You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ladakh Flash Point
- Thread starter Mt1701d
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Again, why no Indian videos?By going easy, China retreated from all land it occupied in the buffer zone, and agreed not to patrol or build in it, which it had been REGULARLY doing for years. Yes, that is "going easy."
Can't you see it - It is as if, if they don't acknowledge the defeat- then they have not been defeated. And if they tried even harder and claimed victory, then victory is theirs...despite the reality on the grounds. Their simple objectives - to never admit defeat and to claim victory (but not complete victory - btw, which war has complete victory?) or having a better deal.
What if this is the case of different people placing different values on the same thing? In this case, we have 2 winners which is fine and well but try this...
The question to ask both sides is - "Are you willing to settle for the same thing again?" Further interpretation - is the party that got slapped in the face and lost his pants but claimed victory willing to go through the same thing again in the next round - another slap on the face, lose another pants but allowed to claim victory? The truth is inside you. You can't lie to yourself.
Glad the standoff is over (Less sufferings on both side. Why the hxll do countries get into such confrontations?!) but I can't help but to laugh at the absurdity of "we got a better deal". Again, please ask the question above if you truly got a better deal.
I'm re-posting because it is relevant. More so now than when I first posted.
Twineedle is not going to give up because he doesn't need to. The amount of semantically meaningless arguments he could put up is virtually endless/infinite. The winner of this argument is the one having the most lasting breath to have the last say. Not based on facts or sound reasonings.I'm re-posting because it is relevant. More so now than when I first posted.
Twineedle is not going to give up because he doesn't need to. The amount of semantically meaningless arguments he could put up is virtually endless/infinite. The winner of this argument is the one having the most lasting breath to have the last say. Not based on facts or sound reasonings.
One thing I remember reading in British history books on India back in the day was that after conquering them Mughal tax collectors would first spit in the mouth of Indian rulers before negotiating with them.
I've no idea that actually happened or was just Brits trying to justify colonialism but at the time I thought it was a barbaric medieval practice.
Reading posts from people like twineedle I totally understand the need to do so.
I can imagine a Mughal sultan with a Maharaja in his court who's convinced even though his army is defeated he still won the war.
It's gonna be endless. If a person is not guided by reasoning, there's not point engaging with him. The various childish ways he tried to wriggle himself out when cornered by Abominable, Xsizor, Ougoah, Waqar, lgnxz, JSL, Manqiangrexue, rhino, gatekeeper & plawolf made me jump in to join the fun. I really thought he was going to say certain forum members did not dot the "i" and cross the "t" or place the commas incorrectly. So let"s just drop it. He can take his "we got a better deal" with him and there's no shame in that.
That's why I felt the question would help. It helps remove the noise and focus on what matters....
Reproduced herewith...
The question to ask both sides is - "Are you willing to settle for the same thing again?" Further interpretation - is the party that got slapped in the face and lost his pants but claimed victory willing to go through the same thing again in the next round - another slap on the face, lose another pants but allowed to claim victory? The truth is inside you. You can't lie to yourself.
That's why I felt the question would help. It helps remove the noise and focus on what matters....
Reproduced herewith...
The question to ask both sides is - "Are you willing to settle for the same thing again?" Further interpretation - is the party that got slapped in the face and lost his pants but claimed victory willing to go through the same thing again in the next round - another slap on the face, lose another pants but allowed to claim victory? The truth is inside you. You can't lie to yourself.
You do know that the mughals were Indian right? They were distantly related to central asians but they were very much integrated in to south Asia. They called themselves both Sutlans and maharajas.One thing I remember reading in British history books on India back in the day was that after conquering them Mughal tax collectors would first spit in the mouth of Indian rulers before negotiating with them.
I've no idea that actually happened or was just Brits trying to justify colonialism but at the time I thought it was a barbaric medieval practice.
Reading posts from people like twineedle I totally understand the need to do so.
I can imagine a Mughal sultan with a Maharaja in his court who's convinced even though his army is defeated he still won the war.
And you do know the mughals were not even the only Muslim kingdoms in South Asia? There were multiple musilim states that the mughals fought with in addition to hindu kingdoms in the south. It seems your knowledge of south asian history is as lacking as your knowlede of the recent ladakh standoff.
And are you really comparing a limited skirmish with a battle? The number of casualties both sides suffered does not matter at this point. What matters is that china retreated from disputed land it occupied and faile to change the status quo.
Ironic, because I have been posting facts in all of my posts, and have been rsponded to with mostly personal insults.Twineedle is not going to give up because he doesn't need to. The amount of semantically meaningless arguments he could put up is virtually endless/infinite. The winner of this argument is the one having the most lasting breath to have the last say. Not based on facts or sound reasonings.
How has India been defeated when China retreated from occupied areas and restored status quo ante, just like India wanted. I never said India scored a COMPLETE victory. Just that I believe India got a COMPARTIVELY better deal, and provided facts and evidence to support my assertions that have been met with nothing but personal insults. Unless of course, you are denying thppat China destroyed all recent infrastructure it belt, retreated from those territories(f4-2, pp14, etc.) and agreed to stop patrolling up to its claim line. That is exactly what India had been asking for in the talks. Why are you so keen on presenting this as a Chinese victory?I'm re-posting because it is relevant. More so now than when I first posted.
As for the answer to your question- yes. If it means protecting Indian territory, securing strategic infrastructure, and preventing China from capturing Indian territory and enforcing new claim lines(all of which India succesfully did) than I guess that is what will have to be done. Obviously, it is much better if such standoffs are averted and no casualties are suffered on either side, but I there will unfortunately be more disputes.
And you do know the mughals were not even the only Muslim kingdoms in South Asia? There were multiple musilim states that the mughals fought with in addition to hindu kingdoms in the south. It seems your knowledge of south asian history is as lacking as your knowlede of the recent ladakh standoff.
What's the relevance whether the Mughals were not even the only Muslim kingdoms in South Asia? Abominable did not say the Mughals were. And Abominable also did not say anything about Muslim states (multiple or otherwise) that the Mughals fought with.
Mughals were Indians? Did Abominable say anything about whether Mughals were/weren't Indians?
Btw, they are assimilated now but the Mughals were not Indians. Why you said they were Indians? With this, what does it say about your south asian history? Better than Abominable? Comparable to your ladakh standoff knoweldge? It's you who got personal by writing irrelevance as your response to Abominable. I noticed the same style you deployed with other forumners as well.
My take is that you do have some good knowledge about the recent standoff. But with the defeat too difficult for you to stomach, you look for ways to project the defeat into something more dignified . The thing is that the more you talked, the more indignified the defeat seemed.
You can have the last say, at least from me. But please ask yourself "Are you willing to settle for the same thing again?", if there were another standoff with the same counterparty? This will uncloud the path as to whether you really got a better deal.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.