What point? You gave two shitty arguments in your last post --
1) That the Shimla Agreement has become old, so its fine to breach it, because you know....times change.. dafuq..!!
2) That it's fine for Pakistan to breach the Shimla Agreement because India breached the UN resolutions.
These above were your two “points ”. I countered them by these arguments respectively ---
★ If Shimla agreement can become breachable simply on the grounds of being a 35 years old treaty, then the same would apply to IWT, which is even older (46 years).
★ Your second argument rests on a lie. You seem to believe that It was India which refused to adhere to UN resolutions, while the truth is completely reverse.. It was actually Pakistan who refused to follow the UN recommendations and wanted only 1 out of the three UN-suggested steps to be taken (that too, only the third step, skipping the first two). Ulta Choir Kotwal ko daante...lol
No, I said no such thing. I said that if India can blatantly ignore international resolutions, so can Pakistan, in which case India has zero right to complain.
My point is simple, India's stance is hypocritical, nothing more.
My argument is based upon facts. These exact arguments of yours have been debated to death, but I'll go ahead and humor you.
First of all, you comparing the Simla agreement with the IWT is completely and utterly flawed, as both their circumstances are completely different. Non-implementation of the Simla agreement will result in political tensions, breaching of the IWT can and probably will result in a major war.
If my argument is based upon a lie, than your argument has even less hope of making any sense.
Next, India's stance is clear, they refuse to acknowledge the UN resolutions, which still stand to this day, regardless of the Simla agreement. Pakistan has made it clear that it will also follow the resolutions, so your entire point is moot.
"should've, could've, did in the past" is all you're arguing, when present ground reality is far different than what you claim.
You do realise that the UN resolutions are "non-binding"?
And the Simla Accord is an "agreement".
First of all, Christina Fair isn't a good anything, post better sources. Next, that is technically not true.
You do realise that the UN resolutions are "non-binding"?
And the Simla Accord is an "agreement".
Also, I've said this before, and I'll say it again, her account of history is very selective. She completely ignores Daud Khan's attempts at starting the Baluchi insurgency and Pashtunistan movement, and attempts to completely blame Pakistan. For her, history starts at when Pakistan fought back against Afghan aggression, which she claims is unjustified; It was completely justified, as Afghanistan twice sent paramilitary forces into Pakistan, in an attempt to seize control of FATA from Pakistan.
This idea that Pakistan is the cause of Afghanistan's mess is a myth, the truth is even the Soviets didn't cause this mess, it was Afghanistan itself that caused its own demise. By not recognizing Pakistan's existence, by trying to start two insurgencies, and succeeding in starting one (BLA), by trying to annex Pakistani territory, by continuing to this day to deny Pakistan exists, by inviting the Soviets into Afghanistan, by helping the Soviets to continue to try and destabilizing Pakistan's Baluchistan province.
She's has a lot of people fooled, even her own colleagues don't take her seriously.
In fact, just look at her twitter, she writes like she's a teenager. Her biases are quite obvious, and she has been criticized for just that.
