• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Frank Hovis

Outbreak of truth at the So-Called BBC

Recommended Posts

I am astonished that they are even reporting this let alone giving it prominence.  Somebody clearly didn't get the memo that the Rohingya must never be criticised.

Wow, truth on the So-Called BBC.  Who'd a thunk it?

 

 

Rohingya Muslim militants in Myanmar killed dozens of Hindu civilians during attacks last August, according to an investigation by Amnesty International.

The group called Arsa killed up to 99 Hindu civilians in one, or possibly two massacres, said the rights group. Arsa had denied involvement.

The killings came in the first days of an uprising against Burmese forces, who are also accused of atrocities.

Since August nearly 700,000 Rohingyas and others have fled the violence.

The conflict has also displaced members of the majority Buddhist population in Myanmar (also called Burma) as well as members of the Hindu minority.

Amnesty says interviews it conducted with refugees in Bangladesh and in Rakhine state confirmed that mass killings carried out by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (Arsa) took place in a cluster of villages in northern Maungdaw Township at the time of its attacks on police posts in late August.

The findings also show Arsa was responsible for violence against civilians, on a smaller scale, in other areas.

The report details how Arsa members on 26 August attacked the Hindu village of Ah Nauk Kha Maung Seik.

"In this brutal and senseless act, members of Arsa captured scores of Hindu women, men and children and terrorised them before slaughtering them outside their own villages," the report said.

Hindu survivors told Amnesty they either saw relatives being killed or heard their screams.

One woman from the village of Ah Nauk Kha Maung Seik said: "They slaughtered the men. We were told not to look at them … They had knives. They also had some spades and iron rods. … We hid ourselves in the shrubs there and were able to see a little … My uncle, my father, my brother - they were all slaughtered."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-44206372

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ALERT ALERT ALERT!

Report to the re-education camps!

What a surprise ... this won't be reported much - or it will be 'qualified' by the message that the retaliatory action was so horrible that the initial attacks were justified ... in reverse logic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bedrag Justesen said:

" Amnesty also criticised what it said was "an unlawful and grossly disproportionate campaign of violence by Myanmar's security forces".

"Arsa's appalling attacks were followed by the Myanmar military's ethnic cleansing campaign against the Rohingya population as a whole."

 

 

To be fair to Myanmar.

It was either that or put together a concert.

I think Burmese singing would be worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DTMark said:

Pick one. You cannot have both. But then that's what progressives do, isn't it. Dodge the tricky questions. It's the ability to hold two completely conflicting positions simultaneously. To carefully ignore human nature. And thousands of years of history.

They phrase it as the "right wing" pitting gays and muslims against each other and then taking advantage of the situation. They stand for both in solidarity against the isalmo-hobic-phobic right wing oppression.

You have to laugh. :CryBaby: ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, XswampyX said:

They phrase it as the "right wing" pitting gays and muslims against each other and then taking advantage of the situation. They stand for both in solidarity against the isalmo-hobic-phobic right wing oppression.

You have to laugh. :CryBaby: ;)

Indeed you do. Well observed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, XswampyX said:

They phrase it as the "right wing" pitting gays and muslims against each other and then taking advantage of the situation. They stand for both in solidarity against the isalmo-hobic-phobic right wing oppression.

You have to laugh. :CryBaby: ;)

Poor Eric is shaking his head in despair at us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, XswampyX said:

They phrase it as the "right wing" pitting gays and muslims against each other and then taking advantage of the situation. They stand for both in solidarity against the isalmo-hobic-phobic right wing oppression.

You have to laugh. :CryBaby: ;)

But there was a gay muslim in Eastenders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Quote

Mass killings carried out by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (Arsa). 

That's the equivalent of the Christian Salvation Army?  Except to the best of our knowledge the Christian version never went in for the mass killings.

To my mind the article is just another version of notallmuslims as it claims that 700,000 were fleeing from the violence.

Quote

Since August nearly 700,000 Rohingyas and others have fled the violence.

 

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect some BBC types saw the words 'Amnesty International' on top of the press release and simply cut & pasted it.

There will probably now be several BBC meetings, some weekends away in some expensive hotel and then some focus groups where they now decide to read all future AI press releases before pasting them into a BBC werb page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DTMark said:

Why are we supporting people who voluntarily drag the ball-and-chain of their religion around the world with them?

I don't think that is necessarily the whole story. I am friends with a pair of brothers whose father was a devout Muslim. For him it was a purely personal thing and he married an English woman and his sons grew up aware of Islam but in no way indoctrinated. They both grew up fairly disinterested in religion, and are for all intents and purposes atheists. Both got married in a registry office with no religious ceremony at all, for example. Their father is dead now, but they have some family in London, and some still out in Mauritius. They can happily visit their family in Mauritius and while they might occasionally be encouraged to come to the Mosque to rediscover their faith, their lack of religion presents no issue. For their cousins raised in the UK and attending a mosque in London it is a total dealbreaker. They will not speak to the brothers and have made it quite clear that they would happily join in stoning them to death for their apostasy. The religious extremism and intolerance manifest in the subculture in the west is out of all proportion to that back in the home countries for some, maybe most.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hail the Tripod said:

I don't think that is necessarily the whole story. I am friends with a pair of brothers whose father was a devout Muslim. For him it was a purely personal thing and he married an English woman and his sons grew up aware of Islam but in no way indoctrinated. They both grew up fairly disinterested in religion, and are for all intents and purposes atheists. Both got married in a registry office with no religious ceremony at all, for example. Their father is dead now, but they have some family in London, and some still out in Mauritius. They can happily visit their family in Mauritius and while they might occasionally be encouraged to come to the Mosque to rediscover their faith, their lack of religion presents no issue. For their cousins raised in the UK and attending a mosque in London it is a total dealbreaker. They will not speak to the brothers and have made it quite clear that they would happily join in stoning them to death for their apostasy. The religious extremism and intolerance manifest in the subculture in the west is out of all proportion to that back in the home countries for some, maybe most.  

Yes, I know several 'Muslim anglicans' who rarely go to the mosque and for whom their religion is largely nominal. A lot of north Africans seem to be like this, for example. 

What seems to be happening with all religions now in the west is a gradual process of secularisation. Christianity and Judaism have largely been secularised out of existence among the native British population. It is starting to happen now with Islam and I think this is why there is a radical backlash. (a backlash happened with Anglo-Jewry after WW2 as well, but without the violence). 

Hopefully this is a last rage against the dying of the light, rather than the beginning of some new form of radical religious violence. It certainly doesn't seem to be spreading to non-muslims, which is at least a good sign. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DTMark said:

There's a series of documentaries about Burma presented by Simon Reeve on TV at the moment. Check iPlayer.

The Simon Reeve documentary has shown the tragedy on both sides in Burma. To be fair. What it doesn't do is explain very much. I am still left with a stack of questions.

From your post it seems to me that you understand the reasons for the tragedy, your analysis and explanation covers the salient reasons. I don't think you need the documentary producers to give you their perspective. I haven't watched the video, from your overview it seems they only tried to put forward a neutral view of the situation but placed the blame on the Rohingya for initiating the violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

I don't think that is necessarily the whole story. I am friends with a pair of brothers whose father was a devout Muslim. For him it was a purely personal thing and he married an English woman and his sons grew up aware of Islam but in no way indoctrinated. They both grew up fairly disinterested in religion, and are for all intents and purposes atheists. Both got married in a registry office with no religious ceremony at all, for example. Their father is dead now, but they have some family in London, and some still out in Mauritius. They can happily visit their family in Mauritius and while they might occasionally be encouraged to come to the Mosque to rediscover their faith, their lack of religion presents no issue. For their cousins raised in the UK and attending a mosque in London it is a total dealbreaker. They will not speak to the brothers and have made it quite clear that they would happily join in stoning them to death for their apostasy. The religious extremism and intolerance manifest in the subculture in the west is out of all proportion to that back in the home countries for some, maybe most.  

Yet!

Ive a Malay mate.

Until ~10 years ago, him drinking booze and being an atheist was not a big issue.

It is now.

He stopped going back to Malaysia for visits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Austin Allegro said:

Yes, I know several 'Muslim anglicans' who rarely go to the mosque and for whom their religion is largely nominal. A lot of north Africans seem to be like this, for example. 

What seems to be happening with all religions now in the west is a gradual process of secularisation. Christianity and Judaism have largely been secularised out of existence among the native British population. It is starting to happen now with Islam and I think this is why there is a radical backlash. (a backlash happened with Anglo-Jewry after WW2 as well, but without the violence). 

Hopefully this is a last rage against the dying of the light, rather than the beginning of some new form of radical religious violence. It certainly doesn't seem to be spreading to non-muslims, which is at least a good sign. 

I saw your last paragraph and could not resist 

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, One percent said:

I saw your last paragraph and could not resist 

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Yes perhaps I should not have used that term as the poem suggests something rather different. 

A better analogy would be something like the Evangelical and the Neo-Gothic revivals in Christianity in the Georgian and Victorian periods respectively. 

Both were something of a rearguard action to try to recapture what was seen as the original pure form of doctrine in the face of growing secularisation. 

Similarly with Judaism; the kind of ultra-Orthodox Jews one sees in Stamford Hill or Golders Green are partly a response to what was seen as the failure of Jewish assimilation in Europe in the years leading up to WW2. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Austin Allegro said:

Yes perhaps I should not have used that term as the poem suggests something rather different. 

A better analogy would be something like the Evangelical and the Neo-Gothic revivals in Christianity in the Georgian and Victorian periods respectively. 

Both were something of a rearguard action to try to recapture what was seen as the original pure form of doctrine in the face of growing secularisation. 

Similarly with Judaism; the kind of ultra-Orthodox Jews one sees in Stamford Hill or Golders Green are partly a response to what was seen as the failure of Jewish assimilation in Europe in the years leading up to WW2. 

I'm glad you did - wonderful words....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, DTMark said:

There's a series of documentaries about Burma presented by Simon Reeve on TV at the moment. Check iPlayer.

I had little idea what was going on in Burma with the Rothinga Muslims. Yes, I'd read about it, but I can't read any such things without wondering where the bias is. Let me guess: any piece in The Guardian is going to support the Rothingya and vilify everyone else in Burma. Where's the nuance? The detail?

From what I learned: the Rothingya lived in the west of the Burma. One particular strip of land on the west coast.

Burma had around 100 different cultures, and yet those belonging to this one lived together in one particular section of the country. Why that was, was not explained. it did not exactly scream "integration", if I may put it that way.

The documentary tells of the escalation in conflict between them. It does indeed show Hindus showing videos to students of violence by the Rothingya. "You want to watch these people. They kill us".

Now clearly, that doesn't mean that every Rothingya is out to murder everyone else, so that's probably not terribly helpful. Of course, those atrocities occurred. There they are, captured on video. I don't think the videos were faked. "Stereotypes" do exist for a reason. They're not just invented by malicious people.

So for some time, this "held together" until it.. didn't. Is that precisely because they were separated from each other by geography, perhaps? Humans are essentially tribal people. As was ever thus. It is easy to see how a number of otherwise isolated events breeds hatred.

More globally, Muslims do "struggle to fit in" with other cultures. By which I mean "Muslims for whom their religion is so sacrosanct that they will place this at the top of the list ahead of any desire to be flexible and to integrate". That isn't all Muslims. After all, they weren't suddenly "invented" about a decade ago, they have lived with us in the UK for decades. Until the arrival of the mosques, the Imans and Wahabi-ism - when the orthodox fundamentalist voices began to have their say.

Given that I feel I can "chart that timeline" here I shall humbly suggest that "racist" British people did not suddenly wake up one day and start to think "Those Muslims. They're my enemy".

Muslims who were previously "fully integrated" are the ones that are now at a disadvantage. Though not, of course, as much of a disadvantage as those who have been emotionally destroyed by the murder of their loved ones.

There's a part of me that thinks roughly this: if religion and culture are so important to a particular group of people, then maybe they ought to live apart. "Multiculturalism works really well as long as there isn't much multiculturalism". Indeed, the cries of "racist" heard daily from the nutcases are completely wrong. It's not about race. It's about culture.

So-called "progressives" seem to hold the view that diversity is good but never specify quite what that means. While simultaneously extolling the virtues of "tolerance". Bat for the "disadvantaged". Why are they disadvantaged? No, we can't ask that. We must not ask that.

One example - homophobia. "That's wrong". If you take that position you necessarily assert that one aspect of culture should apply to everyone. To paraphrase: "My views on this are right and are held by all decent people". Ok then.

While then simultaneously, it seems, defending Islamic culture. Yet, the more Muslims, the more homophobic views. It really is that simple.

Pick one. You cannot have both. But then that's what progressives do, isn't it. Dodge the tricky questions. It's the ability to hold two completely conflicting positions simultaneously. To carefully ignore human nature. And thousands of years of history.

A progressive in most parts of the Middle East would continue advancing their "views" until they're taken to the top of the nearest building and thrown off the top of it for precisely those views.

In a way the oddest thing to see, rather heartening, is that most "normal people" will actually cite homophobia as one of the issues related to multiculturalism. No, let me be more specific. Muslims. "We've moved on. We've got beyond this now. Societal change has happened. We know better. Gay people aren't running around killing people. I have nothing to fear. Why are we supporting people who voluntarily drag the ball-and-chain of their religion around the world with them?"

The Simon Reeve documentary has shown the tragedy on both sides in Burma. To be fair. What it doesn't do is explain very much. I am still left with a stack of questions.

I did research this.

AS I understand it, that area of Burma has always had a transient population of Muslims from a region in  Bangladesh - moved tehre for work and what not.

Goes back to the Thr Raj days.

However, since Burma was created, that numbers have become more settled.

And since Bangladesh was created and fucked up, large numbers have poured into he area. going from several 1000 transient to ~1m settled/shitholed.

The rise in numbers have been relatively recent. As has the settling.

Then the rhongia started kicking off and getting radicalised, which led to the attacks on the nearby Buddhists.

Which is why the Burmese military  responded - thewy aren ot keen on rebels groups. And they are even less keen on islamic ones.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/09/rohingyas-burma/540513/

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Chewing Grass
      Guardian is tying itself in knots in this article as 'shadowy groups' of armed insurgents commonly known as mussie terror merchants atack police posts.
      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/25/rohingya-militants-blamed-as-attack-on-myanmar-border-kills-12

      Now darling of the left wing SJW class Aung San Suu Kyi country of Buddhists Burma/Myanmar is having to protect itself they literally don't know how to phrase their article.
      It appears that a previously unknown militant group has emerged since last October under the banner of the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (Arsa) and is operating from the May Yu mountain range bordering Bangladesh with the group being funded and trained from abroad.
      Bangladesh Muslim +83%
      Myanmar/Burma Buddhist 90%
      Quite obviously Myanmar has a problem that needs addressing before it gets out of hand.
      Note the posters held by the monks say 'INGOs get out' , 'we don't need terrorist supporter group'.
       
       
       
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.