# Myanmar and religious intolerance



## Coyote (Nov 17, 2013)

Buddhists are supposed to be tolerant - but not in Myanmar.

Genocide Watch


> Over the last two years, the positive news of Myanmar embracing democracy and engaging with the developed world has been consistently offset by reports of sectarian violence between Buddhists and the minority Rohingya Muslim population. *Estimates suggest that 300 Muslims have been killed and up to 300,000 displaced *since the military junta nominally ceded power in 2011. No longer is this violence restricted to the state of Rakhine where the majority of Burmese Muslims live. Major incidents are reported in states as far south as Thaketa, just a few miles from Yangon, the cultural, historic and business capitol of the country which is now awash with western businessmen drinking expensive cocktails in expensive hotels. This worrying trend of more frequent and more widely spread violence threatens to derail the country&#8217;s turnaround.






> It has been over a year since the renowned Burmese political activist Aung San Suu Kyi was elected to
> the Burmese parliament signalling a groundbreaking change in the country&#8217;s government. It has also
> been over a year since the first story emerged about the plight of the Rohingya, an ethnic Muslim minority
> in Burma, leaving nothing but a slight murmur on the global conscience.
> ...


----------



## Coyote (Nov 17, 2013)

PressTV - OIC urges easing restrictions on Myanmar Muslims



> About 800,000 Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine are deprived of citizenship rights due to a policy of discrimination that has made them vulnerable to acts of violence and persecution, expulsion, and displacement.
> 
> The Myanmar government has so far refused to extricate the stateless Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine from their citizenship limbo, despite international pressure to give them a legal status.
> 
> ...


----------



## irosie91 (Nov 18, 2013)

Coyote said:


> PressTV - OIC urges easing restrictions on Myanmar Muslims
> 
> 
> 
> ...





There is nothing stopping a  SOVEREIGN nation from declaring  some groups 
based on their religion   "NO STATUS"      That the OIC objects is really hilarious. 

Did the OIC   object when MALDIVES decided to render  ISLAM the only  
LEGAL RELIGION on the ISLAND?    Did the OIC object when 
MALDIVES     created a law that ONLY MUSLIMS could 
be citizens and all non muslims simply became   NON CITIZENS?

    Does the OIC  object to the fact that the almost 20%  of 
the residents of  Saudi arabia----who are NON MUSLIM ----have no religious 
freedom at all?      Does the OIC  object over the  "NON STATUS"  of jews in 
Indonesia and the genocide of the jews of Indonesia?     (PS--coyote---12 jews 
is not a  REMAINING COMMUNNITY)        Why should   MYANMAR  be held to 
an entirely different standard?         Maldives----historically was a  
HINDU/BUDDHIST    land------Indonesia was Buddhist         

are buddhists  "chopped liver"????



   FAIR IS FAIR------what's sauce for the goose,,   is sauce for the gander. 

why are you SOOOO   biased?

of course---afghanistan was once buddhist too----and christian, and hindu 
and -- (as an educated guess----probably zoroastrian)   and also jewish


----------



## Coyote (Nov 18, 2013)

So you think this is a good thing even though the Muslims in Myanmar had nothing to do with what occured in the Maldives?


----------



## Coyote (Nov 18, 2013)

Myanmar villages burned in deadly religious violence - Los Angeles Times



> THANDWE, Myanmar -- At least five people have been killed and hundreds displaced in the latest wave of religious violence in Myanmar.
> 
> Muslims near the coastal town of Thandwe said they spent Tuesday night hiding in forests as mobs of Buddhist men armed with machetes stormed a string of villages, burning mosques and any home not marked with a Buddhist flag.  By Wednesday, the military had moved in to stop the violence. Officers spent the day combing through still-smoldering buildings and removing the bodies of five slain Muslims.
> 
> ...


----------



## Daktoria (Nov 18, 2013)

Do we know why this has happened?

There are times when conflict is justified because some have atrocious beliefs which are intrinsically offensive against others in society.

For example, Muslims believe in Qadar which is basically fate, and fate can be circularly used as an excuse to be violent against others in society by forcing them to endure activities against their free will.  The only way to prevent that force is from preemptive strikes, so the Buddhists here might be justified in their actions.


----------



## Spiderman (Nov 18, 2013)

How many Buddhists have been killed by Muslims over the centuries?

Payback's a bitch.


----------



## Coyote (Nov 18, 2013)

In this case, I do not think so.  The Muslim minority is very small, and there is no evidence they've initiated violence.  The religious intolerance also extends beyond Muslims to other religions in Myanmar including non-Theravada  Buddhism, though none have been so violently attacked as the Muslims.  There also appears to be an ethnic component to the conflict as well (as there often is with religious conflicts).

Restrictions on religious freedom


> *Preferential treatment for Buddhists and widespread prejudice against ethnic Indians, particularly ethnic Rohingya Muslims, were key sources of social tensions between the Buddhist majority and Christian and Muslim minorities.*
> 
> In February 2006, violent clashes broke out between Muslims and Buddhists in Magway Division in response to rumors that Muslim men had raped a Burman woman. Ethnic Burmans attacked and torched Muslim and ethnic Indian homes, shops, and mosques. Rioting and looting spread to surrounding towns, including Chauk and Salin. Local security forces did not intervene at first, but as violence spread authorities imposed a strict curfew in several towns. Reliable sources stated that the authorities arrested 17 people in Sinbyukyun and another 55 persons in Chauk, mostly Muslims. Unofficial sources claimed that 3 people died and another 10 were injured in the riots. Three mosques in Yenangyaung, Chauk, and Saku were reportedly destroyed in the violence. At the end of the reporting period, the mosques remained sealed and authorities would not permit Muslims to rebuild them, nor did authorities conduct inquiries into the attacks. Christians reported that an entire Muslim village fled to the monastery of a trusted Buddhist abbot near Shwe Settaw to seek refuge during the riots.
> 
> ...


----------



## irosie91 (Nov 18, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> How many Buddhists have been killed by Muslims over the centuries?
> 
> Payback's a bitch.



Afghanistan was-----I believe----besides having populations of  
HINDUS,  CHRISTIANS,   and JEWS  ---when the muslims invaded---
was LARGELY BUDDHIST        Believe it or not----KABUL  was----long ago--- 
a highly diverse   CULTURAL CENTER  of the area. -----legendary.    I doubt 
there is any way of coming up with stats. -----but if you ask pakistanis  
(I have had lots of discussions with pakistanis over the past 45 years) 
-----the answer is       WHEREVER MUSLIMS WENT----ALL THE PEOPLE CHEERED --
CRIED OUT---"PLEASE RAPE OUR DAUGHTERS and  WE WANT TO BE MUSLIMS"


----------



## Coyote (Nov 18, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> How many Buddhists have been killed by Muslims over the centuries?
> 
> Payback's a bitch.



I don't think any innocent people deserve to be killed simply because other people in another era killed other people.


----------



## Daktoria (Nov 18, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> How many Buddhists have been killed by Muslims over the centuries?
> 
> Payback's a bitch.



I was going to say that radical Islam has been predatory in the region such as in Thailand, Malaysia, and Bangladesh.

While stereotyping is a problem, it is wise to learn from experience in understanding people's motives and rationalizations.  A problematic belief system is problematic regardless of who believes in it.


----------



## irosie91 (Nov 18, 2013)

Coyote said:


> In this case, I do not think so.  The Muslim minority is very small, and there is no evidence they've initiated violence.  The religious intolerance also extends beyond Muslims to other religions in Myanmar including non-Theravada  Buddhism, though none have been so violently attacked as the Muslims.  There also appears to be an ethnic component to the conflict as well (as there often is with religious conflicts).
> 
> Restrictions on religious freedom
> 
> ...




SO???     its legal for a country to   DISENFRANCHISE  --this or that religious group.    
There is no law against it.       Sovereign countries have the RIGHT to do so.  

