Indian Army killed a Kashmiri Muslim

[Erhabi]

Not very many Indians speak in the US. Only a few Sikhs here talk openly because they not cowards, but we banged them out bad.

In US Hindus refuse to speak about Kashmir. LOL

If i ever see any Indian talking bad against Kashmiri freedom fighters like they do over internet I will slap the shit out of him.But unfortunately they are cowards. They have been cowards for so long it got into their genes.

 

[Genghis khan1]

UN too is an agreement. Until one country says it is withdrawing officially from mutual agreement, it is binding over UN. International orders themselves aren't binding. In international scenario, it is might is right.
And here is right from ICJ judgement (I highlighted for easy reading)-

"The Court further regards Article 1 of the Simla Accord, paragraph (ii) of which provides, inter alia, that "the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them . . ." as an obligation, generally, on the two States to settle their differences by peaceful means, to be mutually agreed by them. The said provision in no way modifies the specific rules governing recourse to any such means, including judicial settlement. The Court cannot therefore accept Pakistan's argument in the present case based on estoppel.

Obligation to settle disputes by peaceful means (paras. 51-55)

Finally, the Court recalls that its lack of jurisdiction does not relieve States of their obligation to settle their disputes by peaceful means. The choice of those means admittedly rests with the parties under Article 33 of the United Nations Charter. They are nonetheless under an obligation to seek such a settlement, and to do so in good faith in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Charter. As regards India and Pakistan, that obligation was restated more particularly in the Simla Accord of 2 July 1972. Moreover, the Lahore Declaration of 21 February 1999 reiterated "the determination of both countries to implementing the Simla Agreement". Accordingly, the Court reminds the Parties of their obligation to settle their disputes by peaceful means, and in particular the dispute arising out of the aerial incident of 10 August 1999, in conformity with the obligations which they have undertaken."

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=585&p1=3&p2=3&case=119&p3=5

So, no, you can't run to UN if India doesn't agree to it, until simla agreement is in force.


Umm.. no, we proudly say kashmir is ours in US too... it was pakistani funded guy who went to jail for lobbying against india though...

I read all that, read the stated reasons above. Why it doesn't fall under ICJ. It was a divided decision. simla agreement has no binding rule over ICJ, they are just referring to other avenue of approach to do it peacefully.

 

[Panther421]

Not really,
What propaganda?

Kashmir a muslim majority state is occupied by dark foreign hindus from india, people who dont match oe represent the Kashmiris culture, faith or language

They should have been free after partition but you occupied them

There is no hate without reason and the occupation of Kashmir is reason enough, why blame salafis

Check again. It is off disputed territories since 2010. I have posted previous references about this from Dawn also. Suggest google it.

As for the second part, if the militant was from across LC (which was the case if I recall correctly) he was a 'spy' or a 'saboteur' who was illegally in the country hence not covered under Geneva Convention. If he was a Kashmiri, he took up arms against a sovereign nation and was dealt with by the security forces under provision of the CrPC 1973 of Republic of India in conjunction with the Army Act (the same act which we both have inherited from the British and which is what PA also uses to set up its own military courts to hang those who bear arms against Pakistan; hence legally justified) ... he is not liable for protection under any law as long as he bears arms against the Union.

So either way, he was not covered.

Thanks



For bold part, you are continuously making racist slurs, if you are white or brown or green, don't care but desist, there are ample choicest words which can be used for you, but that shall derail a thread ... @WAJsal I have reported him for 2 consecutive days on making racist slurs, it does not matter how emotive he gets over Kashmir. Please deal with it.

@Panther421 you need to tell him that there is a Naga accord and permanent settlement with NSCN (IM) group, Khaplang is pro-china joker (will be dealt by NSCN-IM and IA/AR as needed), the Naga issue is over. Assam - the problem is the Muslim migration from Bangladesh ... there is a local backlash against that - nothing against India, recent results of state elections will show what Assam wants not what his wishes want.

Also, you need to tell him that Pakistan will be systematically dismembered. That is now the long term aim of India ..... keeping below the threshold of war.

They have the biggest example as whole Assam voted nationalist BJP with majority... There is no such movement going on or rising & wouldn't happen in future further..
On the other side Zeliang’s Naga People’s Front is an NDA ally, persuading all groups in the Assembly. All things are settled.

Pakistanis are badly brainwashed by local media & their comedy debates with govt made stats..

 

[Sneaker]

I read all that, read the stated reasons above. Why it doesn't fall under ICJ. It was a divided decision. simla agreement has no binding rule over ICJ, they are just referring to other avenue of approach to do it peacefully.

