Pakistan spreading propaganda about 1971 genocide: PM

[Homo Sapiens]

More hunger according to who? Yet another index? Why prop up one index and throw away another just because you don't like what the latter says? This is the exact BBS mentality that will ensure BD remains a backward thinking nation.

Even according to GHI, the percentage of undernourished in India is less than BD. The component data that makes the overall index worse for India than BD (but India is improving at a faster rate) is the child mortality and nutrition indices.

That can also be turned around and rejected because "I don't think" blah blah blah. You see where this goes?

What cannot be denied are the REAL problems that are seen in 3rd party areas like the US....with BD immigrants facing 3 times or more the diabetes prevalence specifically because of their diets (which clearly correlates with the 80% carb energy assertion by FAO and FSI)

You telling me these people cannot afford a better diet?

Come up with per capita fat consumption from any reputable source for this three countries rather that engaging in mental exercise to invent dubious data,if not than end this squabble.

What cannot be denied are the REAL problems that are seen in 3rd party areas like the US....with BD immigrants facing 3 times or more the diabetes prevalence specifically because of their diets (which clearly correlates with the 80% carb energy assertion by FAO and FSI)

Hold on,India have more Diabetes prevalence than Bangladesh and Pakistan have almost same as Bangladesh.Now stop this fat consumption bullshit.
Bangladesh-8.3
India-9.3
pakistan-8.1
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.DIAB.ZS

 

[Nilgiri]

Come up with per capita fat consumption from any reputable source for this three countries rather that engaging in mental exercise to invent dubious data,if not than end this squabble.

Its from FAO. I really don't see why you have a problem understanding that.

FAO is not reputable? Angry that they are the source for saying BD is 80% calorie intake from carbs?

Hold on,India have more Diabetes prevalence than Bangladesh and Pakistan have almost same as Bangladesh.Now stop this fat consumption bullshit.
Bangladesh-8.3
India-9.3
pakistan-8.1
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.DIAB.ZS

Bangladesh the country that regulary sends a million of its people to India each year for the most basic medical treatment.

Hmmm I wonder how much diabetes is not reported there? Food for thought? Hidden prevalence is a big problem in developing world in general. But I bet its a much worse scenario for BD given its 80% calorie carb diet.

Why does the truth scream so loud when its a 3rd party? Why the sudden difference?

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...unity-poorer-blacks-latinos-article-1.1075313

A third of New York’s Bangladeshis suffer from diabetes, said Haq, three times the city’s average rate.

“Their food is too starchy; they eat too much rice,” Haq said.

From your world bank data, the prevalence of diabetes in the US is 11%, higher than India (which would also have some under-reporting of it given so many people dont go for regular check ups).

Present all of this to any neutral observer, they wouldn't have a hard time determining the scale of under-reporting in BD regarding Diabetes.

I have never heard of Indians, Pakistanis or anyone else suffering from one third diabetes prevalence rate....inside or outside their home countries.

 

[Homo Sapiens]

Its from FAO. I really don't see why you have a problem understanding that.

FAO is not reputable? Angry that they are the source for saying BD is 80% calorie intake from carbs?



Bangladesh the country that regulary sends a million of its people to India each year for the most basic medical treatment.

Hmmm I wonder how much diabetes is not reported there? Food for thought? Hidden prevalence is a big problem in developing world in general. But I bet its a much worse scenario for BD given its 80% calorie carb diet.

Why does the truth scream so loud when its a 3rd party? Why the sudden difference?

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...unity-poorer-blacks-latinos-article-1.1075313

A third of New York’s Bangladeshis suffer from diabetes, said Haq, three times the city’s average rate.

“Their food is too starchy; they eat too much rice,” Haq said.

From your world bank data, the prevalence of diabetes in the US is 11%, higher than India (which would also have some under-reporting of it given so many people dont go for regular check ups).

Present all of this to any neutral observer, they wouldn't have a hard time determining the scale of under-reporting in BD regarding Diabetes.

I have never heard of Indians, Pakistanis or anyone else suffering from one third diabetes prevalence rate....inside or outside their home countries.

Now hiding behind under reporting? Your guess is,under reporting is more in Bangladesh than India?Perhaps your guesstimate is the most authentic source of information? You can't accept huger index,world bank data as it doesn't suit your agenda,but consider a report from an obscure daily 'nydailynews' as a gospel truth.That report have no data on methodology,no sample population,no comparison with other recent immigrant population,just one line'Bangladeshi immigrant have diabetes three times the average' this line is a quote from one Mamnun Haq,a father of three.Even if Bangladesh have lower fat consumption India and Pakistan,what's the problem?You could not show any health disadvantage of Bangladeshi people than Indian or Pakistani.Your more diabetes in Bangladesh is debunked by world bank data.For a third world country like Bangladesh, India or Pakistan,it is more important to have adequate daily calorie intake by all people.Calorie intake by three countries are same,but hunger situation is better in Bangladesh,which means food are more equitably distributed in BD.You can guzzle as much fat as you can by starving 400 million,we don't care.We would rather ensure every one get adequate food before thinking about fat.Now stop this pointless squabble.This is my last post on this matter.Enjoy your fat.Thank you.

 

[Bilal9]

Now hiding behind under reporting? Your guess is,under reporting is more in Bangladesh than India?Perhaps your guesstimate is the most authentic source of information? You can't accept huger index,world bank data as it doesn't suit your agenda,but consider a report from an obscure daily 'nydailynews' as a gospel truth.That report have no data on methodology,no sample population,no comparison with other recent immigrant population,just one line'Bangladeshi immigrant have diabetes three times the average' this line is a quote from one Mamnun Haq,a father of three.Even if Bangladesh have lower fat consumption India and Pakistan,what's the problem?You could not show any health disadvantage of Bangladeshi people than Indian or Pakistani.Your more diabetes in Bangladesh is debunked by world bank data.For a third world country like Bangladesh, India or Pakistan,it is more important to have adequate daily calorie intake,in that matric all three countries are in a same position.You can guzzle as much fat as you can by starving 400 million,we don't care.We would rather ensure every one get adequate food before thinking about fat.Now stop this pointless squabble.This is my last post on this matter.Enjoy your fat.Thank you.

This guy is the model of psychotic desperation, now clutching at straws.....

Indians typically eat way more fried/fatty foods than most Bangladeshis do. Since vegetarians don't eat meat, all the vegetables and especially carbs consumed have to be fried in oil to impart some flavor. That oil is mostly adulterated with high rate of toxins. Hence the high rate of toxicity and diabetes.

Also since these are basically kanjoos folks - they eat a lot of cheap aloo items for vegetables, which raises diabetes even higher. Carb city!

Even in West Bengal next door, all kanjoos dadas eat is Luchi, Puri, Aloor Dum. Boys and girls - can you say carb, carb and carb? Unhealthy or what?

Witness a grand thali from India (a whole dinner!).

 

[LA se Karachi]

Indians typically eat way more fried/fatty foods than most Bangladeshis do. Since vegetarians don't eat meat, all the vegetables and especially carbs have to be fried in oil to impart some flavor. That oil is mostly adulterated with high rate of toxins. Hence the high rate of toxicity and diabetes.

Oils and other fats do not directly cause diabetes, carbohydrates---starches and sugars (like rice and wheat)---do.

There's this thing called the Glycemic index.

"The glycemic index (GI) is a ranking of carbohydrates on a scale from 0 to 100 according to the extent to which they raise blood sugar levels after eating. Foods with a high GI are those which are rapidly digested and absorbed and result in marked fluctuations in blood sugar levels. Low-GI foods, by virtue of their slow digestion and absorption, produce gradual rises in blood sugar and insulin levels, and have proven benefits for health. Low GI diets have been shown to improve both glucose and lipid levels in people with diabetes (type 1 and type 2). They have benefits for weight control because they help control appetite and delay hunger. Low GI diets also reduce insulin levels and insulin resistance.

Recent studies from Harvard School of Public Health indicate that the risks of diseases such as type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease are strongly related to the GI of the overall diet. In 1999, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) recommended that people in industrialised countries base their diets on low-GI foods in order to prevent the most common diseases of affluence, such as coronary heart disease, diabetes and obesity."

 

[Bilal9]

Oils and other fats do not directly cause diabetes, carbohydrates---starches and sugars (like rice and wheat)---do.

There's this thing called the Glycemic index.

"The glycemic index (GI) is a ranking of carbohydrates on a scale from 0 to 100 according to the extent to which they raise blood sugar levels after eating. Foods with a high GI are those which are rapidly digested and absorbed and result in marked fluctuations in blood sugar levels. Low-GI foods, by virtue of their slow digestion and absorption, produce gradual rises in blood sugar and insulin levels, and have proven benefits for health. Low GI diets have been shown to improve both glucose and lipid levels in people with diabetes (type 1 and type 2). They have benefits for weight control because they help control appetite and delay hunger. Low GI diets also reduce insulin levels and insulin resistance.

Recent studies from Harvard School of Public Health indicate that the risks of diseases such as type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease are strongly related to the GI of the overall diet. In 1999, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) recommended that people in industrialised countries base their diets on low-GI foods in order to prevent the most common diseases of affluence, such as coronary heart disease, diabetes and obesity."

Role of high-fat diets in insulin resistance
A large body of experimental data generated in laboratory animals strongly supports the notion that high-fat diets are associated with impaired insulin action. It appears from animal studies that saturated fats, in particular, have the most detrimental effects.

Based on this information, along with the known risks of high saturated fat intake on cardiovascular disease risk, professional organizations such as the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have made recommendations that Americans aim for a total fat intake of no more than 30% of calories and choose foods low in saturated fat.

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/25/3/620

 

[Nilgiri]

Now hiding behind under reporting? Your guess is,under reporting is more in Bangladesh than India?Perhaps your guesstimate is the most authentic source of information? You can't accept huger index,world bank data as it doesn't suit your agenda,but consider a report from an obscure daily 'nydailynews' as a gospel truth.That report have no data on methodology,no sample population,no comparison with other recent immigrant population,just one line'Bangladeshi immigrant have diabetes three times the average' this line is a quote from one Mamnun Haq,a father of three.Even if Bangladesh have lower fat consumption India and Pakistan,what's the problem?You could not show any health disadvantage of Bangladeshi people than Indian or Pakistani.Your more diabetes in Bangladesh is debunked by world bank data.For a third world country like Bangladesh, India or Pakistan,it is more important to have adequate daily calorie intake by all people.Calorie intake by three countries are same,but hunger situation is better in Bangladesh,which means food are more equitably distributed in BD.You can guzzle as much fat as you can by starving 400 million,we don't care.We would rather ensure every one get adequate food before thinking about fat.Now stop this pointless squabble.This is my last post on this matter.Enjoy your fat.Thank you.

Like I said, you can convince your echo chamber of whatever you want.

Fact is sources are pretty convincing on this issue (both genetic disposition combined with the diet prevalence + physical activity):

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-13-1032

In this sample, the prevalence of metabolic syndrome was also high. Published data about metabolic syndrome have been derived principally from rural samples; data show that the prevalence of metabolic syndrome has dramatically increased in rural areas. The prevalence in the rural area was only 3% in 2001 [6] and had increased to 20% in 2012 [7]. A recent study on Bangladeshi male immigrants to the United States, which may reflect a population of higher socioeconomic class, reported a prevalence of 38% [15].

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10903-009-9233-z

Abstract

Higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome risk factors and lowest self-rated health status (SRHS) were reported in Bangladeshi men compared to other South Asian immigrant men in the UK. No information is available on metabolic syndrome and its distribution among Bangladeshi men in the USA. We investigated metabolic syndrome, its association with SRHS and its distribution in Bangladeshi men in Houston, Texas, USA. Data for 91 men (age 46 ± 8 years) were drawn from a cross-sectional study on coronary artery disease in Bangladeshi immigrant men, Texas, 2007. Multivariate logistic models investigated association between metabolic syndrome and SRHS controlling for demographics, behavioral factors and intra-community variation based on social clustering. Prevalence of metabolic syndrome was 38%. SRHS (OR, 95% CI = 4.90, 1.11–21.57) and intra-community variation (4.10, 1.32–12.71) were independent indicators of metabolic syndrome in our participants. Dietary habits may have contributed to the intra-community variation that warrants investigation.

==================

So someone self-reporting that one third of BD immigrants in new york (who are skewed towards working age and older people who are at more at risk) really has to be completely false and unfounded?

OK! My job here is not to convince you, but to present the facts and evidence to everyone else (esp non-BD non-echo chamber people) and they can decide for themselves.

