Operation Asifa: 45 Indian soldiers killed by Kashmiri resistance in Pulwama.

[RuheTag]

And everyone know that the regular forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo fought in disguise as local Kashmiris for that. And the irony is, the entire world except the DRC know the fact.

What an humiliation would be to lose a war to DRC?

 

[SSGcommandoPAK]

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

India has very strict control measures for fertilizers that can be used in explosives.
Again, it is much more sensible to doubt pakistan that is a haven for bombings than India which nigh never has vbied attacks like this.

This is not a normal attack, the level of intelligence you would need(accumulated and real time) would have to include big players and in all probability complicated tech. You would need the exact timing of the approaching soldiers and then placement of that large quantity of bomb and you expect people to believe that teenagers and 20 year olds executed that? Yeah right.

But by that yardstick even more complex terrorist attacks in Pakistan would require similar, if not more, involvement of 'big players' and 'complicated tech'.

The expertise to conduct such attacks has been available for over a decade in conflict zones like Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan etc. Fertilizers are supposedly controlled in Pakistan as well, in fact Pakistan and the US came to an agreement a few years ago on changing the chemical composition of fertilizer in Pakistan to make it less useful as an explosive. Given the corruption in both countries, I highly doubt it's impossible to obtain materials used in explosives in either country.

 

[Malik Shani]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1096059996838625280

 

[Champion_Usmani]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1096042861060124672

Agreed with Gen Amjad Shoaib...

 

[Tom M]

Let me educate you, my ignorant Indian friend:

The UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir are neither "Unenforceable" nor "Non-binding" ...


1) UN maintains that "NO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION CAN BE DESCRIBED AS UNENFORCEABLE."


2) There always has been a general inability of the Permanent Five to agree upon imaginative and expansive applications of Chapter VI ... In Somalia, the Security Council deployed the UN's first operation, UNOSOM I, in mid-1992 to separate warring combatants and help delivery of humanitarian relief ....

UNOSOM I entered and operated without invoking Chapter VII

Further Reading: http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/6/1/1305.pdf



3) India approached UN under Chapter VI of the UN charter , BUT the decision taken by UN reflected that its resolutions were not based exclusively on this chapter .... The resolutions , apart from chapter VI , are based upon other chapters , including chapter VII

The fact that there does not exist any provision for the deputing of UN peace keeping mission under chapter VI makes it obvious that UN resolutions were not exclusively based on chapter VI .... The interim measures which included cease fire and deputation of United Nations Military Observer Group were based on Article 40 of chapter VII ...

Besides chapter VI and VII , UN resolutions are based on other chapters also(i.e Article 1 , Chapter I (2) and Article 55 , Chapter IX) ...

^^ And this is not my personal opinion. That is Rosalyn Higgins' opinion on 'Kashmir Resolutions and under which chapter they were passed' .. Source: 'Higgins, Rosalyn. United Nations Peace Keeping 1946-67: Documents and Commentary. London, UK: Oxford University Press, 1970. (349-51)

(Rosalyn Higgins is an expert on International Law; a Doctor of Juridical Science. She has served as a Judge in the International Court of Justice for fourteen years (and was elected President in 2006). Her competence has been recognised by many academic institutions, having received at least thirteen honorary doctorates)




4) While a recommendation under Chapter VI by itself "may not" be binding, this is not the case in the Kashmir dispute. Here, the parties have consented to be bound by the resolutions of 13 August and 5 January. (13 M. WHITEMAN, DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 360 (1968).



5) The UNSC Resolutions endorsed a binding agreement between India and Pakistan reached through the mediation of UNCIP, that a plebiscite would be held, under agreed and specified conditions. A letter dated December 23, 1948, from India's Secretary-General of the Ministry of External Affairs to the Representative of UNCIP, stated that the Indian Prime Minister's acceptance of the 5 January resolution was conditioned on Pakistan's acceptance of the resolution. By this letter, India consented to be bound by the resolution of 5 January and, through this, the resolution of 13 August as well. (Aide Memoire No. 1, Letter Dated 23 December 1948 From the Secretary General of the Ministry of External Affairs and Commonwealth Relations of the Government of India to Mr. Alfredo Lozano, Representative of UNCIP at 23, U.N. Doc. S/1196 (1949)




6) Self-Determination as a Binding Rule of International Law

Four instances may inform the principle of self-determination with a legal dimension.

