-
- Information on this archive. See IIDB.org
-
-
Please join us on IIDB (iidb.org)
This is the archived Seculare Cafe forum. It is read only. If you would like to respond or otherwise revive a post or topic, please join us on the active forum: IIDB.
-
The Rohingya debate in India
The Rohingya debate in India
The Supreme Court of India is considering whether it is OK for the Indian government to deport Rohingya back to Myanmar or should they accept them as refugees. Rohingyas have been infiltrated by IS, Pakistani ISI, and have killed Rohingya Hindus in Myanmar and forcibly converted the Hindu women to Islam. Indian Government says that they are a security risk. Perhaps on instructions from IS, Pakistani ISI, Taliban etc. they have traveled across the breadth of India and have settled in Jammu region of Kashmir. I do not think the Indian Government will accept them as refugees even if the Supreme Court gives a decision in favor of Rohingyas. However, for the moment Indian government is not repatriating them to Myanmar.
'Sarve khalu idam Brahma'
All things here are Brahman (physical energy).
All things here are Brahman (physical energy).
-
Copernicus
- Posts: 7510
- Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:34 pm
- Location: Bellevue, WA
- Contact:
[quote=""Aupmanyav""]The Supreme Court of India is considering whether it is OK for the Indian government to deport Rohingya back to Myanmar or should they accept them as refugees. Rohingyas have been infiltrated by IS, Pakistani ISI, and have killed Rohingya Hindus in Myanmar and forcibly converted the Hindu women to Islam. Indian Government says that they are a security risk. Perhaps on instructions from IS, Pakistani ISI, Taliban etc. they have traveled across the breadth of India and have settled in Jammu region of Kashmir. I do not think the Indian Government will accept them as refugees even if the Supreme Court gives a decision in favor of Rohingyas. However, for the moment Indian government is not repatriating them to Myanmar.[/quote]
Where their lives are deeply at risk. I would not trust any of those reports about the Rohingya being infiltrated by Muslim extremists. Obviously, such extremists would try to operate in every Muslim culture, but the Rohingya have long been persecuted by the Burmese, which are currently conducting an ethnic cleansing operation. These are refugees and should be given shelter, not returned to Myanmar.
Where their lives are deeply at risk. I would not trust any of those reports about the Rohingya being infiltrated by Muslim extremists. Obviously, such extremists would try to operate in every Muslim culture, but the Rohingya have long been persecuted by the Burmese, which are currently conducting an ethnic cleansing operation. These are refugees and should be given shelter, not returned to Myanmar.
[quote=""Copernicus""].. but the Rohingya have long been persecuted by the Burmese, which are currently conducting an ethnic cleansing operation.[/quote]It seems that you are not aware of Rohingya history. The trouble started because they wanted an independent nation and boss around. And infiltration of Rohingyas by extremists is very true and accepted even by Bangladesh. That is why Bangladesh has shipped them to an uninhabited island in the Ganges/Padma Delta. India is under no obligation to import terror, we already have a lot of it.
'Sarve khalu idam Brahma'
All things here are Brahman (physical energy).
All things here are Brahman (physical energy).
-
Copernicus
- Posts: 7510
- Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:34 pm
- Location: Bellevue, WA
- Contact:
[quote=""Aupmanyav""]
Where do you get this nonsense from, Aup? You must base your knowledge of "Rohingya history" on Hindu nationalist propaganda, who probably feel some kinship to Buddhist ultra-nationalists in Myanmar. The ethnic cleansing campaigns against the
Rohingya people have been documented for years, but you apparently haven't been paying attention. They have been described as "the world's most persecuted minority" by the United Nations and several human rights groups. Besides the Wikipedia page, which contains numerous references, you can find a nice summary of The history of the persecution of Myanmar’s Rohingya.
It seems that you are not aware of Rohingya history. The trouble started because they wanted an independent nation and boss around. And infiltration of Rohingyas by extremists is very true and accepted even by Bangladesh. That is why Bangladesh has shipped them to an uninhabited island in the Ganges/Padma Delta. India is under no obligation to import terror, we already have a lot of it.[/QUOTE]Copernicus;678226 wrote:.. but the Rohingya have long been persecuted by the Burmese, which are currently conducting an ethnic cleansing operation.
Where do you get this nonsense from, Aup? You must base your knowledge of "Rohingya history" on Hindu nationalist propaganda, who probably feel some kinship to Buddhist ultra-nationalists in Myanmar. The ethnic cleansing campaigns against the
Rohingya people have been documented for years, but you apparently haven't been paying attention. They have been described as "the world's most persecuted minority" by the United Nations and several human rights groups. Besides the Wikipedia page, which contains numerous references, you can find a nice summary of The history of the persecution of Myanmar’s Rohingya.I have paid full attention to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_people. Rohingyas were not the only people who suffered. They caused equal suffering to the Arakanese people. Here is what I get from the article in Wikipedia:
"Professor Andrew Selth of Griffith University writes that although a few Rohingya trace their ancestry to Muslims who lived in Arakan in the 15th and 16h centuries, most Rohingyas arrived with the British colonialists in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Several Arakanese Indians were elected to Burmese native seats in the Legislative Council of Burma and Legislature of Burma. During the 1936 Burmese general election, Advocate U Pho Khaine was elected from Akyab West and Gani Markan was elected from Maungdaw-Buthidaung. In 1939, U Tanvy Markan was elected from Maungdaw-Buthidaung. Their elections in the Burmese native category set them apart from immigrant Indian legislators.
