zazen

@Nivsch Yes and segments of the West, in particular the US and UK.

The same delusion rhetoric after attacking a hospital, another today. Everything is simply “Hamas fault”. The world shouldn’t buy the narrative of simply scapegoating “Bibi”. All the IDF soldiers we have seen making a mockery of their war crimes, all the spokespeople doing mental gymnastics to justify this genocidal level of behaviour etc. F**ck Israel (not all the people of course)

@Twentyfirst Spot on. This is the only way to make sense of what’s occurring. Basically the Military Industrial complex (MIC) has exhausted its profits via war because the only remaining countries in West Asia are too strong to go to war with (Iran, Turkey). Like snowden said, they profit from forever wars, not world ending ones. They (global elite) need friction but not a complete fracturing of the same globalized economy they are plugged into. The MIC is just one project of the global elite to milk money from, represented by the neocons and what we consider “establishment” (which Biden comes under) Think “old money” and neocon boomers vs “new money” represented by BlackRock. The new game in town now is that peace and stability are more profitable than chaos. The MIC helped crack open access to these markets, where now they’re financial industrial complex and consumer industrial complex can plug into and profit from. This is the deal making we are seeing happening. MBS from Saudi has been working with BlackRock for some time - so when MBS says the Middle East is going to be the new Europe - he’s speaking their language. That explains: Larry Fink alongside Trump in Saudi, sanctions lifted from Syria, talks of Iran along with its “historic” adversaries Saudi-UAE speaking of a joint nuclear consortium in return for sanctions being lifted off Iran. That’s why the narrative shift on Israel which is now seen as a liability - and the establishment of a Palestinian state being necessary for peace in the region. ——- Israel’s gone rogue in the way that it’s still playing by the rules of the old game ie the neocon paradigm. The neocon faction are more nationalistic than the new money Blackrock faction who are a-national, trans-national or globalist. Bibi is ramping up things before the lights go out for the neocon empire. This is the death of the neocon empire and the birth of the shark empire which are borderless, value-hunting elites that outgrew the nest they were born in - the US empire. They are now circling nations selling to privatize their future. The more sovereign states like China leading BRICS and the GCC are not allies to them but prey and partners, depending on how strong their immune systems are to negotiate with such sharks. From Trumps speech in Riyadh on Tuesday: “The so-called nation builders wrecked far more nations than they built, and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves,” Thats the new money Blackrock faction speaking, and saying farewell to the primacy of the neocon game. They’ll still make money for the MIC but it’ll most likely not be from actual war but just the mere threat of it in a multi-polar world where each pole races the other in arms to maintain deterrence.

@integration journey looking up and up for the Middle East. Gulf money and Turkish muscle are stabilising the region. Now that Israel is internally fractured and economically fragile along with the US - the rising regional powers have stepped in to take control. Shifting centres of power. This isn’t because the Western elite grew a conscience as much as it is adapting to a new reality. They exhausted their military industrial complex and will now attempt to fit into the multipolar world where they can rather profit more from stability and new markets in the global south.

That's an issue if the objective is tackling terrorism. It's very hard to bomb our way out of terrorism, because for every kill and collateral civilian hit alongside that kill - those grievances recruit more to the fight. Like Elon Musk said was the issue with Israels strategy. Especially if your targeting a foreign sovereign territory - those 'terrorists' now have the ammo to rally new recruits around a external threat. USA had a massive drone program targeting terrorists in Pakistan, with local Pakistan intelligence intel - and every think tank said their efforts didn't bare much fruit. Because terrorism stems from some grievance not being taken care of, and more killing only causes more grievances. Like I said above: ''When there's demographic suppression and engineering taking place in Kashmir, why is it implausible for there to be local resistance to that, including backlash from Kashmiris themselves, even to the level of terrorism. Just like whats occurred in Palestine. Even if Pakistan were to dissappear tomororw as I've seen seen BJP supporters fever dream - the underlying cause is still there of Kashmir. Local Kashmiri's would still resist and violently so - there's also still sympathetic Muslims within India - almost the same size in number as Pakistan itself who could radicalize and cause an insurgency.'' https://www.statista.com/chart/31605/rank-of-misinformation-disinformation-among-selected-countries/ Both seem to suffer from propaganda, India being first unfortunately. The media blasted out that they had blown Karachi port and others cities were destroyed - utterly credibility destroying.

