Pakistan vs India - Why foreign policy is important and America sides with terrorists

So I've been following India and Pakistan for a bit. Reason being, the smears against Tulsi eventually fall into a closer look at India and Pakistan over Kashmir.

For America, there tends to be a pattern that comes into this that has been the same for 84 countries now. America or the US begin a swift campaign of propaganda, overload people's senses of what's actually going on, undermine governmental authority, then regime change. Whether soft coup like Greece or Venezuela or a hard coup is dependent on if there's sufficient military support.

This pattern is now beginning again with regards to India and Pakistan. I'm sure a lot of people have heard about Kashmir.

The point for Americans? Why are we being pulled into an issue that has nothing to do with us? What is to be gained by getting involved or choosing sides?

As it stands, America is choosing the side with the most terrorist violence which is Pakistan. As it stands, this can have some negative externalities for people that live in Pakistan in how they're viewed around the globe.

But the issue is that India is not necessarily a hotbed of terrorism and it's becoming an issue to truly begin figuring out who is doing what.

India is currently going through a census issue (Archived here ) where people are having to find documents to try to vote. Meanwhile, Pakistan is tamping down on religious minorities

From first article:

All of the 33 million residents of Assam have had to prove, with documentary evidence, that they or their ancestors were Indian citizens before early 1971, when Bangladesh was established after breaking away from Pakistan.

There's also falsehoods in the article about not having local collaboration in Kashmir, but we'll get to that later.

Pakistan article:

Qureshi is either curiously ill-informed or he conveniently chooses to ignore the fact that over the last 30 years, some 1,500 individuals – Christians, Hindus and people from Muslim religious minorities – have been charged under blasphemy laws.

Yet it is not just blasphemy laws that are repressive for Pakistan’s religious minorities. As leading journalist and former member of the National Assembly Farahnaz Ispahani has noted, “cleansing Pakistan of minorities” has been evident – and ongoing – since the partition from India and the creation of Pakistan. This process of targeting especially the Hindus (who still make up the largest religious minority in Pakistan), Christians, and other minority Muslims such as the Ahmadis, has directly correlated with the increased influence of hard-line Islam and the “Talibanization” of the country; something if not fully abated, then tacitly tolerated by each successive government.

Now which article are you more likely to hear about and read them for yourself and come to your own conclusion... Which country has a bigger problem that they're not covering?

Now what if I told you that the problem is from two years ago with regard to India and this issue? This article shows that this issue came up in 2017. And was about voting. Pakistan has a terrorism problem. Which is being covered the most in the media?

You guessed it... Modi and India where the exact quote above is put in. Now if you're American, watch this Graham Elwood video and learn that we have 3 media agencies to control media narratives. Or read this article and learn where the NYTimes got its information: The CIA and the Pentagon. My question is this... Do you believe what they posted for yourself?

But anyway, NYT is falsely implying that this census stuff will falsely lead to concentration camps. We just looked at what Pakistan and India's main issues were up above. Look what they write now:

The tension with Pakistan tends to lift Mr. Modi’s political fortunes. His forceful stand against India’s No. 1 enemy just adds to his image as an unswerving patriot and one of the most decisive and powerful prime ministers India has produced in decades.

Many in India’s Hindu majority don’t object to Mr. Modi’s Hindu nationalist policies or even seem to think too much about them. They praise what they see as the strides he has made in fighting poverty and projecting a more muscular image of India on the world stage.

So how does this fly with what we know above in regards to Pakistan or India on this issue? Put on your thinking caps with regards to just Pakistan and India and ignore Kashmir for just one second... When did Modi turn Hindu nationalist? NYT implies he is but there is no proof. This is reliant upon repeating a lie.

So next step... What is the issue with Kashmir? Kashmir was supposed to be Indian territory but they've had issues since the 40s. The rescinding of Section 370 makes the people of Kashmir full Indian citizens EXCEPT for Pakistanis who already have a religious minority problem as we laid out above.

Now who is promoting this? Mehdi Hasan, Sameera Khan, and Peter Friedrich are some of the main propagandists. Khan continues to smear Tulsi to this day, but in this regard, she sides with Pakistan all day, every day, 24-7.

Now if you want to get into Kashmir, feel free to ask. The point here is that Bernie is siding with Pakistan and the UN, while ignoring the fact that Pakistan is being a major terrorist group for us by harboring Al Qaeda. The only person to truly get this right now is Tulsi Gabbard.

Given that Bernie has Obama people in his administration, it's rather telling that he's basically following the same routes in foreign policy as he did...

But this is getting long in the tooth. Foreign policy is an important job of the president. And Bernie being in over his head on foreign policy can have certain devastating effects if it's not called out.