Aung San Suu Kyi.. The Fall of a Human Rights Icon..

[Quantum Quack]

Can you please provide a link of where the ARNO "stated as part of their agenda the ideal of securing a separate state under a federation"?

It is not the first time that you have claimed that the Rohingya want a separate state or have been advocating a "separatist position" and you have failed to back up that claim.

In a political sense self determination commonly means self governing...self governing means a separate state.
do you disagree?
or do you need to talk to someone about stupid head...

And what I think is not relevant it is what the military and rampant militia in Myanmar think that does..

What do they think?
Go ask them...
From the testimony I have read, that is what they think, that the Rohingya are attempting to form a self determining state. A caliphate...no less..

The testimony published in your 2015 article indicates this throughout. Thus the problem of the fear of Islamization.

The right of self-determination of the Rohingya people must be given within a Burmese federation.
​

This would mean Sharia law.

 

[Bells]

What charter are the Rohingya aligned with?
Do they support the UDHR?

Have you ever read it?

The UDHR applies to everyone equally. Which is why it is called the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights".

Even the countries that signed the CDHRI, and the populace of those countries, the UDHR applies to them as well regardless.

To wit, regardless of your sex, religion, ethnicity, age.. It applies to everyone, whether the country they live in have ratified it or not. Those rights are inalienable. We are born with it and we die with it.

It isn't a club. It isn't something we individually sign up to because we do not need to. It applies to us as individuals.

Do you understand now?

In a political sense self determination commonly means self governing...

No, it does not.

You specifically said:

The ARNO (reg: 1984) have stated as part of their agenda the ideal of securing a separate state under a federation.

Where have they "stated" that this was a part of their "agenda"?

They specifically state the following:

The right of ‘self-determination’ of the Rohingya people within the Burmese federation; preservation of their (Rohingya’s) history and cultural heritage without prejudice to the growth and preservation of other religious and indigenous culture in Arakan; condemnation of religious persecution by the military; repatriation of Rohingya refugees from their places of refuge; human resource development particularly in socio-cultural, economic, educational and technical fields; establishment of a welfare society based on equality, liberty, democracy, human rights and freedom for all peoples; “peaceful co-existence” with Rakhine community (Buddhist of Arakan) and among all other peoples in Arakan as well as in the whole of the country; joint struggle with the Burmese opposition and democratic forces; support to landmine ban treaty; support of the rights of Rohingya women and girls to education, health and economic empowerment; educating the youths of the dangers of drugs (including AIDS infection); protection of environment, including forests, rivers, wetland, Coastline Ocean and to save their land from unsustainable logging, killing of endangered species, all forms of pollution, and over fishing and to preserve a green haven for their children and the world; support for future sustainable, appropriate, clean, and beneficial development to the common people.”​

You have specifically claimed that they want a separate State.

I have highlighted the specific bits that clearly states they do not want a separate state or their independence.

Self determination is the freedom to be who they are, religious freedom, the right to their own political beliefs and to support who they wish to support in elections, for example. In short, self determination within the Burmese federation and "peaceful co-existence with the Rakhine community" means having control of their own individual lives, free from persecution and violence and free to make their own choices as all individuals have such freedoms as our right as human beings.. Self determination is intrinsically important in human rights. That is what they have clearly stated.

So can you please, for the last time, provide a link where the Rohingya have stated they want their independence and separate state.

 

[Quantum Quack]

So can you please, for the last time, provide a link where the Rohingya have stated they want their independence and separate state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arakan_Rohingya_National_Organisation

• The right of self-determination of the Rohingya people must be given within a Burmese federation.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Self determination is the freedom to be who they are, religious freedom,

you do not understand how religion and state are inseparable to Islam do you...
Sharia law is their religion it is their religious law... are you that naive to think other wise?

 

[Quantum Quack]

I find it incredible that someone such as yourself doesn't know that Sharia is the law of Islam.
Your ignorance is truly staggering...

 

[Quantum Quack]

It was only a few days ago that a Muslim man was sent to jail for marrying a 14 year old.
He is a stateless Rohingya Muslim asylum seeker.
src: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/f...arold-girl-in-noble-park-20170418-gvmztu.html

His Visa has been revoked and due to his statelessness he is being sent to an off shore detention center once he has served his prison sentence for an indefinite period.

The marriage took place in the area I live to I might add...

What say you?
Do you condone his religious freedom?
Do you condone the rape of a 14 year old girl?

"When worlds collide, things can get very messy"~anon

 

[Quantum Quack]

To wit, regardless of your sex, religion, ethnicity, age.. It applies to everyone, whether the country they live in have ratified it or not. Those rights are inalienable. We are born with it and we die with it.

Only because wise men came together after the end of WW2 and decided we as a race could do better. The UDHR is a human contrivance that only functions by the good will of it's voluntary members.
The intrinsic and inalienable right in the way you put, it is idealized hogwash...

 

[Quantum Quack]

waiting!!!

 

[Bells]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arakan_Rohingya_National_Organisation

• The right of self-determination of the Rohingya people must be given within a Burmese federation.

That's not independence or their own State. Self determination within a Burmese federation means their intrinsic freedoms and inalienable rights as citizens.

It would help that before you make such statements of fact, that you actually take some time to understand the language.

I find it incredible that someone such as yourself doesn't know that Sharia is the law of Islam.
Your ignorance is truly staggering...

*Sigh*

You know, you are really bad at this. As in really bad, to the point of being an outright stupid troll.

When I asked you if you were advocating the 'rights' as determined under the CDHRI, did you understand what I meant by that question?

You used that as an example, so I asked you whether this was what you were advocating. Because the CDHRI does not determine people's individual rights as free people. But instead, rights that were determined solely under religious law, in this case, rights would only be restricted to what was determined by Sharia law. In other words, people would have no self determination. Some interpretations of Sharia Law demands that apostates or any who wish to leave the religion should be put to death, for example. The CDHRI would restrict people's rights and their freedoms.

So when I asked you if this was what you were advocating, your response indicates that a) you did not understand what you had posted and b) you did not understand the whole concept of self determination as an inalienable right, nor do you understand the concept of people being free to choose their fate. So when you come out with this:

you do not understand how religion and state are inseparable to Islam do you...
Sharia law is their religion it is their religious law... are you that naive to think other wise?

It is clear that you are trolling and flaming and you are absolutely not prepared to understand the concepts involved in discussions pertaining to human rights and "self determination" as an inalienable and intrinsic right.

Human rights that are restricted to religious edicts are not exactly free and inalienable human rights. So when you posted this:

Ever heard of the Cairo Charter of Human rights? ( the Islamic alternative)
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rights_in_Islam

Bells:
Also considered intrinsic and unalienable... by the 40 odd nations that have signed it...

And I asked you if this was what you were advocating, you did not understand what I meant. Nor do you seem to comprehend that regardless of the nations that signed onto it, it does not absolve its populace of the UDHR. To the one, the CDHRI is often touted as an addition to the UDHR, because Islamic nations were not happy with the thought that Muslims should be free to determine their own religious ideology if they so choose, which the UDHR provides as a document. Regardless of whether Islamic nations signed the CDHRI or not, Muslims, as human beings, are still have inalienable and intrinsic human rights.

Do you understand now?

In the context of this discussion in regards to the Rohingya, whether they are Muslim or not is beside the point. As human beings, they have intrinsic and inalienable human rights. That is agiven. Any Government or organisation that seeks to deny them those rights are in breach of international laws and that is regardless of whether that Government is party or has ratified it or not. Ergo, stripping the Rohingya of their citizenship and the human rights abuses committed against them is in breach of international law. If they lived in a Muslim country, that would not change.

Do you understand now?

So instead of your pathetic mewling and posturing, I'd suggest you actually get a clue about the language you use, and the factual claims you make, because in each instance, you have been absolutely incorrect and have looked downright stupid.

It was only a few days ago that a Muslim man was sent to jail for marrying a 14 year old.
He is a stateless Rohingya Muslim asylum seeker.
src: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/f...arold-girl-in-noble-park-20170418-gvmztu.html

His Visa has been revoked and due to his statelessness he is being sent to an off shore detention center once he has served his prison sentence for an indefinite period.

The marriage took place in the area I live to I might add...

What say you?
Do you condone his religious freedom?
Do you condone the rape of a 14 year old girl?

"When worlds collide, things can get very messy"~anon

What does this have to do with the Rohingya who are victims of ethnic cleansing and genocide, QQ?

What? Are you still attempting to spread propaganda against Muslims and the Rohingya? How heavy is that bucket of water that you are carrying for the Burmese feeling right now?

It is clear that you have not read the UDHR, or if you had, you clearly do not understand its purpose and how it applies.

Only because wise men came together after the end of WW2 and decided we as a race could do better. The UDHR is a human contrivance that only functions by the good will of it's voluntary members.
The intrinsic and inalienable right in the way you put, it is idealized hogwash...

And the UN's role is to ensure that people's rights are protected, especially minority groups like the Rohingya in Myanmar, which is why they wish to investigate the crimes committed against them by the State and Aung San Suu Kyi is denying them the right to enter Myanmar to do said investigating.

You want to talk about hogwash, how about you talk about that?

Oh wait, no, you just want to spread anti-Muslim propaganda, such as the tripe you spouted about the threat of Indonesia being a nation consisting of predominantly Muslims and now this latest piece of anti Muslim propaganda of a case of a child marriage in Melbourne.

waiting!!!

Contrary to what you may believe, I do have a life and sometimes you may have to wait before I am back at my desk and reading this forum to reply. Expecting immediate answers just makes you look like a bigger fool.

Now, can you get back to the topic now? Or do you need to spread some more anti-Muslim propaganda and change the topic some more because your Saint Suu Kyi is facing criticism for her complicity to a genocide? Because if that's the case, I'd suggest you stop while you are far behind.

 

[Quantum Quack]

That's not independence or their own State. Self determination within a Burmese federation means their intrinsic freedoms and inalienable rights as citizens.

total nonsense

It would help that before you make such statements of fact, that you actually take some time to understand the language.

says a person who has absolutely no idea what they are talking about...

When I asked you if you were advocating the 'rights' as determined under the CDHRI, did you understand what I meant by that question?

Your question makes no sense ..... please explain... ( P Hansen reference)

You used that as an example, so I asked you whether this was what you were advocating. Because the CDHRI does not determine people's individual rights as free people. But instead, rights that were determined solely under religious law, in this case, rights would only be restricted to what was determined by Sharia law. In other words, people would have no self determination. Some interpretations of Sharia Law demands that apostates or any who wish to leave the religion should be put to death, for example. The CDHRI would restrict people's rights and their freedoms.

gosh I do not know where to start...

you are hopelessly out of your depth...
there is no other law to a devout Muslim.

What does this have to do with the Rohingya who are victims of ethnic cleansing and genocide, QQ?

What? Are you still attempting to spread propaganda against Muslims and the Rohingya? How heavy is that bucket of water that you are carrying for the Burmese feeling right now?

It is clear that you have not read the UDHR, or if you had, you clearly do not understand its purpose and how it applies.

what are you accusing me of...? say it again?

The Rohingya man married under Sharia law even knowing full well it was against the law in Australia.
He raped a 14 year old, sold to him by way of dowry by his mother..after being told that the marriage would be illegal.
In case you are not aware rape and child slavery is illegal in Australia.
What bit don't you understand....about him practicing his rights under the CDHRI (Sharia law)

A Melbourne court was told the man’s home country of Myanmar is permissive of child marriage but that was no excuse.

the rest of your post is pure nonsense...

what ever rocks your boat Bells...

If Muslims wished to establish a caliphate in Australia as the Rohingya wish to do in Myanmar what would you do?

 

[Quantum Quack]

I'll even put it in a separate post:
On topic:

If Muslims wished to establish a caliphate in Australia as the Rohingya wish to do in Myanmar what would you do?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Now, can you get back to the topic now? Or do you need to spread some more anti-Muslim propaganda

wait a minute.. didn't you just accuse me of advocating the CDHRI...

I hope you enjoy your silly little flamer game Bells...and don't worry when it comes to human rights I have all the time in the world.
While you are playing your silly game people are being slaughtered and villages burnt and your ignorance of the basic fundamentals is not helping...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Self determination:

The right of self-determination of the Rohingya people must be given within a Burmese federation.

Examples:

From 2003 onwards, self-determination has become the topic of some debate in Australia in relation to Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders. In the 1970s, the Indigenous community approached the Federal Government and requested the right to administer their own communities. This encompassed basic local government functions, ranging from land dealings and management of community centres to road maintenance and garbage collection, as well as setting education programmes and standards in their local schools.
=====
In determining international borders between sovereign states, self-determination has yielded to a number of other principles.[52] Once groups exercise self-determination through secession, the issue of the proposed borders may prove more controversial than the fact of secession. The bloody Yugoslav wars in the 1990s were related mostly to border issues because the international community applied a version of uti possidetis juris in transforming the existing internal borders of the various Yugoslav republics into international borders, despite the conflicts of ethnic groups within those boundaries. In the 1990s indigenous populations of the northern two-thirds of Quebec province opposed being incorporated into a Quebec nation and stated a determination to resist it by force.

=====
The Nigerian Civil War was fought between Biafran secessionists of the Republic of Biafra and the Nigerian central government. From 1999 to the present day, the indigenous people of Biafra have been agitating for independence to revive their country. They have registered a human rights organization known as Bilie Human Rights Initiative both in Nigeria and in the United Nations to advocate for their right to self-determination and achieve independence by the rule of law

====

Under Dzhokhar Dudayev, Chechnya declared independence as the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, using self-determination, Russia's history of bad treatment of Chechens, and a history of independence before invasion by Russia as main motives. Russia has restored control over Chechnya, but the separatist government functions still in exile, though it has been split into two entities: the Akhmed Zakayev-run secular Chechen Republic (based in Poland, the UK and the US), and the Islamic Caucasus Emirate.
===
Self-determination is referred to in the Falkland Islands Constitution[63] and is a factor in the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. The population has existed for over nine generations, continuously for over 175 years.[64] In the 2012 referendum organised by the Falkland Islands Government, 99.8% voted to remain British.[65] As administering power, the British Government considers since the majority of inhabitants wish to remain British, transfer of sovereignty to Argentina would be counter to their right to self-determination.[66]

Argentina states the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population, which was expelled by an 'act of force', forcing the Argentinian inhabitants to directly leave the occupied islands.[67] This refers to the re-establishment of British rule in the year 1833[68] during which Argentina states the existing population living in the islands was expelled. Argentina thus argues that, in the case of the Falkland Islands, the principle of territorial integrity should have precedence over self-determination.[69] Historical records dispute this and whilst acknowledging the garrison was expelled note the existing civilian population remained at Port Louis[70][71][72][73][74][75] and there was no attempt to colonise the islands until 1841.

and so on...
plenty of evidence as to your incredible ignorance and game playing​

 

[Bells]

total nonsense

Then prove otherwise.

Look dude, I get it, you don't understand what those words mean. You have proven that repeatedly in this discussion. Trying to double down on stupidity, however, is really not a good look for you. You have made spurious claims without any evidence to support your claims whatsoever. Instead, you relied on your misinterpretation of terms and you have clearly taken things out of context and applied your own spin on it. And you are absolutely wrong, in every way possible. At no time have the Rohingya declared that their agenda is a separate state. On the contrary, they have explicitly stated that their agenda is to be recognised as Burmese citizens and to have their fundamental human rights recognised as Burmese citizens. And I mean this isn't even implied in their aims and goals. They state this explicitly.

So stop changing the subject and stop trolling.

says a person who has absolutely no idea what they are talking about...

You don't even understand what they have said in their aims and goals, you do not understand what the UDHR is and you think that people can sign up to it, to the point where you said you had a website that allowed people to sign up to it and they would be issued a certificate and you seemed surprised that it did not take off... Your ignorance is staggering. And you know what? Stupidity is forgivable. Willful ignorance like you have shown in this discussion, your deliberate attempts to change the subject of this thread, your outright trolling and moving the goal post, your support for a genocidal regime and defending said regime, that is not forgivable. That is abhorrent and unacceptable.

Your question makes no sense ...advocating.. please explain... ( P Hansen reference)

Firstly, it's Hanson. Not Hansen.

Secondly, you linked it like it was an example. I asked you if this was what you were advocating. Do you understand the difference between a question and an accusation? Do you know what "?" signifies or means?

gosh I do not know where to start...

you are hopelessly out of your depth...
there is no other law to a devout Muslim.

And that is beside the point. Devout Muslims are still protected under the UDHR.

What, exactly, does this have to do with the ethnic cleansing and genocide of ethnic Muslims in Myanmar?

what are you accusing me of...? say it again?

I asked you what does the story of the Rohingya man in Melbourne marrying a 14 year old girl have to do with the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya in Myanmar and whether this was yet a repeat of the same propaganda tripe that you tried to get away with earlier in the thread when you declared that Buddhists in Myanmar were at risk of destruction because Indonesia has a population of 200 Muslims.

And again, what does this:

The Rohingya man married under Sharia law even knowing full well it was against the law in Australia.
He raped a 14 year old, sold to him by way of dowry by his mother..after being told that the marriage would be illegal.
In case you are not aware rape and child slavery is illegal in Australia.
What bit don't you understand....about him practicing his rights under the CDHRI (Sharia law)

Have to do with what is happening in Myanmar at present and which Aung San Suu Kyi is complicit in?

And why are you spreading what is tantamount to propaganda that those in Myanmar spread against the Rohingya to incite violence against them? What does the Rohingya man in Australia marrying a minor have to do with what is happening in Myanmar? What does the CDHRI have to do with Myanmar and the Rohingya fleeing ethnic cleansing and genocide?

Because the only reason you would have to post this is to try to smear the Rohingya, which you have repeatedly tried to do in this thread, from your bizarre rant about how Buddhists there are in danger from Muslims in Myanmar because Indonesia has 200 million Muslims within its borders, to whining about the CDHRI, which has nothing to do with the Rohingya, to your claims that they want independence, despite all evidence that they do not, to now jumping onto this story as though it means what, exactly? What does this story have to do with the Rohingya in Myanmar and why in the fuck aren't you actually sticking to the subject matter of this thread and why are you intent on continuing to derail it?

If you wish to discuss this, why don't you start your own thread? Because what you are ranting about has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread. You are literally trolling.

More to the point, I'd take you seriously if you actually made some attempt to make a valid point.

the rest of your post is pure nonsense...

what ever rocks your boat Bells...

If Muslims wished to establish a caliphate in Australia as the Rohingya wish to do in Myanmar what would you do?

Provide a link that states the Rohingya wish to establish a caliphate in Myanmar. Because that is a factual claim and you had better have the evidence to back it up.

Otherwise I will report you for trolling, stereotyping and spreading false and fake propaganda of people who are persecuted and who are victims of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Enough is enough.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Provide a link that states the Rohingya wish to establish a caliphate in Myanmar. Because that is a factual claim and you had better have the evidence to back it up.

I did and I'll repeat it again:

The right of self-determination of the Rohingya people must be given within a Burmese federation.

note that the Rohingya are Muslim
Self determination for a Muslim community is achieved by Sharia law. Fact.
They seek to establish Sharia law instead of abiding by Myanmar law.
This is in effect the establishment of a caliphate.

Otherwise I will report you for trolling, stereotyping and spreading false and fake propaganda of people who are persecuted and who are victims of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Enough is enough.

By all means do.
You are making unsupported allegations accusing me of all sorts of nonsense.

 

[Quantum Quack]

When you answer this question you will , maybe start to realize why Myanmar's majority is in constant conflict with the Rohingya...

If Muslims wished to establish a caliphate in Australia as the Rohingya wish to do in Myanmar what would you do?

rephrase:
If Muslims wished to establish a caliphate in Australia as the Rohingya ARNO wish to do in Myanmar what would you do?

 

[Bells]

Self determination:

The right of self-determination of the Rohingya people must be given within a Burmese federation.

Did you read the rest of their statement? I even highlighted it for you, because you clearly have an issue with reading and comprehension.

Examples:
From 2003 onwards, self-determination has become the topic of some debate in Australia in relation to Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders. In the 1970s, the Indigenous community approached the Federal Government and requested the right to administer their own communities. This encompassed basic local government functions, ranging from land dealings and management of community centres to road maintenance and garbage collection, as well as setting education programmes and standards in their local schools.

Now, ask yourself this, are Australian Aboriginals Australian citizens? Yes or no?

And I mean, I won't even point out the bleeding obvious that this applies to those who live on what is tantamount to reservations... And that they wished to have the Federal Government stop intruding into their lives in every which way possible. You do get that, yes? They weren't asking to establish their own State or nation. They were asking that Aboriginal townships be governed locally, such as all towns have their own local governments and councils and mayors and whatnot who distribute funds. Indigenous Australians had the Federal Government doing all of that. You do understand that, yes?

In determining international borders between sovereign states, self-determination has yielded to a number of other principles.[52] Once groups exercise self-determination through secession, the issue of the proposed borders may prove more controversial than the fact of secession. The bloody Yugoslav wars in the 1990s were related mostly to border issues because the international community applied a version of uti possidetis juris in transforming the existing internal borders of the various Yugoslav republics into international borders, despite the conflicts of ethnic groups within those boundaries. In the 1990s indigenous populations of the northern two-thirds of Quebec province opposed being incorporated into a Quebec nation and stated a determination to resist it by force.

The Rohingya have not said or declared they wish to secede from Burma.

The Nigerian Civil War was fought between Biafran secessionists of the Republic of Biafra and the Nigerian central government. From 1999 to the present day, the indigenous people of Biafra have been agitating for independence to revive their country. They have registered a human rights organization known as Bilie Human Rights Initiative both in Nigeria and in the United Nations to advocate for their right to self-determination and achieve independence by the rule of law

The Rohingya have not sought, nor are they seeking independence.

Read it again:

The right of ‘self-determination’ of the Rohingya people within the Burmese federation; preservation of their (Rohingya’s) history and cultural heritage without prejudice to the growth and preservation of other religious and indigenous culture in Arakan; condemnation of religious persecution by the military; repatriation of Rohingya refugees from their places of refuge; human resource development particularly in socio-cultural, economic, educational and technical fields; establishment of a welfare society based on equality, liberty, democracy, human rights and freedom for all peoples; “peaceful co-existence” with Rakhine community (Buddhist of Arakan) and among all other peoples in Arakan as well as in the whole of the country; joint struggle with the Burmese opposition and democratic forces; support to landmine ban treaty; support of the rights of Rohingya women and girls to education, health and economic empowerment; educating the youths of the dangers of drugs (including AIDS infection); protection of environment, including forests, rivers, wetland, Coastline Ocean and to save their land from unsustainable logging, killing of endangered species, all forms of pollution, and over fishing and to preserve a green haven for their children and the world; support for future sustainable, appropriate, clean, and beneficial development to the common people.”​

Note the highlighted bits.

Their aims, goals and demands are the complete opposite to independence.

Nor have they expressed the desire to establish a Caliphate. That is the kind of rubbish propaganda those committing the genocide are spouting. So why are you spouting the same unfounded and Islamophobic rubbish?

 

[Bells]

Under Dzhokhar Dudayev, Chechnya declared independence as the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, using self-determination, Russia's history of bad treatment of Chechens, and a history of independence before invasion by Russia as main motives. Russia has restored control over Chechnya, but the separatist government functions still in exile, though it has been split into two entities: the Akhmed Zakayev-run secular Chechen Republic (based in Poland, the UK and the US), and the Islamic Caucasus Emirate.
===
Self-determination is referred to in the Falkland Islands Constitution[63] and is a factor in the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. The population has existed for over nine generations, continuously for over 175 years.[64] In the 2012 referendum organised by the Falkland Islands Government, 99.8% voted to remain British.[65] As administering power, the British Government considers since the majority of inhabitants wish to remain British, transfer of sovereignty to Argentina would be counter to their right to self-determination.[66]

