Well, the allies seem to think differently when it involves Iraq. Or does the fact it involves oil, a lot of oil in that country have anything to do with it? Because the same thing is happening in Mayanmar.
Ethnic Cleansing in Myanmar
- Thread starter Avatar
- Start date
Nations (well the governments) seldom act out of altruism, especially when it comes to military force, there usually has to be some level of "perceived self-interest" (I say perceived because sometimes they are dead wrong about that), that is a sad reality I have come to understand in this world. Even if they claim they are intervening for humanitarian reasons, usually it is some sort of self-interest they are pursuing.
So if nations like the US, Russia, etc are too busy "pursuing their self-interest" in Iraq and Syria, it will be up to others to step up. China, India, Australia, Japan, are just a few who are close enough and should be able to handle sparing some troops to help.
Journalists are far from being reasonable at times. But, I would not say they made shits up here. It is just they set in their narratives and go with it.
Like I said, most of Burmese reporters would not write stuff like that usually as they know more.
Most concluded that most of their villages were burnt down by terrorists who ran and hid in those villages to create chaos around and put the blame on the government. By the way, this same exact accident happened not so long ago and this happened again in less than a year. I don't think I can blame on the military to go tough on border security and countering terrorism.
As you said, if someone is not there, they can't see it with their own eyes about the whole situations from both sides. With that logic, who would know better than Arakineses?
I think the focus have been saying about genocide (not that I agreed with the whole idea or the practise of it).
But people from outside are largely ignoring purposefully or not about why we got to these situations. Maybe people there are genuinely upset and tired of it? Maybe those people are not exactly so innocent? Many could be playing 'refugees' to get aid which is not unusual for them as we all know.
I have written a lot of it in this thread already. It is very easy to put the blame on Burma where so called rohingas are getting treated like 'shit' in every countries around there rightly or wrongly. And Burmese governments in the last 50 years or so don't regard them as one of the country's main minorities. And we have like 130+ that the government recognized. It is not like they are being stingy about it.
The bottom line is that you gotta respect a country's rule whether you live there legally or illegally.
China, India or even the like of thailand etc would not do shit because they are scared of 'them' as they don't want them either for whatever reason.
Many of them got sent off into the sea by Thailand border guards all the time when they caught them on the coast lines and you don't hear shit about it. They don't want them period but some other country has to burden it which is funnily enough the poorest in the region.
There is a reason why countries around there are not shouting too loud as I am sure they know what it is like.
Surely you're aware that lots of people in Nazi Germany felt the same way about the Jews? All the outside media is just playing politics, our reporters are much more credible, our leaders are doing what's right for the country, the Jews are just playing the victims, they wouldn't be in the position if they hadn't done something wrong etc.
That is a ridiculous comparison as both situations are totally different.
I made the arguments as the guy said people would know for sure if they are not there or involve somehow in it. Can't have it both ways now, can we?
Not just Nazi Germany but Europe in general.
'Of course there's something wrong with the Jews, what you think its just a coincidence that pretty much every single European country has expelled the Jews or had Pogroms at some point?'.
In fact, I had to have this particularly deplorable argument relatively recently with an absolute (anti-semitic) buffoon who argued similar to The United above there. If the Jews really are so innocent, if they didn't deserve what has happened to them, why have so many different groups persecuted them in their history? Why didn't other European countries stand up for them during the Holocaust? Etc etc.
The playbook for dealing with Muslims now is pretty simple really unfortunately (and as someone said in another thread recently, Muslims as a collective have potentially exhausted their good will with the actions of some across the world). And this applies to Muslims in Muslim countries as well.
Call them terrorists and you're pretty much absolved of what you're doing. Great stuff.
The difference in the acts itself don't change the fact that everything you're saying was applicable to that situation, right? In which case it's a very dangerous way to think. Do you disagree with the United Nations in describing this as an act of genocide?
I disagree. Mainly because they called that as an 'act' based on what they think they know.
The region and country itself is super poor. Just because a bunch of outsiders who have no idea about the whole situation and history tell them what they should think would not make everything work.
I really don't know any realistic solutions to it. It is not like you can kill Arankanses or send them somewhere to make sure people from the other side of the border can come in and live there freely taking their land. (That's what they mostly think).
And what is your solution? Force the country to accept people that are not regarded as their citizens?
There can be a lot of situations that can happen between here to what happened with jews in Germany.
No one likes the military in the country. Many burmese reporters don't have time for the military. The current government is anything but the right wing.
Su kyi was hailed as champion of human right. But, when she speaks about it, people can't accept it.
Like I said can't help it both ways.
Well, so how much do you know about the region and history?
I don't get the extreme comparison between here and the horrific events in nazi germany back then.
And, I have yet to bring up religions.
So easy for some to come out with their agendas while completely ignoring about the whole context to look a bit more reasonable.
Force the country to accept people who have lived within their geographical borders for generations? Eh...yes? Otherwise every country has the right to kill off every minority they decide they don't want. Which would make for a very sick world. Thankfully we have international laws preventing that. Which your country is currently violating, as per the almost universal assessment. The fact you're defending it is part of the reason it's happening. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I can't pretend to know much about the region and its history.
You will notice that in my post that I did not even offer an opinion on the events that are happening in Myanmar. I did not offer stinging condemnations (even though I think what the government are doing is despicable). I did not attempt to go into an indepth analysis of the region and its history.
Indeed, unlike Brwned, I did not even go to the extreme example of the holocaust. I think the other examples are much more valid.
I replied to one bit and one bit only. That was essentially the only thing I talked about in my post.
These are your comments in just one post in just one page. I haven't followed the thread that closely but I've seen you make a few others along a similar line earlier. The underlying message is quite clear. Whether partly or fully, they deserve their plight. It is, to an extent, brought upon themselves. There is a very good reason the 'so called Rohingas' (an excellent and textbook way to dehumanise the group you're talking about) are treated like shit by all the countries of the region. The unsaid reason is that they're shite.
It is a similar argument to be used for Jewish people surely? Maybe the Europeans were genuinely upset and tired of them? Maybe these people aren't innocent? After all, how could a people that were expelled this many times and from this many different countries be innocent:
Rightly or wrongly, the Jews have been treated like shite in every European country they've been in. What should we do, force them to accept the Jews? Why did so many countries only tolerate them in ghettos if they were innocent and normal?
See how anti-semitic that all sounds? See how those are exact arguments used against Jews even today?
The religion part wasn't referring to you at all and I'd have thought it quite clear that I was talking about politicians and governments once I mentioned that it is the same in Muslim countries too.
You see that is the problem in fact huge problem.
People who live there 'generations' actually can and hold Burmese passports. Many of them actually do.
Governments did have a lot of missions to make sure those who were there for 'generations' have some right to live there peacefully as su kyi said the other day.
Now, lets talk about the rest. People don't think so. They have seen , heard, experienced about people crossing from the other side of the border and live there. Some even went to other countries and told them that they are rohinga and they fled due to this and that so that they could escape from their own country(ies).
Many of them who lives there 'for generations' don't even speak a word of burmese or arakinenese. How likely could that happen? Think about it.
This is why I said media write that. People believe it. Go there, talk to actual people who live there, use own brain and open eyes.
Like I said in many of my posts, the government and arakineses are not totally innocent either. Don't forget this is mostly minor vs minor situations for decades escalated to the central government who arakineses don't even support.
Rohinga can try to do whatever they think is good for them as long as in good nature. But if by doing it and putting all the negative images on the whole of country of us is I think would be a little bit unfair.
My arguments could be seen like a bit extreme but then again i am against very ill informed and extreme arguments from the other side.
Ok it is fair enough. The sentence I wrote that you quoted could be seen that way but I didn't mean it.I can't pretend to know much about the region and its history.
You will notice that in my post that I did not even offer an opinion on the events that are happening in Myanmar. I did not offer stinging condemnations (even though I think what the government are doing is despicable). I did not attempt to go into an indepth analysis of the region and its history.
Indeed, unlike Brwned, I did not even go to the extreme example of the holocaust. I think the other examples are much more valid.
I replied to one bit and one bit only. That was essentially the only thing I talked about in my post.
These are your comments in just one post in just one page. I haven't followed the thread that closely but I've seen you make a few others along a similar line earlier. The underlying message is quite clear. Whether partly or fully, they deserve their plight. It is, to an extent, brought upon themselves. There is a very good reason the 'so called Rohingas' (an excellent and textbook way to dehumanise the group you're talking about) are treated like shit by all the countries of the region. The unsaid reason is that they're shite.
It is a similar argument to be used for Jewish people surely? Maybe the Europeans were genuinely upset and tired of them? Maybe these people aren't innocent? After all, how could a people that were expelled this many times and from this many different countries be innocent:
Rightly or wrongly, the Jews have been treated like shite in every European country they've been in. What should we do, force them to accept the Jews? Why did so many countries only tolerate them in ghettos if they were innocent and normal?
See how anti-semitic that all sounds? See how those are exact arguments used against Jews even today?
The religion part wasn't referring to you at all and I'd have thought it quite clear that I was talking about politicians and governments once I mentioned that it is the same in Muslim countries too.
It was to response as I said how people from some certain countries use ' rohinga' to become refugee in those sorrounding countries. Then lots of them came in and never ended. It happened to Burma.
So when people were like omg why not the countries around didn't say anything about the myanmar situation, well, i thought it was pretty clear as they have their own problems dealing with them.
Some of them even wanted to make a state out of some countries, like in Rahkinese state or southern parts of thailand etc
Those people who got kicked out or stay in other countries as 'rohinga refugees' might not even from Burma or set a foot there at all.
How do you solve it? I myself don't like that my country name was used as like that we all become to be seen like some scambags of the earth.
That I take issue with. Regardless of how poor they are or how you worship human rights and practise it as a religion, in the end, every country and society has to have some rules and need to be enforced at some points. And more often that not it will upset some.
Last edited:
Majority of the people in India dont speak hindi despite being there for countless generations. Its called diversity.
Diversity is fine.
But that is not what I meant. What i meant was most likely those people who can't speak those languages might have not been living there for generations.
When you consider giving someone a citizenship while they can't show any of solid proofs plus not speaking any of major languages there while claiming living there for generations make cases super complicated and the tensions among groups can be high very fast and easily. And frankly not exactly acceptable.
This is true. Maybe they are retaliating against the decades of mistreatment that they have been receiving. But there is absolutely nothing, nothing that deserves this kind if retribution. This is a genocide of the highest order, and nothing can justify what is happening to these people, no matter how much you to try and justify it.
Trust me, Myanmar is no promised land that people would leave their own country and risk their lives to go and live there. You are obviously mentioning Bangladesh without taking names, but Bangladesh is on equal footing to Myanmar as far as the economy is concerned.
People may have been living there for generations, but when they live in an area which speaks the same language, why would it make a difference if they spoke Burmese or whatever. The people of the state of West Bengal in India speak the same Bengali language as the people of Bangladesh, you don't see the Indian government of trying to wipe them out of existence because they speak a different language.
Oh I agree with you in the sense that Myanmar is far from the promising land. Well, they do have land and space but that's about it maybe.
And since both countries and people living around there are poor as dirt mostly and they made things way worse due to high poverty rate. You can hardly think about other humans or human rights when you can't have 2 meals a day properly let alone 3.
It is why I said instead of shouting at the government once in awhile when shit happened, more countries should be helping for every ethic groups. And it would be the beginning of the right patch to solve this conflict if they actually do care.
Like I said, you can't tell hungry people to behave.
Last edited:
How about we stop calling it genocide and start calling it ethnic cleansing. That seems far more appropriate.
The difficulty I'm having here is you're relying purely on anecdotal evidence.
I'm sure there are some people in this group who have passports. I'm sure there are also some people from other countries trying to benefit from the humanitarian aid. However we know the opposite is true too. There are people who have lived there for generation that don't have passports. There are people who are from that area that are being murdered, terrorised and displaced. Are they the majority, or are they the minority? That's not just a question of perceptions, that's a question of facts and evidence.
You're choosing to believe anecdotal evidence that suits your worldview. You've taken the position that you don't like Myanmar being portrayed negatively and you want to defend them. What is the chance that you're then discarding real evidence that contradicts that viewpoint and exaggerating the other evidence to support it? Based on what you've said in here, I'd say it's quite likely.
The people on the other side of the argument - the media, the UN etc. - have no reason to assume the worst about Myanmar. The "liberal" media in Western countries are almost universally in favour of Aung San Suu Kyi so if anything are likely to lean towards her perspective. Many people would suggest this has been kept fairly quiet for a fairly long time in part because of that particular bias.
Regardless, let's assume both sides are biased. In that case we have to rely on the evidence . Do you really think you're providing robust, credible evidence in support of your view? If it was true that this is just a witch-hunt driven by fake news from people outside Myanmar, then why is it the government are finding it so difficult to provide robust, credible evidence? They're the one with all of the power here.
If you're relying on anecdotal evidence from eye witnesses then you get into murky waters very quickly, because there are plenty of accounts that directly contradict yours:
I sometimes have to based on anecdotal evidence when so called facts from outsides can be a bit ridiculous. Also some people asked if I had some personal experience with this to even talk about this subject. So I provided some. And at times, while trying to solve this kind of issues, you have to understand from personal points rather than looking at facts where you have no idea they came from. Usually nothing ever gets done anywhere at all. If some people and countries like to take that route, so be it. Many issues in this world will keep happening.
I think it is fair to say that not everyone who should have the citizenship in the country got it.
But, it is more of some cases being very complicated than lack of trying from recent goverments efforts. Su kyi and the previous government repeated how they were trying to solve that problems and they did a lot of times.
So my point is people need to stop crying about how they are denying citizenship. Because it is not true.
There are lists and lists of violence crimes, murder happening there in the area and around on some of the newspapers since 2014 to keep a record. Victims were from all ethical races. They even killed their own government appointed officials just because they are one and accused of government's men or spying on them etc. But, those people were mostly a few brave ones who really wanted to communicate between groups.
A lot of minorities who were minding their own business got killed horribly like getting their heads, limbs chopped.
Now, you asked me about people being displaced or murdered in the area are minority or majority. The area called buthitaung maung taw has 97% 'rohinga' and 3% other ethicals.
Most ethical groups live in their own areas and know not to cross the areas if possible. If they do, they know the risk and crimes do happen when they do.
People of other ethicals can not enter their villages anymore. Hell even police force can't for the fear of their lives. Only heavy armed military forces can.
Again this event happened because of the attacks on border stations which was 2nd times in less than 2 years and many weapons got stolen from ther. The government know that they are trying to collect the weapons that way and concern it would be a regular occurancce. So they tried to clean up on some of the villages where they got informed terrorists were hiding. Once they went there, many of them were on fire and people have fled already. How do you prove it though? Like the eye witness like you posted it above? I am sure there are both sides of it. Depends on what narratives you are going. I am sure both sides have some correct evidence depending on the situations of course. If you catch a monk doing it right there, he does it. Does it mean it happen everywhere like that? Many sources closed to military concluded that most of village burning down was to blame on them and for some terrorists to flee with them since the military can not just stop hundreds of thousand of people running out of fear.
My mom's family came from there. I was back in that state and around there for awhile very recently. Talked to a lot of Arakineses there about the situation. Many were outraged about how outside media were biased against them pointing out all the shit they had to put up with too but when people want to help, they all talk about 'rohinga' being victims only. Of course a lot of stuff I heard are pretty horrible too as how they like to rape arakinese women if they pass by their villages, kill men etc. Like you said, who knows since your evidence probably put me into murky water now.
I personally think that both sides have a fair share of shits doing and going on. The hatred there from BOTH sides is pretty intense. It went to a huge issue in 2014 with the rape and murder case of Arakinese girl as someone posted the video earlier in this thread and both sides went far extreme everywhere.
The su kyi government position is pretty simple. They will try to work it out. Arakinese don't like them as they want tougher actions against 'rohinga'.
The military position is more or less going after rebel/terrorists groups when get attacked which they did twice in less than 2 years. It didn't help that those groups wanted to make an state for their own. I am not stating they are all angels while chasing down those groups. The emotions of their members of troops getting killed horribly would played on their mind as well as the fear of getting ambushed and killed whenever they enter some of those villages.
The fleeting 'rohinga' from this event? I am sure many are scared and had nothing to do with terrorism and they will be able to come back when things settle down. Or they can hope someone else will take them because they think it might be better for them.
Su kyi said they were a lot of rohinga villages which are untouched by anyone and are protected by armed forces.
As I said before, arguing, naming, accusing of government doing shit would not help. It is mostly as what su kyi said ethical and social issues tension. There are lots of Arakinese and other ethical muslims who are free to go and do whatever they want to do there and around the country.
What makes things worse now and before whenever they attacked governments posts and stations is how some of their villages hid some of them who did. Then, when the security forces came in, they ambushed them along the road, then ran back into the village forcing the security forces to chase them and it made everything messy and innocent people came in the picture that way. Then the crying of murdering innocent people shout out then the media jumped in.
How many of media covers how much of other ethics who had to fled and killed due to this event?
People from all ethics usually fled due to the intensive battles, terrorists hiding and total and general chaos among the public around. Not because of the military committing 'horrible crimes'. When the armed forced tried to get everything in order, that's when they get called for being brutal. If the reports are accurate that 400k + a lot more running around, you can bet there would be many shit going on. It won't be totally peaceful without any kind of accidents.
So you can either say well your evidence are not credible as I could say many of others. It is up to you. I am not here to win the argument or own the issue. I am here to provide some info that people outside may not know and there is no such thing as only one side is the one all getting it in such big issue like that.
The su kyi government did a lot of pressings for the previous event and this event. They regularly did the pressing at times saying they didn't have credible sources yet and they would come back later with better stuff which they did both times. But since they were waiting for all the facts to come in to make a credible press, everywhere else is shouting all kinds of shit quoting ridiculous stuff and making a lot up. So when su kyi came out with all the stuff she now knew as credible by her own sources, they criticized how late she was and dismiss as what she said bs or not even taken seriously or made a headline at all.
So that's how it goes. I am pretty much in the middle for the issues with burmese standard. I have argued against my own family and friend views. But, I too am fed up with a lot of shit outside press are going for because they usually fuel more hatred both sides to keep going on as many from one side might take advantage of it and some from the other side feel they get hard done by.
Last edited:
I remember you mentioned you were from a minority, would you mind expanding on your ethnic background?
No mate, Bangladesh is way ahead of Burma economy wise and by standard of living indicators.
I read somewhere that the GDP per capita is even higher than Pakistan now.
I think it was the currency. Nevertheless, its a touchy topic for the pakistanis to discuss.
Yea, have not been looking into that until you mentioned it. So my question still stands, why would people risk their lives to go and live in a place far worse than where they are if they were from Bangladesh.
Why would they need citizenship in order to exist? There are billions of people in various parts of the world who do not even have a birth certificate. Why would these people need "citizenship" in order to live? Deportation, yea that happens everywhere, but governments and armies don't try and wipe out an entire group of people from existence, well any government that has any kind of morals or humanity left in them.
Eh we are talking about a way to solve a problem that exists there for decades. We are not doing questions and answers about philosophy. And, I don't have any answer for it. But countries do have rules of laws.
You have one side saying they have been there for 'generations'. You have another for saying many of them are illegals crossing over the border.
How would a government solve it? Certainly won't be pleasing everyone and every sides.
And you gotta stop saying the government and army wiping out a group of people from existence because that is not happening and by saying it, it makes things more complicated and people won't see for what it is.
This government is trying to do a lot more than any of previous government for 70 years who were just ignoring it which made things worse and worse.
The army will fight back if you touch them especially when you live in a part of country then say it is your own now and want to have a seperate state from it by doing anything like killing people, raiding border stations, collecting weapons. By killing people means killing anyone they think are not supporting their cause.
The burmese military is not entirely under su kyi government. It is complicated. People wouldn't understand much.
Anyway, it is not as good as the likes of US, UK armies who even have had a lot of horrible accidents anywhere they go. So were there some accidents that the military could do better? Of course. But they are fighting a group of terrorists. I doubt they give a dam if they upset a few. Just don't give them a reason to come at you by hiding terrorists, not cooperating, aiding them etc.
Not to mentioned they got a lot of their members killed just by entering a village to clean the area after atttacks by getting ambushed from groups of people coming out of some villages. So they are surely to be very jumpy.
Now I am not excusing them if they do terrible shit. But, the argument that army is being bully and brutal for no reason would be false. Just simply saying it.
The United for president of myanmar.
I don't think the answers are simple. The country being rich does not mean everyone in it is as well. Plus I think migration to another places has a lot more factors involving.
I personally don't think all of them just moved from there in recent times of course.
But many still do cross the borders to go to other big cities where they could get a good job with no harm or simply use it as a route going to other countries. Some when get caught said they were from Burma and fled due to this and that. I suppose you get more sympathy saying that than coming from Bangladesh?
Last edited:
Not sure if what I am saying is getting through to you. Everyone does have to be rich in a country to survive. What I am saying is, why would these people leave a better economic condition and stay alive to go to a country that is going to be worse off for them?
There you are posting the shame shite over and over again. You are justifying genocide once again. There is nothing these people can do to you that would justify what you lot are doing, nothing. Unfortunately the rules of this forum stop me for calling you what you really are. But one thing I have learnt, no evil deeds go unpunished. It may take a while, but there will be consequences.
I got what you meant.
What i am saying is that there is no way everyone in your country would be rich. Maybe some are not. Maybe some wants to see if they could do better somewhere else. Maybe some cross to see/stay with their relatives or friends there? Or simply to do terrorist stuff as many reports those guys cross the borders around back and forth. Who knows where they actually reside.
But people from your country posing as rohinga in other countries do happen and it gives us a bad image as well as the real ones who have been living in Burma for a long time too.
