What's new

shekh haseena's gift to Modi

lets hear it genius, how was Indira Gandhi's assassination remotely related to the largest unilateral surrender since WWII?

Well, Mr Brains, for the same effort, one could argue what was Modi's contribution to be presented with that picture. The fact is both the conspirators of the 1971 met a violent death from their own soldiers...... justice done accordingly.
 
Last edited:
.
There is a difference between a land locked country & one separated just by an ocean though distance does play a part even there. What was being spoken here was about trade & transit, not diplomatic relations. Your ability to do trade with Nepal & Bhutan is severely limited as is your usefulness to those countries. Bangladesh is theoretically possible but that is now clearly a country that has chosen to prioritise relations with India.

Trade is what i meant too when i said US is our largest trading partner. Pakistan and India although linked together by geographic location have the lowest trade. India can obtain gas cheaply through Pakistan but its strategic interests say otherwise and hence India is willing to go all the way to Qatar and built an underwater pipeline spending billions in extra. Point being geographic location does not supersede ones strategic interests. If its in Pakistan interest to keep Bhutan and Nepal in its area of influence we will do that irrespective of geographic locations, a case in point Srilanka. As for BD its only in Indias camp till Haseena is there but if you pay close attention to what a common bengali have to say, they dont give two hoots about India and this will reflect in their future policy as well. Pakistan has moved past 71 and so has a common Man in BD. Its only people like Haseena who play this card at the behest of India.



Actually this is a very good reason of why SAARC will not work, Pakistan cannot get past its obsession with India & has nothing to offer. no one is interested to hear your whining about India. There are both bilateral relations as well as groupings that are formed, what do you think BBIN is about?

If SAARC does not work, its not like Pakistan will somehow suffocate because of that. Yes SAARC will not work but not because Pakistan is obsessed with India but because India cant get over 47 and now more so because you have an ultra nationalist running the show in India who came to power because he promised to take a more tougher stance against Pakistan. In Pakistan no one comes to Power because he/she wishes to teach India a lesson. Thats the difference between us and you. So who is really obsessed with whom?

As for Pakistan's accusation of terrorism against India, I have heard not one comment from a single 3rd party about their belief in that. Pakistan claims it has evidence but does not produce it.

As i said to another Indian once, Pakistan has shared where it matters and online forum are not one of those places. You have not heard or maybe you dont want to hear, it does not matter. Why do you think Kerry and your government had a heated exchange before Obama's visit?
Kerry snubbed Modi over Mulla Fazalulla patronage

Why do you think US has toned down its rhetoric against Pakistan even when India is making all sort of noises. Why is Afghanistan more willing to cooperate with Pakistan now? Pakistan after Peshwar attack is not the same. Yes it took us a while to finally wakeup from our slumber but Modi is not the only one who can lead an aggressive foreign policy, we can do that as well.

A bit like a child turning in a blank sheet after a painting class and when asked what it was to say the following :

A:It's a cow in a meadow.

Q: Where is the grass?
A: The cow has eaten it all up.

Q:Where is the cow then?
A: What will it do there after having eaten the grass, it has moved on elsewhere.....


That is pretty similar to Pakistan claims on evidence against India.

This is precisely the attitude why SAARC will fail. India's arrogance and unwillingness of a common Indian to call spade a spade.


Nope. No term dictation, just mutual interest. All other SAARC countries have decided that their interests with India should not be vetoed on account of Pakistan's problems with India.

As i said before if its in Pakistan's interest, we will keep it irrespective of whether SAARC exists or not. A case in point earth quake in Nepal. While Indians continued with their cheap strategy to somehow humiliate Pakistan by brining out that meat thing through their media, in the end it only embarrassed it self.
 
.
I am sorry for disappointing you
thee thing is Modi admires his BSF and that love is not lost if its deployed along Pakistan or Bangladesh.
only difference is that on Pakistani side BSF has to earn its money and gets shot back where as on the Bangladeshi side its chill out and relaxing shooting practice without any reaction.

AAAAaaaaa Saar it not just one sided ,its BSF not some afgan forces .Ask rangers they will tell you many times how many times they bite off more than can chew.
 
