I watched Dangal: Chinese President Xi tells Modi:

[PaklovesTurkiye]

Well I do not watch bollywood movies.
I watch Hollywood movies.

Cool, man.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Cool, man.

Why should I waste my time watching inferior bollywood when I can watch advanced American movies or Chinese or Japanese cinema.

 

[PaklovesTurkiye]

Why should I waste my time watching inferior bollywood when I can watch advanced American movies or Chinese or Japanese cinema.

Exactly.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Exactly.

I am a big fan of Chinese and Japanese cinema.

They are good entertainment.

Better than the unprofessional bollywood.

But then again I have never watched bollywood.

 

[PaklovesTurkiye]

I am a big fan of Chinese and Japanese cinema.

They are good entertainment.

Better than the unprofessional bollywood.

But then again I have never watched bollywood.

I have heard the same regarding Chinese/Japanese Cinema.

 

[MultaniGuy]

I have heard the same regarding Chinese/Japanese Cinema.

Yes I am a big fan of Anime and or Manga.

 

[Loafer]

WTF, Hero Alam, Dipjol are household names in India! Their contents are targeted for the Indian audience.

While following contents are for the Bangladeshi audience.

@Nilgiri

Bangladeshi class vs Indian class in Bangladeshi film industry?

Shall I cry or laugh?

Why should I waste my time watching inferior bollywood when I can watch advanced American movies or Chinese or Japanese cinema.

Do you even understand a single Chinese or Japanese word?

Urdu translation makes you feel superior? What an idiot.

 

[MultaniGuy]

@Nilgiri

Bangladeshi class vs Indian class in Bangladeshi film industry?

Shall I cry or laugh?



Do you even understand a single Chinese or Japanese word?

Urdu translation makes you feel superior? What an idiot.

You are the idiot.

I understand the English translation or the international edition.

 

[SBUS-CXK]

Do understand that in any "two-front" war scenario, china Pak will be the aggressor and india the defender...what reason would compel india to attack china? Pakistan maybe under the pretext of terrorism, but not china.
Both Pak and China covet Indian lands, so to claim that an invasion can be repelled is the confidence an army chief should have and eventuality he should be prepared for..

What is wrong in his statement? Isn't it his job to ensure the security of the nation?
Besides, we have several examples in history where kings defeated in battle have come back to win wars..
To give historical examples to claim a guaranteed victory in he future would be pretty foolish..time and situations do not remain constant..at least Sun Tzu wouldn't recommend such arrogance.

1, the army chief was right. I have no objection.

2, the invasion of India's territory is British, and do not forget the Louis Mountbatten program.

3, please do not regard the British expansion in South Asia as a reasonable inheritance of India.

4, if you really want to ensure national security, I suggest you do not agitate for war.

5, the art of war - The Army (or war), the important affairs of the state, are concerned with survival and ruin, and can not be ignored.

 

[Peshwa]

1, the army chief was right. I have no objection.

2, the invasion of India's territory is British, and do not forget the Louis Mountbatten program.

3, please do not regard the British expansion in South Asia as a reasonable inheritance of India.

4, if you really want to ensure national security, I suggest you do not agitate for war.

5, the art of war - The Army (or war), the important affairs of the state, are concerned with survival and ruin, and can not be ignored.

1. Good. we concur then.

2. That's a matter of perspective. don't think we subscribe to your view of the world.

3. But in the same breath Pakistan is a legitimate state? Even though it is a result of the same "inheritance" if you will of British expansion in South Asia? At least be consistent in your stand. Wreaks of hypocrisy.
Whatever China thinks of Indian claims is irrelevant. India and those Indian lands are here to stay and we will defend them to the last man. Just as China would for its lands.

4. What you consider agitation is called defending our sovereignty and core interests. I suggest you look at the Chinese actions towards, Taiwan, SCS and Tibet. Not very different from our reaction to AP or Kashmir. Only difference being that the shoe is on the other foot now.

5. Lost on the crux of your point here. Please explain.

 

[Surya 1]

Let's ignore the propaganda of the “superpower”, and don't look at the history of CPC. We use logical thinking.

1, China is one of the five founding members of UN, and India was then a British colony.
2, We all know that Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, and Burma were occupied by the Japanese,
(Macarthur became almost a Japanese captive in Philippines). while China alone resisted Japan for 14 years.
3, When Vietnam resisted the invasion of France and US, China almost committed all of its assistance to Vietnam, including the training of military personnel. (I can provide all third party links, and even Vietnamese links)
4, Macarthur and Ridgway have a better understanding of the fighting power of the Chinese armed forces.

So, in India's busy "super power" process, you offer a lot of fun, thanks.

1 China is a colony of CPC today. What Mao did to you guys is unparallel and can only be compared to what Gangis did to you guys.
2. You know only what Japan did to Vietnam and others but you do not know what they did to you?
3 when did you fight so that others may have some idea of your fighting ability?

 

[SBUS-CXK]

1 China is a colony of CPC today. What Mao did to you guys is unparallel and can only be compared to what Gangis did to you guys.
2. You know only what Japan did to Vietnam and others but you do not know what they did to you?
3 when did you fight so that others may have some idea of your fighting ability?

1, CPC is made up of Chinese, not by italians. This is very different from India.
2, I know exactly what the Japanese did to China, and what they did to the American captives.
3, to tell truth, the Chinese really don't take India seriously. It's true.

CPI- Maoists probably know more about Mao Zedong. If you can deny him in 27 years, let China population increased from 450 million to 900 million. Life expectancy increased from 35 years (1949) to 65 years (1976). Oh, about the current level in India. Literacy rates increased from 30% (1949) to 75% (1976). Oh, about the current level in India.

In industry, China has been able to make aircraft, tanks, warships, artillery, missiles before 1976.

Why do you think China can export its weapons to Thailand in 70s? And 1980-1988 years of arms exports to Iran and Iraq? And 1988 exporting DF-3 ballistic missiles to Saudi Arabia?

China's first atomic bomb was in 1964, and the first hydrogen bomb was in 1969. The first satellite was in 1971, and the first nuclear submarine was in 1974.

The rest。。。 Ask CPI-Maoists, I only know that. I'm not a Maoist, nor a fan of CPC, I'm just a chinese. Don't talk to me about CPC and mao. I know little about them. So my advice is —— to ask them.

India

Japan

France

..................................................

 

[ashok321]

Awaara Hoon', 'Mera Joota Hai Japani' receive wide applause at SCO Summit:

Bhai ye SCO forum hai ya Milan cinema hall hai?

 

[Secret Service]

i am not going to watch it anyway

 

[SBUS-CXK]

1. Good. we concur then.

2. That's a matter of perspective. don't think we subscribe to your view of the world.

3. But in the same breath Pakistan is a legitimate state? Even though it is a result of the same "inheritance" if you will of British expansion in South Asia? At least be consistent in your stand. Wreaks of hypocrisy.
Whatever China thinks of Indian claims is irrelevant. India and those Indian lands are here to stay and we will defend them to the last man. Just as China would for its lands.

4. What you consider agitation is called defending our sovereignty and core interests. I suggest you look at the Chinese actions towards, Taiwan, SCS and Tibet. Not very different from our reaction to AP or Kashmir. Only difference being that the shoe is on the other foot now.

5. Lost on the crux of your point here. Please explain.