In solidarity with the Hindu/Indian posters here on Defence.PK

[IMARV]

The 'criteria' was updated after the first resolution, in which the UNSC did not even recognize the presence of actual Pakistani military forces in J&K, which demolishes the ludicrous excuse Indians trot out, of 'Pakistan unilaterally withdrawing from the territory first'.

My last submission on this topic in this thread, so please allow. My apology in advance.

Its factually wrong, it was not UN which doesn't recognize, but it was Pakistan which submitted to UN that there is no Pak troops or Pak aid in state of J&K. Below is snippet from UN doc India Pakistan Question.

Secondly, it was not after first resolution that criteria changed, even in second resolution Jan 5 (if my memory is correct) resolution which was mutually agreed, there was no provision of Pak forces in J&k.

It was later when Pakistan realized its position is weaker and then got US support in lieu of Pak agreed to join US coalition, things changed. And India refused in his right to accept anything which was against the spirit of mutually agreed resolutions.

Pakistanis have seen this Bollywood song and dance from Indians enough to call out BS when we see it.

These trolls all around are infectious.

@ChennaiDude

 

[Soumitra]

There you go.

See, that wasn't so hard was it?

When it comes to discussions on the UNSC Resolutions, Indians that oppose a plebiscite should just stick with this:

1. India knows that plebiscite has a high probability of going against it
2. The current status quo favours India. It can easily overcome small pinpricks of militancy

What about these acceptance from the Pakistanis?

1. The current militancy is nothing but an irritant and it will NOT force India to give up Kashmir or conduct a plebiscite
2. Pakistan does not have the strength to take Kashmir militarily from India
3. For 70 years Pakistan has spoken in UN, OIC, and other forums but it has not yeiled a result and it will not yield a result
4. Pakistan may think that it has a moral high ground but in a world of might is right a moral high ground means nothing
5. Pakistan's alliance with China has indirectly forced the west to align with India
6. After 9/11 even if there is a trace of Islamic tinge in any situation, the world's opinion becomes against that situation

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

My last submission on this topic in this thread, so please allow. My apology in advance.

Its factually wrong, it was not UN which doesn't recognize, but it was Pakistan which submitted to UN that there is no Pak troops or Pak aid in state of J&K. Below is snippet from UN doc India Pakistan Question.

View attachment 632403

Secondly, it was not after first resolution that criteria changed, even in second resolution Jan 5 (if my memory is correct) resolution which was mutually agreed, there was no provision of Pak forces in J&k.

It was later when Pakistan realized its position is weaker and then got US support in lieu of Pak agreed to join US coalition, things changed. And India refused in his right to accept anything which was against the spirit of mutually agreed resolutions.





These trolls all around are infectious.

@ChennaiDude

The key point is that the UNSC passed additional resolutions after taking into account the participation and presence of Pakistani military forces in Jammu & Kashmir, and those resolutions (as explained in the thread linked to) do not demand a unilateral, unconditional withdrawal of Pakistani forces.

What about these acceptance from the Pakistanis?

1. The current militancy is nothing but an irritant and it will NOT force India to give up Kashmir or conduct a plebiscite
2. Pakistan does not have the strength to take Kashmir militarily from India
3. For 70 years Pakistan has spoken in UN, OIC, and other forums but it has not yeiled a result and it will not yield a result
4. Pakistan may think that it has a moral high ground but in a world of might is right a moral high ground means nothing
5. Pakistan's alliance with China has indirectly forced the west to align with India
6. After 9/11 even if there is a trace of Islamic tinge in any situation, the world's opinion becomes against that situation

Irrelevant - the core thinking behind India's refusal to allow a plebiscite is captured in the first two points mentioned in my previous response to you.

 

[Soumitra]

All 10 points could be summed up in three words - MIGHT IS RIGHT

You could have saved tiring out your teeny weeny fingers by typing all that up.

I already said "Might is Right" (Point no. 7)

The purpose of the post was to see if @AgNoStiC MuSliM follows his own advise of being honest.

And he has proved that he is not able to take his own advise.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I already said "Might is Right" (Point no. 7)

The purpose of the post was to see if @AgNoStiC MuSliM follows his own advise of being honest.

Did you somehow manage to not read my last two responses to you?

You went from honesty to trolling, indicating that even your so called honesty was just another avenue to troll.

 

[xeuss]

I already said "Might is Right" (Point no. 7)

The purpose of the post was to see if @AgNoStiC MuSliM follows his own advise of being honest.

And he has proved that he is not able to take his own advise.

Actually he is being honest. Sanghis have hard time distinguishing this trait since they feed on lies.

