I'm actually doing a project for an English class, on American foreign policy.

I think I'm going to focus on the hypocrisy of our war history and how we have stayed out of different atrocities.

Does anyone think we are quite justified in our wa history? Or does anyone think a particular American atrocity was horrendous? Howabout the war in Iraq, is this an example of American imperialism, or is that quite an exageration? If you have any statistics or facts that will be greatly beneficial to my English paper.

Wow, you have a big topic. You could write a book on it, as others have done. I am not sure I understand your statement related to atrocities. Perhaps you could explain further. War has always had atrocity. War is an ugly business. In biblical times, it was standard practice that when you took a city; you also slaughtered all the women, children and domestic animals as well as all of the men.
With technology, war has become more accurate and less bloody. But there are still atrocities. And then you need to define what an atrocity is. Some folks define it differently, it is a mater of perspective. I am sure my definition is different from that of a radical muslim like Bin Laden. I think 9/11 was an atrocity, but I am sure he and his followers have another take on it.

If you are looking for a war that was justified in American history, look at WWII. German and Japan declared war on the United States. And Japan attacked the United States. But even in this war atrocities were committed by both sides on various scales. Innocents were bombed and killed. Atrocity is a natural by product of war.

Also as atrocities relate to foreign policy. I mean this, are we justified in allowing other countries to commit atrocities and not get involved? Howabout the case of east Timor.

Also, During the time of the Vietnam war, America began secretly bombing on "Viet Cong Bases" of which 600,000 people were killed either directly or indirectly from the bombings. Would this be considered an unjust atrocity? Im interested to hear opinions/rebuttles

Maybe someone will claim that the US is justified in different imperialistic volleys because we are spreading precious democracy. In what way should we stand up for democracy in the World? Some have accused America of trying to police the globe but maybe keeping democratic countries free is justifiable.

You should have joined when sandy was around..

In reference to your thesis, Justfication depends on the severity of the threat. In my opinion, with the exception of the cuban missile crisis, (and even thats debatable), the US has never had a knife at its throat as much as some other countries have.

I suggest you look at latin America, and the atrocities that occurred there. The "lesser evil" situation, that many justified.when it couldn't be. , saying that even the slightest hint of socialism would result in horrendous consequences. Clearly, there were ulterior motives, such as corporations within the US wanting access to resources at a cheaper price.

In my opinion, the United States should not get use it's armed forces nor should it use surrogates to fight in foriegn conflicts. The United States should not be the global policeman. It should only get involved in conflicts where its security is threatened.

And the United States has had the knife at its throat on more than one occasion. I suggest you look at the War of 1812 when the capital of the United States was burned to the ground. And also, WW II, when it suffered an unprovoked attack by Japan and had the Axis powers declare war on her.

Spreading democracy out the barrel of a gun is not worth the investment of time and money, much less dealing with the moral issues.

Spreading "democracy" usually is an euphenism for supporting the party that will allow us the most profits and allow us to exploit their population.

The US is not the global policeman, but more like the global pimp, hiring/helping other countries to do their conflicts for them.

Eg. Iraq vs Iran. Columbo vs Venezuela.

WWII, despite the surprise attack, the US fleet was still in a position of superiority, Japanese forces were not in a position to invade continental US, or even Hawaii for that matter.
Good point with the War of 1812, but from my non existent US history & wiki I recall that was more due to your mismanagement than the british superiority.
I find that most of modern US policy is either creating dictators, or fixing up past mistakes.

Spreading "democracy" usually is an euphenism for supporting the party that will allow us the most profits and allow us to exploit their population.

The US is not the global policeman, but more like the global pimp, hiring/helping other countries to do their conflicts for them.

Eg. Iraq vs Iran. Columbo vs Venezuela.

WWII, despite the surprise attack, the US fleet was still in a position of superiority, Japanese forces were not in a position to invade continental US, or even Hawaii for that matter.
Good point with the War of 1812, but from my non existent US history & wiki I recall that was more due to your mismanagement than the british superiority.
I find that most of modern US policy is either creating dictators, or fixing up past mistakes.

I agree with your definition of democracy, "Spreading "democracy" usually is an euphenism for supporting the party that will allow us the most profits and allow us to exploit their population". Representative democracy (especially as practiced in the United States) is a good mechanism for special interests to exercise control of a large group individuals without them knowing it. It is certianly better and safer from the ruling class point of view.

I beg to differ with you on Japan and WW II. Japan did invade and occupy lands of the United States. More specifically they invaded and occupied parts of Alaska. Also the Phillipines was a possesion of the United States at the time...won from the Spanish in the Spanish American War. And the Japanese forcibly invaded and occupied the land. So it was more than just an attack on Pear Harbor.
The Pacific Fleet was decimated by the attack except for a few carrieers and submarines. At the time, the United States Navy did not place a great deal of value on the carriers. It was still a battleship fleet. While the Japanesse fleet had a full compliment of battleships, carriers, destroyers, and submarines. Not one of them was lost in any military campaign up to that point. A few months later the remaining carriers of the United States Pacific fleet met and destroyed a signficant portion of Japans carriers at Midway. At the battle of Midway, the American fleet was out numbered and out gunned. But they won. Because the United States Navy had decoded the Japaneses Naval code and were expecting them. The American fleet caught the Japanese feet with their pants down as they were attacking Midway.
Japan also launched small attacks against the mainland United States. Granted they were small and insignificant. But they still dropped bombs on the mainland, and had plans do do more. The bombs were dropped from an aircraft launched from a modified submarine. Other bombs were dropped via ballon. The only casualties were a few kids and a mom.

I'm actually doing a project for an English class, on American foreign policy.

I think I'm going to focus on the hypocrisy of our war history and how we have stayed out of different atrocities.

Does anyone think we are quite justified in our wa history? Or does anyone think a particular American atrocity was horrendous? Howabout the war in Iraq, is this an example of American imperialism, or is that quite an exageration? If you have any statistics or facts that will be greatly beneficial to my English paper.

Have a look at the removal of Aristide in Haiti. Bush toppled a democracy in Haiti. The "rebels" were armed and trained and paid by somebody and that somebody seems to have been the USA. Certain people in the USA media ran anti Aristide disinformation stories in the US media for 6 months prior to the US troops kidnapping Aristide. Normally the US media will never run stories about Haiti because the editors know Americans have no interest in Haiti. Somehow the Bush lead coup against democracy in Haiti managed to get the editors to allow Haiti stories to run even though the editors knew Haiti stories don't sell advertising.

Look up US involvement in:
Chechnya
Xinjiang (East Turkestan)
Kashmir
Palestine
Azerbaijan
North Cyprus
Somalia (recently)
Lebanon

Iran
Phillipines
Mexico
Vietnam
Cambodia
Laos
Colombia
Guatemala
El Salvador
Cuba
Haiti
Nicaragua
Panama
Grenada
Chile
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Brazil
Guyana


Howard Zinn: A People's History of the United States (http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html)

Look up US involvement in:
Kashmir
P
Kashmir? The US is doing something in Kashmir? Are you counting US money to Pakistan as doing something in Kashmir?

Why is it the responsibility of the US to wage war for the sake of justice and stop the evil doers?

Is it because you think the US is the most moral nation on Earth?

The blatant hypocrisy I see comes from the left-wing.

http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/thumb/pw_sign_44.gif

Why is it the responsibility of the US to wage war for the sake of justice and stop the evil doers?

Is it because you think the US is the most moral nation on Earth?

The blatant hypocrisy I see comes from the left-wing.



The most blatant hypocrisy I see comes from the right-wing.

US foreign policy is often just another evil doer. The US wages wars for reasons that have nothing to do with morality, justice, democracy, freedom or fighting evil doers.

Most wars have been bad guys versus other bad guys.


I nominate Sweden as the most moral nation on earth. Does anybody have a better choice for most moral nation on earth than Sweden?

You quoted 2 questions and didn't answer either one.


The US wages wars for reasons that have nothing to do with morality, justice, democracy, freedom or fighting evil doers.
So what? Name one country besides the US that does.


Most wars have been bad guys versus other bad guys.
Shock and awe.

"As it is written, There is none righteous; no, not one:" -- (Romans 3:10)

You quoted 2 questions and didn't answer either one.


So what? Name one country besides the US that does.


Shock and awe.

"As it is written, There is none righteous; no, not one:" -- (Romans 3:10)

It is not the responsibility of the US to wage war for the sake of justice and to stop the evil doers.

If the US ever did decide to wage a war for the sake of justice or to stop evil doers I as a US citizen would not complain about that if it was done well and without too much cost to US citizens. I had no problem with the US going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

I don't think the USA is the most moral nation. Humans in general are not as moral, honest with themselves or as intelligent as some of us would like to believe we are.

My question is can the next generation be more moral, more intelligent and less self-deceiving than the previous generation was? I think the answer is yes we can get better. The Post-Hitler world has had a higher standard for justice than the pre-Hitler World did. Now we need a better excuse than race, religion or nationality before we collectively steal from each other or to pursue power for the sake of pursuing power.

The USA has so much power. The best I can say about the USA's foreign policy is that the USA probably has not abused that power as much as most other nations would have abused that power if they had the power.

The US pretends to wage war for noble reasons. As a US citizen I want US wars to either be noble or to be truly effective at serving the selfish interests of the majority of US citizens. The War in Iraq fails to satisfy me in either way.

I have read PNAC and have tried to guess what Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were thinking. I think they were wrong. They may have helped the oil companies, Israel and the defense contractors but they have not made Americans safer or wealthier and they are not building some sort of long term containment of China.




So what? Name one country besides the US that does.




No country is running around the world fighting evil. The USA also is not running around the world fighting evil but the backers of this very expensive NeoCon foreign policy try to convince as many people as possible that the USA is fighting some epic Tolkien style battle with evil. This fake battle with evil is the cover story for a highly debatable foreign policy that is serving way too many masters to be effective at anything. The USA is just breeding new generations of enemies for itself.

Kashmir? The US is doing something in Kashmir? Are you counting US money to Pakistan as doing something in Kashmir?

The US government does not recognize, nor ever has, the right of the Kashmiri people to live free of occupation from India. No talk of democracy or freedom can be taken seriously when the US (the "sole protector of liberty" as they call themselves) willfully ignores the death and oppression of millions of people in Kashmir.

Why is it the responsibility of the US to wage war for the sake of justice and stop the evil doers?

Is it because you think the US is the most moral nation on Earth?

The blatant hypocrisy I see comes from the left-wing.

http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/thumb/pw_sign_44.gif

Or unless you are a Republican right-winger.

This has been a very beneficial discussion I assure you and thank you.

But I am interested that noone thinks that we are obligated to intervein in certain atrocities in the World even if it doesnt directly effect our safety.
Do you think that it is too self-righteous to claim moral supperiority? Well maybe it doesnt matter when millions of innocent people are dying. And after all, we do claim things like "All men are created equal" and uphold a pretty high standard of human life, you think we might extend that to other countries.

Without actual researching it I think the US-involvement (as a Nato member) in former Yugoslavia might count as justified involvement in a non-threat (at least to the US) situation.

I think that as one of the world's sole superpowers, it is somewhat our responsibility to intervene in international scenarios. There is no such thing as an atrocity that is not our business. All atrocities are the business of anyone and everyone who can do something to stop it.

Without actual researching it I think the US-involvement (as a Nato member) in former Yugoslavia might count as justified involvement in a non-threat (at least to the US) situation.

In Bosnia Muslims were being slaughtered by Christians. The United States intervened because of our NATO Allies. It is hard to watch innocent people get slaughtered by their own or by anyone for that matter. But our resources are limited. And if frankly is just not worth our time and effort, because then we get blamed for being an imperialist. If we wanted to invade every country that engaged in atrocities, we would be all over the place. We would need a much larger military.

In this thread, you have Diamond Heart blaming us for not getting invovled in Kashmir. The United States cannot and should not be the one who solves all problems. If you solve some but not others, you get the Diamond Heart response, "you should have intervened here or there".

In the case of Kashmir and Pakistan, Kashmir has been a part of India since before the creation of the state of Pakistan. Pakistan was created after Indian independence for the Muslims. Frankly, I think it is silly. India treats Muslims very well from what I can see. The state pays for the Haj for every Muslim citizen.