(Assuming you are from Bengladesh).
So I can't explain or argue what I think and know is happening without getting kinda accused of supporting a genocide. I don't condone such things or justify it. I just explained that it IS not happening like some of you guys think it did.
If you are so uptight and shit, what about people who got murdered by your freedom fighters or whoever and by all the events that some of them started? Who would care for them? Who would protect them? And only it gets wrong when something happened to rohinga only?
There is no middle and balance way to see all of it? Does it ever come to your mind that maybe you didn't fully understand this whole situation and there could be other and better ways to solve this conflict without branding the ones who can help do it as the worst?
What about the same government and troops that you accuse of trying to wipe a group of people out that are still guarding shit load of rohinga populations and villages that are still standing so that they are safe?
There was no prior of rohinga people were getting killed left and right or anything close to genocide by any groups since independence as long as I could remember.
If it was to happen, the junta government for the last 30 years who were nationalists would have done it and they didn't care about what anyone has to say. But why would it start now under a very liberal civilian government which is also led by a champion of human right in a lot more open era? Because it was never going to happen.
The majority of the country would not accept such things. Many of us were and are still against buddhist extreme groups who were using religion to promote violence.
Last edited:
I am hoping that these people do not forget what happened to them and some day are able to repay back what the government and people of Myanmar have done to them with interest. You can post all the shite that you want and try and justify what is happening, I am done with you.
I am not justifying the supposed horrible things anyone did from any sides. I just don't like your tone in some of your posts wishing the worst for the whole country and shit.
I just don't think it is right to brand the whole thing and people with the worst shit possible without knowing inside and out of the region, ethics groups, government and military history and positions.
Because people have done it in the past and it never solves anything.
I suppose I should have been more clear with what I wanted to say without going too much details which sounds like I am ok with using a bit of violence around. I am not ok with it.
I am not exactly a huge supporter of Su kyi. In fact i am not with any politicans anywhere. But, su kyi is the key to solve a lot of problems like that which has been there for decades in the country.
She is being pragmatic about the situation because she has to due to make sure she still has a position in the country politic to do something even for a tiny change to put the country in the right path.
It is a very complicated issue. And putting negative pressure on the government would make things worse, and some of the stuff media have been writing would be seen as very bias for some other ethic groups there and would only fuel the situation worse. Just like what you posted. You can't force it. You have to persuade while trying to make sure their living standard gets better for everyone who lives there including rohingas.
Otherwise, it will keep happen till the end like it has for past 70 years.
Again, I am not ok with any kind of violence with anything. It does not matter if a victim is a rohiga or rakhinese or other ethic groups, they are still human just like us. We need to make sure they get all the help they could get. And I hope everyone gives right responses to solve this horrible conflict.
Professor of Asian and Military history, Department of history, School of Oriental and African studies, University of London.
What's saddened me a lot about this situation is how many Burmese on social media etc have come out justifying what's happening. 'Make sure they get all the help they can get'? 400,000 of them have been forced to flee for their lives with nothing but their bare possessions in the last month alone. Who knows how many have been killed since you're not allowing journalists in there. You want to help Rohingyas? Don't make me laugh.
All you're doing is trying to white wash what's happening, there's no justification at all to ethnically cleanse hundreds of thousands of people - mostly poor men, women, children, many carrying the elderly. All you have to do is take one look at all the people streaming into the refugee camps to see that.
This is a stain on Myanmar, and their people, and will always be. It's just a shame that the Rohingya have no one to stand up for them, because the people that's meant to look after them (Myanmar) are the same people persecuting them. I'll be happier once all the Rohingya have left Myanmar, because it's a terrible country. Bangladesh isn't a particularly great country either but at least they have the humanity to let the refugees in.
Things like 'Many could be playing refugees to get aid which is not unusual for them as we all know' is just disgusting to say imo. Your posts are rubbish and I'm sorry you're posting these whitewashing lies here. 'Like I said, most of Burmese reporters would not write stuff like that usually as they know more. Most concluded that most of their villages were burnt down by terrorists who ran and hid in those villages to create chaos around and put the blame on the government.' Except you know, it's been proven by the BBC that those images of 'muslims' burning their own villages were actually Hindus told to dress up and do so by Myanmar. Maybe try actually reading impartial media rather than the media from a state committing atrocities? Here you go http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-41219840/who-is-burning-down-rohingya-villages twitter.com/pakhead/status/906802269357608960
So you want to the vicious cycle to keep on rolling along ? Although i can see where your coming from.