4 ms·
It’s against international law to randomly bomb another country. Duh India didn’t get authorization from the UN Security Council nor was this in self defense.
by debt 8y ago
It’s against international law to randomly bomb another country. Duh
India didn’t get authorization from the UN Security Council nor was this in self defense.
I think your bias may be showing.
- yumraj 8y agoPlease see my comment below: this was in response to a terrorist attack in India about 2 weeks ago, which had killed 40+ people, by Pakistani terrorists. Moreover this targeted terrorist camps in remote areas, and not Pakistani military or civilian targets.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- thewhitetulip 8y agoIt is against common sense and international law to harbour known terrorists on your soil. Yet Pakistan has repeatedly provided a safehouse. Till now, US & Pak interests were aligned so US acted as broker, meaning Pak based terrorists went Scott free. For the first time in history a US president has dropped the usual advice of restraint. Of course, I'm not saying India should bomb Karachi, that's against common sense. Because civilians are killed in such a strike. But targeting a terror camp on a mountain is justified after you know that 50+ Army men were maryted in a bomb vehicle attack 12days ago. And that terror attack was carried out by JeM
- Arnt 8y agoFWIW, that part of Kashmir isn't technically another country. Kashmir's unelected ruler chose to remain independent when he had to choose back in August 1947, Pakistan invaded in September and Kashmir then joined India in October. The border is labelled "line of control" on the maps. What India bombed is in the part of Kashmir-then-India that Pakistan effectively controls but that other countries don't recognise.
- manojlds 8y agoBTW, it wasn't PoK that was attacked. It was Pakistan.