3 ms·

Ha ha. Restraint is not an option when 50+ soldiers of said country get suicide bombed by a terrorist group known to be residing with impunity and immunity in t

Ha ha. Restraint is not an option when 50+ soldiers of said country get suicide bombed by a terrorist group known to be residing with impunity and immunity in the other said country. At this point, it's a wonder it's not all out war.

vkou 8y ago
How many people are you willing to kill (On your side, or the other side), over a terrorist act that claimed the lives of fifty soldiers? Fifty? Five hundred? Five hundred million? As many as it takes? Or is there a limit? What if the conflict kills five hundred people on your side, and fifty on theirs? Do you also consider that a good exchange?
- yumraj 8y ago
  As many as it takes to either make Pakistan change its course or the terrorists are wiped out. Everyone who was killed in this attack was willing to die to kill innocent Indians, civilians included. So, from that standpoint it is a completely justified attack.
- rmist 8y ago
  Why does one have to kill people from one side or the other? The strike was done on the terrorists which in this case happen to be on Pakistan side. Terrorism isn't going away itself. One or both the nations need to take action on them.
Pharmakon 8y ago
Of course it’s an option, when the alternative is a potential nuclear holocaust. I’m not denying that Pakistan makes for a miserable neighbor, just that limited engagements with limited casualties are preferable to risking nuclear war.
- yumraj 8y ago
  There has been limited engagement for last 70+ years with no result. As Einstein said, lunacy is doing the same thing again and again and expect a different result.
  - Pharmakon 8y ago
    He said a lot of things, including some piercing observations about the folly of nuclear war. I think he’d also be amused at the notion of a stable and predictable equilibrium resulting from a dynamic system of humans in conflict.
  - dingaling 8y ago
    Was Mr Einstein qualified to comment in international affairs? Anyway, that expression is misattributed: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/03/23/same/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/03/23/same/
- hereiskkb 8y ago
  This was the embodiment of what you call a "limited engagement with limited causalities". The target area was away from civilian population, in a remote area where terrorist outposts had been identified. The flight time was under 30mins. There has been no reports of civilian casualties thus far.
- godelmachine 8y ago
  You don't teach us about restraint. They don't let us live in peace. They try to attack us everyday. They wage a proxy war against us. We are seriously re-thinking if their nuclear weapons should be taken into account anymore.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

vkou 8y ago

How many people are you willing to kill (On your side, or the other side), over a terrorist act that claimed the lives of fifty soldiers? Fifty? Five hundred? Five hundred million? As many as it takes? Or is there a limit? What if the conflict kills five hundred people on your side, and fifty on theirs? Do you also consider that a good exchange?

yumraj 8y ago
As many as it takes to either make Pakistan change its course or the terrorists are wiped out. Everyone who was killed in this attack was willing to die to kill innocent Indians, civilians included. So, from that standpoint it is a completely justified attack.
rmist 8y ago
Why does one have to kill people from one side or the other? The strike was done on the terrorists which in this case happen to be on Pakistan side. Terrorism isn't going away itself. One or both the nations need to take action on them.

Pharmakon 8y ago

Of course it’s an option, when the alternative is a potential nuclear holocaust. I’m not denying that Pakistan makes for a miserable neighbor, just that limited engagements with limited casualties are preferable to risking nuclear war.

yumraj 8y ago
There has been limited engagement for last 70+ years with no result. As Einstein said, lunacy is doing the same thing again and again and expect a different result.
- Pharmakon 8y ago
  He said a lot of things, including some piercing observations about the folly of nuclear war. I think he’d also be amused at the notion of a stable and predictable equilibrium resulting from a dynamic system of humans in conflict.
- dingaling 8y ago
  Was Mr Einstein qualified to comment in international affairs? Anyway, that expression is misattributed: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/03/23/same/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/03/23/same/
hereiskkb 8y ago
This was the embodiment of what you call a "limited engagement with limited causalities". The target area was away from civilian population, in a remote area where terrorist outposts had been identified. The flight time was under 30mins. There has been no reports of civilian casualties thus far.
godelmachine 8y ago
You don't teach us about restraint. They don't let us live in peace. They try to attack us everyday. They wage a proxy war against us. We are seriously re-thinking if their nuclear weapons should be taken into account anymore.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]