Myanmar Is Starving Rohingya Muslims Out of Their Villages: Reports

[Lastamender]

Why did you delete your post Coyote? All those examples of genocide by non-Muslims do not change the fact Islam endorses terror and genocide is terror.

Because it was a duplicate - I had already posted it but my computer was acting up. I would be happy to undelete it if you wish.

You can go back to that post of mine, it has been edited and a question added.

Islam endorses both peace and violence, within specific conexts. Beyond that, it is not really relevant to this discussion which is not on religious doctrine.

What a person believes does not in anyway make genocide against that person's people acceptable.

Contexts? More bullshit. Abrogation leaves Islam with 0 nice to say about non-Muslims. From calling them animals, to saying they should be subdued, converted or killed.

Those are the facts, and you are a liar to say they are not.

I've argued it with you before in other threads.

Does that, in your mind, justify genocide against Muslims?

No.

 

[Coyote]

And really. It is. It is all bound up together in what is being done to the Rohinga that you are doing everything you can to deny and call it what it is - genocide.

Because you can't bring yourself to say unequivocably that genocide is wrong - always has been and always will be?

I should not need to. I have a posting history trying to tell the truth about Islam. It has nothing to do with how I feel. And I do not endorse genocide, which is one of the reasons I oppose Islam. Stop the moral disgust, it is not working, you are an apologist and will continue to avoid the real cause of this situation. Islam.

Then you do not endorse Myanmar Buddhists are doing to the Rohinga? You oppose it?

the people of Myanmar never accepted the ROHINGYA
as citizens of MYANMAR and now are deporting the illegal
aliens------it is not my business to either endorse or oppose
that LEGAL ACTION. That the people who-----it seems----are largely BENGALI MUSLIMS are rejected by their fellow
BENGALI MUSLIMS is an atrocity

So genocide is now a "legal action".

Deportation of alien residents is a legal action-----if
you want to use a VERY BROAD definition of genocide
to include ANY ACTION that reduces a population----then
you can call it "genocide" -----but in that case you would have
to (were you honest) to find every islamic nation guilty of
GENOCIDE. You want to start with Iran?

Does deportation include gang raping women and children? Does it include decapitating children? Does it include burning people alive in houses and throwing infants into fires? Does it include shooting those fleeing in the backs? Does it include putting them into concentration camps, forbidding them education, the means to work, even diverting relief rations from them and starving them?

Let me know when sort this out.

 

[Coyote]

Because it was a duplicate - I had already posted it but my computer was acting up. I would be happy to undelete it if you wish.

You can go back to that post of mine, it has been edited and a question added.

Islam endorses both peace and violence, within specific conexts. Beyond that, it is not really relevant to this discussion which is not on religious doctrine.

What a person believes does not in anyway make genocide against that person's people acceptable.

Contexts? More bullshit. Abrogation leaves Islam with 0 nice to say about non-Muslims. From calling them animals, to saying they should be subdued, converted or killed.

Those are the facts, and you are a liar to say they are not.

I've argued it with you before in other threads.

Does that, in your mind, justify genocide against Muslims?

No.

Thank you.

Does that justify Myanmar's genocide against the Rohinga?

 

[Lastamender]

You can go back to that post of mine, it has been edited and a question added.

Islam endorses both peace and violence, within specific conexts. Beyond that, it is not really relevant to this discussion which is not on religious doctrine.

What a person believes does not in anyway make genocide against that person's people acceptable.

Contexts? More bullshit. Abrogation leaves Islam with 0 nice to say about non-Muslims. From calling them animals, to saying they should be subdued, converted or killed.

Those are the facts, and you are a liar to say they are not.

I've argued it with you before in other threads.

Does that, in your mind, justify genocide against Muslims?

No.

Thank you.

Does that justify Myanmar's genocide against the Rohinga?

Genocide is an exaggeration when they have been given a choice to stay or leave. Deal with it. Maybe we should call it martyrdom.

 

[Slyhunter]

not at all-------but an intelligent and reasonable use of
the WORD genocide is, OBVIOUSLY, an impossible
concept for YOU. Do you know of any group seeking
genocide of any other group. Last I heard-----the only
people I encountered who fart out and teach their children to
FART OUT-------"death too ______" chants-----heve been
muslims. You got some other group that so engages? ----
Historically----there was a genocide by a nut named POL POT. fairly recently--------and some genocidal actions in
Africa and the Balkans------piles and piles of dead bodies----
and a genocide of kurds by the baathist hero SADDAM

I'm quite clear on the definition of genocide. It is not dependent on the nature of the ethnic, religious or national groups involved. Simply because you don't like them doesn't make it any less genocide Rosie.

Wrong genocide is a hallmark of Islam. Jihad has killed 270 million and counting. Islam killed 10 million Buddhists and 80million Hindus.

So what exactly are you saying? If some members of an ethnic or religious or national group committed bad acts it is okay to kill all of them? Are you saying that kind of genocide is ok in your book?

By the way...Hitler was not Muslim.
Nor was the leadership of the USSR when they starved the Ukrainians (Holodomor) and the Khaziks
The Khmer Rouge weren't Muslim.
The Hutu's of Rwanda weren't Muslim yet they killed 70% of the Tutsi's in Rwanda.
The Dzungar genocide, of the 1750's wasn't Muslim.

No I am not saying that. I am saying Islam sanctions terror and violence. Something you are afraid to admit, let alone discuss.

Are you then saying that makes genocide against them ok? Is that why you can not condemn the genocide on the Rohinga?

I'm saying that, genocide against Muslims is ok because they are ass backwards. They are animals and need to be removed from existence.

 

[Coyote]

Islam endorses both peace and violence, within specific conexts. Beyond that, it is not really relevant to this discussion which is not on religious doctrine.

What a person believes does not in anyway make genocide against that person's people acceptable.

Contexts? More bullshit. Abrogation leaves Islam with 0 nice to say about non-Muslims. From calling them animals, to saying they should be subdued, converted or killed.

Those are the facts, and you are a liar to say they are not.

I've argued it with you before in other threads.

Does that, in your mind, justify genocide against Muslims?

No.

Thank you.

Does that justify Myanmar's genocide against the Rohinga?

Genocide is an exaggeration when they have been given a choice to stay or leave. Deal with it. Maybe we should call it martyrdom.

I've pointed out to you numerous actions of the Myanmar people against the Rohinga that could hardly be considered "giving them a choice", including I might add shutting them up in concentration camps from which they are not allowed to depart.

How are all those actions "allowing them to leave"? Keep in mind - "leaving" also means crossing a border into a foreign country that doesn't want them either, and the border is now littered with land mines.

 

[Lastamender]

I'm quite clear on the definition of genocide. It is not dependent on the nature of the ethnic, religious or national groups involved. Simply because you don't like them doesn't make it any less genocide Rosie.

Wrong genocide is a hallmark of Islam. Jihad has killed 270 million and counting. Islam killed 10 million Buddhists and 80million Hindus.

So what exactly are you saying? If some members of an ethnic or religious or national group committed bad acts it is okay to kill all of them? Are you saying that kind of genocide is ok in your book?

By the way...Hitler was not Muslim.
Nor was the leadership of the USSR when they starved the Ukrainians (Holodomor) and the Khaziks
The Khmer Rouge weren't Muslim.
The Hutu's of Rwanda weren't Muslim yet they killed 70% of the Tutsi's in Rwanda.
The Dzungar genocide, of the 1750's wasn't Muslim.

No I am not saying that. I am saying Islam sanctions terror and violence. Something you are afraid to admit, let alone discuss.

Are you then saying that makes genocide against them ok? Is that why you can not condemn the genocide on the Rohinga?

I'm saying that, genocide against Muslims is ok because they are ass backwards. They are animals and need to be removed from existence.

I have said before there is no golden rule in Islam, now we know why. The last thing Muslims want is to have people treat them like they treat others.

 

[Coyote]

I'm quite clear on the definition of genocide. It is not dependent on the nature of the ethnic, religious or national groups involved. Simply because you don't like them doesn't make it any less genocide Rosie.

Wrong genocide is a hallmark of Islam. Jihad has killed 270 million and counting. Islam killed 10 million Buddhists and 80million Hindus.

So what exactly are you saying? If some members of an ethnic or religious or national group committed bad acts it is okay to kill all of them? Are you saying that kind of genocide is ok in your book?

By the way...Hitler was not Muslim.
Nor was the leadership of the USSR when they starved the Ukrainians (Holodomor) and the Khaziks
The Khmer Rouge weren't Muslim.
The Hutu's of Rwanda weren't Muslim yet they killed 70% of the Tutsi's in Rwanda.
The Dzungar genocide, of the 1750's wasn't Muslim.

No I am not saying that. I am saying Islam sanctions terror and violence. Something you are afraid to admit, let alone discuss.

Are you then saying that makes genocide against them ok? Is that why you can not condemn the genocide on the Rohinga?

I'm saying that, genocide against Muslims is ok because they are ass backwards. They are animals and need to be removed from existence.

Your response doesn't surprise me in the least given your posting history.

 

[Lastamender]

Contexts? More bullshit. Abrogation leaves Islam with 0 nice to say about non-Muslims. From calling them animals, to saying they should be subdued, converted or killed.

Those are the facts, and you are a liar to say they are not.

I've argued it with you before in other threads.

Does that, in your mind, justify genocide against Muslims?

No.

Thank you.

Does that justify Myanmar's genocide against the Rohinga?

Genocide is an exaggeration when they have been given a choice to stay or leave. Deal with it. Maybe we should call it martyrdom.

I've pointed out to you numerous actions of the Myanmar people against the Rohinga that could hardly be considered "giving them a choice", including I might add shutting them up in concentration camps from which they are not allowed to depart.

How are all those actions "allowing them to leave"? Keep in mind - "leaving" also means crossing a border into a foreign country that doesn't want them either, and the border is now littered with land mines.

Move to ******* Palestine and invite them over.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I should not need to. I have a posting history trying to tell the truth about Islam. It has nothing to do with how I feel. And I do not endorse genocide, which is one of the reasons I oppose Islam. Stop the moral disgust, it is not working, you are an apologist and will continue to avoid the real cause of this situation. Islam.

Then you do not endorse Myanmar Buddhists are doing to the Rohinga? You oppose it?

the people of Myanmar never accepted the ROHINGYA
as citizens of MYANMAR and now are deporting the illegal
aliens------it is not my business to either endorse or oppose
that LEGAL ACTION. That the people who-----it seems----are largely BENGALI MUSLIMS are rejected by their fellow
BENGALI MUSLIMS is an atrocity

So genocide is now a "legal action".

Deportation of alien residents is a legal action-----if
you want to use a VERY BROAD definition of genocide
to include ANY ACTION that reduces a population----then
you can call it "genocide" -----but in that case you would have
to (were you honest) to find every islamic nation guilty of
GENOCIDE. You want to start with Iran?

Does deportation include gang raping women and children? Does it include decapitating children? Does it include burning people alive in houses and throwing infants into fires? Does it include shooting those fleeing in the backs? Does it include putting them into concentration camps, forbidding them education, the means to work, even diverting relief rations from them and starving them?

Let me know when sort this out.

That's not deportation. That is eradication and is sometimes necessary when an invasive species threatens the existence of the native species.

 

[irosie91]

Why did you delete your post Coyote? All those examples of genocide by non-Muslims do not change the fact Islam endorses terror and genocide is terror.

Because it was a duplicate - I had already posted it but my computer was acting up. I would be happy to undelete it if you wish.

You can go back to that post of mine, it has been edited and a question added.

Islam endorses both peace and violence, within specific conexts. Beyond that, it is not really relevant to this discussion which is not on religious doctrine.

What a person believes does not in anyway make genocide against that person's people acceptable.

unless that "people" involved are non muslims and the actors are muslims in which case the endorsement of
genocide become legal and acceptable in CONTEXT

Why did you delete your post Coyote? All those examples of genocide by non-Muslims do not change the fact Islam endorses terror and genocide is terror.

Because it was a duplicate - I had already posted it but my computer was acting up. I would be happy to undelete it if you wish.

You can go back to that post of mine, it has been edited and a question added.

Islam endorses both peace and violence, within specific conexts. Beyond that, it is not really relevant to this discussion which is not on religious doctrine.

What a person believes does not in anyway make genocide against that person's people acceptable.

Contexts? More bullshit. Abrogation leaves Islam with 0 nice to say about non-Muslims. From calling them animals, to saying they should be subdued, converted or killed.

Those are the facts, and you are a liar to say they are not.

I've argued it with you before in other threads.

Does that, in your mind, justify genocide against Muslims?

it justifies rejection of such people as LEGAL IMMIGRANTS----especially if the same people
continue to ACT ON THAT PHILOSOPHY

 

[irosie91]

Contexts? More bullshit. Abrogation leaves Islam with 0 nice to say about non-Muslims. From calling them animals, to saying they should be subdued, converted or killed.

Those are the facts, and you are a liar to say they are not.

I've argued it with you before in other threads.

Does that, in your mind, justify genocide against Muslims?

No.

Thank you.

Does that justify Myanmar's genocide against the Rohinga?

Genocide is an exaggeration when they have been given a choice to stay or leave. Deal with it. Maybe we should call it martyrdom.

I've pointed out to you numerous actions of the Myanmar people against the Rohinga that could hardly be considered "giving them a choice", including I might add shutting them up in concentration camps from which they are not allowed to depart.

How are all those actions "allowing them to leave"? Keep in mind - "leaving" also means crossing a border into a foreign country that doesn't want them either, and the border is now littered with land mines.

they should DEFINITELY be given safe conduct to the land of their fellow muslim Bengalis. Who put
the land mines there and why?

 

[Coyote]

I've argued it with you before in other threads.

Does that, in your mind, justify genocide against Muslims?

No.

Thank you.

Does that justify Myanmar's genocide against the Rohinga?

Genocide is an exaggeration when they have been given a choice to stay or leave. Deal with it. Maybe we should call it martyrdom.

I've pointed out to you numerous actions of the Myanmar people against the Rohinga that could hardly be considered "giving them a choice", including I might add shutting them up in concentration camps from which they are not allowed to depart.

How are all those actions "allowing them to leave"? Keep in mind - "leaving" also means crossing a border into a foreign country that doesn't want them either, and the border is now littered with land mines.

Move to ******* Palestine and invite them over.

Can you answer the question? And note - Hitler originally allowed the Jews to leave as well. Would you consider the holocaust not genocide then?

 

[Coyote]

I've argued it with you before in other threads.

Does that, in your mind, justify genocide against Muslims?

No.

Thank you.

Does that justify Myanmar's genocide against the Rohinga?

Genocide is an exaggeration when they have been given a choice to stay or leave. Deal with it. Maybe we should call it martyrdom.

I've pointed out to you numerous actions of the Myanmar people against the Rohinga that could hardly be considered "giving them a choice", including I might add shutting them up in concentration camps from which they are not allowed to depart.

How are all those actions "allowing them to leave"? Keep in mind - "leaving" also means crossing a border into a foreign country that doesn't want them either, and the border is now littered with land mines.

they should DEFINITELY be given safe conduct to the land of their fellow muslim Bengalis. Who put
the land mines there and why?

Myanmar did. So those who fled couldn't come back. And those yet to flee would be blown up.

Using your logic - should all Jews not residing in Israel be send there under safe escort then?

Where should Buddhists go?

And Christians?

Not to mention athiests....

 

[irosie91]

No.

Thank you.

Does that justify Myanmar's genocide against the Rohinga?

Genocide is an exaggeration when they have been given a choice to stay or leave. Deal with it. Maybe we should call it martyrdom.

I've pointed out to you numerous actions of the Myanmar people against the Rohinga that could hardly be considered "giving them a choice", including I might add shutting them up in concentration camps from which they are not allowed to depart.

How are all those actions "allowing them to leave"? Keep in mind - "leaving" also means crossing a border into a foreign country that doesn't want them either, and the border is now littered with land mines.

Move to ******* Palestine and invite them over.

Can you answer the question? And note - Hitler originally allowed the Jews to leave as well. Would you consider the holocaust not genocide then?

There was no time since 1933 when Adolf took power that jews were FREE to leave. Your fellows lied----FURTHERMORE---
what makes you imagine that Myanmar has an EXTERMINATION plan on muslims who refuse to leave?

 

[irosie91]

No.

Thank you.

Does that justify Myanmar's genocide against the Rohinga?

Genocide is an exaggeration when they have been given a choice to stay or leave. Deal with it. Maybe we should call it martyrdom.

I've pointed out to you numerous actions of the Myanmar people against the Rohinga that could hardly be considered "giving them a choice", including I might add shutting them up in concentration camps from which they are not allowed to depart.

How are all those actions "allowing them to leave"? Keep in mind - "leaving" also means crossing a border into a foreign country that doesn't want them either, and the border is now littered with land mines.

they should DEFINITELY be given safe conduct to the land of their fellow muslim Bengalis. Who put
the land mines there and why?

Myanmar did. So those who fled couldn't come back. And those yet to flee would be blown up.

well----Myanmar does not want illegals coming in-------SO? try getting to the USA from Canada if you are illegal?
The real problem in this situation is------muslims do not want muslims

Using your logic - should all Jews not residing in Israel be send there under safe escort then?

Where should Buddhists go?

And Christians?

Not to mention athiests....

 

[Coyote]

Thank you.

Does that justify Myanmar's genocide against the Rohinga?

Genocide is an exaggeration when they have been given a choice to stay or leave. Deal with it. Maybe we should call it martyrdom.

I've pointed out to you numerous actions of the Myanmar people against the Rohinga that could hardly be considered "giving them a choice", including I might add shutting them up in concentration camps from which they are not allowed to depart.

How are all those actions "allowing them to leave"? Keep in mind - "leaving" also means crossing a border into a foreign country that doesn't want them either, and the border is now littered with land mines.

Move to ******* Palestine and invite them over.

Can you answer the question? And note - Hitler originally allowed the Jews to leave as well. Would you consider the holocaust not genocide then?

There was no time since 1933 when Adolf took power that jews were FREE to leave. Your fellows lied----FURTHERMORE---
what makes you imagine that Myanmar has an EXTERMINATION plan on muslims who refuse to leave?

I linked to a source to support my claim, so no, I am not lying.

Here is yet another:
Common Questions about the Holocaust — United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

 

[Coyote]

Thank you.

Does that justify Myanmar's genocide against the Rohinga?

Genocide is an exaggeration when they have been given a choice to stay or leave. Deal with it. Maybe we should call it martyrdom.

I've pointed out to you numerous actions of the Myanmar people against the Rohinga that could hardly be considered "giving them a choice", including I might add shutting them up in concentration camps from which they are not allowed to depart.

How are all those actions "allowing them to leave"? Keep in mind - "leaving" also means crossing a border into a foreign country that doesn't want them either, and the border is now littered with land mines.

Move to ******* Palestine and invite them over.

Can you answer the question? And note - Hitler originally allowed the Jews to leave as well. Would you consider the holocaust not genocide then?

There was no time since 1933 when Adolf took power that jews were FREE to leave. Your fellows lied----FURTHERMORE---
what makes you imagine that Myanmar has an EXTERMINATION plan on muslims who refuse to leave?

The fact that they've been engaging in it already, as I previously in multiple posts pointed out.

 

[Coyote]

Then you do not endorse Myanmar Buddhists are doing to the Rohinga? You oppose it?

the people of Myanmar never accepted the ROHINGYA
as citizens of MYANMAR and now are deporting the illegal
aliens------it is not my business to either endorse or oppose
that LEGAL ACTION. That the people who-----it seems----are largely BENGALI MUSLIMS are rejected by their fellow
BENGALI MUSLIMS is an atrocity

So genocide is now a "legal action".

Deportation of alien residents is a legal action-----if
you want to use a VERY BROAD definition of genocide
to include ANY ACTION that reduces a population----then
you can call it "genocide" -----but in that case you would have
to (were you honest) to find every islamic nation guilty of
GENOCIDE. You want to start with Iran?

Does deportation include gang raping women and children? Does it include decapitating children? Does it include burning people alive in houses and throwing infants into fires? Does it include shooting those fleeing in the backs? Does it include putting them into concentration camps, forbidding them education, the means to work, even diverting relief rations from them and starving them?

Let me know when sort this out.

That's not deportation. That is eradication and is sometimes necessary when an invasive species threatens the existence of the native species.

So you support genocide then?

 

[Lastamender]

Genocide is an exaggeration when they have been given a choice to stay or leave. Deal with it. Maybe we should call it martyrdom.

I've pointed out to you numerous actions of the Myanmar people against the Rohinga that could hardly be considered "giving them a choice", including I might add shutting them up in concentration camps from which they are not allowed to depart.

How are all those actions "allowing them to leave"? Keep in mind - "leaving" also means crossing a border into a foreign country that doesn't want them either, and the border is now littered with land mines.

Move to ******* Palestine and invite them over.

Can you answer the question? And note - Hitler originally allowed the Jews to leave as well. Would you consider the holocaust not genocide then?

There was no time since 1933 when Adolf took power that jews were FREE to leave. Your fellows lied----FURTHERMORE---
what makes you imagine that Myanmar has an EXTERMINATION plan on muslims who refuse to leave?

I linked to a source to support my claim, so no, I am not lying.

Here is yet another:
Common Questions about the Holocaust — United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

Who cares this is not about the Jews. And you lie about Islam knowingly and constantly.