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

[ito]

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.

do pakistanis do Phd's in putting empty words??

india doesn't have to be rising power.buddy. pakistan is too small for india to force a 'solution' on kashmir.

in 1947, pakistan was formed without consulting the larger indian population. no more countries would be formed from india. the 1.3 billion indians word is final on kashmir.

 

[TejasMk3]

1. US drones fire inside Pakistani territory. And have killed atleast 500 innocent Pakistanis to date....and they still continue!
2. Chinese forces walk 40 miles inside Indian territory while Chinese PM is sitting in New Delhi.

I think it's understandable why you would forget about the bold part .

 

[ChennaiDude]

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?

nobody said you are not brave....don't ***..ume !

 

[unbiasedopinion]

we are talking about Indian bravado

As usual trolling. The topic of the thread is Pakistan briefing P5. Not indians bravado. Care to read the topic before letting your emotions taking over your head?

 

[kurup]

ya ya ya i know this i heard this nth times

Yeah because it's the reality .

 

[ares]

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.

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


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.

UNSC resolution on Kashmir comes under chapter VI of UN Charter, which is non binding and have no mandatory enforceability and are non time bound as opposed to the resolutions passed under Chapter VII.

 

[Rank]

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

That's just another way to say that you aren't capable of responding/countering my arguments, which is understandable, since even the UNSG quote you linked in your post ended up supporting my argument.

 

[VCheng]

That's just another way to say that you aren't capable of responding/countering my arguments, which is understandable, since even the UNSG quote you linked in your post ended up supporting my argument.

As long as you can ignore the Sec-Gen UN's quote that I posted above, you have no argument.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

UNSC resolution on Kashmir comes under chapter VI of UN Charter, which is non binding and have no mandatory enforceability and are non time bound as opposed to the resolutions passed under Chapter VII.

I am not contesting that, but what I am pointing out is that in reiterating the commitment of both States to the UN Charter, the Simla Agreement accepts the fact that Chapter VII resolutions issued by the UNSC will be implemented by the two States. Now I am not saying that the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir are Chapter VII, they are not, but that the first para of the Simla Agreement accepts third party intervention in Pakistan-India affairs by virtue of accepting the UN Charter which allows for Chapter VII resolutions that are considered to be binding on member States.

As long as you can ignore the Sec-Gen UN's quote that I posted above, you have no argument.

I didn't ignore the quote - I actually referenced it and used it to support my argument, which you would have realized if you had bothered to actually read my earlier post, which you apparently have not done since you are still trying to argue that the UNSG's comments support your/India's interpretation of the Simla Agreement.

So instead of repeating your "my opinion is right" one liners, try to actually counter the argument. Yes, it'll require a bit of intellectual effort on your part to analyze and understand the arguments being made, but that is the whole point of posting on these boards.

... given the Simla Agreement's binding mandate of all disputes being reduced to bilateral issues between India and Pakistan, including Kashmir ...

Nonsense and utterly wrong, as I have shown in my previous posts to which you have refused to respond.

 

[VCheng]

I didn't ignore the quote - I actually referenced it and used it to support my argument, which you would have realized if you had bothered to actually read my earlier post, which you apparently have not done since you are still trying to argue that the UNSG's comments support your/India's interpretation of the Simla Agreement.
So instead of repeating your "my opinion is right" one liners, try to actually counter the argument. Yes, it'll require a bit of intellectual effort on your part to analyze and understand the arguments being made, but that is the whole point of posting on these boards.

I am only going by what the Sec-Gen UN said - the UN will not intervene unless both India and Pakistan request it, just as stipulated in the Simla Agreement. There is not much effort needed to understand that, but your mental gymnastics to disprove it are merely amusing, not effective.

Nonsense and utterly wrong, as I have shown in my previous posts to which you have refused to respond.

I am absolutely correct, as agreed by the UN, officially.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I am only going by what the Sec-Gen UN said - the UN will not intervene unless both India and Pakistan request it, just as stipulated in the Simla Agreement. There is not much effort needed to understand that, but your mental gymnastics to disprove it are merely amusing, not effective.

So we are agreed then, that the Simla Agreement does allow for third party mediation. The part about "being requested by both parties" is self evident, since any form of peaceful dispute resolution between parties requires the consent of the parties involved. And on that note, the existing UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir are in fact the only existing "mutually accepted form of dispute resolution", given that both States accepted the role of the UNSC in mediating the dispute when it was first raised in the UN by the Indian government.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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

Actually, the operative word is OR, as in, "through bilateral negotiations OR by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them".

'Or' is a grammatical conjunction in a sentence to distinguish between alternate ideas/arguments in a sentence. The clause of the Simla Agreement in question is divided into two arguments/ideas. The first refers to "through bilateral negotiations", which is self-explanatory. The second part of the sentence after the 'or' therefore refers to an idea that is an alternative to the first part, and since the first part specifically refers to "bilateral", the second part of the sentence can only mean "non-bilateral", which would include third party mediation.

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

My response to Ares in an earlier post covers this.

 

[toxic_pus]

Simla Agreement doesn't preclude involvement of 3rd Party, but for all intents and purpose it is a non starter. Involvement of 3rd to 'n'th party would require acquiescence of _both_ the parties and even the proposals made by such 3rd party can be implemented if and only if _both_ the parties agree to the implementation of the same.

UN's refusal to get involved unilaterally, or on invitation of one party alone, actually vindicates India's interpretation of Simla Agreement.

So whats the fuss?

 

[VCheng]

So we are agreed then, that the Simla Agreement does allow for third party mediation. The part about "being requested by both parties" is self evident, since any form of peaceful dispute resolution between parties requires the consent of the parties involved. And on that note, the existing UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir are in fact the only existing "mutually accepted form of dispute resolution", given that both States accepted the role of the UNSC in mediating the dispute when it was first raised in the UN by the Indian government.

Now only if you can get the Sec-Gen UN to agree to that contorted logic, I will have no problems at all!