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

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

I agree -- but it does give lie to the notion that Buddhism is the one peaceful religion, the one belief that has no violence carried out in its name, etc.

I think the closest thing to that would be atheism, because while the Soviet dictators were killers, I've yet to see anything credible that suggests that they ever used atheism as justification for their murders.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I agree -- but it does give lie to the notion that Buddhism is the one peaceful religion, the one belief that has no violence carried out in its name, etc.

I think the closest thing to that would be atheism, because while the Soviet dictators were killers, I've yet to see anything credible that suggests that they ever used atheism as justification for their murders.

But to me it is not the religion Ben, it is people themselves who have religion in their lives but have also formed extremist ideological views based upon hate or prejudice of others. They use the religion to further their cause but that does not mean the religion is behind the violence or the cause of it.

I agree though that life would be some much simpler without man made myths that seek to control people through fear

PhilDidge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I agree -- but it does give lie to the notion that Buddhism is the one peaceful religion, the one belief that has no violence carried out in its name, etc.

I think the closest thing to that would be atheism, because while the Soviet dictators were killers, I've yet to see anything credible that suggests that they ever used atheism as justification for their murders.

But to me it is not the religion Ben, it is people themselves who have religion in their lives but have also formed extremist ideological views based upon hate or prejudice of others. They use the religion to further their cause but that does not mean the religion is behind the violence or the cause of it.

I agree though that life would be some much simpler without man made myths that seek to control people through fear

I think it's what social scientists call tribalism -- these are our ways, you don't abide by them; thus, you are our enemy. It can be of great psychological comfort to have a belief system in which your people and your ways are obviously right and superior to the backwards ways of "weirdos" from other cultures (tribes). And of course, it makes it much easier to oppress the weirdos with a clean conscience.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


But to me it is not the religion Ben, it is people themselves who have religion in their lives but have also formed extremist ideological views based upon hate or prejudice of others. They use the religion to further their cause but that does not mean the religion is behind the violence or the cause of it.

I agree though that life would be some much simpler without man made myths that seek to control people through fear

I think it's what social scientists call tribalism -- these are our ways, you don't abide by them; thus, you are our enemy. It can be of great psychological comfort to have a belief system in which your people and your ways are obviously right and superior to the backwards ways of "weirdos" from other cultures (tribes). And of course, it makes it much easier to oppress the weirdos with a clean conscience.

Fair point Ben

 

I can't pity those specific Muslims, there ~ as they have largely brought this upon themselves :

* Historically, Muslims simply don't belong in Burma = those Muslim "settlers" in that part of the world are there because they are basically foreign invaders ~ largely encouraged by the more aggressive Muslim-majority neighbouring Malaysian government. Check the local maps and demographics if you don't want to believe this possible scenario !

* Burma's history is natives, with Buddhist and a large proportion of Hindu immigrants from centuries ago, followed by Christian missionaries, and then much later on by these modern day Muslim invaders;

* The Muslims in that part of the world are constantly trying to force the locals - indigenous "natives" and long-term immigrants alike ~ off their long-held traditional homelands;

* The Muslims are NOT innocent victims here ~ just have a look at their behaviour in other neighbouring countries, such as major Muslim states of Indonesia and Malaysia, and Jakarta's role in their current and former annulled territories of Irian Jaya (West Papua), East Timor, Bali, Aceh, Sumatra, et al.

* The Muslim invaders have instigated MOST of the fighting in these places..
 

WITH regards to Buddhism's popularly false reputation as "the peaceful religion", that common fallacy only goes to show what happens when people don't bother to look into the history and core principles behind the religion proper; but only base their perceptions on movies, common beliefs and old action novels; doesn't it ?

ALL major religions preach peace, none seem to want to practice it as a prime part of their core dogma..

Sorry that is absurd, so innocent people women and children who were butchered have brought this violence upon themselves?

That is basically backing any extremist view to commit terrorism, as they all use this philosophy Bee.

Sorry but your views again here are based on your perceptions of Muslims that have been living there for centuries and lets not forget also they are not the only ones persecuted there, also Christians are. Seriously this argument was also used by the Nazis on Jews, claiming that had forced their ways onto society, their culture was incompatible, were raping Germans ect, does this mean by such logic innocent people deserve to now die and you have just justified the Holocaust with such logic?

Also now immigration is now foreign invaders also?

So to say because people have come there and how some will do wrongs is justification for the murder of innocent people is not only wrong but absurd

PhilDidge wrote:Sorry that is absurd, so innocent people women and children who were butchered have brought this violence upon themselves?

That is basically backing any extremist view to commit terrorism, as they all use this philosophy Bee.

............................

  

I'D like to see IF your attitudes stayed the same, Didge, if a bunch of "new settlers" tried running you off your ancestral lands...

Simply on the basis that because they are outbreeding you, that somehow entitles them to take your home or your farm, and kick you out onto the streets..

Because THAT is the reality of what these Muslim invaders have been doing since the early 20th century, across large sections of S.E. Asia. AND what led to some of the civil wars in Malaysia and Indonesia during the 1950s and 1960s respectively.   

Beekeeper wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Sorry that is absurd, so innocent people women and children who were butchered have brought this violence upon themselves?

That is basically backing any extremist view to commit terrorism, as they all use this philosophy Bee.

............................

  

I'D like to see IF your attitudes stayed the same, Didge, if a bunch of "new settlers" tried running you off your ancestral lands...

Simply on the basis that because they are outbreeding you, that somehow entitles them to take your home or your farm, and kick you out onto the streets..

Because THAT is the reality of what these Muslim invaders have been doing since the early 20th century, across large sections of S.E. Asia.  AND what led to some of the civil wars in Malaysia and Indonesia during the 1950s and 1960s respectively.       

I live in Britain where new people come and settle all the time, as some of these Muslims have done in Burma, some have been there generations. Your arguments is again absurd making the view point all Muslims are bad in Burma without any evidence as well. Even if some have tried to run people off lands, that does not justify murder to innocent peiple

Out breeding now as well, when will the limitations of your argument based upon poor assumptions exceed?

I hear these absurd claims here about ethnic groups, what you fail to understand is in many countries religious minorities are persecuted all of them being wrong whether it be a Muslim, Christian or Buddhist country in this case. There is no justification for the murder of innocent people.
So anyone else moves to a country yet now you think even where there has been no invasion they are invaders, so by that logic all immigrants are invaders, which means all whites Aussie are with your illogical view!

OH ! what a shame.

I thought you collected money for charity for Muslim children?

Only 48!

That's not even an average day in Baghdad.

Beekeeper wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Sorry that is absurd, so innocent people women and children who were butchered have brought this violence upon themselves?

That is basically backing any extremist view to commit terrorism, as they all use this philosophy Bee.

............................

  

I'D like to see IF your attitudes stayed the same, Didge, if a bunch of "new settlers" tried running you off your ancestral lands...

Simply on the basis that because they are outbreeding you, that somehow entitles them to take your home or your farm, and kick you out onto the streets..

Because THAT is the reality of what these Muslim invaders have been doing since the early 20th century, across large sections of S.E. Asia.  AND what led to some of the civil wars in Malaysia and Indonesia during the 1950s and 1960s respectively.       

Well that's what the muslims are doing in the UK but when we protest about it you call us racists.

Make your mind up.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I agree -- but it does give lie to the notion that Buddhism is the one peaceful religion, the one belief that has no violence carried out in its name, etc.

I think the closest thing to that would be atheism, because while the Soviet dictators were killers, I've yet to see anything credible that suggests that they ever used atheism as justification for their murders.

actually Buddhism has pretty much identical issues to the Catholic Church with paedophiles and abuse of power, It's core philosophies are the best but like ALL organized religions it has been corrupted by Dogma.

What's with all the gold ornaments and statues in both Catholicism and Buddhism?

veya_victaous wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I agree -- but it does give lie to the notion that Buddhism is the one peaceful religion, the one belief that has no violence carried out in its name, etc.

I think the closest thing to that would be atheism, because while the Soviet dictators were killers, I've yet to see anything credible that suggests that they ever used atheism as justification for their murders.

actually Buddhism has pretty much identical issues to the Catholic Church with paedophiles and abuse of power, It's core philosophies are the best but like ALL organized religions it has been corrupted by Dogma.

Pretty random statement - any evidence to back that up?

what goes around comes around

Muslims have been massacring everyone else since the 7th century

maybe the world has had enough of these barbarians

smelly_bandit wrote:what goes around comes around

Muslims have been massacring everyone else since the 7th century

maybe the world has had enough of these barbarians  

Smelly just has justified Al Qaeda and terrorism with that logic


Christians have bee massacring everyone else since the 3rd century..

Epic failed logic

Good morning folks.
Didge, quoting you: 'But to me it is not the religion Ben, it is people themselves who have religion in their lives but have also formed extremist ideological views based upon hate or prejudice of others. They use the religion to further their cause but that does not mean the religion is behind the violence or the cause of it.'

I totally agree with that, Didge. The basic rules of most religions is love and peace but, there are so many different sects springing out from their main religion, and each one believes it is the one and only right way. It's the same with political persuasions. Some are left wing, others are right wing. Again, each one believing theirs is the best way. Out of this closed minded attitude springs contempt for those not of their faith, not one of us, and sadly, as we see now every day, violence springs forth as though that were the only way to get their views across.

Morning Stardesk

Very much agree, what drives religious people is due to events or prejudice that lead them to extreme views, which has been going on for centuries. We are not ruled by religious power in the west anymore and I see the same happen in the east in the next hundred years. What is important is that religious views should not play a part in shaping any laws, they should just be a personal belief.

Interestingly found this today:











Catholics are left wing, Anglicans are Tories and the Muslim vote is 'Labour's to lose', according to a new poll.

Think tank Theos claims to have carried out the first in-depth analysis into the relationship between religion and politics in Britain.

Catholics were found to be the most left-wing of Christian groups and more pro-welfare than Anglicans, who were said to be more authoritarian in their political values.

Non-religious people are most consistently libertarian, taking a strong line against censorship and are sceptical about management and the fair distribution of wealth.

Theos said people who regularly attend a religious service tended to be more favourable towards those on benefits, with non-believers more hostile to welfare.

Nick Spencer, Theos's research director and co-author of the report, said that while there are clear alignments between religious views and voting, "block votes" do not exist in Britain.

"Every five years or so, someone claims that this or that religious (or non-religious group) might swing the election," he said.

"Politics isn't like that, however, and this report shows that religious block votes do not exist in Britain as many claim they do in America.

"It does show, however, that there are clear and significant alignments between various religious and political camps, of which politicians should be aware.

At a time when mass party membership, political ideology and party tribalism are at a low ebb, we should pay attention to the big political values that shape our voting behaviour."

The report 'Voting and Values in Britain: Does religion count?' was based on data from the latest 2010 census.

Researches said non-Christian groups were harder to analyse because of small samples.

However, in 2010 Muslims tended to strongly vote Labour, as did Hindus and Sikhs to a lesser extent.

By contrast, the Jewish vote was more likely to go to the Conservatives and Buddhist to the Liberal Democrats.

All groups, irrespective of religion, rated the economy, immigration, the budget deficit and unemployment as their most important issues.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/26/religion-politics_n_4668080.html?1390728698&utm_hp_ref=uk

Thanks for that, Didge, very interesting. I've just done a little research about how many Christian sects there are, and I was staggered to find 41,000 !!! Yep, forty one thousand. The mind boggles at such an amount, and each one no doubt believes their way is right. If you've the time have a look:

search resultsList of Christian denominations - Wikipedia, the free ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_​denominations

Blimey, I knew there was many Stardesk, but not that many, that is staggering, showing how many people form their own perceptions of religion

PhilDidge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:what goes around comes around

Muslims have been massacring everyone else since the 7th century

maybe the world has had enough of these barbarians  

Smelly just has justified Al Qaeda and terrorism with that logic


Christians have bee massacring everyone else since the 3rd century..

Epic failed logic

wow you must feel so persecuted in this christian country then??

seeing as how you're a Muslim and you think Christians will kill you

you could always go to Saudi Arabia

i hear they are big on human rights there

couldn't make it up

smelly_bandit wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Smelly just has justified Al Qaeda and terrorism with that logic


Christians have bee massacring everyone else since the 3rd century..

Epic failed logic

wow you must feel so persecuted in this christian country then??

seeing as how you're a Muslim and you think Christians will kill you

you could always go to Saudi Arabia

i hear they are big on human rights there

couldn't make it up

 ://?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!

PhilDidge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

wow you must feel so persecuted in this christian country then??

seeing as how you're a Muslim and you think Christians will kill you

you could always go to Saudi Arabia

i hear they are big on human rights there

couldn't make it up

 ://?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??

Hilarious again, Christians have been killing and still do today, it does not mean every Christians tries to or does the exact same with Muslims.

What an absurd thing again to say, and hilarious as well

where exactly are these terrorists groups of Christians running around killing??

should be interesting

Africa, America, Europe, Asia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

Quite simple really.

PhilDidge wrote:Africa, America, Europe, Asia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

Quite simple really.

 ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/: 

you should do some quality control before you post up such garbage didge

the first example talks about the early modern period of Britain

then you have breivk up there in the mix

you are really shit at proving your case aren't you

lets look at whats really happening in the world

List of Islamic Terror Attacks from September 11th, 2001 through 2003

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2001-2003.htm

List of Islamic Terror Attacks from 2004

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2004.htm

List of Islamic Terror Attacks from 2005

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2005.htm

List of Islamic Terror Attacks from 2006

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2006.htm

List of Islamic Terror Attacks from 2007

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2007.htm

List of Islamic Terror Attacks from 2008

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2008.htm

List of Islamic Terror Attacks from 2009

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2009.htm

List of Islamic Terror Attacks from 2010

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2010.htm

List of Islamic Terror Attacks from 2011

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2011.htm

List of Islamic Terror Attacks from 2012

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2012.htm

List of Islamic Terror Attacks from the first part of 2013

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2013.htm

so far since 9/11 there have been 22332 recorded attacks carried out in the name of Islam

that's about 5 a day everyday since 9/11

Interesting so you wanted sources on christian terrorism, being as you seem to think it does not happen.

It does as seen, so again you are left looking rather silly again.

So your argument is based on a time factor of the last few years, hilarious

Your sources are pretty woeful as well, for example :

Pro-Sharia advocates storm a bachelor party and randomly shoot guests.

There is no link just a claim and no reference if it is related to terrorism or religion, would you like some real sources?

PhilDidge wrote:Interesting so you wanted sources on christian terrorism, being as you seem to think it does not happen.

It does as seen, so again you are left looking rather silly again.

So your argument is based on a time factor of the last few years, hilarious

christian terrorism in the early modern period of Britain hardly concerns me in 2014

the links i posted up that document Islamic terror attacks shows that you're exaggerating the "christian terrorist network" on the simple basis that you haven't a hope in hell of providing a detailed list of attacks carried out by christian "terror groups"

where is the christian version of AL-Q??

doesn't exist

where is the christian version of boko haram??

doesn't exist

where is the christian version of the Taliban??

doesn't exist

who is doing the killing in Syria??

Muslims

smelly_bandit wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Interesting so you wanted sources on christian terrorism, being as you seem to think it does not happen.

It does as seen, so again you are left looking rather silly again.

So your argument is based on a time factor of the last few years, hilarious

christian terrorism in the early modern period of Britain hardly concerns me in 2014

the links i posted up that document Islamic terror attacks shows that you're exaggerating the "christian terrorist network" on the simple basis that you haven't a hope in hell of providing a detailed list of attacks carried out by christian "terror groups"

where is the christian version of AL-Q??

doesn't exist

where is the christian version of boko haram??

doesn't exist

where is the christian version of the Taliban??

doesn't exist

who is doing the killing in Syria??

Muslims

So your whole argument is not about all terrorism but one group of terrorism, again rather an absurd logic to have.

The fighting in Syria is sectarian, do you want lessons on this meaning again?

It is also Muslims killing Muslims in the main, in a civil war

no

my argument is "what goes around comes around"

Yes and as seen that logic backs the view of Al Qaeda which means you back their illogical view to commit terrorism as they believe the same.


