Bangladesh is losing the battle against terror: WSJ

[TopCat]

Yah whatever you want to say you can. Enjoy being under our thumb now little man....and dreaming of the bygone years for a religion that never originated in your swamp to begin with but you were weak enough to acquiesce to and feel your ancestors choice of conversion means you were/are less of a slave than those that didn't (when in fact it shows the opposite especially since you keep large parts of the slave culture intact in your own).

We see it daily in how Bangladeshis are treated in their brother ummah countries in the Middle East even though they are same "religion" as you...its source even. Maybe you should stop calling your days of the week after the gods of those you call slaves for a start?

Anyway in the world at large, the perception is changing from lack of interest/ignorance in Bangladesh to fear of engaging with Bangladesh...because of your ignorance and self induced importance which distracted you from your clear terrorism cancer that was developing.

Maybe such headlines in WSJ need to happen just to teach twits like you a lesson.

Myanmar - India relations zindabad.

Now we can see your hypocrisy and who exactly you are. You people will never change and will lick one master to another, even if it is a puny burmese.

 

[Nilgiri]

Now we can see your hypocrisy and who exactly you are. You people will never change and will lick one master to another, even if it is a puny burmese.

@Aung Zaya @alaungphaya

I bow in reverence to you, my masters!

Don't you just love ticking this guy off....its just so easy and the result never disappoints

 

[Michael Corleone]

Never say never, the UK and France were sworn enemies but we have learnt to cooperate.

Out of personal interest. And TBH they have done quite good. I mean "THE CONCORDE" <3 but Asians... that's Indians and Pakistanis have been divided for good thanks to colonial rule of Britain. Meh I don't blame the British. They have done good for this lands too.

 

[Zarvan]

First thing which has to be done is Muslim countries need to stop listening to these Dumbo's whether Wall Street Journal or The NewYork Times or others. Their ideas will only result in more violence.

 

[Nilgiri]

hat's Indians and Pakistanis have been divided for good thanks to colonial rule of Britain.

We cannot blame the British still (after this much time has elapsed). We choose to stay divided (and more than just politically). I hope with more education and wealth, the negative obsessions will decrease....but it may just be the reverse seeing how the elite of both love to bicker tirelessly over every little thing.

 

[Michael Corleone]

We cannot blame the British still (after this much time has elapsed). We choose to stay divided (and more than just politically). I hope with more education and wealth, the negative obsessions will decrease....but it may just be the reverse seeing how the elite of both love to bicker tirelessly over every little thing.

I don't blame the British either. But my Indian history professor from high school will strongly disagree with me. But then... he can be a hypocrite to what he says. So meh. British rule would have been far better for India. The country wouldn't divide and would have been stronger.

 

[Cyberian]

If hundreds of millions of Indians can democratically elect under no force or coercion a Hindu extremist Prime Minister Narendra Modi, then I don't why they're questioning Wall Street Journal.

 

[Nilgiri]

I don't blame the British either. But my Indian history professor from high school will strongly disagree with me. But then... he can be a hypocrite to what he says. So meh. British rule would have been far better for India. The country wouldn't divide and would have been stronger.

Well there was actually a British plan to bring 100% literacy to whole united India by 1970 or something like that....but independence movement activists rejected it as too slow! Even now (2016) India is just approaching 80% literacy....and Pakistan is still below 60% and Bangladesh somewhere in the middle.

But we can only speculate and think in hypotheticals...whereas back then there was clear evidence of British mismanagement + sheer resource extraction + forced captive market/deindustrialisation...so I don't think we can blame the leaders of the time in wanting to roll the dice with local rule.

But I got to give Brits credit for various things still. They made detailed assays and surveys of say water resources in Tamil Nadu (I saw the old documents with my own eyes)...carefully marking and planning what is there and what will be needed to support the population with adequate water. No such diligence like this was present post-independence....everyone just rushed to do things for political reasons with no proper planning (and TN is actually one of the better run states in India bureaucratically)....only slowly its being rectified in a somewhat haphazard way. One can only imagine if the same momentum of diligence was allowed to be followed in all matters. Thankfully in this modern day there are many shortcuts and aids that are forcing philosophy change from the ground up (people are asking more and more of their local leaders and bureaucrats and are not content with the same gimmicks and promises from before).

 

[Drashid]

Out of personal interest. And TBH they have done quite good. I mean "THE CONCORDE" <3 but Asians... that's Indians and Pakistanis have been divided for good thanks to colonial rule of Britain. Meh I don't blame the British. They have done good for this lands too.

We did mostly bad, but some good things for the region. However, in the end we decided to give independence as it was the right thing to do.

Religion was not playing any role in France-UK relationship although France is Catholic and UK is Protestant. In case of our sub-continent it is also religion that plays a role in the making of relationship.

I highly doubt that, Bangladesh prefers India to Muslim Pakistan and Pakistan has routinely slaughtered Muslim's from other nations. It's all to do with people being too damn focused on ethnicity.

 

[bluesky]

We did mostly bad, but some good things for the region. However, in the end we decided to give independence as it was the right thing to do.

The WWII had devastated the British, London was a totally ruined city because of continuous German bombing and it had few domestic resources/manpower that could re-built it. So, they decided to leave its colonies and concentrate on building their own country. They were in a haste to do so in India because of a continuous independence movement mostly.

 

[Drashid]

The WWII had devastated the British, London was a totally ruined city because of continuous German bombing and it had few domestic resources/manpower that could re-built it. So, they decided to leave its colonies and concentrate on building their own country. They were in a haste to do so in India because of a continuous independence movement mostly.

