India on the War path?

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Whem modi came to power indian mindset was going to change 360 degrees

From the meek mild Manmohan singh who was almost apologetic for indian rising economic and diplomatic clout in Asia especially over terror labelled Pakistan

We now HAVE a MODI /DOVAL combination ,,,,,,,, IN Your Face arrogance who treats Pakistanis and their leaders with contempt.

UNDER MODI india threatened isolation globally ...... well the proof is there USA india love affair and complete USA withdrawl of pkistani support.

MODI as also demanded heavy firing on LOC for last 12 months much of which the Pakistani military never admit but every shell fired by Pakistanis india,s modi responds with 3 . rounds

The surgiucal strikes claims , creating unrest in Baluchistan and refusal to have talks or even a simple sports match shows how belligerent and arrogant Modi and india has become towards Pakistan

India is awaiting the right opportunity to STRIKE amd STRKE HARD each passing year the INDIAN MINDSET is growing that Pakistan is too weak industrially and militarily to stand up to INDIA in a conventional war .

WITH USA firmly on indian side that moment to strike gets closer

ALL WE AWAIT NOW IS THE TRIGGER ie another Mumbai or another Kargil .........

All talk and hot air. Strike Pakistan? india was too weak, pathetic and powerless to do anything to Pakistan after mumbai 2008 and uri 2016 and they are remain so. Despite being more than 7x bigger than us and having abundant access to the world's most advanced weapons systems whilst we are denied this privilege. indians are only good at one thing. Talking nothing else. History has shown this. When dogs bark, let them bark as long and as loud as they want. They won't do anything else.

America is unable to do anything to North Korea so it is unable to do so against Pakistan.

Isolated???????.............last time I checked one of only 2 superpowers on earth has already invested more than $60 billion in Pakistan with many more billions set for investment in the coming years and decades.......... Not to mention the TOT of many high tech advanced weapons systems from China to Pakistan under the CPEC framework. There is a REASON why Pakistan is the ONLY NATION in all recorded history that has thwarted a nation more than 7x lareger than itself for more than 70 years........

 

[pothead]

If Patel chose to follow the lead of one he revered, how does your thought come into the picture? And how does it matter what you, in your infinite wisdom, choose to call one of the major influences in the independence movement?

Sir, Patel should have never been asked to give up his right to be the elected PM. You can't set up a system and usurp the same system just because your favourite did not have his way.
That is the simple observation I am making. It's like a father asking a child to let go of something he earned and give it to his favourite child.
I may be over simplifying it but that's how I see it. It's not an attack on Gandhi. It's an observation I am making to things that have happened.

Anyway, Had Nehru not established his Kingdom where we have to now suffer this great grand kind, may be the bitterness would be less. And had Patel been the first PM, we may never had the dynasty ruling us.

The other part of your post I ignored by choice. They were personal attacks on me and I am not going to dignify them with an answer.

 

[Musafir117]

Guys calm down, why so much huff huff on monkey balls chest thumping?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Had these been altered/omitted, your writing would've made my top 5 responses on this forum. You could've done without them- that's just my opinion. @Joe Shearer

Please go through the post in question, #100, and let me have your views. Please be sure that I have no wish to achieve the status of one of your top 5 responses, but wish to react to your statement that I could have done without them. In other words, I would like to be fair, and will take constructive criticism as intended to be - what else? - constructive.

Sir, Patel should have never been asked to give up his right to be the elected PM. You can't set up a system and usurp the same system just because your favourite did not have his way.

He was asked by the leader of his party (the moral leader: Gandhi was at that point not even a member of the party), and he agreed. Do explain; how does your judgement affect the situation, or interfere in the relations between Gandhi and Patel?

That is the simple observation I am making. It's like a father asking a child to let go of something he earned and give it to his favourite child.
I may be over simplifying it but that's how I see it. It's not an attack on Gandhi. It's an observation I am making to things that have happened.

Again, neither your business nor that of the Sangh.

Anyway, Had Nehru not established his Kingdom where we have to now suffer this great grand kind, may be the bitterness would be less. And had Patel been the first PM, we may never had the dynasty ruling us.

What kingdom are you referring to? Were there no elections? Open and clean elections? did not the JS, the predecessor of the BJP, contest them? were different parties not installed, progressively, after the charisma of the Congress wore away?

And if pigs had wings, they would fly. If you wish to attempt alternate history, by all means, do so; it is just that this is not the place.

The other part of your post I ignored by choice. They were personal attacks on me and I am not going to dignify them with an answer.

That is entirely up to you.

 

[SorryNotSorry]

Please go through the post in question, #100, and let me have your views. Please be sure that I have no wish to achieve the status of one of your top 5 responses, but wish to react to your statement that I could have done without them. In other words, I would like to be fair, and will take constructive criticism as intended to be - what else? - constructive.

