Topic: Myanmar’s War on the Rohingya

[zero zero]

How about Myanmar stopping the ethnic cleansing to begin with? Or is that too much to ask?

Who are you asking? The Myanmar military will tell you that they are conducting "anti-terrorist clearance operations". So that would be a "No.".

Besides which, that's just kicking the can down the road. So long as the Rohingya continue to take up arms the state will continue to respond disproportionately. Innocent Rohingya civilians will continue to die. In Perpetua.

The Rohingya are stateless. I wonder why their country of origin refuses to take them back in such situations.

As people would rather jump to conclusions than ask for a clarification, my above comment was in reference to this. Another post-colonial ethnic mess. 

[BoRed]

Who are you asking? The Myanmar military will tell you that they are conducting "anti-terrorist clearance operations". So that would be a "No.".

Besides which, that's just kicking the can down the road. So long as the Rohingya continue to take up arms the state will continue to respond disproportionately. Innocent Rohingya civilians will continue to die. In Perpetua.

Sounds very much like Kosovo. Would you approve of the Kosovo solution here?

[zero zero]

Well indeed.

Again, I'm flabbergasted that the case is being made (on "pragmatic grounds" of course!) for ethnic cleansing.

Nothing of the sort. Though every time you use the term "ethnic cleansing" you admit you were wrong to look at the situation in Myanmar with your anti-religion goggles on. "We've moved the peanut ahead today" as my mentor would say.

I worry for you Yorky. All this ineffectual, right on (Burma!), Lefty, hand-wringing is a bit... well... Corbyn. Have you got a solution?

[zero zero]

Sounds very much like Kosovo. Would you approve of the Kosovo solution here?

It sounds like the Nazis. It sounds like Kosovo. Sometimes, I feel it's not useful to make comparisons as the historical backgrounds are unique to each situation.

I won't pretend to know (beyond the unacceptable ethnic cleansing) what happened in Kosovo, the similarities with the situation here or what lessons we can draw.

Care to enlighten me?

[Yanwoo]

Don't really know what point you're making here but I'm pretty sure the Nazis would've argued their Final Solution to the  Jewish question would come under the latter...

fair point, I should have included an element of morality to keep pure pragmatic 'problem' solving in check...(although, understood, that doesn't resolve anything definitely)

I suppose my (theoretical) point was that if we determine an approach that causes the least harm, and is in accordance with moral principles, we shouldn't not do it just because it could be given a label that has negative connotations. I get that in the real world none of this is simple, and you can't ignore the symbolism and perception of actions, and labels matter etc., and determining 'least harm' in a complex situation is just plain hard and largely subjective etc.

[BoRed]

It sounds like the Nazis. It sounds like Kosovo. Sometimes, I feel it's not useful to make comparisons as the historical backgrounds are unique to each situation.

I won't pretend to know (beyond the unacceptable ethnic cleansing) what happened in Kosovo, the similarities with the situation here or what lessons we can draw.

Care to enlighten me?

In short, Albanians have lived in that part of Serbia for generations (no idea how many, though it shouldn't really make a difference). Unlike Rohingya, they were citizens, but they wanted more rights, protection, independence (depends who you ask, I guess). Some took up arms, attacked Serbian police/military, Serbia then waged war on the entire population, which they undoubtedly called "anti-terrorist clearance operations". They probably would have liked Albania to have "taken them all back", but it didn't really matter how they disappeared, as long as they did (problem would have been solved, right?). NATO then stepped in, bombed Serbia, and Kosovo became an independent country. Problem solved a bit differently.

[Seebab]

In short, Albanians have lived in that part of Serbia for generations (no idea how many, though it shouldn't really make a difference). Unlike Rohingya, they were citizens, but they wanted more rights, protection, independence (depends who you ask, I guess). Some took up arms, attacked Serbian police/military, Serbia then waged war on the entire population, which they undoubtedly called "anti-terrorist clearance operations". They probably would have liked Albania to have "taken them all back", but it didn't really matter how they disappeared, as long as they did (problem would have been solved, right?). NATO then stepped in, bombed Serbia, and Kosovo became an independent country. Problem solved a bit differently.

This would be considered a very pro-Serbian description of the historical situation if shared with my Kosovar friends  . The situation is not quite resolved as you put it. Kosovo's independence in 2008 is not recognized by a number of countries including Serbia still. Also, while most Kosovars are muslim and proud to be associated with Albania, within Kosovo there are still numerous Serbian communities, most notably in north Mitrovica which want to remain part of Serbia and do not recognize Pristina as their capital. While there is no actual violent conflict right now, some elements still remain unresolved and I am not sure if they ever will be. Anyway, this is for another thread.

The situation in Myanmar is very delicate right now. I will admit that I have always been a supporter of Aun Suu Kyi and her peaceful stance. I do not see her as a puppet to the West at all and those accusing her of this should try living under house arrest for so many years to see how they would cope. However, her completely silent stance on what is going on is truly shocking and unbelievably damaging in my opinion as her supporters take her lack of denunciation of the violence as an approval to use hate speech and violence against the minority Muslims. Very Trump-esque.

[zero zero]

Thank you BoRed.

In short, Albanians have lived in that part of Serbia for generations (no idea how many, though it shouldn't really make a difference).

Perhaps it shouldn't, but in this case, if it matters to the Bamar, it matters to the Bamar. There was a time when we automatically pushed our ideas on others and brought the world cutting edge scientific thinking... like Eugenics.

Unlike Rohingya, they were citizens, but they wanted more rights, protection, independence (depends who you ask, I guess). Some took up arms, attacked Serbian police/military, Serbia then waged war on the entire population, which they undoubtedly called "anti-terrorist clearance operations".

Well, that's the thing. Once you take up arms, a militarised state can justify almost anything in the name of "Security". Let's not forget the military junta killed thousand of its' own pro-democracy supporters. It won't show the same restraint to non-citizens.

They probably would have liked Albania to have "taken them all back", but it didn't really matter how they disappeared, as long as they did (problem would have been solved, right?). NATO then stepped in, bombed Serbia, and Kosovo became an independent country. Problem solved a bit differently.

Well NATO won't step in here. Geo-political realities mean that China will veto the UN doing anything that might threaten it's String of Pearls.



Which would leave the Rohingya exactly where they are now.

[BoRed]

Geo-political realities mean that China will veto the UN doing anything that might threaten it's

If I remember correctly, both China and Russia vetoed the UN doing anything about Kosovo, too, but NATO went in on its own regardless. But I take your point, I can't see NATO doing anything about this either.

This would be considered a very pro-Serbian description of the historical situation if shared with my Kosovar friends  . The situation is not quite resolved as you put it. Kosovo's independence in 2008 is not recognized by a number of countries including Serbia still. Also, while most Kosovars are muslim and proud to be associated with Albania, within Kosovo there are still numerous Serbian communities, most notably in north Mitrovica which want to remain part of Serbia and do not recognize Pristina as their capital. While there is no actual violent conflict right now, some elements still remain unresolved and I am not sure if they ever will be. Anyway, this is for another thread.

Pro-Serbian? Not sure how, but I guess if you showed it to your Serbian friends, they'd tell you it was very pro-Albanian . I do agree that it's far from solved, but I imagine the people involved preferred this solution to being taken back by Albania. My "problem solved" was tongue-in-cheek in response to the idea of "solving" the problem by making the people disappear. I also agree it's for another thread.

[Purple Red]

Harrowing scenes on the news. I wasn't aware of this particular conflict until today. Sad that such hatred still exists.

[Yorkykopite]

Harrowing scenes on the news. I wasn't aware of this particular conflict until today. Sad that such hatred still exists.

