631–640 of 714 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m sure this Reuters report with photos of wreckage is fake news: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/three-fighter-jet...
Those are fuel tanks, not jets. And their source is "four local government sources". In a conflict fueled with massive disinformation I would rely on something more concrete.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Policies can be changed, or ignored. The question is would Pakistan trust its neighbor, with whom it has decades of animosity and in this scenario is currently at war, to stick to such a policy? While I personally doubt this particular instance will escalate to nuclear war, or even a major conventional war for that matter, the situation is clearly very dangerous. Doctrine is a terrible indicator of what a country wil…
As I mentioned above, the framing you mentioned is 35 years out of date already. Even Pakistan has a fairly open nuclear doctrine which they have also presented on numerous occasions at Livermore Labs [0] [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9U7erxQUkY
From the article: > Pakistan said India hit three sites with missiles, and a military spokesman told Reuters his country shot down five Indian aircraft, a claim not confirmed by India. That’s a huge loss of aircraft! Are there any corroborating reports or more details about the aircraft/shootdown?
Their claim went from 2 to 3 to 6 to 5. So, I will be careful about such news.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Man B push around man A, insult him, poke him. Man A ask him to stop. Man B pulls out a gun and shoots man A. Here, ftfy. Poland saw what what Germany did to Czechoslovaquia, decided that negotiations would only happen after a demilitarization and de-escalation. But it's true it wasn't sudden, poland was preparing for the war, the attack from both side (cooperation between Germany and Russia) is what took them by sur…
Hold on, nowhere did I say that A and B corresponded to the Germany/Poland situation. You are putting words in my mouth. I was strictly illustrating a counter example to the implied notion that overreaction implies suddenness. To further demonstrate that this is a misunderstanding on your part, it wouldn’t even make sense for me to have A and B correspond to the Germany/Poland situation - that would make my argument…
And I'm not a huge fan of Weinberg (and most pre-2000s historians), I think he was too 'furetien' in his vision of Nazism, but everything he wrote was backed by facts and actual written sources, and that Poland (and most of the world, including Romania) was more than miffed by the destruction of Czechoslovakia a year after the Sudetenland was annexed is a fact, and more than a few diplomatic cables show that.
Also, Beck was quite convinced of Poland's ability to hold until the french attack on the other side, and thought USSR would come to their help (especially after Memel, and probably because the French were persuaded of it too), thus convincing Carol to throw himself with the 'peace Front' (hindsight is 20/20, and Ribbentrof the most competent Nazi, probably because he was not ideologically one, which helps). England actually pushed for Poland to make concessions, and multiple cables from Poland responded to the English in the summer 39: 'we want, but they won't meet us'. I think they threw a last hail Mary: fully open borders in the area (no treaty at all, just a policy change) to show that they were open to negotiations, but it was too late.
To respond to your actual question, Britain backing was in name only (compared to France), and mostly prevented a France-Poland-Ussr alliance originally (after that Daladier came back USSR alliance was a bit farther, than anticipated, but still). Britain (and US) were aware that Germany was stronger than France, but thought the gap was small and tried to limit French diplomacy to keep it that way (limit continental European powers was a major mandate). They misjudged the balance of power. But they certainly didn't pit Poland against Germany, pushing relentlessly for negotiation instead, unlike the French
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very recently, there was a terrorist attack in Pakistan too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Jaffar_Express_hijackin... The attackers are allegedly backed by India.(India denies this, just like Pakistan deny involvement with the attacks in India). So probably these bombings won’t solve anything as the issues appear to be a much more complicated. Therefore it is possible that everyone got what they need from thes…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The context was a reply to an assertion that the terrorists in Pahalgam were not found by Indian security. I interpreted this as people who physically did the attack. If by terrorists, we mean the planners of the operation, that trail leads directly to Pakistan. Musharraf, the ex-army chief, is on record saying that the military has funded several militant organizations in Kashmir including LeT. (Osama's haveli in Ab…
"funding militant organizations" isn't the same as committing acts of terrorism. Nobody would have said the US should have responded to the 9/11 attacks with airstrikes on the CIA headquarters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Truth be told, we have all tools to feed all humans and have a moderate life quality, but some people want to have more than others, just for the sake of it.
Yes, the ones that finance, develop and operate those tools to feed all humans, should absolutely be entitled to have more than the ones that do nothing and benefit from them. Otherwise, soon, those tools will not exist anymore.
Imagine ancient mesopotamia where the priests supposedly controlled food distribution because food was accumulated in temples. The priest himself is not working the fields or builds tools, but he demands respect. He will put feathers in his hair, talk elaborately and call it a day after he takes a good chunk of food for himself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don’t allow such posts on HN at all; they belong on X
I hear you, but it's the other way around: when such posts appear, commenters need to be aware of their emotional reactions and (let's say) organize them in a way that respects the spirit of the community: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . This of course is far from easy, but it's what we all (including the admins) need to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"funding militant organizations" isn't the same as committing acts of terrorism. Nobody would have said the US should have responded to the 9/11 attacks with airstrikes on the CIA headquarters.
We are not talking about re-targeting of training and weapons from Afghanistan to Manhattan, but direct planning of an attack with ability to restrain and release the groups on demand. Contra the truthers, even the CIA wouldn't go that far. Musharraf explicitly mentioned the groups operating in Kashmir. He wasn't talking about fighters in Afghanistan.