(i) The principle of self-determination is binding upon the parties, whether they have adopted it as the basis or as a criterion for the settlement of a particular issue or dispute. In the peace treaties after World War I, and in the cases of Kashmir (after 1948), the Saar Territory (1955), and Algeria’s struggle for independence, the principle of self-determination was chosen as a basis for negotiation, and in the Agreement on Ending War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam (1973) the parties expressly recognized the South Vietnamese people’s right to self-determination.


http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e873





7) The binding nature of these UN resolutions (as acknowledged by Indian officials)



Finally some quotes from Indian officials on Kashmir exemplifying their commitment to plebiscite rather than forced accession as history has found them do :-

We adhere strictly to our pledge of plebiscite in Kashmir; a pledge made to the people because they believe in democratic government; We don't regard Kashmir as a commodity to be trafficked in -Krishna Menon (Press statement in London, reported in the Statesman, New Delhi, 2nd August, 1951)

The Government of India not only reaffirms its acceptance of the principle that the question of the continuing accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations, but is anxious that the conditions necessary for such a plebiscite should be created as quickly as possible -Letter from Govt. of India to UN Representative for India and Pakistan, 11th September, 1951

I want to say for the purpose of the record that there is nothing that has been said on behalf of the Government of India which in the slightest degree indicates that the Government of India or the Union of India will dishonour any international obligations it has undertaken.
-Krishna Menon (Statement at UN Security Council, 24th January, 1957)

The resolutions of January 17, 1948 and the resolutions of the UNICP, the assurances given, these are all resolutions which carry a greater weight; that is because we have accepted them, we are parties to them, whether we like them or not. -Krishna Menon, (Statement at UN Security Council, 20th February, 1957)

These documents (UNCIP reports) and declarations and the resolutions of the Security Council are decisions; they are resolutions, there has been some resolving of a question of one character or another, there has been a meeting of minds on this question where we have committed ourselves to it. -Krishna Menon, (Statement at the Security Council, 9th October, 1957)


India believes that sovereignty rests in the people and should return to them. -Krishna Menon, (The Statesman, Delhi, 19th January, 1962)





Therefore, India is bound by word and deed to leave the future of Kashmir to the will of its people.

Oh, really ???? If it is legally binding why don't the people of Kashmir or Pakistan on their behalf don't drag India to any international courts for non implementation of this legally BINDING document , every thought huh ???

It's because, The resolution was passed under the Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter (which is devoted to "peaceful settlement of disputes"). It did not consist of directives to the parties, but rather "recommendations". Former UN diplomat Josef Korbel states that this bound the parties only "morally" but not "juridically". The final resolution of the conflict rested with the governments of India and Pakistan and depended on their goodwill.

 

[kmc_chacko]

This will help Modi in elections

I think irrespective of parties this will have big impact on elections, as NaMo won last election on the basis of 56" chest and this time if anybody comes up with 57" he will win.

But sadly this will be the dead end for India - Pakistan relations and future will depend on NaMos actions & IKs reactions.

 

[Jackdaws]

What do you think is going to happen? Do you think killing 40 odd soldiers in a dastardly attack is going to make these morons overthrow the Indian regime? No, just like innocent Indian soldiers were killed - India will retaliate and kill Pak soldiers. Remember even during Kargil, India shot down an Atlantique aircraft of Pak near Kutch and Pak took India to ICJ and lost the case. So loss of life on this side will result in loss of life on the other. I will not cheer though - I don't think anyone should die because of egos of nations.

 

[MimophantSlayer]

But by that yardstick even more complex terrorist attacks in Pakistan would require similar, if not more, involvement of 'big players' and 'complicated tech'.

