"Half Of Bangladesh Will Be Empty If...": Union Minister G Kishan Reddy On Citizenship Amendment Act

[MP2011]

"Half Of Bangladesh Will Be Empty If...": Union Minister G Kishan Reddy On Citizenship Amendment Act

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/hal...ip-amendment-act-2177540?pfrom=home-topscroll

Hyderabad: Half of Bangladesh's population will leave their country if Indian citizenship was promised to them, Union Minister G Kishan Reddy said on Sunday.
Speaking at the Sant Ravidas Jayanti celebrations in Hyderabad, Mr Reddy dared Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao to prove how the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) was against the 130 crore Indians living in the country.

"Half of Bangladesh will be empty (vacant) if India offers citizenship to them (Bangladeshis). Half of Bangladeshis will come over to India if citizenship is promised (to them). Who will take responsibility? KCR? Or Rahul Gandhi?," he asked.

"They seek citizenship for infiltrators. The Government of India is ready to review the CAA," Mr Reddy said.

Noting that CAA was brought in on humanitarian grounds for certain persecuted communities in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, he said some political parties were demanding that citizenship be given to Muslims of those countries also.

Taking a dig at the TRS and its "friendly party" AIMIM, Mr Reddy alleged that the former was indulging in vote bank politics.

"I am requesting the TRS party. I am requesting the chief minister (KCR). I am challenging the chief minister to prove if any one person out of 130 crore citizens of this country is affected by the Citizenship Amendment Act," the Union Minister of State for Home said.

Asserting that refugees and infiltrators should not be treated alike, he claimed that parties such as Congress were seeking citizenship for infiltrators, who came from Bangladesh and Pakistan.

According to him, some refugees have been staying in India for the past 40 years without any facilities and documents such as voter id, Aadhar or ration card.

 

[MP2011]

sanghis have an overflowing population of clowns, don't they?

 

[MP2011]

Also, these 'words of wisdom' are an insult to Bangladesh with whom we share friendly relations....

 

[Hornbill]

These idiots have no idea the human development index of bangladesh , If bangladesh can sustain present rate of growth for another 10 to 20 years most of the illegal migrants will return to bangladesh and the number of Indian migranting to bangladesh will be at its peak.

 

[Hornbill]

These idiots have no idea the human development index of bangladesh , If bangladesh can sustain present rate of growth for another 10 to 20 years most of the illegal migrants will return to bangladesh and the number of Indian migranting to bangladesh will be at its peak.

They are still ranked below India in HDI but they are ahead of India in social indicators

 

[cricketjoshila]

These idiots have no idea the human development index of bangladesh , If bangladesh can sustain present rate of growth for another 10 to 20 years most of the illegal migrants will return to bangladesh and the number of Indian migranting to bangladesh will be at its peak.

Still we have Bangladeshis infiltrating and coming to India. Go show them the data.

 

[CricketCartoons]

These idiots have no idea the human development index of bangladesh , If bangladesh can sustain present rate of growth for another 10 to 20 years most of the illegal migrants will return to bangladesh and the number of Indian migranting to bangladesh will be at its peak.

There is some truth there. Bangladesh may surpass india in per capita income and better law and order than india provides, but the pride of being called indians cannot be overlooked.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

There is some truth there. Bangladesh may surpass india in per capita income and better law and order than india provides, but the pride of being called indians cannot be overlooked.

Is that what it is? I see images of India regularly on documentaries, and keep wondering what is so great about it that would make Bangladeshis want to go there? Pakistan looks a better standard of living in truth, but I guess you are right. Even Pakistani restaurants across the world try to pass themselves off as Indian.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Is that what it is? I see images of India regularly on documentaries, and keep wondering what is so great about it that would make Bangladeshis want to go there? Pakistan looks a better standard of living in truth, but I guess you are right. Even Pakistani restaurants across the world try to pass themselves off as Indian.

Being Indian is the most sought after nationality in south asia. So much that the indian govt had to pass a law to restrict the supply and there are rumours that it will be reviewed for the existing ones as well.

 

[Buffet]

As if India is a developed country. Gap between India and BD is not that huge that half of BD population would want to shift to India. Now some subsection of BD population may find a better life in India to make this move worthwhile and they do move, but it won't be anywhere near half of population.

 

[Bigboii]

Being Indian is the most sought after nationality in south asia. So much that the indian govt had to pass a law to restrict the supply and there are rumours that it will be reviewed for the existing ones as well.

Keep dreaming!!
This dude acting like India is US and other countries are Mexico
Regular people are comfortable in thier countries if Adnan Sami's fat a** want a Indian nationality that doesn't mean India is a first world country

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Keep dreaming!!
This dude acting like India is US and other countries are Mexico
Regular people are comfortable in thier countries if Adnan Sami's fat a** want a Indian nationality that doesn't mean India is a first world country

Come on dude. You are living in NY, for you and me India is a third world country so this all sounds strange. But maybe for other third world countries, India is seen as some sort of Las Vegas of the subcontinent.

For us it looks like a giant sewer, but who knows how it looks to those in the surrounding areas?

 

[CricketCartoons]

Keep dreaming!!
This dude acting like India is US and other countries are Mexico
Regular people are comfortable in thier countries if Adnan Sami's fat a** want a Indian nationality that doesn't mean India is a first world country

Never said India is a first world country. Just that indian nationality commands huge respect globally, which is why even prosperous people from neighbouring south asian countries would love to get the pride of having an indian passport.

 

[IndianHero]

Many indian cities like have lots of these illegal
migrants ! Guess wat after this CAA & NRC few r evening returning back to bangladesh !

Bangladesh's paramilitary force chief said on Thursday that a total of 445 Bangladeshi nationals returned from India in the last two months following the publication of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) by the Indian government.

Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) Director General Maj Gen Md Shafeenul Islam disclosed the figure during a press briefing here.

More at :

https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/www....in-last-2-months-bgb-chief-1633514-2020-01-02

 

[IndianHero]

Most of the pakistanis here haven't been to India & they don't understand ground reality of this illegal migrants from bangladesh ! I m sure they might not have seen the border crossing of these illegals even on the internet but still they claim as if they knew everything on earth with typical zakir naik logics (like 2+2=5) lol

 

[andy0204]

Most of the pakistanis here haven't been to India & they don't understand ground reality of this illegal migrants from bangladesh ! I m sure they might not have seen the border crossing of these illegals even on the internet but still they claim with typical zakir naik logics (like 2+2=5) lol

One second what Zakir Naik has to do with this?
Typical It cell logic.

