The Plight of the Rohingya

Arsemageddon

The Highwayman wrote: »

I care as much about this Muslims as the rest of the Muslim world cares about the Christian women being raped and used as sex slaves by ISIS.

This post seems to ignore the fact that the majority of ISIS victims are Muslims and the people fighting ISIS on the ground are Muslims.

I am sure you will enlighten all us fake news loving sheeple with further learned insights garnered from youtube videos and blogs written by loons.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

I bet Damien Rice and Lisa Hannigan feel like right muppets now.
They wrote a very trendy, right on tribute to Aung San Suu Kyi a few years ago when Myanmar was the latest fashionable cause célèbre.
Oh yes, Pepperidge Farm rememembers...

Ulysses Gaze

Wonder how Bono will spin this.

riffmongous

Who'd have thought she'd turn out to be such a bitch?

The main thing though is to not be embarrassed about it and try hide away, instead call her out on it

Ulysses Gaze

riffmongous wrote: »

Who'd have thought she'd turn out to be such a bitch?

The main thing though is to not be embarrassed about it and try hide away, instead call her out on it

She is a Nationalist. Always was.

It's just certain celebrities and the media seemed to turn a blind eye to that and threw their support behind her as the lesser of evils in Burma.

You are right of course. She needs to be called out on it.

And stripped of any Peace prizes she has won.

Madagascan

Some Countries will stand up to the threat of Islamic violence and some won't.
Burma will .

Irish Praetorian

Madagascan wrote: »

Some Countries will stand up to the threat of Islamic violence and some won't.
Burma will .

I don't think anyone here can question my credentials about being serious when it comes to dealing with Islamic Fundamentalism - but I don't believe for an instant that it means we're in a no holds barred contest where the wholesale extermination of a people should be regarded as par for the course.

Arsemageddon

Madagascan wrote: »

Some Countries will stand up to the threat of Islamic violence and some won't.
Burma will .

Wow, this post takes hypocrisy to a whole new level.

riffmongous

The Highwayman wrote: »

Violence is all they understand. They are just being treated as non Muslims are treated around the world by followers of the religion of peace.

Madagascan wrote: »

Some Countries will stand up to the threat of Islamic violence and some won't.
Burma will .

Is this really the level we are at now on boards? Justification of ethnic cleansing

Rumpy Pumpy

There's entire families and communities dying there. I'd suggest the usual morons who start throwing out 'racist', 'fascist', 'leftie' etc take even a second to comprehend that.

Then consider what an extremely young country like Burma has had to encounter.

We decided to burn out and intimidate an Anglo-Irish tradition that wasn't native, but had been here for hundreds of years.

Arsemageddon

Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »

There's entire families and communities dying there. I'd suggest the usual morons who start throwing out 'racist', 'fascist', 'leftie' etc take even a second to comprehend that.

Then consider what an extremely young country like Burma has had to encounter.

We decided to burn out and intimidate an Anglo-Irish tradition that wasn't native, but had been here for hundreds of years.

That analogy is very poor. Can you back up your claims with examples of wholesale burning of villages and towns and the wanton mass slaughter of civilians during the War of Independence. Did it all happen in the space of 3-4 weeks?

deco nate

Ah no, this is wrong. These people are left I the middle. No one wants them, so what? We should just leave them to die, really?

What is it, 400000 crammed into one tiny space with one road in and one road out with no toilet facilities kids dying it's a bloody disgrace. And it's only getting worse. Shame on anyone that says let them die.
They have nothing. Shut down by both sides.

Ever hear of heart and minds?

Madagascan

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Madagascan wrote: »

Some Countries will stand up to the threat of Islamic violence and some won't.
Burma will .

Wow, this post takes hypocrisy to a whole new level.

Hypocrisy none here.
I just can't understand why a person follows a religion that commands the death of all non belivers.
And if they understand the teachings which they do still follow it.
The followers of said religion have very little sympathy with me.
Reap what you sow.

Arsemageddon

Madagascan wrote: »

Hypocrisy none here.
I just can't understand why a person follows a religion that commands the death of all non belivers.
And if they understand the teachings which they do still follow it.
The followers of said religion have very little sympathy with me.
Reap what you sow.

A post containing nothing but ignorance.

FTA69

The usual muppets on here making glib comments about the expulsion of half a million people and the wholesale slaughter of civilians, charming stuff indeed. It's scary that people can have such a level of angry prejudice that they're prepared to gloss over other human beings who are suffering so much. "Burma is standing up to Islam" ? I mean are you having a f*cking laugh? More like a hyper nationalist dictatorship persecuting some of the poorest and most defenceless people in the world.

Two years ago I was in Bangladesh and travelled to the south east of the country to an area called Chittagong. This is close to the Burmese border and features a lot of Rohingya camps. I've never in my life seen such poverty. Their refugee camps are more like fenced in prisons, I saw some families whose only shelter was a length of concrete sewer pipe on the ground. They'd get one meal a day if they were lucky.

The Rohingya aren't Bangladeshi and the people there don't have much of an affinity with them at all, Burma is their home and has been for time immemorial. The Rohingya I encountered in Bangladesh were viewed in the same many Europeans would view Roma gypsies.

FTA69

Madagascan wrote: »

Hypocrisy none here.
I just can't understand why a person follows a religion that commands the death of all non belivers.
And if they understand the teachings which they do still follow it.
The followers of said religion have very little sympathy with me.
Reap what you sow.

Your views are abhorrent and wrong.

Grayson

Just to remind people, the Rohingya are denied citizenship, state education and freedom of movement. They have been living there since the 8th century. That means they can trace themselves back farther than any american and most unionists in NI.

This is a systematic targeting of an ethnic group that has been going on for years. Myanmar won't even call them Rohingya, they call them Bengali's and say they're illegal immigrants. Because that's what people do apparently, illegally immigrate to a country where they can never be citizens, can't get an education, be denied civil rights and will be targeted by the army.

Huexotzingo

Madagascan wrote: »

Hypocrisy none here.
I just can't understand why a person follows a religion that commands the death of all non belivers.
And if they understand the teachings which they do still follow it.
The followers of said religion have very little sympathy with me.
Reap what you sow.

Such a stupid post.

Atoms for Peace

I do get a bit jaded by this, the regimes that get called out on their crap are usually dose not aligned with the west, this in no way excuses their crimes of course.
If the Burmese military had been using British rather than Chinese bombs on the rohingya would the story be front page news?

Ulysses Gaze

Madagascan wrote: »

Hypocrisy none here.
I just can't understand why a person follows a religion that commands the death of all non belivers.
And if they understand the teachings which they do still follow it.
The followers of said religion have very little sympathy with me.
Reap what you sow.

Grayson

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

I do get a bit jaded by this, the regimes that get called out on their crap are usually dose not aligned with the west, this in no way excuses their crimes of course.
If the Burmese military had been using British rather than Chinese bombs on the rohingya would the story be front page news?

In some papers. I can't imagine the daily mail running it if the government were trying to sell weapons there.

then again, maybe they would. They have a very right wing patriotic viewpoint but they do occasionally run a story that's critical of the government. However i doubt it'd be front page or have the same kind of punchline as "Crush the saboteurs".

Snickers Man

How many people here have more than a perfunctory knowledge of the history, economy, strategic significance and demographic make up of Burma?

Very few, I would guess, and I would happily count myself among them.

There is an interesting and fair-minded article here which attempts to give some explanation for the difficulties Aung San Su Kyi faces and the calculations she is forced to make, without condoning for a second the atrocities that are clearly taking place.

She is not a saint. She never was.

She is a politician, born into a political family with her father regarded as one of the architects of independent Burma. But that country has terrible problems: cursed by oil, by a multi-ethnic multifaith population within and utterly cynical strategic forces without; the British and Japanese fought over it for their own interests in the 1940s, the Chinese and "the West" seem to be doing so now; and as is always the case, external colonists or neo-colonists will divide and rule and encourage or at least tolerate murderous strife in another person's country if it suits their own best interests. "Gotta fight them over there, rather than fight them here"

Why was she so revered? Apart from the fact that she is a stunningly beautiful woman, still remarkably handsome at 72, highly educated and articulate. Because she was in favour of "democracy"? Well, who isn't? Because the bad guys tried to shut her up for decades and not allow her, or anyone else for that matter, impose democratic political control over a powerful military?

