Rohingay FFs - ARSA

[TopCat]

If you knew the whole story of the massacres beginning 1930's, you would know that diplomacy won't work here. And read the history of the Burman race. They only compromised when forced to. There is no record in their long history of committing atrocities on peoples from Cambodia to Assam when they stopped atrocities except when forced to. They are the worst of human race. They must be fought and defeated.

I am not against force but a re-branding is essential.

 

[Sine Nomine]

If you knew the whole story of the massacres beginning 1930's, you would know that diplomacy won't work here. And read the history of the Burman race. They only compromised when forced to. There is no record in their long history of committing atrocities on peoples from Cambodia to Assam when they stopped atrocities except when forced to. They are the worst of human race. They must be fought and defeated.

I am not against force but a re-branding is essential.

Who will fight BD?
That moment when I saw mutilated bodies,I thought I EP would have been in place,they wouldn't have dared to do so.

 

[asad71]

I am not against force but a re-branding is essential.

Don't be swayed by negative branding that Zionist controlled media always paints Muslim freedom movements with. Shakespeare had said, :"What's in a name?" I say, "What's in a brand?"

 

[Aung Zaya]

1. Arakan Muslims are facing genocide since the 1930's. Gen Aung San, first as a youth activist and later as the national leader of the Burmans, had played an active role in perpetrating these atrocities. The Rohingyas are, in the true meaning of the concept, waging a Jihad to protect themselves and to evict the intruders into their motherland.
2. It is enjoined / obligatory for all Muslims to participate in this Jihad. And such participation may be in various forms. Physical / military service. Contributing funds. Writing / speaking / lobbying for these unfortunate people.

3. Thank you, but my conscious is clear. I am doing whatever I am able to.

1. there is no Rohingya in 1930. even the word ' Rohingya' was not invented.
2. we will clear all the root of their terror activities.. cut the supply lines , surrounded with something specials.. the more they tried to do like terrorist , the more pressure they will face like tightening security what the world also do against terrorists.
3. we also clearly stated that we will send back illegal as much as we can.

you should have given them citizenship instead of persecuting them

of course, they will be awarded if they suited with our law.

 

[TopCat]

1. there is no Rohingya in 1930. even the word ' Rohingya' was not invented.
2. we will clear all the root of their terror activities.. cut the supply lines , surrounded with something specials.. the more they tried to do like terrorist , the more pressure they will face like tightening security what the world also do against terrorists.
3. we also clearly stated that we will send back illegal as much as we can.


of course, they will be awarded if they suited with our law.

I dont know about 1930 but in 1978 mm ooficial repatriatio document mentioned them as rohingya. Its officia and 40 years ago.

 

[asad71]

1. there is no Rohingya in 1930. even the word ' Rohingya' was not invented.
2. we will clear all the root of their terror activities.. cut the supply lines , surrounded with something specials.. the more they tried to do like terrorist , the more pressure they will face like tightening security what the world also do against terrorists.
3. we also clearly stated that we will send back illegal as much as we can.


of course, they will be awarded if they suited with our law.

Then where were the Arakan Muslims who had formed the Purukhya Party in the 1940's?

 

[SajjLad]

That is conversation I hold with Sri Lankan folk (not people from another country that knows next to nothing about that situation) and they know my position well regarding the fault lieing with both sides over an extended period of time. There is no case of Sri Lankan doing one-way "similar things" to Tamils in SL...esp taking into context how a certain 3rd party non-dharmic religion exploited (as it has done since the 1st council of nicaea which is something you obviously know nothing about) the fissure and turned it into a real long term painful bloodbath....of which the scars are only starting to heal now.

You want to know how many Tamils and Moors were living in Colombo area even during the most violent parts of the SL civil war? Maybe @Gibbs and @Godman can enlighten you. Here's a hint, it was not even a minority of total population there.

So yes the vast number of buddhists in SL are our dharmic brothers inherently. You obviously know nothing of how many holy temples and monasteries in SL are shared by buddhists and hindus alike. Please find me one such example of rohingya and Burmese sharing any place of worship in such way....esp as compared to the way Burmese are integrated with the Hindu and Chinese temples in Yangon and other urban areas? This is what inherently is the problem with the Rohingya....their culture is foreign to the majority and they had the audacity to violently try to create secession ever since the British raj left at many junctures.

Sorry but anyone will have got sick of it after some time....hence why Burma invited all other secession movements to the peace negotation table (they are perceived as part of the greater culture of Burma)....but not Rohingya (who originated and migrated from outside Myanmar and were not satisfied with the status quo and tolerance afforded to them because of the history...and think they can violently suppress other Arakan people).

I'll admit you probably do know more about the Tamil-Sinhalese conflict than I do, I was just trying to give you an example of how strange it is your defending the systematic oppression of an ethnicity, regardless if they don't belong to the concept of the 'Greater Burma' or what not. (PS: I know of the Council of Nicaea, I understand that's your round about way of mentioning Christianity and therefore the British, I know you enjoy the wind up games between you and the BD members here but please don't assume things about my intelligence).

Its funny you say that because in Bangladesh there are several famous shrines which are shared by Muslims and Hindus alike, the Akhara of Lalon Fakir (who if you've heard of, is quite the uniting figure in the cultures of Hindu and Muslim Bengal, and if you haven't heard of him, it would be an interesting read) is the one that stands out to me. Are you and I Dharmic brothers too? I see no difference between myself and a Bangladeshi Hindu, hell I hardly see the difference between myself and South Asian.

Perhaps if the Rohingya WERE inducted into the peace table, we wouldn't be in this situation? What else can be done? The ethnic cleansing of all Rohingya areas in Myanmar? Bangladesh has taken 500,000 Rohingya people, as the most densely populated country on the planet I don't know how much more we can take. In an ideal situation, perhaps the Rohingya majority districts of Myanmar would have been included in the 1947 partition, but we don't live in that reality. There's no intrinsic reason Rohingyas can't be integrated into Myanmar's society (correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there other Muslim ethnicities in Myanmar that don't have the same problems the Rohingyas?). Aside from integration, what other options are there? Ethnic cleansing and/or continued insurgency, neither of which I'd like to see happen.

 

[TopCat]

Doesn't mean much coming from a country that kills foreigners for hanging around in a bakery.

South Indian are not real hindus.. they eat beef except few wannabe hindus. You dont need to worry.

I'll admit you probably do know more about the Tamil-Sinhalese conflict than I do, I was just trying to give you an example of how strange it is your defending the systematic oppression of an ethnicity, regardless if they don't belong to the concept of the 'Greater Burma' or what not. (PS: I know of the Council of Nicaea, I understand that's your round about way of mentioning Christianity and therefore the British, I know you enjoy the wind up games between you and the BD members here but please don't assume things about my intelligence).

Its funny you say that because in Bangladesh there are several famous shrines which are shared by Muslims and Hindus alike, the Akhara of Lalon Fakir (who if you've heard of, is quite the uniting figure in the cultures of Hindu and Muslim Bengal, and if you haven't heard of him, it would be an interesting read) is the one that stands out to me. Are you and I Dharmic brothers too? I see no difference between myself and a Bangladeshi Hindu, hell I hardly see the difference between myself and South Asian.

Perhaps if the Rohingya WERE inducted into the peace table, we wouldn't be in this situation? What else can be done? The ethnic cleansing of all Rohingya areas in Myanmar? Bangladesh has taken 500,000 Rohingya people, as the most densely populated country on the planet I don't know how much more we can take. In an ideal situation, perhaps the Rohingya majority districts of Myanmar would have been included in the 1947 partition, but we don't live in that reality. There's no intrinsic reason Rohingyas can't be integrated into Myanmar's society (correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there other Muslim ethnicities in Myanmar that don't have the same problems the Rohingyas?). Aside from integration, what other options are there? Ethnic cleansing and/or continued insurgency, neither of which I'd like to see happen.

I never reply a troll with more than 2 lines. @Nilgiri

 

[Gibbs]

You want to know how many Tamils and Moors were living in Colombo area even during the most violent parts of the SL civil war? Maybe @Gibbs and @Godman can enlighten you. Here's a hint, it was not even a minority of total population there.

More than 50% of Lankan Tamil population lived and live out side the North and North Eastern parts of the Island where the conflict was on

Correct Bro.. Colombo the Capital city has majority population of Tamils and Tamil Muslims, Always had been

When Sri Lanka were doing similar things to your ethnic kin, was this the same reaction you had? Calling them Dharmic brothers and regarding the Tamil as illegals who needed to be disposed?

Lankan civil conflict had nothing to do with religious affiliations, It was a Ethno/nationalist conflict.. No Sri Lankan govt regards Tamils as illegals, But opposed separatism

All Tamils living in the island are Lankan citizens

The Rohingya conflict is completely different, They're are not Myanmar citizens, And no govt have recognized them as such

(correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there other Muslim ethnicities in Myanmar that don't have the same problems the Rohingyas?)

You're correct, Apart from the Rohingya's there have been little conflict between the Majority Burmese and it's Muslim minority.. So you can see there is more to it than ethnic or religions discrimination

 

[Flynn Swagmire]

I never reply a troll with more than 2 lines. @Nilgiri

I like to have conversation with Lulgiri... But, mods doesn't.

 

[asad71]

More than 50% of Lankan Tamil population lived and live out side the North and North Eastern parts of the Island where the conflict was on

Correct Bro.. Colombo the Capital city has majority population of Tamils and Tamil Muslims, Always had been



Lankan civil conflict had nothing to do with religious affiliations, It was a Ethno/nationalist conflict.. No Sri Lankan govt regards Tamils as illegals, But opposed separatism

All Tamils living in the island are Lankan citizens

The Rohingya conflict is completely different, They're are not Myanmar citizens, And no govt have recognized them as such



You're correct, Apart from the Rohingya's there have been little conflict between the Majority Burmese and it's Muslim minority.. So you can see there is more to it than ethnic or religions discrimination

That's totally incorrect. Muslims, Christians and Hindus are discriminated against in Buddhist extremist dominated Burma. The case of Rohingyas gets highlighted for various reasons. First of all they are not Burmese, they are Arakanese. And Arakan Sultanate was a prosperous kingdom where Muslims and Buddhists used to live in harmony. Like the Shans, Karens, Kachins and others of the outlying states, the Arakanese Buddhist Rakhines and the Arakanese Muslim Rohingyas have been fighting the Burmese occupation forces since 1948.

 

[Nilgiri]

because in Bangladesh

We are talking about in Myanmar, specifically Arakan. I asked for an example there, since thats where the issue of foreign vs local has arisen.

Are you and I Dharmic brothers too? I see no difference between myself and a Bangladeshi Hindu, hell I hardly see the difference between myself and South Asian.

By my comparison I mean the larger society pertaining to recognition of similarity with another, not particular opinions.

There may be some intersection between Islam and Hinduism, mostly due to Sufism etc....but Islam is fundamentally not from the dharmic realm in its core. Its dogma as written in the Koran (well outside the subcontinent) is outside the dharmic lineage just like Christianity and Judaism. Where there are common end-objectives and societal improvement/philosophy...sure there can be some mutual interaction occuring....but that's akin to a Japanese Shinto and Welsh Wiccan Druid both agreeing about various tenets of nature worship but acknowledging how different they are in other areas fundamentally (after all its only natural given the distance between their geographic origins).

Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism and to large degree Sikhism have clear related lineage to each other historically. Hinduism itself is an assortment of many varied lineages, but they all have much fundamentally greater intersection than any Abrahamic religion and Buddhism for example.

It's like two great trees growing next to each other. Over time yes the branches of one may nestle among those of the other just by the great size of both.....but they do not become one tree because of it. Dharmic religions (more correct to say systems/philosophies) are very much part of one great tree.

Perhaps if the Rohingya WERE inducted into the peace table, we wouldn't be in this situation?

Much opportunity was afforded to them in the past. They were put in the same boat as Indian Burmese and Chinese burmese when the nationality law took hold in the 80s. But why did the latter two evolve, adapt and now are integrated (and largely citizens or continued status quo) in Burma...but Rohingya never do so?

When you shed the "we are eternal victims" complex and see there is a history of your whole people simply unable to get along with x,y or z that are "different"....its painfully obvious where the common denominator lies.

Bangladesh has taken 500,000 Rohingya people, as the most densely populated country on the planet I don't know how much more we can take. In an ideal situation, perhaps the Rohingya majority districts of Myanmar would have been included in the 1947 partition, but we don't live in that reality.

You can take in a lot more, all of them preferably. Plus take in the millions of illegals you have in India over time too....and the Pakistanis have some as well @LA se Karachi @django

Bangladesh being such fertile land and not in danger of sinking but actually growing according to some here (and about to beat India economically in just 5 years time in every parameter) should have no problem taking in millions more of its own people. They have outstayed their welcome and its not going to increase the population density a whole lot anyway...given say 5 million people is like 3% of the BD population....which is about what BD grows by in 3 years anyway.

You would also improve relations with your neighbours immensely (if you take them back voluntarily), far more than the economic "burden" you feel you might take on. Anyways you have largely been pretty short-sighted w.r.t your illegals everywhere....so I do not foresee that....thus whats going to happen is going to happen.

There's no intrinsic reason Rohingyas can't be integrated into Myanmar's society (correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there other Muslim ethnicities in Myanmar that don't have the same problems the Rohingyas?). Aside from integration, what other options are there? Ethnic cleansing and/or continued insurgency, neither of which I'd like to see happen.

Its not really a muslim thing entirely....though if the Rohingya were Buddhist, it would probably help them stay sure. The main reason is that the Rohingya simply are a fundamentally different ethinicity to the Burmese AND are different culture/religion to the majority AND have different area of origin (i.e not converts but migrants at some point...how recent or old is another debate) AND have pushed for secession from Burma multiple times AND have started conflict and suppression of the local arakan population (both sides point fingers at other for starting it...but who you expect Burmese to take side of?) AND etc etc....there are lots of things coming together here.

 

[SajjLad]

We are talking about in Myanmar, specifically Arakan. I asked for an example there, since thats where the issue of foreign vs local has arisen.

When this issue comes up, you do often like to stress the origin of the Rohingyas as Bangladeshis, so I thought a comparison with Bangladeshi people would be apt. But fine, we can stick to strictly Arakan.

There may be some intersection between Islam and Hinduism, mostly due to Sufism etc....but Islam is fundamentally not from the dharmic realm in its core. Its dogma as written in the Koran (well outside the subcontinent) is outside the dharmic lineage just like Christianity and Judaism. Where there are common end-objectives and societal improvement/philosophy...sure there can be some mutual interaction occuring....but that's akin to a Japanese Shinto and Welsh Wiccan Druid both agreeing about various tenets of nature worship but acknowledging how different they are in other areas fundamentally (after all its only natural given the distance between their geographic origins).

Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism and to large degree Sikhism have clear related lineage to each other historically. Hinduism itself is an assortment of many varied lineages, but they all have much fundamentally greater intersection than any Abrahamic religion and Buddhism for example.

It's like two great trees growing next to each other. Over time yes the branches of one may nestle among those of the other just by the great size of both.....but they do not become one tree because of it. Dharmic religions are very much part of one great tree.

What your saying here isn't wrong, you're completely right Buddhism and Hinduism will always share a closer link and overlap than either of the two share with Islam theologically. However just because they developed from two different trees doesn't mean that followers of Islam (or any Abrahamic religion) will forever be alien, unintegrating elements in a mostly Dharmic nation, and vice versa. Both of our nations were founded upon principles of secularism, at least in name, and I'd like to live up to those principles. As you've said this isn't an entirely religious issue at its core, and you have examples of the Panthays and the Kamein as Muslims who live in Myanmar without much problem.

When you shed the "we are eternal victims" complex and see there is a history of your whole people simply unable to get along with x,y or z that are "different"....its painfully obvious where the common denominator lies.

What you are implying by this line? could you please elaborate. And secondly, I'm not saying it's entirely up to the Myanmar Government to integrate these people, the community leaders of the Rohingya have a responsibility. Honestly there's almost something reminiscent in it and the situation Bangladesh had with not giving its Bihari population citizenship, however the government relented in the end and now that community is on a slow march to recovery.

You can take in a lot more, all of them preferably.

Imagine for a second the governments of the ethnic-centric states in Europe like Romania had decided they have had enough of their alien and culturally foreign people belonging to a fundamental ethnicity and a different area of origin, the Romani Gypsies. Would India be willing to take their entire populations as refugees? They have their ethnic origins in Northern India, I'm sure 4-14 million would be a drop in the ocean to a population of a Billion or so. Would India be willing to do that for its original Diaspora?

Like I said I don't think it's the sole responsibility of Myanmar government to integrate the Rohingyas into larger society, the Rohingyas themselves need to make a concerted effort to be part of Myanmar as a nation.

 

[Nilgiri]

What your saying here isn't wrong, you're completely right Buddhism and Hinduism will always share a closer link and overlap than either of the two share with Islam theologically. However just because they developed from two different trees doesn't mean that followers of Islam (or any Abrahamic religion) will forever be alien, unintegrating elements in a mostly Dharmic nation, and vice versa. Both of our nations were founded upon principles of secularism, at least in name, and I'd like to live up to those principles. As you've said this isn't an entirely religious issue at its core, and you have examples of the Panthays and the Kamein as Muslims who live in Myanmar without much problem.

Well its not worked in Myanmar (integration) for whatever reason....I have not gone into the specifics of why myself. Each side blames the other one. I feel whats best is to get the people out of the conflict zone to the best area for them. That should be BD in this case.

What you are implying by this line? could you please elaborate. And secondly, I'm not saying it's entirely up to the Myanmar Government to integrate these people, the community leaders of the Rohingya have a responsibility. Honestly there's almost something reminiscent in it and the situation Bangladesh had with not giving its Bihari population citizenship, however the government relented in the end and now that community is on a slow march to recovery.

Well I'm talking about how BD has a history of not getting along with Pakistan, India and Burma for various things. I'm perfectly willing to accept the blame lies on all sides of each instance of this....but most BD members here go with the theory that it was entirely the "others" fault and next to none of their own....and they are just always the victim and everyone else is always the bully/aggressor etc. You see why this is a problem in trying to hold an actual discussion? Hence if this attitude does extend to the BD population as a whole, I see it definitely as the common denominator in all the problems regarding BD-origin migrants in the region.

Imagine for a second the governments of the ethnic-centric states in Europe like Romania had decided they have had enough of their alien and culturally foreign people belonging to a fundamental ethnicity and a different area of origin, the Romani Gypsies. Would India be willing to take their entire populations as refugees?

If they apply as refugees we will take their situation into consideration (but they will probably apply to a much closer country first anyway....I doubt India would even be on the top 10 or 20 of their list).

But they share no direct border with us and its been a long journey regarding their culture/religion from the Indian heartland to begin with (hence why actual scientific evidence of them originating from India is very recent).....far far longer than that of the Rohingya in MM from BD in both time and space. The gypsies have also intermixed genetically with their host populations and fused their culture, language etc etc to the point its largely unrecognizable to anything found in India today....even though they still remain largely distinct in their host countries as well. So the direct applicability of this is flimsy at best.

A much better comparison would be if Hindus (or secular minded individuals of any belief imho) in BD get persecuted in a big way. They definitely will be received in India should their situation be untenable in BD. But BD for most part has sent only economic-based illegal migrants to India since the 1971 war refugees, which is not acceptable to us (esp people in the border areas affected).

Like I said I don't think it's the sole responsibility of Myanmar government to integrate the Rohingyas into larger society, the Rohingyas themselves need to make a concerted effort to be part of Myanmar as a nation.

Agreed. But the Myanmarese say they have deliberately resisted and/or squandered any efforts/chances given over an extended time (governing both older migrants and more recent ones)....and Rohingya point the finger right back.

Who is right and who is wrong? Whats happening in the meantime is might makes right. Is that a good thing to happen? No, it illustrates how humans are still quite tribal people in the end of the day. But does that make it automatically a bad thing? Also no, the people on both sides have too much bad blood now, they dont want to integrate, theory of humanity/compassion is out the window long time ago.....so its best to separate....and administer some practical system till enough time has lapsed and enough trust rebuilt. Thats something BD should be working towards rather than against (and exacerbating the effects on the Rohingya). But instead I am seeing all kinds of talk (thankfully not too much action) in funding Rohingya terrorist groups etc etc....that is only going to shed more Rohingya blood. Its about time BD did its bit in hosting a population (however it personally perceives them) just like the region has for BD people both in their time of need and beyond (economic).

BD needs to be a moral, pragmatic and confident nation to be treated with morality, pragmatism and confidence by others. If you play pure victim complex 24/7 and think only short term economics/society, no one is going to take you seriously or treat you well...in the short term or long term.

 

[Flynn Swagmire]

@SajjLad, Man you are having meaning less convention with a wrong person. He is nobody neither his opinion matters.

এইসব গাইঞ্জুইট্টির সাথে সুন্দর করে কথা বলা বাদ দেন মিয়া। আর রোহিঙ্গা সমস্যার সমাধান হবেই। ইকোনমি আর মিলিটারিটা শক্তিশালী হওয়ার অপেক্ষা করেন। কথায় আছে, লাথের কাঠাল লাথ না দিলে পাকে না।