Nothing else really, just that. Pretty watertight if you ask me. Thanks for the edit.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Nothing else really, just that. Pretty watertight if you ask me. Thanks for the edit.

Fair enough.

 

[pothead]

He was asked by the leader of his party (the moral leader: Gandhi was at that point not even a member of the party), and he agreed. Do explain; how does your judgement affect the situation, or interfere in the relations between Gandhi and Patel?

That Gandhi took advantage of the fact that Patel would never say NO to him.
That Gandhi asked something of Patel, which he had no right to ask is the point I am making.
You sir are now making straw man argument to justify an action of Gandhi he should never have done.

Again, neither your business nor that of the Sangh.

Why? You think we lowly Indian Hindus who support Sangh can't have an opinion on matters that concern our nation?
Sir, you made that argument simply because of the fact that you know I am right. You can't logically counter my point and hence you are attacking the messenger.

What kingdom are you referring to? Were there no elections? Open and clean elections? did not the JS, the predecessor of the BJP, contest them? were different parties not installed, progressively, after the charisma of the Congress wore away?

And if pigs had wings, they would fly. If you wish to attempt alternate history, by all means, do so; it is just that this is not the place.

LOL. Couple of paragraphs above you justified Gandhi's nepotism towards Nehru. Oh, it was nepotism even though Nehru was not Gandhi's kid.
Now you are taking a 180 degree turn here sir.

What surprises me though, In fact I had waited for YOU to point at this is, Gandhi asking for dissolution of Congress. the so called moral compass was put used and put aside as and when convenient.

Anyway, instead of digressing like the "intellectuals", coming to the point, the family was shoved down our throats. @Oscar sir, you are competent to understand how the family ruled India. Joe does not agree with me, even though you posts indicate otherwise. Care to chip in?

That is entirely up to you.

Yes sir. small mercy I suppose.

 

[Joe Shearer]

That Gandhi took advantage of the fact that Patel would never say NO to him.
That Gandhi asked something of Patel, which he had no right to ask is the point I am making.
You sir are now making straw man argument to justify an action of Gandhi he should never have done.

Straw man? Did you overhear the phrase just now? Do you know what it means? It means that I set up a false situation and defeated it. What was the false situation, and how does my narration of the bare facts amount to using the straw man argument?

This was an internal discussion within the Indian National Congress; how does a member of a rival party, currently engaged in trying to capitalise on its ostensible admiration of one of the parties to the discussion, have any locus standi in that matter? Particularly since they are so clearly biased towards the conclusion that their erstwhile hero was wronged by his erstwhile party?

Why? You think we lowly Indian Hindus who support Sangh can't have an opinion on matters that concern our nation?

No, you cannot have an opinion on the internal decisions of a party not your own. It has nothing to do with your claims to being a Hindu, but much to do with your supporting the Sangh, for the following reasons:

1. Whether you are a Hindu or a Muslim or a Sikh or a Buddhist or a Christian or a Parsi, or an agnostic, or an atheist, as a citizen of India, you have every right to express an opinion on a national matter.
2. Being misled by your party's supposition that a leader is elected by the national electorate, rather than by the party that is asked to form a government, you raised the question of a matter that concerns the nation. It concerned the members of the Congress party alone, and not any others.
3. The Sangh never participated in the freedom struggle. What right did it have to vent its opinions on the deliberations of those who had constituted it?

This is the kind of half-baked information that you produce at every exchange.

Sir, you made that argument simply because of the fact that you know I am right. You can't logically counter my point and hence you are attacking the messenger.

Don't waste your time.

LOL. Couple of paragraphs above you justified Gandhi's nepotism towards Nehru. Oh, it was nepotism even though Nehru was not Gandhi's kid.
Now you are taking a 180 degree turn here sir.

What surprises me though, In fact I had waited for YOU to point at this is, Gandhi asking for dissolution of Congress. the so called moral compass was put used and put aside as and when convenient.

Anyway, instead of digressing like the "intellectuals", coming to the point, the family was shoved down our throats. @Oscar sir, you are competent to understand how the family ruled India. Joe does not agree with me, even though you posts indicate otherwise. Care to chip in?

I fail to understand.

There was no doubt that Gandhi influenced the Congress, through and through, with and without elections. Nobody denies that Nehru won through without opposition due to the firm support of Gandhi.

My point was about the kingdom. Was it perpetuated through inheritance? Were there no elections? Was it not open to others to challenge the party in power? What kingdom are you referring to?

Why do you engage in discussions for which you are so poorly equipped? And why do you possess the sublime arrogance to think that your glancing through Sanghi web-sites equips you to engage in discussions with a student and a teacher?

