2 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

I can't answer your question to another poster.

 

However, it is somewhat strange that Bangladesh, with ethnic and religious similarities, rejects the Rohingya. Nor has any other regional or wealthy Muslim country offered them a welcome. Wouldn't you agree?

Isn't more an issue of a dirt poor country not wanting more mouths to feed than a minorities question?

37 minutes ago, UnkleMoooose said:

You  might want to read a dictionary. Muslims are not a race.

So Rohingyas are not a race?

Just now, craigt3365 said:

So Rohingyas are not a race?

Their race is Asian 

6 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

What a heartless and racist post. Terrible. 

Really? I give it a big gold star. Nothing wrong with speaking the truth.

Wish TM had the same amount of backbone.

Love it when these lefty icons disappoint.

2 hours ago, jesimps said:

Really? I give it a big gold star. Nothing wrong with speaking the truth.

Wish TM had the same amount of backbone.

Love it when these lefty icons disappoint.

Sick when people support the killing of innocent civilians. Huge problem with our society today.

6 hours ago, baboon said:

Isn't more an issue of a dirt poor country not wanting more mouths to feed than a minorities question?

Are you asserting that the Royhingas weren't self sufficient? Myanmar isn't much of a welfare state. Except for the generals.

10 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

What a heartless and racist post. Terrible. 

Where is the racism in his post? I live in Myanmar and the vast majority of the Burmese whole heartedly support her

12 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

I can't answer your question to another poster.

 

However, it is somewhat strange that Bangladesh, with ethnic and religious similarities, rejects the Rohingya. Nor has any other regional or wealthy Muslim country offered them a welcome. Wouldn't you agree?

Bangladesh is not a wealthy country, in fact one of the poorest. In the past month or so approx 400k Rohingya have crossed over the border and prior to this event approx 200k in refugee detention camps for years. No surprise the Rohingya are not welcomed. In addition you must know the Rohingya have been stateless since 1982 which means nearly all countries will not offer them refuge. 

 

It is interesting to note that when Burma gained independence Rohingya were recognised as an ethnic group. We well know since independence Rohingya, as well as other minorities, including Christians have been heavily repressed by the Burmese authorities using collective punishment policies, including using rape as a tool of war. No mention whatsoever by the usual clique on this forum of the repression over decades of Christian ethnic groups by the oh so concerned members and numerous other crimes against humanity by the Burmese authorities. 

 

I always wonder why the hate filled members relocated to Thailand, which probably has a higher percentage Muslim population than their home countries.

It does seem that there is an alternative narrative that's not getting much coverage:
https://twitter.com/rose_k01/status/909490518022791168
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_insurgency_in_Western_Myanmar

1 hour ago, katana said:

It does seem that there is an alternative narrative that's not getting much coverage:
https://twitter.com/rose_k01/status/909490518022791168
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_insurgency_in_Western_Myanmar

Anyone who has an interest in the Rohingya situation in Burma is aware of the push back at different times against the Burmese dictatorship, as they are of other ethnic groups rebelling in Burma, including those who adhere to Christianity.

 

In the context of the OP, collective punishment against civilians is a crime against humanity. Do we ever hear from people with your posting history condemning non Muslims in Burma rebelling against the horrendous oppression by central government, speaking out against central government forces carrying out war crimes such as rape as a tool of war against Muslim and non Muslims - No.

 

 

Edited October 5, 20178 yr by simple1

13 hours ago, DM07 said:

That the junta was running the country, didn't keep her from speaking out on "her" issues...

She has no control over the military and can't direct them, they have the ultimate authority and can replace her at anytime.  The military says who will and won't be p.m. and the p.m follows the orders of the military.

17 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

I can't answer your question to another poster.

 

However, it is somewhat strange that Bangladesh, with ethnic and religious similarities, rejects the Rohingya. Nor has any other regional or wealthy Muslim country offered them a welcome. Wouldn't you agree?

There are almost 500,000 Rohingya in Bangladesh now. Bangladesh is a massively poor country who is currently struggling with one of the worst flooding disasters in decades.

 

When I was there a few weeks ago, protests were everywhere in support of the Rohingyas.

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

There are almost 500,000 Rohingya in Bangladesh now. Bangladesh is a massively poor country who is currently struggling with one of the worst flooding disasters in decades.

 

When I was there a few weeks ago, protests were everywhere in support of the Rohingyas.

Good then they can keep them there ,problem solved .

26 minutes ago, bert bloggs said:

Good then they can keep them there ,problem solved .

Incredibly heartless and insensitive. Many are women and children just trying to survive.

9 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Are you asserting that the Royhingas weren't self sufficient? Myanmar isn't much of a welfare state. Except for the generals.

I am not asserting anything. Sometimes a question is just a question. We are too cynical by half at times on this forum...

16 hours ago, UnkleMoooose said:

Godwin's Law. You lose.

Says the biggest looser on the thread!

4 hours ago, Thechook said:

She has no control over the military and can't direct them, they have the ultimate authority and can replace her at anytime.  The military says who will and won't be p.m. and the p.m follows the orders of the military.

I know that!

But she COULD speak out...

1 hour ago, DM07 said:

Says the biggest looser on the thread!

Since you've reverted to name calling (as you know you've already conceded the debate), could you at least call me by my proper name? It's Loser, not looser. You're not very good at this are you? Education is clearly not where you have focused your energies.

18 hours ago, nobodysfriend said:

Just what the germans thought about Hitler ...

 

Hyperbole aside, it is pretty much agreed that she does not direct current events nor controls or drives public opinion on this issue. She is not pushing forward any ideology, more like fence sitting and weathering out a political storm. If she actually does have firm views, don't think they were publicly articulated in a strong manner.

I'm by no means an expert but based on a lifetime spent fighting for human rights up until now, you get the impression that she isn't perhaps speaking entirely freely.

24 minutes ago, UnkleMoooose said:

Since you've reverted to name calling (as you know you've already conceded the debate), could you at least call me by my proper name? It's Loser, not looser. You're not very good at this are you? Education is clearly not where you have focused your energies.

It's Moose, not Moooose.

 

(Sorry, couldn't help it).

3 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

There are almost 500,000 Rohingya in Bangladesh now. Bangladesh is a massively poor country who is currently struggling with one of the worst flooding disasters in decades.

 

When I was there a few weeks ago, protests were everywhere in support of the Rohingyas.

 

Them demonstrations "in support" of the Rohingya, were they like welcome-to-our-country or we-support-your-right-to-stay-in-Myanmar? From the little I know, sentiment toward and treatment of Rohingya already in Bangladesh (prior to the current crisis) wasn't all that great.

 

 

1 minute ago, dfdgfdfdgs said:

I'm by no means an expert but based on a lifetime spent fighting for human rights up until now, you get the impression that she isn't perhaps speaking entirely freely.

 

Obviously she's under political constraints, but "fighting for human rights"? I think her struggle was a wee bit more focused than that. As in freedom and human rights for her people. Whether she considers the Rohingya among her people is questionable.

2 hours ago, bert bloggs said:

Good then they can keep them there ,problem solved .

In another era, not so long ago, there is little doubt what you would have been.

11 hours ago, tryasimight said:

Where is the racism in his post? I live in Myanmar and the vast majority of the Burmese whole heartedly support her

 

Because we all know that majorities cannot be racist, support bad policies or have questionable leaders.

Below is what Aung San Suu Kyi recently said about the Rohingya situation, with fact checks.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/20/fact-check-aung-san-suu-kyi-rohingya-crisis-speech-myanmar

53 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Them demonstrations "in support" of the Rohingya, were they like welcome-to-our-country or we-support-your-right-to-stay-in-Myanmar? From the little I know, sentiment toward and treatment of Rohingya already in Bangladesh (prior to the current crisis) wasn't all that great.

 

 

Basically against the violence. It's a very poor country. They don't have the resources to deal with it.

10 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Basically against the violence. It's a very poor country. They don't have the resources to deal with it.

 

I'll go out on a limb here and say that is also not a whole lot of brotherly love involved. That people share a religion does not always bridge race, cast and social divides. And yes, obviously an influx of refugees to an already impoverished country would not be taken as good news.

I know that!
But she COULD speak out...

Would speaking out just exacerbate the situation?

Especially as it’s been highlighted that it’s the military who is in overall control.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

3 hours ago, UnkleMoooose said:

Since you've reverted to name calling (as you know you've already conceded the debate), could you at least call me by my proper name? It's Loser, not looser. You're not very good at this are you? Education is clearly not where you have focused your energies.

Says the guy who writes Uncle with a k!

Get off your high horse: English isn't everybody's native tongue!

...and with comments like yours, I assume education was also not in your focus of attention!