subcontinent politics at its best...
jzfredricks
India change their position on the Paki forfeit at Old Trafford -->
Pakistan ban their players from the IPL
Where will it end?
StraightDrive
"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a4beadfa-ee45-4063...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Low iq western retard jzfredricks,
Your IQ is tooo low to comment about everything under the sun.
Go get a brain transplant. Even a monkeys brain will improve your IQ.
Adrian
Someone just asked a simple qtn and this is the shit we have to put up
with...
I think you are the racist. It seems you do not want anything to do with
countries outside the subcontinent. No wonder I rarely come onto these
newsgroups. You are all talk mate.
And what is a "jzfredricks"
Geico Caveman
For years, Indian cricket policy (ever since the lifting of the ban on
sporting cricket contacts in 1998 or whereabouts) has been at odds with the
national policy (except for a few hiccups corresponding to the naivette of
Indian diplomats, such as at Lahore and, later, at Agra). Some of it is the
legacy of shared struggles from fighting the English-Aussie-Windies nexus a
few decades earlier. Most of it is simply greed for money and a reliable
vote at ICC.
The terror attacks simply resulted in a tide of highly adverse public
opinion which caused a rationalization of the cricket policy vis a vis
Pakistan.
How long it will be able to overcome the native avarice of the BCCI is
anyone's guess. Though if the reports of the steady decay of Pakistani
cricket, daily prognosticated by Pakistani writers on cricinfo, are to be
believed, that might be a moot point in a few years.
Watch out for BCCI pushing for the elevation of another country to Test
status, maybe Afghanistan, maybe Kenya, to replace the lost vote at ICC.
Don
Good troll Fredericks...you are improving your RSC IQ level....
Don
ps: fredericks will be happy if india becomes a rogue terrorist
producing state like porkistan and send people to blow up the london
tubes
Don
wrote:
> jzfredricks wrote:
> > Mumbai terror attacks -->
> > India change their position on the Paki forfeit at Old Trafford -->
> > Pakistan ban their players from the IPL
>
> > Where will it end?
>
> For years, Indian cricket policy (ever since the lifting of the ban on
> sporting cricket contacts in 1998 or whereabouts) has been at odds with the
> national policy (except for a few hiccups corresponding to the naivette of
> Indian diplomats, such as at Lahore and, later, at Agra). Some of it is the
> legacy of shared struggles from fighting the English-Aussie-Windies nexus a
> few decades earlier. Most of it is simply greed for money and a reliable
> vote at ICC.
You are a perfect example of an asslicking slave of anything American
or British.
Shame on you as you are completely in contrast in character to the
honest and dedicated PM Manmohan Singh.
> The terror attacks simply resulted in a tide of highly adverse public
> opinion which caused a rationalization of the cricket policy vis a vis
> Pakistan.
Indian cricket has always gone with the national agenda. They
abandoned the tour to Pakistan midway after hearing news of Indira
Gandhi's death. Porkistan was supporting the Khalistan movement then
and an asshole turban fuck killed the strongest PM India had ever seen
from the back like a coward. Other examples are touring Pakistan even
when security was very low to harbinger betterment of ties between the
two countries with the ODI series in 1997.
> Watch out for BCCI pushing for the elevation of another country to Test
> status, maybe Afghanistan, maybe Kenya, to replace the lost vote at ICC.
Better than Aus doing back to back series with a club side like NZ not
to mention Aus itself is fast turning into a club side.
Don
arahim
> Mumbai terror attacks -->
> India change their position on the Paki forfeit at Old Trafford -->
> Pakistan ban their players from the IPL
>
Both positions are wrong. However with the rumblings going on it was
likely or at least possible that the IPL and ICL would not include
these players but if they were willing then the players should have
played. If not then there were the legal aspects of the contracts to
look at.
This is another thing which cricket has mired itself in by inviting
government interventions when it suited the boards (Aus-Zim issue
etc.).
> Where will it end?
bongo...@gmail.com
Extremely naive to think of it this way. BCCI could not have cared
less about terror attacks and would have de$perately wanted to send a
team to Pakistan. However, public opinion and political pressure after
the attacks obviously scuttled their plans.
jzfredricks
wrote:
lol
sounds like politics to me!
viper
"Adrian" <adri...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:4986...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Is this guy serious!!!!
> Someone just asked a simple qtn and this is the shit we have to put up
> with...
> I think you are the racist. It seems you do not want anything to do with
> countries outside the subcontinent. No wonder I rarely come onto these
> newsgroups. You are all talk mate.
Yes he is and every post is the same.....but hang in there, he's great sport
Viper
bongo...@gmail.com
>
> > > Where will it end?