Also a damning report on BBC Newsnight. Human Rights Watch say that 160,000 Muslims have fled over the river to Bangladesh to escape the army and Buddhist mobs. I know zero zero will dismiss HRW's report as further "hand-wringing" from "Lefties" and remind us that the refugees don't really belong in Burma and that the military are simply conducting "anti-terrorism operations", but I sense the world is waking up to the atrocities now being committed by the government of Aung San Suu Kyi.

[puroresu_kid]

Well, that's the thing. Once you take up arms, a militarised state can justify almost anything in the name of "Security". Let's not forget the military junta killed thousand of its' own pro-democracy supporters. It won't show the same restraint to non-citizens.

Keep poking the dragon and eventually the dragon will fire back.

Any violence should be blamed on the oppressor not the oppressed.

[jooneyisdagod]

Shameful on the part of Narendra Modi to have visited Myanmar today and not raise the issue with Suu Kyi. Shameful but expected nevertheless, given his and his party's rabid hatred of all things Muslim. India has refused to take in any Rohingya refugees and also plans to deport the 40,000 that remain.

Did you expect Modi of all people to do anything about it? It's fucking embarrassing that no one in that region wants to take leadership and actually sort out an issue that has been raging for a long time.

[Geppvindh's]

Did you expect Modi of all people to do anything about it? It's fucking embarrassing that no one in that region wants to take leadership and actually sort out an issue that has been raging for a long time.

I expected exactly what he's gone and done - stand by Myanmar as they continue to oppress and kill a Muslim community. He needs to be called out but the Indian media has firmly surrendered at his feet. Also appalling is how the Hindu majority is firmly and vocally on his side on all matters related to Islam/Muslims. A Muslim's murder is justified - even cheered - not just by the fringe elements but also by most of the urban upper-caste middle-class. No wonder Trump enjoys massive approval ratings among Indians (an anomaly among all of Asia), given the intersection of Muslim hatred.

[zero zero]

I think we can close the thread. David Mepham, the UK director of HRW has issued a very stern statement about the situation:

Why Britain is Still Getting it Wrong on Burma
UK Government Should Stop Deferring to Aung San Suu Kyi

For far too long, British policy toward Burma has deferred heavily to the views of its de facto leader, Aung San Suu Kyi. UK Foreign Secretary Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson was at it again at the weekend, suggesting she use her “remarkable qualities” to unite her country and stop the violence in Burma’s western Rakhine State, which, he said, afflicts “both Muslims and other communities.” This after a fortnight in which hundreds of Rohingya Muslims have been reported killed, their homes burnt to the ground, and more than 120,000 desperate people have fled for their lives to neighbouring Bangladesh to escape the vicious brutality of the Burmese security forces. This followed a coordinated attack by Rohingya militants on two dozen police and border posts in late August. Security force operations in response to the attacks last year were described by the United Nations as very likely crimes against humanity.

Faced with these appalling developments, Suu Kyi has uttered not a word of condemnation. On the contrary, her office has added fuel to the fire by claiming – with breathtaking irresponsibility – that international aid groups are supportive of terrorism. Her pusillanimous stance has triggered widespread criticism, including from the fellow Nobel Peace laureate, Malala Yousafzai.

So, what should the British government do?

First, it needs to address the dire humanitarian situation on the ground, both in Bangladesh and inside Burma. Many refugees have not eaten properly for days, and require specialized medical help. The Burmese government is disgracefully hindering international relief efforts, and should face additional pressure from the UK and other countries to ensure unimpeded access.

Second, there should be much greater pressure on the Burmese government to permit an international investigation of the many egregious abuses so that those responsible can be held to account. It’s outrageous that the Burmese government says it will bar the UN-mandated international fact-finding mission tasked with investigating abuses in Burma, which was established in March 2017 with the support of the UK government.

Third, the UK and others should press Burma to address the underlying causes of this crisis, most obviously, the denial of nationality and legal status of nearly one million Rohingya who have lived in Burma for generations.

