War breaks out between Pakistan and Afghanistan
Posted by seeebiscuit@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 147 comments
Posted by seeebiscuit@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 147 comments
ConferenceMore9811@reddit
Why is Pakistan trying to genocide Afghanistan. Or is Afghanistan trying to genocide Pakistan? I’m a Redditor I need to know which side I’m suppose to put their flag in my bio for internet clout.
mightyzinger5@reddit
Pakistan has always been involved in conflicts with Afghanistan, whenever it moves closer to the US diplomatically. The timing of this doesn't feel like any coincidence either
ConferenceMore9811@reddit
So do I put the Pakistan flag in my bio because they attacked them or do I put the Afghanistan one I. My bio because they were trying to move closer to America. I’m just an oppressed Harvard student.
teslawhaleshark@reddit
The answer is always yes
ConferenceMore9811@reddit
I hope Pakistan stops the apartheid and Afghanistan the settler colonialism. One state solution. Are the Pashtuns actually from there I think most are fromongolia?
teslawhaleshark@reddit
Hazara
mightyzinger5@reddit
I don't care.
teslawhaleshark@reddit
r/woosh
ConferenceMore9811@reddit
I hope Starbucks isn’t sponsoring this Pakistani Genocide by Afghanjstan. #alleyesonkabul
teslawhaleshark@reddit
r/lostredditors
seiryuu-abi@reddit
Not this shit again lmfao this is like what happened with the India-Pakistan airstrikes.
EternalAngst23@reddit
Except the Taliban is not a professional military, and the two sides will probably call a truce before the week is out.
DT5105@reddit
Fair point and a good reminder that 10,000 goat herders recently ran the US superpower out of the country
Dependent-Archer-662@reddit
No. The U.S. left on it's own
If the Americans wanted to stay,then the taliban couldn't have kicked it out
ThatHeckinFox@reddit
And why did the USA leave?
loggy_sci@reddit
They didn’t want to spend the domestic political capital to stay
ThatHeckinFox@reddit
Didn't want to, or couldn't?
America lost the war in Afghanistan the same way it lost in Vietnam: Their enemies have gone guerilla, and waited for the americans to exhaust themselves
loggy_sci@reddit
Didn’t want to. The war was unpopular in the U.S. and they wanted to focus on the pacific. There was no appetite for a never ending money sink in Afghanistan.
historydude1648@reddit
does that also apply for the US and French in Vietnam? for the Soviets or British in Afganistan? is there any guerilla uprising that you cant imply the same thing? at the end of the day, the Taliban control the country.
Key_Poem9935@reddit
It’s an actual fact that the US left the Afghanistan of their own accord. The taliban were hiding in the mountains during the 20 year occupation. They didn’t run anyone out lol
historydude1648@reddit
its why i gave these examples. the French can say they "left Vietnam of their own accord". same with the Soviets in Afganistan, and the British before them. what matters though, is who controls the country in the end. the Taliban do. its their flag on top of the hill. the US left because it didnt make enough sense to stay. its the exact same reasons with the French, Soviets, British etc. they all could have stayed, but it stopped being favorable, so they gave up. and the Afgans won.
Key_Poem9935@reddit
So you’re admitting that? What’s your point then. We’re arguing about “being ran out” of the country, which is demonstrably false. The US didn’t leave because the Taliban defeated them, they left because it was too expensive to keep the whole operation going. The reason for leaving matters when claiming “victory” and statements about being “ran out”.
historydude1648@reddit
"they left because it was too expensive to keep the whole operation going". that's the whole point! that's how guerilla armies work. its how Afganistan dealt with the Soviets and the British, its how Vietnam dealt with the Chinese, French and Americans. you make the bigger force suffer, you make them frustrated that they cant fight a conventional war, you tire them by the never-ending fighting, and in the end they see its not worth the money and lives and give up. that's victory. the Taliban won. they hold the ground and their enemy is gone. it was never about dealing a blow in open battle like a conventional army.