During World War II, the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) invaded British-controlled Burma. The British forces retreated and in the power vacuum left behind, considerable inter communal violence erupted between Arakanese and Muslim villagers. The British armed Muslims in northern Arakan in order to create a buffer zone that would protect the region from a Japanese invasion when they retreated and to counteract the largely pro-Japanese ethnic Rakhines. The period also witnessed violence between groups loyal to the British and the Burmese nationalists. The Arakan massacres in 1942 involved communal violence between British-armed V Force Rohingya recruits and pro-Japanese Rakhines, polarizing the region along ethnic lines.
The Japanese advance triggered an inter-communal conflict between Muslims and Buddhists. The Muslims fled towards British-controlled Muslim-dominated northern Arakan from Japanese-controlled Buddhist-majority areas. This stimulated a "reverse ethnic cleansing" in British-controlled areas, particularly around Maungdaw. Failure of British counter-offensive attempted from December 1942 to April 1943 resulted in abandonment of even more of the Muslim population as well as increase in inter-communal violence.
Moshe Yegar, a research fellow at Truman Institute, Hebrew University of Jerusalem that hostility had developed between the Muslims and the Buddhists that had brought about a similar hostility in other parts of Burma. This tension was let loose with the retreat of the British. With the approach of Japanese into Arakan, the Buddhists instigated cruel measures against the Muslims. Thousands, though the exact number is unknown, fled from Buddhist-majority regions to eastern Bengal and northern Arakan with many being killed or dying of starvation. The Muslims in response conducted retaliatory raids from British-controlled areas, causing Buddhists to flee to southern Arakan.
Aye Chan, a historian at Kanda University in Japan, has written that as a consequence of acquiring arms from the British during World War II, Rohingyas tried to destroy the Arakanese villages instead of resisting the Japanese. Chan agrees that hundreds of Muslims fled to northern Arakan though states that the accounts of atrocities on them were exaggerated. In March 1942, Rohingyas from northern Arakan killed around 20,000 Arakanese. In return, around 5,000 Muslims in the Minbya and Mrauk-U Townships were killed by Rakhines and Red Karens.
To facilitate their reentry into Burma, British formed Volunteer Forces with Rohingya. Over the three years during which the Allies and Japanese fought over the Mayu peninsula, the Rohingya recruits of the V-Force, engaged in a campaign against Arakanese communities, using weapons provided by V-Force. According to the secretary of British governor, the V Force, instead of fighting the Japanese, destroyed Buddhist monasteries, pagodas, and houses, and committed atrocities in northern Arakan. The British Army's liaison officer Anthony Irwin on the other hand praised the role of the V Force.
During the Pakistan Movement in the 1940s, Rohingya Muslims in western Burma organized a separatist movement to merge the region into East Pakistan. The commitments of the British regarding the status of Muslims after the war are not clear. V Force officers like Andrew Irwin felt that Muslims along with other minorities must be rewarded for their loyalty. Muslim leaders believed that the British had promised them a "Muslim National Area" in Maungdaw region. They were also apprehensive of a future Buddhist-dominated government. In 1946, calls were made for annexation of the territory by Pakistan as well as of an independent state. Before the independence of Burma in January 1948, Muslim leaders from Arakan addressed themselves to Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, and asked his assistance in incorporating the Mayu region to Pakistan considering their religious affinity and geographical proximity with East Pakistan. The North Arakan Muslim League was founded in Akyab (modern Sittwe) two months later. The proposal never materialized since it was reportedly turned down by Jinnah, saying that he was not in a position to interfere into Burmese matters.
The numbers and the extent of post-independence immigration from Bangladesh are subject to controversy and debate. In a 1955 study published by Stanford University, the authors Virginia Thompson and Richard Adloff write, "The post-war (World War II) illegal immigration of Chittagonians into that area was on a vast scale, and in the Maungdaw and Buthidaung areas they replaced the Arakanese." The authors further argue that the term Rohingya, in the form of Rwangya, first appeared to distinguish settled population from newcomers: "The newcomers were called Mujahids (crusaders), in contrast to the Rwangya or settled Chittagonian population." According to the International Crisis Group (ICG), these immigrants were actually the Rohingyas who were displaced by the World War II and began to return to Arakan after the independence of Burma but were rendered as illegal immigrants, while many were not allowed to return. ICG adds that there were "some 17,000" refugees from the Bangladesh liberation war who "subsequently returned home"."
The other article is a recent one for propaganda purposes. I have not read it but I know what it will contain.
"Professor Andrew Selth of Griffith University writes that although a few Rohingya trace their ancestry to Muslims who lived in Arakan in the 15th and 16h centuries, most Rohingyas arrived with the British colonialists in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Several Arakanese Indians were elected to Burmese native seats in the Legislative Council of Burma and Legislature of Burma. During the 1936 Burmese general election, Advocate U Pho Khaine was elected from Akyab West and Gani Markan was elected from Maungdaw-Buthidaung. In 1939, U Tanvy Markan was elected from Maungdaw-Buthidaung. Their elections in the Burmese native category set them apart from immigrant Indian legislators.
During World War II, the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) invaded British-controlled Burma. The British forces retreated and in the power vacuum left behind, considerable inter communal violence erupted between Arakanese and Muslim villagers. The British armed Muslims in northern Arakan in order to create a buffer zone that would protect the region from a Japanese invasion when they retreated and to counteract the largely pro-Japanese ethnic Rakhines. The period also witnessed violence between groups loyal to the British and the Burmese nationalists. The Arakan massacres in 1942 involved communal violence between British-armed V Force Rohingya recruits and pro-Japanese Rakhines, polarizing the region along ethnic lines.
