India says terror attacks to be treated as 'Acts of War': What it means
(www.indiatoday.in)
from finder585@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 10 May 2025 13:23
https://lemmy.world/post/29431407
from finder585@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 10 May 2025 13:23
https://lemmy.world/post/29431407
#world
threaded - newest
India and Pakistan agree to an immediate ceasefire | Reuters : reuters.com/…/pakistan-says-three-air-bases-targe…
Good news today~
The ceasefire is indeed good, but what this will mean is that any future attacks by Pakistan based terror groups in India would be dealt with the same way as seen in the past week, so such attack we saw over the week would become frequent if there is any provocation.
This is a direct result of israel impunity. Blame everything on terrorism and then do whatever you want.
The only difference is Pakistan isn’t Palestine
Blaming Israel for India’s actions is an interesting choice.
They aren’t, they’re blaming Israel for setting the precedent. Now it’s harder for any western country to admonish India because they let Israel do the same thing.
Entirely different situation with two vastly different nations. Shoehorning in a comparison between Israel-Palestine and India-Pakistan situations is odd.
Honestly, it is bold to assume any western country was going to admonish India. India has been courting Western businesses away from China.
I’m not saying they’re going to admonish India, but if they want to, now they have a precedent set where they agreed to an allied nation performing horrific acts against civilians for the sake of rooting out terrorists.
You claiming it to be shoehorning a comparison between the two situations means you fail to comprehend the actual point being made. The point is they are already being lenient about a worst-case scenario like Israel’s genocide that their words will lack power if they ever want to try telling India to stop.
Hate to say it, but a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan is on a whole different level then Israel’s genocide. The entire world has motivation to intervene to stop the nuclear taboo from being broken.
Again, two vastly different situations.
You’re still missing the point, so I’m not gonna argue anymore since it seems like a waste of time. I don’t even disagree with what you said, but its basically you just arguing past the point I’m making.
Neg, your point was clear. You are arguing that the West lacks any meaningful power to intervene, because of the perceived lack of action on Israel.
Despite that not being the case at all.
Agreed. Have a good day.