Lankan Muslims are used by Pakistan: Allegation of Indian agencies

[Contrarian]

India's actions continue to reflect it's pasted mentality. India is still afraid of being surrounded, and it is only Bangladesh that India has neutralized, but even then, it's still unsure of future developments, we can see this by what it is currently doing today in the region. It is continuing to put pressure on neighboring nations to slow down the growing influence of China, and it has done moderately well in containing it, but India still has not achieved it's objectives of totally locking out China and containing Pakistan.

I disagree completely. India has been very successful in containing Pakistan in multiple ways. From an insurgency that taps out Pakistan, to Iranian hostility to Afghan hostility to global censure and disapproval of Pakistan. We have been supportive of all causes.

And Bangladesh remained the only nation which needed to be neutralized. None of the rest of our South Asian neighbours bar Pakistan had any anti-Indian wishes.
Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar remain firmly rooted with India.

Only in Bangladesh, the remnant of those with the Pakistani philosophy of those who had Islamist dreams wanted to damage India. We have not only persecuted and executed the most extremist of them, we have hollowed out the only party that supported them. Bangladesh has been firmly brought back in the Indian sphere of influence. We are now the single largest point of influence in Bangladesh.

Attitudes have changed towards India, but not the way you claim. Most of the nations aren't pro-India like you're trying to portray, and are in fact more inclined to follow China (I'm not even going to mention Pakistan here, because it's completely irrelevant to this new conversation you've started).

Again, you remain rooted to old notions while we do not.
You seem to think that trade with China or contracts, means China is taking over. That is not how the new world functions. All of the nations are indeed pro India.

All nations take benefit from commercial and developmental opportunities. The same way how we follow both US and Russia. Or we support both Iran and Saudi Arabia. We never let any side disadvantage the other using us.

That is exactly how the rest of South Asia - again bar Pakistan - deals as well.
By your reasoning, even India is pro-China, because Chinese win contracts in India as well and have massive trade. Take off your anti-India lenses and see that trade and commercial growth does not imply - 'following China and against India'

And while we have disagreements on several issues with neighbours, ALL remain committed to the singular notion - that they will never allow anyone to use their land for activities inimical to India and shall support India where they can.

Not really, by your own admission, this new action by SL isn't significant. It hasn't changed the diplomatic dynamic of SL from Pakistan to India. In fact, it has had very little impact in the relationship between all three of the concerned nations.

There is no change of diplomatic dynamic of 'from Pakistan to India'.
It is only Pakistani's who are presuming that there is a blossoming ally of Pakistan in SL. You could not be more wrong.

Secondly, SL has no relations with Pakistan apart from military knowhow. Lanka needed military equipment and support for its war. It got it, the war is over.

What exactly is Pakistan's relationship with Lanka? Are you even aware? As of this moment your relations with Lanka are close to non-existant. You only have a remaining military support relationship.

When did your last Politician visit Lanka, or did a Lankan one visit Pakistan? Do you know the trade figures? Do you know any area of collaboration between the two nations?

On the other hand, India and Sri Lanka remain wedded to each other. While India has limitations in making open statements supporting Lanka on the issue of Tamils, Lanka is committed to supporting Indian security, and will without the slightest of hesitation, drop or curtail any agreement with Pakistan should it impinge us.

Lastly, if you think that dropping VoA for Pakistan means nothing, you are wrong there as well.

Yeah, you haven't subdued any other nation besides Bangladesh. There is no evidence to suggest that India has subdued any nation other than Bangladesh.

Who exactly has to be 'subdued' when the only anti-India party and activity in South Asia bar Pakistan was in Bangladesh. The rest are all supportive of India.

Claiming that JI was a serious threat to India is like saying that a mouse is a threat to a lion. The JI isn't even that relevant in Bangladesh, why would they be a threat?

They are not a relevant in Bangladesh now. They have been an influential party earlier. JI and BNP were actively supporting NE militants by giving them land, arms and support openly. The largest haul of illegal arms in Bangladesh was caught and the son of BNP chairperson Zia was implicated. The recipient of those massive arms were the ULFA. I dont know what you think a 'threat' means. Maybe in Pakistan it solely means a nuclear war, but we take our internal security seriously and BNP and JI were a massive threat to India.