Given a bullet-point list of positive attributes it is not surprising that the shallow among us grasped the opportunity to laud a brave, indomitable and much-wronged person making noises about the sort of things we all agree are essential prerequisites for civilised life.

Sadly, few pristine reputations survive first contact with the levers of power.

Some knowledge of what is actually going on in Burma might be the real issue to study here. How big a dickhead Bono might be, or what crappy smushy songs Damien Rice might perform are definitely NOT the primary concern.

A Little Pony

Arsemageddon wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

I am sure a reasonable explanation exists for this.

Well, burning people out of their homes would seem reasonable to a rather right-wing Ulster unionist

A Little Pony wrote: »

A made up word to stop critical thinking on Islam.

You're seriously saying that it is not possible for people to be prejudiced towards Muslims?  Such a ridiculous claim justifies the term.

Being critical of Islam is perfectly rational, it is not a phobia. It's absolute nonsense peddled by the likes of you and others and it doesn't work, people are waking up to it throughout Europe. Me being a Unionist has nothing to do with this discussion.

wes

riffmongous wrote: »

Is this really the level we are at now on boards? Justification of ethnic cleansing

Yup, pretty common among the right these days.

These guys aren't any better than ISIS sympathizers and get a free pass on here for some reason.

wes

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

I do get a bit jaded by this, the regimes that get called out on their crap are usually dose not aligned with the west, this in no way excuses their crimes of course.
If the Burmese military had been using British rather than Chinese bombs on the rohingya would the story be front page news?

They were receiving training from the British military, until the latest bout of ethnic cleansing.

wes

A Little Pony wrote: »

Being critical of Islam is perfectly rational, it is not a phobia.

Ethnic cleansing is not criticism. Your posts are nothing more than excuses for mass murder. Utterly disgusting.

A Little Pony wrote: »

It's absolute nonsense peddled by the likes of you and others and it doesn't work, people are waking up to it throughout Europe. Me being a Unionist has nothing to do with this discussion.

I think it perfectly valid to point out your own bigoted extremist ideology, seeing as your making excuses for murder and ethnic cleansing. Something Unionism is a big fan of, seeing the history of that particularly vile ideology.

A Little Pony

wes wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Being critical of Islam is perfectly rational, it is not a phobia.

Ethnic cleansing is not criticism. Your posts are nothing more than excuses for mass murder. Utterly disgusting.

A Little Pony wrote: »

It's absolute nonsense peddled by the likes of you and others and it doesn't work, people are waking up to it throughout Europe. Me being a Unionist has nothing to do with this discussion.

I think it perfectly valid to point out your own bigoted extremist ideology, seeing as your making excuses for murder and ethnic cleansing.

Maybe you should read properly then. We do not have all the information here, maybe more information will come out to get the full picture. You are jumping to conclusions too early imo. Also being a Unionist like millions of English, Scottish and Welsh people is not an extremist position.

Saying disliking Islam as an ideology is a phobia is just factually incorrect and has no basis for rational discussion and lacks critical thinking skills.

Spider Web

A Little Pony wrote: »

Being critical of Islam is perfectly rational, it is not a phobia.

Yes but extending that to being ok with harsh treatment and expulsion of people - including children - for nothing other than being muslim is not rational. Not to mention it's extremely unchristian.

A Little Pony

Spider Web wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Being critical of Islam is perfectly rational, it is not a phobia.

Yes but extending that to being ok with harsh treatment and expulsion of people - including children - for nothing other than being muslim is not rational. Not to mention it's extremely unchristian.

Someone said it's got nothing to do with religion but ethnicity. We don't have all the facts here. I had never heard of these group of people before.

wes

A Little Pony wrote: »

Maybe you should read properly then.

I have done. All I see are sick excuses for murder and ethnic cleansing.

A Little Pony wrote: »

We do not have all the information here, maybe more information will come out to get the full picture. You are jumping to conclusions too early imo.

Yeah, we do actually, and we see you making excuses for murder and ethnic cleansing. Its disgusting and quite frankly sick. What the **** is wrong with people like you. No better than ISIS sympathizers imo.

A Little Pony wrote: »

Also being a Unionist like millions of English, Scottish and Welsh people is not an extremist position.

A lot of people believing in something doesn't mean it isn't extremist. Your posts are nothing short of the same far right extremist nonsense that we see spouted by Unionists time again. Unionism is nothing short of an violent extremist ideology.

A Little Pony wrote: »

Saying disliking Islam as an ideology is a phobia is just factually incorrect and has no basis for rational discussion and lacks critical thinking skills.

No one said that actually. There talking about the mass murder, rape and ethnic cleansing as being Islamaphobia. Your willful and disgusting lies are nothing short of a defense for these crimes.

Why are you defending this? Seriously, take a long hard look in the mirror. There is something profoundly wrong with your saying. Your lieing through your teeth, claiming that people are equating Islamaphobia, with criticism of Religious beliefs on this thread.

Again, why are you defending rape, murder and ethnic cleansing?

riffmongous

Disliking Islam as an ideology to the point you are ok with its adherents being ethnically cleansed is so extreme that it could only be described as a phobia

Spider Web

Ah unionists are the moderates to be fair, loyalists are the extreme ones.

I too am skeptical of the "someone said something", "we don't have all the facts" stuff though - that would not be taken in such good faith if it was something they didn't agree with.

wes

Spider Web wrote: »

Ah unionists are the moderates to be fair, loyalists are the extreme ones.

Well yes, relatively speaking.

I was making a point, on how the posters own ideology can be used as stick to beat them with, in the same way there using there own hatred of Islam and Muslims to justify murder, rape and ethnic cleansing.

The fact remains that far to many far/alt right posters, are consistently supporting violence like this and screaming about how evil Islam is or how evil the left is, when ideologically speaking most of them, are basically the Western version of ISIS sympathizers.

Its particularly galling to see lies from posters claiming that people are taking issue with criticism of ideology, when people are clearing talking about the violence against the Rohingya.

IMO, none of these alt right poster, are here to discuss anything in good faith. There extremists and apologists for terrorism, murder, rape and ethnic cleansing, when its a group they support or one of there own.

granturismo

A Little Pony wrote: »

Someone said it's got nothing to do with religion but ethnicity. We don't have all the facts here. I had never heard of these group of people before.

Here you go;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_people#Pakistan_Movement

The Rohingya were in the Irish and UK news a few years ago when a fanatical Buddhist monk was organising pograms against the Rohingya.

There tends to be very little differentiation between religion and ethnicity in cases like this.

A Little Pony

wes wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Maybe you should read properly then.

I have done. All I see are sick excuses for murder and ethnic cleansing.

A Little Pony wrote: »

We do not have all the information here, maybe more information will come out to get the full picture. You are jumping to conclusions too early imo.

Yeah, we do actually, and we see you making excuses for murder and ethnic cleansing. Its disgusting and quite frankly sick. What the **** is wrong with people like you. No better than ISIS sympathizers imo.

A Little Pony wrote: »

Also being a Unionist like millions of English, Scottish and Welsh people is not an extremist position.

A lot of people believing in something doesn't mean it isn't extremist. Your posts are nothing short of the same far right extremist nonsense that we see spouted by Unionists time again. Unionism is nothing short of an violent extremist ideology.

A Little Pony wrote: »

Saying disliking Islam as an ideology is a phobia is just factually incorrect and has no basis for rational discussion and lacks critical thinking skills.

No one said that actually. There talking about the mass murder, rape and ethnic cleansing as being Islamaphobia. Your willful and disgusting lies are nothing short of a defense for these crimes.

Why are you defending this? Seriously, take a long hard look in the mirror. There is something profoundly wrong with your saying. Your lieing through your teeth, claiming that people are equating Islamaphobia, with criticism of Religious beliefs on this thread.

Again, why are you defending rape, murder and ethnic cleansing?

So much hyperbole that boards.ie is in danger of blowing up. You need to wait for more information to come out on this incident in Burma and not jump to conclusions and the leader has denied any ethnic cleansing. The same person who is friends with Obama and Clinton.

You call others extremists just because you disagree with Conservatism and in particular have got 'extreme' views on Unionism and millions of Unionists in the United Kingdom. Maybe you need to look in the mirror and check yourself out before lecturing anyone else on having bigoted views. 

You have shown plenty of people in this thread that you certainly hold strong views and defensive views of Islam as a set of ideas which is fine. But don't get angry if someone challenges you on that or asks you to be patient and await for more information on this international incident of which the vast majority of us don't have a clue about and are still looking for more information.

The 400k number is interesting and I like many will have to check out this and see if it can be verfied. But you just jumped the fence and got far too carried away. Maybe you are an expert on Burmese history and what seems like a historic conflict in that part of the world.

Maybe you can give more information on what is going on, you seem to be coming across as someone who is the only expert on this forum on Burmese history, either that or it's just another convenient bandwagon to jump on without much knowledge because you saw an article in the Guardian newspaper giving details on this particular incident.

You said the killing and rape etc is Islamophobia and yet someone else on this very thread said it isn't a religious issue, they said it is an ethnic issue. Which begs the question which is does anyone on here have a clue about that part of the world? Does anyone really know what is happening? The vast majority of us wouldn't have a clue about anything to do with Burma. 

The 'Alt right' nonsense makes no sense to me, as a Conservative I don't have a clue what the Alt Right is or what it is supposed to be. I don't know anyone personally who is 'Alt Right' or calls themselves 'Alt Right'. If you said Conservative then I would agree with you, I am a Conservative. 

Spider Web wrote: »

Ah unionists are the moderates to be fair, loyalists are the extreme ones.

I too am skeptical of the "someone said something", "we don't have all the facts" stuff though - that would not be taken in such good faith if it was something they didn't agree with.

But do we have all the information? Just what is going on? I am trying to find more information on this incident, just how many have become refugees? What is the history of this conflict? I just want to know more about it but it seems some are experts.

Also you can be a Loyalist and not be an extremist. You can have Loyalist views relating to the Monarchy and be in an interfaith marriage of which I know many. It doesn't make you an extremist but we seem to have multiple experts here, so I guess we should just take your word for it.

WinnyThePoo

A Little Pony wrote: »

Someone said it's got nothing to do with religion but ethnicity. We don't have all the facts here. I had never heard of these group of people before.

You never heard of them before? Then why make such disgusting remarks.

Tokyo

I think a lot of people here are working under the mistaken assumption that Aung San Suu Kyi and the democratic government have control over the northern states, and it's not the case, not by a long shot. The internal politics of Myanmar are about as complex as they get, and the military still retains much of its powers.

While there is democracy (on the surface at least) in the southern states for the past 15 months or so, the northern states are very much controlled by the military there, who want complete control of the land there. The Rohingya, on the other hand, have been living in this region for centuries, and want to be recognised as a distinct ethnic group in Myanmar, and as such have the same rights as everybody else, and these two ideals are very much at odds with one another.

The Rohingya are disliked because of their ethnicity (or to be more precise, their wish to be recognised as an ethnicity). The fact that they are muslim is happenstance, but it's all too easy to blame religion as the source of the issue. As I mentioned earlier, over 8% of the population of Myanmar are Muslim, and live peacefully in communities, alongside Buddhist and Hindi neighbours.

As for those asking why Aung San Suu Kyi isn't doing anythign about it, the answer is simple - she can't. What army is she going to send to Rakhine state to take control, when the army itself wants to regain control over the country? By doing nothing, the military are very effectively undermining Aung San Suu Kyi's presence on the world stage.

For those who are curious where I'm getting my information, I live here, and have done so for a few years now. Unsurprisingly, it's a common topic for discussion amongst my neighbours and friends.

FTA69

mike_ie wrote: »

I think a lot of people here are working under the mistaken assumption that Aung San Suu Kyi and the democratic government have control over the northern states, and it's not the case, not by a long shot. The internal politics of Myanmar are about as complex as they get, and the military still retains much of its powers.

While there is democracy (on the surface at least) in the southern states for the past 15 months or so, the northern states are very much controlled by the military there, who want complete control of the land there. The Rohingya, on the other hand, have been living in this region for centuries, and want to be recognised as a distinct ethnic group in Myanmar, and as such have the same rights as everybody else, and these two ideals are very much at odds with one another.

The Rohingya are disliked because of their ethnicity (or to be more precise, their wish to be recognised as an ethnicity). The fact that they are muslim is happenstance, but it's all too easy to blame religion as the source of the issue. As I mentioned earlier, over 8% of the population of Myanmar are Muslim, and live peacefully in communities, alongside Buddhist and Hindi neighbours.

As for those asking why Aung San Suu Kyi isn't doing anythign about it, the answer is simple - she can't. What army is she going to send to Rakhine state to take control, when the army itself wants to regain control over the country? By doing nothing, the military are very effectively undermining Aung San Suu Kyi's presence on the world stage.

For those who are curious where I'm getting my information, I live here, and have done so for a few years now. Unsurprisingly, it's a common topic for discussion amongst my neighbours and friends.

That's all well and good but the problem isn't Suu Kyi's inability to fix the issue, it's the fact that she's denying there is even a problem and blaming the Rohingya people for the fact they're being massacred and expelled in their hundreds of thousands.

How much control she has over the army is irrelevant, she's passively facilitating the exploitation by lending credence to the army's claims and denying the Rohingya are being persecuted. It's the worst case of spineless equivocating in the face of blatant ethnic cleansing.

wes

A Little Pony wrote: »

So much hyperbole that boards.ie is in danger of blowing up.

Not at all. Calling a spade a spade. Not wasting my time, reading more of your alt right apologist drivel. Your posts are a disgrace. You come on here and lie through your teeth, when people are being murdered. Your alt right talking point bollox, about how Islamphobia doesn't exist is kind of a hard sell, when people are being murdered for a combination of race and religion.

BTW, your not the only one making excuses. You have lost the plot, and are in dire need of some empathy and basic human decency. FFS, did someone kick your puppy, when you were little or something?

A Little Pony

wes wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

So much hyperbole that boards.ie is in danger of blowing up.

Not at all. Calling a spade a spade. Not wasting my time, reading more of your alt right apologist drivel. Your posts are a disgrace. You come on here and lie through your teeth, when people are being murdered. Your alt right talking point bollox, about how Islamphobia doesn't exist is kind of a hard sell, when people are being murdered for a combination of race and religion.

BTW, your not the only one making excuses. You have lost the plot, and are in dire need of some empathy and basic human decency. FFS, did someone kick your puppy, when you were little or something?

Wes a post just above has explained pretty much that it is NOT "Islamophobia", that fake term which some like  to use. It seems from the experts on this who actually live among it that it is an ethnic conflict. So you have been wrong the whole time and don't seem to know what you are talking about. I'm willing to learn from said poster above who has explained it perfectly.

end of the road

A Little Pony wrote: »

Maybe you should read properly then. We do not have all the information here, maybe more information will come out to get the full picture. You are jumping to conclusions too early imo.

we have all the information. we have a full picture. we know exactly what is happening. ethnic cleansing.

wes

A Little Pony wrote: »

Wes a post just above has explained pretty much that it is NOT "Islamophobia", that fake term which some like  to use.

That post actually explained nothing of the sort, just someones personal opinion (which is of course perfectly valid, and shows us that the hatred is just as much ethnic). It isn't fake term and only bigots would say that. Its interesting that your call it a fake term, seeing as the justification by other posters on here, was hatred of Muslims. Why do you deny this simple fact? Again, more alt right apologetics.

A Little Pony wrote: »

It seems from the experts on this who actually live among it that it is an ethnic conflict. So you have been wrong the whole time and don't seem to know what you are talking about. I'm willing to learn from said poster above who has explained it perfectly.

The UN and various aid agency on the ground say otherwise, and its a conflict were one side is running for there lives, and the post in question didn't say what your claiming at all. Again, why are you lieing?

Again, more alt right bull****. Disgusting as per usual.

**EDIT**
BTW, before coming on and talking your typical alt right bull****, read up on the ideology of the extremists who want to wipe our the Rohingya:

The Hateful Monk

--SNIP--
Wirathu was freed as part of a general amnesty for political prisoners in 2012, and he quickly went on to revitalize the 969 Movement—a grassroots organization founded earlier that year by Wirathu and Ashin Sada Ma, a monk from Moulmein, and committed to preventing what it sees as Islam’s infiltration of, and dominance over, Buddhist Myanmar. Since 2014, Wirathu has operated under the auspices of the Ma Ba Tha, or Organization for the Protection of Race and Religion. Like 969, many members of the Ma Ba Tha spread propaganda about how Muslims steal Buddhist women and outbreed Buddhist men. “The features of the African catfish,” Wirathu tells Schroeder near the beginning of the film, “are that they grow very fast, they breed very fast, and they’re violent…The Muslims are exactly like these fish.”
--SNIP--

So again, you have no idea what your talking about, and only reason you post here, is your well known hatred of Muslims, as per your denial of the pretty clear existence of Islamaphobia, which is the only reason your posting here, from what I can see.

Snickers Man

mike_ie wrote: »

For those who are curious where I'm getting my information, I live here, and have done so for a few years now.

Another Irishman in Burma!

Wasn't the last British governor of Burma a guy from Cavan? Reginald Dorman-Smith, whose brother Eric was a general in WWII, got shafted by Monty who he later sued after been unflatteringly portrayed in Monty's memoirs and subsequently Gaelicised his name to Dorman-O'Gowan and (reputedly) advised the IRA on their border campaign of the 1950s?

Burma is not the only country with tortuous ethnic loyalties.

A Little Pony

wes wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Wes a post just above has explained pretty much that it is NOT "Islamophobia", that fake term which some like  to use.

That post actually explained nothing of the sort, just someones personal opinion (which is of course perfectly valid, and shows us that the hatred is just as much ethnic). It isn't fake term and only bigots would say that. Its interesting that your call it a fake term, seeing as the justification by other posters on here, was hatred of Muslims. Why do you deny this simple fact? Again, more alt right apologetics.

A Little Pony wrote: »

It seems from the experts on this who actually live among it that it is an ethnic conflict. So you have been wrong the whole time and don't seem to know what you are talking about. I'm willing to learn from said poster above who has explained it perfectly.

The UN and various aid agency on the ground say otherwise, and its a conflict were one side is running for there lives, and the post in question didn't say what your claiming at all. Again, why are you lieing?

Again, more alt right bull****. Disgusting as per usual.

A post from a person who lives in the area who obviously knows what he/she is talking about and has told you it isn't a religious conflict contrary to what you have been saying about it with "Islamophobia". If you want to debate why the term is a nonsense I will do so but it will just take the main thread off topic unfortunately. 

You keep calling me Alt Right, you watch and consume too much US politics.

Tokyo

A Little Pony wrote: »

A post from a person who lives in the area who obviously knows what he/she is talking about and has told you it isn't a religious conflict contrary to what you have been saying about it with "Islamophobia". If you want to debate why the term is a nonsense I will do so but it will just take the main thread off topic unfortunately. 

In my defense, I stated that the source of the issue was one of ethnicity, rather than of religion. However, one easily manifests into the other, if you are looking for a reason to hate someone, religion tends to be the handiest go-to. Northern Ireland is a prime example of that.

What people may not be aware of, is that there are other Rohingya religious groups - the Rohingya Hindus are beginning to be targeted, from what I hear. Which muddies the waters a little in terms of it being described as a religious conflict.

wes

A Little Pony wrote: »

A post from a person who lives in the area who obviously knows what he/she is talking about and has told you it isn't a religious conflict contrary to what you have been saying about it with "Islamophobia". If you want to debate why the term is a nonsense I will do so but it will just take the main thread off topic unfortunately. 

You have been doing exactly the entire time you have been posting here. Again, why are you lieing? Seriously, do you think I can't read or something? You have been falsely claiming that Islamophobia doesn't exist, when people are being killed for being Muslim. It take a special brand of hate to justify such claims, in a thread like this.

BTW, read the article I provided and you can read the justification from the extremist Bhuddists for there hatred, a hatred you claim doesn't exist, as it doesn't suit your own hateful violent ideology.

Here it is again:

The Hateful Monk

--SNIP--
Wirathu was freed as part of a general amnesty for political prisoners in 2012, and he quickly went on to revitalize the 969 Movement—a grassroots organization founded earlier that year by Wirathu and Ashin Sada Ma, a monk from Moulmein, and committed to preventing what it sees as Islam’s infiltration of, and dominance over, Buddhist Myanmar. Since 2014, Wirathu has operated under the auspices of the Ma Ba Tha, or Organization for the Protection of Race and Religion. Like 969, many members of the Ma Ba Tha spread propaganda about how Muslims steal Buddhist women and outbreed Buddhist men. “The features of the African catfish,” Wirathu tells Schroeder near the beginning of the film, “are that they grow very fast, they breed very fast, and they’re violent…The Muslims are exactly like these fish.”
--SNIP--

People can hate people for multiple reasons you know. Your choice to ignore what doesn't suit your own extremism, just shows up your obvious agenda.

A Little Pony wrote: »

You keep calling me Alt Right, you watch and consume too much US politics.

You keep using there talking points word for word. Calling a spade a spade and nothing more.

Grayson

FTA69 wrote: »

That's all well and good but the problem isn't Suu Kyi's inability to fix the issue, it's the fact that she's denying there is even a problem and blaming the Rohingya people for the fact they're being massacred and expelled in their hundreds of thousands.

How much control she has over the army is irrelevant, she's passively facilitating the exploitation by lending credence to the army's claims and denying the Rohingya are being persecuted. It's the worst case of spineless equivocating in the face of blatant ethnic cleansing.

I agree. I know that she doesn't control the army but she does control what she says. The thing is that within Myanmar there is a large majority that dislike the Rohingya. There's also some that hate them like the buddhist ultra nationalists. If she said something against the ethnic cleansing it would make her deeply unpopular.

So there's two possible reasons.
1) She doesn't care.
2) She cares but won't say something because of the political fallout.

Tokyo

Grayson wrote: »

I agree. I know that she doesn't control the army but she does control what she says. The thing is that within Myanmar there is a large majority that dislike the Rohingya. There's also some that hate them like the buddhist ultra nationalists. If she said something against the ethnic cleansing it would make her deeply unpopular.

So there's two possible reasons.
1) She doesn't care.
2) She cares but won't say something because of the political fallout.

3) She's in a no-win situation. The military are trying to undermine her credibility within the international audience, however if she speaks out, the army marches on Yangon, ousts the fledgling democracy, and the entire country goes back in time by 50 years.

I took her speech to be one that was extremely carefully worded, rather than outright denial of the issue. Your mileage may vary.

riffmongous

Make of this what you will, it's hard to say how it was really meant

The Burmese politician, who was once under house arrest for 15 years in her native Burma, made an off-air comment about BBC Today presenter Mishal Husain after losing her temper during an interview where Husain asked her to condemn anti-Islamic sentiment.

Following the interview, Suu Kyi was heard to mutter: "No one told me I was going to be interviewed by a Muslim."

The comments were revealed in a new book, The Lady And The Generals: Aung San Suu Kyi And Burma’s Struggle For Freedom, by Peter Popham.

The book reveals that the 70-year-old president of Myanmar’s National League for Democracy refused to condemn anti-Islamic sentiment and massacres of Muslims in Myanmar when she was repeatedly asked to do so by Husain, the first Muslim presenter of Radio 4’s Today programme, during the interview.

Her response was: "I think there are many, many Buddhists who have also left the country for various reasons.

"This is a result of our sufferings under a dictatorial regime."

Last year Suu Kyi was criticised for not speaking out in defence of a persecuted Muslim minority, the Rohingya of Rakhine state where many are confined to squalid internment camps.

Buddhist nationalist activists, including some firebrand monks, had whipped up anti-Muslim sentiments during a charged election campaign.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/25/aung-san-suu-kyi-in-anti-muslim-spat-with-bbc-presenter/

goose2005

Grayson wrote: »

Back on topic. At this point all arms sales to Myanmar should be halted. They should also face sanctions.
It won't happen though.

They don't buy their weapons from the West anyway: "identifies China, Russia, India, Israel and Ukraine as its major arms suppliers" and have been under sanctions for decades