Pakistan, India have a lot to gain from mutually beneficial trade: Shehbaz Sharif

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Nobody does any more, in Pakistan, except internet warriors dwelling far from Pakistan. Or Kashmir.


Perhaps all three, if those criteria are the ones you choose to apply. The population we are talking about is an absolute majority within Kashmir.

Perhaps you need to search for stupid sentences some more.

Sure they don't, because you have been to Pakistan so many times and know the REAL ground realities. indian FAKE NEWS strikes again......... :

Pro-Indian 'fake websites targeted decision makers in Europe'

Fake sites and groups lobbying for India influenced decision makers in Europe, researchers say.

www.bbc.co.uk

EU NGO report uncovers Indian disinformation campaign

EU DisinfoLab’s report a ‘deep dive into a 15-year operation targeting the EU and UN to serve Indian interests’.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[K_Bin_W]

The ICJ doesn't have much power if at all over other countries and their sovereignty, their official verdict is as useless as a piece of paper. See it as the equivalent of the UN, also I can actually give the benefit of the doubt to Indians on this one as there is no hard evidence of Jadhav sponsoring terrorism besides a (forced) confession. But Pakistan will probably hold onto him as a bargaining chip and to present him to the masses as "evidence" of (imaginary) "Indian state sponsored terrorism"

I know ICJ has zero jurisdiction, case in point Germany vs USA something similar as India/Pak, US gave a mid-fig salute to ICJ and told them they have no business for a crime committed in USA. But since India went to ICJ of course with full collaboration of NS we have no choice but to abide by ICJ rules or we should not have gone there in the 1st place.

 

[Joe Shearer]

But the ICJ verdict does not challenge the verdict, you do understand that they rejected Indian plea out right the guilty verdict still stands it only asked Pak to reconsider, Since India went to ICJ the ball is in the Indian court to appoint legal counsel which it has not despite repeated request by Pak.

I'm sorry, read it again, the verdict said that the Indian submissions 'could not be upheld.' The court, in other words, said it was powerless. What it had in mind about the argument made by India is quite clear in what followed, a suggestion that Pakistan do whatever seemed fit to be done to conduct a re-trial.

Think about it.

If there was nothing wrong with the Pakistani position, and if the Indian appeal was to be rejected, why should any court acting in its senses tag on that request for a re-conduct of the trial?

 

[Joe Shearer]

I know ICJ has zero jurisdiction, case in point Germany vs USA something similar as India/Pak, US gave a mid-fig salute to ICJ and told them they have no business for a crime committed in USA. But since India went to ICJ of course with full collaboration of NS we have no choice but to abide by ICJ rules or we should not have gone there in the 1st place.

True.

But you went, you got told to conduct a re-trial, and we are now faced with the loser in a kid's game angry with the whole situation and threatening to go home with the ball.

 

[Faqirze]

But you went, you got told to conduct a re-trial, and we are now faced with the loser in a kid's game angry with the whole situation and threatening to go home with the ball.

If Pakistan gave Jadhav a fair trial, he would have been long acquitted by now. But unfortunately "justice" is non existent in the political realm, life is unfair.

 

[K_Bin_W]

I'm sorry, read it again, the verdict said that the Indian submissions 'could not be upheld.' The court, in other words, said it was powerless. What it had in mind about the argument made by India is quite clear in what followed, a suggestion that Pakistan do whatever seemed fit to be done to conduct a re-trial.

Think about it.

If there was nothing wrong with the Pakistani position, and if the Indian appeal was to be rejected, why should any court acting in its senses tag on that request for a re-conduct of the trial?

You are not getting the point and taking out of the context, You pick ICJ rulings that suit you, and the rest that doesn't is hogwash. Since this case ended up in ICJ and ICJ passed its verdict what is stopping India from moving forward with it?

True.

But you went, you got told to conduct a re-trial, and we are now faced with the loser in a kid's game angry with the whole situation and threatening to go home with the ball.

On the contrary, It's quite the opposite, India after making a ruckus is now gone very quiet, I wonder why.

 

[Wiler87]

Are you retarded, senile or just Indian???

How the Fûck are you asking a minority to get it's right through "votes" ???? stupidest sentence I've ever read .....

Why should any religious affiliation be considered a "minority" ? why not any caste affiliation ? or club membership ? or sport affiliation ?

Everybody is part of some minority group. What makes one minority group more valuable than some other minority group ?

Such self declared "minority" deserve no special privilege.

There are plenty of minority groups who has done very well in India and are tremendously empowered despite being a Minority vote bank.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I know ICJ has zero jurisdiction, case in point Germany vs USA something similar as India/Pak, US gave a mid-fig salute to ICJ and told them they have no business for a crime committed in USA. But since India went to ICJ of course with full collaboration of NS we have no choice but to abide by ICJ rules or we should not have gone there in the 1st place.

True.

But you went, you got told to conduct a re-trial, and we are now faced with the loser in a kid's game angry with the whole situation and threatening to go home with the ball.

You are not getting the point and taking out of the context, You pick ICJ rulings that suit you, and the rest that doesn't is hogwash. Since this case ended up in ICJ and ICJ passed its verdict what is stopping India from moving forward with it?

Simply that India was not told to do anything by the court; it gave explicit suggestions to the other party. Why would any court in the world ask a lower court to reconsider a verdict? In order to clean up the spelling?

On the contrary, It's quite the opposite, India after making a ruckus is now gone very quiet, I wonder why.

Simply because there is nothing left to do.

Here are two parties, one appealing the processes used by the other.

The court says it can't do anything about it, but suggests that the second party figure out how to correct the situation. How much plainer do you want it to be?

we have no choice but to abide by ICJ rules or we should not have gone there in the 1st place.

Then why doesn't Pakistan do what it has been asked to do? instead of sulking about it?

 

[Jackdaws]

The right of the people to decide their own future

They can. Through the ballot.

 

[Krptonite]

Sorry, Pakistani emotions get high. Please look at the posts. Indians are happy selling at the wanted price to intermediaries in the Middle East, mostly Pakistanis, who then add their own margins and import into Pakistan.

Why should Indian businessmen bother?

We should bother because our energy needs run cheaply through Pakistan. 1.3 billion dependant on fossil fuels. Costs we HAVE to incur, even a fraction saved cascades down to billions saved. We currently pay a premium to buy oil from middle East states for being a poor nation. The developed countries pay no such levies. Energy links through Pakistan are an inbuilt geographic asset we could greatly benefit from.

As for the indian businessmen, we have like roughly 1/3 our population on both our sides with similar needs, market trends, and located at the most efficient trade routes our factories can benefit from. From a growth perspective, it is a missed opportunity and in the face of prevalent poverty, a travesty.

Rich nations go out of their way to maximize benefits and here we are wishing to achieve parity with them whilst ignoring growing markets right next door.

But how can this happen with the present horror show running India.

We start by recognising that proprietor traders are in a realm different from politics and if left alone might give unexpected results.

Let the mom and pop stores increase economic activity by trading at the most efficient economic ways they can. Let natural economic sense permeate enough to push a way out of this stalemate.

 

[Joe Shearer]

We should bother because our energy needs run cheaply through Pakistan. 1.3 billion dependant on fossil fuels. Costs we HAVE to incur, even a fraction saved cascades down to billions saved. We currently pay a premium to buy oil from middle East states for being a poor nation. The developed countries pay no such levies. Energy links through Pakistan are an inbuilt geographic asset we could greatly benefit from.

That is hypothetical. Even when the Iranians wanted to lay a pipeline across the sea-bed, the planning had to be carefully done to ensure that it was outside the EEZ for Pakistan. We will never get any agreement on that.

On the other hand, on most counts, the Pakistani importer gets what he wants, the Indian exporter gets what HE wants, and some nice guys in between are as happy as larks.

If it ain't broke, why fix it?

 

[K_Bin_W]

True.

But you went, you got told to conduct a re-trial, and we are now faced with the loser in a kid's game angry with the whole situation and threatening to go home with the ball.

Simply that India was not told to do anything by the court; it gave explicit suggestions to the other party. Why would any court in the world ask a lower court to reconsider a verdict? In order to clean up the spelling?


Simply because there is nothing left to do.

Here are two parties, one appealing the processes used by the other.

The court says it can't do anything about it, but suggests that the second party figure out how to correct the situation. How much plainer do you want it to be?


Then why doesn't Pakistan do what it has been asked to do? instead of sulking about it?

India went ranting and raving to ICJ asking for the release of Jadhav and facilitating his safe passage to India but was rejected by the court, Is this so hard to comprehend...., Instead of focusing on the court's verdict threw a few tantrums and went back like a good little boy. Pak has complied with ICJ verdict. now why is India quiet and where is the Indian legal team?

Dead silence

Pakistan asks India to appoint lawyer to represent Kulbhushan Jadhav

The Islamabad High Court (IHC), while hearing the case on Thursday, asked the Foreign Office (FO) to approach India about appointing a counsel and clarifying the issue of jurisdiction of the case being heard by the court.

economictimes.indiatimes.com

 

[Joe Shearer]

India went ranting and raving to ICJ asking for the release of Jadhav and facilitating his safe passage to India but was rejected by the court,

Hardly rejected.

The court said, as you have yourself cited, that it was unable to do anything about it, and asked that Pakistan should re-do whatever it had done, with a view to giving the victim his rights.

Which part of it you are unable to get is difficult to understand.

What did you expect, that the court would summon the judges in the military court to an open session and castigate them, and imprison them? Or did you expect that Jadhav should have been declared innocent and set free from a jurisdiction where the court had no practical reach?

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, and besides, this is off-topic.

You need to take professional help.

I mean professional legal help, of course, just in case some mischievous and uncharitable soul should pick up on that phrase.

Pak has complied with ICJ verdict.

It has done nothing of the kind.

India asked for consular access, not for representation of Jadhav by Indian counsel in a Pakistani court.

The logic is clear; the presence of an Indian lawyer would give Pakistan just the cover needed to announce that it had complied with the ICJ judgement, while in fact doing nothing about the review or a re-trial. Staying away from what had been recommended to be done by Pakistan exclusively puts the issue in stark focus. It takes away Pakistan's only remaining fig-leaf.

 

[Jackdaws]

I find it baffling.

For 75 years, Pakistan has talked of 'negotiating' on Kashmir.
For 75 years, it has turned out that to Pakistan, negotiating means giving up Kashmir to Pakistan.
Logical and consistent.

The baffling part comes with wondering what India will gain out of the abject surrender that Pakistan so hopefully looks to achieve.

Some kind of catharsis that India gave up land?

 

[K_Bin_W]

Hardly rejected.

The court said, as you have yourself cited, that it was unable to do anything about it, and asked that Pakistan should re-do whatever it had done, with a view to giving the victim his rights.

Which part of it you are unable to get is difficult to understand.

What did you expect, that the court would summon the judges in the military court to an open session and castigate them, and imprison them? Or did you expect that Jadhav should have been declared innocent and set free from a jurisdiction where the court had no practical reach?

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, and besides, this is off-topic.

You need to take professional help.

I mean professional legal help, of course, just in case some mischievous and uncharitable soul should pick up on that phrase.

You have a comprehension problem or you deliberately twist the words giving your own spin. If compression was for sale I'd make a killing selling you and your types dime a dozen. I know its futile to argue with you and quite a few Indians like you.

take my advice seek counseling and a crash course in comprehension your rebuttals may then make sense. LOLz