.
Trade is what i meant too when i said US is our largest trading partner. Pakistan and India although linked together by geographic location have the lowest trade. India can obtain gas cheaply through Pakistan but its strategic interests say otherwise and hence India is willing to go all the way to Qatar and built an underwater pipeline spending billions in extra. Point being geographic location does not supersede ones strategic interests. If its in Pakistan interest to keep Bhutan and Nepal in its area of influence we will do that irrespective of geographic locations, a case in point Srilanka. As for BD its only in Indias camp till Haseena is there but if you pay close attention to what a common bengali have to say, they dont give two hoots about India and this will reflect in their future policy as well. Pakistan has moved past 71 and so has a common Man in BD. Its only people like Haseena who play this card at the behest of India.

The point being made is that Bangladesh, Bhutan & Nepal have joined India to form a separate grouping because they don't want Pakistan to block it by way of SAARC. As for why BD is with India etc, you have it wrong. Whoever the leaders are, there is no interest in wanting hostility with India. Period.

Your point about India getting gas through Pakistan etc is not backed by reality. Pakistan refused to join the other SAARC countries in their interest of greater connectivity, it wasn't India blocking Pakistan. How then would anyone look at getting gas from a country that wants to stop a few trucks?





If SAARC does not work, its not like Pakistan will somehow suffocate because of that. Yes SAARC will not work but not because Pakistan is obsessed with India but because India cant get over 47 and now more so because you have an ultra nationalist running the show in India who came to power because he promised to take a more tougher stance against Pakistan. In Pakistan no one comes to Power because he/she wishes to teach India a lesson. Thats the difference between us and you. So who is really obsessed with whom?

It has very little to do with Modi, Pakistan has been playing the spoiler long before Modi came on the scene. I'm not discounting Pakistan's interests but the other countries have decided to do their own thing with India. Give us a tinkle when the countries mentioned join in a grouping with you but excluding us.


As i said to another Indian once, Pakistan has shared where it matters and online forum are not one of those places. You have not heard or maybe you dont want to hear, it does not matter. Why do you think Kerry and your government had a heated exchange before Obama's visit?
Kerry snubbed Modi over Mulla Fazalulla patronage

That's the kind of cock & bull story that I was talking about. Mentioned only by Pakistanis on Pakistani channels and some " Christina Palmer".... Some sort of a secret that only they know. Like the child with the painting of the cow & the meadow...... No one else has ever heard of it, the notion that Kerry will be snubbing Modi days before the arrival of Obama is beyond ridiculous & it smacks of a desperate mind to even believe such stuff.



This is precisely the attitude why SAARC will fail. India's arrogance and unwillingness of a common Indian to call spade a spade.

SAARC may fail but SAARC minus 1 will not, even if it will get called something else. Indians are calling a spade a bloody shovel now, I certainly have no idea what you mean. What is it that you want in SAARC or in bilateral ties that you think India can accommodate but is not doing so?




As i said before if its in Pakistan's interest, we will keep it irrespective of whether SAARC exists or not. A case in point earth quake in Nepal. While Indians continued with their cheap strategy to somehow humiliate Pakistan by brining out that meat thing through their media, in the end it only embarrassed it self.

No one is saying you won't have any relations with these countries, no one is suggesting any sort of a relation rupture. The point is not that they will become your enemies or turn against you because they have interests with you, only that you will not be allowed to block what each of these countries consider to be important.
 
.
Fall of Dhaka was not all the fault of West Pakistan. The Bengalis were conspiring with the Indians as far back as 1960. Whatever happened in 71 is part of history we ought to learn from. Bangladesh will never truly be a free country, Haseena's current govt came into power through a sham election paid for by the Indians. It was created to be an Indian vassal state and will remain so.

Many great nations have lost wars and much more but it doesn't stop them from moving on and becoming even more powerful. Its high time we say goodbye to South Asia and extend ourselves into Central Asia, Iran and Turkey.
When you talk of any community don't talk as a whole. It was the conspiracy of Secular Atheist Bengalis and their Punjabi brethren. The real Muslim Bengalis need to get rid of Haseena to save MUSLIM bANGLADESH.
 
.
Living dispute for Pakistanis , the rest of the world has moved on. Kashmir has been taken off the UN list of territorial disputes..it is no longer an issue, or were you not aware ?

