AFTER THE ‘SURGICAL STRIKES’

[Joe Shearer]

Do you run marriage beauro for gays?

I'm willing to do that for you. Special case.

 

[I S I]

I'm willing to do that for you. Special case.

So what is the procedure then?

 

[Joe Shearer]

So what is the procedure then?

Vital stats and pic, which will be put on the net. Friends of mine half my age inform me that there are....sites.

 

[I S I]

Vital stats and pic, which will be put on the net. Friends of mine half my age inform me that there are....sites.

For pic, see my profile.
Stats: runs a chemicals business. Unmarried(duh),
hobby: bodybuilding. Age: 24
height: 5.7ft, that other height will be sent to you via PM.

 

[Marshmallow]

"Surgical Strikes in Pakistan by India" hohohehehehaha

Joke of the Century!

 

[surya kiran]

Legally ??

Again understand legality. What legality does the ICJ have on the matter? Zilch. The OIC has passed some hundred statments on Kashmir. They all mean nothing. Nada.

No, you say Simla is not important. Why then do all the major powers, including China tell you solve the matter bilaterally? Its because of the Simla Agreement. Now you can believe a lot of things. But, facts on the ground and legality say otherwise.

Does the ICJ have any jurisdiction in this? No. There ends the matter of legality.

@Joe Shearer would you be kind enough to shower your wisdom too on this oft repeated topic.

 

[nomi007]

where is the capture soldier

 

[Marshmallow]

I for one am actually happy that for once Pakistani sources are not looking stupid or backtracking. Almost as if the roles have reversed; the Indians are ones looking like people on LSD.

After almost 18 years following defence affairs, I for once can happily say this for an Indian claim " Abay Kya bakwas kar raha hai?"

hahaha seriously its extremely funny to live as Neighbours with a Country Like India! Every other day they make some hilarious claims! Cant believe they are living in Modern Times with this sorta thinking and approach! gosh

 

[The Eagle]

I will do nothing of the sort.

#40 vindicated my disgusted response; @Eagle 's noble post reminded me of Donne's lines, "Ask not for whom the bell tolls...."

Go in peace.

Did not receive notification as was not quoted properly but still
I am much obliged Sir and it is all about that before it's too late and suffering are irrecoverable, being human need to love the humanity. I would share the same here as well for the readers to take a break and think about it rather to be played by someone.

There are many questions to be asked indeed and not like some immature annoying voices that mostly doing from both sides. The irony and the one thing that I really felt like RIP Humanity and most inhuman, lowest ever remarks witnessed in respect of most valued gene called human lives. Most of us here are killing each & every single of opponent nation yet forgetting that we are human. Pardon my statement if it hurts the most but this is not for all those who merely trying to present the opinion or countering the narrative of either side. I must say that human life is most worth and valued that even Almighty addressed us and delivered us the law and way to live a life.

Same goes to every religion that I am sure no god ever taught to kill any innocent or even the human and in Islam, Killing a human is like murder of humanity except self defence that life is at risk hence we must not hate human.

Furthermore, soldiers are to follow the orders and all they deserve the respect especially when they lost their lives in line of duty for respective nation. I will hate my enemy indeed until & unless that's a threat to my life but even if my worst enemy is dead, my and no religion allows to mock the dead. Soldiers are following the orders only and they are first to die being on front but nobody questioned the real thing that why like this. Like this mean that even there is no war but lives lost just because of mental illness and madness of politicians that never fired a single bullet in life for country and am sure none of them ever lost their loved one in battle field hence treating the soldiers as some robots or machine that obey the orders no matter what.

Except the extremists or self claimed jingoists, none wants war and the war or provoking like this is the game of those power hungry politicians to remain in power and fool the people. Citizens of both countries do not hate each other at all and if it's up-to me why would I ever kill any innocent or civilian not even the soldier at first that would want him to surrender. What we really need to kill is the ego of these politicians, the mental illness of these power hungry lot and to the most, the corrupt ideology that fools follows blindly that leads them straight to hell.

