Topic: Myanmar’s War on the Rohingya

[jooneyisdagod]

Like with many religions with bloodthirsty nutcases attached, once you go outside the core teachings you're not part of it anymore. ISIS aren't Islam except in their own heads, and these murderers aren't Buddhists. The Dalai Lama has said as much. Nothing in the dharma permits harming another living thing.

With respect, this is the kind of bullshit why we never ever solve these problems. Religion isn't simply a set of ideas but it also fuels people's identities and the second aspect of that was stoked over centuries by colonial rule in Asia. And now, we're seeing the repercussions of that to some extent. The identity and community aspect of religion is extremely strong and until we start addressing that alongside the ideas itself, we won't get near solving many of the issues. The same can be said of pretty much any divider along society be it nationalism or racism or gender.

[zero zero]

Like with many religions with bloodthirsty nutcases attached, once you go outside the core teachings you're not part of it anymore. ISIS aren't Islam except in their own heads, and these murderers aren't Buddhists.

No, mate. I can't say I agree with this. It is a reasonable and very human reaction that when a group you identify with commit indefensible acts, that your natural reaction is to want to distance yourself from them and what they are doing. That's fine. But I don't think it's right that we turn round and say "Oh, they're not Buddhists". Because they are Buddhists. They would, I'm sure, say they are. What they're doing is certainly not "Buddhist". There's not a single thing in the Dharma that condones their actions. It's also a key difference between the Buddhists in Rakhine/Myanmar Army and ISIS; ISIS can point to parts of Koran that both condone the killing, beheadings and taking of slaves. Whereas the people in Myanmar cannot.

That's the dividing line between them and us.

There's no collective guilt. Or collective punishment. The kind of people who think like that wore jackboots and appropriated our Swastika. Anybody here who thinks that you and I should be answerable for what is happening in Myanmar should, I think, have the courage of their EDL-like convictions and state it openly and directly (don't hold your breath).

The No True Scotsman Fallacy.

Is this about the err... Scottish academic who dare not look too far back in history because those "Rohingya areas" he talks about hadn't been Rohingya areas for very long. Apparently, the only time religion isn't worth a mention is when it comes to the author.

It's like zero zero said.

Did I? Usually, it is the done thing on this board that if you make a claim, you then back it up with evidence. So, quote me or STFU. Yorkie is at least wise enough to remain silent and let people think he knows fuck all about Buddhism (and Buddhist Fundamentalism, whatever that may be). You, on the other hand, appear intent on proving it.

Their parents and grandparents were probably assholes, so it's fully deserved.

WTF are you talking about? Just fucking google ---> What is karma <---
The dictionary definition ought to be enough for you to understand where you've gone wrong. It has nothing to do with parents or grandparents.

[Corkboy]

Usually, it is the done thing on this board that if you make a claim, you then back it up with evidence. So, quote me or STFU.

My religion states that to be born into a Buddhist family is a result of karmic merit.

[Yorkykopite]

This "karmic merit" thing, which is obviously intrinsic (yer born wi' it, like) must go some way to explaining the racist and phobic attitudes a lot of Burmese Buddhists clearly have with their Muslim neighbours - who I assume are born with neither karma, not merit.

[Xabi Gerrard]

This "karmic merit" thing, which is obviously intrinsic (yer born wi' it, like) must go some way to explaining the racist and phobic attitudes a lot of Burmese Buddhists clearly have with their Muslim neighbours - who I assume are born with neither karma, not merit.

Exactly. That intrinsic belief of superiority that the Buddhists have can't be dismissed as a factor in their persecution of people they consider inferior.

Zero Zero, do you personally believe that to be born into a Buddhist family is a result of karmic merit?

My religion states that to be born into a Buddhist family is a result of karmic merit.

It's all a bit Glen Hoddle isn't it? Karma's a nice practical guide for living life - do good things now and (through these good deeds creating a better society) you'll benefit in the future. But do you really believe the spiritual aspect of it, i.e. you're reincarnated and where you end up in the next life depends on the total of debit & credits from your previous life?

[Kenny's Jacket]

That really isn't how that fallacy works. Take it or leave it - it's true

Digest it or shit on it - I don't trust your judgement over my own, and you specifically seem to want to bash religion in any form, which makes you a bigot - so bye!