Agree that Pakistan is effectively a military dictatorship. The military has been highly unpopular especially since taking down Imran Khan, but on the contrary their standing has greatly increased in the country since this episode with India. They largely view it as a tactical win, with the world not buying much of the Indian narrative and global military circles talking about the jets being downed which upends Western military supremacy - this was the Deepseek moment for China in the military domain, with their equipment being being showcased in battle for the first time. Hard to argue any side won in a brief flare up but I do think Pakistan established enough deterrence to make India think twice about carrying on - which they would have if they thought they really had the upper hand. But that just isn't that clear. - The estimated 4-5 jets downed in the first night alone, including a Rafael and Su-30 which are the most advanced, shifts the psychological balance. That was with 0 losses PK side. Imagine this went on for 30 days, that air attrition rate would be unsustainable for India. Pakistan have the edge in BVR (beyond visual range) - meaning they can see first, lock on first, and strike first. In modern air combat, 90% of kills happen before the enemy is even seen with the naked eye. This is why Indian jets didn't enter Pakistani air space but Pakistani jets briefly entered India's to chase down Indian jets on their return to the airbase. - The possibility to lock onto S-400 and intercept Brahmos missiles using electronic warfare is another point. Those are India's crown jewels in defense and attack. The many projectiles that were intercepted aren't talked about - just the few that inevitably got through and damaged some roofs or made holes in the ground here and there, but that's far from taking any bases or military installations out of operation. In general - who rules the skies rules the war. Because if you own the sky, that means you can protect your on the ground defense systems, target the other sides air defense systems, and strike at jets or launchpads from which missiles are launched into your own territory. India has the geographic depth that Pakistan doesn't, but most of India's economic centres are in the North and along the coast - all within reach of Pakistans jets and missiles. That's why I say that no one has the clear upper hand in this and its dangerous for the political elite of either country to echo chamber their own people into believing so, and war rally them into fighting the other side. Think of China-Pakistan like US backing Israel. Except China-Pakistan have geographic proximity, and are tied together at a much higher level - at a operational level. China is the worlds leader in tech-manufacturing - they can give Pakistan a asymmetric technological edge and mass produce missiles as if a Cuban rolling up cigars for a friend. in a war of attrition this could bleed out India. A few shorts that are valuable: A top Indian military analyst on China-Pakistan collaboration: On Kashmir: When there's demographic suppression and engineering taking place in Kashmir, why is it implausible for there to be local resistance to that, including backlash from Kashmiris themselves, even to the level of terrorism. Just like whats occurred in Palestine. Even if Pakistan were to dissappear tomororw as I've seen seen BJP supporters fever dream - the underlying cause is still there of Kashmir. Local Kashmiri's would still resist and violently so - there's also still sympathetic Muslims within India - almost the same size in number as Pakistan itself who could radicalize and cause an insurgency. Finally on the point about India beating Pakistan before therefore thinking its easy to do it again - those weren't decisive victories and today Pakistan has nuclear parity and a superpowers backing. The 3 main wars: - 1947: Both grabbed what they reached first in Kashmir and defended it - the UN froze it and established the line of control which till this day hasn't shifted. - 1965: Stale mate with losses on both sides. - 1971: Pakistan lost in a civil war - India helped midwife Bangladesh but didn't conquer Pakistan proper in terms of its core territory. The breakup of Pakistan was already in motion and inevitable simply due to its unnatural geography. East Pakistan was home to tens of millions and had its own language, culture, and identity. No other modern nation has had a split territory with two massive wings separated by another country. It's one thing to have a small integrated island remain a part of a nation - like Spain has Mallorca or France has Corsica - but not a large enough island or land with millions of people who could have their own autonomy. Was never going to last.