Key_Poem9935@reddit
Except that’s not what happened. The operational costs were talking about here weren’t really a result of frustration by the Taliban guérilla warfare techniques. It was in propping up the Afghan government and military and the massive amount of personnel deployed there. The Taliban were hiding in the mountains for most of that period.
historydude1648@reddit
and the need for all the costs to prop up the Afghan government military was because of...?
Key_Poem9935@reddit
Because it was a puppet government? The US defeated the Taliban government and decided to take a gander at nation building. Paying salaries, operating schools, training military and the likes
historydude1648@reddit
you need me to spell it out? the US needed to spend ridiculous amounts of money on a foreign government, in a country that isnt allied to them or has any economic benefit, or any strategic benefit, because they knew that the moment the locals are weak, the Taliban would take control again. without the threat of the Taliban, there was no reasons for "Paying salaries, operating schools, training military and the likes". this wasnt charity. it was a defensive plan. and the US after 20 years of wasting money, left, and all these expenses went to nothing, and the Taliban are back in power. the new Afgan army that the US was funding and training for 20 years to block the Taliban from taking power again just disolved in a moment.
tldr: the money spent was to use the locals against the Taliban. it didint work. the US didnt just decide to leave; their military plan failed and they gave up. that's an example of a successful guerilla war, same as in the other examples i mentioned.
Key_Poem9935@reddit
Hiding and coming out when the military that defeated you leaves is an example of a successful guerrilla war? lol. Over 20 years, the deaths for the US military was only about 2500 troops. The nam war alone claimed like 50k plus, that you could make a case for guerrila warfare being successful. The US left because of politics not because the Taliban were successful at anything.
historydude1648@reddit
you dont seem to understand the meaning of unconventional/guerilla warfare. that how it has always been. casualties are worse for the locals in every historical case. they know it and they accept it, its how it works. what's important is that they control the country in the end. the war cost the US not just 2500 troops, but also 2 trillion dollars, for nothing. if they stayed, they would have spent more and more. and all that money was to prevent the Taliban from taking power again. and it all went down the drain. for comparison, Vietnam, in today's dollars, cost 1 trillion. the US could have solved domestic homelessness with 30 billion at the highest estimate, and they wasted all that money to control Afganistan, only to completely fail in the end and abandon the effort. the Taliban only had to survive and wait, (or join ISIS and almost take over Syria with money from the West)
Key_Poem9935@reddit
“survive and wait to leave on their own accord and terms” isn’t warfare lol. Not by any definition of the word. You’re lost in the sauce
DocBigBrainMD@reddit
The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose.
-Henry Kissinger
If you go into another man's land and he outlasts you, he has won. By your logic no guerilla war was 'won'. They didn't leave of their own accord, it was decided that it was no longer sustainable, i.e a graveyard to continue, America won it's independence by grinding down the British, as did Ireland, as did the Vietnamese against the French and Americans.
Even if it takes 800 years if in the end the occupier leaves having achieved nothing then the guerilla has won. You simply cannot comprehend asymmetric warfare.
Key_Poem9935@reddit
That’s like saying “The British didn’t succeed in colonising Africa because they eventually left”
Dumbest logic I’ve ever heard
DocBigBrainMD@reddit
Americas goal wasn't to rape Afghanistan of slaves gold and ivory, it was to "Defeat the Taliban." How did that end?
Key_Poem9935@reddit
The stated goal was to defeat Al Qaeda and punish the Taliban for being very bad boys. The managed that in two months, easiest W. Then the goal changed to building a stable, self governing and democratic government! Which didn’t work out well.
DocBigBrainMD@reddit
Don't take my word
Date 7 October 2001 – 30 August 2021 (19 years, 10 months, 3 weeks and 2 days) Location
Afghanistan[a] Result Taliban victory[32] Territorial changes Taliban control over Afghanistan increases compared to pre-intervention territory
Name any serious source that states it was anything other than a US defeat, cope harder
DocBigBrainMD@reddit
And the blew 1 trillion dollars propping up a puppet which immediately collapsed rendering all that effort pointless. If you spent 20 years trying to keep someone off heroin and all your life savings and the second you leave they relapse, did you succeed
DocBigBrainMD@reddit
"The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose." Henry Kissinger
Per the actual secretary of state of America. By your logic the US never won the Revolutionary War either,
VizzzyT@reddit
They invaded Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban. 20 years on the Taliban runs the country. US lost and ran.