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-dalailama/dalai-lama-decries-buddhist-attacks-on-muslims-in-myanmar-idUSBRE9460RC20130507

I generally read this thread for news, rather than to express an opinion on a situation I know nothing about.

However bashing religion (an ideology) isn't bigotry.  No more than bashing fascism, or conservatism or communism isn't.  Please understand that.

[quoteLike with many religions with bloodthirsty nutcases attached, once you go outside the core teachings you're not part of it anymore. ISIS aren't Islam except in their own heads, and these murderers aren't Buddhists.][/quote]

Who are you to make this claim. I know little about Buddhism, so using ISIS  as an example, please explain how they are not Muslims, and as you have made that claim, what does makes a Muslim?

[Corkboy]

I would have replied to his post (what with him calling me a bigot and all) but he said "bye" so I presumed he was gone.

[Kenny's Jacket]

I would have replied to his post (what with him calling me a bigot and all) but he said "bye" so I presumed he was gone.

It would appear he has.

Date Registered: May 20, 2016, 08:26:04 PM
Local Time:October 16, 2017, 10:01:22 PM
Last Active: October 13, 2017, 03:06:52 PM

Its not like believers to bolt in a debate.

[Corkboy]

If I'm bigoted to other members, will they also disappear?

[zero zero]

Well done Corkboy! You managed to quote me. I think you're making progress. Now, did you manage to use google? What you have quoted is entirely consistent with the dictionary definition of karma. I still don't understand your interpretation of my post.

Give google a go. You won't find yourself compelled to shave your head and don saffron robes, if that's what's concerning you.

Zero Zero, do you personally believe that to be born into a Buddhist family is a result of karmic merit?

I'll reply, in time, in the appropriate thread (Atheism).

I generally read this thread for news, rather than to express an opinion on a situation I know nothing about.

If only Yorkie (and others) could show the same restraint.

However bashing religion (an ideology) isn't bigotry.  No more than bashing fascism, or conservatism or communism isn't.  Please understand that.

Bashing for the sake of bashing, from a position of ignorance is just intolerance. All ideas, I think, should be open to criticism (you can call it bashing if you want). Nothing is sacred.

For instance, if I were to argue that in Islam the punishment for apostasy is death is wrong I would: Point to the parts Koran where this is stated, share the research where agreement of the punishment is worldwide and finish with the argument that for the Religion of Peace it is structurally incongruent when they then turn round and say that they are willing to kill our own if they change their minds.

Now Yorkie, walked into this thread blaming Buddhism and Buddhists fr the situation in Myanmar. He is so narrow-minded that he cannot bring himself to even acknowledge the historical fact of colonial racism. New information that does not confirm his firmly held views is ignored. He has made claims and insinuations without ever providing a shred of evidence to back them up. That is not the behaviour of a seeker of truth, but a snide and a shithouse.

People who are narrow-minded, ignorant and intolerant are indeed bigots. ToneLa was right on that score.

[zero zero]

Looks like I overestimated your wisdom.

This "karmic merit" thing, which is obviously intrinsic (yer born wi' it, like) must go some way to explaining the racist and phobic attitudes a lot of Burmese Buddhists...

Nope. The above only shows you have grasped another opportunity to parade your ignorance of Buddhism and now, karma. This is your best bit of Flat-earthism to date. I had thought that your... what's the word... telling silence on anything to do with the fact of colonial racism was a tacit acknowledgement of its existence; I was wrong because now we are subject to the sight of a White, British fella shamelessly trying to claim - without evidence - that racism as inherent to Buddhism.

Let's try again, shall we?

Racism is a European construct. It is a product of both the scientific revolution and the European Enlightenment that reached its nadir with Eugenics.

Defining race
Modern scholarship views racial categories as socially constructed, that is, race is not intrinsic to human beings but rather an identity created to establish meaning in a social context. Such racial identities reflect the cultural attitudes of imperial powers dominant during the age of European colonial expansion. This view rejects the notion that race is biologically defined.

Race and colonialism
According to Smedley and Marks the European concept of "race", along with many of the ideas now associated with the term, arose at the time of the scientific revolution, which introduced and privileged the study of natural kinds, and the age of European imperialism and colonization which established political relations between Europeans and peoples with distinct cultural and political traditions.

All the above pre-dates Gautama Buddha by well over a thousand years, so it's impossible to say with certainty what he would have to say about Race. However, Race, wasn;t the only highly dubious social construct in history that served to divide up humanity that endures to today. The Buddha was born into another - Caste.

Brahmanism, the predominant religion in India during the Buddha's time, divided all humans into four castes (attu vanna), priests, warriors, traders and labourers. Social contact between each caste was minimal and the lower one's position in the system the less opportunities, the less freedom and the less rights one had. Outside the caste system were the outcasts (sudra) people considered so impure that they hardly counted as humans. The caste system was later absorbed into Hinduism, given religious sanction and legitimacy and has continued to function right up till the present. The Buddha, himself born into the warrior caste, was a severe critic of the caste system. He ridiculed the priests claims to be superior, he criticised the theological basis of the system and he welcomed into the Sangha people of all castes, including outcasts.

His most famous saying on the subject is: " Birth does not make one a priest or an outcaste. Behaviour makes one either a priest or an outcaste".

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd53.htm

So, not a big fan of hierarchical social constructs. This attitude to Casteism is the reason that the Dalits, the so-called "untouchables", covert en masse (by their volition) to Buddhism. There is also a clue there to the Buddhist attitude to the Sanga (the clergy). They live on our charity and we are not obliged to a single word they say.

...clearly have with their Muslim neighbours - who I assume are born with neither karma, not merit.

Yes, well, this is another example of the dangers of making claims when you're ignorant on a subject. Buddhism would say all Muslims, Christians, Atheists, even tribes still untouched by civilisation in the Amazon are in the highest echelon of living beings by virtue of being born human.

So ends today's instalment of: People who are so Narrow-minded they Refuse to See an Ethnic Conflict that's Starring Them in the Face.

[gqP6w]

Moving away from attempts to deflect attention away from ethnic cleansing

Hungry, destitute and scared, thousands of new Rohingya refugees crossed the border into Bangladesh from Myanmar early on Monday, fleeing violence and hunger that the United Nations has called ethnic cleansing.

The new arrivals said they were driven out by hunger because food markets in Myanmar’s western Rakhine state had been shut down and aid deliveries restricted. They also reported attacks by the military and Rakhine Buddhist mobs. Wading through waste-deep water with children strapped to their sides, the Rohingya said they had walked for days through bushes and monsoon-swollen streams from Myanmar’s Buthidaung region before reaching the border.

Myanmar military accused of killing dozens of fleeing Rohingya villagers

A seemingly never-ending line of people entered Bangladesh near the village of Palang Khali. Many were injured, with the elderly lying on makeshift stretchers, and women balancing family belongings – pots, rice sacks, clothing – on their heads.

“We couldn’t step out of the house for the last month because the military were looting people. They started firing on the village. So we escaped into another village,” said Mohammad Shoaib, 29, who was balancing his jute bags, filled with some food and aluminium pots, on a bamboo pole.

“Day by day things kept getting worse, so we started moving towards Bangladesh. Before we left, I went back near my village to see my house, and the entire village was burned down,” Shoaib said.

They walked to join an estimated 536,000 Rohingya Muslims who have fled Myanmar since 25 August, when coordinated Rohingya insurgent attacks sparked a ferocious military response, with fleeing people accusing security forces of arson, killings and rape.

Myanmar rejects accusations of ethnic cleansing and has labelled the militants from the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, who launched the initial attacks, as terrorists who have killed civilians and burned down villages.

Hundreds of thousands of Rohingya were already in Bangladesh after fleeing previous episodes of violence in Myanmar, where they have long been denied citizenship and faced restrictions on their movements and access to basic services.

Myanmar’s de facto leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, has pledged accountability for human rights abuses and says the country will accept back refugees who can prove they were residents of Myanmar.

The US and the EU have been considering targeted sanctions against Myanmar’s military leaders, diplomats and officials said, although they are wary of action that could destabilise the country’s transition to democracy.

EU foreign ministers were due to discuss Myanmar on Monday, and their draft joint statement said the bloc would “suspend invitations to the commander-in-chief of the Myanmar/Burma armed forces and other senior military officers”.

The powerful army chief, Min Aung Hlaing, told the US ambassador in Myanmar last week that the exodus of Rohingya, who he said were non-native “Bengalis”, was exaggerated.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/oct/16/severe-lack-of-food-drives-thousands-more-rohingya-into-bangladesh-myanmar

[Corkboy]

People who are narrow-minded, ignorant and intolerant are indeed bigots. ToneLa was right on that score.

Look, this has to stop. You're using that word bigotry and you clearly don't know what it means.

I'm realistic about people. I know many people have religious beliefs and that doesn't make them bad, or good. But this thread and the Atheism one are discussion topics, and in a discussion, I am allowed to ridicule those beliefs in any way I want. That's not bigotry. It might be intolerance, if you want to frame disagreement as intolerance, but it's not bigotry.

Let me give you an example. If I have a geology research lab and I am hiring, I would be a bigot if I excluded all Muslims, or all Buddhists. However, if in the course of an interview, I find that my applicant is a Young Earth creationist Christian who doesn't accept modern science, that's a bit of a fucking problem in a geology lab. That's not bigotry. That's just sorry, your beliefs are stupid and disqualify you for this job.

If you think analysing and criticising and mocking religious beliefs is bigotry, you're wrong. Your ideas about karma and people being born into particular families are stupid and cruel. They demonstrate a complete lack of acceptance of genetics, biology, pretty much everything we know about life, and reek of a disgusting vengeance porn idea of morality. That's fine, you're entitled to those beliefs. And I'm entitled to mock them.

[Elmo!]

Look, this has to stop. You're using that word bigotry and you clearly don't know what it means.

I'm realistic about people. I know many people have religious beliefs and that doesn't make them bad, or good. But this thread and the Atheism one are discussion topics, and in a discussion, I am allowed to ridicule those beliefs in any way I want. That's not bigotry. It might be intolerance, if you want to frame disagreement as intolerance, but it's not bigotry.

Let me give you an example. If I have a geology research lab and I am hiring, I would be a bigot if I excluded all Muslims, or all Buddhists. However, if in the course of an interview, I find that my applicant is a Young Earth creationist Christian who doesn't accept modern science, that's a bit of a fucking problem in a geology lab. That's not bigotry. That's just sorry, your beliefs are stupid and disqualify you for this job.

If you think analysing and criticising and mocking religious beliefs is bigotry, you're wrong. Your ideas about karma and people being born into particular families are stupid and cruel. They demonstrate a complete lack of acceptance of genetics, biology, pretty much everything we know about life, and reek of a disgusting vengeance porn idea of morality. That's fine, you're entitled to those beliefs. And I'm entitled to mock them.

Spot on.

[Xabi Gerrard]

Looks like I overestimated your wisdom. Nope. The above only shows you have grasped another opportunity to parade your ignorance of Buddhism and now, karma. This is your best bit of Flat-earthism to date. I had thought that your... what's the word... telling silence on anything to do with the fact of colonial racism was a tacit acknowledgement of its existence; I was wrong because now we are subject to the sight of a White, British fella shamelessly trying to claim - without evidence - that racism as inherent to Buddhism.

Let's try again, shall we?

Racism is a European construct. It is a product of both the scientific revolution and the European Enlightenment that reached its nadir with Eugenics.

Defining race
Modern scholarship views racial categories as socially constructed, that is, race is not intrinsic to human beings but rather an identity created to establish meaning in a social context. Such racial identities reflect the cultural attitudes of imperial powers dominant during the age of European colonial expansion. This view rejects the notion that race is biologically defined.

Race and colonialism
According to Smedley and Marks the European concept of "race", along with many of the ideas now associated with the term, arose at the time of the scientific revolution, which introduced and privileged the study of natural kinds, and the age of European imperialism and colonization which established political relations between Europeans and peoples with distinct cultural and political traditions.

All the above pre-dates Gautama Buddha by well over a thousand years, so it's impossible to say with certainty what he would have to say about Race. However, Race, wasn;t the only highly dubious social construct in history that served to divide up humanity that endures to today. The Buddha was born into another - Caste.

Brahmanism, the predominant religion in India during the Buddha's time, divided all humans into four castes (attu vanna), priests, warriors, traders and labourers. Social contact between each caste was minimal and the lower one's position in the system the less opportunities, the less freedom and the less rights one had. Outside the caste system were the outcasts (sudra) people considered so impure that they hardly counted as humans. The caste system was later absorbed into Hinduism, given religious sanction and legitimacy and has continued to function right up till the present. The Buddha, himself born into the warrior caste, was a severe critic of the caste system. He ridiculed the priests claims to be superior, he criticised the theological basis of the system and he welcomed into the Sangha people of all castes, including outcasts.

His most famous saying on the subject is: " Birth does not make one a priest or an outcaste. Behaviour makes one either a priest or an outcaste".

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd53.htm

So, not a big fan of hierarchical social constructs. This attitude to Casteism is the reason that the Dalits, the so-called "untouchables", covert en masse (by their volition) to Buddhism. There is also a clue there to the Buddhist attitude to the Sanga (the clergy). They live on our charity and we are not obliged to a single word they say.Yes, well, this is another example of the dangers of making claims when you're ignorant on a subject. Buddhism would say all Muslims, Christians, Atheists, even tribes still untouched by civilisation in the Amazon are in the highest echelon of living beings by virtue of being born human.

So ends today's instalment of: People who are so Narrow-minded they Refuse to See an Ethnic Conflict that's Starring Them in the Face.

Yorkykopite may have been wrong to use the specific word 'racist', but was he wrong to suggest that Buddhism teaches that Buddhists are superior in any way to non-Buddhists? You did, after all, say "My religion states that to be born into a Buddhist family is a result of karmic merit" rather than saying "My religion states that to be born a human is a result of karmic merit".

From your words, it makes one assume that Buddhist think that even though all humans may be "in the highest echelon of living beings", to be born Buddhist makes you the elite of the elite, superior to other humans. 

Rather than doing a whole song and dance about the specific word 'racism', I think what we're trying to get at is do Buddhists think they're superior in some way to non-Buddhists? i.e. according to Buddhism, is being born into a Buddhist family the result of having greater 'karmic merit' than a human born into a non-Buddhist family?

If so, that could go some way to explaining their despicable attitude to the non-Buddhist Rohingya people in Myanmar.

[Geppvindh's]

So, not a big fan of hierarchical social constructs. This attitude to Casteism is the reason that the Dalits, the so-called "untouchables", covert en masse (by their volition) to Buddhism.

I have been been reading Dalit literature for a while now, and while I agree with you on everything regarding Buddhism acting as a counter to brahminism for centuries before it was thwarted, and can confirm that Dalits converted to Buddhism en masse in another wave in the early 1900s at the behest of Dr Ambedkar, your belief that being born a Buddhist has a basis in karmic merit is intriguing to me - not to mention cruelly ironic from a Dalit perspective - because if they wanted a religion where they were fine with being condemned to birth by karma, they could very well have stayed in the folds of brahminical tyranny outside the caste system. Although I believe it is not my place to tell you how to view Buddhism, I insist you evaluate it in this respect.

[Xabi Gerrard]

Although I believe it is not my place to tell you how to view Buddhism, I insist you evaluate it in this respect.

I've got to say mate, this is probably the best sign off I've ever seen in a News and Current Affairs post! The perfect combination of respect and firmness. Beautiful. Bravo.

[classycarra]

I've got to say mate, this is probably the best sign off I've ever seen in a News and Current Affairs post! The perfect combination of respect and firmness. Beautiful. Bravo.

It made me smile earlier too! I love a good firm, but polite, request

[zero zero]

Look, this has to stop. You're using that word bigotry and you clearly don't know what it means.

Says RAWK's resident expert on Karma. I understand the meaning of bigotry just fine, which is why I laid out my argument as I did.

I'm realistic about people. I know many people have religious beliefs and that doesn't make them bad, or good. But this thread and the Atheism one are discussion topics, and in a discussion, I am allowed to ridicule those beliefs in any way I want.

Oh, you go right ahead. I won't stop you. Just be aware that in the process it might be you that looks ridiculous.

Personally, I think it's bad form to take a post from one thread and post it without context in another. It's worse when you "do a Yorky" and write your own version of my post, especially when you preceded it with the words "Like zero zero said".  I didn't.

What is illuminating is that you clearly think these two threads are interchangeable. Your entire post from last night is a defence of your right to mock religion and beliefs you don't agree with. I think the genocide and forced migration of the Rohingya deserves its own thread. It's notable that to date you haven't made a single mention of the Rohingya. You (and you're not the only one) are using their plight to bash religion. That is, of course, your right. I just don't think its very laudable.

If you think analysing and criticising and mocking religious beliefs is bigotry, you're wrong.

I don't, so we're all good.

Your ideas about karma and people being born into particular families are stupid and cruel. They demonstrate a complete lack of acceptance of genetics, biology, pretty much everything we know about life, and reek of a disgusting vengeance porn idea of morality. That's fine, you're entitled to those beliefs. And I'm entitled to mock them.

Very impressive (not in a good way). Might I suggest a prudent first step before you mock my beliefs is to make sure I actually hold them? Have I at any point said that I believe in Karma? 

No.

I see no evidence of it. I think the likelihood for the existence of karma about the same as for the existence of God. Keeping an open mind I'd say it's 99.999% likely to be bollocks. I did warn you that you were arguing from a position of ignorance. I also suggested people show restraint in my last post.

Yet here we are. What's the word I'm looking for? Is it hubris?

It's pretty unfortunate for your argument that you start with the words "Your ideas about karma...". My understanding of karma is at best rudimentary. I know enough to know it's not for me. Apparently my non-belief in karma "demonstrates" a whole bunch of things. I've no idea WTF "disgusting vengeance porn idea" means, but as I don't believe in karma I don't really care either.

Mockery is a two-way street, and tempting though that is, I suggest we both draw a line under this particular discussion. And move on.

[zero zero]

Yorkykopite may have been wrong to use the specific word 'racist',

Yes he was. It's the second time in this thread. I'm sure he knows what it means, yet he's failed to acknowledge the racism inherent in British colonial policy. Strange that.

... but was he wrong to suggest that Buddhism teaches that Buddhists are superior in any way to non-Buddhists?

As someone that respects Scientific Method I do think it's wrong. The correct behaviour is to make a claim and then back it up with evidence. Otherwise, you're the same as a Theist. Yorky's modus operandi is insinuation and the use of oblique reference.

You did, after all, say "My religion states that to be born into a Buddhist family is a result of karmic merit" rather than saying "My religion states that to be born a human is a result of karmic merit".

Well done for asking for clarification before going off on one and making a show of yourself.

As your the first person to ask, let me explain: Early Buddhist texts do not refer to Buddhism as a "religion". It doesn't refer to Buddhism at all, but let's leave that for now. The word(s) used mean "way of life". The sentence I wrote means that if you want to live a Buddhist way of life you'll be ahead of the game if you're born into a Buddhist family, as opposed to if you come to Buddhism later in life. And it would be your karmic merit that put you there. As I don't believe in karma I stopped short of saying that and said instead "My religion states...".

If you don't want to lead a Buddhist way of life, where you're born or not born would be irrelevant.

As for your second suggestion, Buddhism states exactly. It can't have passed your notice that humans are a bit more sophisticated than your average stick-insect. The original quote was pulled from a discussion, where some people believed they were providing valuable guidance on how to raise my child, hence the reference to family.

From your words, it makes one assume that Buddhist think that even though all humans may be "in the highest echelon of living beings", to be born Buddhist makes you the elite of the elite, superior to other humans. 

I am responsible for my words. I cannot be responsible for other people's assumptions. I can't "make one assume" anything. Each individual will have to own their own assumptions. "Elite" and "superior" are your words, not mine. So, you've got to own them.

...do Buddhists think they're superior in some way to non-Buddhists?

No. And if we did, this would be one hell of a fucking thread to make such a claim. How other people want to live their lives is none of our business. This is a key part of being a non-proselytizing religion.

If so, that could go some way to explaining their despicable attitude to the non-Buddhist Rohingya people in Myanmar.

It isn't, so it doesn't.

[Yorkykopite]

I wasn't going to reply to your posts zero zero since they comprise very little except personal insults. You are very quick to call people "bigots" and "narrow-minded" and "ignorant" and "shithouses" and you love to tell people you disagree with to "STFU". I don't have a particular problem with that, and would never dream of reporting you, since there's only one person humiliated by your insults and that's you. I'm actually glad we have a record of them. But your butchery of my arguments in this thread is getting on my tits a bit and so here goes.

