Submitted by Falls_stuff t3_10oqq7k in worldnews
HouseOfSteak t1_j6h3jko wrote
Reply to comment by Logical-Dog-7387 in US to renew efforts to reduce India's oil, military 'dependency' on Russia by Falls_stuff
Which was after the US sale of Poseidon P-8's to India?
Seems like India is happy for 'US help' when it comes to weaponry and other defense trade (which exceeded $15B in a decade). India also seems quite happy to recieve American support for counterterrorism operations.
I suppose this doesn't consider the whole US aid to India over HIV and Covid, either?
​
You say 'no', but India it says 'yes'.
Logical-Dog-7387 t1_j6h4gkf wrote
When did 'trade' became 'aid' ? US traded weapons because US liked the smell of our money . Was there any technology transfer ? No Did they give anything as aid or free ? No. Who kept as away from all the technology or raw materials for which we could have developed our technology ? US We paid dearly with your counter terrorism agent became and participated in the biggest terrier attack we have ever seen. And the terrorism is a byproduct of what USA did in Afghanistan. The mujahudheen and Taliban US founded and funded is the root cause of almost all of the attacks responsible. US aid is peanuts when compared against the harm USA has done
HouseOfSteak t1_j6h5abl wrote
That $450 package to India wasn't 'aid' either. It was also 'trade'.
>because US liked the smell of our money
And, in the same vein, they don't just like Pakistani money and therefore it can be dismissed out of hand, or is this special now?
>Did they give anything as aid or free ?
You think Pakistan got shit for free? Who told you this crap LMAO
>We paid dearly with your counter terrorism agent became and participated in the biggest terrier attack we have ever seen.
The biggest terrorist attacks in India was by the Tripuri insurgents (500 dead) Indian mafia (257 dead), actually. Over 30 years ago on both accounts. All homegrown terrorism, and all that.
You're going to need to be a wee bit more specific.....or just even remotely accurate. Seriously, this hyperbole nonsense is just sad. Come on.
>The mujahudheen and Taliban US founded and funded is the root cause of almost all of the attacks responsible.
Almost all attacks, except for the ones that aren't.
Also.....Taliban, US-founded? OK seriously, who's telling you this bullshit?
I mean, let alone the fact that India is treating the Taliban like a properly recognized ruling entity and not a terrorist one when they attended talks with other Soviet powers. Instead of, y'know, the terrorists that they are.
KL_18 t1_j6h5l75 wrote
What 26/11 Mumbai blasts are by Indian Mafia & not by Pakistani terrorists backed by ISI? Good to know,
HouseOfSteak t1_j6h6tpu wrote
The 2011 blasts that left 26 dead were indeed Indian Mujahideen.
However, that was NOT the biggest terrorist attack ever as the previous poster stated. Domestic terrorist incidents have taken many times that many lives - such as the Assam violence, the Punjab killings, the Manipur Ambush, Rafiganj train wreck, etc. - the list sadly goes on.
​
India has a substantial domestic terrorism problem, as you can probably see. Most of the worst is the pre-counterterrorism era.
Logical-Dog-7387 t1_j6h9c9p wrote
I stand corrected. US anty terrorism agent was the cause of 3rd largest terrorist attack on the country. Do you agree with the fact a US agent was involved ?
HouseOfSteak t1_j6ha6pb wrote
Oh fun, you went from 'they (at one point) funded the Taliban' (the only accurate statement you've made so far) to.....the attack was caused by an actual US.....anty(?) terrorism agent.
​
Do you have any actual proof to back up a claim of this magnitude, or are you going to attempt personal insults again?
Logical-Dog-7387 t1_j6haqa5 wrote
I said that statement only on 26/11 mumbai attacks you are reading it out of context. I didn't go back from anything else I said. America did support Taliban . They funded mujahedeen. Dude you made Movies about your support for religious terrorist in Afghanistan. There are a lot of article how you (USA) pushed wahabism and radical islamical ideologies just google it and read.
HouseOfSteak t1_j6hbtw8 wrote
>I said that statement only on 26/11 mumbai attacks you are reading it out of context.
