The Plight of the Rohingya

bnt

MOD I've moved these posts from a zombie thread to a brand new spanking shiney new thread.



Old thread, but the problem is back in the news again, with Aung San Suu Kyi calling the reports of persecution fake news, essentially.

Ms Suu Kyi is quoted as saying: "We know very well, more than most, what it means to be deprived of human rights and democratic protection.

"So we make sure that all the people in our country are entitled to protection of their rights as well as, the right to, and not just political but social and humanitarian defence."

I've seen other unconfirmed reports that she's asked the US Ambassador to not use the word "Rohingya".

My view - and this may be controversial - is that there's little point in the Rohingya fighting the people of Myanmar who are, from top to bottom, opposed to their presence in the country. It doesn't matter whether the stories of Islamic insurgency are true, or arguing about the past causes if they are true: they have no future there, and should just return to Bangladesh.

riffmongous

bnt wrote: »

Old thread, but the problem is back in the news again, with Aung San Suu Kyi calling the reports of persecution fake news, essentially.

I've seen other unconfirmed reports that she's asked the US Ambassador to not use the word "Rohingya".

My view - and this may be controversial - is that there's little point in the Rohingya fighting the people of Myanmar who are, from top to bottom, opposed to their presence in the country. It doesn't matter whether the stories of Islamic insurgency are true, or arguing about the past causes if they are true: they have no future there, and should just return to Bangladesh.

But the Bangladeshi don't want them back either, they consider them Burmese iirc. Either way they are ****ed unless proper political pressure is put to bear on both countries.

mad muffin

The West has done enough. It's time the rest of the world started helping out too. There are plenty of rich Muslim countries that could help, if they really wanted to.

riffmongous

mad muffin wrote: »

The West has done enough. It's time the rest of the world started helping out too. There are plenty of rich Muslim countries that could help, if they really wanted to.

Can you really do enough when the alternative is sitting back and letting people die? The answer doesn't necessarily just have to be taking in refugees either, far better to stop the problem at the source before people even have to flee or suffer like the below witness statements

They were shooting from a helicopter when I was in Yae Khat Chaung Gwa Son, visiting my grandmother. I was in front of her house, playing with some other boys when the helicopter came. I was shot from the helicopter, other boys were too. Six or seven of us were hit by bullets from the helicopter

The military had locked us down for almost 10 days. I ran out of food and my three children were starving to death. The situation became desperate and unbearable, so I went to the nearby canal to fish. When I reached the canal, I found two other villagers fishing. Suddenly, two police officers approached us and pointed their guns at us. We were asked to kneel down and were then hit with rifle butts. After a few minutes of beatings, the police shot the two other villagers from close range. Both died on the spot. They continued kicking and punching me and yelling ’call your Allah to come and save you’. After about 10 minutes of beatings, they aimed at me. I was hit by a bullet in my back and fell into the water. They 16 continued shooting at me. I received a second bullet in my shoulder. I pretended to be dead and the police left

After entering our house, the army apprehended us. They pushed my mother on the ground. They removed her clothes, and four officers raped her. They also slaughtered my father, a prayer leader, just before raping my mother. After a few minutes, they burnt the house with a rocket, with my mother inside. All this happened before my eyes

RobbieTheRobber

Maybe the Rohingya just need Bono to make them his pet campaign.

Benjamin Buttons

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Maybe the Rohingya just need Bono to make them his pet campaign.

They could do worse, more people listen to Bono than they do most politicians.

Noveight

Trump really had no idea of the ball he put rolling when he first mentioned "Fake News"

Ipso

Noveight wrote: »

Trump really had no idea of the ball he put rolling when he first mentioned "Fake News"

With the what now.

BoJack Horseman

Hard to know what to think..

Seen on twitter earlier a Burmese woman who was apparently raped and beaten and her infant child murdered by Rohingya insurgents.

I'm sure the UK will be right on this matter though.

Noveight

Ipso wrote: »

With the what now.

Wha..?

Richard Hillman

A brief snapshot into what Europe will be like in 20 years time

riffmongous

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Hard to know what to think..

Seen on twitter earlier a Burmese woman who was apparently raped and beaten and her infant child murdered by Rohingya insurgents.

I'm sure the UK will be right on this matter though.