More of the same is not an option. The gravity of this crisis requires a major shift in British government policy. Aung San Suu Kyi’s reputation lies in tatters, and it’s unconscionable that UK policy should continue to follow her lead.

Genius! Why didn't anyone else think of that? I worry that HRW either have their calendar stuck at some time in the 1940s or they might just be over-estimating the UK's influence in the region. As for the "others" we've just seen the Indian PM roll into town and promptly blamed "extremist violence".

I expected exactly what he's gone and done - stand by Myanmar as they continue to oppress and kill a Muslim community. He needs to be called out but the Indian media has firmly surrendered at his feet. Also appalling is how the Hindu majority is firmly and vocally on his side on all matters related to Islam/Muslims. A Muslim's murder is justified - even cheered - not just by the fringe elements but also by most of the urban upper-caste middle-class. No wonder Trump enjoys massive approval ratings among Indians (an anomaly among all of Asia), given the intersection of Muslim hatred.

I'll take your word for it that anti-Muslim sentiment is a factor. I would also hazard that India's own problems with insurgencies/separatists/liberation movements back at home is also a reason as to why the Modi government "stands with Myanmar".

So, basically, a load of hot air and no solutions from HRW's David Mepham.

[zero zero]

Meanwhile on the Myanmar border:

Rohingya crisis: Myanmar 'mining border' as refugees flee

Bangladesh has summoned the Myanmar ambassador in Dhaka to protest against the planting of landmines along the border between the two countries.

It comes amid growing tensions over the huge influx of Rohingya Muslims fleeing violence in Myanmar.

A senior official in Bangladesh said they believed Myanmar government forces were planting the landmines to stop the Rohingya returning to their villages.

But a Myanmar military source said no landmines had been planted recently.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41176488

[zero zero]

The Bangladeshi solution:

Exclusive: Crowded Bangladesh revives plan to settle Rohingya on isolated island

DHAKA (Reuters) - Bangladesh, one of the world’s poorest and most crowded nations, plans to go ahead with work to develop an isolated, flood-prone island in the Bay of Bengal to temporarily house tens of thousands of Rohingya Muslims fleeing violence in neighboring Myanmar, officials say.

Dhaka says the Rohingya are not welcome, and has told border guards to push back those trying to enter the country illegally. But close to 125,000 Rohingya have crossed into Bangladesh in just 10 days, joining more than 400,000 others already living there in cramped makeshift camps.

“We are stopping them wherever we can, but there are areas where we can’t stop them because of the nature of the border; forests, hills,” said H.T. Imam, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s political adviser.

“We have requested international agencies for help for shifting the Rohingya temporarily into a place where they can live - an island called Thengar Char. Developing Thengar Char should be given serious consideration,” he said.

Leonard Doyle, chief spokesman for the International Organisation for Migration, said the idea of moving refugees to the island has been talked about for years, but he hadn’t heard anything new in the past few days.

The island, which only emerged from the silt off Bangladesh’s delta coast 11 years ago, is two hours by boat from the nearest settlement. It regularly floods during June-September monsoons and, when seas are calm, pirates roam the nearby waters to kidnap fishermen for ransom.

Flat and featureless, Thengar Char has no roads or buildings. When Reuters visited in February, a few buffalo grazing along its shores were the only sign of life.

The plan to develop the island and use it to house refugees was criticized by humanitarian workers when it was proposed in 2015 and revived last year. Bangladesh, though, insists it alone has the right to decide where to shelter the growing numbers of refugees.

“The honorable prime minister wants to resettle them in Thengar Char, though some people say that island will not be a suitable place for them,” said another Hasina aide, who declined to be named. “But there are many such areas in Bangladesh, where Bangladeshis live. It’s our country, and we decide.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya-bangladesh-exclusive/exclusive-crowded-bangladesh-revives-plan-to-settle-rohingya-on-isolated-island-idUSKCN1BG1WN

[Yorkykopite]

The Bangladeshi solution:

Exclusive: Crowded Bangladesh revives plan to settle Rohingya on isolated island

 (Reuters) - Bangladesh, one of the world’s poorest and most crowded nations"........