It is obvious to anyone that BD has a nutrition problem here given it has metabolic syndrome risk compared to even other South Asian people and has a diet largely composed of 80% carbs.

Now rural BD folk may at least burn off most of this energy daily at least (but their frames remain slight given the reported protein quality of the average BD diet in FSI)....but the real problem are those without active jobs to compensate for such a starchy diet with such high metabolic syndrome prevalence in BD population.

Ill type it again for that idiot Bilal9 just so he can have a bad night thinking about it:

Higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome risk factors and lowest self-rated health status (SRHS) were reported in Bangladeshi men compared to other South Asian immigrant men in the UK.

Now you can all have a good cry about the beans being spilled on poor protein quality (affects rural poor mostly), poor diet diversity (affects everyone in different ways), 80% carb intake norm for BD diet and worse diabetes risk factors.

Role of high-fat diets in insulin resistance
A large body of experimental data generated in laboratory animals strongly supports the notion that high-fat diets are associated with impaired insulin action. It appears from animal studies that saturated fats, in particular, have the most detrimental effects.

Based on this information, along with the known risks of high saturated fat intake on cardiovascular disease risk, professional organizations such as the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have made recommendations that Americans aim for a total fat intake of no more than 30% of calories and choose foods low in saturated fat.

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/25/3/620

Large parts of south asian diets are unsaturated or polyunsaturated fats too.

Eating a 80% rice based diet like BD people (as reported by FAO) is not going to help your rural folk either when they are getting really bad protein quality (a full 25% worse than Indians on average do according to FSI and FAO, and we are no gold standard on the matter either).

 

[LA se Karachi]

Role of high-fat diets in insulin resistance
A large body of experimental data generated in laboratory animals strongly supports the notion that high-fat diets are associated with impaired insulin action. It appears from animal studies that saturated fats, in particular, have the most detrimental effects.

Based on this information, along with the known risks of high saturated fat intake on cardiovascular disease risk, professional organizations such as the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have made recommendations that Americans aim for a total fat intake of no more than 30% of calories and choose foods low in saturated fat.

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/25/3/620

A more recent study:

A study published in April 2014 compared two diets with overweight diabetic people.

One group ate the standard recommended diet by the American Diabetes Association, which was a low-fat, high carbohydrate, restricted calorie diet, as per the USDA dietary guidelines for a “healthy” diet. This group was assigned a “registered dietician with several years of diabetes education experience.” The group was encouraged to eat a diet that was 45-50% carbohydrates, while restricting calories and fats. As per the study: “the diet includes high-fiber foods (such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and legumes), low-fat dairy products, fresh fish, and foods low in saturated fat.”

The other group, almost in direct contrast to the ADA diet, was encouraged to eat a a very low carbohydrate, high fat, non calorie-restricted ketogenic diet. Their goal was to reach a state of “ketosis,” defined as a blood beta-hydroxybutyrate level between 0.5 and 3 mM, as measured twice a week at home using blood ketone test strips.

So what results did this study find comparing these two contrasting diets?

The ADA diet group, despite eating far fewer calories per day than the ketogenic diet group, did not lose as much weight as the ketogenic diet group. The ADA group lost an average of 5.7 lbs., while the ketogenic diet group lost an average of 12.1 lbs.

In terms of diabetic medication, the results were also quite different. 7 out of 11 ketogenic dieters (64%) were able to reduce their anti-diabetic medications, whereas only 2 out of 13 ADA dieters did (15%).

This study is simply another of many studies looking at the ketogenic diet and its effects on health, as compared to the standard USDA approved diet, which is now linked to promoting disease rather than health. The ketogenic diet was originally developed by John Hopkins Hospital in the 1920s as an effective method of curing epilepsy and seizures in children, when drugs did not work. The diet fell out of favor in recent times when saturated fats were (wrongly) condemned.

The health benefits of carbohydrate restriction (NOT calorie restriction) and healthy fats were once common knowledge, as this clip from the popular 1960s Andy Griffith show portrays. Aunt Bee’s apple pie is seen as something to limit or even skip because of the dangerous “carbohydrates and glucose”, while meatloaf was seen as healthier.

