Tension On The Edge: Pakistan Urges U.N. To Intervene Over Kashmir Tension With India

10 hours ago, John Foote said:

How do you explain Bengladesh, formally known as East Pakistan? 

You’re joking right? Bangla, even though muslim, also was saved from annihilation by breaking away from Pakistan. In no small part thanks to India.

Due to India’s conventional forces superiority Pak has long had a strategy of supporting cross-border terrorism at a level that they believe will not escalate into retaliatory strikes or full-scale war. Then they try to call in the UN or US to de-escalate the situation to prevent India from even launching air strikes as they’ve done this time.

This isn’t the first time they’ve miscalculated. It won't be the last time. The UN was always a joke. The US simply issued a canned response that one could, and is probably intended, as a nod and wink for India to do as she sees fit.

Although India would suffer tragic losses in a nuclear exchange Pakistan, for all intents and purposes, would cease to exist. In the aftermath the remaining Muslims of Pak would do what Muslims always do when they’re no infidels to kill: they would kill each other. Inshallah.

India would have done the world a favor as Pak is the #1 source of terrorism.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Observatus Geopoliticus said:

US-Paki is more than ''notional'', it endured for decades. Pakistan belonged to OTASE and CENTO, Pakistan welcomed US bases, Pakistan and US were hand in hand in supporting the moujahidines

It's called realpolitik. Back then the USSR was viewed as an existential threat that was aggressively exporting Communism wherever they could. We were happy to use Afghans as cannon fodder to stop Soviet expansionism. It had nothing to do with US sympathy towards Islamism. 

Fast forward to today and you have atheist China as Muslim Pakistan's 'all-weather' friend. India as Muslim Afghanistan's ally against Pakistan. Why? Because Pak is a safe haven for terrorists that are sent into Afghanistan to destabilize the country. The US is moving closer to India because of Pak terrorism also. Vietnam and US moving closer together. Why? China. Times change. Circumstances change. Ideologies change. Alliances change. Interests don't change.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 2/22/2019 at 11:39 AM, Sukumar Ray said:

Cast system in India originated much before British History- since Vedic Ages. It will continue till  Hinduism exits. It is in our Holy Scripts. BTW, there are so many sects in other religions also like in Islam and Christianity . Who created them -Any Idea ??

Who told you that Vedas have caste system? Caste is hereditary whereas Vedas had merit based Varna system. How is that same as caste? As long as people exist in a society, division of labour will exist and Varna system will be justified.

Don't talk gibberish and blatant lies. When you don't know, don't talk

On 2/22/2019 at 11:17 AM, Sukumar Ray said:

I think- difference between India and Pakistan is partly Religious and MOSTLY POLITICAL. Partition creating Borders and Inconclusive Borders which we call "Line of Control" and "Actual Line of Control" are  true bone of contention- not Religion.  India has been maintaining very good and strong relations with many countries in the world who are more religious Islamic than Pakistan. Religions really does not make such difference in this world, otherwise Muslim countries would not have fought against each other  indulging in Fratricidal Wars. As for example, China and Japan , North Korea and South Korea , USA and Russia have enmity emanating from Religious differences ??  I do not think so. Who can be blamed  for partition of India according to you ?  Can you please kindly enlighten me on that ?

Really? Religion is separate from politics? Islam is beneficial for India? Being president of the country means that muslims are good for the country? Without partition, there would have been 375 million more Muslims, not some random people. How will that help in any manner? 

Muslims fighting other muslims is on the basis of who is the good and true Muslim, not due to non religious manner. It is the case of some calling others as untrue Muslims. How does this make it non-religious?

Instead of calling a spade a spade and telling directly that Islam is the root cause if the problem, you want to say that it is helpful? How would India be worse off if there were not any Muslim in entire asia? Do you even know what is Islam?

I know that as usual you won't answer properly and will end up down voting the comment without a proper argument. So, I have no expectations

Edited by Bhimsen Pachawry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2019 at 9:56 AM, Wastral said:

Everywhere Muslims have gone, As soon as ~1/3 becomes becomes Muslim the civil wars start.  History has shown, they win them and then subjugate everyone under Sharia "Law".  After all, if you denounce being Muslim you are killed..... right in their religious texts.  No apostates are allowed.  After all it is a religion of "peace".... 😂

Partition saved the Hindus from being finally wiped out into a mass grave.

Not necessarily true. India would have witnessed a massive war and Hindus wouod have been united. 30% population can't defeat the rest 70% if others get united and in the face of the war, there might as well be unity. The war would have been decisive and most likely with Hindus standing. People can always be wiped out but land is a natural resource and that is needed. Know that even in British India, most of the administration, engineers and officials were hindus. With economic power and control of state machinery, it would have been difficult for muslims to have won. Even today, Pakistan survives due to geopolitical reasons and support of USA arms and Arab petroleum rather than oj its own might

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

Not necessarily true. India would have witnessed a massive war and Hindus wouod have been united. 30% population can't defeat the rest 70% if others get united and in the face of the war, there might as well be unity. The war would have been decisive and most likely with Hindus standing. People can always be wiped out but land is a natural resource and that is needed. Know that even in British India, most of the administration, engineers and officials were hindus. With economic power and control of state machinery, it would have been difficult for muslims to have won. Even today, Pakistan survives due to geopolitical reasons and support of USA arms and Arab petroleum rather than oj its own might

Um read up on the Muhgol empire and India dude.  Talk about incessant wars.  There is a simple reason the Brits were MORE than welcome to "help out" in India. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wastral said:

Um read up on the Muhgol empire and India dude.  Talk about incessant wars.  There is a simple reason the Brits were MORE than welcome to "help out" in India. 

