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

[khansaheeb]

Pakistan should use UCAV to patrol the border and be ready to retaliate when necessary

There seems to be a pattern: Indians violate Pakistan airspace with Indian drones on reconnaissance and then soon after Pakistan gets attacked by artillery. As soon as Pakistan shoots down a Drone we should also blast the Indian artillery positions.

 

[IMARV]

Give it a rest, mate ...
You have been caught lying
Adios

Ohh man, if that is your comprehension of plane English, I must go and have rest. No body in his mind would call below paragraph in ICJ report as a speech by third party and not what ICJ itself believes.

The Sim la A greem ent is a docum ent of g reat im portance in relation to Jam m u and Kashm ir. It involves a recognition of the cease-fire line as the de facto boundaiy between the areas controlled by India and by Pakistan, and a renunciation of the use of force either to change that boundary or to subvert the regime on the other side of the boundaiy. O n the other hand, Jam m u and Kashmir is recognised as an issue requiring «settlement» and the claim of India to de jure title 23 to Jam m u and Kashmir (or at least the Indian-occupied p art of it) is n ot acknow ledged. The agreem ent requires the existing disputes betw een the countries to be settled bilaterally (and therefore, by implication, to the exclusion of reference to third parties such as the U N except with the consent of both India and Pakistan). However, the people of Jam m u and Kashmir were not parties to the Agreement and it w ould seem th a t the A greem ent cannot, in th eir absence, override any rights which they (or any section of them) may have in international law.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Your kind of banging your head on a stone

The whole point of partition was that we hated hindus and didn't trust India

Kashmir as a Muslim majority state should have gone to Pakistan by any sane reasoning

Trying to force a Muslim majority state into a increasingly hindutva union has created chaos and insecurity in South Asia


As India turns increasingly hindutva, so even Indian Muslims start to protest and push back


Delhi itself was burning


Needless greed and stupidity by India

There was no question of any 'sane reasoning'; there was a statute, a law passed by the colonial ruler. The very existence of Pakistan was dependent on that law; if you read it, or have read it, you will find that the Dominion of India is defined as the Crown Colony of India less those portions defined to be part of Pakistan. Please read that delimitation carefully. Kashmir was not there, and was never intended to be there.

The rule applicable to Kashmir was completely different. Unless you understand and appreciate it, there is nothing that you bring to a discussion, except sentiment, the kind of sentiment that insists that Pakistan is a name with no meaning in itself but is simply an acronym, in which the K stands for Kashmir. It would appear that the arbiter of these matters was neither the British government nor the political parties acting in concert but the originator of the name of the new Dominion.

There seems to be a pattern: Indians violate Pakistan airspace with Indian drones on reconnaissance and then soon after Pakistan gets attacked by artillery. As soon as Pakistan shoots down a Drone we should also blast the Indian artillery positions.

Nobody stopped you from shelling Indian positions before; is this supposed to be the starting point for a new look at your policies on the border?

 

[M. Sarmad]

Ohh man, if that is your comprehension of plane English, I must go and have rest. No body in his mind would call below paragraph in ICJ report as a speech by third party and not what ICJ itself believes.

The Sim la A greem ent is a docum ent of g reat im portance in relation to Jam m u and Kashm ir. It involves a recognition of the cease-fire line as the de facto boundaiy between the areas controlled by India and by Pakistan, and a renunciation of the use of force either to change that boundary or to subvert the regime on the other side of the boundaiy. O n the other hand, Jam m u and Kashmir is recognised as an issue requiring «settlement» and the claim of India to de jure title 23 to Jam m u and Kashmir (or at least the Indian-occupied p art of it) is n ot acknow ledged. The agreem ent requires the existing disputes betw een the countries to be settled bilaterally (and therefore, by implication, to the exclusion of reference to third parties such as the U N except with the consent of both India and Pakistan). However, the people of Jam m u and Kashmir were not parties to the Agreement and it w ould seem th a t the A greem ent cannot, in th eir absence, override any rights which they (or any section of them) may have in international law.

No need to quote me again, troll
I have zero tolerance for liars

 

[khansaheeb]

There was no question of any 'sane reasoning'; there was a statute, a law passed by the colonial ruler. The very existence of Pakistan was dependent on that law; if you read it, or have read it, you will find that the Dominion of India is defined as the Crown Colony of India less those portions defined to be part of Pakistan. Please read that delimitation carefully. Kashmir was not there, and was never intended to be there.

The rule applicable to Kashmir was completely different. Unless you understand and appreciate it, there is nothing that you bring to a discussion, except sentiment, the kind of sentiment that insists that Pakistan is a name with no meaning in itself but is simply an acronym, in which the K stands for Kashmir. It would appear that the arbiter of these matters was neither the British government nor the political parties acting in concert but the originator of the name of the new Dominion.



Nobody stopped you from shelling Indian positions before; is this supposed to be the starting point for a new look at your policies on the border?

So far our response has been reactive now it will be tactical. If you want war you can have it.

 

[hussain0216]

There was no question of any 'sane reasoning'; there was a statute, a law passed by the colonial ruler. The very existence of Pakistan was dependent on that law; if you read it, or have read it, you will find that the Dominion of India is defined as the Crown Colony of India less those portions defined to be part of Pakistan. Please read that delimitation carefully. Kashmir was not there, and was never intended to be there.

The rule applicable to Kashmir was completely different. Unless you understand and appreciate it, there is nothing that you bring to a discussion, except sentiment, the kind of sentiment that insists that Pakistan is a name with no meaning in itself but is simply an acronym, in which the K stands for Kashmir. It would appear that the arbiter of these matters was neither the British government nor the political parties acting in concert but the originator of the name of the new Dominion.



Nobody stopped you from shelling Indian positions before; is this supposed to be the starting point for a new look at your policies on the border?

The whole point of partition was a division of land and population because of deep seated mistrust and hatred

What about this is so difficult to understand


You have a Muslim majority state that hates Hindus and wants to Partition

Use your fcuking brains and let it go

Forcing a Muslim population into a Indian union it hates and distrusts has caused chaos for no reason but Indian greed and stupidity

Slowly as India becomes poisoned and toxic even your mainland becomes a battle ground

You can't even get through a Pandemic without turning it communal



It was needless stupidity on your part that has caused decades of consequences

 

[M. Sarmad]

Kashmir as a Muslim majority state should have gone to Pakistan by any sane reasoning

Indians would never understand that.
They only understand one language, laaton k bhoot hain yah, baaton/reasoning se nahi maanein gay kabhi

 

[hussain0216]

there is nothing that you bring to a discussion, except sentiment

Don't disregard sentiment

Sentiment broke India in the first place

Indians would never understand that.
They only understand one language, laaton k bhoot hain yah, baaton/reasoning se nahi maanein gay kabhi

It's retarded thinking in their part


We had a India bubbling with poison

No way with such immense hatred amongst a population of a state can a unified state be possible

So Pakistan breaks away

Kashmir is a Muslim state, let it go you retards

So rather than have Partition and that be the end of it

The Indians thought I know, let's force a state full of Muslims into a union full of Hindus, because that's a sensible thing to do????????

If Indian Muslims had understood JINNAH they would not be suffering as they are today

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Talk about dishonesty?? You have selectively quoted what Simla Agreements says and are trying to pass it off as what ICJ has said??

The black part is what the Simla Agreement says/implies. The Red part is what ICJ has to say:

The agreement requires the existing disputes between the countries to be settled bilaterally (and therefore, by implication, to the exclusion of reference to third parties such as the U N except with the consent of both India and Pakistan). However, the people of Jammu and Kashmir were not parties to the Agreement and it would seem that the Agreement cannot, in their absence, override any rights which they (or any section of them) may have in
international law.

This is a very important distinction and as you said, it's crucial to separate the origins/contexts of these statements in this way.

 

[IMARV]

Don't disregard sentiment

Sentiment broke India in the first place

Atleast you are honest with your sentiments and not trying to hide them.

Look hussain, Pakistan was very clear on two nation theory, however leadership of India strongly feels that both communities can co-exist. You may disagree, but that sentiments became the base of the country and realizes into its constitution.

So its natural that India tried to have Kashmir even though it was muslim majority as it was never against its principal stand. If you ignore recent developments, India did quite well with its 15-20% muslim population in terms of maintaining secular credentials.

This is a very important distinction and as you said, it's crucial to separate the origins/contexts of these statements in this way.

Sorry mate, its a shame that he could not interpret the paragraph correctly. The whole paragraph is made by ICJ and they are not quoting anyone else. Simla agreement says so and they didn't contested it rather endorsed it by simplifying the implications and used that as a context for their further findings. You can try on your own.

 

[M. Sarmad]

This is a very important distinction and as you said, it's crucial to separate the origins/contexts of these statements in this way.

Yes, that Indian liar was claiming that as per ICJ, Simla has nullified UN Resolutions .. Here is what ICJ report actually concluded:

The people of Jammu and Kashmir were not parties to the Agreement and neither India nor Pakistan, both of which had conflicts of interest with the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir can be regarded as having authority to bind them. The members of the ICJ mission do not see, therefore, how the Simla Agreement can be regarded as having deprived the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir of any rights of self-determination to which they were entitled at the time of the Agreement... (p.92)

And

Both India and Pakistan should recognise and respond to the call for self-determination for the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir within its 1947 boundaries, inherent in the relevant United Nations resolutions. The United Nations should re-activate its role as a catalyst in this process. (p.98)

Only if that idiot knew that he was neither the first Indian liar on this forum, nor the last one .. Have been discussing that ICJ report for years:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/after-the-surgical-strikes.452792/page-4#post-8760085

 

[hussain0216]

Atleast you are honest with your sentiments and not trying to hide them.

Look hussain, Pakistan was very clear on two nation theory, however leadership of India strongly feels that both communities can co-exist. You may disagree, but that sentiments became the base of the country and realizes into its constitution.

So its natural that India tried to have Kashmir even though it was muslim majority as it was never against its principal stand. If you ignore recent developments, India did quite well with its 15-20% muslim population in terms of maintaining secular credentials.

Your capital city was burning a few weeks ago

Your Indian leadership was moronic and rather than fix a problem they created a situation within India where a problem festers and now is beginning to poison India

If Indian Muslims are beginning to protest and speak up about how they should have listened to Jinnah you know the Indian experiment has failed

If India was "secular" you could have argued your point, but as hindutva roots itself within India then the reality must even dawn upon you that 250 million Muslims plus other minorities, plus a Muslim majority Kashmir in a nation lurching towards hindutva parochialism is a disaster waiting to happen

If your response to this is either denial or an attempt to highlight India's secular credentials even in the face of the new reality just means you are being disingenuous



Enough chaos has been caused by the Indian misreading of the reality


JINNAH I think truly was the only person to have understood what needed to be done in India, and if Indian Muslims and Indian leaders had understood we wouldn't be sitting in the midst of this needless turmoil

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Atleast you are honest with your sentiments and not trying to hide them.

Look hussain, Pakistan was very clear on two nation theory, however leadership of India strongly feels that both communities can co-exist. You may disagree, but that sentiments became the base of the country and realizes into its constitution.

So its natural that India tried to have Kashmir even though it was muslim majority as it was never against its principal stand. If you ignore recent developments, India did quite well with its 15-20% muslim population in terms of maintaining secular credentials.



Sorry mate, its a shame that he could not interpret the paragraph correctly. The whole paragraph is made by ICJ and they are not quoting anyone else. Simla agreement says so and they didn't contested it rather endorsed it by simplifying the implications and used that as a context for their further findings. You can try on your own.

Look, I'm clearly not knowledgeable in contractual law like you two are, and it is very much a learning experience to see both your arguments on the matter. I haven't been able to keep up as much as I would like so perhaps I have allowed some degree of confirmation bias into my opinion, but I can see one person looking holistically at the documents in question, while another is cherry picking and even decontextualising some key bits of text. Maybe other Indians will buy this kind of thing, but cherry picking and decontexualising is an old trick on pdf that Pakistanis see right through.

Best regards to you both for educating me a bit more and forcing me to read more on this subject.

 

[IMARV]

Yes, that Indian liar was claiming that as per ICJ, Simla has nullified UN Resolutions .. Here is what ICJ report actually concluded:

The people of Jammu and Kashmir were not parties to the Agreement and neither India nor Pakistan, both of which had conflicts of interest with the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir can be regarded as having authority to bind them. The members of the ICJ mission do not see, therefore, how the Simla Agreement can be regarded as having deprived the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir of any rights of self-determination to which they were entitled at the time of the Agreement... (p.92)

And

Both India and Pakistan should recognise and respond to the call for self-determination for the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir within its 1947 boundaries, inherent in the relevant United Nations resolutions. The United Nations should re-activate its role as a catalyst in this process. (p.98)

Only if that idiot knew that he was neither the first Indian liar on this forum, nor the last one .. Have been discussing that ICJ report for years:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/after-the-surgical-strikes.452792/page-4#post-8760085

And what all I claimed was Simla agreement is binding on Pakistan to settle all issues bilaterally and ICJ alludes to it. Further its my implications that any UN recommendation in India and Pak dispute can be called for on sole discretion of both parties only and thus UN resolutions are no more binding.

But then you need to spin and come up with that ICJ also said Kashmiris still got their rights. How come that negate my statement and made me liar?

Look, I'm clearly not knowledgeable in contractual law like you two are, and it is very much a learning experience to see both your arguments on the matter. I haven't been able to keep up as much as I would like so perhaps I have allowed some degree of confirmation bias into my opinion, but I can see one person looking holistically at the documents in question, while another is cherry picking and even decontextualising some key bits of text. Maybe other Indians will buy this kind of thing, but cherry picking and decontexualising is an old trick on pdf that Pakistanis see right through.

Best regards to you both for educating me a bit more and forcing me to read more on this subject.

There is no lying from my part.

ICJ clearly maintains that Simla did bind Pakistan to settle disputes bilaterally, and thats what I quoted from the report.

He picked up the continuation where ICJ further said that even though Pakistan is binded but since kashmiris are not party to this agreement, they still have the rights international lawas may have provided to them.

How come this negate my argument that Pakistan can only solve its dispute bilaterally with India and now its between India and Kashmir to settle on plebiscite issue? Infact I myself said before him finding this para that ICJ commented in favour of self determination.

I am not sure why he is getting abusive and resorting to name calling.

 

[M. Sarmad]

And what all I claimed was Simla agreement is binding on Pakistan to settle all issues bilaterally and ICJ alludes to it. Further its my implications that any UN recommendation in India and Pak dispute can be called for on sole discretion of both parties only and thus UN resolutions are no more binding.

But then you need to spin and come up with that ICJ also said Kashmiris still got their rights. How come that negate my statement and made me liar?

And behave please Idrees saab, I have known you for ages and perhaps I might be the first one you have discussed this ICJ report with at pak affairs, so stop calling names. No need to give PDF thread references from 2016. We have done this for 100s of pages in past without having to call each other names, and there is no incentive for me to be a liar here. Its a locked down so created an ID to connect with few, logging off now.

Arvi bhai you shouldn't have called me 'dishonest' ..
Anyway, nice to have you back