AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Like I said - just more gibberish on your part. How about you define 'artificially created seperatism' in the context of Kashmir, since so far you have merely been jumping around trying to obfuscate. My interpretation of your comments (and my opinion that they are irrational) has been made obvious in past posts.I will gladly listen to your explanation as to why 'artificially generated separatist sentiments' is same as 'lack of popular support for separatist sentiments', and in what context these become different.
Strawman. I never questioned the popularity, which you keep on implying. I understand that you have to stick with this line of argument, because otherwise your argument falls apart.
More nonsense and distortion of the issue - the fact that the UNSC resolutions call for negotiations on bilateral (not unilateral demilitarization) makes clear that Pakistan is a party to the dispute. The fact that Pakistan is one of the two choices the Kashmiris have to make in the referendum to be conducted in kashmir makes it more than clear that Pakistan has a claim and is a party to a dispute.Not really. UNSC and India have never accepted that Pakistan has a claim. What has been accepted is that Kashimiris will be given an option to decide, to which country they would want to accede their land, once certain conditions are fulfilled. It doesn't give Pakistan any claim. It gives Kashmiris a claim.
Are you bonkers? If an interested party is not going to support an issue then who on earth is? Your arguments are absolute nonsense at this point. The territory is disputed, Pakistan is a party to the dispute and is supporting the entities in Kashmir that continue to demand their right to self-determination, as has been promised them by the UNSC, India and Pakistan.What you are deliberately refusing to address is, whether funding of a movement, whatever that movement be, by an interested party makes the movement tainted or not? For example, if a pro-tobacco movement be credible if it is sponsored by tobacco companies. Or if an argument for liberal corporate tax law be credible if the political party pushing it is sponsored by the corporates who benefit from such law. It shouldn't be too difficult to wrap your head around that.
I am not the one complaining about Indian funding going into Kashmir and various Kashmiri politicians and entities being on the payroll of India.Hope you intend to practice what you preach.
We backtracked on nothing - the UNSC resolutions were held up due to Indian obstinacy on refusing to agree to proposals by the UN rapporteur on Indian and Pakistani force levels. All withdrawals were contingent on negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UNSC appointed rapporteur/commission, as has been pointed out to you elsewhere.It was Pakistani leadership that backtracked on implementing UNSC resolution, that called for unilateral withdrawal of 'tribesmen and Pakistani citizen'. Our commitment was conditional to that, and other factors. None got fulfilled and hence no plebiscite.
Last edited: