Bangladesh: "Offended" Muslims burn 100 Buddhist homes, 10 temples

I wouldn't want my home randomly burnt down because of some satellite projection from the heavens that came from another human being thousands of miles away.

Those "Arab Sensitivity" watchdog groups are worse than Drudge.

 

They've been doing that to Hindu temples in India for centuries

 

No where did Mathloom justify the mob's actions in this thread. You certainly have reading comprehension problems.

What I took from Mathloom's initial post was that the mob was probably made up of Rohingya people. That is an observation, not a justification.

 

Someone please help me with this isn't islam a peacefull practice.

 

This makes me angry. Buddhists are the most amazing, peaceful people on earth. Stupid moslems

 

I would have just unfriended him.

 

I am starting to develop hate for the Muslin religion. You hardly see peoples of other religions act in such a violent manner. Wtf....

 

Perhaps it's the same thing that compels the Muslims to violence every time they are offended by some silly nonsense.

 

You must have never heard of the Rohingya people. There are a few hundred thousand refugees in Bangladesh because of the persecution they received by the Buddhists in Burma. They are among the most persecuted minorities in the world.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ASA16/005/2004
In 1978 over 200,000 Rohingyas fled to Bangladesh, following the ‘Nagamin’ (‘Dragon King’) operation of the Myanmar army. Officially this campaign aimed at "scrutinising each individual living in the state, designating citizens and foreigners in accordance with the law and taking actions against foreigners who have filtered into the country illegally." This military campaign directly targeted civilians, and resulted in widespread killings, rape and destruction of mosques and further religious persecution. […]

During 1991–92 a new wave of over a quarter of a million Rohingyas fled to Bangladesh. They reported widespread forced labour, as well as summary executions, torture, and rape. Rohingyas were forced to work without pay by the Burmese army on infrastructure and economic projects, often under harsh conditions. Many other human rights violations occurred in the context of forced labour of Rohingya civilians by the security forces.

http://books.google.com/books?id=jIxCUXI38zcC&pg=PA263

During WWII, 100,000 Rohingya people were systematically massacred by Burmese and Japanese Buddhists. Little has changed for the Rohingya.

 

Ugh, I thought you were well educated and know something about the people of this world. This statement is ridiculous if you read up on what Buddhists did in the past.

 

The irony is quiet amusing.

 

If an anecdote of a minority of Muslisms is your evidence that all Muslims are savages, then you've lost touch with rational thought.

 

Yes let me help you out there.

Stop grouping people by what they consider their beliefs to be. There are people on this baord who consider themselves people who I consider war mongers. There are governments who claim to be seeking peace by setting up military installments all over the world. There are Muslims who claim to be peaceful who will set fire to people, temples, homes, anything. This misrepresentation is common, which is what leads to confusion when you use beliefs as a criteria to group people. People can believe what they want, but if you are in the business of trying to understand what motivates certain behavior, self-described beliefs are about as good as a corporation auditing itself. This is why there are significant outliers in grouping people by belief: why most christians don't bomb abortion clinics, most Muslims don't engage in violence, why most everyday Americans do not love war, etc. Of course, there are exceptions.

Start grouping people by circumstances. What they own, what they're owed, what they owe, how they live, what their options are, what they know, etc. The more you dig into circumstances, the more accurate you will be able to predict how people behave, and the more you will understand things when they happen. Of course, there are exceptions.

Pretty soon you'll find that nothing is really confusing at all. These people are not united by their beliefs, they are united by their circumstances. That's what makes them act in groups. They all read the same sentences, but they interpret it differently. The interpretations are so incredibly different and subjective that it does not unite them. That's why the rich and comfy Muslims Bagladeshis were probably at home while the poor and uncomfortable Muslim Bangladeshis were out setting fire to other people's belongings.

Your welcome.

In a sample size of millions of Muslims in my country, no one acted violently to the innocence of muslims video. Why? Doesn't make sense. They pray 5 times a day, they know the Quran in and out, they send praise to Allah all day, they attend Friday prayer and the gulf arab culture is historically quite prone to violence.. so why is it different?

 

You'd never ever convince me with talk. Islam is giving itself a freaking black eye and all you can do is talk about what it isnt'. Now tell me, Math, what "religion" has been the most destructive in the past 10 years? Or 20?

 

you can't reason with the unreasonable. sometimes you've got to go ghetto on people.

So the local Buddhists should burn down the local mosque. Let the local Muslims responsible deal with what they caused. Protesting back while your **** is still smoking ashes is weak ass.

 

yea but generally speaking

ATW >>> Mathloom

 

No religion has been destructive. That would require Allah or Jesus to come down and actually cause the violence. In that sense, the Quran and the Bible are equally violent/destructive - literally same stories of floods, destroying entire cities, family blood baths, etc.

The disciples of those Gods have been equally destructive, as we saw with the conquests of Muhammad and his caliphate, as well as the crusades.

Significantly more violence has been done by Muslims in the past 20 years than followers of any other religion.

But why are you using these specific boundaries:

- 20 years
- religion

?

Here's an example of how one can skew just those two boundaries to achieve a picture which suits them:

Which state policy has killed the most people and caused the most destruction in the last 60 years?

It's an easy game to play. What you're really doing is:

- Ideology: but restrict this to religion. Ignore state ideology or political ideology or any other kind of ideology.
- Time: but restrict this to 20 years. Ignore any other historically significant events.

What I gave you is the formula which transcends the boundaries of those arbitrary restrictions, while also answering your question (Muslims). The formula is this:

Regardless of ideology or time, the group which has been in the worst circumstances has been known to resort to the least universally moral form of warfare.

You can convert all these guys to buddhism or christianity, it won't change a thing. They will take that religion, twist it to its most aggressive interpretation, and continue to do exactly what they are doing. They would say, as the Catholic Church of the US has said regarding war, that Jesus wouldn't stand for pacifism. That Jesus would want them to stop a Hitler-like person. So on and so forth. The amount of twist you can apply to religion is endless.

But if you change the circumstances then you will change the behavior. That has proved true beyond all self-professed ideologies, beyond any arbitrary time lines we draw, and beyong any ideological boundaries we set for this exercise.

So just to repeat: yes, Muslims have caused the most destruction out of followers of all religions who cite religion as motivation in the last 20 years. But just like guns don't kill people, religion doesn't kill people. Uneducated, under privileged, oppressed, frustrated people kill people. There are more Muslims like that BY FAR than any other single religion and hence the problem.

That statement is accurate AND doesn't address the underlying reason for why these things are happening. If following Islam made a person more violent than following any other religion, then the pattern of violence would differ - it wouldn't be vastly concentrated in certain pockets of the Muslim populations. It would be far far far more widespread in America, which extremists consider to be the monster's belly. It would be worse in the UAE, where I live, which is considered by extremists as a treasonous state. The religious king of saudi arabia would not be your ally.

So, if your interest is deciding which followers of religion are resorting to more violence in our day and age - great news, you win.

But if you genuinely want to understand why that is and how to stop it, then it is all about circumstances circumstances circumstances.

 

who was that guy from norway who killed all those people and wrote that manifesto?

what he did was absolutely wrong but maybe some aspects about the Western world's willingness to just be a doorstep to all of these acts of violence has some bit of truth to it?

 

Do the killers ever get prosecuted? OBviously the majority of Muslims are not violent; they are in fact peaceful people religious people like the rest of us. But for that small percentage that use violence in the name of allah, are they punished and shunned by the rest of their society or is there some sort of mum among the people because they don't care?

a genuine question for anybody who is well knowledge in Middle-Eastern Studies/politics/religion, or something