Indian Army used artillery & heavy mortars on LOC targeting Civilian Population

[IceCold]

Allow me the indulgence customarily given to the old and infirm, if not yet senile, in these parts.

Since you raised my age, I was born in 1950, and I was present, as a fifteen-year old, when the insertion of trained commandos was represented by the Pakistan Army as actions independent of the Army by activists from the local population (ironically, the local population pointed out the infiltrators to Indian forces). I was present even earlier, when some hapless policemen were chased out by a Pakistani brigade, and that was represented as a famous victory. I was present when we were informed by the usual helpful and very informative sources that Pakistan had won the conflict, since the Indian Army had failed to capture Lahore, and since that was the casus belli; everything earlier, the infiltration into Kashmir, and the attack with armour and artillery on Indian forces in Chhamb, being non-events. I was present seven years later, when the highest leadership of Pakistan came to sign a treaty, made numerous commitments, and received numerous commitments, and I watched while all the commitments made to Pakistan were fulfilled, and all the commitments made by Pakistan were discarded and cast aside like so much used wrapping paper. I was present twenty-eight years later when it was claimed that irregulars, nothing to do with Pakistan and its state apparatus, had taken up positions on the heights of Kargil; I was present when a young officer captured on patrol was returned to us, dead, and with all the signs of horrible torture. I was present when an Indian pilot searching for his downed comrade was shot down at a height that he had no business being, and was shot dead on reaching the ground. I was present when the Pakistan Army completely disowned its dead and the Indian Army buried them in due form, and returned others when their opponents had a change of mind and acknowledged them.

I believe that during my membership of this forum I have given appropriate respect to those who deserved it, like your good self, and I have also received a very flattering respect in turn. However, I now have a question for you and the other respectable people on the forum: do you expect me to believe a single thing that the Pakistan Army says?

Joe Joe Joe! you have not answered anything related to this thread or about where i distorted facts. Instead you chose to dwindle in the past. Shall we continue that on another thread and focus on the events of 21st century. Yes you cannot believe anything or a single thing that Pakistan army says, i wouldnt expect otherwise but we are not the ones saying it. The lies of Indian army under Modi has been exposed even by the most critique of Pakistan like Christine Fair. Your lies started off with surgical strikes with killing of 400-500 so called terrorists. Pakistan took International media there and asked them to verify on their own. Unless you think we posses otherworldly powers, we cannot disappear 400-500 dead bodies when the whole world was watching and witnessing. Some powers actually wanted India to succeed. That was your lie busted there and than. Than came another lie when PAF bested IAF on the morning of 27th February. Indian government along with its armed forces kept lying about Pakistan F-16 shot down when the whole world knew no F-16s were lost. We on our part showed the entire Mig along with its complete missile arsenal intact which showed that no missile was ever fired from Abinandan Plane unlike the AMRAAM that IAF took out from the rear of something. Than you shot down your own chopper and kept lying about it only to admit it was a fratricide.
So if you want to point fingers at PA, please do so but while you are at it also look in the mirror, maybe you would realize its not the PA you should be worried about trusting but the IA who has been telling nothing but pack of lies under Modi. Heck even congress had to complain how indian COAS was acting like BJP spokesperson instead of being neutral and doing his job.

 

[IMARV]

Even the UNCIP Resolutions that India accepted do not ask Pakistan to withdraw its troops from Kashmir unilaterally and unconditionally. That's a plain lie Indians like to propagate. The subsequent resolutions (which India says they didn't accept) allow Pakistan (too) to maintain/keep some troops in Pakistan Administered Kashmir

Dont misguide them please, I already show you one example what it do to your people.

UN gave a guiding principle that needed you to withdraw in entirety and called you material change. Unless you prove that you accepted this condition and even then India didn't agreed to terms and condition, you are just doing a propaganda.

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

You have pasted the resolution perfectly correctly, albeit selectively, thats fine. However, I asked you to provide evidence that Pakistan agreed to withdraw all its forces, as required by UN to be principle of discussions, and India refused.



Dear, dont jump into a discussion without going through the flow. You are actually enforcing what I have been telling for long that since Pakistan didn't abide by the original resolutions, UN had to pass other resolution to accomodate Pakistani demands. So if Pakistan can refuse the first, we can refuse the later supplements, anyways they were not binding.

new resolution supercede old resolutions.

 

[M. Sarmad]

You have pasted the resolution perfectly correctly, albeit selectively, thats fine. However, I asked you to provide evidence that Pakistan agreed to withdraw all its forces, as required by UN to be principle of discussions, and India refused.

I have pasted the relevant parts which make it clear beyond any doubt that Pakistan was under no obligation to withdraw its troops unilaterally and unconditionally. An agreement (on terms and conditions of withdrawal) between the Commission and the representatives of the booth governments had to be reached first.

India rejected 11 UN demilitarization proposals in total, Pakistan rejected none. Pakistan was even ready to withdraw its troops in favor of UN regardless of Indian reaction to such a proposal. Before that, the UN appointed official mediator blamed India for refusing to accept any reasonable demilitarization plan.

 

[IMARV]

@M. Sarmad Leave aside normal rants both side do, lets talk about something different.

Did supplement resolutions abide by the original one in principle when they accommodate your demand of maintaining armed force presence? Weren't they in clear violation of Aug 13, 1948 resolutions?

new resolution supercede old resolutions.

True, then your refusal on one give us equal right to refuse others. Whats the fuss now?

 

[M. Sarmad]

Dont misguide them please, I already show you one example what it do to your people.

UN gave a guiding principle that needed you to withdraw in entirety and called you material change. Unless you prove that you accepted this condition and even then India didn't agreed to terms and condition, you are just doing a propaganda.

You yourself are misguided and a victim of Indian state propaganda. Instead of worrying about others, worry about yourself

 

[IMARV]

I have pasted the relevant parts which make it clear beyond any doubt that Pakistan was under no obligation to withdraw its troops unilaterally and unconditionally. An agreement (on terms and conditions of withdrawal) between the Commission and the representatives of the booth governments had to be reached first.

India rejected 11 UN demilitarization proposals in total, Pakistan rejected none. Pakistan was even ready to withdraw its troops in favor of UN regardless of Indian reaction to such a proposal. Before that, the UN appointed official mediator blamed India for refusing to accept any reasonable demilitarization plan.

India is right in rejecting any number of proposal which are in violation of spirit of first resolution which we agreed upon.

Did any of 11 maintain Pakistan absolute withdrawal?

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

@M. Sarmad Leave aside normal rants both side do, lets talk about something different.

Did supplement resolutions abide by the original one in principle when they accommodate your demand of maintaining armed force presence? Weren't they in clear violation of Aug 13, 1948 resolutions?



True, then your refusal on one give us equal right to refuse others. Whats the fuss now?

Pakistan accept all resolutions.

 

[IMARV]

Pakistan accept all resolutions.

Quote me any evidence where Pakistan agreed on complete withdrawal from Kashmir.

 

[BATMAN]

Indians need to be regularly reminded they are nothing but a filthy race. When the world is busy fighting a pandemic, they are acting tough on the border killing innocents. Start counting when we respond and send you A holes to hell.

Why should we not uproot the threat and the risk which is associated with it, instead of keeping it alive for our generations to come!

 

[Rajput_Pakistani]

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/was-plebiscite-forestalled-by-pakistan.501845/

Indians are master of twisting, turning and distorting facts to suit their narratives. Hell they even blamed their naked aggression of 1971 on Pakistan.
@M. Sarmad Dear above is the link to well researched documented article on UN resolutions and how Indian played their dirty games. Read it and shut the **** up of these liars

 

[IMARV]

You yourself are misguided and a victim of Indian state propaganda. Instead of worrying about others, worry about yourself

 

[M. Sarmad]

India is right in rejecting any number of proposal which are in violation of spirit of first resolution which we agreed upon.

Did any of 11 maintain Pakistan absolute withdrawal?

The Legal maxim "Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria" (No advantage may be gained from one’s own wrong) means in Kashmir context that India cannot frustrate attempts to create conditions ripe for a troop withdrawal and ceasefire in order to avoid carrying out its obligations to hold a plebiscite.

You may believe that you are right, the arbitrator (i.e. the UN) disagrees with you.

 

[IMARV]

The Legal maxim "Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria" (No advantage may be gained from one’s own wrong) means in Kashmir context that India cannot frustrate attempts to create conditions ripe for a troop withdrawal and ceasefire in order to avoid carrying out its obligations to hold a plebiscite.

You may believe that you are right, the arbitrator (i.e. the UN) disagrees with you.

Lawyer saab, reham karein.

I am still awaiting evidence that Pakistan agreed on forming condition which were in principle aligning to very first requirement made in UNSC resolution i.e. being a material change they need to move out.

No point in quoting words made by biased folks who later on tried very hard to push India into a corner even though if that meant sheer violation of guiding principles.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Quote me any evidence where Pakistan agreed on complete withdrawal from Kashmir.

Already did.

Pakistan was even ready to withdraw ALL its troops in favor of UN troops
Pakistan did not reject any demilitarization proposal
Pakistan did not reject any UN Resolution
Pakistan even began to withdraw its troops

Had the UN Commission notified Pakistan to begin withdrawal, Pakistan would have complied immediately as we made clear to the UN Commission.

But the UN Commission never notified Pakistan because Indians didn't accept any demilitarization plan.