The Japanese advance triggered an inter-communal conflict between Muslims and Buddhists. The Muslims fled towards British-controlled Muslim-dominated northern Arakan from Japanese-controlled Buddhist-majority areas. This stimulated a "reverse ethnic cleansing" in British-controlled areas, particularly around Maungdaw. Failure of British counter-offensive attempted from December 1942 to April 1943 resulted in abandonment of even more of the Muslim population as well as increase in inter-communal violence.
Moshe Yegar, a research fellow at Truman Institute, Hebrew University of Jerusalem that hostility had developed between the Muslims and the Buddhists that had brought about a similar hostility in other parts of Burma. This tension was let loose with the retreat of the British. With the approach of Japanese into Arakan, the Buddhists instigated cruel measures against the Muslims. Thousands, though the exact number is unknown, fled from Buddhist-majority regions to eastern Bengal and northern Arakan with many being killed or dying of starvation. The Muslims in response conducted retaliatory raids from British-controlled areas, causing Buddhists to flee to southern Arakan.
Aye Chan, a historian at Kanda University in Japan, has written that as a consequence of acquiring arms from the British during World War II, Rohingyas tried to destroy the Arakanese villages instead of resisting the Japanese. Chan agrees that hundreds of Muslims fled to northern Arakan though states that the accounts of atrocities on them were exaggerated. In March 1942, Rohingyas from northern Arakan killed around 20,000 Arakanese. In return, around 5,000 Muslims in the Minbya and Mrauk-U Townships were killed by Rakhines and Red Karens.
To facilitate their reentry into Burma, British formed Volunteer Forces with Rohingya. Over the three years during which the Allies and Japanese fought over the Mayu peninsula, the Rohingya recruits of the V-Force, engaged in a campaign against Arakanese communities, using weapons provided by V-Force. According to the secretary of British governor, the V Force, instead of fighting the Japanese, destroyed Buddhist monasteries, pagodas, and houses, and committed atrocities in northern Arakan. The British Army's liaison officer Anthony Irwin on the other hand praised the role of the V Force.
During the Pakistan Movement in the 1940s, Rohingya Muslims in western Burma organized a separatist movement to merge the region into East Pakistan. The commitments of the British regarding the status of Muslims after the war are not clear. V Force officers like Andrew Irwin felt that Muslims along with other minorities must be rewarded for their loyalty. Muslim leaders believed that the British had promised them a "Muslim National Area" in Maungdaw region. They were also apprehensive of a future Buddhist-dominated government. In 1946, calls were made for annexation of the territory by Pakistan as well as of an independent state. Before the independence of Burma in January 1948, Muslim leaders from Arakan addressed themselves to Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, and asked his assistance in incorporating the Mayu region to Pakistan considering their religious affinity and geographical proximity with East Pakistan. The North Arakan Muslim League was founded in Akyab (modern Sittwe) two months later. The proposal never materialized since it was reportedly turned down by Jinnah, saying that he was not in a position to interfere into Burmese matters.
The numbers and the extent of post-independence immigration from Bangladesh are subject to controversy and debate. In a 1955 study published by Stanford University, the authors Virginia Thompson and Richard Adloff write, "The post-war (World War II) illegal immigration of Chittagonians into that area was on a vast scale, and in the Maungdaw and Buthidaung areas they replaced the Arakanese." The authors further argue that the term Rohingya, in the form of Rwangya, first appeared to distinguish settled population from newcomers: "The newcomers were called Mujahids (crusaders), in contrast to the Rwangya or settled Chittagonian population." According to the International Crisis Group (ICG), these immigrants were actually the Rohingyas who were displaced by the World War II and began to return to Arakan after the independence of Burma but were rendered as illegal immigrants, while many were not allowed to return. ICG adds that there were "some 17,000" refugees from the Bangladesh liberation war who "subsequently returned home"."
The other article is a recent one for propaganda purposes. I have not read it but I know what it will contain.
'Sarve khalu idam Brahma'
All things here are Brahman (physical energy).
All things here are Brahman (physical energy).
-
Copernicus
- Posts: 7510
- Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:34 pm
- Location: Bellevue, WA
- Contact:
How does any of that WWII history explain or justify ethnic cleansing in the 21st century or any of your claims about what current policy should be regarding their status in India? I confess that I am at a complete loss as to what you are trying to say here, other than that you just don't like them because they are predominantly Muslim.
How does the continued persecution of Hindus and Christians is justified in Pakistan after 70 years of independence? These animosities linger on for ages. I would like to add a line to the last line of my previous post - Does Wikipedia have a page on the atrocities committed by Rohingyas against Buddhists and more recently Hindus. That is why I feel the new article is one-sided. A good many people in India do not like the Rohingya mgration because they are heavily infiltrated by IS, Al-Quaeda and Pakistani ISI, and we think that we will have to face problems because of that. We did not object when Afghans, Iranis, Iraqis and Syrians came to India. We have a lot of them in Delhi. However, Afghans are into drugs.
'Sarve khalu idam Brahma'
All things here are Brahman (physical energy).
All things here are Brahman (physical energy).
-
Copernicus
- Posts: 7510
- Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:34 pm
- Location: Bellevue, WA
- Contact:
[quote=""Aupmanyav""]How does the continued persecution of Hindus and Christians is justified in Pakistan after 70 years of independence?[/quote]
Persecution of Hindus and Muslims by Rohingyas in Myanmar? We are talking about an ethnic cleansing operation being carried out by ultra-nationalist Buddhists. To the extent that I can make sense of your (ungrammatical) sentence, I see no connection between it and the debate in India over whether to accept refugees officially as refugees.
[quote=""Aupmanyav""]These animosities linger on for ages. I would like to add a line to the last line of my previous post - Does Wikipedia have a page on the atrocities committed by Rohingyas against Buddhists and more recently Hindus. That is why I feel the new article is one-sided.[/quote]
You are really going down a rabbit hole to try to justify modern persecution of Rohingyas. You connect modern atrocities with vague references to things you read that some Rohingyas did during WWII? Is that the connection you are trying to make?
Persecution of Hindus and Muslims by Rohingyas in Myanmar? We are talking about an ethnic cleansing operation being carried out by ultra-nationalist Buddhists. To the extent that I can make sense of your (ungrammatical) sentence, I see no connection between it and the debate in India over whether to accept refugees officially as refugees.
[quote=""Aupmanyav""]These animosities linger on for ages. I would like to add a line to the last line of my previous post - Does Wikipedia have a page on the atrocities committed by Rohingyas against Buddhists and more recently Hindus. That is why I feel the new article is one-sided.[/quote]
You are really going down a rabbit hole to try to justify modern persecution of Rohingyas. You connect modern atrocities with vague references to things you read that some Rohingyas did during WWII? Is that the connection you are trying to make?
Kindly read my post again. I mentioned the persecution of Hindus and Christians in Pakistan. It is not because of any grammatical mistake.
I have explained why India does not want Rohingya refugees and Bangladesh has accepted them with great reservation and put them on an separate uninhabited island in the Delta. The reason being their involvement in terror activities. Bangladesh has its own problems with terrorists.
Well, they get what they sowed. Nothing strange in that. And they have continued to do so. The recent flight occurred after they killed 70 Buddhist (no count for the Hindus is mentioned, some say 45, others say in hundreds).
You are in Wa and we are here. We see what is happening. Why did Rohingyas go directly to Jammu? Why did not they settle in Assam, Bengal or Bihar. Because their terrorist masters wanted them there to create problems in Kashmir. They crossed the whole breadth of India, Why? Why did they stop in Jammu? Why did not they cross over to Pakistan which is a Muslim country? Rohingyas are not as innocent as you might think them to be.
I have explained why India does not want Rohingya refugees and Bangladesh has accepted them with great reservation and put them on an separate uninhabited island in the Delta. The reason being their involvement in terror activities. Bangladesh has its own problems with terrorists.
Well, they get what they sowed. Nothing strange in that. And they have continued to do so. The recent flight occurred after they killed 70 Buddhist (no count for the Hindus is mentioned, some say 45, others say in hundreds).
You are in Wa and we are here. We see what is happening. Why did Rohingyas go directly to Jammu? Why did not they settle in Assam, Bengal or Bihar. Because their terrorist masters wanted them there to create problems in Kashmir. They crossed the whole breadth of India, Why? Why did they stop in Jammu? Why did not they cross over to Pakistan which is a Muslim country? Rohingyas are not as innocent as you might think them to be.
'Sarve khalu idam Brahma'
All things here are Brahman (physical energy).
All things here are Brahman (physical energy).
-
MattShizzle
- Posts: 18963
- Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:22 pm
- Location: Bernville, PA
As I understand, there are atrocities on both sides. I wonder why didn't they just go to nearby Bangladesh or even China rather than thousands of miles away to a place with LOTS of Hindu/Muslim conflict. From admining in that FB group, I see than Hindus and Muslims REALLY hate each other. Of course the rest of the world won't do anything until it's too late, just like in Cambodia, what was Yugoslavia, Central Africa, etc...
No, Matt. Hindus and Muslims have no problem in India. They have lived together for hundreds of years and will continue to do so in future (a few riots notwithstanding. With a population of 1.3 billion and politics things cannot be silk smooth. There will be conflicts, we understand that). It is just the Saudi-trained clerics and Pakistani ISI who sow the seeds of separation but have not succeeded since 1980s. We have things very much under control. And these 40/60,000 Rohingyas are no great problem, we can manage them too (if we can manage 175 million or so Muslim in India), but why should we do it? Rohingyas themselves have participated in atrocities. Why should India feel obliged to help them?
'Sarve khalu idam Brahma'
All things here are Brahman (physical energy).
All things here are Brahman (physical energy).
-
Copernicus
- Posts: 7510
- Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:34 pm
- Location: Bellevue, WA
- Contact:
[quote=""Aupmanyav""]Kindly read my post again. I mentioned the persecution of Hindus and Christians in Pakistan. It is not because of any grammatical mistake.[/quote]
My point about the "grammatical mistake" is that it made your meaning and intent difficult to process. You are perfectly capable of writing grammatical English, but it looked to me like you had rewritten an earlier version of the sentence and just not proofread the result.
[quote=""Aupmanyav""]I have explained why India does not want Rohingya refugees and Bangladesh has accepted them with great reservation and put them on an separate uninhabited island in the Delta. The reason being their involvement in terror activities. Bangladesh has its own problems with terrorists.
Well, they get what they sowed. Nothing strange in that. And they have continued to do so. The recent flight occurred after they killed 70 Buddhist (no count for the Hindus is mentioned, some say 45, others say in hundreds).
You are in Wa and we are here. We see what is happening. Why did Rohingyas go directly to Jammu? Why did not they settle in Assam, Bengal or Bihar. Because their terrorist masters wanted them there to create problems in Kashmir. They crossed the whole breadth of India, Why? Why did they stop in Jammu? Why did not they cross over to Pakistan which is a Muslim country? Rohingyas are not as innocent as you might think them to be.[/quote]
Aup, you are referring to stories you have read that I have absolutely no knowledge of, and you don't seem to know how to fill in the blanks. I don't know what "terrorist" activities you are talking about, and your unsourced references to atrocities sound very much like the kinds of urban legends that grow up around racial and ethnic stereotypes that exist in cultures all over the world. I'm a bit surprised that you haven't accused the Rohingya refugees of cannibalism, but maybe you haven't finished.
