Words that BYTE

[doorstar]

He can't really. Just look around and take a closer look at the situation in the UK. Try not to be influenced by what has happened in Pakistan. He could have done a lot; he didn't, so putting horns and a tail on him is purely your own political stance, one, incidentally, that the world at large doesn't accept. Talk about fantasising.

he did, he can, he does he will. He, like Bush, came up from the ranks, he is not a mere figurehead like Manmohan Singh, Trump, Reagan et al. He is more like Putin, Bush, Erdogan and so on etc. who do not follow policy/script written by others but are themselves the authors of it.

his failures are not down to him or his incompetence or him being corrupt, or a liar, but due to circumstances beyond his control

 

[Joe Shearer]

he did, he can, he does he will. He, like Bush, came up from the ranks, he is not a mere figurehead like Manmohan Singh, Trump, Reagan et al. He is more like Putin, Bush, Erdogan and so on etc. who do not follow policy/script written by others but are themselves the authors of it

Not, alas, unless the party, the electorate, the administration, the institutions and the courts support him. He isn't Clark Kent, and you shouldn't take his claims of a 56" chest seriously. It isn't true, like 90% of what he says.

BTW, Bush did exactly what his VP, Cheney, wanted him to do. Are you sure you know what you're saying?

 

[doorstar]

Not, alas, unless the party, the electorate, the administration, the institutions and the courts support him. He isn't Clark Kent, and you shouldn't take his claims of a 56" chest seriously. It isn't true, like 90% of what he says.

okay I'll have to agree to disagree then, cheers!

P.S.

BTW, Bush did exactly what his VP, Cheney, wanted him to do. Are you sure you know what you're saying?

Bush the CIA man and Cheney? bat man and robin? just like Modi, Shah and Doval they were a perfect team

 

[PDF]

The only thing PDF needs is uncompromising implementation of its rules and regulations upon all members. Problematic members are present on both sides. We just need to discipline ourselves. Ideally, we I wish PDF to be a platform for intellectual discussions with no nonsense & trolling. Any violation/trolling even if it falls under grey area needs to be taken care of invincibly.
The most important part to improve PDF is to improve ourselves. Here I am not talking as a Staff member but just as a normal member. Our postings make up the quality of the forum. In a way, we have the power to degrade or increase the quality.
Indians members or others should not be discriminated due to actions of minority or even majority. I want to believe that even if a minority of Indian members are good posters, they contribute to PDF as we do. For now, ban infamous trolls present on both sides. Moreover, respect all faiths. Insulting any religion even if it is Hinduism is not acceptable.

 

[coffee_cup]

First, he is not the constitutional head of state. Look it up.

Ok, Chief Executive / Senior most executive of the country, Prime minister... . Happy?

Second, even someone as myopic as you must have a feel for his status at the moment, and the repeated rebuffs that he has got from the electorate, losing his party's three loyal states, from the courts of the land, that even today have reversed his decisions, and reversed several others earlier, and finally, from his own party's senior leaders - list available on request.

Again, the head of states around the world, UN or anyone else who is anyone around the world does not care of your personal opinion. Like it or not, that extremist is your prime minister and represents your country. Any statement he gives when on official state visits is considered official position of India.

Your opinion on the other hand is - well, just another opinion of an average Joe from that country. And stops at that!

Allow me to point out that you are insensitive to these because you are not used to democracy and how it operates, in the absence of an unseen presence that sets the agenda and decides the outcome. So you don't have a clue, and won't have a clue until the passage of some decades of untrammeled democratic rule. That is a far distant prospect.

Yeah? teach me how democracy works? And where it is exactly practiced in the world?

Is it undemocratic that a vast majority of your country elects the Hindu version of Taliban as their prime minister for whatever reason?

I know exactly how democracy works in the third world: Caste, tribes, bribes, family, religious belief, personal likes are more important to determine the outcome than that "unseen presence" that can be felt by few pseudo intellectuals.

Could I point out that you are derailing the thread?

Why? Because I am pointing out the Indian hypocrisy vis-a-vis cross-border terrorism?

That is a straw man argument. Nobody asked you to go anywhere else. By raising that and shooting it down, you gain a victory that only you can see.

It doesn't fool anybody.

What victory? I have a genuine concern, I come here to read and discuss topics that are important for Pakistan and not to read the hate-trash thrown by Indian hate-brigade.

Don't take it personally, but your complain that Pakistanis are mocking India, does not interest me one bit. For, when you (Indians in general) joined this forum, you knew it that you will be exposed to Pakistani point of view and are grown up enough not to be too sensitive about it.

If you can not take a little trolling by Pakistanis about India, what is the point of joining a Pakistani forum?

Nobody says no to that. All that reasonable people are saying, and that you have been in denial about, is that Pakistanis who troll should be treated exactly the same. If you use #IndianNeutrality, you accept the Indian position on it. Is that what you want?

Now do I have to explain the jargon #IndianNeutrality thrown by our @Oscar ?

 

[Joe Shearer]

View attachment 531752
View attachment 531749
The only thing PDF needs is uncompromising implementation of its rules and regulations upon all members. Problematic members are present on both sides. We just need to discipline ourselves. Ideally, we I wish PDF to be a platform for intellectual discussions with no nonsense & trolling. Any violation/trolling even if it falls under grey area needs to be taken care of invincibly.
The most important part to improve PDF is to improve ourselves. Here I am not talking as a Staff member but just as a normal member. Our postings make up the quality of the forum. In a way, we have the power to degrade or increase the quality.
Indians members or others should not be discriminated due to actions of minority or even majority. I want to believe that even if a minority of Indian members are good posters, they contribute to PDF as we do. For now, ban infamous trolls present on both sides. Moreover, respect all faiths. Insulting any religion even if it is Hinduism is not acceptable.

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments and the analysis; the implementation is for others to decide.

The core of the problem is this:

1. PDF was invaded by Internet Hindus; this was the very first step, nothing else. There were fiercely patriotic Pakistanis earlier, they none of them said foul things about India, about Indians, about the religion of Indians, about rape in India, about open defecation, and about Indian social customs.
2. PDF Moderators were NOT used to dealing with such blatant attacks. They were bemused; nothing had prepared them for this, just as nothing had prepared India itself for this.
3. The ordinary Pakistani member, especially the conservative ones (the majority), steadily got annoyed by this invasion and by the very bad atmosphere created. They began to retaliate.
4. That core Pakistani membership of the older days, with some taking these developments in their stride, and others reacting with anger, and in the same way, was soon diluted. A new Pakistani membership started joining, and these new members behaved like mirror images of the Indian provocateurs.
5. Now any Pakistani member making a serious point is vulnerable to heckling by an Indian provocateur; the engaged Indians normally never get into these hostilities.
6. Aggressive, new-wave Pakistani green chaddis thereupon start retaliating immediately.
7. The present situation in summary:
   1. There are old-school Pakistani members;
   2. There are new-wave Pakistani members;
   3. There are old-school Indian members;
   4. There are new-wave Indian members;
   5. New wave Pakistani members attack new-wave Indian members, old-school Indian members and (a new development) old-school Pakistani members;
   6. New-wave Indian members attack new-wave Pakistani members, old-school Pakistani members and old-school Indian members.
8. Unless the rot is stemmed at the outset, this will continue.

Ok, Chief Executive / Senior most executive of the country, Prime minister... . Happy?

No.

Head of Government.

Again, the head of states around the world, UN or anyone else who is anyone around the world does not care of your personal opinion. Like it or not, that extremist is your prime minister and represents your country. Any statement he gives when on official state visits is considered official position of India.

I am pointing out that the reality and the projection don't match.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say that when he talks about a surgical strike, you will disregard him, because it suits you to, but when he talks about crap about sponsoring terror, you will believe him, because it suits you to.

Your opinion on the other hand is - well, just another opinion of an average Joe from that country. And stops at that!

Only to the extent that there is some hypocrisy on your side. You pick and choose from what is on offer, wherever it is on offer.

Yeah? teach me how democracy works? And where it is exactly practiced in the world?

Not in Pakistan. Try not to get emotional about it.

Is it undemocratic that a vast majority of your country elects the Hindu version of Taliban as their prime minister for whatever reason?

Again, your facts are wrong. Modi was elected by 31% of the electorate.

I know exactly how democracy works in the third world: Caste, tribes, bribes, family, religious belief, personal likes are more important to determine the outcome than that "unseen presence" that can be felt by few pseudo intellectuals.

NONE of the factors that you mention are institutional. The hidden presence on the Pakistani side IS institutional. That is the difference.

Why? Because I am pointing out the Indian hypocrisy vis-a-vis cross-border terrorism?

No.

Because the thread was about the dangerous situation in PDF, not about your personal views on terrorism and who's supporting it.

