> every one gets what they want

India wants Pakistan to end cross-border terrorism. Everyone did not get what they want.

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 these bombings.

India is likely to authorize more such strikes if terror attacks continue on its territory.

It was not India that harboured Osama Bin Laden for a decade.

And Osama didn't attack India.

India does not want Balochistan. Pakistan wants Kashmir.

There has been zero proof of India ever supporting terrorism. There have been 100's of examples and proofs of Pakistan supporting terrorism.

Name one terrorist from India? Name one terrorist who is NOT FROM PAKISTAN ?

Want me to keep going ?

India wants instability in Pakistan and seeks its fragmentation. It has been trying to promote a revolution in Sindh for a long time. Balochistan is second.

This model was used against Soviets, to break up a nuclear country by ruining it financially then enticing it into war.

India has supported jihadi groups in Kashmir to spur conflict in the country so it can have reasons to wage war. This is proven since late 90s.

India has always been a hostile conquering force, with its seizure of Hyderabad in 1951 and seizure of Sikkim in 1949. OTOH, Pakistan gave up territories with majority Hindu populations if it desired to join India.

Why bother? What do you think would be the HN reaction if the attack in pahalgam played out in any western country? I would love to see CNN and others report about jingoism and nationalism then. CNN still called the terrorists, militants, it's a wierd hatred. The hypocrisy is so strong it's almost inhuman.

This is attempt to draw a false equivalence between two events which does not stand scrutiny. Islamic terrorists are a keystone pillar of Pakistani society, they walk openly and are supported by the state. Plenty of literature around how Pak Army has adopted the proxy war against India.

Unlikely India is involved that much in West Pakistan given the geographical realities.

I agree these bombings won't solve anything though. Essentially just cannon fodder targeted, will be replaced quickly.

Well, Pakistan apparently downed 5 Indian jets, 3 of which are Dassault Rafale. Hardly cannon fodders. There's a billion dollars loss of equipment.

Anyway, I don't know much about Pakistan or India's backing of respective terrorists but trying to frame this, or any geopolitical situation as Good vs Evil is always wrong. It's O.K. to pick a side or distance yourself from someone if they do things you find immoral but its never good v.s. evil.

I think it’s early days let’s wait a bit before claiming results, lot of noise.

By cannon fodder I meant the terror camps, nothing will change by targeting that.

And I’m not taking a side at all, I don’t care nor do I have a horse in this race. Just find geopolitics fascinating.

Depends on internal politics in Pakistan.

The army isn't completely united, and the current COAS of Pakistan (Asim Munir) is much more ideological than the former one (Qamar Javed Bajwa), who he pushed out after Bajwa and Imran Khan demoted Munir from the ISI to a (relatively) lowly Corp Commander.

Bajwa was working on normalizing relations with India, but himself got undermined by Imran Khan and separately by Asim Munir.

Who instigated the attack on India?

LeT, backed by Pakistan.

Yet the Pakistani Army is not uniform either. Bajwa literally attempted to normalize relations with India before he was undermined by Munir.

COASes don't last as long as they used to, and there absolutely is consternation to being pulled into the old days.

It's result of supporting fundamentalist terrorism and supporting infrastructure nationwide. After sufficient growth, the extremist support base started being recruited into lower levels of army and the support grew from there. Going forward, fundamentalist support in Army will continue to grow even in upper levels.

I heard the ISI is also quasi independent, too.

Historically yes, but the new head of the ISI (Asim Malik) is a close confidant of Asim Munir.

The Balochistan Corp is quasi-independent as well, as they are the primary stakeholder in CPEC.

The Pakistani Armed Forces and Civilian Government have too many veto players, which means any attempt at normalization gets undermined by one of these players trying to maximize their own benefit.

It doesn't help that the Pakistani Armed Forces plays an outsized role in the economy, so individual services and even corps can become business competitors, making internal competition even fiercer.

A similar issue plagued the PLA before Xi era reforms began in 2012, and continue to plague the VPA (but was partially dulled by the SK and UK FTAs) .

[flagged]

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar like this. We want curious conversation here, and that requires a certain level of relaxation.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I'm going to sit this one out going forward.

It's tough stuff, I know.

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. These are fraught issues and we need to be flexible with each other.

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 regulate 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.

The rest of the threads in this post are all over the place.

Maybe so, but we need you to focus on your own contributions—making sure that they're within the site guidelines and the intended spirit of HN.

What is the intended spirit of HN?

Hypocrisy?

Are you implying that Indian nationalism has nothing to do with 1) its conflicts with Pakistan 2) the entire Kashmiri situation ?

Especially with India's current government? Not that Pakistan is any less nationalist, just that claiming that one side is just fighting terror here is a bit crazy. It's ironic since it's a very colonial/British type of rationalization

"My side is peaceful and is just fighting terror while the other side is full of fanatical nationalists" is always a very convenient propaganda tool though so I won't blame you for using it

Are your sources mostly Indian sources? Do you think those are somehow less biased than whatever sources I use?

Also you can check my post history if you really want to, I always call out "we are just fighting terror" arguments.

But still, I hope you realize that what India sees as terrorism in this case (which means Kashmiri separatism, which again I agree is mostly a Pakistani funded thing) is very tied to Indian nationalism.

Obviously the Kashmir is used by Pakistan as a way to destabilize its opponent (they don't particularly care about Kashmiri emancipation lol). But India would never recognize any form of separatism (peaceful or violent) from the Kashmir anyways, and will label it as terrorism anyways regardless. Just like the British did to justify putting down any rebellion in the British Raj for example.

Now, India has obvious the right to protect its national integrity but it still makes said war against terror incredibly nationalistic, since terror is (broadly) defined as anything that goes against national unity.

I said I'll refrain from replying in this post anymore (apologies dang) but I'll just close it with this at the risk doxxing myself as I may have mentioned the following in another forum.

> But India would never recognize any form of separatism (peaceful or violent) from the Kashmir anyways, and will label it as terrorism anyways regardless

It was never limited to within kashmir. Other parts of India were also attacked over the years.

> But still, I hope you realize that what India sees as terrorism in this case (which means Kashmiri separatism, which again I agree is mostly a Pakistani funded thing) is very tied to Indian nationalism.

> since terror is defined as anything that goes against national unity.

I don't care or subscribe to how Indian or western media defines terrorism. If you see yourselves as freedom-fighter deal with the supposed occupying military force not its citizens. For me terrorism is just any deliberate attack aimed to harm innocent civilians.

I've missed becoming a victim of terror attack that killed atleast 40 people because I was late by mere 15 mins. It took long time to recover from that "What If". No citizen should fear stepping out in their own country. That is what terrorism is for me.

You should probably sit this one out like you claimed you will be doing.