421–430 of 714 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is sudden as it was an overreaction.
Are all overreactions sudden? Man A is pushing man B repeatedly and yelling at him as a bar dispute escalates. Man B pulls out a gun and shoots man A. Overreaction? Yes. Sudden? Not necessarily.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 politic…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> India wants peace Not really. There are options for a negotiated peace that involves swapping land, specifically, ceding Muslim-dominant territory to Pakistan and setting borders along rivers. That's anathema in India because there is broad-based antipathy towards Islamabad, historically, and Muslims, recently.
> 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)…
You know how this looks from a position outside the conflict, right? Can you imagine a Paskistani perspective? Put yourself on the other side. Imagine what it would take for peace from that point of view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
India has been notoriously hostile to its minorities and it seeks displacement of the “majority” population of Kashmir because they have been seeking secession from India. Typically when a country has acted harmfully, world leaders of the west have intervened especially in the case of India and Pakistan because it is a great disruption to trade and profit. It seems this time the West is overwhelmed with several issue…
Just because you harp over the same thing again and again about "India has been notoriously hostile to its minorities" does not make it true. Infact, the minorities in India have been notoriously hostile to the nation and care more about their ummah.
[flagged]
I was going to say the opposite. Seems on all the main news outlets (Financial Times et al) have disabled comments. I was happy to see this being discussed on HN and I’ve yet to see Middle East or Trump being censored but happy to be signposted to evidence of this on HN.
I can't find you a list of showdead. They're unlisted and Algolia doesn't preserve them. I see them because I subscribe to a 50+ score RSS feed. I regularly see popular posts flagged off the home page for what appears to be partisan reasons, but is often justified as "non technical".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania were always part of "Russia". Would you suggest they should be invaded as soon as Ukraine is fully occupied?
Yes, that’s literally what these people are saying. Russia is allegedly entitled to own half of Europe due to some deranged reasons. Everyone who disagrees with that is supposedly a nazi or something similar. The concept of hypocrisy is entirely foreign and incomprehensible to anyone who honestly supports Russian imperialism..
Königsberg(Kaliningrad) was always German. Kuril islands were always Japanese.
While Russian army is distracted - Germany and Japan should get their territories back now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Putin had already attacked multiple countries before. Georgia, Chechnya As always, westerners leave in an information bubble. Chechnya was always a part of Russia. It was a civil war. Ukraine was always a part of Russia until 1991, btw, there was never a separate country called "Ukraine" before 1991 - you can easily find that even in Western history books, although I'm sure they'll be rewritten in some way soon, if…
You can call it whatever you want, Russia is killing a lot of people in places which used to be peaceful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because you harp over the same thing again and again about "India has been notoriously hostile to its minorities" does not make it true. Infact, the minorities in India have been notoriously hostile to the nation and care more about their ummah.
Haven't there also been conflicts with the Sikhs for decades? I don't think you can completely blame this on just the Muslims.
Compared to say Europe over past 50 years internal conflicts have been miniscule.
Sikh conflict you may be referring to are events from 1984 IIRC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 - base…
> 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. /---/ What I know so far: nobody in the civilian cadre wants these wars, only their utterly insane leaders do.
Likewise, saying that the Sevastopol naval base "continues to operate" is quite a stretch when we look at the facts:
* The HQ of Sevastopol naval base was blown up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_strike_on_the_Black_Se...
* The flagship was sunk along with a third of the entire fleet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cruiser_Moskva https://x.com/HudsonInstitute/status/1765453597829935482
* The remaining fleet has fled to Russian ports (primarily Novorossiysk) on the eastern coast of the Black Sea to escape destruction: https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2024/06/new-sat-images...
* Even there, unmanned Ukrainian naval drones continue to pose a significant danger. In the past week, in the first ever aerial combat of this kind, they shot down two fighter jets near Novorossiysk: https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/ukrainian-naval-drones-shoo...
Quite a different picture from the victory parade you were trying to draw us. When reality and narrative differ this much, "people like you" labels shouldn't offend, because you indeed represent a certain distinct type.
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.