Indian occupational army has started a genocide in Pulwama. Occupied Kashmir

[ranjeet]

Translation of above:
India is willing to oppress and kill ethnic Kashmiri's just for land, leaving them only the choice of slavery or death.

And by the way, the follow up, you sure that isn't Karma in response?



At the very least 250000, up to a maximum of 700000. Lets put it that.

Can you imagine, half a million soldiers with guns and vests deployed to Kashmir only to control what you Indians claim 'a couple or few hundred left militants'. They're not there to control the freedom fighters, they are there to control the entire Muslim population of Kashmiri's. And half a million, is a massive figure, it's slightly less than the active personnel serving in Pakistan Army.

Make it what you would like we are here n you would b getting similar news for the foreseeable future

 

[Verve]

About time we start supplying arms to Kashmiris.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Are your freedom fighters classified as terror organisations by UN ? YES
.

The UN has no internationally agreed definition of terrorism and the reason is that some organizations (OIC, Arab League etc.) define terrorism to exclude "armed struggle for liberation" and "self-determination". The member countries (of these organisations) won't accept any definition of terrorism which may declare Palestinian Freedom Fighters as Terrorists. This Dead Lock continues to this day and the UN has not adopted the convention on international terrorism.

So, as long as the UN does not "define" terrorism, the Kashmiri Freedom Fighters cannot be declared Terrorists ..... Their insurgency cannot be declared legitimate either .....


As far as International Law is concerned, the Statute of the International Court of Justice does recognize the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations as a valid source of International Law. This category may also include the work of organizations and private institutions. Opinions expressed by experts carry significant weight in International Law.


And here is what some experts on International Law have to say regarding the Kashmiri Freedom Fighters:


(The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) is an international human rights non-governmental organization based in Geneva. The Commission itself is a standing group of 60 eminent jurists(including senior judges, attorneys and academics) dedicated to ensuring respect for international human rights standards through the law. Commissioners are known for their experience, knowledge and fundamental commitment to human rights.)


ICJ sent a fact finding mission to Kashmir in 1995. The final report published not only challenged the accession of Kashmir to India, it went on to say "If as the ICJ mission has concluded , the people of Kashmir have a right for self determination, it follows that their insurgency is legitimate " ... (p.84-98)

http://www.icj.org/category/publications/reports/page/33/

 

[Kaniska]

Unfortunate incidents that should be avoided..At the time of encounter, these people should stay at home..

 

[American Pakistani]

Actually shame on Pakistan... You could do nothing except mouth service to Kashmir..

At least Pakistan is dispatching the souls of these 7 lakh indian occupier terrorists to hell.

Hardly a genocide. It's a drop compared to what Pakistan did in Bangladesh, now that was a real genocide. One doesn't even have to look as far back as 1970s for Pakistan's atrocities. That Zarb e crap killed thousands of civilians.

There is no proof of your lies about Bangladesh.

Yes Zarb e Azb killed thousands of bharti civilians who came to Pakistan to commit terrorism.

 

[M. Sarmad]

LOL at the title & OP , genocide my foot !!
.

The definition of "Genocide" as laid out at the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide



Article II classifies genocide as: ‘Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group’.
http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_analysis_framework.pdf

The phrase "in whole or in part" in the UN definition of Genocide is important. Perpetrators need not intend to destroy the entire group. Destruction of only part of a group such as its educated members, or members living in one region is also genocide. Most authorities require intent to destroy a substantial number of group members – mass murder. But an individual criminal may be guilty of genocide even if he kills only one person, so long as he knew he was participating in a larger plan to destroy the group.

http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm





Genocide is the culmination of a specific set of circumstances in which both the mens rea (mental element) – meaning the ‘intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such’ – and the actus reus (physical element) – any of the five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e above – are present.
(Otto Triffterer, ‘Genocide, its particular intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the group as such’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 14 (2001), 399.)


In a sense, then, it is the intent behind a killing that determines whether an act could be classed as genocide. Indeed, as former Secretary General of Medecins Sans Frontieres Raphael Destexhe once asserted, ‘genocide is distinguishable from all other crimes by the motivation behind it’.
(Analysis: defining genocide’, BBC News, 27-08-10, available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11108059,(16-04-14)

 

[Signalian]

Sure I can,
Yes I refer to people as in Indians,
These Indians for their political reason represent a fringe minority which indulges in anti state activities, such as intervening in security operations. Security forces have time and again maintained restraint, but given that security operatives are being put in precarious position they (in my opinion) were right to resort to use force in this case as these civilians were posing a security risk to an active combat situation. I wasn't there at the operation so cannot comment on how these casualties ensued, but I have long maintained treating belligerent public trying to shelter, aid and abet terrorist (freedom fighters for some) is a direct act against the state machinery and should not be treated with kid gloves anymore.

If anything we have been very careful of collateral damage, in war on terrorism, others don't flinch ramming down a hellfire missile down the suspected combatants home, right?

In short, Indians in kashmir want freedom from India. Understood.

 

[MilSpec]

In short, Indians in kashmir want freedom from India. Understood.

thanks for strengthening the typical stereotype.