4 ms·

India said no Pak military targets were hit. If Pakistan downed Indian jets you can bet military targets would have been hit.

diggan 1y ago
According to the submission, this is what India said: > India said it struck nine "terrorist infrastructure" sites, some of them linked to an attack by Islamist militants on Hindu tourists that killed 26 people in Indian Kashmir last month. Four of the sites were in Punjab and five in Pakistani Kashmir, it said. Since you're saying this is a lie, maybe link to some source for this, since the source we currently have available, says the opposite.
- Reubachi 1y ago
  You must have misread, OP is saying that IN did not confirm/mentioned downed Aircraft. They of course did confirm downing military targets, that is...the title of the submission we are discussing.
- cake-rusk 1y ago
  Pak terrorist infrastructure is not a military target even though they are hand in gloves with the Pak army.
  - diggan 1y ago
    > Pak terrorist infrastructure is not a military target Maybe we understand "military target" differently? Going by the Geneva Conventions: > In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage. This is at least how I understand the term, and by that understanding, "terrorist infrastructure" could be considered legitimate military target. What understand of those terms do you have?
    - cake-rusk 1y ago
      Sure I can agree with that definition but that's not what I had in mind. Loosely speaking Military target = any infrastructure / equipment officially owned by the military. Note this distiction is necessary here since pakistan has tree types of infra: military, terrorist and civilian. So when I say military target I mean not terrorist nor civilian just military.

diggan 1y ago

According to the submission, this is what India said: > India said it struck nine "terrorist infrastructure" sites, some of them linked to an attack by Islamist militants on Hindu tourists that killed 26 people in Indian Kashmir last month. Four of the sites were in Punjab and five in Pakistani Kashmir, it said. Since you're saying this is a lie, maybe link to some source for this, since the source we currently have available, says the opposite.

Reubachi 1y ago
You must have misread, OP is saying that IN did not confirm/mentioned downed Aircraft. They of course did confirm downing military targets, that is...the title of the submission we are discussing.
cake-rusk 1y ago
Pak terrorist infrastructure is not a military target even though they are hand in gloves with the Pak army.
- diggan 1y ago
  > Pak terrorist infrastructure is not a military target Maybe we understand "military target" differently? Going by the Geneva Conventions: > In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage. This is at least how I understand the term, and by that understanding, "terrorist infrastructure" could be considered legitimate military target. What understand of those terms do you have?
  - cake-rusk 1y ago
    Sure I can agree with that definition but that's not what I had in mind. Loosely speaking Military target = any infrastructure / equipment officially owned by the military. Note this distiction is necessary here since pakistan has tree types of infra: military, terrorist and civilian. So when I say military target I mean not terrorist nor civilian just military.