BR Forums Feedback

[shiv]

I have not found references to Sikhs, or Hindus or Christians from Pakistan getting involved in such atrocities against India. Do we also blame such "Pakistanis" for "Pakiness"? So there are "Pakis" who do not show "Pakiness" - is not that a contradiction?

By this logic one can say that all children below the age of 2 years in Pakistan are innocent. That would remove perhaps 5% of Pakis from the equation. Pakistani minorities comprise about 3 percent - so take away another 3. That leaves 92 % of the population - which is a "vast majority" as far as I can tell.

On the other hand we can have other secularist cutoff points. Secularism of this model can state that children below 12 years must be excluded from the "Pakis" count because they do not contribute to policy making. That would remove 20% of the Paki population. Add to this a percentage of Pakis who are traitors to Pakistan - maybe 10%. And the minorities of course. So we have 2 categories. One is "Friendly innocent Pakis" comprising 33% and "Pakis showing Pakiness" comprising 67%. This gets serious. We must be very ve-ry careful because we may hurt the feelings of those cute ickle non Paki Pakis when we accuse Pakis of Pakiness.

This is minority appeasement by Indians for Pakistan!

Of all the absurd theories I have heard on BRF - this sentiment for possibly innocent Pakis who must not be accused of Pakiness has got to be among the more absurd ones. My opinion. Pah!

[Gaur]

^^
Sir, good one.

[negi]

Tendency to generalize and usage of broad brush should be exercised with caution for there would be times when the people in question might find it hard to defend their turf when others use similar logic.
Some one rightly said the harsher the words used harder it is to digest them later. (has happened to me here on this very fora ).

[SaiK]

We have also stateless pakis, and statefull pakis distributed equally.

If one consider pakiness (stateless kind) especially those who have taken other state identity, should be of more concern to anyone, rather.

Regardless, If we attack pakiness, imho, we can corner pakis (whatever kind).

[pgbhat]

This is minority appeasement by Indians for Pakistan!

[brihaspati]

shiv wrote
By this logic one can say that all children below the age of 2 years in Pakistan are innocent. That would remove perhaps 5% of Pakis from the equation. Pakistani minorities comprise about 3 percent - so take away another 3. That leaves 92 % of the population - which is a "vast majority" as far as I can tell.

So if the majority of a group supposedly behave in a certain way, then it is alright to dub the whole group by that behaviour? Even within that 92%, how many have actually come out and commited some atrocity on India? Once again by "rational" logic, you cannot ascribe such "atrocious behaviour" to even the "majority" of that "majority". You are ascribing them "intentions", desires, without any actual proof to the contrary. You are modelling them all by a common model you have devised yourself in your imagination!

So what the members of the TSPA have done to Indians in actual encounters/raids/invasions, or their secret services have done, or their Government officials and institutions are doing against India, are being taken as models for all Pakistanis! If that logic is not "absurd" why do we lambast people who model such atrocious behaviour on the basis of strong affiliation to a certain theology? Why cannot then the action of the few most radical, extremists from that theology be not a model for the entire theology? Why is exploring and noting and not forgetting the essential features of that theology which in its turn drives atrocities on India - then a "crime" to be cleared from discussion in the forum?

We must be very ve-ry careful because we may hurt the feelings of those cute ickle non Paki Pakis when we accuse Pakis of Pakiness.
This is minority appeasement by Indians for Pakistan!

Isn't that the primary reason that is being "pontificated upon" from certain quarters on the forum - that we must be ve-ry careful becaue we may hurt the feelings of those cute ickle non-extremist members from that "one religion" when we accuse them blanketly of being "extremists"? Even if the context or analysis is merely trying to find out the motivations for extremism that seem to be inherent, and not being given up, and being followed faithfully as required in the core texts of that religion - even now! Even if there are apparent connections to the attacks or targeting of India - to the theology itself?

