Pakistan briefs P-5 about security tensions on LoC, IB

[xyxmt]

Ok since you are comparing...."Lets say we were disgraced by China"....But you..i.e Pakistan was disgraced by..who..and has it stopped?

no no not just lets say, its the truth it has happened in the past and still happening. so stop showing your bravado only because you fired back on Pakistan. Pakistan is shelling in Afghanistan, does that make us just as brave as you?

 

[xyxmt]

Perfect examples of cowardice..

just like you

Drone attack? Does it ring bell?

read these two sentences
1. US drones fire inside Pakistani territory.
2. Chinese forces walk 40 miles inside Indian territory while Chinese PM is sitting in New Delhi.

and make a judgement which one is worst. i got nothing else to say for shameless people

Are we talking about Pakistan here or China?

we are talking about Indian bravado

 

[DingDong]

just like you


read these two sentences
1. US drones fire inside Pakistani territory.
2. Chinese forces walk 40 miles inside Indian territory while Chinese PM is sitting in New Delhi.

and make a judgement which one is worst. i got nothing else to say for shameless people



we are talking about Indian bravado

I throw the Q back on you. Which one is worse?

 

[Rafi]

So jinping sent u secret shields to save ur @$$ from injuns!!! u r not even capable of doing tht.

No, the PRC and the IRP, have converging interests, and national interest. therefore they co-operate.

 

[TOPGUN]

Seems as all the trolls are here in a troll party lolz haha

 

[Hiptullha]

I throw the Q back on you. Which one is worse?

I'd say the second one. I for one, would be incredibly humiliated when I've been told my country is a "rising, shining supa powa" before getting harassed by my own neighbor.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Like I said Sir, I am satisfied to be in good company over what I have said earlier:

View attachment 132739

As I already pointed out (to which you merely reiterated the same one liner), the UNSG does not share your interpretation of the Simla Agreement, and you have neither established anything in favor of your position nor anything against mine.

In fact, by offering to mediate between India and Pakistan, the UNSG has thrown your (and India's) interpretation of the Simla Agreement into the garbage, since the mediation offer explicitly supports the principle of third party involvement, and would not have been made under ANY circumstances had the UNSG shared your or India's interpretation of the Simla Agreement.

You are welcome to keep your opinion.

Mine is not an opinion, it is fact, based on the clauses of the Simla Agreement, yet to be countered by you.

Para 2 of the agreement.

(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peace and harmonious relations.

Paragraph one, by reiterating the commitment of both States to abide by the UN Charter (and therefore abide by any binding UNSC Resolutions) clearly accepts the principle of third party mediation.

Paragraph 2, by virtue of referencing "other peaceful means mutually agreed upon them", also accepts the principle of third party mediation, since "third part mediation" can fit the definition of "other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them". In addition, the existing UNSC resolutions on Kashmir, by virtue of having been accepted by both States, constitute the only existing "peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them" and therefore continue to be valid.

 

[VCheng]

Mine is not an opinion, it is fact, based on the clauses of the Simla Agreement, yet to be countered by you.

I do not need to counter your intentionally disingenuous and erroneous opinion, since the Sec-Gen UN has done that already by agreeing with the facts as I have stated them.

 

[Pak_Sher]

Pakistan needs to keep the pressure on India at the global level including UN, OIC, EU, SCO etc..

 

[VCheng]

Pakistan needs to keep the pressure on India at the global level including UN, OIC, EU, SCO etc..

All of these organizations can not and will not exert any pressure on India, given the Simla Agreement's binding mandate of all disputes being reduced to bilateral issues between India and Pakistan, including Kashmir, and no third party mediation can happen unless both of them agree to it.

 

[ito]

Which means the Simla Agreement explicitly accepts third party mediation

And is broadly worded to allow for third party mediation, especially given the commitment to the UN Charter in the first part.

yes, simla agreement doesn't discard third party mediation, but it has to be agreed by both india and pak.

Pakistan needs to keep the pressure on India at the global level including UN, OIC, EU, SCO etc..

and how can pakistan keep pressure on india???? can you be a little bit more explicit. simply raising kashmir at UN doesn't constitute pressure. pak has been doing this since last 70 years to no avail

 

[Pak_Sher]

yes, simla agreement doesn't discard third party mediation, but it has to be agreed by both india and pak.



and how can pakistan keep pressure on india???? can you be a little bit more explicit. simply raising kashmir at UN doesn't constitute pressure. pak has been doing this since last 70 years to no avail

Majority of Kashmiri people observe a black day on India's Independence Day and that itself is a slap on every Indian's face.

 

[Hiptullha]

nd how can pakistan keep pressure on india???? can you be a little bit more explicit. simply raising kashmir at UN doesn't constitute pressure. pak has been doing this since last 70 years to no avail

Pressure is increasing, buddy. You can pretend that your rising, shining supa powa is a country full of toilets and happy Kashmiris, but these sort of arrogant beliefs are usually dissolved after a quick splash of reality.

 

[jbond197]

So what was the response of P-5? Did they even bothered to reply at all? After all they know well the double face of Pakistan. It is the same country which is/was supposedly fighting the war on terror while hiding head of the terrorist organization, they were fighting against, in a safe house deep inside Pakistan. With this history, how can anybody take Pakistan seriously?

 

[third eye]

Paragraph one, by reiterating the commitment of both States to abide by the UN Charter (and therefore abide by any binding UNSC Resolutions) clearly accepts the principle of third party mediation.

Paragraph 2, by virtue of referencing "other peaceful means mutually agreed upon them", also accepts the principle of third party mediation, since "third part mediation" can fit the definition of "other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them". In addition, the existing UNSC resolutions on Kashmir, by virtue of having been accepted by both States, constitute the only existing "peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them" and therefore continue to be valid.

The operating words are " mutually agreed'. and India does not agree to any 3rd party mediation.

Next, the UN resolution was passed under chapter VI which makes it non binding. It is nothing more than an advisory.