain, pushing competition for scarcer seats in education, with certain groups (eg. whites, asians) being told they're over-represented and thus need not apply. It's now down to a valuation-based economy based on property ownership. It's ironic then that the conversation mentions landlords as usurpers of working class wealth, when Canada has the most land of any country. Rent-seeking is based on resource inelasticity, and Canada's large geography should make it the most elastic real estate market. The problem is due to paucity of infrastructure outside of built-up areas, which thus condemns the population to those existing built-up areas. Canada should have therefore invested in useful remedies like technologies for off-grid housing, off-grid communications, etc, to help people live farther out and thus open up the land space as much as possible. Starlink wasn't invented in Canada, even though Canadians have been among the earliest beneficiaries of it. Robotic farming could likewise be very useful in the future. The continued trend toward global warming will especially benefit Canada in particular, by expanding the growing season. These are things which can benefit Canada's future.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are ridiculous holes in Ford's testimony that raise alarm bells. If the genders were transposed, and it was Mr Ford making allegations against Miss Kavanaugh, then my concerns would still be the same. Ford demanded delays in the hearings, saying that he was afraid to fly - a demand that would conveniently aid the Democrats in their partisan interest of delaying the confirmation vote until they could gain more seats in the November elections to derail the appointment - but then suddenly Ford magically overcame the fear after the Senate refused to delay, upon which we learned that Ford had already been going plenty of flying. Mr Ford cited various witnesses in therapy notes, then contradicted himself in sworn statements, and all of those witnesses stated they had no idea what Ford was talking about. Furthermore, Mr Ford's key witness Leyland Keyser claimed to have been pressured to revise testimony in Ford's favor by Mr Ford's close friend FBI agent Monica Mclean. Also, Ford's ex-lover stated having witnessed Ford coaching Mclean on how to pass a polygraph test. These are some very suspicious circumstances. So I want to know why it's not appropriate to put more critical scrutiny on Mr Ford? Also, why was Diane Feinstein recommending Debra Katz, a Democrat activist to be a lawyer for Ford? Was Feinstein trying to play the role of juror and litigant at the same time? It looked like a blatant conflict of interest. Katz was on record having rubbished Paula Jones' claims of sexual assault against Bill Clinton. So was Katz supporting one standard of justice against Republicans and a different standard towards Democrats?
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
-
Nah, Leftists started the ethnic-baiting first - parties like communists, Janata Dal, Samajwadi, BSP. The co-opted Muslim voters in this direction.
But when they do it, then you pretend not to notice, and turn a blind eye.
So now the other side are fighting back, and then you call it extremism and sectarianism.
When you only notice what other side is doing and totally ignore what your own side is doing, then you're setting the stage for conflict.
The Left don't know about education, don't care about it. They've destroyed education, perverting it into an ignorant racket by andolan jeevi activists.
Your side have set the stage for backlash. You won't win.
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
-
@Leopold_van_Aubel - did West cut off ties with China when China already attacked India on its border? Hell no. Did West cut off ties with Pakistan, when Pakistan has attacked India, and carried out terrorism campaigns against India? Hell no. But when West wants something, it wants India to come running. India is sending planeloads of aid to Ukraine from a distance, but you call it "passivity". There are 35 Indians for every Ukrainian on this Earth, but we wouldn't even get 1% of the consideration shown for them, because we are poorer people, children of a lesser god, on the wrong end of the pecking order. When brown people die on TV screens, it's just another Oxfam commercial - or it's called 'collateral damage' - that's how it was referred to a mere 7 months ago, which seems like a lifetime away now. When blonde blue-eyed people are dying on TV - that's an atrocity, that's an outrage, that's a call to arms. Euro-centrism on full display.
