Pakistan has become the face of international terrorism: India at UN

[Jackdaws]

LOL yeah a message for Indian audience only.

We will find out if the world listens to India or Pakistan soon enough - by when do you reckon will UN appoint a "UN Envoy for Kashmir" as pleaded by Pakistan?

 

[I.R.A]

bean sack? Usually they are much bigger than beans? Is it hereditary? Do the world a favour and never breed mate. Don't want to pass on the tiny beans down eh

I can understand your obsession with the size and words like tiny ........... must be excruciating to look small, feel small.

If a thing like you could be brought to this world and accepted .............. I can produce better. Don't you worry my curly unwanted bean sack hair..

 

[RIP Pak LAW]

We will find out if the world listens to India or Pakistan soon enough - by when do you reckon will UN appoint a "UN Envoy for Kashmir" as pleaded by Pakistan?

Dude we already know effectiveness of UN so calling names to a country is being childish especially in response.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Usual rants by retarded Indians

Kashmir remains on the agenda of the UN Security Council as an unresolved international dispute; an internationally recognized disputed territory whose accession (to India or Pakistan) is yet to be decided ...... The out-of-control Indian barking isn't going to change anything.

 

[Jackdaws]

Dude we already know effectiveness of UN so calling names to a country is being childish especially in response.

If you know the effectiveness - why raise it there in the first place? Both sides made their positions clear and both have completely different narratives on the same issue. The twain shall never meet.

Usual rants by retarded Indians

Kashmir remains an unresolved international dispute on the agenda of the UNSC; an internationally recognized disputed territory whose accession is yet to be decided ...... The out-of-control Indian barking isn't going to change anything.

Of course it is unresolved. It is paramount that Pakistan vacate the territory so India can maintain a force there and conduct a plebiscite. Let us know when you are doing that.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Of course it is unresolved. It is paramount that Pakistan vacate the territory so India can maintain a force there and conduct a plebiscite. Let us know when you are doing that.

Pakistan is under no obligation to unilaterally vacate any territory. Pakistan had never refused to begin withdrawing its troops as soon as the UN Commission notified it, but the Commission never notified Pakistan as India didn't accept any demilitarization plan proposed by the Commission. The UN appointed official mediator blamed India (and not Pakistan) for halting the process ... Try again

 

[RIP Pak LAW]

If you know the effectiveness - why raise it there in the first place? Both sides made their positions clear and both have completely different narratives on the same issue. The twain shall never meet.

We will raise the issue all the time but in civilized manner unlike crying child.

 

[Jackdaws]

Pakistan is under no obligation to unilaterally vacate any territory. Pakistan had never refused to begin withdrawing its troops as soon as the UN Commission notified it, but the Commission never notified Pakistan as India didn't accept any demilitarization plan proposed by the Commission. The UN appointed official mediator blamed India (and not Pakistan) for halting the process ... Try again

Umm - no. Actually it is obligated to remove all its nationals.

https://undocs.org/S/RES/47(1948)

 

[M. Sarmad]

Umm - no. Actually it is obligated to remove all its nationals.

https://undocs.org/S/RES/47(1948)

Well, denial ain't just a river in Egypt ...


From Horse's mouth:

"In the end, I became convinced that India`s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation, and other forms of abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled." (Para 52 of Document S/1971)



Sir Owen Dixon, the prominent Australian jurist, was a UN appointed official mediator between India and Pakistan. He met with the Indian and Pakistani officials many times to discuss the demilitarization process and exercise of the functions of government during plebiscite period (necessary for holding a free and fair plebiscite). But India was not willing to agree to any form of demilitarization (or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite that were necessary for holding a free and fair plebiscite) and that's why, in the final report submitted by him to the Security Council, he blamed India for halting the process.

 

[Imran Khan]

every year these two countries go there for blame each other and come back empty hands

 

[ito]

Great reply...Eenam Gambhir is becoming a star.

Forget India, even Afghanistan representative was similarly harsh on Pakistan. Pakistan should change or risk being isolated further.

 

[Jackdaws]

Well, denial ain't just a river in Egypt ...


From Horse's mouth:

"In the end, I became convinced that India`s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation, and other forms of abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled." (Para 52 of Document S/1971)



Sir Owen Dixon, the prominent Australian jurist, was a UN appointed official mediator between India and Pakistan. He met with the Indian and Pakistani officials many times to discuss the demilitarization process and exercise of the functions of government during plebiscite period (necessary for holding a free and fair plebiscite). But India was not willing to agree to any form of demilitarization (or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite that were necessary for holding a free and fair plebiscite) and that's why, in the final report submitted by him to the Security Council, he blamed India for halting the process.

Can I get this source - so I can read it?

 

[Diggy]

UNITED NATIONS: India today ripped into Pakistan, describing it as "terroristan" and a land of "pure terror" that hosts a flourishing industry to produce and export global terrorism.

In a no-holds-barred speech at the UN General Assembly, India's representative said it is extraordinary that the state which protected Osama Bin Laden and sheltered Mullah Omar should have the gumption to play the victim.

India was exercising its right to reply after Pakistan Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi raked up the Kashmir issue at the General Assembly.

"By now, all Pakistan's neighbours are painfully familiar with these tactics to create a narrative based on distortions, deception and deceit," Eenam Gambhir, a First Secretary in the Permanent Mission of India to the UN, said, asserting that efforts at creating alternative facts do not change reality.

"In its short history, Pakistan has become a geography synonymous with terror," she said.

Playing on the country's name, which means "land of pure," she said the quest for a land of pure has actually produced 'the land of pure terror'. Pakistan is now 'Terroristan', with a flourishing industry producing and exporting global terrorism," she said.


Gambhir noted that Pakistan's current state can be gauged from the fact that Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, a leader of the United nations designated terrorist organisation Lashkar-e- Taiba, is now sought to be legitimised as a leader of a political party.

She said that Pakistan's counter-terrorism policy is to mainstream and upstream terrorists by either providing safe havens to global terror leaders in its military towns, or protecting them with "political careers".

"The state of Jammu and Kashmir is and will always remain an integral part of lndia. However much it scales up cross- border terrorism, it will never succeed in undermining India's territorial integrity," she said.

Earlier, Abbasi accused India of indulging in terror activities against his country and warned of a "matching response" if it "ventures across the LoC" or acts upon its "doctrine of limited war against Pakistan."

He urged the United Nations to appoint a special envoy to Kashmir, claiming that the struggle of the people in the region is being "brutally suppressed" by India.

He also claimed that there are no Taliban safe havens in Pakistan.

"Having suffered and sacrificed so much due to our role in the global counter terrorism campaign, it is especially galling for Pakistan to be blamed for the military or political stalemate in Afghanistan," Abbasi said.

Attacking Pakistan, Gambhir said having diverted billions of dollars in international military and development aid towards creating a "dangerous infrastructure of terror" on its own territory, Pakistan is now speaking of the high cost of its terror industry.

"The polluter, in this case, is paying the price," she said.

"Even as terrorists thrive in Pakistan and roam its streets with impunity, we have heard it lecture about the protection of human rights in India. The world does not need lessons on democracy and human rights from a country whose own situation is charitably described as a failed state," Gambhir said.

"Terroristan is in fact a territory whose contribution to the globalisation of terror is unparalleled. Pakistan can only be counseled to abandon a destructive worldview that has caused grief to the entire world. If it could be persuaded to demonstrate any commitment to civilization, order, and to peace, it may still find some acceptance in the comity of nations," she said.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...calls-it-terroristan/articleshow/60790046.cms

 

[Reichsmarschall]

Dehati Orat at it again

 

[Diggy]

Dehati Orat at it again

It was the pakistani PM complaining as usual at UN , india just responded in style to your rants