Myanmar and religious intolerance

[Daktoria]

The segment of your article didn't analyze religion itself though. It only indicated the presence of religious conflict. I didn't say that it was wrong either. I said that it was incomplete.

Likewise, I didn't take an affirmative defense there. I was just describing the regularity of due process in going above and beyond to explain why people aren't presumed to be guilty by default.

Provide more information then

Why?

Burden of proof is on the affirmative. If you believe the article completely analyzes the situation at hand, prove it. It's not anyone else's duty to fill in missing pieces or else assume the risk of plausible deniability.

 

[Coyote]

The segment of your article didn't analyze religion itself though. It only indicated the presence of religious conflict. I didn't say that it was wrong either. I said that it was incomplete.

Likewise, I didn't take an affirmative defense there. I was just describing the regularity of due process in going above and beyond to explain why people aren't presumed to be guilty by default.

Provide more information then

Why?

Burden of proof is on the affirmative. If you believe the article completely analyzes the situation at hand, prove it. It's not anyone else's duty to fill in missing pieces or else assume the risk of plausible deniability.

I'll repeat it once more. I provided a source that described some history of religious / ethnic tensions in Myanmar - a Wikipedia article. I'm under no obligation to go any further to support my point. If you, however, feel it's wrong or incomplete - it is up to you to then take it further or contest specific claims within it. It's not my responsibility to support your query nor do I need to provide you with a thesis on religions.

 

[Daktoria]

Provide more information then

Why?

Burden of proof is on the affirmative. If you believe the article completely analyzes the situation at hand, prove it. It's not anyone else's duty to fill in missing pieces or else assume the risk of plausible deniability.

I'll repeat it once more. I provided a source that described some history of religious / ethnic tensions in Myanmar - a Wikipedia article. I'm under no obligation to go any further to support my point. If you, however, feel it's wrong or incomplete - it is up to you to then take it further or contest specific claims within it. It's not my responsibility to support your query nor do I need to provide you with a thesis on religions.

Yea, you do. You haven't explained the motive behind the situation at hand, so there's no reason to believe the actors at hand are guilty.

People aren't obligated to prove your proposition incorrect. You're obligated to prove your proposition correct.

I mean I feel like I'm a teacher grading a student who gave a vague citation in a paper, and the student is expecting me to read the whole citation just to understand something. You need to specify where the section is in your citation in order to prove your point.

 

[irosie91]

All forms of nationalism START OUT designed to protect their part of the world from outside forces. The problem is - that "protection" usually resorts in genocide against what ever group happens to be considered an "outsider" even though they may have been there for centuries.

wrong again GENOCIDE happens when UTOPIAN IDEOLOGUES get control---
try to learn some history. It does not matter HOW long they have lived there---
IMPERIALIST UTOPIAN IDEOLOGUES do genocide both on their neighbors and
thru invasion. The meccaists comitted the MOST COMPREHENSIVE genocide
in history ridding arabia COMPREHENSIVELY of all non muslims within a period
of about 100 years ----and then went about doing more by the hundreds of
millions thru invasion. ------all on the basis of the same UTOPIAN IDEOLOGY---
Stalin did his in the UKRAINE---on minor landowning farmers Cortez did
his in the americas for the UTOPIAN CREED OF WHORE ISABELLA It was
not actually NATIONALISM ---------Adolf abu ali had an IDEOLOGY----
it was not love of the soil of germany. Without the UTOPIAN IDEOLOGY---
there would have been no genocide

Buddhists-----are not utterly devoid of violence-----but they actually have no
history of genocide-----you are OBVIOUSLY EAGER to accuse them ---but then
there are genocides that really happened that you ----for your own convenience
---just IGNORE ----or in your very charming manner TRIVIALIZE INDONESIA
is in the act of comitting genocide---------whilst you admire the filth----of course why
should I complain------after all there are still 12 jews living there---carrying christian
ID cards How about the buddhists of MYANMAR----simply render islam a
non-legal religion but allow a few muslims to remain-----on buddhist ID cards?----
lets be generous------500 The good news is that unused mosques can be
bombed according to the precedents that YOU trivialize. OK go right ahead and
tell me that people should FORGET anything that happens to their co-religionists
"ELSEWHERE" -------but a cartoon drawing of the rapist pig ----thousands of miles
away is a good reason for deadly riots

 

[Coyote]

hey actually have no
history of genocide-----you are OBVIOUSLY EAGER to accuse them ---

Nope. Not eager. Not trivializing. Just discussing events in Myanmar.


I just happened to believe that genocide or human rights abuses shouldn't be justified because you don't happen to like the victims.

 

[Coyote]

Why?

Burden of proof is on the affirmative. If you believe the article completely analyzes the situation at hand, prove it. It's not anyone else's duty to fill in missing pieces or else assume the risk of plausible deniability.

I'll repeat it once more. I provided a source that described some history of religious / ethnic tensions in Myanmar - a Wikipedia article. I'm under no obligation to go any further to support my point. If you, however, feel it's wrong or incomplete - it is up to you to then take it further or contest specific claims within it. It's not my responsibility to support your query nor do I need to provide you with a thesis on religions.

Yea, you do. You haven't explained the motive behind the situation at hand, so there's no reason to believe the actors at hand are guilty.

People aren't obligated to prove your proposition incorrect. You're obligated to prove your proposition correct.

I mean I feel like I'm a teacher grading a student who gave a vague citation in a paper, and the student is expecting me to read the whole citation just to understand something. You need to specify where the section is in your citation in order to prove your point.

Again - make your point, justify these attacks if you feel the religion of the victim is to blame. You've been hinting around at it without ever providing any evidence - don't expect me to. The motive - the broader context of the ethnic/religious tensions are outlined in the Wikipedia article. If you want to take it further - *you* need to provide your thoughts on the situation, not expect me to. My point was Buddhists in Myanmar are not tolerant and that point is supported by articles surrounding their actions against not only Muslims, but other religions. It's also supported by actions by the government over the past 50 years. You are claiming it's "incomplete" - you hint around that the religions themselves need to be looked at. I posted this in Asia, not Religion. If you feel there is something inherent in the individual religion that is justifying their actions it is up to YOU to make that argument, not me.

This isn't a classroom nor is it a court of law. Either shit, or get off the pot.

 

[Coyote]

Latest Myanmar violence blamed on religious and ethnic extremists

(Reuters) - The Buddhist mob mutilated and burned Khin Naing so severely his son couldn't recognise the body, one of series of attacks that suggest a resurgence of a monk-led movement in Myanmar accused of stoking violence against Muslims.

Flies were buzzing around the bloodied patch of earth outside a ransacked mosque in Tha Phyu Chai village where police removed Khin Naing's body after he was hacked to death by ethnic Rakhine Buddhists.

"He couldn't run fast enough from the Rakhine people," said his son, Tun Tun Naing, 17, who emerged from hiding to identify his father's corpse from what remained of his charred clothing.

Khin Naing was one of five Muslims killed and four Rakhine Buddhists wounded in four days of violence in Thandwe, a township in western Rakhine State popular with foreign tourists for its nearby Ngapali Beach.

Not far from its resorts, Buddhists armed with sticks, slingshots and machetes launched repeated attacks on Muslim villagers from Sunday, burning down dozens of homes, witnesses said.

Pretty barbaric - the article labels it as sectarian violence, which pretty much describes many of the religious clashes around the world.

The latest bloodshed in Thandwe shows Myanmar's reformist government struggling to curb the spread of a Buddhist nationalist movement known as 969 and control members of an ethnic Rakhine political party implicated in violence.

The 969 movement is led by firebrand monks who preach that Islam is a threat and urge supporters to shun interfaith marriage and boycott Muslim-run businesses.

Nice people. They sound a lot like the intolerant Muslims who attack the Copts in Egypt.

Wirathu's admirers include Sann Sint, minister of religious affairs, who told Reuters in June the monk only promoted "love and understanding between religions".

President Thein Sein has called Wirathu "a son of Lord Buddha" and said 969 "is just a symbol of peace".

Seriously? They don't sound much like they are promoting "love and understanding".

About five percent of Myanmar's 60 million people are Muslim, according to government estimates. About a million more are Rohingya Muslims, mostly stateless and living in northern Rakhine State.

Maung Myint Htay, a Buddhist resident of Tha Phyu Chai, said he played no part in Tuesday's attacks, but didn't condemn them.

"It's not wrong," he said, adding that Rakhine people had a "historical duty" to protect their homeland from Muslims.

The scary thing is the government promotes and supports this.

Myint Moe rejected the name "Rohingya" and instead referred to members of that community as "Bengalis", a term that implies they are illegal migrants from neighbouring Bangladesh.

The Rohingya have been there since at least the 8th century - they have a long history in that region. Ethnic and religious in the Arakan region go back a long time.

According to wikipedia: Following the Burmese conquest of Arakan in 1785, as many as 35,000 Arakanese people fled to the neighbouring Chittagong region of British Bengal in 1799 to escape Burmese persecution and to seek protection from British India.[35] The Burmese rulers executed thousands of Arakanese men and deported a considerable portion of the Arakanese population to central Burma, leaving Arakan as a scarcely populated area by the time the British occupied it.

Kind of like the Balkans....ethnic memories, conflicts and grudges go back a long ways.

None of which justify attacks on civilians like what is happening.
An RNDP official in Thandwe said the arrest of party members could cause more unrest.

"It's the responsibility of the government because they arrested the party leader and religious leaders," said Maung Maung Phyu. "People are angry."

 

[Daktoria]

I'll repeat it once more. I provided a source that described some history of religious / ethnic tensions in Myanmar - a Wikipedia article. I'm under no obligation to go any further to support my point. If you, however, feel it's wrong or incomplete - it is up to you to then take it further or contest specific claims within it. It's not my responsibility to support your query nor do I need to provide you with a thesis on religions.

Yea, you do. You haven't explained the motive behind the situation at hand, so there's no reason to believe the actors at hand are guilty.

People aren't obligated to prove your proposition incorrect. You're obligated to prove your proposition correct.

I mean I feel like I'm a teacher grading a student who gave a vague citation in a paper, and the student is expecting me to read the whole citation just to understand something. You need to specify where the section is in your citation in order to prove your point.

Again - make your point, justify these attacks if you feel the religion of the victim is to blame. You've been hinting around at it without ever providing any evidence - don't expect me to. The motive - the broader context of the ethnic/religious tensions are outlined in the Wikipedia article. If you want to take it further - *you* need to provide your thoughts on the situation, not expect me to. My point was Buddhists in Myanmar are not tolerant and that point is supported by articles surrounding their actions against not only Muslims, but other religions. It's also supported by actions by the government over the past 50 years. You are claiming it's "incomplete" - you hint around that the religions themselves need to be looked at. I posted this in Asia, not Religion. If you feel there is something inherent in the individual religion that is justifying their actions it is up to YOU to make that argument, not me.

This isn't a classroom nor is it a court of law. Either shit, or get off the pot.

I did make my point. I discussed the fatalist value of Qadar in Islam in my opening.

As for not being a classroom or court of law, why are you discussing politics while having a double standard on how politics is discussed versus being applied or distributed in society.

 

[Coyote]

Yea, you do. You haven't explained the motive behind the situation at hand, so there's no reason to believe the actors at hand are guilty.

People aren't obligated to prove your proposition incorrect. You're obligated to prove your proposition correct.

I mean I feel like I'm a teacher grading a student who gave a vague citation in a paper, and the student is expecting me to read the whole citation just to understand something. You need to specify where the section is in your citation in order to prove your point.

Again - make your point, justify these attacks if you feel the religion of the victim is to blame. You've been hinting around at it without ever providing any evidence - don't expect me to. The motive - the broader context of the ethnic/religious tensions are outlined in the Wikipedia article. If you want to take it further - *you* need to provide your thoughts on the situation, not expect me to. My point was Buddhists in Myanmar are not tolerant and that point is supported by articles surrounding their actions against not only Muslims, but other religions. It's also supported by actions by the government over the past 50 years. You are claiming it's "incomplete" - you hint around that the religions themselves need to be looked at. I posted this in Asia, not Religion. If you feel there is something inherent in the individual religion that is justifying their actions it is up to YOU to make that argument, not me.

This isn't a classroom nor is it a court of law. Either shit, or get off the pot.

I did make my point. I discussed the fatalist value of Qadar in Islam in my opening.

As for not being a classroom or court of law, why are you discussing politics while having a double standard on how politics is discussed versus being applied or distributed in society.

There is no double standard unless you have a problem with setting forth your own argument.

 

[Daktoria]

I'm sorry. Do you actually oppose prejudice?

I can't tell because you're deconstructing possible interpretations of my language and extrapolating them to what's necessarily right. I wasn't referring to "double standard" between you and me. I was referring to it between this discussion and classrooms or courts of law.

If you're teasing me because you're acknowledging my intelligence, then my apologies. I'm already taken. Please don't expect me to repeat myself in trying to harass me into redundancy.

 

[Coyote]

I'm sorry. Do you actually oppose prejudice?

I can't tell because you're deconstructing possible interpretations of my language and extrapolating them to what's necessarily right. I wasn't referring to "double standard" between you and me. I was referring to it between this discussion and classrooms or courts of law.

Daktoria, I misunderstood you then. I assumed you opposed prejudice.

If you're teasing me because you're acknowledging my intelligence, then my apologies. I'm already taken. Please don't expect me to repeat myself in trying to harass me into redundancy.

I am not teasing you. I frankly don't see what the point is you are making or how it contributes to the topic. If you are being deliberately obscure and misleading, then I have no interest in your games. I'm more inerested in what is going on in Myanmar.

If you feel that the Muslims in Myanmar deserve what is happening to them - feel free to elaborate.