MilSpec
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Messages
- 12,931
- Reaction score
- 38
- Country
- Location
^^^ we cannot win from you in deception and distorting facts.
That is the biggest fact.
You as a country has powerful media and friends all over the world.
Who ever speaks the loudest is right and the rest are wrong and you are able to speak very loud .
Eventually Kashmir issue won't be solved by diplomats as India knows that the people of Kashmir want to be with Pakistan for the last 60 years and with all their might, military or otherwise India hasn't been able to change that and that's why insurgency only in Indian Kashmir by Kashmiri people and no such thing in Pakistani Kashmir
Pakistan has supported the born right of Kashmiri people since 1947, their right to choose which country they want to be with,and kargil was part of the same ongoing story.
The peaks was initially taken over by Kashmiri mujahideen and PA saw the opportunity and went on to support them and had all the success.
PA was then told by civilian government that USA has brokered a deal with India and they should leave their positions and come down and that's what they did and were shot in the back by cowards.
Even today the most important mountain top is held by PA which India couldn't take back.
If India had such a massive victory then why PA is still sitting in kargil ?
I will repost as it seems relevant
Logic seems to be under-rated... isn't it?. please do find a single shred of evidence of any declaration, treaty, ceasefire mandated by both countries.
The official response of pakistani government was that belligernts in the combat were Indian army and independent mujhideens...
If pakistan signs any ceasefire, that means it represents militant organisations like lashkar e taibba, jaish e muhamod harakat ul ansar, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen al bandr etc which were reported to occupy kargil....
What your interpretation points is (from the informed opinion of the your friends in rawalpindi), that pakistan apparently did the bidding for terrorists.....
So there can be two scenarios:
1> there was no ceasefire agreement, as i am aware of. India did not sign any ceasefire document and neither did pakistan, making territorial cleansing of insurgents legitimate (also endorsed by pakistan, as there was no interference to bombing operations )
2> your alleged, ceasefire agreement of pakistan on behalf of terror outfits (mujhideens), which implies pakistan as a conspirator for infiltration across the LOC and in violation of the signed shimla agreement which reads "In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations."