Hacker News Reader

Comment by farseer | Hacker News Reader

Burma was a British colony during WWII. Are you really going to call someone the enemy for not siding with the murderous regime of imperial Japan?

View on HN

I think what is being talked about is this, or what happened, right nextdoor by essentially the same organisation, and therefore what could reasonably have been expected to happen if the revolution by muslims had succeeded:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Bangladesh_anti-Hindu_vio...

So yes, this is a bit of a case of "A tried to commit genocide on B. B won and, as it turns out, is not happy with the attempt".

One might also point out that the treatment of non-muslims in the original country of these people (Bangladesh) is worse, in terms of legal rights, in terms of treatment by the security forces, in terms of destruction, in terms of death toll, ... and yet ... no complaints from the UN, and certainly no action by anyone.

So let's just stop joking here: these people are being attacked because they directly attacked the security forces. That sucks. But these people also constantly commit violence against minorities in their midst (in fact that's how this conflict started), so let's just not pretend otherwise : yes, Rohingya are losing here, and yet they're still the racists in this conflict, and do commit genocide. Such a thing is in fact possible.

This is largely ridiculous. Many of the Rohingya people fled to Myanmar during the 71' Bangladesh Genocide, which was largely committed by Pakistan. The group responsible for your recent unrest is upset because members of their group have faced war crime trials for their acts during the genocide. Bangladesh itself at least attempts to have religious freedom. And I have no clue what event you're trying to pin on the Rohingya to say they started this conflict.

No, let's not. "These people" are women and children. No infant in her mother's arms, no 12 year old village girl ever attacked "security forces", which is a name no organization of armed people who facilitate mass rape and the murder of children deserves.

That you could even make the argument betrays something deeply warped about your understanding of not just this conflict, but of conflict in general.

I agree with you. Conflict is always seen abstractly to take place between two or more "forces". "Peoples" not "people". And indeed the groups in conflict see it as an issue of categories, and broadly direct revenge and attack against a conceived organization of people fitting some number of characteristics that are in some way attached to the original concept and reason for killing.

As a Westerner, to once again place blame on an abstract group for causing "themselves" to be raped and murdered is ludicrous, it is actually baffling. Women are being raped and children are being burned alive-- not only Women and Children, but this woman, and this child. They have names, they are not categories, although for one reason or another there are complicated threads and fabrics of history attached to their probabilistic genealogical history.

I don't know what can be done. This conflict makes me sick.

Should they have sided with their colonial overlords?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com