Two wrongs do not make a right

actually the view of AL-Q is to establish a global Islamic caliphate ruled by sharia law, where every person is either forcibly converted to Islam, becomes a subjugated person in their own lands and forced to pay the jizya, or is massacred outright

and it is this hateful religiously inspired warmongery that leads to retaliation

what goes around comes around

smelly_bandit wrote:actually the view of AL-Q is to establish a global Islamic caliphate ruled by sharia law, where every person is either forcibly converted to Islam, becomes a subjugated person in their own lands and forced to pay the jizya, or is massacred outright

and it is this hateful religiously inspired warmongery that leads to retaliation

what goes around comes around

I said the logic of your point on what comes around goes around is very much their view also.
So again you share the same illogical views as them

wow!!!

ive never heard anyone try and portray AL-Q as the victims before

a new low???

smelly_bandit wrote:wow!!!

ive never heard anyone try and portray AL-Q as the victims before

a new low???

Victims, how is that? I said they use the same illogical views as you, that means I render their views illogical.



Priceless

PhilDidge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:wow!!!

ive never heard anyone try and portray AL-Q as the victims before

a new low???

Victims, how is that? I said they use the same illogical views as you, that means I render their views illogical.



Priceless

perhaps if you spoke English as a first Language you would know what the term "what goes around comes around" means in this context

you have essentially made AL-Q out to be victims, but you're too ignorant and poorly educated to understand what you've just done

smelly_bandit wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Victims, how is that? I said they use the same illogical views as you, that means I render their views illogical.



Priceless

perhaps if you spoke English as a first Language you would know what the term "what goes around comes around" means in this context
Hilarious, more deflection over poor comments you have and share illogical views with terrorists
you have essentially made AL-Q out to be victims, but you're too ignorant and poorly educated to understand what you've just done

How is it making them victims when I have stated their views are illogical?

I mean now I am told I am too ignorant to understand and yet smelly cannot show why this is so.

You really cannot make it up how funny and desperate a poster will be when he posts that.

Smelly told me so, thus it must be right.

 ://?roflmao?/:

you want me to show you why??

ok

tell us all what you understand by the phrase "what goes around comes around"

smelly_bandit wrote:you want me to show you why??

ok

tell us all what you understand by the phrase "what goes around comes around"

I understand it is an illogical view, where it means people should suffer over the consequences of others, where some people absurdly think the consequences of one's actions will have to be dealt with eventually by taking this out on people who have nothing to do with it.

Again an illogical notion because such a view casts all a group as responsible for actions committed by some within that group.

Simple enough for you buddy?

that's not what "what goes around comes around" means

see?? told you you were stupid

And looking at the bigger picture , what is a few dozen Muslims out of Millions , hardly Genocide.

smelly_bandit wrote:that's not what "what goes around comes around" means

see?? told you you were stupid

Really?

what goes around comes around
phrase of go
1.
proverb
the consequences of one's actions will have to be dealt with eventually.

Oh dear

PhilDidge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:that's not what "what goes around comes around" means

see?? told you you were stupid

Really?

what goes around comes around
phrase of go
1.
proverb
the consequences of one's actions will have to be dealt with eventually.

Oh dear

Exactly

But that's not what you said

ALLAKAKA wrote:It's only a Few.

Barely a drop in the oceans of blood shed in the name of muhhamad and his blood book

Tess. wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

actually Buddhism has pretty much identical issues to the Catholic Church with paedophiles and abuse of power, It's core philosophies are the best but like ALL organized religions it has been corrupted by Dogma.

Pretty random statement - any evidence to back that up?

http://www.religionnews.com/2013/06/20/bhtuans-buddhist-monks-accused-of-sexually-molesting-boys/

https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/abusing-war-affected-children-suspected-paedophile-buddhist-monk-was-granted-a-non-conditional-bail/

http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2012/05/06/pedophile-buddhist-sanghanayaka-of-great-britain-and-the-sri-lankan-media/


Sad but true
Regularly in Thai and, Vietnamese and Cambodian newspapers
Mirrors the scandals of the Catholic Church