My mistake, I missed the part where you explicitly said '26/11' and 'Mumbai', how foolish of m-
>We paid dearly with your counter terrorism agent became and participated in the biggest terrier attack we have ever seen.
Oh wait, no you didn't. In fact, you didn't even mention the words 'Mumbai' or the numbers '11' or '27'.
Are you done with the easily disproven arguments?
>They funded mujahedeen.
I never said they didn't. However, considering how the Indian mujahedeen was founded in 2003 - a full 11 years after Operation Cyclone - you're going to have to actually link the two groups if you're going to try assuming that the US had funded the Indian varient.
You.....are aware that 'mujahedeen' are not a single monolithic entity, yes?
I stated that the US didn't found the Taliban, like your no-proof claim attempted to push.
>Dude you made Movies about your support for religious terrorist in Afghanistan.
Oh, I did, now?
How odd, I don't remember being 'them'. Hell, I don't remember the part where I was even American!
SliceOfCoffee t1_j6hb8yc wrote
>America did support Taliban
No they didn't, they supported the Northern Alliance.
>They funded mujahedeen
The Mujahideen ≠ The Taliban
More Mujahideen fighters joined the Northern Alliance than the Taliban.
Logical-Dog-7387 t1_j6hbz4d wrote
Yes they did. The mujahideen that got training in pakistan by american funding that went ahead and founded the Taliban. Northern alliance was based on tribal power play . Those who were religiously motivated joined Taliban regardless of their tribal roots. Same elements are no biting pakistan on the ass as pak taliban
SliceOfCoffee t1_j6hdy3g wrote
The Reichwehr ≠ The Wehrmacht
The Mujahideen ≠ The Taliban
The Taliban was formed AFTER the Mujahideen dissolved, exactly 0 US support went to the Taliban because at the time the US was sending support IT DIDN'T FUCKING EXIST.
Again you will also find that very few Mujahideen fighters joined the Taliban, most Taliban fighters were new recruits who were not part of the Mujahideen, where as the Northern Alliance the majority of its fighters were Ex-Mujahdeen.
Logical-Dog-7387 t1_j6h5qd8 wrote
>That $450 package to India wasn't 'aid' either. It was also 'trade'.
What package ?
>And, in the same vein, they don't just like Pakistani money or is this special now?
If they like pakistani money why are they trying to friends with India now ? Just go be with your friends
>You think Pakistan got shit for free? Who told you this crap LMAO
Yup, they got a lot of free aid. Just google
>The biggest terrorist attacks in India was by the Indian mafia, actually. Homegrown terrorism, and all that. You're going to need to be a wee bit more specific
What are you ,an idiot ? US even acknowledge their agent David hedley role in 26/11 mumbai terror attack. India mafia , homegrown terrorism ? When ? Nice diflect from the fact that USA made Taliban and mujahudeen with it all terrorist problems we all face now
HouseOfSteak t1_j6h749n wrote
>$450 package to India
The one you mentioned.
I copy-pasted exactly what you said, and I found the word 'sale' in most reports regarding it. Pay attention to your own info.
>If they like pakistani money why are they trying to friends with India now ?
Because the US wants to cut Russia off and will happily supply India's needs, if it so wants - and counter to your narratives, is.
Pay attention to current events.
>Yup, they got a lot of free aid. Just google
No, I'm not going to go digging up your own claims for you.
>idiot
And that's the sign that you have nothing left to add.
Logical-Dog-7387 t1_j6h98i7 wrote
I never anything about any packages to India. Read again And do you really think we are idiots not to take a deal if it's beneficial to us. ? But with every US deal beneficial there is a larger US deed where we come out as losers And I did my digging for my claims .just not willing to do it again something thag you can do on your own time.
HouseOfSteak t1_j6hapo0 wrote
Fine, that was a typo. I meant the one to Pakistan that you mentioned right from the start.
>And do you really think we are idiots to take a deal if it's beneficial to us. ?
.....I assume this is a typo.
You're supposed to take deals that are beneficial to you - it's a rationally sound decision. Why wouldn't you?
>But with every US deal beneficial there is a larger US deed where we come out as losers
Do you have any actual evidence that the US has had over $15B in defense trade with Pakistan in a single decade compared to the defense trade with India?