People of the world, you need to take responsibiltiy of your own issues...e.g. Kashmir. Kashmir is an issue for India and Pakistan to resolve...not the United States. If you are Saudi and unhappy with your government. Then you need to work to change it...not go whining about foriegn powers. The United States does not have troops their to protect the royals from their subjects. It has troops in the area to protect the area from other soverign states...a policy which I disagree with, but so be it.

Casting the United States as evil is not going to solve your problems. You need to take responsibility, and solve them internally yourselves. You can blame the United States all day long, until the cows come home, and it won't solve not one of your problems.

I think that as one of the world's sole superpowers, it is somewhat our responsibility to intervene in international scenarios. There is no such thing as an atrocity that is not our business. All atrocities are the business of anyone and everyone who can do something to stop it.

What if that very superpower is the cause of these atrocities, then who do we turn to?

Without actual researching it I think the US-involvement (as a Nato member) in former Yugoslavia might count as justified involvement in a non-threat (at least to the US) situation.

You don't know about the earlier phase when the USA (and Germany) backed the rise of Milosevic and Tudjman and the rise of ethnic based politics with the goal of breaking up Yugoslavia. The USA and Germany backed Slovenian succession which left the Serbians too large a segment of the remaining state for the other ethnicities to be comfortable.

Why did the USA and Germany do this? I can only speculate, but I think the idea might have been to make a mess in Yugoslavia so that the newly liberated from communism states of Bulgaria and Romania would not look to the Yugoslavian model as an alternative to complete embrace of capitalism including foreign ownership of whatever was worth owning in Bulgaria and Romania. Destroying Yugoslavia also would create better prices for Foreign purchasers of Yugoslav assets.

The bulk of the problem in Yugoslavia goes back to memories of the ethnic massacres during and before WW2 but if the USA and Germany had not worked for the break up of Yugoslavia the war in which you think the USA was making an altruistic intervention might not have happened at all.

You don't know about the earlier phase when the USA (and Germany) backed the rise of Milosevic and Tudjman and the rise of ethnic based politics with the goal of breaking up Yugoslavia. The USA and Germany backed Slovenian succession which left the Serbians too large a segment of the remaining state for the other ethnicities to be comfortable.

Why did the USA and Germany do this? I can only speculate, but I think the idea might have been to make a mess in Yugoslavia so that the newly liberated from communism states of Bulgaria and Romania would not look to the Yugoslavian model as an alternative to complete embrace of capitalism including foreign ownership of whatever was worth owning in Bulgaria and Romania. Destroying Yugoslavia also would create better prices for Foreign purchasers of Yugoslav assets.

The bulk of the problem in Yugoslavia goes back to memories of the ethnic massacres during and before WW2 but if the USA and Germany had not worked for the break up of Yugoslavia the war in which you think the USA was making an altruistic intervention might not have happened at all.

You can speculate what might and might not have happened. The United States and Germany supported the independence movements that led to the break-up of Yugoslavia because the people of the area wanted Yugoslavia to break up. The people wanted independence. The United States generally believes that if people want to govern themselves, they should be allowed to do so. Genocide is not a tool that should be used to keep control over a populace.

Here, this should give you everything you need:

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm

The US government does not recognize, nor ever has, the right of the Kashmiri people to live free of occupation from India. No talk of democracy or freedom can be taken seriously when the US (the "sole protector of liberty" as they call themselves) willfully ignores the death and oppression of millions of people in Kashmir.

Kashmir deserves a thread of it's own. I had the good fortune to visit Kashmir (Srinagar, the valley, and Ladakh) in 1988.

I can hold the USA responsible for doing bad or preventing others from doing good but I am not ready to hold the USA responsible for taking a pass on many issues (like Kashmir).

The victims of the Kashmir mess are not all Muslims. Many Hindus had to flee their homes in Kashmir due to violence. Some say many Muslim Kashmiris no longer want to be part of Pakistan because Pakistan is a mess.

I am guessing that you are either Pakistani or Kashmiri.

Being basically secular and anti-religious fundamentalism and anti-utra-patriotic nationalism, I see the Partition of India and Pakistan as a disaster. I understand why the Muslims did not want to be a majority in a Hindu dominated state.

My ridiculous fantasy solution for Kashmir would be to create a new state from Pakistani, Indian and Chinese Kashmir and Punjab. The new state should be 32% Muslim, 32% Sikh, 32% Hindu and 4% Buddhist and other.

I think the partition was unnecessary too. Mostly because all the religious Muslim leaders were firmly against it. It was driven by the Muslim league, most of them educated under the British and led by Jinnah, the most unreligious Muslim, who was educated at Oxford U.

The voices of the truly religious Muslims like Abul Kalam Azad and Jamat-i-Islamia were drowned out by megalomaniacs. Personally, I think Jinnah wanted to be Prime Minister or President and so did Nehru. They partitioned the country so both could have their little empires.

My fantasy is for people to wake up and realise that the world is getting smaller and create a South Asian Union and chuck out all the sectarian garbage. If Germany and England can do it, why can't we?

In Bosnia Muslims were being slaughtered by Christians. The United States intervened because of our NATO Allies. It is hard to watch innocent people get slaughtered by their own or by anyone for that matter. But our resources are limited. And if frankly is just not worth our time and effort, because then we get blamed for being an imperialist. If we wanted to invade every country that engaged in atrocities, we would be all over the place. We would need a much larger military.

Except however that America and its NATO allies allowed the massacres of Srebrenica to take place, refusing to avert the catastrophe simply because they did not want to fight the Serbs.

It was because of the unbearable pressure from worldwide condemnation and outrage at the massacres of Kosovars that America decided to do something. The Muslim countries (Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc) had already pledged that if the Western world and especially the Europeans would not control the situation, then they would be forced to do something.



In this thread, you have Diamond Heart blaming us for not getting invovled in Kashmir. The United States cannot and should not be the one who solves all problems. If you solve some but not others, you get the Diamond Heart response, "you should have intervened here or there".

Don't be so oblivious. You know what I am talking about. When the US government condemns Kashmiri guerrilla and resistance groups and gives tacit support of India's right to occupy Kashmir, it is getting involved in the conflict.

What I am opposed to is the US policy of denying legitimacy to righteous movements for self-determination of Muslim groups who are under occupation. This is a worldwide phenoma, which includes Palestine, Chechnya, Somalia, parts of Azerbaijan, East Turkestan, and Kashmir.



In the case of Kashmir and Pakistan, Kashmir has been a part of India since before the creation of the state of Pakistan. Pakistan was created after Indian independence for the Muslims. Frankly, I think it is silly. India treats Muslims very well from what I can see. The state pays for the Haj for every Muslim citizen.

You have no idea of India's treatment of Muslims. Nor do you care about Muslim independence from occupation, as can be noted by your responses in this forum.

India was ruled by the British who divided it between Muslim India [Pakistan] and Hindu India [Bharat, Hindustan (as it is known there)]. The modern nation state named "India" in the West is only part of India (South Asia). It is similar to France calling itself Europe.

Kashmir has a majority Muslim population which was forcibly annexed to India in the early years after independence. A UN plebiscite was to be enforced, but India has always prevented it. Kashmiri people have faced 60 years of occupation, rape, and murder by Indian military forces. Enough is enough.

Pakistan's right to Kashmir results from the principle of the partition of India by the British where a majority Muslim region would be given to Pakistan and a majority Hindu region be given to Hindustan. India invaded Kashmir right after independence (and also Pakistan proper), yet because of courage of Pakistani people, they were able to push the invaders back from the homeland.



People of the world, you need to take responsibiltiy of your own issues...e.g. Kashmir. Kashmir is an issue for India and Pakistan to resolve...not the United States.

Then America should stay out of the conflict, yet it has attempted to deny legitimacy and even claimed some far-fletched things such as Kashmir is a battleground for war on terror to deny Kashmiris their legitimate right of independence from oppressive Indian military.



If you are Saudi and unhappy with your government. Then you need to work to change it...not go whining about foriegn powers. The United States does not have troops their to protect the royals from their subjects. It has troops in the area to protect the area from other soverign states...a policy which I disagree with, but so be it.

Wrong. The US has consistently functioned as a security force for the royal families and dictators in many parts of the Muslim world. They are propping up corrupt leaders and preventing the will of the people to be exercised in these countries. The US in exchange gets financial benefits exclusively from these corrupt leaders. America is the single most unpopular country in all the Muslim world, this is no coincidence, but based on the collective experience of US foreign policy in this region for more than 50 years which has been diametrically opposed to the will of the people.



Casting the United States as evil is not going to solve your problems. You need to take responsibility, and solve them internally yourselves. You can blame the United States all day long, until the cows come home, and it won't solve not one of your problems.

Who invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? Who supports the corrupt kings and dictators in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Uzbekistan, UAE? Who is supplying occupation armies with equipment and money in Somalia, Palestine, Kashmir?

America is a major force of destabilization and terror for people living in these countries. The US no longer holds the high ground, they are hypocrites and their foreign policy has always resulted in the worst for people living in Muslim world. The only solution is for the US to isolate itself from the Muslim world, because it cannot be trusted to be fair any longer. Resistance to American occupation and its blatant hypocrisy is justified.

Loads of gibberish there. I'm a Muslim Indian. I'm treated very well indeed. Both my parents came from very poor families and made their own lives. Most Muslims who are in a pathetic state in India are there because they refuse to get educated. The top actor is Shahrukh Khan. Watch him in public in India, he'd be lucky to have his underwear dry, if the mobs were allowed to slobber over him, I was run down myself when I got between him and a mob at a wedding. The rocket scientist President was Muslim. Show me a Hindu or Christian Shahrukh Khan or President in Pakistan.

SAM, Nirakar. I assume both of you are Indian, correct me if I am wrong.

In the end it is what the Kashmiri people desire and that is independence from India and protection from Pakistan. It is the Kashmiris who have been the victims of 60 years of Indian occupation and brutality. I do not blame Kashmiris for hating India because of what horror they faced at the hands of the Indian military.

Kashmir will now and forever be opposed to India because of what India did to them. Pakistan, on the other hand, has always looked out for Kashmir and supported its liberation, therefore in the eyes of the vast majority of Kashmiris Pakistan is their savior and India is their oppressor.

I have also visited in Kashmir in my youth, and I have in my heart and my liver a strong attachment to Kashmir which will never fade. I pray for the day when Kashmir is liberated because I have lost many people I love at the hands of the brutal Indian military.

My fantasy is for people to wake up and realise that the world is getting smaller and create a South Asian Union and chuck out all the sectarian garbage. If Germany and England can do it, why can't we? Germany and England had their fundie burnouts first - and England had a safety valve or two in other continents. The hope is that the Islamic world does not have to engineer a Holocaust of its own to learn these lessons about religion. That hope is not founded in observation of current trends.


Kashmir will now and forever be opposed to India because of what India did to them. Pakistan, on the other hand, has always looked out for Kashmir and supported its liberation, therefore in the eyes of the vast majority of Kashmiris Pakistan is their savior and India is their oppressor. Pakistan has no record of benevolence towards anyone.

So, no Shahrukh Khan or Abdul Kalam in Pakistan?

I've seen Kashmiri Pundits in Mumbai. One of them used to come every year throughout my childhood to sell Kashmiri goods house to house. He always brought us gifts. Now he lives in a refugee camp, with 100,000 other Kashmiri Pundits many of whom have also lost relatives at the hands of militants imported from Afghanistan after the mujahideen escapade in the 1980s; in fact, that is when the slaughter in Kashmir began. There is more than one type of Kashmiri. Kicking out all the Pundits and demanding a referendum is like kicking out all the Palestinians and demanding a referendum in Jerusalem.

And just to keep it relevant to this thread, I blame US foreign policy for Sajjad Afghani and Harakat ul Ansar

So, no Shahrukh Khan or Abdul Kalam in Pakistan?

I've seen Kashmiri Pundits in Mumbai. One of them used to come every year throughout my childhood to sell Kashmiri goods house to house. He always brought us gifts. Now he lives in a refugee camp, with 100,000 other Kashmiri Pundits. There is more than one type of Kashmiri.

You cannot deny the unfair treatment of Muslims by bringing examples of a few successful Muslims in India. This is like comparing African American experience in America by using Barrack Obama or Colin Powell. Still the vast majority of African Americans have problems in education, literacy, and jobs, and so do Indian Muslims.

