A catchy pop tune titled “Song to Whip Up Religious Blood” is often played at 969 rallies. The movement is named for three digits that monks say symbolize the virtues of the Buddha, Buddhist practices and the Buddhist community, but its theme song is far from devotional. The lyrics reference people who “live in our land, drink our water, and are ungrateful to us,” according to the Times. And the chorus, “We will build a fence with our bones if necessary,” is repeated over and over again.
Wirathu claims that his movement is not responsible for the violence against the Rohingya [Burma’s Muslims]. But he does repeatedly insist that Muslims — whom he often calls “kalars,” a derogatory term roughly equivalent to the N-word — need to be kept in their place. He calls for boycotts of Muslim-owned businesses, warns Buddhists to protect their women from Muslim rapists and was a vocal backer of a law restricting marriages between Buddhists and Muslims...
May 27, 2015
"You can be full of kindness and love, but you cannot sleep next to a mad dog. I am proud to be called a radical Buddhist."
Said Ashin Wirathu, the leader of Burma’s 969 movement, quoted in a WaPo article titled "The serene-looking Buddhist monk accused of inciting Burma’s sectarian violence."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
He calls for [1]boycotts of Muslim-owned businesses, [2]warns Buddhists to protect their women from Muslim rapists and [3]was a vocal backer of a law restricting marriages between Buddhists and Muslims...
One of these things is not like the others...
"“Muslims are only well behaved when they are weak,”
Pretty smart guy.
He who lies with dogs gets up with dogs.
From what I've read, he still believes in treating Muslims better than Muslims treat Buddhists.
This will get out of control and get very ugly. Perhaps its best to repatriate the Muslims that aren't of Burmese extraction to a majority Muslim country such as Indonesia.
This guy is basically a straight shooter who has noticed that Muslims in power is another word for lying, women hating, intolerant, slaveholding, thieves and murderers.
Too bad we have had one in our Presidential office for 7 years fundamentally organizing for that to be done to our country.
cubanbob said...
This will get out of control and get very ugly. Perhaps its best to repatriate the Muslims that aren't of Burmese extraction to a majority Muslim country such as Indonesia.
The issue is that the Muslims are at their core, Illegal immigrants (colonists) from Bangladesh.
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
-- Newton's Third Law of Motion
Islam has bloody borders. Wherever Muslims live near Jews or Christians or Hindus or Buddhists (and even other types of Muslims), there is violence. If it was only Muslims and a single other religion, there might be room for doubt as to who the troublemakers are, but when it's Muslims and anyone they come into contact with, well, there's no longer any room for doubt. A wise society would see that the undesirable effects of inviting Muslims into their midst (terrorism, etc.) far outweigh any so-called advantages brought about by "diversity." Western European societies and, to a lesser extent, other Western societies as well, have been extremely unwise, especially given their demographics.
@traditionalguy:
"Too bad we have had one in our Presidential office for 7 years fundamentally organizing for that to be done to our country."
If you actually believe this, I would suggest a consultation from your nearest mental health clinic.
@The Drill SGT:
"The issue is that the Muslims are at their core, Illegal immigrants (colonists) from Bangladesh."
Muslims have been living in the area of modern day Burma since before Bangladesh was ever a country.
@Clyde:
"Wherever Muslims live near Jews or Christians or Hindus or Buddhists (and even other types of Muslims), there is violence."
So when a Buddhist mob burns down a Muslim shop in a fit of ethno-national rage, it's the Muslim's fault for attempting to make a living for himself in the country of his birth?
So when a Buddhist mob burns down a Muslim shop in a fit of ethno-national rage, it's the Muslim's fault for attempting to make a living for himself in the country of his birth?
Because of course it is Buddhists who are busy torturing, murdering, raping and enslaving non-believers all over the world.
J. Farmer, you may be last, but they will come for you too in the end.
The Drill SGT said...
cubanbob said...
This will get out of control and get very ugly. Perhaps its best to repatriate the Muslims that aren't of Burmese extraction to a majority Muslim country such as Indonesia.
The issue is that the Muslims are at their core, Illegal immigrants (colonists) from Bangladesh.
5/27/15, 11:23 AM
While true to a point, mass murder isn't an option for those who are supposed to be a decent civilized people. Expulsion is ugly, there is no way to deny that but it is preferable to mass murder which is what radical movement is espousing.
It's only western Hippie Buddhists that are total pacifists.
Real Buddhists have been known to start wars and invade neighboring countries.
Real Buddhists have been known to start wars and invade neighboring countries.
Such as Imperial Way Buddhism. Even Tibetan Buddhists can be nasty if the theocracy is challenged.
It's only western Hippie Buddhists that are total pacifists.
Since they tend to be comfortably nested within the ascendant class with no need to rock the boat, their pacifism is hard to distinguish from self-interest.
@Gahrie:
"Because of course it is Buddhists who are busy torturing, murdering, raping and enslaving non-believers all over the world.
J. Farmer, you may be last, but they will come for you too in the end."
So you believe in collective punishment? Muslims in Burma who are not torturing, murdering, raping, or enslaving should be punished for the Muslims that do? Do you have any idea how sick that is?
"So you believe in collective punishment? Muslims in Burma who are not torturing, murdering, raping, or enslaving should be punished for the Muslims that do? Do you have any idea how sick that is?"
If we saw the Muslims who aren't committing the crimes vocally and widely condemning the Muslims who are, your point would have more weight. Clearly, the sickness is in Islam.
@The Cracker Emcee:
"If we saw the Muslims who aren't committing the crimes vocally and widely condemning the Muslims who are, your point would have more weight. Clearly, the sickness is in Islam."
These things are vocally and widely condemned. The fact that you are ignorant of it is meaningless. Are you saying that you believe that Muslims who have committed no crime nonetheless deserve to be assaulted, killed, and have their businesses destroyed? If you actually believe that, then you are a really morally sick person.
"These things are vocally and widely condemned"
Yeah, I can barely get to work through all the Muslim street demonstrations condemning the mad-dog fundies. I think we have radically different ideas of what constitutes "vocally and widely".
"Are you saying that you believe that Muslims who have committed no crime nonetheless deserve to be assaulted, killed, and have their businesses destroyed? If you actually believe that, then you are a really morally sick person."
Where did I say that? Great display of righteous indignation, though.
The Geneva Convention is a good idea on the ethics of warfare. And if both sides attempt to follow it all works well most of the time.
But when one combatant proudly forgets all about those standards or any standard at all, than the other side generally does not attempt to follow any greater ethics.
Try not to let that ruin your day, J Farmer.
"These things are vocally and widely condemned. The fact that you are ignorant of it is meaningless. "
More wisdom from the farmer.
Farmer knows what he thinks is true but, Muslims seem to disagree.
Farmer knows better than they do, of course.
The poll, which asked in Arabic, “Do you support the organizing victories of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)?” has generated over 38,000 responses thus far, with only 19% of respondents voting “NO” to supporting ISIS.
What do they know ? Farmer is on the case.
I love your quote with building fences out of bones. Very stirring. Loving your pictures and the simple and beautiful way you have put your story across - you're an inspiration and I am following your journey - awesome work!
So you believe in collective punishment?
No..but I believe the smart move is to eradicate Islam, which would be brutal, bloody and cause the death of millions of innocents on both sides. However I also believe that Western Civilization does not have the will necessary to do such a thing. (which I have not decided is a good thing or a bad thing)
So the West will continue to endure the predation of the Muslim world for a while until we decide to kill enough Muslims, and destroy enough Muslim infrastructure that they leave us alone for a generation or two. It's been the general pattern for more than a thousand years.
Pop Quiz:
Who did the U.S. fight against in its first foreign war?
It is not "collective punishment" to work to dismantle an evil organization, members of which have various jobs not all of which involve the pointy stick or nail-and-marble-vest variety. Nor is it "sick." Nice tic though. It is amazing that it is a mystery to some in this day and age why the borders of territorially encroaching Islam are nearer or not further from earlier days of its expansionism. Hint: In such places the advancing Arab imperialists encountered Buddhists. In others, Sikhs. In still others, Han Chinese. There were also Englishmen, Frenchmen, Slavs, and others.
As much as I'd like to agree with this sentiment, the history of the region and the Rohingya suggests that no one is in a position to claim moral superiority in the specific dispute, although recent history - WWII forward anyway - does seem paint the Moslems as the larger offenders. But that might be a minor difference, considering the rather unbroken nature of the back-and-forth atrocities.
This is not to absolve followers of Islam of any failings to curb the excesses anywhere, including Burma. This assumes what is available on-line about the Rohingya is correct and not some PC drivel. Which is always possible.
I do kind of like the imagery of "You cannot sleep next to a mad dog." It fits my preconceived notions.
I applaud Ashin Wirathu. Muslims are trying to dominate the world, but lefties can only see imperialism moving from east to west, or north to south, or light to dark, and never the reverse.
From what I've read, he still believes in treating Muslims better than Muslims treat Buddhists.
That's a low bar.
Here's the deal. Buddhists read the same news we do about Boko Haram, ISIS and such outfits and say, "We're not having any of this shit." And they aren't. Why is this so hard for pampered Westerners to understand? The world ain't Broom Street, Madison, WI and we ought to realize that.
J. Farmer said...
@Gahrie:
"Because of course it is Buddhists who are busy torturing, murdering, raping and enslaving non-believers all over the world.
J. Farmer, you may be last, but they will come for you too in the end."
"So you believe in collective punishment? Muslims in Burma who are not torturing, murdering, raping, or enslaving should be punished for the Muslims that do? Do you have any idea how sick that is?"
I believe you should move to Pakistan. Or Iraq. Or anywhere else. A small group will come and grab you once they learn you are gay. In some countries they will just throw you off a roof. In others they will bury you to your waste and tie your hands then a mob will throw large rocks at you until you die. It will only be 10-20 people in a town that physically participate but most of the rest approve even if they are too lazy to help. Not all gay people get to live in a country where they aren't killed by angry mobs. You were fortunate to be born here.
But I know that is a tough one for you to live with much less admit. It must gall you that other people earned your freedom and safety for you. You can sit there on your couch and spew stupid shit on a computer where as if you were born in a different country, like Burma, you would not have this freedom you take for granted. You would be hiding from Muslims if not already dead.
@Achilles:
" You can sit there on your couch and spew stupid shit on a computer where as if you were born in a different country, like Burma, you would not have this freedom you take for granted. You would be hiding from Muslims if not already dead."
Your presumptions about me are pointless and beside the point. Even if everything you believe about me were true, it would have nothing to do with the veracity of the statements I make on any particular issue. You incessantly take one opinion I have about a specific issue, extrapolate that to some preconceived archetype, and then criticize that.
I am an atheist and consider Islam a meaningless religion. I have been a longtime advocate that gays in major cities with large, well integrated gay communities (e.g. LA, SF, NYC) would do better to spend money on helping gays who live in truly oppressive societies organize. I find most modern gay pride parades self-indulgent paeans to hedonism. (sidebar: it's funny, when I write in gay blogs, I am often accused of being a right-ring nut. So it's always refreshing to come here and become a left-wing ideologue.)
"It must gall you that other people earned your freedom and safety for you."
I am critical of what I consider bad foreign policy, and I say plainly what I believe. I have no personal animus towards any individual member of the military. I have several military members in my family, and my work frequently brings me into contact with MacDill Air Force base in Tampa, where I live. I have supported military operations against bin laden's network in the wake of 9/11. The only point I have consistently made is that I believe the level of the threat has been overhyped and that regime change and occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq were unnecessary for our security. That has nothing to do with having any affinity for Islam or any acrimony for US service members. Now outside of policy, regarding simple social criticism, it is my belief that there is an excessive amount of worship of the military that goes on in our society. It is also my belief that our society is far too accommodating of single motherhood, yet that doesn't mean I hate single mothers.
"as if you were born in a different country, like Burma, you would not have this freedom you take for granted."
I never take my freedom for granted, and I say repeatedly that being born in America is a massive leg up given the majority of the alternatives. And as it happens, I have actually spent time in Burma and around Burmese refugees in northwest Thailand. I have also spent time in some Muslim-majority countries. Interesting places to visit, but nowhere I would ever want to live. It is simply illogical of you to say that because I have a specific point of view about a particular strategy, I must therefore be pro-terrorist or believe that Islamic terrorism does not exist. What is so difficult about grasping a slightly nuanced but relatively simple point? It's not a simple either/or proposition. Yes, terrorism exists in the world. What I have said repeatedly and consistently is that I do not believe the threat is as significant as is widely believed. If someone believes it is significant, I would eagerly read their opinion, consider, and give my reaction. That seems like a productive activity to me. But instead, I get a torrent of cheap, schoolyard rhetoric calling me a stupid, awful, horrible person. Of course, even if I were all those things, it would be utterly beside the point.
"I am an atheist and consider Islam a meaningless religion." You also reek of the smug superior sanctimony of the Modern Left.
Farmer:
I find you articulate and cogent.
Could you post a response to Michael K's quoted survey stating that ISIS actions are supported by 81% of Muslims?
Frankly, most polls I see of Muslims are consistent with those results.
You repeat your assertions that threats in AfPak and Iraq and elsewhere are trivial and could be dealt with by the equivalent of a few SWAT teams. And that there is no threat here even worth considering.
I think what Achilles and others are gagging on is that this seems incredibly blithe, ignorant and naive. Do you think you could defend this point of view in more detail?
Because to most here, particularly those with relevant background, you are claiming that down is up and hamburgers eat people.
Furthermore, to descend to the personal, you as a gay man must realize that you would be a pet project for these brutes, so your dismissal of the titanic efforts made at least partially in your name and perhaps disproportionately for your benefit seems especially grating.
Assuming you're not just trolling, I hope this is a useful clarification of a point to which you seem obtuse.
"the history of the region and the Rohingya suggests that no one is in a position to claim moral superiority in the specific dispute"
Moral superiority is a pretty useless concept. We all fall short of the Glory. That doesn't mean you're required to let people hurt you.
I've recently started hearing people who are politically moderate to leftist (on the American scale) refer very frankly to Muslim violence in their home countries. These are not nasty people. They're nice people, who see a modern Mongol Horde heading for their civilzation and aren't going to be shusshed by their moral superiors into letting it happen because they deserve it.
...whom he often calls “kalars,” a derogatory term roughly equivalent to the N-word...
If they were "roughly equivalent," Ms. Kaplan, you'd either type them both out in full or censor them both. That you don't indicates that you, at least, don't see them as equivalent at all.
@Unknown:
"Assuming you're not just trolling, I hope this is a useful clarification of a point to which you seem obtuse."
First off, what the hell does me being gay have anything to do with anything? This is beyond a stupid point. Yes, I am quite aware of how Muslim majority countries operate and that they are not places I would ever want to live. But I live in Tampa, Florida, USA. Are you actually saying that if not for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there would be Muslim conquerers in my city looking to kill me? I truly have no idea what a sentence like "Furthermore, to descend to the personal, you as a gay man must realize that you would be a pet project for these brutes, so your dismissal of the titanic efforts made at least partially in your name and perhaps disproportionately for your benefit seems especially grating" is supposed to mean.
"You repeat your assertions that threats in AfPak and Iraq and elsewhere are trivial and could be dealt with by the equivalent of a few SWAT teams. And that there is no threat here even worth considering."
These two sentences are contradicting each other, and neither is an accurate understanding of my position. I have never said that there was "no threat even worth considering." I have said that the I believe the threat has been overstated. That is not the same thing as saying there is no threat or that it hardly matters. I am saying that it is not and never was a threat that required regime change and occupation of two countries in the middle east. The most severe charge leveled against the Taliban was that they "harbored" bin laden. But if you actually read something like Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower and see how 9/11 was planned and executed in the second half of the 1990s, you quickly see how absurd it is to believe that "camps" or a "base of operations" in the mountainous region of Tora Bora were essential to such an operation.
Right now, today, a dozen Pakistanis could arrive in this country on international flights from Islamabad, pass through customs on legal and legitimate visas, and begin executing a terrorist plot against an American target. How does the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq prevent this? It is widely known that Pakistan's ISI is full of Taliban sympathizers and were the original paymasters of the Taliban. Radical jihadists are regularly harbored in Waziristan. Does is therefore follow that a policy of regime change and occupation in Pakistan is the only means to deal with this? Should it give us pause that under two administrations, after nearly a decade and a half of war, the Taliban remains not only undefeated, but in certain parts of Afghanistan (e.g. Helmund Province) are even stronger than they were pre-9/11?
So let me turn the question around on you. What is your basis for believing that the Taliban was such a security threat to the United States that the only way it could be managed was through a policy of regime change/occupation/nation-building?
@Michael K/@Ricardo Rodriquez:
"Could you post a response to Michael K's quoted survey stating that ISIS actions are supported by 81% of Muslims?
Frankly, most polls I see of Muslims are consistent with those results."
Just out of curiosity, what are some of these "most polls" you have seen that are consistent with this finding?
If the New York Times asks a question on its website, "Should abortion be legal?" and the National Organization of Women used its social media presence to direct as many of its supporters as possible towards the poll, and the poll on the website came back 90% 'Yes' and 10% 'No,' would you think it was appropriate for someone to look at that "poll" and declare that 90% of Americans support legalized abortion? Now regarding the question on the Al Jazeera website, neither you nor Michael K know who responded to that poll, where they are from, or how many times they answered, but that does not stop him from asserting that 80% of "Muslims" support ISIS.
Now let's take an organization that would not be inclined to support ISIS or radical Islam, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. This group is widely criticized by its opponents for being neoconservative and zionist in its disposition, so one would expect if any bias actually existed, it would be in the direction of overstating the threat. But when they look at data conducted in a statistically rigorous manner, they find very little support for ISIS in countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon. Similar polling in Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates have revealed similarly low levels of support.
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/isis-has-almost-no-popular-support-in-egypt-saudi-arabia-or-lebanon
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/new-poll-shows-majority-of-saudis-kuwaitis-emiratis-reject-isis-back-two-st
There is a lot of J.Farmer that I can agree with.
Why is this happening? Yes in part scapegoats make convenient blame-shifters. But even that Burmese Nobel Prize Winner, Aung Sun Whatever, hasn't run to defend Muslims.
As a practical matter, any significant amount of Muslims in a SE Asian Country means JIHAD! Thailand has a major problem, next door, with JIHAD! aimed at the native Buddhist population. Malaysia treats non-Muslims horribly.
Burma is a poor country, dependent on China's goodwill (and China has many, many problems with their own Muslims waging JIHAD! upon the Han Chinese) and threatened by Bangladesh which is equally poor but vastly more populuous (and ... Muslim). Meanwhile Burma has considerable resources including hydro power, oil, gas, mining, etc.
BOTH Burmese military elites and the ordinary Burmese people feel profoundly threatened by Rohingya Muslims who they view probably fairly accurately as a mortal threat. Their choices are expulsion of the Rohingya or subjugation through JIHAD! and likely Bangladeshi intervention.
Western nations, can up to a point, buy acquiesence in mass Third World immigration with lots and lots of money. Poorer nations where most people live on the edge cannot -- because the people there don't live in nice safe suburb like Ann Arbor but poor places where social unity -- same race, religion, ethnicity, language is their only safety net. Not say a house, cars, a nice bank account.
I would suggest that Ann Althouse would happily call for expulsion of foriegners and more, if it meant her own and her family's survival. For Burmese, that is exactly what it means. No more, no less. And Europe, and the US, is getting there.
Multicultural societies are incompatible with living on the edge or any real stress upon society's resources. Hence natural expulsion of minorities that pose threats to social cohesion and thus survival.
J: not a great post but reasonable. However nepenthe awaits. If I remember this I will get back to you.
Let me just say this. The Taliban said no to us. That's why they had to be removed. Yes I know they gave a lot of BS about evidence. Repeat after me: whatever. That's what you call mockery. Please don't bother me with that. They said no to the freshly bleeding United States of America and you don't do that. I would be perfectly fine with ending all life in Afghanistan.
As for Pakistan, I would be perfectly fine with ending all life in Pakistan. however Musharraf understands a man like me very well and he knew that it was not going to work for him to say no to the United States of America. What do you think we would have done if he had said no to the United States of America, Farmer?
Certainly wouldn't have an intention of governing those people. CERTAINLY not without a revenue model! I personally would have deposed the Taliban, killed every terrorist I could find and anyone who has ever spoken to a terrorist, used the Loya Jirga to put in a king, not a president, and wish them well, maybe be sending them some shipments of this or that. No major commitment.
That's basically what Bush was doing. Obama since he had to be not Bush turned the heat up on the Afghan conflict. Which was the stupidest thing ever. I agree with you there. Sorry like I said I'm tired and this is Android voice to text and I can't even be bothered to edit it. I'll give you more when I'm fresh. Goodnight
@ Bryan C
On-line sourcing suggests that the Rohingya and the Burmese have been killing each other in this area since the 16th century, and that the Rohingya are not new inhabitants. Based on that, referring to the Rohingya as "mad dogs" and the Burmese as "full of kindness and love" is probably misleading. That was my point.
No one can claim the historical high ground (in Burma). As a practical matter, who cares about history? Today is what should concern the pragmatic. I'm perfectly fine with treating the Mongol horde with reciprocal violence. In fact, I encourage it.
@Unknown:
"I would be perfectly fine with ending all life in Afghanistan...As for Pakistan, I would be perfectly fine with ending all life in Pakistan."
Now, if you you honestly believe this and are not just trolling, then you're a really morally sick person and not really worth engaging in. Anyone that can blithely advocate murdering over 200 million people, the overwhelming majority of who are guilty of no crime, is someone who is either (a) almost psychopathic in their empathy or (b) possess a childish, cartoonish understanding of the world. Otherwise, I imagine you're just the kind of wannabe macho, high-fiving at the football games during the flyovers, singing along to the Toby Keith boot in your ass song guy who thinks this kind of tough talking is actually relevant to any kind of discussion.
Farmer, let's just agree that you don't understand the world and fortunately, what you think or want about the world is of no account. The part where things are explained to you just doesn't seem to work.
Post a Comment