11–20 of 52 posts
Yes, obviously. It's obvious in the first paragraph. Why isn't the article called, the "The Rohingya Genocide". Didn't we learn anything from Rwanda?
Yes, obviously. It's obvious in the first paragraph. Why isn't the article called, the "The Rohingya Genocide". Didn't we learn anything from Rwanda?
Yes, obviously. It's obvious in the first paragraph. Why isn't the article called, the "The Rohingya Genocide". Didn't we learn anything from Rwanda?
My guess is that if you say "The Rohingya Genocide" then readers will assume it's a history lesson and skip the article. Whereas "Is This Genocide?" encourages readers to investigate on their own, hopefully educating more people in general
After observing many issues I realized that Muslim world has heavily invested in US politics through various means. I have sympathies for all refugees but tales that NYT has been telling is extremely one sided. This sort of biased reporting comes because Saudi and Pakistan invest into cultivating the journalists and think tanks.
Sadly, activists on the ground can see this far too easily and they develop an adverse opinion about Muslims, even those who genuinely need our help.
SJW and keyboard warriors will read NYT piece and feel sad but most of the activists on the ground will see this and only cringe at NYT. Biased media reporting hurts the cause of these refugees.
What many do not realize that this crisis, while regional, has the potential to fuel global conflicts in near future. There are roughly 5 million refugees in Bangladesh at present, a country which itself has poor infrastructure and struggling under the weight of its over population. A large number of these refugees are children and young adults, who saw their villages burned, family members raped and killed. They wil…
To start a large scale conflict and intervene in Myanmar, some sort of actual proof of genocide should be necessary, no? Every news outlet just plays a merry go round of citing unverified reports and then each other, and no one questions it?
Edit - also, the Rohingya have absolutely no motive to lie, right? Not like they've been involved in a jihad and insurrection for 60 years, right? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_insurgency_in_Weste...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is how ISIS was created after USA terrorise Muslims in the region raping, killing.
That's incorrect. ISIS was created out of a power vacuum in the region, between the US being asked to leave Iraq and the Iraqi Government becoming strong enough to control its own security fully, and the Syrian civil war. Their creation had absolutely nothing to do with US military abuses of that sort (which is not the same thing as denying any such abuses took place), that's not even a very good attempt at scapegoat…
Actually, almost all of the ISIS higher-ups were radicalised within a US-run prisoner camp[0][1][2][3][4]. Many of the ISIS milita are US-trained soldiers whose funding got pulled, so of course, they went to the nearest employer.
So yes, it absolutely is because of US abuses. If the US had run the camp correctly, there would have been no opportunity for the prisoners to radicalise one another. If the US had handled withdrawing properly, the militia wouldn't have gone to ISIS. Sure, it's not 100% the fault of the US, but to say that it has nothing to do with the US is just plain ignorant.
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-i...
[1]: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/camp-buc...
[2]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/11/0...
[3]: https://nypost.com/2015/05/30/how-the-us-created-the-camp-wh...
[4]: https://www.unilad.co.uk/news/how-a-u-s-prison-camp-in-iraq-...