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

[Silverblaze]

I mentioned earlier many times. Targeting civilians is the policy. Demoralize them and the army. This is called strategic bombing and is different from tactical bombing.

This is exactly what the Nazis did in UK and india has been doing since 73 years. Pakistan intelligence community has to repay in kind if not more. General Tariq ex corp commander Mangla also wrote about this and how staying cautious will damage Pakistan.

He further implied that tactical strikes by Pakistan military is not enough, there has to be quid pro quo +.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

now its between India and Kashmir to settle on plebiscite issue?

This is your own subjective inference vis a vis the entire text in question.

The ruling specifically mentions both pk and ind having conflicts of interest with respect to the issue hence neither can abrogate the rights of the people of j&k regarding self determination within its 1947 boundaries. If you refer to Samad's post it is plain to see even for a non-legal person like me.

Nowhere is there any statement that objectively supports this inserted idea that India and j&k should debate themselves the plebiscite issue. In fact, it is made clear that India (like Pakistan,) has a baseline conflict of interest (not to mention carries undue leverage over the people of j&k by virtue of the fact that it militarily enforces rule in that state) regarding any decision on the plebiscite. In short, India would be BIASED (as would Pakistan). The full text from the court ruling appears to be a sound attempt at diminishing such bias.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Wrong interpretation. They categorically said Simla agreement restrict use of third party even UN without both India and Pakistan agreeing to use its office and thus nullifying any UN resolution under chapter VI as a binding solution, which was made to peacefully resolve India Pakistan conflict. Any recommendation, by its implications stands null and void and left for both parties to use or discard them.

However ICJ did evaluate if Kashmiris acquired right of self determination (notwithstanding UN resolutions) by virtue of partition, and they did commented in its favour, but that would be a separate dispute between India and Kashmiri people had kashmiris raised this request which has nothing to do with Indo -Pak dispute in UN.

Plebiscite was a tool identified to peacefully solve Indo-Pak conflict, it was never established in isolation that Kashmiris acquired that right or seek that right ever in UN. Had Pakistan not did aggression, no question of self determination would have been raised.

Who represent people of Kashmir?

^^ This is what you claimed the report said.

And this is what the report actually says:

It's a 200 page report, but this is the Conclusion^^

 

[masterchief_mirza]

^^ This is what you claimed the report said.

And this is what the report actually says:
View attachment 622918


It's a 200 page report, but this is the Conclusion^^

Bloody hell, it's clear as daylight isn't it..

 

[Joe Shearer]

So far our response has been reactive no it will be tactical. If you want war you can have it.

I am always glad to learn about your personal views and thoughts on the matter.

 

[jarves]

We solely accept this map as international boundaries....View attachment 622861

I don't have any problem with this map if all the religions especially Islam is outlawed.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Bloody hell, it's clear as daylight isn't it..

And this is what I said about the report, decide for yourself who's right and who's wrong:

Wrong again, the International Commission of Jurist (ICJ) has concluded that Simla agreement cannot deprive the Kashmiris of their right to self-determination and that the UN resolutions remain valid ... It even went on to declare the Kashmiri freedom struggle as 'legitimate' .. We will come to Simla later, here we are discussing Indian refusal to abide by UN Resolutions in 1950's and 60's

As for the 'Kashmiri freedom struggle being 'legitimate', let me post that screenshot too:

 

[IMARV]

This is your own subjective inference vis a vis the entire text in question.

The ruling specifically mentions both pk and ind having conflicts of interest with respect to the issue hence neither can abrogate the rights of the people of j&k regarding self determination within its 1947 boundaries. If you refer to Samad's post it is plain to see even for a non-legal person like me.

Nowhere is there any statement that objectively supports this inserted idea that India and j&k should debate themselves the plebiscite issue. In fact, it is made clear that India (like Pakistan,) has a baseline conflict of interest (not to mention carries undue leverage over the people of j&k by virtue of the fact that it militarily enforces rule in that state) regarding any decision on the plebiscite. In short, India would be BIASED (as would Pakistan). The full text from the court ruling appears to be a sound attempt at diminishing such bias.

You need to understand the nature of these commissions first. They are a group of jurist who set out for a fact finding mission and then make comments with each country given a chance to attach their own legal responses to the same fact finding report. These comments are legal in nature and most of the time very subjective with diverse opinion in legal fraternity.

Right to self determination, as per this ICJ group was acquired at the time of partition, however we have a right to evaluate their findings and so as other legal operators through out the world. There is a reason why these are just comments and not judgements.

As per Simla agreement, India and Pakistan were binded to settle all its dispute bilaterally and that was re enforced by ICJ as well which leave no two opinions about its interpretation and that is well conceived by neutral parties

Now ICJ remark on right to self determination is what I am contesting as this right was not acquired by Kashmiris in isolation in 1947, as self determination was never a tool in Indian Independence Act and no other princely state got that privileges. However since India had to go to UN under article 35 because of Pakistan refusal to accept J&K accession to India, it was lodged as a dispute between India and Pakistan and resolutions were passed under chapter VI of UN which can provide only recommendation to parties involved to resolve dispute peacefully.

India and Pakistan mutually agreed on Aug 13, 1948 resolution, but the principal guidelines mentioned there were not acceptable to Pakistan (complete withdrawal of its force and let India administer plebiscite) and other proposals were rejected by India. Kashmir was never a litigant in this dispute, thus India argues that kashmir did not acquire any right to self determination out of India Pakistan dispute, but it was a tool suggested by UN for peaceful settlement, and till date its still a recommendation.

However after Simla, India Pakistan can refer UN only by mutual consent, if they chose other method to resolve the issue, UN has to accept that method and close the case. How can in this case it bacame a right of Kashmiris to ask for self determination? And home come right be not absolute and they must chose between India and Pakistan only? That's where ICJ group comments were incorrect, and India made its remark challenging this finding.

I can still give benefit of doubt to ICJ because this commission was set in 1995, during peak of insurgency and their comment might be under the impression of recent events of human right violation and thus jurist must have felt a need of self determination, so it could be a good ask from humanity perspective but bad in law.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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

My brains don't ****; I cannot answer for you, since you revel in the phrase.

The state in question was a state ruled by an independent prince. It was his right to decide as he wanted.

It is unfortunate that Pakistanis glibly assume that all of Kashmir at all times thought in terms of Muslim communal feeling. The facts are different. Either learn them or **** off.

 

[BHarwana]

@BHarwana @Foxtrot Alpha whats the latest update?

Heavy shelling being done by Pakistan as a retaliation of Indian violation of ceasefire. In Poonch Mendhar sectors. Indian post destroyed and 1 Indian soldiers injured being reported by Indians.

Another Indian quadcopter shot down by Pakistan.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Joe Shearer Looks like he took an easy exit. Must not have said me a liar though when clearly he could not read well or perhaps is sleepy.

Intellectual dishonesty getting displayed at its peak, within a same paragraph he selectively took part and assign it to ICJ but tried to pass rest as if ICJ is quoting a third party.

The whole paragraph is made by ICJ while setting up the historical background to set the context for their findings. Ironically mission was on "fact finding".

I was sorry to see that exit in those circumstances. He owes himself a better and more dignified withdrawal, without that unexpected lapse into personal terms. It can only be that it was a momentary lapse on the part of a person whom I still respect for his learning and his dogged advocacy of his particular interest.

 

[IMARV]

^^ This is what you claimed the report said.

And this is what the report actually says:
View attachment 622918


It's a 200 page report, but this is the Conclusion^^

And I stand by it and so as ICJ report. No UN resolution can bind India Pakistan to resolve its bilateral issues after Simpla, without both agreeing to use its good office. UN chief has said so as well categorically.

What you are spinning off is ICJ remark where they somehow give some right of self determination to Kashmiris and brought them out of India and Pakistan conflict and made a litigant themselves. This is incorrect on their behalf.

The whole argument from them is - India Pakistan issues are bilateral, but kashmiris have right of plebiscite now, even if India Pakistan settle their dispute by other means.

 

[M. Sarmad]

I can still give benefit of doubt to ICJ because this commission was set in 1995, during peak of insurgency and their comment might be under the impression of recent events of human right violation and thus jurist must have felt a need of self determination, so it could be a good ask from humanity perspective but bad in law.

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) is an international human rights non-governmental organization based in Geneva. The Commission itself is a standing group of 60 eminent jurists(including senior judges, attorneys and academics) dedicated to ensuring respect for international human rights standards through the law. Commissioners are known for their experience, knowledge and fundamental commitment to human rights.)


Now please tell us who is bad in law? Internet Indians or those 60 eminent senior judges and attorneys ??

I was sorry to see that exit in those circumstances. He owes himself a better and more dignified withdrawal, without that unexpected lapse into personal terms. It can only be that it was a momentary lapse on the part of a person whom I still respect for his learning and his dogged advocacy of his particular interest.

Bhai sahib, I was called 'dishonest' first .. woh nazar nahi aya ? ya desh bhakti ?

And I stand by it and so as ICJ report. No UN resolution can bind India Pakistan to resolve its bilateral issues after Simpla, without both agreeing to use its good office. UN chief has said so as well categorically.

What you are spinning off is ICJ remark where they somehow give some right of self determination to Kashmiris and brought them out of India and Pakistan conflict and made a litigant themselves. This is incorrect on their behalf.

The whole argument from them is - India Pakistan issues are bilateral, but kashmiris have right of plebiscite now, even if India Pakistan settle their dispute by other means.

Bhai, you didn't have to bring in that ICJ report in the first place ...
Deflection k chakkar mein ulta phans gay

 

[Joe Shearer]

This is your own subjective inference vis a vis the entire text in question.

The ruling specifically mentions both pk and ind having conflicts of interest with respect to the issue hence neither can abrogate the rights of the people of j&k regarding self determination within its 1947 boundaries. If you refer to Samad's post it is plain to see even for a non-legal person like me.

Nowhere is there any statement that objectively supports this inserted idea that India and j&k should debate themselves the plebiscite issue. In fact, it is made clear that India (like Pakistan,) has a baseline conflict of interest (not to mention carries undue leverage over the people of j&k by virtue of the fact that it militarily enforces rule in that state) regarding any decision on the plebiscite. In short, India would be BIASED (as would Pakistan). The full text from the court ruling appears to be a sound attempt at diminishing such bias.

What I have not touched upon, throughout this discussion, is a fundamental flaw in the Pakistani position. Let it lie for the moment; if it is introduced, it will immediately be pounced upon as evasive tactics.

 

[IMARV]

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) is an international human rights non-governmental organization based in Geneva. The Commission itself is a standing group of 60 eminent jurists(including senior judges, attorneys and academics) dedicated to ensuring respect for international human rights standards through the law. Commissioners are known for their experience, knowledge and fundamental commitment to human rights.)


Now please tell us who is bad in law? Internet Indians or those 60 eminent senior judges and attorneys ??



Bhai sahib, I was called 'dishonest' first .. woh nazar nahi aya ? ya desh bhakti ?

As if 60 created that report. And we have no other legal opinion on those reports from other eminent jurists and attached to the same report by India in its remark.

OK, then lets settle on their opinion. Kashmir has right to self determination, Pakistan is binded by Simla and not refer any issue with India to UN without India agreeing to it.

Let Kashmir go to UN.