Jump to content

Rohingya – the most persecuted people in the world


rooster59

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Right. You need to research the history of these people who have lived in the area for hundreds of years.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22356306

Why are Buddhist monks attacking Muslims?

Interesting read.

 

From it, in recent history it seems that Buddhists have attacked their fellow countrymen twice. One time it was against a terrorist Tamil contingent and another against a terrorist Muslim group. Seems to be a pattern there. I don't consider peacefully protesting the barbaric slaughter of animals equivalent. 

 

It does raise the question if it is evil to allow violence to be committed. I am not Buddhist but didn't Buddha forgo enlightenment to stay on earth to teach? So are there exceptions to rules?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply
40 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Right. You need to research the history of these people who have lived in the area for hundreds of years.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22356306

Why are Buddhist monks attacking Muslims?

Sure, Rohingyas have been living there for hundreds of years ACCORDING TO MUSLIM sources.  (In 1923 British census showed 38 ooo of the 100 000 Muslims in Burma identified as being 'Rohingya'). Many disagree and there is evidence that at least 500 000+ came over in 1971 when the Chittagong Muslims (who speak the same dialect as the 'Rohingyas') backed the wrong side in the Pakistan / Bangladesh war.

Chittagong? That's the place just over the border where non-Muslim minorities have been persecuted for years just as the 'Rohingyas' were persecuting Burmese non-Muslim minority groups in the Rakhine. 

This isn't about Muslims versus Buddhists priests, that again is false news, it's about the Burmese versus these people that were never welcome and that have tried many times to annex the Rakhine. They are now trying to take over control of the Burmese oil and gas.

Just a snippet, that very few people have reported on: 2011, China signed a pipeline deal with China (not Bangladesh). Troubles began.

2012,  Muslims in Maungdaw ran out of the the mosques after Friday prayers and went after the non-Muslims. Out of a population of 400 000, 320 000 Muslims have now left the town. 

China has made it clear that they wish  for 'peace and stability' in the region. Letting the Rohingyas carry on as before 

In 2017, one day before Kofi Anan's proposal for bringing peace to the Rakhine, ARSA attacked police posts, 55 policemen killed. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's one side of the story that the International media, i.e., those venues associated with Western MSM are dutifully propagating non-stop.  But it's not the only narrative - but just the only narrative being hyped 24/7.  Again, there is more than meets the eye and the Rakhine state issue is just one factor.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dave_boo said:

Interesting that you accept the Rohinga claims at face value and yet demand claims of the mass murder of Hindus to be proven.

 

It will be interesting to see if Article 53, which allows for "... such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations" applies. Denying material and personnel support to a terrorist organisation seems to be a necessary military objective. 

 

I would be interested in knowing examples of "Muslims fleeing conflict and not resorting to armed resistance" where they weren't committing terror attacks or supported by a Western power.

 

These Mynmar armed Christian ethnic (does that even mean they are not of Burmese ancestry or was it an attempt to normalise the Bengali invansion?) rebels are attacking non-Christian citizens or merely the military? World of difference between those two courses of action. Also why are there other, non-Burmese descended, Muslim communities that are not having the same issue?

 

in regards to your BBC link, which is heavy on speculation and hearsay, I will provide another below which should urge caution against blindly trusting those providing information while having a vested interest in swaying the news to fit their beliefs. 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41123878

You have made some of incorrect assumptions regards my  post. 

 

The BBC article does indicate propaganda from both sides of the conflict, but what is not in dispute is the appalling persecution and denial of basic human rights of the Rohingya Muslims for decades.  Group 969 is an excellent example of how far some Burmese Buddhists have descended from the Right Path to evil. Consequently armed resistance by Rohingya had been anticipated for many years. There is no doubt over the years the Burmese military have committed war crimes, e.g. rape as a tool of war. You seem to believe the Burmese 'government's current ethnic cleansing actions, which had been warned of by the international community for quite a period of time, are covered by the Rules of War, you are wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, simple1 said:

You have made some of incorrect assumptions regards my  post. 

 

The BBC article does indicate propaganda from both sides of the conflict, but what is not in dispute is the appalling persecution and denial of basic human rights of the Rohingya Muslims for decades.  Group 969 is an excellent example of how far some Burmese Buddhists have descended from the Right Path to evil. Consequently armed resistance by Rohingya had been anticipated for many years. There is no doubt over the years the Burmese military have committed war crimes, e.g. rape as a tool of war. You seem to believe the Burmese 'government's current ethnic cleansing actions, which had been warned of by the international community for quite a period of time, are covered by the Rules of War, you are wrong.

I am not an inernational law expert and will defer to your learned opinion if you are. Assuming that has been your life work, could you kindly expound upon whether the Rohingya are actually afforded protected people status? Also does the British government's policy of mass migration of Bangladeshi people into Burma have any bearing vis a vis section 49. It was based on the Sudetenland expulsion of the Germans who did what the British did.

 

Earlier in this thread others have posted previous "armed resistance" by the Rohingya. I'm sure the 969 group formed in a vacuum and not as a response to previous depredations by the Rohingya.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, dave_boo said:

I am not an inernational law expert and will defer to your learned opinion if you are. Assuming that has been your life work, could you kindly expound upon whether the Rohingya are actually afforded protected people status? Also does the British government's policy of mass migration of Bangladeshi people into Burma have any bearing vis a vis section 49. It was based on the Sudetenland expulsion of the Germans who did what the British did.

 

Earlier in this thread others have posted previous "armed resistance" by the Rohingya. I'm sure the 969 group formed in a vacuum and not as a response to previous depredations by the Rohingya.

Your apologist support for Muslim ethnic cleansing is very clear, underlined by your virulently anti Muslim POV in a number of prior vile comments. How anyone can support a nationalist group, known for encouraging violence by way of extremist political propaganda is beyond me

 

Pointless to continue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Your apologist support for Muslim ethnic cleansing is very clear, underlined by your virulently anti Muslim POV in a number of prior vile comments. How anyone can support a nationalist group, known for encouraging violence by way of extremist political propaganda is beyond me

 

Pointless to continue.

I have yet to apologise for anything; I'm merely trying to ferret out all the facts.  It would appear from your post that you have clearly cemented your mind regarding the validity of the claims being brandied about.  That is certainly your right.  Considering the lack of access to the area, the historic nature of the conflict (which has been demonstrated to be long running and not something that just popped up in the last few years), the other conflicts ongoing in Burma (which has not resulted in an equivalent mass exodus of population from the parties), and the fact that there are other groups of Muslims living in Burma, that are not ethnic Burmese, who are not experiencing what the Rohingya are claiming are happening should, in my opinion, warrant further inquiries into the truth.

 

If trying to understand all sides of a matter makes me vile...so be it.  Personally I think that being closed minded and unilaterally taking the position of unchallenged acceptance of one side's version in a conflict affecting so many is quite ludicrous.

 

Rather interesting that in the above quoted post you state:

Quote

How anyone can support a nationalist group, known for encouraging violence

 

However earlier you stated:

Quote

Consequently armed resistance by Rohingya had been anticipated for many years.

 

So perhaps I once again "made some of incorrect assumptions regards my  post[sic]", but am I to read that as you condemn Burma/Buddhist Burmese encouraging violence and anticipate, or even condone, armed resistance (which by definition is violence) by the Rohingya?  Is the cognitive dissonance mine or yours?

 

I suppose that I should not expect a reply as you have not deigned to address any of the plethora of questions I have asked in this thread.  Still better than being imprisoned or having my head cut off which are penalties in some places for those who ask pesky question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some seem to be in need of an education regarding the Rohingya.

 

They've been in that area since the 8th century. Yes, their population has increased just like all others around the world.

 

They've been denied citizenship since 1982. And as you can see from below, even state education. Horrible.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_people

Described by the United Nations in 2013 as one of the most persecuted minorities in the world,[26][27][28] the Rohingya population are denied citizenship under the 1982 Myanmar nationality law.[29][30][31] According to Human Rights Watch, the 1982 laws "effectively deny to the Rohingya the possibility of acquiring a nationality. Despite being able to trace Rohingya history to the 8th century, Myanmar law does not recognize the ethnic minority as one of the eight "national races".[31] They are also restricted from freedom of movement, state education and civil service jobs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Some seem to be in need of an education regarding the Rohingya.

 

They've been in that area since the 8th century. Yes, their population has increased just like all others around the world.

 

They've been denied citizenship since 1982. And as you can see from below, even state education. Horrible.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_people

Described by the United Nations in 2013 as one of the most persecuted minorities in the world,[26][27][28] the Rohingya population are denied citizenship under the 1982 Myanmar nationality law.[29][30][31] According to Human Rights Watch, the 1982 laws "effectively deny to the Rohingya the possibility of acquiring a nationality. Despite being able to trace Rohingya history to the 8th century, Myanmar law does not recognize the ethnic minority as one of the eight "national races".[31] They are also restricted from freedom of movement, state education and civil service jobs.

Thanks for the link. Digging into it; the claim for a history stretching back to the eight century comes from HRW quoting several unpublished papers from "Rohingya Solidarity Organization", "Rohingya Patriotic Front", and "Arakan Rohingya National Organization". Would be nice to get independent verification as much as unbiased reports of alleged human rights abuses afforded through unfettered access by a team of impartial international observers to the area would be. Complete veracity on both sides would immensely bolster their claims and allow the world an informed decision as to the proper course of action.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dave_boo said:

<snip>

I suppose that I should not expect a reply

No I am not interested in engaging with someone who has repeatedly expressed extreme bigotry towards Muslims. Quit the BS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dave_boo said:

Thanks for the link. Digging into it; the claim for a history stretching back to the eight century comes from HRW quoting several unpublished papers from "Rohingya Solidarity Organization", "Rohingya Patriotic Front", and "Arakan Rohingya National Organization". Would be nice to get independent verification as much as unbiased reports of alleged human rights abuses afforded through unfettered access by a team of impartial international observers to the area would be. Complete veracity on both sides would immensely bolster their claims and allow the world an informed decision as to the proper course of action.

From the same link.  Please read the entire document.  Is this a bit better?

Quote

The usage of the term Rohingya has been historically documented prior to the British Raj. In 1799, Francis Buchanan-Hamilton wrote an article called "A Comparative Vocabulary of Some of the Languages Spoken in the Burma Empire".[75][76] Among the native groups of Arakan, he wrote are the: "Mohammedans, who have long settled in Arakan, and who call themselves Rooinga, or natives of Arakan."

 

I'm part native American indian.  The history of our tribe was written by a tribal member.  So I shouldn't believe what they wrote?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, simple1 said:

No I am not interested in engaging with someone who has repeatedly expressed extreme bigotry towards Muslims. Quit the BS.

Asking for the same level of proof from all parties that you demand from just one makes me the bigot? I thought bigotry was "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself".

 

Good sir I believe that you have just demonstrated the old adage "pot calling the kettle black".

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dave_boo said:

Asking for the same level of proof from all parties that you demand from just one makes me the bigot? I thought bigotry was "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself".

<snip>

usual right of centre blah, blah. Grow up & get over being rejected for your attempts at crass baiting games

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

From the same link.  Please read the entire document.  Is this a bit better?

 

I'm part native American indian.  The history of our tribe was written by a tribal member.  So I shouldn't believe what they wrote?

I am oft overly verbose and deliberately left that out to both shorten my post as well as to dissuade thoughts that I was deliberately attempting to crush any claims made by the Rohingya.

 

If I was the bigot that another poster claimed, than I would have trumpeted the fact that the first independently verified presence was a full 1,000 years after the Rohingya claim. That of course would have taken us down the rabbit hole of there being at least an Islamic royal court presence during Magpul U's time (and the rationale behind that). One could also then point out that the majority of Bengal was Buddhist until the 1200s. It would then lead to a discussion as to whether the Rohingya Muslims, who seem to be the largest displaced group, are descendants of those who migrated in ancient times. Very confusing without evidence from a non-partial source to suss out the truth.

 

It can be tempting to weight written oral history excessively favourably or not. While I believe there are kernels of truths in all oral histories, the age of those who were tasked with remembering it as well as the simple example of the childern's telephone game requires skepticism on my part.

 

I do believe the approach that Muslims took re the ahadith was intelligent. Taking multiple sources and cross referencing them while assigning a value of sahih, hasan, or da'if. This of course leaves out the political influence much as the effect that the secular world had on the cannonisation of the Bible.

 

So to answer your question; critically believe it. Does it appear to be honest and accurate? Can  you corroborate it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...