Beautiful Post : Kashmir - SarthakGanguly's Logical Comment

[toxic_pus]

No act of aggression could not be termed as as you are suggesting

Why? Is it because your severe lack of understanding of the issues are getting exposed?

Can you answer Why there are two different chapters (VI & VII) cover dispute and act of aggression separately in UN charter ?

What was the need to write two different chapters ?

Among other things, to differentiate between the ones where UN will act as 'mediator' and the ones where UN will act as 'enforcer'. If a party requires UN's recommendation then complaints are filed under Chapter VI and if UN is required as participant then it is filed under Chapter VII. Technicality. Mere technicality.

most importantly if dispute is same as an act of aggression then Why India did not file its complain against Pakistan in 'chapter VII' ?

All disputes are not 'acts of aggression' but all 'acts of aggression' are disputes. And if you are saying that 'acts of aggression' do not qualify as 'situation' that is 'likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security' then you are dense. Too dense to be discussing UN charter.

But as I said earlier, India filed complaints under Chapter VI to ensure that UN can never force India into anything.

For those who are interested please also read:

Article 37 (2) Chapter VI

2- If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate.

& Article 36 of the same chapter

1- The Security Council may, at any stage of a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 or of a situation of like nature, recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment.

2- The Security Council should take into consideration any procedures for the settlement of the dispute which have already been adopted by the parties.

3- In making recommendations under this Article the Security Council should also take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court.

Irrelevant. None of these empower UN to enforce.

plz read the Indian complain against Pakistan in UN link was shared third time during our discussion.

Indian Complaint to the Security Council, 1st January 1948

and in 1951 when Sir Owen Dixon appointed as mediator India change her stance started to termed State of Pakistan as aggressor; ignoring the fact that Pakistan had no military mean and resources available to to launch any aggressive campaign against any of its neighbour. This change of stance lead to the failure of Sir Owen Dixon mission.

The Sydney Morning Herald - Google News Archive Search

You remain as clueless as ever. India had been consistent with her stance since the beginning. Following is an excerpt from Nehru's letter to the President of UN, on 20, Aug, 1948:

During the several conferences that we had with the Commission when it first came to Delhi, we placed before it what we considered the basic fact of the situation which had led to the conflict in Kashmir. This fact was the un-warrented aggression, at first indirect and subsequently direct, of the Pakistan Government on Indian Dominion territory in Kashmir. The Pakistan Government denied this although it was common knowledge. In recent months, very large forces of the Pakistan regular army have further entered Indian Union territory in Kashmir and opposed the Inidan Army which was sent there for the defence of the State. [para 2, UN Doc S/AC.12/46 Annex 12]​

Btw, even Dixon agreed that Pakistan was the aggressor. Here is what Dixon thought about Pakistan's aggression:

I was prepared to adopt the view that when the frontier of the State of Jammu and Kashmir was crossed, on I believer, 20 October 1947, by hostile elements, it was contrary to international law, and that when, in May 1948, as I believe, units of the regular Pakistan forces move into the territory of the State that too was inconsistent with international law. I there proposed that the first step in demilitarization should consist in the withdrawal of the Pakistan Regular forces commencing on a named day. [Dixon Report, UN Doc, pg 7-8]​

Dixon mission failed because of entirely different reason and I can bet that you have no clue why. I doubt if you had ever heard of Sir Owen Dixon before I dropped his name. Google is not going to help you much here.

All that aside, your claim was that 'Not even Indian government termed Pakistan as the aggressor in UN'. Now you are claiming, 'Oh well, they did, but later on'. Thats goal post shifting.

Btw, this is from the pdf you had linked to: http://www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/46-51/Chapter%208/46-51_08-16-The%20India-Pakistan%20question.pdf

If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

I believe this is the first time Indian raise this question during debate every time they are replied that as per UN resolution Pakistan had already fulfilled initial responsibility regarding the withdrawal of Tribesmen from the Kashmir, then as suggested in UN resolution it was India's responsibility to brought down the number of troops to the minimum level, if I remember correctly you were also involved in one of that discussion.

