Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 12 Dec 2014

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 30 Jan 2015 20:18

^^^ I thought it was the Jandullah fellas. Anyways, little difference as long as they do the same thing.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 30 Jan 2015 20:19

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 063915.cms
India-US N-deal: Pakistan warns of arms race

"Pakistan is examining the imbalance (likely to be caused by these agreements) and the possible ways and means for redressing it," National Security Advisor Sartaj Aziz said yesterday at a seminar here organised by think- tank Strategic Vision Institute on implications of Obama's visit to India.

Aziz called on the US and other members of the international community to support the objective of regional balance and strategic stability.

"Pakistan's key concern is the paramount importance of strategic stability in South Asia," he said.

The US, he said, ignored concerns of the Pakistan government though Pakistan had "forcefully" conveyed to the US even before President Obama's second visit to India.

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 30 Jan 2015 20:25

What kind of muslims are Pakistani shias? No wonder they are not considered muslims by the Salafis/Sunnis. If Pakistanis shias have any Islam left in them they should retaliate in similar major by targeting the MOSQUES. So far it has been very one sided, let the real game begin!

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 30 Jan 2015 20:26

pankajs wrote:http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 063915.cms
India-US N-deal: Pakistan warns of arms race
"Pakistan is examining the imbalance (likely to be caused by these agreements) and the possible ways and means for redressing it," National Security Advisor Sartaj Aziz said yesterday at a seminar here organised by think- tank Strategic Vision Institute on implications of Obama's visit to India.

Pakistan will forcefully beg from everyone and bankrupt the world if this imbalance of power continues.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 30 Jan 2015 20:28

Meanwhile, looking at the visuals of the Shia mosque blasts, my stomach turns over. WTF is wrong with this MoFos? Everytime you think you are used to their brutality, they top it. Lets hope we build a Huge tall fence and keep them out. This whole people to people contact and eating breakfast in lahore and lunch in amritsar business is all idiotic.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jan 2015 20:34

Anujan wrote:Meanwhile, looking at the visuals of the Shia mosque blasts, my stomach turns over. WTF is wrong with this MoFos? Everytime you think you are used to their brutality, they top it. Lets hope we build a Huge tall fence and keep them out. This whole people to people contact and eating breakfast in lahore and lunch in amritsar business is all idiotic.

When these buggers continuously demand that Peace Be Upon Him do they mean that Muslims should have no peace? I mean wtf? Bestial mofos. Utterly uncivilized.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 30 Jan 2015 20:47

Every jumma my heart races to check the score on paki news papers(both English and unmentionable forums).
Today Sachin hit 49. Comonn I can't expect him to hit century every jumma hain ??

jagga · Post by **jagga** » 30 Jan 2015 20:58

As I read somehwere on the net "The weather in Pakistan is often Sunni but sometimes shiite"

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 30 Jan 2015 22:14

When one thinks of a classroom.. does this comes into your mind?
( From Yawn ..(Sorry if posted before)
Teachers handle various firearms during a weapons training session for school, college and university ..

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 30 Jan 2015 22:16

Yawn, Pakis are too predictable these days. It's rather boring.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 30 Jan 2015 22:22

When one thinks of place of worship on a holy Friday ... does this come to your mind?

(At least 54 killed in blast at Shikarpur imambargah)

chilarai · Post by **chilarai** » 30 Jan 2015 22:27

with teachers carrying guns the homework turnover rate would improve by leabs and pounds !

its a total literacy program !

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 30 Jan 2015 22:39

Amber G. wrote:When one thinks of a classroom.. does this comes into your mind?
( From Yawn ..(Sorry if posted before)
Teachers handle various firearms during a weapons training session for school, college and university ..

Was posted a couple of pages earlier (link to yawn article that the picture came from. Plenty more pics in the link)
The real fun will start if these teachers pass on their firearm handling lessons to their students. Plenty of opportunities for self-goals abound. In case you're wondering, the teachers are committing several firearm no-nos when handling the firearms, (especially the one in the yellow veil) including:
1. Always make sure you know the direction that your muzzle is pointing. Never point your firearm at something that you're unwilling to destroy.
2. Never put your finger on the trigger unless you're ready to shoot.
3. Incorrect stance and not using sights.
4. Holding the firearm incorrectly (i.e. fingers placed where they shouldn't be. Teacher in yellow veil is a particularly bad example, notice where she puts her thumb when handing the pistol and her fingers when handling the AK. She's going to be break her thumb and finger tips if she ever fires anything that she's handling).

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 30 Jan 2015 22:43

Another image from near Shikarpur imambargah..

(Nato vehicles blown up by Paki Fauz.. in 2011)

Some other History lesson ...
Shikarpur shrine blast leaves 4 dead, 12 injured Feb 2013

Bomb blast in 2010

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 30 Jan 2015 23:29

India US Nuke deal ... India US defence deal ...Hah ..watch this...

Pakistan, Tanzania sign defence cooperation agreement

And this..

PAF SPOKESPERSON
Shared privately -

AIR CHIEF CALLS ON DEFENCE MINISTER OF TANZANIA

ISLAMABAD 30 JANUARY, 2015: - Air Chief Marshal Tahir Rafique Butt, Chief of the Air Staff, Pakistan Air Force called on Dr Hussein, Defence Minister of Tanzania, today. Both the dignitaries remained together for some time and discussed matters of defence and military cooperation. The Air Chief assured the Defence Minister of Tanzania of enhancing military cooperation between the two countries in general and the two Air Forces in particular. Later on souvenirs were also exchanged between the two dignitaries at the occasion. The Air Chief is on an official visit to Tanzania on the special invitation of Tanzanian Air Force.

In another news .. (NO KIDDING )
PAF Chief calls on King of Bahrain in Manama
and ..

He also expressed Bahrain’s keenness to further boost cooperation with Pakistan in the field of defence in general and Air force in particular.

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 30 Jan 2015 23:52

Amber G. wrote:India US Nuke deal ... India US defence deal ...Hah ..watch this...

Pakistan, Tanzania sign defence cooperation agreement

This press release is BS. Pakis must be after some raw material for weapons...

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 31 Jan 2015 00:13

US-India defence ties, threat for imbalance of power in region: JuD chie

LAHORE - Jaamat-ud-Dawah (JuD) chief Hafiz Muhammad Saeed has said that the US-India defence ties are threat for imbalance of power in the region and against the interests of Pakistan and Kashmiri people.Addressing the Friday sermon at Jamia Al-Qadsia, he said that the claims of Pak-US and Pak-India friendships were nothing but a lie and both were conspiring to make Pakistan a war zone and Afghanistan would be their base camp. He said that they would express complete solidarity with Kashmiris people on Kashmir Day on Feb 05, 2015 and would take out protest rallies all across the Pakistan.Saeed said that the main protest rally would be taken out from Nasir Bagh in which thousands of people from all walks of life would take part in rally. He said that they would invite all other religious and political parties to these protest rallies and conferences on the Kashmir Solidarity Day. He called upon the Muslims to get united and strengthen Pakistan to foil the conspiracies of opponents against Islam.The JuD chief said that declaring Indian nuclear bomb peaceful, while raising concerns over Pakistan’s nuclear program reveals the double standard. He said that it’s time to set aside all differences and work for the peace and prosperity of Pakistan. He also laid stress on the government and all parties to highlight the Kashmir issues at all platforms.

rgsrini · Post by **rgsrini** » 31 Jan 2015 00:14

^^ Amber.G.
Awe inspiring and courageous investigation by Pakistanis. The best thing about their investigation, and the reason for their success, is that they never abandon their SOP even in a monumental crisis. Look at how they are washing the crime scene before collecting the evidence.

partha · Post by **partha** » 31 Jan 2015 00:22

http://tribune.com.pk/story/829966/paki ... mir-again/

Pakistan to turn up the heat on Kashmir again.