Key_Poem9935@reddit
“US lost and ran” never happened. They defeated and overthrew the Taliban gov in 2 months. Created and backed a whole new puppet government, occupied the country for two decades, while the Taliban ran and hid in the mountains and left on their own terms when the operation wasn’t worth it politically.
VizzzyT@reddit
The US failed in its goal. The Taliban runs the country. Despite occupying the country for 2 decades and wasting a trillion dollars the US failed and then ran. They clearly didn't "defeat" the Taliban if they currently run the country.
Key_Poem9935@reddit
Cope? Why the fuck would I cope about an enemy that was literally defeated and overthrown in 2 months and spent 20 years hiding? With only 2.5k casualties for 2 decades?
The US failed at building a competent puppet government and it wasn’t worth the effort politically to keep trying to.
DocBigBrainMD@reddit
The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose.
Henry Kissinger
Quote from a guy who prolonged and fucked up the Vietnam war and dropped more bombs on Cambodia than were dropped on Europe in all of WW2 and still concedes the US lost. Talk about K/Ds like a COD lobby all day, the last man standing in the ring is the winner.
VizzzyT@reddit
They weren't "literally defeated" if they currently run the fucking country.
SamuelClemmens@reddit
Then why did we leave Afghanistan but still haven't left Japan?
They ran us out, full stop. We had people loading onto helicopters on the roofs of buildings.
Key_Poem9935@reddit
The two situations are not even remotely comparable but I’ll entertain your train of thought. The role of the US military in Japan is not the same as it was in Afghanistan. Also, Japan pays around 2 billion every year to keep us forces in Japan. The US was spending close to 20 billion of its own money in Afghanistan yearly and had already sunk close to 3 trillion throughout the twenty years. It was just to expensive with little to no return.
DT5105@reddit
Oh you mean like throwing the chessboard up in the air to avoid checkmate. Gotcha lol
Pixi_Dust_408@reddit
Maybe but the Taliban did request for a ceasefire thrice and the Pakistani Army rejected the request.
MongolPerson@reddit
Ukraine-Russia does the same thing. Israel calls everyone they kill a legitimate target and balloons their numbers. The US manipulation of Vietnam war casulaties pretty much sums up the objective of this sort of media campaign, which is to generate/maintain public morale for the war campaign.
kapsama@reddit
That's far older than the US itself. Even in ancient or medieval times it was always claimed that your enemies army was bigger than the universe and that you were so successful in killing them that only a fraction remained. This was especially true if your opponent was of a different faith or civilization.
Like Herodotus claiming that almost 3 million Persians invaded Greece. Or Georgians claiming that half a million Muslims were killed at Didgori. But the examples are endless.
azure_beauty@reddit
Literally when? Where are you getting getting these numbers from? In earlier wars IDF claimed numbers aligned with Hamas claims (revised a few years after the public attention has shifted) whereas during the recent fighting no statistics have been published.
TFBuffalo_OW@reddit
Your own politicians have claimed multiple times that everyone born in Palestine is a terrorist
weretheman@reddit
What so no examples of Israeli government saying that?
kapsama@reddit
Various Israeli politicians and officials have made statements echoing the sentiment that there are "no innocent Palestinians," particularly in Gaza, often in the context of the Israel-Hamas war . Such rhetoric has been a matter of historical and ongoing controversy, drawing condemnation from international bodies and human rights advocates. Key examples of such statements
Public opinion: A poll in August 2025 found that 62% of Israelis agreed that "there are no innocent people in Gaza," though a majority of opposition voters rejected the statement.
International law: Critics argue that statements like these, which blur the lines between combatants and civilians, can be seen as evidence of genocidal intent and collective punishment under international law.
