So much for a Nobel laureate!!
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/05/opinions/rakhine-state-rohingya-genocide-opinion/index.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/05/opinions/rakhine-state-rohingya-genocide-opinion/index.html
I made this post more than a year ago - Nov 12, 2015So much for a Nobel laureate!!
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/05/opinions/rakhine-state-rohingya-genocide-opinion/index.html
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/aun...y-in-myanmar-parliament.411473/#post-18381932Bigger fraud than Obama.
Her Nobel prize - is she had an ounce of integrity, she would have returned it.
The ethnic cleansing going on in Myanmar with regards to the Rohingya is disgusting. The Rohingya have been there for over at least 150 years and yet, they are now being killed...pushed out and those who remain were denied the right to vote. But it's cool - they're muslims...so, we'll just let it slide.
She has not only turned a blind eye to it, but downplayed it, further encouraging the killings and forced expulsions.
Your company like the rest of the world won't care. Myanmar is 'open for business' and in the end that's all that matters.I know it happened the first time but didnt know it had started again. My company is doing quite a lot of business in Myanmar. They have huge investment flowing in from overseas and can't imagine they would be thrilled if this carries on.
They will care about bad press. Just depends if it makes the news or not.Your company like the rest of the world won't care. Myanmar is 'open for business' and in the end that's all that matters.
Not judging - just the way it is.
Bangladesh despite being poor has and is doing more than its fair share.I don't know about atrocities in African countries (there are usually a few there too) but Myanmar is probably the worst ongoing crisis at the moment. So sad. Since no one else is caring one has to wonder what the likes of Saudi, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Malaysia even are doing about this.
Care to elaborate on why Yunus is a cnut? I was under the impression that he has been praised a lot for his work in microfinance.Peace my ass....
Two Nobel 'Peace' Prize winners aka Hypocrites United
Prof Yunus from Bangladesh (GrameenBank) - a cnut who cares about NOTHING but money and of course the darling of the west (Obama visited Myanmar twice in his 8 years in office!)
His intentions were good - absolutely no doubt about that. But, he lost his way a long time ago and the only thing he has cared about for the last decade has been HIS bottom line.Care to elaborate on why Yunus is a cnut? I was under the impression that he has been praised a lot for his work in microfinance.
Fully agree.I actually think, Sir Fazle Abed and BRAC have done more for the poor and in a much more ethical manner.
It's the same world we've always lived in. If we focus specifically on this part of the world, you find that the birth of Myanmar as we know it can be traced back to the Nanzhao people violently overthrowing the Pyu people in the 9th century. The Mongols came to rape and pillage their lands in the 13th century, leading to the collapse of the Pagan Empire and a fragmented state for another couple of centuries. During that time the Chinese periodically raided parts of the region. The Toungoo dynasty then took over for more than two centuries, ceding some control to the Portuguese for a couple of decades, before being invaded by the British empire in the 19th century. To demonstrate how little interest (or how much disdain) there was for the peoples they invaded, you need only look at the death toll recorded in wiki: "Unknown but significantly higher than the British (15,000)". We've always hated the others. The creation of artificial, ethnically insensitive borders as a result of colonialism didn't help much in that sense, as we can see here, but our treatment of the others hasn't changed all that much.I hate the world we are living in, so much hate and bloodshed...
I think it's a bit disgusting that Time are trying to make a point out of the Burmese majority being Buddhist, or of the so-called monk being Buddhist, or of the terror being Buddhist in nature.Some terrible clips have emerged on social media, their monk is openly spreading hate and calling for the rape of Muslim Women, wiping out the whole community. Their "Noble Piece Winner" is in complete denial for whats happening around. Here is their leader...
I hate the world we are living in, so much hate and bloodshed...
Have the political entities (states/empires/nations; no idea how to call it) in the region had homogeneous populations before colonial powers changed their character? (Genuine question)The creation of artificial, ethnically insensitive borders as a result of colonialism didn't help much in that sense
Yeah...I'm glad that's what you found to be 'disgusting'I think it's a bit disgusting that Time are trying to make a point out of the Burmese majority being Buddhist, or of the so-called monk being Buddhist, or of the terror being Buddhist in nature.
As far as I've understood, this issue is mainly ethno-nationalist.
You won't find a single incitement to or justification of violence in any Buddhist scripture, unlike some other religions. Of course you'll find violent assholes who claim to be Buddhist, but Buddhism does not in itself create extremists of any sort.
A bonafide apologist - I like it. Do, carry on.The day the pamphlet was distributed, a Buddhist monk in Sittwe who spearheaded the effort told Human Rights Watch:
This morning we handed our pamphlet out downtown [in Sittwe]. It is an announcement demanding that the Arakanese people must not sell anything to the Muslims or buy anything from them. The second point is the Arakanese people must not be friendly with the Muslim people. The reason for that is that the Muslim people are stealing our land, drinking our water, and killing our people. They are eating our rice and staying near our houses. So we will separate. We don’t want any connection to the Muslim people at all.
The monk Ashin Sandarthiri likewise told BBC that Rohingya have no right to stay in Burma: “Around the world there are many Muslim countries. They should go there. The Muslim countries will take care of them. They should go to countries with the same religion.”
The “Rathedaung Statement,” which attendees approved and then released after the meeting, espoused arguments promoting ethnic cleansing. It calls for the establishment of a “rule to control the birth rate of the Muslim Bengali community living in Arakan”
Invidious Stereotyping and Unfounded Allegations of Rohingya “Terrorist” Plots
Many Arakanese view the Rohingya as monolithic group intent on waging an anti-Buddhist war in Arakan State or at least spreading fundamentalist Islam there, and throughout the country. Although Burma has a long and continuing history of ethnic armed movements, according to Martin Smith in his seminal work on Burma’s ethnic groups, “no insurgent group has made much progress in the Muslim community.”[18] Non-state armed groups called the Rohingya Solidarity Organization (RSO) and the Arakan Rohingya Islamic Front (ARIF) were established in northern Arakan State in 1982 and 1987, respectively. But Smith and others agree these groups and others never posed a serious threat to the Burmese military state, their principal target, nor to Burmese society.[19]
Yet several Arakanese interviewed by Human Rights Watch referred to Rohingya as “kalar terrorists” and claimed “every mosque” in Arakan State has a store of weapons and that every imam has connections with al-Qaeda.[20] Local police and the Nasaka (officially Nay-Sat Kut-kwey Ye, the interagency border guard force comprising military, police, immigration, and customs) directly fueled these beliefs after the June violence, making statements to monks and the Arakanese populace that attributed violent characteristics to the Rohingya as a whole.
For instance, the Buddhist monk in Sittwe who initially led the campaign to isolate Muslims after the June violence told Human Rights Watch:
In Arakan State, the biggest mosque is near the Noble Hotel [in Sittwe]. The government found two boxes filled with weapons there, but they didn’t say anything to the media. Arakanese soldiers [police] told me they found it. They told the people too. The reason why the government is silent is that if they announce it, the problem will get bigger, not only in Burma but throughout the world.[21]
Another Arakanese man in Sittwe said:
It was widely rumored that arms and ammunitions were found in some of the mosques [after the June violence]. In my opinion, I think it is about 80 percent true. I heard some police officers say it. But the government didn’t say anything about that. I don’t know why.[22]
An Arakanese elder in Sittwe said: “About 50 percent of the so-called Rohingya Muslims are Taliban-minded. They study in the madrassas [Islamic religious schools]. Their ideology is the same as the Taliban. The police know this and discuss it [with us].”[23] And another Arakanese man in Sittwe said the authorities told him that they found weapons owned by Rohingya hidden in NGO offices[24] – an allegation that was never substantiated by any government official.
Moreover, government-controlled media has blamed the violence in Arakan State on Rohingya “terrorists,” and this has become a widely held belief in Burma.[25] Online social media sites are replete with such allegations, accessed primarily by Burmese in urban centers, and the sentiment has been disseminated in sermons by popular Buddhist monks and widely discussed in teashops, monasteries, and other places of public discourse.
Importantly, such allegations have been expressed publicly and privately by members of the highest political offices. For instance, the director of President Thein Sein’s office and a graduate of the military’s elite Defense Services Academy, Zaw Htay (also known as Hmuu Zaw), posted inflammatory remarks on Facebook, which have since been removed. He wrote:
It is heard that Rohingya Terrorists of the so-called Rohingya Solidarity Organization are crossing the border and getting into the country with the weapons. That is Rohingyas from other countries are coming into the country. Since our Military has got the news in advance, we will eradicate them until the end! I believe we are already doing it. ...We don’t want to hear any humanitarian issues or human rights from others. Besides, we neither want to hear any talk of justice nor want anyone to teach us like a saint.[26]
I'd imagine @Neutral has a better grasp on the history of that region than I do, but yes I think your point is broadly true - heterogeneity (in terms of culture and ethnicity) has been a historical reality in almost every part of the world, pre- and post-colonialism. Your more nuanced point was broadly what I was trying to get at. It's not so much about the geography but about the power structures imposed, and the impact that has on the various sub-regions.Have the political entities (states/empires/nations; no idea how to call it) in the region had homogeneous populations before colonial powers changed their character? (Genuine question)
In most parts of the world colonial powers took over very diverse regions/empires. In this regard the legacy of colonialism isn't that it shuffled people together who never lived together before, but that it changed the character of the state (nationalism, centralism, modern bureaucracy/institutions).
The Rakhine people - a sub-group of which are under genocidal attack currently - are (supposedly) the 4th largest ethnicity and have a particular history in that even in modern times they were almost granted indepenent state status for a period of time, before autonomy was taken away again. That said they were part of the Pyu and Bamar regions since way back when so, again, your point holds true - it was never straightforward.The term "Karen" is an umbrella term that refers to a heterogeneous lot of ethnic groups that do not share a common language, culture, religion or material characteristics. A pan-Karen ethnic identity is a relatively modern creation, established in the 1800s with the conversion of some Karens to Christianity and shaped by various British colonial policies and practices and the introduction of Christianity.
Foreign invasion
The country had been invaded several times, by the Mongols, Mon, Bamar and Portuguese and finally the Bamar in 1784 when the armies led by the Crown Prince, son of King Bodawpaya, of the Konbaung dynasty of Burma marched across the western Yoma and annexed Rakhine. The religious relics of the kingdom were stolen from Rakhine, most notably the Mahamuni Buddha image, and taken into central Burma where they remain today. The people of Rakhine resisted the conquest of the kingdom for decades after. Fighting with the Rakhine resistance, initially led by Nga Than Dè and finally by Chin Byan in border areas, created problems between British India and Burma. The year 1826 saw the defeat of the Bamar in the First Anglo-Burmese War and Rakhine was ceded to Britain under the Treaty of Yandabo. Sittwe (Akyab) was then designated the new capital of Rakhine. In 1852, Rakhine was merged into Lower Burma as a territorial division.
Independence movement
Rakhine was the centre of multiple insurgencies which fought against British rule, notably led by the monks U Ottama and U Seinda.
During the Second World War, Rakhine was given autonomy under the Japanese occupation of Burma and was even granted its own army known as the Arakan Defense Force. The Arakan Defense Force went over to the allies and turned against the Japanese in early 1945.
No doubt it's religious/ethnic cleansing and as such is despicable in every sense, but is there merit to the suggestions that a minority of the group are particularly threatening (i.e. sharing ideology with the Taliban and possessing weapons)? It wouldn't justify it but it would make it easier to understand why the nation, the region and the world are finding it easier to turn a blind eye to this. Or is it simply because the West like "democracy champion" Aung San Suu Kyi, and all key narratives flow off of that?@Brwned I wouldn't really have much of a grasp of the conflict - despite my parents being from Bangladesh. But, any insight I have is oddly because the apartment I rented while at uni was owned by a Burmese exile (the Junta had killed her pro democracy activist father).
We mostly initially spoke of the fight for democracy in Burma and over time into the plight of the Rohingya.
The Kamein/Kaman are muslims that the Burmese actually consider to be citizens - though they only number 50,000. The Rohingya are much larger in terms of demographics - though the number within Burma has now by some estimates been superseded by the exiled population (half a million in Bangladesh, another half a million in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, India has 40,000+)
Officially the Burmese including that cnut Suu Kyi have tried to sell this is an ethnic issue and one of illegal immigrants. Fine, let's go with that. People that moved to a region a couple of hundred years ago quite simply can't be called illegal immigrants.
This isn't mexicans crossing the border 2 years ago. We are speaking of generations and generations.
But, if we stop believing the lies and see it for what it is...and simply listen to the words of those inciting the violence and murder - this is about muslims being persecuted.
The world wants to right the wrongs of the horrible Armenian genocide (rightly so!), yet, it turns a blind eye to what is happening in Burma.
Humanitarian assistance and refugee camps aren't the answer - that's what the Burmese want. These people kicked out and never ever given a right to return.
Muslims have been in Rakhine since before the Bamar took over in the 17th century (Chittagong was actually ceded to the British after the Anglo-Burma war). This whole thing is part religion and part race, they are really pushing the "Kalar is different" narrative quite forcefully by either referring to dark skinned Muslims as Bengali and dark skinned Hindus as Indian. In fact a large group of Hindus came over with some Rohingya last week from Rakhine after their villages were also burnt down@Brwned I wouldn't really have much of a grasp of the conflict - despite my parents being from Bangladesh. But, any insight I have is oddly because the apartment I rented while at uni was owned by a Burmese exile (the Junta had killed her pro democracy activist father).
We mostly initially spoke of the fight for democracy in Burma and over time into the plight of the Rohingya.
The Kamein/Kaman are muslims that the Burmese actually consider to be citizens - though they only number 50,000. The Rohingya are much larger in terms of demographics - though the number within Burma has now by some estimates been superseded by the exiled population (half a million in Bangladesh, another half a million in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, India has 40,000+)
Officially the Burmese including that cnut Suu Kyi have tried to sell this is an ethnic issue and one of illegal immigrants. Fine, let's go with that. People that moved to a region a couple of hundred years ago quite simply can't be called illegal immigrants.
This isn't mexicans crossing the border 2 years ago. We are speaking of generations and generations.
But, if we stop believing the lies and see it for what it is...and simply listen to the words of those inciting the violence and murder - this is about muslims being persecuted.
The world wants to right the wrongs of the horrible Armenian genocide (rightly so!), yet, it turns a blind eye to what is happening in Burma.
Humanitarian assistance and refugee camps aren't the answer - that's what the Burmese want. These people kicked out and never ever given a right to return.
Anyone that says 'Allahu Akbar' is now said to share ideology with the Taliban. When people are threatened, what do they cling to - their faith (this isn't just true of muslims). This strife predates the Taliban. Bangladesh was forced to take in a huge number of refugees in the early 80's....you think the Burmese authorities were worried about 'Taliban ideology' back then tooNo doubt it's religious/ethnic cleansing and as such is despicable in every sense, but is there merit to the suggestions that a minority of the group are particularly threatening (i.e. sharing ideology with the Taliban and possessing weapons)? It wouldn't justify it but it would make it easier to understand why the nation, the region and the world are finding it easier to turn a blind eye to this. Or maybe is it simply because the West like "democracy champion" Aung San Suu Kyi, and all key narratives flow off of that?
He was part of the bench that upheld the constitutional validity of criminal defamation provisions in the IPC. It said these did not muzzle free speech and asked the petitioners—which included Rahul Gandhi, Subramanian Swamy and Arvind Kejriwal —to face trial.
Justice Mishra was part of the bench that ordered playing of the National Anthem in the beginning of a film in theatres.
Not gonna dignify this shit with a response. You come off as a complete arsehole and an idiot. You misjudged my post completely.Yeah...I'm glad that's what you found to be 'disgusting'
A bonafide apologist - I like it. Do, carry on.
If you followed your train of thought further, you might find that it's tribal identity (which can manifest as religious or national) that often leads to mob violence, terrorism, or genocide, rather than the character of the religion or the nation involved.Not gonna dignify this shit with a response. You come off as a complete arsehole and an idiot. You misjudged my post completely.
I'm not contesting this. I just find what Time does to be dishonest. And I find Neutral's post to be DEEPLY offensive. Don't you? Because I wish to defend Buddhism I am a fecking supporter of genocide?!If you followed your train of thought further, you might find that it's tribal identity (which can manifest as religious or national) that often leads to mob violence, terrorism, or genocide, rather than the character of the religion or the nation involved.
Many ostensibly peaceful religions have been involved in pogroms.
Unfortunately this is now the world we live in, there's no nuance in opinion and everyone is compartmentalised into identities whereby anything done by the group you are assigned to must be owned by you. Shame.I'm not contesting this. I just find what Time does to be dishonest. And I find Neutral's post to be DEEPLY offensive. Don't you? Because I wish to defend Buddhism I am a fecking supporter of genocide?!
I generally don't feel the need to defend any religion (individual followers are a different question). Many of the leaders of the violence are indeed Buddhist monks, and their rhetoric is a mix of religion and nationalism. So what they are doing is spreading terror under the banner of Buddhism.I'm not contesting this. I just find what Time does to be dishonest. And I find Neutral's post to be DEEPLY offensive. Don't you? Because I wish to defend Buddhism I am a fecking supporter of genocide?!
I hope you're not calling him a genocide apologist just because he thinks his religion doesn't condone violence.Yeah...I'm glad that's what you found to be 'disgusting'
A bonafide apologist - I like it. Do, carry on.
Very well said.Unfortunately this is now the world we live in, there's no nuance in opinion and everyone is compartmentalised into identities whereby anything done by the group you are assigned to must be owned by you. Shame.