 

[Soumitra]

Irrelevant - the core thinking behind India's refusal to allow a plebiscite is captured in the first two points mentioned in my previous response to you.

You said Indians should be honest. I agreed. ButI showed a mirror that Pakistanis themselves are not honest.

If you are honest you would accept the points about Pakistan that I have listed.

 

[ChennaiDude]

My last submission on this topic in this thread, so please allow. My apology in advance.

Its factually wrong, it was not UN which doesn't recognize, but it was Pakistan which submitted to UN that there is no Pak troops or Pak aid in state of J&K. Below is snippet from UN doc India Pakistan Question.

View attachment 632403

Secondly, it was not after first resolution that criteria changed, even in second resolution Jan 5 (if my memory is correct) resolution which was mutually agreed, there was no provision of Pak forces in J&k.

It was later when Pakistan realized its position is weaker and then got US support in lieu of Pak agreed to join US coalition, things changed. And India refused in his right to accept anything which was against the spirit of mutually agreed resolutions.





These trolls all around are infectious.

@ChennaiDude

Thats Ok- Its run as per their rules- 1st strike to Ban only because I did not agree to that narrative- all good.

 

[JonAsad]

How are you Jon? Hope all good and healthy !!

I am fine Alhamdolillah.. hows you? What was your previous handle?

 

[IMARV]

The key point is that the UNSC passed additional resolutions after taking into account the participation and presence of Pakistani military forces in Jammu & Kashmir, and those resolutions (as explained in the thread linked to) do not demand a unilateral, unconditional withdrawal of Pakistani forces.

I will rather stick to my promise of not commenting anything further on this topic in this thread.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You said Indians should be honest. I agreed. ButI showed a mirror that Pakistanis themselves are not honest.

If you are honest you would accept the points about Pakistan that I have listed.

If you're trying to imply that 'honesty' on the part of Pakistanis is to accept that the odds are stacked up against us in terms of resolving the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiris in a UN led plebiscite, I agree with you.

If you're trying to imply that 'honesty' on the part of Pakistanis is to not only accept that the odds are stacked against us but to ALSO give up fighting for the right of Kashmiris to choose their destiny in a plebiscite, then that is foolish and not going to happen.

Accepting that the odds are stacked against us does not mean we give up. We recognize the limitations & challenges facing us while continuing to work towards rectifying them and pushing for the Kashmiris to be allowed to vote in a plebiscite to resolve the dispute.

 

[IMARV]

I am fine Alhamdolillah.. hows you? What was your previous handle?

Old friend. Good to see you. I hope you work for a better named company now.

 

[JonAsad]

Old friend. Good to see you. I hope you work for a better named company now.

OMG .. haha yes i left that company.. come one what was your previous handle? ..

 

[Soumitra]

If you're trying to imply that 'honesty' on the part of Pakistanis is to accept that the odds are stacked up against them in terms of resolving the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiris in a UN led plebiscite, I agree with you.

If you're trying to imply that 'honesty' on the part of Pakistanis is to not only accept that the odds are stacked against them but to ALSO give up fighting for the right of Kashmiris to choose their destiny in a plebiscite, then that is foolish and not going to happen.

Accepting that the odds are stacked against us does not mean we give up. We recognize the limitations & challenges facing us while continuing to work towards rectifying them and pushing for the Kashmiris to be allowed to vote in a plebiscite to resolve the dispute.

Do you ever realise that more Pakistanis try to "help" Kashmiris the more difficult it becomes for them?

Starting with 1948. Had Pakistanis not tried to invade Kashmir, the Maharaja wouldn't have asked for India's help and Kashmir would have been an Independent kingdom which a few years down the line may even have joined Pakistan.

Had you not provided help in the insurgency the Indian Army wouldn't be in Kashmir and the current situation wouldn't have happened.

 

[xeuss]

Do you ever realise that more Pakistanis try to "help" Kashmiris the more difficult it becomes for them?

Starting with 1948. Had Pakistanis not tried to invade Kashmir, the Maharaja wouldn't have asked for India's help and Kashmir would have been an Independent kingdom which a few years down the line may even have joined Pakistan.

Had you not provided help in the insurgency the Indian Army wouldn't be in Kashmir and the current situation wouldn't have happened.

The problem with the statement of yours is that it refuses to acknowledge the fact that Kashmiris do not want to stay with India. It implies that this is a problem instigated by foreigners, and if those foreigners were to stop, this problem would go away.

You are not the only one harboring these beliefs. Almost all of India is.

Have you wondered why Pakistan was unable to instigate an uprising in Rajasthan or Gujarat, two states that share a long common border with Pakistan? Because there is no desire among the local population there to separate from India.