Remind us what the Burmese solution is again?

[zero zero]

Remind us what the Burmese solution is again?

Why don't you give me yours? (Third time of asking)

Or is all you do is sit around and pontificate?

[Yorkykopite]

Why don't you give me yours? (Third time of asking)

Or is all you do is sit around and pontificate?

We are both pontificating.

The only difference is that I deplore the Burmese solution (genocide) whereas you take it with a pinch of salt.

[zero zero]

We are both pontificating.

The only difference is that I deplore the Burmese solution (genocide) whereas you take it with a pinch of salt.

I think the difference is that I'm less inclined to use the plight of the Rohingya as an excuse to try to demonstrate moral superiority on the internet.

Why does deploring The Burmese solution preclude you from suggesting one of your own?

[Yorkykopite]

I think the difference is that I'm less inclined to use the plight of the Rohingya as an excuse to try to demonstrate moral superiority on the internet.

Why does deploring The Burmese solution preclude you from suggesting one of your own?

My dear friend, you have done nothing on this thread except accept the genocide as a 'given' - something the world generally, and Bangladesh in particular, should 'move on' from.

This would be crass if the genocide was 50 years' old. But it isn't. It is happening now and will continue to happen tomorrow.

Rather than constantly point out the shortcomings of the neighbouring country - one of the poorest countries on Earth - which is struggling to cope with the sudden influx of half a million refugees, you might do better to examine the moral and political responsibility of the Burmese government and the Burmese military. It is these after all, along with their Buddhist cheerleaders, who are hounding the Muslim minority in the country, setting fire to their homes, murdering them and chasing them out of lands they have lived in for many generations.

But no, all you seem bothered about (for some reason I can't fathom) are the failings of Bangladesh. It would be like someone blaming the Poles for everything that happened in 1942-44 and giving the real authors of the destruction a free pass.

[jooneyisdagod]

I expected exactly what he's gone and done - stand by Myanmar as they continue to oppress and kill a Muslim community. He needs to be called out but the Indian media has firmly surrendered at his feet. Also appalling is how the Hindu majority is firmly and vocally on his side on all matters related to Islam/Muslims. A Muslim's murder is justified - even cheered - not just by the fringe elements but also by most of the urban upper-caste middle-class. No wonder Trump enjoys massive approval ratings among Indians (an anomaly among all of Asia), given the intersection of Muslim hatred.

It is really a sorry state of affairs. The anti-Muslim hatred has been stoked for a while and even supposedly liberal folks have thrown in their lot with this crooked c*nt and his lot for the sake of "economic development" while the growth rate slows. Sure, there are many other factors too but this action would almost certainly fortify Modi's votes among his supporters. I have no doubt that this is why Modi is "standing with Myanmar against extremist violence".

[Geppvindh's]

I'll take your word for it that anti-Muslim sentiment is a factor. I would also hazard that India's own problems with insurgencies/separatists/liberation movements back at home is also a reason as to why the Modi government "stands with Myanmar".

So, basically, a load of hot air and no solutions from HRW's David Mepham.

NE India has been India's step child for decades. Its residents get treated poorly elsewhere in the country and are subject to extreme racism owing to their Mongoloid features. Little wonder they want out. India is a complex geographical entity that was hurriedly put together and whose boundary was drawn rather arbitrarily. Many of its occupants never intended to be part of it (Karshmir, for instance). In any case, why are we equating outfits designated as terror organizations in India with Rohingyas in Myanmar?

Accepting Rohingya Muslim refugees would be political suicide for the BJP. Even his moderate voters have harbor anti-Muslim sentiments. Above all, this man himself has shown on numerous occasions that his disgust for Muslims runs deep in his veins. He/his party (and the real political movers in the country, the RSS) needs no other reason to refuse them.

