What's new

India now capable of striking BRITAIN with a devastating nuclear strike

Who the hell gives such stupid headlines, even a fool would know that our atomic weapons are meant to be used only against two countries and both of them are asian
 
Exactly. KingdomS. Plural. That is what I said. Three never was a India. There were lots of differant 'countries' like Europe has and these were conqured by British to make on big colony. One large piece of that was gifted to you guy's in 1947 which you then named the 'Indian Republic',.
It's usual response from Pakistanis in effort to legitimize creation of Pakistan.
That's why I tend to give you example of China and Japan. Countries have been ran by their respective indigenous monarchs till some foreign country disturbs the system.
These dynasties are very identical culturally, understand each other's language, they had own rules of war.
Most important, they have identical ethnicity mostly.

There is a very good reason that we hear about Columbus leaving Europe in search of trade route through China & India, not Pakistan, British came and established "East India Company" not East Pakistan Company.
Centuries ago, these countries were known by same name and even today, because just monarchies have been democratized or made communist.
Of course they did. Care to give me some credible sources instead of pulling this 'fact' out of your posterior?
http://www.paolomalanima.it/default_file/Papers/GDP_in_Pre-Modern_Agrarian_Economies.pdf

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1600
There have been a lot. You can use browser.
You make no sense here. Go buy some please.
This is the best you could come up with Mister "Think Tank".
So you don't think I don't know there are such views floating around on the fringe?
At least from your post, yes.
Ignorance level of keyboard warriors is hilarious indeed.
 
It's usual response from Pakistanis in effort to legitimize creation of Pakistan.
That's why I tend to give you example of China and Japan. Countries have been ran by their respective indigenous monarchs till some foreign country disturbs the system.
These dynasties are very identical culturally, understand each other's language, they had own rules of war.
Most important, they have identical ethnicity mostly.

There is a very good reason that we hear about Columbus leaving Europe in search of trade route through China & India, not Pakistan, British came and established "East India Company" not East Pakistan Company.
Centuries ago, these countries were known by same name and even today, because just monarchies have been democratized or made communist.

http://www.paolomalanima.it/default_file/Papers/GDP_in_Pre-Modern_Agrarian_Economies.pdf

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1600
There have been a lot. You can use browser.

This is the best you could come up with Mister "Think Tank".
At least from your post, yes.
Ignorance level of keyboard warriors is hilarious indeed.
Not true. Yamato Japanese and Han Chinese are quite distinct. Although Kanji script of Japanese is based from Chinese the languages are not even similar linguistically.
China (or at least the coastal core) had a centralised monarchy throughout its history, the Indian subcontinent has only been united under large empires. The real question should be why India was made instead of a group of independent countries.
 
It's usual response from Pakistanis in effort to legitimize creation of Pakistan.
That's why I tend to give you example of China and Japan. Countries have been ran by their respective indigenous monarchs till some foreign country disturbs the system.
These dynasties are very identical culturally, understand each other's language, they had own rules of war.
Most important, they have identical ethnicity mostly.

There is a very good reason that we hear about Columbus leaving Europe in search of trade route through China & India, not Pakistan, British came and established "East India Company" not East Pakistan Company.
Centuries ago, these countries were known by same name and even today, because just monarchies have been democratized or made communist.

http://www.paolomalanima.it/default_file/Papers/GDP_in_Pre-Modern_Agrarian_Economies.pdf

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1600
There have been a lot. You can use browser.

This is the best you could come up with Mister "Think Tank".
At least from your post, yes.
Ignorance level of keyboard warriors is hilarious indeed.

Columbus sailed to India with the term India as a geographical expression. Founder of modern India today rip off the name and called the country India. Even the English name for India was debated prior to settle on the name "India".

If someone in Europe decide to create a country called "Europe" Does that mean that particular country existed for thousands of years?of course not.

We don't wanna bomb britain, that'll be too quick.
Somehow at some point of time in the future after we have looted them for centuries like they did us and the rest of the world we could possibly bomb them or something similar to put them out of their misery.:azn:


You are a deranged psychopath. Are you the producer of that lunatic India 2030 movie with India having lots of white servants?
 
Sad news , Isn't India Still a hungry Nation where millions died every-year :/
 
Not true. Yamato Japanese and Han Chinese are quite distinct. Although Kanji script of Japanese is based from Chinese the languages are not even similar linguistically.
China (or at least the coastal core) had a centralised monarchy throughout its history, the Indian subcontinent has only been united under large empires. The real question should be why India was made instead of a group of independent countries.

India was made as it was a single colony. If India was divided into 13 colonies, they would be 13 countries. Indians copy the British wholesale as Indians do not have any ingenuity like America to blaze a new path for itself.

Sad news , Isn't India Still a hungry Nation where millions died every-year :/

India is a hungry nation. If they could choose India today or Panem district 9. They would pick district nine as their chance of survival, even with the hunger game, is higher than India today. Do you see anyone defacating openly in district 9?
 
So you gave a tea, that's your great achievement? Lol
Moreover, you should be grateful we liberated you Hindus from Muslim Mughal empire(they are the ones who you said united and ruled you before we came right?), else you will probably be an Islamic republic today and maybe a minority in India today.lol

Anyway, we are going off topic, I was just responding to that delusional Indian dude who said they will nuke Britain with their newly tested superpower Agni V and that we deserve it.lol I didn't mean to offend any sensible/rational Indian member on here. :)
I think, the very idea that India now is technologically capable of striking it's former colonizer enthralls a modest part of Indians who have grown a good bit of hyper-nationalism in themselves but not much of decency and common sense. Do not take this ludicrous fantasy seriously.

