Indian Army used artillery & heavy mortars on LOC targeting Civilian Population

[Pakistani Fighter]

@Signalian why Pakistan Media is not Highlighting our response or didn't we give any?

They were highlighting today. Experts were called but they were saying that India is attacking civilians. Unfortunately this time our body language is telling something else

 

[Bratva]

Pakistan army has fired top down attack ATGMs ... most probably of chinese made as American tow exported to Pakistan can not do top down attacks on bunkers ..

Spike ERs will be the likely weapon of choice now from India as its available in plenty at LOC ... intense artillery duel is in progress... India honours her Paras today ...Jai Hind

where is the source for your claim?

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

Pakistan army has fired top down attack ATGMs ... most probably of chinese made as American tow exported to Pakistan can not do top down attacks on bunkers ..

intense artillery duel is in progress

When?

 

[Tumba]

When?

it’s happening as we speak ... and it’s intense

 

[M. Sarmad]

All agreement get concluded post their completion. What are you trying to say here? Did it ever get to its conclusion? I hope just writing it down and getting signed by people is not conclusion for you.
Losing the plot here you. I never said that. My reference to supplement is not for truce agreement which is part 2 of original resolution but further solutions proposed by UN appointed arbitrator for forces withdrawal after Pak refusal to withdraw unilaterally and that where @Joe Shearer hinted toward biased ness, if I am not wrong.

Let me put it in simple words for you. All sides had to agree on terms and conditions of withdrawal before withdrawing the troops.

Pakistan was under no obligation to withdraw its forces unilaterally and unconditionally even as per the original draft. India had agreed to begin withdrawing the bulk of its forces while Pakistani troops were being withdrawn. The UN Commission was to notify Pakistan to begin withdrawal as soon as it reached an agreement with the Indian side on the terms and conditions of withdrawal. But the UN Commission never notified Pakistan because it was unable to reach any agreement with India. That's what halted the process.

Pakistan, however, did begin withdrawing its troops anyway, but then stopped as the UN Commission failed to notify it regarding the terms and conditions.

 

[monitor]

when whole world is busy fighting corona virus outbreak this two naughty boys of subcontinent start fighting . stop fighting

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

it’s happening as we speak ... and it’s intense

link?

 

[IMARV]

Let me put it in simple words for you. All sides had to agree on terms and conditions of withdrawal before withdrawing the troops.

Pakistan was under no obligation to withdraw its forces unilaterally and unconditionally even as per the original draft. India had agreed to begin withdrawing the bulk of its forces while Pakistani troops were being withdrawn. The UN Commission was to notify Pakistan to begin withdrawal as soon as it reached an agreement with the Indian side on the terms and conditions of withdrawal. But the UN Commission never notified Pakistan because it was unable to reach any agreement with India. That's what halted the process.

Pakistan, however, did begin withdrawing its troops anyway, but then stopped as the UN Commission failed to notify it regarding the terms and conditions.

We are talking about UNSC resolution here and not your own perceived solution. It is well documented, step wise, what should be the process and which party comes into picture when.

UN categorically admitted presence of Pakistan forces as material change and agreed on India maintaining required forces and control on Kashmir. If as per your own argument UN resolutions are binding, how come this very first draft was not binding enough and agreement was needed from all sides?

You can post any credible evidence of Pakistan agreeing to withdraw forces and let India, local bodies and UN administer Kashmir till final resolution happens.

What are you doing in Kashmir? You are the change, not us.

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

where is the source for your claim?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1249014828225703938

https://twitter.com/x/status/1249011731160072194

https://twitter.com/x/status/1248706098334445574

https://twitter.com/x/status/1249012705098379264

InshALLAH we will take revenge

 

[Inception-06]

Indian Artillery is totally underestimated, especially their numbers in 130mm is overwhelming, their gun factories in Kolkata are mass-producing it, can't understand why we can't produce such a simple system!

A totally underestimated enemy brute force

 

[M. Sarmad]

We are talking about UNSC resolution here and not your own perceived solution. It is well documented, step wise, what should be the process and which party comes into picture when.

UN categorically admitted presence of Pakistan forces as material change and agreed on India maintaining required forces and control on Kashmir. If as per your own argument UN resolutions are binding, how come this very first draft was not binding enough and agreement was needed from all sides?

You can post any credible evidence of Pakistan agreeing to withdraw forces and let India, local bodies and UN administer Kashmir till final resolution happens.

What are you doing in Kashmir? You are the change, not us.

I am not talking about my own solution but only quoting the relevant (parts of) UN Resolutions (Only if you had bothered to read them )

"....both Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall be worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission." [II]


"...and further, that the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission." (II, B 1, 13 Aug Res.)

 

[Haris Ali2140]

Indian Artillery is totally underestimated, especially their numbers in 130mm is overwhelming, their gun factories in Kolkata are mass-producing it, can't understand why we can't produce such a simple system!

@Signalian

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

We are talking about UNSC resolution here and not your own perceived solution. It is well documented, step wise, what should be the process and which party comes into picture when.

UN categorically admitted presence of Pakistan forces as material change and agreed on India maintaining required forces and control on Kashmir. If as per your own argument UN resolutions are binding, how come this very first draft was not binding enough and agreement was needed from all sides?

You can post any credible evidence of Pakistan agreeing to withdraw forces and let India, local bodies and UN administer Kashmir till final resolution happens.

What are you doing in Kashmir? You are the change, not us.

I think u are mistaken dueto half knowledge or are trying to conceal info.
1948 resolution demanded Pakistan to withdraw, but later dureing next years multiple resolution were passed UN asking both Pakistan and india to withdraw and let Kashmiris decide their fate.
Indians only take one out of dozens of resolution as a propaganda.

 

[M. Sarmad]

I think u are mistaken dueto half knowledge or are trying to conceal info.
1948 resolution demanded Pakistan to withdraw, but later dureing next years multiple resolution were passed UN asking both Pakistan and india to withdraw and let Kashmiris decide their fate.
Indians only take one out of dozens of resolution as a propaganda.

Even the UNCIP Resolutions that India accepted do not ask Pakistan to withdraw its troops from Kashmir unilaterally and unconditionally. That's a plain lie Indians like to propagate. The subsequent resolutions (which India says they didn't accept) allow Pakistan (too) to maintain/keep some troops in Pakistan Administered Kashmir

 

[IMARV]

I am not talking about my own solution but only quoting the relevant UN Resolutions (Only if you had bothered to read them )

"....both Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall be worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission." [II]


"...and further, that the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission." (II, B 1, 13 Aug Res.)

You have pasted the resolution perfectly correctly, albeit selectively, thats fine. However, I asked you to provide evidence that Pakistan agreed to withdraw all its forces, as required by UN to be principle of discussions, and India refused.

I think u are mistaken dueto half knowledge or are trying to conceal info.
1948 resolution demanded Pakistan to withdraw, but later dureing next years multiple resolution were passed UN asking both Pakistan and india to withdraw and let Kashmiris decide their fate.
Indians only take one out of dozens of resolution as a propaganda.

Dear, dont jump into a discussion without going through the flow. You are actually enforcing what I have been telling for long that since Pakistan didn't abide by the original resolutions, UN had to pass other resolution to accomodate Pakistani demands. So if Pakistan can refuse the first, we can refuse the later supplements, anyways they were not binding.