You won't catch me defending Turkey. The Kurds are basically fighting a civil war because otherwise they'll be wiped out. I doubt they're out there fighting for world freedom.
Mandelus here is how the fighting started: Tensions in relations between India and Pakistan flared up on February 14 when a suicide attacker rammed his car filled with explosives into an Indian paramilitary convoy in Jammu and Kashmir, killing 45. The Jaish-e-Mohammed group claimed responsibility for the attack. New Delhi accused Islamabad of supporting terrorists who allegedly carry out raids on Indian territory from Pakistan-based camps. In addition, India claimed to have evidence proving that Pakistani military and its intelligence agencies could be behind the attack. In response, Islamabad rejected these accusations. And the latest: NEW DELHI, February 28. /TASS/. Eight fighter jets of the Indian Air Force took on 24 Pakistani jets in an unprecedented air combat over the India-controlled disputed Kashmir region, India’s NDTV television reported on Thursday. According to the TV Channel, the Pakistani Air Force strike group included eight F-16s, four Mirage-3 aircraft and four Chinese-made JF-17 "Thunder" fighters. The other aircraft were escort fighters to protect the Pakistan strike formation from any retaliation. "The large Pakistani attack formation was detected at 9.45 am, when they came within 10 km of the Line of Control," the TV Channel reported. The Pakistani aircraft were intercepted by eight jets of the Indian Air Force, which included four Sukhoi Su-30MKIs, two upgraded Mirage 2000s and two MiG 21 planes, the TV Channel reported. The Indian Air Force’s planes prevented the Pakistani fighters from delivering precision strikes against ground targets on the India-controlled territory of the disputed Kashmir region, the TV Channel said. The details of the first massive air combat between the Indian and Pakistani fighters since the third Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 emerged as India waited for the release of Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman from Pakistan's captivity. More: http://tass.com/world/1046940
If America was involved in a CONVENTIONAL war on the sub continent the "peace movement" and the "anti-nuclear movement" would foam at the mouth. If India and Pakistan annihilate each other in a nuclear war, which effects the whole word, the "peace movement" and the "anti-nuclear movement" would shrug and say "it doesn't involve us." Such movements were against Rhodesian "colonialism" but not the Zimbabwe hell hole. They were against America cruise missiles but not Soviet SS20's. They were against America in Vietnam but not Nth Viet in Cambodia, Laos and Sth Vietnam. They were against American involvement in the first Gulf War but not against Iraq invading Kuwait. And you can make predictions. I predict the coming South African hell would not raise so much as a single demonstration from former anti-apartheid demonstrators, even if ten million people die.
The war in Syria has been going on for years, and do you know why? Whenever Kerry and Lavrov came to an agreement, Kerry would make a call to Obama and that would end that. This is why Lavrov said Kerry is a good man, but Obama is pure evil. It finally reached the point where Russia decided the only way peace could be obtained is by leaving the US out of it - which they have been doing. But that's not all. Whenever the Syrian army was defeating ISIS or Al Nusra, the terrorists would conduct their false flag chemical attacks to give Washington an excuse to attack them and prolong the war.. Anyway this is just two examples of thousands. Washington has 68 successful regime changes on its belt, none of which were democratic elections and probably very bloody. But they're only the successful ones, not the ones that were stopped before hand.
Yes, they changed the regimes in Germany and Japan. Pity they didn't do it in Russia ca 1920 or China 1949 - could have saved a hundred million lives (at least, according to the Black Book of Communism.) https://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087 I am not sure about this 68 regime change business. Sounds like something smoked up in some Bolshevik propaganda dept.. But given what Communism did the big question (for me at least) is why America fought fascism but did little about Communism.
Really ... when was the last time such a "Air Force clash" between both again ... I hope so that is isn't becoming mor eserious ... but this 6-7 year regular "arms show" is normally only with soem artillery fire and some infantry fight and end of it then... but not an Indian Air Force whoich enters Pakistani Aor Space to bomb something far behind border!
OK ... I knew these issue in core so far too, but this is why the US behind all again for you? Really?
Recall that massacre they had a few years back in India, when about 200 people were murdered by Pakistani Islamists? Pakistan did not really co-operate in the catching of those guys. Nor does Pakistan really co-operate with America in hunting down the Taliban bombers. It always plays the double game. Handing back a pilot is just politics. In the meanwhile the govt sits back and watches as hapless people are torn apart by their own mobs over blasphemy laws and such. This is why Pakistan is called "terror central."
Were they Pakistan Islamists? Tells who with what evidence again? And does the US cooperate with Turkey to catch these ... by Turkey called evil Kurdish terrorists in Norther Syria who are told to be allies of the US in fight against IS? No ... so tell me why Pakistan should act otherway as the US ... if they were really Pakistani and not of these Kashmir rebels or a sub-group of them!
One of the latest reports here is that an Indian Mig-21 has shot down a Pakistani F-16. Personally, I'm completely neutral here, neither am I against India, nor am I against Pakistan. But when I read through the international reactions on the internet to this one message alone, I can only laugh and it is simply typical again! A Mig-21 ... so an old USSR fighter jet, which is certainly a modernized version, but in itself comes from a time when the US still used the F-4 Phantom as the main fighter aircraft and there was no F15, F-16, F-18 existing etc. ... shoots a Pakistani F-16 down! How can this be? You can read comments form "impossible to happen, must be a faked news", over "it could never have been a Mig-21, must have been another jet type", over "The Pakistani pilot has to be either a totally inexperienced rookie or a total fool, that this can happen at all" ... over "The Indian pilot must be a total fighter ass or must have incredibly luck" in core. In essence, it's about the fact that old or generally Russian weapons are good for nothing ... and it is therefore very surprising that such a thing can happen, if it's true at all! Isn't that another case of total ignorance and arrogance?
No proof of my assertion. But the Mumbai assassins were Pakistani, their govt apologized (sort of) and they belonged to a Pakistani terrorist group called Lashkar-e-Taiba. The leader of this group was placed under house arrest for two days. So yeah, terror central. I support India on this one and don't like it to American Imperialism. On that imperialism note - been reading up on great empires. These were all colored in red. Wonder if someone can give me an American empire map (ps Alaska and Hawaii don't count - nor does California.)
The sad state of what passes for "tech support" in the United States is appalling already -- without having been destroyed by a nuclear war.... -- "Yeah, hmm... so, just try rebooting the computer!"
The bomb was given by Reagan actually . When he was informed of Pakistan nearing it's quest for nukes , his reaction was that it's none of our business . Reason for this was the help Pakistan was giving in Afghanistan against Soviets .
the nuclear bomb was actually tested by pakistan during clinton's tenure , but it had long possessed it by this time and it had only not tested it . pakistan actually got the bomb in 1987 .
Mind that the US is a new kind of empire that does not so much occupy territory but used it's economic and military power to project authority over land and resources around the globe. It uses it's central role in the global economic system to support elite power structures sympathetic to it's interests in other countries as can be described by the Washington or Atlantic consensus on global economic strategy for dominance. It punishes regimes that it constructs as hostile to it's interests or not in line with it's economic will with a series of well-documented aggression to undermine such regimes going back at least to the beginning of the post-war era and the cold war. These generally include economic sanctions to cripple the countries economy, covert action against non-compliant leaders which can include military coups sponsored by American intelligence or even assassinations as was the case with Diem in Vietnam or Allende in Chile or even Qaddafi in modern times. But outright military attack is not uncommon as we know from the long list of illegal invasions going back decades of which the attack on Iraq is only the latest example.
