India-Pakistan air conflict

[weldone]

There is another camp that oversimplifies the whole thing by saying that 300 terrorists were not neutralized hence it was a complete failure.

Agree that saying so would be naïve.

But saying 'We don't have any ****ing clue what exactly is being claimed by the Army. We don't know what exactly this has achieved. And we need to know what has been achieved before terming it as a gigantic success against terrorism" won't be naive.

 

[weldone]

Anyway, India IS an oppressive state for Kashmir and Kashmir deserves the right to self determination.

Now that is another over-simplification. How do you know a free Kashmir will be safe from India and Pakistan? There's every chance that a small country like that will see regular attacks from both sides. And at that time, the blood-thirsty people from both countries can openly support attacking Kashmir as a Nationalistic idea (just like they openly rejoice attacking and killing Pakistan/India now).

'Freedom' is a meaningless word here. Kashmir will never be 'free' from direct outside interference even if it becomes a separate country.

 

[trundler]

F-16s weren't even used I believe. That claim just looked like face saving like Pakistan's initial response to the raid. MIG 21 is a flying coffin.

 

[shankar]

That doesn't mean anything. Was it an active camp? [I understand Pak has many deserted buildings which were terror camps before] Approx. how many people were supposed to be inside? Has the camp been destroyed completely? "We hit the intended targets" doesn't mean much sadly.

What does any of this have to do with what the CLAIM is?

 

[harsh.ag]

Besides the point. It accomplished nothing since there was no training camp. Only France came out in support.

Yeah, we all have doubts about this, but there is really is no basis for the certainty here either. There is no way Pakistan authorities and media would confirm if there actually was a training camp there. That is the crux of the uncertainty to begin with.

 

[ankitj]

Agree that saying so would be naïve.

But saying 'We don't have any ****ing clue what exactly is being claimed by the Army. We don't know what exactly this has achieved. And we need to know what has been achieved before terming it as a gigantic success against terrorism" won't be naive.

That won't be naive but that will also be a truism (that's second time I am using that word today; used it at work too). A departure from norm like this will take time to bear any results and will also be dependent on what India follows this up with.

 

[weldone]

Yeah, we all have doubts about this, but there is really is no basis for the certainty here either. There is no way Pakistan authorities and media would confirm if there actually was a training camp there. That is the crux of the uncertainty to begin with.

If it was a big establishment then before/after satellite pics can settle that matter (although it can't say anything about the no. of casualties).

 

[trundler]

Now that is another over-simplification. How do you know a free Kashmir will be safe from India and Pakistan? There's every chance that a small country like that will see regular attacks from both sides. And at that time, the blood-thirsty people can openly support attacking Kashmir as a Nationalistic idea (just like they rejoice attacking Pakistan/India now).

'Freedom' is a meaningless word here. Kashmir will never be 'free' from direct outside interference even if it becomes a separate country.

I didn't say it should be a separate country - only that they deserve self determination. 72 years later both countries are too deep in this ****tangle and it absolutely isn't worth the cost. Maybe Kashmir could be a semi autonomous member of a federation but ISI will have to **** off first.

 

[harsh.ag]

Wouldn't call that a deviation from norm at all.

Anyway, India IS an oppressive state for Kashmir and Kashmir deserves the right to self determination. We can all agree on ISI's well-documented meddling but as per my knowledge the Kashmiri rebellion has developed pretty organically by now. The problem with that is that the Movement has generally allied with Islamists in the past.

Well known feature of an oppressive state - give the oppressed area the right to make their own laws which deviate from the oppressive state's laws.

Not saying that you are completely wrong, but you aren't completely right either.

Kashmir having the right to self determination, while theoretically true, means little practically. If they were given independence (which is what they seemingly want), then they would still require India's military to save them from an annexation from the Pakistan military.

 

[weldone]

What does any of this have to do with what the CLAIM is?

Ok I claim I have hit a target yesterday too. (And that's true)

Now, how much do you know about my claim?

 

[trundler]

Yeah, we all have doubts about this, but there is really is no basis for the certainty here either. There is no way Pakistan authorities and media would confirm if there actually was a training camp there. That is the crux of the uncertainty to begin with.

Seems highly improbable then.

 

[weldone]

I didn't say it should be a separate country - only that they deserve self determination. 72 years later both countries are too deep in this ****tangle and it absolutely isn't worth the cost. Maybe Kashmir could be a semi autonomous member of a federation but ISI will have to **** off first.

After Brexit etc., I am convinced that such long-term and complex decisions shouldn't be entirely left to the joe people. Representative democracy exists for a reason. People select representatives to make complicated decisions.

 

[harsh.ag]

I didn't say it should be a separate country - only that they deserve self determination. 72 years later both countries are too deep in this ****tangle and it absolutely isn't worth the cost. Maybe Kashmir could be a semi autonomous member of a federationbut ISI will have to **** off first.

Yeah, this is too tall an order imo.

 

[shankar]

Long article with boring language, but a cursory read tells me that the article doesn't mention anything about nuclear bluff. Did you read it? I think the headline and the body were written by two separate persons at two different points of time.

The article assumes some background knowledge. Pakistan had claimed that any attempt by India to cross the border for retaliatory attacks (in the event of terror attacks) would escalate the situation to a nuclear conflict. Here's an example: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dn...be-removed-if-india-tests-resolve-2575224/amp

 

[ankitj]

Kashmiris right to self determinism lost its legitimacy when Kashmiri Hindus were driven out of Kashmir and excluded from self determinism. I still think the best outcome might be to let them have their own country but I have not empathy but contempt for their "self determinism" which is nothing but Islamic nationalism at best if not a chapter in Gazwa e Hind project.

 

[trundler]

Well known feature of an oppressive state - give the oppressed area the right to make their own laws which deviate from the oppressive state's laws.

Not saying that you are completely wrong, but you aren't completely right either.

Kashmir having the right to self determination, while theoretically true, means little practically. If they were given independence (which is what they seemingly want), then they would still require India's military to save them from an annexation from the Pakistan military.

This is dishonest and you know it. It's a muddy situation and you only have heroes and villains in hindsight. One man's Bhagat Singh is another's Guy Fawkes. Weird example but you get the gist.

I don't have a solution and I won't claim to have one but it's all ****ed top to bottom

 

[harsh.ag]

This is dishonest and you know it. It's a muddy situation and you only have heroes and villains in hindsight. One man's Bhagat Singh is another's Guy Fawkes. Weird example but you get the gist.

I don't have a solution and I won't claim to have one but it's all ****ed top to bottom

Tbh I don't know why that is dishonest. Article 370 is a thing.

 

[trundler]

This is dishonest and you know it. It's a muddy situation and you only have heroes and villains in hindsight. One man's Bhagat Singh is another's Guy Fawkes. Weird example but you get the gist.

I don't have a solution and I won't claim to have one but it's all ****ed top to bottom

Sadly the case of all Muslim countries except 2. Depressing.

 

[trundler]

Tbh I don't know why that is dishonest. Article 370 is a thing.

Half truth.

 

[shankar]

Ok I claim I have hit a target yesterday too. (And that's true)

Now, how much do you know about my claim?

This is getting into boring semantics about what a claim is and what a fact is so I'll stop here.