Rohingya genocide!
WHy is nobody doing **** about this genocide?!
The BBC has had limited coverage over it, and although the UN has urged the Prime Minister of Myanmar to stop the offense there doesn't seem to be much help for the Rohingya Muslims.
The BBC has had limited coverage over it, and although the UN has urged the Prime Minister of Myanmar to stop the offense there doesn't seem to be much help for the Rohingya Muslims.
Scroll to see replies
In before "serves them right for attacking our people" or similar.
Spoiler
Original post by mc_miah
In before "serves them right for attacking our people" or similar.
Spoiler
it's disgusting though, they're raping women and killing their children in front of their eyes with knives and guns. They're burning down their houses. and almost every government has rejected them except bangladesh.
Original post by justanotherchica
WHy is nobody doing **** about this genocide?!
The BBC has had limited coverage over it, and although the UN has urged the Prime Minister of Myanmar to stop the offense there doesn't seem to be much help for the Rohingya Muslims.
The BBC has had limited coverage over it, and although the UN has urged the Prime Minister of Myanmar to stop the offense there doesn't seem to be much help for the Rohingya Muslims.
It has been getting a fair bit of attention, I personally have seen it featured on the BBC's Google news several times. In fact here it is again
right now number 3 on the list
But I agree it needs more international attention and the UN need to start getting involved.
Newsflash, that's the nature of news. UK news is biased towards covering UK/US/Europe affairs. If you also want some perspective on other parts of the world, Al Jazeera is a good one
Original post by TheBBQ
It's not a genocide. They were actively trying to destabilise the country. Rohingya militants have been attacking police stations and government offices, as well as looting and trying to start riots between the religious groups.
It's a lot more complex than you think. People like to portray muslims as being the victims, when they're not. The government is simply defending their country.
Does anybody notice a trend or common factor in all the conflicts lately?
It's a lot more complex than you think. People like to portray muslims as being the victims, when they're not. The government is simply defending their country.
Does anybody notice a trend or common factor in all the conflicts lately?
If they're committing genocide against a mainly Muslim minority, how are they not the victims?
Original post by TheBBQ
It's not a genocide. They were actively trying to destabilise the country. Rohingya militants have been attacking police stations and government offices, as well as looting and trying to start riots between the religious groups.
It's a lot more complex than you think. People like to portray muslims as being the victims, when they're not. The government is simply defending their country.
Does anybody notice a trend or common factor in all the conflicts lately?
It's a lot more complex than you think. People like to portray muslims as being the victims, when they're not. The government is simply defending their country.
Does anybody notice a trend or common factor in all the conflicts lately?
Since when is raping and killing helpless civilians defending your country ?
When the govt and majority of the population are committing violence against a minority group,of course you are going to get an armed resistance .
Just because you dislike the religion associated with the Rohingyas ,you seem to have now let that cloud your thinking.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by TheBBQ
It's not a genocide. They were actively trying to destabilise the country. Rohingya militants have been attacking police stations and government offices, as well as looting and trying to start riots between the religious groups.
It's a lot more complex than you think. People like to portray muslims as being the victims, when they're not. The government is simply defending their country.
Does anybody notice a trend or common factor in all the conflicts lately?
It's a lot more complex than you think. People like to portray muslims as being the victims, when they're not. The government is simply defending their country.
Does anybody notice a trend or common factor in all the conflicts lately?
In 1994 a predominantly Tutsi militia, the RPF, was waging war against the Rwandan government. Were the subsequent horrors initiated by that government "simply defending their country" in your book?
Original post by TheBBQ
It's not a genocide. They were actively trying to destabilise the country. Rohingya militants have been attacking police stations and government offices, as well as looting and trying to start riots between the religious groups.
It's a lot more complex than you think. People like to portray muslims as being the victims, when they're not. The government is simply defending their country.
Does anybody notice a trend or common factor in all the conflicts lately?
It's a lot more complex than you think. People like to portray muslims as being the victims, when they're not. The government is simply defending their country.
Does anybody notice a trend or common factor in all the conflicts lately?
I agree that it is a complex issue and I have my own personal anguish with Islam as a religion but that doesn't really justify what is happening. Also the Rohingya Muslims were reacting to the persecution that they have been facing for years.
Original post by justanotherchica
WHy is nobody doing **** about this genocide?!
The BBC has had limited coverage over it, and although the UN has urged the Prime Minister of Myanmar to stop the offense there doesn't seem to be much help for the Rohingya Muslims.
The BBC has had limited coverage over it, and although the UN has urged the Prime Minister of Myanmar to stop the offense there doesn't seem to be much help for the Rohingya Muslims.
It's more ethnic cleansing than genocide.
There have been calls to force Aung San Suu Kyi to prevent it, but it is difficulty to know whether she can really do something. The army remains very strong in the country and acts independently from the civilian government.
Original post by TheBBQ
It's not a genocide. They were actively trying to destabilise the country. Rohingya militants have been attacking police stations and government offices, as well as looting and trying to start riots between the religious groups.
It's a lot more complex than you think. People like to portray muslims as being the victims, when they're not. The government is simply defending their country.
Does anybody notice a trend or common factor in all the conflicts lately?
It's a lot more complex than you think. People like to portray muslims as being the victims, when they're not. The government is simply defending their country.
Does anybody notice a trend or common factor in all the conflicts lately?
How is burning houses of civilians a matter of defence? I assume you also think that the burning of refugee camps of the Christian Karen minority in Burma is also a matter of self-defence, because that is what the Burmese government has done in the past too? It's not just Muslims, but Christian, Buddhist, Chinese and other minorities in Burma who suffer from the blatant human rights violantions of the Burmese government.
The Burmese government has been pursecuting many different minority groups for decades. Is anybody noticing a trend here? The longest ongoing civil war in the world right now is between the Burmese government and the Christian Karen minority.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Humz007
If they're committing genocide against a mainly Muslim minority, how are they not the victims? Dumbass
I told you, it's not a genocide. They're trying to destroy insurgency and the militant population, which is admittedly difficult, since by killing one militant, 5 more will take his place.
Original post by bobby147
Since when is raping and killing helpless civilians defending your country ?
When the govt and majority of the population are committing violence against a minority group,of course you are going to get an armed resistance.
Just because you dislike the religion associated with the Rohingyas ,you seem to have now let that cloud your thinking.
When the govt and majority of the population are committing violence against a minority group,of course you are going to get an armed resistance.
Just because you dislike the religion associated with the Rohingyas ,you seem to have now let that cloud your thinking.
Where is the case of this?
Of course, but they have now turned to insurgency simply because the government did not recognise them. So the government reacts accordingly.
Original post by anarchism101
In 1994 a predominantly Tutsi militia, the RPF, was waging war against the Rwandan government. Were the subsequent horrors initiated by that government "simply defending their country" in your book?
I do not know much about conflicts in Africa so I cannot say.
Original post by The Epicurean
How is burning houses of civilians a matter of defence? I assume you also think that the burning of refugee camps of the Christian Karen minority in Burma is also a matter of self-defence, because that is what the Burmese government has done in the past too? It's not just Muslims, but Christian, Buddhist, Chinese and other minorities in Burma who suffer from the blatant human rights violantions of the Burmese government.
The Burmese government has been pursecuting many different minority groups for decades. Is anybody noticing a trend here? The longest ongoing civil war in the world right now is between the Burmese government and the Christian Karen minority.
The Burmese government has been pursecuting many different minority groups for decades. Is anybody noticing a trend here? The longest ongoing civil war in the world right now is between the Burmese government and the Christian Karen minority.
If these houses are sheltering and supporting militants, then yes.
There are hundreds of minority groups, so of course there's going to conflicts. The government of Myanmar is of course corrupt and not the most democratic. I'm not sure about what has happened to the Christians, but as for the rohingyas, it is not a genocide when the majority of these people are trying to overthrow the government and essentially start a war in the first place.
How do decades of a civil compared to centuries of islamic conquests and terrorism spanning continents?
Original post by TheBBQ
I told you, it's not a genocide. They're trying to destroy insurgency and the militant population, which is admittedly difficult, since by killing one militant, 5 more will take his place.
Where is the case of this?
Of course, but they have now turned to insurgency simply because the government did not recognise them. So the government reacts accordingly.
I do not know much about conflicts in Africa so I cannot say.
If these houses are sheltering and supporting militants, then yes.
There are hundreds of minority groups, so of course there's going to conflicts. The government of Myanmar is of course corrupt and not the most democratic. I'm not sure about what has happened to the Christians, but as for the rohingyas, it is not a genocide when the majority of these people are trying to overthrow the government and essentially start a war in the first place.
How do decades of a civil compared to centuries of islamic conquests and terrorism spanning continents?
Where is the case of this?
Of course, but they have now turned to insurgency simply because the government did not recognise them. So the government reacts accordingly.
I do not know much about conflicts in Africa so I cannot say.
If these houses are sheltering and supporting militants, then yes.
There are hundreds of minority groups, so of course there's going to conflicts. The government of Myanmar is of course corrupt and not the most democratic. I'm not sure about what has happened to the Christians, but as for the rohingyas, it is not a genocide when the majority of these people are trying to overthrow the government and essentially start a war in the first place.
How do decades of a civil compared to centuries of islamic conquests and terrorism spanning continents?
Sorry, you don't deserve my time
Original post by Humz007
Sorry, you don't deserve my time
Well you took the time to write two messsages
Nice to know you choose to give up.
Original post by justanotherchica
I agree that it is a complex issue and I have my own personal anguish with Islam as a religion but that doesn't really justify what is happening. Also the Rohingya Muslims were reacting to the persecution that they have been facing for years.
Missed this one.
It isn't completely justified, but the government can't just sit there and let the terrorism and militancy continue. They're don't really have a choice.
Original post by TheBBQ
I told you, it's not a genocide. They're trying to destroy insurgency and the militant population, which is admittedly difficult, since by killing one militant, 5 more will take his place.
Where is the case of this?
Of course, but they have now turned to insurgency simply because the government did not recognise them. So the government reacts accordingly.
I do not know much about conflicts in Africa so I cannot say.
If these houses are sheltering and supporting militants, then yes.
There are hundreds of minority groups, so of course there's going to conflicts. The government of Myanmar is of course corrupt and not the most democratic. I'm not sure about what has happened to the Christians, but as for the rohingyas, it is not a genocide when the majority of these people are trying to overthrow the government and essentially start a war in the first place.
How do decades of a civil compared to centuries of islamic conquests and terrorism spanning continents?
Where is the case of this?
Of course, but they have now turned to insurgency simply because the government did not recognise them. So the government reacts accordingly.
I do not know much about conflicts in Africa so I cannot say.
If these houses are sheltering and supporting militants, then yes.
There are hundreds of minority groups, so of course there's going to conflicts. The government of Myanmar is of course corrupt and not the most democratic. I'm not sure about what has happened to the Christians, but as for the rohingyas, it is not a genocide when the majority of these people are trying to overthrow the government and essentially start a war in the first place.
How do decades of a civil compared to centuries of islamic conquests and terrorism spanning continents?
Right- so the reaction to being terrorised for centuries as you are the "outcast" in the population equates to overthrowing the government and starting a war?
Do you realise that these people have and have had little to no rights, legal rights or police support the centuries they have been living in Myanmar?
And how exactly do you overthrow a government when you make up less than 2% of the population at most- in addition to most of that population having no role in any sort of insurgency?
People like you will justify burning villages for rock throwing- oh wait, you already do.
I guess the pictures of women and children hanging from trees and the like make an appetising wallpaper for you.
Original post by Bellex
Right- so the reaction to being terrorised for centuries as you are the "outcast" in the population equates to overthrowing the government and starting a war?
Do you realise that these people have and have had little to no rights, legal rights or police support the centuries they have been living in Myanmar?
And how exactly do you overthrow a government when you make up less than 2% of the population at most- in addition to most of that population having no role in any sort of insurgency?
People like you will justify burning villages for rock throwing- oh wait, you already do.
I guess the pictures of women and children hanging from trees and the like make an appetising wallpaper for you.
Do you realise that these people have and have had little to no rights, legal rights or police support the centuries they have been living in Myanmar?
And how exactly do you overthrow a government when you make up less than 2% of the population at most- in addition to most of that population having no role in any sort of insurgency?
People like you will justify burning villages for rock throwing- oh wait, you already do.
I guess the pictures of women and children hanging from trees and the like make an appetising wallpaper for you.
Seems like the logical solution, but they weren't the ones being terrorised. They have no other choice.
Yes I know that. But what they're doing isn't helping.
It's a stupid idea, but that is what they've been trying to do. What else would all these militants be fighting the government be trying to do? I wouldn't say most of them have no role in that if it is such a big problem.
No, that's not what I'm doing.
I haven't seen or heard anything like that, not sure where you get the idea that I'd like that just because I'm open to the other side of the conflict.
@TheBBQ
They were being terrorised. They have been present in Burma (present day Myanmar) since the 15th century or so and have since been terrorised for having different ethnic routes. They aren't entitled to education and the benefits of the rest of the population. Their lack of rights means that when they are attacked by 'legal' citizens, they aren't protected- by law or by the police so whatever happens to them be it rape, murder and so on, goes completely and totally undocumented. I don't agree to insurgency but I think the Myanmar government have capitalised on the attempts by the very, very, VERY few who have retaliated.
Again, the Myanmar government do not want these so-called 'illegal immigrants' in their country- so of course they will make their very best efforts to escalate the situation because it gives them reason to finally drive these people out of their homes. How does counter militancy justify the ethnic cleansing attempt? They have been, were being and continue to be terrorised by the government which has provoked a counter response so I cannot see how on earth the government are reacting to de-escalate terrorism. Terrorism of who exactly? People with stones and rocks who live in village huts, who have little to no electricity, internet connection or occupations except probably farming?
Your arguments sound narrow-minded and exceptionally flawed. "What they're doing isn't helping." They have no power to currently do anything but run but that isn't stopping the burning of villages and hanging of innocent people because the ambition of the government was never to cleanse out militants; the ambition was to ethnically and religiously cleanse Myanmar.
"I wouldn't say" is your opinion and your opinion does not matter when it is factually incorrect. Most of them have no role in insurgency and like they have been for the past 500 years or so, where just trying to get by- I have no idea how when they were living in such a pit of nothingness for so long.
If you haven't seen or heard anything like that, you clearly have not researched enough to argue. I'll give you a little snapshot of the current atrocities (if that even matters to you.) Mothers and children hanging, people and villages being burnt, people being slaughtered (heads off) including children, babies suckling off dead mothers. Bodies lying on grounds. Displaced people being turned away at borders. People suffering and going hungry for days, elderly people being carried on the backs of their weak and starving sons. The list goes on, and on.
They were being terrorised. They have been present in Burma (present day Myanmar) since the 15th century or so and have since been terrorised for having different ethnic routes. They aren't entitled to education and the benefits of the rest of the population. Their lack of rights means that when they are attacked by 'legal' citizens, they aren't protected- by law or by the police so whatever happens to them be it rape, murder and so on, goes completely and totally undocumented. I don't agree to insurgency but I think the Myanmar government have capitalised on the attempts by the very, very, VERY few who have retaliated.
Again, the Myanmar government do not want these so-called 'illegal immigrants' in their country- so of course they will make their very best efforts to escalate the situation because it gives them reason to finally drive these people out of their homes. How does counter militancy justify the ethnic cleansing attempt? They have been, were being and continue to be terrorised by the government which has provoked a counter response so I cannot see how on earth the government are reacting to de-escalate terrorism. Terrorism of who exactly? People with stones and rocks who live in village huts, who have little to no electricity, internet connection or occupations except probably farming?
Your arguments sound narrow-minded and exceptionally flawed. "What they're doing isn't helping." They have no power to currently do anything but run but that isn't stopping the burning of villages and hanging of innocent people because the ambition of the government was never to cleanse out militants; the ambition was to ethnically and religiously cleanse Myanmar.
"I wouldn't say" is your opinion and your opinion does not matter when it is factually incorrect. Most of them have no role in insurgency and like they have been for the past 500 years or so, where just trying to get by- I have no idea how when they were living in such a pit of nothingness for so long.
If you haven't seen or heard anything like that, you clearly have not researched enough to argue. I'll give you a little snapshot of the current atrocities (if that even matters to you.) Mothers and children hanging, people and villages being burnt, people being slaughtered (heads off) including children, babies suckling off dead mothers. Bodies lying on grounds. Displaced people being turned away at borders. People suffering and going hungry for days, elderly people being carried on the backs of their weak and starving sons. The list goes on, and on.
(edited 6 years ago)
Cause the victims are Muslim - in which case the media gives zero **** about.
Original post by salma123angel
Cause the victims are Muslim - in which case the media gives zero **** about.
The media don't report on other persecuted minorities in Burma like the Christian Karen or the Buddhist Shan.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- USA bombing Syria
- Anyone else not get boycotting brands or even countries trend?
- woahhhhhh story of undertale
- Help with History Nea Coursework
- About slogan
- Video game debate! Deltarune VS Undertale
- I am an Israeli - AMA
- History/ Politics at Glasgow
- GCSE English Spoken Language - Presentations
- Help on EPQ title please!
- The famine at Mount Lebanon during the first world war
- advice/ opinions for LSE MSc Program ranks and "cash cow" program
- French holocaust denier faces extradition from Scotland
- MyTutor is anti-Palestinian?
- India Willoughby reports jk rowling to the police
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- St. Andrews vs LSE: Which to pick?
- Drama
- HELP: GCSE History Edexcel Grade 9 Facts
- I think i'm losing a friendship because of the Israel-Palestine conflict
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