TFBuffalo_OW@reddit
Use Google fuck nuts its not hard anyone can do if
Professional_Art7907@reddit
instructions unclear, googled fuck nuts
NearABE@reddit
You are stepping in to a conversation about the numbers. Body count. Like “if it was a pregnant terrorist does it count as two points or just one?”
TFBuffalo_OW@reddit
Yknow I cant tell if your being ironic or you just genuinely said "pregnant terrorist" like that doesnt give the whole game away
zevonyumaxray@reddit
It's ironic, but unfortunately it's a bad joke that I have heard second-hand by some in the military. When you get faced with the sorts of insanity that infantry or many first responders work through, the sense of humour gets warped rather heavily.
mycoctopus@reddit
Nothing funny about this
NearABE@reddit
Are you sure about that? The meaning and implications change significantly depending on who is wearing it and where they are. It has considerable shock value but could shock people of diverse political views in unique ways.
mycoctopus@reddit
Explain the joke to me in a way that is funny.
NearABE@reddit
https://youtube.com/watch?v=iQkQAU9iU7I
NearABE@reddit
Numbers are still numbers. They remain discrete and countable regardless of how you feel about them. Sometimes people have to choose between accurate reports and reporting inaccurate numbers. If choosing inaccurate numbers a reporter also has to decide if reporting a larger number or reporting a smaller number is preferable. If choosing to report accurate numbers one has to be clear which things are included within a category.
Even if we know there was a choice to report inaccurate numbers and we now the data was skewed one way or the other, this alone does not tell us which side the reporter was attempting to support.
NearABE@reddit
Which game is this?
mr_herz@reddit
It's an effective approach.
Hamas- publishes numbers but they're terrorists, so their numbers don't count.
Israel- doesn't publish numbers, just reminds everyone Hamas are terrorists, or "there are no official numbers so no one knows".
photoinduced@reddit
So you purposefully murdered no legitimate targets? Cause 80+% of the casualty rate, as admitted by your army were non combatants
weretheman@reddit
Where is your source for the 80 plus percent?
photoinduced@reddit
Hope you're ready to reconsider your views now that you have the facts. You seemed pretty eaget to get the facts right, surely you'll change your mind now.
Cavalleria-rusticana@reddit
Stop feeding the trolls
weretheman@reddit
I am ready to reconsider. Provide some information that would cause me to do so.
Nethlem@reddit
Revealed: Israeli military’s own data indicates civilian death rate of 83% in Gaza war
WannaAskQuestions@reddit
Lol, you bought receipts. Good on you brother
photoinduced@reddit
Sorry its 83% https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2025/aug/21/revealed-israeli-militarys-own-data-indicates-civilian-death-rate-of-83-in-gaza-war
weretheman@reddit
That article doesn't say what you're saying it says. It's referring to combatants who's name Israel already knew.
photoinduced@reddit
Source as to how it doesn't say what it is clearly saying?
weretheman@reddit
You want me to source the article you just sent me a link to? Maybe read it yourself. I did which is why I know what it says.
photoinduced@reddit
PslS you're saying exactly what the previous poster said:
"a no we didn't know who they were but we killed them anyway cause they're terrorists trust me bro, now let me go bulldozed a random road in the west bank and kill some civilians to get 1 scientist in iran cause only i am allowed nukes"
bouguerean@reddit
Oh come on, the IDF labels every able-bodied man they kill Hamas. They don't distinguish between civil and military members of Hamas.
But beyond everything, they themselves admit to over an 80% casualty rate. Most people with any sense know that's an overly generous figure. The game is long up.
azure_beauty@reddit
Okay. Show me a statistic coming from the IDF where they made any such claims.
SlicesofFlySemen@reddit
Heres an example of a literal IDF soldier making that claim.
https://youtu.be/9B9Tygo_-Jw?si=KQN5fWEWAE2-3Nra
Even if you google "does Israel distinguish between male civilians and combatants?" literally every single result says they dont.
