6 ms·

Thanks for stating these forecasts so authoritatively. Or maybe we should admit this is uncharted waters and we shouldn't downplay what is possible?

ivape 1y ago
It's also worth pointing out that whatever nonsense the terrorists were on about will now just get reinforced. You could be talking about a more agitated situation with even more terror attacks. This is how bullshit like this escalates. They should have coordinated with Pakistan to run the strikes. I also thought the Ukraine war wasn't "really" going to happen. Humans will human.
- bluefirebrand 1y ago
  > They should have coordinated with Pakistan to run the strikes. I think the past 30 years have demonstrated enough that Pakistan is only paying lip service when they denounce attacks like this At best they don't care, and at worst they sponsor the terrorists directly, but they definitely are not trying to help anyone stop attacks like this or root out their extremists
  - cheema33 1y ago
    You may not be aware of this, but terrorists inside Pakistan kill Pakistani military servicemen on a weekly basis. India's attack on Pakistan are counterproductive. It will fuel the fire and the crazies will kill more Indians and Pakistanis as a result.
    - lazide 1y ago
      Geopolitical decisions like this are always ‘least bad’. The Modi gov’t in India is not as strong as it looks, and they couldn’t continue to function if they let such a high profile and obviously religiously motivated terrorist attack go ‘unanswered’. The water threats are the real leverage, but without some obvious military action they’d be skinned alive by the Hindu hardliners (Hindutvas).
    - ivell 1y ago
      Pakistan has a concept of good terrorists and bad terrorists. Terrorists against India (JeM, LeT) are good terrorists. They are protected and trained by Pakistan army (e.g. protection given to JeM leader). Good terrorists are sometimes declared dead to avoid international scrutiny while protected clandestinely (Sajid Mir). Bad terrorists are of course that attack Pakistani Army (e.g. Baloch Liberation Army). Notable is how Osama was protected by Pakistan army as he was a useful indirect source of income (war on terror) Indias attack was aimed at the Good Terrorists of Pakistan. The hope is to reduce their capabilities. Not sure how much successful they have been though.
      - cheema33 1y ago
        > Notable is how Osama was protected by Pakistan army as he was a useful indirect source of income (war on terror) Do you have any evidence of any of these claims or are you parroting what you heard someone else say?
        faizan-ali 1y ago
        Are you instead claiming complete incompetence on part of the Pakistani army? Of course we knew he was there. My fellow Pakistanis really need to realize that we are a pariah state instead of claiming ignorance or victimization.
    - lenkite 1y ago
      LeT is a state sponsored terrorist organization. It was founded by General Zia as he proudly declaimed that he would "Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts". I suggest reading the books written by Pak Generals to know that they fully believe in investing in militant/terror organizations - it is a firm and unalienable part of their military culture. Such a culture was actually encouraged by the US initially before the 9/11 blow-back.
  - ignoramous 1y ago
    > root out their extremists Pakistanis themselves are subject to numerous terror incidents. I'm not sure what causes folks to automatically assume Muslim nations support "extremists" as a policy. Sure, there may be power brokers who do, but that's the case for any country, democratic or not. On 16 December 2014, six gunmen affiliated with the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan [attacked] the Army Public School in Peshawar. The terrorists ... [a Chechen, 3 Arabs and 2 Afghans] opened fire ... killing 149 people including 132 school children, making it the world's fifth deadliest school massacre ... led to Pakistan establishing the National Action Plan to crack down on terrorism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Peshawar_school_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Peshawar_school_massacre
- dd_xplore 1y ago
  Like US co-ordinated with Paxtan to destroy laden? The laden who was hiding near a military base in Paxtan?
  - aprilthird2021 1y ago
