Live data from Hacker News

India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

reuters.com

391–400 of 714 posts

Re: India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

#391
post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4.6% growth, 10% inflation, and interest rates at 21% is not great.

But its far from bottom of how much general russian population is willing to suffer before next bloody revolution happens. I don't talk about wealthy educated people from moscow or st petersburg (at least those that didn't leave), they are on purpose less targeted by whats happening, but rather permanently subjugated populations from poor regions whose lives changed comparatively little compared to cold war. Prigozhi…

The Russian citizens approval of the war mirrors America’s own approval ratings of the invasion of Iraq as well.

Re: India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

#392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ukraine was not and still is not economically strong enough for war. It just suffered an unprovoked invasion by its neighbor and had no option but to either capitulate or fight The Western consensus about the outcome of the invasion that of a rout. > both sides are showing aggression towards each other and weighing the costs of going to an all out war Outside an Indo-Chinese land war, the only paths for industrial…

If India's going imperial, why would Pakistan bother with hosting terrorist elements to provoke a hostile "belligerent" (according to you) neighbour, and letting them attack a civilian zone? Indian leadership hasn't been going on TV prior to the Pahalgam attack and putting out bellicose statements like Hindus and Muslims can't live together - Pakistan did. Also India isn't stupid to invade a nuclear armed country wit…

> If India's going imperial, why would Pakistan bother with hosting terrorist elements to provoke a hostile "belligerent" (according to you) neighbour, and letting them attack a civilian zone

Underlaying this line of reasoning is an assumption that Pakistan makes coordinated, coherent, and more or less rational decisions. But Pakistan is run by the military with civilian leadership being a farcical fig leaf. They routinely fall into prolonged periods of martial law, and arresting former prime ministers is the norm. What's more, Pakistan's military is divided into numerous factions which are operationally independent and have their own internal politics going on.

Therefore, any analysis of the form "[hypothesis] is unlikely because it would be irrational and uncoordinated" is extremely dubious.

Re: India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

#393
post #369
post #61

I believe it's mostly overstated. Pakistan is not economically strong enough to participate in a war, and India is not interested either. However, the Modi government wants to project strength. They were unable to locate the terrorists even after two or three weeks and needed a distraction. So, they targeted some areas in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK). In response, Pakistan claimed to have shot down four Indian air…

> They were unable to locate the terrorists even after two or three weeks and needed a distraction. This does not make sense. When France attacked Daesh in 2015 after the terrorist attacks in Paris or when the US attacked Afghanistan after 9/11, the objective wasn't to target the exact people who carried out the attacks, but the organization behind the attacks. People can always be found as long as the organization r…

> There was a sharp drop in the terrorist attacks in Kashmir after the 2019 confrontation.

There were fewer terrorist attacks, certainly. I'm sure the Indian government would like to believe that the 2019 strike had an effect, but far more likely causes are

- Money. Pakistan's economy has stagnated and the country has lurched from one IMF bailout to the next (2019, 2023, 2024). It got so bad at one point that politicians were asking people to drink less tea so they could conserve foreign currency.

- Covid. Affected everything, but certainly harder to think about waging conflict when such a massive problem is affecting the country.

- Internal political instability, especially when Imran Khan took on the military and lost. The military was actually in danger of losing their primacy for the first time in decades.

- Conflict with the Taliban and Pakistani Taliban. The ISI had nurtured the Taliban to be tame pets and it turned out not to be the case. Crushing these was the highest priority, not least because it made their policy of nurturing terrorists look idiotic.

All of these factors meant Pakistan wasn't and isn't in the best shape to wage war overtly or covertly with India. India's economy has continued to grow, in contrast to Pakistan. The official Indian policy of "benign neglect" towards Pakistan appeared to work well.

I'm sure these attacks will be spun as a success in the future. Safe to say a Bollywood movie dramatising the events is already in the works. But Pakistan's own economic and political problems are far more likely to influence its decisions to engage in this sort of behaviour.

Re: India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

#394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can only edit for a maximum of 2 hours on HN, so not sure how that happened Because in two hours it went from being "mostly overstated," Ukraine being "not economically strong enough to participate in a war" for a long duration and that Russia being "not interested either," to holy shit the mad king is mad.

Ukraine was not and still is not economically strong enough for war. It just suffered an unprovoked invasion by its neighbor and had no option but to either capitulate or fight. I hope I am not biased but it really does not seem comparable to the border situation in Kashmir where both sides are showing aggression towards each other and weighing the costs of going to an all out war.

> It just suffered an unprovoked invasion

It was such a great coincidence they had a huge army trained and armed by the west at the same time.

Re: India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

#395
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

India wants peace. A peaceful India threatens Pakistan's entire existence as a military state. Therefore, Pakistan keeps instigating with outrageously cruel terrorist attacks. There are no strategic goals here. Either side may recover some vantage points high up in the Himalayas. But that's about it.

Israel and Russia also want peace. China wants peace with Taiwan. The US wants peace with Greenland and Canada. You have to be careful with that word, peace, because all wars are defensive.

> You have to be careful with that word, peace, because all [offensive] wars are defensive

The jingoists won't ever be ... as Orwell predicted, they'll use Orwellian terms fit for their grandeur and inline with their delusion.

Re: India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

#396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like US co-ordinated with Paxtan to destroy laden? The laden who was hiding near a military base in Paxtan?

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 bl…

They absolutely covered Bin Laden. The intelligence agencies are not of your opinion:

„Counterterrorism officials told Logan that there is no way the Pakistanis didn't know about this.“

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-pakistan-know-where-bin-lad...