Its insane how you guys dont realize how the IDF is percieved worldwide at this point. And im already assuming that instead of acknowledging you were wrong, youre just gonna claim that IDF soldier is a liar and that google results are "antisemetic".
azure_beauty@reddit
So then you should be able to show me just ine example of such a number being claimed by the IDF, as the previous comment alleged.
KungFuJosher@reddit
Theres plenty of statistics, few months ago, before the food shortages and subsequent US and Israeli led food delivery with a side of death, '60,000' number was floating around.
I've seen Israeli ministers and media personalities claim it's good, implying everyone dead is Hamas, I've seen normal Israeli people support the killing of children calling them Hammas offspring that will eventually turn into Hamas.
For the past year I've been trying to avoid such news and yet I've seen these videos and claims and celebrating or advocating killing and starving kids and women.
You're either trying to change the narrative or are just too naive, either way, Google is there.
azure_beauty@reddit
So basically you have nothing and MongolPerson just made shit up.
HamunaHamunaHamuna@reddit
When the conflict first reopened after Oct 7th 2023,the IDF declared that according to their intelligence, there were no more than 30000 Hamas militants in all of Gaza.
They've admitted openly to killing at least 40000 people, and we all know there's a few hundreds of thousands buried under rubble from destroyed houses.
It's undeniable by now that the vast majority of IDF kills have been civilians, and despite killing several times the total number of Hamas militants, Israel still can't help constantly violating ceasefires to kill more civilians lining up to get aid.
azure_beauty@reddit
Literally nothing you said was true, incredible.
HamunaHamunaHamuna@reddit
Only Israeli lives under the delusion that it isn't true.
Moppermonster@reddit
I like how you only take offence at the "balloons their numbers" and not the "calls whatever they bomb a legitimate target" bit.
azure_beauty@reddit
It's literally the same argument, which is false.
ShootmansNC@reddit
The USA did the same shit through the GWOT
Sid-Man@reddit
There are satellite images of 11 Pakistani air bases destroyed + plus the initial terror camps. When the dust was settled it was clear who achieved the intended operational goals.
SongFeisty8759@reddit
Par for the course.. Particularly in this part of the world.
SardaukarSS@reddit
Every countries does this shit. No country is going to tell you sensitive information while the war is going on.
SongFeisty8759@reddit
It's little more than a border skirmish at this stage. That said if you don't have a free press because you can disappear them if they don't sing your praises... this is what you get.
Beagle_Knight@reddit
Saying “oh yeah, we got obliterated” dosent sound great for morale lol
mariakaakje@reddit
guys.. it’s not a competition
TheSamuil@reddit
The human brain just goes "higher number = better". This is how we respond to everything, more or less.
Lem0n_Lem0n@reddit
Hey, if you're already killing people, lying seems like the less crime..
Arno_Dorian_11@reddit
Pakistan has confirmed 50 casualties iirc, 20 dead 30 injured. I'd believe 200 dead taliban too because of how much of afg was bombed + the amount of captured outposts in the current offensive.
Much_Guest_7195@reddit
The Pakistan military said 23 of its soldiers were killed in the clashes on Saturday, while the Taliban said it lost nine.
Isn't it pretty sensational to refer to these border clashes as a "war"?
ConferenceMore9811@reddit
Sounds like a genocide to me.
Pixi_Dust_408@reddit
I don’t know if it’s a genocide but it is asymmetric warfare. Pakistan has a conventional army and a nuclear arsenal. The Taliban is dependent on left over American equipment.
ConferenceMore9811@reddit
War= Genocide
They should merge under a one state solution so both sides aren’t living under this settler colonial apartheid genocide.
haggerton@reddit
It doesn't surprise me that a Zionist can't grasp such basic concepts as genocide or apartheid.
ConferenceMore9811@reddit
Sorry sweetie I don’t talk to genocide supporters. One state of AfghanPakistan to end the apartheid. 😤😤😤😤😤
NearABE@reddit
Bunch of gunfire, artillery, and airstrikes. What needs to occur for it to be called “war”?