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan seems to be increasingly upset over recent regional developments in the wake of US President Barack Obama’s visit to India and has decided to forcefully internationalise the longstanding Kashmir dispute in a move which is likely to perturb New Delhi.

ye lo.

The heat was so much it burned down the Shia mosque in Shikarpur?

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 31 Jan 2015 00:27

I thought the Bakis were taking this lightly. No big deal 'cos no big deal was signed during the visit. High on symbolism but low on content. What changed suddenly hanji?

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 31 Jan 2015 00:58

From an US News source:

Family of jailed Pakistani doc who helped nail Bin Laden in hiding, losing hope

Once a prominent doctor in Pakistan, who helped US to find Osama.

Afridi received a 33-year sentence in May 2012, provoking outrage in the United States, and leading to Congressional moves to cut a symbolic $33-million from U.S. aid to Pakistan.. the sentence is reduced to 23 years now..

He is not charged for spying or "working for foreign agents" but for terrorism. Afridi was called a traitor By Malik. Yet the charges he faced accused him of aiding Lashkar-i-Islam – (This same group reportedly kidnapped Afridi in 2008, leading his family to pay a ransom to secure his release)

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 31 Jan 2015 01:23

Anujan wrote:Meanwhile, looking at the visuals of the Shia mosque blasts, my stomach turns over..... Everytime you think you are used to their brutality, they top it.
...

Even NY Times is wondering ...the same NY times which once, called even Deepavali blasts by Paki scums in Delhi "routine religious intolerance" which "Hindutva forces created" and is "quite routine in India near religious/communal festivals like Diwali" ... is reporting ...

". ..such attacks have been relatively rare in Sindh, which has a long tradition of tolerance among religious groups.

Link: Blast (Not peaceful Pakis) Kills Scores at Mosque in Southern Pakistan

It does have a quote from Sharif:.. (Not sure exactly what the context..

“Pakistan is emerging from a difficult time,Pakistan is fighting a decisive war, and we are now seeing the results.”

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 31 Jan 2015 03:35

State actor - Good terrorist Sartaj Aziz & non state actor - Bad terrorist Hafeez Saeed both are kind of reading the same sarkari press release: Regional imbalance of power between India and Pakistan as US is favoring India.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 31 Jan 2015 03:43

Amber G. wrote:

Anywhere else in the world if the teachers had come to such a pass of picking up arms their expression would have been grim and serious. But look here:at the kind of glee, enthusiasm and pride on the face of these Khaatoons. Only in Shitistan....

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 31 Jan 2015 04:02

Amber G. wrote:It does have a quote from Sharif:.. (Not sure exactly what the context..

“Pakistan is emerging from a difficult time,Pakistan is fighting a decisive war, and we are now seeing the results.”

It was in a different context, the Peshawar school children massacre, IIRC

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Jan 2015 04:30

Arun, Patrika is Hindi newspaper being posed by its principals. BRF members posting Hindi posts out of desire to share the news is not in same category as the earlier ones.

I agree rules should be uniform but at same time some leeway is needed or we will ge mired in our own creation.

Having said that I request folks who post stuff from Hindi sources to give shor description for the benefit of all viewers.

Thanks,

ramana

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 31 Jan 2015 05:37

Not Joke anymore. Pakistan is actually braindead Qabila
A worrisome ‘alliance’