    This always seems really disingenuous to me. He was hiding in an extremely concealed manner. Never ever went outside, and it's not as if the Pakistani military can just break into every house nearby and search for him everywhere. How they caught him was crazy in and of itself, and required fake vaccination drives, another thing no military can do to its own people to catch terrorists. I really don't think they are blameless at all, at all, but this kind of stuff feels conspiracy-level to me. This was the most wanted guy in the world, no country, no army could plausibly have concealed him and coordinated that effort to keep him hidden. Someone along the chain would have given him up
    - ganarajpr 1y ago
      Lol, whats disingenuous is your arguments, honestly. So, either you have to argue that Pakistan's military is extremely idiotic / naive that it could not even detect a known terrorist living just around the corner or you have to argue that they knowingly kept him in their "shadow". The vast majority of the people believe its the latter - you are free to believe that they were idiots.
      - aprilthird2021 1y ago
        I do think the Pakistani intelligence and military are probably as competent as the Indian ones given the money, similar levels of development of state, etc. And Indian intelligences are not Mossad-level in any way. My belief is that they didn't know and were embarrassed. I mean, what would they gain from harboring Bin Laden, so wanted he can barely move anywhere, and Al Qaeda, a group that's basically been useless since way before his capture? There are new groups they could fund and arm all while giving up Bin Laden. They already caught and turned over other AQ figures before, so even if they sponsored other terror groups, why keep him?
    - 1y ago
- dyauspitr 1y ago
  Pakistan is not a rational state. The stated sole purpose of their intelligence agency ISI is the destabilization of India. The terrorists are backed, sheltered and armed by the government. There’s a reason bin Laden successfully hid there for so long.
  - saagarjha 1y ago
    India, of course, has a dual focus.
    - lupusreal 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - saagarjha 1y ago
        I have faith in both countries to figure things out and am willing to condemn them when they mess up. But that's related to my point, anyway, I was half-joking that India can't have Pakistan as its sole focus because it has China on its other border to care about too.
- nindalf 1y ago
  > They should have coordinated with Pakistan to run the strikes. Like when America coordinated with Pakistan to grab Osama? Actually no, they didn't coordinate with Pakistan because the terrorist was being harboured by the Pakistani military. Coordinating would have had the same effect as tipping the terrorist off and letting him escape. Your comment assumes that Pakistan doesn't view harbouring and training terrorists as a legitimate way to conduct their foreign policy.
- arjun1296 1y ago
  [dead]
roenxi 1y ago
These are actually well charted waters - people are shooting at each other and some fairly high percentage of the time everything calms down but the rest of the time it escalates crazily with both sides losing control. Situation as old as time, long rich history of provocative military action. I observe from time to time that Moscow appears to be under fire from the occasional US-sponsored attack for example. So far, so good. Most of the time things don't go terribly wrong, just the worst case scenarios here are quite grim. The India-Pakistan situation is probably a bit safer because anything catastrophic is likely to just kill millions/billions of people in India and Pakistan instead of an entire hemisphere of carnage.
- happyopossum 1y ago
  > from time to time that Moscow appears to be under fire from the occasional US-sponsored attack for example Ok, you lost me there..
  - roenxi 1y ago
    Things like https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-drone-attack-moscow-1.7480157 https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-drone-attack-moscow-1.....
  - xkcd1963 1y ago
    How is his viewpoint not valid?
  - brabel 1y ago
    The US is definitely sponsoring Ukraine in the war together with the EU so when Ukraine attacks Moscow, which it is currently doing regularly, it seems like that’s a fair characterization. If Russia were strong enough they would surely be responding to those attacks not only by hitting Ukraine but their “sponsors” too.
  - pjc50 1y ago
    Didn't the US sponsorship abruptly terminate?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
tomjen3 1y ago
Its not the first time these two have been at war.

ivape 1y ago

It's also worth pointing out that whatever nonsense the terrorists were on about will now just get reinforced. You could be talking about a more agitated situation with even more terror attacks. This is how bullshit like this escalates. They should have coordinated with Pakistan to run the strikes. I also thought the Ukraine war wasn't "really" going to happen. Humans will human.

bluefirebrand 1y ago
> They should have coordinated with Pakistan to run the strikes. I think the past 30 years have demonstrated enough that Pakistan is only paying lip service when they denounce attacks like this At best they don't care, and at worst they sponsor the terrorists directly, but they definitely are not trying to help anyone stop attacks like this or root out their extremists
- cheema33 1y ago
  You may not be aware of this, but terrorists inside Pakistan kill Pakistani military servicemen on a weekly basis. India's attack on Pakistan are counterproductive. It will fuel the fire and the crazies will kill more Indians and Pakistanis as a result.
  - lazide 1y ago
    Geopolitical decisions like this are always ‘least bad’. The Modi gov’t in India is not as strong as it looks, and they couldn’t continue to function if they let such a high profile and obviously religiously motivated terrorist attack go ‘unanswered’. The water threats are the real leverage, but without some obvious military action they’d be skinned alive by the Hindu hardliners (Hindutvas).
  - ivell 1y ago
    Pakistan has a concept of good terrorists and bad terrorists. Terrorists against India (JeM, LeT) are good terrorists. They are protected and trained by Pakistan army (e.g. protection given to JeM leader). Good terrorists are sometimes declared dead to avoid international scrutiny while protected clandestinely (Sajid Mir). Bad terrorists are of course that attack Pakistani Army (e.g. Baloch Liberation Army). Notable is how Osama was protected by Pakistan army as he was a useful indirect source of income (war on terror) Indias attack was aimed at the Good Terrorists of Pakistan. The hope is to reduce their capabilities. Not sure how much successful they have been though.
    - cheema33 1y ago
      > Notable is how Osama was protected by Pakistan army as he was a useful indirect source of income (war on terror) Do you have any evidence of any of these claims or are you parroting what you heard someone else say?
      - faizan-ali 1y ago
        Are you instead claiming complete incompetence on part of the Pakistani army? Of course we knew he was there. My fellow Pakistanis really need to realize that we are a pariah state instead of claiming ignorance or victimization.
  - lenkite 1y ago
    LeT is a state sponsored terrorist organization. It was founded by General Zia as he proudly declaimed that he would "Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts". I suggest reading the books written by Pak Generals to know that they fully believe in investing in militant/terror organizations - it is a firm and unalienable part of their military culture. Such a culture was actually encouraged by the US initially before the 9/11 blow-back.
- ignoramous 1y ago
  > root out their extremists Pakistanis themselves are subject to numerous terror incidents. I'm not sure what causes folks to automatically assume Muslim nations support "extremists" as a policy. Sure, there may be power brokers who do, but that's the case for any country, democratic or not. On 16 December 2014, six gunmen affiliated with the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan [attacked] the Army Public School in Peshawar. The terrorists ... [a Chechen, 3 Arabs and 2 Afghans] opened fire ... killing 149 people including 132 school children, making it the world's fifth deadliest school massacre ... led to Pakistan establishing the National Action Plan to crack down on terrorism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Peshawar_school_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Peshawar_school_massacre
dd_xplore 1y ago
Like US co-ordinated with Paxtan to destroy laden? The laden who was hiding near a military base in Paxtan?
- aprilthird2021 1y ago
  This always seems really disingenuous to me. He was hiding in an extremely concealed manner. Never ever went outside, and it's not as if the Pakistani military can just break into every house nearby and search for him everywhere. How they caught him was crazy in and of itself, and required fake vaccination drives, another thing no military can do to its own people to catch terrorists. I really don't think they are blameless at all, at all, but this kind of stuff feels conspiracy-level to me. This was the most wanted guy in the world, no country, no army could plausibly have concealed him and coordinated that effort to keep him hidden. Someone along the chain would have given him up
  - ganarajpr 1y ago
    Lol, whats disingenuous is your arguments, honestly. So, either you have to argue that Pakistan's military is extremely idiotic / naive that it could not even detect a known terrorist living just around the corner or you have to argue that they knowingly kept him in their "shadow". The vast majority of the people believe its the latter - you are free to believe that they were idiots.
    - aprilthird2021 1y ago
      I do think the Pakistani intelligence and military are probably as competent as the Indian ones given the money, similar levels of development of state, etc. And Indian intelligences are not Mossad-level in any way. My belief is that they didn't know and were embarrassed. I mean, what would they gain from harboring Bin Laden, so wanted he can barely move anywhere, and Al Qaeda, a group that's basically been useless since way before his capture? There are new groups they could fund and arm all while giving up Bin Laden. They already caught and turned over other AQ figures before, so even if they sponsored other terror groups, why keep him?
  - 1y ago
dyauspitr 1y ago
Pakistan is not a rational state. The stated sole purpose of their intelligence agency ISI is the destabilization of India. The terrorists are backed, sheltered and armed by the government. There’s a reason bin Laden successfully hid there for so long.
- saagarjha 1y ago
  India, of course, has a dual focus.
  - lupusreal 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - saagarjha 1y ago
      I have faith in both countries to figure things out and am willing to condemn them when they mess up. But that's related to my point, anyway, I was half-joking that India can't have Pakistan as its sole focus because it has China on its other border to care about too.
nindalf 1y ago
> They should have coordinated with Pakistan to run the strikes. Like when America coordinated with Pakistan to grab Osama? Actually no, they didn't coordinate with Pakistan because the terrorist was being harboured by the Pakistani military. Coordinating would have had the same effect as tipping the terrorist off and letting him escape. Your comment assumes that Pakistan doesn't view harbouring and training terrorists as a legitimate way to conduct their foreign policy.
arjun1296 1y ago
[dead]

roenxi 1y ago

These are actually well charted waters - people are shooting at each other and some fairly high percentage of the time everything calms down but the rest of the time it escalates crazily with both sides losing control. Situation as old as time, long rich history of provocative military action. I observe from time to time that Moscow appears to be under fire from the occasional US-sponsored attack for example. So far, so good. Most of the time things don't go terribly wrong, just the worst case scenarios here are quite grim. The India-Pakistan situation is probably a bit safer because anything catastrophic is likely to just kill millions/billions of people in India and Pakistan instead of an entire hemisphere of carnage.

happyopossum 1y ago
> from time to time that Moscow appears to be under fire from the occasional US-sponsored attack for example Ok, you lost me there..
- roenxi 1y ago
  Things like https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-drone-attack-moscow-1.7480157 https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-drone-attack-moscow-1.....
- xkcd1963 1y ago
  How is his viewpoint not valid?
- brabel 1y ago
  The US is definitely sponsoring Ukraine in the war together with the EU so when Ukraine attacks Moscow, which it is currently doing regularly, it seems like that’s a fair characterization. If Russia were strong enough they would surely be responding to those attacks not only by hitting Ukraine but their “sponsors” too.
- pjc50 1y ago
  Didn't the US sponsorship abruptly terminate?

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

tomjen3 1y ago

Its not the first time these two have been at war.