[DivisiveNewSigning]

On the same day they've been reported as attacking sites in Syria, this is coming out...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-burma-sell-arms-rohingya-muslims-military-junta-violence-massacre-deaths-flee-a7932126.html

Crazy how much the US' beloved Israel seemingly gets away with. But that's for another forum I guess.

Can't believe it's 2017 and shit like this is happening. Not only are these people getting chased out of the country but they're having land-mines placed in front of them as they flee - fucking disgusting.

Sadly the world is going to turn a blind eye. Geopolitics eh.

[Bobsackamano]

I've come to accept that human beings are tribal creatures, if you are a member of a tribe you will seek to assert dominance over any other tribes in your vicinity. Any perceived strength in neighbouring tribes is seen as a threat and as such will likely result in the stronger tribe seeking reduce the strength of the weaker tribe.

The weaker tribe meanwhile will try to build its strength under the radar until its strength is such that it can try to assert dominance over the tribe that was previously stronger.

The only solution to this is for tribes to be kept apart by national boundaries enforced by a combination of  the tacit agreement of all tribes with the backup of the muscle of the biggest tribes of all.

It appears there are 3 ways that tribes can live within the same national boundaries.

1. Recognition of weaker status by smaller tribes and this being accepted by all.
2. Tribes combining so as to create a bigger tribe made up of elements of the previous tribes.
3. Creation of a new god...."money" and a consumerist haze to make everyone forget they belong to a tribe.

The essential problem for this situation is that none of these options appear to be acceptable to either the Rohingya Muslims or the Buddhist Burmese tribes due to the strength of their respective religious beliefs.

This situation will settle down after a while as it always does in Myanmar however its all really a prelude to the movement of tens of millions of Bangladeshi Muslims over the coming decades due to climate change.

I wouldn't surprise me if the Myanmar government is trying to get rid of all Muslims in Burma so as to encourage this great migration to move in a different direction. A vain hope in my opinion.

[The Gulleysucker]

Crazy how much the US' beloved Israel seemingly gets away with. But that's for another forum I guess.

I agree it does appear incongruous, but oh if it was only that simple...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar_Army#Equipment...

[zero zero]

Right. I think we're making some headway at last.

Rather than constantly point out the shortcomings of the neighbouring country - one of the poorest countries on Earth - which is struggling to cope with the sudden influx of half a million refugees, you might do better to examine the moral and political responsibility of the Burmese government and the Burmese military.

The Burmese junta rendered the Rohingya stateless. Therefore they have absolved themselves of political responsibility. I'm not saying it's right. In fact, I'll categorically state it's morally wrong. However, the Myanmar government will consider its obligations lie first with its own citizens.

But no, all you seem bothered about (for some reason I can't fathom) are the failings of Bangladesh.

It's not complicated. Let me walk you through my reasoning:

The Myanmar government refuses to recognise the right of Rohingya to citizenship. They expect the Rohingya to secede were they to do so. No one else can force Myanmar, as a sovereign state, to grant the Rohingya citizenship. With the Myanmar stance hardening, not softening I have no expectation of them to come up with a swift resolution. Therefore, accommodation might be forthcoming from the country the Rohingya originally hailed from, share a cultural and language affinity with and want to secede to.

I am not criticising Bangladesh. I'm merely placing a higher priority on the lives of the Rohingya and a chance of a peaceful future above moral posturing.

People like the UK director of HRW not only have an over-blown sense of self-importance but spectacularly misjudge feelings in the ex-colonies which could be summed up with "Who the fuck are you to lecture us, you caused this fucking mess". 

It would be like someone blaming the Poles for everything that happened in 1942-44 and giving the real authors of the destruction a free pass.

I'm confused. Who are the Nazis in this analogy? British India?

British colonial rule

British policy encouraged Bengali inhabitants from adjacent regions to migrate into the then lightly populated and fertile valleys of Arakan as farm laborers. The East India Company extended the Bengal Presidency to Arakan. There was no international boundary between Bengal and Arakan and no restrictions on migration between the regions. In the early 19th century, thousands of Bengalis from the Chittagong region settled in Arakan seeking work.

The British census of 1872 reported 58,255 Muslims in Akyab District. By 1911, the Muslim population had increased to 178,647.[96] The waves of migration were primarily due to the requirement of cheap labour from British India to work in the paddy fields. Immigrants from Bengal, mainly from the Chittagong region, "moved en masse into western townships of Arakan". To be sure, Indian immigration to Burma was a nationwide phenomenon, not just restricted to Arakan.

Historian Thant Myint-U writes: "At the beginning of the 20th century, Indians were arriving in Burma at the rate of no less than a quarter million per year. The numbers rose steadily until the peak year of 1927, immigration reached 480,000 people, with Rangoon exceeding New York City as the greatest immigration port in the world. This was out of a total population of only 13 million; it was equivalent to the United Kingdom today taking 2 million people a year." By then, in most of the largest cities in Burma, Yangon, Sittwe, Pathein and Mawlamyine, the Indian immigrants formed a majority of the population. The Burmese under the British rule felt helpless, and reacted with a "racism that combined feelings of superiority and fear".

The impact of immigration was particularly acute in Arakan, one of less populated regions. The Rakine saw themselves as made a minority in their own land by Indian immigration with complaints being made all of the jobs and land were going to the Rohingyas. In 1939, the British authorities, alert to the long-term animosity between the Rakhine Buddhists and the Muslims, formed a special Investigation Commission led by James Ester and Tin Tut to study the issue of Muslim immigration into the Arakan. The commission recommended securing the border; however, with the onset of World War II, the British retreated from Arakan.

If any of the above relates to 1940s Poland, please feel free to point it out. I'm not really seeing it.

[DivisiveNewSigning]

I agree it does appear incongruous, but oh if it was only that simple...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar_Army#Equipment...

I'm not at all surprised to see some countries named on there, not least China. But my point was that Israel seems to be supplying them, as we speak, with the purpose of helping fight the Rohingya. I'm sure it's got absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the majority are Muslims...

[classycarra]

On the same day they've been reported as attacking sites in Syria, this is coming out...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-burma-sell-arms-rohingya-muslims-military-junta-violence-massacre-deaths-flee-a7932126.html

Crazy how much the US' beloved Israel seemingly gets away with. But that's for another forum I guess.

Can't believe it's 2017 and shit like this is happening. Not only are these people getting chased out of the country but they're having land-mines placed in front of them as they flee - fucking disgusting.

Sadly the world is going to turn a blind eye. Geopolitics eh.

Funny you bring up the US in your criticism, when they've done what you appear to desire (embargoing the sale of arms to Burma). It was even written in that article you quoted.

But again, you don't hold China and Russia to your ideals for some reason - geopolitical no doubt

[J_Kopite]

Funny you bring up the US in your criticism, when they've done what you appear to desire (embargoing the sale of arms to Burma). It was even written in that article you quoted.

But again, you don't hold China and Russia to your ideals for some reason - geopolitical no doubt

'Mark likes Israel, I'm Palestine. Makes it much more interesting if you pick sides'.

[DivisiveNewSigning]

Funny you bring up the US in your criticism, when they've done what you appear to desire (embargoing the sale of arms to Burma). It was even written in that article you quoted.

But again, you don't hold China and Russia to your ideals for some reason - geopolitical no doubt

Fucking hell not you again. Do you just follow people around these boards looking to be sarcy and confrontational?

You've deduced an awful lot from "Crazy how much the US' beloved Israel seemingly gets away with." I've criticised China plenty actually, even as recent as about 2 comments ago. 12,337 posts - of which how many were actually insightful and contributory? Jesus.

[The North Bank]

Buddhist vigilante death squads, raping young girls and burying hundreds in mass graves?
I thought all buddhists are magically pure superior peaceful beings.
The only terrorists in the world are Muslims, any other case of mass murder is probably just mistaken identity, or a lack of understanding between ethnic groups over a long period of time that might or might not have manifested itself in some tempers fraying and thousands getting massacred.
The way some are trying to politicise genocide, really shameful.

[classycarra]

Fucking hell not you again. Do you just follow people around these boards looking to be sarcy and confrontational?

You've deduced an awful lot from "Crazy how much the US' beloved Israel seemingly gets away with." I've criticised China plenty actually, even as recent as about 2 comments ago. 12,337 posts - of which how many were actually insightful and contributory? Jesus.

Hahaha!

Apparently we read similar threads, but don't let me work you up. You didn't really have much to say to Gulley's much more conciliatory post, so it seems it's not just confrontation with me that leaves you with little to say.

'Mark likes Israel, I'm Palestine. Makes it much more interesting if you pick sides'.

A quietly brilliant, seemingly flippant, line from Peep Show that says so much!

[classycarra]

Buddhist vigilante death squads, raping young girls and burying hundreds in mass graves?
I thought all buddhists are magically pure superior peaceful beings.
The only terrorists in the world are Muslims, any other case of mass murder is probably just mistaken identity, or a lack of understanding between ethnic groups over a long period of time that might or might not have manifested itself in some tempers fraying and thousands getting massacred.
The way some are trying to politicise genocide, really shameful.

"The way some are trying to politicise genocide, really shameful" you say. Look two lines above that in your own post if you like irony:

"The only terrorists in the world are Muslims, any other case of mass murder is probably just mistaken identity"

Sarcasm can be political too

[DivisiveNewSigning]

Apparently we read similar threads, but don't let me work you up. You didn't really have much to say to Gulley's much more conciliatory post, so it seems it's not just confrontation with me that leaves you with little to say.

[Yanwoo]

Buddhist vigilante death squads, raping young girls and burying hundreds in mass graves?
I thought all buddhists are magically pure superior peaceful beings.

Where did you get that idea from?

[Yorkykopite]

Where did you get that idea from?

I imagine he's been reading the newspapers. These are all reputable sources and all refer to the murderous activities of "Buddhist vigilantes".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-01/reports-of-women-and-children-among-dead-in-myanmar-massacre/8862164

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/burma-violence-thousands-of-rohingya-refugees-flee-amid-claims-of-genocide-of-muslim-minority-a3625811.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/02/world/asia/rohingya-myanmar-bangladesh-refugees-massacre.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/01/fears-mount-of-myanmar-atrocities-as-fleeing-rohingya-families-drown

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-violence/buddhist-vigilantes-kill-9-muslims-in-myanmar-bus-attack-idUSBRE8530CW20120604

EDIT: Apologies if I've misunderstood your post. Having read it again you could of course be asking where he got the idea that Buddhists were peaceful from.

[Yanwoo]

EDIT: Apologies if I've misunderstood your post. Having read it again you could of course be asking where he got the idea that Buddhists were peaceful from.

Yes, that’s what I meant! My bad, I should have quoted just the bit I was querying.

[Yorkykopite]

People like the UK director of HRW not only have an over-blown sense of self-importance but spectacularly misjudge feelings in the ex-colonies which could be summed up with "Who the fuck are you to lecture us, you caused this fucking mess".  I'm confused. Who are the Nazis in this analogy?

The Nazis are obviously those who would strip an ethnic or religious minority of their rights, render them stateless, burn their homes and force them to leave lands they have inhabited for ten or so generations. I don't know why this isn't clear to you.

You also seem very eager to lay the blame at Britain's door which is very revealing. The logic appears to be that the experience of colonialism gives succeeding generations carte blanche to behave like thugs and hoodlums if, in so doing, they are restoring some "natural" ethnic order.