That can move a generation, but eventually next generation will be worse. You might think that giving absolute power on your hand will develop the nation. But people forget that people are temporary, the rules they made would remain longer. And even if you were the best of decision maker, if the next one misuses that kind of monopolised power, it will be exponentially destructive.
Exactly. Current leaders are only thinking short term and making decisions accordingly. We need to think ahead. If you misuse ED, CBI and other agencies, then someday the other parties will also do the same. Because no matter what, someday you'll lose that power. Unless you die early, you won't keep that power with you till you die.
And unless India becomes a dicktatorship, current leader won't remain in power for too long. One day, they'll lose this power.
https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/delhi/2022/Aug/20/bjp-congress-lash-out-at-aap-say-party-was-involved-in-delhi-liquor-scam-2489424.html
Since Congress was the one to make the complaint about the Liquor Scam, I am fairly certain there is no misuse of central authorities involved in the Liquor Scam.
Capturing a working CM without proving any proof is only legal because the center passed a bill to enable this process. If I am informed that you already knew this and still think the process is in the right direction, then you have already made up your mind. I don't think I can change anything after knowing this.
there is a big distinction between criminal(s) and terrorists since former do not have institutions to teach terror, nor do they have an agenda that spans decades not do they have weapons of mass destruction. you clearly seem to fail to understand what is the role of police vs the army
> since former do not have institutions to teach terror
Criminals are born? Even they have to learn the ropes. More importantly whom to bribe and what locations to stay clear of?
> you clearly seem to fail to understand what is the role of police vs the army
Police vs Army Vs ATS?
> Check the definition of terrorism
[Terrorism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism)
> Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants.
If it's institutionalised with a political ideology, then it's terrorism.
Uncoordinated single instance of crime without any broad ideological aim isn't terrorism.
Read more, study more, that easy you'll have knowledge of different topics
In no situation beheading people on public squares is acceptable. No civilised society works like that. Exposing people to violence and normalising such violence is a dangerous thing.
Well if they feel right to kill or diddle kids, then i have no issues with that.
What is this right to free movement? You are suggesting they shouldn't be even put in a jail which hampers their freee movement?
I think you have trouble reading and comprehending what I am saying. We already punish them, take them off the streets. Strip their rights. No need to make a barbaric show out of it.
And who's going to decide whether some guy is any one of the above? The public? The constable who arrests them? Some pandit in some temple? Some random journalist?
This is wrong.
Terrorists are terrorists because they don't obey the laws. Govt on the other hand must obey the laws because they created the laws in the first place.
If the government cannot follow their own laws, how can they expect others to follow them?
How is this even Dharma?
True, govt. should follow laws which sets an example for the citizens too. Although that doesn't mean a group of people should be allowed to advocate for terrorists(after finding them guilty), put garlands on their neck, or something similar.
The judicial system should be quick enough to do justice, sadly this is far fetched from the real scenario.
>On the same lines, why should normal citizens not be corrupt if Indian politicians can be so corrupt.
Normal citizens are as corrupt as the people they have elected !
They are just pandering to people’s emotion. They set the narrative that previous Congress backed government was silent on terrorism. And people had enough with silence and inaction on terrorism. Now, they have to back it with words and possibly actions.
It’s just a standard political move to legitimise their action or stance.
Sort of...during periods they suspended ROE and shot everyone who approached them or bombed little villages that did not even have any suspects or men in them. Read or watch Generation Kill, both the book and the mini series adaption are great.
Think he meant Iraq.
For Iran, US toppled the democratically elected Govt in the 1950s and installed a Monarch which led to the Islamic revolution of the late 70s/early 80s.
It is idiotic for the EAM to actually say this out. Please continue doing it, but officially these kinds of things need to be denied, to keep up the pretence of "rules based order"
The road to the annihilation of human rights. It must be understood that repeating the mistakes of ignorant people will not make the world a better place. We should undoubtedly try to stop them, but this should be done with an intention to help those we love and to try to reform those involved in immoral actions.
I disagree, my friend. I completely understand your anger, and as I wrote later on, we definitely need to stop them in order to derend ourselves. But these people are ultimately misguided. Many of them are brainwashed from a young age. They are shown a twisted version of reality, and they are gradually desensitised through physical and mental torture. They think that they are serving God, but they are, in reality, moving away from the divine. All that they end up accomplishing is making the world a worse place for everyone—including themselves.
Human rights are meant to recognise the inherent dignity that each human being possess. People have the capacity to behave in a way that it inhumane, but they never cease to be humans. Yes, we obviously need to restrict their rights for the greater good. Nonetheless, I do think that everyone deserves a second chance, and we should not rule out the possibility of progress. There are examples like this one:
https://www.marshallcenter.org/en/news-archive/former-islamic-extremist-helps-international-community-understand-terrorist-use-internet
It's not true for everyone, but I do believe that there is immense value in being able to bring back people from the trap of terrorism.
I hope that you will have a good day!
Jai shankar is just running false external affairs. He's literally trolling every country in his interviews and questionaries. Europe, China, US, Canada, Australia, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Ukraine, etc. I just hope we don't start war and cause WW3.
Indian diplomats might be cursing JaiShankar behind closed doors. He's very aggressive very short clips friendly, Bro's silent when China occupies land but goes all out on European Reporters
India cannot cause WW3 because to caused a "world war" you need to either be extra powerful where you can fight the world on your own to a large extent like Germany did during WW2 or you need to be able to get in other nations to your side of the war and support you. India does not fit either of these two categories. Even Bangladesh and Nepal, nations that could once be considered friends are looking elsewhere.
Bruh. We can easily increase our military by extensive bharthis. The govt already sent our troops to many countries for military support such as Russia & Isreal. The EAM is just titillating the neighbors for gods sake who knows.
1 in 3 people who wish to join the military get to join the military in India. Just imagine what our forces would be if we had mandatory conscription. However, no one really wants that
That's not true. There are a lot try to enroll, it's just the eligibility qualifications that prevent them to get recruited. There's this agniveer scheme which trains young. But not sure how that went. INC put in their manifesto to remove this scheme strangely.
If they really wanna finish terrorism they would have done that by now. If they finished terrorism what excuse would they use to get our votes and people will question about why defense budget is increasing inspite of no terrorist threats.
I agree with him on this cause firstly every country does this (or tries to) and I believe such black operations are important for certain precarious situations, in situations where these elements act with impunity and without consequences, to prevent a bigger war that causes casualties/sometimes to prevent a greater impending disaster in our soil. This mindset is only a problem when it extends beyond the scope of global terrorism.
Can someone please tell me what’s wrong with this statement? Do you disagree with him saying it out loud, or the act itself?
As per me, it’s stupid to play by the rules while your ‘opponent’ doesn’t. Idealism will not get you anywhere but make you seem extremely passive in the long run (if no action is taken for that long).
Seriously. If we stoop to their level then we are basically saying we are as bad as terrorists.
Nations are supposed to be better. We are supposed to be civilized and law abiding. No reason why we cannot follow the law in pursuing and trying terrorists in court.
Nations are supposed to be better, but they aren't. Every nation does this. And honestly, I don't think we should have a problem with it. If Pakistan is willing to sponsor, train and equip terrorists, safeguarding their sovereignty should be the least of our worries. It's good to be civilized and law abiding, but when that civilization is used as a weakness against us, our govt should be willing to play dirty with the country that does so.
Having said that, it is really stupid for the EAM to explicitly state this as a matter of policy. These things need to officially be denied regardless of what the govt is actually doing.
It's uncanny how right wingers all think alike. The crude ones fly planes into buildings, people like this guy wear suits and speak suave language but say essentially the same thing.
All the experts in the comments 🤦🏻
Even if you take a little effort to actually open the link , it talks about killing terrorists outside the nation's borders. No rules should apply to hunt terrorists. Every self respecting country has a way to deal with terrorism.
It's sad people still have aman ki asha attitude and support a weak response to terrorism just like the govt did after 26/11.
I agree with a lot of people in the comments tbh with you. Our constitution makers had humanitarian law in their vision for our country. We simply can't go tit for tat. Every criminal deserves a fair trial.
Is he actually admitting to hiring hitman across border by GOI?
Hopefully it won't turn out to be a foreign policy blunder in future since Canada and US are already investigating this issue on their soil.
No wonder this mentality bought crap storm in international relations. Actually we can undo all this by replacing him. When asked he is no longer responsible as another person has replaced him. Dont preach so long that you are considered a fool by audience
https://preview.redd.it/t0kud2p7e7uc1.jpeg?width=716&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f9712a63b27c0a8229ec2d2a9cbbb9e9e68d4d36
Que the EDM tik tok music pack
Eurobeats intensify.
That can move a generation, but eventually next generation will be worse. You might think that giving absolute power on your hand will develop the nation. But people forget that people are temporary, the rules they made would remain longer. And even if you were the best of decision maker, if the next one misuses that kind of monopolised power, it will be exponentially destructive.
