Trump Claims Five Jets Downed in India-Pakistan Clashes
Trump made these comments during a dinner with Republican lawmakers at the White House. However, he did not clarify which side's jets he was referencing. 'In fact, planes were being shot out of the air. Five, five, four or five, but I think five jets were shot down actually,' Trump said. He did not provide further details or elaboration on his statement. Conflicting Claims from India and Pakistan
Pakistan claimed it downed five Indian planes during air-to-air combat. In late May, India's highest-ranking general stated that India changed its tactics after suffering losses on the first day of hostilities. This strategic shift allowed India to establish an advantage before reaching the ceasefire three days later.
India also claimed it downed 'a few planes' belonging to Pakistan. However, Islamabad denied any losses of aircraft but acknowledged that its air bases sustained hits during the conflict.
Trump has repeatedly taken credit for the ceasefire between India and Pakistan, which he announced on social media on 10 May. This announcement followed talks held by Washington with both nations. However, India has disputed Trump's claims, asserting that the ceasefire resulted from direct negotiations rather than external intervention or threats to sever trade talks. India's Stance on Conflict Resolution
India maintained that New Delhi and Islamabad must resolve their issues directly, without outside involvement. As an increasingly important US partner, India plays a crucial role in Washington's efforts to counter China's influence in Asia, with Pakistan also a US ally.
The April attack in India-administered Kashmir resulted in the deaths of 26 men and ignited heavy fighting between the nuclear-armed neighbors. This incident marked the latest escalation in a decades-old rivalry. New Delhi attributed the attack to Pakistan, which denied responsibility and called for a neutral investigation.
Washington condemned the attack but refrained from directly blaming Islamabad. On 7 May, Indian jets bombed sites across the border, which New Delhi described as 'terrorist infrastructure.' This action triggered a series of attacks involving fighter jets, missiles, drones, and artillery, resulting in numerous casualties until the neighbouring countries reached a ceasefire.
Short link :
Post Views: 12
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Saudi Gazette
5 hours ago
- Saudi Gazette
India court acquits 12 men in 2006 Mumbai train bombings
DELHI — A court in India has acquitted 12 men who had been convicted in the 2006 Mumbai train bombings that killed 187 people and injured more than 800. Judges had in 2015 sentenced five of the accused to death and the remaining seven to life imprisonment. On Monday, a two-judge bench of the Bombay High Court overturned the earlier order, ruling that the prosecution had "utterly failed" to establish that the accused had committed the offences for which they had been convicted. The prosecution can appeal against the order in a higher court. On 11 July 2006, seven blasts ripped through the busy commuter trains during the evening rush hour in one of India's deadliest militant attacks. The bombs, packed into seven pressure cookers and put in bags, detonated within six minutes of each other. The blasts took place in the areas of Matunga, Khar, Mahim, Jogeshwari, Borivali and Mira Road, with most on moving trains and two at stations. The bombs appeared to have targeted first-class compartments, as commuters were returning home from the city's financial district. Indian security agencies blamed the attack on Islamist militants backed by Pakistan, an allegation the country denied. The accused, who were arrested shortly after the blasts, have been in jail since then. One of them, Kamal Ansari, who had been sentenced to death, died of Covid in 2021. In 2015, a special court convicted the men of murder, conspiracy and waging war against the country. The prosecution appealed to confirm the death sentences, while the defence sought acquittal. In July 2024, the Bombay High Court formed the two-judge bench to expedite the hearings. Reports say that over the next six months, the court conducted more than 75 sittings and examined 92 prosecution witnesses and over 50 defence witnesses. In the 667-page order on Monday, the court noted that the defence had questioned the credibility of the witnesses produced by the prosecution, as well as the confessional statements made by the accused. It also acknowledged the defence's contention that the recovered evidence was not maintained in a "sealed condition throughout". — BBC
Al Arabiya
7 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Harvard Is Hoping Court Rules Trump Administration's $2.6b Research Cuts Were Illegal
Harvard University will appear in federal court Monday to make the case that the Trump administration illegally cut $2.6 billion from the storied college – a pivotal moment in its battle against the federal government. If US District Judge Allison Burroughs decides in the university's favor, the ruling would reverse a series of funding freezes that later became outright cuts as the Trump administration escalated its fight with the nation's oldest and wealthiest university. Such a ruling, if it stands, would revive Harvard's sprawling scientific and medical research operation and hundreds of projects that lost federal money. 'This case involves the Government's efforts to use the withholding of federal funding as leverage to gain control of academic decision-making at Harvard,' the university said in its complaint. 'All told, the tradeoff put to Harvard and other universities is clear: Allow the Government to micromanage your academic institution or jeopardize the institution's ability to pursue medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and innovative solutions.' A second lawsuit over the cuts, filed by the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard faculty chapter, has been consolidated with the university's. Harvard's lawsuit accuses President Donald Trump's administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands in an April 11 letter from a federal antisemitism task force. The letter demanded sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics, and admissions. For example, the letter told Harvard to audit the viewpoints of students and faculty and admit more students or hire new professors if the campus was found to lack diverse points of view. The letter was meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment on campus. Harvard President Alan Garber pledged to fight antisemitism but said no government should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue. The same day Harvard rejected the demands, Trump officials moved to freeze $2.2 billion in research grants. Education Secretary Linda McMahon declared in May that Harvard would no longer be eligible for new grants, and weeks later, the administration began canceling contracts with Harvard. As Harvard fought the funding freeze in court, individual agencies began sending letters announcing that the frozen research grants were being terminated. They cited a clause that allows grants to be scrapped if they no longer align with government policies. Harvard, which has the nation's largest endowment at $53 billion, has moved to self-fund some of its research but warned it can't absorb the full cost of the federal cuts. In court filings, the school said the government fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism. The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the April demand letter was sent. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons. 'It is the policy of the United States under the Trump Administration not to fund institutions that fail to adequately address antisemitism in their programs,' it said in court documents. The research funding is only one front in Harvard's fight with the federal government. The Trump administration also has sought to prevent the school from hosting foreign students, and Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status. Finally, last month, the Trump administration formally issued a finding that the school tolerated antisemitism – a step that eventually could jeopardize all of Harvard's federal funding, including federal student loans or grants. The penalty is typically referred to as a 'death sentence.'
Arab News
7 hours ago
- Arab News
India court acquits 12 in deadly 2006 train blasts case
MUMBAI, India: An Indian court acquitted on Monday 12 men previously convicted for a series of bomb blasts that ripped through packed commuter trains in Mumbai in 2006 that killed 187 people. The men were convicted in 2015 of murder, conspiracy, and waging war against the country over the attacks during the evening rush hour of July 11, 2006 that also injured more than 800 people. Five were sentenced to death, while the other seven were given life imprisonment. But, 10 years later, the Bombay High Court set aside a lower court's verdict and acquitted the 12 men. Justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandak said in their judgment, the prosecution had 'utterly failed to establish the offense beyond the reasonable doubt against the accused on each count.' The men were ordered to be released from jail 'if they are not required to be detained in any other case.' The prosecution can appeal against the order in the Supreme Court. A total of seven blasts ripped through the trains after the bombs, packed into pressure cookers, were placed in bags and hidden under newspapers and umbrellas. Prosecutors said the devices were assembled in Mumbai and deliberately placed in first-class coaches to target the city's wealthy Gujarati community. They said the bombings were intended as revenge for the riots in the western state of Gujarat in 2002, which left some 2,000 people dead, most of them Muslims. Prosecutors accused Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba of being behind the attacks, although a little-known outfit called the Lashkar-e-Qahhar later claimed responsibility. Pakistan denied the allegations.