You're very quick to complain that other posters don't quote you directly, but your own posts are fantastic distortions of what I and others post. You say I "walked into this thread blaming Buddhism and Buddhists for the situation in Myanmar" (nice use of the word "situation" by the way!). In fact my very first post consisted of two sentences, the first which said "Ethnic cleansing pure and simple", the second which expressed disappointment with Aung Sang Suu Kyi. It was only after your own post which said that "Buddhist extremism" was an "oxymoron" that I, and others, felt obliged to post well documented reports of Buddhist priests in Myanmar inciting their followers to extreme violence against the Rohingya. This is now well known, and no appeal to the 'no perfect Scotsman' argument that if Buddhists commit violence and murder they can't be Buddhists is going to convince me that such reports are wrong, or misconceived. 

You have a bee in your bonnet about me insisting that British colonialism was not a racist project. Where have I said that? Of course British colonialism was a racist project. I have always believed this to be so and still do. (For anyone particularly interested in how the British behaved in Burma they might want to start with 'Burmese Days' by Orwell, who was there). What I do disagree with is your assertion (and that's what it is, not an argument) that the present crisis in Myanmar is principally down to British imperialism. That seems to me an atrocious idea, giving - as it does - a sort of free pass to the Buddhist murderers in the Myanmar army and police, as well as the Buddhist mobs that are burning down Muslim villages, murdering and raping Muslim women and hounding out a substantial part of the ethnic Rohingya population who have lived in this part of the world, and farmed this land, for many, many generations. Your initial response to this massacre was amazing and I shall always remember it as an example of how easy it is to be calloused by over-identifying with your own side. Basically, your argument was that the British were really to blame for the massacres (or "situation" as you preferred to call it) and that Bangladesh (!) should clear up the mess. Amazing.

Now, you prefer to call the conflict an "ethnic" one rather than implicate any Buddhists. Fine. You can keep your illusion so far as I'm concerned.  I will admit that it is clearly a difficult thing to separate religious from ethnic strife in conflicts like this. But I thought there was something a bit revealing about your comment that Buddhists are born with "karmic merit" - it smacks of the 'superior race' thing as others have pointed out. Possibly I am wrong about this. It was an assumption I made on the back of your naked declaration. But I would say that it hardly matters whether the galvanising agent in all this violence comes from an ethnic or a religious source. What matters is that, somehow, Buddhism (in Myanmar at least) has seemed incapable of doing anything to promote tolerance of an ethnic and religious minority. How many years of independence now? Seventy? And absolutely no progress has been made on the question of basic human rights for minorities in Myanmar. Quite the opposite. Things have got worse. Now we have genocide. What does that say about the official religion of the place?

[zero zero]

I wasn't going to reply to your posts zero zero since they comprise very little except personal insults. You are very quick to call people "bigots" and "narrow-minded" and "ignorant" and "shithouses" and you love to tell people you disagree with to "STFU".

I've used the term STFU precisely four times in 13,653 posts; once at Harsha Boghle, once to NZ cricket commentators, another where I said I wanted to say STFU but was too polite to do so. The final time was to Corkboy.

So, you've made it exactly two sentences into before your claims don't match the available evidence.

[Fortneef]

Well swerved. 

[Corkboy]

Mockery is a two-way street, and tempting though that is,

Nah, go for it.

[zero zero]

I'm just skimming really which is looking like a wise use of my time

Now, you prefer to call the conflict an "ethnic" one rather than implicate any Buddhists.

No, mate. I can't say I agree with this. It is a reasonable and very human reaction that when a group you identify with commit indefensible acts, that your natural reaction is to want to distance yourself from them and what they are doing. That's fine. But I don't think it's right that we turn round and say "Oh, they're not Buddhists". Because they are Buddhists. They would, I'm sure, say they are.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to pull you up on each and every one of your misrepresentations.

[zero zero]

Nah, go for it.

To what end?

[Elmo!]

To what end?

Karmic merit?

[gqP6w]

Karmic merit?

But zero zero doesn't believe in karma, even if it is a core principal of Buddhism, obviously calling yourself a Buddhist is trendy in some areas

[Crosby Nick]

There’s only one way for ZZ and Yorky to reslove this...

Who wants to bat first?

[Yorkykopite]

There’s only one way for ZZ and Yorky to reslove this...

Who wants to bat first?

Always bat first. Unless it's a real greentop. Which of course it might be in Burma. If they played cricket. Which they don't. Which is probably why the place is so fucked up.

[zero zero]

...because if they wanted a religion where they were fine with being condemned to birth by karma, they could very well have stayed in the folds of brahminical tyranny outside the caste system.

I do appreciate the courteous way you conduct a discourse. I'm not sure if I've grasped what you're saying above. Theoretically, and I'm no expert, karma has condemned you to be born. After that, the ball is entirely in your court as to how you want to proceed.

But zero zero doesn't believe in karma, even if it is a core principal of Buddhism, obviously calling yourself a Buddhist is trendy in some areas

Yes, it's been "trendy" in my old area since the third century BCE. I don't have to believe in anything from a Buddhist point of view. The way of life I choose is called Secular Buddhism.

Within the framework of secular Buddhism, Buddhist doctrine may be stripped of any unspecified combination of various traditional beliefs that could be considered superstitious, or that cannot be tested through empirical research, namely: supernatural beings (such as devas, bodhisattvas, nāgas, pretas, Buddhas, etc.), merit and its transference, rebirth, Buddhist cosmology (including the existence of pure lands and hells), etc.

I said as much on this site three years ago, so it's not a flag of convenience as I think you're trying to imply in that passive/aggressive way of yours.

I wasn't going to reply to your posts zero zero...

Creative writing - 7/10
Feelings of humiliation - 0/10
Refraining from butchering my arguments - 2/10
Acceptance of Myanmar's colonial past - 7/10
Post-Colonial amnesia - 9/10
Ability to use the quote function - 0/10

Always bat first. Unless it's a real greentop. Which of course it might be in Burma. If they played cricket. Which they don't. Which is probably why the place is so fucked up.

Up to your usual standards of accuracy when it comes to Myanmar.

https://www.icc-cricket.com/about/members/asia/affiliate/123

[Macphisto80]

This thread needs more multiple quote quoting going on it it. Just to make a point, like.

[Corkboy]

This thread needs more multiple quote quoting going on it it.

Just to make a point,

like.

I agree.

[Yorkykopite]

This was a pretty incredible - and extremely harrowing - report on the Buddhist massacre and mass rape of Muslims in Myanmar. In essence it's a report on a genocide. It's by Gabriel Gatehouse and was on BBC Newsnight last night. 

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-41977712/rohingya-villagers-tell-of-rape-and-murder-in-military-crackdown

[Ray K]

Looks like it's military coup time once again in Burma/Myanmar. The military haven't been in official charge for about 5 years now so obviously the generals were getting a bit antsy.

[Buggy Eyes Alfredo]

Cutting phone and internet lines in Naypyitaw.

[Red-Soldier]

Looks like it's military coup time once again in Burma/Myanmar. The military haven't been in official charge for about 5 years now so obviously the generals were getting a bit antsy.

Perfect timing too, what with everyone's pants being down, due to the pandemic.

[Dr. Beaker]

Cutting phone and internet lines in Naypyitaw.

Maybe related. Aung San Suu Kyi to be further detained for smuggling walkie - talkies - I kid you not. May have been going to sell them dahn the market, I suppose.

[Buggy Eyes Alfredo]

Feb 2, 2021
Kangana Ranaut.        @KanganaTeam
No one is talking about it because they are not farmers they are terrorists who are trying to divide India, so that China can take over our vulnerable broken nation and make it a Chinese colony much like USA...
Sit down you fool, we are not selling our nation like you dummies.

Feb 2, 2021
Rihanna      @rihanna
why aren’t we talking about this?! #FarmersProtest https://cnn.com/2021/02/01/asia/india-internet-cut-farmers-intl-hnk/index.html

May 16, 2019
Kangana Ranaut           @KanganaTeam
"Alexa, play 'Diamonds by @rihanna "

[Buggy Eyes Alfredo]

Greta has also gained their ire somehow. This one confuses me completely.