 

[Mamoon]

Is that what it is? I see images of India regularly on documentaries, and keep wondering what is so great about it that would make Bangladeshis want to go there? Pakistan looks a better standard of living in truth, but I guess you are right. Even Pakistani restaurants across the world try to pass themselves off as Indian.

The subcontinent as a whole is seen as a third world dump, but within the subcontinent, India by far enjoys the best reputation.

Pakistan is seen with the same lens as countries like Afghanistan. Very dangerous countries rife with terrorism.

Bangladesh, in spite of its economic growth, is considered as a small poor country like Nepal and Bhutan.

India is not seen as a first world country but it still seen in much better light due to multiple reasons:

(1) tourism in India is far and beyond what Pakistan and Bangladesh have. At any given point, you are more likely to encounter a white person who has been to India (or knows someone who has been to India) compared to someone who has been to Pakistan or Bangladesh

(2) India is more prominent on the world map because of the greater success of Indian origin people in terms of CEOs etc.

Pakistan and Bangladesh are struggling to get out of India’s shadow and it is unlikely to happen in the future. India is a far bigger country with greater influence.

(3) most people do have an idea of the animosity between Pakistan and India, but since India doesn’t have the reputation of a state infested with terrorism, most people automatically view India in a more favorable light.

 

[Syed1]

Most of the pakistanis here haven't been to India & they don't understand ground reality of this illegal migrants from bangladesh ! I m sure they might not have seen the border crossing of these illegals even on the internet but still they claim as if they knew everything on earth with typical zakir naik logics (like 2+2=5) lol

We have our own problem of illegal Afghans flooding over from Afghanistan. The city in the world with the largest population of Pathan ethnicity is not Peshawar or Kabul, it is Karachi and majority is because of Afghans who now have Pakistani ID cards.


Still you won't find any Pakistani minister saying that Afghanistan will empty out.


Infact BD is on a very high trajectory of improving their economic conditions and human development index. They will leave India far behind in a decade or so. In case you forgot India has more poor people than BD/PK have people.

 

[TrentDevil]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">B’desh economy is projected to grow at 8%<br>Bangladesh beats every other South Asian nation in gender equality.<br>B’desh unemployment rate last year was 4.3%-India’s 8.4%<br>B’desh life expectancy and literacy rate bore are more than India’s <br>Pata nahi kya samjhte hain apne aapko <a href="https://t.co/dT8VynqtoH">https://t.co/dT8VynqtoH</a></p>— S (@vakeel_saheba) <a href="https://twitter.com/vakeel_saheba/status/1226601658584428544?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 9, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[KingKhanWC]

The subcontinent as a whole is seen as a third world dump, but within the subcontinent, India by far enjoys the best reputation.

Pakistan is seen with the same lens as countries like Afghanistan. Very dangerous countries rife with terrorism.

Bangladesh, in spite of its economic growth, is considered as a small poor country like Nepal and Bhutan.

India is not seen as a first world country but it still seen in much better light due to multiple reasons:

(1) tourism in India is far and beyond what Pakistan and Bangladesh have. At any given point, you are more likely to encounter a white person who has been to India (or knows someone who has been to India) compared to someone who has been to Pakistan or Bangladesh

(2) India is more prominent on the world map because of the greater success of Indian origin people in terms of CEOs etc.

Pakistan and Bangladesh are struggling to get out of India’s shadow and it is unlikely to happen in the future. India is a far bigger country with greater influence.

(3) most people do have an idea of the animosity between Pakistan and India, but since India doesn’t have the reputation of a state infested with terrorism, most people automatically view India in a more favorable light.

In the UK India is seen just a dangerous as Pakistan. We had a UK national young girl who was gangraped in Goa with her attackers being set free ,this was huge news. We also see regularly Modi and the RSS fascism spreading like a virus all over India. Bangladeshis will think twice going to such a country where people of the same religion are being attacked.

If you agree with this minister, you might as well to India. Have you considered this?

 

[mustang]

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/hal...ip-amendment-act-2177540?pfrom=home-topscroll

Hyderabad: Half of Bangladesh's population will leave their country if Indian citizenship was promised to them, Union Minister G Kishan Reddy said on Sunday.
Speaking at the Sant Ravidas Jayanti celebrations in Hyderabad, Mr Reddy dared Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao to prove how the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) was against the 130 crore Indians living in the country.

"Half of Bangladesh will be empty (vacant) if India offers citizenship to them (Bangladeshis). Half of Bangladeshis will come over to India if citizenship is promised (to them). Who will take responsibility? KCR? Or Rahul Gandhi?," he asked.

"They seek citizenship for infiltrators. The Government of India is ready to review the CAA," Mr Reddy said.

Noting that CAA was brought in on humanitarian grounds for certain persecuted communities in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, he said some political parties were demanding that citizenship be given to Muslims of those countries also.

Taking a dig at the TRS and its "friendly party" AIMIM, Mr Reddy alleged that the former was indulging in vote bank politics.

"I am requesting the TRS party. I am requesting the chief minister (KCR). I am challenging the chief minister to prove if any one person out of 130 crore citizens of this country is affected by the Citizenship Amendment Act," the Union Minister of State for Home said.

Asserting that refugees and infiltrators should not be treated alike, he claimed that parties such as Congress were seeking citizenship for infiltrators, who came from Bangladesh and Pakistan.

According to him, some refugees have been staying in India for the past 40 years without any facilities and documents such as voter id, Aadhar or ration card.

The minister who stated this is either an idiot or thinks he can only get his points across when speaking in hyperboles. Simple as that. I'm all for curbing illegal immigration - good fences make good neighbors. Be it in Pakistan-Afghanistan or India-Bangladesh or elsewhere.

 

[Bigboii]

Never said India is a first world country. Just that indian nationality commands huge respect globally, which is why even prosperous people from neighbouring south asian countries would love to get the pride of having an indian passport.

I am trying to understand your pov and even when looking at it unbiasedly I am still struggling to understand, countries that are almost equal in living standards (it's not like going to India purely for economics will help someone immensely that they'll leave thier country)
So your point is that Indian passport is so respected that people will leave thier country, family and culture and move to a totally new country with different language and culture just so that they can beam with pride that they have an Indian passport (and these guys will probably never visit another country) c'mon man you are delusional for thinking like that you must have a better reason

 

[mustang]

I am trying to understand your pov and even when looking at it unbiasedly I am still struggling to understand, countries that are almost equal in living standards (it's not like going to India purely for economics will help someone immensely that they'll leave thier country)
So your point is that Indian passport is so respected that people will leave thier country, family and culture and move to a totally new country with different language and culture just so that they can beam with pride that they have an Indian passport (and these guys will probably never visit another country) c'mon man you are delusional for thinking like that you must have a better reason

If I may - I think among the easily accessible choices available for poorer struggling demographics of Bangladesh, India is the best bet for them to move to within their logistical and economic means. Similar language/culture in parts of India also helps. If these people had equal access to India and US/UK/AU/Malaysia/Singapore ... from an economic/logistical/cultural/linguistic factor, clearly they will choose those countries over India ... but they don't and hence they choose to cross into India.

 

[sweep_shot]

As a Bangladeshi, I can tell that only folks who migrate (illegally) to India are super-poor from rural areas. Most Bangladeshis have no reason to go to India as both India and Bangladesh are third world countries.

We are talking about extremely poor ones from rural villages.

 

[King-Misbah]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">B’desh economy is projected to grow at 8%<br>Bangladesh beats every other South Asian nation in gender equality.<br>B’desh unemployment rate last year was 4.3%-India’s 8.4%<br>B’desh life expectancy and literacy rate bore are more than India’s <br>Pata nahi kya samjhte hain apne aapko <a href="https://t.co/dT8VynqtoH">https://t.co/dT8VynqtoH</a></p>— S (@vakeel_saheba) <a href="https://twitter.com/vakeel_saheba/status/1226601658584428544?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 9, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Add to this Indian GDP is slipping fast, it was only 4.5% from July/September 2019.

Modis 5 year term will surely make it a lot worse. Indians need a reality check, Bangladesh economically is doing very well.

 

[IndianHero]

We have our own problem of illegal Afghans flooding over from Afghanistan. The city in the world with the largest population of Pathan ethnicity is not Peshawar or Kabul, it is Karachi and majority is because of Afghans who now have Pakistani ID cards.


Still you won't find any Pakistani minister saying that Afghanistan will empty out.


Infact BD is on a very high trajectory of improving their economic conditions and human development index. They will leave India far behind in a decade or so. In case you forgot India has more poor people than BD/PK have people.

I heard from my pakistani friends online & offline that some of these illegals were lured & involved in many bomb blasts in pakistan. I understand this is the problem with illegal migration.

In india politicians make statements to stay in limelight

With regards to economy, USA economy grows typically at 2% , bangladesh economy grows at 7 to 8% so bangladesh is performing better than USA (as 8 > 2) right ? lol


Economy doesn't work that way ! Smaller countries tend to have more per capita income than bigger countries but it doesn't mean that smaller countries are performing really well

 

[Hornbill]

what happened to my previous I think spirited worshipper of modi reported those lol
Minister should ask his party to cancel the membership of modi for spreading misinformation about bangladesh

https://m.economictimes.com/news/po...ina-pm-narendra-modi/articleshow/47577342.cms

https://m.theindependentbd.com//post/228147

 

[Bigboii]

I heard from my pakistani friends online & offline that some of these illegals were lured & involved in many bomb blasts in pakistan. I understand this is the problem with illegal migration.

In india politicians make statements to stay in limelight

With regards to economy, USA economy grows typically at 2% , bangladesh economy grows at 7 to 8% so bangladesh is performing better than USA (as 8 > 2) right ? lol


Economy doesn't work that way ! Smaller countries tend to have more per capita income than bigger countries but it doesn't mean that smaller countries are performing really well

It's not about smaller or bigger it's about devaloped or devaloping and India still has a lot of potential to grow was reading somewhere in economist that India needs to grow at around 4-6 just to keep up with unemployment

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The subcontinent as a whole is seen as a third world dump, but within the subcontinent, India by far enjoys the best reputation.

Pakistan is seen with the same lens as countries like Afghanistan. Very dangerous countries rife with terrorism.

Bangladesh, in spite of its economic growth, is considered as a small poor country like Nepal and Bhutan.

India is not seen as a first world country but it still seen in much better light due to multiple reasons:

(1) tourism in India is far and beyond what Pakistan and Bangladesh have. At any given point, you are more likely to encounter a white person who has been to India (or knows someone who has been to India) compared to someone who has been to Pakistan or Bangladesh

(2) India is more prominent on the world map because of the greater success of Indian origin people in terms of CEOs etc.

Pakistan and Bangladesh are struggling to get out of India’s shadow and it is unlikely to happen in the future. India is a far bigger country with greater influence.

(3) most people do have an idea of the animosity between Pakistan and India, but since India doesn’t have the reputation of a state infested with terrorism, most people automatically view India in a more favorable light.

I agree with you that India, while still seen as a third world dump, does still probably present a more tourist friendly image than countries like Pakistan or Afghanistan. Muslim countries as a whole have a reputation for being less accomodating to western fancies, such as alcohol, nightclubs sexual liasions and such.

But that is from a western POV. A Bangladeshi isn't going to get much from India in a material sense. Perhaps it is just the passport itself which might prove of some value further down the line. I can't really see what other benefit there could be, unless all the stories we keep being told about booming Bangla economy are overblown.

 

[cricketjoshila]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">B’desh economy is projected to grow at 8%<br>Bangladesh beats every other South Asian nation in gender equality.<br>B’desh unemployment rate last year was 4.3%-India’s 8.4%<br>B’desh life expectancy and literacy rate bore are more than India’s <br>Pata nahi kya samjhte hain apne aapko <a href="https://t.co/dT8VynqtoH">https://t.co/dT8VynqtoH</a></p>— S (@vakeel_saheba) <a href="https://twitter.com/vakeel_saheba/status/1226601658584428544?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 9, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

So why are Bangladeshis still infiltrating into India?

 

[TrentDevil]

So why are Bangladeshis still infiltrating into India?

No infiltration took place from Bangladesh in last 10 years: BJP

https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...in-last-10-years-bjp/articleshow/67472039.cms

Should we believe this or it's just another bluff

 

[MenInG]

Be respectful of each other - to argue is not to demean each other.

 

[mustang]

I agree with you that India, while still seen as a third world dump, does still probably present a more tourist friendly image than countries like Pakistan or Afghanistan. Muslim countries as a whole have a reputation for being less accomodating to western fancies, such as alcohol, nightclubs sexual liasions and such.

But that is from a western POV. A Bangladeshi isn't going to get much from India in a material sense. Perhaps it is just the passport itself which might prove of some value further down the line. I can't really see what other benefit there could be, unless all the stories we keep being told about booming Bangla economy are overblown.