In the US, Donald Trump built an entire election campaign out of these kinds of made-up stories. Did you know that Mexico is sending us criminals and rapists to take away jobs from hard-working, but unfairly oppressed, white people? I didn't, but he sure did. He was big enough to point out that there were some good people, too, who were from Mexico. Don't forget the afterthoughts. And I'm sure that you would agree that there are some--maybe just a few--good people among the thousands of Rohingyas fleeing the ethnic cleansing campaign in Myanmar. Most of them, of course, are just terrorists intent on following orders from their jihadi masters.
My point about the "grammatical mistake" is that it made your meaning and intent difficult to process. You are perfectly capable of writing grammatical English, but it looked to me like you had rewritten an earlier version of the sentence and just not proofread the result.
[quote=""Aupmanyav""]I have explained why India does not want Rohingya refugees and Bangladesh has accepted them with great reservation and put them on an separate uninhabited island in the Delta. The reason being their involvement in terror activities. Bangladesh has its own problems with terrorists.
Well, they get what they sowed. Nothing strange in that. And they have continued to do so. The recent flight occurred after they killed 70 Buddhist (no count for the Hindus is mentioned, some say 45, others say in hundreds).
You are in Wa and we are here. We see what is happening. Why did Rohingyas go directly to Jammu? Why did not they settle in Assam, Bengal or Bihar. Because their terrorist masters wanted them there to create problems in Kashmir. They crossed the whole breadth of India, Why? Why did they stop in Jammu? Why did not they cross over to Pakistan which is a Muslim country? Rohingyas are not as innocent as you might think them to be.[/quote]
Aup, you are referring to stories you have read that I have absolutely no knowledge of, and you don't seem to know how to fill in the blanks. I don't know what "terrorist" activities you are talking about, and your unsourced references to atrocities sound very much like the kinds of urban legends that grow up around racial and ethnic stereotypes that exist in cultures all over the world. I'm a bit surprised that you haven't accused the Rohingya refugees of cannibalism, but maybe you haven't finished.
In the US, Donald Trump built an entire election campaign out of these kinds of made-up stories. Did you know that Mexico is sending us criminals and rapists to take away jobs from hard-working, but unfairly oppressed, white people? I didn't, but he sure did. He was big enough to point out that there were some good people, too, who were from Mexico. Don't forget the afterthoughts. And I'm sure that you would agree that there are some--maybe just a few--good people among the thousands of Rohingyas fleeing the ethnic cleansing campaign in Myanmar. Most of them, of course, are just terrorists intent on following orders from their jihadi masters.
Cop., you are entitled to your views, and so is the Government of India. They would do whatever is necessary in this case. They are still going by the Supreme Courts decision to postpone any repatriation of Rohingyas for the moment. India is a law-abiding country. Unlike Trump, this Government has our full faith.
'Sarve khalu idam Brahma'
All things here are Brahman (physical energy).
All things here are Brahman (physical energy).
Well stuff Governments these days... every Govt. is exercising , as in the case of Myinwar, just who belongs where. So the chaos escalates.
IMO it does yet again come back to Religious beliefs.
And BTW soon old Vatican bloke Cardinal Pell, paedophile , comes to Justice here in Melbourne.
So as the French say 'Plus ca change, Plus c'est la meme chose'
IMO it does yet again come back to Religious beliefs.
And BTW soon old Vatican bloke Cardinal Pell, paedophile , comes to Justice here in Melbourne.
So as the French say 'Plus ca change, Plus c'est la meme chose'
"You understand?" said Ponder
"No. I was just hoping that if I didn't say anything you'd stop trying to explain things to me." - Terry Pratchett, The Last Hero
"No. I was just hoping that if I didn't say anything you'd stop trying to explain things to me." - Terry Pratchett, The Last Hero
-
MattShizzle
- Posts: 18963
- Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:22 pm
- Location: Bernville, PA
[quote=""Aupmanyav""]No, Matt. Hindus and Muslims have no problem in India. They have lived together for hundreds of years and will continue to do so in future (a few riots notwithstanding. With a population of 1.3 billion and politics things cannot be silk smooth. There will be conflicts, we understand that). It is just the Saudi-trained clerics and Pakistani ISI who sow the seeds of separation but have not succeeded since 1980s. We have things very much under control. And these 40/60,000 Rohingyas are no great problem, we can manage them too (if we can manage 175 million or so Muslim in India), but why should we do it? Rohingyas themselves have participated in atrocities. Why should India feel obliged to help them?[/quote]
Not what I see there. We constantly have to remove posts and even ban people for Muslims trolling Hindus and vice versa (and posting gore porn about the conflict.) Also constant stupid shit about Hindus saying Muslims drink camel piss and Muslims saying Hindus drink cow piss. Pakistani Muslims are especially bad with this. Muslims hate Hindus more than they hate Atheists from what I've seen.
Not what I see there. We constantly have to remove posts and even ban people for Muslims trolling Hindus and vice versa (and posting gore porn about the conflict.) Also constant stupid shit about Hindus saying Muslims drink camel piss and Muslims saying Hindus drink cow piss. Pakistani Muslims are especially bad with this. Muslims hate Hindus more than they hate Atheists from what I've seen.
-
DrZoidberg
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:50 am
[quote=""MattShizzle""]
But they are defacto living side by side in India, more or less without friction. I'd argue that there's loads of other problems causing conflicts in India. Primarily class conflicts. India is undergoing a tremendous social shift, away from an agrarian economy, to an industrial economy. And I think this is the source of, pretty much, all social problems in India now. Religion seems to be a non-factor.
My last team I lead was a mixed team of Hindus and Muslims. Which works out great, because it means we had no down-time.
But Rohingyas "infiltrated by IS"... such a bullshit thing to say. Islamic terrorists aren't some evil conspiratorial creatures that sneak throughout the night and whisper corrupting lies to our youth.
Young men and women become radicalised when they feel under threat. The Rohingya have every reason to feel under threat.
Not what I see there. We constantly have to remove posts and even ban people for Muslims trolling Hindus and vice versa (and posting gore porn about the conflict.) Also constant stupid shit about Hindus saying Muslims drink camel piss and Muslims saying Hindus drink cow piss. Pakistani Muslims are especially bad with this. Muslims hate Hindus more than they hate Atheists from what I've seen.[/QUOTE]Aupmanyav;678274 wrote:No, Matt. Hindus and Muslims have no problem in India. They have lived together for hundreds of years and will continue to do so in future (a few riots notwithstanding. With a population of 1.3 billion and politics things cannot be silk smooth. There will be conflicts, we understand that). It is just the Saudi-trained clerics and Pakistani ISI who sow the seeds of separation but have not succeeded since 1980s. We have things very much under control. And these 40/60,000 Rohingyas are no great problem, we can manage them too (if we can manage 175 million or so Muslim in India), but why should we do it? Rohingyas themselves have participated in atrocities. Why should India feel obliged to help them?
But they are defacto living side by side in India, more or less without friction. I'd argue that there's loads of other problems causing conflicts in India. Primarily class conflicts. India is undergoing a tremendous social shift, away from an agrarian economy, to an industrial economy. And I think this is the source of, pretty much, all social problems in India now. Religion seems to be a non-factor.
My last team I lead was a mixed team of Hindus and Muslims. Which works out great, because it means we had no down-time.
But Rohingyas "infiltrated by IS"... such a bullshit thing to say. Islamic terrorists aren't some evil conspiratorial creatures that sneak throughout the night and whisper corrupting lies to our youth.
Young men and women become radicalised when they feel under threat. The Rohingya have every reason to feel under threat.
"Sorry, you must have been boring"
/Dr Zoidberg
/Dr Zoidberg
[quote=""MattShizzle""]Muslims hate Hindus more than they hate Atheists from what I've seen.[/quote]Yeah, Hindu beliefs are completely opposite of Muslim beliefs. Many Gods, no compulsion for a particular God, no insistence to follow what is written in books, etc. But things are not so bad on ground. Muslims also are making adjustments, we will manage. India has its own equations.
1. Shias say they will construct the mosque somewhere else, let Babri go to Rama and Hindus.
https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j ... sSjdy4hWfW
2. Muslim women worship Rama.
https://www.google.co.in/search?biw=168 ... 7qPt6yfccc
3. Muslim women clean Ganges banks for Hindu women to worship.
https://www.google.co.in/search?q=Patna ... 3&dpr=0.94
4. Muslim women question the validity of fatwas and demand closure of Dar-ul-Uloom, Deoband.
https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j ... zHVVtLgOTn
1. Shias say they will construct the mosque somewhere else, let Babri go to Rama and Hindus.
https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j ... sSjdy4hWfW
2. Muslim women worship Rama.
https://www.google.co.in/search?biw=168 ... 7qPt6yfccc
3. Muslim women clean Ganges banks for Hindu women to worship.
https://www.google.co.in/search?q=Patna ... 3&dpr=0.94
4. Muslim women question the validity of fatwas and demand closure of Dar-ul-Uloom, Deoband.
https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j ... zHVVtLgOTn
'Sarve khalu idam Brahma'
All things here are Brahman (physical energy).
All things here are Brahman (physical energy).
[quote=""DrZoidberg""]Islamic terrorists aren't some evil conspiratorial creatures that sneak throughout the night and whisper corrupting lies to our youth.[/quote]They (IS, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Pakistni ISI) are very much that and they are making a very intelligent use of internet and social media for recruitment and spying all over the world from USA to Philippines. You never know where all the connections are. If you do not know then you need to study their methodology. They also use conversion and marriage (Love Jihad) towards that end. Remember "Dabiq".
Samantha Lewthwaite
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest ... te-killers
Samantha Lewthwaitehttps://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest ... te-killers
Last edited by Aupmanyav on Wed Oct 25, 2017 7:32 am, edited 2 times in total.
'Sarve khalu idam Brahma'
All things here are Brahman (physical energy).
All things here are Brahman (physical energy).
-
DrZoidberg
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:50 am
[quote=""Aupmanyav""]
[/QUOTE]
Hinduism isn't opposite of Islam. It's completely different. It's a pagan system of belief. But I think it's bullshit that there's no compulsion. I've worked with plenty of Indians. India has a high degree of social control. They do not have the same degree of freedom as in the West. Just the fact that arrange marriage is still common, makes it more similar to traditional Islam than anything else.
I see a lot of similarities between how Islamic society works and Indian.
Yeah, Hindu beliefs are completely opposite of Muslim beliefs. Many Gods, no compulsion for a particular God, no insistence to follow what is written in books, etc. But things are not so bad on ground. Muslims also are making adjustments, we will manage. India has its own equations.MattShizzle;678674 wrote:Muslims hate Hindus more than they hate Atheists from what I've seen.
