Thailand scuppers migrant rescue ship's operations

[Matt96]

Concerned about ad hominem attacks when you repeatedly call me a liar - LOL - moving along...

Some of Aung San Suu Kyi’s officials have used the definition ‘Rohingya’. Prior to her election other Myanmar government officials have also referred to ‘Rohingya’, e.g. “The relocation of the Rohingya camps will definitely take place. So far informal steps have been taken according to the PM's directives," Secretary Amit Kumar Baul, head of the government's Myanmar Refugee Cell, told AFP”. To summarise ‘Rohingya’ has been utilised on a number of occasions though as you say not an officially recognised ethnic group with officials usually call them out as Bengalis for their political agenda and to kowtow to Buddhist nationalist groups, such as Group 969. More to the point documentation has now come to light that the then Burmese government did actually provide ID which identified it’s holder as Rohingya, an example.

Lumyo or race: Rohingya Muslim

Issued by Board of Management of the Rangoon Post

29 July 1968 –

http://www.rohingyablogger.com/2013/05/the-official-evidence-of-rohingya.html#sthash.MCh4DKft.dpuf

From memory, in other topics some TV members who have lived in Myanmar have commented the vilification of the Rohingya & Bengalis by the Bamar ethnic group is primarily based upon racism.

There are a number of narratives with varying historical interpretations. As you are so interested I have provided an example below.

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Rebuttal-to-Tonkin-long.pdf

"Concerned about ad hominem attacks when you repeatedly call me a liar - LOL - moving along..."

because you lied in this tread again and again. and admitted it. I am attacking your position and your arguments not you as a person. and will not let you attack me as a person.

i looked on the link to a site of "Rohingya blogger"

first of all, he is Bengali and tries to force Myanmar government to grant him a citizenship. so his own texts can't be considered a valid source of information.

second, the document he shows is scan of an ID (if it was not modified by Photoshop) of a PRIVATE COMPANY. this is not government ID

private enterprise can write whatever it wants in its documents, even "Martian"

"From memory, in other topics some TV members who have lived in Myanmar" this is the best proof I ever seen ahahahaha

now there is about a million of "Rohingya" in Myanmar. if, as you say, "Rohingya" had and lost Myanmar citizenship before -

why nobody can show there old Myanmar IDs with a word "rohingya" or even "Bengali" in it?

PS and the last link are for articles only, written by "Rohingya's" Australian left-liberal allies. I can write even better articles, supporting any position, than those.

and even there we can read:

It is true that Rohingya historians tend to minimize or ignore altogether the importance of the migration of laborers to Arakan from Bengal during colonial times; moreover some have made claims that are historically incorrect. Arakanese history from the Rohingya point of view is littered with statements such as follow: “in the 15th century, a number of Muslim kings ruled Arakan, which was a golden period in the history of Arakan,” or “the ancestors of the people now known as the Rohingyas, came to Arakan more than a thousand years ago."

in fact, those who migrated before Myanmar independence gained citizenship. And now there are Muslims in Rakhine state with Myanmar id's. they are called "Rakhine Muslims" - not "Rohingyas" or "Bengalis".

but those who illegally crossed the border after the independence of Myanmar - now call themselves "Rohingya" and make false statements that they belong to Rakhine state.

it's easy to understand that "Rohingya" would say whatever they think can help them to force Myanmar to give them citizenship. But it will never happen.

illegal Bengali immigrants should be deported back to Bangladesh.

Myanmar owes nothing to Bengalis

Edited April 22, 2016 by Matt96

[Bluespunk]

Read this

http://csis.org/publication/separating-fact-fiction-about-myanmars-rohingya

[simple1]

Read this

http://csis.org/publication/separating-fact-fiction-about-myanmars-rohingya

Plus...

“The people living in Buthidaung and Maungdaw Townships are Rohingya, ethnic of Burma” said Burma’s first prime minister U Nu in a pubic speech on 25 September 1954 at 8 pm. “The Rohingya has the equal status of nationality with Kachin, Kayah, Karen, Mon, Rakhine and Shan” said the prime minister and minister for defense U Ba Swe at public gatherings in Buthidaung and Maungdaw Townships on 3 and 4 November 1959.

“The people living in Mayu Frontier is ethnic Rohingya” included in the announcement of Frontiers Administration office under Prime Minister Office on 20 November 1961. Mayu Frontier is composed of Buthidaung, Maungdaw and Rathedaung Townships.

In his speech on 8 July 1961, the Army Deputy Commander-in-Chief Brigadier General Aung Gyi said, “The people living in Mayu Frontier are Rohingya. Pakistan (now Bangladesh) is located in west of Mayu Frontier and Muslims are living there. The people living in west are called Pakistani and the people living here are called Rohingya.

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2012/10/29/making-rohingya-statelessness/

So in the past Burmese government officials have used the appellation of "Rohingya"

Just going around in circles. Matt96 supports the Myanmar subjection & severe oppression of the Rohingya and apparently refugee abuse by the Thai authorities. - his call.

[DM07]

The thing is if all these boat people allowed in it would have the TV users up in arms as immigration queques lengthen. Personaly as Thai I don't want them we can't afford them.

but the problem is that many TVF members don't really care what you or other Thais want. They really believe they know it better who Thai authorities should let in on Thai territory.

Yes I know this luckily enough they won't have a say except to them self's on here

luckily Thai government was and is enough clever not to give citizenship of Thailand to those Western "advisers". so if they don't like something in Thailand - the best advise would be - "go back to your homeland where everything is according to your wishes and points of view. and let Thais manage their own country how they like".

I don't know why, but Thailand was always lucky with it's leaders. may be it's just a good karma...

[Matt96]

Read this

http://csis.org/publication/separating-fact-fiction-about-myanmars-rohingya

Plus...

“The people living in Buthidaung and Maungdaw Townships are Rohingya, ethnic of Burma” said Burma’s first prime minister U Nu in a pubic speech on 25 September 1954 at 8 pm. “The Rohingya has the equal status of nationality with Kachin, Kayah, Karen, Mon, Rakhine and Shan” said the prime minister and minister for defense U Ba Swe at public gatherings in Buthidaung and Maungdaw Townships on 3 and 4 November 1959.

“The people living in Mayu Frontier is ethnic Rohingya” included in the announcement of Frontiers Administration office under Prime Minister Office on 20 November 1961. Mayu Frontier is composed of Buthidaung, Maungdaw and Rathedaung Townships.

In his speech on 8 July 1961, the Army Deputy Commander-in-Chief Brigadier General Aung Gyi said, “The people living in Mayu Frontier are Rohingya. Pakistan (now Bangladesh) is located in west of Mayu Frontier and Muslims are living there. The people living in west are called Pakistani and the people living here are called Rohingya.

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2012/10/29/making-rohingya-statelessness/

So in the past Burmese government officials have used the appellation of "Rohingya"

Just going around in circles. Matt96 supports the Myanmar subjection & severe oppression of the Rohingya and apparently refugee abuse by the Thai authorities. - his call.

ahaha. "said" does not mean "document". in any countries there a list of terms with explanations which are used in government documents and laws. these lists exist to avoid ambiguity. all other words are just words.

second, I didn't find any links to legitimate documents at that article. anybody can write that U Nu said this and that. where are proofs? same place where are all other proofs of your statements? lol

this is what British ambassador Derek Tonkin wrote about this:

"supporters of Rakhine Muslims overseas should at the same time acknowledge that the particular designation 'Rohingya' had no serious historical validity prior to independence in 1948."

PS from Bluespunk, who answers just "Clueless, rabid, right wing BS" I would not consider any links. I argue only with those who can argue.

[Bluespunk]

Read this

http://csis.org/publication/separating-fact-fiction-about-myanmars-rohingya

Plus...

“The people living in Buthidaung and Maungdaw Townships are Rohingya, ethnic of Burma” said Burma’s first prime minister U Nu in a pubic speech on 25 September 1954 at 8 pm. “The Rohingya has the equal status of nationality with Kachin, Kayah, Karen, Mon, Rakhine and Shan” said the prime minister and minister for defense U Ba Swe at public gatherings in Buthidaung and Maungdaw Townships on 3 and 4 November 1959.

“The people living in Mayu Frontier is ethnic Rohingya” included in the announcement of Frontiers Administration office under Prime Minister Office on 20 November 1961. Mayu Frontier is composed of Buthidaung, Maungdaw and Rathedaung Townships.

In his speech on 8 July 1961, the Army Deputy Commander-in-Chief Brigadier General Aung Gyi said, “The people living in Mayu Frontier are Rohingya. Pakistan (now Bangladesh) is located in west of Mayu Frontier and Muslims are living there. The people living in west are called Pakistani and the people living here are called Rohingya.

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2012/10/29/making-rohingya-statelessness/

So in the past Burmese government officials have used the appellation of "Rohingya"

Just going around in circles. Matt96 supports the Myanmar subjection & severe oppression of the Rohingya and apparently refugee abuse by the Thai authorities. - his call.

ahaha. "said" does not mean "document". in any countries there a list of terms with explanations which are used in government documents and laws. these lists exist to avoid ambiguity. all other words are just words.

second, I didn't find any links to legitimate documents at that article. anybody can write that U Nu said this and that. where are proofs? same place where are all other proofs of your statements? lol

this is what British ambassador Derek Tonkin wrote about this:

"supporters of Rakhine Muslims overseas should at the same time acknowledge that the particular designation 'Rohingya' had no serious historical validity prior to independence in 1948."

PS from Bluespunk, who answers just "Clueless, rabid, right wing BS" I would not consider any links. I argue only with those who can argue.

Must be very quiet when you are alone then.

[Matt96]

ahaha. "said" does not mean "document". in any countries there a list of terms with explanations which are used in government documents and laws. these lists exist to avoid ambiguity. all other words are just words.

second, I didn't find any links to legitimate documents at that article. anybody can write that U Nu said this and that. where are proofs? same place where are all other proofs of your statements? lol

this is what British ambassador Derek Tonkin wrote about this:

"supporters of Rakhine Muslims overseas should at the same time acknowledge that the particular designation 'Rohingya' had no serious historical validity prior to independence in 1948."

PS from Bluespunk, who answers just "Clueless, rabid, right wing BS" I would not consider any links. I argue only with those who can argue.

Must be very quiet when you are alone then.

and I am very quiet when I am alone - only schizophrenics argue with themselves

[Bluespunk]

ahaha. "said" does not mean "document". in any countries there a list of terms with explanations which are used in government documents and laws. these lists exist to avoid ambiguity. all other words are just words.

second, I didn't find any links to legitimate documents at that article. anybody can write that U Nu said this and that. where are proofs? same place where are all other proofs of your statements? lol

this is what British ambassador Derek Tonkin wrote about this:

"supporters of Rakhine Muslims overseas should at the same time acknowledge that the particular designation 'Rohingya' had no serious historical validity prior to independence in 1948."

PS from Bluespunk, who answers just "Clueless, rabid, right wing BS" I would not consider any links. I argue only with those who can argue.

Must be very quiet when you are alone then.

and I am very quiet when I am alone - only schizophrenics argue with themselves

Ah huh, pity you don't read information that disproves your rabid right BS when alone then, eh.

[Matt96]

Must be very quiet when you are alone then.

and I am very quiet when I am alone - only schizophrenics argue with themselves

Ah huh, pity you don't read information that disproves your rabid right BS when alone then, eh.

sorry to disappoint you, but your reply "Clueless, rabid, right wing BS" does not disprove anything, except your ability to argue.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Matt96

[Bluespunk]

Must be very quiet when you are alone then.

and I am very quiet when I am alone - only schizophrenics argue with themselves

Ah huh, pity you don't read information that disproves your rabid right BS when alone then, eh.

sorry to disappoint you, but your reply "Clueless, rabid, right wing BS" does not disprove anything, except your ability to argue.

Evasive mealy mouthed nonsense. Read the article. It exposed the BS you call fact.