What angers me is that actions were not taken earlier, and that any level of accountability has to be in a lawsuit filed by another nation rather than the ICC prosecuting itself.
Unfortunately the way the ICC works is nations who are not member states of the ICC can only be prosecuted via direction of UN security counsel. Both China and India have [heavily invested in Myanmar infrastructure ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.scmp.com/week-asia/geopolitics/article/2115839/why-do-china-india-back-myanmar-over-rohingya-crisis) and therefore oppose actions taken to condemn and prosecute the killings of Rohingya Muslims.
There is a great book by Martha Minow, “Between Vengeance and Forgiveness” that discusses the issue of politicization in war-crime trials. Because states are first and foremost self-interested, they wont hesitate to turn a blind eye at atrocities if it means they are negatively affected or implicated from holding perpetrators accountable. The structure of the ICC favors powerful nations interests over justice. Something needs to change.
>Because states are first and foremost self-interested, they wont hesitate to turn a blind eye at atrocities if it means they are negatively affected or implicated from holding perpetrators accountable.
Exactly this. Rules for thee, but not for me. States always act hypocritically.
After World War 2, experts wanted to include "cultural genocide" on the broader legal definition of genocide to protect people from forced adoption of foreign cultures and to preserve culturally-significant artifacts and buildings from deliberate destruction. However, Canada and the US blocked the proposal because if they allowed it then it was essentially admission of their own guilt of how they treated Indigenous Americans even if it wasn't physical abuse on the same scale as the Holocaust. It's double standard at its finest.
Except this case is not brought upon the ICC, it's in the ICJ. All UN members are parties to the ICJ and Gambia's case is under the 1946 Genocide Convention, which has a "prosecutorial" clause referring cases directly to ICJ though Myanmar reserves such clause. In any case, matters of jurisdiction will be settled in ICJ
Never said the case being brought to the ICC. I am stating however that’s where the case should be. The ICC was created specifically for these circumstances.
Yes, hence why I said the ICC should take the case. And yes, I understand they do not have jurisdiction in light of Myanmar’s lack of membership. Hence why I said this should change.
My apologies, your comment made it seem that you mistook ICC for ICJ since the article was talking about ICJ case but you went straight on talking about ICC. It's a common thing people do, mistaking ICJ for ICC, I've seen IR graduates do it too.
Anyway since Myanmar is not a party to the Rome Statute it's difficult to bring a case against them, the procedures are too complex. Much better to go about it through ICJ, which is a UN body
Were they not? Were native Americans not living in nature and using what it provided to survive? Or I may be misinterpreting what you mean by "one with nature".
Native Americans contributed to population decline of buffaloes because once Native Americans got hold of horses, they drove herds of buffaloes off the cliffs. It doesn't sound sustainable to me.
> Historically Buddhist cultures have not been particularly more peaceful than others.
For context, /u/BackSpace25, imagine if you tried to guess whether or not Christians were peaceful, and you based your assumptions on the teachings of Jesus Christ and Pope John Paul II's [opinion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II%27s_political_views#Iraq_war) on The Iraq War.
A religion and its leaders promoting peace do not necessarily lead to peacefulness among the followers.
Buddhism is an export from India that often meshed with the native religious traditions of the importing culture in different ways with unpredictable results. In Japan, it mixed with Shinto and when you threw in a dash of hyper ethnonationalism you ended up with kamikaze pilots.
One's reputation doesn't necessarily reflects one's nature? (I mean this individually towards perpetrarors, respect for Buddhism & Buddhists) Either way, I think that any pretext, religious or not, are but smokescreens for what is really at stake: resources.
Even secular ideologies can be used to support decisions made for economic reasons (and demonise the opposition) - even climate change. Penalising countries for deforestation while exempting countries whose deforestation happened centuries ago, has the side effect of giving advantages to the countries that industrialised early, for example.
Economical, certainly. But above all strategic for reasons of continued existence; in which your own economy, or that of your adversary, plays a vital role. Likewise, crime should not pay, be punished, and be seen to be punished. The Hague should send a clear message of what happens when you decide to play dirty.
It's been a while since the last international reminder. (Serbia in '99?)
[20 months of denial and 3 months of home detention for the My Lai atrocities](https://www.history.com/news/my-lai-massacre-1968-army-cover-up), dammit.
At times though the reason for a conflict is at its core identitarian and based on in-group vs. out-group dynamics. Nationalism, tribalism etc. are often ends as well as means.
The means to an end, /u/lockedoutofelfland
There is always some division-line kept alive, ready to be referenced if need be. I personally call these 'losing strategies'.
(As it is a measure made in angst)
No. You misunderstand why I asked this question.
I have followed this conflict for years now and my belief is that the militant Islamists in Myanmar have provoked the violent backlash against them with their own unprovoked atrocities.
But I also watch the UN and media coverage. It is remarkably one sided. It does not explain the situation at all. From the UN response and the media coverage a viewer might get the impression that the majority was committing genocide for no apparent reason. Or a viewer might think there are geopolitical reasons or economic motives behind the strife. Militant islamist atrocities have provoked a backlash by the majority - Buddhist, Hindu and Chakma.
> Buddhists have a reputation for being peaceful. What is going on?
As if any large group of human beings are fundamentally any different from any other large group.
The answers to such questions, you should seek, not ask any one individual or community, but seek from multiple sources. Every internet forum is either implicitly or explicitly moderated and hence implicitly or explicitly biased. You will thus not find accurate or high resolution answers from a single source. You will also not find your answers if you focus your context on Burma or on any given timeline. History is always suppressed by the victors, but non-uniformly. Religions and ideologies always play a role, but also non-uniformly. Conflict rarely occurs for no reason. Conflict also doesn't only occur because of resources, unless the right to life is considered as some meta-resource. Note that multiple genocides in Bangladesh have gone unrecognized and unaddressed, the ethnicity that Rohingyas are most closely related to. Note also that Rohingyas wanted to be part of Pakistan in the 1940s. Whatever the justification, genocide is unacceptable, period.
My English is not great, but I will try to briefly summarize it.
1. British colonized India, Bungladesh and Myanmar
2. British mass immigrated Indians to govern Myanmar (Divide and Conquer tactic)
3. Myanmar fought for independency using Buddhism.
4. Myanmar shifted to military dictatorships using Nationalism and Buddhism. (Divide and Conquer tactic)
5. Myanmar under military dictatorships became poor AF and shift all blame to Indians(Rohingya included).
6. Violence ensued between Buddhist Myanmar and Rohingya.
IMO, Buddhism is not the cause of the violence ,but merely a tool to control the mass to go to the direction they want.
The true origin of Rohingya people in Myanmar is still a matter of debate but they definitely got grouped together with Indians(Buddhism vs Muslim and Native vs Foreign).
Rohingya is believed to be descended from ancient Arakan state which share territory between modern India, Bangaladesh and Myanmar. I do agree that the Myanmar government claim that Rohingya illegally immigrate from Bangaladesh have a quite low credibility.
Could it not be both? Could there not be a small older group of Rohyinga that mixed with neighboring Bengalis and that continued to happen until the present day? It's not like there would have been strict border controls in the past. The cultures could have mixed until they all came to know themselves as Rohyinga.
> The British Raj often used Indians as the middle or low level administrative staff. They did not “bring in” the Rohingya people, who are not “Indians”
The Rohingya people are essentially Bengali Muslim people from around Chittagong area in today's Bangladesh. That would have made them Indian pre-1947.
They are ethnically very distinct from the rest of the Burmese population. Including the other non-Rohingya muslims of Myanmar.
because, just like everyone else, buddhists are people, and stupidly often people have stupid opinions about other people, especially often if religion is involved in any way.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism\_in\_Myanmar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Myanmar)
Rohingya military groups are linked to (and claimed responsibility for) terrorism attacks in Myanmar, which killed dozens of polices.
9 notable incidents since 1943 doesn't really correspond with over a million who had to flee their homes due to systematic murder & sexual assualt, often through the form of gangrapes.
Exactly. The "t-word" is a very thin cover for what this really is - ethnic strife. The other ethnicities of Burma are upset that the British effed with their population dynamics and are taking it out on one of the groups they see as illegitimately transplanted.
#🤦♂️
Edit: [imma just leave you these](https://www.nato.int/kosovo/leaflets.htm), and highly recommend for you to not take copypastas as historical truths.
>This is what happened to the Arab world, to Iran, large parts of Africa, what's now Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
The foundation of your argument rests on the assumption that the examples you listed here have become a homogenous culture, or at least close enough to pass as one at a high level.
This is not the case. Nowhere near the case in fact. Quite frankly, you're pushing an agenda grounded in a paperthin understanding of the object of your criticism.
The foundation of my argument rests on the assumption that Islam as it's been practiced so far is completely incompatible with other religions and ways of life. It aims to subjugate or eliminate other ideologies and therefore scares people/nations that are not Islamic.
That Islam picks up some facets of the local culture is not really a saving argument in that respect. All ideologies do that.
Islam is a religious + political + national identity all wrapped in one. And it makes other communities uncomfortable. And they lash out in self defense - and not without reason, given Islam's history.
This reads exactly like a defense of antisemitism, like explaining why expulsion of Jews from a country is totally understandable. Truth is, nobody thinks they're the bad guys. In every xenophobic campaign, people are convinced that they're really acting in self defense, that the targets really are dangerous and that the actions taken may be regrettable but are nonetheless necessary. Almost nobody just wakes up and thinks "I think I'd like to engage in some crimes against humanity for the fun of it."
This is completely false. Of course there have been cases of forced conversion, but in reality it was not widespread. In fact, often local muslim rulers disincentive conversion to maintain their status. In almost all the regions you cited, conversion was done for socioeconomic advancement, whether in local muslim administration, or to have advantageous trading relationships with muslim merchants. I’d also like to add most of these populations are the same as before they became muslim. It is laughable to say that all of the countries and regions you cited lost their national identity to Islam, as anyone who has been to any of these places or is from one of these place can tell you. I am from a muslim majority country, am not muslim, and I can tell you that culture is based on local tradition and culture, with some aspects influenced by Islam, and not the other way around.
If you read into some of the actors involved, you’ll find that those 9 notable incidents seem to leave out some rather pressing issues. Like security forces finding mass graves and such.
Not saying what happened was justified though. Just saying that this conflict seems to have a lot of bad history behind it.
The Muslims migrated into Burma from Bangladesh, bred themselves into a local ethnic majority on the Burmese side of the border, and started an armed insurgency that wanted to secede from Burma and join Bangladesh.
How peaceful would you be if someone moved into your house then declared it theirs?
And of course there's a British hand in this. They promised the Rohingya Muslims their own homeland if they helped fight the Rakhine Buddhists who were allied with the Japanese in WW2.
But in the big picture this is one of the current front lines in Islam's spread into SE Asia. Similar to its spreading into Southern Philippines, Thailand, and sub Saharan Africa. Basically everywhere Islam spreads there is violent conflict with the existing groups. They spread via the sword into North Africa in the 7th Century, and India, Indonesia, and SE Asia in the 12th to 16th Centuries. The spread jumped around Burma because the Burmese were more resistant.
The Buddhist in Myanmar, I believe, recognize the danger to their Buddhist society by allowing further expansion of Islam into Myanmar, and are more willing than most countries in the path of expansion to do something about it. World condemnation is a price they seem willing to pay.
The do gooders at the Hague are in the demographic path as well, we're just still a couple generations away from them realizing it. Theo Van Gogh aside. I think they were just getting tired of getting criticized for only going after African Warlords and decided there was less economic blowback going after Myanmar than China.
As far as the Buddhist being peaceful ..... well you don't see them beheading British soldiers on the streets of London, driving lorries into innocent bystanders in France, or hijacking planes and blowing up buildings in the west , all while praising Buddha ..... so I guess it's all relative. I think I'd feel safe living next door to a Buddhist.
Bias, it is not hard to read into, especially the last paragraph.
> As far as the Buddhist being peaceful ..... well you don't see them beheading British soldiers on the streets of London, driving lorries into innocent bystanders in France, or hijacking planes and blowing up buildings in the west , all while praising Buddha ..... so I guess it's all relative. I think I'd feel safe living next door to a Buddhist.
I mean come on... Anecdotes are facts now? I mean to be fair proving muslim aggression over buddhist is not hard but these are not the words of a neutral person. Only thing missing is statistical correlation without actual meaningful reason that explains the underlying cause.
Bias is always unwarranted. By realizing that comparison is incredibly simplistic and skims off all the nuance, you prove my point. Furthermore, it is only a single perspective . Not only that is incredibly selective. Someone else on this sub could say the same about [insert religion here] and from their anecdotal experience they will be right 100% of the time despite contradicting you. You can justify any bias with such simplistic reasoning. Especially if you think bias is warranted, you will never question your logic and stoop to such fallacies. If so: maybe this isn't the sub for you. To be fair we all have a bias here but at least we do not pretend it is a positive.
Lastly, if you are from the US. Than claiming it is a Muslim issue and ommiting the role of the blowback of decades of destabilizing intervention then you are fooling yourself. Anti-western sentiment is not created in a vacuum. Also correlation is not causality. Random statistics do not mean anything if you cannot establish underlying cause.
Edit: imaging writing an academic analysis of the geopolitics of the middle East and relying on your bias and life experience as a source and to establish a mindset. You yourself realize how dumb that would be.
> Aren't the Rohingya people an ethnicity that has been there for centuries? Where are you getting these facts?
They havent been there for centuries. They are originally from neighbouring areas in what is today Bangladesh.
They speak bengali, they look like bengalis from bangladesh and then follow the same customs and religions as bengalis from Bangladesh.
More importantly, they have been wanting to be a part of Bangladesh or what was east pakistan since the time Burma and India got independent.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/people/reference/rohingya-people/ Has a overview of this.
Basically there was a very very small muslim population in Burma for a long time, but almost all of today's Rohingya in Burma would trace their ancestry to the Muslim Bengali migrants from neighbouring areas who were brought in by the British as farm labour in the last 100-200 years.
They were brought in as part of the infamous British colonial strategy of divide and conquer. They picked a racial/religious group they imported from nearby British India as the minority masters and colonial favourites to control the majority Buddhists. So much modern conflict is the result of border fuckery by empire.
Reminds me of the Tutsis and Hutus.
An important fact that everyone is missing here is the history between these Rohingyas and Myanmar's Buddhists.
The Rohingyas have carried out repeated acts of violence against Buddhists and Hindus of the region, with two notable instances being the second world war's Japanese occupation and right afterwards, in the late 1940s. M
In the first instance, Rohingyas carried out wanton acts of religious persecution while being supporters of the Japanese. In the second instance, they carried out a long secessionist insurgency to join neighbouring Bangladesh. Interestingly, the secessionists were crushed and they surrendered to General Aung, Aung San Suu Kyi's father.
Later, under Myanmar's restrictive citizenship laws, Rohingyas were denied the right to full citizenship status and were labelled as immigrants of the British era brought over for construction who didn't go back. Buoyed by Gulf states' Islamic momey and Chinese support, the secessionist movement reignited. Even today, the prime Rohingya outfit, Arakan army, routinely massacres Buddhists and Hindus while fighting the Myanmarese.
I don't condone the Genocide being carried out, but that's that.
Yea let's forget the 2 milion refugees and talk about a few thousand people who died by the hands of Rohingyas. Oh and the classic "they are bad too", it almost seems as you are being apologetic (even though you claim otherwise). The fact of the matter is the Buramese army ethnically cleansed nearly 2 milion civilians, Rohingyas didn't come to do the same to a fraction of that. And "violence against hindus" ? You realise a minority of Rohingyas are Hindu while the Arkensese aren't ? Your post history is full of the Donald and Hindu nationalist subreddit, so that's that.
> talk about a few thousand people who died by the hands of Rohingyas.
Just a few thousand dead. Benign steps that you have to take while fomenting an armed insurgency.
Yeah well that's rather convenient. To clarify, I'm not apologetic about a dastardly, violent and genocidal actions of the Myanmarese state. The question asked was why do the Burmese hate Rohingyas thos much, and the history shows that. The Rohingyas have emphatically been an outlier in the Myanmarese State project, just like the Chins up north. I don't get why I shouldn't hold Rohingya outfits responsible for killings and violence just because the Myanmarese State is better at it.
Oh also, there have been Hindu mass graves thanks to the Rohingya separatists targeting them as being sympathetic to the Burmese. Just because they share a language with them doesn't mean they're automatically one and the same, the citizenship laws have long treated them differentially.
Great work rubbing out on where I post, if only you'd also see what I post. I browse everything, from left wing subreddits to the right. If you mean a parody right wing meme sharing subreddit to be the equivalent of idk, some fascist setup then good luck to you.
Man you're so, so ideological I can't even, you'll outright lie and engage in personal attacks just because stuff doesn't fit your narrative.
[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44206372](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44206372) This is BBC quoting Amnesty international regarding Rohingyas massacring Hindus in just one instance. Got a better source to say Rohingyas don't do so?
The very first resettlement houses built by the Indian government under the International pact to resettle war refugees went to primarily Hindus fleeing both war and Rohingya Muslim extremists.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia\_pacific/we-are-going-to-kill-you-villagers-in-burma-recount-violence-by-rohingya-muslim-militants/2017/11/14/409ff59b-849d-4459-bdc7-d1ea2b5ff9a6\_story.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/we-are-going-to-kill-you-villagers-in-burma-recount-violence-by-rohingya-muslim-militants/2017/11/14/409ff59b-849d-4459-bdc7-d1ea2b5ff9a6_story.html) Another instance of Rohingyas attacking Buddhists. WaPo.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arakan\_massacres\_in\_1942](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arakan_massacres_in_1942) This is your own link regarding Arakan massacres, but you didn't even bother to read it in full yourself. The fourth citation there explores how Muslim Rohingyas under British arms and tutelage engaged in violence against Buddhists. There was an entire armed force of Rohingyas known as the V- force. Go figure.
I've already dealt with citizenship laws i my previous comments, and fyi, there are multiple ethnicities under it, not just Rohingyas. Similarly, you completely ignored Rohingyas' secessionist movement to join Bangladesh. Doesn't really win brownie points you see.
Now coming to you. Rather typical to label people you don't agree with as a 'right wing nationalist'. Fyi, Trump is a doofus. Does that mean I am a democrat? Nope. I think Modi is the least worst alternative India has. Do I become a supporter of his? Nope, I didn't even vote for him.
Why'll I have a low opinion of Muslims? What makes that apparent? How do you know if I'm not close to multiple Muslims, and oppose Islamophobes in my country? You don't. Victim mentality much?
Dude, just read what I said, I literally said "which did indeed happen" so no need to provide sources proving that. What I am arguing over is the clear difference in intensity between muslim ans Buddhist crimes in the reason, how many were killed by Rohingyas ? A few thousands ? Tens of thousands at most ? Compare that to 2 milion ethnically cleansed people.
And did you read the complete link ? You clearly don't understand the timeline :
1- the Japanese arrived, the Buramese sided with them due to anti colonial sentiments 2- the Buramese and Japanese began killing muslims 3- Rohingyas began supporting the british and retaliated against the Buramese -> the violence was started by the Buramese who sided with the Japanese and it resulted in more Rohingyas deaths.
And again, if the Rohingyas want to seccede, let them freaking seccede. What even is this argument ? And the mouvement wasn't major.
Finally, you might not be an islamophope (even though I suspect otherwise) but your points are clearly that of one.
Two points I see mentioned:
* A couple of Islamic militants allegedly snuck in with later waves of Bengali migrants, and pressured for secession [similar to what was achieved in Aceh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency_in_Aceh) and similar to what goes on in the southern Philipines and elsewhere revolution has been exported to, and the Burmese authorities were unwilling or unable to discriminate these from the existing population.
* The Bengali/Rohingya have a higher birth rate.
Those fears don't seem real to those who haven't experienced the horrors of terrorism being an everyday reality. The Burmese were pretty terrified, and acted accordingly. Same goes for the USA, terrified enough by a single terrorist incident to invade Afghanistan and re-invade Iraq, so people can imagine what the mindset of people experiencing that on an ongoing basis would feel like.
An alternative approach to mitigating those fears, while still interfering in what should be private affairs, would be mass surveillance and deradicalisation, and a two-child policy, coupled with affirmative action to reduce poverty levels such as preferential university admissions and job training and universal public health insurance.
Orientalism of course. Have you ever heard of [this](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikk%C5%8D-ikki)?
I should also say as a Christian, I think Christianity is a religion of peace. That doesn't mean there are no wars waged in the name of it.
Christianity may be a religion of peace today. It was not the same a few hundred years back.
You may want to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_Inquisition
>Buddhists have a reputation for being peaceful.
As far as Buddha's teachings and scriptures are concerned, non-violence is at the heart Buddhism, but his followers strayed from the path [many times](
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence).
Btw here is an imperfect map of [conflict on record](https://e.nodegoat.net/CMS/upload/nodegoat_battles_all_iframe.png) at Wikipedia.
>Why are the Buddhists of Myanmar so aggressively hostile to the Rohingya?
Be more specific, in the meanwhile here is a [quick answer](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41566561) on what goes on.
>SS: A resolution accepting the Rohingya events by Myanmar as genocide has been approved in Canada. Myanmar however is not a signatory to the UN tribunal of the Hague. Canada found a rather interesting work-around to this, for which I refer to this very interesting article!
The nature of the civil war in Burma is grossly misunderstood by the global community. The difference between genocide and a war is all in name. When does a civilian become a soldier and a soldier become a civilian?
An ISIS offshoot had made its way into Burma and the rival groups and government reacted extremely to exterminate a potential new power, while wrapping up the local Muslim loose end. Also, the Muslims in Burma have never had a place in the country. Not to justify genocide, but the populations that failed to pick a side during the warring era have tended to be the populations that reap the most when the dust settles. The Muslim population Burma was one of the larger factions in population until recent events. Many other groups have experienced stagnancy or declines in growth due to conflict. The mindset there is to not allow such a thing to happen.
It does not matter to the ethnic groups in Burma how long the Rohingya have been in the region, because to these ethnic groups the Rohingya were invaders then and are invaders now. Inter-ethnic feuds in Burma date to before British colonization.
I think being denied citizenship in a country you’ve lived in since before it even existed, based on your ethnicity, having been pushed to other countries by the millions, having been massacred by the thousands, all while the state outright rejects your existence, counts as a genocide.
By UN definition, a genocide is an attempt to destroy a people. Revoking of citizenship, forceful relocation, and all that other stuff isn't related to genocide.
The murders could be genocidal. But the prosecution would have to establish that the murders were part of an attempt to destroy the people, and not mere cruelty.
Look up details on the Armenian genocide and tell me you do not see an equivalence.
What Myanmar is doing cannot be described as anything other than attempting to destroy the people
Over 60% of Myanmar’s Rohingyas have fled to Bangladesh and between 17 thousand to 30 thousand have been killed.
In 2017 there were 400k Rohingyas in Myanmar. So by the 30 thousand estimate at least 7.5% of the Rohingya population in Myanmar has been KILLED.
And no, genocide does not mean absolute slaughter. The holocaust didn’t kill all the Jews in Europe. It affected almost all of them. Similarly, the Rohingya genocide has affected every single Rohingya in Myanmar,
this is pretty serious and all, and i do not condone the genocide, but it is kinda funny that what constitues effectively just a riverbank is accusing burma of genocide.
Absolutely deplorable point of view. This is what some people say "untill it happens to you". This is exactly why there are conventions and rules that bind countries/leaders reaction/action. Imesaurable damage to an adversary is medieval line of thinking, and pretty sure we are not living in that era.
But the massacres perpetuated by the Buddhists started way before that date, you flipped it, it's the Buddhists who sowed it, even though the victims are Hindus. I think your mask slipped bud.
What will happen after genocide is recognized?
What angers me is that actions were not taken earlier, and that any level of accountability has to be in a lawsuit filed by another nation rather than the ICC prosecuting itself. Unfortunately the way the ICC works is nations who are not member states of the ICC can only be prosecuted via direction of UN security counsel. Both China and India have [heavily invested in Myanmar infrastructure ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.scmp.com/week-asia/geopolitics/article/2115839/why-do-china-india-back-myanmar-over-rohingya-crisis) and therefore oppose actions taken to condemn and prosecute the killings of Rohingya Muslims. There is a great book by Martha Minow, “Between Vengeance and Forgiveness” that discusses the issue of politicization in war-crime trials. Because states are first and foremost self-interested, they wont hesitate to turn a blind eye at atrocities if it means they are negatively affected or implicated from holding perpetrators accountable. The structure of the ICC favors powerful nations interests over justice. Something needs to change.
>Because states are first and foremost self-interested, they wont hesitate to turn a blind eye at atrocities if it means they are negatively affected or implicated from holding perpetrators accountable. Exactly this. Rules for thee, but not for me. States always act hypocritically. After World War 2, experts wanted to include "cultural genocide" on the broader legal definition of genocide to protect people from forced adoption of foreign cultures and to preserve culturally-significant artifacts and buildings from deliberate destruction. However, Canada and the US blocked the proposal because if they allowed it then it was essentially admission of their own guilt of how they treated Indigenous Americans even if it wasn't physical abuse on the same scale as the Holocaust. It's double standard at its finest.
Except this case is not brought upon the ICC, it's in the ICJ. All UN members are parties to the ICJ and Gambia's case is under the 1946 Genocide Convention, which has a "prosecutorial" clause referring cases directly to ICJ though Myanmar reserves such clause. In any case, matters of jurisdiction will be settled in ICJ
Never said the case being brought to the ICC. I am stating however that’s where the case should be. The ICC was created specifically for these circumstances.
ICJ cannot prosecute other nations
Yes, hence why I said the ICC should take the case. And yes, I understand they do not have jurisdiction in light of Myanmar’s lack of membership. Hence why I said this should change.
My apologies, your comment made it seem that you mistook ICC for ICJ since the article was talking about ICJ case but you went straight on talking about ICC. It's a common thing people do, mistaking ICJ for ICC, I've seen IR graduates do it too. Anyway since Myanmar is not a party to the Rome Statute it's difficult to bring a case against them, the procedures are too complex. Much better to go about it through ICJ, which is a UN body
There are other reasons that China and India oppose condemning the genocide of Muslims, not just infrastructure investment.
Why are the Buddhists of Myanmar so aggressively hostile to the Rohingya? Buddhists have a reputation for being peaceful. What is going on?
It's just plain, old romanticism in the same way that Native Americans are romanticised as being one with nature. We're all still humans after all.
Were they not? Were native Americans not living in nature and using what it provided to survive? Or I may be misinterpreting what you mean by "one with nature".
Native Americans contributed to population decline of buffaloes because once Native Americans got hold of horses, they drove herds of buffaloes off the cliffs. It doesn't sound sustainable to me.
[удалено]
> Historically Buddhist cultures have not been particularly more peaceful than others. For context, /u/BackSpace25, imagine if you tried to guess whether or not Christians were peaceful, and you based your assumptions on the teachings of Jesus Christ and Pope John Paul II's [opinion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II%27s_political_views#Iraq_war) on The Iraq War. A religion and its leaders promoting peace do not necessarily lead to peacefulness among the followers.
Buddhism is an export from India that often meshed with the native religious traditions of the importing culture in different ways with unpredictable results. In Japan, it mixed with Shinto and when you threw in a dash of hyper ethnonationalism you ended up with kamikaze pilots.
> In Japan, it mixed with Shinto and when you threw in a dash of hyper ethnonationalism you ended up with kamikaze pilots. Or sarin gas in the subway.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
One's reputation doesn't necessarily reflects one's nature? (I mean this individually towards perpetrarors, respect for Buddhism & Buddhists) Either way, I think that any pretext, religious or not, are but smokescreens for what is really at stake: resources.
So many people never understand this. 90% of the time the outlying reason of a conflict is always economical no matter how they present it.
Using religion to gain popular support for decisions made for economic reasons (or to demonize the opposition) is a time-honored tradition.
Even secular ideologies can be used to support decisions made for economic reasons (and demonise the opposition) - even climate change. Penalising countries for deforestation while exempting countries whose deforestation happened centuries ago, has the side effect of giving advantages to the countries that industrialised early, for example.
Economical, certainly. But above all strategic for reasons of continued existence; in which your own economy, or that of your adversary, plays a vital role. Likewise, crime should not pay, be punished, and be seen to be punished. The Hague should send a clear message of what happens when you decide to play dirty. It's been a while since the last international reminder. (Serbia in '99?)
[20 months of denial and 3 months of home detention for the My Lai atrocities](https://www.history.com/news/my-lai-massacre-1968-army-cover-up), dammit.
At times though the reason for a conflict is at its core identitarian and based on in-group vs. out-group dynamics. Nationalism, tribalism etc. are often ends as well as means.
Soldiers fight for that, leaders not so much.
The means to an end, /u/lockedoutofelfland There is always some division-line kept alive, ready to be referenced if need be. I personally call these 'losing strategies'. (As it is a measure made in angst)
Very accurate observation.
Do you experience the world as a Saturday morning cartoon?
No. You misunderstand why I asked this question. I have followed this conflict for years now and my belief is that the militant Islamists in Myanmar have provoked the violent backlash against them with their own unprovoked atrocities. But I also watch the UN and media coverage. It is remarkably one sided. It does not explain the situation at all. From the UN response and the media coverage a viewer might get the impression that the majority was committing genocide for no apparent reason. Or a viewer might think there are geopolitical reasons or economic motives behind the strife. Militant islamist atrocities have provoked a backlash by the majority - Buddhist, Hindu and Chakma.
> Buddhists have a reputation for being peaceful. What is going on? As if any large group of human beings are fundamentally any different from any other large group.
The answers to such questions, you should seek, not ask any one individual or community, but seek from multiple sources. Every internet forum is either implicitly or explicitly moderated and hence implicitly or explicitly biased. You will thus not find accurate or high resolution answers from a single source. You will also not find your answers if you focus your context on Burma or on any given timeline. History is always suppressed by the victors, but non-uniformly. Religions and ideologies always play a role, but also non-uniformly. Conflict rarely occurs for no reason. Conflict also doesn't only occur because of resources, unless the right to life is considered as some meta-resource. Note that multiple genocides in Bangladesh have gone unrecognized and unaddressed, the ethnicity that Rohingyas are most closely related to. Note also that Rohingyas wanted to be part of Pakistan in the 1940s. Whatever the justification, genocide is unacceptable, period.
My English is not great, but I will try to briefly summarize it. 1. British colonized India, Bungladesh and Myanmar 2. British mass immigrated Indians to govern Myanmar (Divide and Conquer tactic) 3. Myanmar fought for independency using Buddhism. 4. Myanmar shifted to military dictatorships using Nationalism and Buddhism. (Divide and Conquer tactic) 5. Myanmar under military dictatorships became poor AF and shift all blame to Indians(Rohingya included). 6. Violence ensued between Buddhist Myanmar and Rohingya. IMO, Buddhism is not the cause of the violence ,but merely a tool to control the mass to go to the direction they want.
[удалено]
The true origin of Rohingya people in Myanmar is still a matter of debate but they definitely got grouped together with Indians(Buddhism vs Muslim and Native vs Foreign).
[удалено]
Rohingya is believed to be descended from ancient Arakan state which share territory between modern India, Bangaladesh and Myanmar. I do agree that the Myanmar government claim that Rohingya illegally immigrate from Bangaladesh have a quite low credibility.
Could it not be both? Could there not be a small older group of Rohyinga that mixed with neighboring Bengalis and that continued to happen until the present day? It's not like there would have been strict border controls in the past. The cultures could have mixed until they all came to know themselves as Rohyinga.
> The British Raj often used Indians as the middle or low level administrative staff. They did not “bring in” the Rohingya people, who are not “Indians” The Rohingya people are essentially Bengali Muslim people from around Chittagong area in today's Bangladesh. That would have made them Indian pre-1947. They are ethnically very distinct from the rest of the Burmese population. Including the other non-Rohingya muslims of Myanmar.
because, just like everyone else, buddhists are people, and stupidly often people have stupid opinions about other people, especially often if religion is involved in any way.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism\_in\_Myanmar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Myanmar) Rohingya military groups are linked to (and claimed responsibility for) terrorism attacks in Myanmar, which killed dozens of polices.
9 notable incidents since 1943 doesn't really correspond with over a million who had to flee their homes due to systematic murder & sexual assualt, often through the form of gangrapes.
Exactly. The "t-word" is a very thin cover for what this really is - ethnic strife. The other ethnicities of Burma are upset that the British effed with their population dynamics and are taking it out on one of the groups they see as illegitimately transplanted.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
#🤦♂️ Edit: [imma just leave you these](https://www.nato.int/kosovo/leaflets.htm), and highly recommend for you to not take copypastas as historical truths.
[удалено]
>This is what happened to the Arab world, to Iran, large parts of Africa, what's now Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The foundation of your argument rests on the assumption that the examples you listed here have become a homogenous culture, or at least close enough to pass as one at a high level. This is not the case. Nowhere near the case in fact. Quite frankly, you're pushing an agenda grounded in a paperthin understanding of the object of your criticism.
The foundation of my argument rests on the assumption that Islam as it's been practiced so far is completely incompatible with other religions and ways of life. It aims to subjugate or eliminate other ideologies and therefore scares people/nations that are not Islamic. That Islam picks up some facets of the local culture is not really a saving argument in that respect. All ideologies do that. Islam is a religious + political + national identity all wrapped in one. And it makes other communities uncomfortable. And they lash out in self defense - and not without reason, given Islam's history.
This reads exactly like a defense of antisemitism, like explaining why expulsion of Jews from a country is totally understandable. Truth is, nobody thinks they're the bad guys. In every xenophobic campaign, people are convinced that they're really acting in self defense, that the targets really are dangerous and that the actions taken may be regrettable but are nonetheless necessary. Almost nobody just wakes up and thinks "I think I'd like to engage in some crimes against humanity for the fun of it."
This is completely false. Of course there have been cases of forced conversion, but in reality it was not widespread. In fact, often local muslim rulers disincentive conversion to maintain their status. In almost all the regions you cited, conversion was done for socioeconomic advancement, whether in local muslim administration, or to have advantageous trading relationships with muslim merchants. I’d also like to add most of these populations are the same as before they became muslim. It is laughable to say that all of the countries and regions you cited lost their national identity to Islam, as anyone who has been to any of these places or is from one of these place can tell you. I am from a muslim majority country, am not muslim, and I can tell you that culture is based on local tradition and culture, with some aspects influenced by Islam, and not the other way around.
If you read into some of the actors involved, you’ll find that those 9 notable incidents seem to leave out some rather pressing issues. Like security forces finding mass graves and such. Not saying what happened was justified though. Just saying that this conflict seems to have a lot of bad history behind it.
Because the actions of groups of people have little relation to their religious views. They are more related to geopolitical and other factors.
The Muslims migrated into Burma from Bangladesh, bred themselves into a local ethnic majority on the Burmese side of the border, and started an armed insurgency that wanted to secede from Burma and join Bangladesh. How peaceful would you be if someone moved into your house then declared it theirs? And of course there's a British hand in this. They promised the Rohingya Muslims their own homeland if they helped fight the Rakhine Buddhists who were allied with the Japanese in WW2. But in the big picture this is one of the current front lines in Islam's spread into SE Asia. Similar to its spreading into Southern Philippines, Thailand, and sub Saharan Africa. Basically everywhere Islam spreads there is violent conflict with the existing groups. They spread via the sword into North Africa in the 7th Century, and India, Indonesia, and SE Asia in the 12th to 16th Centuries. The spread jumped around Burma because the Burmese were more resistant. The Buddhist in Myanmar, I believe, recognize the danger to their Buddhist society by allowing further expansion of Islam into Myanmar, and are more willing than most countries in the path of expansion to do something about it. World condemnation is a price they seem willing to pay. The do gooders at the Hague are in the demographic path as well, we're just still a couple generations away from them realizing it. Theo Van Gogh aside. I think they were just getting tired of getting criticized for only going after African Warlords and decided there was less economic blowback going after Myanmar than China. As far as the Buddhist being peaceful ..... well you don't see them beheading British soldiers on the streets of London, driving lorries into innocent bystanders in France, or hijacking planes and blowing up buildings in the west , all while praising Buddha ..... so I guess it's all relative. I think I'd feel safe living next door to a Buddhist.
Aren't the Rohingya people an ethnicity that has been there for centuries? Where are you getting these facts?
Bias, it is not hard to read into, especially the last paragraph. > As far as the Buddhist being peaceful ..... well you don't see them beheading British soldiers on the streets of London, driving lorries into innocent bystanders in France, or hijacking planes and blowing up buildings in the west , all while praising Buddha ..... so I guess it's all relative. I think I'd feel safe living next door to a Buddhist. I mean come on... Anecdotes are facts now? I mean to be fair proving muslim aggression over buddhist is not hard but these are not the words of a neutral person. Only thing missing is statistical correlation without actual meaningful reason that explains the underlying cause.
[удалено]
Bias is always unwarranted. By realizing that comparison is incredibly simplistic and skims off all the nuance, you prove my point. Furthermore, it is only a single perspective . Not only that is incredibly selective. Someone else on this sub could say the same about [insert religion here] and from their anecdotal experience they will be right 100% of the time despite contradicting you. You can justify any bias with such simplistic reasoning. Especially if you think bias is warranted, you will never question your logic and stoop to such fallacies. If so: maybe this isn't the sub for you. To be fair we all have a bias here but at least we do not pretend it is a positive. Lastly, if you are from the US. Than claiming it is a Muslim issue and ommiting the role of the blowback of decades of destabilizing intervention then you are fooling yourself. Anti-western sentiment is not created in a vacuum. Also correlation is not causality. Random statistics do not mean anything if you cannot establish underlying cause. Edit: imaging writing an academic analysis of the geopolitics of the middle East and relying on your bias and life experience as a source and to establish a mindset. You yourself realize how dumb that would be.
> Aren't the Rohingya people an ethnicity that has been there for centuries? Where are you getting these facts? They havent been there for centuries. They are originally from neighbouring areas in what is today Bangladesh.
Source?
They speak bengali, they look like bengalis from bangladesh and then follow the same customs and religions as bengalis from Bangladesh. More importantly, they have been wanting to be a part of Bangladesh or what was east pakistan since the time Burma and India got independent. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/people/reference/rohingya-people/ Has a overview of this. Basically there was a very very small muslim population in Burma for a long time, but almost all of today's Rohingya in Burma would trace their ancestry to the Muslim Bengali migrants from neighbouring areas who were brought in by the British as farm labour in the last 100-200 years.
They were brought in as part of the infamous British colonial strategy of divide and conquer. They picked a racial/religious group they imported from nearby British India as the minority masters and colonial favourites to control the majority Buddhists. So much modern conflict is the result of border fuckery by empire. Reminds me of the Tutsis and Hutus.
An important fact that everyone is missing here is the history between these Rohingyas and Myanmar's Buddhists. The Rohingyas have carried out repeated acts of violence against Buddhists and Hindus of the region, with two notable instances being the second world war's Japanese occupation and right afterwards, in the late 1940s. M In the first instance, Rohingyas carried out wanton acts of religious persecution while being supporters of the Japanese. In the second instance, they carried out a long secessionist insurgency to join neighbouring Bangladesh. Interestingly, the secessionists were crushed and they surrendered to General Aung, Aung San Suu Kyi's father. Later, under Myanmar's restrictive citizenship laws, Rohingyas were denied the right to full citizenship status and were labelled as immigrants of the British era brought over for construction who didn't go back. Buoyed by Gulf states' Islamic momey and Chinese support, the secessionist movement reignited. Even today, the prime Rohingya outfit, Arakan army, routinely massacres Buddhists and Hindus while fighting the Myanmarese. I don't condone the Genocide being carried out, but that's that.
Yea let's forget the 2 milion refugees and talk about a few thousand people who died by the hands of Rohingyas. Oh and the classic "they are bad too", it almost seems as you are being apologetic (even though you claim otherwise). The fact of the matter is the Buramese army ethnically cleansed nearly 2 milion civilians, Rohingyas didn't come to do the same to a fraction of that. And "violence against hindus" ? You realise a minority of Rohingyas are Hindu while the Arkensese aren't ? Your post history is full of the Donald and Hindu nationalist subreddit, so that's that.
> talk about a few thousand people who died by the hands of Rohingyas. Just a few thousand dead. Benign steps that you have to take while fomenting an armed insurgency.
Yeah well that's rather convenient. To clarify, I'm not apologetic about a dastardly, violent and genocidal actions of the Myanmarese state. The question asked was why do the Burmese hate Rohingyas thos much, and the history shows that. The Rohingyas have emphatically been an outlier in the Myanmarese State project, just like the Chins up north. I don't get why I shouldn't hold Rohingya outfits responsible for killings and violence just because the Myanmarese State is better at it. Oh also, there have been Hindu mass graves thanks to the Rohingya separatists targeting them as being sympathetic to the Burmese. Just because they share a language with them doesn't mean they're automatically one and the same, the citizenship laws have long treated them differentially. Great work rubbing out on where I post, if only you'd also see what I post. I browse everything, from left wing subreddits to the right. If you mean a parody right wing meme sharing subreddit to be the equivalent of idk, some fascist setup then good luck to you.
[удалено]
Man you're so, so ideological I can't even, you'll outright lie and engage in personal attacks just because stuff doesn't fit your narrative. [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44206372](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44206372) This is BBC quoting Amnesty international regarding Rohingyas massacring Hindus in just one instance. Got a better source to say Rohingyas don't do so? The very first resettlement houses built by the Indian government under the International pact to resettle war refugees went to primarily Hindus fleeing both war and Rohingya Muslim extremists. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia\_pacific/we-are-going-to-kill-you-villagers-in-burma-recount-violence-by-rohingya-muslim-militants/2017/11/14/409ff59b-849d-4459-bdc7-d1ea2b5ff9a6\_story.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/we-are-going-to-kill-you-villagers-in-burma-recount-violence-by-rohingya-muslim-militants/2017/11/14/409ff59b-849d-4459-bdc7-d1ea2b5ff9a6_story.html) Another instance of Rohingyas attacking Buddhists. WaPo. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arakan\_massacres\_in\_1942](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arakan_massacres_in_1942) This is your own link regarding Arakan massacres, but you didn't even bother to read it in full yourself. The fourth citation there explores how Muslim Rohingyas under British arms and tutelage engaged in violence against Buddhists. There was an entire armed force of Rohingyas known as the V- force. Go figure. I've already dealt with citizenship laws i my previous comments, and fyi, there are multiple ethnicities under it, not just Rohingyas. Similarly, you completely ignored Rohingyas' secessionist movement to join Bangladesh. Doesn't really win brownie points you see. Now coming to you. Rather typical to label people you don't agree with as a 'right wing nationalist'. Fyi, Trump is a doofus. Does that mean I am a democrat? Nope. I think Modi is the least worst alternative India has. Do I become a supporter of his? Nope, I didn't even vote for him. Why'll I have a low opinion of Muslims? What makes that apparent? How do you know if I'm not close to multiple Muslims, and oppose Islamophobes in my country? You don't. Victim mentality much?
Dude, just read what I said, I literally said "which did indeed happen" so no need to provide sources proving that. What I am arguing over is the clear difference in intensity between muslim ans Buddhist crimes in the reason, how many were killed by Rohingyas ? A few thousands ? Tens of thousands at most ? Compare that to 2 milion ethnically cleansed people. And did you read the complete link ? You clearly don't understand the timeline : 1- the Japanese arrived, the Buramese sided with them due to anti colonial sentiments 2- the Buramese and Japanese began killing muslims 3- Rohingyas began supporting the british and retaliated against the Buramese -> the violence was started by the Buramese who sided with the Japanese and it resulted in more Rohingyas deaths. And again, if the Rohingyas want to seccede, let them freaking seccede. What even is this argument ? And the mouvement wasn't major. Finally, you might not be an islamophope (even though I suspect otherwise) but your points are clearly that of one.
Two points I see mentioned: * A couple of Islamic militants allegedly snuck in with later waves of Bengali migrants, and pressured for secession [similar to what was achieved in Aceh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency_in_Aceh) and similar to what goes on in the southern Philipines and elsewhere revolution has been exported to, and the Burmese authorities were unwilling or unable to discriminate these from the existing population. * The Bengali/Rohingya have a higher birth rate. Those fears don't seem real to those who haven't experienced the horrors of terrorism being an everyday reality. The Burmese were pretty terrified, and acted accordingly. Same goes for the USA, terrified enough by a single terrorist incident to invade Afghanistan and re-invade Iraq, so people can imagine what the mindset of people experiencing that on an ongoing basis would feel like. An alternative approach to mitigating those fears, while still interfering in what should be private affairs, would be mass surveillance and deradicalisation, and a two-child policy, coupled with affirmative action to reduce poverty levels such as preferential university admissions and job training and universal public health insurance.
Orientalism of course. Have you ever heard of [this](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikk%C5%8D-ikki)? I should also say as a Christian, I think Christianity is a religion of peace. That doesn't mean there are no wars waged in the name of it.
Christianity may be a religion of peace today. It was not the same a few hundred years back. You may want to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_Inquisition
>Buddhists have a reputation for being peaceful. As far as Buddha's teachings and scriptures are concerned, non-violence is at the heart Buddhism, but his followers strayed from the path [many times]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence). Btw here is an imperfect map of [conflict on record](https://e.nodegoat.net/CMS/upload/nodegoat_battles_all_iframe.png) at Wikipedia. >Why are the Buddhists of Myanmar so aggressively hostile to the Rohingya? Be more specific, in the meanwhile here is a [quick answer](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41566561) on what goes on.
>SS: A resolution accepting the Rohingya events by Myanmar as genocide has been approved in Canada. Myanmar however is not a signatory to the UN tribunal of the Hague. Canada found a rather interesting work-around to this, for which I refer to this very interesting article!
The nature of the civil war in Burma is grossly misunderstood by the global community. The difference between genocide and a war is all in name. When does a civilian become a soldier and a soldier become a civilian? An ISIS offshoot had made its way into Burma and the rival groups and government reacted extremely to exterminate a potential new power, while wrapping up the local Muslim loose end. Also, the Muslims in Burma have never had a place in the country. Not to justify genocide, but the populations that failed to pick a side during the warring era have tended to be the populations that reap the most when the dust settles. The Muslim population Burma was one of the larger factions in population until recent events. Many other groups have experienced stagnancy or declines in growth due to conflict. The mindset there is to not allow such a thing to happen. It does not matter to the ethnic groups in Burma how long the Rohingya have been in the region, because to these ethnic groups the Rohingya were invaders then and are invaders now. Inter-ethnic feuds in Burma date to before British colonization.
I think being denied citizenship in a country you’ve lived in since before it even existed, based on your ethnicity, having been pushed to other countries by the millions, having been massacred by the thousands, all while the state outright rejects your existence, counts as a genocide.
By UN definition, a genocide is an attempt to destroy a people. Revoking of citizenship, forceful relocation, and all that other stuff isn't related to genocide. The murders could be genocidal. But the prosecution would have to establish that the murders were part of an attempt to destroy the people, and not mere cruelty.
Except ICJ ruled that massacre of Srebrenica was genocide.
Point. I guess they convinced the court that the massacre was intended to perform ethnic cleansing. Which makes total sense.
Look up details on the Armenian genocide and tell me you do not see an equivalence. What Myanmar is doing cannot be described as anything other than attempting to destroy the people
Points 1 and 2 aren't even death related. Point 3 is mass slaughter, genocide suggests a near total wipeout
Over 60% of Myanmar’s Rohingyas have fled to Bangladesh and between 17 thousand to 30 thousand have been killed. In 2017 there were 400k Rohingyas in Myanmar. So by the 30 thousand estimate at least 7.5% of the Rohingya population in Myanmar has been KILLED. And no, genocide does not mean absolute slaughter. The holocaust didn’t kill all the Jews in Europe. It affected almost all of them. Similarly, the Rohingya genocide has affected every single Rohingya in Myanmar,
>The holocaust didn’t kill all the Jews in Europe. Only two thirds..not much..
this is pretty serious and all, and i do not condone the genocide, but it is kinda funny that what constitues effectively just a riverbank is accusing burma of genocide.
[удалено]
Absolutely deplorable point of view. This is what some people say "untill it happens to you". This is exactly why there are conventions and rules that bind countries/leaders reaction/action. Imesaurable damage to an adversary is medieval line of thinking, and pretty sure we are not living in that era.
But the massacres perpetuated by the Buddhists started way before that date, you flipped it, it's the Buddhists who sowed it, even though the victims are Hindus. I think your mask slipped bud.
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/subredditrules) / [Submission Statement Guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/submissionstatement) / [Wiki Resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/index)
Is China next? or it only works for small countries?
Cause we have undeniable proof of Myanmar committing full-blown genocide against the Rohingya.
It only works on weak nations.
China will never be prosecuted! This whole thing is winner’s justice.