Sri lankan players barred from playing in chennai

[W.11]

I guess it is safer to be humiliated than shot at.

i dont think any body with choose national humiliation over being shot at, two very different things altogether

 

[Jackdaws]

i dont think any body with choose national humiliation over being shot at, two very different things altogether

Not true - especially in case of Pakistanis. Pakistanis surrendered in Dacca and chose national humiliation over being shot at by Indians and the Mukti Bahini. And these Pakistanis had guns for self-defense. The Sri Lankans had some bats when their bus was shot at.

 

[W.11]

Not true - especially in case of Pakistanis. Pakistanis surrendered in Dacca and chose national humiliation over being shot at by Indians and the Mukti Bahini. And these Pakistanis had guns for self-defense. The Sri Lankans had some bats when their bus was shot at.

thats what you call, the truth is, india chose the national humiliation when bengalis didnt give two hoots to indians soldiers and kicked them off where they came from

 

[Jackdaws]

thats what you call, the truth is, india chose the national humiliation when bengalis didnt give two hoots to indians soldiers and kicked them off where they came from

Haha - whatever helps you sleep at night. But if you are so inclined - Youtube it - from neutral sources - Indian soldiers were not only welcomed but they were the ones who saved the Pakistani soldiers from being lynched by Bengali mobs - there are Youtube videos of Pakistanis being put in trains to India.

 

[W.11]

Haha - whatever helps you sleep at night. But if you are so inclined - Youtube it - from neutral sources - Indian soldiers were not only welcomed but they were the ones who saved the Pakistani soldiers from being lynched by Bengali mobs - there are Youtube videos of Pakistanis being put in trains to India.

the truth is india chose national humiliation when it broke tashkent declaration of not interfering on one's internal matters, we had already controled the indian trained pawns but then indian cowards couldnt hide ther intentions and attacked themselves

india has always been coward nation and thats why you were always humiliated through out entire history one way or another you remained slaves to pashtuns and afghans and mughals for a near thousand years

now please back to the topic we arnt dscussing indo pak wars here, dont be stupid

 

[Jackdaws]

the truth is india chose national humiliation when it broke tashkent declaration of not interfering on one's internal matters, we had already controled the indian trained pawns but then indian cowards couldnt hide ther intentions and attacked themselves

india has always been coward nation and thats why you were always humiliated through out entire history one way or another you remained slaves to pashtuns and afghans and mughals for a near thousand years

now please back to the topic we arnt dscussing indo pak wars here, dont be stupid

LOL - Pashtuns, Afghans and Mughals - the last one has been consigned to dustbins of history and the first two have been bajaoed more times than a temple bell - by Sikhs, Brits, Russians and Americans. That is humiliation - not some rose-tinted view that you have.

Getting back to the topic - the Sri Lankans have made their decision. No one has forced them to play in the IPL - if they wish to withdraw, then they should do so. Fact is they make more money in the one-month long IPL than they do playing for Sri Lanka year round. Ditto for the West Indians. The only ones who don't care as much for the money are the English and the Australians because their national contracts pay them very well. For players from countries like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, West Indies - if they want the money, they just have to swallow this slight. Heck, even the Pakistani gave their name for the IPL - but no one bid for them - because Indian owners showed national pride, Pakistani players showed they value money over nationality.

 

[W.11]

LOL - Pashtuns, Afghans and Mughals - the last one has been consigned to dustbins of history and the first two have been bajaoed more times than a temple bell - by Sikhs, Brits, Russians and Americans. That is humiliation - not some rose-tinted view that you have.

