Religion is at least somewhat of a personal choice. You can't change your ethnicity. It's the difference between hating people for exercising their freedom of religion vs hating people for being born.
Freedom of religion is extremely notional in much of the world. How do you propose that 99.99% of Rohingya would realistically have the freedom to explore and choose a religion other than their own? Not to mention that their ethnicity is only really debated by the majority who have traditionally treated them like dirt, and are now driving them out.
Not to mention that Judaism already sets a fine precedent for the massive gray area between ethnicity and religion, just for a familiar example.
Basically an Islamic minority being systematically executed or ejected from their homes. Thing is this has been going on for at least a decade, I remember going to a tech meetup about mesh networks that had a few Rohingya's who were about my age at the time that were going to Seattle Central College or similar.
IIRC they took some phones running Serval Mesh back, but not much else happened. They were pretty interested in building communication infrastructure so they could document the (at the time) slow moving atrocity.
My priors based on all previous conflicts involving Islam lead me to believe the native Burmese are most likely acting in self defense, having to resort to extreme measures to preserve their ancient way of life.
That’s an extremely simplistic way of seeing it though. The Rohingya were simple people, mostly poor, and lived in Myanmar for generations; religion would be a code of life for them, not a political tool. It’s likely the opposite for the monks and their followers though; Buddhism is about peace, fundamentally and (in nearly all cases) in practice.
My patience with Aung San Suu Kyi has run out completely. Too little said, too little done, too late for anything else.
>Buddhism is about peace, fundamentally and (in nearly all cases) in practice.
There's a slight subtlety to this. Buddhist ethics are very different to Judeo-Christian ethics. The Buddhist equivalent to "thou shalt not kill" is the first of the five precepts, "panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami", which loosely translates to "I undertake the rule of training to refrain from killing living beings". This is not so much an absolute proscription as a broad axiomatic principle.
In western terms, Buddhist ethics are most closely aligned with negative utilitarianism - broadly speaking, Buddhists seek to minimise net suffering. One study found that, when presented with the trolley car problem, Buddist monks were drastically more likely to push the man off the footbridge than Americans.
The main religious support for the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya comes from monks affiliated with Ma Ba Tha, a hardline nationalist group. From their perspective, the Rohingya represent an existential threat to the Rakhine people and the republic of Myanmar. If this assessment were true, then the expulsion of Rohingya people could be interpreted as the least-harm option, even if it involves substantial violence. Although the vast majority of Buddhists condemn the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya, it is not intrinsically incompatible with Buddhist ethics.
This conflict is not new. Rohingya Islamist groups have been fighting the government of Myanmar/Burma since 1947, with the aim of establishing an Islamic regime in Rakhine state. The current crisis was most likely precipitated by an attack on border guards in 2016, which Islamist militant groups claimed responsibility for. There is clear evidence that Rohingya guerrilla groups are being trained in Bangladesh; there is also substantial evidence of ties between Al-Qaeda and militant Islamists in Myanmar.
I strongly disapprove of the oppression of the Rohingya people and the silence from the civilian government, but I do think that the western media has presented a grossly over-simplified narrative that frames the actions of the Myanmar people as senseless and unprovoked. I would ask the reader to consider how their country would react if Islamist guerrillas were active in their own back yard, sponsored by a neighbouring Muslim nation.
> Although the vast majority of Buddhists condemn the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya, it is not intrinsically incompatible with Buddhist ethics.
For the level of Buddhism practiced in this area (Theravada) it is incompatible, there’s clearly nothing good that can come from it. They were clearly taught not to do this, there’s no ambiguity.
Additionally monks have no authority, they are not saints or have even the slightest clue about anything, anyone can put on a robe and be a monk. This isn’t understood in the West, where a monk is considered to be a title, but it’s really a zero, like saying your child got into pre-school.
What makes you think monks have no authority? I haven't been to Burma but I've been to Thailand which also practices theravada and monks are given an extreme amount of deference. You aren't supposed to talk back to them, when giving food in the morning to the monks you are supposed to bow and not make eye contact, monks are even included with pregnant women and the disabled as people with reserved seating on public transportation. The airports had many seats showing that they were for the elderly, pregnant, or monks only regardless of the monks age.
The locals did seem to treat it as more deference to the station than the person, I met someone who had been a monk and quit three times and his family treated him as a monk when he was a monk and as a regular guy when he wasn't. Beyond all that there are still obvious cults of personality where different monks gain a following that can be quite fervent.
It's simply because they have zero realization, that's not what the title means. Also evident in the article, they're clearly clueless.
What you're seeing in Thailand is respect for Buddhism itself, and a way to keep people interested in Buddhism. In Buddhism there are levels of realization, and a monk is a zero on that scale. Not sure how else to clarify. There are other titles, normally translated as Venerable, which should indicate at least some modest level of accomplishment. But to cite a monk as having any idea at all is fantasy, you just put on a robe, and anyone is suddenly a monk, no education or knowledge required, let alone realization.
'I do think that the western media has presented a grossly over-simplified narrative'. As usual. The MSM I see (BBC World/CNN) is a joke. I feel like applauding on the rare occasions I get to see an objective assessment of an issue without the propaganda.
This is just a wrong view of Buddhism, it has nothing to do with "utilitarianism" or net suffering. Buddhists go to great lengths to avoid OTHER's sufferings, even if they themselves become worse off. Someone who truly adheres to the precepts would rather die than break them, you have several stories in Jataka tales and other folklore about this.
To say that it is intrinsically incompatible is just plain wrong, to give an example even the Buddha didn't meddle in political affairs. You just gave a really good example of people bending the rules to make them more aligned with what they believe is right. It's like saying that the Bible is not incompatible with machismo and patriarchy.
And on the topic of Buddhism, any "Buddhist" country who promotes violence is like IS to me, they just use a religion for self interest.
There is a large community of Islam living peacefully in Myanmar. If you look around Yangon (the largest and most popular city of Myanmar), you could find a lot of mosques (some even closed to famous pagoda). So this issue is much more complicated than Islam vs Buddhism.
An interesting litmus test in situations like this is: are the Burmese Muslim population allowed to speak out about events around the Rohingya?
If, say, some Burmese Muslims held a large protest march in Yangon, would they run the risk of being targeted as a group? If so, I'd say that their silence is as a result of fear rather than support.
It's much more than religion. Of course, media would like to simplify things and only one side of the story would be told most of the time. But it's much more complicated issue in reality and the hatred is not one sided by the way.
What I've found is that there is no consensus on who the victim is, and only who the losers are. This surprised me at first, but it really wouldn't be unique at all, in hindsight.
Most of the discussion is around unrelated parties having empathy, because there are suffering people and the political machine is not helping anywhere.
The tricky part is having an objective discussion, for example, I have no idea who these soldiers in the bushes are. This article didn't tell me. Where were they before? Hasn't this crisis been going on since like forever? What changed to accelerate this? What is the majority power doing, thinking, dealing with?
It's a mixture of things - partly the Burmese seeing them as Bangladeshi immigrants taking their land and causing problems, partly religion - the current problems kicked off when some Rohingya formed a slightly ISIS like organisation called ASRA and started attacking police stations and army posts (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41521268) and partly made worse by facebook of all things (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/world/asia/myanmar-govern...)
Incredibly moving. One of the more impactful interactive reports by the NYTimes.
There’s talk about trying to get Aung San Suu Kyi to the ICC. People complained about Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize, but all objective reports show credible allegations of true modern genocide (shocking for a word meaninglessly bandied about so often) in Kyi’s case, giving the prize a new low with a recipient going from Oslo to The Hague in no time at all.
(EDIT: The link is even more moving in fullscreen on a desktop. Excellent photography.)
(EDIT2: I'm aware of when Kyi won the Nobel Peace Prize and for what. The irony of going from oppressed recipient of a NPP to oppressor standing trial in The Hague doesn't change.)
Huh? She won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990, over 20 years before the Rohynga crisis, while she was still the recipient of assassination attempts for resisting the military dictatorship.
Well, there's "doing it" and being complicit in it. She called the reports "fake news." The administration won't pronounce the word Rohingya because they deny that the people are an ethnic group.
Merely being accessory to genocide and not actually an instigator of it doesn't seem better.
It is terrible but unfortunately shows only one side.
The pre-story of why Myanmar had to take so hard step for rohigyan. What led both the part in this situation and why no country is willing to risk taking them is completely missing.
Nothing is about religion, just as nothing is about race, gender, favorite football team or whatever they come up with next. Basically all conflicts are political conflicts; envisioned, ignited and fueled by psychopaths aiming for power at any cost. The only thing that changes is the method for dividing the people, the goal is always conquering. This has been going on constantly since forever, and will continue until we get it collectively.
We are failing refugees the world over. This is heartbreaking, and so is the situation in Syria, in South Sudan, in Eritrea, and in countless other places. And I don't feel like we're getting any better and we're certainly doing no better at preventing these crises. With the world getting more crowded, is there an end in sight?
And Yemen. The US cannot solve every conflict in the world but I wish it would atleast stand up against the thhird party countries that backs vile murderous regimes. Russia in Syria and China in Myanmar (and they are also starting to influence other countries in Asia). We, the oppressed peopleof this world, needs a stronger US. Not the one retreating as under Trump.
> The US cannot solve every conflict in the world but I wish it would atleast stand up against the thhird party countries that backs vile murderous regimes.
Frequently, that would require it to stand up to itself.
We dont need a stronger US, we need a world less dominated by so-called superpowers like USA, China etc.
There was strong US influence on Latin American and Middle Eastern dictatorships. Absolute power corrupts all as USA domination on the world would mean more countries having to comply to USA interests.
I believe rather the world will become a decentralized world govt under a UN where countries are abolished for regions instead of artifically created nation states that was predefined through conquering and colonization. Where we dont define humanity based on countries but as one single species.
Yeah interesting how countries come before people and humanity.
Centuries ago, democracy was looked as mob rule and republics in the Roman sense were favored because they didnt involve the common folk. Its almost amazing that aristocrats and nobles (politicans of the time) agreed to it which they didn't. When a minority gains more than a majority, the majority will try to fight for its powers. Within countries, theres a minority-majority play with national authorities if politicans are a self-serving class separate from that of the general population.
I dont think they will agree but I see it as the future where we start losing notions of countries and people's cultures start blending together through tech, media and economy.
Its the trend for successful products and philosophies to gradually expand and become more global, not the other way around.
I dont pretend to know the future but there have been other theories floating around like the Dark Enlightenment who call for (in my mind wackjob) conservative republics with ideals from past centuries that run as competing corporations instead of countries as the future.
Writing this on my iPad so excuse my spelling errors:
There is so much evil in this world, what the Rohingya face today my own people endured in 2009. At the hands of thr Sri Lankan government, who also happens to be buddhistic, ten thousands of innocent Tamils were massacred. Women and children raped. Babies murdered.
The UN wrote a huge report findng the Sri Lankan government guilty only for China and Russia to veto against any juridicial proceeding.
One of the reason i am so dissapointed in Trump, he doesnt seem to understand when good retreats, evil will triump. Not everything in this world is about fair transaction of money for goods and service. When the oppressed in 3rd world countries look for justice, they look for strong powers of democracy, they look upto US.
Throughout history US would come to aid, today its about bowing down to communist human rights abusers like China for fair trade and access to its market.
> Throughout history US would come to aid, today its about bowing down to communist human rights abusers like China for fair trade and access to its market.
Unfortunately, US role in Bangladesh(East Pakistan)[1], Vietnam and South America shows they do it so only if political/economic reasons align.
> Throughout history US would come to aid, today its about bowing down to communist human rights abusers like China for fair trade and access to its market.
I'm not sure this is an accurate assessment of US foreign policy in any period. I'm sort of scratching my head to think of any significant US interventions that weren't self-serving. Beyond the original Manifest Destiny expansionism, there's a rich tradition of US fillibusterism[1], gunboat diplomacy, proxy wars, banana dictators, coups, support of the drug trade, the list goes on, and on, and on.
Unfortunately, most Americans don't understand that people may perceive them and our government this way.
To be honest with you, at least in my memory of news coverage from the 90s until the war ended, there was very little if any notice of your civil war or the plight of the people. The most attention Sri Lankans might have gotten from average Americans were either post-tsunami (even then, more focused on Thailand and Indonesia) or when MIA broke onto the music scene (a very small demographic).
I've been to parts of the world where 'USA' was used as graffiti and people loved us because of what we had done for them but the average American would be hard-pressed to identify what we saved them from, if even the where the country is.
There are massive arguments for isolationism once more in the country, and ceding both soft and hard power to other countries. Many people don't understand the good we have done in the world, as well as the bad.
You are definitely barking up the wrong tree if you think the current administration would have any interest but their own at heart.
It's unfortunate that you hope a lot from the US establishment. In the past, the US has supported rogue regimes like Pakistan and Khmer rouge, who had actively commited genocide. Don't get me wrong. I am not a US hatemonger. I admire the US for liberating the world from the worst tyrant in human history. However, in modern times unless your region is identified as "strategic", I don't think you are going to get any help from them. I would say, your best bet is the EU.
While the media portraits Rohingya Crisis as religious conflict, it is actually ethnic crisis. UN describes it as ethnic cleansing. Although most of the Rohingya are muslim, Bamar (major ethnic Burmese) hate them calling them "Bengalis" (people from neighboring Bangladesh), despite Rohingyas living there for hundreds of years. The racism and prejudice flared the crisis soon after the military came to power decades ago.
It would be interesting to see a candid interview with what the real reason for not liking then is. I suspect it’s rooted in the Muslim conquests which are still mentioned in Buddhist texts. Needless to say the Muslim religion is not held in much regard due to that, as opposed to Hinduism which is considered worthy of debating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India (you can argue which side instigated this ... except not really ... the issue started with the basic idea, pushed by muslims that muslims cannot live in a state they do not control (which is of course a rule in Sharia) ... and ended with somewhere between 2 and 10 million deaths, and that number is ignoring the fact that about 8 million Hindus that were in Pakistan in 1951 have "somehow" dropped to less than 2 million today despite very strong population growth)
But back to Myanmar, given the above backdrop, then this happens:
So whilst this is a very serious insurgency, can please establish in this discussion that:
1) the Rohingya are not looking for peace. They're trying to conquer (the land where they are a majority, but still they're trying to conquer it). That is the big source of tensions. This is a failed conquest, not an unprovoked ethnic/racist conflict.
2) the Rohingya islamist separatists have attempted to massacre Burmese cities. They have (thankfully) only failed attempts at a large scale massacre to show for it, but there is no doubting their intent, and there were plenty of victims (dozens to hundreds, depending on what numbers you believe).
3) the immediate cause of this conflict (the match that lit the fire) was a synchronized attack on 24 police stations in the state, resulting in the deaths of 24 police officers. This attack was perpetrated weeks after a Rohingya group of youngsters decided to murder a young woman (for reasons that probably had nothing to do with religion or ethnicity, but the event incited sectarian clashes).
Here's a wild thoery. This whole situation was an attempt by islamist separatist forces in Myanmar to create an ethnic conflict, because they believed it could result in their own state, or in an annexation of their region into Bangladesh. So they incite the riots, execute terror attacks, and attack the authorities in Myanmar, in very quick succession.
One slight issue: the conflict did not go their way.
And yes, this totally sucks for everyone. Most of all for the Rohingya themselves, but it really, really sucks for everyone. Every side in this conflict has hundreds of dead, and incredible damage inflicted that will take decades to rebuild.
> I'd guess 99% are looking for peace with a very small minority in favour of violent action.
This so called 99% never oppose and stay silent at the best case or sympathize openly at the worst case and this sucks for everyone including muslims and non-muslims. Its impossible to have peace without muslim co-existence with other communities without koran going another version like the new bible. The problem is because koran asks for the state to be controlled by sharia law and sharia law just is not good.
Yes, its never the religion. The religion gets people to have eight kids, but if that piled up social explosive blows up, it wasn't the religion.
The religion declares gods and therefore society's laws hack-able and circumvent-able - and the society reacts violent to the hacking- that wasn't the religion.
A religion declares it ethically noble to pursuit selfish interests at all costs to the weaker parties and the future of the planet- and when disaster strikes, it wasn't the religion.
Its the individual, its the state, but its never the core-software that declares instinct-interests a deity having bugs and needing a rewrite.
Intellectual Dignity, these feely-discussions lack it.
Though this deeply touched me, I do wonder what possible motivation is behind this for the Myanmar people. Hatred most likely number one, yet I wonder what lies beneath this.
This is horrible . But has anyone wondered why in all such cases today muslims are involved , Muslims vs muslims ( Syria...) , muslims vs Hindus , Muslims vs Christians , Muslims vs apostates , muslims vs Jews ,Muslims vs Buddhists , muslims vs Communists ( China uighurs),muslims vs Atheists. Thhere is something in it .
Horrific photos and videos. Always made me wonder though when something similar happened to 400k Kashmiri Hindu Pandits (they were kicked out of their own homeland in Kashmir, raped and homes taken over)... why was this never in the news to the same extent?
77 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 145 ms ] threadhttps://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2017/0928/Is-Rohingya...
Not to mention that Judaism already sets a fine precedent for the massive gray area between ethnicity and religion, just for a familiar example.
Yes. Islam vs Buddhism or Buddhism vs Islam, whichever way you wanna look at it.
IIRC they took some phones running Serval Mesh back, but not much else happened. They were pretty interested in building communication infrastructure so they could document the (at the time) slow moving atrocity.
http://news.trust.org//slideshow/?id=356b4ab3-7e12-440f-9781...
My patience with Aung San Suu Kyi has run out completely. Too little said, too little done, too late for anything else.
Normally, yes, but there are several violent buddhist groups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Karen_Buddhist_Army
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/969_Movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodu_Bala_Sena
There's a slight subtlety to this. Buddhist ethics are very different to Judeo-Christian ethics. The Buddhist equivalent to "thou shalt not kill" is the first of the five precepts, "panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami", which loosely translates to "I undertake the rule of training to refrain from killing living beings". This is not so much an absolute proscription as a broad axiomatic principle.
In western terms, Buddhist ethics are most closely aligned with negative utilitarianism - broadly speaking, Buddhists seek to minimise net suffering. One study found that, when presented with the trolley car problem, Buddist monks were drastically more likely to push the man off the footbridge than Americans.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/06/how-d...
The main religious support for the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya comes from monks affiliated with Ma Ba Tha, a hardline nationalist group. From their perspective, the Rohingya represent an existential threat to the Rakhine people and the republic of Myanmar. If this assessment were true, then the expulsion of Rohingya people could be interpreted as the least-harm option, even if it involves substantial violence. Although the vast majority of Buddhists condemn the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya, it is not intrinsically incompatible with Buddhist ethics.
This conflict is not new. Rohingya Islamist groups have been fighting the government of Myanmar/Burma since 1947, with the aim of establishing an Islamic regime in Rakhine state. The current crisis was most likely precipitated by an attack on border guards in 2016, which Islamist militant groups claimed responsibility for. There is clear evidence that Rohingya guerrilla groups are being trained in Bangladesh; there is also substantial evidence of ties between Al-Qaeda and militant Islamists in Myanmar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_insurgency_in_Western...
I strongly disapprove of the oppression of the Rohingya people and the silence from the civilian government, but I do think that the western media has presented a grossly over-simplified narrative that frames the actions of the Myanmar people as senseless and unprovoked. I would ask the reader to consider how their country would react if Islamist guerrillas were active in their own back yard, sponsored by a neighbouring Muslim nation.
For the level of Buddhism practiced in this area (Theravada) it is incompatible, there’s clearly nothing good that can come from it. They were clearly taught not to do this, there’s no ambiguity.
Additionally monks have no authority, they are not saints or have even the slightest clue about anything, anyone can put on a robe and be a monk. This isn’t understood in the West, where a monk is considered to be a title, but it’s really a zero, like saying your child got into pre-school.
The locals did seem to treat it as more deference to the station than the person, I met someone who had been a monk and quit three times and his family treated him as a monk when he was a monk and as a regular guy when he wasn't. Beyond all that there are still obvious cults of personality where different monks gain a following that can be quite fervent.
What you're seeing in Thailand is respect for Buddhism itself, and a way to keep people interested in Buddhism. In Buddhism there are levels of realization, and a monk is a zero on that scale. Not sure how else to clarify. There are other titles, normally translated as Venerable, which should indicate at least some modest level of accomplishment. But to cite a monk as having any idea at all is fantasy, you just put on a robe, and anyone is suddenly a monk, no education or knowledge required, let alone realization.
Anyone in the US can run for a local political position, they are not powerless just because anyone can do it.
To say that it is intrinsically incompatible is just plain wrong, to give an example even the Buddha didn't meddle in political affairs. You just gave a really good example of people bending the rules to make them more aligned with what they believe is right. It's like saying that the Bible is not incompatible with machismo and patriarchy. And on the topic of Buddhism, any "Buddhist" country who promotes violence is like IS to me, they just use a religion for self interest.
If, say, some Burmese Muslims held a large protest march in Yangon, would they run the risk of being targeted as a group? If so, I'd say that their silence is as a result of fear rather than support.
Most of the discussion is around unrelated parties having empathy, because there are suffering people and the political machine is not helping anywhere.
The tricky part is having an objective discussion, for example, I have no idea who these soldiers in the bushes are. This article didn't tell me. Where were they before? Hasn't this crisis been going on since like forever? What changed to accelerate this? What is the majority power doing, thinking, dealing with?
There’s talk about trying to get Aung San Suu Kyi to the ICC. People complained about Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize, but all objective reports show credible allegations of true modern genocide (shocking for a word meaninglessly bandied about so often) in Kyi’s case, giving the prize a new low with a recipient going from Oslo to The Hague in no time at all.
(EDIT: The link is even more moving in fullscreen on a desktop. Excellent photography.)
(EDIT2: I'm aware of when Kyi won the Nobel Peace Prize and for what. The irony of going from oppressed recipient of a NPP to oppressor standing trial in The Hague doesn't change.)
Merely being accessory to genocide and not actually an instigator of it doesn't seem better.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41170570
It is terrible but unfortunately shows only one side.
The pre-story of why Myanmar had to take so hard step for rohigyan. What led both the part in this situation and why no country is willing to risk taking them is completely missing.
This piece reminded me a bit of the self-recorded documentary of a Syrian woman trying to escape the turmoil there: https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2017/aug/02/escape-f...
Frequently, that would require it to stand up to itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Co...
Nothing at all I say !
There was strong US influence on Latin American and Middle Eastern dictatorships. Absolute power corrupts all as USA domination on the world would mean more countries having to comply to USA interests.
I believe rather the world will become a decentralized world govt under a UN where countries are abolished for regions instead of artifically created nation states that was predefined through conquering and colonization. Where we dont define humanity based on countries but as one single species.
Centuries ago, democracy was looked as mob rule and republics in the Roman sense were favored because they didnt involve the common folk. Its almost amazing that aristocrats and nobles (politicans of the time) agreed to it which they didn't. When a minority gains more than a majority, the majority will try to fight for its powers. Within countries, theres a minority-majority play with national authorities if politicans are a self-serving class separate from that of the general population.
I dont think they will agree but I see it as the future where we start losing notions of countries and people's cultures start blending together through tech, media and economy.
Its the trend for successful products and philosophies to gradually expand and become more global, not the other way around.
I dont pretend to know the future but there have been other theories floating around like the Dark Enlightenment who call for (in my mind wackjob) conservative republics with ideals from past centuries that run as competing corporations instead of countries as the future.
There is so much evil in this world, what the Rohingya face today my own people endured in 2009. At the hands of thr Sri Lankan government, who also happens to be buddhistic, ten thousands of innocent Tamils were massacred. Women and children raped. Babies murdered.
The UN wrote a huge report findng the Sri Lankan government guilty only for China and Russia to veto against any juridicial proceeding.
One of the reason i am so dissapointed in Trump, he doesnt seem to understand when good retreats, evil will triump. Not everything in this world is about fair transaction of money for goods and service. When the oppressed in 3rd world countries look for justice, they look for strong powers of democracy, they look upto US.
Throughout history US would come to aid, today its about bowing down to communist human rights abusers like China for fair trade and access to its market.
Unfortunately, US role in Bangladesh(East Pakistan)[1], Vietnam and South America shows they do it so only if political/economic reasons align.
[1] http://warisboring.com/in-1971-the-u-s-navy-almost-fought-th...
I'm not sure this is an accurate assessment of US foreign policy in any period. I'm sort of scratching my head to think of any significant US interventions that weren't self-serving. Beyond the original Manifest Destiny expansionism, there's a rich tradition of US fillibusterism[1], gunboat diplomacy, proxy wars, banana dictators, coups, support of the drug trade, the list goes on, and on, and on.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_(military)
To be honest with you, at least in my memory of news coverage from the 90s until the war ended, there was very little if any notice of your civil war or the plight of the people. The most attention Sri Lankans might have gotten from average Americans were either post-tsunami (even then, more focused on Thailand and Indonesia) or when MIA broke onto the music scene (a very small demographic).
I've been to parts of the world where 'USA' was used as graffiti and people loved us because of what we had done for them but the average American would be hard-pressed to identify what we saved them from, if even the where the country is.
There are massive arguments for isolationism once more in the country, and ceding both soft and hard power to other countries. Many people don't understand the good we have done in the world, as well as the bad.
You are definitely barking up the wrong tree if you think the current administration would have any interest but their own at heart.
>This has led many Buddhists to consider the Rohingya to be Bengali, rejecting the term Rohingya as a recent invention, created for political reasons. (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/08/rohingya-m...)
It may have something to do with how muslims treat buddhists (or any non-muslims), near Myanmar ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Banglad...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Pakista... (note: relevant because Pakistan used to be a neighbouring country to Myanmar/Burma)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India (you can argue which side instigated this ... except not really ... the issue started with the basic idea, pushed by muslims that muslims cannot live in a state they do not control (which is of course a rule in Sharia) ... and ended with somewhere between 2 and 10 million deaths, and that number is ignoring the fact that about 8 million Hindus that were in Pakistan in 1951 have "somehow" dropped to less than 2 million today despite very strong population growth)
But back to Myanmar, given the above backdrop, then this happens:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_insurgency_in_Western...
So whilst this is a very serious insurgency, can please establish in this discussion that:
1) the Rohingya are not looking for peace. They're trying to conquer (the land where they are a majority, but still they're trying to conquer it). That is the big source of tensions. This is a failed conquest, not an unprovoked ethnic/racist conflict.
2) the Rohingya islamist separatists have attempted to massacre Burmese cities. They have (thankfully) only failed attempts at a large scale massacre to show for it, but there is no doubting their intent, and there were plenty of victims (dozens to hundreds, depending on what numbers you believe).
3) the immediate cause of this conflict (the match that lit the fire) was a synchronized attack on 24 police stations in the state, resulting in the deaths of 24 police officers. This attack was perpetrated weeks after a Rohingya group of youngsters decided to murder a young woman (for reasons that probably had nothing to do with religion or ethnicity, but the event incited sectarian clashes).
Here's a wild thoery. This whole situation was an attempt by islamist separatist forces in Myanmar to create an ethnic conflict, because they believed it could result in their own state, or in an annexation of their region into Bangladesh. So they incite the riots, execute terror attacks, and attack the authorities in Myanmar, in very quick succession.
One slight issue: the conflict did not go their way.
And yes, this totally sucks for everyone. Most of all for the Rohingya themselves, but it really, really sucks for everyone. Every side in this conflict has hundreds of dead, and incredible damage inflicted that will take decades to rebuild.
Muslims conquests wiped out much of Buddhism in India, so it's likely a concern on everyone's mind. They are well known today for destroying Nalanda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_Buddhism_in_the_Ind...
There are a lot of Rohingya with different opinions. I'd guess 99% are looking for peace with a very small minority in favour of violent action.
This so called 99% never oppose and stay silent at the best case or sympathize openly at the worst case and this sucks for everyone including muslims and non-muslims. Its impossible to have peace without muslim co-existence with other communities without koran going another version like the new bible. The problem is because koran asks for the state to be controlled by sharia law and sharia law just is not good.
Intellectual Dignity, these feely-discussions lack it.
As well the blatant irony of her Nobel Peace Prize status, I can see a lot of international fans' heartbroken.