U.N.: Dozens of Muslims massacred by Buddhists in Burma

First topic message reminder :

YANGON, Burma -- The United Nations has confirmed that at least 48 Muslims appear to have been killed when Buddhist mobs attacked a village in an isolated corner of western Burma, a massacre that has been the vehemently denied by the government since it was first reported by The Associated Press just over a week ago.

Presidential spokesman Ye Htut said he "strongly objects" to the U.N. claims and that the facts and figures were "totally wrong."

Burma, a predominantly Buddhist nation of 60 million people which is also known as Myanmar, has been grappling with sectarian violence since June 2012.

The incident in Du Chee Yar Tan, a village in northern Rakhine state, appears to be the deadliest in a year, and would bring the total number of mostly Muslims killed in violence nationwide to more than 280. Another 250,000 people have fled their homes.

Northern Rakhine - home to 80 percent of the country's 1 million long-persecuted Muslim Rohingya population - is off-limits to foreign journalists and humanitarian aid workers have limited access, adding to the difficulties of confirming details about the violence. Attacks began Jan. 9 and peaked in the early hours of Jan. 14, according to residents.
Buddhist Rakhine mobs, seeking retaliation for the abduction and killing of a police officer by Rohingya villagers, entered under the cloak of darkness with knives, sticks and guns and went on a killing spree, residents in the area told the AP on condition of anonymity because they feared reprisals. Many of the victims were women and children, hacked to death by the mobs, they said.

The humanitarian aid group Medecins Sans Frontieres, or Doctors Without Borders, said it has treated 22 patients, some with wounds It appealed to the government for safe access to the affected populations, many of whom are still in hiding.

Though the village has been sealed off by security forces, Matthew Smith of Fortify Rights, an independent human rights group, said some residents have been able to return during the day and, as of Wednesday, reported that some bodies were seen in abandoned homes. He called for an end to mass arrests, saying that in the hours that followed the killings, riot police started rounding up all male Rohingya, including children over the age of 10, in surrounding areas.

An investigation by the United Nations confirmed that a massacre had taken place. The U.N. released a statement late Thursday saying there were credible reports that at least 48 people had been killed in two separate bouts of violence.

The U.N. based its findings on interviews with a cross-section of witnesses, victims and local officials on the ground. But rights workers stressed that the full truth will only come out if the government authorizes a full investigation, preferably to be carried out with outside assistance.

"I deplore the loss of life in Du Chee Yar Tan and call on the authorities to carry out a full, prompt and impartial investigation and ensure that victims and their families receive justice," said Navi Pillay, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights.

"By responding to these incidents quickly and decisively, the government has an opportunity to show transparency and accountability, which will strengthen democracy and the rule of law in Myanmar," she said.

The first reports about the massacre occurred as Burma was hosting foreign ministers of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations as chair of the regional bloc.

It was supposed to be an event showing how far the country had come since ending a half-century of military dictatorship two years ago and handing over power to a nominally civilian government. The government of President Thein Sein, himself a former army general, has won international praise for implementing political and economic reforms, but it has also been criticized for failing to investigate and prosecute those responsible for killings linked to sectarian violence.

In many cases security forces have either stood by and watched as Buddhist mobs went after Muslims with machetes and clubs. Other times they have been accused of actively taking part.

Presidential spokesman Ye Htut denied the AP report during the ASEAN meeting, insisting Du Chee Yar Tan was calm, with no killings, aside from that of the police sergeant. Almost daily articles denying that the massacre took place appeared in state-run newspapers in the days that followed.

A statement on the Ministry of Information website on Thursday said that Chief Minister of Rakhine state Hla Maung Tin visited the area earlier the week, together with a U.N. team, and told people about "false news published and aired by foreign media that children and women were killed in the violence."

The only mob attack that took place, he said, was by Rohingya villagers on the police sergeant.

There are around 1 million Rohingya in Burma. The United Nations has called them one of the most persecuted minorities in the world.

Some of the Rohingya are descended from families that have been there for generations. Others arrived more recently from neighboring Bangladesh. All have been denied citizenship, rendering them stateless.

For decades, they have been unable to travel freely, practice their religion, or work as teachers or doctors. They need special approval to marry and are the only people in the country barred from having more than two children.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-dozens-of-rohingya-muslims-massacred-by-buddhists-in-rakhine-burma/

Now here is an interesting point in regards to religion that is always stated about Muslims, is Buddhism the cause for this extremism?

I don't think it is or with many religions, it is always people themselves with their political or prejudice views, that use their faith as an excuse to kill

smelly_bandit wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

 ://?roflmao?/: 

 ://?roflmao?/: 

 ://?roflmao?/: 

 ://?roflmao?/: 

I am not being persecuted.

So being as I am an atheist, you think calling me a Muslims makes your argument correct or even have any relevance?
That shows your argument has become very desperate to now claim I am something when it is clear as day I am an atheist.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

The laws in Saudi based on wahhabism are wrong and barbaric.

So again your argument has been rendered moot.

Your logic though is the same as Al Qaeda, funny that!

you're NOT being persecuted??

but but but but you said that Christians have been killing everyone else since the 3rd century, so how is it that living in a Christian country you have not been killed yet??

Because we are Born Post Social Revolution when there became; separation of Church and state, democracy etc.
Atheists would have been killed if Christians Still controlled the laws. Shit Christians killed enough of the early Scientists

When do us Secularist get to take revenge?
 ::rambo::  ::rambo::  ::rambo::  ::rambo::  ::rambo::  ::rambo::

Christians have killed far more in the name of their god than Muslims have managed, though they do appear to be trying very hard to catch up. It all just speaks to the harm of living your life based on insane fictional narratives.

veya_victaous wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

you're NOT being persecuted??

but but but but you said that Christians have been killing everyone else since the 3rd century, so how is it that living in a Christian country you have not been killed yet??

Because we are Born Post Social Revolution when there became; separation of Church and state, democracy etc.
Atheists would have been killed if Christians Still controlled the laws. Shit Christians killed enough of the early Scientists

When do us Secularist get to take revenge?
 ::rambo::  ::rambo::  ::rambo::  ::rambo::  ::rambo::  ::rambo::

Yet it was CHRISTIANS who saved the world from Nazi domination.

ALLAKAKA wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:


Because we are Born Post Social Revolution when there became; separation of Church and state, democracy etc.
Atheists would have been killed if Christians Still controlled the laws. Shit Christians killed enough of the early Scientists

When do us Secularist get to take revenge?
 ::rambo::  ::rambo::  ::rambo::  ::rambo::  ::rambo::  ::rambo::

Yet it was CHRISTIANS who saved the world from Nazi domination.

Really?
What religion was the Germans and its allies, the Italians, the Japanese, the Romanians, the Bulgarians, Croatia, Hungarians, Slovenia, Finland etc?

Ben_Reilly wrote:Christians have killed far more in the name of their god than Muslims have managed, though they do appear to be trying very hard to catch up. It all just speaks to the harm of living your life based on insane fictional narratives.

Christians have killed more than Muslims

You must be smoking crack.

Christians have killed a lot for their religion but nowhere near a good year for Muslims

Trust me, you don't want to play who has the bigger body count with me.

veya_victaous wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

you're NOT being persecuted??

but but but but you said that Christians have been killing everyone else since the 3rd century, so how is it that living in a Christian country you have not been killed yet??

Because we are Born Post Social Revolution when there became; separation of Church and state, democracy etc.
Atheists would have been killed if Christians Still controlled the laws. Shit Christians killed enough of the early Scientists

When do us Secularist get to take revenge?
 ::rambo::  ::rambo::  ::rambo::  ::rambo::  ::rambo::  ::rambo::

I always thought secularist prided themselves on being more tolerant that the religious

Demanding revenge is distinctly intolerant and makes you no more tolerant than those you claimed to be above

Besides, you're already getting your revenge - Christianity is becoming increasingly sidelined and isolated in society

Ironically you secularists will find that you're not reducing religions influence but simply replacing a religion that may once have killed you for your atheism/secularism in the past with one that will kill you for it now in the present

smelly_bandit wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Christians have killed far more in the name of their god than Muslims have managed, though they do appear to be trying very hard to catch up. It all just speaks to the harm of living your life based on insane fictional narratives.

Christians have killed more than Muslims

You must be smoking crack.

Christians have killed a lot for their religion but nowhere near a good year for Muslims

Trust me, you don't want to play who has the bigger body count with me.

Nope he is 100% correct, yes lets play the body count and real figures not exaggerated ones for India, so make sure your sources are good, as you will get a humiliated if you do.


Will be back later to see what you actually post, so this should be interesting.

smelly_bandit wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Christians have killed far more in the name of their god than Muslims have managed, though they do appear to be trying very hard to catch up. It all just speaks to the harm of living your life based on insane fictional narratives.

Christians have killed more than Muslims

You must be smoking crack.

Christians have killed a lot for their religion but nowhere near a good year for Muslims

Trust me, you don't want to play who has the bigger body count with me.

What are you going to do about it, you prancing little sissy?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:


Christians have killed more than Muslims

You must be smoking crack.

Christians have killed a lot for their religion but nowhere near a good year for Muslims

Trust me, you don't want to play who has the bigger body count with me.

What are you going to do about it, you prancing little sissy?

SISSY ? Smelly is not Gay.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

ALLAKAKA wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:


Christians have killed more than Muslims

You must be smoking crack.

Christians have killed a lot for their religion but nowhere near a good year for Muslims

Trust me, you don't want to play who has the bigger body count with me.

What are you going to do about it, you prancing little sissy?

SISSY ? Smelly is not Gay.

I didn't say he was gay, I said he's a delicate little nancy boy.

ben,do you know what a "nancy boy" is in England? it's a homo sexual

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

I didn't say he was gay, I said he's a delicate little nancy boy.

You don't get more NANCY BOY than Catman.





                

ALLAKAKA wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

What are you going to do about it, you prancing little sissy?

SISSY ? Smelly is not Gay.

sissy
ˈsɪsi/
informal
noun

1. 1.
   a person regarded as effeminate or cowardly.
   "he would hate the other boys to think he was a sissy"
   

   synonyms:

   coward, weakling, milksop, Milquetoast, namby-pamby, crybaby,baby; More

   
   

adjective

1. 1.
   feeble and cowardly.
   

   synonyms:

   cowardly, weak, feeble, spineless, effeminate, effete, limp-wristed,womanish, unmanly, soft; More

   
   

So as seen can mean quite a few things and not even necessarily gay at all!

Oh dear

Of course I didn't mean nancy boy or sissy to mean "gay" -- I would never make fun of Smelly for being gay. "Nancy boy" can also mean a weakling, metrosexual-type man, and that's what I was saying about Smelly, not making fun of his sexual orientation.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:


Christians have killed more than Muslims

You must be smoking crack.

Christians have killed a lot for their religion but nowhere near a good year for Muslims

Trust me, you don't want to play who has the bigger body count with me.

What are you going to do about it, you prancing little sissy?

for starters - nothing

if you choose to wander around like a moron shouting out inanely about history like the poorly educated version of a Tourettes sufferer then be my guest

if you actually started making sense or putting forward a semi credible argument, then id step up

for now though please be my guest and crack on

smelly_bandit wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:


Christians have killed more than Muslims

You must be smoking crack.

Christians have killed a lot for their religion but nowhere near a good year for Muslims

Trust me, you don't want to play who has the bigger body count with me.

What are you going to do about it, you prancing little sissy?

for starters - nothing

if you choose to wander around like a moron shouting out inanely about history like the poorly educated version of a Tourettes sufferer then be my guest

if you actually started making sense or putting forward a semi credible argument, then id step up

for now though please be my guest and crack on

Oh, the facts are on my side, Shelly. I'm not worried about you no matter how tough you write :D

Ben_Reilly wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

for starters - nothing

if you choose to wander around like a moron shouting out inanely about history like the poorly educated version of a Tourettes sufferer then be my guest

if you actually started making sense or putting forward a semi credible argument, then id step up

for now though please be my guest and crack on

Oh, the facts are on my side, Shelly. I'm not worried about you no matter how tough you write :D

i wouldn't suggest trying to shares those "facts" with anyone

keep em close to your chest and talk about them repeatedly but only in vague and scary terms - maybe someone will be convinced that you actually do know what you're on about

Why should I bother sharing them with you, Shelly? If I were to do that, I'd be acting as though I thought you were a person who can be convinced by evidence.

... and thus putting myself in the position of Charlie Brown:

oh no

im devastated , you're not going to present your evidence to validate your own claims.

woe is me   

smelly_bandit wrote:woe is me

I would feel the same if I had to be you ...

PhilDidge wrote:

ALLAKAKA wrote:





SISSY ? Smelly is not Gay.

sissy
ˈsɪsi/
informal
noun

1. 1.
   a person regarded as effeminate or cowardly.
   "he would hate the other boys to think he was a sissy"
   

   [i]synonyms:[/i]

   coward, weakling, milksop, Milquetoast, namby-pamby, crybaby,baby; More

   
   

adjective

1. 1.
   feeble and cowardly.
   

   [i]synonyms:[/i]

   cowardly, weak, feeble, spineless, effeminate, effete, limp-wristed,womanish, unmanly, soft; More

   
   

So as seen can mean quite a few things and not even necessarily gay at all!

Oh dear

I rest my case.





              

Allakaka, while I admire your devotion to political correctness and it's big of you to defend Shelly like this, please rest assured that I was not teasing him about his sexual orientation. I'm not a bigot.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:woe is me

I would feel the same if I had to be you ...

such incredibly high levels of debate you have on here ben

smelly_bandit wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

I would feel the same if I had to be you ...

such incredibly high levels of debate you have on here ben

It was until you brought it down considerably.


Still waiting for these facts of yours by the way!

smelly_bandit wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:woe is me

I would feel the same if I had to be you ...

such incredibly high levels of debate you have on here ben

I find, in life, that you tend to get the level you deserve.

Er, 'scuse me folks for butting in on your battles with each other but, having seen on telly news the Russians having to guard the winter olympics, I don't think they'll put up with Islam as much a we and other countries do. What's your opinion?

stardesk wrote:Er, 'scuse me folks for butting in on your battles with each other but, having seen on telly news the Russians having to guard the winter olympics, I don't think they'll put up with Islam as much a we and other countries do. What's your opinion?

Good on the Russians if the shoot the fuckers.

Hey, what's that in your sig about the Inkerman group?

ALLAKAKA wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:


Because we are Born Post Social Revolution when there became; separation of Church and state, democracy etc.
Atheists would have been killed if Christians Still controlled the laws. Shit Christians killed enough of the early Scientists

When do us Secularist get to take revenge?
 ::rambo::  ::rambo::  ::rambo::  ::rambo::  ::rambo::  ::rambo::

Yet it was CHRISTIANS who saved the world from Nazi domination.

HUH? Hitler was Christian? they had the whole 3rd riech set by god, divine providence thing     

And Anyway it was your Hero STALIN that defeated Hitler and Nazis.    

Even if you want to give it to the USA it was pre-regean secular America.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

such incredibly high levels of debate you have on here ben

I find, in life, that you tend to get the level you deserve.

so what did you do wrong??

I hit "approve" on your membership application, for one.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I hit "approve" on your membership application, for one.

  

Now that is witty.....

PhilDidge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I hit "approve" on your membership application, for one.

  

Now that is witty.....

Thanks, I was warned that Smelly would be mainly good for the laughs :D

Ben_Reilly wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


  

Now that is witty.....

Thanks, I was warned that Smelly would be mainly good for the laughs :D

Indeed, great sport Ben.

 :D 

Ben_Reilly wrote:I hit "approve" on your membership application, for one.

like they say on all good self improvement courses - "baby steps"

smelly_bandit wrote:
wow!!!
ive never heard anyone try and portray AL-Q as the victims before

a new low???

 :-:cawg:-: 

I STILL haven't seen 'Didge "portraying al-Qaeda as the victims" on here...

I HAVE seen you excusing terrorist groups in the distant past, though (back on ADO) haven't I, Smelly !

 ::=|Q::

Beekeeper wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:
wow!!!
ive never heard anyone try and portray AL-Q as the victims before

a new low???

 :-:cawg:-: 

I STILL haven't seen 'Didge "portraying al-Qaeda as the victims" on here...

I HAVE seen you excusing terrorist groups in the distant past, though (back on ADO) haven't I, Smelly !

 ::=|Q::

a classic example of see no evil except where you choose to