India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan all have similar levels of living standards from an OECD point of view. If you call one of them a "third world dump" you should apply that adjective to all others that you mention as well.

Better approach - not use any such negative adjectives for any of them and stick to the discussion topic.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Be respectful of each other - to argue is not to demean each other.

Agreed MiG bro. Sometimes we forget that just because the President of the USA uses disgusting language towards foreign nations, we should perhaps realise that we are on a site representing Muslims and thus insulting or racist language is not acceptable.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan all have similar levels of living standards from an OECD point of view. If you call one of them a "third world dump" you should apply that adjective to all others that you mention as well.

Better approach - not use any such negative adjectives for any of them and stick to the discussion topic.

Difficult when we are both brought up in a straight talking western atmosphere, but I agree, we should try to be mindful of the enviornment we are in and use more respectful language.

 

[mustang]

Be respectful of each other - to argue is not to demean each other.

Well, in the spirit of being respectful - please review post #29 from a self-claimed "neutral" poster about selectively calling one specific country as a "third world dump". Perhaps we can make sure such things do not happen?

 

[mustang]

Difficult when we are both brought up in a straight talking western atmosphere, but I agree, we should try to be mindful of the enviornment we are in and use more respectful language.

Ok, thank you for accepting that, and your point is also well taken.

 

[Bigboii]

If I may - I think among the easily accessible choices available for poorer struggling demographics of Bangladesh, India is the best bet for them to move to within their logistical and economic means. Similar language/culture in parts of India also helps. If these people had equal access to India and US/UK/AU/Malaysia/Singapore ... from an economic/logistical/cultural/linguistic factor, clearly they will choose those countries over India ... but they don't and hence they choose to cross into India.

The real question would be are poor Bangladeshi worse off than a poor Indian cause when these guys go they don't become Ambani's Right?
So you think that the middle class of Bangladesh has almost no reason to go to India but the really poor people (like someone affected by flooding and is homeless) will go to India because they will have more economic value in settling in India because they thinks that in India they have more chances of getting there life back together again and possibly the state will help tham too.
I hope that's what you mean cause I'll look stupid for writing all this down but I get it there maybe some opportunity (I still don't think this opportunity is that big enough that a lot of people will come to India definitely not in the millions)
This relationship is of Afghanistan and Pak (though these numbers were huge) but this just shows that Indians have some major problem with Muslims cause during Sri Lankan civil war people came to India but didn't hear lots of chatter about that but Muslims coming to India is what actually pisses tham off so imo this issue is more about the Indian xenophobia against Muslims than it is about genuine concerns regarding immigration.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Well, in the spirit of being respectful - please review post #29 from a self-claimed "neutral" poster about selectively calling one specific country as a "third world dump". Perhaps we can make sure such things do not happen?

Come on fella. You and I both have heads of states no less who say much worse. You do know how your President describes third world countries right? And our own dear Boris with his letterboxes?

But as I have said, we have to try to rise to the standards of this site, and even though these are the most respected men of our nations, we should not just assume that we need to follow them in every way.

 

[mustang]

Come on fella. You and I both have heads of states no less who say much worse. You do know how your President describes third world countries right? And our own dear Boris with his letterboxes?

But as I have said, we have to try to rise to the standards of this site, and even though these are the most respected men of our nations, we should not just assume that we need to follow them in every way.

Haha yeah I completely concur. We look down at those current heads of state specifically because of that. Agree with raising the standards - not just for this website but also to not stoop down to the levels of the Trumps and Johnsons of the world.

Also in the Western spirit of calling things as it is - I recommend either call ALL of those countries (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan) as 3rd world dumps or call NONE of them - only that would be consistent with the Western calling things as we see. Selective name calling quickly becomes non-Western tribal approach.

My humble recommendation - please call NONE of them that way. All we did was win some genetic fate driven lottery to be born into a rich country. That by itself is no big accomplishment to tout about and taking a condescending tone towards countries based on their poverty is unfair to those people and the forum participants from those nations (be it Pakistani or Indian). By all means please do critique government policies and the devolution of society/culture as a result in specific parts of the world because (I do as well) because those are things we control.

PS: Some of us come from a fighting background and for us the only way our minds will react when faced with any level of aggression is with more aggression. Throw us some valid reasoning and we will happily put our fists away and sit down to discuss over a coffee/beer/scotch/chai

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Respectfully disagree with you bro, there is nothing in the British mindset which is somehow geared to be absolutely impartial. I don't know where you get this idea of some sort of ideal western spirit. If that was the case how do you think the greatest men in our respective countries would be using language such as that which you are deploring? Maybe you think they are really dumb? Well maybe I think they are clever enough to appeal to their core vote base.

So with all due respect, I shall continue to represent true British values as of the age of the day. Will they always be free of bias? Well that depends on whether you accept Brits are truly free of bias.

 

[mustang]

Respectfully disagree with you bro, there is nothing in the British mindset which is somehow geared to be absolutely impartial. I don't know where you get this idea of some sort of ideal western spirit. If that was the case how do you think the greatest men in our respective countries would be using language such as that which you are deploring? Maybe you think they are really dumb? Well maybe I think they are clever enough to appeal to their core vote base.

So with all due respect, I shall continue to represent true British values as of the age of the day. Will they always be free of bias? Well that depends on whether you accept Brits are truly free of bias.

Yeah this is where the road diverges. If you are truly representing British values then make them equally applicable to all participants of that opinion - in this case either call ALL (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan) as 3rd world dumps or call NONE of them when using them all in the same sentence. This would be a true and accurate representation of British (or western) spirit where you are judging a set of non-western nations with the same yard stick.

 

[mustang]

Respectfully disagree with you bro, there is nothing in the British mindset which is somehow geared to be absolutely impartial. I don't know where you get this idea of some sort of ideal western spirit. If that was the case how do you think the greatest men in our respective countries would be using language such as that which you are deploring? Maybe you think they are really dumb? Well maybe I think they are clever enough to appeal to their core vote base.

So with all due respect, I shall continue to represent true British values as of the age of the day. Will they always be free of bias? Well that depends on whether you accept Brits are truly free of bias.

Anyone whose only claim to fame is being born into a specific country/religion/race and is primarily using that genetic lottery achievement as their only accomplishment in life to talk down to others is not worthy of the adjective "greatest". Pretty sure most of this forum will agree with that.