When British came, most parts of India were under Marathas. Marathas had already consolidated their power and were on an expansion drive. Then Sikhs aso came up and ruled over entire Northwest India for about 30-40 years. So, British did not help in any way.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

When British came, most parts of India were under Marathas. Marathas had already consolidated their power and were on an expansion drive. Then Sikhs aso came up and ruled over entire Northwest India for about 30-40 years. So, British did not help in any way.

Nothing quite like twisting history eh?  And no, the Marathas had not consolidated their power as you well know if you weren't busy twisting history.  It was open war between Marathas and declining Mughal.  Brits finally put down the remnants of the Mughal by "protecting them".  Reason the Brits were able to walk in was because everyone was at everyone's throats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wastral said:

Nothing quite like twisting history eh?  And no, the Marathas had not consolidated their power as you well know if you weren't busy twisting history.  It was open war between Marathas and declining Mughal.  Brits finally put down the remnants of the Mughal by "protecting them".  Reason the Brits were able to walk in was because everyone was at everyone's throats.

No, Bengal, hyderabad and Awadh had separated from Mughals. Though these were ruled by muslims, the mughal central authority was non existent. Marathas had started gaining grounds since 1720 and by 1760 had made lot of territory gains. British came to India in 1757-1765 in Bengal taking advantage of this turmoil. British took Hindu help to overthrow muslim rulers of Bengal. In fact, when British won in Bengal, Hindus had celebrated the victory. British did not conquer India without any assistance. They used their superior technology to convince kings that British can help them win and hence were slowly able to capture large terrirtory. Unlike Portuguese who were fanatic christians and hence kicked out from India, British were not much religious and hence did not face the wrath of local population.

Marathas had captured about half of India by 1760 and were on an expansion spree when British came and put this to a halt by their superior weaponry and tactics.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

No, Bengal, hyderabad and Awadh had separated from Mughals. Though these were ruled by muslims, the mughal central authority was non existent. Marathas had started gaining grounds since 1720 and by 1760 had made lot of territory gains. British came to India in 1757-1765 in Bengal taking advantage of this turmoil. British took Hindu help to overthrow muslim rulers of Bengal. In fact, when British won in Bengal, Hindus had celebrated the victory. British did not conquer India without any assistance. They used their superior technology to convince kings that British can help them win and hence were slowly able to capture large terrirtory. Unlike Portuguese who were fanatic christians and hence kicked out from India, British were not much religious and hence did not face the wrath of local population.

Marathas had captured about half of India by 1760 and were on an expansion spree when British came and put this to a halt by their superior weaponry and tactics.

You seem confused... now you are agreeing with me.  Ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/19/2019 at 10:24 PM, Pavel said:

Pakistan’s foreign minister appealed to the U.N. Secretary General on Tuesday to help ease tension with India that has escalated sharply following a suicide bomb attack in the Indian part of disputed Kashmir, that India blamed on Pakistan. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, facing an election by May, has warned Pakistan to expect a “strong response” to the bombing claimed by a Pakistan-linked militant group, raising fears of conflict between the nuclear-armed neighbors. “It is with a sense of urgency that I draw your attention to the deteriorating security situation in our region resulting from the threat of use of force against Pakistan by India,” Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi wrote to U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres. “It is imperative to take steps for de-escalation.  The United Nations must step in to defuse tensions,” he wrote, blaming India for deliberately ratcheting up its hostile rhetoric for domestic political reasons.

 

On 2/28/2019 at 10:01 AM, Observatus Geopoliticus said:

Tension is growing. After the downing of an Indian jet by Pakistan and the parading of the prisonner, New Delhi sends reinforcements to the border :

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-27/indian-enraged-pakistani-video-parading-injured-downed-pilot-tanks-mustering

Note that islamabad says 2 jets were downed while India says they hit one Pakistani plane...

Dear Commies............. a hint of biz...........................

Image result for funny image conflict of pakistan and india

On 3/7/2019 at 8:18 PM, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

Not necessarily true. India would have witnessed a massive war and Hindus wouod have been united. 30% population can't defeat the rest 70% if others get united and in the face of the war, there might as well be unity. The war would have been decisive and most likely with Hindus standing. People can always be wiped out but land is a natural resource and that is needed. Know that even in British India, most of the administration, engineers and officials were hindus. With economic power and control of state machinery, it would have been difficult for muslims to have won. Even today, Pakistan survives due to geopolitical reasons and support of USA arms and Arab petroleum rather than oj its own might

What are we serving here please??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites