The case for the Burmese / Myanmar gov

Shia Islam has always been revolutionary. It's Sunni Islam which is reactionary.

Is this the power of anti-imperialists?
whether muslims in other countries are oppressed does nothing to answer whether Rohingya are.

*purges iranian commies and makes the women wear burkas*
a fuckin torch in the night

What do you think is more likely, radical muslims are oppressed in every single country they are terrorizing or that radical islamists are being used as tools of Western imperialism? I'm sorry, but if one part of the narrative does turn out to be bullshit (Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan,Syria) then there's a very high chance that the rest of it is bullshit, no? Just use Occam's Razor. What's more likely these overly complicated rambling explanations of islamophobia and oppression ("Buddhist Islamophobia, Secular Islamophobia, Christian Islamophobia" etc.) or that these groups really are tools of imperialism? Is it a coincidence that the muslim world has gotten far more reactionary and far less independent since these radical islamist ideologies and groups came along.

Also, you act as if I provided no evidence that Rohingya terrorists are terrorizing Buddhist communities. Aren't you slightly suspicious that this is another Syria or Libya where the people claiming to be the victims are actually the victimizers? Or do you just not care?

You do know that a great many "Rohingya" are actually Bengalis who have illegally immigrated to Myanmar right? It's understandable to want to migrate given that Bangladesh is a complete shithole and Myanmar is less of a shithole but the fact that this but the fact that many of these illegal immigrants have been implicated in terrorist acts committed against the local action doesn't make you at all suspicious? Does it not remind you at all of Syria where many, if not the large majority, of the terrorist fighters were foreign fighters?

Also:

Attached: Assadmustgo.jpg (306x165, 10.03K)

*against the local population

I was raised Muslim, and I agree that Muslims (especially Sunnis indoctrinated in Saudi-funded masjids, shocker) have a gigantic victim complex. Growing up, I heard all about Palestine, Bosnia, and koh-SO-vuh. I was taught there isn't a single place in the world where (Sunni) Muslims aren't persecuted. It's fucked.

can't stop using fallacies I see, unironic brainlet.
again, not what's being discussed. Do I need to hold your hand?

What is being discussed? Because, it seems you fags are the ones shifting things off-topic if you look at the OP.

Ya'll are the one focused on imperialism's latest meme genocide. I don't know how many times this same psy-op has to get ran before the moral left decides that something might be fishy.

A strong claim requires strong proof. So if you want to prove that this meme genocide is real and that the Rohingya are the most oppressed people on Earth then you need to prove that. And I'm not talking about a reuters article you got off some NGO twitter your following–I'm talking about mounting a case that makes it clear beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Literally held in high-regard by the scientific community for more than a thousand years. It isn't perfect but it is a pretty damn good guide to things when your faced with multiple hypotheses that seem equally plausible.

There is a real psychology to the notion that your group is consistently under attack. Maybe Muslims have more of an excuse to feel that way given shit like racial profiling or dehumanization, but in practice it still leads to highly authoritarian and irrational tendencies.

So you admit you do need me to hold your hand? Go read Naziposter again. What do you think he is getting at when he brings up murder and arson?

kek, another fallacy.

Whether or not the Rohingya are the most oppressed people on earth has nothing to do with whether the Burmese are acting criminally.

it is a heuristic tool which you are misusing. Rohingya persecution is the matter in question, you've instead said "Muslims are not oppressed in country X, Y, Z, therefore they are not oppressed in any country" this is not a valid argument. How simple it is doesn't matter. that they are being persecuted in Burma is exactly what being put forward.

So, in other words, you don't need to provide any proof? And, no, I don't think it is a fallacy to say that strong accusation require strong proof. True, you can make highly-charged accusations without proof but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

This is literally what is being claimed in the mainstream media.

Feel free to provide proof. But keep in mind that the question of "who started" and whether the Rohingya are carrying out similar acts of violence is pertinent to the discussion–something you've brushed off in the past. If there are Rohingya terrorists carrying out atrocities against the native population than it does have some effect on the conversation. The Iraqi government has probably committed human rights abuses in the struggle against ISIS and maybe carrying it out now but few would say that we should be morally neutral in this conflict or demonize the Iraqi government because of this. Context matters.

This is a misrepresentation of what I have said. If there are close to a dozen simmering Islamic insurgencies at the moment then what are the possible reasons for this? Is it global islamophobia? A kind of reaction to imperialism? Or something else?

Well, we know that several of these insurgencies have close relations with imperialism. We also can observe that many of these insurgencies are taking place in Islamic countries hardly hot beds of Islamophobia. These insurgencies pop up in both "democratic" states and authorian ones; in both non-majority and majority-Muslim countries; in both imperialist nations and third world states. So, here we have as good a historical test-case as any about whether it is Islamophobia and prejudice that is causing these insurgencies. Legitimate arguments can be made about prejudice in some countries but not in others, so we can't conclude that this wave of Islamist violence is the result of Islamophobia. Repression of democratic freedoms is observed as a factor in some countries but not others; furthermore, radical Islamists reject democracy, so we cannot claim that anti-democratic repression is the source of radical islamism.

You haven't challenged my earlier claims that mainstream media has supported some of these Islamist insurgencies and apologized for them and carried out extensive disinformation campaigns about them and their victims. Presumably, you don't seem ti disagree, so what we're left with is basically you arguing "but what if its really' REAL this time?"

It is plausible, all those other ones could be fakes and imperialist conjobs but this one could be the real one. It's possible. However, for most thinking people. strong proof is actually needed before you go and condemn a whole country of being genocidaires.

If your argument is not that the government is committing genocide but just that the government is being too mean then that requires a lower standard of proof (but still quite high nonetheless). However, I think it would be hard to fault a state with being too mean when Wahabbi death squads are trying to balkanize it and commiting atrocities and arguably ethnic cleansing against native Buddhist populations.

Before you call it a logical fallacy, I would point out that precedent and history do matter to people. So, the fact that many of these Islamists are imperialist stooges commiting massacres that we've seen this same scenario playing out…what? Maybe a half a dozen times the last two decades?

There are many cases of the West crying wolf about genocide to demonize its targets. This isn't even totally new its been done many times in the 21st century already and some in the 20th century

Just like with color revolutions, the characteristics of these Islamist insurgencies are often identical. They follow a similar script. Few leftists in the 21st century would agree you have to wait before a color revolution runs its course and destroys your country before you identify it as such.

So far, the Rohingya situation is following the Syria-Libya-Bosnia script to a tee. It seems like every time that the moral leftists hope that its different it never turns out to be. I wonder why that is?

Attached: thinkingspinner.gif (360x358, 2.97M)

I'm interested in this hypothesis. Tell me more.

Not sarcasm. I really want to know. It stinks to death of the Saudis.

Rohingya militants massacre nearly 100 Hindus:

bbc.com/news/world-asia-44206372

Just wondering, would you say Kashmir follows this same narrative? I ask, because unlike Palestine, Kashmir seems like a very "grey" conflict much more akin to East Turkistan or Bosnia.

I can think of another example which follows this pattern almost to a T:

France.

I'm not kidding. Listen to any Islamic-oriented media and you'd think France is Apartheid South Africa, with Islam being flat-out banned, hijabis being attacked by police, pious Muslims being arrested for praying on the sidewalk, apartheid walls going up around the banlieue, and plenty of other things. I've been to France several times in the past few years (my grandparents retired to the Midi) and can confirm that, while French Muslims do face poverty and occasional racism, it's nowhere near as bad as you'd think. Yes, the banlieue sucks. Yes, Muslim immigrants from the Maghreb are ghettoized to some extent. But it's not fucking Gaza. Most French Muslims get around just fine despite these problems, and yet we're lead to believe the colonial French government is trying to systematically wipe them out.

Other examples I can think of regarding "Muslim genocide" are eastern Ethiopia, Thailand (Pattani province) and the Muslim parts of the Philippines. Bin Laden even mentioned the former two in his declaration of jihad against the US as examples of Muslim grievances.

Characteristics of a modern (typically Wahhabi) Islamist insurgency:
1. Incubation: indoctrination of local Muslim population or Muslim immigrants in the targeted country. This is usually done under the cover of "freedom of religion" via Gulf State funded schools, transplanted radical imams, and online propaganda under the guise of freedom of religion. When local authorities become aware of this problem, they have two choices: A) they can choose to repress it, to stop these schools from being built, to censor these Imams and their propaganda etc. repression typically only drives the jihadists onward as they claim that they are being repressed because the authorities don't want the people to hear the truth and/or hate Muslims, but this tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy–their hate-filled and intolerant preaching can really only result in repression when sane governments realize that these cults are a threat to governments and citizens who are not radical Islamists B) they can tolerate it, and this is the path that most states take, they tolerate it these people thinking they won't amount to much until the infection begins to spreads and their hate festers among their followers and their message becomes amplified
2. Preparation: the jihadis begin stockpiling weaponry for the day of reckoning. They begin intimidating non-sect members and people of other faiths (and sometimes ethnicities/races) and leftists/secularists openly. Western intelligence is typically already involved by this point and Western NGOs usually have their press releases ready by this stage. Foreign fighters may already be present by this stage BEFORE the insurgency begins. Followers of the sect are becoming ungovernable and the inevitable result is repression but rarely is it ever strong enough to keep the insurgency from happening. This slow-motion repression justifies what comes later and often leads to more ruthless and fanatical fighters as radical islamists begin taking over state prisons and learning how to dodge police surveillance. Militants often travel to Western states and begin agitating on behalf of the cause in a veiled form as the conflict proper begins. The agitation usually begins in advance, so that Western media can point to a (usually) small angry muslim immigrants and claim: "do you really think they are all lying?!"
3. Cleavage: Few modern societies fall willingly to these insurgencies and so the most effective strategy to carve out an islamist state is divide and conquer. They choose a muslim minority that may disenchanted with their majority non-muslim nation state or government. If its a majority muslim they ally with the sect that is not in power or target minorities. If it is a muslim majority nation that is largely homogenous this doesn't matter since they can employ the typical Takfiri tactic of claiming that anyone thats not a radical Islamist is an apostate. If it is a secular government they claim that this is offensive to all true muslims and so on.
4. the Inciting Act: this is what justifies what comes next. It's usually something big and noticeable, something that allows them to take over the narrative. Something thats like a Hollywood movie. During the Libyan and Syrian Civil Wars it was a narrative of government oppression. However, in both cases this open to serious doubt, and there is evidence that it was the terrorists who fired first (in Maidan a similar act was carried out) and usually what follows is a media barrage where they claim they began fighting after a government massacre and that's when they decided to get weapons and fight "against all odds" when in fact they were already armed and training.
5. Civil War, Ethnic Cleansing, Political persecution, Media disinformation and silence:
Foreign fighters begin pouring in–usually vetreans of the last pro-imperialist jihadist insurgency. Sometimes the West may intervene openly directly on their behalf like in Libya but othertimes its covert aid but no less direct. Media focuses on a black-white narrative that lionizes the fighters: they are fighting against a vicious dictatorship, they are an oppressed minority taking up arms out of desperation, they are a religious majority that is sick of being ignored/persecuted by the ruling minority sect etc. They usually ethnically cleanse or threaten ethnic cleansing of their opponents: Syrian rebels (slogan: "Christians to Beirut and Alawites to the grave") The media only acknowledges these crimes begrudgingly and usually after its too late. If the targeted state succumbs to balkanization or suffers a state-takeover then it moves to the final stage.
5. Consolidation of a Theocratic gangster state and open selling out to imperialism:
Pretty straight forward. A good example: A long-time ago the Syrian rebels released a 50+ point document of what they would do when they came to power and it read like a wish-list for Western imperialism.

Attached: radicalislam.jpg (1024x683, 78.97K)

Sorry for the condensed text. I hope its readable i feel like it covers most of the basics of how this stuff tends to happen. This is a complex phenomenon but most the time these things follow this pattern

Also take this into account: what do ALL of these groups demand aside from an end to persecution? An Islamic state. They want an Islamic state in the Balkans, they want one in Chechnya/Dagestan, they want one in East Turkistan, they want one in Ogaden, they want one in Kashmir, they want one in Rakhine, they want one in Mindinao, and they sure as hell want one in the banlieue. Oh, and they want the entire Arab World to be under a batshit insane Sunni theocracy.

TBH fam, this is the only "stealth jihad" narrative that actually makes sense. Much thanks.

Only thing in which I disagree with you. Realize many of these states which (allegedly) persecute Muslims are not "secular". India's BJP wants a semi-fascist Hindu theocracy in the country. Myanmar and Sri Lanka are practically hyper-militarized Buddhist theocracies. Most countries in the Balkans have cultures and governments heavily influenced by Eastern Orthodoxy (Serbia and Greece come to mind), as do modern Russia and Ethiopia. France and China's state religion is militant atheism.

The irony being that France (especially under Macron) has the most pro-Zionist ruling class in the world after the US and Israel itself. So, what is happening here? French intelligence (rightly or wrongly) believes that a Civil War is possible in France and German and Austria intelligence has said similar things IIRC.

I think Mossad thinks that a civil war in France or at least an intensification of anti-Jewish sentiments and actions in France will drive jews to Israel. We've seen this many times, where israel aligns itself with anti-semites in order to get foreign Jews to maintain its colonial project.

Already, modern France is being held up in Jewish media as essentially as a Western equivalent to early 20th century tsarist Russia. This is the same country where pro-Palestinian rallies have been outlawed and the president has openly stated that anti-Zionism IS anti-semitism. Some Muslims are even voting for the FN since they percieve it as a "fuck you" to the French establishment.

Tbf muslim anti-semitism in France is real. Many of the muslims that Hussey interviewed for his book admitted to anti-Jewish sentiment and said that Jews couldn't live in the Banlieu:
libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=26EF82BE2183B5A72931F51D0057B520

I think its reasonable to consider whether Islamist insurgencies will move into a new phase where they are occuring within Europe itself. And one of the benefits of this besides splitting the working class of Europe will be that America's Western rivals will be destabilized/decline and European immigration to the US will accelerate.

I know this sounds like a long-shot scenario. But US strategists like Barnett actually consider Europe to be the past and think their main rivals will be India and China. How can the US compete with India and China given their present population? Short answer: in the long run, it can't. It appears that the tolerance of the US population for Third World immigration is reaching its limit. However, I have to admit that the US elite chose good candidates: their new immigrants were largely conservative-liberal Catholics with majority European heritage and some Ameridian/African DNA. But this is reaching its limit in my view and if America essentially chooses to become Latin American then how will it continue to rule over her as its colonial despot? America is already importing more Asians then Latinos legally at least and this could increase as the pivot to Asia squeezes the noose harder around that great landmass.

If Europe is "disrupted" then she will be a very good candidate to renew her role as America's go-to choice for surplus labor.

Europe itself needs new labor and seems averse to turning to Christian Africans. Because I'm not European I dont know what the European elite is thinking but it seems to be that given their stagnant population and prejudice against large national debts they seem to think that its worth playing with fire. They also seem to think the radicals and those immigrants susceptible to their message can be good flunkies for their interest in the Third World. But for how much longer?

Attached: onhispanicimmigration.png (1245x534, 320.56K)

To be fair, this was one major point that wannabe-jihadis made concerning French "persecution" of Muslims. And I completely agree with the point about French Muslims being incredibly anti-Jewish. I wonder to what extent Israel could also be funding this kind of ideology for the reasons you've mentioned (Israel and Saudi share many similar geopolitical interests after all).

I was mainly thinking of Syria. I suppose Libya under Gaddafi was "islamic" but in a hippy-dippy kind of way. The Muslim Brotherhood has been supported to undermine the secular government of Egypt for a while; its now public record that Israel created Hamas to undermine the secular PLO.

Although not all of the orchestrators of the 1965 coup in Indonesia were radical muslims, it isn't a coincidence that radical muslims played a huge role in the liquidation of Sukarno and the mass murder of suspected communists. The target wasn't only the communists imo but also Sukarno's secular anti-imperialist republic–it isn't a coincidence that Indonesia has regressed into fundamentalist Islamic shithole with living standards on par with subsaharan Africa.

It also should be seen as a model for what imperialism wants from these movements: it is a kind of fusion phenomenon. It is an extremely intolerant islamist shithole that persecutes minorities and represses workers but it also has the vote. It is a dictatorship but it pretends to be faux-democratic for the media. Which is why the media can never shut up about how Indonesia is a "vibrant" muslim democracy it is anything but that last one

A similar kind of slow-motion Islamification has occurred in Turkey. Jihadist fighters were put to similar work in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is actually very interesting, because it pits pro-US islamic government vs. an anti-US islamic insurgency. Thinks have gotten so bad in Bangladesh that muslim activists actually defend the Pakistani genocide that occurred in 1973. There were violent protests of this type when the state decided to put to death some collaborators that were too proud of the role they played in the massacres. Buddhists in Bangladesh are regularly persecuted against and even killed by muslim terrorist gangs. Everyone knows Pakistan is a republic in name but really a puppet of the gulf states

You can imagine this plays a big role in what's happening in neighbouring Myanmar. Buddhists fear being overrun by Bengali immigrants because of how their coreligionists are treated in Bangladesh. Some parts of Myanmar are now majority "Rohingya" and the result has been terrorist violence against the remaining Buddhist minority.

The chance is pretty high. Israel sent agents to coordinate and fight with the Maidan Nazis FFS

Attached: ISISapologizestoIsrael.png (635x768, 251.67K)

Oh yeah. Pakistanis also tend to have a huge "brown savoir" complex whereby they're the ones who buy into this "the muzzies are being genocided by the kuffar, we need a GLOBAL ISLAMIC STATE nao" propaganda. What's weird is how they tend to care more about what's happening in Palestine or Syria than they do their own fucking country. Wouldn't be surprised if many Pakistanis were fighting alongside the FSA/al-Nusra/al-Qaeda.

Indonesia is just fucked. Millions of communists murdered by US and Australian-backed terrorists. Yeah, a lot of people uphold the country as a shining pluralistic democracy and "tolerant Muslim country" all while shit goes on in places like Aceh.

TBH all the shit you're describing could only work due to the fact Muslims are very group-oriented. When the higher-ups in their societies say "jump", Muslims say "how high?".

Do you know anything about the Algerian islamic insurgency? All I know, is that it was extremely bloody and some muslims in France like to piss and moan about it

Nope.

Call me a skeptic, but I'm finding major holes in your narrative. For one thing, these Muslims vs. everyone else conflicts are not things which just happened out of the blue. There are real instances of Muslims being scapegoated and attacked by dominant states who view Islam as being harder to control given its lack of ontological hierarchies, decentralized and spontaneous nature, and cynicism towards any governing structure which isn't 100% in-line with their Islamic values. You also downplay the role of colonialism in all of this, and how the colonials themselves were the ones who came up with divide-and-conquer, NOT the mosques NOT the religious leaders.

I can believe the stuff about Israel funding fascist parties in Europe in order to scare Jews into moving to Israel and being strategically placed on Palestinian lands as settler-colonials, but there isn't a single Muslim country (including the Gulf states) which could carry out something this well organized (assuming it's true).

Shariah states wouldn't appeal to Muslim populations en masse unless said populations were feeling helpless and hopeless enough to take it up. Remember Marx said religion is the opiate of the masses, in the sense that it sedates them and gives them a happy feeling when all else appears to be going to hell. Muslims aren't to blame and it's pretty gross for you to use their real struggles to further your Islamophobic bullshit.

I mean, he clearly states multiple times that western/imperialist powers are behind this push with their media campaigns. That said, the US didn't invent Wahhabism, even if they're more than happy to use it.

Their general argument though is that the US gov/Mossad/Saudis created these conflicts out of thin air, most likely to destabilize the Muslim World. That's not how it works. Usually, the CIA, Mossad, or any other goons don't light fires, rather they toss gas on fires which are already lit. If there is an armed conflict between Muslims and Buddhists in Myanmar, or the Assad government and Sunni rebels in Syria, or Muslims and Christians in the Balkans it's not just the Israelis and Saudis tricking people, but something which digs much deeper.

I also wanted to add: while it's true that the CIA and Israel did prop up some of these Islamist movements, I personally think this is way overblown. A much more complete explanation for their popularity would be 1. the failure of Arab secularists to fully beat imperialism (pan-Arabists lost against Israel every single time), and 2. the shift in attitudes after the Iranian Revolution, which did have some success in kicking off the shackles of imperialist domination. Not to mention the mere existence of a theocratic Shia state undeniably lead to the demand for Sunni theocracies in order to balance out the power; just imagine if Poland became a Roman Catholic theocracy (officially) and how that would no doubt inspire Eastern Orthodox theocratic movements in Ukraine and Belarus.

Is this an argument from ignorance or something? It's almost like your saying that you can't believe it therefore its not true.

The gulf states literally spend billions of dollars spreading their religious ideology every year. Gulf state money was the prime mover for the Afghani insurgency in the 1980s and the insurgencies in Libya and Syria. Even high-ranking imperialist officials like Joe Biden have said that the gulf states had bank-rolled ISIS because they were willing to fund any and all rebel groups against Assad. Other pieces of information points to far-reaching and substantial networks/ties.

Those who have been allowed to read the classified 8 pages of the 9/11 report have said that it openly points to Saudi state involvement in the plot itself.

Not only is the historical evidence there but the Gulf States themselves are highly modern states that are very well-organized with higher per capita GDPs then even the US and cities that surpass some of the most well-built and high-tech American cities in design. The Bahrani and Kuwati dinars exchange for 2-3 US dollars and the financial resources of these countries are immense.

Saudi Arabia has one of the largest and most expensive militaries in the world and I'm sure the intelligence services of these states match their military capacity.

The irony of your comment is that it reminds me of the racist argument that 9/11 had to be an inside job because muslims aren't smart or organized enough to pull it off.

The Muslims who support these jihadist insurgencies are actually to blame. I've mentioned before that these groups do not represent all muslims and in fact their main victims are usually other muslims. However, it is also true according to international opinion surveys that there is disturbingly high sympathy for these groups in some regions–this usually dissipates once radical islamic reactionaries take over their towns for real. These groups do have astonishing reach and resources both Western and Islamic in origin.

We need to quit excusing these terrorists and those who sympathize with them. We're doing a disservice both to their victims and to the global proletariat who are being split by the radically reactionary religious identity politics of these groups. Is "islamophobia" even irrational when everywhere radical islamists are around to preach and organize the result is civil war, massacre, repression of women and ethnic conflict/cleansing? Many of these groups would immediately be labelled fascist if white Christian men were saying the same things.

Are we obliged to forget our anti-religious work and propaganda as Marxists because the Western liberal establishment has decided that tolerating backwards religious norms is the new progressive thing?

Attached: brosocialistzone.jpg (626x416, 178.57K)

How do the Saudis, Qataris, etc. benefit from a destabilized Middle East? Literally the only country that would benefit from such a thing would be Israel, given that Israel would be the last man standing after all the Arab states (including the Gulf States, who would no doubt fall victim to this shit in their own right) have fallen.

Also, notice how Palestine is the ONLY place where you haven't seen Salafi ideology? Even Hamas is fairly moderate and they could easily form a coalition with the PFLP and Fatah if given the opportunity. Personally, I think Israel is behind most of this. The Gulf states just aren't powerful enough and like you said Israel has an entire history of false flags and pitting Muslims against each other. There's even proof Israel may have had something to do with Khomeini's rise to power.

I'm not trying to be a shitposter but you seem really ignorant and I don't know if it's worth the time to engage with you.
Saudi Arabia and Israel are allies and have been for quite a while so of course there is no salafi shit in Palestine.

Saudi and the other Gulf states are just Israeli puppets, so why paint them as villains? Have the Saudis or Emiratis EVER done anything to spite Israel? No.

To compare if the GS really were trying to destabilize the region, why aren't they supporting the Kurds, whereas Israel is?
youtube.com/watch?v=skoh5cP44ak

They are already supporting moderate to radical groups in Syria? The Kurds aren't going to change into Salafis just because some Saudi money comes through. The Kurds aren't going to change their economic policies to benefit the Gulf the most for some Saudi money. The moderate and radical rebel groups will.

low Autism Level and literal racist detected. Non-whites are capable of making their own geopolitical decisions and having rational policies. It's not just all a 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧JEWISH🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 plot.

When have the Saudis ever opposed Israel? Does that not indicate they work for Israel?

This is bullshit.
The rohingya are the most oppressed group of peoples on earth.

This is not a scenario where some poor buddhists are being ticked off by crafty Islamists.

This is a group of people being murdered, burnt alive, raped, starved, mutilated and oppressed to an excruciatingly cruel and inhuman scale.

Why? On the flimsy excuse that they don't look like the ones that are doing to oppressing.

That is quite literally what the nazis did.

To suggest and imply that they " deserve it " is the most despicable thing ever.

This is literal fucking genocide.

If you defend this, you should fucking kill yourself.

Here's all you need to know about this situation.

reddit.com/r/LeftCentral/comments/70u22t/rohingya_megathread/

So you don't think it's strange that nearly identical scenarios have also gone on in East Turkistan, Kosovo, northern Nigeria, Chechnya, and whatnot? Jihadis cry persecution, and instead of demanding religious tolerance they demand a breakaway Islamic state?

t. said the same thing about Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yugoslav Wars, and Rwanda and will never learn anything from all these disasters

Look at this shit.

Look at it and laugh.

I heard the Burma was once or still is a socialist country before some dictator. The country once have a ideology called "Burmese Way to Socialism" from the 1962 to 1988 when it was led by Ne Win. Some said it failed due to Win's stupid decisions and superstitious beliefs that make it a poor country.
So was it once socialist?

Attached: new.jpg (480x310, 33.32K)

Wow, you mean to tell me that oppressed people….don't want to be oppressed ?

For a group claiming to be communists, i.e where the state doesn't exist, you guys are in love wi th the idea of a state that oppresses people.

What's funny about it? I don't see anything there that's inaccurate.

No lol.

Ne Win was in no way leftits or socialist.

He literally forced people to drive on the right because he thought that the people were going to much towards the left politically.

There's quite a lot actually.

For one, all the situations this guys i listing where Muslims are supposed to have a victim complex… are literally situations where there were/are genoicdes against them.

And he/she/they're saying the Muslims were wrong to be upset about it.

Fuck skae you fucks are mental.

These "oppressions" all follow the same pattern, which indicates there's something fishy going on.

Look at: . It's a known fact Israel funds antisemitic parties and groups because they know those groups will drive more Jews to occupied Palestine. What's so off in thinking the Saudis (or Israel, or the CIA) are fucking with the world's Muslims in the same way?

Bosnia and Kosovo weren't genocides. They were brutal wars, sure, but they're not like the Holocaust, Armenian Genocide, Congo genocide, etc. Not to mention *every single one* of those conflicts was given the "genocide" label as a means of demanding foreign intervention.

...

The highest stage of reddit-posting.

Attached: redditposting.png (150x145, 17.35K)

Pattern? Of what people killing others?

Is this a fucking joke?

Are you surprised that people can be cunts ?

Is that the problem here? That you didn't expect people to kill others?

You think the Saudis pay the Burmese to rape women and children in front of their husbands and then burn the men alive?

It fit the definition of genocides as stipulated by the UN prior to the initiations of either of these wars.

Enjoy your niqab.

Attached: back to tumblr.png (546x700, 317.13K)

Literally no one is suggesting that.

Like none.

Find a fucking argument you complete shit.

Lmao, typical fucking murder apologist.

out of bullshit arguments so you resort to shit memes.

Kill yourself.

enjoy your murder apologism.

You obviously don't understand how Wahhabi/Salafi propaganda works. Muslims of this orientation (they are few but they bite big) believe the whole rest of the world is waging an ongoing war against the "true" ummah, and something like 95% of all those who call themselves "Muslims" are really apostates.

I have no reason to believe what's going on in Rakhine is an actual genocide just like I have no reason to believe Assad sent his troops to castrate a dissenting student and force-feed him his own balls.

You're not providing any evidence to make your case, you're just calling people names and suggesting we support murder. Look, if anything Myanmar is civil war. It's not something we need to get involved in, unless it means defending Myanmar from Western imperialism or Saudi/Turkish influence (remember, Erdogan said he would send Turkish troops to invade the country if the fighting against the Rohingya continues).

Also, Amnesty International released a report saying Ronhigya rebels massacred almost 100 Hindus.

Link pls?Also, I'm gonna call it now, some Kurdboos will come around on Sultan Erdogan because he's fighting for a persecuted minority :^)

middleeastmonitor.com/20170910-erdogan-urges-muslim-countries-to-help-rohingya/

Are you Muslim? You do know the people pushing for shariah breakaways are not muh progressive Muslim scientists but religious hardliners, right?

Diverse cultural backgrounds are the best opportunity we ever had at making people focus exclusively on class, not any other spooks.

Daily reminder Shias don't pull shit like this.

Daily reminder Shia countries are all part of the axis of resistance.