actually its british colonialism that's to blame
Originally posted by LDragonFire
al-Ghazali is the reason for the downfall of science, math and other cultural society from the Muslim world.
Originally posted by borntowatch
Muslims killing Christians
and some more, I notice your silence on this issue
This one also
I can go on and on...and on...and...
But hey, whats the point
Originally posted by Atzil321
reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786
These people are being persecuted no doubt. But why is your frustration being aimed solely at the west? as if we have an obligation to sort out all the world's problems. Where is the muslim condemnation of what is taking place there? What are the major powers in the region doing about it? China, India and Thailand ect, it is their backyard after all..
Myanmar would respond better to pressure from their neighbours than they will from the west.
Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
actually its british colonialism that's to blame
Actually it isn't!
The only people to blame are the people who commit the acts - they have a choice.
The Burmese have been running their own affairs for nearly 65 years - any failings in their society are solely down to the Burmese themselves.
It is far too easy and PC, (yet satisfies long held bigotry and hatred), to blame Britain rather than apportioning blame where it is belongs; those who commit the acts and those who allow it ti happen.
British colonial rule
Due to Arakan being scarcely populated by the time they occupied it, British policy encouraged Bengali inhabitants from adjacent regions to migrate into fertile valleys of Arakan as agriculturalists. The East India Company extended the Bengal administration to Arakan, thus there was no international boundary between Bengal and Arakan, and no restrictions on migration between the regions. In the early 19th century, thousands of Bengalis from the Chittagong region settled in Arakan seeking work opportunities. In addition, thousands of Rakhine people from Arakan also settled in Bengal.
The British census of 1891 reported 58,255 Muslims in Arakan. By 1911, the Muslim population had increased to 178,647. The waves of migration were primarily due to the requirement of cheap labor from British India to work in the paddy fields. Immigrants from Bengal, mainly from the Chittagong region, "moved en masse into western townships of Arakan". To be sure, Indian immigration to Burma was a nationwide phenomenon, not just restricted to Arakan. Historian Thant Myint-U writes: "At the beginning of the 20th century, Indians were arriving in Burma at the rate of no less than a quarter million per year. The numbers rose steadily until the peak year of 1927, immigration reached 480,000 people, with Rangoon exceeding New York City as the greatest immigration port in the world. This was out of a total population of only 13 million; it was equivalent to the United Kingdom today taking 2 million people a year." By then, in most of the largest cities in Burma, Rangoon (Yangon), Akyab (Sittwe), Bassein (Pathein), Moulmein, the Indian immigrants formed a majority of the population. The Burmese under the British rule felt helpless, and reacted with a "racism that combined feelings of superiority and fear." 
The immigration's impact was particularly acute in Arakan, one of less populated regions. In 1939, the British authorities, who were wary of the long term animosity between the Rakhine Buddhists and the Rohingya Muslims, formed a special Investigation Commission led by James Ester and Tin Tut to study the issue of Muslim immigration into the Rakhine state. The commission recommended securing the border; however, with the onset of World War II, the British retreated from Arakan.
Now if this were any other group would it be widely ignored? I doubt it.
Originally posted by definity
They are not Buddhists.
The first rule in being Buddhist is don't hurt living things.
Unfortunately they will probably call themselves Buddhist which pisses me off.
They need to sit down and talk to the Dalai Lama he needs to put them straight or Ram Bahadur Bomjon. they will put there twisted teaching of Buddha straight.
Originally posted by Bixxi3
reply to post by LDragonFire[/url]
i agree muslims should be slaughtered. Im very happy that we have troops in islamic countries killing 100 000s of 'innocent' civilian muslims. It is there own fault were killing them.
A small group of muslims crashed in to our buildings. So why shouldn't we go over there and massacre them. What right do they then have to defend themselves from our militarizes.Its not like that by us being over there would some how drive more of them to extreme views or anything. Don't they realize were there to help them become free...of there oil?
Also how dare they have a different culture and set of beliefs. #ing bastards .
Hey does myanmar have oil? because they might need our help there to.
ETA: remember support the troops not the war! Because we all know that they were forced in to the military as the USA has had a draft since 9/11edit on 24-7-2012 by Bixxi3 because: (no reason given)
Condemn and do what? Achieve what? My point is that its a two way street. You reap what you sow.
Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786
reply to post by hp1229
Again, no one is claiming that self-proclaimed Muslims don't commit atrocities. When they do, they are in the wrong also. Still, you are promoting a tu quoque argument. Why can't you condemn the massacre against Muslims?