From my side and most that I understand, the hate is for the policies and ideology of ruling class of India and not the people at all. The wrong approach, malafide intention and biased persons must be condemned by every mean on every forum for the sake of humanity atleast. Media is nothing but most of them are like loudspeaker for any input of corrupt political voice that playing in hands of greed while claiming many lives. Mere claims of such cross border violation wouldn't serve the purpose of people mandate and growth but NaMO needs to do that even opposition or anyone wouldn't have a chance to oppose at all.

These dirty tricks needs to be stopped through sane minds from inside by educating the people against such madness. As the rights are given, justice is properly done, grievances are redressed and started to strive for people benefits, there will be peace, the peace that people wouldn't be buying the filthy beans of politicians.

NaMO Government cannot suppress the voices of aggrieved Kashmiris and other minorities inside India as well by the way of force that will be fueling the more resistance and risks to many lives and the only solution is through dialogue. These stunts are undertaken only for political gain and defamation of Pakistan and for provocation that might we fall for it and make mistake that world start to curse and oppose us. Cross border violation is turned into such strikes by making a claim that firstly people will buy due to injected hate in hearts and minds in the name of Uri.

The same Uri which is inside IoK whereby attacks were blamed upon Pakistan initially that I am sure DGMO wouldn't want it to do based upon mere claim of no Pakistani marking on weapons that even the same claim was recalled or denied soon by GoI/NIA. The subjected cross border violation was only renamed as such strikes to release the political and diplomatic pressure due to atrocities in Kashmir and no political solution.

Insanity and and policy of ego is not just pushing the India but the whole region towards the fire that once sparked wouldn't be that easy to control but would burn everything. May the sanity prevail.

 

[VCheng]

http://www.icj.org/human-rights-in-kashmir-report-of-a-mission/

This is the full paragraph on Page 92 of the report quoted earlier. Cherry-picking is not only dishonest, it is highly misleading:

"It has also been argued that the effect of the Simla Agreement of July 1972 (see pp. 22-23 above) was to make the settlement of the future of Jammu and Kashmir exclusively a matter for bilateral negotiations between India and Pakistan, thus effectively excluding any exercise of self-determination by the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir except to the extent that the exercise was agreed by both India and Pakistan. As an interpretation of the meaning of the Simla Agreement, this may well be correct. The Simla Agreement is clearly binding on Pakistan and deprives the Pakistan Government of locus standi to intervene in Jammu and Kashmir. However, the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir were not parties to the Agreement and neither India nor Pakistan, both of which had conflicts of interest with the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir can be regarded as having authority to bind them. The members of the IC mission do not see, therefore, how the Simla Agreement can be regarded as having deprived the peoples of Jam m u and Kashmir of any rights of self-determination to which they were entitled at the time of the Agreement."

What ICJ Report is arguing is for India to provide the people of Kashmir the right to self-determination, and it clearly notes that "the Simla Agreement is clearly binding on Pakistan and deprives the Pakistan Government of locus standi to intervene in Jammu and Kashmir."

Similarly, the rest of the quotes taken out of context do not amount to much from a legal standpoint.

 

[M. Sarmad]

http://www.icj.org/human-rights-in-kashmir-report-of-a-mission/

This is the full paragraph on Page 92 of the report quoted earlier. Cherry-picking is not only dishonest, it is highly misleading:

"It has also been argued that the effect of the Simla Agreement of July 1972 (see pp. 22-23 above) was to make the settlement of the future of Jammu and Kashmir exclusively a matter for bilateral negotiations between India and Pakistan, thus effectively excluding any exercise of self-determination by the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir except to the extent that the exercise was agreed by both India and Pakistan. As an interpretation of the meaning of the Simla Agreement, this may well be correct. The Simla Agreement is clearly binding on Pakistan and deprives the Pakistan Government of locus standi to intervene in Jammu and Kashmir. However, the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir were not parties to the Agreement and neither India nor Pakistan, both of which had conflicts of interest with the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir can be regarded as having authority to bind them. The members of the IC mission do not see, therefore, how the Simla Agreement can be regarded as having deprived the peoples of Jam m u and Kashmir of any rights of self-determination to which they were entitled at the time of the Agreement."

What ICJ Report is arguing is for India to provide the people of Kashmir the right to self-determination, and it clearly notes that "the Simla Agreement is clearly binding on Pakistan and deprives the Pakistan Government of locus standi to intervene in Jammu and Kashmir."