Yes sir. small mercy I suppose.

 

[Levina]

Please read #98; in fact, go through the thread. This is why it is clear that I have to follow my own judgement; that post could be framed on my wall as my political and sociological credo. I hope you understand my standpoint now.

@anant_s
@AUSTERLITZ
@Levina
@MilSpec
@nair
@scorpionx

Thanks for the tag it feels good to see my name in that list.
But i hope i didnt make it to the list by mistake. Lolz

Flummoxed i was, after i saw the tag on a thread titled "India on war path" and i was lead to a post which described India's political history,some of which i could never envisage.

After reading through 7 pages of this thread here are my views on the topic... and the thread:

1) Did anyone here bother to watch the video where IAF chief Dhanoa made the statement on hitting the Pak's nuke arsenals?
Anyone who is abreast with India's activity in the space, will tell you CARTOSAT-2 series has changed the game for India. Cartosat-2E has resolution of .65m or lesser and its NOT for civilian use so the exact resolution is not disclosed. Next year we will be launching series 3.
So if Mr.Dhanoa said what he did then be assured he wasn't wrong. But then he was merely talking of India's capabilities.
He didn't stop there.
He told the media that IAF has its issues so India is now working on a plan-B, incase (bold and red) India has to face a two-front war. So no our chief would never make juvenile statements like "we are planning to attack Pakistan soon" or that "we are craving for a war".

If anyone plans to watch Air chief's statement then pls watch the one aired on DOORDARSHAN and not the ones where journos are giving their opinion of Chief's statement. I don't want you to be mislead.

2) WAR is not happening any time soon.
I'm sorry to rain on your party guys but this is the fact. No country in the world can afford a war right now, not India,not Pakistan and not even China and America. World economy isnt in its pink anymore.

3) How dare the OP change the title to suit his narrative? Even the FB post which was posted in the OP had a title, but to catch more eyeballs the word WAR was insereted when it was posted on PDF. I'm surprised that even the great mod @Oscar missed it. These are stuff for which mortal members like me and others get warnings and bans.

4) Negative rating?
Joe, you and me both have something in common. Both of us are not very kind to criticism and views which are divergent from our own. Albeit your views and mine are poles apart.
What @pothead said resonates with ppl like me. I can tell you for a fact that its ppl like us who gave Modi a clear majority in the parliament so I'm assuming his opinion will find many takers among the Indian audience. I find it wrong to silence such a sizable majority like ours, when he was merely defending his points despite him getting called names by the badge holders on this thread. Not fair sir! He was not even provocative.

the 'current dispensation' has never shown power, never exercised power except against its own citizens, indifferently to the Dalit, the Muslim or the Kashmiri.

Dalit?
Sir our president is a Dalit himself- Ram Nath Kovind.

But then to discuss political issues of India, you and me should be on a more appropriate thread.

 

[pothead]

Straw man? Did you overhear the phrase just now? Do you know what it means? It means that I set up a false situation and defeated it. What was the false situation, and how does my narration of the bare facts amount to using the straw man argument?

This was an internal discussion within the Indian National Congress; how does a member of a rival party, currently engaged in trying to capitalise on its ostensible admiration of one of the parties to the discussion, have any locus standi in that matter? Particularly since they are so clearly biased towards the conclusion that their erstwhile hero was wronged by his erstwhile party?

yes sir, I heard it just now. After all I am a village idiot. I respect your knowledge but you seriously need to tone down your condescending attitude.
Straw man argument does not refer to JUST what you quoted. You obviously have the intellectual capacity to know in which other scenarios the phrase can be used. Please us it.

The Congress party had a discussion through ballot, the democratic means to elect Patel. That should have been the end of it. What you are now 'hiding' is the fact that Nehru sulked and went to Gandhi. Thee rest is history. You can obfuscate the facts but that's what happened.

No, you cannot have an opinion on the internal decisions of a party not your own. It has nothing to do with your claims to being a Hindu, but much to do with your supporting the Sangh, for the following reasons:

1. Whether you are a Hindu or a Muslim or a Sikh or a Buddhist or a Christian or a Parsi, or an agnostic, or an atheist, as a citizen of India, you have every right to express an opinion on a national matter.
2. Being misled by your party's supposition that a leader is elected by the national electorate, rather than by the party that is asked to form a government, you raised the question of a matter that concerns the nation. It concerned the members of the Congress party alone, and not any others.
3. The Sangh never participated in the freedom struggle. What right did it have to vent its opinions on the deliberations of those who had constituted it?

This is the kind of half-baked information that you produce at every exchange.

