We will guard our borders, ensure no terrorism generates from our side: AJK PM

[SingHee]

Wrong thread.

 

[newb3e]

I seriously want to ask the establishment of Pakistan this simple question.

Since when Kashmiri struggle against the Indian ILLEGAL occupation and oppression , be it peaceful or though the barrel of gun, becomes terrorism?

Are we fking selling Indian narrative in our own backyard?

when you sign a deal sell your soul for cheap land grabbing opportunities you do stupid things! you support protect zardari you breed nawaz you sign deal with india sell the land nation struggled and sacrificed for and now you selling their narative and making their annexation legit!

gj twitter keh bhadur jawanu!

 

[Ahmet Pasha]

Spot on. Kayani was involved in OBL fiasco and now Bajwa is also not giving off very positive vibes.

Fact is from the beginning we have been crippled both by fuked up mullahs and psuedo intellectual whiskey sipping class. Both of these seeds were planted and nourished by the British and evidently are now bearing fruits. Both of these classes have always done under the table deals. Selling off national dignity for individual gain.

This happens when you rattafy CSS books and become a bureaucrat. No understanding of statecraft.

What we have now are likes of Bajwa and Kayani. They are way too pacifist. Absence of Hamid Gul and Asad Durrani is immensely felt. I hope Zaid Hamid is taken as NSA otherwise these pacifist will sink Pakistan.

 

[Dubious]

We fought for Kashmir and are continuing to do so.

You mean oppressing them is labelled fighting in india?

Ok...when war breaks out, what will you call it? Suicide? I mean fighting is when they are being oppressed, so from that standards....it would be suicidal to attack or ACTUALLY have a war, right?

 

[Great Janjua]

No I don’t see.
To call Indian troop placement in Kashmir as illegal occupation is plain dumb because ONLY India has a LEGAL document that speaks to the accession of J&K.
You bringing up Junagadh is nothing short of deflection and I answered that it should have gone to you according to the rules of partition.
But if your country didn’t care to enforce its claim, it’s not our fault.

Remember, India didn’t want partition, Pakistan did. So obviously we will try to unite as much of pre partition India that we can/could given the scope.

Let's keep it real you ain't gonna reunite shit and as far as Kashmir is concerned one day you will give it up and that's a fact

 

[Reichsmarschall]

The only LEGAL document for accession of Kashmir has India written on it.

So if we go by rules of partition, any illegality that exists, is on the Pakistani side of Kashmir.

India never respected the Instrument of Accession either as they forcefully annexed Junagarh and Hyderabad. So why should Pakistan have respected Hari Singh's decision to concede to India?

 

[Dubious]

Mental gymnastics isn’t going to help you.
India is fighting for what it considers its land aka Kashmir (and after article 370, now Pak occupied Kashmir) . Now you can skin that cat 10 different ways to soothe your hurt ego. Makes zero difference to me.
Fact remains, to call Indian presence there as illegal is plain stupid as we are the only ones with a LEGAL claim to the land according to the rules of partition.
(Which is the statement I commented on)

when a crook illegally occupies a piece of land...it doesnt become his land...

Article 370 was about india nothing to do with international issues...SO having 370 or not doesnt effect international laws...Not sure which lawyer fed you BS!

 

[Peshwa]

Let's keep it real you ain't gonna reunite shit and as far as Kashmir is concerned one day you will give it up and that's a fact

Now reverse that same sentence and thought to speak about Pak occupies Kashmir.
Are you going to eventually give it up keeping the same logic?
If not, don’t expect your bigger, more resourceful neighbor to!

You aren’t a fortune teller, nor am I. So don’t speak in future tense please.

when a crook illegally occupies a piece of land...it doesnt become his land...

Learn to understand context before shooting from the hip.
Indian troop presence in J&K is not occupation because we have a legal document to prove claim. Where is Pakistan’s LEGAL claim? And based on what law?
That’s what I was referring to in my first post.

Abrogation of Article 370 is unconstitutional. Abolishing it is illegal based on the Indian constitution.