Getting back to the topic - the Sri Lankans have made their decision. No one has forced them to play in the IPL - if they wish to withdraw, then they should do so. Fact is they make more money in the one-month long IPL than they do playing for Sri Lanka year round. Ditto for the West Indians. The only ones who don't care as much for the money are the English and the Australians because their national contracts pay them very well. For players from countries like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, West Indies - if they want the money, they just have to swallow this slight. Heck, even the Pakistani gave their name for the IPL - but no one bid for them - because Indian owners showed national pride, Pakistani players showed they value money over nationality.

dude are you drunk, ruling for thousand years and ruled by ten years is the same as raped for an year and get molested for a minute, you dont lose your honour by getting molested but surely rape does it, many even commit cuicide after rape because they cant except the dishonour

also im talking about india here and not russians and americans who never occupied complete afghanistan, there are just pockets where american rule themselves there is a whole wild world they are not in control of in afghanistan

 

[Jackdaws]

dude are you drunk, ruling for thousand years and ruled by ten years is the same as raped for an year and get molested for a minute, you dont lose your honour by getting molested but surely rape does it, many even commit cuicide after rape because they cant except the dishonour

also im talking about india here and not russians and americans who never occupied complete afghanistan, there are just pockets where american rule themselves there is a whole wild world they are not in control of in afghanistan

That is an interesting theory - am glad you are fine with being molested as far as you are not raped but in the real world that is not how it works. I have always been curious to know where do you guys get the numbers from - 1000 years?

It is a historical fact that what is present day Pakistan and Afghanistan was ruled by Hindus and Buddhists for some 3000 years. So even if your exaggerated figure of 1000 years of Muslim rule is taken at face value - you still have a lot of catching up to do. Meanwhile, those of us who have read actual history are aware that the only Islamic dynasty to rule in India was during the Mughal era for just about 200 years and even then most of Western and Southern India were not part of the Mughal Empire.

 

[Sukh Jatt]

The Tamil thing..jayalalita is taking it too far.It's ultimately a LANKAN matter,IDK why Indian side of Tamils are so overly moved by a small thing.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

dude are you drunk, ruling for thousand years and ruled by ten years is the same as raped for an year and get molested for a minute, you dont lose your honour by getting molested but surely rape does it, many even commit cuicide after rape because they cant except the dishonour

also im talking about india here and not russians and americans who never occupied complete afghanistan, there are just pockets where american rule themselves there is a whole wild world they are not in control of in afghanistan

Apart from the factually incorrect thousand years and ten years part, you are an absolutely fu*ked up person for everything else that you wrote.

 

[jatt+gutts]

i m with tamils.. no cricket with baby killers

 

[W.11]

Apart from the factually incorrect thousand years and ten years part, you are an absolutely fu*ked up person for everything else that you wrote.

i said near thousand years (963-1857)

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

I don't know what they are teaching in Pakistani schools but there were only two dominant muslim empires in India and they were -

Delhi Sultanate- 1206-1526 and
Mughal empire- 1526-1707 ( after Aurangzeb's death Marathas had become the dominant power in India followed by the British)

That totals to 501 years. Before 1206 and after 1707 muslim rule in India was minimal and weak.

Anyway , my comment was not about the rule part of your comment. It was about your views on raped women.

 

[jatt+gutts]

only pashtoon kings i know about who ruled india was ahmed shah abdali( born in multan punjab). his rule lasted 1 year in punjab. next one was sher shah suri( born in bihar. never visited afghanistan in life) he ruled present day bangladesh. his rule lasted about 15 years

 

[Jackdaws]

I don't know what they are teaching in Pakistani schools but there were only two dominant muslim empires in India and they were -

Delhi Sultanate- 1206-1526 and
Mughal empire- 1526-1707 ( after Aurangzeb's death Marathas had become the dominant power in India followed by the British)

That totals to 501 years. Before 1206 and after 1707 muslim rule in India was minimal and weak.

Anyway , my comment was not about the rule part of your comment. It was about your views on raped women.

And even within the Mughal Empire, you can shave 50 years off during the rule of Akbar since he was not a Muslim - he founded his own religion Din-e-Elahi. The Delhi Sultanates as far as I know only exercised control Northern India - but correct me if I am wrong.