Re: India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

#397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New proxy war between US-aligned India and China-supported Pakistan? My understanding is that China and India don't tend to get along politically.

China and India are still formally at war since the 60s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War and there is an ongoing dispute over territories in the east of India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_border_dispute The latter still makes the news in the West sometimes, not every year. HNers from those countries might give us some insights about how much their people feel it important.

For what it's worth, China has had past or current border disputes with every neighbour of theirs. They have issues with India, Japan, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, to say nothing of Taiwan. The ridiculous nine-dash line they've come up with contravenes international law and basic common sense.

If you meet an asshole in the morning, you're unlucky. If you meet nothing but assholes all day, you're the asshole.

Re: India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

#398
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ceding Muslim-dominant territory to Pakistan Why would India do that? Why would a unilateral surrender of land be considered valid terms for peace? > swapping land In a fair swap, what land would Pakistan offer in exchange? > Muslims, recently Pakistan doesn't have a stellar reputation for treatment of its Muslim minorities (Ahmediyyas, Ismailis) and non-Punjabi muslims (Balochis, Pasthuns, once-Pakistani-Bengalis)…

> I'm inclined to consider India a safer nation for most muslim denominations. That almost made me laugh.

That's the peace / piece Pakistan wants.

No one asks what the Kashmiris of the Valley want, which, for the most part, seems like they want to be left alone: https://www.quora.com/What-do-Jammu-and-Kashmirs-people-thin....

Re: India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

#399
post #359
post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No. I'm saying by the goals he set out before the war, he has failed. Fine, but what were those goals, where/when did he set them out and what is the current status? I'd like to study this issue myself - so any sources you can provide? >We cannot know what is in his mind. Yet you claim to know, which is why I'm interested - if you don't believe his words, what basis do you have to make the assertion that you know hi…

> As far as I can tell (and I am merely hours away from the Ukraine border), the land he has occupied is precisely what he set out to achieve, and it doesn't look like that is about to change any time soon. Is that why the best Russian forces attacked Kyiv, including a paratroop landing to capture Antonov airport, which is in the Kyiv suburbs? You don't do that kind of thing if you're not expecting to capture the cit…

"People like you" - you lost me here. I'm asking out of interest, not because I'm a useful idiot for Russians, and I'm not challenging your position because someone might consider that "you are a bootlicker for Western war-mongers", but because I have a legitimate interest in the conclusions you've made and the means you've taken to reach them, and I want to see the details - not the anecdotes, not the vitriol - based on evidence that can be reviewed and which is not keyed to emotional levers being pushed and pulled depending on which 'side' you are on.

I'm not interested in the vitriol - name-calling and invalidation of ones intelligence is a limited technique in terms of effectiveness - I am interested in the source of your understanding, such as it is. I work with refugees regularly from various conflicts, including Gaza and Ukraine, so my personal insight is based on on-the-ground assessments from civilian victims of these conflicts, whose voice is not often heard in the masses. What I know so far: nobody in the civilian cadre wants these wars, only their utterly insane leaders do.

So, again, what of the Russian governments' official positions have you evaluated against the reality of the facts on the ground?

Russia got its land corridor to Sebastopol, Crimea, where they continue to operate their nuclear-armed naval base: a requirement they made very clear early on in the conflict.

Russia have gained control over the territories in the east where they claimed that Ukraine was committing crimes against the mostly-Russian speaking population prior to their invasion. A consequence of their actions has been the result where, a significant portion of Europes' population now have a greater understanding of the nature of the various groups involved in the conflict - and yes, that includes a broader understanding of the Ukrainian and Russian extremist groups involved.

And .. a million men are dead because neither side had what it took to actually maintain peace.

>Russia is not a rational actor

By which standard can you make this claim of any nation which has invaded and demolished sovereign states this century? There are literally no states involved in any conflict today which can be considered rational actors.

States are, by very stint of necessity, duplicitous and calculating in their actions - which is why I think it is very selective to make conclusions on the state of the conflict in Ukraine on the basis of public statements and propaganda - from both sides of the conflict. I'd like to have a distinct set of statements which can be verified against the current reality, but this is not forthcoming - so far, the vitriol is getting in the way of rational discussion.

So .. What do you think of Putins' statements made on Croatian Channel 4 TV on Monday, regarding Russia's position vis a vis its relationship with Europe? All lies? Should be ignored on the basis of some masterful application of coffeeshop psychology techniques?

Re: India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

#400
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ceding Muslim-dominant territory to Pakistan Why would India do that? Why would a unilateral surrender of land be considered valid terms for peace? > swapping land In a fair swap, what land would Pakistan offer in exchange? > Muslims, recently Pakistan doesn't have a stellar reputation for treatment of its Muslim minorities (Ahmediyyas, Ismailis) and non-Punjabi muslims (Balochis, Pasthuns, once-Pakistani-Bengalis)…

> Why would a unilateral surrender of land be considered valid terms for peace? Because you trade it for more than it's worth to you. America gave up the Philippines, for example. Every decolonisation effort could accurately be described as "a unilateral surrender of land." > what land would Pakistan offer in exchange? You'd probably need China to participate. Maybe Siachen or even areas of Sindh? It's a long shot. O…

> decolonisation effort

Kashmiris on the Indian side are citizens (unlike in "colonies"). AFSPA must be phased out but Kashmir isn't the only Indian state that's subject to it.

> neither side is concerned with the wellbeing of anyone in Kashmir

Yeah, the issue is too good to give up for (religion-based) politics and (military-industrial) businesses, on both sides of the border.

Reminds of me this Bollywood movie dialogue: https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/RJAJdYw3ctw

Post reply on HN