Awful if true, but how does it make it hard to know what to think? It doesn't justify the ethnic cleansing going on

Pure tashte

Richard Hillman wrote: »

A brief snapshot into what Europe will be like in 20 years time

I thought in 20 years time the Muslims would be kicking everyone else out, not the other way around

Ipso

riffmongous wrote: »

Awful if true, but how does it make it hard to know what to think? It doesn't justify the ethnic cleansing going on

This kind of situation can also be a breeding ground for al Qaeda/ISIS.

riffmongous

Pure tashte wrote: »

I thought in 20 years time the Muslims would be kicking everyone else out, not the other way around

Not to mention we already had the same situation in Europe 20 years ago

end of the road

Richard Hillman wrote: »

A brief snapshot into what Europe will be like in 20 years time

yeah, sure it is alright.

Snickers Man

Richard Hillman wrote: »

A brief snapshot into what Europe will be like in 20 years time

:eek::eek::eek:

This is very true. There are some striking similarities between the conflict in Myanmar and the future prospects for Europe. There is after all a glaringly obvious common factor. As I'm sure you agree.

That common factor is of course a rampant, expansionist utterly selfish Britain.

Consider the facts of history:

In the 1940s Burma was part of the British Empire. Burmese nationalists wanted independence. So they looked around for support, and found a very willing backer in Japan. Chief among these nationalists was an ambitious young man called Aung San, father of the current Burmese leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

When the Japanese invasion/Burmese uprising against the British in Burma began, Britain reacted as colonial powers always do by suborning ethnic minorities among the Burmese population to do their dirty work for them. Among the groups the British backed were the Rohingya. (Check out the recent Twitter feed of that frightfully nice but nevertheless comprehensively evil Eurosceptic Tory Daniel Hannan for more info)

In a sense, Burma/Myanmar hasn't finished fighting its local version of World War II. It's still going on with the old hatreds, exacerbated by both external powers Britian and Japan who were fighting over it, still working through their hereditary poison.

Aung San was assassinated at the end of the war with the connivance of British intelligence operatives.

Of course you may remember that Europe at the time was not immune to ethnic conflict up to and including genocide. I'm sure you've seen some news reel of the sort of brutality that took place in the 1930s and 1940s. Massive ethnic cleansing, indiscriminate unrestricted warfare against civilians, racism as a building block of national policy, and of course bitter vendettas against the vanquished when it was all over.

The best attempt at putting a stop to all that was the EEC/EC/EU. But now that is threatened by the departure of the UK and its determination to reconnect with the "English speaking democracies" around the world. What will that mean in practice?

One of the first casualties is likely to be our own peace process, which was predicated on the fact that both Britain and Ireland were members of the EU.
Now with Britain deciding it is out of here, and all that implies for the Good Friday agreement that is showing signs of falling apart very rapidly.

More luridly, it is not difficult to see a realignment among what used to be called The Western Nations between the British and Americans (including a tentative arms-length collaboration with Russia) on one side and Europe on teh other. We've been here before and it doesn't bode well.

So congratulations on spotting the danger signs.

But I get the impression you think it's all about Muslims.............

Irish Praetorian

Snickers Man wrote: »

Previous Post

Setting aside your point on the European Union and Brexit which I feel largely inclined to agree with, and indeed your summary of the history of the region, which again I'm inclined to agree with knowing only the roughest picture myself, I can't help but feel this is just going down the rabbit hole once more of 'blame the West'.

Now whatever one might make of British policy in colonial Burma, that came to an end in 1948, as it did in quite a few other countries around the world at a similar time. In the intervening sixty years the fortunes of the Rohingya have ebbed and flowed, particularly in light of Burma's own struggles with civil liberties and dictatorship.

Nevertheless, if after six decades of time, our response to the recent flare up of ethnic tensions is 'well it's all Britain's fault', we're not actually doing much apart from gratifying ourselves are we? This line of argument seems to be nothing more than an excuse to rend the actual persecutors of any agency or responsibility for their actions and instead drag us back into the swamp of self loathing.

There are actually some serious questions arising from these events, namely how the international community reacts to egregious violations of its purported fundamental rights, how international patronage can protect certain regimes and indeed the lingering issue of Islamic fundamentalism on the world stage. These seem like the serious avenues of inquiry rather than the aforementioned casual self (or British) loathing.

Snickers Man

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Setting aside your point on the European Union and Brexit which I feel largely inclined to agree with, and indeed your summary of the history of the region, which again I'm inclined to agree with knowing only the roughest picture myself, I can't help but feel this is just going down the rabbit hole once more of 'blame the West'. ....

Nevertheless, if after six decades of time, our response to the recent flare up of ethnic tensions is 'well it's all Britain's fault', we're not actually doing much apart from gratifying ourselves are we?

There are actually some serious questions arising from these events, namely how the international community reacts to egregious violations of its purported fundamental rights, how international patronage can protect certain regimes and indeed the lingering issue of Islamic fundamentalism on the world stage. These seem like the serious avenues of inquiry rather than the aforementioned casual self (or British) loathing.

Of course it's not ALL Britain's fault, but a significant part of it is. And neither is it entirely a problem of "Islamic fundamentalism" but what do you think the poster to whom I replied was trying to say when he pointed to "Europe's future"?

I will readily admit to a dearth of knowledge about the minutiae of Burma, but I have long been sceptical about the knee jerk deification of Aung San Suu Kyi and fascinated by how benignly the West looked on the daughter of one of Britain's most serious enemies during WWII. I had a feeling it would end in tears some day.

Which is not to say I am joining the chorus of denunciation that is growing up as rapidly as did her previous armies of cheerleaders. I simply don't know who in Burma is closest to being the "goody" and who the "baddy". I suspect, like in most conflicts, it is not a black and white issue and I also strongly suspect there are outside economic and strategic forces at work. Doesn't Burma still have lots of oil?

A Little Pony

bnt wrote: »

MOD I've moved these posts from a zombie thread to a brand new spanking shiney new thread.



Old thread, but the problem is back in the news again, with Aung San Suu Kyi calling the reports of persecution fake news, essentially.

Ms Suu Kyi is quoted as saying: "We know very well, more than most, what it means to be deprived of human rights and democratic protection.

"So we make sure that all the people in our country are entitled to protection of their rights as well as, the right to, and not just political but social and humanitarian defence."

I've seen other unconfirmed reports that she's asked the US Ambassador to not use the word "Rohingya".

My view - and this may be controversial - is that there's little point in the Rohingya fighting the people of Myanmar who are, from top to bottom, opposed to their presence in the country. It doesn't matter whether the stories of Islamic insurgency are true, or arguing about the past causes if they are true: they have no future there, and should just return to Bangladesh.

They don't want Muslims in the country, leave it up to them.

Ulysses Gaze

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Maybe the Rohingya just need Bono to make them his pet campaign.

Bono already made Aung San Suu Kyi his pet project. Like most of the liberal far left.Guess they backed the wrong horse there.

As usual.

wes

bnt wrote: »

they have no future there, and should just return to Bangladesh.

There not from Bangladesh. The Rohingya have been in what is now called Myanmar for 100s of years. Borders drawn up after World War 2 caused this mess, like it has elsewhere.

The Rohingya simply have no where to go, and quite frankly they shouldn't have too. Just like Iraqi Christians and Yazidi's shouldn't have to flee there homes either.

Irish Praetorian

Snickers Man wrote: »

Of course it's not ALL Britain's fault, but a significant part of it is. And neither is it entirely a problem of "Islamic fundamentalism" but what do you think the poster to whom I replied was trying to say when he pointed to "Europe's future"?

I will readily admit to a dearth of knowledge about the minutiae of Burma, but I have long been sceptical about the knee jerk deification of Aung San Suu Kyi and fascinated by how benignly the West looked on the daughter of one of Britain's most serious enemies during WWII. I had a feeling it would end in tears some day.

Which is not to say I am joining the chorus of denunciation that is growing up as rapidly as did her previous armies of cheerleaders. I simply don't know who in Burma is closest to being the "goody" and who the "baddy". I suspect, like in most conflicts, it is not a black and white issue and I also strongly suspect there are outside economic and strategic forces at work. Doesn't Burma still have lots of oil?

I think we're of a similar mind on this, but I still would not be inclined to even go so far as to suggest the problem is significantly a result of British actions. Places like the former Yugoslavia or the Russian 'near abroad' demonstrate quite clearly how it is possible for ethnic groups to turn on each other without much difficulty. Adding an issue like religion to the mix makes it even easier - which would make me wonder if Britain had any responsibility for the present issue other than a historical one.