Of all the absurd theories I have heard on BRF - this sentiment for possibly innocent Pakis who must not be accused of Pakiness has got to be among the more absurd ones. My opinion. Pah!

Logic should be applied clearly, equally and impartially. The absurd bias in applying logic only on one side and denying that very same logic in other cases which are parallel - is what I tried to draw attention to.

[Prem]

Just 2 main basic fundamental issues here as i understand.
1 Pakistan is Islam and Islam is Pakistan was discovered here on the Forum
2 Give Peace a Chance , Destroy Pakistan.
If BRF now feels it need to disown these 2 innocent babies as illegitmate because they might ( Not a FAct) tease some Indians with infidelity then there must be clear indications for members so no one fall victim to this IED trap.

[enqyoob]

RamaY writes:

Show some grace my dear friend!

Given the incredibly malevolent sneak attack that you launched above on a perfectly friendly post by me, you are no friend, nor indeed anyone that I want any association with. As for your inability to tell the difference between discussing military engine development on a military forum, and continuing baiting of religious minorities an nausem on a forum where religious discussions are explicitly forbidden, well... I note that you claimed just one post above that I was "opinion-engineering" when I accurately summarized your agenda.

Q.E.D.

You should have been banned a year ago, when I strenuously argued with other mods instead that you should NOT be banned since you just went with whatever mob was active at the time, and could not be blamed for thinking at all. Won't make that mistake again.

[negi]

1 Pakistan is Islam and Islam is Pakistan was discovered here on the Forum

Is it ? I thought that this was what likes of Zaid Hamid and his ilk propagate day in and day out . I am afraid the complexity and seriousness of the situation cannot be summed up in catchy one liners specially the ones which are not correct .

[enqyoob]

Interesting attempt to sneak in the single-point hate agenda.

FYI, the slogan

Give Peace a Chance , Destroy Pakistan.

is by no means a call for Doomsday WMD war against the people living peacefully in Pakistan or anywhere else!

It is exactly the opposite. It argues that the STATE of Pakistan must cease to exist as a viable entity, and the region must be divided into 5 or 6 mutually suspicious "independent" states, each too busy trying to guard against its Former Pakistan neigbhors, to wage terrorist war against India and the rest of the world. If this is NOT done, then it is clear that the region and the world are sliding towards ever-increasing levels of violence propagated by the Pakistani state and its army, and this will indeed lead to WMD attacks on the people of the world.

It argues that it is the Pakistani Military, with its WMD, its Air Force and its 500,000-terrorist conventional army, that protects and nurtures global terrorism and prevents the terrorist enterprise from being uprooted. Take that away, and the terrorists will have no place to hide from justice.

These things are clearly explained, for instance see the article at SRR, so I absolutely abhor the above attempt to cast that along with attacks on Islam or on Muslims as some postors here keep trying to do.

This illustrates the problem very clearly. Some of us have spent every spare minute for the past decade trying to counter the Pakistani menace, by trying to focus attention on the practical, rational way to deal with the Pakistan Problem and showing how India is DIFFERENT from Pakistan. Every time we make some little headway, a horde of idiots rush out and pull the rug from under us with their disgusting single-point hate agenda, that makes no distinction between terrorist mass murderers and peaceful co-citizens of democracies who follow whatever religious beliefs they follow or are born into.

I for one am tired of having my time wasted by these hate-mongers and want them out of here, since this forum clearly specifies that religious baiting is not tolerated here, which is a big reason for my being here.

If Prem cannot distinguish between Items (1) and (2) of his post, sorry, but he should not be here. He has proven time and again (just scan the posts above in just this thread) his agenda, and it is clearly against the intent and stated guidelines of this forum. He has no understanding or desire to understand military or strategic issues. Enough effort and time and goodwill have been expended trying to put up with such noise and stench.

[RayC]

I have come in late.

Interesting discussion.

Next time I have to take a decision, I will go in for a referendum !

There must be such a Forum.

It could not have got more cuter!

[RayC]

This illustrates the problem very clearly. Some of us have spent every spare minute for the past decade trying to counter the Pakistani menace, by trying to focus attention on the practical, rational way to deal with the Pakistan Problem and showing how India is DIFFERENT from Pakistan. Every time we make some little headway, a horde of idiots rush out and pull the rug from under us with their disgusting single-point hate agenda, that makes no distinction between terrorist mass murderers and peaceful co-citizens of democracies who follow whatever religious beliefs they follow or are born into.

There could be nothing more true.

[Raju]

{Post deleted. Postor banned. To all those outraged at the Apparent Stomping on Free Speech in the Feedback Forum, here is why I had to do this:

1. He continued, despite 3 clear warnings, to argue that citizens of a friendly democratic country are fair targets for random violence because of his hate for the perceived actions of the government. This is the same as the Al Qaida's reasoning. We cannot as moderators allow such cra* to appear here. I don't have time to keep tracking every one of his posts to see where he posts similar cra*, say, tomorrow, or the week after.

2. Despite clear and repeated warnings, he blatantly violated the privacy of at least one postor on this forum. Such irresponsible conduct leaves no alternative.

The ability to heed simple instructions is basic to adult civilized behavior. Perhaps ppl can see that his outrage over "editing" of his post was all because it frustrated his agenda -which was to use the forum to argue for violence against people of a certain nation, specifically those visiting India. The post was edited to delete ONLY the offensive content and avoid confrontation, but obviously he wasn't going to allow that. }

[shiv]

We must be very ve-ry careful because we may hurt the feelings of those cute ickle non Paki Pakis when we accuse Pakis of Pakiness.
This is minority appeasement by Indians for Pakistan!

Isn't that the primary reason that is being "pontificated upon" from certain quarters on the forum - that we must be ve-ry careful becaue we may hurt the feelings of those cute ickle non-extremist members from that "one religion" when we accuse them blanketly of being "extremists"? Even if the context or analysis is merely trying to find out the motivations for extremism that seem to be inherent, and not being given up, and being followed faithfully as required in the core texts of that religion - even now! Even if there are apparent connections to the attacks or targeting of India - to the theology itself?

my response wil be posted in the Pakistan discussion forum. OT on this thread.

[SSridhar]

this is excatly the confusion I wanted to avoid. In the deleted sentence, it was mentioned 'US interests' in the region.
IT is clear that US strategic interest in the region is survival of TSPA, continuing of Afghan bases and Diego.
US citizens weren't in the picture, until you bought them in.

Raju, that is not correct. I have read what you had written and it clearly conveyed a threat to interests beyond just strategic as you mention. That cannot be tolerated on this forum.

I would ask you to put a fullstop to this here.

[RamaY]

Given the incredibly malevolent sneak attack that you launched above on a perfectly friendly post by me, you are no friend, nor indeed anyone that I want any association with. As for your inability to tell the difference between discussing military engine development on a military forum, and continuing baiting of religious minorities an nausem on a forum where religious discussions are explicitly forbidden, well... I note that you claimed just one post above that I was "opinion-engineering" when I accurately summarized your agenda.

Q.E.D.

You should have been banned a year ago, when I strenuously argued with other mods instead that you should NOT be banned since you just went with whatever mob was active at the time, and could not be blamed for thinking at all. Won't make that mistake again.

What has this got to do with you using my handle in a derogatory manner?

Just to remind you the context of your attack on me, because you demand strategic-silence w.r.t 1000 years of ideological colonization, while bringing my posting history and yah pattern of hatred

If you check the roster of the Pakis in all sorts of terror attacks, except for the ones who strap on the suicide vests, the rest are mostly middle class/upper middle class.

Darwin Award nominees. Probably decided to show off how TFTA they are, then got sucked into the Toilet Bowl-e-Jihad. In the case of Gilani I suspect that it was the Expense Account, wimmens, goats and all, that did it.

IOW, it is their Pakiness. College students in American universities, brought up on CNN and Disney, and with halal Coca Cola running in their veins, suddenly "come of age" as Pakis, and go off on a pilgrimage to Pakistan to attend terror camps. How can one explain this other than by Pakiness?

N^3 Ji,

I agree with your logic w.r.t Pakis. What about the 16 KSA citizens who became pilots and airline passengers on that fateful day?

I really do not understand how one can deduce that I am a IM hater and demanding genocide. Only some guber-brain can achieve that feat.

And if (below) this is your STRATEGY to attract IM posters to BRF, only Allah can save you.

…
Let me take RamaY's question first. The first question is:

How sure are you that there were 16 and only 16, and that they were indeed the Saudi citizens who they were "identified" to be?
As far as I know, there has been no positive ID. The remains were unidentifiable. The airport cameras were, at best, ambiguous. Have you seen any positive ID evidence presented? Saying:"Aha! Look at this corner of a burnt piece of paper. It is 385% certain to be a piece of a Saudi passport. Ismail bin Abdul Al Pooheadi possessed a Saudi passport, and he has disappeared, therefore, Q.E.D.!" is hardly positive ID.

Please read some of the stuff some of us posted at BRM/SRR in the 2001-2002 time frame before we stopped, convinced that it was not a case of the Authorities not KNOWING, it was that they were determined not to acknowledge knowing.
…

[Jagan]

this is excatly the confusion I wanted to avoid. In the deleted sentence, it was mentioned 'US interests' in the region.
IT is clear that US strategic interest in the region is survival of TSPA, continuing of Afghan bases and Diego.
US citizens weren't in the picture, until you bought them in.

Raju, that is not correct. I have read what you had written and it clearly conveyed a threat to interests beyond just strategic as you mention. That cannot be tolerated on this forum.

I would ask you to put a fullstop to this here.

I agree. The statement clearly mentioned "doing harm to near and dear ones if you dont toe our line" or something on the sorts . N3 only edited it in the first place. It would have merited a straight warning if I had seen it first.

[RamaY]

I have not found references to Sikhs, or Hindus or Christians from Pakistan getting involved in such atrocities against India. Do we also blame such "Pakistanis" for "Pakiness"? So there are "Pakis" who do not show "Pakiness" - is not that a contradiction?

By this logic one can say that all children below the age of 2 years in Pakistan are innocent. That would remove perhaps 5% of Pakis from the equation. Pakistani minorities comprise about 3 percent - so take away another 3. That leaves 92 % of the population - which is a "vast majority" as far as I can tell.

On the other hand we can have other secularist cutoff points. Secularism of this model can state that children below 12 years must be excluded from the "Pakis" count because they do not contribute to policy making. That would remove 20% of the Paki population. Add to this a percentage of Pakis who are traitors to Pakistan - maybe 10%. And the minorities of course. So we have 2 categories. One is "Friendly innocent Pakis" comprising 33% and "Pakis showing Pakiness" comprising 67%. This gets serious. We must be very ve-ry careful because we may hurt the feelings of those cute ickle non Paki Pakis when we accuse Pakis of Pakiness.

This is minority appeasement by Indians for Pakistan!

Of all the absurd theories I have heard on BRF - this sentiment for possibly innocent Pakis who must not be accused of Pakiness has got to be among the more absurd ones. My opinion. Pah!

An honest/sincere question!

At what %of Population, the equation becomes sensitive? 1% or 3% or 15% or 18.324459%?

People become excessively sensitive when discussing Future INDIAN strategic "scenarios", yet they do not show the same sensitivity towards FUTURE pakistan strategic scenarios Looks like some people got used to living with what is left for them.

It reminds me of RayC-saar's definition of National Security, where he opined that IA's function is limited to protectecting current Indian borders, but not enhancing them. I remember asking him at that time, what would be IA's response if Indian political leadership decides to extend Indian borders?

In reality, Indian borders were contracted (POK) and expanded (Goa, Sikkim & Siachin) after 1947, it is very much possible to happen. The strategists must game-out those scenarios and military must be prepared for those eventualities.

[RayC]

It reminds me of RayC-saar's definition of National Security, where he opined that IA's function is limited to protectecting current Indian borders, but not enhancing them. I remember asking him at that time, what would be IA's response if Indian political leadership decides to extend Indian borders?

In reality, Indian borders were contracted (POK) and expanded (Goa, Sikkim & Siachin) after 1947, it is very much possible to happen. The strategists must game-out those scenarios and military must be prepared for those eventualities.

The question of expanding or contracting the Indian borders is that of the political leadership and not that of the Armed Forces.

And hence it is the duty of the Armed Forces to guard the territory.

[brihaspati]

So enqyoob,
you do not see it necessary to intervene when RayC begins his diversionary attacks, but only when such attacks are protested, by making it appear as if he was merely responding to OT posts? And none of his own posts are OT nor are they "whines", but only those posts which come in reply or as counter-posts to his, have to be qualified not only as OT but also "whines"? Thanks for making your biases more open.

[enqyoob]

Listen, buddy. I spent 2 hours early on Christmas morning on my vacation cleaning up the stables at the thread where you guys had been cra**ing all over for 2 weeks. A great deal of that was yours. The whole thread read like one of the political meetings at the Vidyarthi Corner:

1. Postor X makes a long post about how he is the greatest thinker in the Duniya.
2. Postor Y, a sincere, dedicated fellow, makes a brief list of items relevant to the stated purpose of the thread, blind to the fact that the thread is set up purely as a forum for Postor X to beat his own drum.
3. Postor X posts 3 more long rambles about how he is the greatest philosopher in the Duniya.
4. Postor Z posts a short list of items needed.
5. Postor X posts 5 long rambles bout how he is the greatest philosopher in the Duniya.
6. Moderator A gets tired of this, and posts something that indicates less than 100% endorsement of Items 1, 3 and 5.
7. Postor X makes 4 long rambles about how he had said this 57,000 posts back, or that 63,000 posts back, and how Moderator A needs his help on how to moderate the forum, and how he is planning to combat Moderator A at every step from now on.

Most of Postor X's posts are like those speeches at the Vidyarthi Corner:

Vietnamilenthusambhavikkunnoooooooooooooooooooo - Cambodiayilenthusambhavikkunnooooooooooo?

(What is happening in Vietnam? What is happening in Cambodia? Not that the speechmaker has the slightest clue or has anything constructive to offer).


If you had half a wit about you, you would have observed that I deleted posts by Moderators (more than one) and Extremators and Pompoadours, with absolutely no difference in (dis)respect. But noooooooooooo! Instead you come here to pick a fight with me.

Here's my advice: If you want to pick a fight, go bother someone who cares a fig to put up with your whining. I am damn tired of all the incessant pompous gassing, and don't plan to put up with it. You could say I am rude, abrupt, disrespectful, whatever . Why not? You've earned it the hard way, hain?

I don't care. I'll delete and warn and ban obnoxious postors as I feel needed to bring some discipline and sense back. Or maybe I am completely Postal and ban just for the heck of it. Go about that too. Anyway, if I try to help postors by doing my job quiety, all I get is abuse, so why not I have some real fun for a change?

Ban them All! Let J-Gun and Ra-Hool sort 'em out!

Merry Dec. 25. To paraphrase Indian Railways:

More Constructive Thought and Concise posts, Less Whining & Rambles. Make BRF a Pleasure

[RayC]

So enqyoob,
you do not see it necessary to intervene when RayC begins his diversionary attacks, but only when such attacks are protested, by making it appear as if he was merely responding to OT posts? And none of his own posts are OT nor are they "whines", but only those posts which come in reply or as counter-posts to his, have to be qualified not only as OT but also "whines"? Thanks for making your biases more open.

Since you have used my name, I will take it on. As a poster and not a Mod, I have let you have a field day. I have done so since I am a votary of free speech and ideas.

You appear to be a historian. Interesting you even hide your specialisation, indeed if you have one, unlike Shiv or me which allows posters some idea to understand how to respond. Nothing wrong. I appreciate the desire to operate incognito. Each to his ways!

In life, I have seen that those who are confident of themselves have no qualms in informing all of their station in life. But then, I appreciate that one must have a station in life to inform!

Please understand that though you have a inflated ego that you are the sole knowledgeable person on this forum, I request you to desist from it. There will be greater people than you on this forum. What is more the Mods and the Admins are staffed with people who are educated, maybe more than you, and with greater experience than you. For instance, Your sanctimonious comment in the Afghan thread of Mobile Warfare would fetch you Rs 1000 in the Humour in Uniform in Reader Digest. Quit clowning around with an attitude.

Having said that, I wonder who is diversionary.

My posts are OT?

Since you are such a Indic person let me use the famous words:
http://utube.smashits.com/videos/Khoon-Aur-Paani.html

Tera Khoon, Khoon
Aur Mera Khoon Pani?
Tera Gaam gaam, aur mera gaam kahani?

You are not only diversionary, you are sneaky. I am not. I am upfront.

Ramay wrote something and you cautioned him. Why? Playing safe? Ramay is the Id's sacrificial goat and you the hero?

Please note. I have had enough of you. Keep to the content of the thread and not display you scintillating knowledge of history when it has nothing to do with Future strategic etc 1010 -2050!

Look to the future or does it not let you be the shining star of history?

I will be frank, you are NOW on my cross-hair, much that I hate to do so!

As the submariners say - Tread Softly Tread Deep! No superficial nonsense, please!

Caution to the Gang of Four too!

Take heed of enqyoob's wise words.

The moons of Jupiter also are not in congruence!

The universe must be synchronized!

Jagan and others may not like it, but I would not encourage Maulana Masood Azhar and their like in a different avatar!

You stand as warned for indicating that Enyoob, the Mod, is biased.

He has on an open forum has indicated that I was wrong, even though I don't agree. He, biased?

He biased?

Which planet you live in?

Jupiter?


No more lip from you or that eight plus moons!

[KrishG]

Dear Adminullahs! Some posts in the LCA dhaga has to be moved.

[RayC]

Mods,

The thread “Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent” has been locked, as few people feel that there is nothing new to learn in that topic. Nothing new to learn, for whom and why? Is it that those people “do not” want to learn anything new, or they “know” that others have nothing new to say?

While it is moderators’ prerogative to lock a thread, I see very little logic in locking this thread. The “future strategic scenario for the Indian subcontinent” is an evolving one and currently is going thru interesting changes sociologically, militarily, and economically.

Request you to reconsider.

Just the point and not what happened at Somnath or Alexander or such claptraps of history that has no meaning today.

It is the bread and butter issues that we must focus on and not on our historical prowess sneaked in to impress the hoi polloi!!

Got that, my good man?

[brihaspati]

RayC,
I have indicated what I do as profession, and what my specialization is - in quite a few threads. In fact I specifically mentioned that I do not post where my primary field of specialization lies. I only post where I have secondary interests academcically and where I felt I needed to sharpen my thoughts. As for boasting about "station in life" - such boasting is shunned by tradition among some Indian families. It is a matter of culture, I suppose, so you would not understand.

I have cautioned nobody, as far as I can remember. I simply asked RamaY if it was better to move that particualr discussion out of feedback to somewhere it is appropriate. In any case there is no point discussing that supposed "caution" when both the posts have been wiped off, isn't it?

So there is a "gang of four" here on the forum? And so much esoteric talk of Jupiter's moons out of sync! Too intellectual! Bordering on bunkum, really! As for Ego, look in the mirror. As for using history, you yourself use history (with twisting as required) when it suits you - to give excuses for your claims.

Oh, yes since you have kept me on your crosshairs, I too will keep you on my crosshairs. Don't worry. I have never compromised on principles. However, thanks for converting a majhjhim panthi into reluctantly agreeing with the "right wing" about where the true enemies of Bharat lie. I will not only keep the crosshairs finetuned here on the forum, I will also do so on similar political positions in the future in reality, as and when it becomes feasible.

[brihaspati]

enqyoob,
no problem. At least you are consistent in what you do. There was no philosophy discussion in that thread. Postor X tried to start discussions on land use, or direct democracy, or possibility of getting things like a land corridor to connect NE to the sea. Mod A never joined these discussions, and went on focusing how others use history. For you the former becomes philosophy and the latter becomes pointed outlines!

[RayC]

RayC,
I have indicated what I do as profession, and what my specialization is - in quite a few threads. In fact I specifically mentioned that I do not post where my primary field of specialization lies. I only post where I have secondary interests academcically and where I felt I needed to sharpen my thoughts. As for boasting about "station in life" - such boasting is shunned by tradition among some Indian families. It is a matter of culture, I suppose, so you would not understand.

You have indicated sweet fanny adams as to what you do.

Indeed, as you say, you do not post where you specialise.

As far as your stuff about traditions that some Indian families don't boast is shunned by tradition, and Indian culture, give me another! Just the hoodwinking that you are so good at under the guise of Indian culture, Indic behaviour and the like! Maharani Gayatri Devi et al did not take this cover and yet you want to say you are teaching such people traditions? One has to be of a higher station than them with your attitude!! So, what are you?

Indeed, I don't understand since Gayatri Devi people are the highest of Indian traditions that I have interacted with! And their betters, which you claim to be!

I have cautioned nobody, as far as I can remember. I simply asked RamaY if it was better to move that particualr discussion out of feedback to somewhere it is appropriate. In any case there is no point discussing that supposed "caution" when both the posts have been wiped off, isn't it?

Why so?

RamaY is a brainless wonder as per you and he does not know what he does? Or is it a way to worm into the hearts of the Moderators when the going appears to get heavy? Since when were you so considerate to the operation of this forum?

So there is a "gang of four" here on the forum? And so much esoteric talk of Jupiter's moons out of sync! Too intellectual! Bordering on bunkum, really! As for Ego, look in the mirror. As for using history, you yourself use history (with twisting as required) when it suits you - to give excuses for your claims.

Give the world a break and stop acting the second coming of Mahatma Gandhi and that of Jesus Christ. Enough of you charade!

Oh, yes since you have kept me on your crosshairs, I too will keep you on my crosshairs. Don't worry. I have never compromised on principles. However, thanks for converting a majhjhim panthi into reluctantly agreeing with the "right wing" about where the true enemies of Bharat lie. I will not only keep the crosshairs finetuned here on the forum, I will also do so on similar political positions in the future in reality, as and when it becomes feasible

Ah so, you have never compromised on principle. I give way. We are well aware of your agenda. As usual with your inscrutable syntax that is double talk - what does - I will also do so on similar political positions in the future in reality, as and when it becomes feasible - are you a political bigwig who can threaten the common man or are you the Rathore type of policeman? Not that it worries, can take on both the types.

Last, but not the least, you better mend your ways or else find a new place to have a shower of your ideas!

Let us not grandstand.

[RayC]

enqyoob,
no problem. At least you are consistent in what you do. There was no philosophy discussion in that thread. Postor X tried to start discussions on land use, or direct democracy, or possibility of getting things like a land corridor to connect NE to the sea. Mod A never joined these discussions, and went on focusing how others use history. For you the former becomes philosophy and the latter becomes pointed outlines!

Trying to toady up?

Now that all guns are upfront blazing?

Divide and rule, Jupiter?

Same policy as those who apparently pretend to despise?

[brihaspati]

^^^no toadying up. If you use your brain, you can read the last line of the post again to see it is no toadying up. As for guns blazing, I can only see huge ego's letting loose a torrent from the drains. Thanks.

[RayC]

^^^no toadying up. If you use your brain, you can read the last line of the post again to see it is no toadying up. As for guns blazing, I can only see huge ego's letting loose a torrent from the drains. Thanks.

Too bad for you.

Don't cross the Rubicon.

I would hate to see anyone fall not on ego but if you have the brains, you would realise that you are being a trifle impudent (incautious in venting your impotent ire)!

I see toadying as anyone without a veil of assumed ego spouting an agenda on the single subject of knowledge would see.

I showed your mobile warfare in Afghanistan theory to some military folks and they has a jolly good Christmas without Santa saying Ho Ho Ho!

Merry Christmas to you or would it be appropriate to tell you Jolly good burra din.

[brihaspati]

Toadying up, worming in to the hearts of mods, social station - all these are your concepts and expressions, and not mine.

[RayC]

Toadying up, worming in to the hearts of mods, social station - all these are your concepts and expressions, and not mine.

I don't have the privilege of these traits as you, since I am in the Cabinet!

[brihaspati]

"Mobile warfare in AFG" was not my theory, it stemmed from issues of operational difficulties raised in an article I quoted from someone else, who discussed the implications of policy declarations regarding search, social conditions etc. Did you also show that article to your friends and experts, and the posts where you had put words in my mouth to ridicule?

"Toadying up.." etc were used and applied by you in the last few posts, not by me except in reply.

[RayC]

"Mobile warfare in AFG" was not my theory, it stemmed from issues of operational difficulties raised in an article I quoted from someone else, who discussed the implications of policy declarations regarding search, social conditions etc. Did you also show that article to your friends and experts, and the posts where you had put words in my mouth to ridicule?

"Toadying up.." etc were used and applied by you in the last few posts, not by me except in reply.

You raised mobile warfare from an article you quoted?

You appended no article.

I daresay you did.

Do enlighten us, so that I can wake up Deepak Kapoor by drawing his attention.

Who are you fooling?

I hope you know what is mobile warfare.

Do show where I have missed it on the thread and you sure will have my apology.

[enqyoob]

I don't think the message is getting through, RayC. Not everyone has the capability to take simple,direct hints, I suppose.

[Ashok Sarraff]

Brihaspati ji,

I would advice and request caution and a bit cooling down. I, like many others on the forum, have learnt a lot from your thoughts. It will be a big loss to your "students" if you voluntarily stopped or are stopped from posting here. So in the interest of educating the less informed individuals like me, I would request you to avoid taking up issues with the powers that be. There are many things that can be discussed without crossing the forum's Laxman Rekha as determined by the moderators in their right. Please acknowledge the power structure in this forum (even if you may not agree with it) and continue to spread the light to the extent possible. Please look at the larger/longer-term picture and exercise restraint in the interest of people who have a lot to learn from your knowledge and experiences.

[SwamyG]

B ji:
You have two options:
1. Keep fighting for what you think is right and go down. If the moderators gang up, that is the eventual outcome.
2. Or ignore some of the posts & moderators; and continue to express your views in other threads.

[RayC]

There is nothing on B'pati or any other expressing their views so long it is not offensive to being an Indian or playing one against the other.

It has nothing to Mod's ideas of how to run the BRF.

Let us not mix up issues!

He is welcome to hang around and we don't grudge his presence. However, if he wants to take over the forum with his agenda, he has another guess coming!!

Without B'pati, I think BRF will survive!!

There are enough of intelligent posters!

[sam_kamath]

{OT deleted. Please learn to exercise some discipline and quit cluttering the forum with inane stuff and imposing on moderator's time cleaning up after you. Consider using email for chit-chats.}

[negi]

Mods can the trash from TSP thread be pruned asap ? unless of course Mods are gonna allow a free for all kind of a bar room brawl.