Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
To avoid the possibility that what might appear to be satisficing in the present may not be so in the future. It is this very approach that has led to past leaders letting go of opportunities because they believed they had reached the minimal level necessary only for the problems and the ensuing cycle to restart.
And what makes you think that maximising will eliminate the problem? Assuming from a moment that your heroic campaign to reverse the defeat of Prithviraj Chauhan is successful, what next? Are you proposing the elimination of all living Pakistanis? Kill the men and enslave the women?
Striking postures on paper is one thing, implementing those threats is another.
On an off note - This attitude of satisficing is almost a cultural attribute of India raised Indians. No job is completed to the end with perfection and diligence while catering to future needs. The minimal necessary effort is put in with optimism that 'things will work out'.
It is this behaviour that I abhor.
Ah, an admirer of Kallicharan, I see.
Exactly. I was about to show him this but I didn't have the energy to type it out. I mean one would have to be blind to think India does not have its hands in the Balochistan issue. Mama Qadeer ring a bell anyone? Brahamdagh Bugti, Hyrbayar Marri maybe? All under Indian media patronage.
Now hold on a minute.
So India harbours known Baloch criminals. What does that imply? Or prove?
Indian media patronage? Meaning what? That the Times of India is blowing up the flames of Baloch nationalism? That NDTV is Pakistani public enemy #1?
Perhaps it is mischievous, even wicked, but in no case does it prove anything beyond that. Any more than the notorious gangster resident in Clifton proved that Pakistan was responsible for the infamous Bombay bomb blasts.
And that was not 'whataboutery', that was by way of example.