[/QUOTE]
Hinduism isn't opposite of Islam. It's completely different. It's a pagan system of belief. But I think it's bullshit that there's no compulsion. I've worked with plenty of Indians. India has a high degree of social control. They do not have the same degree of freedom as in the West. Just the fact that arrange marriage is still common, makes it more similar to traditional Islam than anything else.
I see a lot of similarities between how Islamic society works and Indian.
"Sorry, you must have been boring"
/Dr Zoidberg
/Dr Zoidberg
-
DrZoidberg
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:50 am
[quote=""Aupmanyav""]
[/QUOTE]
Lay off the conspiracy theory lunacy. It doesn't become you.
No they're not "corrupting our young" in ways that anybody else is. They're not talking anybody into anything they're not already open for. Every movement has it's own publication.
What ISIS, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are is persuasive. If we want to stop ISIS we need to be more persuasive. It's as simple as that.
If we elect people like Trump as our political leaders, we are in effect talking people into joining ISIS.
Also... remember that militant Islam is a marginal activity. It's rare. Almost all Muslims are not militant. They're not active in violent Jihad and don't support it.
Based on the reaction of those liberated from ISIS control in Syria I'd say, very few living in ISIS controlled Syria, are militant Islamists.
Historically we also have few terrorists. Remember all the anarchist and fascist attacks in Europe 1850-1945? Remember communist terrorism 1918-1991? Total carnage. If this is the best Islamic terrorists can do, they're not particularly effective.
That's saying a lot considering that technology has progressed so much over this time. More people than ever before are capable of carrying out devastating attacks.
They (IS, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Pakistni ISI) are very much that and they are making a very intelligent use of internet and social media for recruitment and spying all over the world from USA to Philippines. You never know where all the connections are. If you do not know then you need to study their methodology. They also use conversion and marriage (Love Jihad) towards that end. Remember "Dabiq".DrZoidberg;678686 wrote:Islamic terrorists aren't some evil conspiratorial creatures that sneak throughout the night and whisper corrupting lies to our youth.
[/QUOTE]
Lay off the conspiracy theory lunacy. It doesn't become you.
No they're not "corrupting our young" in ways that anybody else is. They're not talking anybody into anything they're not already open for. Every movement has it's own publication.
What ISIS, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are is persuasive. If we want to stop ISIS we need to be more persuasive. It's as simple as that.
If we elect people like Trump as our political leaders, we are in effect talking people into joining ISIS.
Also... remember that militant Islam is a marginal activity. It's rare. Almost all Muslims are not militant. They're not active in violent Jihad and don't support it.
Based on the reaction of those liberated from ISIS control in Syria I'd say, very few living in ISIS controlled Syria, are militant Islamists.
Historically we also have few terrorists. Remember all the anarchist and fascist attacks in Europe 1850-1945? Remember communist terrorism 1918-1991? Total carnage. If this is the best Islamic terrorists can do, they're not particularly effective.
That's saying a lot considering that technology has progressed so much over this time. More people than ever before are capable of carrying out devastating attacks.
"Sorry, you must have been boring"
/Dr Zoidberg
/Dr Zoidberg
[quote=""DrZoidberg""]India has a high degree of social control. They do not have the same degree of freedom as in the West. Just the fact that arrange marriage is still common, makes it more similar to traditional Islam than anything else.[/quote]Yes, we have a lot of social control which helps us to avoid the pitfalls of a Western society due to too much freedom before time. Again, our marriage system does not require boys and girls to stumble around for a match. What are parents for if not to help? And who would be more concerned about the future of their children than the parents? It is 'consultative marriage'. The boys and girls express their views on the match. Marriage is not forced upon them. That is why a large number of educated young people still go for this type of marriage.[quote=""DrZoidberg""]It's rare. Almost all Muslims are not militant. They're not active in violent Jihad and don't support it.[/quote]I would say that they are not common but I would not say they are 'rare'. Again I would not use the world 'almost all', I would say the majority of Muslims are not involved in extremism. We understand that and that helps the sky not to fall. But we in India, have to make a concerted effort to control Islamic extremism. I am happy to hear that the heir-apparent of Saudi Arabia wants moderate Islam to return to his country. They and their clerics have played a big part in spread of Islamic extremism in the world.
Last edited by Aupmanyav on Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:09 pm, edited 4 times in total.
'Sarve khalu idam Brahma'
All things here are Brahman (physical energy).
All things here are Brahman (physical energy).
-
DrZoidberg
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:50 am
[quote=""Aupmanyav""]
[/QUOTE]
Oh, come on. This is exactly what militant Muslims are doing as well, with their arranged marriages. There's no difference. You're being a hypocrite.
And it's nice that you see it as "helping people to the avoid the pitfalls of Western society". A big part of growing up is to make make mistakes and screw up. If you are protected from it, you stay a child your entire life. That's the only thing social control does. I have worked with a lot of Indians. They're not the bravest lot. They are emotionally dependent on support from their peers much more than Westerners. They also take critique a hell of a lot harder. I wonder why? Don't get me wrong. I like India and working with Indians. But all that social control is only damaging IMHO. The sheer stress put onto Indians by their families is tremendous. For what? For nothing. It just leads to thin skins and people burning out from stress.
Yes, pros and cons. Mostly cons.
[quote=""Aupmanyav""]
[/QUOTE]
Nice of you to acknowledge that much
Yes, we have a lot of social control which helps us to avoid the pitfalls of a Western society due to too much freedom before time. Again, our marriage system does not require boys and girls to stumble around for a match. What are parents for if not to help? And who would be more concerned about the future of their children than the parents? It is 'consultative marriage'. The boys and girls express their views on the match. Marriage is not forced upon them. That is why a large number of educated young people still go for this type of marriage.DrZoidberg;678768 wrote:India has a high degree of social control. They do not have the same degree of freedom as in the West. Just the fact that arrange marriage is still common, makes it more similar to traditional Islam than anything else.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, come on. This is exactly what militant Muslims are doing as well, with their arranged marriages. There's no difference. You're being a hypocrite.
And it's nice that you see it as "helping people to the avoid the pitfalls of Western society". A big part of growing up is to make make mistakes and screw up. If you are protected from it, you stay a child your entire life. That's the only thing social control does. I have worked with a lot of Indians. They're not the bravest lot. They are emotionally dependent on support from their peers much more than Westerners. They also take critique a hell of a lot harder. I wonder why? Don't get me wrong. I like India and working with Indians. But all that social control is only damaging IMHO. The sheer stress put onto Indians by their families is tremendous. For what? For nothing. It just leads to thin skins and people burning out from stress.
Yes, pros and cons. Mostly cons.
[quote=""Aupmanyav""]
I would say that they are not common but I would not say they are 'rare'. Again I would not use the world 'almost all', I would say the majority of Muslims are not involved in extremism. We understand that and that helps the sky not to fall. But we in India, have to make a concerted effort to control Islamic extremism. I am happy to hear that the heir-apparent of Saudi Arabia wants moderate Islam to return to his country. They and their clerics have played a big part in spread of Islamic extremism in the world.[/QUOTE]DrZoidberg;678771 wrote:It's rare. Almost all Muslims are not militant. They're not active in violent Jihad and don't support it.
[/QUOTE]
Nice of you to acknowledge that much
"Sorry, you must have been boring"
/Dr Zoidberg
/Dr Zoidberg
[quote=""DrZoidberg""]This is exactly what militant Muslims are doing as well, with their arranged marriages. There's no difference. You're being a hypocrite.[/quote]Definitely not. Hindu parents will not dream of associating with violent people. Arranged marriage in India is like a computer match. Physique, age, education, attitudes, finances, family reputation for being a peaceful family, religion, region, traditions - all these things are considered. Do militant Muslims do that?
'Sarve khalu idam Brahma'
All things here are Brahman (physical energy).
All things here are Brahman (physical energy).
-
DrZoidberg
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:50 am
[quote=""Aupmanyav""]
Of course that's what Muslim who arrange marriages are doing. That's how people have to been doing arranged marriages always have done. All, non-mentally ill, parents love their children. They want what's best for them.
The problem is that in our modern world, technology is progressing so quickly that there's less and less wisdom of value to pass on to our children. That's the only reason the tradition of arranged marriages is ending. That's why it ended in Europe.
I suggest watching the musical Fiddler on the Roof. It's about how the tradition of arranged marriages is falling apart in pre-revolution Russia among the Jewish population. It's going to happen in India to. It's out outdated practice that has no place in the modern world.
If Hindus don't associate with violent people then how come the whole bit in the Baghavad Gita with Krishna and Arjuna is about Krishna talking Arjuna to get on with the killing again. The Viyanagar empire didn't spread by being nice to people. If you think that Hindu religion is purely peaceful, then you haven't paid attention. Hindu peacefulness is a modern myth.
Definitely not. Hindu parents will not dream of associating with violent people. Arranged marriage in India is like a computer match. Physique, age, education, attitudes, finances, family reputation for being a peaceful family, religion, region, traditions - all these things are considered. Do militant Muslims do that?[/QUOTE]DrZoidberg;678787 wrote:This is exactly what militant Muslims are doing as well, with their arranged marriages. There's no difference. You're being a hypocrite.
Of course that's what Muslim who arrange marriages are doing. That's how people have to been doing arranged marriages always have done. All, non-mentally ill, parents love their children. They want what's best for them.
The problem is that in our modern world, technology is progressing so quickly that there's less and less wisdom of value to pass on to our children. That's the only reason the tradition of arranged marriages is ending. That's why it ended in Europe.
I suggest watching the musical Fiddler on the Roof. It's about how the tradition of arranged marriages is falling apart in pre-revolution Russia among the Jewish population. It's going to happen in India to. It's out outdated practice that has no place in the modern world.
If Hindus don't associate with violent people then how come the whole bit in the Baghavad Gita with Krishna and Arjuna is about Krishna talking Arjuna to get on with the killing again. The Viyanagar empire didn't spread by being nice to people. If you think that Hindu religion is purely peaceful, then you haven't paid attention. Hindu peacefulness is a modern myth.
"Sorry, you must have been boring"
/Dr Zoidberg
/Dr Zoidberg
[quote=""DrZoidberg""]If Hindus don't associate with violent people then how come the whole bit in the Baghavad Gita with Krishna and Arjuna is about Krishna talking Arjuna to get on with the killing again.[/quote]At times, that too is necessary. And when it is necessary, one must not shirk it. It is part of 'dharma'.
Yeah, society will change. Don't know how much time will it take. Probably West would return to arranged marriages.
Evolution and retro-evolution.
In most probability, West would perhaps discard the institution of marriage totally. It has become somewhat meaningless there.
Yeah, society will change. Don't know how much time will it take. Probably West would return to arranged marriages.
Evolution and retro-evolution.
In most probability, West would perhaps discard the institution of marriage totally. It has become somewhat meaningless there.
'Sarve khalu idam Brahma'
All things here are Brahman (physical energy).
All things here are Brahman (physical energy).