opping the agenda reportedly were “enhanced military cooperation, bilateral trade, climate change and investments in India’s civilian nuclear sector” on which a deal was struck to break a longstanding impasse over a local law on the liability issue that has long kept foreign nuclear companies from getting involved in the Indian market. Apparently, Modi’s ‘special cup of tea’ worked in extracting Obama’s nod on the deal. Other than a hotline that will now connect Prime Minister Modi and President Obama, one doesn’t see any new groundbreaking outcomes from the Obama-Modi talks. They just agreed to restart negotiations on a pending investment treaty and renewed the 10-year defence treaty signed in 2005. Whatever the worth of these decisions, the two sides were optimistic of their relations moving to “a whole new level”. Obama described the outcome as “powerful symbolism backed by substance”. Elated as they were on their mediocre origins, both Modi, son of a tea-seller and Obama, grandson of a cook, had reason to be euphoric over the outcome of their talks, which they believe will lead to one of the “defining partnerships of the 21st century”.What an irony that the world’s two largest democracies are starting a ‘strategic partnership’ under a man of Modi’s controversial credentials and a Nobel Laureate US president, who has been justifying wars to make peace. In a glow of bonhomie, the two partners announced plans to unlock billions of dollars in military and nuclear trade as the bedrock of their alliance. Their Defence Trade Technological Initiative involves massive collaboration in terms of joint ‘pathfinder’ projects, including joint production of drone aircraft and equipment for C-130 military planes, cooperation on aircraft carriers and jet-engine technology and increasing upgrading of their joint military and naval exercises.
What a solid foundation for global peace and harmony! Obviously, in building up this new alliance, the US has its own priorities as part of its larger China-driven Asian agenda in pursuit of maintaining its worldwide political and economic power. India on its part is seeking to use this partnership for its own ambitions of gaining a global power status. Based on their respective expediencies, both sides are playing on Kautilya’s game plan to cope with what they both see as the spectre of Rising China. The future of this partnership will depend not on the avowed interests of its signatories, but on how other countries in the region, affected by this worrisome alliance, feel compelled to respond.
Indeed, it is the beginning of another Cold War. The only difference is that this time, India stands on the other side of the pole. The politics of alliances and alignments is back with dangerous implications for peace and security of this region. Actions are bound to provoke reactions. If the turbulent political history of this region had any lessons, the US engagement in this nuclearised region should have been aimed at promoting strategic balance rather than disturbing it. Washington should have been eschewing discriminatory policies in dealing with the India-Pakistan nuclear equation, the only one in the world that grew up in history totally unrelated to the Cold War. But this never happened.
Instead, the US gave India a country-specific nuclear deal with a carte blanche in the Nuclear Suppliers Group for access to nuclear technology. Any measure that contributes to lowering of the nuclear threshold and fuelling of an arms race between two nuclear-armed neighbours provides no service to the people of this region. A stable nuclear security order is what we need in South Asia. Only non-discriminatory, criteria-based approaches would be sustainable. Preferential treatment to India in terms of nuclear technology not only widens existing security imbalances in the region, but also seriously undermines the prospects of India-Pakistan restraint and stabilisation.
Unfortunately, principles of equity and justice today are globally non-existent. Of course, Americans are a pragmatic nation. They understand the worth of obliging India on its nuclear ambitions and quest for ‘great power’ status, and will continue to exploit it for their own ends. We in Pakistan have a long history of lessons learnt from similar alliances. We know such alliances never endure and keep changing as the world and its dynamics do by the inevitable process of change inherent in the rise and fall of power. For now, however, there are ominous security implications for this region.
The international community has an obligation, not only to eschew discriminatory policies in their dealing with the India-Pakistan nuclear equation, but also to take steps that facilitate the prospects of durable peace in this region. Peace in South Asia will remain elusive as long as Kashmir remains under Indian occupation. The world must know that there is but one fair, just, legal and moral solution to Kashmir, which was provided by the UN, and which both India and Pakistan mutually accepted in UN Security Council resolutions.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 31 Jan 2015 06:51

Book review: The Promised Land

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 31 Jan 2015 08:09

expression would have been grim and serious. But look here:at the kind of glee, enthusiasm and pride on the face of these Khaatoons.

Come on, now.. be honest. U would love it.

My preference would be the Walther PPK..

partha · Post by **partha** » 31 Jan 2015 08:13

Pakis are calling Obama's India visit largely symbolic lacking much substance and at the same time spending obscene number of hours analyzing (rona dhona) his visit with their Lahori Logic on TV shows, news articles and what not.

"India has violated UN resolutions on Kashmir and international community should intervene and help resolve the core issue" is the new "Why will Pak army start LoC tensions when it is busy in North Waziristan?". Every Paki is saying the same thing these days.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 31 Jan 2015 08:31

Amber G. wrote:When one thinks of a classroom.. does this comes into your mind?
( From Yawn ..(Sorry if posted before)
Teachers handle various firearms during a weapons training session for school, college and university ..

What is wrong with Arms training in schools, colleges and universities? Whats wrong with people carrying arms?

The problem of pakistan is that its state has failed in protecting its writ and its citizens. Terrorists will get weapons anyway. Ordinary citizens need protection. If the state can't protect them, then the people need private weapons to protect themselves. This is one of the basic freedoms even in USA.

Wiki wrote:The right to keep and bear arms (often referred to as the right to bear arms or to have arms) is the people's right to have their own arms for their defense as described in the philosophical and political writings of Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, Machiavelli, the English Whigs and others.[1]

Wiki Link

Of course, due to population having lot of weapons, there is always a chance of revolt if the establishment follows unpopular policies.Those people who are against the tyranny of the establishment have the ability to rise against the the govt in Pakistan thanks to gun culture. Guns are the votes in Pakistan.

Pakistan Army is able to keep the country intact only due to superior weapons donated by USA. So, USA is interfering in Pakistan's internal issues. USA should simply allow Pakistan to throw up its own leadership instead of artificially propping up Pakistan Army by supplying weapons and money.

partha wrote:Pakis are calling Obama's India visit largely symbolic lacking much substance and at the same time spending obscene number of hours analyzing (rona dhona) his visit with their Lahori Logic on TV shows, news articles and what not.

"India has violated UN resolutions on Kashmir and international community should intervene and help resolve the core issue" is the new "Why will Pak army start LoC tensions when it is busy in North Waziristan?". Every Paki is saying the same thing these days.

I couldn't quite understand this issue, so someone please explain:
Why doesn't Bhaarath call Paki bluff on UN resolutions on Kashmir?

Why doesn't Bhaarath urge Pakistanis to vacate POK as UN resolution require Pakistan to do? Only then can Pakistanis talk about UN and Kashmir. Why does Bhaarath insist on shimla agreement? What does Bhaarath gain by Shimla agreement?

Is Bhaarath simply afraid that the UN might do some hanky panky in this issue? Or is there some real issues involved in Bhaarath's stand?

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 31 Jan 2015 08:39

>>state has failed in protecting its writ and its citizens. Terrorists will get weapons anyway

On what basis are you differentiating between the two bolded words?

partha · Post by **partha** » 31 Jan 2015 08:41

johneeG wrote: I couldn't quite understand this issue, so someone please explain:
Why doesn't Bhaarath call Paki bluff on UN resolutions on Kashmir?

Why doesn't Bhaarath urge Pakistanis to vacate POK as UN resolution require Pakistan to do? Only then can Pakistanis talk about UN and Kashmir. Why does Bhaarath insist on shimla agreement? What does Bhaarath gain by Shimla agreement?

Is Bhaarath simply afraid that the UN might do some hanky panky in this issue? Or is there some real issues involved in Bhaarath's stand?

If India calls Pakistani bluff on UN resolutions and ask Pakistan to first vacate PoK then that would mean India is giving importance and greater legitimacy to UN resolution. That will mean India will consider holding a plebiscite in Kashmir. It will be a self goal. India should not ask Pakistan to vacate PoK because of some UN resolution but because PoK is part of India which Pakistan has occupied illegally. Indian Parliament resolution makes it clear. The only way to make Pakis vacate PoK is through a 1971 type war.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Jan 2015 08:58

Simla and Lahore accords have both made the UN resolution obsolete. The UN has itself declared that resolution outdated. Only Pakis are barking about it. One does not respond to barking dogs.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 31 Jan 2015 09:03

JE Menon wrote:>>state has failed in protecting its writ and its citizens. Terrorists will get weapons anyway

On what basis are you differentiating between the two bolded words?