Since when did China say that it would use the port in SL for military purposes? There is a great misunderstand in South Asia (particularly in India and Pakistan) of what being surrounded means. In today's world, you don't need military powers to isolate a nation, what you do is use economics to isolate a nation. China understands the very well, which is why it is investing heavily in nations that surround India.

You seem to be the one who is misunderstanding things here.
China is investing in nations that surround India, do you know China is even more interested in investing in India? Infact, so interested that if GoI allows them, which it is about to do, China's single largest physical investment in the world would be in India.
Is that also aggression?
And what about Indian companies, are you aware that Indian companies are also investing heavily in South Asia?

Secondly are you even aware why China is investing in South Asia? Its because almost all Chinese neighbours of East Asia are anti-China. Japan, Vietnam, Korea, Philippines, Indonesia.
The only major avenue nearest to China to invest decent amounts is in South Asia. Even there without India, the rest of the countries can only absorb peanuts.

Thirdly, Economic means to isolate a nation are impossible against even a medium sized country and economy, let alone a very large one like India. You seem to misunderstand what can be and what cant be achieved by economic incentive and dis-incentive.

Yeah, that doesn't really change anything. If both Pakistan and India decided that they'd tackle drug smugglers together, it still wouldn't change the politics between the two nations. Your points are nothing more than anecdotes.

Unless Pakistan allows Indian military to operate inside the territory of Pakistan to kill terrorists, then no, they are not even remotely a parallel. The nearest example would be that IF Pakistan and US conducted joint military action in abbotabad to kill OBL. You dont see that happening do you?
Do you get the parallel now?

The action shows you exactly how close India and Myanmar are and how comfortable they are.
Secondly you are also not aware of the massive military support we provide Myanmar. India provides arms,ammo, weapon systems - including surveillance planes to Myanmar. That is the relationship we have with them and their military. The single most powerful politician of Myanmar - Syu Ki, called by the last Prez of India as his 'daughter' is as close as it gets.

I never claimed Pakistani support was a blow to India, why would I? Having said that, it's no secret that both SL and Pakistan suspect India of supporting the LTTE.

Pakistan is irrelevant to the LTTE conundrum.
India supported LTTE, and India also became against LTTE after they assassinated an Indian PM. Both facts are known and accepted by both Lanka and India.

And while we could not support Lanka in actively killing of LTTE for political reasons, India was supporting Lanka backned using our Naval resources. We have wished the removal of LTTE for a long while now.

These are the kind of facts that Pakistani's seem always unaware of. You seem to choose very limited number of facts and make a story around it.

Recently, our foreign minister (Canadian) called an Islamic charity group a terrorist organization, and is being sued for slander. Politicians say stupid things all the time.

I am sure you can differentiate between a politician and a Government bureaucrat whose sole job is to manage these. An example would be your Army Corps Commander who would be expected to know of the threats in his AoR, even if the Pakistani Defence Minister may not.

Similarly, the Controller of Immigration and Emigration is expected to know his job and be competent, unlike a politician who is elected by the people.

 

[That Guy]

Quite honestly, it just seems that you're arguing for the sake of arguing now. Making these long comments, that are usually riddled with problems, just to try and annoy me to give up.

I disagree completely. India has been very successful in containing Pakistan in multiple ways. From an insurgency that taps out Pakistan, to Iranian hostility to Afghan hostility to global censure and disapproval of Pakistan. We have been supportive of all causes.

Wrong, the insurgency isn't going India's way. Iran is not as hostile as you're making them out to be, and their only problem is the border violence. The Afghan government is pretty much under Pakistan's influence, even indirectly, so it doesn't matter much if the population remains hostile.

And Bangladesh remained the only nation which needed to be neutralized. None of the rest of our South Asian neighbours bar Pakistan had any anti-Indian wishes.
Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar remain firmly rooted with India.

SL is hardly rooted to India, Nepal and Bhutan, I won't pretend otherwise, and Myanmar? Seriously? Yeah, they're more inclined to support China rather than India.

