[Newsbot]

Title: Aung San Suu Kyi angry at 'interview by Muslim' on BBC Today with Mishal Husain
Category: World
Posted By: martin14
Date: 2016-03-25 04:14:30

[martin14]

But but everyone keeps telling me Islam is a religion of peace.

[BeaverFever]

Huh?

[BartSimpson]

$1:

The Rohingya (Muslims) are explicitly forbidden from becoming citizens of Burma and have no political weight whatsoever.

Given what happens when these fuckers take over a country then this is not a bad idea.

[N_Fiddledog]

Oh dear, did some silly Kafir dare to annoy the BBC's favored supremacist cult?

To arms! Notify the SAS. Time to attack Burma.

[N_Fiddledog]

Also, why are we on board with this one?

$1:

the wave of mob-led massacres of Muslims in Myanmar

That's not the way I heard it. First of all what constitutes a wave? What qualifies as a massacre?

The way I heard it is there's an activist sect of Monks. They get pissed when Muslim's start with that rape the natives thing they seem to do wherever they go. The odd village has erupted at their urging after events.

As to the wide-eyed innocence of the victimized muslim theory - Bullshit. Again, the way I heard it is it's another immigration jihad of illegal hordes scenario.

[BartSimpson]

It's only wrong when the victims fight back.

[ShepherdsDog]

Thaz rayciss

[DrCaleb]

It's interesting how legalized suppression of rights leads to society allowing discrimination of those who legally don't have the same rights as everyone else.

Everyone may have the right to vote . . .except Muslims. Everyone has the right to safety of the person . . .except gays. Even someone as 'enlightened' as Suu Kyi can become victims to this prejudice.

Even heroes have faults.

[BartSimpson]

Illegal aliens don't have a right to vote in the US, either. The Rohingya Moslems are invaders who illegally entered Burma in three waves. Burmese law does not bestow birthright citizenship so these people are not citizens of Burma unless they become citizens.

If they do not like the laws of Burma then they're free to return to Bangladesh and India from whence they came.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Illegal aliens don't have a right to vote in the US, either.

I was thinking of more the general case. For example, Chinese here used to have to pay a 'head tax'. That seemed to increase discrimination against them at the time.

Any group that is excluded the same rights as the general population seems to be the recipient of state endorsed discrimination. Suu Kyi seems to have this attitude with Muslims, because they are considered a lower class than Buddhists, and that attitude seems to me to be self reinforcing.

[BartSimpson]

Are you asserting the rights of invaders and illegal aliens?

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Are you asserting the rights of invaders and illegal aliens?

No.

Just when parts of the population are unequal. Jews, gays, blacks, Chinese . . .whoever they are.

I agree that illegals shouldn't have all the same rights as citizens, but under the Universal Declaration of Human rights - they do have many of the same rights.

And in this case, the reporter has exactly the same rights as Suu Kyi does, including the right not to be treated like shit because she is or isn't Muslim.

[Thanos]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It's interesting how legalized suppression of rights leads to society allowing discrimination of those who legally don't have the same rights as everyone else.

Everyone may have the right to vote . . .except Muslims. Everyone has the right to safety of the person . . .except gays. Even someone as 'enlightened' as Suu Kyi can become victims to this prejudice.

Even heroes have faults.

Gandhi was only interested in rights for the Indians that the British imported to their African colonies. He could have cared less about the Africans themselves. He thought the blacks were all savages and that rights were wasted on them.

[DrCaleb]

Thanos Thanos:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It's interesting how legalized suppression of rights leads to society allowing discrimination of those who legally don't have the same rights as everyone else.

Everyone may have the right to vote . . .except Muslims. Everyone has the right to safety of the person . . .except gays. Even someone as 'enlightened' as Suu Kyi can become victims to this prejudice.

Even heroes have faults.

Gandhi was only interested in rights for the Indians that the British imported to their African colonies. He could have cared less about the Africans themselves. He thought the blacks were all savages and that rights were wasted on them.

Exactly. Heroes have faults. We look back on such people from the perspective of 100 years of social change. Comparing him to our cultural standards does him a disservice. He still has some powerful morality to teach. And Suu Kyi seems to have some morality yet left to learn.

$1:

But in any interpretation, her failure is symptomatic of something much larger than herself: a social and political climate in Myanmar, riven for decades by armed conflict between ethnic groups, in which the nation's least powerful minority is vulnerable to not just hateful rhetoric but active ethnic cleansing.

Aung San Suu Kyi, whether she is a calculating politician or a canny mediator or personally hateful toward Rohingya, is a product of this climate.

It's easy to personalize entire countries, especially countries that don't get much coverage in the West, down to their most famous political figure. But even paramount leaders are products of their societies, not the other way around.

That's not an argument for absolving her of responsibility — quite the opposite; it goes to show how important it is that she try to change this climate — but rather a reminder that problems such as ethnic cleansing tend to go much deeper than the sorts of language a political leader uses in her interviews with the BBC.

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/28/11306856/a ... hingya-bbc