8 ms·

How the Rohingya Escaped

116 points by dankohn1 9y ago

mistercow 9y ago
Just a warning: this gets really graphic really quick.
basic-gongfu 9y ago
Nothing is about religion, just as nothing is about race, gender, favorite football team or whatever they come up with next. Basically all conflicts are political conflicts; envisioned, ignited and fueled by psychopaths aiming for power at any cost. The only thing that changes is the method for dividing the people, the goal is always conquering. This has been going on constantly since forever, and will continue until we get it collectively.
forkLding 9y ago
Its quite a good example of the old saying: "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself becoming the villain". As well the blatant irony of her Nobel Peace Prize status, I can see a lot of international fans' heartbroken.
InTheArena 9y ago
Very powerful - i read this on mobile and the impact of the pictures and videos portraying The human suffering is immense.
- rspeer 9y ago
  I read this on mobile and got a still image and a progress spinner, with no way to scroll.
qwerty456127 9y ago
Is this about religion again? Or what exactly are they hated for?
- ringaroundthetx 9y ago
  What I've found is that there is no consensus on who the victim is, and only who the losers are. This surprised me at first, but it really wouldn't be unique at all, in hindsight. Most of the discussion is around unrelated parties having empathy, because there are suffering people and the political machine is not helping anywhere. The tricky part is having an objective discussion, for example, I have no idea who these soldiers in the bushes are. This article didn't tell me. Where were they before? Hasn't this crisis been going on since like forever? What changed to accelerate this? What is the majority power doing, thinking, dealing with?
- khein11 9y ago
  It's much more than religion. Of course, media would like to simplify things and only one side of the story would be told most of the time. But it's much more complicated issue in reality and the hatred is not one sided by the way.
- QAPereo 9y ago
  It’s one of the more purely religious conflicts out there, for most of its history. https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2017/0928/Is-Rohingya-crisis-changing-West-s-romanticized-view-of-Buddhism https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2017/0928/Is-Rohingya...
  - fjsolwmv 9y ago
    It's an ethnic conflict. In conservative societies, there is little difference between religion and ethnicity.
    - ringaroundthetx 9y ago
      an adjective and distinction which changes what, exactly?
      - pcr0 9y ago
        Religion is at least somewhat of a personal choice. You can't change your ethnicity. It's the difference between hating people for exercising their freedom of religion vs hating people for being born.
ComputerGuru 9y ago
Incredibly moving. One of the more impactful interactive reports by the NYTimes. There’s talk about trying to get Aung San Suu Kyi to the ICC. People complained about Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize, but all objective reports show credible allegations of true modern genocide (shocking for a word meaninglessly bandied about so often) in Kyi’s case, giving the prize a new low with a recipient going from Oslo to The Hague in no time at all. (EDIT: The link is even more moving in fullscreen on a desktop. Excellent photography.) (EDIT2: I'm aware of when Kyi won the Nobel Peace Prize and for what. The irony of going from oppressed recipient of a NPP to oppressor standing trial in The Hague doesn't change.)
- fjsolwmv 9y ago
  Huh? She won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990, over 20 years before the Rohynga crisis, while she was still the recipient of assassination attempts for resisting the military dictatorship.
- Sabinus 9y ago
  My understanding is that the military did this, not the civil government.
  - roywiggins 9y ago
    Well, there's "doing it" and being complicit in it. She called the reports "fake news." The administration won't pronounce the word Rohingya because they deny that the people are an ethnic group. Merely being accessory to genocide and not actually an instigator of it doesn't seem better. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41170570 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41170570
    - em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
      She doesn't just calls it "fake news", but also calls the Rohingya "terrorists", according to that article.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
deedree 9y ago
I'm crying, can't watch this
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
Digish 9y ago
It's after effect which is documented by here. It is terrible but unfortunately shows only one side. The pre-story of why Myanmar had to take so hard step for rohigyan. What led both the part in this situation and why no country is willing to risk taking them is completely missing.
mmanfrin 9y ago
We are failing refugees the world over. This is heartbreaking, and so is the situation in Syria, in South Sudan, in Eritrea, and in countless other places. And I don't feel like we're getting any better and we're certainly doing no better at preventing these crises. With the world getting more crowded, is there an end in sight? This piece reminded me a bit of the self-recorded documentary of a Syrian woman trying to escape the turmoil there: https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2017/aug/02/escape-from-syria-ranias-odyssey-video https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2017/aug/02/escape-f...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- gressquel 9y ago
  And Yemen. The US cannot solve every conflict in the world but I wish it would atleast stand up against the thhird party countries that backs vile murderous regimes. Russia in Syria and China in Myanmar (and they are also starting to influence other countries in Asia). We, the oppressed peopleof this world, needs a stronger US. Not the one retreating as under Trump.
  - vkou 9y ago
    > The US cannot solve every conflict in the world but I wish it would atleast stand up against the thhird party countries that backs vile murderous regimes. Frequently, that would require it to stand up to itself.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - candiodari 9y ago
    I am sure this has nothing to do with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council#Saudi_Arabia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Co... Nothing at all I say !
  - forkLding 9y ago
    We dont need a stronger US, we need a world less dominated by so-called superpowers like USA, China etc. There was strong US influence on Latin American and Middle Eastern dictatorships. Absolute power corrupts all as USA domination on the world would mean more countries having to comply to USA interests. I believe rather the world will become a decentralized world govt under a UN where countries are abolished for regions instead of artifically created nation states that was predefined through conquering and colonization. Where we dont define humanity based on countries but as one single species.
gressquel 9y ago
Writing this on my iPad so excuse my spelling errors: There is so much evil in this world, what the Rohingya face today my own people endured in 2009. At the hands of thr Sri Lankan government, who also happens to be buddhistic, ten thousands of innocent Tamils were massacred. Women and children raped. Babies murdered. The UN wrote a huge report findng the Sri Lankan government guilty only for China and Russia to veto against any juridicial proceeding. One of the reason i am so dissapointed in Trump, he doesnt seem to understand when good retreats, evil will triump. Not everything in this world is about fair transaction of money for goods and service. When the oppressed in 3rd world countries look for justice, they look for strong powers of democracy, they look upto US. Throughout history US would come to aid, today its about bowing down to communist human rights abusers like China for fair trade and access to its market.
- blackoil 9y ago
  > Throughout history US would come to aid, today its about bowing down to communist human rights abusers like China for fair trade and access to its market. Unfortunately, US role in Bangladesh(East Pakistan)[1], Vietnam and South America shows they do it so only if political/economic reasons align. [1] http://warisboring.com/in-1971-the-u-s-navy-almost-fought-the-soviets-over-bangladesh http://warisboring.com/in-1971-the-u-s-navy-almost-fought-th...
- megaman22 9y ago
  > Throughout history US would come to aid, today its about bowing down to communist human rights abusers like China for fair trade and access to its market. I'm not sure this is an accurate assessment of US foreign policy in any period. I'm sort of scratching my head to think of any significant US interventions that weren't self-serving. Beyond the original Manifest Destiny expansionism, there's a rich tradition of US fillibusterism[1], gunboat diplomacy, proxy wars, banana dictators, coups, support of the drug trade, the list goes on, and on, and on. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_(military) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_(military)
- JBlue42 9y ago
  Unfortunately, most Americans don't understand that people may perceive them and our government this way. To be honest with you, at least in my memory of news coverage from the 90s until the war ended, there was very little if any notice of your civil war or the plight of the people. The most attention Sri Lankans might have gotten from average Americans were either post-tsunami (even then, more focused on Thailand and Indonesia) or when MIA broke onto the music scene (a very small demographic). I've been to parts of the world where 'USA' was used as graffiti and people loved us because of what we had done for them but the average American would be hard-pressed to identify what we saved them from, if even the where the country is. There are massive arguments for isolationism once more in the country, and ceding both soft and hard power to other countries. Many people don't understand the good we have done in the world, as well as the bad. You are definitely barking up the wrong tree if you think the current administration would have any interest but their own at heart.
strooper 9y ago
While the media portraits Rohingya Crisis as religious conflict, it is actually ethnic crisis. UN describes it as ethnic cleansing. Although most of the Rohingya are muslim, Bamar (major ethnic Burmese) hate them calling them "Bengalis" (people from neighboring Bangladesh), despite Rohingyas living there for hundreds of years. The racism and prejudice flared the crisis soon after the military came to power decades ago.
- tim333 9y ago
  I think you've got that the wrong way around - >This has led many Buddhists to consider the Rohingya to be Bengali, rejecting the term Rohingya as a recent invention, created for political reasons. (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/08/rohingya-muslims-170831065142812.html http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/08/rohingya-m...)
  - xir78 9y ago
    It would be interesting to see a candid interview with what the real reason for not liking then is. I suspect it’s rooted in the Muslim conquests which are still mentioned in Buddhist texts. Needless to say the Muslim religion is not held in much regard due to that, as opposed to Hinduism which is considered worthy of debating.
    - candiodari 9y ago
      The problem is that this reaction is at least somewhat understandable. It may have something to do with how muslims treat buddhists (or any non-muslims), near Myanmar ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Bangladesh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Banglad... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Pakistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Pakista... (note: relevant because Pakistan used to be a neighbouring country to Myanmar/Burma) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India (you can argue which side instigated this ... except not really ... the issue started with the basic idea, pushed by muslims that muslims cannot live in a state they do not control (which is of course a rule in Sharia) ... and ended with somewhere between 2 and 10 million deaths, and that number is ignoring the fact that about 8 million Hindus that were in Pakistan in 1951 have "somehow" dropped to less than 2 million today despite very strong population growth) But back to Myanmar, given the above backdrop, then this happens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_insurgency_in_Western_Myanmar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_insurgency_in_Western... So whilst this is a very serious insurgency, can please establish in this discussion that: 1) the Rohingya are not looking for peace. They're trying to conquer (the land where they are a majority, but still they're trying to conquer it). That is the big source of tensions. This is a failed conquest, not an unprovoked ethnic/racist conflict. 2) the Rohingya islamist separatists have attempted to massacre Burmese cities. They have (thankfully) only failed attempts at a large scale massacre to show for it, but there is no doubting their intent, and there were plenty of victims (dozens to hundreds, depending on what numbers you believe). 3) the immediate cause of this conflict (the match that lit the fire) was a synchronized attack on 24 police stations in the state, resulting in the deaths of 24 police officers. This attack was perpetrated weeks after a Rohingya group of youngsters decided to murder a young woman (for reasons that probably had nothing to do with religion or ethnicity, but the event incited sectarian clashes). Here's a wild thoery. This whole situation was an attempt by islamist separatist forces in Myanmar to create an ethnic conflict, because they believed it could result in their own state, or in an annexation of their region into Bangladesh. So they incite the riots, execute terror attacks, and attack the authorities in Myanmar, in very quick succession. One slight issue: the conflict did not go their way. And yes, this totally sucks for everyone. Most of all for the Rohingya themselves, but it really, really sucks for everyone. Every side in this conflict has hundreds of dead, and incredible damage inflicted that will take decades to rebuild.
sharpercoder 9y ago
Though this deeply touched me, I do wonder what possible motivation is behind this for the Myanmar people. Hatred most likely number one, yet I wonder what lies beneath this.
- myegorov 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_insurgency_in_Western_Myanmar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_insurgency_in_Western...
ThankYouByeBye 9y ago
This is horrible . But has anyone wondered why in all such cases today muslims are involved , Muslims vs muslims ( Syria...) , muslims vs Hindus , Muslims vs Christians , Muslims vs apostates , muslims vs Jews ,Muslims vs Buddhists , muslims vs Communists ( China uighurs),muslims vs Atheists. Thhere is something in it .
amriksohata 9y ago
Horrific photos and videos. Always made me wonder though when something similar happened to 400k Kashmiri Hindu Pandits (they were kicked out of their own homeland in Kashmir, raped and homes taken over)... why was this never in the news to the same extent?
thrw990 9y ago
Only dead muslim is good muslim. Nothing to see here.

116 points by dankohn1 9y ago

Just a warning: this gets really graphic really quick.

Nothing is about religion, just as nothing is about race, gender, favorite football team or whatever they come up with next. Basically all conflicts are political conflicts; envisioned, ignited and fueled by psychopaths aiming for power at any cost. The only thing that changes is the method for dividing the people, the goal is always conquering. This has been going on constantly since forever, and will continue until we get it collectively.

forkLding 9y ago

Its quite a good example of the old saying: "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself becoming the villain". As well the blatant irony of her Nobel Peace Prize status, I can see a lot of international fans' heartbroken.

InTheArena 9y ago

Very powerful - i read this on mobile and the impact of the pictures and videos portraying The human suffering is immense.

rspeer 9y ago
I read this on mobile and got a still image and a progress spinner, with no way to scroll.

qwerty456127 9y ago

Is this about religion again? Or what exactly are they hated for?

ringaroundthetx 9y ago
What I've found is that there is no consensus on who the victim is, and only who the losers are. This surprised me at first, but it really wouldn't be unique at all, in hindsight. Most of the discussion is around unrelated parties having empathy, because there are suffering people and the political machine is not helping anywhere. The tricky part is having an objective discussion, for example, I have no idea who these soldiers in the bushes are. This article didn't tell me. Where were they before? Hasn't this crisis been going on since like forever? What changed to accelerate this? What is the majority power doing, thinking, dealing with?
khein11 9y ago
It's much more than religion. Of course, media would like to simplify things and only one side of the story would be told most of the time. But it's much more complicated issue in reality and the hatred is not one sided by the way.
QAPereo 9y ago
It’s one of the more purely religious conflicts out there, for most of its history. https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2017/0928/Is-Rohingya-crisis-changing-West-s-romanticized-view-of-Buddhism https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2017/0928/Is-Rohingya...
- fjsolwmv 9y ago
  It's an ethnic conflict. In conservative societies, there is little difference between religion and ethnicity.
  - ringaroundthetx 9y ago
    an adjective and distinction which changes what, exactly?
    - pcr0 9y ago
      Religion is at least somewhat of a personal choice. You can't change your ethnicity. It's the difference between hating people for exercising their freedom of religion vs hating people for being born.

ComputerGuru 9y ago

Incredibly moving. One of the more impactful interactive reports by the NYTimes. There’s talk about trying to get Aung San Suu Kyi to the ICC. People complained about Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize, but all objective reports show credible allegations of true modern genocide (shocking for a word meaninglessly bandied about so often) in Kyi’s case, giving the prize a new low with a recipient going from Oslo to The Hague in no time at all. (EDIT: The link is even more moving in fullscreen on a desktop. Excellent photography.) (EDIT2: I'm aware of when Kyi won the Nobel Peace Prize and for what. The irony of going from oppressed recipient of a NPP to oppressor standing trial in The Hague doesn't change.)

fjsolwmv 9y ago
Huh? She won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990, over 20 years before the Rohynga crisis, while she was still the recipient of assassination attempts for resisting the military dictatorship.
Sabinus 9y ago
My understanding is that the military did this, not the civil government.
- roywiggins 9y ago
  Well, there's "doing it" and being complicit in it. She called the reports "fake news." The administration won't pronounce the word Rohingya because they deny that the people are an ethnic group. Merely being accessory to genocide and not actually an instigator of it doesn't seem better. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41170570 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41170570
  - em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
    She doesn't just calls it "fake news", but also calls the Rohingya "terrorists", according to that article.
maxxxxx 9y ago

deedree 9y ago

I'm crying, can't watch this

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Digish 9y ago

It's after effect which is documented by here. It is terrible but unfortunately shows only one side. The pre-story of why Myanmar had to take so hard step for rohigyan. What led both the part in this situation and why no country is willing to risk taking them is completely missing.

mmanfrin 9y ago

We are failing refugees the world over. This is heartbreaking, and so is the situation in Syria, in South Sudan, in Eritrea, and in countless other places. And I don't feel like we're getting any better and we're certainly doing no better at preventing these crises. With the world getting more crowded, is there an end in sight? This piece reminded me a bit of the self-recorded documentary of a Syrian woman trying to escape the turmoil there: https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2017/aug/02/escape-from-syria-ranias-odyssey-video https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2017/aug/02/escape-f...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
gressquel 9y ago
And Yemen. The US cannot solve every conflict in the world but I wish it would atleast stand up against the thhird party countries that backs vile murderous regimes. Russia in Syria and China in Myanmar (and they are also starting to influence other countries in Asia). We, the oppressed peopleof this world, needs a stronger US. Not the one retreating as under Trump.
- vkou 9y ago
  > The US cannot solve every conflict in the world but I wish it would atleast stand up against the thhird party countries that backs vile murderous regimes. Frequently, that would require it to stand up to itself.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- candiodari 9y ago
  I am sure this has nothing to do with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council#Saudi_Arabia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Co... Nothing at all I say !
- forkLding 9y ago
  We dont need a stronger US, we need a world less dominated by so-called superpowers like USA, China etc. There was strong US influence on Latin American and Middle Eastern dictatorships. Absolute power corrupts all as USA domination on the world would mean more countries having to comply to USA interests. I believe rather the world will become a decentralized world govt under a UN where countries are abolished for regions instead of artifically created nation states that was predefined through conquering and colonization. Where we dont define humanity based on countries but as one single species.

gressquel 9y ago

Writing this on my iPad so excuse my spelling errors: There is so much evil in this world, what the Rohingya face today my own people endured in 2009. At the hands of thr Sri Lankan government, who also happens to be buddhistic, ten thousands of innocent Tamils were massacred. Women and children raped. Babies murdered. The UN wrote a huge report findng the Sri Lankan government guilty only for China and Russia to veto against any juridicial proceeding. One of the reason i am so dissapointed in Trump, he doesnt seem to understand when good retreats, evil will triump. Not everything in this world is about fair transaction of money for goods and service. When the oppressed in 3rd world countries look for justice, they look for strong powers of democracy, they look upto US. Throughout history US would come to aid, today its about bowing down to communist human rights abusers like China for fair trade and access to its market.

blackoil 9y ago
> Throughout history US would come to aid, today its about bowing down to communist human rights abusers like China for fair trade and access to its market. Unfortunately, US role in Bangladesh(East Pakistan)[1], Vietnam and South America shows they do it so only if political/economic reasons align. [1] http://warisboring.com/in-1971-the-u-s-navy-almost-fought-the-soviets-over-bangladesh http://warisboring.com/in-1971-the-u-s-navy-almost-fought-th...
megaman22 9y ago
> Throughout history US would come to aid, today its about bowing down to communist human rights abusers like China for fair trade and access to its market. I'm not sure this is an accurate assessment of US foreign policy in any period. I'm sort of scratching my head to think of any significant US interventions that weren't self-serving. Beyond the original Manifest Destiny expansionism, there's a rich tradition of US fillibusterism[1], gunboat diplomacy, proxy wars, banana dictators, coups, support of the drug trade, the list goes on, and on, and on. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_(military) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_(military)
JBlue42 9y ago
Unfortunately, most Americans don't understand that people may perceive them and our government this way. To be honest with you, at least in my memory of news coverage from the 90s until the war ended, there was very little if any notice of your civil war or the plight of the people. The most attention Sri Lankans might have gotten from average Americans were either post-tsunami (even then, more focused on Thailand and Indonesia) or when MIA broke onto the music scene (a very small demographic). I've been to parts of the world where 'USA' was used as graffiti and people loved us because of what we had done for them but the average American would be hard-pressed to identify what we saved them from, if even the where the country is. There are massive arguments for isolationism once more in the country, and ceding both soft and hard power to other countries. Many people don't understand the good we have done in the world, as well as the bad. You are definitely barking up the wrong tree if you think the current administration would have any interest but their own at heart.

strooper 9y ago

While the media portraits Rohingya Crisis as religious conflict, it is actually ethnic crisis. UN describes it as ethnic cleansing. Although most of the Rohingya are muslim, Bamar (major ethnic Burmese) hate them calling them "Bengalis" (people from neighboring Bangladesh), despite Rohingyas living there for hundreds of years. The racism and prejudice flared the crisis soon after the military came to power decades ago.

tim333 9y ago
I think you've got that the wrong way around - >This has led many Buddhists to consider the Rohingya to be Bengali, rejecting the term Rohingya as a recent invention, created for political reasons. (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/08/rohingya-muslims-170831065142812.html http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/08/rohingya-m...)
- xir78 9y ago
  It would be interesting to see a candid interview with what the real reason for not liking then is. I suspect it’s rooted in the Muslim conquests which are still mentioned in Buddhist texts. Needless to say the Muslim religion is not held in much regard due to that, as opposed to Hinduism which is considered worthy of debating.
  - candiodari 9y ago
    The problem is that this reaction is at least somewhat understandable. It may have something to do with how muslims treat buddhists (or any non-muslims), near Myanmar ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Bangladesh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Banglad... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Pakistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Pakista... (note: relevant because Pakistan used to be a neighbouring country to Myanmar/Burma) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India (you can argue which side instigated this ... except not really ... the issue started with the basic idea, pushed by muslims that muslims cannot live in a state they do not control (which is of course a rule in Sharia) ... and ended with somewhere between 2 and 10 million deaths, and that number is ignoring the fact that about 8 million Hindus that were in Pakistan in 1951 have "somehow" dropped to less than 2 million today despite very strong population growth) But back to Myanmar, given the above backdrop, then this happens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_insurgency_in_Western_Myanmar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_insurgency_in_Western... So whilst this is a very serious insurgency, can please establish in this discussion that: 1) the Rohingya are not looking for peace. They're trying to conquer (the land where they are a majority, but still they're trying to conquer it). That is the big source of tensions. This is a failed conquest, not an unprovoked ethnic/racist conflict. 2) the Rohingya islamist separatists have attempted to massacre Burmese cities. They have (thankfully) only failed attempts at a large scale massacre to show for it, but there is no doubting their intent, and there were plenty of victims (dozens to hundreds, depending on what numbers you believe). 3) the immediate cause of this conflict (the match that lit the fire) was a synchronized attack on 24 police stations in the state, resulting in the deaths of 24 police officers. This attack was perpetrated weeks after a Rohingya group of youngsters decided to murder a young woman (for reasons that probably had nothing to do with religion or ethnicity, but the event incited sectarian clashes). Here's a wild thoery. This whole situation was an attempt by islamist separatist forces in Myanmar to create an ethnic conflict, because they believed it could result in their own state, or in an annexation of their region into Bangladesh. So they incite the riots, execute terror attacks, and attack the authorities in Myanmar, in very quick succession. One slight issue: the conflict did not go their way. And yes, this totally sucks for everyone. Most of all for the Rohingya themselves, but it really, really sucks for everyone. Every side in this conflict has hundreds of dead, and incredible damage inflicted that will take decades to rebuild.

sharpercoder 9y ago

Though this deeply touched me, I do wonder what possible motivation is behind this for the Myanmar people. Hatred most likely number one, yet I wonder what lies beneath this.

myegorov 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_insurgency_in_Western_Myanmar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_insurgency_in_Western...

ThankYouByeBye 9y ago

This is horrible . But has anyone wondered why in all such cases today muslims are involved , Muslims vs muslims ( Syria...) , muslims vs Hindus , Muslims vs Christians , Muslims vs apostates , muslims vs Jews ,Muslims vs Buddhists , muslims vs Communists ( China uighurs),muslims vs Atheists. Thhere is something in it .

amriksohata 9y ago

Horrific photos and videos. Always made me wonder though when something similar happened to 400k Kashmiri Hindu Pandits (they were kicked out of their own homeland in Kashmir, raped and homes taken over)... why was this never in the news to the same extent?

thrw990 9y ago

Only dead muslim is good muslim. Nothing to see here.