4 ms·

>>Following independence in 1948, the newly formed union government of the predominantly-Buddhist country denied citizenship to the Rohingyas, subjecting them t

>>Following independence in 1948, the newly formed union government of the predominantly-Buddhist country denied citizenship to the Rohingyas, subjecting them to extensive systematic discrimination in the country. From the Wikipedia article you posted.

Mikeb85 9y ago
Because they were literally the enemy in WWII. The line right above what you posted, but conveniently didn't quote.
- farseer 9y ago
  Burma was a British colony during WWII. Are you really going to call someone the enemy for not siding with the murderous regime of imperial Japan?
  - candiodari 9y ago
    I think what is being talked about is this, or what happened, right nextdoor by essentially the same organisation, and therefore what could reasonably have been expected to happen if the revolution by muslims had succeeded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Bangladesh_anti-Hindu_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Bangladesh_anti-Hindu_vio... So yes, this is a bit of a case of "A tried to commit genocide on B. B won and, as it turns out, is not happy with the attempt". One might also point out that the treatment of non-muslims in the original country of these people (Bangladesh) is worse, in terms of legal rights, in terms of treatment by the security forces, in terms of destruction, in terms of death toll, ... and yet ... no complaints from the UN, and certainly no action by anyone. So let's just stop joking here: these people are being attacked because they directly attacked the security forces. That sucks. But these people also constantly commit violence against minorities in their midst (in fact that's how this conflict started), so let's just not pretend otherwise : yes, Rohingya are losing here, and yet they're still the racists in this conflict, and do commit genocide. Such a thing is in fact possible.
    - boomboomsubban 9y ago
      This is largely ridiculous. Many of the Rohingya people fled to Myanmar during the 71' Bangladesh Genocide, which was largely committed by Pakistan. The group responsible for your recent unrest is upset because members of their group have faced war crime trials for their acts during the genocide. Bangladesh itself at least attempts to have religious freedom. And I have no clue what event you're trying to pin on the Rohingya to say they started this conflict.
      - candiodari 9y ago
        You could always read the wikipedia page linked. Clue included.
        libertyEQ 9y ago
        I've read several well-reasoned comments of yours today that I agree with completely, but given that I don't want to become an expert on the Rohingya, it would be helpful if you all (i.e. in this entire subthread) were to lay out the specific facts upon which you are making these judgements. Yes, everyone could read that entire Wikipedia page, look through its edit history, check the talk page, and check out the cited links. Most of us probably will not. There are other well-reasoned arguments in this subthread and it seems like there is some disagreement on some fundamental facts.
        boomboomsubban 9y ago
        I did. It doesn't support what you're saying about the Rohingya, and it doesn't support your claim that things are worse in Bangladesh without anyone caring. Calling the Rohingya "basically the same organization" as the one that took part in the 1971 Genocide is complete nonsense. You're basically saying they deserve this state led treatment as other Muslims nearby did unrelated bad things to Hindus.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      No, let's not. "These people" are women and children. No infant in her mother's arms, no 12 year old village girl ever attacked "security forces", which is a name no organization of armed people who facilitate mass rape and the murder of children deserves. That you could even make the argument betrays something deeply warped about your understanding of not just this conflict, but of conflict in general.
  - Mikeb85 9y ago
    Should they have sided with their colonial overlords?

Mikeb85 9y ago

Because they were literally the enemy in WWII. The line right above what you posted, but conveniently didn't quote.

farseer 9y ago
Burma was a British colony during WWII. Are you really going to call someone the enemy for not siding with the murderous regime of imperial Japan?
- candiodari 9y ago
  I think what is being talked about is this, or what happened, right nextdoor by essentially the same organisation, and therefore what could reasonably have been expected to happen if the revolution by muslims had succeeded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Bangladesh_anti-Hindu_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Bangladesh_anti-Hindu_vio... So yes, this is a bit of a case of "A tried to commit genocide on B. B won and, as it turns out, is not happy with the attempt". One might also point out that the treatment of non-muslims in the original country of these people (Bangladesh) is worse, in terms of legal rights, in terms of treatment by the security forces, in terms of destruction, in terms of death toll, ... and yet ... no complaints from the UN, and certainly no action by anyone. So let's just stop joking here: these people are being attacked because they directly attacked the security forces. That sucks. But these people also constantly commit violence against minorities in their midst (in fact that's how this conflict started), so let's just not pretend otherwise : yes, Rohingya are losing here, and yet they're still the racists in this conflict, and do commit genocide. Such a thing is in fact possible.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    This is largely ridiculous. Many of the Rohingya people fled to Myanmar during the 71' Bangladesh Genocide, which was largely committed by Pakistan. The group responsible for your recent unrest is upset because members of their group have faced war crime trials for their acts during the genocide. Bangladesh itself at least attempts to have religious freedom. And I have no clue what event you're trying to pin on the Rohingya to say they started this conflict.
    - candiodari 9y ago
      You could always read the wikipedia page linked. Clue included.
      - libertyEQ 9y ago
        I've read several well-reasoned comments of yours today that I agree with completely, but given that I don't want to become an expert on the Rohingya, it would be helpful if you all (i.e. in this entire subthread) were to lay out the specific facts upon which you are making these judgements. Yes, everyone could read that entire Wikipedia page, look through its edit history, check the talk page, and check out the cited links. Most of us probably will not. There are other well-reasoned arguments in this subthread and it seems like there is some disagreement on some fundamental facts.
      - boomboomsubban 9y ago
        I did. It doesn't support what you're saying about the Rohingya, and it doesn't support your claim that things are worse in Bangladesh without anyone caring. Calling the Rohingya "basically the same organization" as the one that took part in the 1971 Genocide is complete nonsense. You're basically saying they deserve this state led treatment as other Muslims nearby did unrelated bad things to Hindus.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    No, let's not. "These people" are women and children. No infant in her mother's arms, no 12 year old village girl ever attacked "security forces", which is a name no organization of armed people who facilitate mass rape and the murder of children deserves. That you could even make the argument betrays something deeply warped about your understanding of not just this conflict, but of conflict in general.
- Mikeb85 9y ago
  Should they have sided with their colonial overlords?