57 refugees pushed back to Burma by BGB. WHYYYYY ??

[Major d1]

Burden on our economy and none of our business.

Then in 1971 why u went to india for safety reason? That was indian concern? As a neighbor country this is our duty to protect our minority brothers. Militarily.

What is going on Palestine? and Kashmir? connect with it in a row.

I just hope they don't end up in India for some reason or another. We have burnt our fingers before by doing that.

In a micro level we don't see the influence but in the macro level we can see what actually India wanted to see from us. .

 

[SarthakGanguly]

In a micro level we don't see the influence but in the macro level we can see what actually India wanted to see from us. .

No offense, but I don't care.

Rohingya refugees vandalized Bodhgaya and Azad Maidan before in India. Hope not one is allowed in.

 

[Mage]

1- As i said before no country in this world use NUK . Bcz after ww2 , it has been closed. Bcz before NUK power there are many thugs have what is more dangerous then NUK> India will never think about NUK using in bd. bcz , it is their threat too.

2- We have that power , that we can threat them. NAf war is a good example. Mayanmar is a state who just afraid of Threatening . Bcz British rules policy was same as same what was for this bangal. In this region we are asset for USA and China. and for India too. We should use our power.

3- Timur attacked not Delhi, He attacked a providence, bcz that time Hidu kings stared torture to their own people. So normal people, i men hindus went to Timur and ask for help. That is why he attacked that providence. In that time there was no state name as delhi. This is long story .

Yes when we are following capitalism and democracy by the concept of nationalism concept from that time we were separated into 57 states. in 1924 when khilafah broken. Scnc then we are separated. By calling u r bangladeshi , he is pakistani , when our actual identity is we are muslim at first . By the way Nationalism concept also haram is islam. where we have no khilafah state so who will united us?

So you are saying a country would rather surrender to foreign forces than use nukes? Are you not ignorant. Also you need to enlighten me how we are gonna defeat an army 10 times of our size even if they don't use nukes.

And no. Myanmar are fully aware that BD is not interested in war. So they would just laugh off BD's threat. More importantly a war doesn't help BD, doesn't help Myanmar and does not help Rohynga people.

Oh...didn't know that about Timur. Then why did Nader Shah attacked Mughal empire? I can show you 100s of examples where Muslims fought against each other even before following western slavery democracy.

Oh....and why the obsession with Kalipha system? And we were not united before 1924 either.

Exactly this sort of passivity has allowed India to rob us of our sovereignty.

So you call yourself Indian now? Check you NID card. Is it issued by Indian govt? Or maybe you are enslaved in your mind?

 

[Major d1]

So you are saying a country would rather surrender to foreign forces than use nukes? Are you not ignorant. Also you need to enlighten me how we are gonna defeat an army 10 times of our size even if they don't use nukes.

And no. Myanmar are fully aware that BD is not interested in war. So they would just laugh off BD's threat. More importantly a war doesn't help BD, doesn't help Myanmar and does not help Rohynga people.

Oh...didn't know that about Timur. Then why did Nader Shah attacked Mughal empire? I can show you 100s of examples where Muslims fought against each other even before following western slavery democracy.

Oh....and why the obsession with Kalipha system? And we were not united before 1924 either.


So you call yourself Indian now? Check you NID card. Is it issued by Indian govt? Or maybe you are enslaved in your mind?

1- War depends on war strategy not only war weapons only. One example is US lost the war with Vietnam where they were super power. Our land is paradise land ( It is military word) , strategically , we can defend india in many ways such as their 7 sisters is there one of the main weak point and their 7 sisters tie inside of Bangladesh . If we cut the tie, & sisters will be separated. We will give them full support for their own independence state. Other side is bay of bangle. India can't enter will her naval destroyed in our low land see level. Then we will practice target shooting. 3 sides are surrounded by indian border that in also an advantage for us. However - This is just some key point i gave to you.

However babar fought with ******* sorry i forgot his name . he was muslim too. But that time we muslims were united. Even Mughl's ruled India by the authority of Ottoman khilafah. That is another discussion. hope sometimes i will post about that - Then we will discuses about that . But why you are relating with western democracy ?

What you know about khilafah ? That you said we are not united before 1924 ? Do you know how khilafah destroyed? by kamal attaturk. Khilafah is ruling system of muslims what started from Prophet (Pbuh) to 1924.

I say i am muslim at first . Oh yah when Indians are occupying bd now then i say i am sufferer. are u happy by calling urself an indian ?

No offense, but I don't care.

Rohingya refugees vandalized Bodhgaya and Azad Maidan before in India. Hope not one is allowed in.

Until 1937, Britain uses its Indian Raj to control their possessions in Asia.

 

[Major d1]

Rohingya are illegal Bangladeshis. Another bunch of parasites.

That is non Indian concern. We know how to deal the problem decently.

Illigal Indians dancing in Bangladesh.

 

[Sliver]

1- War depends on war strategy not only war weapons only. One example is US lost the war with Vietnam where they were super power.
Our land is paradise land ( It is military word) ,
strategically , we can defend india in many ways such as their 7 sisters is there one of the main weak point and their 7 sisters tie inside of Bangladesh . If we cut the tie, & sisters will be separated. We will give them full support for their own independence state. Other side is bay of bangle. India can't enter will her naval destroyed in our low land see level. Then we will practice target shooting. 3 sides are surrounded by indian border that in also an advantage for us. However - This is just some key point i gave to you.

oh god - thank you for these amazing pearls of wisdom.
@Major d1
1) while you are "target practicing" against the completely destroyed Indian Navy - why cant indian use its missiles on the land to attack BD?
2) BD wants to lend support for the eastern part of India's independence. China couldnt get "independence" to Tawang region. BD is mightier than China?
3) if India cant enter "bay of bangle" with its ships - then I guess BD cant also move its ships out of "bay of bangle" because of your "low land see level". You want to war with Myanmar, with India and your ships cant move out of the low lying see level. effectively you have sealed yourself in. How will you trade and export you invaluable textiles without which no one in USA can wear clothes?

 

[Mage]

1- War depends on war strategy not only war weapons only. One example is US lost the war with Vietnam where they were super power. Our land is paradise land ( It is military word) , strategically , we can defend india in many ways such as their 7 sisters is there one of the main weak point and their 7 sisters tie inside of Bangladesh . If we cut the tie, & sisters will be separated. We will give them full support for their own independence state. Other side is bay of bangle. India can't enter will her naval destroyed in our low land see level. Then we will practice target shooting. 3 sides are surrounded by indian border that in also an advantage for us. However - This is just some key point i gave to you

US and Vietnam are far apart. Also its not like US went all out war there. They were trying to establish a puppet regime there. They withdrew when things got irritating for them. If you think Bangladesh army can beat Indian army in an all out war scenario then you are an arrogant, ignorant idiot.

However babar fought with ******* sorry i forgot his name . he was muslim too. But that time we muslims were united. Even Mughl's ruled India by the authority of Ottoman khilafah. That is another discussion. hope sometimes i will post about that - Then we will discuses about that . But why you are relating with western democracy ?

What you know about khilafah ? That you said we are not united before 1924 ? Do you know how khilafah destroyed? by kamal attaturk. Khilafah is ruling system of muslims what started from Prophet (Pbuh) to 1924.

His name is Ibrahim Lodi Ibthink. And this is related with western democracy because you said we were united before we started following western democracy. Where I see we were divided. Ottoman empire and Mughal empire had good relations but never Ottomans had authority over Mughals.

I am well aware that Ottoman caliphate was abolished in 1924. But you need to show me how we were united before that?

I say i am muslim at first .

Terrible English for someone living in UK.

Oh yah when Indians are occupying bd now then i say i am sufferer. are u happy by calling urself an

I call myself a Bangladeshi and a proud one as well. And I do not think Bangladesh is occupied by India as I am knowledgeable enough to understand that having good relation with your neighbours does not mean you are occupied by them. But I am sure someone like you who hate everything related to India and Hindu won't understand that

 

[Roybot]

Bangladesh is cruel. Watches so heartlessly the Genocide of Muslim Rohingya.

Such a selfish and heartless people. Still plenty of Hindu blood running in their veins.

Your country is selling JF-17 aircrafts to Myanmar Military

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Your country is selling JF-17 aircrafts to Myanmar Military

Our country also has slammed Myanmar... it also hosts .6 million rohingya...

 

[Sliver]

Our country also has slammed Myanmar... it also hosts .6 million rohingya...

slammed Myanmar but selling fighter jets. sounds like you guys learned a lot for us.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

slammed Myanmar but selling fighter jets. sounds like you guys learned a lot for us.

Alot of people would also advocate relations with israel.. we dont have any dog in that race either..

 

[Major d1]

US and Vietnam are far apart. Also its not like US went all out war there. They were trying to establish a puppet regime there. They withdrew when things got irritating for them. If you think Bangladesh army can beat Indian army in an all out war scenario then you are an arrogant, ignorant idiot.


His name is Ibrahim Lodi Ibthink. And this is related with western democracy because you said we were united before we started following western democracy. Where I see we were divided. Ottoman empire and Mughal empire had good relations but never Ottomans had authority over Mughals.

I am well aware that Ottoman caliphate was abolished in 1924. But you need to show me how we were united before that?

Terrible English for someone living in UK.
I call myself a Bangladeshi and a proud one as well. And I do not think Bangladesh is occupied by India as I am knowledgeable enough to understand that having good relation with your neighbours does not mean you are occupied by them. But I am sure someone like you who hate everything related to India and Hindu won't understand that

1- may be you have no idea about war strategy. That was full faze war where US deployed his own soldier. Where they didn't do when they attacked afganistan or iraq. This is the war where US deployed their own soldiers and lost the war . U know how to fly, u have no idea about ground knowledge.

2- Yes- lodi . u r r8. Show me before 1924 we were divided. Mughal's had to give providence tax to the khilafah capital istanbul. But In india they were free to rule but not against khilafah ruling system. Bcz till then Muslims were united. But British and french stated a plot to make a division in muslim lands.

3- We can't sell our self-respect to an another person.

I am showing how HOW THE BRITISH DIVIDED UP THE ARAB WORLD- Hope this is the point that you will believe before that we were united.

The development of the modern nation states throughout the Arab world is a fascinating and heartbreaking process. 100 years ago, most Arabs were part of the Ottoman Empire/Caliphate, a large multi-ethnic state based in Istanbul. Today, a political map of the Arab world looks like a very complex jigsaw puzzle. A complex and intricate course of events in the 1910s brought about the end of the Ottomans and the rise of these new nations with borders running across the Middle East, diving Muslims from each other. While there are many different factors leading to this, the role that the British played in this was far greater than any other player in the region. Three separate agreements made conflicting promises that the British had to stand by. The result was a political mess that divided up a large part of the Muslim world.


The Outbreak of World War I
In the summer of 1914, war broke out in Europe. A complex system of alliances, a militaristic arms race, colonial ambitions, and general mismanagement at the highest government levels led to this devastating war that would claim the lives of 12 million people from 1914 to 1918. On the “Allied” side stood the empires of Britain, France, and Russia. The “Central” powers consisted of Germany and Austria-Hungary.


The Ottoman Empire in 1914 at the start of the war

At first, the Ottoman Empire decided to remain neutral. They were not nearly as strong as any of the other nations fighting in the war, and were wracked by internal and external threats. The Ottoman sultan/caliph was nothing more than a figurehead at this point, with the last powerful sultan, Abdulhamid II, having been overthrown in 1908 and replaced with a military government led by the “Three Pashas”. They were from the secular Westernized group, the Young Turks. Financially, the Ottomans were in a serious bind, owing huge debts to the European powers that they were not able to pay. After trying to join the Allied side and being rejected, the Ottomans sided with the Central Powers in October of 1914.

The British immediately began to conceive of plans to dissolve the Ottoman Empire and expand their Middle Eastern empire. They had already had control of Egypt since 1888 and India since 1857. The Ottoman Middle East lay right in the middle of these two important colonies, and the British were determined to exterminate it as part of the world war.

The Arab Revolt
One of the British strategies was to turn the Ottoman Empire’s Arab subjects against the government. They found a ready and willing helper in the Hejaz, the western region of the Arabian Peninsula. Sharif Hussein bin Ali, the amir (governor) of Makkah entered into an agreement with the British government to revolt against the Ottomans. His reasons for allying with the foreign British against other Muslims remains uncertain. Possible reasons for his revolt were: disapproval with the Turkish nationalist objectives of the Three Pashas, a personal feud with the Ottoman government, or simply a desire for his own kingdom.

Whatever his reasons were, Sharif Hussein decided to revolt against the Ottoman government in alliance with the British. In return, the British promised to provide money and weapons to the rebels to help them fight the much more organized Ottoman army. Also, the British promised him that after the war, he would be given his own Arab kingdom that would cover the entire Arabian Peninsula, including Syria and Iraq. The letters in which the two sides negotiated and discussed revolt were known as the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, as Sharif Hussein was communicating with the British High Commissioner in Egypt, Sir Henry McMahon.


Arab rebels with the British-designed Flag of the Arab Revolt

In June of 1916 Sharif Hussein led his group of armed Bedouin warriors from the Hejaz in an armed campaign against the Ottomans. Within a few months, the Arab rebels managed to capture numerous cities in the Hejaz (including Jeddah and Makkah) with help from the British army and navy. The British provided support in the form of soldiers, weapons, money, advisors (including the “legendary” Lawrence of Arabia), and a flag. The British in Egypt drew up a flag for the Arabs to use in battle, which was known as the “Flag of the Arab Revolt”. This flag would later become the model for other Arab flags of countries such as Jordan, Palestine, Sudan, Syria, and Kuwait.

As World War One progressed through 1917 and 1918, the Arab rebels managed to capture some major cities from the Ottomans. As the British advanced into Palestine and Iraq, capturing cities such as Jerusalem and Baghdad, the Arabs aided them by capturing Amman and Aqaba. It is important to note that the Arab Revolt did not have the backing of a large majority of the Arab population. It was a minority movement of a couple thousand tribesmen led by a few leaders who sought to increase their own powers. The vast majority of the Arab people stayed away from the conflict and did not support the rebels or the Ottoman government. Sharif Hussein’s plan to create his own Arab kingdom was succeeding so far, if it were not for other promises the British would make.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement

British and French control according to the Sykes-Picot Agreement

Before the Arab Revolt could even begin and before Sharif Hussein could create his Arab kingdom, the British and French had other plans. In the winter of 1915-1916, two diplomats, Sir Mark Sykes of Britain and François Georges-Picot of France secretly met to decide the fate of the post-Ottoman Arab world.

According to what would become known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the British and French agreed to divide up the Arab world between themselves. The British were to take control of what is now Iraq, Kuwait, and Jordan. The French were given modern Syria, Lebanon, and southern Turkey. The status of Palestine was to be determined later, with Zionist ambitions to be taken into account. The zones of control that the British and French were given allowed for some amount of Arab self-rule in some areas, albeit with European control over such Arab kingdoms. In other areas, the British and French were promised total control.

Although it was meant to be a secret agreement for a post-WWI Middle East, the agreement became known publicly in 1917 when the Russian Bolshevik government exposed it. The Sykes-Picot Agreement directly contradicted the promises the British made to Sherif Hussein and caused a considerable amount of tension between the British and Arabs. However, this would not be the last of the conflicting agreements the British would make.

The Balfour Declaration
Another group that wanted a say in the political landscape of the Middle East were the Zionists. Zionism is a political movement that calls for the establishment of a Jewish state in the Holy Land of Palestine. It began in the 1800s as a movement that sought to find a homeland away from Europe for Jews (most of which lived in Germany, Poland, and Russia).


Arthur Balfour and the original Balfour Declaration

Eventually the Zionists decided to pressure the British government during WWI into allowing them to settle in Palestine after the war was over. Within the British government, there were many who were sympathetic to this political movement. One of those was Arthur Balfour, the Foreign Secretary for Britain. On November 2nd, 1917, he sent a letter to Baron Rothschild, a leader in the Zionist community. The letter declared the British government’s official support for the Zionist movement’s goals to establish a Jewish state in Palestine:

“His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

Three Conflicting Agreements
By 1917, the British had made three different agreements with three different groups promising three different political futures for the Arab world. The Arabs insisted they still get their Arab kingdom that was promised to them through Sharif Hussein. The French (and British themselves) expected to divide up that same land among themselves. And the Zionists expected to be given Palestine as promised by Balfour.

In 1918 the war ended with the victory of the Allies and the complete destruction of the Ottoman Empire. Although the Ottomans existed in name until 1922 (and the caliphate existed in name until 1924), all the former Ottoman land was now under European occupation. The war was over, but the Middle East’s future was still in dispute between three different sides.


The mandates that the League of Nations created after WWI

Which side won? None fully got what they wanted. In the aftermath of WWI, the League of Nations (a forerunner to the United Nations) was established. One of its jobs was to divide up the conquered Ottoman lands. It drew up “mandates” for the Arab world. Each mandate was supposed to be ruled by the British or French “until such time as they are able to stand alone.” The League was the one to draw up the borders we see on modern political maps of the Middle East. The borders were drawn without regard for the wishes of the people living there, or along ethnic, geographic, or religious boundaries – they were truly arbitrary. It is important to note that even today, political borders in the Middle East do not indicate different groups of people. The differences between Iraqis, Syrians, Jordanians, etc. were entirely created by the European colonizers as a method of dividing the Arabs against each other.

Through the mandate system, the British and the French were able to get the control they wanted over the Middle East. For Sharif Hussein, his sons were allowed to rule over these mandates under British “protection”. Prince Faisal was made king of Iraq and Syria and Prince Abdullah was made king of Jordan. In practice, however, the British and French had real authority over these areas.

For the Zionists, they were allowed by the British government to settle in Palestine, although with limitations. The British did not want to anger the Arabs already living in Palestine, so they tried to limit the number of Jews allowed to migrate to Palestine. This angered the Zionists, who looked for illegal ways to immigrate throughout the 1920s-1940s, as well as the Arabs, who saw the immigration as encroachment on land that had been theirs since Salah al-Din liberated it in 1187.

The political mess that Britain created in the aftermath of WWI remains today. The competing agreements and the subsequent countries that were created to disunite Muslims from each other led to political instability throughout the Middle East. The rise of Zionism coupled with the disunity of the Muslims in that region has led to corrupt governments and economic decline for the Middle East as a whole. The divisions that the British instituted in the Muslim world remain strong today, despite being wholly created within the past 100 years.

Your country is selling JF-17 aircrafts to Myanmar Military

It means US is selling weapons to Israel for killing Palestinian Muslims.

@Philia - I found this for you .

See how they broke our unity . And how we were united.

oh god - thank you for these amazing pearls of wisdom.
@Major d1
1) while you are "target practicing" against the completely destroyed Indian Navy - why cant indian use its missiles on the land to attack BD?
2) BD wants to lend support for the eastern part of India's independence. China couldnt get "independence" to Tawang region. BD is mightier than China?
3) if India cant enter "bay of bangle" with its ships - then I guess BD cant also move its ships out of "bay of bangle" because of your "low land see level". You want to war with Myanmar, with India and your ships cant move out of the low lying see level. effectively you have sealed yourself in. How will you trade and export you invaluable textiles without which no one in USA can wear clothes?

1- They will use SRM. or LRM Yes they will use fight strick . Buildings will be destroyed or bla bla.- Just u need to 9 days to stay with it . Then there power and our power will be =
2- IN this case. yes.
3- Okay . this is really a good question. I said Low land see level, their , for an example indian destroyer can't access in 100 miles. Where is deep sea port too. We have medium types of naval war faze. This is our advantage too. By the way, as i said about indian strategy, in which border or area india will control that time. 7 sisters, west bangla? or us?
In a trade business we can export our products to US via ships. . What wrong about that ? What we are doing today. War ships and industrial ships rnt same.

 

[Sliver]

1- They will use SRM. or LRM Yes they will use fight strick . Buildings will be destroyed or bla bla.- Just u need to 9 days to stay with it . Then there power and our power will be =
2- IN this case. yes.
3- Okay . this is really a good question. I said Low land see level, their , for an example indian destroyer can't access in 100 miles. Where is deep sea port too. We have medium types of naval war faze. This is our advantage too. By the way, as i said about indian strategy, in which border or area india will control that time. 7 sisters, west bangla? or us?
In a trade business we can export our products to US via ships. . What wrong about that ? What we are doing today. War ships and industrial ships rnt same.

1) how come after 9 days India's power = BD's power?
2) You are caliming that BD is mor powerful than China inthis case - China couldnt do much about tawang but BD could cut off all of NE India (@DESERT FIGHTER care to weigh in here please )
3) so BD's mechant ships (which are usually heavier) can wade through the low level sea water, but India's Naval ships cannot come close to BD? also - with India's Naval blockade, how will your ships leave or enter? @Philia I hope not many in BD are this way.

 

[Sher-e-India]

Why should we?

Are you Hindu from BD

 

[Major d1]

1) how come after 9 days India's power = BD's power?
2) You are caliming that BD is mor powerful than China inthis case - China couldnt do much about tawang but BD could cut off all of NE India (@DESERT FIGHTER care to weigh in here please )
3) so BD's mechant ships (which are usually heavier) can wade through the low level sea water, but India's Naval ships cannot come close to BD? also - with India's Naval blockade, how will your ships leave or enter? @Philia I hope not many in BD are this way.

1- yes. Time will say that . How it will happen.
2- i m talking abt 7 sisters tie cutting . china has no relation wid it .
3- Naval mid or small ships and destroyers aren't same. Do u think frigate and destroyer r same? Both needs sea space level to come closer. As i said b4 , may b u couldn't understand that treading shipments go throw in many way s , such as via river and then cross the sea. Some ships go from the mogla port. Some chittagong port. I am talking about bay of bangle where sea is blocked by india in one side. There no one can access easily. . We have others port too. Why BD is making deep see port ? y US after deep sea port ?