View attachment 107001
View attachment 107002
responsibilities for which Pakistan agreed

View attachment 107003

official link from UN website: http://www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/46-51/Chapter%208/46-51_08-16-The%20India-Pakistan%20question.pdf

So is PA doing in P0K?

Which parallel universe you live in, I would never know.

your interpretation .....

You mean Pakistan attacking India is my interpretation? Of what? That you would need visa to visit Kashmir, is my interpretation?

Do you even know what 'interpretation' means or what 'fact' is.

Dolt.

 

[toxic_pus]

Also, the UN resolutions can be implemented by India only and only if Pakistan implements it first.

I believe this is the first time Indian raise this question during debate every time they are replied that as per UN resolution Pakistan had already fulfilled initial responsibility regarding the withdrawal of Tribesmen from the Kashmir, then as suggested in UN resolution it was India's responsibility to brought down the number of troops to the minimum level, if I remember correctly you were also involved in one of that discussion.

View attachment 107001
View attachment 107002
responsibilities for which Pakistan agreed

View attachment 107003

official link from UN website: http://www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/46-51/Chapter%208/46-51_08-16-The%20India-Pakistan%20question.pdf

This bull$hit needs to be addressed. Yesterday I took mental note of this but couldn't get around to respond for a variety of reasons. I also needed to check with my notes to be absolutely sure.

So here's the deal.

Contrary to what has been claimed here, Pakistan had actually declined to carry out her obligations, set out in that resolution, dated 21st April, 1948

 

[Levina]

Who knows what these 'Chinese Soldiers (are) disguised as' ?

Thats a new one !

I know you resort to these silly emoticons when you run out of arguments.
The plethora of baudet sensibility that you express flummoxes me.
Frankly speaking I'm wondering how can one behave so ignorant of facts?? Had it been my country training terrorists and helping 'em to infiltrate into a neighbouring country then be assured I'd have been very vociferous about such atrocities.But you....khair!! Jane do!
Kashmir has been under constant war because of Pak administration / army (whoever is responsible for the Kashmir mess).

No I didn't know that shes mother to 3 kids; waisee phir aap ko koi sharam karniii chahiyee you're mother to 11 of them....if she could compete in Boxing at the highest level you could've at least groomed your kiddos for a 11 sided Cricket Team !

Sharam toh aap ko Karni chahiye who thinks that having 11 kids is something to be proud of.

Chalo koi nahin no one's perfect......not everyone can be as Immaculate as Armstrong the Magnificent !

There's a word that comes to my mind when his royal highness says that line.But I'm sparing you the horror...

 

[Armstrong]

I know you resort to these silly emoticons when you run out of arguments.
The plethora of baudet sensibility that you express flummoxes me.
Frankly speaking I'm wondering how can one behave so ignorant of facts?? Had it been my country training terrorists and helping 'em to infiltrate into a neighbouring country then be assured I'd have been very vociferous about such atrocities.But you....khair!! Jane do!
Kashmir has been under constant war because of Pak administration / army (whoever is responsible for the Kashmir mess).

Facts....what Facts ? If there was an iota of evidence to support your allegations you would've taken us to the International Court of Justice long....long ago !

Kashmir has been under this mess because of State Terrorism employed by India that has resulted in gross human rights abuses by your Security Forces.

Sharam toh aap ko Karni chahiye who thinks that having 11 kids is something to be proud of.

Mujhe ?

Bacheii 2 hiii acheiii !

There's a word that comes to my mind when his royal highness says that line.But I'm sparing you the horror...

Oh please burn with jealousy !

 

[Munir]

Just let the Kashmiri vote... Repeating old documents does not say what they want at the moment...

 

[Levina]

Facts....what Facts ? If there was an iota of evidence to support your allegations you would've taken us to the International Court of Justice long....long ago !