Only in Bangladesh, the remnant of those with the Pakistani philosophy of those who had Islamist dreams wanted to damage India. We have not only persecuted and executed the most extremist of them, we have hollowed out the only party that supported them. Bangladesh has been firmly brought back in the Indian sphere of influence. We are now the single largest point of influence in Bangladesh.

Yeah, that's total crap, considering that BD's current military powers are now more anti-India than they ever have been, especially since they (unofficially) backed the BNP, which the current pro-India Awami league tried to crush with the help of India.

Like I said before, the JI hardly was considered a threat to India.

Again, you remain rooted to old notions while we do not.
You seem to think that trade with China or contracts, means China is taking over. That is not how the new world functions. All of the nations are indeed pro India.

Actually, that's where you're wrong. It may be an old notion, but it still remains true to this day. Economic dependence has always been the best way to take a nation into your influence. That is what china is doing, and actually India is trying to do the same. No, not all the nations are pro-India, that's just your wishful thinking.

All nations take benefit from commercial and developmental opportunities. The same way how we follow both US and Russia. Or we support both Iran and Saudi Arabia. We never let any side disadvantage the other using us.

That's a false equivalent, considering that Iran receives more Indian support than KSA does. In fact, KSA is still considered to be in Pakistan's camp. So, your entire comment here makes no sense.

That is exactly how the rest of South Asia - again bar Pakistan - deals as well.
By your reasoning, even India is pro-China, because Chinese win contracts in India as well and have massive trade. Take off your anti-India lenses and see that trade and commercial growth does not imply - 'following China and against India'

Straw man argument, my point was that China's investments are politically motivated. They don't care if a population is for or against them, they want to be able to use their investment as leverage against the invested nation, and bring them into their sphere of influence.

If you honestly think China is investing in India just for the money, you're blind.

And while we have disagreements on several issues with neighbours, ALL remain committed to the singular notion - that they will never allow anyone to use their land for activities inimical to India and shall support India where they can.

No, that's just your personal view.

There is no change of diplomatic dynamic of 'from Pakistan to India'.
It is only Pakistani's who are presuming that there is a blossoming ally of Pakistan in SL. You could not be more wrong.

When did I say that SL was a blossoming ally of Pakistan? I said that the relationship hasn't changed between the two, so again, you're using a straw man argument.

Secondly, SL has no relations with Pakistan apart from military knowhow. Lanka needed military equipment and support for its war. It got it, the war is over.

Military and economic, for you to pretend otherwise is intellectually dishonest, when you of all people know what you just said here is a complete lie.

What exactly is Pakistan's relationship with Lanka? Are you even aware? As of this moment your relations with Lanka are close to non-existant. You only have a remaining military support relationship.

Uh, no. Pakistan's relationship with SL is simple friendly relations. Pakistan doesn't expect SL to suddenly become a staunch ally of Pakistan against India, in fact, I have told you previously that SL is looking out for it's own interests (as it should) and remain neutral between India and Pakistan (as it should).

When did your last Politician visit Lanka, or did a Lankan one visit Pakistan? Do you know the trade figures? Do you know any area of collaboration between the two nations?

This comment of yours has nothing to do with anything, in fact, considering how much bullshit your last paragraph was, this one isn't even worth mentioning.

On the other hand, India and Sri Lanka remain wedded to each other. While India has limitations in making open statements supporting Lanka on the issue of Tamils, Lanka is committed to supporting Indian security, and will without the slightest of hesitation, drop or curtail any agreement with Pakistan should it impinge us.

That's your personal opinion, and nothing more than wishful thinking. I've told you before, stop posting your personal views as if they're facts.

Lastly, if you think that dropping VoA for Pakistan means nothing, you are wrong there as well.

I never said it means nothing, I said it didn't change the diplomatic relationship between the two.

Who exactly has to be 'subdued' when the only anti-India party and activity in South Asia bar Pakistan was in Bangladesh. The rest are all supportive of India.

SL, Myanmar. They're both still in China's pockets. India hasn't subdued them. All it's done is put some of the limited pressure it has on them to help slow down China's influence, and Pakistan's. It hasn't stopped it at all.

