What's new

27 Feb 19: PAF shot down two Indian aircrafts inside Pakistani airspace: DG ISPR

If you were a lawyer and before a court hearing, the client would have stood up and asked the judge in the middle of case hearing to allow him defend himself, because even with a very limited knowledge of the law, he could do a much better job. And judge would have agreed. :lol:

No wonder, no body buys Indian shyt anymore of being "victim of terrorism".

Your biggest export is now being rejected and coming back home. Deal with it, or just, as you put it, "shut up"! :lol:

I doubt it. I doubt it for the simple reason that you are not a good judge of what might or might not happen in a courtroom; you lack the capacity to look at the written word and gauge what it means. Instead of working yourself into a frenzy trying to prove the unproveable, pay more attention to what you originally stated and what you were asked to prove.
 
You have a pair of eyes and a brain (if still in a working shape), so read yourself and stop wasting my time.

Because no matter, what kind of evidence I present, you are not gonna get out of this deep state of denial that your school syllabus and govt has been feeding you for perhaps more than a half century.

I have read the records and know them well, much better than you do from a cursory flip through Google to find what might be plausible.

Plausible is not accurate.

You need to go beyond glib assumptions, otherwise you will remain floundering in a welter of misapplied prejudices.
 
Yaar ye to koi khatron k khiladi me appear hone wali type personality lagti hai
Hahahaha
5c76781f255d7.jpg
 
I doubt it. I doubt it for the simple reason that you are not a good judge of what might or might not happen in a courtroom; you lack the capacity to look at the written word and gauge what it means. Instead of working yourself into a frenzy trying to prove the unproveable, pay more attention to what you originally stated and what you were asked to prove.

So tell me your stated position first.

Is your stated position this:

"India has never trained, armed, financed terrorists to carry out suicide attacks in the region?"
 
So tell me your stated position first.

Is your stated position this:

"India has never trained, armed, financed terrorists to carry out suicide attacks in the region?"

INDIA HAS NEVER TRAINED, ARMED, FINANCED TERRORISTS TO CARRY OUT SUICIDE ATTACKS IN THE REGION.
 
I have read the records and know them well, much better than you do from a cursory flip through Google to find what might be plausible.

Plausible is not accurate.

You need to go beyond glib assumptions, otherwise you will remain floundering in a welter of misapplied prejudices.

My evidence is far better and admissible in any neutral court of law than the flimsy and made up shyt by indians, who have nothing but loudest cries and shouts until their vocal chords give up and world has to tell them to calm down.

Even though I am a just an average person.

All of your higher ups starting from NSA to the top man in the job seem to admit in one context or the other and brag about it openly.

INDIA HAS NEVER TRAINED, ARMED, FINANCED TERRORISTS TO CARRY OUT SUICIDE ATTACKS IN THE REGION.

So you deny the charge just like any criminal would do.

That means a trial must take place.

First question from the attorney representing the other side: Has India ever financed, trained, armed Mukti Bahini or LTTE?

:-)
 
My evidence is far better and admissible in any neutral court of law than the flimsy and made up shyt by indians, who have nothing but loudest cries and shouts until their vocal chords give up and world has to tell them to calm down.

Even though I am a just an average person.

All of your higher ups starting from NSA to the top man in the job seem to admit in one context or the other and brag about it openly.

If you had paid attention to the clues that I have peppered over my past posts, you would have got it by now. Irrefutable proof.

As it is, you didn't get it.

You are not average. I am sorry, that would raise you far above your capacity and your ability to comprehend simple facts.

This is getting amusing. You just don't have an idea. Neither about the facts nor about the trail of clues.

My evidence is far better and admissible in any neutral court of law than the flimsy and made up shyt by indians, who have nothing but loudest cries and shouts until their vocal chords give up and world has to tell them to calm down.

Even though I am a just an average person.

All of your higher ups starting from NSA to the top man in the job seem to admit in one context or the other and brag about it openly.



So you deny the charge just like any criminal would do.

That means a trial must take place.

First question from the attorney representing the other side: Has India ever financed, trained, armed Mukti Bahini or LTTE?

:-)

Yes, it has.

At the beginning of these organisations, when they needed basic help. Thereafter they went their own way, funded their own operations, and turned against their erstwhile sponsors.
 
Yes, it has.

So you admit that India has financed, trained, armed LTTE, the very LTTE who has carried out dozens (if not hundreds) of suicide attacks in Sri Lanks.

On a side note: I have seriously started to feel pitty for your mental state. Sorry, couldnt resist that!
 
So you admit that India has financed, trained, armed LTTE, the very LTTE who has carried out dozens (if not hundreds) of suicide attacks in Sri Lanks.

On a side note: I have seriously to feel pitty for your mental state. Sorry, couldnt resist that!

I know you couldn't. The soft-headed often give in to these impulses.

No, I don't admit that India has financed, trained, armed LTTE that carried out suicide attacks.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom