[Burma/Myanmar] Rohingya genocide/ethnic cleansing scandal

[Hirota]

I guess it depends on how you judge "works" and if you believe the ends justify the means. Since I don't agree with that belief, and since I don't think targeting a demographic is a good thing, I'd have to disagree.

Then logically you believe Germany has a right to invade Poland.

I don't know where or how or what medication is required to make that blind leap into what you call logic but I call insanity.

[Ramune and Chocolate]

So you oppose ethnic cleansing but if it is done successfully you don't support reversing it and returning the stolen land to its original inhabitants?

You're assuming too much.

I oppose ethnic cleansing and I completely support reparation for its victims, but I view it through the lens of violation of individual liberties. In this context, the aggressors against individuals should be punished, restitution should be paid to individuals who suffered aggression to their persons and property, and any further aggression is acceptable only insofar as they protect the liberties of individuals. This was certainly not the case with European revanchism, where nation-states assumed guardianship over the "nation" they claimed to subjugate and terrorize civilians of other nations. This was also not the case in neoconservative "humanitarian interventions", which aggressed against millions of civilians for the companies' profits, politicians' votes, and the installment of another state-occupier of the land.

[Kubra]

oh kind of like we all forgot how you Brits set up this conflict

Indeed, with their crazy policy of freedom of immigration inside their possessions. Something I take it that you oppose?

I'm not one to bash bringing politics by the end of the bayonet, it would have been grand of Napoleon to invade England and bring it into civilization proper, but in the Burmese case it mostly resulted in deepening ethnic division and capital outflow to the islands.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

So you oppose ethnic cleansing but if it is done successfully you don't support reversing it and returning the stolen land to its original inhabitants?

You're assuming too much.

I oppose ethnic cleansing and I completely support reparation for its victims, but I view it through the lens of violation of individual liberties. In this context, the aggressors against individuals should be punished, restitution should be paid to individuals who suffered aggression to their persons and property, and any further aggression is acceptable only insofar as they protect the liberties of individuals. This was certainly not the case with European revanchism, where nation-states assumed guardianship over the "nation" they claimed to subjugate and terrorize civilians of other nations. This was also not the case in neoconservative "humanitarian interventions", which aggressed against millions of civilians for the companies' profits, politicians' votes, and the installment of another state-occupier of the land.

So if ethnic cleansing is done successfully you don't support reversing it and returning the stolen land to its original inhabitants.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Indeed, with their crazy policy of freedom of immigration inside their possessions. Something I take it that you oppose?

I'm not one to bash bringing politics by the end of the bayonet, it would have been grand of Napoleon to invade England and bring it into civilization proper, but in the Burmese case it mostly resulted in deepening ethnic division and capital outflow to the islands.

Tell me more about how immigration results in deep ethnic divisions and capital outflow Mr Trump.

[Ramune and Chocolate]

You're assuming too much.

I oppose ethnic cleansing and I completely support reparation for its victims, but I view it through the lens of violation of individual liberties. In this context, the aggressors against individuals should be punished, restitution should be paid to individuals who suffered aggression to their persons and property, and any further aggression is acceptable only insofar as they protect the liberties of individuals. This was certainly not the case with European revanchism, where nation-states assumed guardianship over the "nation" they claimed to subjugate and terrorize civilians of other nations. This was also not the case in neoconservative "humanitarian interventions", which aggressed against millions of civilians for the companies' profits, politicians' votes, and the installment of another state-occupier of the land.

So if ethnic cleansing is done successfully you don't support reversing it and returning the stolen land to its original inhabitants.

Where did I say that?

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

So if ethnic cleansing is done successfully you don't support reversing it and returning the stolen land to its original inhabitants.

Where did I say that?

Your post seems to suggest only money should be paid and even then only by individual people responsible for the actions, who will only be alive for so long.

[Ramune and Chocolate]

Where did I say that?

Your post seems to suggest only money should be paid and even then only by individual people responsible for the actions, who will only be alive for so long.