Do you want me to give you history lectures???
If so then fine...
1)During the partition British as well as the leaders of both India and Pakistan had agreed to one basic principle that every inch of land must go either to India or to Pakistan. In short..people living in India before the partition of 1947 had only two options that they could either join Pakistan or they could join India. They could not remain independent.
Jammu & Kashmir was given an exception. The Maharaja of the State had wanted time to decide whether he should join Pakistan or join India. But the rulers of Pakistan did not want to give him the opportunity to decide and instead attacked his state killing hundreds of people and causing extensive damage to property. The Pakistani action forced the Maharaja to join India.
2) UN had agreed with the Indian demand and hd asked Pakistan to withdraw its forces from J&K And When India was askd to conduct plebiscite then India had agreed to conduct a referendum.But..... Pakistan did not agree and refused to vacate the areas of Jammu & Kashmir it had forcibly grabbed. Because of this a plebiscite could not be held...and will not be held till you give up that land.
All this while Pakistan has been the aggressor....
Accept it that Kashmir is an"ujada hua chapman" courtesy: our neighbour!!

Kashmir has been under this mess because of State Terrorism employed by India that has resulted in gross human rights abuses by your Security Forces.

How about Pakistan "administered" Kashmir??

Mujhe ?

Bacheii 2 hiii acheiii !

Fine!

Oh please burn with jealousy !

That's what you do all the time...amii butt burns with jealousy!!

 

[Levina]

You do your bit & I'll worry about hanging my head in shame !

First do your bit or hang your head in shame.

 

[Armstrong]

Do you want me to give you history lectures???
If so then fine...
1)During the partition British as well as the leaders of both India and Pakistan had agreed to one basic principle that every inch of land must go either to India or to Pakistan. In short..people living in India before the partition of 1947 had only two options that they could either join Pakistan or they could join India. They could not remain independent.
Jammu & Kashmir was given an exception. The Maharaja of the State had wanted time to decide whether he should join Pakistan or join India. But the rulers of Pakistan did not want to give him the opportunity to decide and instead attacked his state killing hundreds of people and causing extensive damage to property. The Pakistani action forced the Maharaja to join India.
2) UN had agreed with the Indian demand and hd asked Pakistan to withdraw its forces from J&K And When India was askd to conduct plebiscite then India had agreed to conduct a referendum.But..... Pakistan did not agree and refused to vacate the areas of Jammu & Kashmir it had forcibly grabbed. Because of this a plebiscite could not be held...and will not be held till you give up that land.
All this while Pakistan has been the aggressor....
Accept it that Kashmir is an"ujada hua chapman" courtesy: our neighbour!!

Oh gawd this nonsense all over again !

Use the search function to go over the many threads that exist on this !

How about Pakistan "administered" Kashmir??

If they've been subjected to its neither more nor less than what the rest of us have been subjected to in an under-developed country; fortunately for us, unlike Indian Occupied Kashmir, there aren't mass-graves dotting AJK nor are their tens of thousands of widows, half-widows & orphans on this side ! There aren't street protests being taken out against the Pakistani State since ever nor has anyone picked up arms against the State to free it from brutal Pakistani Occupation as is evident on your side.

That's what you do all the time...amii butt burns with jealousy!!

Me being jealous ?

Oh heck no....Perfection doesn't become Jealous !

Alright @levina Apa - I'm out; I've heard most of these claims & counterclaims when I joined this forum...in fact I probably debated them quite a lot but then I grew tired hearing the same crap all over again & again..........So Ciao !

 

[Levina]

Oh gawd this nonsense all over again !

Use the search function to go over the many threads that exist on this !



If they've been subjected to its neither more nor less than what the rest of us have been subjected to in an under-developed country; fortunately for us, unlike Indian Occupied Kashmir, there aren't mass-graves dotting AJK nor are their tens of thousands of widows, half-widows & orphans on this side ! There aren't street protests being taken out against the Pakistani State since ever nor has anyone picked up arms against the State to free it from brutal Pakistani Occupation as is evident on your side.


