Excellent article below on Buddhist extremist violence in Burma and Sri Lanka.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22356306

All in all a very sad situation (and a fatal one for many Muslims in Burma), but one that highlights how religious extremists exploit a sense of their religion being under threat to motivate people to commit crimes against other groups.

Buddhism has always been a very tolerant philosophy (not a religion!), and this monk appears to be out of step. However, I suspect that it is really a kind of tit-for-tat reaction to Muslim extremism.

Buddhism has always been a very tolerant philosophy (not a religion!), and this monk appears to be out of step. However, I suspect that it is really a kind of tit-for-tat reaction to Muslim extremism.

There isn't much Muslim extremism in SE Asia. These ethnic Chinese Muslim sects like Burma's Panthi and Thailand's Haw have been trading in these parts for a thousand years. I expect they are victims of their own success in rising to dominate the merchant class and much like the Jews experienced in Europe they are experiencing a backlash from the mostly impoverished locals. I do wonder for whose benefit all this is occuring now though. At the very least this "monk" leader should be defrocked.

You may well be right, lannarebirth. However, this 'monk' is clearly aware of things happening outside Burma and Sri Lanka, and may be influenced by them.

This is the tactic used by many firebrands in poverty-stricken societies.

Hitler and many others have used the Jews as scapegots for the economic ills of their particular countries, where they were a minority in that society.

In Iran Khomeini used the Bahai when he came to power, then turned on the Jews when all the Bahai had fled or been killed.

This monk is just following a well-worn path trodden by so many other would-be nationalist leaders.

Before stringing any monks up, here is an article from the other perspective. I will not volunteer my opinion just yet, save to say the truth is seldom black and white.

http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/04/defeating-myarabia/

Before stringing any monks up, here is an article from the other perspective. I will not volunteer my opinion just yet, save to say the truth is seldom black and white.

http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/04/defeating-myarabia/

That is one of the most hate-filled articles I have read in a long time.

This 'My Arabia' web-site should be closed down world-wide, in my opinion. But of course the Internet is allowed to publish anything on any subject and thus corrupt the impressionable in ways no other medium can possibly operate.

I hold no brief for militant Islam, nor do I approve of any missionary activists of any faith (or those of no faith). But the lies and hatred spewing forth in that article and the comments below it are unacceptable in any Western European society.

Before stringing any monks up, here is an article from the other perspective. I will not volunteer my opinion just yet, save to say the truth is seldom black and white.

http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/04/defeating-myarabia/

That is one of the most hate-filled articles I have read in a long time.

This 'My Arabia' web-site should be closed down world-wide, in my opinion. But of course the Internet is allowed to publish anything on any subject and thus corrupt the impressionable in ways no other medium can possibly operate.

I hold no brief for militant Islam, nor do I approve of any missionary activists of any faith (or those of no faith). But the lies and hatred spewing forth in that article and the comments below it are unacceptable in any Western European society.

I quite agree with your first comment.

But I would never advocate closing down such sites (being a firm believer in free speech), as they have a very important role to play. Not only do they totally destroy the credibility of anyone who references such bile, but more importantly they highlight the desperately sad and unpleasant characteristics of those who write for, comment on, or then parrot learned lines in what they believe to be informed commentary. For every one Brievik such hate-sites suckle, a million sad, chickenhawk, "all talk no trousers", "war wimp" types are kept off the streets and welded to their keyboards, doing little more than achieving mutual self-satisfaction!

It's rather like the best approach to folks like the BNP, EDL or any unpleasant extremist organization, is to give them maximum exposure and every opportunity to express their opinions, as nothing does a better job at destroying their credibility than allowing their views and attitudes to be widely aired.

To be opposed to extremism whether it be Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, Christian, nationalist, communist, fascist or whatever does not make one "leftish", "naive", or a "pawn of MSM", but merely someone who has some understanding that simplistic solutions/answers have always led mankind into very dark, blind alleys.