Sir, that it was an internal decision of the party is a ridiculous position to take. @Oscar Sir, do you support this claim that it was an internal decision and hence rest of the Indians had no stake or position in the decision?
1. Thank you.
2. Ridiculous position. I wish you would reconsider it.
3. Another straw man argument. Sangh or not, it was not just the gentlemen who sat in that room deciding Nehru as PM who fought for independence. Millions of people and that includes my great grand parents, yours and many others who participated in the freedom struggle. regarding Sangh, make another thread and we can exchange views. I think you are bringing in Sangh just to score points which are not relevant in this debate.

If mine is half baked, let people who read decide in your argument that Nehru being made as PM is internal party matter and rest of Indians had no stake in the decision.

I fail to understand.

There was no doubt that Gandhi influenced the Congress, through and through, with and without elections. Nobody denies that Nehru won through without opposition due to the firm support of Gandhi.

My point was about the kingdom. Was it perpetuated through inheritance? Were there no elections? Was it not open to others to challenge the party in power? What kingdom are you referring to?

Why do you engage in discussions for which you are so poorly equipped? And why do you possess the sublime arrogance to think that your glancing through Sanghi web-sites equips you to engage in discussions with a student and a teacher?

Kingdom can be built by ballot. You know this for a fact.
My point was about using Gandhi as a shield when it suits one argument only to pretend the fact that Gandhi asked for Congress dissolution never existed.

Whether one is poorly equipped or not is something YOU participating in the debate should not judge. let others who are reading our exchange chip in.

The sanghi jibes are overused. After all we all know who was sent to kaalapani and who was put in 3 star jail.

 

[T90TankGuy]

@Joe Shearer you are one a roll today , remember how i told you i dont suffer fools well ? its the reason i do not interact with the kid you are trying to have a discourse with , while you are succeeding he is failing miserably on all accounts due to his lack of knowledge and his sources being of the dubious kind . I really wish the kid had an iota of common sense to know that you cant change history or judge it by today's standards.


These kind of people are the real threat to the fabric of India . They certify them selfs as true nationalists and declare India did not exist till modi took over, notice how most of these are NRI? its because they get all their information from the net , not being able to see ground realities, for if they did they would hang their heads in shame.
We are unfortunately going through one of the worst possible economic slowdowns in the past twenty years , notice this is even worse than 2008 , which was a global crises!! This one is entirely man mad , done to satisfy the ego of a megalomaniac and his gang of five , but instead of it being the focal points of debates every eve, we have "surgical strike" and the Chiefs talking about strikes . Nothing but hot are being blown up a proverbial *** , so as not to get down to the meat of the situation.
Had the govt not changed the standards of calculation of the GDP the actual numbers would have reflected 3.7 % .


While ministers are going out of their way to say the economy is strong , the Pm and his beloved formed a economic panel , the reason being? just for fun i guess!!!!
what more they have it headed by the same lunatic who said the Demonetization was a success and helped India. If they had any sense they would approach the right minds and ask for help , alas thats not to be .

You were so right about oscar . he is back !!!!

 

[pothead]

These kind of people are the real threat to the fabric of India . They certify them selfs as true nationalists and declare India did not exist till modi took over, notice how most of these are NRI? its because they get all their information from the net , not being able to see ground realities, for if they did they would hang their heads in shame.

yes sir, you are all on a roll today.
After all how dare the son of a farmer, educate himself and choose to provide better life for his family by working outside of India.

I don't seriously know whether laugh or feel pity at some of the adjectives being thrown around at me.

After all how I dare I try to have a civil debate on a forum. After all a Forum is not a place for different POV to meet and have a civil discourse, right?

You abuse me and yet turn around and pretend what ever it is that you pretending.

Btw, Joe sir mentioned his daughter returned to India. Wonder if your views extend to all NRI's or it changes with the person?

 

[T90TankGuy]

yes sir, you are all on a roll today.
After all how dare the son of a farmer, educate himself and choose to provide better life for his family by working outside of India.

I don't seriously know whether laugh or feel pity at some of the adjectives being thrown around at me.

After all how I dare I try to have a civil debate on a forum. After all a Forum is not a place for different POV to meet and have a civil discourse, right?

You abuse me and yet turn around and pretend what ever it is that you pretending.

Btw, Joe sir mentioned his daughter returned to India. Wonder if your views extend to all NRI's or it changes with the person?

sorry i dont suffer fools well. dont bother to even engage with me till you have your facts right . you are entitled to you opinion of course , my post was not addressed to you !!!

 

[pothead]

sorry i dont suffer fools well. dont bother to even engage with me till you have your facts right . you are entitled to you opinion of course , my post was not addressed to you !!!

But it was intended for me.

You may not suffer fools but I do and I make it a point to engage them, like I am doing now.

 

[T90TankGuy]

But it was intended for me.

You may not suffer fools but I do and I make it a point to engage them, like I am doing now.

Thanks for proving my point!!!