Your Aung Sun Sui point I would agree with largely but on the last issue of a 'goody' or 'baddy' and economic implications I take a different view. There is a power with a good deal of influence over (and consequently protective of) the country and that is China. Now because it's not the US that means most people won't really give a damn about the issue because there's no stick to beat the US with and because it's China there will be little international reprisal if any (a good case to study as an example of this is Sudan).

Arsemageddon

A Little Pony wrote: »

They don't want Muslims in the country, leave it up to them.

Ah yea, sure it's just a bit of ethnic cleansing.

A profound contribution from you as usual.

Yamanoto

Is Aung San Suu Kyi wary of overstepping the mark by criticising the treatment of the Rohinga (for fear of upsetting the Generals) or has the West misread the character of the woman entirely?

Arsemageddon

Yamanoto wrote: »

Is Aung San Suu Kyi wary of overstepping the mark by criticising the treatment of the Rohinga (for fear of upsetting the Generals) or has the West misread the character of the woman entirely?

The former is certainly correct, and you can add to that she does not seem willing to alienate a large proportion of the Burmese population and religious leadership.

People in the West have had a very naieve view of what she could achieve, but given her initial response to the crisis and her statement yesterday which contained blatant lies she should be stripped of her honorific titles and sanctions should be imposed on Myanmar.

Bangladesh needs all the help it can get ASAP. The very poor international response seems in part to be rooted in the tide of Islamaphobia sweeping the globe. The wealthy Muslim states have done little to help which seems to be rooted in their own racism toward non-Arabs.

Basically, the Rohingya are not the right kind of victims.

Irish Praetorian

To be fair, what exactly is 'The West' going to do to her, what can they do to her, or indeed to Myanmar in general?

Tokyo

A Little Pony wrote: »

They don't want Muslims in the country, leave it up to them.

There are plenty of Muslims in the country - about 8% of the population if I remember correctly. The problem isn't a religious one, it's an ethnic one, or perhaps more accurately, a problem with a group of people who self identify as a separate ethnicity, a state enforced by the government for the past decades. The fact that they happen to be Muslim is the rod used to beat them with, more than anything.

Dutch Gold Society

1. Has the Muslim world been speaking out on this?

2. Will the Irish left rally to the cause of the Rohingya?

3. Is fair to say there are two sides to this, and that while persecution is not right, the Rohingya may not be without fault?

Arsemageddon

Dutch Gold Society wrote: »

1. Has the Muslim world been speaking out on this?

The Turks and Iran certainly have, the Arab states less so. The Muslim world is not a homogenous block.

2. Will the Irish left rally to the cause of the Rohingya?

Good man, you have clearly identified the root cause of the problem there.

3. Is fair to say there are two sides to this, and that while persecution
is not right, the Rohingya may not be without fault?

There are two sides to this, but the military response has been utterly disproportionate.

Dutch Gold Society

Arsemageddon wrote: »

The Turks and Iran certainly have, the Arab states less so. The Muslim world is not a homogenous block.



Good man, you have clearly identified the root cause of the problem there.



There are two sides to this, but the military response has been utterly disproportionate.

I appreciate the Muslim world is not a homogeneous entity but major players like Saudi Arabia could do something. And for what it's worth the west is shamefully quiet on the persecution of Christians around the world.

Perfectly fair comment about the Irish left. They care a great deal about the Palestinians but perhaps not so much about persecuted groups.

I agree the military has over reacted but the situation may be a lot more complicated than that which meets the western eye.

Arsemageddon

Dutch Gold Society wrote: »

I appreciate the Muslim world is not a homogeneous entity but major players like Saudi Arabia could do something. And for what it's worth the west is shamefully quiet on the persecution of Christians around the world.

Perfectly fair comment about the Irish left. They care a great deal about the Palestinians but perhaps not so much about persecuted groups.

I agree the military has over reacted but the situation may be a lot more complicated than that which meets the western eye.

With the exception of Qatar the gulf states have no time for human rights or other Muslims if they are not Arab. The treatment of Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Indians and Indonesians in the gulf by Arabs is absolutely shocking.

I don't claim to be an expert on Myanmar but their are no circumstances that can justify the military response.