I didn't comment on the article deliberately, it was if you like a mirror image to some of the vitriol that comes from various Islamist websites, which seldom seem to get closed down either. But, if you look carefully you can begin to separate the wheat from the chaff. This Wirathu chap claimed that some incidents of gang rape by Rohingya males on Buddhist victims. I have read corroborating evidence for this but the BBC chose not to mention it and speculated that ecomomic hardship was the catalyst for the violence. Then we have the Buddhist activists called the 969 group, so named based on numerology of Buddhist teachings. The reason given for this name was that Muslim shop owners put a sign with 787 outside their shops, which presumably has some significance to Muslims. The perception was that this was to encourage Muslims to patronize the shops of fellow Muslims and the 969 campaign was a reaction to this. If true the BBC also ,missed this. I have no way of knowing to what degree the Muslim and Buddhist communities mix, though the violence is in marked contrast to Northern Thailand where I have never detected even a hint of trouble between Buddhists and Muslims.

Finally, if you want an example of incitement I suggest you look at the following from a blog accessed from the Pakistan Tribune, which rightly condemns lies and propaganda found in the local press concerning the violence in Burma. The Pakistan Tribune is actually a beacon of common sense in a sea of insanity.

http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/12867/social-media-is-lying-to-you-about-burmas-muslim-cleansing/

P.S Folium, as I've stated ad-nauseum I refuse to be source policed by you. Posting an article does not imply I agree or even believe it all. I did so to highlight the subtle little omissions the BBC is apt to make. You say you are in favour of free speech, but then contradict yourself by your Pavlovian desire to shoot the messenger if you dislike the message. As I stated in my first post things are seldom black and white and I suspect the Muslims are not completely blameless here. Finally your thread seems if nothing else to highlight the ever increasing body of evidence that a clash of civilizations is indeed taking place.

For many years now I have thought the BBC biassed on many subjects.

Having lived outside the UK for forty years, in many different countries, which in themselves were as different from each other as any set of countries could be, I have corresponded with many people within the BBC, correcting errors and adding more accurate pictures of a particular topic, never to see such modifications appear on BBC World, or other parts of the BBC. I assume each time that my facts conflict with the agenda that they want to put forward.

On the other hand, when I correct statements / reportage in most national newspapers I receive a response and often a squib in the next day's publication. The printed press, although each is biassed one way or the other, seem to be more honest than the BBC.

For many years now I have thought the BBC biassed on many subjects.

Having lived outside the UK for forty years, in many different countries, which in themselves were as different from each other as any set of countries could be, I have corresponded with many people within the BBC, correcting errors and adding more accurate pictures of a particular topic, never to see such modifications appear on BBC World, or other parts of the BBC. I assume each time that my facts conflict with the agenda that they want to put forward.

On the other hand, when I correct statements / reportage in most national newspapers I receive a response and often a squib in the next day's publication. The printed press, although each is biassed one way or the other, seem to be more honest than the BBC.

Indeed there has been something rotten within the BBC for a while now, it's a wonder it is not source policed more often. BBC Watch do monitor their bias on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, but their remit should be broadened imho.

Which brings us back to Burma. I do suspect that the Rohingya are being persecuted quite badly, but they are not alone in this as the Karen can testify. The BBC report seems to go up a blind alley discussing Buddhism, when the evidence points to a cultural/nationalistic cause. I doubt the BBC would ever get as far as examine Islam in the same manner, for example why do so many Imams justify violence in pursuit of sundry worldwide causes. My BBC decoder ring tells me this is an attempt to draw equivalence between the (undeserved) violence meted out to some Muslims and that meted out to those of other religions, alas mainly by Muslims. They ran a similar feature about U.S Muslims fearing a backlash due to the Boston bombings, which never seems to even reach the background level of violence suffered by other groups.

A final thought. Aung San Suu Kyi has refused to take up the Rohingya cause, which might result in the left taking away her sainthood. I don't know what her thoughts are but I'd be interested to know. I did manage to dig this out - there are no Rohingya (just ethnic Bengalis), which is as heretical as arguing there are no Palestinians (Just generic Arabs).

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/myanmar/130501/suu-kyi-no-rohingya

From the Wikipedia biography of Aung San Suu Kyi :-

Controversy

Some activists criticised Aung San Suu Kyi for her silence on the 2012 Rakhine State riots.^[155] After receiving a peace prize, she told reporters she did not know if the Rohingya could be regarded as Burmese citizens.^[156] Under the 1982 Citizenship Law, most Rohingya are unable to qualify for Burmese citizenship. As such, they are treated as illegal immigrants, with restrictions on their movement and withholding of land rights, education and public service.^[155] Some describe her stance as politically motivated.^[155] However she said that she wanted to work towards reconciliation and that she cannot take sides as "violence has been committed by both sides."^[157]

The Rohingya are a problem - they were brought into what was British Burma as cheap labour during the latter part of the 19th century by the colonial power, from across the border in what was then Eastern Bengal, now mainly Bangladesh.

They have maintained communication with their relatives in BD, many crossing back and forth across the border at will (even during the military dictatorship). Many do not try to communicate in any Burmese language/dialect, but use Bengali. As noted in the cut above, many cannot prove Burmese citizenship.

All the other persecuted peoples in Burma are recognised as being tribal residents of Burma, but the Rohingya are looked upon as immigrants, brought in by the British (from whom ASSK's father negotiated the freedom of Burma in 1947).

Again in Wikipedia the ethnic tribes of Burma are listed (all 135 of them), but the Rohingya are omitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_Burma

In the UK this would be like targetting the West Indians that we brought in in the 1950s to work on the busses and trains, in the US probably more like the Mexican illegals, although they were not brought in by the government. (Maybe the descendants of slaves would be nearer).

Whilst I don't doubt Muslims in Burma are feeling the heat for being Muslim, here is a more skeptical look at what the root of the trouble may be. If it's circumstantial evidence there is certainly a heap of it.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/raymond-ibrahim/buddhist-extremism/

A [not so] humble post has been removed

Whilst I don't doubt Muslims in Burma are feeling the heat for being Muslim, here is a more skeptical look at what the root of the trouble may be. If it's circumstantial evidence there is certainly a heap of it.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/raymond-ibrahim/buddhist-extremism/

Another fascinating contribution....

Burmese muslims are an "existential threat to Buddhists". How?

At most 3-4% of the population and falling fast given the recent ethnic cleansing in Rakhine state. Perhaps another demographic miracle like muslims in western Europe? The state security apparatus is firmly Buddhist in religious flavour and more than happy to aid and abet said ethnic cleansing. Hard to see much of an existential threat here. Probably why the article went on about southern Thailand instead and anywhere else but Burma. Talking of LOS, it seems that the RTN is continuing its profitable little sideline of extortion and human trafficking of Rohingya refugees, see below:

http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/13/07/MYANMAR-ROHINGYAS.pdf

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/07/19/uk-rohingya-exodus-reaction-idUKBRE96I09G20130719

"Muslim minority grows and becomes more aggressive"...The refugee camps of dispossessed Rohingyas are obvious breeding grounds of anger and frustration, which are then preyed upon by extremists. Well done the Burmese military/police for being such an effective recruiter for extremism.

"Islam wiped out entire peoples and identities"....The success of the Muslim conquests in true historical fashion was largely due to the weakness of the Sassanid Empire in Persia, the Byzantines in the Middle East and the Visigoths in Spain Nature and empire builders abhor a vacuum (how do you think the Brits were able to gain control of India). Please name some of the peoples and identities "wiped out". Ironically many Christians and Jews saw the arrival of Islam as a relief from their persecution by Byzantine or Persian overlords. But heaven forbid some history gets in the way of an agenda.

"There are more Christians and Hindus in Myanmar than Muslims, yet Burmese hostility only extends to muslims. Buddhists are only attacking Muslims, not Christians or Hindus". Funny how bigots seem to be averse to history (and even current events), perhaps because an understanding/recognition of the historical past and present undermines their myopic, anti-islamic agenda.

Please explain how Burma's Hindu population dropped from some 16% in 1939 to less than 1% today. Clue, general/dictator Ne Win in 1962-63 undertook a fundamental ethnic cleansing of "ka-la" (an epithet akin to the n word if you didn't know), most of whom were Hindu Tamils, thus finishing the task begun by the Japanese army in 1941. By the way they were also classed as non citizens like the Rohingyas despite generations of residence and a huge Hindu influence on the culture of Burma. But then again why let mere facts get in the way of an agenda?

The idea that the Burmese government does not persecute Christians is similarly laughable. Try asking the Kachin, Chin, Karen, Lisu & Karen (who make up the majority of Burma's 6% Christian population), if a combination of ethnic and religious persecution underpins the conflicts that have plagued Burma since independence.

"while Myanmar’s Buddhists fight for their right to survive against an ever encroaching Islam, the NYT does what it does best—distort reality to make it fit the mainstream media’s world of make believe, in this case, that Muslims are always innocent and misunderstood victims".

Intrigued by the continual denigration of mainstream media. Does this include any media outlet that does not have an anti-islamic agenda? Is Fox News part of the mainstream agenda? Are you claiming that Horowitz, Spencer and Geller are the only true source of information?

While I have no truck with islamic extremists/terrorists, nor do I have any sympathy for Jewish, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, atheist or whatever extremists/terrorists, and I have a particular loathing for armchair chickenhawks who act as cheerleaders for such extremism/terrorism, despite never having put their pathetic little necks on the line for anything other than an internet forum.

Sorry Mr Horowitz et al, your pathetically obvious, anti-islamic agenda as ever overlooks reality and historical context. That scores a C-. Possibly convincing for ignoramuses and those who want to believe such guff, but for anybody else? Must try harder....

These 'Rohingya' are basically Bangladeshis on the wrong side of the border.

In the days they came over the 'border' to work in Burma, India (old style, including what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh) was a prt of the British Empire and Burma was under British administration. Thus a very convenient source of cheap labour in the rubber plantations and tin mines.

No passports or other identifying documents were needed, or issued. The British left, the labour stayed. Now they are stateless, never having a chance to register their presence or their nationality - because it was not needed at the time.Now neither Burma nor Bangladesh wants them, so what can be done?

I really do love to read posts by people who know what they're talking about

These 'Rohingya' are basically Bangladeshis on the wrong side of the border.

In the days they came over the 'border' to work in Burma, India (old style, including what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh) was a prt of the British Empire and Burma was under British administration. Thus a very convenient source of cheap labour in the rubber plantations and tin mines.

No passports or other identifying documents were needed, or issued. The British left, the labour stayed. Now they are stateless, never having a chance to register their presence or their nationality - because it was not needed at the time.Now neither Burma nor Bangladesh wants them, so what can be done?

In light of said dumping of cheap labour for the sake of expedience it is indeed ironic that the post colonialist British leaders did the same to themselves.

I really do love to read posts by people who know what they're talking about

and i am quite often amused by postings from people who have no <deleted> idea what they are talking about.

Whilst I don't doubt Muslims in Burma are feeling the heat for being Muslim, here is a more skeptical look at what the root of the trouble may be. If it's circumstantial evidence there is certainly a heap of it.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/raymond-ibrahim/buddhist-extremism/

Burmese muslims are an "existential threat to Buddhists". How?

At most 3-4% of the population and falling fast given the recent ethnic cleansing in Rakhine state. Perhaps another demographic miracle like muslims in western Europe? The state security apparatus is firmly Buddhist in religious flavour and more than happy to aid and abet said ethnic cleansing. Hard to see much of an existential threat here. Probably why the article went on about southern Thailand instead and anywhere else but Burma. Talking of LOS, it seems that the RTN is continuing its profitable little sideline of extortion and human trafficking of Rohingya refugees, see below:

I can't be bothered wading through your verbose historical revisionism save to point you at the post script to the link I provided. Indonesia was once Buddhist, Buddhism there faced an existential threat from Islam, which they ignored and time did the rest, as it did to the Christians of the middle east. Anyway it's good to see some Buddhists are catching on, better than the abject denial and delusional soft soaping from western liberals.

P.S A final thought as the 'holy' month of Ramadam winds to an end the Islamic extremists whom you say you have no truck with rack up over 1400 murders, would you care to put a figure on the murders by Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or indeed any other group of extremists you so disingenuously use to make an attempt at an equivalence argument?

These 'Rohingya' are basically Bangladeshis on the wrong side of the border.

In the days they came over the 'border' to work in Burma, India (old style, including what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh) was a prt of the British Empire and Burma was under British administration. Thus a very convenient source of cheap labour in the rubber plantations and tin mines.

No passports or other identifying documents were needed, or issued. The British left, the labour stayed. Now they are stateless, never having a chance to register their presence or their nationality - because it was not needed at the time.Now neither Burma nor Bangladesh wants them, so what can be done?

Not quite true, and a plausible analogy to your claim that all Rohingya are "basically Bangladeshis on the wrong side of the border", would be to say that

"all Jewish Israelis are recent (ie in the last 100 years) immigrants from Europe and the rest of the Middle East".

There have been muslim residents in Arakan (now Rakhine) state since at least the 15th century, and have remained there since, despite a partial case of ethnic cleansing in the late 18th century when Burma conquered Arakan.

Francis Buchanan-Hamilton in his 1799 article “A Comparative Vocabulary of Some of the Languages Spoken in the Burma Empire,” stated:

"I shall now add three dialects, spoken in the Burma Empire, but evidently derived from the language of the Hindu nation. The first is that spoken by the Mohammedans, who have long settled in Arakan, and who call themselves Rooinga, or natives of Arakan."

Under British rule many Indians did indeed migrate from British India, initially into western Burma after the First Anglo-Burmese War, and then into Mandalay, Rangoon and the Irrawaddy Delta once the rest of Burma was seized following the 3rd Anglo-Burmese War in the late 19th century. These migrants were largely Hindu Tamils, but also included indians from Bihar, Bengal and other parts.

Due to the fact that they were extensively employed by the colonial authorities they became a target for Burmese nationalists both pre, during and post-WW2, culminating in Ne Win's ethnic cleanse in 1962.

All Indian Burmese (Muslim, Hindu, Christian or Buddhist), not just Rohingya, are denied Burmese citizenship, so as ever, it is a nasty combination of religious, ethnic and nationalistic motives that drive their treatment.

Bangladesh (created in 1971) did not even exist when the Burmese Indians migrated to Burma, and certainly did not exist in the 15th century (possibly early) when the original Rohingya moved into Arakan.

Whilst I don't doubt Muslims in Burma are feeling the heat for being Muslim, here is a more skeptical look at what the root of the trouble may be. If it's circumstantial evidence there is certainly a heap of it.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/raymond-ibrahim/buddhist-extremism/

Burmese muslims are an "existential threat to Buddhists". How?

At most 3-4% of the population and falling fast given the recent ethnic cleansing in Rakhine state. Perhaps another demographic miracle like muslims in western Europe? The state security apparatus is firmly Buddhist in religious flavour and more than happy to aid and abet said ethnic cleansing. Hard to see much of an existential threat here. Probably why the article went on about southern Thailand instead and anywhere else but Burma. Talking of LOS, it seems that the RTN is continuing its profitable little sideline of extortion and human trafficking of Rohingya refugees, see below:

I can't be bothered wading through your verbose historical revisionism save to point you at the post script to the link I provided. Indonesia was once Buddhist, Buddhism there faced an existential threat from Islam, which they ignored and time did the rest, as it did to the Christians of the middle east. Anyway it's good to see some Buddhists are catching on, better than the abject denial and delusional soft soaping from western liberals.

P.S A final thought as the 'holy' month of Ramadam winds to an end the Islamic extremists whom you say you have no truck with rack up over 1400 murders, would you care to put a figure on the murders by Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or indeed any other group of extremists you so disingenuously use to make an attempt at an equivalence argument?

Spain was once largely Muslim with a large Jewish population, Christianity is a relative newcomer to the Americas and Africa, India was the starting point of Buddhism etc, etc

Buddhist Java/Sumatra first threat came under pressure from Hinduism which subsumed much of it only to be replaced by Islam via trade and the decisions of local heirarchy. What today constitutes the eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago has always been predominantly animist or Christian.

Still waiting for any real evidence that the tiny (and shrinking thanks to recent pogroms) Muslim minority in Burma represents an "existential threat" to Burmese Buddhists.

Intriguing that you appear to be in favour of extremism (and terrorism?) if it is against Muslims. Personally I have a complete opposition to extremism/terrorism wherever it exists in whatever format and whether they kill 1 person or a 1000.

Under British rule many Indians did indeed migrate from British India, initially into western Burma after the First Anglo-Burmese War, and then into Mandalay, Rangoon and the Irrawaddy Delta once the rest of Burma was seized following the 3rd Anglo-Burmese War in the late 19th century. These migrants were largely Hindu Tamils, but also included indians from Bihar, Bengal and other parts.

Due to the fact that they were extensively employed by the colonial authorities they became a target for Burmese nationalists both pre, during and post-WW2, culminating in Ne Win's ethnic cleanse in 1962.

All Indian Burmese (Muslim, Hindu, Christian or Buddhist), not just Rohingya, are denied Burmese citizenship, so as ever, it is a nasty combination of religious, ethnic and nationalistic motives that drive their treatment.

Bangladesh (created in 1971) did not even exist when the Burmese Indians migrated to Burma, and certainly did not exist in the 15th century (possibly early) when the original Rohingya moved into Arakan.

Which is why I put 'border' in les guillemets, said old India (including what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh) and so on.

As you correctly state, these people are denied citizenship in Burma, yet they are unable to return to the lands of their forebears, because they are not wanted there either.

A great fuss is being made of the Muslim portion of these people and it is by far the largest section - having their origins in the Chittagong / Cox's Bazaar area of what is now Bangladesh. Although BD is named after the Bengali portion of the Indian hegemony, these people are not true Bengalis, having a closer relationship to the Burmese, excepting only that they are from the northern coastal region and have their own sub-ethnic grouping. Having had to visit Chittagong port several times during my work in central Bangladesh, I found a totally different attitude in the people, who could get jobs done in a time frame that would have frightened the Dhaka natives. Much brighter, much more entrepreneurial.

Under British rule many Indians did indeed migrate from British India, initially into western Burma after the First Anglo-Burmese War, and then into Mandalay, Rangoon and the Irrawaddy Delta once the rest of Burma was seized following the 3rd Anglo-Burmese War in the late 19th century. These migrants were largely Hindu Tamils, but also included indians from Bihar, Bengal and other parts.

Due to the fact that they were extensively employed by the colonial authorities they became a target for Burmese nationalists both pre, during and post-WW2, culminating in Ne Win's ethnic cleanse in 1962.

All Indian Burmese (Muslim, Hindu, Christian or Buddhist), not just Rohingya, are denied Burmese citizenship, so as ever, it is a nasty combination of religious, ethnic and nationalistic motives that drive their treatment.

Bangladesh (created in 1971) did not even exist when the Burmese Indians migrated to Burma, and certainly did not exist in the 15th century (possibly early) when the original Rohingya moved into Arakan.

A great fuss is being made of the Muslim portion of these people and it is by far the largest section - having their origins in the Chittagong / Cox's Bazaar area of what is now Bangladesh. Although BD is named after the Bengali portion of the Indian hegemony, these people are not true Bengalis, having a closer relationship to the Burmese, excepting only that they are from the northern coastal region and have their own sub-ethnic grouping.

No wonder a "great fuss" is being made about the Rohingyas given the long running persecution and series of pogroms that have carried out against them since the 1930's.

These, coupled with the disgraceful behaviour of the RTN and other Thai paramilitary organizations in terms of extortion, people trafficking and slavery (and those are not the most serious charges levelled against them), would rank as an understandable cause of more than just a "fuss" in most people's view , even if they are "just" muslims denied citizenship in the country of their birth.