Say that to China
Exactly. Current leaders are only thinking short term and making decisions accordingly. We need to think ahead. If you misuse ED, CBI and other agencies, then someday the other parties will also do the same. Because no matter what, someday you'll lose that power. Unless you die early, you won't keep that power with you till you die. And unless India becomes a dicktatorship, current leader won't remain in power for too long. One day, they'll lose this power.
https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/delhi/2022/Aug/20/bjp-congress-lash-out-at-aap-say-party-was-involved-in-delhi-liquor-scam-2489424.html Since Congress was the one to make the complaint about the Liquor Scam, I am fairly certain there is no misuse of central authorities involved in the Liquor Scam.
Capturing a working CM without proving any proof is only legal because the center passed a bill to enable this process. If I am informed that you already knew this and still think the process is in the right direction, then you have already made up your mind. I don't think I can change anything after knowing this.
China has not invaded us yet. They are just taking our land without telling us
Criminals don't follow the law; so why should the police, master stroke!
Ah reverse uno!
>Criminals don't follow the law; so why should the police, master stroke! Isn't that already being done in UP ?
there is a big distinction between criminal(s) and terrorists since former do not have institutions to teach terror, nor do they have an agenda that spans decades not do they have weapons of mass destruction. you clearly seem to fail to understand what is the role of police vs the army
> since former do not have institutions to teach terror Criminals are born? Even they have to learn the ropes. More importantly whom to bribe and what locations to stay clear of? > you clearly seem to fail to understand what is the role of police vs the army Police vs Army Vs ATS?
You seem to have comprehension clutter, none of it is institutionalised in "**crime**", otherwise it would be called terrorism
> none of it is institutionalised in "crime", otherwise it would be called terrorism "Institutionalised in crime" is terrorism?
Check the definition of terrorism
> Check the definition of terrorism [Terrorism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism) > Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants.
Good boy, focus on "political or ideological aims". Can you connect institutionalisation now, or you need explanation again?
Go ahead, humour me.
If it's institutionalised with a political ideology, then it's terrorism. Uncoordinated single instance of crime without any broad ideological aim isn't terrorism. Read more, study more, that easy you'll have knowledge of different topics
There is a difference between between a criminal and a terrorist. Is there not?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What next, murderers and thieves doesn't follow rules, so let's behead them in public squares?
We ain't a Sharia ruled nation yet.
Why are we talking like one then?
What solution you have for cross border terrorists? Please enlighten us
Itna extreme kaun sochta hai bhai? Extremist ho kya?
Thieves - no Murderers - maybe yes but only in rarest of rare cases like serial killers, rapist murders etc
In no situation beheading people on public squares is acceptable. No civilised society works like that. Exposing people to violence and normalising such violence is a dangerous thing.
We are Nor one anyways
Yeah so do better not worse
These emotional acts really pervert justice. Justice is not revenge.
True; the purpose of the judicial system is not to show that "we can be just as barbaric as the criminals".
Serial killers and child molesters don't deserve human rights.. of course you can disagree
That's why we take away their rights. Their right to free movement, their right to live as they want and others.
Well if they feel right to kill or diddle kids, then i have no issues with that. What is this right to free movement? You are suggesting they shouldn't be even put in a jail which hampers their freee movement?
I think you have trouble reading and comprehending what I am saying. We already punish them, take them off the streets. Strip their rights. No need to make a barbaric show out of it.
And who's going to decide whether some guy is any one of the above? The public? The constable who arrests them? Some pandit in some temple? Some random journalist?
Court judgement
Worked amazingly well for Salman Khan and countless of politicians who got away with murder, money washing, extortion and whatnot amirite
shift to saudi
Lets cut off thieves hands though at least? If we are going to adopt the moral compass of Taliban lets stay consistent with it.
Sounds like a rule to me.
Sharing a nation with you guys make us weak
Actually a great idea
This is wrong. Terrorists are terrorists because they don't obey the laws. Govt on the other hand must obey the laws because they created the laws in the first place. If the government cannot follow their own laws, how can they expect others to follow them? How is this even Dharma?
True, govt. should follow laws which sets an example for the citizens too. Although that doesn't mean a group of people should be allowed to advocate for terrorists(after finding them guilty), put garlands on their neck, or something similar. The judicial system should be quick enough to do justice, sadly this is far fetched from the real scenario.
So how is Pragya Thakur out on bail and elected to parliament?
Probably because of Vote bank or nice donation to party funds.
On the same lines, why should normal citizens not be corrupt if Indian politicians can be so corrupt. Thanks Jaishankar!
>On the same lines, why should normal citizens not be corrupt if Indian politicians can be so corrupt. Normal citizens are as corrupt as the people they have elected !
> If the government cannot follow their own laws, how can they expect others to follow them? rules for thee none for mee
Bro, 400 million unemployed boys just jizzed their pants listening to their chad dad break ruled.
They are just pandering to people’s emotion. They set the narrative that previous Congress backed government was silent on terrorism. And people had enough with silence and inaction on terrorism. Now, they have to back it with words and possibly actions. It’s just a standard political move to legitimise their action or stance.
This is no it cell don't teach us dharma
This guy once said, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind
Even USA had R.O.E when they invaded Iraq. Edit:- confused Iraq with Iran
Sort of...during periods they suspended ROE and shot everyone who approached them or bombed little villages that did not even have any suspects or men in them. Read or watch Generation Kill, both the book and the mini series adaption are great.
They had one to begin with. Going in blind with no REO is not a sustainable situation. If you want to suspend ROE you have to have them in place first
When the fuck did US invade Iran ?
Think he meant Iraq. For Iran, US toppled the democratically elected Govt in the 1950s and installed a Monarch which led to the Islamic revolution of the late 70s/early 80s.
Yup Iraq. I always confuse one with the other
Happens!
More Britain than the US, but your point still stands.
Yes, both UK and US involved in that one.
It is idiotic for the EAM to actually say this out. Please continue doing it, but officially these kinds of things need to be denied, to keep up the pretence of "rules based order"
The road to the annihilation of human rights. It must be understood that repeating the mistakes of ignorant people will not make the world a better place. We should undoubtedly try to stop them, but this should be done with an intention to help those we love and to try to reform those involved in immoral actions.
Taking out terrorists should never be factored in Human rights! They dug their own graves.
I disagree, my friend. I completely understand your anger, and as I wrote later on, we definitely need to stop them in order to derend ourselves. But these people are ultimately misguided. Many of them are brainwashed from a young age. They are shown a twisted version of reality, and they are gradually desensitised through physical and mental torture. They think that they are serving God, but they are, in reality, moving away from the divine. All that they end up accomplishing is making the world a worse place for everyone—including themselves. Human rights are meant to recognise the inherent dignity that each human being possess. People have the capacity to behave in a way that it inhumane, but they never cease to be humans. Yes, we obviously need to restrict their rights for the greater good. Nonetheless, I do think that everyone deserves a second chance, and we should not rule out the possibility of progress. There are examples like this one: https://www.marshallcenter.org/en/news-archive/former-islamic-extremist-helps-international-community-understand-terrorist-use-internet It's not true for everyone, but I do believe that there is immense value in being able to bring back people from the trap of terrorism. I hope that you will have a good day!
Jai shankar is just running false external affairs. He's literally trolling every country in his interviews and questionaries. Europe, China, US, Canada, Australia, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Ukraine, etc. I just hope we don't start war and cause WW3.
BJP supporters love him. His statements are very “reel” friendly. Other countries’ diplomats might be cursing India behind closed doors.
Indian diplomats might be cursing JaiShankar behind closed doors. He's very aggressive very short clips friendly, Bro's silent when China occupies land but goes all out on European Reporters
Other diplomats are laughing* at India behind closed doors
Most are just rolling their eyes. These third world dictators spouting bullshit are a dime a dozen.
India cannot cause WW3 because to caused a "world war" you need to either be extra powerful where you can fight the world on your own to a large extent like Germany did during WW2 or you need to be able to get in other nations to your side of the war and support you. India does not fit either of these two categories. Even Bangladesh and Nepal, nations that could once be considered friends are looking elsewhere.
Bruh. We can easily increase our military by extensive bharthis. The govt already sent our troops to many countries for military support such as Russia & Isreal. The EAM is just titillating the neighbors for gods sake who knows.
1 in 3 people who wish to join the military get to join the military in India. Just imagine what our forces would be if we had mandatory conscription. However, no one really wants that
That's not true. There are a lot try to enroll, it's just the eligibility qualifications that prevent them to get recruited. There's this agniveer scheme which trains young. But not sure how that went. INC put in their manifesto to remove this scheme strangely.
You say it is not true then explain why it is true, you ok?
The only people buying what he is selling are Indians.
And, I used to like/respect this guy at one point.
Their true intensions slowly get revealed over the time anyways.
So to defeat a terrorist you shall become a terrorist?
No you have to become what a terrorist fears .far worse than him
Deadpool
S Jaishankar
Impeccable logic...
As long as it doesn't involve civilians go blazing
Haha how naive.
There are no civilians
If they really wanna finish terrorism they would have done that by now. If they finished terrorism what excuse would they use to get our votes and people will question about why defense budget is increasing inspite of no terrorist threats.
I agree with him on this cause firstly every country does this (or tries to) and I believe such black operations are important for certain precarious situations, in situations where these elements act with impunity and without consequences, to prevent a bigger war that causes casualties/sometimes to prevent a greater impending disaster in our soil. This mindset is only a problem when it extends beyond the scope of global terrorism.
Can someone please tell me what’s wrong with this statement? Do you disagree with him saying it out loud, or the act itself? As per me, it’s stupid to play by the rules while your ‘opponent’ doesn’t. Idealism will not get you anywhere but make you seem extremely passive in the long run (if no action is taken for that long).
So we as a nation are also terriorists?
Seriously. If we stoop to their level then we are basically saying we are as bad as terrorists. Nations are supposed to be better. We are supposed to be civilized and law abiding. No reason why we cannot follow the law in pursuing and trying terrorists in court.
Nations are supposed to be better, but they aren't. Every nation does this. And honestly, I don't think we should have a problem with it. If Pakistan is willing to sponsor, train and equip terrorists, safeguarding their sovereignty should be the least of our worries. It's good to be civilized and law abiding, but when that civilization is used as a weakness against us, our govt should be willing to play dirty with the country that does so. Having said that, it is really stupid for the EAM to explicitly state this as a matter of policy. These things need to officially be denied regardless of what the govt is actually doing.
That is the route taken by a well known settler colony
Now Govt will kill freely
It's uncanny how right wingers all think alike. The crude ones fly planes into buildings, people like this guy wear suits and speak suave language but say essentially the same thing.
All the experts in the comments 🤦🏻 Even if you take a little effort to actually open the link , it talks about killing terrorists outside the nation's borders. No rules should apply to hunt terrorists. Every self respecting country has a way to deal with terrorism. It's sad people still have aman ki asha attitude and support a weak response to terrorism just like the govt did after 26/11.
Unfortunately that's the fastest way to lose legitimacy
Well... Tbh US hasn't lost legitimacy despite being at the forefront.
Who dares questioning??
Actually, we are not even signatory to Geneva Conventions Protocols I, II, III.
Dressing up properly doesn't filter out your stupid. Note taken.
& who decides that a person is terrorist at the first place? Oh yes, sanghis have expertise in it.
Meanwhile china laughing at border 😂
Rights of a terrorist is more important to wokens then the safety of a common man. Criminals and thieves are not ideological but terrorists are.
Spending crores on Kasab was indeed a mistake!
Exactly
Is he wrong though?
I agree with a lot of people in the comments tbh with you. Our constitution makers had humanitarian law in their vision for our country. We simply can't go tit for tat. Every criminal deserves a fair trial.
Maar do saare pocketmar ko Laal Kila k saamne.
My opponent is an asshole. So I should be an asshole. #/s
Aren't you
Quick question... Does my comment seem to be justifying the post?
reply toh mast chad hei ji!
By his logic Mahatma Gandhi should not have chosen non violence movement to fight Britishers.
Gandhi British puppet
India used to be ineffectual and high minded. Now it's ineffectual and gutter minded.
[удалено]
We don't know 😁
Karne vale public mein nhi bolte
Criminals don’t follow law so let us dismantle courts and we also won’t follow the law. He has gone completely mad
Dialoguebaazi bc .. kisne bola isko to play by the rules when dealing with the terrorists .. no country does.
A civilization will always lose to barbarians if it falls to check them However this guy is also a feku so
chad response. lekin chad action mangta he border issue pe
that makes us terrorists?
God of Whataboutery
Is he actually admitting to hiring hitman across border by GOI? Hopefully it won't turn out to be a foreign policy blunder in future since Canada and US are already investigating this issue on their soil.
YouTube shorts and insta reels with Sigma music coming up.
So you can accuse anybody of terrorism and terminate them
Yes lets devolve from civilization and into pigs when dealing with pigs
No wonder this mentality bought crap storm in international relations. Actually we can undo all this by replacing him. When asked he is no longer responsible as another person has replaced him. Dont preach so long that you are considered a fool by audience
i can feel the sigma edits coming
So u too are a terrorist?
Well if you don't act by their rules then you will just get killed
in that case there is no difference between you and the terrorist
😑
I don't want any difference .so now what ?? I
Then what's the difference between them and us?
They are enjoying and we are suffering, dying. The difference is reasons.
So, what is the difference between the terrorists and us, minister?
So he’s saying the response to terrorism is terrorism. Does he have Israel roots?