I happen to also support reparation for descendants of African-American slaves in the US so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Regardless, even if for practical purposes it's impossible for dead people to compensate for dead people, it's hardly a justification for the imperative to cleanse certain ethnic group. In fact, seeing that justice will be much unlikely to be served if the ethnic cleansers emerge triumphant, it's more the reason to oppose such act and bring the perpetrators before justice in the present.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Your post seems to suggest only money should be paid and even then only by individual people responsible for the actions, who will only be alive for so long.

I happen to also support reparation for descendants of African-American slaves in the US so I have no idea what you are talking about.

When really you should support returning them to Africa on Uncle Sam's dime.

Regardless, even if for practical purposes it's impossible for dead people to compensate for dead people, it's hardly a justification for the imperative to cleanse certain ethnic group. In fact, seeing that justice will be much unlikely to be served if the ethnic cleansers emerge triumphant, it's more the reason to oppose such act and bring the perpetrators before justice in the present.

What's your point? I said you don't support returning the land. You don't. You only support money transfers. Under your scheme the Burmese can kick the Rohingya out into Bangladesh so long as they pay them off later.

[Ramune and Chocolate]

Regardless, even if for practical purposes it's impossible for dead people to compensate for dead people, it's hardly a justification for the imperative to cleanse certain ethnic group. In fact, seeing that justice will be much unlikely to be served if the ethnic cleansers emerge triumphant, it's more the reason to oppose such act and bring the perpetrators before justice in the present.

What's your point? I said you don't support returning the land. You don't. You only support money transfers. Under your scheme the Burmese can kick the Rohingya out into Bangladesh so long as they pay them off later.

Incorrect, I oppose eminent domain. The Rohingya should be able to claim their property again if they wish so.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

What's your point? I said you don't support returning the land. You don't. You only support money transfers. Under your scheme the Burmese can kick the Rohingya out into Bangladesh so long as they pay them off later.

Incorrect, I oppose eminent domain. The Rohingya should be able to claim their property again if they wish so.

Then Germany should be able to reclaim large parts Poland, something which you strenuously denied believing.

[Ramune and Chocolate]

Incorrect, I oppose eminent domain. The Rohingya should be able to claim their property again if they wish so.

Then Germany should be able to reclaim large parts Poland, something which you strenuously denied believing.

Then descendants of German residents expelled from Poland should be able to return to their property, if legitimately acquired. Nation-states are a sham and do not represent them, individual liberties have nothing to do with national interests.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Then Germany should be able to reclaim large parts Poland, something which you strenuously denied believing.

Then descendants of German residents expelled from Poland should be able to return to their property, if legitimately acquired. Nation-states are a sham and do not represent them, individual liberties have nothing to do with national interests.

They're not a sham at all, as you would know if you had ever driven across the border between what is now Germany and what was once Germany, and if you had walked in the cities of what is now Germany and what was once Germany.

[Ramune and Chocolate]

Then descendants of German residents expelled from Poland should be able to return to their property, if legitimately acquired. Nation-states are a sham and do not represent them, individual liberties have nothing to do with national interests.

They're not a sham at all, as you would know if you had ever driven across the border between what is now Germany and what was once Germany, and if you had walked in the cities of what is now Germany and what was once Germany.

What I am saying is quite obvious. Individuals have rights, nations do not. The consequential difference is quite evident: if one allows that Germany has the right to occupy certain territories in Poland, this means recognizing that Germany has the right to levy taxation, monopolize law enforcement and public services, enact laws and regulations, and even potentially discriminating or expropriating proprietors, including those of Polish ethnicity.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

They're not a sham at all, as you would know if you had ever driven across the border between what is now Germany and what was once Germany, and if you had walked in the cities of what is now Germany and what was once Germany.

What I am saying is quite obvious. Individuals have rights, nations do not. The consequential difference is quite evident: if one allows that Germany has the right to occupy certain territories in Poland, this means recognizing that Germany has the right to levy taxation, monopolize law enforcement and public services, enact laws and regulations, and even potentially discriminating or expropriating proprietors, including those of Polish ethnicity.

Absolutely: the right of the German people to live under German government is denied.

[Ramune and Chocolate]

What I am saying is quite obvious. Individuals have rights, nations do not. The consequential difference is quite evident: if one allows that Germany has the right to occupy certain territories in Poland, this means recognizing that Germany has the right to levy taxation, monopolize law enforcement and public services, enact laws and regulations, and even potentially discriminating or expropriating proprietors, including those of Polish ethnicity.

Absolutely: the right of the German people to live under German government is denied.

Individuals have rights, nations/groups/states do not. Individuals have the right of self-determination, that is true, I also agree that preferably individuals should also be free to choose the providers of public service in a free market system. But states should not enforce monopoly over a certain ethnic group, which seems to be what you're implicitly accepting here.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Absolutely: the right of the German people to live under German government is denied.

Individuals have rights, nations/groups/states do not. Individuals have the right of self-determination, that is true, I also agree that preferably individuals should also be free to choose the providers of public service in a free market system. But states should not enforce monopoly over a certain ethnic group, which seems to be what you're implicitly accepting here.

The right of German people to live under German government is a right pertaining to individuals.

[Ramune and Chocolate]

Individuals have rights, nations/groups/states do not. Individuals have the right of self-determination, that is true, I also agree that preferably individuals should also be free to choose the providers of public service in a free market system. But states should not enforce monopoly over a certain ethnic group, which seems to be what you're implicitly accepting here.

The right of German people to live under German government is a right pertaining to individuals.

As irrelevant as "right to live under a criminal organization". The German government shouldn't exist in the first place, and neither do all governments. Individuals should be able to form or join voluntary governments as they wish--that is, the ones that rely on voluntary donations and do not steal lands.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

The right of German people to live under German government is a right pertaining to individuals.

As irrelevant as "right to live under a criminal organization". The German government shouldn't exist in the first place, and neither do all governments. Individuals should be able to form or join voluntary governments as they wish--that is, the ones that rely on voluntary donations and do not steal lands.

I agree that if we abolished all states this would not be an issue. And if we can't quite achieve that quite yet?

[Luziyca]

Apparently, the Canadian government will be speaking up for the Rohingya.

While I approve of her intentions, I feel that this decision would probably be met with a lot of hostility among many Canadians, and will probably contribute to Mr. Scheer becoming Prime Minister in 2019 or so.

[Ramune and Chocolate]

l
I agree that if we abolished all states this would not be an issue. And if we can't quite achieve that quite yet?

Then states must be pressured to concede freedom to individuals, to dispose their person and property as they see fit.

In this case, legitimate proprietors should certainly be able to claim their property from state confiscation. Their status to another state should be secondary issue to the property claim. Preferably in a non-ideal world one should be able to choose to financially support and rely on one criminal conspiracy or another if this does not entail aggressing on other individuals and their property, but once again this should be irrelevant on their claim of the property.

[Shrillland]

https://www.dailysabah.com/diplomacy/2017/09/16/first-lady-erdogan-pens-letter-to-world-leaders-wives-on-plight-of-rohingya-muslims

While I, of course, condemn what's happening in Myanmar, and agree with the sentiment of the First Lady's letter...does a Turkish first lady really have any right to talk to the rest of the world about the evils of persecution at this moment? Something about glass houses and rocks comes to mind for me.

[Kubra]

I'm not one to bash bringing politics by the end of the bayonet, it would have been grand of Napoleon to invade England and bring it into civilization proper, but in the Burmese case it mostly resulted in deepening ethnic division and capital outflow to the islands.

Tell me more about how immigration results in deep ethnic divisions and capital outflow Mr Trump.

If exported indian labour had been on proper employment footing with the local burmese, they probably would have got along quite well with each other. However, both would not get along particularly well with a particular group of tea-drinking imperialists. Could you perhaps guess which one?

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Tell me more about how immigration results in deep ethnic divisions and capital outflow Mr Trump.

If exported indian labour had been on proper employment footing with the local burmese, they probably would have got along quite well with each other. However, both would not get along particularly well with a particular group of tea-drinking imperialists. Could you perhaps guess which one?

The Japanese. Don't worry though, we got rid of 'em.

[Kubra]

If exported indian labour had been on proper employment footing with the local burmese, they probably would have got along quite well with each other. However, both would not get along particularly well with a particular group of tea-drinking imperialists. Could you perhaps guess which one?

The Japanese. Don't worry though, we got rid of 'em.

Ok, well, I'll admit that was a pretty witty riposte.