A Little Pony

Arsemageddon wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

They don't want Muslims in the country, leave it up to them.

Ah yea,  sure it's just a bit of ethnic cleansing.

A profound contribution from you as usual.

What ethnic cleansing? The leader denied such a thing was happening.

Arsemageddon

A Little Pony wrote: »

What ethnic cleansing? The leader denied such a thing was happening.

Ah right, so all those 400,000 Rohingya must just be popping over to Bangladesh for their holidays.

riffmongous

Dutch Gold Society wrote: »

1. Has the Muslim world been speaking out on this?

2. Will the Irish left rally to the cause of the Rohingya?

3. Is fair to say there are two sides to this, and that while persecution is not right, the Rohingya may not be without fault?

1. Depending on the sources, various muslim countries have taken in a few hundred thousand refugees, over the years. It's certainly not enough though.

2. Well the right will do **** all as usual, other than use ethnic cleansing to press their own islamphobic agendas.

3. What justifies 400,000 refugees in a few months? That there are active insurgents groups cannot be denied, but all I've seen reported was 12 border guards killed back in August (for the most recent outbreak of violence).

Dutch Gold Society

riffmongous wrote: »

1. Depending on the sources, various muslim countries have taken in a few hundred thousand refugees, over the years. It's certainly not enough though.

2. Well the right will do **** all as usual, other than use ethnic cleansing to press their own islamphobic agendas.

3. What justifies 400,000 refugees in a few months? That there are active insurgents groups cannot be denied, but all I've seen reported was 12 border guards killed back in August.

Sorry but the 'Islamophobia' term is nonsense and adds nothing. We never mention 'Christianphobia' when talking about the persecution of Christians within in the Muslim world. The left is very vocal about Palestine, which is fine, but I find it perplexing when they tend to be quite on other matters. Is one group more important than another?

I don't know what could justify 400K refugees, nothing probably. Personally though I will need to do more research on the situation in order to get better understanding.

A Little Pony

Arsemageddon wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

What ethnic cleansing? The leader denied such a thing was happening.

Ah right, so all those 400,000 Rohingya must just be popping over to Bangladesh for their holidays.

I am sure a reasonable explanation exists for this.

A Little Pony

Dutch Gold Society wrote: »

riffmongous wrote: »

1. Depending on the sources, various muslim countries have taken in a few hundred thousand refugees, over the years. It's certainly not enough though.

2. Well the right will do **** all as usual, other than use ethnic cleansing to press their own islamphobic agendas.

3. What justifies 400,000 refugees in a few months? That there are active insurgents groups cannot be denied, but all I've seen reported was 12 border guards killed back in August.

Sorry but the 'Islamophobia' term is nonsense and adds nothing. We never mention 'Christianphobia' when talking about the persecution of Christians within in the Muslim world. The left is very vocal about Palestine, which is fine, but I find it perplexing when they tend to be quite on other matters. Is one group more important than another?

I don't know what could justify 400K refugees, nothing probably. Personally though I will need to do more research on the situation in order to get better understanding.

A made up word to stop critical thinking on Islam.

Arsemageddon

A Little Pony wrote: »

I am sure a reasonable explanation exists for this.

Well, burning people out of their homes would seem reasonable to a rather right-wing Ulster unionist

A Little Pony wrote: »

A made up word to stop critical thinking on Islam.

You're seriously saying that it is not possible for people to be prejudiced towards Muslims? Such a ridiculous claim justifies the term.

Grayson

Dutch Gold Society wrote: »

3. Is fair to say there are two sides to this, and that while persecution is not right, the Rohingya may not be without fault?

It's fair to say that you're a rereg.

Grayson

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Ah yea, sure it's just a bit of ethnic cleansing.

A profound contribution from you as usual.

It's nuts how some people are ok with that.And others start up with "Well,what about the christians"

The number of times I've been told it's whatabouttery to mention christianity in relation to islam. The second some muslims are being cleansed suddenly it's all about christians being persecuted.

Irish Praetorian

riffmongous wrote: »

2. Well the right will do **** all as usual, other than use ethnic cleansing to press their own islamphobic agendas.

To be fair 'the right' hasn't especially been vocal about these acts because in general 'the right' has zoned out of international humanitarianism since the nonsense of the Iraq War and 'the left' has been more than happy to accommodate that.