Those two are two mutually exclusive events/ cases. Legality of the instrument of accession gives us the right to be in Kashmir. However removal of Article 370 and converting Kashmir into a UT, the way it was done was illegal, based on Indian law.

Isn’t comprehension a pre requisite to being a mod? If not, it should be.
You’re embarrassing yourself

Article 370 was about india nothing to do with international issues...SO having 370 or not doesnt effect international laws...Not sure which lawyer fed you BS!

You need to formulate your thoughts better. Not sure if there is anything to answer here.

 

[Great Janjua]

Now reverse that same sentence and thought to speak about Pak occupies Kashmir.
Are you going to eventually give it up keeping the same logic?
If not, don’t expect your bigger, more resourceful neighbor to!

You aren’t a fortune teller, nor am I. So don’t speak in future tense please.

"Sohni rohndi yaaran nu le kay na parava tha" mate the future is clear I can visit azad Kashmir without the fear off getting lynched and free off police protection whilst you cannot do the same in Indian occupied Kashmir.

 

[MIG21DOWN]

Mental gymnastics isn’t going to help you.
India is fighting for what it considers its land aka Kashmir (and after article 370, now Pak occupied Kashmir) . Now you can skin that cat 10 different ways to soothe your hurt ego. Makes zero difference to me.
Fact remains, to call Indian presence there as illegal is plain stupid as we are the only ones with a LEGAL claim to the land according to the rules of partition.
(Which is the statement I commented on)

Do Kashmiris want u there? When the people hate ur rapist army what claim do u have there? Unless ur a fascist government (hint: You are).

 

[Dubious]

Indian troop presence in J&K is not occupation because we have a legal document to prove claim.

A document that for 70 years has never been entertained by UN?

What is it called? The chronicles of retardedness?

A war erupted and India approached the United Nations asking it to intervene. The United Nations recommended holding a plebiscite to settle the question of whether the state would join India or Pakistan. However the two countries could not agree to a deal to demilitarise the region before the referendum could be held.

In July 1949, India and Pakistan signed an agreement to establish a ceasefire line as recommended by the UN and the region became divided.

Your legal claim doesnt stand!

So, how many other states has india "captured" by shutting their contact with outside world?

Those two are two mutually exclusive events/ cases. Legality of the instrument of accession gives us the right to be in Kashmir. However removal of Article 370 and converting Kashmir into a UT, the way it was done was illegal, based on Indian law.

Basically back to being disputed...

Your own cant respect your law why do you expect Kashmir to do so?

As for the instrument of accession....the agreements signed after that exist and were signed DESPITE INDIA HAVING the said accession deeds! So how is it your right?

I mean why did india sign deeds despite having this "so strong of a document"?

 

[Reichsmarschall]

Indian troop presence in J&K is not occupation because we have a legal document to prove claim.

Yes it is occupation hence why your Prime Minister promised plebiscite in UNITED NATIONS. Do you even understand the meaning of disputed territory? You might have coaxed Google to change maps for ever ignoramus Indians but the world still considers it as a dispute between China Pakistan and india

 

[Dubious]

Btw, your representative at UNSC said to the world that india abides by simla agreement...by said agreement, Kashmir is a disputed territory and requires bilateral agreement to change anything so for starters 370 was not bilateral so as per international laws, having 370 or not doesnt affect the disputed territory!

Apparently they dont even know what the accession claims...what the DEAL REALLY was? indians really kept in the dark, yea?

 

[Peshwa]

"Sohni rohndi yaaran nu le kay na parava tha" mate the future is clear I can visit azad Kashmir without the fear off getting lynched and free off police protection whilst you cannot do the same in Indian occupied Kashmir.

Well isn’t that what abrogation of article 370 is about?
So anyone in India can visit there freely?

 

[Reichsmarschall]

Btw, your representative at UNSC said to the world that india abides by simla agreement...by said agreement, Kashmir is a disputed territory and requires bilateral agreement to change anything so for starters 370 was not bilateral so as per international laws, having 370 or not doesnt affect the disputed territory!


Apparently they dont even know what the accession claims...what the DEAL REALLY was? indians really kept in the dark, yea?

They are trying to impose their slum politics on civilized world