Myanmar Is Starving Rohingya Muslims Out of Their Villages: Reports

[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.

The people who were murdered would argue with you on whether they have a choice to stay or leave- but they can't because they are dead.

So you are okay with genocide- if the aim of the genocide is to drive a religious minority out of a country.

I am in favor of a people determining their destiny, period.

 

[Lastamender]

Here is something that is repeatably affirmed.


No reason not to listen to Muslims cry, it sure is.

Does that justify genocide against the Rohinga?

Do Christian atrocities of the past justify what Islam does? Looking at your posting history you seem to think it does. Pot meet kettle.

Nothing justifies genocide. As I've said multiple times - I oppose genocide unequicably.

Enlighten me. Link to a post of mine where I've said Christian atrocities justify Islamic atrocities. I can wait.

Keep waiting. I can comment on what you have posted like you have about others without having to post what they said. Maybe it is a lie, maybe it is not. Get that?

No link?

No link where I say I support genocide? Didn't think so.

 

[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.

The people who were murdered would argue with you on whether they have a choice to stay or leave- but they can't because they are dead.

So you are okay with genocide- if the aim of the genocide is to drive a religious minority out of a country.

I am in favor of a people determining their destiny, period.

You are such a weasel

So if genocide is a means of determining their destiny...you are in favor? Or...just when it relates to the Rohinga? Or - is genocide NEVER an acceptable means of determining a people's destiny?

Three doors to choose from dude...

 

[Syriusly]

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.

The people who were murdered would argue with you on whether they have a choice to stay or leave- but they can't because they are dead.

So you are okay with genocide- if the aim of the genocide is to drive a religious minority out of a country.

I am in favor of a people determining their destiny, period.

You are such a weasel

So if genocide is a means of determining their destiny...you are in favor? Or...just when it relates to the Rohinga? Or - is genocide NEVER an acceptable means of determining a people's destiny?

Three doors to choose from dude...

They chose the door that says "go ahead kill women and children- but they better be Muslim!"

 

[Lastamender]

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.

The people who were murdered would argue with you on whether they have a choice to stay or leave- but they can't because they are dead.

So you are okay with genocide- if the aim of the genocide is to drive a religious minority out of a country.

I am in favor of a people determining their destiny, period.

You are such a weasel

So if genocide is a means of determining their destiny...you are in favor? Or...just when it relates to the Rohinga? Or - is genocide NEVER an acceptable means of determining a people's destiny?

Three doors to choose from dude...

Context may be the most popular and disingenuous game that Muslims like to play. Simply put, the apologists appeal to context only when they want it to be there. They ignore context when it proves inconvenient. An example of the latter would be the many times in which verse 2:256 is isolated and offered as proof of religious tolerance (in contradiction to Muhammad's later imposition of the jizya and the sword).

There is something that deals with an earlier post of yours. As for the one I am replying to , my statement does not come with your conditions, or how you interpret it, and never will.

 

[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.

The people who were murdered would argue with you on whether they have a choice to stay or leave- but they can't because they are dead.

So you are okay with genocide- if the aim of the genocide is to drive a religious minority out of a country.

I am in favor of a people determining their destiny, period.

You are such a weasel

So if genocide is a means of determining their destiny...you are in favor? Or...just when it relates to the Rohinga? Or - is genocide NEVER an acceptable means of determining a people's destiny?

Three doors to choose from dude...

Context may be the most popular and disingenuous game that Muslims like to play. Simply put, the apologists appeal to context only when they want it to be there. They ignore context when it proves inconvenient. An example of the latter would be the many times in which verse 2:256 is isolated and offered as proof of religious tolerance (in contradiction to Muhammad's later imposition of the jizya and the sword).

And again..you can not or will not answer a straight forward question.

 

[Lastamender]

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.

The people who were murdered would argue with you on whether they have a choice to stay or leave- but they can't because they are dead.

So you are okay with genocide- if the aim of the genocide is to drive a religious minority out of a country.

I am in favor of a people determining their destiny, period.

You are such a weasel

So if genocide is a means of determining their destiny...you are in favor? Or...just when it relates to the Rohinga? Or - is genocide NEVER an acceptable means of determining a people's destiny?

Three doors to choose from dude...

They chose the door that says "go ahead kill women and children- but they better be Muslim!"

Sycophant. Try thinking for yourself.

 

[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.

The people who were murdered would argue with you on whether they have a choice to stay or leave- but they can't because they are dead.

So you are okay with genocide- if the aim of the genocide is to drive a religious minority out of a country.

I am in favor of a people determining their destiny, period.

You are such a weasel

So if genocide is a means of determining their destiny...you are in favor? Or...just when it relates to the Rohinga? Or - is genocide NEVER an acceptable means of determining a people's destiny?

Three doors to choose from dude...

Context may be the most popular and disingenuous game that Muslims like to play. Simply put, the apologists appeal to context only when they want it to be there. They ignore context when it proves inconvenient. An example of the latter would be the many times in which verse 2:256 is isolated and offered as proof of religious tolerance (in contradiction to Muhammad's later imposition of the jizya and the sword).

And again..you can not or will not answer a straight forward question.

I already did. You have a problem if you can't make me a hater. That is your problem, not mine.

 

[Syriusly]

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

The people who were murdered would argue with you on whether they have a choice to stay or leave- but they can't because they are dead.

So you are okay with genocide- if the aim of the genocide is to drive a religious minority out of a country.

I am in favor of a people determining their destiny, period.

You are such a weasel

So if genocide is a means of determining their destiny...you are in favor? Or...just when it relates to the Rohinga? Or - is genocide NEVER an acceptable means of determining a people's destiny?

Three doors to choose from dude...

Context may be the most popular and disingenuous game that Muslims like to play. Simply put, the apologists appeal to context only when they want it to be there. They ignore context when it proves inconvenient. An example of the latter would be the many times in which verse 2:256 is isolated and offered as proof of religious tolerance (in contradiction to Muhammad's later imposition of the jizya and the sword).

And again..you can not or will not answer a straight forward question.

His bigotry towards Muslims makes him incapable of answering a straightforward question on genocide.

 

[Syriusly]

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

The people who were murdered would argue with you on whether they have a choice to stay or leave- but they can't because they are dead.

So you are okay with genocide- if the aim of the genocide is to drive a religious minority out of a country.

I am in favor of a people determining their destiny, period.

You are such a weasel

So if genocide is a means of determining their destiny...you are in favor? Or...just when it relates to the Rohinga? Or - is genocide NEVER an acceptable means of determining a people's destiny?

Three doors to choose from dude...

They chose the door that says "go ahead kill women and children- but they better be Muslim!"

Sycophant. Try thinking for yourself.

Bigot. Try thinking of genocide in terms of something other than being scared of Muslims.

 

[Coyote]

The people who were murdered would argue with you on whether they have a choice to stay or leave- but they can't because they are dead.

So you are okay with genocide- if the aim of the genocide is to drive a religious minority out of a country.

I am in favor of a people determining their destiny, period.

You are such a weasel

So if genocide is a means of determining their destiny...you are in favor? Or...just when it relates to the Rohinga? Or - is genocide NEVER an acceptable means of determining a people's destiny?

Three doors to choose from dude...

Context may be the most popular and disingenuous game that Muslims like to play. Simply put, the apologists appeal to context only when they want it to be there. They ignore context when it proves inconvenient. An example of the latter would be the many times in which verse 2:256 is isolated and offered as proof of religious tolerance (in contradiction to Muhammad's later imposition of the jizya and the sword).

And again..you can not or will not answer a straight forward question.

His bigotry towards Muslims makes him incapable of answering a straightforward question on genocide.

He said he opposes genocide. But he can't say he opposes what Myanmar is doing to the Rohinga. It's very contradictory.

 

[Lastamender]

I am in favor of a people determining their destiny, period.

You are such a weasel

So if genocide is a means of determining their destiny...you are in favor? Or...just when it relates to the Rohinga? Or - is genocide NEVER an acceptable means of determining a people's destiny?

Three doors to choose from dude...

Context may be the most popular and disingenuous game that Muslims like to play. Simply put, the apologists appeal to context only when they want it to be there. They ignore context when it proves inconvenient. An example of the latter would be the many times in which verse 2:256 is isolated and offered as proof of religious tolerance (in contradiction to Muhammad's later imposition of the jizya and the sword).

And again..you can not or will not answer a straight forward question.

His bigotry towards Muslims makes him incapable of answering a straightforward question on genocide.

He said he opposes genocide. But he can't say he opposes what Myanmar is doing to the Rohinga. It's very contradictory.

I have made it more than clear I oppose genocide and equally clear they have a right to keep more Islam out of their country. And one of the reasons is because Islam condones genocide.

 

[Coyote]

You are such a weasel

So if genocide is a means of determining their destiny...you are in favor? Or...just when it relates to the Rohinga? Or - is genocide NEVER an acceptable means of determining a people's destiny?

Three doors to choose from dude...

Context may be the most popular and disingenuous game that Muslims like to play. Simply put, the apologists appeal to context only when they want it to be there. They ignore context when it proves inconvenient. An example of the latter would be the many times in which verse 2:256 is isolated and offered as proof of religious tolerance (in contradiction to Muhammad's later imposition of the jizya and the sword).

And again..you can not or will not answer a straight forward question.

His bigotry towards Muslims makes him incapable of answering a straightforward question on genocide.

He said he opposes genocide. But he can't say he opposes what Myanmar is doing to the Rohinga. It's very contradictory.

I have made it more than clear I oppose genocide and equally clear they have a right to keep more Islam out of their country.

Does that mean you oppose or support the means they are using to accomplish this?

 

[Lastamender]

And again..you can not or will not answer a straight forward question.

His bigotry towards Muslims makes him incapable of answering a straightforward question on genocide.

He said he opposes genocide. But he can't say he opposes what Myanmar is doing to the Rohinga. It's very contradictory.

I have made it more than clear I oppose genocide and equally clear they have a right to keep more Islam out of their country.

Does that mean you oppose or support the means they are using to accomplish this?

WHY? It is irrelevant.

 

[Coyote]

And again..you can not or will not answer a straight forward question.

His bigotry towards Muslims makes him incapable of answering a straightforward question on genocide.

He said he opposes genocide. But he can't say he opposes what Myanmar is doing to the Rohinga. It's very contradictory.

I have made it more than clear I oppose genocide and equally clear they have a right to keep more Islam out of their country.

Does that mean you oppose or support the means they are using to accomplish this?

WHY? It is irrelevant.

No it isn't. It's what you keep sidestepping.

 

[Lastamender]

His bigotry towards Muslims makes him incapable of answering a straightforward question on genocide.

He said he opposes genocide. But he can't say he opposes what Myanmar is doing to the Rohinga. It's very contradictory.

I have made it more than clear I oppose genocide and equally clear they have a right to keep more Islam out of their country.

Does that mean you oppose or support the means they are using to accomplish this?

WHY? It is irrelevant.

No it isn't. It's what you keep sidestepping.

What does the Golden rule say? Personally I don't think there is a better way to show an ideology/religion how it works than doing what has been done to them. It is not that I approve but see the the justice that the Golden Rule a constant truth, an everlasting truth how on you treat other human beings.

Islam is the aggressor.

 

[Coyote]

He said he opposes genocide. But he can't say he opposes what Myanmar is doing to the Rohinga. It's very contradictory.

I have made it more than clear I oppose genocide and equally clear they have a right to keep more Islam out of their country.

Does that mean you oppose or support the means they are using to accomplish this?

WHY? It is irrelevant.

No it isn't. It's what you keep sidestepping.

What does the Golden rule say? Personally I don't think there is a better way to show an ideology/religion how it works.

Golden Rule - Wikipedia

 

[Lastamender]

I have made it more than clear I oppose genocide and equally clear they have a right to keep more Islam out of their country.

Does that mean you oppose or support the means they are using to accomplish this?

WHY? It is irrelevant.

No it isn't. It's what you keep sidestepping.

What does the Golden rule say? Personally I don't think there is a better way to show an ideology/religion how it works.

Golden Rule - Wikipedia

Your section on Muslims is for Muslims only. Dual ethics, you lose. Non- Muslims can be treated like animals. The Koran says so many times.

 

[Coyote]

Does that mean you oppose or support the means they are using to accomplish this?

WHY? It is irrelevant.

No it isn't. It's what you keep sidestepping.

What does the Golden rule say? Personally I don't think there is a better way to show an ideology/religion how it works.

Golden Rule - Wikipedia

Your section on Muslims is for Muslims only. Dual ethics, you lose. Non- Muslims can be treated like animals. The Koran says so many times.

Nope. Talk to Muslim instead of relying on your ignorance.

 

[Syriusly]

He said he opposes genocide. But he can't say he opposes what Myanmar is doing to the Rohinga. It's very contradictory.

I have made it more than clear I oppose genocide and equally clear they have a right to keep more Islam out of their country.

Does that mean you oppose or support the means they are using to accomplish this?

WHY? It is irrelevant.

No it isn't. It's what you keep sidestepping.

Islam is the aggressor.

So Islam is forcing the Buddhists of Myanmar to rape and murder women and children.

Now that is some convoluted thinking.