What victory? I have a genuine concern, I come here to read and discuss topics that are important for Pakistan and not to read the hate-trash thrown by Indian hate-brigade.

Don't take it personally, but your complain that Pakistanis are mocking India, does not interest me one bit. For, when you (Indians in general) joined this forum, you knew it that you will be exposed to Pakistani point of view and are grown up enough not to be too sensitive about it.

If you can not take a little trolling by Pakistanis about India, what is the point of joining a Pakistani forum?

Your genuine concern is to be commended. Your dislike of the hate-brigade is justified; you should remember to include the hate-brigade of all nations, not just of one.

As for your interest or lack of it, don't take it personally, but you know nothing of the atmosphere that prevailed earlier. We joined a decent forum; the influx of extreme opinions on both sides has completely changed the atmosphere.

Now do I have to explain the jargon #IndianNeutrality thrown by our @Oscar ?

You have to explain why you are diverting the thread from what he wished to discuss, not specific issues where there is quarrelling, but the general situation.

 

[coffee_cup]

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments and the analysis; the implementation is for others to decide.

The core of the problem is this:

1. PDF was invaded by Internet Hindus; this was the very first step, nothing else. There were fiercely patriotic Pakistanis earlier, they none of them said foul things about India, about Indians, about the religion of Indians, about rape in India, about open defecation, and about Indian social customs.
2. PDF Moderators were NOT used to dealing with such blatant attacks. They were bemused; nothing had prepared them for this, just as nothing had prepared India itself for this.
3. The ordinary Pakistani member, especially the conservative ones (the majority), steadily got annoyed by this invasion and by the very bad atmosphere created. They began to retaliate.
4. That core Pakistani membership of the older days, with some taking these developments in their stride, and others reacting with anger, and in the same way, was soon diluted. A new Pakistani membership started joining, and these new members behaved like mirror images of the Indian provocateurs.
5. Now any Pakistani member making a serious point is vulnerable to heckling by an Indian provocateur; the engaged Indians normally never get into these hostilities.
6. Aggressive, new-wave Pakistani green chaddis thereupon start retaliating immediately.
7. The present situation in summary:
   1. There are old-school Pakistani members;
   2. There are new-wave Pakistani members;
   3. There are old-school Indian members;
   4. There are new-wave Indian members;
   5. New wave Pakistani members attack new-wave Indian members, old-school Indian members and (a new development) old-school Pakistani members;
   6. New-wave Indian members attack new-wave Pakistani members, old-school Pakistani members and old-school Indian members.
8. Unless the rot is stemmed at the outset, this will continue.

Joe, it is hard to know, which part of this post is "sarcasm" and which should be considered serious. Do us a favor and underline the serious part, thanks!

No.

Head of Government.

Had I written that, you would have said "No. Prime Minister",
.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say that when he talks about a surgical strike, you will disregard him, because it suits you to, but when he talks about crap about sponsoring terror, you will believe him, because it suits you to.

Consider this: There are two nations which are at each others throat for so many generations and the common statements that come from their "Head of Government" are mostly chest thumping and accusing in nature vis-a-vis the other nation.

Then comes a moment when "Head of Government" of one adversary nation, while on a foreign state visit, says that, what they normally say in private meetings and gives loud and clear statements which all but validate the position taken by the other country.

Which position of that "Head of Government" would be highlighted more on world forums by adversary? The usual fiction (such as "Hanuman army conducting surgical strikes", (ok, it was his defense minister)) , or the one which validates the position that his country has been involved in nasty cross-border terrorism business?

Only to the extent that there is some hypocrisy on your side. You pick and choose from what is on offer, wherever it is on offer.

Ok, do you want me to rather chose "Hanuman army conducting fictional surgical strikes" narrative instead? That would make me look like a fool, why would I wanna do that?

Again, your facts are wrong. Modi was elected by 31% of the electorate.

So he was elected by the majority of voters. Or do you want to put a spin on this as well?

Not in Pakistan. Try not to get emotional about it.


NONE of the factors that you mention are institutional. The hidden presence on the Pakistani side IS institutional. That is the difference.

Neither in India or even USA. You want to tell me that deep state does not exist in these countries?

And all those lobbies (based on caste, family, religious beliefs, business interests) are non-factors to determine the outcome? Well Joe, I had expected better from you.


We can go on, but I guess it would better to open a separate thread on this topic.

 

[M. Sarmad]

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments and the analysis; the implementation is for others to decide.

The core of the problem is this:

1. PDF was invaded by Internet Hindus; this was the very first step, nothing else. There were fiercely patriotic Pakistanis earlier, they none of them said foul things about India, about Indians, about the religion of Indians, about rape in India, about open defecation, and about Indian social customs.
2. PDF Moderators were NOT used to dealing with such blatant attacks. They were bemused; nothing had prepared them for this, just as nothing had prepared India itself for this.
3. The ordinary Pakistani member, especially the conservative ones (the majority), steadily got annoyed by this invasion and by the very bad atmosphere created. They began to retaliate.
4. That core Pakistani membership of the older days, with some taking these developments in their stride, and others reacting with anger, and in the same way, was soon diluted. A new Pakistani membership started joining, and these new members behaved like mirror images of the Indian provocateurs.
5. Now any Pakistani member making a serious point is vulnerable to heckling by an Indian provocateur; the engaged Indians normally never get into these hostilities.
6. Aggressive, new-wave Pakistani green chaddis thereupon start retaliating immediately.
7. The present situation in summary:
   1. There are old-school Pakistani members;
   2. There are new-wave Pakistani members;
   3. There are old-school Indian members;
   4. There are new-wave Indian members;
   5. New wave Pakistani members attack new-wave Indian members, old-school Indian members and (a new development) old-school Pakistani members;
   6. New-wave Indian members attack new-wave Pakistani members, old-school Pakistani members and old-school Indian members.
8. Unless the rot is stemmed at the outset, this will continue.

No.

Head of Government.



I am pointing out that the reality and the projection don't match.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say that when he talks about a surgical strike, you will disregard him, because it suits you to, but when he talks about crap about sponsoring terror, you will believe him, because it suits you to.



Only to the extent that there is some hypocrisy on your side. You pick and choose from what is on offer, wherever it is on offer.



Not in Pakistan. Try not to get emotional about it.



Again, your facts are wrong. Modi was elected by 31% of the electorate.



NONE of the factors that you mention are institutional. The hidden presence on the Pakistani side IS institutional. That is the difference.



No.

Because the thread was about the dangerous situation in PDF, not about your personal views on terrorism and who's supporting it.



Your genuine concern is to be commended. Your dislike of the hate-brigade is justified; you should remember to include the hate-brigade of all nations, not just of one.

As for your interest or lack of it, don't take it personally, but you know nothing of the atmosphere that prevailed earlier. We joined a decent forum; the influx of extreme opinions on both sides has completely changed the atmosphere.



You have to explain why you are diverting the thread from what he wished to discuss, not specific issues where there is quarrelling, but the general situation.

I believe the management has given its 'tacit approval' to the attacks against the old-school members.

 

[VCheng]

I believe the management has given its 'tacit approval' to the attacks against the old-school members.

Heck, some senior management even do it themselves out of sheer hatred based upon different views.

The only thing PDF needs is uncompromising implementation of its rules and regulations upon all members.

Easy to say, impossible to actually do with the present team.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Heck, some senior management even do it themselves out of sheer hatred based upon different views.



.

Sometimes using their duplicate ids to say what they don't want to say using their original id

 

[VCheng]

Sometimes using their duplicate ids to say what they don't want to say using their original id

That is endemic all the time, as are false location flags and other similar violations, from minor to egregious, carried on brazenly, if we are being honest. But it is their right to run their forum as they see fit. I can easily pretend all is well in this microcosmic fiefdom. NMFP.

 

[Nilgiri]

It is a Pakistani forum that caters mostly to Pakistanis but has an international aspect to it.

I am presenting a very practical solution if the management wants less trolling and serious discussion about reforms in the country.

This is not a question of being fair or unfair. This is about using this board to get Pakistanis to talk about reforms. Having Indians engaging in our domestic issues greatly hampers that.

I sort of agree on this tbh. I think for Pakistan specific parts of the forum....only let vetted/senior Indian (or even non-pak more generally) members have access, i.e ppl that have proven they actually have something to contribute to the conversation etc (esp if that will in turn help to stop the counter trolling/spamming/flamebait in indian sections etc). If needed a similar policy can even be extended in reverse (same kind of vetting to allow pakistani members post in the indian parts of the board). Same concept can be applied to any other nasty rivalries forming between any other countries in the forum (US-China....China/Turkey etc).

I think mods should look at this idea with some seriousness....to cultivate better quality interaction in specific sections....rather than simply go with the default that every poster should have the same privileges, esp after repeated trolling/derailment/warnings etc.

@Oscar @WebMaster @Horus @Chak Bamu @Jungibaaz @waz

 

[Joe Shearer]

I sort of agree on this tbh. I think for Pakistan specific parts of the forum....only let vetted/senior Indian (or even non-pak more generally) members have access, i.e ppl that have proven they actually have something to contribute to the conversation etc (esp if that will in turn help to stop the counter trolling/spamming/flamebait in indian sections etc). If needed a similar policy can even be extended in reverse (same kind of vetting to allow pakistani members post in the indian parts of the board). Same concept can be applied to any other nasty rivalries forming between any other countries in the forum (US-China....China/Turkey etc).

I think mods should look at this idea with some seriousness....to cultivate better quality interaction in specific sections....rather than simply go with the default that every poster should have the same privileges, esp after repeated trolling/derailment/warnings etc.

@Oscar @WebMaster @Horus @Chak Bamu @Jungibaaz @waz

This is the equivalent of having several more protected environments such as the Seniors' Cafe, but I would like to add that entrance to these should be through nomination by existing members and the right of each existing member to blackball new nominations, at the time of nomination or within 90 days of that.

It seems to be the most reasonable proposition of all, so far.

I believe the management has given its 'tacit approval' to the attacks against the old-school members.

Perhaps that may be so. Without some suspension of disbelief, how could these happen?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Joe, it is hard to know, which part of this post is "sarcasm" and which should be considered serious. Do us a favor and underline the serious part, thanks!

Now please don't do that to me; I already get more than is justified from @jbgt90. All of it was seriously meant, I can't help writing the way I do.

Had I written that, you would have said "No. Prime Minister",

On a straight note - I got the humour, btw - I don't cheat, or dupe the others in a discussion. Well, hardly ever.
.

Consider this: There are two nations which are at each others throat for so many generations and the common statements that come from their "Head of Government" are mostly chest thumping and accusing in nature vis-a-vis the other nation.

Then comes a moment when "Head of Government" of one adversary nation, while on a foreign state visit, says that, what they normally say in private meetings and gives loud and clear statements which all but validate the position taken by the other country.

Which position of that "Head of Government" would be highlighted more on world forums by adversary? The usual fiction (such as "Hanuman army conducting surgical strikes", (ok, it was his defense minister)) , or the one which validates the position that his country has been involved in nasty cross-border terrorism business?

What do you think irritates some of us most about this 56" lumberjack? Or his even more irritating smirk-smirk-wink-wink current defence minister, the one who smirks about unspeakable offences, and salutes like a US four-star general?

Ok, do you want me to rather chose "Hanuman army conducting fictional surgical strikes" narrative instead? That would make me look like a fool, why would I wanna do that?

My point was completely different. How come his credibility is so low when he uses the Army and what it does for cheap popularity? and how come it is so high when he underwrites his comic version of 007, the one who has his masala chai shaken, not stirred?

So he was elected by the majority of voters. Or do you want to put a spin on this as well?

31% is a majority???

Wait, give me a few seconds....1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6..........

Oh, wait, what am I doing? The BJP is already asking how 20% of the population can claim to be a 'minority'; now the entire conversation becomes clear. Without prurience, one can safely say that the colour of your undies is khaki; you are a deep cover Sanghi false-flagging here. 'fess up now, and you won't get your teeth extracted without anaesthetic.

Neither in India or even USA. You want to tell me that deep state does not exist in these countries?

Of course it does. The deep state is essentially housed within institutions; outside those, it is nothing but a talk-shop. As far as influencing the vote is concerned, the factors you mention are important and relevant; within an institution, in an administrative context, that is not how decisions are taken, that is not how decisions are influenced. That is precisely the blind alley that this present lot have got into; they think that their command over these factors in the electoral sphere - and even that thought is overblown - can be taken further in their dealings with the deep state, or what they try to put together as an acceptable interface to that. What they don't 'get' is that people they pick will go along with them tactically, and do, but will regress to the consensual view whenever they can. And the pols are totally unable to control that reaction; that, btw, is why the deep state IS the deep state in the first place.

And all those lobbies (based on caste, family, religious beliefs, business interests) are non-factors to determine the outcome? Well Joe, I had expected better from you.

It's nothing to do with me, or my views, or my interests. That's how the system works. Take each factor one at a time.

You can buy retired civil servants and give them plush jobs after retirement, and signal to the bureaucracy whatever you want to signal - nobody is crass about this - but that doesn't mean that you get your way always. Only as long as everything is aligned and the omens are propitious.

Take religious beliefs. I really feel sorry for a Pakistani viewer of Indian social or institutional working; don't go by your illusions, hothoused in fora like these, go by the experience of Pakistani ex-pats working with Indians in various parts of the globe. THAT is the reality, not what you imagine thanks to watching too many Sunny Deol movies.

And finally, take caste or family. Nobody's coming to you with a marriage proposal; that's the only time it matters. Maybe. It didn't matter for members of my extended family, and increasingly doesn't matter outside the moronic cow-belt even for that. Some of you have weird ideas, really weird ideas about India and Indian society. Too much Sunny Deol, too much PDF. You're better off going by your impressions when you meet random Indians when travelling.

We can go on, but I guess it would better to open a separate thread on this topic.

I suspect Oscar would heartily encourage that.

 

[Thorough Pro]

@Oscar Thanks for tagging

I have been folloing PDF since it's early days and been contributing for almost a decade now. I have seen the forum grow both in size and stature and I have also seen the quality of te content go down the drain but despite all that the Forum has really turned in to a really global forum with members hailing from almost every part of the world.

I am fine with any nationality to become member of the forum and participate/contribute in the discussions. I am also ok with a little bit of teasing/trolling as that is inherent by the nature of the medium (anonymus people using phantom ID's interacting with each other). I am fine with and advocate inducting moderators from other nationalities with the exception of India, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Israel.

I won't say that all members from these countries are bad but a vast majority is conceited, biased, anti-Pakistan and/or anti-Muslim and they exhibit their worst behaviour in threads specific to Pakistan or Islam as the case may be. We have all experienced and witnessed their hatefull, baseless, biased, mis-leading and false lies, claims, and propaganda directly attacking our national/religious identity, our present and past leaders and even the very foundations of our beliefs.

This is "Pakistan defence forum" and when we think of Pakistan defence the only enemies that come to mind for any potential military conflict are India, Afghanistan, and Isreal and in reality all our defence establishment is mainly focussed on these threats whether directly or through proxies and this is mostly what we discuss and debate about on this forum. With that in mind it just does not make any sense to allow any indian national or indian dual national to moderate/administer this forum.

There is no need for us to bend backwards to show our good nature to anyone especially Indians, besides how do they treat Pakistani members on their forums?

Since this fiasco, I too have been seriously considering about calling it quits. It's not acceptable for me to let an Indian national moderate how /what Pakistanis discuss on a Pakistan defence forum.

While I have been away I noticed some contentious issue that developed recently on the forum due to a member who at least in my opinion was very valuable and knowledge but then posted a VERY objectionable post which led to a lot of backlash with all sorts of fiery angst.

But this is not exactly about that.
More so, this is about how far does one take the words and emotions online into the effectiveness of our daily lives, whether disagreement is worth keyboard smashing when it comes to contentious issues and whether it makes sense for people to people dialogue between such opposing sides of Pakistan and India, Indian Hindus and Pakistani Muslims, Arabs and Iranians, political opponents such as PTI supporters and Noon Leagers or religious opponents like Droid users and Apple loyalists.

So lets really look at it from a perspective of the positives and negatives of the most key engagement here.. Indians and Pakistanis.

What are really the advantages of having Indian members on this forum that is based around the military and safety of Pakistan, allowing them membership and then debating issues with them?
What are the disadvantages (leaving aside trolls)?.. more propogation of hatred?

Not just advantages or disadvantages to Pakistanis and their future ideals and thoughts but also to Indians too. There is a human element to both and it needs to be looked at.

Perhaps if a vote or majority direction is taken then a petition can be made to push whatever proposal it is. Be it a change in attitudes of both engaging parties or maybe a complete cessation of Indian membership to this forum; leaving all actual discussion to hopefully less “defense” inclined platforms?? Would it make sense to have a platform dedicated to such engagements with a less “hostile” look?

Anything goes but my hope is to see what leads to the advantage of all members and then to the platforms focus and quality.
Im keeping the mods out of this to let this be an honest roll call of whether it is worth to engage what is essentially an enemy state(for both sides) on a platform essentially focusing on the capability to kill the other.

@Moonlight @araz @Indus Pakistan @django @CriticalThought @Rafi @Tps43 @Joe Shearer @Nilgiri @Thorough Pro @HRK

And please Tag away.