Lion of the Blogosphere

The Myanmar situation

Myanmar is the nation formally known as Burma.

You need to read between the lines of this BBC article.

The huge exodus of Rohingya from Myanmar’s Rakhine State, and the brutal tactics of the security forces, have stirred up strong condemnations of the Nobel Laureate and de-facto leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, who has defended her government’s actions as a legitimate response to terrorism.

Even a Nobel Peace Prize winner doesn’t want a bunch of Muslims living in her country, not after they’ve started doing the Islamic terrorism thing.

Much of the Burmese population agrees with the official view that they are not citizens of Myanmar, but illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, even though many Rohingya families have been in the country for generations.

A sentence which seems more like propaganda than fact. What percentage of Rohingya families have been in the country for “generations”? “Many” is a meaningless word. A hundred families could mean “many,” while the other hundred thousand Rohingya families are actually from Bangladesh.

Inside Rakhine State, the local Buddhist population are even more hostile. Conflict between them and the Rohingya – who they refer to as Bengalis – goes back many decades.

Many Rakhine Buddhists believe they will eventually become a minority, and fear that their identity will be destroyed.

That has always been the Islamic game plan, it’s not paranoia.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

September 13, 2017 at 9:36 AM

Posted in International

31 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Even a guilt-tripping report about this by NPR admitted that most Rohingya don’t consider themselves Burmese, in which case it would be folly to make them citizens.


    September 13, 2017 at 10:18 AM

  2. Bhuddists are a part of that small group that used to be adored by western liberals, along with a select few others such as trannies, blacks and Muslims. Given that Bhuddists are a law-abiding and decent people though, they didn’t stand a hope in hell to retain any sympathy from liberals in the long run, and certainly not against the reigning champions of liberal affection, the Muslims.


    September 13, 2017 at 10:32 AM

    • muslims arent icons of affection in the way black ppl or gays are. theyre subjects of apologia and silence, much less worship. they dont even come close to black ppl who tbh have been dethroned by gays on the worship-o-scale.

      james n.s.w

      September 13, 2017 at 12:05 PM

    • Liberals like the deracinated hollywood version of buddhism. Buddhism as actually practices in Buddhist countries is quite different.


      September 13, 2017 at 4:00 PM

    • no. some people who are called “liberal” and some who identify themselves as “liberal” act as though they believed the following:

      1. whatever is in the ascendency is bad and whatever is not in the ascendency is a victim.

      2. muslims are a race, like scientologists and gays. behavior defines a race, but biological race is socially constructed. 😉

      they act as though they believe these things, but if asked if they believe them they will say, “no.”

      ron burgundy

      September 13, 2017 at 4:44 PM

      • eh… I see plenty of victims in continual ascendancy and while staying continuously “good” in the estimation of the liberal propaganda machine.

        White proles certainly are not in ascendancy, and yet are bad. Islam is in ascendancy in Europe, and yet is good.

        What is “bad” is what is a threat to the border-destruction plan. What is “good” assists in it.

        International Islam is international. Hence, good. And perfectly controllable if they will it, while being a perfect “uncontrollable” weapon against national peace and stability if the liberal machine, and whatever is above that, wills that too.


        September 15, 2017 at 12:04 AM

    • Bhuddists are a part of that small group that used to be adored by western liberals,

      Were Liberals ever embracing actual Buddhist religious doctrines? Or were they talking up some New Age, feel-good, version of Buddhism that is only tangentially related to the genuine version?

      The Undiscovered Jew

      September 13, 2017 at 7:40 PM

  3. God bless the people of Myanmar. They are showing us the way.

    Andrew E.

    September 13, 2017 at 10:34 AM

  4. Agreed. Based Buddhists are woke to the Islamic game-plan and will defend their country.


    September 13, 2017 at 10:52 AM

  5. It’s nice to see Muslims get terrorized for once.


    September 13, 2017 at 11:23 AM

  6. Myanmar (Burma), Bangladesh and India were all parts of British India until 1937. People moved freely back and forth across the borders. Burma became an independent country in 1948. Until 1962 Rohingya were considered citizens of Burma. Rohingya held government jobs, were members of parliament and held high level government positions. In 1962 the army overthrow the government of Burma and enacted the Burmese nationality law that stripped Rohingya of their citizenship and made it illegal for Rohingya to hold government jobs. This effectively made the Rohingya stateless.