So here we are about 15 years down the road, humanitarian crisis again, half a million displaced, the left will want to whine about it but do nothing more, the right wont whine so loudly so long as they don't have to take too many refugees. Lessons for everyone in that I think.

Grayson

Back on topic. At this point all arms sales to Myanmar should be halted. They should also face sanctions.
It won't happen though.

I'm disappointed that a peace price winner is condoning ethnic cleansing. You expect better from people like that

Irish Praetorian

Grayson wrote: »

Back on topic. At this point all arms sales to Myanmar should be halted. They should also face sanctions.
It won't happen though.

Indeed a charming notion, only problem being it's major arms partners are China and Russia - best of luck selling them on the idea of a humanitarian arms embargo.

riffmongous

Dutch Gold Society wrote: »

Sorry but the 'Islamophobia' term is nonsense and adds nothing. We never mention 'Christianphobia' when talking about the persecution of Christians within in the Muslim world. The left is very vocal about Palestine, which is fine, but I find it perplexing when they tend to be quite on other matters. Is one group more important than another?

I don't know what could justify 400K refugees, nothing probably. Personally though I will need to do more research on the situation in order to get better understanding.

But there is clearly a religious element when it comes to commenting negatively on the victims here, what do you call it if not islamophobia? I don't think 'sectarian' cuts it. I would agree elements of the left are not vocal enough on other matters, but at the end of the day it's generally only left people actually interested or trying to help other groups, the likes of Amnesty and Human Rights Watch.

Fair enough, but the numbers are stark, 400,000 refugees in a few weeks and maybe up to 1 million since the 80s before this.

Grayson

riffmongous wrote: »

But there is clearly a religious element when it comes to commenting negatively on the victims here, what do you call it if not islamophobia? I don't think 'sectarian' cuts it. I would agree elements of the left are not vocal enough on other matters, but at the end of the day it's generally only left people actually interested or trying to help other groups, the likes of Amnesty and Human Rights Watch.

Fair enough, but the numbers are stark, 400,000 refugees in a few weeks and maybe up to 1 million since the 80s before this.

Definitely religious and cultural elements. Sectarian is close to it. I'd say you can use islamophobia, especially considering some of the propaganda that is being used against them. It might not have started that way but they are definitely coopting some of the anti islamic ideas that are floating around in the west. However it's not just islamophobic.

It's been going on for hundreds of years and is closer to something like the pogroms against jews in tsarist russia.

The Highwayman

bnt wrote: »

MOD I've moved these posts from a zombie thread to a brand new spanking shiney new thread.



Old thread, but the problem is back in the news again, with Aung San Suu Kyi calling the reports of persecution fake news, essentially.

Ms Suu Kyi is quoted as saying: "We know very well, more than most, what it means to be deprived of human rights and democratic protection.

"So we make sure that all the people in our country are entitled to protection of their rights as well as, the right to, and not just political but social and humanitarian defence."

I've seen other unconfirmed reports that she's asked the US Ambassador to not use the word "Rohingya".

My view - and this may be controversial - is that there's little point in the Rohingya fighting the people of Myanmar who are, from top to bottom, opposed to their presence in the country. It doesn't matter whether the stories of Islamic insurgency are true, or arguing about the past causes if they are true: they have no future there, and should just return to Bangladesh.

I care as much about this Muslims as the rest of the Muslim world cares about the Christian women being raped and used as sex slaves by ISIS.

The Highwayman

Noveight wrote: »

Trump really had no idea of the ball he put rolling when he first mentioned "Fake News"

It wasn't him. Another uninformed commentator. Fake News came from the MSN.

Grayson

The Highwayman wrote: »

I care as much about this Muslims as the rest of the Muslim world cares about the Christian women being raped and used as sex slaves by ISIS.

So you care quite a bit then?

riffmongous

The Highwayman wrote: »

I care as much about this Muslims as the rest of the Muslim world cares about the Christian women being raped and used as sex slaves by ISIS.

Why make it about religion? They are humans

The Highwayman

Arsemageddon wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

They don't want Muslims in the country, leave it up to them.

Ah yea, sure it's just a bit of ethnic cleansing.

A profound contribution from you as usual.

Violence is all they understand. They are just being treated as non Muslims are treated around the world by followers of the religion of peace.