KN_Knoxxius@reddit
A declaration of it usually
justabrazilianotaku@reddit
Wars have not really been declared since World War II.
I personally think there needs to be higher organization, mobilization and chaos level for a conflict to be called a war, so far they are doing very violent and intense border clashes, but i don't think they can be called a war between the two countries just yet...
Then again, these border clashes could very well be the start of it
NearABE@reddit
In 1919 the foreign minister of the Bavarian People’s Republic (Franz Lipp) declared war on Switzerland and Wuttemburg. Lipp may be one of the most entertaining politicians that Germany ever produced. He also sent a diplomatic cable to the pope asking if he could assist with finding the key to the bathroom. History does not record that there was a war between Bavaria and Switzerland in 1919.
gulfrend@reddit
Telegraph used to be a valid newspaper but is now a click machine that loves rage bait, people shouldn't post it as a legitimate source, they've been caught completely making up stories quite recently.
seeebiscuit@reddit (OP)
It is but headlines. /s
Vedagi_@reddit
This is not war. Stop spreading or supporting misinformation.
Border clonflict is the correct term, or a clash, that does not mean war in the Middle East, i'm not sure if people writing and reposting these "news" know anything about how it works in the Middle East at all.
NearABE@reddit
Soldiers in national militaries are shooting at each other. Artillery barrages and airstrikes occurred. I believe the title passes a fact check. Maybe Czechia kills two hundred Poles on a typical Sunday in October but most people consider artillery blowing up the border stations to be an act of war.
In USA the government considers it an act of war even if you just blow up property and do not even kill anyone.
invisiblelemur88@reddit
Border clashes happen all the time all over the world. This is not yet a war.
HamunaHamunaHamuna@reddit
Pretty sure the US follows the Russian way of doing things where it is only war if anyone threatens to attack them, otherwise it's special military operations - all so that international wartime law can be ignored.
finjeta@reddit
So the US went to war with Iran a while ago when they bombed Iranian nuclear facilities? This might suprise you but even the US doesn't consider direct strikes as an act of war. It can if it chooses to escalate the situation but even in modern times there are examples of US troops being under fire without anyone declaring any wars.
Vedagi_@reddit
Well, considering your account looks more of a spam bot then actual person, and that you are being xenphobic and attack my nationality and think lf your country by that as being something better. (visit Prague, Americans dont want to leave bcs of how safe it is)
I'm not going to even seriously reply to this lol
ConferenceMore9811@reddit
You’re right. It’s not a war. It’s a genocide by someone.
Shoulder-Direct@reddit
What does this border skirmish have to do with the Middle East? One country is in South Asia, and the other is in Central Asia.
MonitorPowerful5461@reddit
It's a border clash for now, not a war. A much more accurate headline would be "Afghan and Pakistani troops killed on the border as Afghanistan retaliates to Pakistani anti-terrorism missile strikes".
Although it's admittedly less catchy...
SabziZindagi@reddit
The Telegraph is a ragebait headline factory, they should be banned from the sub.
They have a hidden page with a long list of retractions which they are forced by law to publish, due to numerous court and regulator judgements against them.
Chewbacca_The_Wookie@reddit
This reads like a Sims 3 Changelog post.
dapper-dano@reddit
That is hilarious and shocking.
They're posting clarifications about one a week.
Much_Guest_7195@reddit
And it's also a bit too far east to be considered a Middle Eastern conflict. Not great for branding... /s
kouyehwos@reddit
Ironically the “Middle East” originally referred to Persia & Central Asia including Afghanistan, as opposed to the “Near East” which referred to the Levant, Tutkey, Arabia etc… although this distinction began declining sharply after WWII to the point where the terms ended up being used interchangeably in English.
TheSamuil@reddit
Ironically, in Bulgarian (I presume much of Eastern Europe as well) only the term "Near East" remains. (Re-)Introducing "Middle East" for the -stans and Iran would be quite useful
kouyehwos@reddit
You can still find „Środkowy Wschód” (Middle East = Central Asia & Iran) in some Polish dictionaries and scientific publications, but it’s indeed not a common term in everyday speech like „Bliski Wschód” is.
SymphoDeProggy@reddit
shame, that's a much tidier way of categorizing
NearABE@reddit
Tokyo is far east. Budapest is near east. This happened somewhere in between.
Nethlem@reddit
So the In-between East?
MonitorPowerful5461@reddit
Oh don't worry! By Telegraph standards, everywhere with muslims is the middle east.
Vreas@reddit
This is why I pretty much exclusively use the Associated Press
SomewhatBiased@reddit
To be honest, the threshold for war or conflict is vague because the mechanisms used to decide the start of a war, which is a declaration of war being sent to another country is no longer used. Increased operational tempo and kinetic action is just the key indicator for a war or conflict to be declared in media.
Vedagi_@reddit
War is a major use of military being involved, we can see it on the UA-RU war for example
In the east asia we have also some border conflicts atm, not wars.
NearABE@reddit
The word “war” is a broad category. Some things to include: terrorism, insurgency, guerrilla warfare, civil war, tactical warfare, and strategic warfare. Strategic warfare has been recognized as two things since WWII so “total war” or “full strategic warfare” etc. are used to describe strategic warfare with chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.
Please note that the Animal Liberation Front is still the world’s largest terrorist organization. Smashing the door and taking the beagles is considered an “act of war” by governments in USA and UK. The ALF often does deliberate additional damage to increase the cost of doing the research but they would not need to do that to meet the definition of terrorism.
Vedagi_@reddit
Is this AI...?
SomewhatBiased@reddit
Lol
SomewhatBiased@reddit
I agree, this is a good example of sensationalist headlines trying to capture readers. But we can argue as well , that there is a potential for the conflict to escalate but it's more likely that conflict will be localized.
Much_Guest_7195@reddit
Isn't it a bit sensational to refer to these border clashes as a war?
SabziZindagi@reddit
This outlet is pure fake news.
NearABE@reddit
Suppose I buy a howitzer and then massacre the guards at the bridge over the St. Lawrence river in upstate New York. Would you be asking this question?
Camp_Past@reddit
Oddly specific
NearABE@reddit
Was replying to a post flagged from Canada. The crossing in up state New York is one I crossed several times. The guards there were lovely people. I hope they are living well.
I think people here are getting desensitized. The reports do not suggest that Islamabad intends genocide of Afghani people. Nor do they indicate an intent to occupy or intent on regime change. Nonetheless attacking the border stations is an act of war.
Wiggle_Hata6@reddit
It is the Telegraph. Be happy they didn't turn this into a Holy War
AlashMarch@reddit
These are likely tribal military forces on both sides rather then state armies. Governance on the periphery requires concessions be made to local communities in terms of governance and possession of weapons. I presume both sides, although more Afghanistan, are having trouble controlling the actions of these forces outside central command structures.
Wurm42@reddit
Archive link here:
https://archive.ph/dYEBM
I agree with the earlier comment that this is a series of border clashes, not a full-scale war.
Remember, the Telegraph is infamous for sensational headlines.
Is this comment long enough for the automod yet? I'm not sure. Qwertyuiop asdfghjkl zxcvbnm.
thinkB4WeSpeak@reddit
How many people are Pakistan fighting now? The rebels in the south, Taliban, Afghanistan, India, etc etc. I'm surprised the country hasn't fell yet.
Most of the war subreddit is the Pakistan army getting ambushed in the mountains. They're also a country with nuclear arms so if they start really losing one of these many fronts, they'll have some international intervention.
MongolPerson@reddit
Just Taliban in the North and Baloch separatists in the West. And neither are really full-scale wars. One is a border scuffle(for now) and may not develop into anything. The other is a low-grade guerrilla conflict. Wouldn't consider either existential. The Kashmir conflict with India isn't currently a hot conflict, and I personally don't believe it could manifest into a full scale confrontation, at least not easily.