Search results

Did my part

Leading legal experts/bodies are convinced that genocide did happen. Are you in a mood to be embarrassed? Yes? Then just use this forum's search function.

@Joe Shearer Seriously? No, I mean seriously? You just had to pour that freezing water? Don't you have a kind bone in your body? *sigh*

Perpetuity doesn't apply to those who have passed. It applies to the living. So...

Relax Sandy. He is just scratching the perpetual butt itch, she gave to them.

Apples. Oranges. The argument is not if Kashmir is 'disputed' or a supposed 'nuclear flashpoint'. The argument is if Simla Agreement precludes 3rd party mediation, including that of UN. Try at least to keep up.

So long as the rest of the World, including global bodies, continue to think that they would need India's permission to meddle, we will take that 'diplomatic defeat' everyday of the week and twice on Sundays. Meanwhile, just the other day US refused to mediate unless India agreed.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat. This is really exasperating. UNMOGIP was formed by a part of one set of resolutions (39 & 47) meant to monitor cease fire while the mechanism for resolution of Kashmir 'dispute' is covered by another set of resolutions. They are mutually exclusive. One has got nothing to do...

That is actually correct. Their presence has got nothing to do with resolution of Kashmir dispute and hence irrelevant. Following the India-Pakistan hostilities at the end of 1971 and a subsequent ceasefire agreement of 17 December of that year, the tasks of UNMOGIP have been to observe, to the...

A better way to stop wasting your own time would to stop responding to my posts. But I guess you like wasting your time. Also, you could have pointed out my error in judgment instead of throwing a tantrum. That would have saved you some time. This is a doozy: So much jibberjabber yet nary a...

Amazing. Your argument is that Simla Agreement doesn't count because UNSC resolutions are supreme and supersede everything and my argument is Simla Agreement makes UNSC resolutions redundant because it gives India a legally mandated choice to not to implement those resolutions. Unless you are...

Explained above. All true. But all of these are beside the point. Bingo. Simla Agreement doesn't supersede UNSC resolutions. TRUE. Simla Agreement doesn't terminate UNSC resolutions. TRUE. Simla Agreement doesn't preclude Pakistan from raising UNSC resolutions and demand it's enforcement...

Projection & non-sequitur The 'principles and purposes of the charter of the United Nations' refer to Article 1 & mostly 2 of United Nation Charter, not coincidentally named 'Purposes and Principles'. Article 2: The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1...

Nice projection.

But Shimla Agreement would require both countries to agree to resolve it through UNSC. And since the agreement doesn't provide a time frame for solution, you can't say, legally, that both 'countries have failed to resolve the dispute bilaterally'. Also, things don't revert 'naturally', in legal...

The UNSC resolutions are not invalid par se. Those have become redundant after Shimla Agreement. Shimla Agreement requires both the countries to agree to the means of conflict resolution. If one country wants it to be via UNSC resolution, then the other will have to agree to that too. There is...

Notice how these Pakistanis call India as 'occupational' force in Kashmir and in the same breath invoke UNSC resolutions to resolve Kashmir issue. Do these dimwits realise that UNSC resolutions actually require Pakistan to withdraw completely from the portion of Kashmir that they are holding...

Clearly, the good general is confident about the gullibility and stupidity of his audience. The first few posts demonstrate, he is not wrong at all.

Bozo the clown is also a big hit there.