 

[mustang]

The real question would be are poor Bangladeshi worse off than a poor Indian cause when these guys go they don't become Ambani's Right?
So you think that the middle class of Bangladesh has almost no reason to go to India but the really poor people (like someone affected by flooding and is homeless) will go to India because they will have more economic value in settling in India because they thinks that in India they have more chances of getting there life back together again and possibly the state will help tham too.
I hope that's what you mean cause I'll look stupid for writing all this down &#55357;&#56834; but I get it there maybe some opportunity (I still don't think this opportunity is that big enough that a lot of people will come to India definitely not in the millions)
This relationship is of Afghanistan and Pak (though these numbers were huge) but this just shows that Indians have some major problem with Muslims cause during Sri Lankan civil war people came to India but didn't hear lots of chatter about that but Muslims coming to India is what actually pisses tham off so imo this issue is more about the Indian xenophobia against Muslims than it is about genuine concerns regarding immigration.

Poor people of Bangladesh going to India and not middle class (bolded in your quote) - yes this is what I meant. Also consider that even though Bangladesh is prospering now, these people typically have no access to education or awareness. When pressed with adverse situations, we always resort to fight or flee response. Given their struggling poverty, perception of no hope in Bangladesh, they take the "flee response" towards the next best choice - India.

India not favoring muslim immigrants in general (colored blue in your quote) - I just had a conversation with someone I know from India and also read up on additional data points. I think what you say is true in recent times. But objectively we can consider 2 data points here

#1 - Government policy seems to have turned against Sri Lankan tamils getting into India as well (and these are largely Hindus)

#2 - Beyond Sri Lankan Tamils, there does seem to be a preference against muslims (from Pakistan/Bangladesh) especially in recent times. I think this has strong historical reasons which have influenced policy making (no, I'm not justifying anything just extrapolating the reasons). Typical response Indians have - "Pakistanis complain so much about this, how open is their country to accept non-muslim refugees from India?", Pakistanis' counter-response is usually along the lines of - "We are not claiming to be a secular country, we have declared ourselves an Islamic nation, so we are not beholden to the same standards as your country" .... and this devolves into a back and forth argument+name calling instead of a discussion/discourse.

In essence, you are right about the fact but it is because of historical geo-political baggage each country carries. I can go out in the streets of my country and yell "Heil Hitler", I'm protected under freedom of speech (and heck I personally fought to protect that freedom). But for all the individual protection and freedom of expression EU has, I will be arrested in most EU countries if I yell "Heil Hitler" in the streets (and I see why and respect their POV). It is because of their own historical geo-political baggage.

 

[mustang]

The real question would be are poor Bangladeshi worse off than a poor Indian cause when these guys go they don't become Ambani's Right?
So you think that the middle class of Bangladesh has almost no reason to go to India but the really poor people (like someone affected by flooding and is homeless) will go to India because they will have more economic value in settling in India because they thinks that in India they have more chances of getting there life back together again and possibly the state will help tham too.
I hope that's what you mean cause I'll look stupid for writing all this down &#55357;&#56834; but I get it there maybe some opportunity (I still don't think this opportunity is that big enough that a lot of people will come to India definitely not in the millions)
This relationship is of Afghanistan and Pak (though these numbers were huge) but this just shows that Indians have some major problem with Muslims cause during Sri Lankan civil war people came to India but didn't hear lots of chatter about that but Muslims coming to India is what actually pisses tham off so imo this issue is more about the Indian xenophobia against Muslims than it is about genuine concerns regarding immigration.

One more point - you are right that it seems xenophobic and it is a sad state of affairs all around. I'm not resorting to what-aboutism but state of minorities in all parts of south Asia is pretty abysmal right now thanks to their historical baggages. Indian BJP government action is getting more and more xenophobic by the day. Pakistan government does not even have an option for non-muslim Indians to be refugees forget being xenophobic.

BUT - these are government policies driven by political/military rivarly. Would you as a Pakistani feel the government's policies (say a judge saying it is ok to rape underage Christian girls) are a representation of all Pakistani people? I don't think so. Same way we cannot extrapolate actions of BJP government to be opinions of Indians as a whole. Media on both sides will only show more sensational news to frenzy up crowds, back their political overlords, and to get more views. But do you actually believe Indians as a whole are xenophobic now because of their government?

 

[mustang]

I agree with you that India, while still seen as a third world dump, does still probably present a more tourist friendly image than countries like Pakistan or Afghanistan. Muslim countries as a whole have a reputation for being less accomodating to western fancies, such as alcohol, nightclubs sexual liasions and such.

But that is from a western POV. A Bangladeshi isn't going to get much from India in a material sense. Perhaps it is just the passport itself which might prove of some value further down the line. I can't really see what other benefit there could be, unless all the stories we keep being told about booming Bangla economy are overblown.

Be respectful of each other - to argue is not to demean each other.

[MENTION=93712]MenInG[/MENTION] - To clarify the above post is what I meant. Please do not delete the post because I do want to bring that to attention of everyone.

Original quote - "I agree with you that India, while still seen as a third world dump, does still probably present a more tourist friendly image than countries like Pakistan or Afghanistan."

Justification by the poster - "Difficult when we are both brought up in a straight talking western atmosphere"

My request as a case in point for other posters - If you are truly claiming to be a British/American/Whatever-else straight talking poster - apply it to all applicable countries you refer to in a sentence or none.

If the poster had said - "I agree with you that India, while still seen as a third world dump, does still probably present a more tourist friendly image than other third world dumps like Pakistan or Afghanistan." - I have no qualms. Best would be not to use any such terms of course. I'm sure many forum participants from Pakistan will agree with me.

As an admin perhaps have a sticky thread for good code of conduct, it can help with the daily efforts you guys go through in keeping the discussions within bounds. Just a helpful thought.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Yeah this is where the road diverges. If you are truly representing British values then make them equally applicable to all participants of that opinion - in this case either call ALL (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan) as 3rd world dumps or call NONE of them when using them all in the same sentence. This would be a true and accurate representation of British (or western) spirit where you are judging a set of non-western nations with the same yard stick.

This is totally unrealistic. It is like saying when there is a thread about corrupt politics in Pakistan, all participants must equally criticise Indian, Sri Lankan and Afghan politicians.

I really don't get where you are coming from. What makes you think these are British or western standards? We Brits are quite happy to criticise China for example without feeling the need to criticise Thailand or Japan. Your request is bizarre, and I can only put it down to your sensitivity to criticism of India, despite you claiming you are a US military man.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Most of the pakistanis here haven't been to India & they don't understand ground reality of this illegal migrants from bangladesh ! I m sure they might not have seen the border crossing of these illegals even on the internet but still they claim as if they knew everything on earth with typical zakir naik logics (like 2+2=5) lol

What are you talking about? Pakistanis have been in this situation themselves with Afghanistan for the past two decades. They have paid a very heavy price for this.

 

[DRsohail]

what are you talking about? Pakistanis have been in this situation themselves with afghanistan for the past two decades. They have paid a very heavy price for this.

He is indian hero OF COURSE so he does not need to know that.

 

[mustang]

This is totally unrealistic. It is like saying when there is a thread about corrupt politics in Pakistan, all participants must equally criticise Indian, Sri Lankan and Afghan politicians.

I really don't get where you are coming from. What makes you think these are British or western standards? We Brits are quite happy to criticise China for example without feeling the need to criticise Thailand or Japan. Your request is bizarre, and I can only put it down to your sensitivity to criticism of India, despite you claiming you are a US military man.

Heh, you can see me critiquing the saffron psychos of India across many threads. I am sensitive about selective putting down of a country. Critiquing any country when you are talking about it in isolation is perfectly valid. What is not valid is critiquing only a specific country when you are ALSO mentioning other criticism applicable countries in that sentence.

You always claim to be a "neutral Brit" in many threads right? And here in this thread you are claiming to be NOT impartial under the guise of saying it how it is. So let me break this down ...

If you are a neutral Brit or if you are truly saying things how it is, you would say - "I agree with you that India, while still seen as a third world dump, does still probably present a more tourist friendly image than other third world dumps like Pakistan or Afghanistan." - because you are using the valid qualifier 3rd world dump to all applicable countries that you have chosen to use in the sentence.

Why not say it like that? Why use the word "3rd world dump" only to one selective country that you are speaking against and ignoring that qualifier to the other 2 applicable countries that you yourself included in the sentence? Isn't that against your self claimed virtues of being a neutral Brit or calling it out as it is in the true British spirit?

Are you a neutral Brit who says it like it is in all circumstances as you claim? Or are you a British Pakistani who does want to take a jab at the Indians given the opportunity? Perfectly fine if you are the latter since there are many Indians who do the same, but claiming to be neutral while taking cheap shots seems contradictory enough to be worth calling out.

 

[troodon]

This Kishan Reddy is a joker from Telengana. These sorts of stupid statements are expected from him.

I would be surprised if these clowns do not make stupid statements.

 

[Bigboii]

One more point - you are right that it seems xenophobic and it is a sad state of affairs all around. I'm not resorting to what-aboutism but state of minorities in all parts of south Asia is pretty abysmal right now thanks to their historical baggages. Indian BJP government action is getting more and more xenophobic by the day. Pakistan government does not even have an option for non-muslim Indians to be refugees forget being xenophobic.

BUT - these are government policies driven by political/military rivarly. Would you as a Pakistani feel the government's policies (say a judge saying it is ok to rape underage Christian girls) are a representation of all Pakistani people? I don't think so. Same way we cannot extrapolate actions of BJP government to be opinions of Indians as a whole. Media on both sides will only show more sensational news to frenzy up crowds, back their political overlords, and to get more views. But do you actually believe Indians as a whole are xenophobic now because of their government?

That would be like IK supporting Taliban and me saying that ALL Pakistani support Taliban which would be stupid but in Pakistan there was a sizeable minority which supported Taliban (atleast in Afghanistan which was sad since they were just as barbaric as TLP) So I think there is a sizeable minority in India which support's the anti-muslim rehetric and they are the ones controlling the naritive and changing policy but I would not say that all Indians xenophobic cause at the end of the day everyone wants to earn some money and get on with thier lives but to pull out an extreme example in Hitler's Germany lots of people had no beef with Jews but they let it go on So that's why I think it's important to remind both Pak and India that they have a responsibility in treating the minorities the right way
And Pakistanis saying that since they are not a secular state they have no responsibility in treating thier minorities the right way is the biggest load of c**p I've ever heard because Islam has lots of laws that state how minorities should be treated the right way but they choose not to follow these laws cause they are not as fun as the flogging part of sharia.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Heh, you can see me critiquing the saffron psychos of India across many threads. I am sensitive about selective putting down of a country. Critiquing any country when you are talking about it in isolation is perfectly valid. What is not valid is critiquing only a specific country when you are ALSO mentioning other criticism applicable countries in that sentence.

You always claim to be a "neutral Brit" in many threads right? And here in this thread you are claiming to be NOT impartial under the guise of saying it how it is. So let me break this down ...

If you are a neutral Brit or if you are truly saying things how it is, you would say - "I agree with you that India, while still seen as a third world dump, does still probably present a more tourist friendly image than other third world dumps like Pakistan or Afghanistan." - because you are using the valid qualifier 3rd world dump to all applicable countries that you have chosen to use in the sentence.

Why not say it like that? Why use the word "3rd world dump" only to one selective country that you are speaking against and ignoring that qualifier to the other 2 applicable countries that you yourself included in the sentence? Isn't that against your self claimed virtues of being a neutral Brit or calling it out as it is in the true British spirit?

Are you a neutral Brit who says it like it is in all circumstances as you claim? Or are you a British Pakistani who does want to take a jab at the Indians given the opportunity? Perfectly fine if you are the latter since there are many Indians who do the same, but claiming to be neutral while taking cheap shots seems contradictory enough to be worth calling out.

I am a neutal Brit in the same manner as any other neutral Brit. Are you saying that Brits of Anglo Saxon heritage are more neutral than those with Asian bloodline? Can you explain that a bit further please, not sure why that would be so?

 

[mustang]

I am a neutal Brit in the same manner as any other neutral Brit. Are you saying that Brits of Anglo Saxon heritage are more neutral than those with Asian bloodline? Can you explain that a bit further please, not sure why that would be so?

I never said or implied that, not sure how you got there from what I stated. I keep repeating that you are no less a British citizen than an Anglo Saxon person, somehow you keep reverting to this point ... why?

What I do contest - You are NOT a neutral Brit because you demonstrate deliberate selective bias in your statements.

Why did you say ... "I agree with you that India, while still seen as a third world dump, does still probably present a more tourist friendly image than countries like Pakistan or Afghanistan."

Instead of saying ... "I agree with you that India, while still seen as a third world dump, does still probably present a more tourist friendly image than other third world dumps like Pakistan or Afghanistan."

or instead of saying ... "I agree with you that India, does still probably present a more tourist friendly image than other third world dumps like Pakistan or Afghanistan."

Can you explain that please?

 

[Dios]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gmOfSlxEPBc" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

.