True.
Pakistan, rightly, has a lot of enemies and they try continuously to hit the pakistani state and it is only natural that one large attack will pass through with or without 'big players' and 'complicated tech'.

The expertise to conduct such attacks has been available for over a decade in conflict zones like Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan etc.

Kashmir is not Syria.

Expertise differs from region to region.
ISIS in Malaysia differs a boat load from ISIS in Syria and the rest of the middle east.

Fertilizers are supposedly controlled in Pakistan as well, in fact Pakistan and the US came to an agreement a few years ago on changing the chemical composition of fertilizer in Pakistan to make it less useful as an explosive. Given the corruption in both countries, I highly doubt it's impossible to obtain materials used in explosives in either country.

Nothing is impossible, but it is MORE POSSIBLE that the attack emanated from pakistan.
You can't really say a repeat offender is innocent while the victim with a cleaner record is guilty of hurting itself.

Similar attacks occur in Iran and Afghanistan which pakistan is blamed for.

 

[Tom M]

What an humiliation would be to lose a war to DRC?

Still far better than loosing to you on and concede unconditional surrender in record number of days.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Oh, really ???? If it is legally binding why don't the people of Kashmir or Pakistan on their behalf don't drag India to any international courts for non implementation of this legally BINDING document , every thought huh ???

It's because, The resolution was passed under the Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter (which is devoted to "peaceful settlement of disputes"). It did not consist of directives to the parties, but rather "recommendations". Former UN diplomat Josef Korbel states that this bound the parties only "morally" but not "juridically". The final resolution of the conflict rested with the governments of India and Pakistan and depended on their goodwill.

Read post # 229 again, carefully

 

[RuheTag]

Still far better than loosing to you on and concede unconditional surrender in record number of days.

ok, keep rejoicing. you have a moment to rejoice now.

 

[Corona]

The problem being that Pakistan can't be removed from the equation since it is a party to the dispute that India herself brought to the UNSC. That and the Kashmiris don't want Pakistan to be removed from the equation. At the end of the day the issue is the people of J&K, and regardless of what the Indian position is, the Kashmir and Pakistani position remains the same, as emphasized by the UNSC Resolutions on the dispute.

Hence the impasse. I always felt that if Pakistan approached the UN before the first Kashmir conflict, before deciding to invade Kashmir, a settlement would have been reached.

And part of the problem is that Pakistan always had a turbulent government that was never able to set a standard on how to solve these issues. Your political history is wrought with coups and upheavals and each new guy has a new idea on how to solve Kashmir quick. A few of them instigated wars hoping for a quick victory. India uses these. In the end, Pakistan's association with Kashmir is always negitive, either starting wars or supporting terrorists. There is a bbc article about this very incident, where it says the attack was carried out by a Pakistan based group. How do you think that factors in the eyes of an outsider?

You can rightly claim that the Indian government will not conduct a plebiscite any time soon, cause who in their right mind will contest in an election that they know they will loose. We can afford to continue with our current position till the ground reality is more favorable to us for a plebiscite.

I agree that Pakistan cannot be removed from the issue, but when everything about Pakistan is portrayed negitively when it comes to the Kashmir issue, I'm not sure I want to remove Pakistan.

 

[Hellfire]

Another important question is : how did the militants come to know of the convoy. How did the militants plan the attack ??

Rest in peace, o soldiers.

And Jaish-e-Mohammed should disband, because its activities are not what the Kashmir solution needs.

Answering specifically you:

Because convoy movement is routine. This is the administrative convoy ferrying troops to and fro from leave/turnover. There is nothing secret and neither is it unknown. Attack can be planned at any stage. A convoy of this size will move at 30 to 40 km/hr in order to ensure safety of civil traffic. A solitary explosives laden vehicle will be able to catch it quite quickly once it enters the 'kill zone'.

All moves, except special moves, are clubbed into a single movement of scores of vehicle.

 

[lightoftruth]

No Surgical strikes,No Covert ops ,time to punish them openly.

Let them see who they have poked.