@Harikrishnan Already debunked as fake due to many spelling mistakes. ''During toutine maintainence'' and ''Pollowing initial containment'' and the last line ''for queries contact lirector'' lol. Lots of propaganda out there on both sides we gotta be careful of. Modi stood in front of S400 launchers (tubes) but without the other components like the radar which is the brain of the S400. In the PK briefing they showed a satellite image of it being identified and that they targeted it - not destroyed it. Targeting and lock on is enough to jam the radar or spoof it which creates false signals confusing the targeting system - meaning its rendered un-operational. Its essentially just empty tubes with or without rockets that can't be guided properly. If true, which is plausible (due to China's capabilities) it's unsettling to know IND's most advanced defense system can be breached. That's the point being missed from the Indian side in underestimating PK, which is highly dangerous. Pakistan alone wouldn't manage against India simply due to scale, power and geography. But China in the equation compensates with its modern warfare capabilities. They can assist PK with electronic warfare, cyber intervention and intelligence sharing without leaving footprints. In modern warfare its about who can be seen first. Tech trumps number of troops today.

There’s lots of speculation about it, but nothing verified and I don’t think we’d ever find out due to national security. Same reasoning behind the S-400 defence system being hit in India. India wouldn’t want to let them know as it shatters there deterrence and narrative of dominance. Both incidents allows both parties to strategise for around their weaknesses for any future adventure. The more I listen to both sides on X the less I feel I know lol. Cant fully trust the biased takes. It seems pretty conclusive that 1 Rafael was downed - without it even entering Pakistani airspace. That’s sent reverberations around military circles for sure. Sharp kid: Just like with Israel, I don’t see how either side can come to compromise on something that for each side poses a literal national security risk. For Israel it’s that if a Palestinian state exists in West Bank - they have a vantage point looking down into Israel. Israel basically becomes a fish in a bowl to be targeted. With Kashmir, Pakistan depends enormously on the water from there - thus it can’t allow India that territory as they can weaponise it - which they already are. With a massive trust deficit in both situations, neither side will risk compromising their national security.

Yeah, there's only been a de-escalation on the military front but the water issue still stands - what does that say about India? They say they wanna target the terrorists but then expel Pakistani diplomats, ban Pakistani media / actors etc, censor over 8'000 twitter accounts, and the most egregious of all is abandon the Indus Water Treaty - that's more of a broader agenda against Pakistan and damn right genocidal if they go ahead with starving the country. They still haven't got the 4 terrorists in the most militarized zone on the planet. The world debated how October 7th happened in Israel which is so heavily militarized, Kashmir is even more so. They are pissed at Kashmir becoming internationalized including their ''ally'' the US wanting to intervene and bring about a solution. Because they know the solution will fall under an already established UN resolution that needs to be upheld. What many Hindu nationalists don't understand is that majority of Pakistanis don't hate India - they aren't gleeful about these terror attacks or prior ones. Pakistan has been a historic enabler of these terror groups yes, and is now a victim of them just as much as India. The US created the mujaheddin factory to bleed the Soviets, then abandoned the region. Pakistan was left with the fallout of radicalized militias, fragmented networks, and blowback that now haunts the Pakistani state itself. To think every action taken by these groups can't be taken independently of Pakistan isn't a correct read on the situation. And that sets a dangerous precedent which Modi's doctrine is now setting. That if any terrorist attack happens it means you can unilaterally breach sovereign borders to go after them - imagine if that were normalised and the world acted that way. Whats stopping a country from engineering false flags galore and using that as a pretext to enter country x to carry out ulterior motives. Pakistan has suffered 4x more deaths (80k) from terrorism, in a country 6x smaller in population size, across the entirety of the country. India has suffered 20k death from terrorism, majority of which (15k) have been in the disputed region of Kashmir. Both suffer, and are dealing with it. The Indian narrative hasn't caught up with the new reality and think they are still dealing with the Pakistan of old who enabled such groups post soviet collapse. In fact, whenever Pakistan and India try to mend relations a terrorist incident coincides to derail such efforts. There is a minority of extremists that need to be dealt with - but that doesn't mean at a state level not working together. Even General Musharraf from the military tried making peace with India and cooperating on anti-terror efforts - until extremists sabotaged it. So the excuse that the military are behind it if it isn't the civilian government also doesn't hold weight today.

So Pakistan retaliated, and a ceasefire came a day later. Pakistanis are celebrating the ceasefire whilst many BJP supporting Indians are seething that they had the upper hand and should have continued onwards towards a “final solution” similar to Israel - ending Pakistan, even de-nuclearizing it. They love to be spoken about in the same sentence as Israel - but can’t see that most of the world sees Israel not with admiration but with disgust. And the world is beginning to see them the same. They are annoyed that no “allies” backed them unequivocally - whilst Pakistan has China and Turkey on its side. We just went through the episode of Israel, who became a pariah rogue nation on the world stage. They burnt up the Wests legitimacy and standing, which the West is now in damage control - just observe the narrative shift taking place. Do they really think the West were going to have another turbulent marriage with a spouse like India behaving in the same manner? Collectively punishing 250million people or threatening to do so by cutting water, declining neutral investigation, escalating aggressively, and being a belligerent? Lol.

@Harikrishnan so much fog of war it’s hard to know what’s what atm. I think India did get a bit shaken by Pakistans response and the downing of the jets which shows clear air superiority. India would defeat Pakistan if it were alone, but Chinas advancements give it an asymmetric edge. Imagine going up against a country backed by the world’s largest manufacturer - who’ll supply it with endless missiles and drones bleeding out India in a war of attrition. India isn’t even bordered by any allies the way Ukraine was in order to be supported. Pakistani jets entered Indian airspace last night to conduct their retaliation, Indian jets haven’t dared enter Pakistans. Military analysis aside… Zooming out - yes, India has suffered from higher profile terrorist attacks - because they are perceived as the occupying force in Kashmir. Which is why the terrorist attacks flow in one direction - against the occupier. That said, Pakistan has also suffered lower profile but more frequent terrorism but internally - due to insurgency and blowback from their US collaborated history against the soviets. If I had to boil down this shit show: When a people are denied their UN-recognized right to self-determination, they will inevitably resist (even violently) those who self proclaim the right to deny it. This is the situation with Kashmir and Palestine and the crux of the issue. India and Israel can’t determine another groups life, who have an internationally enshrined right to self determine their own. It’s like if you give someone the right to a million €, but deny them access to it - aren’t they going to fight for something they have a right to? Isn’t it inevitable they get desperately violent the longer they are denied that right? Hence the “terrorism” never disappears until its underlying cause does so.

Very impressed by this guy Evan’s geopolitical analysis. He’s been correct on quite a few things. See the above post I shared a month ago and consider what’s occurring now with Trump / Bibi’s supposed divorce. The world order has undeniably shifted. Connected to this indirectly is the Pakistan-Chinese jets downing India’s French Rafael. Global military circles are shocked and studying this development that’s shaken assumed Western dominance in the Military industrial complex - https://www.reuters.com/world/india/global-militaries-study-india-pakistan-fighter-jet-battle-2025-05-08/ This was Chinas DeepSeek moment in the Military domain. With Pakistan and Turkey both flanking the Middle East and with asymmetric advantages (drones, missiles, electronic warfare, air superiority) over a legacy built conventional Western military - the Middle East is coming under the Asian orbit of asymmetrically stronger regional players. Hence Trump disengaging with the Houthis also. A multi million dollar cruise missile can sink a multi billion dollar naval asset like a carrier - that’s asymmetry and why $$ spent no longer means eclipsing adversaries on the battle field. We are in a new world. Asias on the rise with Middle East stabilising and hopefully on the come up also. The Wests imperialistic teeth are being extracted in the global south - by the global south. Even in Africa with Burkin Fasos Ibrahim Traore leading the charge. The last holdout is India which may be swayed to be used as a bulwark to bog down and contain China via Pakistan (current flare up). The US will opportunistically use this to overextend China so they have a chance at attempting something around Taiwan. That will also fail - I don’t think the US will even attempt it as reality seems to have slapped them across the face.

@kbone it’s a beautiful region. India is forcing Pakistans hand to now retaliate. Let’s see what happens - maybe tonight.

@Raze True, dams will take time and Pakistan has said they will strike them as it puts the entire country at existential risk. Aggressively symbolic and high risk to even entertain it. There’s usually an escalation ladder that is climbed over time but India’s obliterating it and going for the jugular it seems. @BlueOak Turbulent times indeed. Thing is, Pakistan has been both an enabler and a victim of terrorism. Its past haunts it from the days the US turned it into a jihadist bulwark against USSR. I read somewhere: Pakistan is the condom the US used to enter Afghanistan lol These groups don’t just disappear once the parties over they’ve served their purpose, they splinter. Terrorisms such a loaded term to label a country or people also. A lot of complexity involved - Pakistan has been tarnished for decades by it and misunderstood.

What’s gotten into India - they’re escalating big time as if it’s Israel striking Gaza and not a neighbouring country they have nuclear parity with. Bonkers. Suspending the Indus Water Treaty, denying neutral investigation, 9 strikes not only in the disputed territory of Kashmir but Pakistan proper - breaching their sovereignty, yesterday Israeli drones across the country, and now this. Strikes at the military HQ near the capital.

@kbone @Nivsch Psychology is downstream from biology, and both exist within the ocean of spirit or consciousness. Biology survives, only a psychology can thrive for more. Biology operates through differentiation, hierarchy, specialization. It’s not concerned with fairness, only with efficient function that ensures its survival. Psychology is where the capacity for equality emerges. Because only the mind can reflect, empathize, and develop the conscience required to aspire toward fairness. Our psychology nurtures biology to transcend its raw mechanics of survival. So equality is not a biological principle - its a psychological and spiritual one. It doesn’t grow against nature but from nature, through the flowering of consciousness. If we Just look at ours hand - our fingers are un-equal. Thats nature and biology. But with a conscience and a brain, those hands engineer equality. Your psychology nurtures biology and nature to bring about equality. Nature gives us the tools. Consciousness gives us the vision. Psychology is the bridge between the two.

@Emerald @Leo Gura You guys are talking past each other and getting tangled on the tension between freedom and equality. Leo is right that equality constrains certain freedoms. Emerald is right that those constraints are what make meaningful freedoms possible for everyone else. The libertarian maximalist position is more pro-a certain kind of freedom: which is freedom from law, rather than being free under and within law. In nature there is no equality - dignity, fairness or rights. Equality is engineered by constraining the freedoms of the jungle where might makes right. It is nurturing nature. Where there is no equality, there is only power. And often, that power is un-principled. With an engineered legal structure of government, power is somewhat centralised - hopefully with principles that render it just. That structure then checks the decentralised power of individuals who lack any principles, and would otherwise abuse that power in the wild if no laws were to exist. That is where you have a constraint of freedom in order for equality to exist, which straightens out your guys “debate”.

You lack nuance and discernment. See my comment above that adds those elements to your and Leo’s discussion of “freedom”.