Study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3981696/

 

[Finer]

LOL..The same awam that has elected Haseena ..Leave bangadesh it has nothing to do with us..No border sharing with them..So whatever India does there can't impact us...Let them burn in there own hatred..India holds the right to do so as they are neighbor and there independence is Marhon-e-Minnat of Banya k damag

The majority of awaam didn't elect Haseena. It was fraud democracy where opposition party was arrested and executed to death enjoined support from the majority. Majority are still pro-Pakistani.

Why do you think India is working overtime to damage the popularity of Pakistan even though Pakistan has no influence over Bangladesh? Not to mention Pakistan stigmatized as villain for years? Yet Bangladesh is waking up and realizing the truth about the elected government and the role of RAW.

There is saying falsehood will lose and Truth will prevail. That is what is happening at this moment. Right now, it is minority ruling Bangladesh against the wills of majority.

Like I said, no evidence of that so far overall. Have you looked at the way they launch Indian bikes in BD?

What mass protests have taken place against the BD govt in the last year or two? Why would BD awaam rise up if they growing their economy, getting jobs and have a stable security situation?

Everyone was saying the 1st year and two of anti-BAL protests (after SHW took power) would increase and increase till tipping point was reached. It has been exactly in the opposite direction. Point me to something that shows evidence otherwise. If you don't like to believe what BD members here are telling you about the reality and still cling to some desperate notion of "wait and you will see" with no evidence...go ahead....just don't expect to convince anyone that matters.

Look like my post must have hit on your nerve.

Considering Bangladesh is bending out to make room for the economy of India at the expense of Bangladesh, i will let majority of Bangladeshi youth responds which will be revealed soon.

And so what? Who cares? That's their problem. It has nothing to do with us.

Not really. Since Pakistan is already blamed due to India, it is only fair Pakistan should make use and utilize the greater potential which is India. It is not about Bangladesh. The main destination is India.

With what is happening in Bangladesh, if Pakistan leaves them in dry, then Pakistan will regret big time just like Pakistan regretted big time when Pakistan didn't get involved in IOK during the war between India and China in 62' where General Ayub Khan was ordered not to get involved by USA at that time. Then Pakistan lost the opportunity to regain IOK which would be merged with Azad Kashmir. Then in 90s, Pakistan didn't get involved in Afghanistan after the proxy war against USSR succeeded, and left the platform for the enemy of Pakistan to use to undermine the stability of Pakistan and the economy.

Looks like you are choosing not to learn the lessons from the past. History is indicator that if Pakistan doesn't get involved, then Pakistan pays the price big time. Look at India getting involved in all neighborhood nations to yield bigger fruits in the long run.

Given the examples you have mentioned on Afghanistan, that doesn't change the fact that Afghanistan is now used as platform to undermine the stability of Pakistan. And now Pakistan is forced to expand Zarb-e-Azb mission all the way to Afghanistan to tackle the foreign elements that is funding the terrorism responsible for killing more than 50,000 innocent people including the children.

This is the era of proxy war. If you don't get involved to protect yourself, then pay the ultimate price. Considering what is happening in Bangladesh, that is perfect opportunity for Pakistan to cash on big time. Don't think that by helping Bangladesh, only Bangladesh will be benefited. It is about Greater Pakistan which means the long term of the plan to materialize cannot be possible without the support from the neighborhood nations.

Bangladesh can be for Pakistan what Afghanistan is for India. As you said, Bangladesh is geographically closer to India than Pakistan. Precisely the same reason why Afghanistan is chosen so Pakistan can be undermined through border-free policy. And good news is that majority are still pro-Pakistan despite the 71'. And India knows that and that is why India is working overtime to ensure their influences on Bangladesh remain intact, otherwise Pakistan would use this opportunity to cash on and make India pay big time.

 

[LA se Karachi]

Not really. Since Pakistan is already blamed due to India, it is only fair Pakistan could make use and utilize the greater potential which is India. It is not about Bangladesh. The main destination is India.

There is nothing of major value that Bangladesh can provide to Pakistan, that's my point. We want nothing to do with it.

With what is happening in Bangladesh, if Pakistan leaves them in dry, then Pakistan will regret big time just like Pakistan regretted big time when Pakistan didn't get involved in IOK during the war between India and China in 62' where General Ayub Khan was ordered not to get involved by USA at that time. Then Pakistan lost the opportunity to regain IOK which would be merged with Azad Kashmir.