Just another claim that you refuse to give the slightest bit of context to.
>And I did my digging for my claims
Sure you did. Which is why you have yet to actually give any workable identifying information to mostly anything you said.
Seriously, the most actual information of substance that you have was the 450m number, and you were incorrect because that wasn't free aid - it was a sale for the f16 package.
Logical-Dog-7387 t1_j6hbofv wrote
>Fine, that was a typo. I meant the one to Pakistan that you mentioned right from the start.
Okay
>I assume this is a typo.
Yes. I will correct it
>But with every US deal beneficial there is a larger US deed where we come out as losers
>Do you have any actual evidence that the US has had over $15B in defense trade with Pakistan in a single decade compared to the defense trade with India?
Just another claim that you refuse to give the slightest bit of context to.
Your support for pak side in war, sales of discounted weapons and planes which india protested and you said won't be used against India but eventually ended up using against india and even guns ending up in terrorist hands.. Financial aids. The unwillingness to sanction pakistan on terrorist organisation support. And your own state department saying it gave 32B in aid to pakistan .
>Sure you did. Which is why you have yet to actually give any workable identifying information to mostly anything you said.
Your congress alone approved 18B in military aid for pakistan in early 2000 to mid 2010s . These are easily available records online and in US department records. I am just not willing to spend the time to prepare and spoon feed that information to you.
HouseOfSteak t1_j6hd53j wrote
>Okay
So.....it was a sale - not 'free money'.
>Your support for pak side in war
I never gave my support to that.
> you said won't be used against India
Again, I never stated any of this.
>And your own state department saying it gave 32B in aid to pakistan .
OK seriously, did you miss the part where I never stated I was American?
But that isn't military funding, it's humanitarian funding. Rather big difference. Did you forget the floods and earthquakes?
> The unwillingness to sanction pakistan on terrorist organisation support.
Being an alleged terrorist organization support base hasn't stopped India from not sanctioning Saudi Arabia either, so there goes that 'but they don't sanction terrorist states!' angle.
Hypocrisy.
>Your congress alone approved 18B in military aid for pakistan in early 2000 to mid 2010s
Ah, ah, ah! Wrong again.
That includes economic aid as well - not just military aid.
konichiwa-minna_san t1_j6hzfrp wrote
>I never gave my support to that.
Thanks. I am sure the Indian govt will love to have good relations with you, whoever you are. But the other guy was talking about the US govt's support for Pakistan in case you haven't noticed.
>Again, I never stated any of this
Nice. Still talking about the US govt though.
>Being an alleged terrorist organization support base hasn't stopped India from not sanctioning Saudi Arabia
Has the US govt termed Saudi a terror state and requested India to sanction it? Wait...Has the USA sanctioned Saudi yet?
>That includes economic aid as well - not just military aid.
Here: https://www.vox.com/2018/9/4/17818396/pakistan-aid-military-trump-pompeo-afghanistan
From the article:
But since 2002, the US has given Pakistan over $14 billion in aid to combat terrorism and insurgents in the region. That money is meant to reimburse Pakistan for its ongoing efforts to defeat militant groups, and it forms part of the $33 billion in total help that the US has given Pakistan over the same time period.
That $14 billion is military aid. Unless you want to play with semantics and call that an "anti-terrorism" package.
Bakanyanter t1_j6hameq wrote
The US is acting neutral in India vs Pakistan by supplying weapons and aid to both sides.
But it is expecting India to act pro-US in the US vs Russia when India is neutral.
To me, it seems the US is expecting far too much for offering far too little. And also anyway, most of the US things you mentioned there were bought by India (as in it was traded, not aided).
Acrobatic-Rate4271 t1_j6joyg7 wrote
It's not so much "pro US" as "pro geopolitical stability". When nations just start annexing each other willy-nilly it becomes vastly more difficult to have stable world trade. The point is to demonstrate to anyone else with similar ideas (China) that they risk becoming an economic pariah on the world stage.
Currently India is undermining that object lesson and, instead, demonstrating that there will always be some nation willing to trade with the aggressor regardless of how heinous their crimes.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments