Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is This Genocide?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 52 posts

Re: Is This Genocide?

#41

Post by tptacek »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #22
vondur wrote: post #16

We are just arguing over semantics. It’s pure evil and needs to stop. I’m sure the US could intervene, but we’d need far more media coverage to generate outrage. Clinton was able to do it in the Balkans, but you’d need to convince the current administration to get a involved.

Babies in incubaters anyone? Not like it hasn't been done before... Outrage is easier to generate than proof.

I don't know what this even means. Proof of what? Which argument are you making now? That it's all "fake genocide"? Or that these people deserve it because they're "jihadis"?

Re: Is This Genocide?

#42

Post by tptacek »

tboyd47 wrote: post #34

To all the people saying the woman whose baby daughter was thrown in a fire was lying or the 14 year old girl who was raped by four soldiers was lying, fuck you. > The attack on Tula Toli has been well documented by human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Fortify Rights, and it is substantiated by satellite photos showing the burned huts. In all, I spoke to seven people who…

Ordinarily I'd say a comment like that is inappropriate but "fuck all of this" was the comment I wanted to write immediately after reading this story, so all I've got is sympathy for that position.

Re: Is This Genocide?

#43

Post by tptacek »

jjevanoorschot wrote: post #27
Mikeb85 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A survey of those in refugee camps in Bangladesh and then extrapolating those survey results to cover the whole population isn't actually proof of anything. They literally did a survey of survivors, they don't have any bodies. So questioning a lack of proof is tasteless, but it's ok to start a conflict or drum up widespread outrage because something might be true? The only reason I question things is because the Rohi…

MSF are treating wounded refugees, so there is definitely proof of violence. There are 800,000 Rohingya refugees living in Bangladesh [1]. They must be running from something, right? I don't understand why you go to such an extent doubting the stories of these refugees. [1]. http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/MYANMAR-ROHINGYA/0...

It's political. For reasons I don't fully understand, part of the identity surface area for a certain (hard to articulate, but let's call it "Trump-sympathetic") political orientation has come to include "the Rohingya Genocide is manufactured".

It's difficult to understand why that would be a useful stance; it seems like pure malice, since neither side of this conflict is particularly germane to US partisan politics. But if you dig in, you're going to discover that Rohingya Truthism is a phenomenon of the performative branch of the right wing.

Re: Is This Genocide?

#44

Post by tptacek »

candiodari wrote: post #37
farseer wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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…

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.

Re: Is This Genocide?

#45

Post by libertyEQ »

candiodari wrote: post #40
boomboomsubban wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 R…

You could always read the wikipedia page linked. Clue included.

I've read several well-reasoned comments of yours today that I agree with completely, but given that I don't want to become an expert on the Rohingya, it would be helpful if you all (i.e. in this entire subthread) were to lay out the specific facts upon which you are making these judgements.

Yes, everyone could read that entire Wikipedia page, look through its edit history, check the talk page, and check out the cited links. Most of us probably will not.

There are other well-reasoned arguments in this subthread and it seems like there is some disagreement on some fundamental facts.

Re: Is This Genocide?

#46

Post by boomboomsubban »

candiodari wrote: post #40
boomboomsubban wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 R…

You could always read the wikipedia page linked. Clue included.

I did. It doesn't support what you're saying about the Rohingya, and it doesn't support your claim that things are worse in Bangladesh without anyone caring. Calling the Rohingya "basically the same organization" as the one that took part in the 1971 Genocide is complete nonsense.

You're basically saying they deserve this state led treatment as other Muslims nearby did unrelated bad things to Hindus.

Re: Is This Genocide?

#47

Post by creep »

tptacek wrote: post #44
candiodari wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: Is This Genocide?

#48

Post by Mikeb85 »

tptacek wrote: post #41
Mikeb85 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Babies in incubaters anyone? Not like it hasn't been done before... Outrage is easier to generate than proof.

I don't know what this even means. Proof of what? Which argument are you making now? That it's all "fake genocide"? Or that these people deserve it because they're "jihadis"?

My comment is in reference to fake eyewitness testimony of atrocities which was used as justification to invade a country. Google 'babies in incubaters' and it should be clear.

Re: Is This Genocide?

#49

Post by Mikeb85 »

farseer wrote: post #29
Mikeb85 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they were literally the enemy in WWII. The line right above what you posted, but conveniently didn't quote.

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?

Should they have sided with their colonial overlords?

Re: Is This Genocide?

#50

Post by Mikeb85 »

tptacek wrote: post #43
jjevanoorschot wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MSF are treating wounded refugees, so there is definitely proof of violence. There are 800,000 Rohingya refugees living in Bangladesh [1]. They must be running from something, right? I don't understand why you go to such an extent doubting the stories of these refugees. [1]. http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/MYANMAR-ROHINGYA/0...

It's political. For reasons I don't fully understand, part of the identity surface area for a certain (hard to articulate, but let's call it "Trump-sympathetic") political orientation has come to include "the Rohingya Genocide is manufactured". It's difficult to understand why that would be a useful stance; it seems like pure malice, since neither side of this conflict is particularly germane to US partisan politics.…

And part of left-wing identity is to ignore all evidence and history which would ever suggest a particular people or religion could commit atrocities themselves lest those left-wingers ever be accused of being racist.

There's actual history to the Rohingya conflict, it didn't come out of a vacuum and your comment just hand-waves all that away.

Post reply on HN