All musharraf said was " both nations wounded " that is not enough, Why should it pain the aggressor? Bangladesh has still not received one penny in compensation nor have the Pak population left in Bangladesh been allowed to immigrate back to Pak.

Anyway pointless to talk to you, Pak holds on to grudges for ever but expects others to overlook its own bad behavior time and again.

It is a living dispute. The whole territory of JK is still called disputed territory. The border between Indian occupied Kashmir and Azad Kashmir is still called Line of Control and not International Border.

We have done our part. Apology has been done. Not going to do it again for the sake some idiot woman ruling BD and is still stuck in 1971.

And it is pointless to talk to you since you guys have been made totally delusional due to propaganda against Pakistan and hence can't understand difference between Kashmir conflict and 1971.
 
.
And it is pointless to talk to you since you guys have been made totally delusional due to propaganda against Pakistan and hence can't understand difference between Kashmir conflict and 1971.

It has nothing to do with any imagined difference. If you think 1971 is history & must be consigned there to move on with a better relationship, the same would apply to an issue like Kashmir too. No one is saying that the two are identical as events, just that they are both problems in & of history. You can argue that you don't care & see Kashmir as separate & will not forget it, that is your right but a similar right has to be allowed to those Bangladeshis who feel the same way about the events leading up & including 1971. You cannot argue that Bangladshis should forget things for your convenience but you will have a different standard for yourselves.
 
.
It is a living dispute. The whole territory of JK is still called disputed territory. The border between Indian occupied Kashmir and Azad Kashmir is still called Line of Control and not International Border.

We have done our part. Apology has been done. Not going to do it again for the sake some idiot woman ruling BD and is still stuck in 1971.

And it is pointless to talk to you since you guys have been made totally delusional due to propaganda against Pakistan and hence can't understand difference between Kashmir conflict and 1971.

Let me get some liberty to be brute in my statement.

The only difference between Kashmir and 71 is - You cant do a zilch in 71 while there is still an option left to cry over Kashmir.

You have moved on since 71 for compulsion. not that you have got some big heart.
 
.
Let me get some liberty to be brute in my statement.

The only difference between Kashmir and 71 is - You cant do a zilch in 71 while there is still an option left to cry over Kashmir.

You have moved on since 71 for compulsion. not that you have got some big heart.
thing is recent bangladesh visit has rubbed salt into pakistani ambitions but as usual they need to denay it and for that and to cover up there bruised egos they are despartelli bringing in every other issue than what is the topic of the thread a very old game but alas for them very one knows what cards they have and how they intend to play so they loose every time but deu to there arrogence and false bravado keep onrepeating there old mistakes :sarcastic:
 
.
It has nothing to do with any imagined difference. If you think 1971 is history & must be consigned there to move on with a better relationship, the same would apply to an issue like Kashmir too. No one is saying that the two are identical as events, just that they are both problems in & of history. You can argue that you don't care & see Kashmir as separate & will not forget it, that is your right but a similar right has to be allowed to those Bangladeshis who feel the same way about the events leading up & including 1971. You cannot argue that Bangladshis should forget things for your convenience but you will have a different standard for yourselves.

I repeat again. Kashmir is a living issue.

1971 is a dead issue. It died the day Simla agreement was signed. Enough said.

Let me get some liberty to be brute in my statement.

The only difference between Kashmir and 71 is - You cant do a zilch in 71 while there is still an option left to cry over Kashmir.

You have moved on since 71 for compulsion. not that you have got some big heart.

Tu khush ho ja. I don't have issues with kids being happy.

If that picture is embarrassing anyone...it should be your army and your country!!!

We are not stuck in something 1971 kid. We have learned our lesson and made sure it won't happen again. Good enough for us.
 
. . . . .
Work in Progress!!

Chal rakhle, after all some consolation reward is required nahi to kahi sharm se khudkushi na kar le.

Contradictory post. Work in progress and then chal rakh lai. :lol:

itne utaawlle kyon hote ho miya abhi to party shuru hui hai ;)

Hum to set hain. Tumhain party main nanga naachtai hoye daikh rahai hain. ;)
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom