Terrible crap going down in Burma

[GetInTheTruck]

@The Dankster you didn't answer my other question either though.

If India is such a dangerous place for Muslims, something you have made clear you believe, shouldn't the Rohingya stay away? You've said Modi is a Hitler type figure, so why ask a so-called "fox" to give shelter to chickens?

India shouldn't even be a factor here anyway, this is a Burmese and Bangladeshi problem. India is perfectly right to hit them with the

 

[Professor Emeritus]

The fact that I keep getting these notices "GetInTheTruck has mentioned you" without a single quote just shows how impossible it is for you to deal with facts. You CAN'T quote me, you CAN'T quote statistics that prove your assertion, you CAN'T quote citations to defend your distorted view of history, because it is all made up.

I am listing out your quoted, bullshyt claims one by one. Either respond to my EXACT assertions with receipts, or don't respond at all. Because I am tired of your lies and random-ass evasive bullshyt.

Of course, the inevitable comparison to Hitler and Nazi Germany. That train is never late but wait, there's a twist...now the Burmese are actually WORSE than Hitler based on....wait for it.....absolutely NOTHING.

#1. Liar, I never said anywhere that the Burmese were worse than Hitler.

On the one hand you portray India as this dark and intolerant place for non-Hindus, particularly Muslims, but on the other you are campaigning for the demand that India take in these people and give them shelter. What sane person would advocate for an oppressor to house those whom they supposedly target for oppression? If India is really that dangerous a place for Muslims to live, you should be advocating the opposite, ie; an exodus.

#2. Does any moral person say there should be an exodus of Latinos from America because Trump loves inflaming anti-Mexican rhetoric, or an exodus of Black people from the South because Black persons have faced oppression there?

I have never called India a "dark and intolerant place" or "that dangerous a place" for Muslims to live, I have repeatedly said that the forces aligned with the current government promote and inflame anti-Muslim sentiments.

@The Dankster you didn't answer my other question either though.

If India is such a dangerous place for Muslims, something you have made clear you believe, shouldn't the Rohingya stay away?

#3. Liar twice. First of all, I DID answer the question, you simply ignored my answer like you ignore everything else I actually say. Second of all, I answered it by asserting that you were lying and I had never called India, "such a dangerous place for Muslims."

India has already divided two opposite sides of the country for the sole purpose of giving Muslims their own living spaces. Now you want them to give up more? When will it end?

#4. Liar, I have never said that India should divide any portion of the country to give Muslims their own living spaces.

I don't even think Partition should have happened, and think it was a terrible, violent mistake. The blame for that mistake can be shared equally between power-hungry Muslim leaders who wanted their own rule and hate-filled groups like the RSS/BJP who were constantly voicing anti-Muslim screeds and promoting the idea that any Muslims living in India should be treated as lesser citizens and dominated by the Hindu majority.

You've said Modi is a Hitler type figure, so why ask a so-called "fox" to give shelter to chickens?

#5. Liar, I had never said Modi was a "Hitler-type figure."

What I DID say was that Modi's government had caped for Hitler, which is an obviously, undeniable fact to anyone who knows anything about the BJP and its RSS umbrella organization. Certain people aligned with Modi still cape for S.C. Bose even knowing that he was openly collaborating with Hitler and Japan. To this day Mein Kampf is prominently displayed in every railway bookstore. My claim about Modi caping for Hitler was based on this direct quote regarding Modi's involvement in the 2002 Gujarat massacre during his term as Chief Minister of Gujarat:

"At the time there was enough evidence of Modi’s involvement for him to be denied a diplomatic visa in March 2005 to enter the United States to address the Asian-American Hotel Owners Association in Florida. (Modi has a large following among Indian-Americans, approximately 40 percent of whom are Gujarati, and the creepy coexistence of religious hatred and pro-business policies is typical of his career.) The US officials who denied the visa referred to the State Department’s Religious Freedom Report, which found Modi complicit in the 2002 attacks and, more generally, to have promoted “the attitudes of racial supremacy, racial hatred and the legacy of Nazism through his government’s support of school textbooks in which Nazism is glorified.” Hitler’s role as a hero in Gujarati history books has been an international scandal for some time, but Gujarati officials have rebuffed all demands for change."

Are you denying those charges by the Bush State Department? Are you denying that Hitler is shown in a positive light in many Indian schoolbooks, and nowhere more prominently than under Modi's reign in Gujarat?

The answer is seemingly never. I support Indians looking out for the interests of it's majority population, who are Hindus, just like I support the Burmese looking out for the interests of it's majority population, who are Buddhists.

#6. Is there any incidence of ethnic cleansing that couldn't be framed the same way? Where is your moral line here? Do you have one?

Do you support Serbia looking out for its majority Orthodox population? Rwanda looking out for its majority Hutu population? America looking out for its majority White population? Australia looking out for its majority non-Aboriginal population? Germany looking out for its majority Aryan population?

Don't tell me that all those are different. Tell me what YOUR line is. If the majority can do what it wants to the minority, then when it is ever wrong for the majority to commit ethnic cleansing against the minority if it feels the minority is in the way?

Why aren't you advocating the Muslim Ummah give these people shelter.

#7. It might surprise you to discover that I have absolutely zero pull among the Muslim Ummah.

Bangladesh has taken in far more Rohingya refugees than anyone else. I think that everyone should take in refugees, but it's obviously most natural for those countries at the border to do so. I had given support to the advocacy for Thailand to finally adhere to the UN Convention on Refugees, which they refuse to do so because of their lack of desire to assist primarily Christian and Buddhist refugees stuck in camps at its border, long before I ever had anything to say about India.

TJust a month ago I met a Bengali Muslim client at my job, he asked me if I was Bengali and when I said no and told him where my family is from in India (Karnataka), his eyes lit up and he went on to tell me how he went to school there and even knows some of my families language (Kannada), and started speaking to me in it. He had nothing but positive things to say. This is a guy whose wife was decked out in full covering, complete with niqab (face covering.) I immediately thought of how taken aback I was the last time I went to India and saw so many Muslim women in complete covering shopping alone in the markets, because even I let the media dictate my perception sometimes....but it's everyday experiences like this that remind me how full of shyt people like you are.

#8. How is this story supposed to contradict anything I've said? I know HUNDREDS of Indian Muslims who love being Indian. Nothing I've ever said suggests otherwise.

Meanwhile, just meeting one of them surprised you. Which makes sense, you being the kind of person who thinks it's perfectly okay for India to deport 40,000 people right to face ethnic cleansing and potential genocide...solely because those people are Muslim.

I read the article champ. Nobody is saying things are pretty over there, but if it were truly a "genocide" an article like this wouldn't feel the need to offer a balanced perspective, it would join in the outrage and condemnation. There is nuance here, and people like you who have already taken a side and expect the Burmese to just follow suit, are guilty of ignoring it:

#9. Liar. The article never said anything about there being any "nuance" in the fact of ethnic cleansing in Burma. The article said straight-up that ethnic cleansing was occurring and that there was evidence that it had crossed the line into genocide.

The "nuance" the article spoke about was in how we talk about Rohingya identity. Which has not actually been an issue of discussion for single person in this thread.

Only some insane black-and-white thinker, the type of person who approaches everything with "Muslim = bad, Hindu/Buddhist = good", could make the argument, "This article said there is nuance, therefore ethnic cleansing cannot exist!" The article DID condemn the ethnic cleansing in Bangladesh, it just gave a fuller picture of the origin of the Rohingya in order to more accurately dialogue about it.

There was not one word in that article that supported a single claim of yours here. Not one word that defended ethnic cleansing, that claimed it wasn't genocide, that defended the Burmese government, or that suggested that the Rohingya deserved one bit of this.

You can scream that I am supporting genocide from the rooftops all you want, it wont make it so.

#10. When you openly congratulate Burma for their campaign of ethnic cleansing, when you defend that by saying that Burma can do literally whatever it wants to its minorities, and when even the articles YOU post as evidence say that Burma is in the midst of ethnic cleansing and that there is evidence it has crossed the line into genocide, then that is what "makes it so."

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Complete call-out of your bullshyt and character assassinations, continued:

As for the beef ban, I've made it clear that I don't support it. I also pointed out that this is something that is happening in ONE state, Uttar Pradesh...so it is hardly this nationwide crisis of religious intolerance you are making it out to be.

#11. Complete and total lie.

First off, beef bans exist in nearly all of India, not just "one state", and anti-beef murders have occurred in a half-dozen states in the last few months alone.

Second, while claiming you "don't support it", you have repeatedly justified it a "India is a Hindu state and has the right to do what they want" while you simultaneously lied about the extent of the bans, lied by trying to blame them on Jains and Buddhists, and lied about how much violence had been associated with them and by who.

Here is an account from a Burmese woman from a few years ago, before this issue recently became glamorized in the international media. She tells the story about how these supposedly "peaceful and persecuted" Rohingya mobs broke into her home and killed her family....

It's only after shyt like this consistently happening that the Buddhist lay population decided enough is enough and took up arms to defend their own. Before some of you fall for the "genocide" narrative hook, line, and sinker, you should look a little deeper into the issue. The Burmese were being hunted and killed in their own land, and since Buddhism has always had the stigma of being a "pacifist" religion, they were seen as food by these mobs and militant groups. They finally flipped the switch and started to defend themselves. Now these dudes getting their asses beat and handled and are running behind the skirt of the international media for support.

#12. Complete, bullshyt lies.The oppressive violence of the Burmese military junta goes back 55 years and literally EVERYONE knows this. You are the only person I have ever seen gullible enough to erase 50 years of history of a violent military junta and trying to pass off some ridiculous narrative about them being just "passive" Buddhists until the last couple years. EVERYONE has known that the Burmese have had a brutal military junta running their country ever since General Ne Win led the military coup back in 1962 and then massacred students en masse when they tried to protest. This isn't new info, this isn't secret info. This has BEEN a brutal military junta ever since it was founded, has been persecuting minorities for 50 years, and there have been international sanctions against the country going back decades. Here is the report on their genocidal "four cuts" policies going back to 1984 and explaining why there are always so many refugees from Burma. You really have to engage in bullshyt historical revisionism to make it out like people have suddenly made up the fact that Burma has a brutal, minority-persecuting government.

After India gained it's independence Muslims reneged on their promises and immediately demanded their own states on opposite sides of the country, this naturally didn't go over well with the majority of the population who are Hindus. They got what they wanted and yet still it's not enough. It will never be enough.

#13. Liar, partition was already agreed upon before India gained its Independence - in fact, Pakistan's statehood was declared even before India's was.

I agree it was terrible, but those Hindutva forces you cape for who were OPENLY arguing for the oppression of Muslims under a Hindu-dominated country were a huge part of the reason it happened. Actively preach that Muslims should have fewer rights than Hindus and be forced to conform to Hindu laws and Hindu norms in a Hindu-ruled nation, and be surprised when the people you hate want to have their own place?

How am I lying about your arguments? You just said that "what I am caping for" is worse than what the Nazi's did

#14. No I didn't say that, you are LYING.

It's funny how you had no problem with my posts back when I was defending Muslims and would refrain from any criticism of Islam and political Islam (even though I always had internal reservations)

#15. Liar, I wasn't even on the forum back then, I joined in 2015.

I can look at your old posts and realize that you had a much more nuanced stance 4 years ago, before Hindutva came to power in India. That doesn't mean I somehow agree with everything you said back in a time when I wasn't even around to comment on it.

Why are Muslim countries always off the hook in times like this? Hindus and Buddhists are oppressing Muslims, in your opinion, yet you feel that they should be obligated to care and shelter these people. Again, this is a logical inconsistency.

#16. I think that everyone should be obligated to give basic rights to the people within their borders and to those refugees who flee to their borders, whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim. The UN Convention on Refugees agrees with me. I have never said that anyone is "off the hook" in times like this, in fact I specifically condemned the Arab/Gulf nations who failed to take in Syrian refugees (which other Muslim countries like Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, and Iraq were taking in millions) and here of course we are noting that Bangladesh has taken in many Rohingya.

The troubling fact is that where ever Muslims are a significant minority, there is always civil unrest that follows including rioting and violence. They just can't seem live peacefully with other people, period. India and Burma are simply recognizing this ugly reality and looking out for their own interests. What benefits will granting outright citizenship to these people give to the Burmese? The answer is none.

#17. Total bullshyt. In India in the last generation I can point to notable incidents of rioting and terrorist violence by groups identifying as Hindus, Tamils, High-caste Hindus, Sikhs, and Maoists. Even Darjeelings Gorkhas and Nagaland's Christians have had violent separatist movements. Yet you can't point to any incidents of Muslim rioting/violence in India that surpass any of those. There are 200,000,000 Muslims in India, more than every other group I just named excepted Hindus, yet acts of terrorism are relatively rare, and any serious incident is invariably committed not by an Indian Muslim but by a Pakistani in their ongoing active war against India. Name the last three major acts of rioting or terrorism by Indian Muslims that led to a significant number of deaths.

Same with Burma. I already condemned the rare acts of violence committed by Rohingya long before you came into the thread. But there are a half-dozen other groups in Burma, nearly all of them non-Muslim, who have committed far more violence than the Rohingya in response to an oppressive government. The Karen, Karenni, Mon, Wa and Shan are ALL persecuted minority groups in Burma. The #1 source of refugees to America in the last 10 years has been Christians from Burma. To single out the Rohingya for deserving ethnic cleansing is racist, not logical, and completely ignores the violence of the Burmese government towards all its minorities.

By the simple fact that you have a dressed up narrative, as demonstrated above, and expect the Burmese to adhere to its standards, is itself an effort compromise the national identity of the Burmese. Let the Burmese decide what is good for the Burmese. Buddhism is already a much "smaller religion" in comparison to Islam, and Islam's bloody history in the region is well documented. They have every right to secure it.

#18. Liar.

Heavily Muslim-background countries in the region: Indonesia, Brunei, Malaysia, Bangladesh

Heavily Buddhist-background countries in the region: Burma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, China

Now, who has had a bloodier history in living memory? Hell, in the last 100 years?

Sorry, but China, Cambodia, and Burma are #1, #2, and #3 in "most violence" on that list.

If you want to expand to include Pakistan and Afghanistan, then you also have to include North Korea and Japan...and that ain't helping ya.

So yes, this is one of the most racist forums on the internet. I don't really give a fukk because I still enjoy posting here, but what I won't accept or tolerate is you trying to portray ME as some type of racist in light of the facts.

The quotes you cited from me are in response to coli posters constantly portraying Indians as "white worshiping" c00ns, and how Indian men allegedly worship white women. I was pointing towards the notion that by that logic, Black people can easily be accused of the same thing, and that this site ironically popularized PAWG, a term of endearment directed towards white women, hence the reference to "glass houses." Do you have a problem with this assessment?

#20. You have made racist or hateful statements about at least 6-7 different ethnic groups even when Indians weren't being mentioned at all. Do I need to bring out those receipts again?

You have said DOZENS of hateful things about how "bad" Africa is. Do you deny that?

You have constantly stereotyped all Muslims and grouped any group of Muslim people in with every act of Muslim violence or terrorism in history. Do you deny that?

Do you really think it logical to express hateful feelings for entire ethnic groups? Do you really think that all Muslims are the same? Are you really so limited that your only defense for someone saying something negative about India is to attack Africa? Why do you so often reflexively turn things into statements about an entire group?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Last set. Love to see how you respond to these without doubling down on the lies, or simply ignoring and evading, like you do whenever you get called out.

Why do you never have anything to say about Muslim violence?

#21. Liar, among other places I condemned the Rohingya violence IN THIS VERY THREAD.

Why are you always quick to take the sides of Muslim extremists and sympathize with them?

#22. Liar, we aren't talking about "Muslim extremists", we are talking about regular people who fled violence. Even the Indian government's own law enforcement admitted that there wasn't a single bit of evidence to call the Rohingya in India "terrorists" or "extremists".

The bottom line is the "Rohingya" are a manufactured ethnicity of a political nature, the Burmese government has no obligation to recognize them. They are Bengali Muslims who had plotted for years to make Arakan an Islamic state and have them annexed to become a part of "east Pakistan," they have made their bed and are now lying in it. They wanted an Islamic state so bad, let them go live in one.

#23. Oh, come on now, even your own link didn't make all those bullshyt claims. 95% of the Rohingya are in Burma because they’ve lived in Burma their entire lives, they are not “plotting” to make Arakan an Islamic state, they’re just trying to survive.

now that I have adjusted my views a bit all of a sudden I support genocide? Based on what?

#24. Probably based on you applauding the Burmese government when they practice even what your own links call genocide.

When are you losers going to stop using Jews and Nazis as fodder to advance your shytty agendas? It's way past corny at this point.

#25. Probably when you stop aligning with an Indian movement that openly celebrates Hitler and the Nazis, and when you stop using arguments that could equally well be used to cape for Nazi Germany.

Why don't you cape for the numerous Islamic nations that routinely engage in acts of intolerance towards their virtually non-existent religious minorities to take in these poor people?

#26. My first response when I read that was, "Why would I cape for nations engaged in acts of intolerance? I'm not like you."

Then I realized that you were using "cape" in a confused way, and you were actually saying that I should advocate for oppressive Muslim nations to take in more refugees. Which I HAVE done before.

Like I said, you have an agenda breh. shyt is wild corny.

#27. Your repeated narrative that I, an openly devote Christian without the slightest desire to promote Islam, have some sort of pro-Islam agenda is one of the weirdest conspiracy theories on this board.

Do you find it odd that you are literally the only person on this forum who has this constant gripe about me? And you're also the only person on the forum who capes for Hindutva leaders? See any possible link there?

You stay trying to bring up what I used to believe...I can adjust my views because I'm not a fukking zombie ideologue.

#28. So are you saying that no one can turn into an ideologue if they believed something else in the past? That all mindless Trump stans were always that way?

I bring up your past views to prove a very easy point. That the fact that someone like you could chose to convert to Islam easily proves that someone can be Muslim without being an extremist or a terrorist or having a desire to dominate non-Muslims or any of the other bullshyt that you try to paint all Muslims with.

If someone can CHOOSE to convert to Islam without being any of those things, then how much more so the vast majority of Muslims who are simply born into the faith and practice it as little more than an ethnic identity with a few rituals?

India shouldn't even be a factor here anyway, this is a Burmese and Bangladeshi problem. India is perfectly right to hit them with the

#29. You are not only ignoring that India has a larger border with Burma than Bangladesh has, but that my entire complaint about India started when India declared it would deport 40,000 Rohingya right to the country that is committing ethnic cleansing against them.

Again, please tell me, how is that any more defensible than the Americans who said "not our problem" and were willing to send Germans Jews right back to Hitler's Germany?

I guess, "never again" means nothing to you, eh?

 

[Primetime21]

what a shyt show this thread is

 

[GetInTheTruck]

#1. Liar, I never said anywhere that the Burmese were worse than Hitler.

You said that what I am caping for is actually worse than what Hitler did. You brought up Hitler and the Nazi's and now you are backpedaling off your comparison and feigning deliberate misinterpretation on my part. How about you stop speaking in forked tongues?

#2. Does any moral person say there should be an exodus of Latinos from America because Trump loves inflaming anti-Mexican rhetoric, or an exodus of Black people from the South because Black persons have faced oppression there?

I have never called India a "dark and intolerant place" or "that dangerous a place" for Muslims to live, I have repeatedly said that the forces aligned with the current government promote and inflame anti-Muslim sentiments.

This may shock you but anti-Muslim sentiment exists in India for a reason, and that is because Islam had been an oppressive presence in India for a millennium. Christianity and Judaism have had a presence in India for an even longer period than Islam, but the sentiment towards those religions is far different. Do you think this is for no reason at all? If so many religions and religious minorities have been able to flourish and exist among Hindus for so long why is it that Muslims are the only ones who seem incapable of co-existing? It is simply illogical to ignore the historical record when examining things like the social dynamics between different religious communities in a culture and civilization as old as the subcontinents.

If you don't believe India is an intolerant place for Muslims then what is the point of all your useless banter? Again, stop speaking with forked tongues. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

#3. Liar twice. First of all, I DID answer the question, you simply ignored my answer like you ignore everything else I actually say. Second of all, I answered it by asserting that you were lying and I had never called India, "such a dangerous place for Muslims."

Double speak is not an answer.

#4. Liar, I have never said that India should divide any portion of the country to give Muslims their own living spaces.

I don't even think Partition should have happened, and think it was a terrible, violent mistake. The blame for that mistake can be shared equally between power-hungry Muslim leaders who wanted their own rule and hate-filled groups like the RSS/BJP who were constantly voicing anti-Muslim screeds and promoting the idea that any Muslims living in India should be treated as lesser citizens and dominated by the Hindu majority.

So if you believe that partition was a mistake why do all of your posts gloss over the historical realities and go straight for the jugular of "hindu extremists" who are supposedly governing India?

After so many years of being in a position of dominance Muslims were forced to face a new reality. Indians, who are overwhelmingly Hindu, wanted the character of the newly independent nation to reflect it's bulk population. This was unacceptable for many Muslims. They simply could not see themselves living "under" Hindus, so they demanded their own states. This is the root of the conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims not only in the subcontinent, but everywhere in the world.

Liar, I had never said Modi was a "Hitler-type figure."

What I DID say was that Modi's government had caped for Hitler, which is an obviously, undeniable fact to anyone who knows anything about the BJP and its RSS umbrella organization. Certain people aligned with Modi still cape for S.C. Bose even knowing that he was openly collaborating with Hitler and Japan. To this day Mein Kampf is prominently displayed in every railway bookstore. My claim about Modi caping for Hitler was based on this direct quote regarding Modi's involvement in the 2002 Gujarat massacre during his term as Chief Minister of Gujarat:

"At the time there was enough evidence of Modi’s involvement for him to be denied a diplomatic visa in March 2005 to enter the United States to address the Asian-American Hotel Owners Association in Florida. (Modi has a large following among Indian-Americans, approximately 40 percent of whom are Gujarati, and the creepy coexistence of religious hatred and pro-business policies is typical of his career.) The US officials who denied the visa referred to the State Department’s Religious Freedom Report, which found Modi complicit in the 2002 attacks and, more generally, to have promoted “the attitudes of racial supremacy, racial hatred and the legacy of Nazism through his government’s support of school textbooks in which Nazism is glorified.” Hitler’s role as a hero in Gujarati history books has been an international scandal for some time, but Gujarati officials have rebuffed all demands for change."

Are you denying those charges by the Bush State Department? Are you denying that Hitler is shown in a positive light in many Indian schoolbooks, and nowhere more prominently than under Modi's reign in Gujarat?

Oh you mean the same Bush administration who waged war in Iraq over WMD's that didn't exist? Word?

S.C. Bose primary concern was the liberation of India from British rule. His associations went to serve that purpose ONLY. It's easy to look back on history and scream "NAZI!" at people who had cordial relations with this or that ruthless dictator, but we are adults, not children, we should be able to see the forest for the trees. But of course you favor Gandhi, who made Indians look like beggars in front of the world, like an abused woman shamelessly telling her abuser to continue hitting her, she will love him regardless. Was FDR a fascist since he had so many nice things to say about Mussolini?

Why should Indians base their choice of leader on who the west finds acceptable? If you don't want a democracy in India just come out and say so. Indian courts found Modi not responsible for the 2002 riots. The riots were an unfortunate result of Muslims burning a train full of Hindu pilgrims. Case closed.

and so what if Mein Kampf is sold openly in bookstores? He is not the boogeyman in Asia that he is in the west and there are many reasons for that. Again, so WHAT?

#6. Is there any incidence of ethnic cleansing that couldn't be framed the same way? Where is your moral line here? Do you have one?

Do you support Serbia looking out for its majority Orthodox population? Rwanda looking out for its majority Hutu population? America looking out for its majority White population? Australia looking out for its majority non-Aboriginal population? Germany looking out for its majority Aryan population?

Don't tell me that all those are different. Tell me what YOUR line is. If the majority can do what it wants to the minority, then when it is ever wrong for the majority to commit ethnic cleansing against the minority if it feels the minority is in the way?

You are playing a clever game where you have already framed the events in a particular way, and by asking me what my moral line is, any answer I give you will by default succumb to the logic of your own perceptions. Go play that game with someone else.

I have already made it clear that I don't support genocide, obviously. I don't believe in "mob rule," I believe in guests observing the rules of the house they are living in. If Muslims want to live in India and Burma, or wherever else, they should operate in lieu of the fact that they are not living in a Muslim state so things will be a bit different. Just because one belongs to a minority culture existing within a larger, "alien culture," doesn't give that minority culture to demand special amenities. Co-exist or get the fukk out.

In India, any money raised by Hindu temples has to go through the government and they are limited in how and where they can spend it. Mosques on the other hand are not subject to any of these monetary regulations, they can use their money to do whatever they want, build however many schools they want, more mosques, etc; Don't you think this is ridiculous in a country that is over 80% Hindu? Indians are seeking to take back their cultural integrity, and I think that is a MORAL ENDEAVOR.

#7. It might surprise you to discover that I have absolutely zero pull among the Muslim Ummah.

Bangladesh has taken in far more Rohingya refugees than anyone else. I think that everyone should take in refugees, but it's obviously most natural for those countries at the border to do so. I had given support to the advocacy for Thailand to finally adhere to the UN Convention on Refugees, which they refuse to do so because of their lack of desire to assist primarily Christian and Buddhist refugees stuck in camps at its border, long before I ever had anything to say about India.

Let them take them all. It isn't India or Burmas problem. China is right next door to, why don't we demand they take some in? Why not, right?

Bangladesh was created for the sole purpose of giving Muslims their own living space. So have at it.

#8. How is this story supposed to contradict anything I've said? I know HUNDREDS of Indian Muslims who love being Indian. Nothing I've ever said suggests otherwise.

Meanwhile, just meeting one of them surprised you. Which makes sense, you being the kind of person who thinks it's perfectly okay for India to deport 40,000 people right to face ethnic cleansing and potential genocide...solely because those people are Muslim.

Solely because they are Muslim, or solely because they simply aren't India's problem? India is not some paradise, as you are well aware of, it is a poor country dealing with problems directly linked to over-population and the dark legacy of foreign occupation/rule, first by the Muslims, and then by the British. If India says they have reached their Muslim quota we will have to respect that.

#9. Liar. The article never said anything about there being any "nuance" in the fact of ethnic cleansing in Burma. The article said straight-up that ethnic cleansing was occurring and that there was evidence that it had crossed the line into genocide.

The "nuance" the article spoke about was in how we talk about Rohingya identity. Which has not actually been an issue of discussion for single person in this thread.

Only some insane black-and-white thinker, the type of person who approaches everything with "Muslim = bad, Hindu/Buddhist = good", could make the argument, "This article said there is nuance, therefore ethnic cleansing cannot exist!" The article DID condemn the ethnic cleansing in Bangladesh, it just gave a fuller picture of the origin of the Rohingya in order to more accurately dialogue about it.

There was not one word in that article that supported a single claim of yours here. Not one word that defended ethnic cleansing, that claimed it wasn't genocide, that defended the Burmese government, or that suggested that the Rohingya deserved one bit of this.

If the very identity of the "Rohingya" is in question, and you submit to that fact, then that puts their entire agenda into question. They have conjured up this imagined identity to lay claim to land that has historically been Buddhist, and the Burmese are naturally resisting.

The bottom line is that they are not "Rohingya," they are Bengali Muslims, period.

#10. When you openly congratulate Burma for their campaign of ethnic cleansing, when you defend that by saying that Burma can do literally whatever it wants to its minorities, and when even the articles YOU post as evidence say that Burma is in the midst of ethnic cleansing and that there is evidence it has crossed the line into genocide, then that is what "makes it so."

You said this already numerous times, why does it deserve it's own numbered point?

#11. Complete and total lie.

First off, beef bans exist in nearly all of India, not just "one state", and anti-beef murders have occurred in a half-dozen states in the last few months alone.

Second, while claiming you "don't support it", you have repeatedly justified it a "India is a Hindu state and has the right to do what they want" while you simultaneously lied about the extent of the bans, lied by trying to blame them on Jains and Buddhists, and lied about how much violence had been associated with them and by who.

I am not "blaming" anything on Jains and Buddhists. I am simply making it clear that there is a misconception on the part of many people, Hindus included, that strict vegetarianism is something native to Hinduism. It isn't. It was Jains and Buddhists who are responsible for that cultural shift towards vegetarianism.

This proves 2 things: 1) that I am not an ideologue, and 2) that Hindus have historically been open to other religious beliefs and in some cases have adopted some of their positions from a cultural standpoint. Tantamount to the spiritual tolerance of Hindu dharma.

But yes, the cow has always been a sacred and protected animal in many regards on the subcontinent, even when they were consumed as food by many Hindus. If the dominant culture says that is the case, then that is the case. Muslims in India are killing cows right now as we speak, they have not been forced to become lacto-vegetarians overnight by the Hindu government. This whole fiasco is literally the definition of making mountains out of molehills.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

Well all of a sudden I started to get a quote error while replying to your long post of bullshyt, so the rest of my response will have to wait until later.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

You said that what I am caping for is actually worse than what Hitler did.

I stopped reading there because you are LYING. I never said that, I've repeated to you three times that I never said it, you refuse to quote me saying it because you know I didn't.

I'm sure the rest of your points are similarly false.

Congratulations on writing a giant pile of bullshyt that literally not one person will read.

 

[God Almighty]

'Mass Hindu grave' found in Myanmar

 

[Recca Gatsby]

No coveragr on this??

 

[88m3]

Massacred at Home, in Misery Abroad, 730,000 Rohingya Are Mired in Hopelessness

 

[Geek Nasty]

Horrible situation down there

 

[88m3]

https://www.newsweek.com/china-myanmar-situation-border-conflict-1847565

ominous

 

[88m3]

Civilian casualties rise in Myanmar's civil war as resistance forces tighten noose around military

Six months into an offensive against Myanmar’s military government, opposition forces have made massive gains, but civilian casualties are rising sharply as regime troops increasingly turn toward scorched-earth tactics in the Southeast Asian country’s bitter civil war.

apnews.com

they might actually end up toppling the junta


things are absolutely insane there lately


try to keep an eye on this conflict if you can

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Civilian casualties rise in Myanmar's civil war as resistance forces tighten noose around military

Six months into an offensive against Myanmar’s military government, opposition forces have made massive gains, but civilian casualties are rising sharply as regime troops increasingly turn toward scorched-earth tactics in the Southeast Asian country’s bitter civil war.

apnews.com

they might actually end up toppling the junta


things are absolutely insane there lately


try to keep an eye on this conflict if you can

It's possible, but I feel so many Afghanistan/Syria/South Sudan vibes here.

The opposition is split between so many factions with so many different interests, and the fighting has been so brutal overall, that I fear either the regime will maintain its power due to a combination of superior firepower and wanton brutality with the inability of the opposition to remain united and cohesive (Syria), or the opposition will win but then just devolve into infighting and turmoil (Afghanistan, South Sudan). I have a hard time imagining them emerging into any sort of peacetime normality any time soon.