They are not a relevant in Bangladesh now. They have been an influential party earlier. JI and BNP were actively supporting NE militants by giving them land, arms and support openly. The largest haul of illegal arms in Bangladesh was caught and the son of BNP chairperson Zia was implicated. The recipient of those massive arms were the ULFA. I dont know what you think a 'threat' means. Maybe in Pakistan it solely means a nuclear war, but we take our internal security seriously and BNP and JI were a massive threat to India.

They were never that relevant. Even the early years of BD, they were considered a wasted vote.

You seem to be the one who is misunderstanding things here.
China is investing in nations that surround India, do you know China is even more interested in investing in India? Infact, so interested that if GoI allows them, which it is about to do, China's single largest physical investment in the world would be in India.
Is that also aggression?
And what about Indian companies, are you aware that Indian companies are also investing heavily in South Asia?

Already addressed this, if you're too ignorant to realize that these investments have more to do with geopolitics than money, then you're a fool. I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself.

Secondly are you even aware why China is investing in South Asia? Its because almost all Chinese neighbours of East Asia are anti-China. Japan, Vietnam, Korea, Philippines, Indonesia.
The only major avenue nearest to China to invest decent amounts is in South Asia. Even there without India, the rest of the countries can only absorb peanuts.

China has large investments in all the nations in East Asia, including Japan. Total trade between China and Japan in 2012 was $334 billion dollars. See? This is exactly what I'm talking about, you not only misrepresent facts, but you're making things up to suit your argument. A simple google search shows that your comment was a complete lie.

Thirdly, Economic means to isolate a nation are impossible against even a medium sized country and economy, let alone a very large one like India. You seem to misunderstand what can be and what cant be achieved by economic incentive and dis-incentive.

It's possible, and has been done before (Russia is being isolated economically, why do you think very few are investing in their market anymore?) don't try and dismiss something you disagree with.

Unless Pakistan allows Indian military to operate inside the territory of Pakistan to kill terrorists, then no, they are not even remotely a parallel. The nearest example would be that IF Pakistan and US conducted joint military action in abbotabad to kill OBL. You dont see that happening do you?
Do you get the parallel now?

The parallel still doesn't make sense. What you're talking about is false equivalent. If Pakistan and the US decided to conduct joint military actions anywhere, it still wouldn't change the politics between the two. Stop trying making false comparisons.

The action shows you exactly how close India and Myanmar are and how comfortable they are.
Secondly you are also not aware of the massive military support we provide Myanmar. India provides arms,ammo, weapon systems - including surveillance planes to Myanmar. That is the relationship we have with them and their military. The single most powerful politician of Myanmar - Syu Ki, called by the last Prez of India as his 'daughter' is as close as it gets.

Double standard here. Your claim of Pakistan's support of SL military not meaning that SL was an ally of Pakistan, completely is negated by this comment right here. You were wrong there, and you're wrong here.

aung san suu kyi is NOT the most powerful politician in Myanmar, she has a lot of foreign influence, but domestically, she has little power to do anything, but that's besides the point. Your last Prez can call her whatever he wants, it doesn't change the politics of the region. The US has multiple times called Pakistan an indispensable ally, and one that is vital to the US's interests, but it doesn't change the fact that both are politically butting heads against each other.

Pakistan is irrelevant to the LTTE conundrum.
India supported LTTE, and India also became against LTTE after they assassinated an Indian PM. Both facts are known and accepted by both Lanka and India.

What a dumb argument to make. If Pakistan didn't provide miltiary support to SL, the LTTE (with the backing of India) would still control a lot of the country. It was Pakistan's intervention and the bravery of the SL soldiers that stopped the LTTE's advance. Don't take credit where you deserve none.

And while we could not support Lanka in actively killing of LTTE for political reasons, India was supporting Lanka backned using our Naval resources. We have wished the removal of LTTE for a long while now.

These are the kind of facts that Pakistani's seem always unaware of. You seem to choose very limited number of facts and make a story around it.

