A burned Mosque in Myanmar, the result of a reprisal attack by angry Buddhists
Recently I spent some time with some friends whose preferred choice of news broadcaster is the BBC. Therefore, as it was a case of ‘their gaff their rules’, I had a chance to observe the BBC over the period of a couple of days and I was shocked to find that on one particular story, at least half of the story was missing.
The BBC did an extensive segment on the 10 O’Clock news on the plight of the Muslim Rohinga who are crossing the seas of South Asia as refugees. However, the BBC chose not to properly elaborate on why the Rohingya are leaving Myanmar. I was watching their coverage and thinking ‘ there is loads missing from the BBC’s report.’
It is easy and right to concede that some of the Rohingya are Stateless, however many of them are citizens of Bangladesh and have crossed the border into Myanmar and the Bangladeshis are unwilling, probably for economic or internal cohesion reasons to let them back. It is also correct to say they don’t have any citizenship rights in Myanmar but when you look a little deeper into the Rohingya issue you start to see just why the Myanmar authorities and the Buddhists of Myanmar are wary of giving the Rohingya citizenship rights.
In Myanmar Rohingya Muslims have brutally raped and murdered Buddhist girls, burned Buddhist temples and massacred scores of Buddhists. They are also alleged to be unwilling to integrate into Myanmar society to anything like the extent that the indigenous should expect. Although the conflict between Muslim and non-Muslim in the area is an old one, with aspects of it going back to Colonial times, it seems that the Muslims are in no hurry to end the conflict and by their behaviour often provoke conflict. Riots by Muslims, rapes by Muslims, fiscal gouging by Muslims all of which make the Buddhists much more likely to fight back, and they do.
When you look into the situation regarding the Rohingya and other Muslim minorities in Myanmar you can see that it is indeed a complex network of inter communal hatreds. But, what also shines out so brightly that even a BBC journalist could see it is that the Muslims of Bangladesh do not have clean hands in this story. They have raped, they have engaged in mob violence against Buddhists, they have fiscally gouged the Buddhist peasantry of Myanmar, burned schools and temples and generally been a pain in the arse. As usual when it comes to conflicts where Islam is involved you find Muslims doing violence against Buddhists and then claiming that they are being oppressed because they are Muslim. It’s the usual sound of the whining about victimhood whilst being actively involved in attacking others. Two faced Muslim hypocrisy, don’t you just love it.
All the information above about this complex and ongoing conflict is readily available to anyone who cares to make the effort to look. However the BBC chose to focus only on the plight of those Muslims who were leaving places like Myanmar. There was no attempt to speak of the reasons for the conflict or the history of Muslim/Buddhist relations, or the crimes of Muslims in Myanmar or give any indication of why these Muslims are hated. There was not even any mention of Britain’s part in fomenting this conflict when the British Empire moved South Indian Muslim moneylenders into what was then Burma as administrators, who subsequently then went all Islamically oppressive towards the Buddhists. It was some of the most overt BBC bias towards Muslims that I’ve seen outside of their Middle East coverage.
The BBC could have been much more neutral about their coverage of this story, they could have taken a mere 30vseconds of voiceover time to put some balance in by mentioning the Muslim rapes and riots in Myanmar, or mention some other less Muslim-friendly bit of information. The BBC could have made a bit more effort to explain why these Muslims are fleeing Buddhist retribution and that greater effort to explain would have changed the whole tone of the piece.
Sometimes you get a story that shows up the BBC as having a Leftist agenda and this was definitely one of them. I was completely gobsmacked to see just how much of the story was missing from the BBC report, it was relentlessly biased towards the Muslim sea-borne refugees and made little mention of any reason why this refugee crisis has occurred.
At some points during my unaccustomed viewing of the BBC ‘s news output I couldn’t work out whether I was watching a British public service broadcaster or a propaganda channel from the Arab world. There was so much missing from this particular story that this was for me the ‘final straw’ and I don’t think I will trust the BBC on anything ever again.
Links
Phillipines take in Muslim refugees when other more Islamic nations do not.
History of the Muslim/Buddhist conflict
A counterjihadists view of Myanmar’s Islam problem
Old website apparently from activists for the indigenous non-Muslims of the Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh detailing ethnic cleansing and other problems from Muslims.
the first link mentions the Philippines taking some in.
bigger fool them. They have more than there fair share of muslim problems
Yeah it seems even some of the other Muslim nations really don’t want these Rohingya. Although there has been violence on both the Muslim and the Buddhist side of this conflict, the Muslims haven’t exactly gone out of their way to endear themselves with the non-Muslims.
BBC, a.k.a Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation.
Everything, but EVERYTHING they put out is to be taken
with very large amounts of salt.
Even when they tell me the time, I have to look at my watch.
I’m old enough to remember when the BBC was a respected and
impartial organisation, a credible source of information and
unbiased reporting and debate.
Not any more.
Since progressive infiltration by the lefties, it has become
soiled,like everything else they touch.
By its actions it owes nothing to this nation…
and this nation owes nothing to it.
Its demise should be welcomed.
XX I’m old enough to remember when the BBC was a respected and
impartial organisation, a credible source of information and
unbiased reporting and debate.XX
But WAS it?
Then we had nothing to compare it with.
NOW we have the intenet. If we had had that then, how “impartial” would they have looked?
In the war we trusted the BBC. We had Lord HawHaw for the German side, if we wanted it.
I think the BBC was run by the government in those days. It had to abide by censorship rulings.
Has it been privatised?
Similar thing with the poor ‘boat’ people crossing the Med from Africa.
The BBC show pictures of refugees suffering starvation whilst fleeing monstrous regimes. They regularly tell of boat owners making millions from transporting those same poor refugees. Yet they never fit the two facts together.
If those desperately down-trodden and extremely poor people are genuinely seeking a better life, surely they’d decide to spend the cash looking for a better life their side of the Med.
Why isn’t anyone asking where all this ticket money is coming from, and who buys a ferry ticket for their children then put them aboard a rubber dingy?
Where does the cash come from and when did they spend it? Do they cross deserts barefooted with gold in their pockets, or do the beat and rob in order to feed the ferry-masters coffers?
Good sensible questions that BBC reporters know to ask but have been told not to ask.
Whatever’s happening, there’s something there that the wretched BBC prefer we know nothing about.
XX and who buys a ferry ticket for their children then put them aboard a rubber dingy? XX
But they are not.
Look at all the pictures, what do you see on those boats?
MEN, hundreds of MEN. But very, VERY few “women and children” if ANY!
This is one of the main contention points on blog sites in Germany, that are of a similar content to this one.
The “media” always moan on about “Women and children” but the Sailors and coast guards in the area are just left scratching their heads and asking “WHAT women and children? WE have not seen any!”
I’d also welcome there demise.
anyone wishing to shock themselves any further with left wing bias, try rt news.
they’ve even alocated that germ Galloway his own slot.
Isn’t comparing Galloway to a germ a bit of an insult to germs? After all some bacteria are useful but I can’t for the life of me think of a use for Galloway.
fair point.
ok then, for the record.
I would like to apologise unreservedly to all germs, both good and bad , and am truly sorry for any offence caused by tarnishing your image by association with Galloway.
Whenever I see Galloway I can’t help being reminded of Lord Haw Haw.
Lord Haw-Haw… and look what happened to him.
We can but hope.