Asmongold TV - India-Pakistan - Most noteworthy interview | Asmongold TV

Episode Date: October 12, 2025

IndiaPakistanMost noteworthy interview Asmongold show for all of his stream highlights, competitions, reactions & more. ------- -------------- Keywords: gaming content creator, online gaming, gaming hot takes, gaming news, mmo gaming Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Most noteworthy interview of this conflict, in my opinion. Okay? Oh, wow. This has 2 million views. Holy shit. Okay, yeah, no, we'll watch this. All right. Yeah, I didn't realize this was that big.

He's a gigacad? Yeah, I had no idea. It was a day ago. Yeah, exactly. Let me just start by asking you a very simple question. Are India and Pakistan on the brink of all-out war? I certainly hope not. Certainly India has no interest in that whatsoever.

All India wanted to be. do was to make it very clear that people from Pakistan can just come across the border kill innocent civilians who are just enjoying a tourist holiday and walk back across without having to pay a price for it. I think that's pretty fair. I do. I think that's pretty damn fair. So all India did was react in self-defense to a terrorist outrage. And India did so in an extremely careful and calibrated manner, making sure they struck only known terrorist bases and headquarters. If they didn't strike known terrorist bases and headquarters, then why did they kill known terrorists?

Only at night when there were likely to be no civilians wandering around the streets. And did so while very carefully avoiding striking any government or military installations in Pakistan. If Pakistan chooses to stop its unnecessary provocation, indications, India will not act. I'm quite sure about that. There is no proactive military engagement coming from the Indian side beyond the attacks in reprisal to the terrorism. Nothing at all. Okay. Great. You raise lots of points there. Let me pick up one of them. You say India's response has been precise and restrained. Yeah. But according to the reports we've seen, children are amongst the dead in the attacks in Pakistan. Oh yeah, because they put themselves in residential

areas. They're terrorists and they do this for political means. So attacking them looks bad internationally. So there's an additional cost with attacking them. That's what they're doing. They're obviously doing this. Duh. A mosque was destroyed. I mean, can we really say they've been precise and restrained? Yeah. These are extremely well-known terror bases. The headquarters of the Jashem Muhammad in Bahavlpur and the headquarters of the of the of the Lashkare Taiba in Murikai. These are not innocent places. If there were sadly any civilian staying there, there were families of terrorist leaders

or those training to be terrorists. I'm really sorry to say this. There's no question in my mind that India would have been very happy to merely dismantle the terrorist infrastructure rather than even take a single human life. But the fact is that these are places known and listed not just by...

It's also a really good point, is that, like, yeah, it's not like they're trying to kill the innocent people, whereas the terrorists do. That's their goal. The goal is killing innocent people for terrorists. The collateral damage is killing innocent people for non-terrorists. India. Pretty big difference.

But by the international intelligence community, the agencies concerned are prescribed on the sanctions list of the United Nations Sanctions Committee. They are in no way innocent places. schools or mosques or homes. These are, unfortunately, places where terrorists are trained, financed, equipped, and dispatched to kill innocent civilians in India. That's what India was reacting to. As you're suggesting, the Pakistani government sponsors these organizations. I don't know what you think the motive would be for Pakistan to do such a thing. They're also asking me every time I put

this question to them, what's the evidence? What's the evidence, sir? What's the evidence? Well, how about the fact that the Pakistani army generals went to the funeral of the terrorists? Like, I feel like that's kind of a pretty big one, right? Well, as far as evidence is concerned, don't forget that Pakistan is a master of denial. They denied having anything to do with the Mumbai attacks that killed 170 people on 2611, 2008, until one of the terrorists was caught alive, and the Pakistanis had to admit that he and everything he said came from them. They deny even knowing where Osama bin Laden was until he was found in a military

encampment not far from a Pakistani army inside Pakistan. This is the Pakistani route. It's constantly show us the evidence. Well, I mean, the fact is there is enough circumstantial evidence and there are intelligence intercepts on the basis of which India is acting. And India has absolutely no other reason to do this. Let's understand something very clearly, Tom. India is a status quo power. It wants nothing that Pakistan has. It is focused on growing its economy, improving its high technology, providing a future for its young people. It is entirely happy to be left alone and it'll leave Pakistan alone. They don't give a flock about it. Pakistan is a revisionist power. It claims territory India holds. It is a bigoted power that wishes