Concerning India, we have already discussed this topic in a previous thread. If you remember I gave several examples which include discrimination against Urdu language, defamation of Muslim heritage of India, declaring Muslim monuments such as Taj Mahal, Red Fort, etc (which had Islamic religious significance) to simply nationalistic symbols, discrimination in work (Hindus not serving Muslim customers or allowing Muslim rickshaw drivers to take them), creation of Muslim ghettos, and the wide suspicion of Hindus that Muslims are agents of Pakistan (hence having to prove they are more anti-Pakistani than Hindus even).

In some regions of India such as Gujurat and neighboring provinces, discrimination against Muslims is a major problem which has even resulted in massacres by Hindu fanatics of more than 3,000 Muslim women and children (raping and burning them alive).

In Kashmir, the bloodbath and injustices continue weekly. Young men are kidnapped from their villages and found dead. Women are taken to Indian barracks and never seen again. Whole villages live in terror from Indian military brutality. In Kashmir for every 4 Kashmiris, there is 1 Indian soldier, this is how bad this situation is. Peaceful protests are violently broken up witth he deaths of hundreds of people, popular leaders are killed, Mosques are desecrated. This situation must end.

Heh, I am a Muslim from India, I've travelled to the main Muslim centers and I come from a very active Muslim community on one side of the family. The biggest problem we are facing today is over educated daughters and under educated sons. The kidnappings of young men by the fundies in Afghanistan/Pakistan is also well known, same guys keep planting bombs around the country. There have been several in Mumbai, where I come from, where innocent civilians have died. Same guys setting off bombs in Pakistan too, so its incredible that you should support it.

If the Urdu language is dying its because everyone is getting an English education except for those who are getting no education. Sadia Dehlvi and Jagjit Singh can only do so much. Most of the Urdu Shairi is written by Hindu poets today, so the idea that Indians are doing anything to suppress it is ludicrous. My grandmother was educated in Anjuman-e-Islam, I was educated in an English school. At least I can read and speak Urdu, but its only because I taught myself.

SAM, Nirakar. I assume both of you are Indian, correct me if I am wrong.



I am from the USA. My most recent immigrant ancestor came to the USA about 1890.

"Nirakar" is a Sanskrit word and I did briefly live in India.

On my travels, while I was in Srinagar saw a protest against the Indian control which included brick throwing. In Ladakh a few weeks later I saw a Buddhist protest against Christian missionaries.

I fell in love with call to prayer while at Nagin lake. I hope they never bought better loudspeakers because I think I like a little distortion in the call to prayer.

I dislike injustice, hypocrisy and disinformation. If somebody is being unfair to Muslims I will be on the same side as you if I understand the situation correctly.

You might be more pro Muslim than you are anti-injustice. I don't think Kashmir is as clear a situation as you make it out to be. Yes, in theory Muslim majority Kashmir should have been on the Pakistani side of the partition. Maybe Kashmir should have remained independent. My guess is that Muslim Kashmiris good choose now between being in India, being in Pakistan, or being an independent state that has peacefull borders and trade with both India and Pakistan, Muslim Kashmiris would choose independence from both Pakistan and India.

That is just a guess and not even an educated guess.

Germany and England had their fundie burnouts first - and England had a safety valve or two in other continents. The hope is that the Islamic world does not have to engineer a Holocaust of its own to learn these lessons about religion. That hope is not founded in observation of current trends.
.

I would not give up on Muslims so easily. Especially not the South Asian ones. :D

Without actual researching it I think the US-involvement (as a Nato member) in former Yugoslavia might count as justified involvement in a non-threat (at least to the US) situation.

NO. It sure seems like it is better to do nothing.

Heh, I am a Muslim from India, I've travelled to the main Muslim centers and I come from a very active Muslim community on one side of the family. The biggest problem we are facing today is over educated daughters and under educated sons.

I respect your heritage and family. Muslims in South Asia have a multitude of problems, but we need to stand together for justice and fairness, and help further the cause of Muslims in South Asia and worldwide.



The kidnappings of young men by the fundies in Afghanistan/Pakistan is also well known, same guys keep planting bombs around the country. There have been several in Mumbai, where I come from, where innocent civilians have died. Same guys setting off bombs in Pakistan too, so its incredible that you should support it.

SAM, you are making the same exact mistake which Republicans make in evaluating situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those who legitimately fight against Indian military and government are benevolent, those who kill innocents are wrong. You cannot put all of these individuals together with the criminals, there are brave, courageous revolutionaries in Kashmir fighting for the rights of their people. We would be lucky to be even half the individuals they are.



If the Urdu language is dying its because everyone is getting an English education except for those who are getting no education. Sadia Dehlvi and Jagjit Singh can only do so much. Most of the Urdu Shairi is written by Hindu poets today, so the idea that Indians are doing anything to suppress it is ludicrous. My grandmother was educated in Anjuman-e-Islam, I was educated in an English school. At least I can read and speak Urdu, but its only because I taught myself.

In Pakistan, Urdu language is flourishing. Punjab, which is not a traditional center of Urdu language, has become the center of renaissance of Urdu poets and philosophers. Learning Urdu and adopting South Asian Islamic culture is a necessity because it is the link between the Muslims of today to the great Muslims of the past. The Muslims are a strong group which has accomplished many great things in this land, we are as much a part of South Asia as the Hindus. It is only because they want to sideline us that Muslims are in the grave state which they are in India. "Muslims" like Shahrukh Khan and Abul Kalam promote Hindu culture, Hindu icons, and Hindu ideology, but they ignore Islamic culture, why is this.

India [South Asia] is both Hindu and Muslim, and become the vast majority of Hindus could not and will not accept this is why Pakistan was created.



I dislike injustice, hypocrisy and disinformation. If somebody is being unfair to Muslims I will be on the same side as you if I understand the situation correctly.

Then stand up for the rights of downtrodden and oppressed of Kashmir.



You might be more pro Muslim than you are anti-injustice.

Who are you to say where I stand?



I don't think Kashmir is as clear a situation as you make it out to be. Yes, in theory Muslim majority Kashmir should have been on the Pakistani side of the partition. Maybe Kashmir should have remained independent. My guess is that Muslim Kashmiris good choose now between being in India, being in Pakistan, or being an independent state that has peacefull borders and trade with both India and Pakistan, Muslim Kashmiris would choose independence from both Pakistan and India.

That is just a guess and not even an educated guess.

The mere fact is that for nearly 60 years, Muslims of Kashmir have faced oppression and injustice at the hands of brutal Indian military. The situation has gone too far and now the people of Kashmir will never, even in 100 years, look at India the same again. India is a tyrant, oppressor, rapist, and murderer to the Kashmiri people, and so it is this way to me.

I stand for the rights of Kashmiri people to live free from tyranny of India, and I might have to stand alone in this forum, but I know they prayers of Kashmiri and Muslim people are with me in this. God will liberate Kashmir one day, and this day will be the greatest day in the history of the Muslims of South Asia.

What a load of BS, there was no militancy in Kashmir before the mujahideens poured in from Afghanistan. And like I said, Muslim culture in India is upto the Muslims. Earlier, Indian cinema and songs were Urdu, now we have English. The times they are a changing.

SAM, do you live near the fence?

On top of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeSX6AZ5xEI

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2007/0711/postcard_wagah_1130.jpg

wow, they have separate gates.

In the end, the will of Kashmiri people is what matters. Kashmir will be liberated from India as an unjust occupation cannot last forever.

Kashmir is just one battleground for self-determination of Muslims from foreign rule. Palestine, Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia will come back to their rightful owners, Inshallah. Injustice and oppression cannot last forever.

We are all people DH. PEOPLE.

wow, they have separate gates.

Yeah the border is in between ;)


In the end, the will of Kashmiri people is what matters. Kashmir will be liberated from India as an unjust occupation cannot last forever.

Kashmir is just one battleground for self-determination of Muslims from foreign rule. Palestine, Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia will come back to their rightful owners, Inshallah. Injustice and oppression cannot last forever.

Considering they just blow up or hang elected leaders and have gone through one military dictator after another, I don't see how Pakistan has any notion of self determination. The Kashmiri people include the Kashmiri Pundits who precede Islam in the region and I find it extremely odd that your notion of Kashmir is "Muslim" self determination. Perhaps they should move to Mecca and see how the Saudis will treat them there. Or even Pakistan where the "mujahirs" are a distinct community.

This is just one battle for Muslim self-determination which being denied to us in the world. We have had enough of brutality and oppression.

Kashmir does not belong to India and never will. LONG LIVE KASHMIR FREE FROM INDIAN OCCUPATION.

http://www.contactpakistan.com/images/kashmi1.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/jklf-kashmir/massacre_980126.jpg

http://moinansari.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/kashimirious-say-rishta-kiya-la-ilaha-il-lal-lah.jpg

Hmm what happened to the Kashmiri language Koshur? Why are they using Urdu? I smell a Pakistani plot :D

Hmm what happened to the Kashmiri language Koshur? Why are they using Urdu? I smell a Pakistani plot :D

Kashmiri language uses the same Persian script similar to Punjabi, Sindi, Pashto, and Balochi.

Nope, I know Kashmiris, it uses the Sharada script. Or did until recent times. Apparently, its an endangered language now. Strange, isn't it? ;)

Interesting stuff. I knew nothing of the Waga Strut. I find it very entertaining, in a Monty-Pythonesque sort of way. But back to Noone special's class project:

How's it coming? I stamp my foot and demand a report. If there's no followup soon, I'll shake my fan-head and... (please don't make me do it) so help me, I'll flash the thumbs down!

Nope, I know Kashmiris, it uses the Sharada script. Or did until recent times. Apparently, its an endangered language now. Strange, isn't it? ;)

Muslims of Kashmir have used Farsi script for thousands of years. It's similar to Punjabi, Sindi, and Pashto.

Except however that America and its NATO allies allowed the massacres of Srebrenica to take place, refusing to avert the catastrophe simply because they did not want to fight the Serbs.

It was because of the unbearable pressure from worldwide condemnation and outrage at the massacres of Kosovars that America decided to do something. The Muslim countries (Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc) had already pledged that if the Western world and especially the Europeans would not control the situation, then they would be forced to do something.

Don't be so oblivious. You know what I am talking about. When the US government condemns Kashmiri guerrilla and resistance groups and gives tacit support of India's right to occupy Kashmir, it is getting involved in the conflict.

What I am opposed to is the US policy of denying legitimacy to righteous movements for self-determination of Muslim groups who are under occupation. This is a worldwide phenoma, which includes Palestine, Chechnya, Somalia, parts of Azerbaijan, East Turkestan, and Kashmir.
You have no idea of India's treatment of Muslims. Nor do you care about Muslim independence from occupation, as can be noted by your responses in this forum.

India was ruled by the British who divided it between Muslim India [Pakistan] and Hindu India [Bharat, Hindustan (as it is known there)]. The modern nation state named "India" in the West is only part of India (South Asia). It is similar to France calling itself Europe.

Kashmir has a majority Muslim population which was forcibly annexed to India in the early years after independence. A UN plebiscite was to be enforced, but India has always prevented it. Kashmiri people have faced 60 years of occupation, rape, and murder by Indian military forces. Enough is enough.
Pakistan's right to Kashmir results from the principle of the partition of India by the British where a majority Muslim region would be given to Pakistan and a majority Hindu region be given to Hindustan. India invaded Kashmir right after independence (and also Pakistan proper), yet because of courage of Pakistani people, they were able to push the invaders back from the homeland.
Then America should stay out of the conflict, yet it has attempted to deny legitimacy and even claimed some far-fletched things such as Kashmir is a battleground for war on terror to deny Kashmiris their legitimate right of independence from oppressive Indian military.
Wrong. The US has consistently functioned as a security force for the royal families and dictators in many parts of the Muslim world. They are propping up corrupt leaders and preventing the will of the people to be exercised in these countries. The US in exchange gets financial benefits exclusively from these corrupt leaders. America is the single most unpopular country in all the Muslim world, this is no coincidence, but based on the collective experience of US foreign policy in this region for more than 50 years which has been diametrically opposed to the will of the people.
Who invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? Who supports the corrupt kings and dictators in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Uzbekistan, UAE? Who is supplying occupation armies with equipment and money in Somalia, Palestine, Kashmir?
America is a major force of destabilization and terror for people living in these countries. The US no longer holds the high ground, they are hypocrites and their foreign policy has always resulted in the worst for people living in Muslim world. The only solution is for the US to isolate itself from the Muslim world, because it cannot be trusted to be fair any longer. Resistance to American occupation and its blatant hypocrisy is justified.

Diamond, I suggest you start reading more history and less propaganda. It will better serve you and others of your ilk. You need to grow up and take responsibility for your own faults. And you have a very over stated view of your importance. Suprise, the world does not revolve around you. As I said, Kashmir is of no interest to the United States. If I get your position, you think that the United States should not be friendly with anyone you dislike. Well, frankly, your ego greatly exceeds you. As I said, Kashmir is a matter for India and Pakistan to resolve. And frankly, I see no historical support for your positions, and you have failed to provide any...emotional fluff is no subsitute for fact and reality.

The United States is also home to a significant Islamic community. And guess what, miracles of miracles, we live together in peace. The United States attacked Afganistan because we were attacked. It was and remains a legitmate action. Iraq is another story. Our leadership lied to the people of the United States. And guess what, the citizens of the United States are removing the jerk and his party from office. Just like you should do if you are unhappy with your government.

Again you can always second guess what would and should have been. I think of Vietnam. Should the United States have ever become involved? Truman could have averted the whole war at one point. On its face, it appears Vietnam was a total waste. But maybe it was necessary. Maybe there was something that was learned. I caution you about being self righteous. I caution you about blaming others for your problems. Jesus is quoted as saying, before you complain about the the splinter in your neighbors eye, take the log out of your own. You need to look at yourself before you go after others.

I personally do not agree with United States policy in Israel. The Muslims of that area have legitimate issues. And Israel has not been fair. But murder and terrorism really play into the hands of your enemy. Now I have explained this to a number of Muslims, but it just goes over their heads. I expect the same with you. But never the less, I give it another try. Violence is not the answer to all problems. Emotional yelling and complaining is not the answer. YOU NEED TO TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY. DO NOT EXPECT THE UNITED STATES TO ARRIVE ON YOUR SHORES AND ENFORCE YOUR WILL UPON YOUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS. YOU NEED TO SOLVE YOUR OWN PROBLEMS BY WORKING WITH EACH OTHER...NOT BY POINTING FINGERS AT OTHERS OR INSISTING THAT OTHERS DO WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO DO.

What is interesting about this thread how many different ways there are to see US foreign policy. This is not the usual two sided debate.

Again you can always second guess what would and should have been. I think of Vietnam. Should the United States have ever become involved? Truman could have averted the whole war at one point. On its face, it appears Vietnam was a total waste. But maybe it was necessary.

Maybe you mean Kennedy or Johnson?

Your "Truman could have averted the whole war at one point" is more interesting but I have never heard anybody say that. Should Truman have threatened war against France?

Maybe you mean Kennedy or Johnson?

Your "Truman could have averted the whole war at one point" is more interesting but I have never heard anybody say that. Should Truman have threatened war against France?

France was a defeated power. Truman conceeded far too much to the French. Post WWII there was only one Super Power. There was only one nation with the atomic bomb, and that was the United States. Truman chose not to exercise the power he had. He gave far much to the Soviets, which later led to the Cold War.

Ho Chi Minh led an independence movement prior to the end of WWII in Vietnam. He petition Truman for independence on several occasions but was
ignored.

"After the August Revolution (1945) organized by the Việt Minh, Hồ became Chairman of the Provisional Government (Premier of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam) and issued a declaration of independence that borrowed much from the French and American declarations.[6] Though he convinced Emperor Bảo Đại to abdicate, his government was not recognized by any country. He repeatedly petitioned American President Harry Truman for support for Vietnamese independence,[7] citing the Atlantic Charter, but Truman never responded.[8]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh

Truman was not a very strong president and not very popular. He made what is in retrospect a lot of very serious foriegn policy mistakes post WW II. Vietnam was one of those. Instead of granting Vietnam independence, he gave it back to the French.

I think you are correct. Truman goofed, he should have backed Ho.

Well Hypewader, an update I will shew forth.
Really, I have until thursday to complete a power point on this issue, and it seems like I've taken rather a large bite (broad subject matter)

So I decided that I'm just going to read an in depth 700 page American history book on the 20th century (also including the all important Spanish-American war) And I have read about 300 pages on it.

Friends, from what I have read so far, it seems as if America has changed its foreign policy over the years. Early on, we were almost openly imperialistic and war hungry. Just see how Teddy Roosavelt dominated the Gulf and much of the South American dealings (especially the coersion of events for the Panama Canal)

However, as time has gone on, it seems that imperialism has become somewhat "taboo" in the world scene. Now we have to come up with alternative reasons for invasion, but secretely we are imperialistic, and honestly, I don't know that I blame America. I really think every nation is looking out for it's own interests, looking to expand, though it must cover up it's intentions to the rest of the world.

Who thinks that a world power must hold an isolationist policy?
I would really like to hear arguments for and against intervention or expansion (violent or peacable), political theory et cetera.

Well Hypewader, an update I will shew forth.
Really, I have until thursday to complete a power point on this issue, and it seems like I've taken rather a large bite (broad subject matter)

So I decided that I'm just going to read an in depth 700 page American history book on the 20th century (also including the all important Spanish-American war) And I have read about 300 pages on it.

Friends, from what I have read so far, it seems as if America has changed its foreign policy over the years. Early on, we were almost openly imperialistic and war hungry. Just see how Teddy Roosavelt dominated the Gulf and much of the South American dealings (especially the coersion of events for the Panama Canal)

However, as time has gone on, it seems that imperialism has become somewhat "taboo" in the world scene. Now we have to come up with alternative reasons for invasion, but secretely we are imperialistic, and honestly, I don't know that I blame America. I really think every nation is looking out for it's own interests, looking to expand, though it must cover up it's intentions to the rest of the world.

Who thinks that a world power must hold an isolationist policy?
I would really like to hear arguments for and against intervention or expansion (violent or peacable), political theory et cetera.

Foriegn policy of a nation evolves as times change. An isolationist policy never really made sense for a nation...look at pre-comunist China. And isolationism makes even less sense today, as technology expands and actions by one country wither intentionally hostile or not affect another. Polution is an international issue. Global warming is an international issue. Today, a lot of the issues mankind faces are global in nature. We cannot solve global issues by sitting in our neck of the world and refusing to interact with others. We need to work with each other in order to solve our problems. And in typical human fashion, the discourse will not be always friendly nor straight forward and clean. But ultimately, and historically we have, been able to solve the issues we face.

I disagree that the foriegn policy is imperialist in nature. Imperialism sought to outright/direct of control people of foriegn countries...look at the British and India, Eurpoean powers and Africa. Imperialsim does not work...ultimately it becomes too expensive for the imperial power in terms of blood and money. Post imperialism allows countries self government and is far more efficient and profitable.

Today, national boundaries are becoming less and less relevant. We live in a world of corporate dominated foriegn policy where large corporations and groups of corporations or economic interests that transcend national boundaries orchestrate foriegn policies not only of nations but of groups of nations...look at the European Economic Union and other regional economic alliances such as the North American Trade Organization which is to ultimately lead to a North American Economic Union. So I would not call it Imperialism, I would call it commercialism.

Interesting stuff. I knew nothing of the Waga Strut. I find it very entertaining, in a Monty-Pythonesque sort of way.

Heh, Yeah that is what it reminded me of too. Ministry of Silly Walks

http://www.defence.pk/gallery/data/500/wpak114.jpg

Noone special: "...as time has gone on, it seems that imperialism has become somewhat "taboo" in the world scene. Now we have to come up with alternative reasons for invasion, but secretely we are imperialistic, and honestly, I don't know that I blame America. I really think every nation is looking out for it's own interests, looking to expand, though it must cover up it's intentions to the rest of the world."

I have a differing view, that Shock and Awe and military imperialism has been steadily losing effect. International and interpersonal relations are not only analogous, but closely related. Just as forcing your neighbor to give up what you want has become unacceptable in society, so it is evolving in the international sphere.

It isn't mere idealism to observe that nations are evolving beyond self-serving aggression, by necessity. Would-be empires can no longer assert with authority that resistance is futile. In response to this growing awareness, the nationalistic emotions are threatened, eliciting all sorts of psychological defense-mechanisms. As it becomes increasingly obvious that "superpowers" are increasingly dependent on co-operative (and not coerced) international relationships, more primitive instincts will increasingly agitate for regression into wars of domination. Reviewing history over the very long term, tribes and nations are evolving into a more civilized community, and barbaric behavior is finding less and less reward within the community of nations. A barbarian might bristle at becoming civilized, and an imperialistic-nationalist will do the same, but a progression away from brutal domination continues because it is necessary for the survival of the species.

"Who thinks that a world power must hold an isolationist policy?"

Isolationism is not possible for any developed nation, because of the global nature of resources and services. As more nations come up economically, the concept of "world power" will lose meaning. "World Power" is just an expression of imperialism, that is becoming obsolete/unsustainable. The more this inevitability becomes obvious, the more nationalists will beat their chests. For all of us who have been programmed/educated to assume Manifest Destiny or nationalist superiority, there will be confused emotions, but reason and reality will overcome them. Within the community of nations, it's becoming apparent that bullies are neither needed nor wanted.

When you brought up Teddy Roosevelt it highlighted for me the declining fortunes of imperialism. I don't know if it would be appropriate for your presentation, Noone special, - but if you and your audience explored what the likely response would be if there were a Teddy Roosevelt pursuing blatantly imperialistic policies from the White House today, something might be learned about how times have changed, and about the trajectory of imperialistic policy.

Heh, Yeah that is what it reminded me of too. Ministry of Silly Walks

http://www.defence.pk/gallery/data/500/wpak114.jpg

reminded me of strutting peacocks, but it was fun to watch.

Diamond, I suggest you start reading more history and less propaganda. It will better serve you and others of your ilk. You need to grow up and take responsibility for your own faults. And you have a very over stated view of your importance. Suprise, the world does not revolve around you. As I said, Kashmir is of no interest to the United States. If I get your position, you think that the United States should not be friendly with anyone you dislike. Well, frankly, your ego greatly exceeds you. As I said, Kashmir is a matter for India and Pakistan to resolve. And frankly, I see no historical support for your positions, and you have failed to provide any...emotional fluff is no subsitute for fact and reality.

The United States is also home to a significant Islamic community. And guess what, miracles of miracles, we live together in peace. The United States attacked Afganistan because we were attacked. It was and remains a legitmate action. Iraq is another story. Our leadership lied to the people of the United States. And guess what, the citizens of the United States are removing the jerk and his party from office. Just like you should do if you are unhappy with your government.

Again you can always second guess what would and should have been. I think of Vietnam. Should the United States have ever become involved? Truman could have averted the whole war at one point. On its face, it appears Vietnam was a total waste. But maybe it was necessary. Maybe there was something that was learned. I caution you about being self righteous. I caution you about blaming others for your problems. Jesus is quoted as saying, before you complain about the the splinter in your neighbors eye, take the log out of your own. You need to look at yourself before you go after others.

I personally do not agree with United States policy in Israel. The Muslims of that area have legitimate issues. And Israel has not been fair. But murder and terrorism really play into the hands of your enemy. Now I have explained this to a number of Muslims, but it just goes over their heads. I expect the same with you. But never the less, I give it another try. Violence is not the answer to all problems. Emotional yelling and complaining is not the answer. YOU NEED TO TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY. DO NOT EXPECT THE UNITED STATES TO ARRIVE ON YOUR SHORES AND ENFORCE YOUR WILL UPON YOUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS. YOU NEED TO SOLVE YOUR OWN PROBLEMS BY WORKING WITH EACH OTHER...NOT BY POINTING FINGERS AT OTHERS OR INSISTING THAT OTHERS DO WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO DO.

As a Republican America, I care little of what you think. Your views on Kashmir are of little consequence to me. You are preaching to me that I should understand the situation, but you should know that I have lived extensively in Kashmir and the Northern areas, so I have a thorough grasp of the situation.

You don't accept my viewpoints because of what you have been told. I have seen with my own eyes the anguish and sorrow of my brothers and sisters in Kashmir. I am in favor of bringing an end to the humiliation of my people. I don't care if you deny the legitimacy to the Kashmiri people to live free from occupation and death. Your opinion does not matter to me and never will.

I stand by my commitment that the struggle to liberate Kashmir is just and honorable and America has consistently interfered in the exercise of freedom by Kashmiris in favor of India's continued genocidal policy against the Kashmiris.

To you the Kashmiris mean nothing, but to me, one innocent Kashmiri child is worth more to me than the world and all it contains.

When there is injustice, it is the responsibility of honest people to say something.

Except for the Kashmiri Pundits eh? The ones who have been in Kashmir since before Islam?

and America has consistently interfered in the exercise of freedom by Kashmiris in favor of India's continued genocidal policy against the Kashmiris.

Did we not establish earlier that the USA's crime in Kashmir was doing nothing? The only reason that the USA should be mentioned regarding Kashmir is that the USA is the most powerful nation on Earth and should work for justice if it is going to claim to be working for Justice.

Why can't your rhetoric be nuanced enough to have the USA be the oppressor of Muslims in several nations and yet play no role in another place where Muslims are being oppressed? The US people don't know Kashmir exists. The people running US foreign policy don't care whether Kashmir is part of India or Pakistan but would prefer that the issue be peacefully settled because they would like to have both India and Pakistan as allies. President Bush does not hate Muslims but he must make Muslims scary to the US people because he can not follow the foreign policy of seeking world domination unless he can present the US people with a scary enemy. 9-11 regardless whether done by Al-Qaeda or Dick Cheney gave Bush and the Neocons what they needed as a pretext to invade Iraq. They wanted to Invade Iraq because having a puppet regime in Iraq was the best thing that they could do to advance their goal of world domination. They are fools.

You also sound like a fool when you say "America has consistently interfered in the exercise of freedom by Kashmiris". America has done nothing about Kashmir and you turn that into America interfering. What the USA has done that relates to Kashmir is to help pay for the Pakistani military. If I was looking for a US interference in Kashmir I would have to say the US has backed Pakistan. Words are cheap and putting some group on a list of terrorists does not mean anything if you are also giving money to the sponsors of the alleged terrorist group.




To you the Kashmiris mean nothing, but to me, one innocent Kashmiri child is worth more to me than the world and all it contains.

When there is injustice, it is the responsibility of honest people to say something.

If they don't say anything are they interfering? The biggest injustice in the World now is in Congo. Have you said anything or are you interfering in the Congo.

Its a joke Diamond Hearts, take a deep breath, go to Kashmir and then talk about kashmiris. Genocidal policy ... hahahah

The only thing genocidal about kashmir is Islamic terrorism that plagues the state every now and then. Kashmiri pandits live with 9/11 every day. So yea go ahead talk blah blah about stuff and do whatever you want. Truth is truth period.

Rick

Did we not establish earlier that the USA's crime in Kashmir was doing nothing? The only reason that the USA should be mentioned regarding Kashmir is that the USA is the most powerful nation on Earth and should work for justice if it is going to claim to be working for Justice.

Why can't your rhetoric be nuanced enough to have the USA be the oppressor of Muslims in several nations and yet play no role in another place where Muslims are being oppressed? The US people don't know Kashmir exists. The people running US foreign policy don't care whether Kashmir is part of India or Pakistan but would prefer that the issue be peacefully settled because they would like to have both India and Pakistan as allies. President Bush does not hate Muslims but he must make Muslims scary to the US people because he can not follow the foreign policy of seeking world domination unless he can present the US people with a scary enemy. 9-11 regardless whether done by Al-Qaeda or Dick Cheney gave Bush and the Neocons what they needed as a pretext to invade Iraq. They wanted to Invade Iraq because having a puppet regime in Iraq was the best thing that they could do to advance their goal of world domination. They are fools.

You also sound like a fool when you say "America has consistently interfered in the exercise of freedom by Kashmiris". America has done nothing about Kashmir and you turn that into America interfering. What the USA has done that relates to Kashmir is to help pay for the Pakistani military. If I was looking for a US interference in Kashmir I would have to say the US has backed Pakistan. Words are cheap and putting some group on a list of terrorists does not mean anything if you are also giving money to the sponsors of the alleged terrorist group.

If they don't say anything are they interfering? The biggest injustice in the World now is in Congo. Have you said anything or are you interfering in the Congo.

Well said Nirakar. If anything, the United States has provided substancial on on going funding of the Pakistani Armed Forces. And Diamond, what I said just flew over your head, like I expected it too. Pakistan and India need to resolve the issue...not the United States. The United States has encouraged and continues to encourage each side to find a peaceful solution. The United States has no interest in seeing Pakistan and India fighthing each other. It benefits no one. YOU the Pakistani and Indians have to solve this problem yourselves...each of you are capable of doing so. So I suggest again you stop blaming the United States and start talking with each other.

You have a list of complaints about the Indians. I am sure the Indians have an equally long list of complaints about your side. You both need to work it out. And I would suggest to you that a little forgiveness goes a long way.

Did we not establish earlier that the USA's crime in Kashmir was doing nothing? The only reason that the USA should be mentioned regarding Kashmir is that the USA is the most powerful nation on Earth and should work for justice if it is going to claim to be working for Justice.

No brother, you simply do not understand. The US has given permission to India to declare Kashmir as a battleground for its global "war on terror." This gives the right of India to detain Kashmiris suspected of being part of the resistance, without any charge or fault, but simply on suspicion. India has used this green light to round of men and women and depopulate whole villages into their jails to be tortured and murdered. The US is to blame because it supports, in spirit, the oppression of Kashmiris by India. US has also facilitated India's alliance with Israel and Israel sells US weapons to the Indian military designed to further cause misery to the Kashmiri people.



Why can't your rhetoric be nuanced enough to have the USA be the oppressor of Muslims in several nations and yet play no role in another place where Muslims are being oppressed? The US people don't know Kashmir exists. The people running US foreign policy don't care whether Kashmir is part of India or Pakistan but would prefer that the issue be peacefully settled because they would like to have both India and Pakistan as allies.

This is mere idealism on your part. There is a common belief in Pakistan that after Iran, Pakistan will be the next target. Both the previous government of Afghanistan and the present government in Iran have been friends of Pakistan. Worldwide Muslim sentiment is against the US involving itself in the Muslim world. The fact remains that the US has caused much more problems for Pakistan in the last 7 years than benefit.

There is a saying,"To be the enemy of America is a problem, but to be the friend of America is assured death.

America uses its allies and once they have done their work, they leave them in their condition. Afghanistan and Iraq are prime examples.


President Bush does not hate Muslims but he must make Muslims scary to the US people because he can not follow the foreign policy of seeking world domination unless he can present the US people with a scary enemy. 9-11 regardless whether done by Al-Qaeda or Dick Cheney gave Bush and the Neocons what they needed as a pretext to invade Iraq. They wanted to Invade Iraq because having a puppet regime in Iraq was the best thing that they could do to advance their goal of world domination. They are fools.


I agree completely.



You also sound like a fool when you say "America has consistently interfered in the exercise of freedom by Kashmiris". America has done nothing about Kashmir and you turn that into America interfering. What the USA has done that relates to Kashmir is to help pay for the Pakistani military. If I was looking for a US interference in Kashmir I would have to say the US has backed Pakistan. Words are cheap and putting some group on a list of terrorists does not mean anything if you are also giving money to the sponsors of the alleged terrorist group.

Every since the US declared its so-called "war on terror", India has begun rounding up innocent Kashmiris and protesters and murdering them in connection with suspicion of being part of the resistance. This rhetoric alone has caused the deaths of thousands of Kashmiris. I hardly believe this is non-interference.

The truth is US wants to gain favor with India for economic and military reasons, and they are willing to sacrifice the innocent Kashmiris to do this.


Except for the Kashmiri Pundits eh? The ones who have been in Kashmir since before Islam?

The modern Kashmiris are the descendants of the people of this region, they are not foreigners. The vast majority of the Muslims of Pakistan and India are natives, not foreigners.


Well said Nirakar. If anything, the United States has provided substancial on on going funding of the Pakistani Armed Forces. And Diamond, what I said just flew over your head, like I expected it too. Pakistan and India need to resolve the issue...not the United States. The United States has encouraged and continues to encourage each side to find a peaceful solution. The United States has no interest in seeing Pakistan and India fighthing each other. It benefits no one. YOU the Pakistani and Indians have to solve this problem yourselves...each of you are capable of doing so. So I suggest again you stop blaming the United States and start talking with each other.

If you don't care, do not get involved. Your type of rhetoric has caused the destruction of both Afghanistan and Iraq, we don't need advice from self-righteous Republicans.

The Kashmir issue is an issue which involves all the Muslims of the world, because people are being punished for their religious affiliation. They are being denied self-determination under a brutal occupation which has resulted in more deaths than even in Palestine or Chechnya, yet the Western world has continued to portray this issue as an Indian domestic issue, or an issue only with India and Pakistan.

Afghanistan and Iraq are Muslim nations, and they are Muslim issues, but Republicans like yourself feel it is your divine right to interfere here. Don't preach to me about whose blame this is. It is the fault of the entire international community, and it is their responsibility to stop this. Those who give India military assistance with full knowledge it will be used to oppress Kashmiris are to blame, those who give a foreign nation the right to occupy another are to blame, and those who deny human rights to Iraqis and Afghanis, how can we expect them to allow us to exercise our human rights?

There is a saying,"To be the enemy of America is a problem, but to be the friend of America is assured death.

America uses its allies and once they have done their work, they leave them in their condition. Afghanistan and Iraq are prime examples.

Every since the US declared its so-called "war on terror", India has begun rounding up innocent Kashmiris and protesters and murdering them in connection with suspicion of being part of the resistance. This rhetoric alone has caused the deaths of thousands of Kashmiris. I hardly believe this is non-interference.

The truth is US wants to gain favor with India for economic and military reasons, and they are willing to sacrifice the innocent Kashmiris to do this.

The modern Kashmiris are the descendants of the people of this region, they are not foreigners. The vast majority of the Muslims of Pakistan and India are natives, not foreigners.

If you don't care, do not get involved. Your type of rhetoric has caused the destruction of both Afghanistan and Iraq, we don't need advice from self-righteous Republicans.

The Kashmir issue is an issue which involves all the Muslims of the world, because people are being punished for their religious affiliation. They are being denied self-determination under a brutal occupation which has resulted in more deaths than even in Palestine or Chechnya, yet the Western world has continued to portray this issue as an Indian domestic issue, or an issue only with India and Pakistan.

Afghanistan and Iraq are Muslim nations, and they are Muslim issues, but Republicans like yourself feel it is your divine right to interfere here. Don't preach to me about whose blame this is. It is the fault of the entire international community, and it is their responsibility to stop this. Those who give India military assistance with full knowledge it will be used to oppress Kashmiris are to blame, those who give a foreign nation the right to occupy another are to blame, and those who deny human rights to Iraqis and Afghanis, how can we expect them to allow us to exercise our human rights?

You are funny my friend, in a sad sort of way. You are so very misinformed. First, I am not a Republican! Second, I challenge you to produce something here to substanciate your allegations. Show us some proof that India sought approval from the United States and the United States sanctioned military operations in Kashmir by any party.

India has been rounding up those who plant bombs on their railways and kill innocent civilians. That does not sound like terrorism to me.

Big daddy U.S.A. What a load of BS.

You Republicans obviously do not understand anything about Kashmiri politics. If you do not have knowledge, then please write comments on another topic which you are familiar with and leave this to those who have knowledge about this.

These links may help those who truly which to seek knowledge on this issue:

Human Rights Violations in Kashmir (http://www.yespakistan.com/kashmir/humanrightsviolationsinkashmir.asp)


US support of puppet elections and giving legitimacy to India's puppet Kashmiri government (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_2002_Oct_14/ai_94331351)


The Current Indian Policy in Kashmir (http://www.globalpolitician.com/24819-india-kashmir)

You Republicans obviously do not understand anything about Kashmiri politics. If you do not have knowledge, then please write comments on another topic which you are familiar with and leave this to those who have knowledge about this.

These links may help those who truly which to seek knowledge on this issue:

Human Rights Violations in Kashmir (http://www.yespakistan.com/kashmir/humanrightsviolationsinkashmir.asp)


US support of puppet elections and giving legitimacy to India's puppet Kashmiri government (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_2002_Oct_14/ai_94331351)


The Current Indian Policy in Kashmir (http://www.globalpolitician.com/24819-india-kashmir)

Apparently, I am more familar with the issues than you are Diamond. You still have not provided ANY proof of your allegations that the United States sanctioned India's violent responses. You have not shown that the United States gave India permission, as if she needed it.