 

[Local.Dada]

I never said or implied that, not sure how you got there from what I stated. I keep repeating that you are no less a British citizen than an Anglo Saxon person, somehow you keep reverting to this point ... why?

What I do contest - You are NOT a neutral Brit because you demonstrate deliberate selective bias in your statements.

Why did you say ... "I agree with you that India, while still seen as a third world dump, does still probably present a more tourist friendly image than countries like Pakistan or Afghanistan."

Instead of saying ... "I agree with you that India, while still seen as a third world dump, does still probably present a more tourist friendly image than other third world dumps like Pakistan or Afghanistan."

or instead of saying ... "I agree with you that India, does still probably present a more tourist friendly image than other third world dumps like Pakistan or Afghanistan."

Can you explain that please?

To be honest the real brits by that don’t mean white or black people probably would say something more diplomatic even if they think at that level.

Anyway maybe he is trying to fit in because remember guys like that Freddie Mercury and Cliff Richard were ashamed of their ethnic heritage despite becoming superstars probably due to the prevalent bias and racism that existed then so just imagine a commoner. So probably demeaning other cultures makes him feel more “British” lol.

We see a lot of Indians and other Asians try to put on an accent, change their clothing and lifestyle when they move to the west because that is their idea of fitting in. This is probably the case here with some 2nd gen folk who have faced a lot of bias and ridicule especially in some communities not known for their focus on business and education like say the Indian immigrants are known for

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I never said or implied that, not sure how you got there from what I stated. I keep repeating that you are no less a British citizen than an Anglo Saxon person, somehow you keep reverting to this point ... why?

What I do contest - You are NOT a neutral Brit because you demonstrate deliberate selective bias in your statements.

Why did you say ... "I agree with you that India, while still seen as a third world dump, does still probably present a more tourist friendly image than countries like Pakistan or Afghanistan."

Instead of saying ... "I agree with you that India, while still seen as a third world dump, does still probably present a more tourist friendly image than other third world dumps like Pakistan or Afghanistan."

or instead of saying ... "I agree with you that India, does still probably present a more tourist friendly image than other third world dumps like Pakistan or Afghanistan."

Can you explain that please?

I already did in post #47. Then you keep coming back with me not being a true neutral Brit because for some reason you seem to think 'real Brits' and western people are somehow above reproach and would never make a negative remark about one country without equally including every other country to show their lack of bias. Do you really think Anglo Saxon Brits do that?

 

[mustang]

I already did in post #47. Then you keep coming back with me not being a true neutral Brit because for some reason you seem to think 'real Brits' and western people are somehow above reproach and would never make a negative remark about one country without equally including every other country to show their lack of bias. Do you really think Anglo Saxon Brits do that?

Nope I never make that claim about any real Brits Americans Anglo Saxons or whatever else. End of the day we are all humans with our own sets of cognitive biases. I'm calling you out specifically because you are the one claiming to be truly neutral time and again in multiple threads, and yet you show clear bias. Your post #47 explains nothing relevant here TBH. It only mentions about how unrealistic it is to condemn other countries (which is fair when taken in isolation).

You include 3 countries in a sentence by yourself, you only selectively condemn only ONE (India) of those 3 countries (conveniently) leaving the other 2 out ... and (here is the kicker) ... you did that on top of claiming time and again that you are a neutral Brit.

If not for the last part of claiming to be something else, what you did is a justified human bias. I'm calling you out because of your consistent claims of being a neutral and yet consistently also show selective prejudice/bias in your posts. It has nothing to do with anglo-saxon, or trying to fit into British society or whatever else (really not sure what anglo-saxons have to do with anything here and why you keep digressing to that).

If you accept that you are a Brit and a British Pakistani with normal human cognitive bias like everyone else here and are not truly neutral then that ends the discussion right then and there. The fact that you are not doing that and putting yourself in some pedestal of being truly neutral yet show consistent bias against one group of people is what makes it condemnable.

Again - it has NOTHING to do with anglo saxons or you not being a true Brit for lack of white skin or whatever else you are retorting. I never claim or accuse you of any of those things. Please just stick to the point I have highlighted for you in blue and in bold above.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Nope I never make that claim about any real Brits Americans Anglo Saxons or whatever else. End of the day we are all humans with our own sets of cognitive biases. I'm calling you out specifically because you are the one claiming to be truly neutral time and again in multiple threads, and yet you show clear bias.

Nope you are calling me out because despite being a self proclaimed US military man from the US, your backside starts burning whenever someone makes a negative comment about India. This is why even though I have not mentioned anything about being a neutral Brit in this thread, you are still carrying it around with you and throwing it in every other thread totally diverting from the main topic at hand.

At least when I wondered why Bangladeshis would leave their own supposedly thriving country for a third world dump, it was topical. As I said, don't know why that burns you so much, your own President whom you serve proudly, uses far worse language for third world countries.

 

[mustang]

Nope you are calling me out because despite being a self proclaimed US military man from the US, your backside starts burning whenever someone makes a negative comment about India. This is why even though I have not mentioned anything about being a neutral Brit in this thread, you are still carrying it around with you and throwing it in every other thread totally diverting from the main topic at hand.

At least when I wondered why Bangladeshis would leave their own supposedly thriving country for a third world dump, it was topical. As I said, don't know why that burns you so much, your own President whom you serve proudly, uses far worse language for third world countries.

You never answered my question and have resorted into personal attacks as a means of digressing. Forget me since I never claim to be neutral in every other thread. Please just answer my questions.

Nope I never make that claim about any real Brits Americans Anglo Saxons or whatever else. End of the day we are all humans with our own sets of cognitive biases. I'm calling you out specifically because you are the one claiming to be truly neutral time and again in multiple threads, and yet you show clear bias.

You include 3 countries in a sentence by yourself, you only selectively condemn only ONE (India) of those 3 countries (conveniently) leaving the other 2 out ... and (here is the kicker) ... you did that on top of claiming time and again that you are a neutral Brit.

Can you please just answer the above 2 points showing your behavioral discrepancy instead of resorting to unrelated personal attacks?

 

[mustang]

Nope you are calling me out because despite being a self proclaimed US military man from the US, your backside starts burning whenever someone makes a negative comment about India. This is why even though I have not mentioned anything about being a neutral Brit in this thread, you are still carrying it around with you and throwing it in every other thread totally diverting from the main topic at hand.

At least when I wondered why Bangladeshis would leave their own supposedly thriving country for a third world dump, it was topical. As I said, don't know why that burns you so much, your own President whom you serve proudly, uses far worse language for third world countries.

