Rape backlash: Fearing for lives after attacks by mobs, UP, MP and Bihar migrants flee Gujarat

[zen]

27 minutes ago, Vilander said:

 

Well its very clear to see.

 

you are claiming that 'ppl from other states come 'here' and resort to crimes. Gujjus when they decide to do justice, hell is let loose'

 

there is no need of any assumptions here. 

 

who the fcuk are gujjus to let loose hell on immigrants boss ? every Indian has constitutional right to live and work out of any part of India.

There is no need to spoon feed dunderheads like you who fail to name their state and may need to read something multiple times to understand what is being implied 

 

Back to the topic of tackling a LTTE sympathizer, ppl in Guj will feed folks like you to the Lions to improve Ind. you can then ask the question from the Lion’s belly

Edited October 17, 2018 by zen

[Muloghonto]

4 hours ago, Vilander said:

Both are necessary one is unrelated to the other. You prioritise ac amoung armed forces budget. You prioritize police force amoung home ministry budget. You can not prioritize them against each other. My mention of parks and recreation is based on this logic. You need to read my posts

ofcourse you can prioritize them against each other in the total budget. if the total budget does not cover every need, then it is about prioritizing. And there is no logic in prioritizing an offensive weapon we are in no position to use ( A/C) over basic necessities of the police force. 

[Vilander]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

ofcourse you can prioritize them against each other in the total budget. if the total budget does not cover every need, then it is about prioritizing. And there is no logic in prioritizing an offensive weapon we are in no position to use ( A/C) over basic necessities of the police force. 

well i disagree. its a national budget , the AC can even be met with unused defense ministry budgets that are sent back each year. You know thereis unused defence budget each period ? because folks are not able to make the required decisions within that assessment period.

[Vilander]

3 hours ago, zen said:

There is no need to spoon feed dunderheads like you who fail to name their state and may need to read something multiple times to understand what is being implied 

 

Back to the topic of tackling a LTTE sympathizer, ppl in Guj will feed folks like you to the Lions to improve Ind. you can then ask the question from the Lion’s belly

you see you have lost your marbles here - i am absolutely not abusing, i am being civil and calling you out. You have failed miserably in that respect - there is no point in hurling abuses or wishing misfortune ( lions belly lol), does not work with me. 

 

You are yet to come back as to why you are beaming about gujjus beating up north indian workers man - if that is not chauvinistic i am not sure what is. Any big group of people can trash poor individuals - its a very sectarian clannish ' us vs them' there is no bravado or pride in that - it should be universally cringed and scorned at not worn with pride as you are attempting to do here. 

 

Anyways. i have said all is need to. You have much to work on yourself though.

[Muloghonto]

30 minutes ago, Vilander said:

well i disagree. its a national budget , the AC can even be met with unused defense ministry budgets that are sent back each year. You know thereis unused defence budget each period ? because folks are not able to make the required decisions within that assessment period.

again, nothing you have said has demonstrated why India needs an offensive weapon (A/C) - something it has used 47 years ago last- more than better equipment for our police force.

Better equipment for our police force = instant improvement in enforcement of crime and less police officers killed in line of duty. The benefit is instant. The benefit for A/C is not instant, not unless India is planning to go attack someone. In defensive capacity, submarines are better than A/C ( more effective, less expensive, etc). 
Therefore, police equipment >> A/C. Its pretty simple logic, really. 

 

And as long as India prioritizes fancy toys for its military that are only for posturing, instead of improving the actual small armaments it gives to the military and police, it will remain a laughing stock of the world.

 

[Vilander]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

again, nothing you have said has demonstrated why India needs an offensive weapon (A/C) - something it has used 47 years ago last- more than better equipment for our police force.

Better equipment for our police force = instant improvement in enforcement of crime and less police officers killed in line of duty. The benefit is instant. The benefit for A/C is not instant, not unless India is planning to go attack someone. In defensive capacity, submarines are better than A/C ( more effective, less expensive, etc). 
Therefore, police equipment >> A/C. Its pretty simple logic, really. 

 

And as long as India prioritizes fancy toys for its military that are only for posturing, instead of improving the actual small armaments it gives to the military and police, it will remain a laughing stock of the world.

 

oh

 

1, support a land battle from a safe movable air port on sea.  lots of spots across bay of bengal for NE and arabian sea for pak chabbar afg theaters.

 

2, defend merchant navy carriying essential supplies ( oil) on supply lines out on the sea. ( nothing comes close to an carrier grp.)

 

3, dissuade any strategic move on IOR from china.

 

4, secure african vital interests - or people working in vital installations there during war time.

 

5, and carrier based air units usually are a short transit away from a theater and are equipped with more real time ops scenario info, than a sumki 3000 km away.

 

basically the defence debate is on number of groups not on whether or not to have it.

[Vilander]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

And as long as India prioritizes fancy toys for its military that are only for posturing, instead of improving the actual small armaments it gives to the military and police, it will remain a laughing stock of the world.

you have very wrong understanding of ACG its not a fancy toy at all. Submarines and Anti ship missiles have been operative from WW2 - career groups give a very specific set of advantages, definitely no one would laugh on a carrier group when they come under direct fire from a mig 29 or worse from a rafale or a f18.

[Muloghonto]

11 minutes ago, Vilander said:

oh

 

1, support a land battle from a safe movable air port on sea.  lots of spots across bay of bengal for NE and arabian sea for pak chabbar afg theaters.

We can hit any point in Pakistan or Afghanistan with IAF. In the war of 1971, the aircraft carrier was not required for Pakistan sector. It was for Bangladesh because we didn't have the right # or location of AIR FIELDS back then. We do now. 

No military is stupid enough to deploy an A/C to a theatre where the air force itself can reach. The only use of A/C we have, is if we want to start a war with China, Australia, Indonesia, etc. 

 

11 minutes ago, Vilander said:

2, defend merchant navy carriying essential supplies ( oil) on supply lines out on the sea. ( nothing comes close to an carrier grp.)

You don't deploy an offensive weapon for defence. The Germans did just fine defending the sea lanes around them in WWII for four years (until their industrial capacity was destroyed) with submarines. 

11 minutes ago, Vilander said:

3, dissuade any strategic move on IOR from china.

Submarines are far bigger dissuasion than A/Cs in a defensive capacity. And such dissuation is only true in case of war. Just because we HAVE an A/C is not going to stop China from building ports elsewhere- which they ALREADY HAVE. 

11 minutes ago, Vilander said:

4, secure african vital interests - or people working in vital installations there during war time.

???!???!? and this is more important than IMMEDIATE QUALITY DIFFERANCE TO THE POLICE, HOW ? 

11 minutes ago, Vilander said:

5, and carrier based air units usually are a short transit away from a theater and are equipped with more real time ops scenario info, than a sumki 3000 km away.

 

basically the defence debate is on number of groups not on whether or not to have it.

No, there is no debate. Aircraft carriers are NOT defensive weapons, period. They've never been deployed defensively. They are purely an offensive platform. And since India is not going to invade anyone anytime soon its useless and just for show. 

 

And you are yet to demonstrate how its MORE IMPORTANT than better equipment for our police force. 

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, Vilander said:

you have very wrong understanding of ACG its not a fancy toy at all. Submarines and Anti ship missiles have been operative from WW2 - career groups give a very specific set of advantages, definitely no one would laugh on a carrier group when they come under direct fire from a mig 29 or worse from a rafale or a f18.

its a fancy toy unless you plan on invading someone. Show me a SINGLE war-time deployment of A/C that is not in offensive capacity. 
Also, carrier groups are not the ones who hunt submarines- they are SPECIFICALLY VULNERABLE to submarine warfare. Submarines are hunted by destroyer groups and low altitude turbo-props. 

 

Nobody has used an A/C in purely defensive capacity. Which means, for India, its just for show. Much less useful than directly improving police force equipment.

[zen]

3 hours ago, Vilander said:

You are yet to come back as to why you are beaming about gujjus beating up north indian workers man - if that is not chauvinistic i am not sure what is. Any big group of people can trash poor individuals - its a very sectarian clannish ' us vs them' there is no bravado or pride in that - it should be universally cringed and scorned at not worn with pride as you are attempting to do here. 

 

Anyways. i have said all is need to. You have much to work on yourself though.

1st Your points are based on your dumb assumption about pride and what not   .... you heads probably messier than I imagined 

 

2nd you talk about pride but haven't shown the pride to mention your state yet 

[Vilander]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

We can hit any point in Pakistan or Afghanistan with IAF. In the war of 1971, the aircraft carrier was not required for Pakistan sector. It was for Bangladesh because we didn't have the right # or location of AIR FIELDS back then. We do now. 

No military is stupid enough to deploy an A/C to a theatre where the air force itself can reach. The only use of A/C we have, is if we want to start a war with China, Australia, Indonesia, etc. 

 

You don't deploy an offensive weapon for defence. The Germans did just fine defending the sea lanes around them in WWII for four years (until their industrial capacity was destroyed) with submarines. 

Submarines are far bigger dissuasion than A/Cs in a defensive capacity. And such dissuation is only true in case of war. Just because we HAVE an A/C is not going to stop China from building ports elsewhere- which they ALREADY HAVE. 

???!???!? and this is more important than IMMEDIATE QUALITY DIFFERANCE TO THE POLICE, HOW ? 

No, there is no debate. Aircraft carriers are NOT defensive weapons, period. They've never been deployed defensively. They are purely an offensive platform. And since India is not going to invade anyone anytime soon its useless and just for show. 

 

And you are yet to demonstrate how its MORE IMPORTANT than better equipment for our police force. 

NE. We don't need to hit BD it's a land locked country. 

Acg are factored in every near coast land battles by countries that intend to use them. 

 

Submarines can not project power on to land on the scale of carrier air fleet.

 

Aircraft carriers can not be brought into a comparison into police firearms or other equipment.

 

I am not sure if you know what you are talking about. 

[Vilander]

1 hour ago, zen said:

1st Your points are based on your dumb assumption about pride and what not   .... you heads probably messier than I imagined 

 

2nd you talk about pride but haven't shown the pride to mention your state yet 

Dude what pride pride.. WTF are you on about.  Basic point don't lend into chauvinistic tendencies especially against fellow country men.  It's leads to a straightforward us v's them scenario. 

[Muloghonto]

Just now, Vilander said:

NE. We don't need to hit BD it's a land locked country. 

Except we did not have the air bases in NE at that time. It was only in Kolkata and aircraft in 1971 couldn't hit Chittagong, their major port. hence the deployment. 

Just now, Vilander said:

Acg are factored in every near coast land battles by countries that intend to use them. 

False. They are NEVER deployed unless in purely offensive capability. Nobody launches a 5 billion dollar floating airfield to defend its own coast, when they can just launch their own air force. 
I challenge you to show me a SINGLE naval engagement where the A/C is deployed defensively within just a couple of 100 kms of their own coast when they have the air force range to cover that. 
You will find that the answer is ZERO times. 

Just now, Vilander said:

Submarines can not project power on to land on the scale of carrier air fleet.

You are confusing offence with defense. To protect sea-lanes, we don't NEED to project power over land. Not unless we want to CONQUER said land. Our A/C literally comes into question if we want to project power over the Malay Peninsula or Chinese coast. 
Which brings me to the point - how is it more important than upgrading the police force ?

Just now, Vilander said:

Aircraft carriers can not be brought into a comparison into police firearms or other equipment.

You are just saying that. I've already demonstrated that with better armament and body protection, our police force instantly improves its ability to enforce the law and protect its own. Show me how the A/C is of instant value to India. 

Just now, Vilander said:

I am not sure if you know what you are talking about. 

Says the guy who thinks A/C is used for defense. Never in the entire history of an aircraft carrier has it been used defensively. It just doesn't make sense to deploy a multi-billion dollar floating air field when your own air force can do the job. 

 

 

[Vilander]

@zen

 

You say gujjus did justice.  Are you supporting people beating other people perceived from a section of society in the name of doing justice. You are saying gujjus let all hell loose when they do justice so do you support hooligans who beat-up some random immigrant labour in the name of a rape that he or she did not commit.  Are you saying all the immigrant labourers are complicit in the said rape case. Think a little before typing. 

[Vilander]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

Except we did not have the air bases in NE at that time. It was only in Kolkata and aircraft in 1971 couldn't hit Chittagong, their major port. hence the deployment. 

False. They are NEVER deployed unless in purely offensive capability. Nobody launches a 5 billion dollar floating airfield to defend its own coast, when they can just launch their own air force. 
I challenge you to show me a SINGLE naval engagement where the A/C is deployed defensively within just a couple of 100 kms of their own coast when they have the air force range to cover that. 
You will find that the answer is ZERO times. 

You are confusing offence with defense. To protect sea-lanes, we don't NEED to project power over land. Not unless we want to CONQUER said land. Our A/C literally comes into question if we want to project power over the Malay Peninsula or Chinese coast. 
Which brings me to the point - how is it more important than upgrading the police force ?

You are just saying that. I've already demonstrated that with better armament and body protection, our police force instantly improves its ability to enforce the law and protect its own. Show me how the A/C is of instant value to India. 

Says the guy who thinks A/C is used for defense. Never in the entire history of an aircraft carrier has it been used defensively. It just doesn't make sense to deploy a multi-billion dollar floating air field when your own air force can do the job. 

 

 

OK.  

[Vilander]

@Muloghonto Indian naval aircraft carrier doctrines it's available in public.. It will be an Interesting read for you. 

[zen]

7 minutes ago, Vilander said:

Dude what pride pride.. WTF are you on about.  Basic point don't lend into chauvinistic tendencies especially against fellow country men.  It's leads to a straightforward us v's them scenario. 

It is you who has been doing that pride pride .... now don't you have it to list your state in capital letters! 

 

3 minutes ago, Vilander said:

@zen

 

You say gujjus did justice.  Are you supporting people beating other people perceived from a section of society in the name of doing justice. You are saying gujjus let all hell loose when they do justice so do you support hooligans who beat-up some random immigrant labour in the name of a rape that he or she did not commit.  Are you saying all the immigrant labourers are complicit in the said rape case. Think a little before typing. 

use common sense 

Edited October 17, 2018 by zen

[Vilander]

1 minute ago, zen said:

use common sense

What is it. Explain your gujju doing justice by letting hell loose then.

[Muloghonto]

7 minutes ago, Vilander said:

@Muloghonto Indian naval aircraft carrier doctrines it's available in public.. It will be an Interesting read for you. 

It is. And nowhere does it say the A/C is performing in a defensive capacity. Nobody buys a ferarri to go grocery shopping and camping. Similarly, nobody builds or buys an A/C to protect itself. Its pretty much the most offensive naval weapon there is, outside of a ballistic missile submarine. 

You have not demonstrated why the budget should make room for 5 billion dollar of this offensive weapon before spending the said money on upgrading our law and order forces. 

 

[Vilander]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

It is. And nowhere does it say the A/C is performing in a defensive capacity. Nobody buys a ferarri to go grocery shopping and camping. Similarly, nobody builds or buys an A/C to protect itself. Its pretty much the most offensive naval weapon there is, outside of a ballistic missile submarine. 

You have not demonstrated why the budget should make room for 5 billion dollar of this offensive weapon before spending the said money on upgrading our law and order forces. 

 

Glad you find it interesting. No time for strawmen you have a whole army of them.