throwaway_434

> Clearly, the GP is completely rational and quite well-informed.

Yep you believe everything under the Sun when it comes to your Governments and institutions, when it has been proven time and time again that they have been involved in regime change ops and covert ops.

It is quite evident you don't have any ability to introspect and question your own Government.

Also, it is not just Homi J Bhabha we are talking about. There is a list of at least 11 nuclear scientists that died unnatural deaths. These are just nuclear scientists. Total 684 scientists have died unnaturally in just the past 15 years.

You can keep dismissing all this as "conspiracy theory" but we all know how the 3-letter agencies operates.

> The fact that there is zero such efforts visible leads me to the conclusion that Modi just doesn't give a fuck.

Modi cares about Indians more than he cares about US citizens. Indians come first. Just like Trump cares about US citizens more than he cares about Indian citizens. So when it comes to protecting Indians from scammers in Kolkata, West Bengal and other islamo-commie places Modi Government has done an excellent job. We get regular messages warning us against scams and even educating us on how these scams work.

Why doesn't Modi warn US or prevent it from targeting Western citizens? Because Modi has bigger things to worry about when it comes to India itself. If Trump personally asks Modi, then yes there will be a change (depending on how Trump reciprocates for that gesture, especially considering US has back-stabbed India too many times to even count, Modi will be weary).

> Particularly when the state in question is run by the opposition, I would expect the federal government party to use this as political ammunition.

And then what? Western institutions demonize Modi and fund regime change operations in India with their unlimited wealth? Modi won't fall into that trap. If your Governments were not so prolific in regime change operations and interfering politically in other Countries, we would have definitely done a lot to fix this issue. Right now, for any non-Western Government, it is like walking on eggshells. We never know what might piss you guys off (even if the step is in your favor) and you unleash your regime change ops in our Country. The best example that comes to my mind is India sending thousands of deportation requests for wanted criminals, terrorists and gangsters who have taken shelter in Canada, US, UK and Australia. Most of those deportation requests were rejected by your Governments. Guess who these scammers work under? Yep you guessed it right! These very same criminals, gangsters, terrorists who have found refuge in your Country.

There is a lot I can unpack. But I have only provided you with what is the tip of the iceberg.

> This phenomenon is large enough that I'm shocked it hasn't openly caused a diplomatic rift between the US and India, and New Delhi should have a vested interested in combating it.

It is only large enough to you probably. India has been sanctioned by US in the 90s for doing reciprocal nuclear tests (after China detonated its bomb) and suffered billions of dollars in trade. US gained nothing from the sanctions except to push India into more poverty. It ended up being counter-productive. Even now Trump is threatening India with billions of dollars in trade sanctions that far outweighs anything caused by scams (if you take absolute numbers).

> What "mercenaries" are you referring to?

The CIA is currently fuelling and instigating Manipur riots in India by supplying arms and ammunitions to Kuki narco-terrorists. Prior to this we had USAID that was influencing electoral politics within India. Apart from that, we just witnessed regime change operations in Bangladesh where Pro-India Shiekh Hasina was toppled for a Pro-US Jihadi Muhammad Yunus. All of these run the US taxpayers in hundreds of billions of dollars. Far more than any scam conducted by Indian call centers.

For an average US citizen, sure it feels like a lot, since you guys are at the receiving end. But since you mentioned why US Government is not bringing this up, it is because it pales in comparison to what US Government has done to India over the past 7 decades. India can bring up a lot of counterpoints that will only cause US diplomats to shut up. We haven't even touched on killing of our nuclear scientists. Too many skeletons in their closet.

> And yes, I'd like particularly Narendra Modi to kneel

Umm you are targeting the wrong person here. Majority of the scam call centers come from West Bengal, particularly Kolkata. Which is headed by Chief Minister Mamta Banerjee.

India has a federal structure, with cooperation between Center and States. Similar to USA. Modi just can't invade Kolkata using Indian Armed Forces and dismantle the operations without facing significant legal challenges in the Supreme Court of India.

West Bengal is a islamo-commie state. Nearly impossible to flip the state electorally for BJP to win (Narendra Modi heads BJP). The state is a stronghold of Mamta Banerjee who heads the TMC party. She came to power after nearly 4 decades of Communist rule.

Thanks for the words of encouragement. I am actually positively surprised that I wasn't downvoted to oblivion and most of the commenters engaged without considering it as "Russian Propaganda" or "Troll" (some of them did but I expected the reaction to be much worse — hence the surprise).

I really hope one day we all can discuss critical issues without attaching labels to each other. Attaching labels requires no real effort.

> Just speak your truth, accept the downvotes, and be happy with the gnashing of teeth.

I agree wholeheartedly. I just can't stand bullshit being propagated as "Truth" and suppressing of counter-narratives. Especially when things are bereft of facts/logic/common sense. One commenter was arguing that it is justified to invade Libya, Iraq, Syria etc because they are not Sovereign States because they are Dictatorships. Such dangerous, illogical points have to be countered. Many don't even know the definition of "State Sovereignty" and confuse it with "Individual Sovereignty".

> The people of Libya did not have power over themselves

Read the definition again. Then again. Then one more time. The definition states: "their government is under their own control". "Their" here means the State. Not the people. When India was a Colony of British Empire, India was not a Sovereign State. As Indian Government was under the control of the British Empire. Not under the control of India. Here "their" does not mean the "people". Which is why you have two definitions: "State Sovereignty" and "Individual Sovereignty".

In Dictatorships, the State Sovereignty is embodied into the Dictator. However, the State Sovereignty still exists. It is the Individual Sovereignty that is abolished. Please understand the distinction between the two things.

> A sovereign nation of slaves is a contradiction in terms.

It is not. A Sovereign Nation of Slaves is: A Sovereign Nation of people who have no Individual Sovereignty. The Nation dictates to the Individual. The Nation by itself is Independent and All Powerful and is not a vassal state or a Colony of another Nation. Which is why in a Dictatorship, the Nation is still Sovereign (as it hasn't been Colonized by any other Nation), but the Individuals within the Nation do not enjoy Sovereignty. This distinction is extremely important.

Anyways, your argument falls flat because United Nations only inducts Sovereign Nations as Members. When ROC lost to CCP, UN recognized CCP and de-recognized ROC. Which is why Taiwan is not a member of UN. Do you understand the definition of a Sovereign State now at least?

> You have a moral right to step in and end the attack if you so chose (and again, if you can and if it makes sense in terms of self-interest).

You have that right because you were given that right by your Government. There are laws that govern self-defense, humanitarian help etc. You are protected by the Government in these instances.

> Nations are a collection of people, in the case of Libya (or Iraq) it was a collection of weaker people temporarily being tortured by a stronger bully.

No laws exist on how to deal with Nations that turn against their own people. Simply because if such laws exist, it should be framed by UN and it should be accepted by all member states. But no member state would want to be Governed by a Supranational body. Which is why the intervention in Libya/Syrian Civil Wars etc were violation of State Sovereignty. No doubts about that.

> One of your bizarre, rambling non-counters is that Libya didn't end up as a bastion of freedom as a consequence of Gaddafi being removed

How is it a non-counter? LMAO. You were the one who said that the invasion is justified as it was to re-establish Sovereignty as per your definition of the word. That failed miserably. Today Libya is in utter chaos.

> the free allies still had every moral right to invade France, invade numerous other European nations, invade Germany, and end Nazi Germany and free as many nations as they could from occupation.

They had the right because Germany invaded first. In the case of Libya, Libya did not invade anyone. It was an internal Civil War that was anyways going to end in the ouster of Gaddafi. There was literally no reason for invasion of Libya apart from stealing oil and gold reserves. So no: there was no justification for the invasion. Gaddafi regime would have collapsed anyways.

> The moral basis to invade Libya is identical to the moral basis for invading Nazi Germany (even if invading Nazi Germany obviously had a far greater national self-interest for the allies).

Bullshit. Not at all identical. Nazi Germany invaded neighboring countries. That is why invading Nazi Germany was justified. Libya did not invade any country. It is not at all identical.

> Russia, being a non-free nation, did not have a moral right to invade Germany (and of course the resulting outcome of that non-free nation invading, is that Soviet Russia did nothing more than enslave part of Europe that it invaded, taking over the role of Nazi Germany as conquerer of part of Europe).

Again bullshit. Bereft of facts. Read up on Operation Barbossa. Soviet Union invaded Germany because Germany first invaded Russia.

> Judging from your reply comment and your other responses in the thread, it's pretty clear why you had to set up a throw-away account.

Thank God I did. Just look at your replies. You did not even know that Soviet Union was invaded by Germany. You equated Nazi Germany with Libya. Are you crazy?

> Now I get why you created a throwaway... what's the difference between France and Afghanistan ? What's the difference between Germany and North Korea ? What's the difference between Switzerland and Saudi Arabia ?

Were the French citizens able to stop France from invading Libya, Syria, Iraq even after knowing that the causes/reasons were wrong? No. So how do you call it a "Democracy"?

To answer your point directly: no country in the World is truly Democratic. Most of them have varying degrees of Authoritarianism built into their structures. Your "Democratic Rights" typically extend only to voting your representatives, free speech/expression and other fundamental rights. Beyond that, most of the State actually functions like an Authoritarian regime with wide powers to do whatever it wants to do for the most part. Even checks and balances are only effective if there is no nepotism/political affinity/lobbying etc. Which is why, even with widespread anti-War sentiment during the second Iraq War, the elected Governments did not care. Many still went ahead with the War. All based on lies that Saddam had WMDs.

> You shy away from admitting authoritarian states are a bad place to live in if you want to do anythign other than drinking the governmental kool aid and give up a lot of your personal liberties

Of course it is bad place to live. I don't even need to admit something that is so obvious. I am just saying that the "Free-World" is slightly better than the Authoritarian regimes. The "slightly better" aspect is fundamental rights and ability to vote. But what I find amusing is that everyone only harps on that as if it is the be all and end all. Fundamental rights are just a stepping stone. The rest of the structure is still Authoritarian and that needs to change. It cannot change if you keep comparing the Free World to Authoritarian regimes in only the good parts. Compare the bad parts too and see how much better/worse you are. That is the only way to improve existing structures. Even in the "Free World" you have maximum incarcerations (US tops the list surpassing China — not something to be proud of) with people being jailed for frivolous things.

> he is trying to lull you into a feeling that you have no moral ground and you should just do nothing, because nothing matters and must let it all happen.

No I am not lulling him into anything. I am introspecting and speaking my mind. Not everything is propaganda. The time to do nothing should have been 30 years ago after the fall of Soviet Union. The time to do nothing was when multiple Western scholars, politicians and diplomats advised against NATO expansion to the East. That time is long gone. Ukraine is already invaded. Other non-NATO countries might be next (based on the outcome of this War). We are way past "propaganda influencing opinion" here. We are already at point of introspecting failures of the past.

> I think that's a really great question that a lot of people want to ask Putin.

But not ask NATO? You don't see the hypocrisy here? Both Putin and NATO are wrong.

Why is it so hard to just admit faults?

None of the points you mentioned are present in any Charter/Convention which Countries signed up to when joining the United Nations. None of it is "permissible".

The only time it is "permissible" is when you have been directly attacked by a Country or you have actionable intelligence that your Country will be threatened.

Everything else is vague. What you call as genocide might be a revolution for someone else. What you call terrorism might be a fight for independence for someone else.

I really feel we need to respect the territorial boundaries of all countries. Doesn't matter if it is Russia, China, India, USA or any European country. Territorial integrity is sacrosanct.

But as you pointed out, every major power, including the UNSC, has violated territorial integrity of various countries on frivolous grounds. I guess it ultimately boils down to human nature: to break and twist rules and definitions to justify invasions/genocide/terrorism etc. The hypocrisy is only when one side is whitewashed while other side is castigated. Depending on which camp you are, you are either declared a Hero or a Villain. But at the end of the day, both sides are doing the same thing: Killing human beings, destroying the environment and causing untold suffering of millions of living creatures.

> Maybe Putin should have formed a defensive organization like NATO to give it some padding, instead of trying to take over.

Like Soviet Union all over again? Not again. Why not just stay in your own borders and not try to place nukes in other countries for starters? That is far more easier right? Just respect each others sovereignty and not threaten a country by pointing nukes at it 24/7? That would be a good place to start!

> Do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis looked anything like what we're seeing in Ukraine right now?

We almost faced Nuclear Armageddon. So it was far worse. Right now, the situation is lopsided with Russia having clear dominance over Ukraine when it comes to nukes. Cuban Missile Crisis was even worse as it was two nuclear powers facing off. Check out "Black Saturday". US Navy dropped "signaling" depth charges on Soviet B-59 (which was a nuclear submarine). The captain of the submarine thought the War started and wanted to launch a nuke. It was averted thanks to a Commander who was onboard. If not for the Commander, it would have lead to end of the World as both countries would have launched counter nukes.

I am not defending Gaddafi. He was a brutal dictator. No doubt about it. I am just exposing hypocrisy of the "Free World" which I am a part of as well. I am just saying that there was already a Civil War being waged within Libya to oust Gaddafi. He would have been ousted anyways by the people. There was no need to do an invasion, by breaking all rules.

Ultimately, in the International Arena, Countries represent themselves. It doesn't matter if they are Dictatorships, Theocracies, Democracies etc. The nature of a Country is not important at all. All Countries adhere to a set of International Standards/Conventions/Charters. The "Free-World" wants to differentiate itself from the rest by "claiming" that it follows the rules. Yet, the facts state otherwise. 84 countries were invaded by the "Free-World". 84 out of 193 countries. USA has fought with 43% of the World. This is just too many countries to even consider it as an exception.

You can give a lot of justifications for why each invasion took place (you can even justify invading the 11th smallest country in the World: Grenada) but then you shouldn't frown when Putin gives his justifications too. I am just showing the mirror to the "Free-World" and hoping it starts to act on TRULY differentiating itself from the Totalitarian dictatorships. To show that it TRULY follows the rules. Just saying it "follows the rules" won't cut it anymore in this day and age.