The topical part is exactly my point. It was equally topical for you to also call Pakistan and Afghanistan as 3rd world dumps just like how chose to call India a 3rd world dump. A neutral Brit (Anglo-Saxon or otherwise) would either call them a 3rd world dump as an ALL or NOTHING - especially when they themselves are choosing to include all those 3 countries in one sentence.

Nope I never make that claim about any real Brits Americans Anglo Saxons or whatever else. End of the day we are all humans with our own sets of cognitive biases. I'm calling you out specifically because you are the one claiming to be truly neutral time and again in multiple threads, and yet you show clear bias.

You include 3 countries in a sentence by yourself, you only selectively condemn only ONE (India) of those 3 countries (conveniently) leaving the other 2 out ... and (here is the kicker) ... you did that on top of claiming time and again that you are a neutral Brit.

Can you please just answer the above 2 points showing your behavioral discrepancy instead of resorting to unrelated personal attacks? Gracias!

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The topical part is exactly my point. It was equally topical for you to also call Pakistan and Afghanistan as 3rd world dumps just like how chose to call India a 3rd world dump. A neutral Brit (Anglo-Saxon or otherwise) would either call them a 3rd world dump as an ALL or NOTHING - especially when they themselves are choosing to include all those 3 countries in one sentence.



Can you please just answer the above 2 points showing your behavioral discrepancy instead of resorting to unrelated personal attacks? Gracias!

Ok I believed I have answered your questions already, but let's do it piece by piece. You have highlighted the part you feel relevant in very nice blue font. Why don't you put up the actual quote you find objectionable and we can look at it again. Does that sound fair?

 

[desirous of desire]

The topical part is exactly my point. It was equally topical for you to also call Pakistan and Afghanistan as 3rd world dumps just like how chose to call India a 3rd world dump. A neutral Brit (Anglo-Saxon or otherwise) would either call them a 3rd world dump as an ALL or NOTHING - especially when they themselves are choosing to include all those 3 countries in one sentence.



Can you please just answer the above 2 points showing your behavioral discrepancy instead of resorting to unrelated personal attacks? Gracias!

Perhaps Pakistan actually has less dumps than India or this is what he genuinely thinks. Can a neutral brit not be allowed to view two countries that you think are on the same scale for applying certain criticism differently even if he has constructed his opinion honestly?
who are you to expect that the world and every neutral brit should think like you?

 

[mustang]

Ok I believed I have answered your questions already, but let's do it piece by piece. You have highlighted the part you feel relevant in very nice blue font. Why don't you put up the actual quote you find objectionable and we can look at it again. Does that sound fair?

ok here we go ... your original quote - #29 in this thread.

I agree with you that India, while still seen as a third world dump, does still probably present a more tourist friendly image than countries like Pakistan or Afghanistan. Muslim countries as a whole have a reputation for being less accomodating to western fancies, such as alcohol, nightclubs sexual liasions and such.

My problem - selectively calling only India as a 3rd world dump when you have yourself included Pakistan and Afghanistan in your sentence

Why this is a problem - 2 reasons
#1 - Considering that Pakistan/Afghanistan are equally bad 3rd dumps from a Western POV (we can both agree on that)
#2 - You have consistently claimed to be a neutral Brit poster here (as opposed to the open supporters of Pakistan or India). Your quote above in post #29 (and multiple such posts) go against your self-claimed neutrality.

Hence my objection and desire to call it out.

 

[mustang]

Perhaps Pakistan actually has less dumps than India or this is what he genuinely thinks. Can a neutral brit not be allowed to view two countries that you think are on the same scale for applying certain criticism differently even if he has constructed his opinion honestly?
who are you to expect that the world and every neutral brit should think like you?

Fair point and nobody has to. BUT I (and anyone else contesting a claim) do feel compelled to call someone out when we see consistent posts along the lines of "I'm a neutral Brit, my people civilized you 300 years ago ... " etc on the one side and selective criticism of only one country (India) on the other. If this happens time and again, over and over - at some point you do feel compelled to call this discrepancy out. Coming from a country without any colonial hangovers, as a neutral American I feel compelled to call this out.

For the record - I actually concur that in terms of sheer square miles Pakistan will have less dumps than India (as a function of being a smaller country). But for me coming from 1st world, they are all just the same.

 

[Bigboii]

Wth has this thread become with first world, third world and neutral Brit and American B***s**t
Guys y'all have to agree to disagree cause both of you will not agree on anything and this thread will go for five pages with you guys "calling each other out"

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

ok here we go ... your original quote - #29 in this thread.



My problem - selectively calling only India as a 3rd world dump when you have yourself included Pakistan and Afghanistan in your sentence

Why this is a problem - 2 reasons
#1 - Considering that Pakistan/Afghanistan are equally bad 3rd dumps from a Western POV (we can both agree on that)
#2 - You have consistently claimed to be a neutral Brit poster here (as opposed to the open supporters of Pakistan or India). Your quote above in post #29 (and multiple such posts) go against your self-claimed neutrality.

Hence my objection and desire to call it out.

Fine let me take a leaf out of your book and use some pretty blue font so my quote can stand out from your own.

"I agree with you that India, while still seen as a third world dump, does still probably present a more tourist friendly image than countries like Pakistan or Afghanistan. Muslim countries as a whole have a reputation for being less accomodating to western fancies, such as alcohol, nightclubs sexual liasions and such."

So even in that sentence I gave India credit over Afghanistan and Pakistan for being more tourist friendly, yet the one word which was negative about India got you so riled we are still discussing it two pages later? If anything I think this sentence actually shows the neutral Brit stance. I think you need to let this one go bro.

 

[mustang]

Fine let me take a leaf out of your book and use some pretty blue font so my quote can stand out from your own.

"I agree with you that India, while still seen as a third world dump, does still probably present a more tourist friendly image than countries like Pakistan or Afghanistan. Muslim countries as a whole have a reputation for being less accomodating to western fancies, such as alcohol, nightclubs sexual liasions and such."

So even in that sentence I gave India credit over Afghanistan and Pakistan for being more tourist friendly, yet the one word which was negative about India got you so riled we are still discussing it two pages later? If anything I think this sentence actually shows the neutral Brit stance. I think you need to let this one go bro.

No habibi it does not show neutrality because the negative qualifier is selective towards only one country and the supposed credit is actually a left handed compliment (what you call western fancies I call basic individual freedom).

I'm done splitting hairs on this one. As a famous Navajo proverb goes - “You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep”.

 

[andy0204]

WW3 on its way between 2 posters