Many Indians keep claiming the SL was being covertly supported by India against the LTTE, but why the hell would (by your own admission) India support the LTTE then? It's a self defeating idea, and completely ridiculous.

This narrative of yours is something Indians tell each other to justify their role in SL, but looking at it from a clear lens tells you a completely different story.

I am sure you can differentiate between a politician and a Government bureaucrat whose sole job is to manage these. An example would be your Army Corps Commander who would be expected to know of the threats in his AoR, even if the Pakistani Defence Minister may not.

Similarly, the Controller of Immigration and Emigration is expected to know his job and be competent, unlike a politician who is elected by the people.

You've given me no reason to believe otherwise, so I have nothing to really change my opinion on. I maintain my claim that it is only one official making a claim, one that cannot be taken into consideration as no one else seems to be towing his line.
Except for the fact that my view remains clear, and you've given me (nor anyone else) to believe otherwise.

 

[the just]

I disagree completely. India has been very successful in containing Pakistan in multiple ways. From an insurgency that taps out Pakistan, to Iranian hostility to Afghan hostility to global censure and disapproval of Pakistan. We have been supportive of all causes.

And Bangladesh remained the only nation which needed to be neutralized. None of the rest of our South Asian neighbours bar Pakistan had any anti-Indian wishes.
Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar remain firmly rooted with India.

Only in Bangladesh, the remnant of those with the Pakistani philosophy of those who had Islamist dreams wanted to damage India. We have not only persecuted and executed the most extremist of them, we have hollowed out the only party that supported them. Bangladesh has been firmly brought back in the Indian sphere of influence. We are now the single largest point of influence in Bangladesh.


Again, you remain rooted to old notions while we do not.
You seem to think that trade with China or contracts, means China is taking over. That is not how the new world functions. All of the nations are indeed pro India.

All nations take benefit from commercial and developmental opportunities. The same way how we follow both US and Russia. Or we support both Iran and Saudi Arabia. We never let any side disadvantage the other using us.

That is exactly how the rest of South Asia - again bar Pakistan - deals as well.
By your reasoning, even India is pro-China, because Chinese win contracts in India as well and have massive trade. Take off your anti-India lenses and see that trade and commercial growth does not imply - 'following China and against India'

And while we have disagreements on several issues with neighbours, ALL remain committed to the singular notion - that they will never allow anyone to use their land for activities inimical to India and shall support India where they can.

There is no change of diplomatic dynamic of 'from Pakistan to India'.
It is only Pakistani's who are presuming that there is a blossoming ally of Pakistan in SL. You could not be more wrong.

Secondly, SL has no relations with Pakistan apart from military knowhow. Lanka needed military equipment and support for its war. It got it, the war is over.

What exactly is Pakistan's relationship with Lanka? Are you even aware? As of this moment your relations with Lanka are close to non-existant. You only have a remaining military support relationship.

When did your last Politician visit Lanka, or did a Lankan one visit Pakistan? Do you know the trade figures? Do you know any area of collaboration between the two nations?

On the other hand, India and Sri Lanka remain wedded to each other. While India has limitations in making open statements supporting Lanka on the issue of Tamils, Lanka is committed to supporting Indian security, and will without the slightest of hesitation, drop or curtail any agreement with Pakistan should it impinge us.

Lastly, if you think that dropping VoA for Pakistan means nothing, you are wrong there as well.


Who exactly has to be 'subdued' when the only anti-India party and activity in South Asia bar Pakistan was in Bangladesh. The rest are all supportive of India.

They are not a relevant in Bangladesh now. They have been an influential party earlier. JI and BNP were actively supporting NE militants by giving them land, arms and support openly. The largest haul of illegal arms in Bangladesh was caught and the son of BNP chairperson Zia was implicated. The recipient of those massive arms were the ULFA. I dont know what you think a 'threat' means. Maybe in Pakistan it solely means a nuclear war, but we take our internal security seriously and BNP and JI were a massive threat to India.


You seem to be the one who is misunderstanding things here.
China is investing in nations that surround India, do you know China is even more interested in investing in India? Infact, so interested that if GoI allows them, which it is about to do, China's single largest physical investment in the world would be in India.
Is that also aggression?
And what about Indian companies, are you aware that Indian companies are also investing heavily in South Asia?

Secondly are you even aware why China is investing in South Asia? Its because almost all Chinese neighbours of East Asia are anti-China. Japan, Vietnam, Korea, Philippines, Indonesia.
The only major avenue nearest to China to invest decent amounts is in South Asia. Even there without India, the rest of the countries can only absorb peanuts.

Thirdly, Economic means to isolate a nation are impossible against even a medium sized country and economy, let alone a very large one like India. You seem to misunderstand what can be and what cant be achieved by economic incentive and dis-incentive.


Unless Pakistan allows Indian military to operate inside the territory of Pakistan to kill terrorists, then no, they are not even remotely a parallel. The nearest example would be that IF Pakistan and US conducted joint military action in abbotabad to kill OBL. You dont see that happening do you?
Do you get the parallel now?

The action shows you exactly how close India and Myanmar are and how comfortable they are.
Secondly you are also not aware of the massive military support we provide Myanmar. India provides arms,ammo, weapon systems - including surveillance planes to Myanmar. That is the relationship we have with them and their military. The single most powerful politician of Myanmar - Syu Ki, called by the last Prez of India as his 'daughter' is as close as it gets.

Pakistan is irrelevant to the LTTE conundrum.
India supported LTTE, and India also became against LTTE after they assassinated an Indian PM. Both facts are known and accepted by both Lanka and India.

And while we could not support Lanka in actively killing of LTTE for political reasons, India was supporting Lanka backned using our Naval resources. We have wished the removal of LTTE for a long while now.

These are the kind of facts that Pakistani's seem always unaware of. You seem to choose very limited number of facts and make a story around it.

I am sure you can differentiate between a politician and a Government bureaucrat whose sole job is to manage these. An example would be your Army Corps Commander who would be expected to know of the threats in his AoR, even if the Pakistani Defence Minister may not.

Similarly, the Controller of Immigration and Emigration is expected to know his job and be competent, unlike a politician who is elected by the people.

My god,you really need to go to a shrink, ASAP.if you truly believe what you have written about Bangladesh. Bangladesh is currently going through political trouble ,people here are torn between bad and evil. Our choices are limited, in cases twisted to the tee.
But saying Bangladesh is under india ( Hasina and AL ) is OK,because that's true. But believing Bangladeshi people will welcome indian hegemony with open arms is not only falls but utterly ridiculous lie.
I seriously ask you to come to Bangladesh first ,talk to people on the street and then form an opinion. Don't believe everything you read on line.
That's makes you more moronic.

 

[Contrarian]

Quite honestly, it just seems that you're arguing for the sake of arguing now. Making these long comments, that are usually riddled with problems, just to try and annoy me to give up.



Wrong, the insurgency isn't going India's way. Iran is not as hostile as you're making them out to be, and their only problem is the border violence. The Afghan government is pretty much under Pakistan's influence, even indirectly, so it doesn't matter much if the population remains hostile.



SL is hardly rooted to India, Nepal and Bhutan, I won't pretend otherwise, and Myanmar? Seriously? Yeah, they're more inclined to support China rather than India.



Yeah, that's total crap, considering that BD's current military powers are now more anti-India than they ever have been, especially since they (unofficially) backed the BNP, which the current pro-India Awami league tried to crush with the help of India.

Like I said before, the JI hardly was considered a threat to India.



Actually, that's where you're wrong. It may be an old notion, but it still remains true to this day. Economic dependence has always been the best way to take a nation into your influence. That is what china is doing, and actually India is trying to do the same. No, not all the nations are pro-India, that's just your wishful thinking.



That's a false equivalent, considering that Iran receives more Indian support than KSA does. In fact, KSA is still considered to be in Pakistan's camp. So, your entire comment here makes no sense.



Straw man argument, my point was that China's investments are politically motivated. They don't care if a population is for or against them, they want to be able to use their investment as leverage against the invested nation, and bring them into their sphere of influence.

If you honestly think China is investing in India just for the money, you're blind.



No, that's just your personal view.