Just to add a trivia; Tea was never our achievement. In fact, It was the British who discovered tea in the wilds of Assam. Indians hardly drank tea, produced in their own country. It was only the great depression of the 30's, the British traders were forced to sale tea in Indian market. And thence, tea become indispensable item of Indian identity.
 
Not true. Yamato Japanese and Han Chinese are quite distinct. Although Kanji script of Japanese is based from Chinese the languages are not even similar linguistically.
China (or at least the coastal core) had a centralised monarchy throughout its history, the Indian subcontinent has only been united under large empires. The real question should be why India was made instead of a group of independent countries.
If you are referring to empires like Mughals, they aren't indigenous at first place.
Yup, India is a large country and remained united only under large empires so. Must not be a point even.
For Chinese Centralization in East Coast, their population is centred in Eastern Part of Country. 95% of population in 45% of Country's Area!
I don;t need to do that anymore then your hocus pocus half starved, half naked jungless festering on the Ganges India or the other repulsive creatures hiding in the deep south nursing visions of grandeur by dreaming of the far away Indus.
Pata tha mujhe, chidh gaya tu.
Anyway, I thought Pakistan was based on Islam, so it must be centred towards Mughal empire etc.. From you guys have pulled Indus Valley Civilization here? Islam was the reason for creation of Pakistan, it's identity, and it had nothing to do with IVC.:crazy:

And for calling us half naked junglee people!
http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/seriesdetail.aspx?srid=710
The country waiting for its first metro system must not be trolling India for such issues.
Now, you will remind about 20 million rickshaw pulling Indians and I will till you that record of 70 millions Pakistanis isn't available.
Sad news , Isn't India Still a hungry Nation where millions died every-year :/
Less miserable than Pak!
22% of Pakistani population is stunted as per GHI Report 2016 against India's 15.2%.
India isn't very good either but surely.was behind Pak in 2012 when GHI used to be a very relevant indicator for Mr. Riaz Haq. Today, it's biased though.
Similar, story has been there about GDP per capita, literacy & HDI etc. never mind.
India was made as it was a single colony. If India was divided into 13 colonies, they would be 13 countries. Indians copy the British wholesale as Indians do not have any ingenuity like America to blaze a new path for itself.
Call me when Taiwan gets back Mainland then.
I think, the very idea that India now is technologically capable of striking it's former colonizer enthralls a modest part of Indians who have grown a good bit of hyper-nationalism in themselves.
Sir ji, it's British Media at first place. What's the reason for India strike at UK?
 
If you are referring to empires like Mughals, they aren't indigenous at first place.
Yup, India is a large country and remained united only under large empires so. Must not be a point even.
For Chinese Centralization in East Coast, their population is centred in Eastern Part of Country. 95% of population in 45% of Country's Area!

Pata tha mujhe, chidh gaya tu.
Anyway, I thought Pakistan was based on Islam, so it must be centred towards Mughal empire etc.. From you guys have pulled Indus Valley Civilization here? Islam was the reason for creation of Pakistan, it's identity, and it had nothing to do with IVC.:crazy:

And for calling us half naked junglee people!
http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/seriesdetail.aspx?srid=710
The country waiting for its first metro system must not be trolling India for such issues.
Now, you will remind about 20 million rickshaw pulling Indians and I will till you that record of 70 millions Pakistanis isn't available.

Less miserable than Pak!
22% of Pakistani population is stunted as per GHI Report 2016 against India's 15.2%.
India isn't very good either but surely.was behind Pak in 2012 when GHI used to be a very relevant indicator for Mr. Riaz Haq. Today, it's biased though.
Similar, story has been there about GDP per capita, literacy & HDI etc. never mind.
Call me when Taiwan gets back Mainland then.

Sir ji, it's British Media at first place. What's the reason for India strike at UK?
Sir I know. But Mike was speaking of a guy called always fair who was wishing to nuke England, not the media who reported it.
 
There is a very good reason that we hear about Columbus leaving Europe in search of trade route through China & India, not Pakistan, British came and established "East India Company" not East Pakistan Company.
Centuries ago, these countries were known by same name and even today, because just monarchies have been democratized or made communist.

The East India Company was named after the Indus river, not an artificial state populated by rioting slum-dwellers who voted in a mass-murdering Hindutva fanatic.
 
Columbus sailed to India with the term India as a geographical expression. Founder of modern India today rip off the name and called the country India. Even the English name for India was debated prior to settle on the name "India".

If someone in Europe decide to create a country called "Europe" Does that mean that particular country existed for thousands of years?of course not.




You are a deranged psychopath. Are you the producer of that lunatic India 2030 movie with India having lots of white servants?

Hey man, you try hard enough and anything is possible, I'm sure deep down Chinese fantasize about doing a lot of things to their past masters too.
Your current posture in the world clearly shows it.
 
Hey man, you try hard enough and anything is possible, I'm sure deep down Chinese fantasize about doing a lot of things to their past masters too.
Your current posture in the world clearly shows it.

past masters like who?
 
The East India Company was named after the Indus river, not an artificial state populated by rioting slum-dwellers who voted in a mass-murdering Hindutva fanatic.
Slum is something from what Pakistanis must refrain to discuss.
http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/seriesdetail.aspx?srid=710
Mass murdering, we all know, even today around the world.
The East India Company was named after the Indus river,
LOL, established in actually "Eastern Part of India".:D
Tarakki pay hai, Think Tank banega tu bhi! kaptaan bhaiya jaisa.
past masters like who?
Remember around WW2?
 
Back
Top Bottom