Image 01 Image 03

Aung San Suu Kyi has No Idea Why Rohingya Minority Have Fled Myanmar

Aung San Suu Kyi has No Idea Why Rohingya Minority Have Fled Myanmar


For almost a year, the Myanmar army has conducted “clearance operations” in Rokhine state against the Muslim Rohingya minority. 417,000 of those who survived have fled to Bangladesh, telling stories of rape and murder in their villages. The UN and human rights groups have described the situation as genocide and ethnic cleansing.

De facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, has largely remained silent. But on Tuesday she broke that silence with a speech that is laughable, mainly because she said she has no idea why the Rohingya have fled to neighboring Bangladesh.

Suu Kyi’s Speech

In her 30 minute speech, Suu Kyi stated that she doesn’t know why the Rohingya have left Myanmar and blamed any of the “problems” in the state on militants. Note: She never once called them Rohingya, instead calling them Muslims. I guess that’s better than what Myanmar usually calls them, which is Bengalis because they claim the minority group illegally migrated from Bangladesh years ago. That is false. From CNN:

In her 30-minute televised address, Suu Kyi, whose official title is State Counselor, said the Myanmar government needed time to find out “what the real problems are” in Rakhine state, despite the fact that the UN, numerous rights groups and the Myanmar government itself have issued reports detailing the causes behind the inter-ethnic bloodshed.

Her sole reference to the Rohingya by name was a reference to the burgeoning Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) militant group, which she claimed was “responsible for acts of terrorism.”

She never brought up the operations conducted by the military. From Australia ABC News:

Nor did she explicitly acknowledge the brutal military crackdown by Myanmar’s military since late August, that has forced more than 400,000 Rohingyas to flee for their lives into Bangladesh, and left hundreds dead.

Her only reference instead was that since September 5 there had been “no armed clashes and there have been no clearance operations” — a statement that contradicts the stories of many Rohingya refugees now in Bangladesh.

Instead, Suu Kyi insisted that the country needs to concentrate on everyone, not just “on the few.” From The New York Times:

In her speech, delivered in crisp English and often directly inviting foreign listeners to “join us” in addressing Myanmar’s problems, she steadfastly refused to criticize the Myanmar military, which has been accused of a vast campaign of killing, rape and village burning.

“The security forces have been instructed to adhere strictly to the code of conduct in carrying out security operations, to exercise all due restraint and to take full measures to avoid collateral damage and the harming of innocent civilians,” she said.

Ok, first off, for generations, the government has oppressed the Rohingya minority. Officials do not grant Rohingya citizenship, thus leaving them stateless. The Rohingya must receive permission from the government to do anything, even to have more than two kids.

This first military operation was triggered last October when a few Rohingya decided to fight back when they heard “that the military had been deploying an alarming number of troops to the northern part of the state, causing concern among local populations and independent observers.” In retaliation, the army has been liquidating the existence of the Rohingya. The Rohingya also fought back in August, which led to the latest crackdown.

Suu Kyi stated that “more than 50 percent” of Rohingya villages remain “intact.” She continued to say that she will look into why the military didn’t touch these villages:

“We have to remove the negative and increase the positive,” she said.

Um, okay.

Fact Check

Let’s do some fact checking on this speech. James Griffiths over at CNN did a wonderful job pointing out the five obvious “dubious claims” in Suu Kyi’s speech.

Obviously, the first one is Suu Kyi wants to find out why 417,000 Rohingya have fled. Here’s some visual evidence:

Last week, the army even admitted they targeted and cleared Rohingya villages. From The Guardian:

Of 471 villages targeted in “clearance operations” by the Burmese army since late August, 176 were now empty and at least 34 others partially abandoned, Zaw Htay said.

I documented as many testimonies as I could in a blog, which told how the army invaded the villages. From The Washington Post:

Mohammed Roshid, a rice farmer, heard the gunfire and fled with his wife and children, but his 80-year-old father, who walks with a stick, wasn’t as nimble. Roshid said he saw a soldier grab Yusuf Ali and slit his throat with such ferocity the old man was nearly decapitated.

“I wanted to go back and save him, but some relatives stopped me because there was so many military,” Roshid, 55, said. “It’s the saddest thing in my life that I could not do anything for my father.”

Suu Kyi said that there haven’t been “clearance operations” since September 5, but evidence proves her wrong. From CNN on September 16:

Human Rights Watch released new satellite imagery and sensory data showing that 62 villages in northern Rakhine state were targeted by arson attacks between August 25, when the military’s operation against alleged Rohingya militants began, and September 14.

