491–500 of 714 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If retaliating against a nation which does asymmetric warfare via terrorism is being a facist, then so be it.
That's not what we're talking about.
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…
1) Pakistan is a lot less stable right now than 2019 (as is the world). 2) The putative organization is in Pakistan, and likely supported by the military. The biggest threat India is doing (IMO) is threatening the water supply. That is getting everyone in Pakistan’s attention. These strikes are more about managing the local political situation in India, which requires some degree of obvious violent retribution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing about historical US foreign policy can tell us what the current regime wants or will do.
Good. HN is full of posts about stupid crap the US govt has done in the past.
There are countless ways to be stupid and destructive, especially when you're actively trying to destroy your own country's institutions.
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. Come on. You can't live in India and think this seriously. Anyways, the Kashmir issue is contentious but Kashmiris never got to say whether they should be part of India or not, unlike most states and people during partition. I am very aware the full history of the region is murky and that the removal of Kashmiri Pandits from the region led…
I don't know where you live. There are states in India where minorities are absolutely safe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that posturing can turn into reality (which is perhaps what you're trying to say). I do think Russia was posturing. They began seeking negotiations 4 days after they invaded, and outside of an absurd longshot decapitation strike all of their early maneuvering was much more performative than military in nature. With Ukraine's entry into NATO appearing increasingly imminent, they likely felt they could f…
> With Ukraine's entry into NATO appearing increasingly imminent Say what? AFAIK, Ukraine wasn’t even eligible for entry due to the organization’s rules on contested territories.
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.
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP06T00412R0006067...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Putin actually invading Ukraine was a very unexpected move. Was it? The scale was surprising, but troop build ups were noted ahead of time and Russia had been fighting in Ukraine for many years. Am I misremembering?
You're not misremembering. The US government warned everyone the invasion was really going to happen, the Ukrainian government warned everyone the invasion was really going to happen, and the Russian government warned everyone the invasion was really going to happen. The mainstream media warned everyone the invasion was going to happen, and the financial markets responded. Some people don't have the sense to come in…
Quite contrary, the Ukrainian government was publicly saying that it was all bluffing.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60174684
Zelensky repeatedly said that the West was creating a panic. Ukraine's repelling of the attack was heroic and legendary, but the truth is that if it wasn't for the astonishing incompetence of the Russian assault, where there was a massive traffic jam almost all the way from Belarus to Kyiv, it really would have been a quickly conquered nation.
>and the Russian government warned everyone the invasion was really going to happen
But they didn't. Russia kept portraying the build-up as drills with Belarus.
https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-crisis-putin-says-militar...
Western intelligence predicted Russia's plans perfectly, but a lot of people were very in denial about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The competition to Putin entering Ukraine is obviously ridiculous. Putin had already attacked multiple countries before. Georgia, Chechnya, and leads a vast network of para militaries that are fighting all over Africa as well. Heck, Putin had literally attacked and conquered a whole area of Ukraine itself not even a decade ago. Anyone who was saying Putin would not attack Ukraine either had no knowledge at all about…
>Putin >India Interesting how in one case it's the leader of the country doing the invading and in the other it's the country doing it without the leader behind it mentioned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for stating these forecasts so authoritatively. Or maybe we should admit this is uncharted waters and we shouldn't downplay what is possible?
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.
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'm sorry, but you are. Might not be your intention (I strongly doubt it), but you are.
> 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 linked you a Wikipedia page with the timeline, quotes and Putin's official announcement of the war on kremlin.ru. What do you have to say about that, other than "wanting to review the evidence"? Come on, gave you plenty, go ahead and review it, and come back to us telling us how Russia supposedly achieved its aims.
> So, again, what of the Russian governments' official positions have you evaluated against the reality of the facts on the ground?
Their starting position, which is that they're bringing peace to the bad Ukraine Nazis, and that they're fighting NATO encroachment, both of which are objective failures - Ukraine is still there, and NATO got even closer to Russia with Sweden and Finland.
> 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.
Cool, and the Black Sea Fleet is still in Sevastopol, right? Wait, there's a Black Sea Fleet, right? Right?
Russia lost the Black Sea Fleet to a country with no navy. It had to evacuate whatever was remaining of it to Novorossiysk, far out of range of Ukrainian drones. They could have saved a lot of lives and their fleet by just moving the fleet there in the first place.
> 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.
One party, Russia, invaded and is genociding the other [1]. Ukraine had a negligible problem with neo-Nazis in a militia. Totally the same "extremist groups on both sides", right?
> 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?
So, I Googled around, and saw some youtube/facebook/linkedin links talking about that and how Russia isn't Europe's enemy (even though they're literally invading a European neighbour and threatening others, sure mate) and bla bla nonsense. But on further searching... there is no such thing? Grok (not that it's very reliable) says that it can't find any proof of such statements. Googling with HRT 4, the name of the Croatian channel, finds nothing. Their website with the Putin tag shows nothing: https://www.hrt.hr/tag/vladimir-putin
So it's fake... Good job being a useful idiot for the enemy of Europe.
1 Russia is indeed (without trying to hide it, it's all out in the open, their chief of staff and various ministers have talked about it) kidnapping people and specifically children from Ukraine. Those children are being educated to be good Russian citizens, which is genocide as per the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (to which Russia is a signatory), Article II (e).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abductions_in_the_Russo-...
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-...