Where did India strike Pakistan? See maps and before/after images
Where did India strike Pakistan? See maps and before/after images
Pakistan and India — nuclear-armed rivals sharing a border in a flashpoint region — are trading artillery fire and threats of retaliation as tensions escalate after an Indian attack.
India said it launched missiles targeting "terrorist infrastructure" in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, the divided Himalayan territory that India also controls a section of. Pakistani officials said none of the six locations targeted in Pakistan were militant camps, according to Reuters. Pakistan's military said it shot down five Indian aircraft during the attack – a claim unconfirmed by India.
India blames Pakistan for an April 22 attack in Pahalgam, a picturesque Himalayan meadow, that killed 26 tourists, most of them Hindu men. Pakistan says the evidence is fabricated and denies any involvement.Dozens of casualties have already been reported and both countries have promised additional military action, according to Reuters. Pakistan vowed retaliation at a time and place at their choosing, and India promises retribution for any further response.
Here's a closer look at India's military strike:
Read more: Why India attacked Pakistan, its neighbor and nuclear rival
How India and Pakistan became nuclear powers
Contributing: Kim Hjelmgaard, Ramon Padilla.Sources: Maxar Technologies; Reuters.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
34 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump says he will probably extend TikTok deadline -- again
President Trump said on Tuesday he would likely extend a deadline for China-based ByteDance to divest the US assets of short video app TikTok. The president said in May he would extend the June 19 deadline after the app helped him with young voters in the 2024 election. His comments to reporters on Air Force One on Tuesday reiterated that sentiment. 'Probably, yeah,' Trump said when asked about extending the deadline. 'Probably have to get China approval but I think we'll get it. I think President Xi will ultimately approve it.' President Trump speaks to reporters on Air Force One on Tuesday. REUTERS Trump has already twice granted a reprieve from enforcement of a congressionally mandated ban on TikTok that was initially due to take effect in January. The law required TikTok to stop operating by Jan. 19 unless ByteDance had completed a divestiture of the app's U.S. assets. Trump began his second term as president on Jan. 20 and opted not to enforce it. He first extended the deadline to early April, and then again last month to June 19. The U.S. ban on TikTok has been delayed twice by President Trump. AFP via Getty Images A deal had been in the works this spring that would spin off TikTok's U.S. operations into a new firm based in the U.S. and majority-owned and operated by U.S. investors but it was put on hold after China indicated it would not approve it following Trump's announcements of steep tariffs on Chinese goods. Democratic senators argue that Trump has no legal authority to extend the deadline, and suggest that the deal that had been under consideration would not meet legal requirements.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump contradicts his spy chief on Iran's nuclear program
By Jonathan Landay WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday repudiated Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's assessment that Iran has not been building a nuclear weapon, publicly contradicting his spy chief for the first time during his second term. In rejecting his top spy's judgment, Trump appeared to embrace Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's justification for launching airstrikes last week on Iranian nuclear and military targets, saying he believed Tehran was on the verge of having a warhead. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One as he returned early to Washington from the G7 summit in Canada, Trump was asked how close he believed Iran was to having a nuclear weapon. "Very close," he responded. When told that Gabbard testified to Congress in March that the U.S. intelligence community continued to judge that Tehran was not working on a nuclear warhead, Trump replied, "I don't care what she said. I think they were very close to having one." Trump's comments recalled his clashes with U.S. spy agencies during his first term, including over an assessment that Moscow worked to sway the 2016 presidential vote in his favor and his acceptance of Russian President Vladimir Putin's denials. The office of the Director of National Intelligence did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Gabbard also told Congress that U.S. spy agencies did not believe that Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had ordered the restarting of a nuclear weapons program that the U.S. and the International Atomic Energy Agency assessed ended in 2003. Iran denies developing nuclear weapons, saying its uranium enrichment program was only for peaceful purposes. A source with access to U.S. intelligence reports told Reuters that the assessment presented by Gabbard had not changed. They said that U.S. spy services also judged that it would take up to three years for Iran to build a warhead with which it could hit a target of its choice, a finding first reported by CNN. Some experts, however, believe that it could take Iran a much shorter time to build and deliver an untested crude nuclear device, although there would be no guarantee that it would work. Trump has frequently disavowed the findings of U.S. intelligence agencies, which he and his supporters have charged - without providing proof - are part of a "deep state" cabal of U.S. officials opposed to his presidency. Gabbard, a fierce Trump loyalist, has been among the president's backers who have aired such allegations.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Small business seeks early Supreme Court review of Trump's tariffs
By Dietrich Knauth (Reuters) -A small business on Tuesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs, saying the court should take the rare step of hearing the case before appeals fully play out in lower courts. Learning Resources, which makes educational toys, challenged Trump's tariffs and won a court ruling on May 29 that Trump cannot unilaterally impose tariffs using the emergency legal authority he had cited for them. But that ruling – along with a similar ruling in another case – has been stayed while the Trump administration appeals, leaving the tariffs in place for now. The ultimate financial impact of the tariffs, which have often been changed or put on hold early in Trump's second term, remains unclear. One JPMorgan analysis said they could be viewed as raising taxes by $660 billion a year. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in an April interview with Tucker Carlson that the tariffs could raise between $300 billion and $600 billion in annual revenue for the federal government. The Supreme Court should act quickly to stop U.S. businesses and consumers from being forced to pay extra for imports based on an unlawful tariff policy, Learning Resources CEO Rick Woldenberg told Reuters. 'That's a tax and it's a huge number,' Woldenberg said. 'If I go in the Supreme Court now and if they accept the case, it could save American businesses $100 billion or $150 billion just by advancing the date at which the Supreme Court will rule.' Two district courts have ruled that Trump's tariffs are not justified under the law he cited for them, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Both of those cases are on appeal, and another appeals court is weighing a more limited question of whether lawsuits against the tariffs must be filed in the New York-based federal trade court. No court has yet backed the sweeping emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed. An appeal in the Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit, seen as the leading case on tariffs, is scheduled for oral argument on July 31, while the appeal in Learning Resources' case has not set a date for argument. While the tariffs remain in effect, businesses that rely on imports are essentially being pressed into involuntary service as tax collectors for the federal government, Woldenberg said. 'They hit us with an unbearable bill and then they force us to raise our prices to collect the taxes for them,' Woldenberg said. 'This is a way to hide the fact that the federal government is imposing a $600-billion tax, a tax increase with almost no parallel in the last century." The Supreme Court rarely exercises its authority to take a case before appeals play out. But it sometimes acts quickly in cases with widespread impact, as it did when it accepted an early appeal and blocked then-President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness plan. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