    The Rohingya claim some of their ancestors were living in Western Myanmar as early as the 8th century. More migrated to the region during the British colonial period, 18th century to 1948.

    Mike CA

    September 13, 2017 at 11:33 AM

    • Translation:

      The Rohingya were brought in by the British colonialists to act as political and economic ringers against the native Burmese…a praetorian government willing to execute atrocities against the Burmese population because they themselves were not Burmese.

      When colonialism disappeared and a coup got rid of the leftover British agents, the Rohingya got their just punishment.

      This is the same divide and conquer strategy used in the US.


      September 13, 2017 at 6:57 PM

  7. The situation in Myanmar (or Burma, I’m never sure which name is politically correct) has been getting lots of attention because the poor Muslims have been receiving a dose of their own medicine. Well, boo hoo hoo! According to the CIA World Factbook, Burma (the name it’s listed under) is about 88% Buddhist, 6% Christian, and 4% Muslim. Neighboring Bangladesh, by contrast, is about 89% Muslim and 10% Hindu. According to Human Rights Watch, the situation there is just as bad as in Myanmar, if not worse:

    Bangladesh security forces have a long history of arbitrary arrest, enforced disappearance, and extrajudicial killing, raising concerns about recent arrests and deaths. The Detective Branch of the police, the Bangladesh Border Guards (BGB), the Directorate General Forces Inspectorate (DGFI), and the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) have all been accused of serious violations.


    Several religious leaders were killed or injured in targeted attacks, allegedly by the same extremist Muslim groups that targeted secular writers. In April, the advocacy group Hindu-Buddha-Christian Oikya Parishad said there had been three times more incidents of violence against minority communities in the first three months of 2016 than in all of 2015. Hindu shrines, temples and homes were attacked over the October 2016 Diwali festival. The government responded by arresting several hundred suspects, but some sporadic attacks against the Hindu community continued.

    Thousands of indigenous people in the Chittagong Hill Tracts and other areas are at risk of forced displacement.


    So the liberal MSM get their undies in a bundle over the msitreatment of the poor Muslims in Myanmar, while brutal attacks against religious and ethnic minorities (mostly Hindus) in adjacent Bangladesh draws no attention.

    Black Death

    September 13, 2017 at 11:45 AM

    • “Hindu shrines, temples and homes were attacked over the October 2016 Diwali festival.”

      Neo-confederates opposed taking down those shrines, so it must be ok to attack them.


      September 13, 2017 at 8:51 PM

  8. Wait–I thought only Trump-supporting white people didn’t like diversity, and were Islamophobic and all that.


    September 13, 2017 at 12:07 PM

    • you’re not mistaken. david duke is leading the buddhists against the muslims.

      ron burgundy

      September 13, 2017 at 4:48 PM

  9. Can’t mention Burma… errr, Myanmar…. without this:


    September 13, 2017 at 1:32 PM

  10. I’m gonna say it: it’s not religion: it’s race.

    The Rohingya are South Asian, which means they are a) not Mongoloid and b) a mix of Caucasian and Australoid. It seems that in Burma, the other minorities don’t have such a conflict with the Bamar majority because they are Mongoloid.


    September 13, 2017 at 2:15 PM

  11. Suu Kyi has now been deserted by the left. She used to be a leftist goddess.

    Amy Chua has written about the Burma situation well in WORLD ON FIRE. Here’s a shorter version:


    September 13, 2017 at 2:16 PM

    • what she said was that the chinese are a market dominant minority in burma.

      ron burgundy

      September 13, 2017 at 4:49 PM

      • She said more than that. Read WORLD ON FIRE.


        September 14, 2017 at 3:08 PM

  12. Razib Khan has had some great posts on the Rohingya lately: and

    The upshot is that there are many difficulties getting a sense of who was living where before modern times, but probably the Rohingya mostly moved to Burma from right across the Bengali border in the last 150 years or so. They probably absorbed some older, smaller Muslim populations in the region.