I doubt it. If we wanted to rebuild, India could have provided cheap labour. It was out of the kindness of Britain's heart, or maybe we just realised how f*cked up we were.

 

[Nilgiri]

I doubt it. If we wanted to rebuild, India could have provided cheap labour. It was out of the kindness of Britain's heart, or maybe we just realised how f*cked up we were.

The US clearly said when joining the war with Britain in WW2, that the Brits had to look very strongly at giving India independence after the war was over. This was a major reason (i.e British colonialism not sitting well with US).

I doubt the UK ever went for the "cheap labour" from India story. I mean all throughout the British Raj, there was forced deindustrialisation of India to maintain it as a captive market for British manufacturing. Rebuilding a country like the UK cannot be done with the largely peasant stock of India that resulted from 100 years of this dreadful policy (bad for India, good for UK) especially with the racist overtone that solidified it.

I mean if the UK really wanted free cheap labour, they could have given a choice of citizenship to their subjects in India (i.e be given British or Indian citizenship) and employed some form of quota in this if they were truly worried about the masses that could potentially show up at their shores because of it. But the UK did nothing of the sort (unlike say France which quickly gave this option to its former colonies in India before giving them to India). The UK always wanted to protect its own labour force and exploit India's consumer base as best as they could. If they were not so greedily adamant about this and allowed a genuine industrial revolution to take hold in India and followed a non-racist policy....I doubt the Indian independence would have had so much fire behind it because of the sheer desperation, poverty and anger at British snobby and snarky attitudes to the people of the subcontinent.

The fact we replaced these sahibs with a brown sahib class which was almost as equally worthless in the practical realm for a long part of the following years is besides the point of what British rule fundamentally meant for united India.

 

[Bilal9]

So, the best way for us is to refuse western donations. Since we depend upon the west for their money to develop our country, we should not complain about all those western Nasihat and Sermons. Bhikkhar Chal-e Moila Kichu Meshano Thakbei.

What most people in Third world countries don't realize is that these Western 'aid packages' especially from European and UK sources are basically sham donations.

In actuality the western donors get back more than they donate, by overcharging on parts/technologies and most importantly, expensive consultants who charge far more than they would be able to in competitive situations at home. This is very lucrative for govts. like in the UK, who head up depts. like DFID, and use it as 'carrot/stick' mechanism to twist the arm of third world govts. re: important investment decisions.

The only local people who gain in these 'aid schemes' are corrupt third world ministers who get percentages deposited in their S'pore bank accounts.

Folks at our govt. BIWTC, Power/Water Boards, Rural Govt. infrastructure depts. have known this for at least three decades. The aid money is more or less refused nowadays.

 

[Nilgiri]

What most people in Third world countries don't realize is that these Western 'aid packages' especially from European and UK sources are basically sham donations.

In actuality the western donors get back more than they donate, by overcharging on parts/technologies and most importantly, expensive consultants who charge far more than they would be able to in competitive situations at home. This is very lucrative for govts. like in the UK, who head up depts. like DFID, and use it as 'carrot/stick' mechanism to twist the arm of third world govts. re: important investment decisions.

The only local people who gain in these 'aid schemes' are corrupt third world ministers who get percentages deposited in their S'pore bank accounts.

Folks at our govt. BIWTC, Power/Water Boards, Rural Govt. infrastructure depts. have known this for at least three decades. The aid money is more or less refused nowadays.

Its good that you have realised this. You hit this issue right on the nail's head.

I realised the truth when I read an article as a teenager about the reality of western food aid to Africa (I was before quite leftist and supportive of aid and welfare in general....and have now slowly transitioned almost 180 degrees heh). That article left me sick to my core and its crazy how few people know/care about the truth of the matter...on how it undercuts local food production (and thus local farmer incomes and sustainability) severely and creates a huge dependency that can then be used to further various other geopolitical goals. The general public just believes their govt and takes part in the blanket of "feel good" that the left has completely infiltrated in overall national discourse. Ignoring official govts, even many if not most NGOs are complicit in this too. I actually exposed one of them in my statistics class at university for a project I did.

This philosophy extends to all realms of aid of course, and we are seeing it most currently in Chinese "aid" as well (though they at least don't sugar coat it in a feel good propaganda blitz campaign for the most part given the lack of their soft power and international media penetration - though that is already changing too).

 

[TopCat]

What most people in Third world countries don't realize is that these Western 'aid packages' especially from European and UK sources are basically sham donations.

In actuality the western donors get back more than they donate, by overcharging on parts/technologies and most importantly, expensive consultants who charge far more than they would be able to in competitive situations at home. This is very lucrative for govts. like in the UK, who head up depts. like DFID, and use it as 'carrot/stick' mechanism to twist the arm of third world govts. re: important investment decisions.

The only local people who gain in these 'aid schemes' are corrupt third world ministers who get percentages deposited in their S'pore bank accounts.

Folks at our govt. BIWTC, Power/Water Boards, Rural Govt. infrastructure depts. have known this for at least three decades. The aid money is more or less refused nowadays.

You are talking about suppliers credit. But all soft loan comes with transparent bidding and purchase mechanism. You have to award every segment of the project to the lowest and competent international bidders who has no financial interest with the original donor.

Most of the project dont go through due to non transparent bidding and awarding which are objected by the donors. For example Padma bridge.

I doubt it. If we wanted to rebuild, India could have provided cheap labour. It was out of the kindness of Britain's heart, or maybe we just realised how f*cked up we were.

India was a loosing concern for British at the end. Thats why british parliament was in a hurry to terminate its rule in India.