1
-
1
-
@JM-vp8zc - varna and jati do not translate to the english word "caste" which confusingly blurs multiple things together. Varna has no hereditary connotation whatsoever. It simply says that society is made of 4 main occupational categories (military, scholar/priest, merchant, laborer). If you've ever played D&D, you'll get the idea. Words like Jati or Gotra have no spiritual connection, and are just local words used where you live, and are not broadly used across the country. They just refer to local clan, and whatever trade they're locally known for. The name John Smith means John whose people are smiths. Tom Carver means Tom whose people are carvers. Ed Fisher means Ed whose people are fishermen. Generations of economic development means that John Smith may now actually be an airline pilot, Tom Carver may be a brainsurgeon, Ed Fisher may be an architect. But thanks to Left-wing socialism, India has remained economically stagnant for many decades since independence. People have learned bad habits over acquiring good ones -- like only wanting Affirmative Action hiring quotas instead of working hard to raise themselves up. So they've instead learned to talk about identity politics instead of talking about how to earn. The hyper-obsessive fixation on identity politics has only inevitably led to a backlash in the opposite direction. That's now happening in the US too. The Left don't know how to deal with the backlash spawned by their own excesses, so they just reflexively cry "FASCISM!!!" Nationalism is a backlash against Globalists and their Divide-and-Rule games.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Zach Omara - yes, the US did support Taliban in the 1990s. Taliban delegations were even brought to the United States with the goal of building an oil pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan, in a collaboration with California-based coil company Unocal. Pakistan armed and trained Taliban in addition to embedding its own troops with them, and Saudi Arabia funded the effort, even buying fleets of Toyota pickup trucks, which became Taliban's signature vehicle. And the US supervised the whole effort, with the goal of opening up a new front against Iran as well as Russia, and possibly even China. When AlQaeda bombed US targets in Saudi Arabia & Gulf, the US & Saudi were forced to withdraw but Pakistan continued with US awareness. After the 9-11 attacks happened with Taliban complicity, a number of CIA officers took legal counsel, due to their potential liability in the deaths of their own countrymen in NY, DC, etc.
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
-
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
-
@anshulbhardwaj4038 - no, I think Chinese attack on India in Ladakh was due to Xi Jinping being afraid of COVID19 problems. After COVID escaped from Wuhan lab and infected the world, Xi Jinping was afraid of global backlash against his govt, and how this could cause him to fall from power. Xi has risen up the ranks of China's communist hierarchy through ruthlessness and treachery, so he has made a lot of enemies inside China along the way. He is therefore intensely worried about anything that could cause him to lose power. When COVID crisis happened, Xi decided to crack down on HongKong, do intrusions into Taiwan's airspace, do intrusions into Japan's waters, and Philippine waters, along with aggression in South China Sea, and of course attack India in Ladakh. He needed to do all these things together, to create multiple distractions to divert attention from China's role in causing COVID pandemic which has now killed 4 million people worldwide. Even now, we can see Xi making speeches warning foreigners that "their heads will be smashed bloody on China's wall of steel." Xi's shrill talk shows how fearful he is of losing power as world learns the truth about Wuhan lab research.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@costajunior1956 you can't make money producing things (even using robots) if nobody can buy them. In order to buy them, they have to be able to afford to buy them, which means they need money. In order to have money, they need to be able to work. In order to be able to work, they'd have to be in newer types of jobs other than the ones replaced by robots. Human beings might be able to supervise robots, for example. Also, more types of worksites might be possible than before - like miles underground, or at the bottom of the sea, or on the Moon or in space, etc. Operating or supervising a robot might be as easy as sitting at a PC, like we are now.
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
-
@kidpoker1021 - where did names like John Smith, Tom Carver, or Ed Fisher come from? "John, whose people are smiths", "Tom whose people are carvers", "Edward, whose people are fishermen". These names denote caste. But today, John Smith isn't necessarily a smith and could be an airline pilot, Tom Carver isn't necessarily a woodcarver and could be a Doctor, Ed Smith isn't necessarily a fisherman and could be an architect. Free countries in the west were able to evolve economically, but India was stuck under foreign colonialism and its economy remained stagnant due to that. People still do the same trades as their ancestors from centuries before. That's why economic evolution is important to remove those vestigeal associations which you call 'caste'.
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
-
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
-
Fed was created to exercise control over people's money. It gets to control the value of people's money all the time, by lowering or raising rates, mainly to control their spending behavior. This kind of control is doomed to deteriorate into corruption. The Fed kept rates too low for too long, while its political masters wrote lots of blank cheques, spending money on whatever pleased them. This has created massive inflation, and the Fed is now having to suddenly tighten in a very sharp way, while the politicians continue to spend even more money irresponsibly. This has created a crisis in confidence in the value of the US Dollar, and talk of de-centralized finance, so that the Fed-worshipping central control-freaks are now desperately scrounging for a new gimmick, like a new digital dollar that they can force everyone onto, in order to gain new control over their lives (even while ensuring that any alternative digital currencies are banned)
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
-
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
-
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
-
@peetasingh7375 you're quite adept at misleading. Moghuls referred to every non-Muslim as a "Hindu". When a Moghul would see a Buddhist, they'd call him a Hindu. When Moghuls would see a Jain, they'd call him a Hindu. When Moghuls would see a Sikh, they'd call him a Hindu. Etc, etc. Of course everyone prefers to be called by their own real name, and not to be called by whatever name Moghuls slapped onto them. One day, people using the name "Hindu" may decide to retire it completely. When Europeans came to America, they called the people already living there "Indians". Those "Indians" didn't come up with that name on their own, somebody else slapped it onto them. They did use that name "Indians" for awhile, and then realized it was better to call themselves "Native Americans", and then later they called themselves "First Nations" (with an 's' on the end). There have been plenty of people living in Punjab before the time of the Sikh Gurus. Sikhism is a wonderful religion, but nobody has special license to declare rest of us Punjabis as not being real. You talk like someone who has a weak understanding of Sikhi.
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
-
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
-
@timothychung4811 - take a look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze4xO5N1VjI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk-kndhuamk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TU2Drnk47I - again, it's like saying "how about building basic necessities before producing computer software?" All necessities require financial inputs, and those finances are to be gained through revenues from value-added work. If that work is in software, then so be it, if that work is in space launches, then so be it. India today generates hundreds of billions of dollars in revenues from exporting computer software and other value-added products, and those earnings do help to pay for building of roads, streetlights, powerplants, transmission lines, sewers, railway lines, etc.
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
-
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
-
@vickrant3523 If according to you, Kashmir has not yet acceded to India, then how would it be entitled to Article 370? Would Sri Lanka also be entitled to Article 370 too? The fact that Article 370 was applied to Kashmir at all was only because Kashmir was part of India and not a foreign country. Otherwise, Article 370 would be a treaty with a foreign country, which it is not - it is an article within India's constitution which applied to a particular state within the Union of India. You can't have it both ways.
Kashmir has been split up among 3 countries - there is no more scope for some combined decision of the Kashmiri people, because Pakistan has altered the demographic composition of Kashmir. Meanwhile, life has to go on, and can't be frozen or remain hostage to Pakistan's perfidy. And furthermore, what of the will of people of Ladakh or Jammu? It seems they have no oonfidence that their interests would be looked after by Kashmir's purported majority opinion.
Kashmir is defined as being part of the Union of India under Article 1 of the Indian Constitution. Any attempt to question Article 1 means that anybody should have equal right to opt out of India, not merely Kashmiris alone. I suggest you first compel Kashmiris to repay back all the blood and treasure that have been expended on their behalf, so that that all debts are settled first. I, for one, am not interested in catering to micro-nationalism.
1
-
@vickrant3523 There is no Pak insurgency in Nagaland, and Rangoon cooperates with New Delhi against Naga insurgents, since these threaten them too. We have low-key dialogue with China on Aksai Chin & Arunachal Pradesh, and they don't do Pulwama attacks against us. More importantly, unlike China, your beloved Pakistan is trying to take over Afghanistan with its Taliban, which will lead to a repeat of past terror waves like when Indian Airlines flight 814 was hijacked and taken to Qandahar, as per Pak's orchestration.
You babble against Modi's govt over the economy like some armchair expert - as if you're offering better solutions. I think that if you want to criticize someone on their policies, then basic credibility demands that you at least provide your set of solutions for a comparison. Otherwise, you're just some armchair critic who wants to criticize for the sake of criticizing (and scoring petty partisan political points, obviously)
I wasn't the one claiming Nehru was born in a foreign country - you are . I don't see Kashmir as a foreign country, and didn't claim it as such - you did . Are you suffering from amnesia that you don't remember your own words from just a couple of posts back? Article 370 was applied to an existing state of India whose status had already been determined as part of India as per the Indian constitution. It was not applied to a foreign country, or to a place whose status was indeterminate under the Indian constitution. The Indian constitution only applies to states within India, and are by definition part of India.
1
-
@vickrant3523 Certainly Kashmir is an integral part of India, which is why that should not be endangered by negligent apartheid-style laws like 370 which promote balkanization. Integrity requires protection from those who would dis-integrate India. Constitutions should be about same law for all people, not different laws for different communities. When you drive on the road, you may each drive different types of vehicles, but there is one law for all who drive on the same shared road. Otherwise, if everyone could choose their own different rules of the road, then it would be chaos and mass destruction.
Naga insurgency hasn't been internationalized and isn't as severe a threat as Pakistan's terror campaign to break Kashmir from India. Pakistan is directly occupying territory which we deem to be our own territory -- that's not the case in Nagaland, where there is no foreign occupying power sitting on Indian land. You of course don't care about Nagas one bit - you only want to do Whataboutery for the sake of keeping Kashmir teetering on the brink of disaster. I've argued with plenty of tukde-tukde crooks like you, and I know all of your games very well. If you haven't debated me before, then you must be a new recruit in the tukde-tukde brigade.
Kashmir must not be kept teetering, but must be healed through a closer embrace. After it has been healed, then we can think about making it a state again. But separatism is a sickness. Whole world full knows about Pakistan's dirty game against Kashmir, and knows also what it has done to Afghanistan. We see the car-bombings and other massacres there in the news every week. If much larger Afghanistan can be mutilated by Pakistan so badly, then imagine what would happen to helpless Kashmir.
Stop pretending that you care about the economy, when you haven't even given a single suggestion of what kind of economic policies you support. All you've done is bluster and posture in a false hollow way, like the crook you are, without giving any substantive economic recommendations. (I know you have none, because you're a fake.) Crooks like you can be spotted a mile away. You argue in an absurdly rotten way. You must be raised by Urban Naxals. Or else you're a paid Congress lackey. Congress has now destroyed its future completely, by opposing repeal of 370. They have now exposed themselves by opposing India's basic territorial integrity, and will always be seen in that way forever onward.
1
-
1
-
@vickrant3523 The matter was already settled by Kashmiris participating repeatedly in India's national elections. When you participate in national elections, and are thus having a say over others beyond your local boundaries, then there's a reciprocal obligation. That's basic common sense. The issue is already settled, and you can't undo history. The nation certainly won't accept any secession of Kashmir, just as it wouldn't accept this from any other part of the country. Otherwise, when we allow any people to decide to opt out of India, then they would be capable of exercising such free will at any time - so no part of India would ever be truly settled, and could easily be unsettled at a moment's notice. Kashmir was part of India due to the 1947 accession, and the 370 law of 1954 had nothing to do with it. Otherwise, how will Kashmiris give back the lives of the Indian jawans who were sent to fight for their homeland (Kashmir) in 1947? Sorry, the criteria for this is far more certain than for other parts of India being part of the Union. We can't open up any can of worms just to satisfy navel-gazers and tukde-tukde types like you.
Ambedkar was clearly opposed to 370 itself, and it's the removal of 370 which is at issue, not whether Kashmir is part of India - after all, it's stated right there in Article 1 that it is. You cannot undo Article 1, as much as you'd like to.
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
-
I agree Afghans should have fought harder against Taliban, however they were no match for the funding the Taliban were receiving from the world's largest superpower, the United States. You see, the United States was funding Pakistan, and Pakistan was treacherously funding the Taliban, and that's why the Taliban were victorious. The United States knew Pakistan was betraying them, and that this was leading to deaths & casualties among US soldiers. But the US govt didn't care, and instead decided to minimize the exposure of its own troops while maximizing the exposure of Afghan troops. The US felt Pakistan's treacherous support for Taliban was tolerable, as long as Afghan troops were the ones absorbing the bulk of the casualties. The result was that the Afghan army deserted as soon as they saw the US withdrawing. Why the hell would they risk their own necks against an enemy that the US was basically funding through its own blind apathy & negligence? The US didn't want to stop funding Pakistan even though Pakistan was funding the Taliban, because the US was dependent upon Pakistan to give them access to the Afghan theater of war. And yet in trying to secure its access to the Afghan theater of war, the US was funding Taliban's main backer Pakistan. The bottom line is that the US doesn't care about right or wrong, or even about its own people or homeland - just look at America's southern border.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Y S India has backers in UNSC, and so we can offset Chinese advantage. Meanwhile, UNSC will have to be reformed at some point, to be more representative. In a moment of weakness, Vajpayee govt did say Tibet is part of China, but we may have to re-think that in the event of further Chinese escalation. We are no longer living in 1998. India is not the one trying to change the status quo on the border, it's China which is trying to do that. We have the defender's advantage. It's Xi Jinping who's become very anxious over his Wuhan Virus failure, and so he's the one who badly needs to change the status quo to save himself. And make no mistake, Xi only cares about himself, and the rest of you are just his slaves. He's not even allowing families of PLA soldiers killed in the Galwan clash to publicly mourn or grieve. He has to keep things quiet, for his own political interests. You're all just his slaves - even a wumao like you.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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