What kind of comparison is that? Kashmir borders Pakistan, and its people likely want to join Pakistan. We will continue to support our Kashmiri brothers and sisters. I agree that Pakistan missed out an opportunity to take on India when it was battling (and losing) to China in 1962. But there's nothing we can do about that now, and there is no comparison with Bangladesh's current situation.

Also remember that we had/have Gilgit-Baltistan, which was/is ultimately the most important part of the J&K territory anyway, as it gave us a border with China and direct access to Central Asia and Russia (along with some wonderful people and heavenly land). If Kashmiris and Pakistan keep up the pressure on India, perhaps that situation will eventually begin to change as well. Either way, Bangladesh does not factor into the equation.

Then in 90s, Pakistan didn't get involved in Afghanistan after the proxy war against USSR succeeded, and left the platform for the enemy of Pakistan to use to undermine the stability of Pakistan and the economy.

Given the examples you have mentioned on Afghanistan, that doesn't change the fact that Afghanistan is now used as platform to undermine the stability of Pakistan. And now Pakistan is forced to expand Zarb-e-Azb mission all the way to Afghanistan to tackle the foreign elements that is funding the terrorism responsible for killing more than 50,000 innocent people including the children.

Is that a joke? It absolutely did. Pakistan supported the Taliban's rise to power (because it thought they would be friendlier than the Northern Alliance), which they eventually achieved by overthrowing the government in Kabul in 1996. The Taliban then went on to consolidate their rule throughout the country, conquering almost all of it by the end of the century. What did that get us? Nothing.

The Taliban imposed harsh social laws, discouraged "western" education and harbored terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, leading to a huge disaster both globally, and to Pakistan. Other militant groups popped up that harmed Pakistan as well. The Taliban proved themselves to incompetent and oppressive rulers. The Northern Alliance governments are just as incompetent, if less oppressive, and they have no support in much of the country. No matter who is in power in Afghanistan, things are never good.

This is the era of proxy war. If you don't get involved to protect yourself, then pay the ultimate price. Considering what is happening in Bangladesh, that is perfect opportunity for Pakistan to cash on big time. Don't think that by helping Bangladesh, only Bangladesh will be benefited. It is about Greater Pakistan which means the long term of the plan to materialize cannot be possible without the support from the neighborhood nations.

Afghanistan is an utter disaster, and is on the verge of becoming a failed state. It is a country where various different factions and militant groups have been fighting each other for most of its history. The less involvement we have there, the better. Let's focus our attention elsewhere.

If other countries like India want to gain its "friendship" and waste their time and money on a worthless, fractured country like Afghanistan, I wish them the best of luck---they're going to need it. There's nothing to be gained from it anyway. I'm pretty sure that that India is not dumb enough to get involved with militant groups in Afghanistan, given their past personal experiences. If they are (which I doubt), it will likely come back to bite them.

Bangladesh can be for Pakistan what Afghanistan is for India. As you said, Bangladesh is geographically closer to India than Pakistan. Precisely the same reason why Afghanistan is chosen so Pakistan can be undermined through border-free policy. And good news is that majority are still pro-Pakistan despite the 71'. And India knows that and that is why India is working overtime to ensure their influences on Bangladesh remain intact, otherwise Pakistan would use this opportunity to cash on and make India pay big time.

The bottom line is that both Bangladesh and Afghanistan are almost worthless to Pakistan. Afghanistan might be useful one day if it ever gets its act together, but I doubt that will ever happen.

Let's instead focus on building bridges with countries in the region that actually matter like China, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia/the UAE/Kuwait, and Egypt. Also maintain friendly relations with Europe, Australia, Japan, and North America (US & Canada), without alienating Russia. Establish closer links in other parts of the developing world with countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, etc. Stop worrying about useless countries like Bangladesh. Even Sri Lanka probably has more value to Pakistan than Bangladesh. Look beyond South Asia, there is a whole world out there.

 

[Nilgiri]

Considering Bangladesh is bending out to make room for the economy of India at the expense of Bangladesh, i will let majority of Bangladeshi youth responds which will be revealed in the soon.

How soon? People were saying soon many years back when SHW came back to power (and then held onto it)...and their "soon" has come and gone....and come and gone....3rd times the charm?

India exports to BD have been falling as has the bilateral CAD....and China injected soft loans into BD 10 - 20 times more than India did in same period. How is India expanding into BD at "expense" of BD economy?