Well, then I had to take your word against ICJs (which is saying it does). They clearly said ICJ has no jurisdiction due to this. No one asked them about any other avenue. Pak wanted compensation and India said ICJ has no role. India won (btw). And divided ruling? UAE (i think) and pakistani descent is not as much divided as you want to be.

 

[terry5]

I respect your right to stay in denial.

by not answering questions put to you i'd say denials your middle name

 

[Genghis khan1]

Well, then I had to take your word against ICJs (which is saying it does). They clearly said ICJ has no jurisdiction due to this. No one asked them about any other avenue. Pak wanted compensation and India said ICJ has no role. India won (btw). And divided ruling? UAE (i think) and pakistani descent is not as much divided as you want to be.

ICJ didn't listen the case. It not India presented the case and won. It just said we cannot judge.

 

[Hellfire]

They have the biggest example as whole Assam voted nationalist BJP with majority... There is no such movement going on or rising & wouldn't happen in future further..
On the other side Zeliang’s Naga People’s Front is an NDA ally, persuading all groups in the Assembly. All things are settled.

Pakistanis are badly brainwashed by local media & their comedy debates with govt made stats..

Thats why you need to tell him that. Beat with facts and logic. Don't bother about nonsense and rants. You will have fun that ways. And you will less likely derail a thread. Don't engage a troll/rant. Move on after posting only facts and references where required.

Cheers and have fun.

 

[Zibago]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap...ers-raise-Pakistani-flags-Indian-Kashmir.html

 

[Sneaker]

ICJ didn't listen the case. It not India presented the case and won. It just said we cannot judge.

Which part of "India argued that ICJ had no jurisdiction and won" is difficult to understand. India conested saying ICJ had no jurisdiction because of shimla agreement, which says any differences must be peacefully resolved between 2 countries by "mutually agreed" method. India didn't agree to ICJ mediation. ICJ agreed that if India doesn't want ICJ mediation, ICJ can't take up the case. UN too have to go by that..

 

[Genghis khan1]

Which part of "India argued that ICJ had no jurisdiction and won" is difficult to understand. India conested saying ICJ had no jurisdiction because of shimla agreement, which says any differences must be peacefully resolved between 2 countries by "mutually agreed" method. India didn't agree to ICJ mediation. ICJ agreed that if India doesn't want ICJ mediation, ICJ can't take up the case. UN too have to go by that..

So, the actual case wasn't heard. who was right or who was wrong in downing of plane. Is it hard to understand? idk ICJ chater, not sure if they are same as useless like UN over things. But it was a divided division, not take the case.

 

[Sneaker]

So, the actual case wasn't heard. who was right or who was wrong in downing of plane. Is it hard to understand? idk ICJ chater, not sure if they are same as useless like UN over things. But it was a divided division, not take the case.

Yes, it is really hard for me to understand because we were discussing why UN has no role until shimla agreement is in force and not who is right/wrong in shooting atlantique. That incident only came up as a confirmation from an UN body that it doesn't have any role between India and Pak if both parties do not agree to its mediation.. in court cases, it is the final ruling which counts, divide or not. Since both the parties get to nominate 1 judge, every case will be "divided"...
It is not to say that India couldn't have won if actual case was heard, because there is a restriction on military flight with 10 km of IB.

 

[Genghis khan1]

Yes, it is really hard for me to understand because we were discussing why UN has no role until shimla agreement is in force and not who is right/wrong in shooting atlantique. That incident only came up as a confirmation from an UN body that it doesn't have any role between India and Pak if both parties do not agree to its mediation.. in court cases, it is the final ruling which counts, divide or not. Since both the parties get to nominate 1 judge, every case will be "divided"...
It is not to say that India couldn't have won if actual case was heard, because there is a restriction on military flight with 10 km of IB.

UN has it own charter, bilateral agreements don't dictates UN charter. If world going down the drain for WW-III, UN will not sit back and wait for countries to solve it bilaterally. It just that UN is bit slow and useless due to international politics. but if get so useless to prevent wars, then it will automatically get dissolved like the league of nations did before it.

 

[I S I]

Khoon to phir khoon hai..
Gire ga to jum jaega.



Lakh laanat Indian Har-army

 

[Grevion]

Then how can you say that Army is clean and the dead was a militant ???

Because unlike what your media claims Indian army does not goes on a killing spree. Instead they put their efforts in saving the local kashmiris in calamities like flood, etc.
What made you think the dead was a local Kashmiri? The opening post of the op?

 

[RealNapster]

What made you think the dead was a local Kashmiri? The opening post of the op?

I didn't make any claim. it was you remember ?