    Greg Pandatshang

    September 13, 2017 at 4:04 PM

  13. Here is something I can’t understand: sure, a high-functioning country doesn’t normally want a partition to break it into smaller, weaker chunks, some of which might become dysfunctional. But for the many low-functioning countries on Earth, why not just draw lines on the map to separate the people who want to fight from each other. e.g. what’s so great about the Republic of South Sudan that it needs to be preserved so different ethnic groups can slaughter each other trying to control the presidency? If drawing a few lines on maps doesn’t work, why not just keep drawing more lines? What have they got to lose?

    Burma is another great example. All around, a pretty jacked up country. The ethnic Burmese are a large majority of the population, but 50%+ of the land area is mostly inhabited by other people. That’s why they have ongoing ethnic insurgencies. Wouldn’t the whole thing work better if the ethnic Burmese stopped trying to rule the lands of all those other people? Why not just have a separate Monistan, Shanistan, Karenistan, etc. and, while you’re at it, Rohingyastan? What does Burma have to lose?

    The places where the Rohingyas are the majority, last time I checked, aren’t a lot of land. If they’re separated by a new international border, then the Rakhines won’t have to worry about Rohingyas gradually taking over their whole region.

    Greg Pandatshang

    September 13, 2017 at 4:12 PM

    • “they”, the people, have nothing to lose. “they”, the owners, have lots to lose.

      you don’t think you’re living in a democracy do ya buddy?

      political decisions are made by a tiny minority. this tiny minority even if elected by the people will decide in such a way as to benefit themselves. what is good for the tiny minority is generally not the best for the people as a whole.

      ron burgundy

      September 13, 2017 at 5:34 PM

      • Fair enough. I don’t disagree with any of that.

        I just think that it’s silly that the well-intentioned smart set keeps wagging their finger and saying “now, now, try to make peace!” and then occasionally the locals try to go along with that. Instead they should wag their finger and say “now, now, good fences make good neighbors”, a sentiment which would accomplish more on the rare occasions when the locals try to follow through on it. Or are forced to by UN peace keepers.

        Greg Pandatshang

        September 14, 2017 at 2:24 AM

    • A nationalist spirit is also an emotional and backward-looking one, and once you invoke that spirit to create a state it can be difficult for a patriot to accept that land which historically belonged to his people is effectively not theirs anymore. Thus the Serbia/Kosovo war, the Irish Troubles, the Greco-Turkish War. I suppose the Spanish Reconquista is a successful version of that attitude.


      September 13, 2017 at 5:37 PM

      • Attitude known as irredentism.


        September 14, 2017 at 10:42 AM

      • Phrasing nationalist land claims as “backward looking” is the same as saying (in sort of a soft way) that there is no ethnic right to homelands. It’s essentially an internationalist’s, and ultimately a racially destructive, argument.


        September 15, 2017 at 12:08 AM

  14. If Suu Kyi lets them stay, it will be Buddhists vs Muslims until the end of time. This was the right thing to do. Screw western critics.

    Jason Liu

    September 13, 2017 at 4:35 PM

    • “it will be Buddhists vs Muslims”

      True. Moreover, outside powers will try to leverage the Muslim minority whenever they try to exert pressure on Burma.

      There is a precedent for this. At the Potsdam Conference, victorious Allies decided to expel ethnic Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia, in order to deprive Germany of the tool it used to exert pressure on its neighbors.


      September 13, 2017 at 6:19 PM

  15. Asia has a long history of brutal, if secret at times, racial segregation. Ask yourselves why China has almost no Dravidian incursion, being so close to India. There is likely a strong fear against initiating such incursion on the part of modern Dravidians, and it likely harkens back to what is probably buried throughout the woods of western China.

    The media focuses on Myanmar buddhists because the liberal internationalists have an issue with the existence of the government of Myanmar, and further the native people of that nation incur none of the political protection that the National Socialist Han Chinese do, for instance, by virtue of the political clout of China.


    September 15, 2017 at 12:16 AM

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: