What part of "three muslim men raped a buddhist girl to death" implies that the buddhists there are the problem? I missed that part, and suddenly everyone is lamenting all the horrible buddhists there. Consider me thrown for a loop.
1. Three men belonging to a Muslim minority rape a girl to death. They are detained.
2. Buddhists show up and intend to lynch the men. The police refuse, and it turns into a violent riot.
3. The Buddhist mob then proceeds into the Muslim neighbourhoods and starts massacring people innocent of the rape and burning the place down.
4. As the massacre continues, Muslims form groups and strikes back in order to defend themselves, causing the end result to be casualties on both sides.
Can you now understand why people would think the Buddhists did something wrong?
1. Three Muslim men rape a Buddhist girl to death. They are detained.
2. Buddhist mob of 100 show up, demand mob justice. Police disperse them.
- Around this time, a Muslim mob forms from Arakan state, begins arming itself and clashing with police to free the 3 rapists.
3. Buddhist mob returns at this point in larger numbers, lynches 10 Muslims on a bus for more mob justice. Houses start getting set on fire in both Muslim
and Buddhist communities.
4. Buddhist and Muslim mobs clash.
- Rhakine inhabitants caught in the conflict flee to shelters set up by Buddhists and Muslims.
So yeah, it is puzzling why some people are taking up sides and saying it was the Muslims to blame!
->No it was the Buddhists!
->NO IT WAS MOSLEM
->NO BUDDHEH
And so on. That wouldn't be an issue, were people's accusations not resting on conjecture. And what's with the stressing of minority? That were they a part of a minority their crime would be acceptable? Did you read the reports? It seems as if you're naturally assuming the Muslims were some homogeneous group fighting back against some evil Buddhist offense despite the Bangladeshi Muslims and the Burmese Muslims being from two different Muslim communities.
Shit, this is the first time I've seen an actual strawman argument on bay12.
That's funny, I've heard the expression thrown around so much in debate threads around here that it makes me want to activate my microbomb.
I don't know what happened at 2012, but all of a sudden the internet was flooded with accusations of rhetoric by people who didn't really know what rhetoric was. It still confounds me to this day. Rhetoric died for a reason, I'd have hoped it's revival would have come as a rediscovered art form, not some perverted quarrel to vomit on the internet. Thanks Obama.
Author
Topic: Middle Eastern/Central Asian Politics Megathread (Read 19314 times)