>
> > Extremely naive to think of it this way. BCCI could not have cared
> > less about terror attacks and would have de$perately wanted to send a
> > team to Pakistan. However, public opinion and political pressure after
> > the attacks obviously scuttled their plans.
>
> lol
> sounds like politics to me!
and therefore ?
Not as if first time in history some country or someone has been
banned, or that some team refused to visit another county (trying to
remember which country....starts with an A).
StraightDrive
> Someone just asked a simple qtn and this is the shit we have to put up
> with...
Another typical western low iq cunt Adrian,
Why dont you go fuck your pet animals like your fellow countrymen.
What the fuck do you know about this moron jzfredricks for you to gatecrash
into this thread and respond.
> I think you are the racist. It seems you do not want anything to do with
> countries outside the subcontinent. No wonder I rarely come onto these
> newsgroups. You are all talk mate.
>
> And what is a "jzfredricks"
Your fag partner.
StraightDrive
"viper" <vi...@rugby.com> wrote in message
news:49878612$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> "Adrian" <adri...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4986...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> Is this guy serious!!!!
>> Someone just asked a simple qtn and this is the shit we have to put up
>> with...
>> I think you are the racist. It seems you do not want anything to do with
>> countries outside the subcontinent. No wonder I rarely come onto these
>> newsgroups. You are all talk mate.
>
>
>
> Yes he is and every post is the same.....but hang in there, he's great
> sport
>
>
> Viper
>
Yeah like the white boreturds your white women complain about.
Geico Caveman
> countries outside the subcontinent. No wonder I rarely come onto these
> newsgroups. You are all talk mate.
Doesn't your newsreader have a filter ?
jzfredricks
wrote:
> > > > Where will it end?
>
> > > Extremely naive to think of it this way. BCCI could not have cared
> > > less about terror attacks and would have de$perately wanted to send a
> > > team to Pakistan. However, public opinion and political pressure after
> > > the attacks obviously scuttled their plans.
>
> > lol
> > sounds like politics to me!
>
> and therefore ?
and therefore perhaps my comments weren't as "extremely naive" as you
suggest...
johnwesley...@gmail.com
> Is this guy serious!!!!
> Someone just asked a simple qtn and this is the shit we have to put up
> with...
> I think you are the racist. It seems you do not want anything to do with
> countries outside the subcontinent. No wonder I rarely come onto these
> newsgroups. You are all talk mate.
>
> And what is a "jzfredricks"
Don't know what is that, but the original post sounded perfectly
reasonable to me. As ridiculous as it may sound, Pak lose a cricket
match because of the involvement of its citizen in an atrocity in
India. But that is how cricket "works" (read, doesn't work)
Do you also doubt that ICC is a completely useless, hopelessly
politicized body?
Tahmasp
<Straig...@Tendulkar.com> wrote:
>
>"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:a4beadfa-ee45-4063...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> Mumbai terror attacks -->
>> India change their position on the Paki forfeit at Old Trafford -->
>> Pakistan ban their players from the IPL
>>
>> Where will it end?
>
>
>Low iq western retard jzfredricks,
>
>Your IQ is tooo low
Your IQ is toooooooooo low
> to comment about everything under the sun.
to about everything under the sun to comment mem sahib
>Go get a brain transplant. Even a monkeys brain will improve your IQ.
>
>
Speaking (sic) from experience?
Tahmasp
<Straig...@Tendulkar.com> wrote:
>
>"viper" <vi...@rugby.com> wrote in message
>news:49878612$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>
>> "Adrian" <adri...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:4986...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>> Is this guy serious!!!!
>>> Someone just asked a simple qtn and this is the shit we have to put up
>>> with...
>>> I think you are the racist. It seems you do not want anything to do with
>>> countries outside the subcontinent. No wonder I rarely come onto these
>>> newsgroups. You are all talk mate.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes he is and every post is the same.....but hang in there, he's great
>> sport
>>
>>
>> Viper
Only if you enjoy baiting inferior creatures
>>
>
>
>Yeah like the white boreturds your white women complain about.
>
>
>
>
Oh dear, a lot of white boreturds about.
What are you, a pink tediousturd? A mauve dumbturd?
Or just a brown turd?
Andrew Dunford
<johnwesley...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c5f297c4-0228-4ad9...@u14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
I rather like the sound of that for their mission statement: "we strive to
be an equal opportunies, completely useless, hopelessly politicised body".
Andrew
bongo...@gmail.com
>
> and therefore perhaps my comments weren't as "extremely naive" as you
> suggest...
dude...it was your attempts at causations that was naive. just because
what you wrote was about politics does not make it right (I reckon you
got it right in the title thought).
jzfredricks
wrote:
> dude...it was your attempts at causations that was naive.
fair enough
Geico Caveman
Let us wait until Pakistanis (or any other cricket playing nation) start
killing 1000+ of your citizens in a year. We will see if you sing a
different tune then.
johnwesley...@gmail.com
wrote:
A really strange response. On how many level should I dispute it?
