Indian Army Continues to Use Civilians as Shield Along LOC

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

they are terrorists and they got though lesson of their lives too hisab braber

That too by a foe that is more than 7× smaller than it.............

 

[Krptonite]

That too by a foe that is more than 7× smaller than it.............

I'm going to request credible, verifiable, trusted sources for your claims.

If you could provide links as well, that would be swell.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Most relevant.

This is not the Abdullah in chains posting, this is his self-appointed agent. So what you had said and done in the past is most relevant.

Only if you wish to assassinate my character and ignore the substance of my posts. Even if you can prove I'm a broken clock, I'm still right twice a day. Do continue.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Of course. It is nice to see your new-found enthusiasm for those whom you despatched with disdain only days before. The facts were what they are today, and never changed. It was your postures and attitudes that changed.

What also remains true is that we are continuing to waltz up and down a circuitous garden path without you at any point addressing the crux of the matter or the topic of the thread. That's fine by us. It's not exactly a new tactic around these parts.

 

[Shantanu_Left]

indian army have shamelessly did human shield work like no other army on earth

It's a very sad picture, Sir. Shame on that specific Indian army unit for using that innocent boy as a human shield. There are other harmless ways to discourage stone-throwers and local miscreants which I believe was the excuse given.

 

[Shantanu_Left]

This is the meeting room in the Admiralty.

View attachment 659941​

And this is the weather vane on top of the building that is carried through and displayed in the meeting room, so that members meeting may know in which direction the wind lies.

My point was different. I am toying with a new idea: perhaps, Indians as a cultural group, are not really fit for democracy.

The country is teetering near fascism. I don't see any real alternative to BJP in a very long time (despite my sincerest wishes to the contrary).

We have seen examples of fascism OR military dictatorships closer home: in Pakistan, Nepal, Maldives, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh (not sure about them), Myanmar, Thailand.

Like it or not, Indians are greatly influenced by the neighborhood. So, one-man rule is something that Indians have accepted recently. The current generation of Indians are just not capable of democratic governance. They can't struggle much against adversity. They don't have the stomach for a fight on the streets.

Recently, Belarus President Lukashenko "won" the country's elections with 76 percent vote share. Narendra Modi will find that kind of election model very lucrative, and worth emulating.

Even if Modi somehow dies, there are other BJP big wigs to replace him.

The RSS-Hindutvadi takeover of India seems complete at the moment.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I'm going to request credible, verifiable, trusted sources for your claims.

If you could provide links as well, that would be swell.

He never can. That is the hilarious part of it.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Only if you wish to assassinate my character and ignore the substance of my posts.

I beg your pardon. Where did you find the character assassination in this factual statement?

1. Is @masterchief_mirza now the online identity of Dr. Farooq Abdullah? If not, then that was not his post.
2. Was the post made on his behalf, IF it is not he making the post? If so, the role is that of an agent, as defined and supported by an enormous body of legal rulings.
3. Did he appoint the agent? We have to request that any assertion to this effect should be supported by credible, verifiable, trusted proof, preferably not by reference to the media.
   If such proof is not available, then you have to be self-appointed.

There is NO character assassination, moreover, in the absence of a protagonist.

 

[Joe Shearer]

What also remains true is that we are continuing to waltz up and down a circuitous garden path without you at any point addressing the crux of the matter or the topic of the thread.

I have addressed it already but cannot provide individual responses. The inconvenience is regretted.

 

[Joe Shearer]

indian army have shamelessly did human shield work like no other army on earth

This particular act is deeply shameful, both in it being committed, and in the fallout, and the totally negative role of the then COAS.

I deeply regret it, as a patriotic Indian.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

I beg your pardon. Where did you find the character assassination in this factual statement?

1. Is @masterchief_mirza now the online identity of Dr. Farooq Abdullah? If not, then that was not his post.
2. Was the post made on his behalf, IF it is not he making the post? If so, the role is that of an agent, as defined and supported by an enormous body of legal rulings.
3. Did he appoint the agent? We have to request that any assertion to this effect should be supported by credible, verifiable, trusted proof, preferably not by reference to the media.
   If such proof is not available, then you have to be self-appointed.

There is NO character assassination, moreover, in the absence of a protagonist.

Ok I'll spell it out for you. Here's your post:

"Most relevant.

