Myanmar

[Sankari]

The military still controls three branches of government, and this is written into the constitution, so Aung San Suu Kyi's capacity to deal with the Rohingya situation is greatly limited. Having said that, she really should be doing and saying a lot more than she has. Unfortunately, her political base is not kindly disposed towards the Rohingya, and she seems reluctant to do anything that would put them offside.

The Independent has a good article on the situation.

See also this article in New York Times.

Precisely. The lack of international action is astounding.

Can you suggest what the rest of the world should be doing that would solve this problem, bearing in mind that Myanmar's government is still largely controlled by the military junta?

 

[Buddy]

Can you suggest what the rest of the world should be doing that would solve this problem, bearing in mind that Myanmar's government is still largely controlled by the military junta?

What the world always does. Invade under the guise of saving the oppressed. Pillage the resources and anything else worth getting. Install a few military bases. Prop up a token disposable western allied dictator. Celebrate democracy. Meanwhile making no difference the situation whatsoever. Leave a vacuum for militias. Pick a side. Label them rebels. Supply weapons. Profit. Decade later rinse and repeat.
Then wonder why the world hates us.

Myanmar has no strategic advantage so who cares? Also Muslims.

 

[Amp34]

Maybe add an edit to your OP.

There is a sentiment that this can't be done to poor muslim populations, even though it has been done by them, to them elsewhere in the world, and by them to anyone else in basically ever bordering region they encompass.

Eritrea, somalia, north sudan, yemen, qatar, the entirety of north africa, spain in a past age.
This appears to be the one place on Earth that a standard non-peaceful population of muslims is under attack by a non-muslim population.
, rather than another muslim population.

Are the Rohingya from Eritrea, Somalia, North Sudan or Yemen? What do the actions of people in those countries have to do with what is happening in Myanmar? Just because some of them follow the same religion doesn't mean (as usual) everyone should be lumped into one group.

Also worth pointing out the Rohingya are an ethnic group, not a religious group and not all are Muslim. It has very little to do with some of them being muslim and to try and frame it as such probably indicates a deeper motivation...

It's a massive shame and seems to be being perpetuated/supported by the government, even if not overtly. Unfortunately it seems to be a continuation of the persecution that has been going on for decades.

 

[Destination]

Myanmar has no strategic advantage so who cares?

Lol
Jon Snowing yourself there.


-edit, the situation of displacement is indeed awful, people being killed butchred etc, all terrible, but it is amrepeat of conflicts, purges, slaughters happening across the world now and for the past god knows how many years

 

[Dis86]

Can you suggest what the rest of the world should be doing that would solve this problem, bearing in mind that Myanmar's government is still largely controlled by the military junta?

I can't, but then that's why I'm not an international diplomat

 

[Sutters]

because they keep attacking the Buddhists

also heard about the usual child attacks and bombs from burmese people on twitter. Does seem like tit for tat.

 

[XeNoN89]

because they keep attacking the Buddhists

also heard about the usual child attacks and bombs from burmese people on twitter. Does seem like tit for tat.

I AM SO SHOCKED

 

[Kronos]

Have the west not missed a trick here by gaining some much needed brownie points by speaking out against what is increasing like genocide against the Muslim Rohingyas, or is it that they do not want to be seen as losing face when it has turned out that Aung San Suu Kyi is not the saint that the west took her for?

 

[Participant]

Have the west not missed a trick here by gaining some much needed brownie points by speaking out against what is increasing like genocide against the Muslim Rohingyas, or is it that they do not want to be seen as losing face when it has turned out that Aung San Suu Kyi is not the saint that the west took her for?

Who do you speak out against when both sides are at fault? Only the one that's winning?

 

[Kronos]

Who do you speak out against when both sides are at fault? Only the one that's winning?

Since when is ethnic cleansing or genocide winning?

 

[Participant]

Since when is ethnic cleansing or genocide winning?

The concept of winning is independent of the morality of the activity one is winning at.

 

[RaohNS]

because they keep attacking the Buddhists

also heard about the usual child attacks and bombs from burmese people on twitter. Does seem like tit for tat.

I've been reading up on this over the last few days. Anybody who actually bothered to look into this situation for an hour or two will come to the same conclusion; The Rohingya have brought this entire situation on themselves. Historically Buddhists have been exterminated and had a genocide in the local area.

As I said in an earlier post, Rohingya Muslims set ALL the rules for how to wage this war of extermination against the Buddhists and now the Buddhists are using the same terror tactics and they are crying foul.

Yes both sides are committing wrong but the fact is the Rohingya are the cause of this. Like they always say paybacks a ...

I'm thinking some professors need stripping of their credentials too after some of the things I've read. They couldn't have looked past a BBC (UK KCNA) headline to have formulated an opinion. Another let down from the "experts" in their assessment (aka completely wrong)

 

[Amp34]

You see what you want to see. Lets ignore the reputable news outlets and people who have studied the issues for years/decades and follow links that match our preconceived notions, even if they say the people’s that have been persecuted for decades/a century and are now being ethnically cleansed are the “bad guys”.*

I guess it’s a continuation of what’s been going on for a few years. Ignore the experts, “fake” news and just blame everything on Muslims. They are the modern day bogeyman after all.

*thats not to say that there aren’t some “bad guys” in amongst them. There’s been a separatist/rebel/insurgency fight for decades in that area, but that doesn’t absolve the government and militias of the actions they have been doing for decades and the persecution of a whole group of people.

 

[RaohNS]

You see what you want to see. Lets ignore the reputable news outlets and people who have studied the issues for years/decades and follow links that match our preconceived notions, even if they say the people’s that have been persecuted for decades/a century and are now being ethnically cleansed are the “bad guys”.*

I disagree about the information bias here. What I've noticed and had evidenced does not sit with the facts and realities. Now the "reputable" (used to the utmost extent of sarcasm) media has engaged in a very propagandistic way toward this conflict.

In fact - so much so - it has ignored hundreds (if not thousands) of attacks against Buddhists and amplified each and every reprisal a hundredfold. Example: UN calls it "genocide" in Myanmar. That is a gross distortion on genocide. You have articles from "experts" called: This is what genocide looks like.... With a picture of people alive. :-| even ethnic cleansing is a stretch of the terminology.

I've read info from around the region and for me its conclusive: No genocide and the Buddhists are fighting back against decades of horrific ethnic cleansing being done against them.

guess it’s a continuation of what’s been going on for a few years. Ignore the experts, “fake” news and just blame everything on Muslims. They are the modern day bogeyman after all.

The press is doing everything it can to avert peoples attention from the largest elephant in the smallest room. Sooner or later this discussion will have to be had. Another excellent example of how the media tells its lies - extremely pertinent here - is the BBC (UK KCNA) reports that Muhammad is the 8th most popular babies name. Well, what about when you include: Mohammed, Mohammad, Mohamed, Muhammed etc? Very very deceptive indeed, you've just got to be prepared to scratch the surface

*thats not to say that there aren’t some “bad guys” in amongst them. There’s been a separatist/rebel/insurgency fight for decades in that area, but that doesn’t absolve the government and militias of the actions they have been doing for decades and the persecution of a whole group of people.

No it doesn't but to them (decades you said and its true) of systematic extermination, are you arguing there is no justification for reprisal?

 

[RDM]

The press is doing everything it can to avert peoples attention from the largest elephant in the smallest room. Sooner or later this discussion will have to be had. Another excellent example of how the media tells its lies - extremely pertinent here - is the BBC (UK KCNA) reports that Muhammad is the 8th most popular babies name. Well, what about when you include: Mohammed, Mohammad, Mohamed, Muhammed etc? Very very deceptive indeed, you've just got to be prepared to scratch the surface

A very large percentage of muslim parents call their boy children Muhammed, non muslim parents are much more diverse in their naming habits. So that particular statistic means very little indeed.

If you want the actual details of numbers:

357,046 Boys were born in 2016.
3,908 were called Muhammed (1.1%)
2,228 were called Mohammed (0.6%)
968 were called Mohammad (0.3%)
For a total of 7,104 (2%)

No other variations made it into the top 100 names. There are almost as many Olivers (6,623) as there are all the variants of Mohammed.

All figures are freely available from the ONS if you are prepared to take a little time to search for them...

 

[RaohNS]

A very large percentage of muslim parents call their boy children Muhammed, non muslim parents are much more diverse in their naming habits. So that particular statistic means very little indeed.

If you want the actual details of numbers:

357,046 Boys were born in 2016.
3,908 were called Muhammed (1.1%)
2,228 were called Mohammed (0.6%)
968 were called Mohammad (0.3%)
For a total of 7,104 (2%)

No other variations made it into the top 100 names. There are almost as many Olivers (6,623) as there are all the variants of Mohammed.

All figures are freely available from the ONS if you are prepared to take a little time to search for them...

Prove my point then really about BBC deception. Yes it may be true regards to variation but iirc Mohammed (inc variations) has been the top boys name for 5years now. Why not be honest with reporting rather than deceptive.

Oh and as an after thought related to this conflict why is it that the Rohingya Muslims are reported as "Rohingya" meanwhile the Myanmar citizens are referred to as Buddhists? That was another thing that struck me with reporting from "experts" they were very careful and clever to omit the religious factor for Rohingya (), but exceedingly fastidious to highlight Buddhists in their articles. And yes, this was picked up from the Mainstream press. Alternative news and media actually show far more balance in this regard.

 

[RDM]

Prove my point then really about BBC deception. Yes it may be true regards to variation but iirc Mohammed (inc variations) has been the top boys name for 5years now. Why not be honest with reporting rather than deceptive.

They weren't being deceptive, they were reporting on the ONS statistics which has Muhammed as entering the top 10 for the first time. You can, if you have the time, go to the ONS website, download the historic data sets and play with the information itself. The ONS break it down into variant spellings (they do this for all names, so Stephen is different from Steven).

Regardless as the numbers above show, only 2% of boys were called Mohammed (whatever variation you wish to use). How is that a problem? 98% of boys are still not called Mohammed (whatever variation you wish to use).

Oh and as an after thought related to this conflict why is it that the Rohingya Muslims are reported as "Rohingya" meanwhile the Myanmar citizens are referred to as Buddhists? That was another thing that struck me with reporting from "experts" they were very careful and clever to omit the religious factor for Rohingya (), but exceedingly fastidious to highlight Buddhists in their articles. And yes, this was picked up from the Mainstream press. Alternative news and media actually show far more balance in this regard.

Pretty much every single report I have seen or read about the Myanmar conflict has stated the religious affiliation of both sides of the conflict. In depth reporting of the issue (such as the radio programme I was listening to on BBC R4) gives much more depth and history to the conflict (guess which side supported the British and which side supported the Japanese during WW2?) but that isn't the sort of stuff I would expect to see on a 3 minute news broadcast which is focusing on the impact of the Government policies rather than the historic context.

You are right in the fact that this is a much longer running conflict but regardless of the atrocities inflicted upon the Buddhists historically and the recent attacks against the state by Rohingya militants, the Myanmar government is currently enacting a program of ethnic cleansing in the area by burning down entire villages. That is wrong.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Loads of babies being called Mohammed and variations thereof just shows that muslims aren't very imaginative when it comes to naming their children.

 

[Doogles]

Loads of babies being called Mohammed and variations thereof just shows that muslims aren't very imaginative when it comes to naming their children.

I thought depictions of Mohammed are bad, so why name a baby Mohammed?

 

[Skunkworks]

Islam provokes intergroup hostility wherever it has the freedom and numbers to do so. Why do you think governments in Western Europe pounce on anything even slightly negative toward Islam? Because the very same provocation is gathering momentum here.