Firstly, why would you want to differentiate people on the basis of
"my" and "your" citizen. Does "your" citizen make someone less human
or less important to you?
Secondly, your response is quite meaningless unless you believe the 11
Pakistani cricketers at Oval 2006 were somehow responsible for the
atrocity in India. Even if you do believe that, you'd want them to be
tried in a court of law, not made to lose a match.
There is much that can be blamed on Pakistan of course, but India has
hardly been the paragon of peace itself...all those killings of its
minorities and all.......pretty sorry history there eh? Should India
lose cricket matches because of it though?
eusebius
wrote:
Irrelevant as to whether the ICC is a completely useless, hopelessly
politicized body.
Indonesians killed c.200 A citizens in 2002. No specific action has
been taken by Oz in relation to Indo.
Still, we don't need this to be a pissing contest regarding
casualties. All terror attacks are evil and deserve condemnation,
wherever they are sourced.
Still, I fail to see the relationship to cricket.
And I know that you are a rational person.
jzfredricks
> All terror attacks are evil and deserve condemnation,
> wherever they are sourced.
I'll agree with that once u define 'terror', please
;)
eusebius
> On Feb 4, 9:59 am, Geico Caveman <spammers-be-g...@spam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > > Don't know what is that, but the original post sounded perfectly
> > > reasonable to me. As ridiculous as it may sound, Pak lose a cricket
> > > match because of the involvement of its citizen in an atrocity in
> > > India. But that is how cricket "works" (read, doesn't work)
>
> > > Do you also doubt that ICC is a completely useless, hopelessly
> > > politicized body?
>
> > Let us wait until Pakistanis (or any other cricket playing nation) start
> > killing 1000+ of your citizens in a year. We will see if you sing a
> > different tune then.
>
> A really strange response. On how many level should I dispute it?
I think it was an emotional response.
>
> Firstly, why would you want to differentiate people on the basis of
> "my" and "your" citizen. Does "your" citizen make someone less human
> or less important to you?
Of course it doesn't
>
> Secondly, your response is quite meaningless unless you believe the 11
> Pakistani cricketers at Oval 2006 were somehow responsible for the
> atrocity in India. Even if you do believe that, you'd want them to be
> tried in a court of law, not made to lose a match.
>
> There is much that can be blamed on Pakistan of course, but India has
> hardly been the paragon of peace itself...all those killings of its
> minorities and all.......pretty sorry history there eh? Should India
> lose cricket matches because of it though?
Which 'all those killings of its minorities'? I haven't heard about
those. There have been conflicts between religious communities, and
still outcaste individuals are discriminated against despite
significant progress in some areas and affirmative action programmes
by government.
Still, the Australian treatment of its indigenous population is hardly
a paragon of virtue, historically, is it?
You are answering irrelevances with greater irrelevances.
jzfredricks
> Still, the Australian treatment of its indigenous population is hardly
> a paragon of virtue, historically, is it?
I think his point was "two wrongs"....
and u may have just proved it.
eusebius
But...he wasn't able to correctly describe the 'wrong' he thinks India
is guilty of.
eusebius
Seeing Merv Hughes sidle up towards you after taking a catch off his
bowling. But then the tongue coming out of his mouth...indescribable.
And I'm not being flippant about terror attacks. Terror involves
attacks against civilian populations in order to cow them by
organizations or individuals- by that standard the Blitz and the
bombing of Hamburg qualify, the rape of Nanking and the bombing of
Hiroshima, the bombings of Vietnam, 9/11, the Mumbai attacks, Bali,
and Abu Ghraib.
jzfredricks
> But...he wasn't able to correctly describe the 'wrong' he thinks India
> is guilty of.
Dowry "Deaths"
Letting SD have an internet connection
Geico Caveman
>> Let us wait until Pakistanis (or any other cricket playing nation) start
>> killing 1000+ of your citizens in a year. We will see if you sing a
>> different tune then.
>
> Irrelevant as to whether the ICC is a completely useless, hopelessly
> politicized body.
> Indonesians killed c.200 A citizens in 2002. No specific action has
> been taken by Oz in relation to Indo.
Neither has any such action been taken against Pakistan by the Indian
government. In face of great public sentiment, I might add.
> Still, we don't need this to be a pissing contest regarding
> casualties. All terror attacks are evil and deserve condemnation,
> wherever they are sourced.
Yes. But condemnation has to mean more than just words. The least the
government could do would be to end all sporting ties indefinitely, as well
as revoke their MFN status and all direct bilateral trading with Pakistan.