@Emerald On the point of freedom, perhaps we need distinctions to clarify that not all freedoms are equal - freedoms exist in relation to one another and some require constraint, in order for more essential and fundamental freedoms to exists. What good are human rights, if a human can’t exist to enjoy them? Because we didn’t care enough about stability (safe streets) or national security (borders) ie survival. The essential human right / freedom, is to exist in the first place to experience further rights / freedoms. - Existential freedoms = essential (ones required for survival, stability, security) - Fundamental freedoms = fairness (for a just society with equality in front of the law) - Important freedoms = valuable but secondary (enhances life but isn’t crucial, like consumer choices or sub cultural / artful expression ) Existential freedoms are for life itself, fundamental freedoms are for a dignified life, important freedoms are for a lifestyle. Existential freedom enables life to exist, fundamental freedoms creates fairness in life, important freedoms enhance life. Enabling life to exist, is the pre-condition to having other freedoms that enhance the conditions of life. The problem with leftists is that they mistake important freedoms for existential ones. Which is why when the right talks about safety and security they seem more in tune with reality - even if they layer on their flawed goofiness.

Sane people are for equality but with quality control. You can’t have Drag queens in kids classrooms rooms - might as well roll in stripper pole to teach kids about self expression. Drag isn’t an identity but a performance with sexualized elements. That’s the issue in America - everything has to be a spectacle and become idealogical. Veganism, lgbtq etc etc. They can’t just be allowed to exist organically, it must be imposed, elevated and pledged allegiance to. You can have diversity whilst having discernment. With no discernment leftists are just detached from reality.

@Emerald @Leo Gura Leo is correct that it is goofy shit. Just like the right wing has goofy shit. What strengthens a movement more: clinging to ideological purity and alienating the majority, or correcting your own side’s blind spots so it actually resonates with more people? To be honest, both parties alienate a sizable and sensible portion of the population - its just that people only get two choices and so have to pick which bag of goofy they're willing to give oxygen to for the next 4 years. The lefts framework treats every boundary or constraint on freedom as oppression. It’s allergic to tradeoffs - allergic to the idea that some freedoms must be constrained in order to protect larger freedoms - not as tyranny but as stewardship. This is why China wins bigly - because they aren't tripping over themselves playing a tango of ideology like in the West. If they even have one its just whateverworksim lol. The left demands fairer outcomes like healthcare, housing, economic justice and security - but can’t reconcile that structural authority is required to implement them. They dislike China not necessarily because of its values, which in some ways align with their policy goals - but because of its structure. They see authority and conflate it with tyranny. The lefts contradiction: they want more fairer socialist outcomes (greater freedoms), but can’t accept the systems or actions (constraints on freedom) that make those outcomes possible. Civilization doesn’t run on anarchy (total freedom) but on order (constrained freedom) which is the middle way towards the other extreme of tyranny (total constraint). That requires leadership, which requires a position of authority to steward that ship, which has hierarchy baked in as a feature and not a bug. Obviously this feature becomes a bug when those within the hierarchy dominate and crush those lower within it like bugs. Systems and hierarchies are more so neutral, except the actors within them. Those actors actions are downstream from a cultural and civilisational DNA. For example, in China, leadership isn’t seen as a mere position of power but carries the weight of the “Mandate of Heaven” a Confucian concept that frames authority as sacred stewardship rather than rulership over the people. Contrast this to the West which has a history and cultural memory of centralized power lending itself to tyranny - hence a suspicion of authority itself. Never mind the philosophic-cultural foundation of elevating individual liberty over collective harmony. English liberalism rejected the divine right of kings, the French Revolution decapitated kings, and the American Revolution rebelled against a British monarchy made up of kings and queens. The West fears authority because it remembers tyranny. The East respects authority because it remembers stewardship. Every functional system - families, corporations, governments - need authorship and stewardship. The question isn’t whether authority exists, but what kind of authority and who wields it. Conflating all authority with oppressive tyranny is the lefts blind spot - abusing authority is the rights. The macro civilisational blind spot and predicament of the West: the scale, complexity, and fragility of modern civilization require high-trust systems, capable stewardship-authority, and collective discipline. But its cultural DNA rooted in a distrust of authority, individual primacy, and perpetual critique, has no spiritual or philosophical infrastructure to support the kind of leadership its system now demands. A X thread that prompted these thoughts for me:

- Like Israel, both occupy disputed territories for over 70 years, denying people within those territories self-determination, both majority Muslim. Both refuse to honor UN resolutions (solutions). A plebiscite in Kashmir's case, an end to occupation in Israel's. - Like Israel, both engage in cross-border violence. India assassinating a Sikh activist in Canada and attempting to assassinate another in the USA, which the US foiled during Biden's term. - Like Israel, both are led by ethno-nationalist supremacist ideologies (Hindutva and Zionism) with visions of a greater pre-Islamic era of 'Akhand Bharat' and 'Ezret Israel'. Both view indigenous Muslims living there for centuries as foreign invaders with no right to be there. - Like Israel, both justify collective punishment and block neutral investigations into attacks - weaponizing guilt by association as a tool of domination and a form of domestic political currency to appease their voter base frothing at the mouth. - Like Israel, both have elevated extremists into positions of state power - not despite their extremism, but because of it. Ben Gvir was a designated terrorist. Modi was nicknamed the “Butcher of Gujarat” who presided over a pogrom killing thousands of Muslims and was barred from the US and UK for over a decade before he became politically prominent in the world's largest democracy. - Lastly, on that note, just like Israel, both love to flaunt that they are ''Democracies'' - as if your political system says anything about the elevation and evolution of your people. As if the way a nation organizes its power says anything about the way people are treated under and beyond it. Check out Sadhguru getting political in support of this “defensive” action - aligning with the Hindutva state narrative. It’s equivalent to a peace loving Eckhart Tolle cheering on a US airstrike on a Mexican cartel on Mexican soil.

What's missing in the discourse is that ''India's pressure to respond'' is valid - but it responding to Pakistan by loose association to the Pahalgam massacre is invalid. This is simply misdirected vengeance and collective punishment - similar to Israel (many parallels between the two). India is automatically attributing and projecting the massacre onto Pakistan without proof, and denying any neutral investigation into it which Pakistan has called for (similar to Israel again). This is why even the US and international community have denied blaming Pakistan and not bought the Indian narrative. India ''retaliating'' by weaponizing water flowing to Pakistan is an act of collective punishment *cough Israel* on 250 million people - that just makes it look foolish and bloodthirsty. And then attacking not only the disputed territory of Kashmir but Pakistan itself, breaching their sovereignty - is massively escalatory. Vaush said it right - if Mexican cartels launched a deadly attack in America, would Washington bomb Mexico City? Would it dam the Rio Grande and starve Mexicans of water? No. Because that would be an act of war, not justice. Another parallel is Egypt, Gaza and Israel. If Egypt may have sympathizers or smugglers aiding groups like Hamas - should Israel attack Egypt and collectively punish over a 100 million Egyptians by blocking the Nile river? Corruption, negligence, or complicity by some officials doesn’t make the entire state guilty. There’s a difference between a country harboring extremist elements - often non-state actors operating in the shadows - and a state itself conducting military aggression or terrorism across borders. Pakistan has been dealing with the run-off of the US backed Mujahideen war machine against the Soviets, fueled by Saudi Wahhabi ideology. It has no incentive for instability - to let these elements proliferate, let alone work with them to gain what? India on the other hand, along with the US, have every incentive in destabilizing Pakistan's growth and China's BRI project in Pakistan. That falls under US's larger strategy of containing China. When Chinese nationals working on BRI projects in Pakistan are killed by Balochi separatists - does China attack or starve Pakistan? When the Balochistan Liberation Army (separatists) hijacked Jaffar Express holding over 300 people hostage just over a month ago - does Pakistan attack India for loose association with that group? When a government launches military strikes or cuts off vital water supplies, that’s not a non-state actor but state policy ie an act of war. Blurring the line between shadowy actors and sovereign governments is a dangerous game. If that standard is applied universally, every country on Earth becomes a valid target.

Heating up tonight.