I support rights for ALL PEOPLE-------all people have a right to live with their 
own bretheren-----fortunately there are lots of  muslim countries in the world----
some of which limit themselves  to other muslims.     I know of no such 
country that  EXCLUDES  muslims in general. -----but some exclude those of 
various sects.    There are also lots of christian countries      RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 
AND INCLUSION   ----is a nice concept but not accepted universally-----Of those who 
do not accept-----muslims are the most prominent offenders.      That their victims---
past and present  ----  NOT RESPOND IN KIND-------is a very unrealistic demand


----------



## Coyote (Nov 18, 2013)

So?


----------



## Daktoria (Nov 18, 2013)

What do you mean "so"?  She made her point by referring to values on what matters.


----------



## Coyote (Nov 18, 2013)

Meaning SO- what is her point exactly?  She speaks out vociferously against religious discrimmination in Muslim countries on other threads.  I find it confusing that she suddenly changes her tune here. 

Of course religious freedom isn't universal, neither is freedom of speech, the freedom to travel, and a host of other freedoms.  Does that mean we should shut up about it and not try to put pressure on some of these nations to change?  Seriously?


----------



## Daktoria (Nov 18, 2013)

Before we put pressure, we should analyze the religions at stake and see if they deserve to be tolerated rather than tolerating the intolerant.


----------



## Coyote (Nov 18, 2013)

Daktoria said:


> Before we put pressure, we should analyze the religions at stake and see if they deserve to be tolerated rather than tolerating the intolerant.



That sounds like a receipe for condoning possible genocide.  There is no evidence in the articles that the religions under attack are provoking it or initiating violence and simply because you don't like a particular religion seems a poor excuse for condoning attacks and murder of innocent people.


----------



## Daktoria (Nov 18, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> > Before we put pressure, we should analyze the religions at stake and see if they deserve to be tolerated rather than tolerating the intolerant.
> ...



...so because the articles haven't thoroughly investigated things, we have to assume the risk of tolerating intolerant people?

This is actually a classic problem of journalism.  It strictly sticks to the facts instead of analyzing the values of the situation at hand because it's afraid of confusing values with opinions.  Perhaps the real problem for us is journalistic standards, not the political situation.


----------



## irosie91 (Nov 18, 2013)

Daktoria said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Daktoria said:
> ...




au contraire-----a people can outlaw a  "religion"    simply because they do not like 
the religion-------there is no law against it and ample  PRECEDENT for it in modern times.
As far as  "attacks"        "unprovoked"       anyone got any kind of actual information  on
the basis for the  violence?.      ----like an EVEN HANDED report?      There are people 
in the world who consider being arrested for violating a law to be "VIOLENCE"---
simply because they do not like the law.      Other persons might argue---that the
person being arrested is a  CRIMINAL and forcible arrest is justified     Sometimes 
events leading to those kinds of arrests LEAD TO VIOLENCE-------with each side 
having an entirely OPPOSITE perspective on what took place.


----------



## Coyote (Nov 18, 2013)

Daktoria said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Daktoria said:
> ...



How do you know they haven't?  You haven't offered up anything else at this point.

Do you apply this standard across the religious board or only with Islam?  How about the risk of tolerating intolerant Buddhists?


----------



## Daktoria (Nov 18, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Where did the articles analyze religious values beyond simply referring to the events which took place?

Are you saying people have to believe in things unless they can provide a superior degree of explanation?  Whatever happened to expecting people to prove their own points instead of expecting others to prove their points for them?


----------



## Coyote (Nov 18, 2013)

Daktoria said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Daktoria said:
> ...



You're assuming they haven't, and one of the articles I posted was not an article as such, but a Wikipedia entry that gave some background.  If you are going to insist that there is more to it than the articles state then by all means provide the evidence to support your contention. 



> Are you saying people have to believe in things unless they can provide a superior degree of explanation?



Nope.  I'm not sure what you are talking about here.



> Whatever happened to expecting people to prove their own points instead of expecting others to prove their points for them?



Well...that's kind of what I'm asking you to do.  I provided sources to back up my points, now, will you do the same?


----------



## Daktoria (Nov 18, 2013)

Coyote said:


> You're assuming they haven't, and one of the articles I posted was not an article as such, but a Wikipedia entry that gave some background. If you are going to insist that there is more to it than the articles state then by all means provide the evidence to support your contention.



I'm assuming it's unclear.  If you claim that your articles have investigated values, then you have to show it.

The very definition of a religion, however, entails values, so it's reasonable to expect values to be involved.  Not only that, but actions in general entail values.  We don't assign guilt without looking into motive.  Sometimes, people do things that appear atrocious because of self-defense against actually atrocious people who are motivated without values.



> Nope. I'm not sure what you are talking about here.
> 
> Well...that's kind of what I'm asking you to do. I provided sources to back up my points, now, will you do the same?



Aside from noting how Islam includes believing in fate from the notion of Qadar, what points have I made that require empirical proof?


----------



## irosie91 (Nov 18, 2013)

well-----I googled------it seems that  buddhist/muslim    conflict has nothing 
to do with   DOCTRINE  -<<<< good news----those doctrine fights are 
really bloody.        There has been some mild  "bad blood"  issues between 
muslims and buddhists for  CENTURIES         Buddhist lands were invaded 
by muslims ------and there is a history of   DHIMMIA   imposition on buddhists. ---
not a good legacy.        Lately the fight seems largely ECONOMIC  <<<<  bad--
but not so bad like DOCTRINE issues.     In general-----thruout the places where 
muslim/buddhist   fights go on-------in SUM----it is a kind of balanced dislike----
accompanied by balanced violence          AT LAST-----EQUITY!!!!!!!!!!!

Most of all----the important issue is--------whatever problems muslims have 
with Buddhists--------guess who causes it?           anyone?    -----c'mon 
coyote------you know-------the answer shows up on GOOGLE

Getting back to the used to be angelic  BUDDHISTS-----they have recently 
developed  NATIONALISM------fairly new to them.    -----but they got it too. 

Hindus got it and NOW buddhists got it.        EVERYONE GETS IT EVENTUALLY.

There are places where buddhists who are IN THE MAJORITY----want to keep 
it that way------very vehemently

anyone got an answer?     should "NATIONALISM"    become an international 
crime?


----------



## Coyote (Nov 18, 2013)

irosie91 said:


> well-----I googled------it seems that  buddhist/muslim    conflict has nothing
> to do with   DOCTRINE  -<<<< good news----those doctrine fights are
> really bloody.        There has been some mild  "bad blood"  issues between
> muslims and buddhists for  CENTURIES         Buddhist lands were invaded
> ...



Sort of a silly question.

However, when "nationalism" involves lynching/slaughter and/or genocide then it might be a crime.  After all, didn't Hitler start out with a rallying cry of "nationalism"?


----------



## Coyote (Nov 18, 2013)

Daktoria said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > You're assuming they haven't, and one of the articles I posted was not an article as such, but a Wikipedia entry that gave some background. If you are going to insist that there is more to it than the articles state then by all means provide the evidence to support your contention.
> ...



It's not the least unclear.  I provided an entry from Wikipedia that looked at historic/ethnic/religious factors in Myanmar, not an article per se.

Now, can you provide anything to support your implication that my source is wrong?  Thus far, you haven't.



> The very definition of a religion, however, entails values, so it's reasonable to expect values to be involved.  Not only that, but actions in general entail values.  We don't assign guilt without looking into motive.  *Sometimes, people do things that appear atrocious because of self-defense against actually atrocious people who are motivated without values.*



If that is the claim you are making, then please provide something to substantiate that this is the case in Myanmar.


----------



## Daktoria (Nov 18, 2013)

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.


----------



## Coyote (Nov 18, 2013)

Daktoria said:


> 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


----------



## Spiderman (Nov 19, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > How many Buddhists have been killed by Muslims over the centuries?
> ...



Then where is your thread about innocents killed by Muslims or any other religious cult?

Why is it that you choose to focus on this group of Muslims in Myanmar?


----------



## Coyote (Nov 19, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



Because I'm posting in the Asia forum, about something that has not had any threads posted about yet that I can find.  There are many threads posted about Muslim violence.

Do you have a problem with this?


----------



## irosie91 (Nov 19, 2013)

Coyote said:


> So you think this is a good thing even though the Muslims in Myanmar had nothing to do with what occured in the Maldives?




I more than  "think" ----I know that nothing happens in a vacuum -----There are 
reasons-----even though there are  "reasons"------there is no excuse for violence---
but just as there is no excuse for violence------UNBALANCED discussions of the 
problem are not at all helpful.------the fact that buddhists have been oppressed 
by muslims in the past and the fact that buddhists have and CONTINUE to face 
violence from muslims----- IS A LOGICAL PART OF THE DISCUSSION----and leaving 
those facts out------is a manifestation of bigotry.

not long ago-----muslims destroyed ancient buddhist shrines----my impression is---
that if buddhists did a job on  the black rock in mecca------or---simply smoked 
a few korans publically-----SOME PERSONS   (that means you)   would  shrug 
and say   ----'what did they expect'------if muslims murdered a few hundred 
buddhists in "response"

MYANMAR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MALDIVES?        oh goody----
so if someone  bombs the mecca rock IN MECCA----with pig feces---
we can tell the muslims of the world     "WHAT HAPPENED IN MECCA 
  HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYONE IN THE REST OF THE WORLD"

good point-----like the MAGNIFICENT 19   of    9-11-01  has nothing to do ---
with anyone-------too.      and Osama was not even there. 

As far as I know -----adolf abu ali never personally murdered anyone


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Nov 19, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Buddhists are supposed to be tolerant - but not in Myanmar.
> 
> Genocide Watch
> 
> ...




This is a youtube video about a young man named Stephen who lives in Myanmar and he does mention persecution there more than once - as he tells the workers of VOM - Voice of the Martyrs his testimony.  It was some time ago I began to learn about the brutality of Buddhists which before I had not known of.  It came as quite a shock when I heard a story from missionary to China, Gwen Shaw - who told the story of a woman who found another woman locked inside a bamboo cage  ( by Buddhists ) to die of starvation on a hillside.  She was abandoned there to die and the cruelty of such a slow death is quite telling of what the Buddhists there are capable of.  This VOM film was taken of Stephen in Myanmar
There is nothing graphic to the video but you can see the idolatry there and a huge gold idol in the center of the city.  The poverty is quite apparent there also. 


[ame=http://youtu.be/gve7s8FWhJc]Message from Myanmar | Stephen's Story - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Coyote (Nov 19, 2013)

Jeremiah said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Buddhists are supposed to be tolerant - but not in Myanmar.
> ...



That is brutal.  I don't blame the religions - it's human nature, and it seems the less educated people are, the more intolerant they are of others


----------



## Coyote (Nov 19, 2013)

irosie91 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > So you think this is a good thing even though the Muslims in Myanmar had nothing to do with what occured in the Maldives?
> ...



So Rosie, are you saying that the Muslims, including children, murdered in Myanmar somehow instigated crimes in the Maldives?  And therefore - no blame should be attached to their murderers?  Do you realize that same rationale can then be used to justify the violence against Jews in retaliation for their actions against the Palistinians.  In otherwords - you make no ethical sense what so ever.

The only message I get out of you Rosie is that it's ok to kill Muslims, where ever they are, even though they've done nothing individually to deserve it and there is no history of Muslim oppression of the Buddhists in Myanmar.


----------



## irosie91 (Nov 19, 2013)

Coyote said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > well-----I googled------it seems that  buddhist/muslim    conflict has nothing
> ...




nothing wrong with the QUESTION ----it is your answer which is not only idiotic 
but remarkably shallow.    Try to think ocassionally      I will help.    Buddhists 
have been   NON-NATIONALISTIC  over more then 2000 years  (that is history---
google if you wish)      In fact they lived with great equanimity with ----all kinds of 
people for many centuries------the very culturally diverse  KABUL  of history 
is a case in point.     Some  'persons'    like to say that jews are universally hated----
well---actually jews never had problems with buddhists 

getting back to  NATIONALISM-----theoretically---islam REJECTS nationalism 
in favor of  DAR AL ISLAM   (a utopian world under islamic control and law)   (google 
if you wish)      In fact----the objective of nazism is ALSO a world in the NAZI 
MODE---utopian.   

getting back to Buddhists----Kabul was a Buddhist center---culturally diverse--
and peaceful------then islam happened

Maldives was a hindu/buddhist  island-----calm and peaceful----then islam happened--
now anyone not muslim loses citzenship

India----India was always a bit messy----but fairly fair.     People who needed 
to RUN    (like the zoroastrians from persia----and the jews from persia and 
Iraq and afghanistan----RAN TO INDIA      There was a time when MUMBAI 
was a zoroastrian/jew  town)-
           -----then islam happened,   Pakistan happened----but islam 
                 did not go away -------SO  what happened to  
                 "WELCOME EVERYONE INDIA"????     uhm----well>>>> 
                                **  NATIONALISM***

                              )))))*** BJP***(((((

lots of times NATIONALISM is a response to an external threat


----------



## Coyote (Nov 19, 2013)

irosie91 said:


> lots of times NATIONALISM is a response to an external threat



Tell that Hitler and Stalin.


----------



## irosie91 (Nov 19, 2013)

Coyote said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > lots of times NATIONALISM is a response to an external threat
> ...



yes------all true   ------  ADOLF ABU ALI HITLER harbored the same 
concept of    TOTALITARIAN UTOPIAN CONTROL which is part and 
parcel of islam-------he defined it in NATIONALISTIC TERMS 

Stalin was less into nationalism------but completely into 
TOTALITARIAN UTOPIA     
Both Buddhists and Hindus have developed isolated forms 
of nationalism------designed to protect their part of the world 
from outside forces-----unlike the communist, nazi and islamic 
forms-----they are not IMPERIALISTIC about it-----Their agendae 
do not include     WORLD WIDE CONTROL   or  IMPOSITION OF 
CREED


----------



## Coyote (Nov 19, 2013)

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.


----------



## Coyote (Nov 19, 2013)

irosie91 said:


> lots of times NATIONALISM is a response to an external threat



hmmm....like Palestinian nationalism then?


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Nov 19, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



It depends, Coyote. If the religion is not teaching the truth, if it is teaching violence against others, physical harm,etc. then it is right to blame the religion because it does not represent God of the bible.  It represents evil and to not speak out against evil is to agree with it.  That is what silence is. It is agreement by consent - being silent.   Granted we cannot be everywhere at once but the scriptures are clear that we cannot call evil good or good evil or we will be judged. It also says that if a person returns evil for good - evil will not ever leave his house.  The church in America does not understand the churches in the 10/40 window and the persecution they endure because most have never traveled there and many do not read the stories sent by missionaries to ministries such as VOM which Stephen in the video is speaking with.  Many of us in the West are unaware of what happens in other nations.  Such as those in Asia.  - Jeri


----------



## Daktoria (Nov 19, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> > 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.*
> ...



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 (Nov 19, 2013)

Daktoria said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Daktoria said:
> ...



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 (Nov 20, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



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 (Nov 20, 2013)

Coyote said:


> 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 (Nov 21, 2013)

irosie91 said:


> 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 (Nov 21, 2013)

Daktoria said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Daktoria said:
> ...




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 (Nov 21, 2013)

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*.
> 
> ...



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 (Nov 23, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



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 (Nov 23, 2013)

Daktoria said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Daktoria said:
> ...



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


----------



## Daktoria (Nov 24, 2013)

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 (Nov 24, 2013)

Daktoria said:


> 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.


----------

