Bangladesh concerned over attacks on oil establishments in Gulf

[Avicenna]

Stop lying. He did not abuse anyone.

Cheeky comment post number 3.

I agree the response from the other guy was disproportional.

But understand who started what on this thread.

 

[war&peace]

Cheeky comment post number 3.

I agree the response from the other guy was disproportional.

But understand who started what on this thread.

Why what did he say wrong? All he said Myanmar has also shown concern... now tell me how is it abusive?

 

[El Sidd]

Guys it’s Ramadan.

Simmer down.

why is blackmail your Goto defense?

 

[Avicenna]

Why what did he say wrong? All he said Myanmar has also shown concern... now tell me how is it abusive?

Bhutan.

And the comment was meant as a slight.

Be honest with yourself.

 

[war&peace]

Bhutan.

And the comment was meant as a slight.

Be honest with yourself.

Okay Bhutan...even if he said Maldives ..so what?

Okay Bhutan...even if he said Maldives ..so what?

Bhutan.

And the comment was meant as a slight.

Be honest with yourself.

Max response could have been, "buddy, you're wrong Bhutan did not say so"

 

[Avicenna]

Okay Bhutan...even if he said Maldives ..so what?

The country is irrelevant.

The point is his comment was meant as an insult.

Third post down in this thread.

Full stop.

 

[war&peace]

The country is irrelevant.

The point is his comment was meant as an insult.

Third post down in this thread.

Full stop.

Well that's how you guys interpreted it..snow flakes..there was no abuse and he did not mention Bd in his post sir.

 

[Avicenna]

Well that's how you guys interpreted it..snow flakes..there was no abuse and he did not mention Bd in his post sir.

I wonder what you think his intent was in naming Bhutan in his post.

Perhaps insinuating that Bangladesh is as geopolitically irrelevant as Bhutan.

Whether that is true or not is debatable.

But the posters intent was a troll attempt.

Whether you wanna continue to be intellectually dishonest or ignorant to it is up to you.

 

[El Sidd]

I wonder what you think his intent was in naming Bhutan in his post.

Perhaps insinuating that Bangladesh is as geopolitically irrelevant as Bhutan.

Whether that is true or not is debatable.

But the posters intent was a troll attempt.

Whether you wanna continue to be intellectually dishonest or ignorant to it is up to you.

Bhutan has more relevance than Bangladesch

 

[war&peace]

I wonder what you think his intent was in naming Bhutan in his post.

Perhaps insinuating that Bangladesh is as geopolitically irrelevant as Bhutan.

Whether that is true or not is debatable.

But the posters intent was a troll attempt.

Whether you wanna continue to be intellectually dishonest or ignorant to it is up to you.

Intent and wording are two different things. Intent can be replied with similar crafty statement instead of becoming a loser abuse. I know that was smart and cheeky statement but it should have been replied the same way. We deal with smart & cheeky Indians the whole day and it is fun to respond but not in an abusive way.

 

[Avicenna]

Intent and wording are two different things. Intent can be replied with similar crafty statement instead of becoming a loser abuse. I know that was smart and cheeky statement but it should have been replied the same way. We deal with smart & cheeky Indians the whole day and it is fun to respond but not in an abusive way.

I agree with that.

The response as I said was disproportional and in poor taste.

 

[waz]

27th Feb was a short skirmish and Pakistan won the day. But any full fledged conflict, they have no chance against the behemoth India except for using the nukes.

Nope, history is full of conflicts where a smaller foe has outclassed a bigger foe on the field of battle, and that includes times where relatively modern weapons were being used. One good example is when German forces, even though heavily outnumbered and technologically unmatched managed to turn the tables on the British expeditionary force and the might of the French army, taking France and by default Western Europe.
Pakistan is a match conventionally. It's not simply about counting how many tanks or guns each side has. Also remember Pakistan has a far smaller space to defend.

 

[KhanBaba2]

Actually there is a point there.
1. For road, rail and energy connectivity to Arabian Sea - CPEC. CPEC also has had the added benefit of stopping Pakistan from going into outright recession right now.

How much of China's traffic do you think will be going via the Karakorum Highway

 

[waz]

Right, India as a responsible power and concerned with economic growth, do not want to escalate things with Pakistan to a critical level. Otherwise such boasting would have sound hollow. World has seen their calibre against India in real war like those in 1971, 1965 or in Kargil. They managed to loose the war even when they had a realistic chance to win, now that good, old days are long gone.

Since when was 65 a defeat? Do you realise Kargil was fought with infantry from Pakistan's side and India used full force of combined arms and still lost more men and material.
Your love for India has clouded your rational.

 

[namefield_empty]

One good example is when German forces, even though heavily outnumbered and technologically unmatched managed to turn the tables on the British expeditionary force and the might of the French army, taking France and by default Western Europe.

Russo-Japanese war would be a better example, the perfect underdog story.

Nonetheless, there has been unbirdled trolling in BD related threads from certain quarters to which the BD members are merely reciprocating, just a third-party opinion from an Indian member that happen to frequent this subsection a lot.