Me being jealous ?

Oh heck no....Perfection doesn't become Jealous !

Alright @levina Apa - I'm out..........So Ciao !

Good!!!
Because all the gibberish that you'd posted made no sense.You sounded like toddler defending himself, and u hd also tagged a few so that they could give you a back up.

 

[Armstrong]

First do your bit or hang your head in shame.

Happy Now !

Good!!!
Because all the gibberish that you'd posted made no sense.You sounded like toddler defending himself, and u hd also tagged a few so that they could give you a back up.

If you want to know more about the Maharaja's decisions, Pakistani Irregulars & the UN Resolutions - You may want to read Christopher Snedden's The Untold Story of the People of Azad Kashmir. Believe me he doesn't take Pakistan's side on the issue else he wouldn't criticize us so strongly.

But the book is in English; how would a Malayalee Auntie like yourself who's sentence structure doesn't go beyond 'How do you does?' would be able to read it ?

 

[Levina]

Happy Now !



If you want to know more about the Maharaja's decisions, Pakistani Irregulars & the UN Resolutions - You may want to read Christopher Snedden's The Untold Story of the People of Azad Kashmir. Believe me he doesn't take Pakistan's side on the issue else he wouldn't criticize us so strongly.

But the book is in English; how would a Malayalee Auntie like yourself who's sentence structure doesn't go beyond 'How do you does?' would be able to read it ?

Why should you worry about reading abilities of a mallu auntie?? Instead worry about your comprehension issues

So now you want me to take an Australian's book for a touchstone???
And why?? Because he says that some pro-Pakistan Muslims had instigated the Kashmir war in the first place???
Lolzzz

Don't try these old hats on me!!

 

[Armstrong]

Why should you worry about reading abilities of a mallu auntie?? Instead worry about your comprehension issues

So now you want me to take an Australian's book for a touchstone???
And why?? Because he says that some pro-Pakistan Muslims had instigated the Kashmir war in the first place???
Lolzzz

Don't try these old hats on me!!

Its a pretty well-referenced book !

I suggested it despite him castigating Pakistan on AJK more than he castigated Indian on IOK !

 

[Levina]

Its a pretty well-referenced book !

I suggested it despite him castigating Pakistan on AJK more than he castigated Indian on IOK !

That's your opinion!!

Like any other author all that mattered to him was to write a gripping and compelling read,so I won't be surprised if he has twisted the facts and figures.He wrote his book with his POV...but from whatever lil reviews I've read of the book I think this book like any other book has used a mellifluous language for Pak.

PS:I'm reading it soon.

 

[Armstrong]

That's your opinion!!

Like any other author all that mattered to him was to write a gripping and compelling read,so I won't be surprised if he has twisted the facts and figures.He wrote his book with his POV...but from whatever lil reviews I've read of the book I think this book like any other book has used a mellifluous language for Pak.

PS:I'm reading it soon.

You are hopeless !

Pakistan baaaaaad.....India goooooood !

 

[HRK]

Btw, this is from the pdf you had linked to: http://www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/46-51/Chapter%208/46-51_08-16-The%20India-Pakistan%20question.pdf

View attachment 107332

If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

I request you to please dig further ....

below is the screen shot of a UN Commission for India & Pakistan

So is PA doing in P0K?

Which parallel universe you live in, I would never know.

I am not aware of anything named 'P0K' so please speak a language which is mutually understandable, but I just want to quote

secondly the purpose of the presence of Pakistani Troops are:

You mean Pakistan attacking India is my interpretation? Of what? That you would need visa to visit Kashmir, is my interpretation?

Yes its your interpretation of events, as far as Visa is concern you would also required visa to Visit 'Azad Kashmir'

Do you even know what 'interpretation' means or what 'fact' is.

Dolt.

NO its only your divine right as its only the Indians who have the all the divine knowledge available to them.

BTW 'FACT' is a relative term which could vary from person to person, its the 'TRUTH' which is universal.