Argentina states the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population, which was expelled by an 'act of force', forcing the Argentinian inhabitants to directly leave the occupied islands.[67] This refers to the re-establishment of British rule in the year 1833[68] during which Argentina states the existing population living in the islands was expelled. Argentina thus argues that, in the case of the Falkland Islands, the principle of territorial integrity should have precedence over self-determination.[69] Historical records dispute this and whilst acknowledging the garrison was expelled note the existing civilian population remained at Port Louis[70][71][72][73][74][75] and there was no attempt to colonise the islands until 1841.

The Rohingya are not seeking independence, nor have they ever sought independence, nor are they seeking sovereignty.

No, really, this is pathetic.

note that the Rohingya are Muslim
Self determination for a Muslim community is achieved by Sharia law. Fact.
They seek to establish Sharia law instead of abiding by Myanmar law.
This is in effect the establishment of a caliphate.

Are you suggesting that because they are Muslim, they wish to establish a caliphate?

Something something about negative and bigoted stereotyping applies here.

By all means do.
You are making unsupported allegations accusing me of all sorts of nonsense.

Says the one claiming they want independence and want to establish a Caliphate and posting propaganda against people who are victims of ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Guess you did have lower to sink to after all.

When you answer this question you will , maybe start to realize why Myanmar's majority is in constant conflict with the Rohingya...

At no time have the Rohingya stated they wish to create a "caliphate" in Myanmar. So your question is moot.

And if Muslims attempted to establish a caliphate in Australia, then they would fail because our laws would not recognise it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

And I mean, I won't even point out the bleeding obvious that this applies to those who live on what is tantamount to reservations... And that they wished to have the Federal Government stop intruding into their lives in every which way possible. You do get that, yes? They weren't asking to establish their own State or nation. They were asking that Aboriginal townships be governed locally, such as all towns have their own local governments and councils and mayors and whatnot who distribute funds. Indigenous Australians had the Federal Government doing all of that. You do understand that, yes?

of course... the example was about self determination examples

did you miss that bit?

The Rohingya are not seeking independence, nor have they ever sought independence, nor are they seeking sovereignty.

true, but they are seeking :
The right of self-determination of the Rohingya people must be given within a Burmese federation.
What bit don't you understand?

Are you suggesting that because they are Muslim, they wish to establish a caliphate?

nope.. I am saying that Sharia law is intrinsic to Islam (fact) and they are seeking self determination to pursue Sharia law. Self determination for Muslim communities involves the overt (rather than covert) establishment of Sharia law.

Do you have a problem with that?

Says the one claiming they want independence and want to establish a Caliphate and posting propaganda against people who are victims of ethnic cleansing and genocide.

I am not claiming they want independance I am simply explaining their agenda according to ARNO
They want to be self determined ( sharia law) with in a federation...

How many time do you want me to repeat myself...

Or do you want to tell me what I am writing instead of reading what I write?

I'll deal with your all your false accusations later... ( there is an awful lot of them)

At no time have the Rohingya stated they wish to create a "caliphate" in Myanmar. So your question is moot.

The caliphate is the natural outcome of establishing Sharia law ( self determination)
is that beyond you?.. do you want me to explain it in another way perhaps...?

And if Muslims attempted to establish a caliphate in Australia, then they would fail because our laws would not recognise it.

and then what would happen if they attempted to do so...
They would be breaking the law... yes.. like the Rohingya man did in Springvale recently. He broke the law. He is now in prison.

How ever if over 1 million Muslims decided to establish Sharia law in Australia what would happen then?

Revolution perhaps?
Military action perhaps?

well... apply the understanding to the situation in one of the poorest countries in the world, a fledgling democracy that seeks to establish the rule of law...One law. Certainly not Sharia law and certainly not 2 laws.

and bingo you have an insight to tell your grandchildren...

 

[Quantum Quack]

on that note... good night ...been fun...