Well, defining 'terrorists' can be tricky in any place. Its particularly tricky in Pakistan. So, one could perhaps define 'citizens' as people without guns and 'terrorists' as people with guns in Pakistan.

partha wrote:
johneeG wrote: I couldn't quite understand this issue, so someone please explain:
Why doesn't Bhaarath call Paki bluff on UN resolutions on Kashmir?

Why doesn't Bhaarath urge Pakistanis to vacate POK as UN resolution require Pakistan to do? Only then can Pakistanis talk about UN and Kashmir. Why does Bhaarath insist on shimla agreement? What does Bhaarath gain by Shimla agreement?

Is Bhaarath simply afraid that the UN might do some hanky panky in this issue? Or is there some real issues involved in Bhaarath's stand?
If India calls Pakistani bluff on UN resolutions and ask Pakistan to first vacate PoK then that would mean India is giving importance and greater legitimacy to UN resolution. That will mean India will consider holding a plebiscite in Kashmir. It will be a self goal. India should not ask Pakistan to vacate PoK because of some UN resolution but because PoK is part of India. Indian Parliament resolution makes it clear. The only way to make Pakis vacate PoK is through a 1971 type war.

I think Bhaarath is playing thing completely wrong unless Bhaarath was simply afraid of UN taking Pakistan side due to Pakistan being an ally of US during cold war. But, if that was the case, then why did Bhaarath go to UN in the first place?

Anyway, it seems to me that UN resolutions actually favor Bhaarath. And therefore, whenever Pakistan talks about UN resolutions, Bhaarath should remind them that they are required to vacate POK according to UN resolutions.

U.N.Resolution August 13, 1948.
This is the most significant resolution passed by the UN on the state of Jammu & Kashmir. It clearly states that Pakistan was to vacate its troops from the whole of the state. It also mentions, albeit indirectly, that Pakistan had consistently lied on the question of whether or not its troops were involved in the fighting in Jammu & Kashmir. Once the then Pakistani Prime Minister conceded that Pakistani troops were indeed involved, the UN had no option but to ask for their withdrawal. That the withdrawal never took place, is another story.

The United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan.

Having given careful consideration to the points of view expressed by the representatives of India and Pakistan regarding the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir; and

Being of the opinion that the prompt cessation of hostilities and the correction of conditions the continuance of which is likely to endanger international peace and security are essential to implementation of its endeavors to assist the Governments of India and Pakistan in effecting a final settlement of the situation;

Resolves to submit simultaneously to the Governments of India and Pakistan the following proposal:
PART I: CEASE-FIRE ORDER

A. The Governments of India and Pakistan agree that their respective High Commands will issue separately and simultaneously a cease-fire order to apply to all forces under their control and in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as of the earliest practicable date or dates to be mutually agreed upon within four days after these proposals have been accepted by both Governments.

B.The High Commands of the Indian and Pakistani forces agree to refrain from taking any measures that might augment the military potential of the forces under their control in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. ( For the purpose of these proposals forces under their control shall be considered to include all forces, organized and unorganized, fighting or participating in hostilities on their respective sides.

C.The Commanders-in-Chief of the forces of India and Pakistan shall promptly confer regarding any necessary local changes in present dispositions which may facilitate the cease-fire.

D. In its discretion and as the Commission may find practicable, the Commission will appoint military observers who, under the authority of the Commission and with the co-operation of both Commands, will supervise the observance of the cease-fire order.

E. The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan agree to appeal to their respective peoples to assist in creating and maintaining an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further negotiations.
PART II: TRUCE AGREEMENT
Simultaneously with the acceptance of the proposal for the immediate cessation of hostilities as outlined in Part I, both the Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall be worked out in discussion between their representatives and the Commission.

A.

1. As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.

2. The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

3. Pending a final solution, the territory evacuated by the Pakistani troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission.

B.

1.When the commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals referred to in Part II, A, 2, hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.

2. Pending the acceptance of the conditions for a final settlement of the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Government will maintain within the lines existing at the moment of the cease-fire the minimum strength of its forces which in agreement with the commission are considered necessary to assist local authorities in the observance of law and order. The Commission will have observers stationed where it deems necessary.

3. The Government of India will undertake to ensure that the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will take all measures within its powers to make it publicly known that peace, law and order will be safeguarded and that all human political rights will be granted.

4. Upon signature, the full text of the truce agreement or a communique containing the principles thereof as agreed upon between the two Governments and the Commission, will be made public.

PART III

The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people and to that end, upon acceptance of the truce agreement, both Governments agree to enter into consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured.

Link

And I cannot find the word 'Plebiscite' in this resolution.

First point is that it was Bhaarath that went to UN because Pakistan was the aggressor. UN resolutions tell Pakistan to vacate POK. Basically, UN is accepting Bhaarath's stand. What is Bhaarath gaining by bilateral talks with Pakistan?

I think Bhaarath is not comfortable with UN overseeing the whole thing because UN interference is not acceptable. But, UN already observers for Kashmir. So, even the worst is already happening.

So, I think that Bhaarath's present line is wrong. Kashmir is not bilateral issue. Pakistan is the aggressor and Bhaarath should insist that Pakistan vacate POK. Period. UN also says the same.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 31 Jan 2015 09:05

shiv wrote:Simla and Lahore accords have both made the UN resolution obsolete. The UN has itself declared that resolution outdated. Only Pakis are barking about it. One does not respond to barking dogs.

What I am asking is what is the advantage Bhaarath is getting from Shimla and Lahore accords over and above UN resolutions?

I don't see any advantages due to Shimla and Lahore accords. If anything Shimla and Lahore accords seem to be a total waste especially after victory in 71. Actually, UN resolutions seem to be much more forthright that Pakistan needs to vacate POK.

partha · Post by **partha** » 31 Jan 2015 09:08

shiv wrote:Simla and Lahore accords have both made the UN resolution obsolete. The UN has itself declared that resolution outdated. Only Pakis are barking about it. One does not respond to barking dogs.

We should develop the patience to wait till UN and/or Pakistan themselves become obsolete. If Pakistan is still a thing in year 2048 and if Pakis still keep harping about 100 year old UN resolution, they'll be laughed at. Best response is no response.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Jan 2015 09:08

johneeG wrote:
shiv wrote:Simla and Lahore accords have both made the UN resolution obsolete. The UN has itself declared that resolution outdated. Only Pakis are barking about it. One does not respond to barking dogs.
What I am asking is what is the advantage Bhaarath is getting from Shimla and Lahore accords over and above UN resolutions?

I don't see any advantages due to Shimla and Lahore accords. If anything Shimla and Lahore accords seem to be a total waste especially after victory in 71. Actually, UN resolutions seem to be much more forthright that Pakistan needs to vacate POK.

Why not write a long letter to the government of India with your views? Let UN dictate our policy as Nehru ji and Pakistanis want.

partha · Post by **partha** » 31 Jan 2015 09:16

johneeji,

Nehru going to UN in 1948 was a blunder which GoI tried to correct to some extent through Shimla accord which made the Kashmir "dispute" a bilateral one without room for a third party. Involving UN in what is a bilateral matter will set a bad precedent and also dangerous. Next thing you know, Maoists and their intellectual supporters will start demanding UN or Chinese intervention. Involving UN will provide a backdoor entry to powers of the world to mess with India.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 31 Jan 2015 09:21

>>Well, defining 'terrorists' can be tricky in any place. Its particularly tricky in Pakistan. So, one could perhaps define 'citizens' as people without guns and 'terrorists' as people with guns in Pakistan.

So, if I understand correctly, the idea is to solve the problem of terrorism in Pakistan is to make everyone a terrorist by giving them guns...