These latter actions would hurt Pakistan far more than they hurt us (as
economic data shows). For the last few years, Pakistan has been saving some
money by directly importing various goods from India, rather than
re-importing them through the middle east (as was the practice for decades
before that). Time to start by ending that. The government is yet to take
these latter steps.
I personally do not buy anything that has "Made in Pakistan" on it (haven't
done so for years now). A fraction of the money that flows into the
Pakistani economy ends up in either the hands of the terrorists or their
sponsors in the military intelligence complex of Pakistan. It would be
highly irresponsible for any Indian to subsidise Pakistan's terror industry
like this. Pakistan is not the China of manufacturing, so boycotting their
goods can be accomplished with minimum of fuss.
>
> Still, I fail to see the relationship to cricket.
>
Cricket brings money into Pakistan. A part of which is spent on killing my
people. Same goes for any economic activity involving Pakistan.
> And I know that you are a rational person.
I like to think I am. Many here would not share that assessment.
Geico Caveman
Despite the UN's vacillation on this issue (mainly due to opposition by
certain interested parties inhabiting the arc of Asia between Israel and
India), the definition of terrorism is pretty clear cut - it is the use of
physical violence or the threat of physical violence, by a person,
organizations or states, specifically targetted at civilians (where
civilians are the intended targets and not just collateral damage in a
conventional conflict between two armed parties) to effect the advancement
of a political, social, economic, moral or religious agenda.
That does not stop certain people from mouthing inane statements like "one
man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", but there you have it.
johnwesley...@gmail.com
There has been documented involvement of the Indian state in those
"conflicts" (as you put it). History books of any half decent
neutrality would be a start. Reports of human rights organizations
could be another avenue if you so chose. Its not a pretty picture.
India is no Sweden, hence my surprise at the moral high ground being
claimed here in this thread. But I suppose perspective doesn't go
along well with keyboard warriors. Such is the nature of Internet
dueling
Geico Caveman
>> > Do you also doubt that ICC is a completely useless, hopelessly
>> > politicized body?
>>
>> Let us wait until Pakistanis (or any other cricket playing nation) start
>> killing 1000+ of your citizens in a year. We will see if you sing a
>> different tune then.
>
> A really strange response. On how many level should I dispute it?
Any rational level you like.
>
> Firstly, why would you want to differentiate people on the basis of
> "my" and "your" citizen. Does "your" citizen make someone less human
> or less important to you?
The law tends to differentiate between perpetrators of terrorism and victims
of it. Just one of those inconvenient facts proponents of artificial
balance run up against.
>
> Secondly, your response is quite meaningless unless you believe the 11
> Pakistani cricketers at Oval 2006 were somehow responsible for the
> atrocity in India. Even if you do believe that, you'd want them to be
> tried in a court of law, not made to lose a match.
The issue here is economics. For better or worse, cricket in the
subcontinent is an economic activity as much as it is a sporting activity.
The original decision at the Oval made by Hair and co. was the correct one.
It was overturned because of BCCI's knee jerk help to PCB. As a result of
11-26, BCCI has for the moment returned to its senses. How long it will
last, who knows ?
>
> There is much that can be blamed on Pakistan of course, but India has
> hardly been the paragon of peace itself...all those killings of its
> minorities and all.......pretty sorry history there eh? Should India
> lose cricket matches because of it though?
Not just minorities. The current law and order setup in India is
dysfunctional and inflicts pain on everyone, including the majority
community (howsoever defined). The only ones immune from their habitual
excesses are the well heeled and well connected. After decades of Indian
version of affirmative action (which predates its more well-known and
limited American cousin by about 20 years), that is no longer high caste
people (unlike the early 20th century snapshot understanding that many in
the West have of India). Many of the most powerful, venal, corrupt and
violent politicians in India are what you would label as low caste. None of
these unattractive "virtues" are the preserve of any caste. They are the
preserve of the powerful, which is what makes my country so imperfect when
compared to its venerated documents.
However, I can see that that is not what you are trying to drive at.
Regardless there have been distressingly many cases when the law and order
machinery has stood silently by while atrocities were committed by one
group against another they were opposed to or had sympathies against.
However, in each case, the judicial system has tried its best in face of
native incompetence / obstructiveness of the law and order machinery, to
right those wrongs. It has not been successful in every single case, but it
has made an effort. That effort is what sets the civilized apart from the
denizens of an uncivilized morass your fevered imagination considers India
to be.
Your attempts to equate India's many failures to protect its citizenry from
the callousness and indifference of its bloated law and order setup (read
police) to purveyors of state sponsored horrors like Zia's Pakistan,
British actions in Ireland, Mugabe's Zimbabwe, Shah's Iran, Soviet Russia
or Saddam's Iraq, appear to be a little contrived as a result.
If you have an argument, pray continue. If you have just a leftist Arundhati
Roy style rant, save the bandwidth.