BGB killed 4 Myanmar military members in response to unprovoked attack and killing 1 BGB member

[BDforever]

Arakan = Rakine. Got that?

i know that, that is what i said

 

[Bandula]

why should they exist in Bangladesh ? just because they exist in Burma ? LOL by that logic every single ethnic group of burmese and indian will exist in bangladesh LMAO

Once if they existed in the history, they should be found as one of your ethnic since they live very close to BD. If you deny, you just don't have brain to think smart enough.

 

[BDforever]

Once if they existed in the history, they should be found as one of your ethnic since they live very close to BD. If you deny, you just don't have brain to think smart enough.

does our two ethnic groups
Tanchangya and
Tripura exist in Burma ?

 

[Bandula]

Once if they existed in the history, they should be found as one of your ethnic since they live very close to BD. If you deny, you just don't have brain to think smart enough.

Sorry BDforever. My english is limited. I am sorry if my words mean to be rude on you.

does our two ethnic groups
Tanchangya and
Tripura exist in Burma ?

Please tell me ethnic groups that live near by Arakan Rakhine.

does our two ethnic groups
Tanchangya and
Tripura exist in Burma ?

They may be living in Burma. You can also find ethnics from Pakistan living in Burma. We call them Mago and the girls are really pretty. I like them.

 

[BDforever]

They may be living in Burma.

 

[TopCat]

Once if they existed in the history, they should be found as one of your ethnic since they live very close to BD. If you deny, you just don't have brain to think smart enough.

Rohingyas are closely related to Bengali ethnic group and once in BD, Chittagongian and Sylhetis got assimilated in Bengali community which were not part of the original Bengal historically. There are no Rohingya in Bangladesh as they rather identify themselves as Bengali. As far as I know Rohingya still use arabic/rakhaine script instead of Bengali in Arakan

 

[BDforever]

@Bandula whether they are burmese or not, why many of them are killed ? can you explain that ?

@Bandula why are you silent now got you ?

 

[Bandula]

@Bandula whether they are burmese or not, why many of them are killed ? can you explain that ?

We didn't kill. Two groups just had fight. It was violent fight and really cruel. You may know that there are over 90% populations are So called Rohingya in Maungdaw and Buthidaung. So you would easily guess who killed more who.

 

[TopCat]

Interesting finds.. Please read the quoted part

Indian and Burmese settlement in Arakan[edit]
The Arakanese chronicles claim that the Kingdom was founded in 2666 BC.[27]

Wesali or Vaisali was founded by Hindu Chandra Dynasty. "The area known as North Arakan had been for many years before the 8th century the seat of Hindu dynasties. In 788 AD a new dynasty, known as the Chandras, founded the city of Wesali. This city became a noted trade port to which as many as a thousand ships came annually; the Chandra kings were upholders of Buddhism, ... their territory extended as far north as Chittagong;---- Wesali was an easterly Hindu kingdom of Bengal --- Both government and people were Indian.[28] So far as Arakan is concerned, the inscriptions show traces of two early dynasties holding sway in the north. The earlier one, a Candra dynasty, seems to have been founded in the middle of the 4th century AD. Its capital was known by the Indian name of Vaisali and it maintained close connections with India. Thirteen kings of this dynasty are said to have reigned for a total period of 230 years. The second dynasty was founded in the 8th century by a ruler referred to as Sri Dharmavijaya, who was of pure Ksatriya descent. His grandson married a daughter of the Pyu king of Sri Ksetra.[29]

Hindu statues and inscriptions were found in Wesali. The ruins of old capital of Arakan - Wesali show Hindu statues and inscriptions of the 8th century. Although the Chandras usually held Buddhistic doctrines, there is reason to believe that Brahmanism and Buddhism flourished side by side in the capital.

"The Burmese do not seem to have settled in Arakan until possibly as late as the tenth century AD. Hence earlier dynasties are thought to have been Indian, ruling over a population similar to that of Bengal. All the capitals known to history have been in the north near modern Akyab".[30]
Migration period of ancient Burma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So it is the Bengalis who suppose to be original tribes of Arakan not the other way around.

 

[Bandula]

Seriously Man. Come visit to Myanmar and you can figure out by yourself. I can guarantee that you will not get killed. LOL

 

[BDforever]

Seriously Man. Come visit to Myanmar and you can figure out by yourself. I can guarantee that you will not get killed. LOL

brb , after 1 hr i will reply again, some works in hand

 

[eastwatch]

@eastwatch Rohingya's are not bangali, they do not speak in bangla

because they do not exist here, we have many other ethnic groups
so now tell me when did these Rohingya crossed border ?

Your conclusion is not sound that the Rohingyas are not Bangali. So, Chatgaiyans are also not Bangali. Language spoken may change from land to land, but not the ethnicity of a people. Rohingyas are certainly Bangali who migrated to Arakan at the head of an expedition sent by the Sultan of Bangal in 1430 in order to reinstate the ousted Buddhist King there.

 

[Bandula]

Interesting finds.. Please read the quoted part



So it is the Bengalis who suppose to be original tribes of Arakan not the other way around.

I may agree. It happened in early AD and it was directly mentioned to Burmese. Not Rakhinese. So Who knows?

 

[Bandula]

Your conclusion is not sound that the Rohingyas are not Bangali. So, Chatgaiyans are also not Bangali. Language spoken may change from land to land, but not the ethnicity of a people. Rohingyas are certainly Bangali who migrated to Arakan at the head of an expedition sent by the Sultan of Bangal in 1430 in order to reinstate the ousted Buddhist King there.

You are right on this just this time. I agree with you.

 

[TopCat]

I may agree. It happened in early AD and it was directly mentioned to Burmese. Not Rakhinese. So Who knows?

The point was, Rakhaine or no Rakhaine you just can not negate Rohingyas as one of the original tribes of Arakan.

Your conclusion is not sound that the Rohingyas are not Bangali. So, Chatgaiyans are also not Bangali. Language spoken may change from land to land, but not the ethnicity of a people. Rohingyas are certainly Bangali who migrated to Arakan at the head of an expedition sent by the Sultan of Bangal in 1430 in order to reinstate the ousted Buddhist King there.

Bengali Sultan sent soldiers not the inhabitants. Rohingyas were there all along since early 1st centuries. See the quotes from Arakan Chronicle which is a Arakan Source.