Second, you have shown your blatent disregard for the truth. I have told you that I am not Republican. Yet still you insist that I am. If you would have searched my postings and read them, you would see where I have consistently been critical of George II and his Republicans. Yet you find it more convenient to ignore the truth when it conflicts with the way you want to view the world.

The URLs you posted were to one, a radical right wing nut job website. And two, the URL about India policy said basically what I have been telling you. The United States has encouraged India to find a peaceful solution to Kashmir. And it encouraged and continues to encourage India to grant free elections to the people of Kashmir.

Three, it appears you like to divide the world into good and bad. You are the good and everyone who disagrees with you is bad. The world is just not that simple.

Below is a link to a report by Human Rights Watch, a credible organization. And it cites both sides for human rights violations.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/kashmir/

Here is a link from Human Rights Watch...a credible source. It cites both sides with human rights violations.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/kashmir/back.htm

Diamond, please open your eyes. There is more here than what your heart will allow you to see.

Apparently, I am more familar with the issues than you are Diamond. You still have not provided ANY proof of your allegations that the United States sanctioned India's violent responses. You have not shown that the United States gave India permission, as if she needed it.

I have stated that India used and continues to use the "war on terror" slogan to legitimatize its horrid crackdown on public Kashmiri opposition. The US has turned a blind eye to the abuses which India carries out against Kashmiri people.

The US involved itself in several areas of the conflict:

-Allowing India to use Kashmir as a battleground for its "war on terror", (further weakening the legitimatacy of Kashmiri claims to independence)

-US pressuring Pakistan to crack down on Kashmiri resistance groups stationed in Azad (Liberated) Kashmir

-US facilitating alliance and giving of arms to India through its surrogate state, Israel

-Israeli training in sophisticated weapons use and torturing to Indian military

-Repeated US pressure on moving the majority of Pakistani troops into Afghan border from Indian border (while India adds more troops along Pakistan border, US knows this)

-US mediated support of India through its puppet Karzai in Kabul, Afghanistan in weapons, money, energy, etc. in preference to Pakistan (Karzai is known as an anti-Kashmir and Pro-India politician)

-US propaganda against Iran and pressure on Pakistan to end bilateral trade and friendship which Iran (one of Pakistan's allies in region)

It is ridiculous to say the US has not involved itself in Kashmir, and unfortunately we shall see even more. one example, In the year 2002, a US manufactured spy drone was shot down flying over Pakistani territory in Lahore. It was later found this spy drone was being used by Israel to help spy for India.



The URLs you posted were to one, a radical right wing nut job website. And two, the URL about India policy said basically what I have been telling you. The United States has encouraged India to find a peaceful solution to Kashmir. And it encouraged and continues to encourage India to grant free elections to the people of Kashmir.

How is YesPakistan website a radical rightwing website?

Another thing you should know, India's elections in Kashmir have never ever been free. Human rights agencies have found that the Indian military have forced whole villages to vote for candidates at gunpoint. Are these the type of elections which the US wants in Kashmir?




Three, it appears you like to divide the world into good and bad. You are the good and everyone who disagrees with you is bad. The world is just not that simple.


You are saying I am oblivious in this conflict? How long have you lived in Kashmir to tell me this? I understand that Americans have a habit of speaking on topics, especially international topics, which they do not have knowledge about and this particular case one prime example.

Compare the US response in Tibet to the US response in Kashmir and you will see the truth. The truth of which is the uS cares nothing for freedom and only for their own interests.

Tibet is a country occupied by a country which the US opposes ideologically as a Communist state, which the US fears as a military power, and which the US competes with as an economic power.

India (I made a type, sorry for this) is a country which the US praises as a democracy (though it represses political aspirations to its religious minorities), a power which the US wishes to cultivate as a military power (which served its interests) and a counterweight to China and strong Islamic nations such as Pakistan, Iran, etc (they don't say this, but it is self-evident), and the US now shares an economic alliance with India in IT and other businesses. The US is attempting to produce a puppet military power to balance both Chinese Communist influence and Islamic nations ascent in global politics.

The US is willing to sacrifice the brave, courageous people of Kashmir to make India a military power, but it will not happen because of a few things: the Kashmiri resistance, a disenchanted and oppressed Muslim minority in India, worldwide Muslim anger at India over its treatment of Muslims, and Pakistan's unfettered defense of Kashmiris against Indian occupation.

We never hear anything about the WoT in India. We're more concerned with the ISI and their bombs in our cities.

So you are willing to support an aggression, illegal occupation in Kashmir, without regard to death, oppression, and terror against Kashmiris?

So you are willing to support an aggression, illegal occupation in Kashmir, without regard to death, oppression, and terror against Kashmiris? To be free of Pakistani influence is worth quite a bit, judging from the Afghan and Bengal experiences.

I don't like the US role in all this, but that doesn't mean Pakistan is some kind of desirable overlord.

I'm actually doing a project for an English class, on American foreign policy.

I think I'm going to focus on the hypocrisy of our war history and how we have stayed out of different atrocities.
So, you're looking to do a writing project on America's atrocities committed by America staying out of different atrocities committed by others.

You should be thinking that not asking for a tuition refund is an atrocity unto itself.

Your education adds up to one.

I'm sorry for your loss.

To be free of Pakistani influence is worth quite a bit, judging from the Afghan and Bengal experiences.

I don't like the US role in all this, but that doesn't mean Pakistan is some kind of desirable overlord.

What is your problem with Pakistan?

For your information, majority of Afghani people love Pakistan because Pakistan saved them from Russian invasion. Half of Bengalis, especially religious Muslims like Jamat e Islami people, etc, and almost all Biharis are still pro-Pakistan.

Pakistan has always been a stabilizing factor in South Asia against imperialistic aims of India to dominate the region. If there were no Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Tibet, and Kashmir would all belong to India right now.

What is your problem with Pakistan? It's a militarized thug country that exports violence and supports oppressive religious factions all over the place.


For your information, majority of Afghani people love Pakistan because Pakistan saved them from Russian invasion. Half of Bengalis, especially religious Muslims like Jamat e Islami people, etc, and almost all Biharis are still pro-Pakistan. Yah, they love the Taliban, all those Afghanis - especially the women, no longer burdened with schooling, jobs, medical care, or travel. And the half of the Bengalis - presumably the half that the Pakistani military did not target in what some sources who specialize in such matters term one of the half dozen worst atrocities of the 20th century.


Pakistan has always been a stabilizing factor in South Asia against imperialistic aims of India to dominate the region. If there were no Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Tibet, and Kashmir would all belong to India right now. I'm sure Tibet is forever grateful for its delivery into the hands of China, and Bangladesh for whatever protection it received against any India forces that would treat them even worse than the Pakistani forces did, and Kashmir for the pretense that it is not part of India and the constant threat of violence that supports the pretense, and Sri Lanka for whatever Pakistan has done to promote its current state of civil war and terrorism,

but really, I think Pakistan has done enough favors for its neighbors.

Diamond, I am going to keep it simple for you. You are very long in accusations but non existent on proofs. I have repeatedly asked that you provide proof of just one of your many accusations. And to date, you have not provided a single proof. Do not provide worthless links to propaganda sites...provide proof. Else your arguements are TOTALLY WORTHLESS.

By the way, the United States does not fear China as a military power. They like Iraq have a large military. But their military is not very powerful for a variety of reasons. The United States has historically been a power that would prefer to avoid using military power whenever possible (exception being George II). So don't take the willingness of the United States to pursue peaceful paths as a weakness...like Japan did in WW II. Further, the American-Chinese relationship is a friendly relationship. Do we have differences/issues with China...sure. Do we have issues with India, sure, we do. Do we have issues with the Arab states, absoutley. But that does not mean they are our enemy. China is one of our largest trading partners as well as India. So I think you need to bone a bit up on American foriegn policy and trade.

One final point, there is no intrensic value to Kashmir. There is no oil or natural resources of merit in Kashmir. Kashmir is not militarily significant or strategic to any power. A thousand years ago, Kashmir had some strategic value as a trade route, but with air and other forms of transportation, it has no strategic value today.

Again, where is the proof? Prove just one of your many and varied claims.

Economically, China is our friend. Politically, China is our enemy. And the Chinese are steadily modernizing their military and expanding their sea and air capabilities.

It's a militarized thug country that exports violence and supports oppressive religious factions all over the place.

What is America in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I find it rather informative that whenever the Americans criticize their opponents, they seem to describe themselves rather than their enemies.



Yah, they love the Taliban, all those Afghanis - especially the women, no longer burdened with schooling, jobs, medical care, or travel. And the half of the Bengalis - presumably the half that the Pakistani military did not target in what some sources who specialize in such matters term one of the half dozen worst atrocities of the 20th century.

The Taliban were a decentralized and city-level government. There was very little federal control. What was true in some parts of Afghanistan was completely opposite in other parts. One thing, however, that they did bring was peace and stability after 50 years of war. Something the US completely destroyed in a matter of a few years. The Taliban were still far better than Karzai, who is a known criminal, drug dealer, and has launched an ethnic cleansing policy against native Pathans. You believe Taliban were bad, Karzai is a thousand times worse for Afghanistan. The way to deal with Afghanistan is through peace, because whenever you start war in Afghanistan, it has a tendency to go on for decades. In the end it is the civilians which suffer the most. Almost half of Afghans have lived in neighboring Pakistan to escape violence at some time in their lives, whether it is caused by Russian, Afghani Warlords, or Americans.




I'm sure Tibet is forever grateful for its delivery into the hands of China, and Bangladesh for whatever protection it received against any India forces that would treat them even worse than the Pakistani forces did, and Kashmir for the pretense that it is not part of India and the constant threat of violence that supports the pretense, and Sri Lanka for whatever Pakistan has done to promote its current state of civil war and terrorism,

but really, I think Pakistan has done enough favors for its neighbors.

You have major problems. I am sorry. Is there any proof that Pakistan has involved itself Sri Lanka and Tibet?

Bangladesh, as I stated, is evenly divided between Pro-Pakistan, Pan-Islamic population and Anti-Pakistan Secular Nationalists and Communists. No matter of Indian or Bengali Nationalist propaganda will change that a large population in Bengladesh still love Pakistan.

As far as Kashmir, Kashmiris, by and large, support Pakistan because Pakistan supports their cause for freedom and the spirit of freedom throughout South Asia. Kashmir will inevitably join Pakistan, as that is where the will of the people resides, it is only a matter of time.

Diamond, why cannot you support you miriad and many allegations with not one single fact?

Go to my previous posts. I have already stated it.

If you deny it, I don't care. I have stated my view on the matter.

t's a militarized thug country that exports violence and supports oppressive religious factions all over the place.
”
What is America in Iraq and Afghanistan? Similar, and no better excused - includiing in its dealings with, and support of, Pakistan. Why do you ask ? Does America'as behavior excuse Pakistan's ?


ou have major problems. I am sorry. Is there any proof that Pakistan has involved itself Sri Lanka and Tibet? None that I know of. I took you at your assertion, for the sake of argument and to avoid that tangent in the main point.

If you were being deceptive and dishonest again, I am perfectly happy to renounce any claims of my own based on information from you. It doesn't change my argument.

Kashmir will inevitably join Pakistan, as that is where the will of the people resides, it is only a matter of time And that is coincident with "freedom" for the Kashmiris, in your view. How many of the Kashmiris want independence, rather than conjoinment with Pakistan ? Will they have a say ?

Diamond, I think you have a serious credibility issue! Everyone but you can see it.

You two hardly classify as everyone.

What credibility do two anti-Muslim Americans have in relation to Pakistan, India, and Kashmir?

I want to know the sources of your propaganda, where did you learn what you are trying to convince me of? Personal experience? Growing up in Kashmir? Tell me.

What credibility do two anti-Muslim Americans have in relation to Pakistan, India, and Kashmir?



What do you mean?

It is the calling of good people throughout the world to fight for the right of Kashmir to be free from Indian occupation and genocide, regardless of the opposition they may face.