to take over parts of India on the grounds that the people living there happen to share the same religion as the Pakistanis. Well, there are 200 million Indian Muslims who share the same religion as the Pakistanis. Do they want to take them all over? It's a preposterous approach that the Pakistanis have been adopting. They have been deploying terrorists for 30 years in pursuit of their desire to, quote unquote, bleed India by a thousand cuts and to capture the territory of Kashmir. They're not going to get it. They're failed. Well, they already annexed, Pakistan already annexed part of the territory of Kashmir too. I mean, if like what I looked up earlier was accurate, that seems like it's true. For 30 years, they're going to fail for another 30. Then the sad, sad lesson that they

must learn and have failed to learn. This guy sounds like the Indian version of David Attenborough. Is that terrorism is not the answer. Killing innocent civilians will invite reprisals and we're scaling up the reprisals in each outrage. In 2008 after Mumbai, India tried diplomacy. tried gray listing Pakistan, tried blacklisting the agencies concerned in the sanctions committee. Some years later, when there was an attack in Patanko, the Prime Minister even invited the Pakistani intelligence to join the investigation of the attack.

They came and they went back to Pakistan and said, oh, the Indians did it to themselves. That was the last straw. The next terrorist attack, India sent a squad across to attack the very base from which the attack had come. The next terrorist attack in Pulwama, India did an air strike. That's a lot of terrorist attacks.

The next terrorist attack this time in Peh-Avada, India hit nine. How much longer do the Pakistanis want to play this game? India is prepared to play it. But India is much happier to be left alone. But one thing you've put on Twitter, I just want to ask you about it, because I was curious myself. You've appraised on the application X, the codename Operation Sindor, which has been launched by India. You've said it's a brilliant name. Just tell us why it's significant and why you think it's such an appropriate name for this military operation.

Sindur is the vermilion reddish mark that women who are married put right there in the middle of their foreheads when they part their hair. Okay. And the image that was seared into the nation's consciousness after the terrorist attack in Pehelgum was of a newly wedded, now newly widowed bride on her honeymoon, kneeling disconsolately by the body of her slain husband. Yeah. In other words, a terrorist attack had wiped the cindur off her forehead, because only married women wear it. It was a very emotive emotion. That was the one where they killed her husband and they didn't want to kill her because they wanted her to like tell everybody what happened. I think that's what he's talking about.

Of what had happened and why this action was necessary that innocent civilians, including this young woman, and by the way, a few other women who were widowed in the process of the same attack, had all experienced. Let's try to be optimistic for a moment. In a grave crisis, there is sometimes an opportunity, an opportunity to iron out some of these nearly 80-year-old issues that exist between India and Pakistan. Do you have any... Shakespeare's head?

...that we could perhaps turn this into an opportunity. Look, first of all, as far as the prison crisis is concerned, there is no need to call upon India to exercise restraint because India is already exercising restraint. It has announced it will not initiate a single military action, but it will react if there is military action imposed upon it. So all the international community needs to do is to get Pakistan to behave. It's to tell them to stop attacking.

The moment they stop attacking, the moment they can find any excuse to claim their honor is satisfied, that would be the end of that. If Pakistan wants... They've also, Pakistan since then, has announced that they've won the war. War, they will get it. Yes. And I think very few people don't. They've already, yeah, they already won. countries has greater staying power in a war.

So that's on the present situation. I think the ball is entirely in Pakistan's court. They can stop any prospect of increased conflict now. India has not put a foot on the escalatory ladder Pakistan has. So that's the first and most important thing to understand. On the larger question, no, sir, we are not going to allow terrorists to allow Pakistan to get what they want, which is to internationalize the dispute and to provoke a negotiation or a mediation

to get them what they want. If you do that, then they're just going to do more terrorism. Yeah, you can't feed that because then it just makes it happen more. He's right. They are not going to get. It's as simple as that. We could have talked to the Pakistanis.

There may many, many occasions we've tried to talk to them. There were the famous backchannel negotiations for four years between Prime Ministerman Mouin Singh and General Musharraf. The truth remains, however, that every time these processes of talking have been ended by a Pakistani terrorist attack. No one in India has any inclination to talk to the Pakistanis while they're pointing a gun at our heads. Dr. Thoreau, who can talk to the Pakistanis and talk them down from this situation? Well, I mean, like, if terrorism is such a huge problem over there, wouldn't it be, like, wouldn't the main problem be, like, shouldn't Pakistan's military? try to get rid of these terrorist organizations themselves?

Because if they have this huge problem and these people are putting a target on their citizens back, I mean, I don't know. I mean, because that's just what would make sense to me. It's like if you're against these guys, why wouldn't you want to work with India and get rid of them? I mean, that's what I'm saying. I don't understand that at all.

Dude, you have no clue? Surely, surely. Surely the obvious answer isn't the correct one. Surely it's not. ...and help de-escalate. Who would they... There's some, you know, extravagant, crazy justification for why this actually makes sense. Surely it's not the obvious reason. They listen to it because it doesn't sound like there's a huge amount of appetite in Washington to get even the slightest bit involved in this conflict. The Chinese issued a very interesting statement. China is Pakistan's quote-unquote all-weather friend.

And Pakistan has for some years now been a de facto client state of China. China controls 30% of Pakistan's debt, on top of which you have the big China-Pakistan economic corridor running through the country, which is of some economic value to China as well. So one would assume that that is one patron the Pakistanis would listen to. China has issued a very interesting state. So we have to tell China to make them stop? That both India and Pakistan are their neighbors. They don't want to see a war in their neighborhood between neighbors,

and they would like there to be peace and understanding and calm. That would make sense. If China gives that message to Pakistan, that might be something Islamabad would be well inclined to heed. Okay. And in terms of the sentiment towards the United States in India, I want to ask you about a piece. You got to look up why Modi is a racist and a fascist. He's doing this for elections.

He silences opposition parties and he's assassinated their own nationals in Canada. So let me get this straight. Do you think that... So do you think... I'm just curious about this. Do you think that Modi is the one who orchestrated the terror attack

that killed the 26 people? It's like a false flag. Like India went and killed their own people in order to, you know, make this look bad? I don't know for sure. Well, if you had to guess. Like, if you had to guess, like, what do you think the probability is? Like, if you had to say, like, ah, which side of the fence are you going to come off on?

Which one? Like, if you had to guess. I condemn the attack entirely. I'm with India and the losses of the innocent, but they blame Pakistan within the hour of the incident. you're not answering the question. If you had to fall off on one side of the fence or another, who do you think's responsible for the attack? Not Pakistan.

Well, there it is. Not Pakistan. Surely. Surely, that's not it. The Times of India online edition. It says, quote, the U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance urges restraint sparking outrage. That's the headline of an article.

And it suggests that India feels backstabbed by the United States. And I just wonder whether that was a perception you felt and whether it's a widely shared feeling. As I said, I haven't actually seen that article. So I don't know what the author intended. But to my mind, we have already announced restraint. We have made it very clear that our operation was in retaliation for a terrorist outrage. And that was it. that it was in fact the word used in the in the public briefing was it was non-escalatory in nature that india was not intending to escalate further so you can counsel restraint all you like you're preaching to the converted

on the other hand tell the pakistani's to exercise restraint and that will be the end of that it's pakistan that somehow feels an obligation to somehow react further having already initiated this problem with a terror attack they want to continue to fireback in India. And as I say, if they do, India will have to give it back to them. We have our own self-respect. Everything about this is logical, and they haven't used a single bit of video game footage to justify the attacks. We haven't seen a single bit of Ukraine or video game footage coming out of India yet. But as long as Pakistan decides that they're not anxious to have an all-out war,

or they will not be one. If, however, the Pakistani army, which is deeply unpopular in its own country, has decided that they actually do want to war in order to shore up their faltering and tottering image as the savior of the nation, then, of course, the Pakistani military will get what it wants. It gets what it wants in Pakistan anyway,

and India is not going to lie back and take it lying down. Up until this point, has there been any saber-rattling, nuclear saber-rattling, say on either side you've detected. Well, they can't be on India's side because India has a declared, published and long-established policy of no first use of nuclear weapons. So India would never rattle any sabres of a nuclear kind because that is the Indian policy. That's good.

On the other hand, does not have such a policy and has implied that it would be willing to use nuclear weapons. So again, the border is in Pakistan's court. You do understand that equivalence between the two countries on any of these grounds is completely false. You have a terrorist providing state and you have a terrorist victim state. You have a state that has refused to abjured nuclear weapons on their first use. You have another state that has absolutely refused to use nuclear weapons first. And they have said this, by the way. I've seen them say it's twice.

So, I mean, there is no equivalence. There is no comparison. Okay, so where do you see this heading to? It's on India's side. Yeah, I mean, I personally, from everything that I've seen, it seems like Pakistan are liars and India are the ones that are being aggressed on. And it seems like Pakistan is sheltering and supporting terrorist groups that work in ways that the official military can't work. And I think that just if that explains why the military is sympathetic to them going to their funerals, that's the, the reason why. Like, I mean, I, I, so of course you think that? Yeah, of course. I mean, I don't know.

Like, and also, by the way, I have this policy. This is just something that I've learned, like, over the years is that when somebody lies once, you shouldn't trust anything they say. And if you're already lying about, like, what you're, like, you know, like planes that you're shooting down, if you're lying and putting up video game footage as, like, ever, of war, like this kind of stuff. Like, what is this, right? I'm going to immediately not trust you. Like, yeah, dishonest aid.

Yeah, exactly. Like, yeah, once a cheater, always a cheater. Exactly. So never trust Trump? What does Trump have to do? We're not talking about Trump. Who's talking about Trump? Nobody's talking about Trump?

What do you mean? Your predictions, Dr. Thoreau? Well, I'd like to predict that at some point, TDS. Yeah. capitals will tell Pakistan you fired enough shells you've killed enough Indians your honor is satisfied layoff and if capitals don't say that to Pakistan and they don't say it firmly enough and i mean particularly Beijing then indeed uh all bets are off and you might well see Pakistan are being tempted

to escalate for very short-term military reasons in their country i certainly hope it doesn't come to that because in the long term there's no way they can gain from such a conflict. They've already earned the opprobrium of the world as a terror-providing nation, as the hosts of Osama bin Laden, as the people who spawned the Taliban and having as Pakistan has never had a prime minister who completed their full term? What happened to him? No, that's bullshit. There's no way I would believe that.

What? No, Pakistan has never had a prime minister. who completed a full five-year term in office since independence in 1940s. The closest? Bro, can you imagine how stressed out you'd have to be? Like, being the Pakistani prime minister, you're like, oh, fuck. Oh, no.

Yeah, bro, I'd be so stressed out. Oh, God, it's a shelf life. Yeah. Oh, my God. Military influence, constitutional powers, political instability. No Pakistani prime minister. has completed a full five-year term. Oh my God.

Wow. Hillary Clinton evocatively said, having nurtured vipers in their backyard, they've been bitten by the same vipers. They've nature nurtured. This is a country that really, really needs all the good word it can get from the rest of the world. And for that reason,

what Pakistan needs to do right now is to stop, can stop its military problems. provocations, do not embark on any further misadventures, and let this thing die down. India certainly does not want to prolong it. Just last time, would you say in India there's unanimity on this issue right across the political spectrum? Do all Indians sing from the same song sheet here? Very, very strongly so. And in fact, India, I mean, I speak for an opposition party, and the opposition party, the Congress party, was the first to stand up and say, we stand with the government

and behind our armed forces in this. That's pretty meaningful. A particular moment of national crisis. We do have domestic political differences. Those will be addressed when the crisis is over. Right now we are all united, and I see very, very little dissent. Of course, there are people who prefer peace to war. So does any sensible human being on the planet.

But when war is thrust upon us, it would only be a coward who refuses to fight back. And we will fight back if it's thrust upon us. Man, that's a lot. Yeah, it makes sense. Yes, bro, this guy is a G. Holy shit. This was an excerpt from a bigger video. I'm going to link you guys the full video if you want to watch it.

But there it is right there. Yeah, bro, like, that's some fucking, that's some movie dialogue. God damn. And who is the guy that this was? Doctor, I'm going to totally fuck this up. Sashi Thedodor? I don't know how to fucking say any of these. names. But yes, something like that. Dr. Seashy Theodore, that's his name. And yeah, apparently

he said it fucking straight. And coolest man, yeah, Coolest Man. Yeah, Coolest Man. That was really good, man. That was really good. I didn't expect that at all. And a lot of warmongers here cheering the way to nuclear annihilation. I don't think that anybody's cheering that at all. I think that there's a lot of people that they see this happening and they're like, I think the people that are creating the people that are creating the pathway to nuclear annihilation are these terrorist insurgency groups that are seemingly being allowed to exist by the Pakistani military. They're the ones that are making this happen more than anything.