This is not the Abdullah in chains posting, this is his self-appointed agent. So what you had said and done in the past is most relevant."

Your inference here is that my past statements and criticisms about the puppet government of occupied Kashmir preclude me from supporting Abdullah senior's specific position regarding the summary arrest and detention without charge of him and others in the build-up to 5th August 2019's declaration (viz the infamous line "this is not my India").

You are effectively saying that because I criticise certain actions of these individuals, I am not in a justifiable position to support them under any circumstances. I contest your assertion sir.

If for example you defecated on my lawn today I would criticise you for it and press charges and recommend an appropriate detox programme for you to help mitigate the most likely causative factor resulting in said behaviour. Now if tomorrow, some zealous police officer arrests you on trumped up or false charges of defecating on the queen of England's lawn (which I knew to be false), I would be within my rights to defend you and my previous antagonism of or altercation with you should not preclude me from judging your specific actions at a specific point in time within their own context.

 

[Joe Shearer]

If for example you defecated on my lawn today I would criticise you for it and press charges and recommend an appropriate detox programme for you to help mitigate the most likely causative factor resulting in said behaviour.

Let me forestall your flights of fancy by refusing to defecate on your lawn. Now that such 'said' behaviour is absent, your post is - shall we say? - top heavy. A radical change from its former bottom-heavy state.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Now if tomorrow, some zealous police officer arrests you on trumped up or false charges of defecating on the queen of England's lawn (which I knew to be false), I would be within my rights to defend you and my previous antagonism of or altercation with you should not preclude me from judging your specific actions at a specific point in time within their own context.

All this fanfarronade implies that there is a criminal act involved on either occasion. Another weak link in an already feeble chain.

The essential character of the situation is that taking offence in the first case was all that could be done, and was, and is, remains far from any plausible crime except to your refined sensibilities. To dismiss that offence and to leap to defend the offender against being seen to have given more offence elsewhere merely shows that the original offence was ephemeral, and only concocted to maintain a front of entitlement to take offence.

In plain terms, your right to object to Abdullah in the first place was self-awarded; your right to defend him in his present condition is nowhere disabled, as it is equally self-awarded, but it is impugned by your former postures.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

All this fanfarronade implies that there is a criminal act involved on either occasion. Another weak link in an already feeble chain.

The essential character of the situation is that taking offence in the first case was all that could be done, and was, and is, remains far from any plausible crime except to your refined sensibilities. To dismiss that offence and to leap to defend the offender against being seen to have given more offence elsewhere merely shows that the original offence was ephemeral, and only concocted to maintain a front of entitlement to take offence.

In plain terms, your right to object to Abdullah in the first place was self-awarded; your right to defend him in his present condition is nowhere disabled, as it is equally self-awarded, but it is impugned by your former postures.

Come on Joe. You and I both know that what's ephemeral or not doesn't make a difference to the underlying principle under scrutiny here - that even if Abdullah was morally wrong and foolish to be a lackey all his life, it doesn't mean summary incarceration of him by his patrons without charge is suddenly defensible from an Indian perspective. This is the behaviour that India regards itself as being above, purely by virtue of being "democratic". It makes no difference who is pointing this fundamental failure of due process out to Hindustan - the facts of the matter are not diminished and those facts remain self evident for all to see. The truth stands out clearly from falsehood.

That India is actually behaving within the remit of Indian law is a stark reminder of how dangerous the tools of statecraft and legislative powers are in the hands of delusional sociopaths.

Please continue with the lexical misdirection if you wish though. We all like learning new words that have no actual relevance to the points being discussed.

 

[Shantanu_Left]

This particular act is deeply shameful, both in it being committed, and in the fallout, and the totally negative role of the then COAS.

I deeply regret it, as a patriotic Indian.

See, his heart is in the right place. There are some Pakistanis on this thread who were almost accusing Joe of being complicit in what happened to that unfortunate Kashmiri kid. As far as I know, he lived to tell that tale and is safe now. I sincerely hope he never has to go through another harrowing event, and should be invited on Indian TV channels to share his ordeal. But the Indian lamestream media is as much complicit in that particular crime, so we'll never hear about that boy's version of the story in Indian media.

Ordinary Indians will NEVER support what happened to that poor boy. We are horrified to learn what he went through. This's something the Pakistanis here sometimes just don't get.