Akshay Kumar & Kay Kay Menon slam Richa Chadha's tweet - Page 14

Originally posted by: blue-ice.1

Nothing wrong with finding a woman sexy....everything is wrong if you are dissecting a woman's post and posting her pics in a bikini on the side...suggesting that a sexy woman is not patriotic....I hope you got the drift...😉

no i dont.😛 It's fine to find a woman sexy, but suggesting we should excuse her shameful tweet because she is sexy, and then posting her picture here repeatedly is all kinds of wrong. It detracts from the discussion and would be considered quite misogynist. 😉Not that I have any hope you'll get the difference 😉

Galwan valley clash has nothing to do with BJP or Modi or even top ranked generals; it has everything to do with Indian troops (pretty much foot soldiers at that) warding off Chinese incursion in Ladakh.

But if we must talk about Modi's tweet, he was asking a rhetorical question which the scheming AAP minister tried to attribute to Modi as a statement made by Modi. His deliberate misinterpretation was debunked back in 2016 itself. Granted Modi's grammar, punctuation et al is not on par with some of the world class writing skills 😂 exhibited on these forums but anyone with who understands context knows what Modi was saying in that tweet.

Yeah there is always context and nuance as long as Modi or BJP minions criticise army or use reference to 1962 as a joke.

Richa named Galwan. Did not name army in tweet.

So much for calling India weak in defense prior to 2014. Typical bhakt speak to assume everything was weak and in shambles before 2014 and everything has been done only after 2014.

Originally posted by: atominis

Yeah there is always context and nuance as long as Modi or BJP minions criticise army or use reference to 1962 as a joke.

Richa named Galwan. Did not name army in tweet.

So much for calling India weak in defense prior to 2014. Typical bhakt speak to assume everything was weak and in shambles before 2014 and everything has been done only after 2014.

hmmm, did I say everything before 2014 was bad or that everything since has been good? We can always have a separate discussion on what we think was wrong/ right before/ after...

as far as Modi's criticisms go, my inference from other statements he has made over the years is he was basically criticizing UPA policies when it came to our defense. He found the lack of spending on modern equipment problematical. He also thought the forces needed to be stream-lined (as in creating theater commands etc under a CDS) to better orient it for modern warfare, and that veterans needed to be taken care of. In each of these areas, he has tried to do something about it. He brought out the One Rank One Pension scheme the veterans were asking for, even though it was expensive. Given that he actually did something about the criticisms he had levelled, it's only right to take his criticisms as constructive. In any case, he did not attack the character or the valor of our army...

as for Chadha not naming Galwan, one doesn't need to be too bright to know what she was referring to. It was shameful for her to implicitly mock the sacrifice of soldiers who died there....

IMO, Modi should have been much more assertive and much more aggressive in his response right after the Galwan clash. He went to Ladakh a good couple of weeks later after the clash and said something along the lines of “the age of expansionism was over” without even mentioning China by name. I thought that was a very timid posture that Modi adopted at that time. Very feeble and very disappointing.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

can you take this trash elsewhere and help us keep this site clean? 😉 Possible to do?😉

tagging blue-ice because she liked your post. Talk about objectifying other women. No wokeism here?😉

Richa's emotional state while tweeting was; A Feeling expressing, inspired by love for her country.

We can choose to forgive her. She also entertains the Indian audience by being sexy ... sexy 🤣

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

IMO, Modi should have been much more assertive and much more aggressive in his response right after the Galwan clash. He went to Ladakh a good couple of weeks later after the clash and said something along the lines of “the age of expansionism was over” without even mentioning China by name. I thought that was a very timid posture that Modi adopted at that time. Very feeble and very disappointing.

To an extent one would agree with your point ...

but Modi is quite prudent with the aforementioned subject matter.

He's a lot smarter than one might think.

The government could pay Richa to entertain the soldiers with sexy dance medleys.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

lol isn't it exhausting trying to spin that around so much?😆

so now you're back to saying that the army of any nation should be respected. Would that include your raping, pillaging, genocide committing 1971 pak army too? 😉

as for who is a puppet, you're way off. A self-made well-off celeb like AK is not likely to be anyone's puppet. But yes, those brainwashed khalistanis and terrorists sure are puppets, if you want examples of puppets😉 😆

Well, in 1971 it was wasn’t the Pak Army who did the genocides etc..

It was the Muslim locales who did it.

Originally posted by: aaditi123

Leave it to Indian twitter for making a mountain out of a mole-hill.

There was an Indian army personal taking out of his a** tbh about how they can just crush Pakistan & conquer Pakistan Occupied Kashmir in no time. Richa made a tongue in cheek remark "Galwan says Hi".

For the unaware, a couple of years ago China literally walked into India & annexed its land with PM Modi not having the balls to even acknowledge the absolute embarrassment because "56 inch image".

It's actually a lot more shameful for an Indian officer of a high rank to be talking like a Gunda from the street. Indian army is extremely professional & polished. I've never seen an officer making such downmarket remarks.

Nothing to see here, just twitter being twitter.

In my opinion it is extremely distasteful to speak about waging a war under any circumstances.
Because not only it causes huge loss of human lives, but also is a much greater set back for the economy of a country, which in my opinion isn’t something one should think as an option until absolutely necessary and unavoidable.

Originally posted by: blue-ice.1

This concept is too difficult to understand....😆....going by this logic...75% Americans were anti -America when Trump was the President..😆

This is because not 100% people cast their votes to choose.

In India also majority is attained by a party with only 40% of the total population casting their votes.

So it’s not necessary that all people living in a country actually like the politicians or the politics currently going on in a country.