When did I say that SL was a blossoming ally of Pakistan? I said that the relationship hasn't changed between the two, so again, you're using a straw man argument.



Military and economic, for you to pretend otherwise is intellectually dishonest, when you of all people know what you just said here is a complete lie.



Uh, no. Pakistan's relationship with SL is simple friendly relations. Pakistan doesn't expect SL to suddenly become a staunch ally of Pakistan against India, in fact, I have told you previously that SL is looking out for it's own interests (as it should) and remain neutral between India and Pakistan (as it should).



This comment of yours has nothing to do with anything, in fact, considering how much bullshit your last paragraph was, this one isn't even worth mentioning.



That's your personal opinion, and nothing more than wishful thinking. I've told you before, stop posting your personal views as if they're facts.



I never said it means nothing, I said it didn't change the diplomatic relationship between the two.



SL, Myanmar. They're both still in China's pockets. India hasn't subdued them. All it's done is put some of the limited pressure it has on them to help slow down China's influence, and Pakistan's. It hasn't stopped it at all.



They were never that relevant. Even the early years of BD, they were considered a wasted vote.



Already addressed this, if you're too ignorant to realize that these investments have more to do with geopolitics than money, then you're a fool. I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself.



China has large investments in all the nations in East Asia, including Japan. Total trade between China and Japan in 2012 was $334 billion dollars. See? This is exactly what I'm talking about, you not only misrepresent facts, but you're making things up to suit your argument. A simple google search shows that your comment was a complete lie.



It's possible, and has been done before (Russia is being isolated economically, why do you think very few are investing in their market anymore?) don't try and dismiss something you disagree with.



The parallel still doesn't make sense. What you're talking about is false equivalent. If Pakistan and the US decided to conduct joint military actions anywhere, it still wouldn't change the politics between the two. Stop trying making false comparisons.



Double standard here. Your claim of Pakistan's support of SL military not meaning that SL was an ally of Pakistan, completely is negated by this comment right here. You were wrong there, and you're wrong here.

aung san suu kyi is NOT the most powerful politician in Myanmar, she has a lot of foreign influence, but domestically, she has little power to do anything, but that's besides the point. Your last Prez can call her whatever he wants, it doesn't change the politics of the region. The US has multiple times called Pakistan an indispensable ally, and one that is vital to the US's interests, but it doesn't change the fact that both are politically butting heads against each other.



What a dumb argument to make. If Pakistan didn't provide miltiary support to SL, the LTTE (with the backing of India) would still control a lot of the country. It was Pakistan's intervention and the bravery of the SL soldiers that stopped the LTTE's advance. Don't take credit where you deserve none.


Many Indians keep claiming the SL was being covertly supported by India against the LTTE, but why the hell would (by your own admission) India support the LTTE then? It's a self defeating idea, and completely ridiculous.

This narrative of yours is something Indians tell each other to justify their role in SL, but looking at it from a clear lens tells you a completely different story.



You've given me no reason to believe otherwise, so I have nothing to really change my opinion on. I maintain my claim that it is only one official making a claim, one that cannot be taken into consideration as no one else seems to be towing his line.
Except for the fact that my view remains clear, and you've given me (nor anyone else) to believe otherwise.

Honestly, I felt the same way. In any case, that was not my intention. And we are indeed now arguing in a circle. Let us simply agree to disagree.

 

[That Guy]

Honestly, I felt the same way. In any case, that was not my intention. And we are indeed now arguing in a circle. Let us simply agree to disagree.

Fine with me, I was getting tired of arguing anyway.

 

[Sinnerman108]

@JonAsad @balixd @That Guy among others who said that India had nothing to do with why SL cancelled VoA facility to Pakistan. A little something that points, that maybe, just maybe, India had a little something to do with the whole affair.
and
@Pakistanisage - who said that Lanka helped Pakistan by cancelling VoA facility to Pakistan. I presume you would thank India for this if India was involved in helping Lanka make that decision.

Don't dramatize ... this is not Bollywood.

VoA was cancelled due to problems such as

a. Murderers from London using Sri Lanka as staging ground.
b. Religious minorities from Pakistan using VoA to claim asylum.