Rohingya muslim genocide

Who's in the wrong here? I want evidence, no pol shill bs.
Inb4 >Muh people deserved to get killed cause of their chosen faith.
Listen, i know you =and your friend think its funny as you smash down on your keyboards, just relax a bit.

Other urls found in this thread:

hrw.org/news/2017/12/17/burma-40-rohingya-villages-burned-october
youtu.be/Bx2hEc7Dlcg
edition.cnn.com/2017/11/22/politics/tillerson-myanmar-ethnic-cleansing/index.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Seriously fuck Muslims tho

The cleansing was due to a demographics invasion.
The average rohinga male has 4 wives and 14 children

Man even the elephants are attacking them

Any evidence for this?

killing children because they were born in the wrong place in the wrong time is no excuse at all

Rohingya harbour multiple terrorist groups anf are known to stir shit up. Honestly, their cleansing is a case of "talk shit, get hit".

Anglos mass immigrated muslims there to work as farm laborers.

25 year rule

I've heard the Muslims did this due to a repressive military government and they were fighting back, is this true?

This is like the 6th time this shit has happened in Myanmar.

Not him but this has been off and on since 1978.

what's worse? having your homeland invaded by incompatible foreigners and then being ruled by them? or having some fat, blue haired lonely girl think you're a baddie for defending your home, family, and property against an external threat? it's not like they didn't exhaust every other viable option before turning to violence.

Invaded, how so?

violence is never justified

sounds like a good line, but it's meaningless

>it's not like they didn't exhaust every other viable
option before turning to violence.
>using the same old justification for ethnic cleansing
/pol/, please.

Shit parents for being Muslims 2bh

take your pick

...

so i take it that open-minded persons such as yourselves are not open to trying to empathize with one side, but are with the other, but this is totally not based on your own personal prejudices

That is what all terrorists claim. But the Rohingya migrated en masse even after it was made clear that they would not be allowed to take part in elections if they come as refugees. They were told what to expect and they still came and started blowing stuff up. Also their main terrorist organization was literally founded in Saudi-Arabia and is funded from there.

Back to pol if you cant have a reasonable conversation in a his thread.

I mean how were they invaded

How dare they make children on their own native lands. Haven't they learnt their lesson from the first ethnic cleansing?

definition number 2, mostly. do i have to do everything for you?

Hi, op here, i never said that, that was someone else?

>straw-manning me this hard
>false dilemma fallacy

let me reword, why did they invade

>what's worse? having your homeland invaded by incompatible foreigners and then being ruled by them?
Funny you'd say that because that's what happened to the Rohingya.

I'm against the burning down of villages

>Who's in the wrong here?
Noone. It's survival of the fittest as usual. Removing rebellion, ethnic and religious conflict via physical removal works just fine.

>Back to pol if you cant have a reasonable conversation in a his thread

I just can't bring myself to defend Muslims in any capacity

even if it's a village of murderers, thieves, racists and rapists who personally affect you every day and they refuse to compromise by maybe toning down the villainy a little bit?

if it weren't for violence, you wouldn't be here.

Than don't reply, you're not needed

>even if it's a village of murderers, thieves, racists and rapists who personally affect you every day and they refuse to compromise by maybe toning down the villainy a little bit?


Stop shilling and provide evidence so we know it actually happened, everyone that is against it so far has provided evidence.

I just want to know why anyone would defend Muslims, whats there to like about them?

>even if one of the villagers is standing up to your murderous military dictatorship?
FTFY

They're humans

Debatable

>Who's in the wrong here?
The west, for getting involved

They're particularly shitty ones with a particularly shitty religion and culture

people can be good and bad. they can go be bad, i'm not here to judge, just go be bad far away from me. but if they want to be bad near me, and it affects me, and they won't stop, i'll definitely utilise violence to try to get my way. i don't have to stand for their shit.

What makes you human, if they're not

hey buddy, pal, listen here. we disagree with your philosophy, your ideas.

you might think that everybody deserves to be treated well, but you're wrong. every person on earth is equal in two ways, and only two ways, according to the US Constitution: We are all God's children, meaning we all have the rights laid out in the Constitution, and we are all equal in the eyes of the law. But you can't go infringe on somebody else's rights and expect to not lose anything.

desu islam in asia has pretty well radicalised in the past half decade, it ain't as peaceful as it used to be
that said, the forceful approach to counter-insurgency is usually winning the battle but losing the war. Myanmar is ending up an international pariah, and that's kind of a bad thing to be. It's bad policy, pure and simple.

for me its literally just that shitty, invasive and oppressive religion of theirs and the culture that comes with it, I have Christian and Atheist Arab friends and neighbors and have absolutely no problems with them.

I agree, killing innocent civilians who dont represent those who fought against them and burning 50% of their villages is bad, so they should stay away from the rohingya, no? this is what i could get out of this thread.
> hrw.org/news/2017/12/17/burma-40-rohingya-villages-burned-october

Ok, them practising their religion is the first amendment no? and how were they infringing on somebody elses right? hrw.org/news/2017/12/17/burma-40-rohingya-villages-burned-october

>Who's in the wrong here?
The Burmese military.

There's like a dozen different ethnic groups that have said 'fuck you' to the Burmese authorities and done their own thing, it's just the Rohingya have been the least successful by far.

They should've armed themselves from the heroin trade, like the sensible Christians.

Insurgencies generally depend on sympathetic civilian populations for supplies. I suppose the reasoning is get rid of the villages and there's no support.
It makes a sort of pure "military" sense, but practically it's super dumb.

how to handle the situation was not up to me, or you. it was up to the Burmese. we could not and do not understand the situation as well as them, and it's pretentious to think so.

this is why you're not in charge, because you can't seem to be able to come to a sensible conclusion, you can only confirm your own biases

I don't shit in the street and worship a pedophile god.

what about the right to a fair trial

2bh their "religion" is more like a political tool

The first amendment is practising freedom of speech, them being genocided for their beliefs is not freedom of speech, I dont get it. why are you aloud to use the amendments whilst i cant?. Because it doesn't suit your arguement?

in my opinion, the political tool in Islam is shia and sunni, i feel like Islam was just supposed to be a religion which got to powerful under the caliphs, thus sunni and shia political divide

what about it? when did Burma become the USA?

Obtuseness aside, maybe they had their trial in the 25 preceeding years they had when the Burmese were negotiating and trying to come to more peaceable alternatives, meanwhile the villains kept being villainous day by day. Is that not a "trial"?

I ain't the one bringing up the constitution

>meanwhile the villains kept being villainous day by day.
hrw.org/news/2017/12/17/burma-40-rohingya-villages-burned-october

um...

>the winners were right and the losers wrong
it's all /pol/ bullshit and attention whoring baizuos like should be tarred and feathered for being even more shallow and stupid than /pol/tards

what

don't forget the Dawah
youtu.be/Bx2hEc7Dlcg

>>the winners were right and the losers wrong
Who were the winners?

nobody cares, baizou

...

No one since it's still tit for tat skirmish at the moment but it's starting to tip towards non-muslims winning hence all the news artilce with baizuos taking the muslim side

>Thinking on both sides and providing a judgement, but its not what he agrees with.
>Baizou

>Who's in the wrong here

That's a long and complicated question with no clear answer.

Either way, we should stay out of it.

Just for context, if i disagree with the holocaust, does that make me a Baizou?

desu if the confederacy won the war (i mean they were incapable of winning against a superior power) but if they had won, they would have won for the right reasons, keeping their liberty and autonomy. slavery was just the poster child to justify the invasion. all Christian places in the world were abolishing slavery at the time, it was just a matter of letting the wheels turn.

Don't forget, in Saudi Arabia, everyone owned slaves until 1963, but you never heard about that at all, did you

it was the Union who altered the terms of the deal (the Constitution) drastically

What has been the traditional American policy toward the Rohingya anyway? Have they historically been regarded as friends or foes of the United States? What have previous Presidents said about them.

President Trump seems like he might be somewhat sympathetic to them, but he's keeping quiet on the matter.

>Liberty
to practise slavery
>Autonomy
This was threatened, because they couldn't practise slavery.
>Poster child
Slavery was the roots for every branch(factor) that influenced the civil war my man

Im pretty sure against from what i can tell,
>edition.cnn.com/2017/11/22/politics/tillerson-myanmar-ethnic-cleansing/index.html

>if you disagree because of the massive number of people killed, then no
>if you're parroting 'muh 6 gorrilion jews' please retweet/like/#baizuo, then yes
depends on why you disagree

i Disagree right now because 50% of the rohingya homes were burnt, how does that make me a baizuo. They are obviously in the wrong for this

The best thing that would've come out of a Confederate victory in the Civil War in my opinion is that it would've reversed the trend of American interventionism abroad. The Union's nose would've been so badly bloodied from the defeat that it would've lacked the self-confidence to gradually ramp up military intervention abroad. The Confederacy would've been by nature more isolationist and been so strapped for resources that it couldn't afford protracted wars overseas even if it wanted to wage them.

>please ignore all the homes burned down by raiding muslims in their jihad again non believers
Because your an ignorant fuck who didn't ask who what where when and why otherwise you'll realized this is shit fucked war zone full of house burning murderes on both sides

Human Nature
the vicious cycle
because once the Rohingya gain acceptance within the community. they will bring up past atrocities, and some- not all- but some
the most vocal minority will carry out horrible acts and justify it by bringing up past atrocities, that they witnessed growing up.

A people don't like things to be too different from each other. Especially when they go off into their own communities.
So they take the weakest newst kid on the block, and if he doesn't play by their rules he gets shit on.
Current regimes like to use scapegoating
ALL
THE
FUCKING
TIME
read: hitler and jews, republicans and mexicans and muslims, europeans and white males.

As a leader you see a bunch of unfocused rage and anger, with no way to channel said anger.
So in order to gain favor with their people.
You legitimize their anger and rage.
By telling them why they are really angry.
then direct that anger towards a group other than yourself.

A leader never
ever
says
"Blame ME for all your ills"

makes me sick
that Buddhists have fallen into this trap.
I dunno, maybe these fucks like the wheel of samsara rather than to be liberated by it.


If you are asking "who threw the first stone"
Then I cannot answer that. Becuase I don't really know much about the history of that area.
I do know it went through a shit ton of regime changes though.

Is any one else amused that Aung San Suu Kyi was leftie Jesus for most of her life but now that shes not directly talking about the military attacking the Lefts second most favored group, she became worse than Hitler almost overnight?

so fucking edgy

...

>genocide is wrong
wow can you virtue signal any harder you postmodernist libcuck?

Burma is a complete misery. Only south Sudan and drc are comparable

The regime isn't killing only Muslims as their target. Ethnic cleansings, rapes, destroying minorities over different criteria , engaging/supporting in crime in its region.

Also in the Rohingya case all their rights have been stripped from them and any in the government or in places of authority like a university prof have been fired/booted

>The Confederacy would've been by nature more isolationist and been so strapped for resources that it couldn't afford protracted wars overseas even if it wanted to wage them.
I agreed with you up until there, because I think they would have by default taken on the resources of the Union, by beating them. And the ideology would have perpetuated itself through the society. America would be strong, well-supplied, and non-interventionist.

I see that you're retarded. How's life?

read again:
>all Christian places in the world were abolishing slavery at the time, it was just a matter of letting the wheels turn.
>Don't forget, in Saudi Arabia, everyone owned slaves until 1963, but you never heard about that at all, did you

>do as I say or leave!!!

No

as far as I know Burma has other muslim groups that aren't a target
its only the "Bengali" muslims that are attacked because ever since Pakistan tried to use them to annex that land they were seen as a foreign agent

Violence is never justfied, but when it has escalated to the point where the only remaining tool is warfare:
Then Violence is the solution, and is hence justified.
Saying anything else or refusing to acknowledge it, is just baiting.

Its not a nation engaged in a proxy war against China or Russia, so its not a important nation to have a standpoint on.
Its just a nation that is on the not favored list.
Its basically a proxy war between Pakistan and Myanmar.

What about self-defense?

>I think they would have by default taken on the resources of the Union, by beating them.

The Confederacy never had any real aims on annexing Northern territory as their own (the Confederate military would've been ill-suited to handle occupying Northern territory anyway, as Gettysburg demonstrated). Even in the case of the Border states, the CSA would almost certainly have been forced to drop any claim to Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri to conclude a peace treaty with the Union. The war also took an enormous toll on the South even prior to the Union's scorched earth campaign of 1864. Economic rehabilitation, even in the event of a Confederate victory would've taken many years. In the meantime the South would be ill-prepared for any overseas wars.

>And the ideology would have perpetuated itself through the society.

A major public justification for war was the perception that the North was intruding on the Southern way of life without provocation and that if only they had opted for a "live and let live" approach, the war could've been avoided altogether. Obviously, this sentiment isn't entirely accurate but it would've seeped into ideas of Confederate neutrality and non-intervention later on. Any politician opposed to Confederate participation in wars being waged on the other side of the world need only invoke the memory of the Union invasion and the "War of Southern Independence" to paint the pro-war crowd as murderous aggressors.

>Be muslims, breed like animals.
>Try to become majority and overrun rest of the country.
>After that try to overrun politics and force their political islamic cancer on the rest of population.
It's an old sunni practise, i have no pity for these people. Seriously just like first poster said, fuck muslims.
Either don't breed like rabits, convert to some other retarted religion, adopt non-forcefull values or fuck off to your own beloved islamic country.
Only fucked up thing about this, is that still innocent children are being killed and radicalised into their abhorent religion.

Violence can be justified.

Yes. It really highlights the hypocrisy of the left.

Buddhists are in the right.
Rohingya basically genocided the Arakanese in the 40s.
Rohingya have attacked non-Muslims ever since.
Rohingya heavily support ARSA which is a terrorist organization that frequently attacks hindus, buddhists, christians, law enforcement and the Myanmar military
ARSA has links to Al-Qaeda and has had jihadis over there for training etc.
Hell Rohingya aren't even Burmese - they're Bengali that came to Myanmar after WW2
When the Rohingya first came in the 40s they started insurgency in the Rakhine in order to have it annexed to Pakistan

And it isn't just a religious thing. Panthay for example are another muslim minority. But they don't have these issues. Only Rohingya.

>native lands
lol no, they are migrants from India

I'll just say that muslims behaving like feral animals does not come off as a surprise to anyone that knows them.

The excuse someone said in this thread of them fighting back some oppressive government is no different than when they run over a few dozen people in the West and then the native population is blamed for not being welcoming enough.

If it smells like shit, looks like shit and is surrounded by flies like shit, it is probably shit.

Genocide is justified if you’re removing a threat to your nation’s culture and people
Not that it needs justification as morality like most things is a spook