Similarly, the rest of the quotes taken out of context do not amount to much from a legal standpoint.

You should have quoted/tagged me when responding to my post. Anyway,


I quoted the "relevant" part from the ICJ mission report. Page number was mentioned and link was provided so that every one could read the full report. I am really surprised that you accused me of being dishonest .


One of our Indian friends claimed that we (i.e Pakistanis) "legally" gave up the UN Resolutions on Kashmir and the referendum debate when we signed the Simla Agreement in 1972. I pointed it out to him that India or Pakistan have no "legal" right to deprive Kashmiris of their right to self-determination (that was given to them by the UN through its SC resolutions) by signing any bilateral agreement to which the People of Kashmir are not a party.


And to support my claim, I quoted the opinion of a few experts on International Law on this matter; the "relevant" part from the report:

"The people of Jammu and Kashmir were not parties to the Agreement and neither India nor Pakistan, both of which had conflicts of interest with the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir can be regarded as having authority to bind them. The members of the ICJ mission do not see, therefore, how the Simla Agreement can be regarded as having deprived the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir of any rights of self-determination to which they were entitled at the time of the Agreement..."


Nowhere did I claim that Simla Agreement was not legally binding on Pakistan. And whether or not Government of Pakistan has any locus standi on intervention in J&K is irrelevant to the fact that Government of Pakistan (or India for that matter) has no "legal" authority to bind Kashmiris or deprive them of their right to self determination given to them by the UN. Hope that clears up your confusion.

What ICJ Report is arguing is for India to provide the people of Kashmir the right to self-determination, and it clearly notes that "the Simla Agreement is clearly binding on Pakistan and deprives the Pakistan Government of locus standi to intervene in Jammu and Kashmir."

That is not what the report is arguing but just your own assumption based on your perception/understanding of the matter.


The report very clearly states that:


Both India and Pakistan should recognise and respond to the call for self-determination for the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir within its 1947 boundaries, inherent in the relevant United Nations resolutions. The United Nations should re-activate its role as a catalyst in this process. (p.98)




As for Pakistani intervention in J&K, the report again clearly states:

"If as the ICJ mission has concluded , the people of Kashmir have a right for self determination, it follows that their insurgency is legitimate " even if Pakistan has no right to support it.

That is what the ICJ mission had "concluded". Hope you won't declare it as "cherry-picking and out of context quoting" this time. That is the "Pakistani intervention" (material support to the Kashmiri insurgents) the report was talking about.


Now, once again, read these words carefully:

Both India and Pakistan should recognise and respond to the call for self-determination for the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir within its 1947 boundaries, inherent in the relevant United Nations resolutions. The United Nations should re-activate its role as a catalyst in this process.

^^ A Complete rejection of the Indian interpretation of Simla Agreement and the Indian claim that the UN resolutions have been superseded by the Simla Agreement and the UN has no role to play after the signing of the Simla Agreement. Anyone who believes/says otherwise is either delusional or dishonest. Which one are you ?


There is a reason (a legal one) that Kashmir still remains as an unresolved international dispute on the agenda of the Security Council and the UN refuses to terminate UNMOGIP, even after 44 years of the signing of the Simla Agreement. Think about it rationally

Regards

 

[VCheng]

What legal weight does ICJ's position actually have on two sovereign nuclear powers, who have recognized and binding obligations under the Simla Agreement?

 

[M. Sarmad]

What legal weight does ICJ's position actually have on two sovereign nuclear powers, who have recognized and binding obligations under the Simla Agreement?

There is a reason (a legal one) why Kashmir still remains as an unresolved international dispute on the agenda of the Security Council and the UN refuses to terminate UNMOGIP, even after 44 years of the signing of the Simla Agreement.

 

[VCheng]

Translation: The ICJ report has no legal standing.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Translation: The ICJ report has no legal standing.

Translation: Our dear old friend VCheng has run out of arguments and he has retorted to his typical bantering style


The UN too has no "legal" standing ??

And just for your information, Article 38(1)(d) of the International Court of Justice Statute states that the 'teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations' are also among the 'subsidiary means for the determination of the rules of law'.

In international Law, Expert opinions/writings carry weight, but what VCheng or other Indians say does not !!

Have a nice day