India shows image of martyred Kashmiri Army officer at UN, says Pakistan's 'true face not hidden fro

[SQ8]

This circus is degenerating into a pithiful trade of insults and semantics that the rest of the world is getting bored of.

The players that had to make statements did, other’s simply did not care.

However right now India and Pakistan are fighting for swaziland’s opinion

 

[Peshwa]

May be your security forces shouldn't be so ill disciplined and nonprofessional that they don't use guns meant for animals to attack young girls or using random people for human shield.

In the court of law, the violator perpetrating violence is tried for the crime. NOT the one defending! The forces are simply defending themselves and trying to maintain peace in the valley for other Kashmiris who don't subscribe to the method used by the violent protestors.
And no one attacked "young girls". It is minimal force being used to curb violent protestors. Protests where 16 year old girls have no business being in the first place.

That would solve a lot of issues.

Our forces didn't perpetrate the violence. The onus is on Kashmiris to protest peacefully.

We don't have any IOK like thingy here in Pakistan. My army is not stone pelted by its own people. Yeah they get attacked by armed and trained terrorists sponsored and supported by Afghanistan and India but then they are armed terrorists and not 16 year old unarmed girls.

That is not the question. The question is, if stone pelters start attacking the PA or Pak police, how does Pakistan deal with them? I want to see what you recommend as a reaction from your forces if they were put in this position. I don't want to hear about why its happening, because we can sit here for days pointing fingers.
The question here is, how should a force react in this situation? or how would your forces react?

That Fayaz guy whose death you keep exploiting to hide your crimes was a combatant himself and was part of Indian army. He was no civilian. He can't be compared to any civilian with or without stone in any manner. And not particularly to teenage kids whom we presented as proof of your crimes at UN. There is no equivalence between the both.

Actually yes there is!
Until the issue of Kashmir is resolved, the maintaince of law and order is Indian discretion.
So an attack on Indian forces is a crime and will be dealt with accordingly. So the minute protestors start pelting stones, they become combatants and it becomes our discretion to deal with them as we choose fit.
We have used minimum force in terms of pellet guns to deter this violence.
I see nothing wrong with it whatsoever. In fact I think it is commendable restraint shown by our forces.
The teenagers you're harping about are mere human shields that serve as propaganda tools for exactly the kind of misleading narrative your country wants to draw in the UN. They have no business being there and if they are, its their mistake not ours that they are now blinded or hurt.
IF YOURE AFRAID OF FIRE, DONT PLAY WITH MATCHES!

 

[Areesh]

In the court of law, the violator perpetrating violence is tried for the crime. NOT the one defending! The forces are simply defending themselves and trying to maintain peace in the valley for other Kashmiris who don't subscribe to the method used by the violent protestors.
And no one attacked "young girls". It is minimal force being used to curb violent protestors. Protests where 16 year old girls have no business being in the first place.

Forces have committed overwhelming crimes in the occupied territory. All documented even by India itself.

Shooting people to blind them is no minimal force. May be in fascist states like in India but not anywhere else. That land belongs to those 16 year old girls and not some random kumar or yadav from UP. They have all the business to be in their land.

That is not the question. The question is, if stone pelters start attacking the PA or Pak police, how does Pakistan deal with them? I want to see what you recommend as a reaction from your forces if they were put in this position. I don't want to hear about why its happening, because we can sit here for days pointing fingers.

There are water canon and other non lethal measures to handle that. Even if somehow casualties happen in some protest then we see investigations by our high court to bring perpetrators to justice like we are witnessing nowadays in Model Town incident of Lahore.

At least no pellets are used anywhere.

Actually yes there is!

Shooting pellets to kill or blind them is no law and order control. That is oppression to keep territory in occupation.

Protesters are considered protesters all over the world even if they go violent. You don't become a combatant just because you threw a stone over a force that your consider as occupier.

There is no justification for using pellets no matter how hard you try. Your country is trying to defend or hide its crimes against civilian by using death of its soldier in a disputed territory. It is a big joke in itself and shows India's flawed thought process.

 

[xyxmt]

What does Banyaistan expect the fate of their soldiers when they fight a war. If death of a soldier causes you such an unease then please go back to barracks and wait for an ambush from freedom fighters

 

[Sharpshooter12]

Still, wonder why they join to fight those terrorists?

They join the police force not out of their desire to fight "terrorists" or protect mother India but because it pays their bills.

Ever wonder why there was a million strong Indian army during British Raj? Did they all love British so much that they were willing to risk their lives. The answer is no, my grand father was in the British Indian army and he had no love for the British at all. It is just that there were not much career opportunities available to them.

Americans were able to create an Iraqi army after bombarding the hell out of that country, there was a Vietnamese force working with the US when the later was bombing villages of their countrymen with Napalm.

So again if you see Kashmiris joining the police force then that is certainly not for fighting the "Terrorists".

 

[SQ8]

This fellow joins the very force that is occupying his land, has shot,killed and raped his people.. and somehow is to be considered a moral example??

A few months ago a Hizb “militant” shot dead a Kashmiri man who was a prosecutor- the prosecutor worked for money rather than anything else..
The Hizb militant claimed he had killed an Indian collaborator but the truth was an honest man was killed because the Hizb militant was actually a petty theif who was going to be jailed due to the prosecutor.
The same day certain Indian military informants were killed, so the “militant” took this as a chance to get his revenge.

The prosecutor who was killed worked NOT for the Indians but for the occupied Kashmir state structure so he could make a living & maintain a sense of living. On social media, that prosecutor was out spoken against Indian excesses , so should we call him a collaborator?

Just an enemity between two men that had nothing to do with any conflict.

 

[oOo]

This fellow joins the very force that is occupying his land, has shot,killed and raped his people.. and somehow is to be considered a moral example??.

Perhaps that kashmiri dont believe India as an occupying force, rather see an opportunity to grow. Even going by the logic that the land is disputed, is there a scope for a different opinion to live in kashmir? Or they should meet the same fate as kashmiri pandits?

 

[SQ8]

Perhaps that kashmiri dont believe India as an occupying force, rather see an opportunity to grow. Even going by the logic that the land is disputed, is there a scope for a different opinion to live in kashmir? Or they should meet the same fate as kashmiri pandits?

Different opinions trump that of the Majority, these people can- like Kashmiri Pundits as the minority- choose to go to the other lands of the occupying country to whom they pledge their loyalty.
It is the history of new lands, nothing new about it.

 

[oOo]

Different opinions trump that of the Majority, these people can- like Kashmiri Pundits as the minority- choose to go to the other lands of the occupying country to whom they pledge their loyalty.
It is the history of new lands, nothing new about it.

Ahh, this argument doesn't differ much from "dont like us, leave or die". The "different opinion" is fairly backed by reasonably strong state, they seems not willing to leave their land. What is the option you suggest left for the perceived majority? Kill?

Going by the history especially Indian, might always conquered the lands, let it repeat then. Alas, those occupation didn't cause any harm to the reputation rather being taught as great empires. We are back to 1800 and before, sadly.

Oscar, lets open the gates once again, for people to move to land of their loyalty, if that's the new norm. Did we moved up the ladder of civilization or buried ourselves more into repression.

 

[Chhatrapati]

They join the police force not out of their desire to fight "terrorists" or protect mother India but because it pays their bills.

Ever wonder why there was a million strong Indian army during British Raj? Did they all love British so much that they were willing to risk their lives. The answer is no, my grand father was in the British Indian army and he had no love for the British at all. It is just that there were not much career opportunities available to them.

Americans were able to create an Iraqi army after bombarding the hell out of that country, there was a Vietnamese force working with the US when the later was bombing villages of their countrymen with Napalm.

So again if you see Kashmiris joining the police force then that is certainly not for fighting the "Terrorists".

Right, they are joining for a pay of mere Rs.5000+allowance. If you go do any layman jobs, you earn no less than Rs.500 per day.

During British raj there are not many jobs that pays well. save your British raj stories.

Also, how many of the people protest? There are more than 60% people who took part in general election. "Indian general election".