China obviously believes in stability of this BAL govt @Two

So give me figures and sources please rather than words....and at least read up on BD economy developments first next time.

Majority are still pro-Pakistani.

That's a pretty delusional thing to say. About half harbor favourable sentiments to Pakistan according to Pew....but 70% do so for India at the same time (and I wouldn't call that as majority are pro-India either):

http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/chapter-4-how-asians-view-each-other/

I mean that means at the very least 20% of BD people have favourable sentiments to both India and Pakistan. Thats 34 million people. What does that mean?

BD people are mostly pro BD first and foremost as they should be (and as anyone else in world would be for their country). You should quit this concocted theory of yours before you embarrass yourself further.

 

[Sine Nomine]

So its best for Pakistan to sever all connection with this lost cause of trying to "get BD back" on your "side"...it is a doomed cause esp when you have far more important priorities.

Please tell why we would like to get BD back.
We have no interest in India's satellite state,if we will Indias will complain about that and we are not going to add another paragraph in India Pak relations.

 

[Nilgiri]

Please tell why we would like to get BD back.
We have no interest in India's satellite state,if we will Indias will complain about that and we are not going to add another paragraph in India Pak relations.

You know how to annoy the BD people here the most (I have thoroughly experimented so I can say very strongly)? Call them a satellite state of India

They are quite delusional about it....yes Pakistan (and anybody really) is better off without such delusional people

 

[Sine Nomine]

At least you could not.

We were having no such desire to kill him,if we wish we would have.He was innocent in that fisco.Taju din was real culprit.

And again Bangladesh is a Peoples republic... not a muslim nation or whatever.

But still Bangla nationalists have to tell in middle east we are Muslims and we should be given priority,why.
Those who came in 70's and 80's in Pakistan asked us we are your fellow Muslims,accommodate us and we did accommodating about 3 million in process.

You know how to annoy the BD people here the most (I have thoroughly experimented so I can say very strongly)? Call them a satellite state of India

They are quite delusional about it....yes Pakistan (and anybody really) is better off without such delusional people

You messed up everything,you would have made it your state in name of bangla nationalism,we are just getting fed up due to there verbal dieheria.

 

[Finer]

How soon? People were saying soon many years back when SHW came back to power (and then held onto it)...and their "soon" has come and gone....and come and gone....3rd times the charm?

Are you trying to confirm that my post did get on your nerve?

That's a pretty delusional thing to say. About half harbor favourable sentiments to Pakistan according to Pew....but 70% do so for India at the same time (and I wouldn't call that as majority are pro-India either):

BD people are mostly pro BD first and foremost as they should be (and as anyone else in world would be for their country). You should quit this concocted theory of yours before you embarrass yourself further.

Nice save. Bangladesh people are BD first. And that is why they will revolt against India given Indian economical projects preside over Bangladesh economical projects which is just matter of time.

And you cannot have both ways. Not long ago, Pakistan was constantly accused of influencing majority of Bangladeshi to against the current elected government, and hence the opposition party is used as excuse to maintain the facade of the system to ensure the current elected government renews her term.

Which should i believe first? Pakistan funds majority to go against the minority elected government? Or Majority are pro-BD first even though you are not denying that they are pro-Pakistan as well given what India has been doing with the economy of Bangladesh, border and island issues. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Thank for playing along.

There is nothing of major value that Bangladesh can provide to Pakistan, that's my point. We want nothing to do with it.

I just gave the long explanation in regards to advantage of using Bangladesh to undermine India just as India is using Afghanistan as platform to undermine the stability of Pakistan. Have you not read my posts at all?

What kind of comparison is that? Kashmir borders Pakistan, and its people likely want to join Pakistan. We will continue to support our Kashmiri brothers and sisters. I agree that Pakistan missed out an opportunity to take on India when it was battling (and losing) to China in 1962. But there's nothing we can do about that now, and there is no comparison with Bangladesh's current situation.

Are you clueless on the ground reality if i may ask? How can you say given what is happening in Bangladesh?

Pakistan missed out an opportunity to take IOK because that leader had your attitude which is there is nothing we can do about that now. So keep crying then.

Also remember that we had/have Gilgit-Baltistan, which was/is ultimately the most important part of the J&K territory anyway, as it gave us a border with China and direct access to Central Asia and Russia (along with some wonderful people and heavenly land). If Kashmiris and Pakistan keep up the pressure on India, perhaps that situation will eventually begin to change as well. Either way, Bangladesh does not factor into the equation.

Pretty soon, we are gonna lose them too. Why? Because we don't wanna defend ourselves using proxy wars to undermine India which means India is free to do through Afghanistan to damage Pakistan.

Don't do anything. Just stay there and say like chant that there is nothing we can do about it.

Is that a joke? It absolutely did. Pakistan supported the Taliban's rise to power (because it thought they would be friendlier than the Northern Alliance), which they eventually achieved by overthrowing the government in Kabul in 1996. The Taliban then went on to consolidate their rule throughout the country, conquering almost all of it by the end of the century. What did that get us? Nothing.

Influence over Afghanistan meant peace for Pakistan in 90s. Look at Afghanistan now. It is at the mercy of USA and India while India is using Afghanistan as platform to undermine the stability of Pakistan.

Do i have to spell ABC to you now?

The Taliban imposed harsh social laws, discouraged "western" education and harbored terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, leading to a huge disaster both globally, and to Pakistan. Other militant groups popped up that harmed Pakistan as well. The Taliban proved themselves to incompetent and oppressive rulers. The Northern Alliance governments are just as incompetent, if less oppressive, and they have no support in much of the country. No matter who is in power in Afghanistan, things are never good.

That is between them and Afghanistan. Afghan Talibans is the result of the culture. Afghans as nature are thick-headed, conservative, ignorant and worse. That doesn't mean Pakistan shouldn't have gotten involved.

If it wasn't for Pakistan and USA, USSR would have invaded Afghanistan and killed people who were busy playing with rocks instead of defending themselves.

Afghanistan is an utter disaster, and is on the verge of becoming a failed state. It is a country where various different factions and militant groups have been fighting each other for most of its history. The less involvement we have there, the better. Let's focus our attention elsewhere.

And pretty soon Pakistan will be utter disaster too if Pakistan doesn't get involved back in Afghanistan. The betterment of Pakistan lies with the stability of Afghanistan whether you see it or not.

Similarity, Pakistan needs Bangladesh to keep India at bay through proxy wars to balance them out.

If other countries like India want to gain its "friendship" and waste their time and money on a worthless, fractured country like Afghanistan, I wish them the best of luck---they're going to need it. There's nothing to be gained from it anyway. I'm pretty sure that that India is not dumb enough to get involved with militant groups in Afghanistan, given their past personal experiences. If they are (which I doubt), it will likely come back to bite them.

Those want India because India is active and Pakistan is not. How can you not see this through? Glad you are not part of Pakistan army considering General Kiyani planned for Zarb-e-Azb all the way to Afghanistan which has been partly executed by General Raheel and now his successors.

The bottom line is that both Bangladesh and Afghanistan are almost worthless to Pakistan. Afghanistan might be useful one day if it ever gets its act together, but I doubt that will ever happen.

That is your opinion, and quite frankly, your opinion is worthless. India involvement in Bangladesh and Afghanistan begs to differ.

Let's instead focus on building bridges with countries in the region that actually matter like China, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia/the UAE/Kuwait, and Egypt. Also maintain friendly relations with Europe, Australia, Japan, and North America (US & Canada), without alienating Russia. Establish closer links in other parts of the developing world with countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, etc. Stop worrying about useless countries like Bangladesh. Even Sri Lanka probably has more value to Pakistan than Bangladesh. Look beyond South Asia, there is a whole world out there.

Let's gather the world to focus on Pakistan while Pakistan is plagued with terrorism that traces back to Afghanistan where Pakistan has no control nor military bases to eradicate terrorism.

How do you suppose to build the stable economy at the face of terrorism that appears to growing furthermore? Why do you think Pakistan army wanted Zarb-e-Azb to expand all the way to Afghanistan? Think!

How can you build the stable economy and yet ignore the threat of terrorism that threatens the stability of the economy including the local and international investment? Image is every thing. Not everyone is China willing to invest blindly just to spite India.

I suggest you take my post as indicator to expand your horizon to understand the important about the political influence. Pakistan's neighbors are quite important as Pakistan. India learned that long time ago, hence doing well.