bangladeshifan Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 The tall one. knew it. u sound like chalu type ladki ;) p.s. take it as a compliment :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangladeshifan Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 I often cry after sex. My hand hurts. :(( dude u are not alone :(( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PriyankaSR Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 knew it. u sound like chalu type ladki ;) p.s. take it as a compliment :P :bow: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old guy Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 :bow: dont ignore my post the girl on left..is she in some engineering college ? :nervous: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
India-KXIP fan Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 This is the problem with aajkal ke chokres, have no sense of history and then go about advertising their ignorance. Gaurav can you explain how anmol was spot on? Cite references and examples because I think we need to re-write history Anmol why would British leave because of losses in WW2 when India was still as cash cow and a source of income? Doesnt make sense Plus I have to laugh loudly at people who think random acts of violence like Bhagat Singh's would have dented British confidence. They had the most advanced weapons when Indian 'freedom fighters' had desi tamanchas. Gandhiji was able to unite the whole of India into a common cause the likes of which was never seen before. He was able to take the Indian cause onto a world stage and bring international pressure of the British. There were a lots of manuoring behind the scenes. The British would never have taken a humiliating loss, so force would never have worked against them. Its was the justness of Gandhiji and the unity of India which caused the British to leave -Problems created by people like Bhagat Singh and Gandhi (but not as significant as some claim) -Losses in WW2, need more manpower in England -Fear of rebellion sensing British were weakened (by people influenced by Bhagat Singh type people) British hype up Gandhi, know he wont do chit to them (harm them) so they make him seem a hero so they can rule peacefully Well done Gandhi :hatsoff: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old guy Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 -Problems created by people like Bhagat Singh and Gandhi (but not as significant as some claim) -Losses in WW2, need more manpower in England -Fear of rebellion sensing British were weakened (by people influenced by Bhagat Singh type people) British hype up Gandhi, know he wont do chit to them (harm them) so they make him seem a hero so they can rule peacefully no need to call him that :p just make ur point.. maybe his achivements are overated (i dont agree with this ) still no need to say that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PriyankaSR Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 where have i seen the left one ? :hmmm: dont ignore my post the girl on left..is she in some engineering college ? :nervous: That is my best friend. She's in my CLASS. :cantstop: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old guy Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 That is my best friend. She's in my CLASS. :cantstop: but i ve def seen her some where..:omg: let me search :sherlock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
India-KXIP fan Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Which is exactly the kind of ****ed up mentality kids nowadays have. I am not trying to take anything away from Bhagat Singh, he was one of the bravest man ever BTW, Gandhi's mentality was anything but defensive, in fact each of his plans was very very agressive and took on the british were it hurt the most. From non-corperation to the salt satyahgarh all the moves were agressive. Just because he did not physically attack anyone does not mean that he was not agressive, he was the one man who took the british empire on also on bhagat you are doing a dis-service if you take the eenth ka jabaab pathar literally. When they burst the bomb in the assembly he did not intend to kill anyone, it was a smoke bomb. Even in the prison, he was fasting until death and used mostly peaceful method of protests. To view him as an icon of violence is the biggest dis-service to his bravery Plus I would like to tell you, that it takes the biggest bravery to turn the other cheek and protest bravely than hit someone back in return. Thats why on the road you will see even 12-13 year olds hitting someone back. Hitting back is the most natural animal and instinctive reaction, nothing brave or agressive about it. Also I have heard kids say that times have changed for the worse now and Gandhi's philosopy doesnt work. Feck that. Times were a 100 times harder in British India where even a dissent caused you to be whipped or put in prison. Kids have it so easy nowadays English hyped him up so they could rule peacefully and no one would use voilence like Bhagat Singh. Cause when violence is used no one feels safe, can America settle in Iraq? NO, only military can stay there. England did not have enough availible soldiers (or backup) to protect themselves in India after WW2 if violent attacks began. Gandhi was annoying but voilence would have finished the job much earlier and quicker. Just think hype up Gandhi live safely, no one attacks you. or Violent attacks occur, British huge minority, little chance of backup due to WW2... We would have gained independence in 1942 probably in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
India-KXIP fan Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 no need to say ___ or stuff just make ur point.. maybe his achivements are overated (i dont agree with this ) still no need to say that my bad. edited, i didnt call him that seriously either he was still a hero but not as much as people hype him to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old guy Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 my bad. edited' date=' i didnt call him that seriously either he was still a hero but not as much as people hype him to be.[/quote'] ok :two_thumbs_up: i will edit it out from my post as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chainsmoker1985 Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 where have i seen the left one ? :hmmm: haan yar, mujhe bhi dekhi dekhi si lag rahi hai, wo left wali motto :giggle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old guy Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 haan yar' date=' mujhe bhi dekhi dekhi si lag rahi hai, wo left wali motto :giggle:[/quote'] arre bhai sachi..:blink: either she is from my frnd's school some indraprastha (sorry for spelllings :P ) or :hmmm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PriyankaSR Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Inbox, gents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangladeshifan Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 arre bhai sachi..:blink: either she is from my frnd's school some indraprastha (sorry for spelllings :P ) or :hmmm: sala abhibi ladkion ki college ke samne jake khara rehta hain thakri kahin ka. ab bas kar :whack: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger80 Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 This is the problem with aajkal ke chokres, have no sense of history and then go about advertising their ignorance. Gaurav can you explain how anmol was spot on? Cite references and examples because I think we need to re-write history Anmol why would British leave because of losses in WW2 when India was still as cash cow and a source of income? Doesnt make sense Plus I have to laugh loudly at people who think random acts of violence like Bhagat Singh's would have dented British confidence. They had the most advanced weapons when Indian 'freedom fighters' had desi tamanchas. Gandhiji was able to unite the whole of India into a common cause the likes of which was never seen before. He was able to take the Indian cause onto a world stage and bring international pressure of the British. There were a lots of manuoring behind the scenes. The British would never have taken a humiliating loss, so force would never have worked against them. Its was the justness of Gandhiji and the unity of India which caused the British to leave Decolonisation happened in all over the world after second world war .India was not exception,there is no way one can say Britishers suddenly left all the colonies because there were so many movements in all the colonies .After world second world war the power just shifted to USA and Soviet,Britishers were in no position to hold colonies for long term so they had to leave them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old guy Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 sala abhibi ladkion ki college ke samne jake khara rehta hain thakri kahin ka. ab bas kar :whack: its natural Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangladeshifan Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 its natural kids will be kids :giggle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
India-KXIP fan Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 ^lold at username. Another person thinking Bangladesh is actually relevant in any way :giggle: Sorry big countries like India only listen to countries that MATTER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PriyankaSR Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 ^^ Woah, that's rude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts