Asia's Governments Talk As Desperate Rohingyas Wait At Sea

[Coyote]

Really a sad situation here. The Rohinga a heavily discrimminated against minority in Myanmar: Asia s Governments Talk As Desperate Rohingyas Wait At Sea The Two-Way NPR

Who are the Rohinga? Why is their plight so ignored? There is no easy solution - that part of Asia has sustained many desperate migrants over the decades. Perhaps other countries around the world should step in and perhaps we should be pressuring Myanmar on it's human rights abuses concerning the Rohinga.

Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi is strangely silent on this: Aung San Suu Kyi s Rohingya silence Has The Lady lost her voice - CNN.com


Who are the Rohinga and why are they fleeing Myanmar?

Hundreds of those people are believed to be Rohingya, the ethnic Muslim minority in Myanmar who for decades have faced discrimination and persecution in the majority-Buddhist country. The government of Myanmar considers the country’s approximately 1.33 million Rohingya illegal settlers, and the United Nations classifies them as one of the most persecuted refugee groups in the world.

Between 1826 and 1948, the Rohingya were brought from India by the British during their colonial rule to work in Myanmar. Since then, their origin has been disputed, with some believing they hail from Bangladesh and others saying they came from Rakhine state in southeastern Myanmar.​

They've been in Myanmar for almost two centuries or, longer depending on which account is accurate. They are treated like animals.

Myanmar's current policy, according to Newsweek:

In 1982, the Rohingya were stripped of their citizenship by the government of Myanmar, then known as Burma. The Burma Citizenship Law also restricted their access to education, services and freedom of movement, and allowed property to be taken arbitrarily. More than 140,000 Rohingya live in internally displaced persons camps around Sittwe, the capital of Rakhine state, in southwest Myanmar, where they are entirely dependent on international assistance, Human Rights Watch said in 2014. More than 200,000 Rohingya refugees live in Bangladesh, according to Refugees International. They are effectively stateless.​

...Advocates fear violence and discrimination against the Rohingya is escalating, fueling a surge in treacherous boat journeys. Last year, more than 40 Rohingya were massacred in the village of Du Chee Yar Tan by local men, the U.N. confirmed. Among the findings were 10 severed heads in a water tank, including those of children.


Earlier this month, dozens of bodies were discovered in smugglers’ camps in Thailand. Many of the victims were believed to be Rohingya. ​

and Documents show Myanmar Rohingya discrimination is policy - BBC News

In a report, Fortify Rights said it had analysed 12 government documents from 1993 to 2013, and found that government policies imposed "extensive restrictions on the basic freedoms of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar's Rakhine state".

The policies restricted Rohingya's "movement, marriage, childbirth, home repairs and construction of houses of worship", it said.

Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine state were also prohibited from travelling between townships, or out of Rakhine, without permission, the report said.

The report said a government order stipulated that married Rohingya couples in parts of Rakhine state could not have more than two children, while another document said Rohingya had to apply for permission to marry, in what the report described as a "humiliating and financially prohibitive" process.

One document published in the report said officials should force a woman to breastfeed her child if there were doubts over whether she was the birth mother.​

Why No One Wants The Rohingyas The Two-Way NPR

The spectacle of thousands of desperate Rohingya Muslim "boat people" being denied landfall in Southeast Asia has laid bare the region's religious and ethnic prejudices as well as its fears of being swamped by an influx of migrants.

An estimated 6,000 or more such migrants are stranded at sea in Southeast Asia. Most of the people on the overcrowded and unseaworthy boats are thought to belong to the 1.3 million-strong Rohingya minority in Buddhist-majority Myanmar. Others are believed to be from Bangladesh.

Reuters reports that while nearly 800 migrants on one boat were brought ashore Friday in Indonesia, other boats crammed full of people were turned away.

Such refusals underline "the hardening of Southeast Asia governments' stance on the boatloads of Rohingya Muslims fleeing persecution in Myanmar," Reuters says. The Rohingya practice a blend of Sunni and Sufi Islam.

'No Stomach' For Migrants

At best, the migrants have been received with resignation — at worst with contempt — even by the region's Muslim nations. As we've reported recently, many are victims of human traffickers.

The Thai and Malaysian navies have both turned away refugee boats in recent days. Indonesia has taken in some migrants but is now refusing to accept them.

...The United States, for its part, has called on regional governments to work together to save lives, but State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke stresses: "This is a regional issue. It needs a regional solution in short order."

Asia s Governments Talk As Desperate Rohingyas Wait At Sea The Two-Way NPR

 

[irosie91]

seems like the Buddhists of Burma have imposed a form of
DHIMMIA on muslims. The biggest question is ----
are they prevented from leaving? Muslim countries
should have air-lifted them out of there decades ago.
It is obviously legal for a country to declare persons of
this or that religion not eligible for citizenship. Maldives
did it-------and Indonesia did it. Of course Isabella did it---long ago----and muhummad did it even longer ago

 

[Coyote]

seems like the Buddhists of Burma have imposed a form of
DHIMMIA on muslims. The biggest question is ----
are they prevented from leaving? Muslim countries
should have air-lifted them out of there decades ago.
It is obviously legal for a country to declare persons of
this or that religion not eligible for citizenship. Maldives
did it-------and Indonesia did it. Of course Isabella did it---long ago----and muhummad did it even longer ago

I don't think they are prevented from leaving - but they can't return. I don't think it's comparable to dhimmia:

A dhimmī (Arabic: ذمي‎ ḏimmī, IPA: [ˈðɪmmiː], collectively أهل الذمة ahl al-ḏimmah/dhimmah "the people of the dhimma") is a historical[1] term referring to non-Muslim citizens of an Islamic state.[1] The word literally means "protected person." [2] According to scholars, dhimmis had their rights fully protected in their communities, but as citizens in the Islamic state, had certain restrictions,[3] and it was obligatory for them to pay the jizya tax.[4] Dhimmis were excluded from specific duties assigned to Muslims, and did not enjoy certain political rights reserved for Muslims, but were otherwise equal under the laws of property, contract, and obligation.[5] They were also exempted from the zakat tax paid by Muslims.


Under sharia, the dhimmi communities were usually subjected to their own special laws, rather than some of the laws which were applicable only to the Muslim community. For example, the Jewish community in Medina was allowed to have its own Halakha courts,[6] and the Ottoman millet system allowed its various dhimmi communities to rule themselves under separate legal courts. These courts did not cover cases that involved religious groups outside of their own community, or capital offences. Dhimmi communities were also allowed to engage in certain practices that were usually forbidden for the Muslim community, such as the consumption of alcohol and pork.[7][8]


Historically, dhimmi status was originally applied to Jews, Christians, and Sabians. This status later also came to be applied to Zoroastrians, Mandaeans, Hindus, and Buddhists.[9][10] Eventually, the Hanafi, the largest school of Islamic jurisprudence, applied this term to all non-Muslims living in Islamic lands outside the sacred area surrounding Mecca, in present-day Saudi Arabia.[11] Some modern Hanafi scholars, however, do not make any legal distinction between a non-Muslim dhimmi and a Muslim citizen.[12]
​

With the Rohinga - they've had their citizenship revoked, are forbidden from owning land or working, and in many cases moved to camps where they must rely entirely on foreign aid for sustinance. They're allowed to leave, I think, but they have no place to go. Should other countries be responsible for taking unwanted native populations or should they attempt to resolve the underlying situation? How do you decide what countries should take them? They're Muslim, so you're saying other Muslim countries should take them but they're also ethnically Asian so shouldn't other Asian countries take them? Should Christian countries take Christians?

 

[irosie91]

seems like the Buddhists of Burma have imposed a form of
DHIMMIA on muslims. The biggest question is ----
are they prevented from leaving? Muslim countries
should have air-lifted them out of there decades ago.
It is obviously legal for a country to declare persons of
this or that religion not eligible for citizenship. Maldives
did it-------and Indonesia did it. Of course Isabella did it---long ago----and muhummad did it even longer ago

I don't think they are prevented from leaving - but they can't return. I don't think it's comparable to dhimmia:

A dhimmī (Arabic: ذمي‎ ḏimmī, IPA: [ˈðɪmmiː], collectively أهل الذمة ahl al-ḏimmah/dhimmah "the people of the dhimma") is a historical[1] term referring to non-Muslim citizens of an Islamic state.[1] The word literally means "protected person." [2] According to scholars, dhimmis had their rights fully protected in their communities, but as citizens in the Islamic state, had certain restrictions,[3] and it was obligatory for them to pay the jizya tax.[4] Dhimmis were excluded from specific duties assigned to Muslims, and did not enjoy certain political rights reserved for Muslims, but were otherwise equal under the laws of property, contract, and obligation.[5] They were also exempted from the zakat tax paid by Muslims.


Under sharia, the dhimmi communities were usually subjected to their own special laws, rather than some of the laws which were applicable only to the Muslim community. For example, the Jewish community in Medina was allowed to have its own Halakha courts,[6] and the Ottoman millet system allowed its various dhimmi communities to rule themselves under separate legal courts. These courts did not cover cases that involved religious groups outside of their own community, or capital offences. Dhimmi communities were also allowed to engage in certain practices that were usually forbidden for the Muslim community, such as the consumption of alcohol and pork.[7][8]


Historically, dhimmi status was originally applied to Jews, Christians, and Sabians. This status later also came to be applied to Zoroastrians, Mandaeans, Hindus, and Buddhists.[9][10] Eventually, the Hanafi, the largest school of Islamic jurisprudence, applied this term to all non-Muslims living in Islamic lands outside the sacred area surrounding Mecca, in present-day Saudi Arabia.[11] Some modern Hanafi scholars, however, do not make any legal distinction between a non-Muslim dhimmi and a Muslim citizen.[12]
​

With the Rohinga - they've had their citizenship revoked, are forbidden from owning land or working, and in many cases moved to camps where they must rely entirely on foreign aid for sustinance. They're allowed to leave, I think, but they have no place to go. Should other countries be responsible for taking unwanted native populations or should they attempt to resolve the underlying situation? How do you decide what countries should take them? They're Muslim, so you're saying other Muslim countries should take them but they're also ethnically Asian so shouldn't other Asian countries take them? Should Christian countries take Christians?

you have provided a VERY cleaned up version of dhimmia-------from what islamo Nazi propaganda site
did you obtain that bullshit? Try to keep in mind--
I have relatives who lived as dhimmis BTW----jews could not own land in shariah shit holes either and had
to live in designated areas. In courts of law----the
testimony of a jew could not contradict that of a muslim-----in any and all cases----criminal and civil so that in such a "trial" the muslim always wins. Interestingly that "win" is the logical basis for the dhimmi orphan law----which hands fatherless children (defined as orphans---mom does not count) over to muslims as sex slaves)

------why
would any idiot consider the very short existence of
Jews in medina once muslims invaded the jewish
city of YATHRIB as an example??---

--that population was
subjected to comprehensive genocide and completely
pillaged -------the excuse was that DA JOOOOOS did not like being subjugated to the filth of islam -----which is also the excuse for the Armenian genocide. Jews under
the filth of dhimmia were not free to leave-----that's why I asked.

Yes----I believe that Christians who are under attack in
muslim countries should be rescued by Christian countries like the USA

 

[Coyote]

seems like the Buddhists of Burma have imposed a form of
DHIMMIA on muslims. The biggest question is ----
are they prevented from leaving? Muslim countries
should have air-lifted them out of there decades ago.
It is obviously legal for a country to declare persons of
this or that religion not eligible for citizenship. Maldives
did it-------and Indonesia did it. Of course Isabella did it---long ago----and muhummad did it even longer ago

I don't think they are prevented from leaving - but they can't return. I don't think it's comparable to dhimmia:

A dhimmī (Arabic: ذمي‎ ḏimmī, IPA: [ˈðɪmmiː], collectively أهل الذمة ahl al-ḏimmah/dhimmah "the people of the dhimma") is a historical[1] term referring to non-Muslim citizens of an Islamic state.[1] The word literally means "protected person." [2] According to scholars, dhimmis had their rights fully protected in their communities, but as citizens in the Islamic state, had certain restrictions,[3] and it was obligatory for them to pay the jizya tax.[4] Dhimmis were excluded from specific duties assigned to Muslims, and did not enjoy certain political rights reserved for Muslims, but were otherwise equal under the laws of property, contract, and obligation.[5] They were also exempted from the zakat tax paid by Muslims.


Under sharia, the dhimmi communities were usually subjected to their own special laws, rather than some of the laws which were applicable only to the Muslim community. For example, the Jewish community in Medina was allowed to have its own Halakha courts,[6] and the Ottoman millet system allowed its various dhimmi communities to rule themselves under separate legal courts. These courts did not cover cases that involved religious groups outside of their own community, or capital offences. Dhimmi communities were also allowed to engage in certain practices that were usually forbidden for the Muslim community, such as the consumption of alcohol and pork.[7][8]


Historically, dhimmi status was originally applied to Jews, Christians, and Sabians. This status later also came to be applied to Zoroastrians, Mandaeans, Hindus, and Buddhists.[9][10] Eventually, the Hanafi, the largest school of Islamic jurisprudence, applied this term to all non-Muslims living in Islamic lands outside the sacred area surrounding Mecca, in present-day Saudi Arabia.[11] Some modern Hanafi scholars, however, do not make any legal distinction between a non-Muslim dhimmi and a Muslim citizen.[12]
​

With the Rohinga - they've had their citizenship revoked, are forbidden from owning land or working, and in many cases moved to camps where they must rely entirely on foreign aid for sustinance. They're allowed to leave, I think, but they have no place to go. Should other countries be responsible for taking unwanted native populations or should they attempt to resolve the underlying situation? How do you decide what countries should take them? They're Muslim, so you're saying other Muslim countries should take them but they're also ethnically Asian so shouldn't other Asian countries take them? Should Christian countries take Christians?

you have provided a VERY cleaned up version of dhimmia-------from what islamo Nazi propaganda site
did you obtain that bullshit? Try to keep in mind--
I have relatives who lived as dhimmis BTW----jews could not own land in shariah shit holes either and had
to live in designated areas. In courts of law----the
testimony of a jew could not contradict that of a muslim-----in any and all cases----criminal and civil so that in such a "trial" the muslim always wins. Interestingly that "win" is the logical basis for the dhimmi orphan law----which hands fatherless children (defined as orphans---mom does not count) over to muslims as sex slaves)

------why
would any idiot consider the very short existence of
Jews in medina once muslims invaded the jewish
city of YATHRIB as an example??---

--that population was
subjected to comprehensive genocide and completely
pillaged -------the excuse was that DA JOOOOOS did not like being subjugated to the filth of islam -----which is also the excuse for the Armenian genocide. Jews under
the filth of dhimmia were not free to leave-----that's why I asked.

Yes----I believe that Christians who are under attack in
muslim countries should be rescued by Christian countries like the USA

It's from wikipedia - hardly an "islamo nazi propaganda" site.

I think countries should take any refugees they can help, irregardless of religion or ethnicity. Religion is not the only factor that holds communities and people together. They found that out when they partitioned India.

 

[Coyote]

Just for example, the US has taken in refugees from the following countries:
USSR, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Iraq, and Myanmar.

 

[irosie91]

seems like the Buddhists of Burma have imposed a form of
DHIMMIA on muslims. The biggest question is ----
are they prevented from leaving? Muslim countries
should have air-lifted them out of there decades ago.
It is obviously legal for a country to declare persons of
this or that religion not eligible for citizenship. Maldives
did it-------and Indonesia did it. Of course Isabella did it---long ago----and muhummad did it even longer ago

I don't think they are prevented from leaving - but they can't return. I don't think it's comparable to dhimmia:

A dhimmī (Arabic: ذمي‎ ḏimmī, IPA: [ˈðɪmmiː], collectively أهل الذمة ahl al-ḏimmah/dhimmah "the people of the dhimma") is a historical[1] term referring to non-Muslim citizens of an Islamic state.[1] The word literally means "protected person." [2] According to scholars, dhimmis had their rights fully protected in their communities, but as citizens in the Islamic state, had certain restrictions,[3] and it was obligatory for them to pay the jizya tax.[4] Dhimmis were excluded from specific duties assigned to Muslims, and did not enjoy certain political rights reserved for Muslims, but were otherwise equal under the laws of property, contract, and obligation.[5] They were also exempted from the zakat tax paid by Muslims.


Under sharia, the dhimmi communities were usually subjected to their own special laws, rather than some of the laws which were applicable only to the Muslim community. For example, the Jewish community in Medina was allowed to have its own Halakha courts,[6] and the Ottoman millet system allowed its various dhimmi communities to rule themselves under separate legal courts. These courts did not cover cases that involved religious groups outside of their own community, or capital offences. Dhimmi communities were also allowed to engage in certain practices that were usually forbidden for the Muslim community, such as the consumption of alcohol and pork.[7][8]


Historically, dhimmi status was originally applied to Jews, Christians, and Sabians. This status later also came to be applied to Zoroastrians, Mandaeans, Hindus, and Buddhists.[9][10] Eventually, the Hanafi, the largest school of Islamic jurisprudence, applied this term to all non-Muslims living in Islamic lands outside the sacred area surrounding Mecca, in present-day Saudi Arabia.[11] Some modern Hanafi scholars, however, do not make any legal distinction between a non-Muslim dhimmi and a Muslim citizen.[12]
​

With the Rohinga - they've had their citizenship revoked, are forbidden from owning land or working, and in many cases moved to camps where they must rely entirely on foreign aid for sustinance. They're allowed to leave, I think, but they have no place to go. Should other countries be responsible for taking unwanted native populations or should they attempt to resolve the underlying situation? How do you decide what countries should take them? They're Muslim, so you're saying other Muslim countries should take them but they're also ethnically Asian so shouldn't other Asian countries take them? Should Christian countries take Christians?

you have provided a VERY cleaned up version of dhimmia-------from what islamo Nazi propaganda site
did you obtain that bullshit? Try to keep in mind--
I have relatives who lived as dhimmis BTW----jews could not own land in shariah shit holes either and had
to live in designated areas. In courts of law----the
testimony of a jew could not contradict that of a muslim-----in any and all cases----criminal and civil so that in such a "trial" the muslim always wins. Interestingly that "win" is the logical basis for the dhimmi orphan law----which hands fatherless children (defined as orphans---mom does not count) over to muslims as sex slaves)

------why
would any idiot consider the very short existence of
Jews in medina once muslims invaded the jewish
city of YATHRIB as an example??---

--that population was
subjected to comprehensive genocide and completely
pillaged -------the excuse was that DA JOOOOOS did not like being subjugated to the filth of islam -----which is also the excuse for the Armenian genocide. Jews under
the filth of dhimmia were not free to leave-----that's why I asked.

Yes----I believe that Christians who are under attack in
muslim countries should be rescued by Christian countries like the USA

It's from wikipedia - hardly an "islamo nazi propaganda" site.

I think countries should take any refugees they can help, irregardless of religion or ethnicity. Religion is not the only factor that holds communities and people together. They found that out when they partitioned India.

wikki is chock full of islamo Nazi revisionism ----you did not seem to know that jews cannot own land in shariah shit holes and actually copied and pasted the lie-----
property rights and legal rights ARE THE SAME for
muslims and dhimmis in courts of law------sheeeeeesh. It is very important to know in order to understand the
present conflicts One of the most important concepts in the current conflict is MUSLIM LAND. Muslims OWN muslim land-----all of it. What did anyone 'learn'
when "they" partitioned INDIA? Who is it you imagine partitioned India? (btw----besides having relatives who lived as dhimmis------I have had very close muslim friends from both India and Pakistan-----ALL
OF THE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT IS MUSLIM LAND)

 

[Vikrant]

Just for example, the US has taken in refugees from the following countries:
USSR, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Iraq, and Myanmar.

Rohingyas have developed a reputation for being troublemakers. Therefore, I doubt any country will be enthusiastic about taking them in as refugees.

 

[irosie91]

Just for example, the US has taken in refugees from the following countries:
USSR, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Iraq, and Myanmar.

Rohingyas have developed a reputation for being troublemakers. Therefore, I doubt any country will be enthusiastic about taking them in as refugees.

More than a billion muslims -----OWNING something like 1/4 of the globe cannot find a place for them ----

 

[Coyote]

Just for example, the US has taken in refugees from the following countries:
USSR, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Iraq, and Myanmar.

Rohingyas have developed a reputation for being troublemakers. Therefore, I doubt any country will be enthusiastic about taking them in as refugees.

Given the way they are treated I'm not surprised.

 

[Coyote]

Just for example, the US has taken in refugees from the following countries:
USSR, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Iraq, and Myanmar.

Rohingyas have developed a reputation for being troublemakers. Therefore, I doubt any country will be enthusiastic about taking them in as refugees.

More than a billion muslims -----OWNING something like 1/4 of the globe cannot find a place for them ----

You divide the world's people soley by religion. That's silly.

 

[irosie91]

Just for example, the US has taken in refugees from the following countries:
USSR, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Iraq, and Myanmar.

Rohingyas have developed a reputation for being troublemakers. Therefore, I doubt any country will be enthusiastic about taking them in as refugees.

More than a billion muslims -----OWNING something like 1/4 of the globe cannot find a place for them ----

You divide the world's people soley by religion. That's silly.

In fact it is SILLY OF YOU to make the claim that I DIVIDE THE WORLD SOLELY BY RELIGION-----
muslims do it. It is clear to me from your posts that
you know very little and have probably never had a
real conversation with a muslim. In fact the controversy between the Buddhists and Muslims in
Burma is very much based on----GROUP AFFINITIES which turn out in that casse to be entirely based on
religion. Have you been living under a rock all
your life or do you spend all of your time alone at home?? Is the internet your FIRST interface with the world?. I do not see much hope that the muslims and Buddhists of Burma will ever do well together-----I learned that fact from the PARTITION OF INDIA --
(well-----actually from the many many score persons
I have known well who are from "partitioned india")

yes-----muslim countries should rescue them -----I support the idea out real humane reasons----I DON'T
HAVE A NEED TO FAKE IT lots of them---it turns out---- are simply impoverished bangla deshis who had
sought something to eat in Burma. Remember bangla desh------and the genocide of hindus there 1971???
what do you IMAGINE galvanized that? (hint---it was called east Pakistan back then------before that EAST BENGAL-----same culture as is WEST BENGAL---same language, same cuisine---etc etc ---the DIFFERENCE??? religion (over the dead bodies
of a few million and counting)

 

[Coyote]

You seem to think religion is the only commonality necessary.

There are several versions of how the Rohinga ended up in Myanmar - they've either been there a century and a half or much much longer. Either way - they are among the most persecuted people on earth. They've been forced to live in internment camps and they are entirely dependent on foreign aid for sustinance.

Funny thing internment camps. I would have never have thought you would be supportive of that sort of thing.

 

[irosie91]

You seem to think religion is the only commonality necessary.

There are several versions of how the Rohinga ended up in Myanmar - they've either been there a century and a half or much much longer. Either way - they are among the most persecuted people on earth. They've been forced to live in internment camps and they are entirely dependent on foreign aid for sustinance.

Funny thing internment camps. I would have never have thought you would be supportive of that sort of thing.

your comment is typical of your repulsive character.
You have the filthy audacity to IMPLY that I support
internment camps------- I FULLY
support their migration to lands in which they can adjust
themselves COMFORTABLY. There is no hope that
they can be fully accepted by a Buddhist society that
watches muslims bomb Buddhist sacred statuary and
developed societies in which they -----as Buddhists--- are defined as SHIT and in which muslims----given the opportunity ---would be delighted to slit their throats,
Afghanistan----was----long ago----a BUDDHIST LAND. ----as was INDONESIA-----bali was bombed because
it is not MUSLIM. Not tell me why whoever it is that
you imagine partitioned india -------"made a mistake"-----you like to swim in blood?

 

[Coyote]

What would a group of culturally Myanmar people have in common with many Muslim countries - Saudi? Jordan? Iran? Mali?

They belong where they are living. Their government should be confronted for their human rights abuses. They've lived where they live now for generations if not centuries.

Do you support those atrocities or do you just give them a free pass because the perpetrators are Buddhist?

 

[irosie91]

What would a group of culturally Myanmar people have in common with many Muslim countries - Saudi? Jordan? Iran? Mali?

They belong where they are living. Their government should be confronted for their human rights abuses. They've lived where they live now for generations if not centuries.

Do you support those atrocities or do you just give them a free pass because the perpetrators are Buddhist?

do you type shit for fun? you cannot legislate HATRED out of people. It is very clear to me
that you support Islamic rape of non-muslim infants --
you have so stated in your support of the GLORIOUS
SOCIETY OF INDONESIA ----it is obvious to me that the idea THRILLS you. How was it for you when
the ancient Buddhist statuary got bombed in Afghanistan THAT MUCH FUN???. I Support the safe migration of muslims from Burma into the arms of their muslim bretheren-----elsewhere. In the mid-1930s-----had I been alive-----I would have supported
the safe migration of jews out of Germany. In 1971---
I wished that the muslims of east Pakistan and west
Pakistan would stop murdering the hindus who were fleeing the carnage that obviously EXCITED YOU.
You were probably around back then-----did you notify
the east and west Pakistani officials that they should protect the hindus?

 

[Coyote]

None of it excites me.

I just wonder why only Muslim countries should take in the Rohinga? I too, wish we had taken in the Jews fleeing Hitler, rather than turning them away.

I don't think we - a non-Muslim country - should turn away the Rohinga either.

 

[irosie91]

None of it excites me.

I just wonder why only Muslim countries should take in the Rohinga? I too, wish we had taken in the Jews fleeing Hitler, rather than turning them away.

I don't think we - a non-Muslim country - should turn away the Rohinga either.

You make an excellent point-----there were no jewish countries in 1935-------there were jews in the USA and
also your fellow Nazis, I read your literature as a child because I grew up in a VERY NAZI TOWN ----well
you already knew that Your fellow Nazis promulgated their literature so freely in the 1930s that it was still floating around my post world war II ---home town circa 1960, along with more current stuff-----the stuff written by Nazi war criminals who had fled to Syria and Egypt. I was and remain IMPRESSED-----and was even more impressed in 1971 with the GENOCIDES in Biafra and in East Pakistan (as examples) and with my many many encounters with muslims from distant lands (and hindus---and sundry
odds and ends) ----it is my "background" that made the fact that 9-11-01 was no real surprise and my background that leads me to understand that the muslims of BURMA should migrate to muslim lands---freely and easily-------and MOSTLY because I am ----unlike you------NOT A NAZI. The Buddhists of Burma have reason to be anxious about muslims in their midst. I don't hate muslims------I simply hate the JIHADIST AGENDA AS MUCH AS I HATE THE NAZI AGENDA AND THE KU KLUX KLAN AGENDA----
and having had intimate muslim friends I came to understand that the JIHADIST AGENDA IS A RELIGION. Pious muslims and not so pious all over the world BELIEVE IN IT (of course, not ALL ---but enough-----just as ENOUGH germans kissed Adolf's ass)

 

[Coyote]

The Buddhists in Burma have maltreated the Rohinga minority long before the current Islamist extremism. The current "concern" as you say - is nothing more than one more excuse to persecute them. I don't know why people seem to think Buddhists are above reproach. They can be just as intolerant and hateful as any other religion when they're in the majority.

 

[irosie91]

The Buddhists in Burma have maltreated the Rohinga minority long before the current Islamist extremism. The current "concern" as you say - is nothing more than one more excuse to persecute them. I don't know why people seem to think Buddhists are above reproach. They can be just as intolerant and hateful as any other religion when they're in the majority.

"the current Islamic extremism" ?? when did it become "current"??? I do not think Buddhists are above reproach or cannot be miserable bastards Pol Pot was brought up a Buddhist. Good point---Buddhists in the majority-----and somehow have decided
to act like muslims in the majority have acted for 14
centuries. Thus I see no reason for muslims to live in
Burma no matter how long they have lived there----Buddhists were there before them and don't want them
there------so they should leave. I remember when MAKDIVES ---VOTED to make Maldives a MUSLIM
COUNTRY------and nullified the citizenship of all non
muslims-----NOT A MURMUR other than "it was done by MAJORITY VOTE---THE DEMOCRATIC WAY" ---that was during the time of the GLORIOUS ARAB SPRING -----did you ever had another SN----I remember some female who LAUDED IT AS DEMOCRACY----she loved it. It should also be noted that BANGLA DESHIS have been fleeing the poverty of bangla desh
to GET INTO Burma-----does Burma have to accept
impoverished muslims that Burma does not want----
in order to spare Iran and a whole bunch of oil rich
arab states?. How about Indonesia----the shariah shit hole gets to take care of them ?-----who is going
to support a whole bunch of muslims that the 1 1/2 billion muslims don't want on their extensive land holdings and with their endless wealth?. Does Buddhist Burma have to watch them cheer when the muslim bretheren pillage and vandalize sacred Buddhist art?