Those people who justify India's hold on Kashmir are denying freedom to the Kashmiri people, and this is one of the greatest injustice a person can do to brave, courageous people of Kashmir.

Kashmiri people have had their Paradise turn to a Hellfire because the world has condoned and stood silent against the rape of its women, kidnapping of its children, torturing of its young men, and murder against its noble people.

Kashmir cannot live forever in this position, so I am trying to make people aware of the horrible situation which is happening against my brothers and sisters in Kashmir.

If you have any humanity, support Kashmir's freedom from Indian occupation. Force your government leaders to toughen their resolve on Kashmir and force India to accept UN observed plebiscite as it had promised.

Every day which goes by, more innocent Kashmiris die. We must put an end to this.

Let me get this straight Diamond, you are saying because I disagree with your positions, I am anti-Muslim? That is quite a stretch of ego and logic! Your arguements here would be perfect material for a class in logic as a demonstration of illogical thought and arguement.

If you were not so serious, you would be funny. You have not proven any of your many outrageous allegations. You have barely made an attempt to prove them. If you want people to believe you, you need facts not allegations. You keep calling those who disagree with you names. You have called us Republican and now Anti-Muslim. The truth is I am for people. I am for truth. I call things as I see them. You are using the same lack of logic and deception methods used by Republicans in this country. So yes, I oppose those that would and do distort the truth to further their nefarious deeds.

I sided with the Bosnians when they were being slaughtered by the Christians. I side with the Palestinians in many of their issues with Israel (less any and all acts of terrorism). And I ask you to produce some real facts to support your claims with respect to Kashmir, and that makes me Anti-Muslim? Come on, you are better than that.

Now I do not know if you are knowingly being decitful or just a victim of others. But I would encourage you to have an open mind, as much as possible, and look for the truth. Use fact to substianciate your claims and reasoning...not emotional rhetoric. For now, you are no better than the Republicans you complain about.

There are dangerous people in the world today on all sides. George W. Bush is one of them. You are another...same methods...same ends...different story line.

For the most part, at least in my experience Republicans are Anti-Muslim. Even if you don't exactly classify yourself as a Republican, you buy all this propaganda directly from them.

It is naive and dishonest to put me to compare me to George Bush, as I do not advocate the military invasions into sovereign nations nor interfere in the legitimate aspirations of colonized nations.

I have seen first hand the horror and savagery from war. I am for a just and peaceful resolution to conflicts, if possible. Otherwise, I do support armed struggle against an aggressive foreign military power occupying another, as I do in Kashmir.

Indian actions in Kashmir are being allowed by the US government to proceed with full knowledge of the harm that India is doing to Kashmir's defenseless population. The invasion and destruction of Afghanistan is a further complication to the region, and because of US meddling in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and secret deals with India to stay out of Kashmir in exchange for increased business with India. The US wishes to strengthen India, even at the result of destabilizing Pakistan (which has remained a strong US ally and anti-Communist country throughout its history).

In this world, it is not principles, but dollars which speak loudest. The flow of cash into America's arms makes it rather easy to forget about the bloodbath in Kashmir. Not to mention America's increased hostility with the Muslim world and need of a strong counterweight to what some Republicans see as the possibility of another Islamic revolution, this time in a country other than Iran, which may have a domino effect in the region.

There is also the need to balance China and arms deals, which India may also serve.

There is no substitute for research.

Some links on Kashmir:

Indian Muslim view on Kashmir (http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/15032001/Art14.htm)

Indian Occupation - Past to Present (http://www.defencejournal.com/nov98/indkashmir.htm)

View from CAIR representative (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0607-05.htm)


Fact Sheet - Kashmir [Pakistani Kashmiri source] (http://www.contactpakistan.com/kashmir/facts-kashmir.htm#World's%20oldest%20dispute)


Kashmir is NOT a part of India (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3023/kashmir_meta_letter.html)


Present situation of Kashmir can be blamed on both British complicity and Indian direct occupation - Article on Kashmir by Pakistani General (http://www.contactpakistan.com/kashmir/article5.htm)

Legality of Kashmir accession to India (http://www.netpakistani.com/articles/?2155439)


occupation of Kashmir - detailed parallel to Israeli occupation of Palestine (http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq3.html)

Gloomy Anniversary of Kashmiri Occupation -Kashmiri-Canadian Council (http://world.mediamonitors.net/headlines/a_gloomy_anniversary)

Jamat e Islami leader Qazi Hussain Ahmad on Kashmir (http://www.jamaat.org/news/2005/feb/5feb05solidarity.html)


Book on Kashmir by Jammu and Kashmir Peoples League [click next to continue] (http://www.ummah.net/kashmir/docs/ody0.htm)

Any mention of the Hindu Kashmiris?

Any mention of the Hindu Kashmiris?

Provide links if you have them. Though the genocidal policy of India is squarely meted out against the majority Muslims, it has been related to me that many Hindus and Sikhs are also anti-Indian occupation. The All Parties Hurriyet Conference has Hindu members as well as Muslim members.

I mean, what is Pakistan doing about them? For them? Considering its support for Kashmir.

I want to know the sources of your propaganda, where did you learn what you are trying to convince me of? I am getting my info on your arguments and reactions and responses from you, here on this forum.

For example:
For the most part, at least in my experience Republicans are Anti-Muslim. Even if you don't exactly classify yourself as a Republican, you buy all this propaganda directly from them.

The average Republican in the US couldn't find Pakistan on an unlabeled map, and if you showed them the outline of the country on a globe (without the "stan" name) would do no better than chance at guessing the local religion(s). The Republican faction of American national governance is allied or associated with Pakistan, and suppresses rather than exaggerates denigrating info about the country. No one from the US on this forum hates Pakistan because of Republican propaganda, OK ?

Since Diamond refuses to come clean on Kashmir, I present the following which explains the origin of the conflict. Kashmir was a princely state that wanted independence...did not want to be part of India or Pakistan when the Brits left India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_conflict

Since Diamond has chosen not to come clean on the facts of Kashmir, I will share the following the readers of this forum:

Indo-Pakistani War of 1947
Main article: Indo-Pakistani War of 1947
The irregular Pakistani tribals made rapid advances into Kashmir (Baramulla sector) after the rumours that the Maharaja was going to decide for the union with India. Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir asked the Government of India to intervene. However, the Government of India pointed out that India and Pakistan had signed an agreement of non-intervention (maintenance of the status quo) in Jammu and Kashmir; and although tribal fighters from Pakistan had entered Jammu and Kashmir, there was, until then, no iron-clad legal evidence to unequivocally prove that the Government of Pakistan was officially involved. It would have been illegal for India to unilaterally intervene (in an open, official capacity) unless Jammu and Kashmir officially joined the Union of India, at which point it would be possible to send in its forces and occupy the remaining parts.

The Maharaja desperately needed the Indian military's help when the Pathan tribal invaders reached the outskirts of Srinagar. Before their arrival into Srinagar, India argues that Maharaja Hari Singh completed negotiations for acceding Jammu and Kashmir to India in exchange for receiving military aid. The agreement which ceded Jammu and Kashmir to India was signed by the Maharaja and Lord Mountbatten.[2]

The resulting war over Kashmir, the First Kashmir War, lasted until 1948, when India moved the issue to the UN Security Council. The UN previously had passed resolutions setting up for the monitoring of the conflict in Kashmir. The committee it set up was called the United Nations Committee for India and Pakistan. Following the set up of the UNCIP the UN Security Council passed Resolution 47 on April 21, 1948. The resolution imposed that an immediate cease-fire take place and said that Pakistan should withdraw all presence and had no say in Jammu and Kashmir politics. It stated that India should retain a minimum military presence and stated "that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations". The cease fire took place December 31, 1948.

At that time, the Indian and Pakistani governments agreed to hold the plebiscite but Pakistan did not withdraw it's troops from Kashmir thus violating the condition for holding the plebiscite. Over the next several years, the UN Security Council passed four new resolutions, revising the terms of Resolution 47 to include a synchronous withdrawal of both Indian and Pakistani troops from the region, per the recommendations of General Andrew McNaughton. To this end, UN arbitrators put forward 11 different proposals for the demilitarization of the region - every one of which was accepted by Pakistan, but rejected by the Indian government.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_conflict

So why were Junaghad and Hyderabad invaded and forcefully annexed to India, even though the Muslim kings signed treaties of ascension with Pakistan?

So the Hindu majority kingdoms are allowed to be forcefully annexed to India, while Kashmir, a Muslim majority Pro-Pakistan kingdom, was not allowed to go to Pakistan because its king signed it over to India last minute under pressure to chose between Muslim popular will for Pakistan and Indian military duress?

India violated the Treaty of Ascension in both Hyderabad and Junaghad, and violates the principles of the partition in Kashmir, with British complicity. The Muslim majority district of Firozpur and its British military garrison was given to India a the last moment. The British did not want Pakistan to last.

Kashmir does not belong to India, and never will, because the people's will is firmly opposed to Indian rule. We might have had a situation of peace if India allowed greater autonomy in Kashmir and established friendly relationships with Pakistan, but India was against partition from day one.

The British Viceroy Louis Mountbatten stated himself that he relished the fact that Pakistan would at a later date be absorbed by India.

After careful study of the situation, one will realize what a great travesty of justice has been dealt to the Kashmiris, Pakistanis, and Indian Muslims. We were cheated and lied to, and then the British simply turned the odds in favor of India by giving Kashmir, Firozpur, Junaghad, and Hyderabad to India without any compromise.

Thousands of Kashmiris have died at the hand of the brutal conflict in Kashmir, those who support the occupation have no human decency or compassion. Kashmiri people are lambs left to the slaughter of the Indian military. I simply do not understand that hatred and violence can be so much in people outside the region, living in the West, that they oppose freedom for a people because they are Muslim. There is no excuse for this.

I beg to differ with you on Japan and WW II. Japan did invade and occupy lands of the United States. More specifically they invaded and occupied parts of Alaska. Also the Phillipines was a possesion of the United States at the time...won from the Spanish in the Spanish American War. And the Japanese forcibly invaded and occupied the land. So it was more than just an attack on Pear Harbor.
The Pacific Fleet was decimated by the attack except for a few carrieers and submarines. At the time, the United States Navy did not place a great deal of value on the carriers. It was still a battleship fleet. While the Japanesse fleet had a full compliment of battleships, carriers, destroyers, and submarines. Not one of them was lost in any military campaign up to that point. A few months later the remaining carriers of the United States Pacific fleet met and destroyed a signficant portion of Japans carriers at Midway. At the battle of Midway, the American fleet was out numbered and out gunned. But they won. Because the United States Navy had decoded the Japaneses Naval code and were expecting them. The American fleet caught the Japanese feet with their pants down as they were attacking Midway.
Japan also launched small attacks against the mainland United States. Granted they were small and insignificant. But they still dropped bombs on the mainland, and had plans do do more. The bombs were dropped from an aircraft launched from a modified submarine. Other bombs were dropped via ballon. The only casualties were a few kids and a mom.

I know this is old, but I'll respond to it anyway.

Granted, The japanese caught you by surprise, granted they had sea superiority and speed in the pacific. But aside from those few bombs on continental US, Were the japanese ever in a serious position to take and hold the US ? They may have taken one island, and the pacific islands, but the heart of the US, the cities of Chicago, L.A, New York, were all safe and sound. Whislt the British, had London under constant attack, and the threat of invasion from germany was very, very real.

The answer to that question is no.

The Pacific theater of World War 2 were the result of two Expansionist, Imperialistic nations vying for control of the Pacific Islands. No one is to blame for starting the war, as it was inevitable that it would begin. The attack on Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military base, thus it was legitimate considering US involvement in Pacific resistance against Japan, support for China, and minor skirmishes between America and Japan.

Thousands of Kashmiris have died at the hand of the brutal conflict in Kashmir, those who support the occupation have no human decency or compassion. Kashmiri people are lambs left to the slaughter of the Indian military. I simply do not understand that hatred and violence can be so much in people outside the region, living in the West, that they oppose freedom for a people because they are Muslim. There is no excuse for this. If you were arguing for the independence of Kashmir, that would be one thing. You are arguing for the annexation of Kashmir by Pakistan, apparently on the grounds that the majority of the people in Kashmir are Muslim.

That is what people oppose. Very few Westerners oppose freedom for Kashmir on any grounds, let alone that Kashmiris are Muslim (I don't know even now, having not looked it up, what percentages of what parts of Kashmir have mostly Muslim residents ).

I know this is old, but I'll respond to it anyway.

Granted, The japanese caught you by surprise, granted they had sea superiority and speed in the pacific. But aside from those few bombs on continental US, Were the japanese ever in a serious position to take and hold the US ? They may have taken one island, and the pacific islands, but the heart of the US, the cities of Chicago, L.A, New York, were all safe and sound. Whislt the British, had London under constant attack, and the threat of invasion from germany was very, very real.

The answer to that question is no.

Challenger, have you ever driven up the coast of California? I take it you have not. Because if you had, you would have seen fortifications built after the attack on Japan all up and down the Western Coast of the United States. They were build in anticipation of a invasion from Japan. The Alaskan Highway was built after the attack on Pearl Harbor in anticipation of an invasion by Japan. And it was more than one island taken from the United States by Japan.

The Pacific theater of World War 2 were the result of two Expansionist, Imperialistic nations vying for control of the Pacific Islands. No one is to blame for starting the war, as it was inevitable that it would begin. The attack on Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military base, thus it was legitimate considering US involvement in Pacific resistance against Japan, support for China, and minor skirmishes between America and Japan.

The source of the confilct between Japan and the United States that led to the war was Japan's brutal conduct of the war against China where large numbers of folks were raped and murdered and forced into slavery. The United States, in protest stoped selling military materials to Japan. How is that unethical? How is it legitimate to attack a country without warning (declaration of war) as a response of their refusal to trade with a country that invades and brutalizes it's neighbors?

And before you get started, India did not invade Kashmir. They were petitioned by the leadership of Kashmir to become a part of India...which was in response to insurgents coming into the country from Pakistan.

Challenger, have you ever driven up the coast of California? I take it you have not. Because if you had, you would have seen fortifications built after the attack on Japan all up and down the Western Coast of the United States. They were build in anticipation of a invasion from Japan. The Alaskan Highway was built after the attack on Pearl Harbor in anticipation of an invasion by Japan. And it was more than one island taken from the United States by Japan.

Compared to Britain, the threat of invasion was minimal. Since I'm using that as an example, of "our backs to the wall", and the knife at the throat being the huge German forces poised across the river.. If hitler had not launched operation Barbossa, The english would have been doomed.

Well Challenger, lucky for you Brits the United States choose to help you guys out and put our major emphasis on Europe first...while continuing to fight Japan in the Pacific. When our feet were to the fire, we helped you first before helping ourselves. The citizens of the United States felt very threatened by Japan. And Japan felt like the US would be a pushover...just like Bin Laden and his crowd.

Challenger78: we were at war with Japan because, not only did they invade Alaska and the Philippines, but they invaded in allies in Britain, China, and the Netherlands. The Japanese occupying forces brutally persecuted their subjects, especially the Chinese. It wasn't just American territorial integrity that was at stake. It was freedom worldwide.

Japanese were just as vicious to their subjects as Americans were to Native Americans and Natives of Hawaii. Both expansionist empires were cruel to their people.

Just as India is cruel to Kashmiri people and suppress Kashmiri peoples aspirations for freedom. In the end, it is not India, Pakistan, or Americans who will decide their fate, it is Kashmiri populace. Kashmiris have petitioned Pakistan to help end the brutal occupation, hence it is the will of Kashmir which is with Pakistan in conflict.

Education is key. Westerners have access to information and computers, there is no excuse for ignorance on this matter.

Ask any Kashmiri person you know, especially if you are British, as many Kashmiri people in England.

Education is key. Westerners have access to information and computers, there is no excuse for ignorance on this matter.


Yes, take your own advice, you have access to the computer, there is no excuse for ignorance in this matter.

Japanese were just as vicious to their subjects as Americans were to Native Americans and Natives of Hawaii. Both expansionist empires were cruel to their people.

That is an idiotic statement that shows you know nothing about WWII in east Asia. Try reading Iris Chang's Rape of Nanking. An account of the worst atrocity in history, committed by the Japanese. When the Imperial Army invaded China's capital city of Nanking, 90,000 Chinese soldiers were captured. The Japanese murdered all 90,000 POWs. They then proceeded to terrorize the city. They killed any man with calluses on his hands because it supposedly proved he was a soldier in hiding. They raped about 50,000 women, and often made fathers rape their daughters or sons rape their mothers. They tortured civilians in the most cruel and inhuman ways possible - they would blindfold live men and use them for bayonet practice, they would douse people in kerosene and light them on fire, they would shove lit dynamite into people's body parts and wait for it to explode, they would bury people waist-deep or neck-deep in the ground and have their dogs maul them, or run over them in vehicles. They would cut open the bellies of pregnant women and rip out the fetus, killing it before the mother's own eyes. They would hold contests to see who could kill the most Chinese in a set amount of time. After just three weeks, they had killed 370,000 civilians and 90,000 prisoners of war for no reason except for racism and spite. So tell me...what did America do that remotely compared to that?

Yes, take your own advice, you have access to the computer, there is no excuse for ignorance in this matter.

Very well said Buffalo!!! Mega dittos!

Diamond reminds me so much of that old saying about the pot calling the kettle black.

Due to the lack of education and moderation on this forum, personal attacks have become rather common. It is a great way to gain legitimacy without actually debating the subject.

It is rather educational to me that you are supporting Buffalo Roam in his statement, which seems paradoxical to me considering his history of pure, vile hatred against Muslims and other Non-American people on this forum. I'm not asking you to denounce him, but your support of him seems telling of where your own prejudices lie.

Denying people freedom and peace because of their religion is a crime.

DH, no offense but can you spend more time reading and doing research. Read all sources and draw conclusions based on numerous sources. Maybe then people here will take you seriously.

I don't expect Republicans to agree with me. Rather I expect the opposite.

I'm not worried about what you people think, as I have lived in Kashmir for years. I know what I am talking about. Whereas, many people in the US, but particularly Republicans, simply do not know about Kashmir.

One day on Wikipedia does not make you an expert, no offense.

Please read 1887 Constitution of Kingdom of Hawaii (aka Bayonets Treaty). The US effectively forced Hawaii to become a vassal state. 75% of Hawaii's population could not vote.

America was no saint in WW2. Japanese were very oppressive, but the US also committed many crimes.

I am not nor was i ever a Republican. I am not arguing with you about Kashmir but on the many other topics you post to where you seem to lack any ability to see both sides of an issue.

Due to the lack of education and moderation on this forum, personal attacks have become rather common. It is a great way to gain legitimacy without actually debating the subject.

It is rather educational to me that you are supporting Buffalo Roam in his statement, which seems paradoxical to me considering his history of pure, vile hatred against Muslims and other Non-American people on this forum. I'm not asking you to denounce him, but your support of him seems telling of where your own prejudices lie.

Denying people freedom and peace because of their religion is a crime.

Diamond I should hope that my support of Buffalo would be educational to you. If you read our postings, you will find sometimes I agree with Buffalo and sometimes we disagree. It is not all or the other. Buffalo does not hate Muslims. I do not hate Muslims. I have supported Muslims when I think they are right and I do not support them when I think they are wrong. Just because you are Muslim does not make your right one hundred percent of the time. And just because someone is non Muslim does not make them Republican or wrong one hundred percent of the time.

Your capacity to ignore truth is amazing. Your capacity to argue with supporting documentation and fact is equally amazing. I suggest you listen to what I and others in this thread have told you on several occasions. An honest and open debate and review of facts will serve you better than just regurtating inflamatory rhetoric you recieve from other biased sources.

Buffalo does not hate Muslims.


What planet do you live on?

Please click on his username and view his recent posts, almost all of which are targeting Muslims and attempting to increase racism and prejudice against all Muslims.



I do not hate Muslims. I have supported Muslims when I think they are right and I do not support them when I think they are wrong. Just because you are Muslim does not make your right one hundred percent of the time. And just because someone is non Muslim does not make them Republican or wrong one hundred percent of the time.

Explain to me then why you deny legitimacy to Kashmiri people's fight for freedom. The only difference I see between Kashmir and other places, like Tibet, are the religious background of people. Both people deserve freedom, but one is being denied because of religious affiliation.

I believe I am correct on the Kashmir issue, as Kashmir is in my blood and veins. I have lived in Kashmir, and the heart of Kashmir resides within me. I have had extensive discussion on Kashmir with fellow Kashmiris, which obviously you have not.

You are wrong about Kashmir. If you don't agree, I don't care because your opinion is meaningless to me.



Your capacity to ignore truth is amazing. Your capacity to argue with supporting documentation and fact is equally amazing. I suggest you listen to what I and others in this thread have told you on several occasions. An honest and open debate and review of facts will serve you better than just regurtating inflamatory rhetoric you recieve from other biased sources.

You have never proven anything. The US is involved in giving legitimacy to India's claim to Kashmir by declaring the resistance as terrorists because of their religious affiliation. I provided links in previous posts. The Indian military terrorists who butcher and abuse hundreds of thousands of Kashmiris are not terrorists, why is this?

This is a telling commentary of our times.

I don't wish to argue with you as you obviously do not know anything about Kashmir. It is rather more informative for me to argue with SAM, as she knows far more with you.

If I don't respond, I'm too busy to bother with you. Get over it.

Please read 1887 Constitution of Kingdom of Hawaii (aka Bayonets Treaty). The US effectively forced Hawaii to become a vassal state. 75% of Hawaii's population could not vote.

America was no saint in WW2. Japanese were very oppressive, but the US also committed many crimes.

So tell me, at what point in the Hawaiian occupation did American soldiers rape, torture, and murder nearly 400,000 innocent civilians? No one ever said America was a saint, but it's never done anything comparable to what the Japanese did in their occupied territories.

What planet do you live on?

Please click on his username and view his recent posts, almost all of which are targeting Muslims and attempting to increase racism and prejudice against all Muslims.
Explain to me then why you deny legitimacy to Kashmiri people's fight for freedom. The only difference I see between Kashmir and other places, like Tibet, are the religious background of people. Both people deserve freedom, but one is being denied because of religious affiliation.
I believe I am correct on the Kashmir issue, as Kashmir is in my blood and veins. I have lived in Kashmir, and the heart of Kashmir resides within me. I have had extensive discussion on Kashmir with fellow Kashmiris, which obviously you have not.
You are wrong about Kashmir. If you don't agree, I don't care because your opinion is meaningless to me.
You have never proven anything. The US is involved in giving legitimacy to India's claim to Kashmir by declaring the resistance as terrorists because of their religious affiliation. I provided links in previous posts. The Indian military terrorists who butcher and abuse hundreds of thousands of Kashmiris are not terrorists, why is this?
This is a telling commentary of our times.
I don't wish to argue with you as you obviously do not know anything about Kashmir. It is rather more informative for me to argue with SAM, as she knows far more with you.
If I don't respond, I'm too busy to bother with you. Get over it.

Diamond, I have proven everything I have said. And you have failed to produce one iota of proof. But it is meaningless to you because you have formed a bias, an emotional attachment. So facts are meaningless to you.

"Explain to me then why you deny legitimacy to Kashmiri people's fight for freedom" I never denied Kashmiri people have a right to self determination. Show me where I said that? You cannot, because I did not. I repeated the American position, that the issue of Kashmir should be peacefully resolved by all parties involved in the dispute.

The difference between Tibet and Kashmir is that Tibetian leadership is actively advocating for peace and armies are not shooting at each other nor terrorizing each other...big difference. That is why Tibet is getting more attention in the press. Now that is not the answer you want to hear because it does not cause people to froth at the mouth and want to go out and shoot someone...but that is the truth. People in the west do not want to be associated with a bunch of terrorists running around shooting each other.

Diamond, you go around attributing motives to others that simply may not, and in many cases, do not exist. When I was a kid I used to get very angry at a lot of folks because I thought they were doing things to be evil towards me. I have come to find out, at great emotional expense, that the motives I attributed to others where most often non existent. Once I came to that realization, things got a lot easier for me. And that is what I am trying to get across to you.
Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are evil. The motives that you attach to the actions of others are probably not real in most cases. I encourage you to open up to the thoughts and opinions of others. You think you know the truth. But maybe there is a world out there that you don't know and will never know unless you free yourself from the chains that ensnare your mind.

And Diamond, if I did not care about you. I would not be wasting my time responding to you.