On Thursday, Amnesty International released a similar report accusing Myanmar’s security forces of engaging an “orchestrated campaign of systematic burnings” of Rohingya villages across northern Rakhine as part of a government backed “scorched-earth policy.”

On September 11, the United Nations’ top human rights official Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein condemned the “cruel military operation” and called the situation exactly what it is. From Reuters (emphasis mine):

“We have received multiple reports and satellite imagery of security forces and local militia burning Rohingya villages, and consistent accounts of extrajudicial killings, including shooting fleeing civilians,” Zeid said.

“I call on the government to end its current cruel military operation, with accountability for all violations that have occurred, and to reverse the pattern of severe and widespread discrimination against the Rohingya population,” he added.

“The situation seems a textbook example of ethnic cleansing.”


Earlier today, The Associated Press published an article that contradicted everything Suu Kyi said because the evidence has shown that the Rohingya are “being wiped off Myanmar’s map.” In just a month, 417,000 Rohingya have left. Tens of thousands had already left after the attack in October. The AP reported:

And they are still leaving, piling into wooden boats that take them to sprawling, monsoon-drenched refugee camps in Bangladesh. Their plight has been decried as ethnic cleansing by U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres, and few believe they will ever be welcomed back to Myanmar.

“This is the worst crisis in Rohingya history,” said Chris Lewa, founder of the Arakan Project, which works to improve conditions for the ethnic minority, citing the monumental size and speed of the exodus. “Security forces have been burning villages one by one, in a very systematic way. And it’s still ongoing.”

Using a network of monitors, Lewa and her agency are meticulously documenting tracts of villages that have been partially or completely burned down in three townships in northern Rakhine state, where the vast majority of Myanmar’s 1.1 million Rohingya once lived. It’s a painstaking task because there are hundreds of them, and information is almost impossible to verify because the army has blocked access to the area. Satellite imagery released by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, limited at times because of heavy cloud coverage, shows massive swaths of scorched landscape.

Unfortunately, it could be months before the world knows exactly what has happened and “the extent of the devastation.” It’s also hard to take Suu Kyi’s words seriously since the army has not allowed anyone to enter affected areas.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“Suu Kyi stated that she doesn’t know why the Rohingya have left Myanmar”

Because the people of Myanmar have learned their Islamic lessons and want no more of them or of Muslims.

Not too difficult to understand if you put your mind to it.

Let’s see: your country has a beachead of a system which for 1400 years has almost never failed to conquer and subjugate any territory it has entered. They refuse to move next-door to land they previously taken.
Option A: celebrate diversity
Option B: move them out

Ok, maybe I’m a little slow. I’m supposed to care that some Muzzies are getting the short end of the stick? That a country is showing them the door, even with (gasp) … violence involved? Sorry, but I am all out of shits to give.

This certainly adds yet another questionable selection from the Nobel Selection Committee

She has no idea why the Rohingya minority is fleeing the country, she and her military are completely and utterly blameless and there has been no death or burning of villages AT ALL, she promises.

She would also like to add that the dirty bastards had it coming.

Bangladesh, like other muslim countries, is an over flowing toilet.

Sorry, all I can say is … get used to it.

CNN, Al-Jazeera and The Guardian are totally trustworthy publications now with no history of mendacity and bias?

Also, why is everyone suddenly sporting a goatee?

Facebook and little Schmuckerberg are censoring reports of the genocide. Now you know who their allies are. It aint humanity:

Note: She never once called them Rohingya, instead calling them Muslims. I guess that’s better than what Myanmar usually calls them, which is Bengalis because they claim the minority group illegally migrated from Bangladesh years ago. That is false.

Because al Jazeera and HRW say so? When is the last time either of those esteemed sources told the truth about anything?

Even al Jazeera, though, admits that “there was a significant amount of migration” of Bengalis into Burma, but points out that this was legal. Big whoop. They’re still not Burmese, so why on earth should Burma give them citizenship if it doesn’t want to?

“This has led many Buddhists to consider the Rohingya to be Bengali, rejecting the term Rohingya as a recent invention, created for political reasons.” That sounds exactly like the “Palestinians”, doesn’t it? We know “Palestinian” as an ethnic term is a recent invention created for political purposes, to create national claims for a population mostly composed of recent immigrants, so what makes you so sure the same isn’t true of “Rohingya”?

Why do you keep referring to “militants”? Do you deny that they’re terrorists? and please explain exactly why you think the military shouldn’t be fighting them?

for generations, the government has oppressed the Rohingya minority. Officials do not grant Rohingya citizenship, thus leaving them stateless.

What’s wrong with that? How is that “oppression”?

The Rohingya must receive permission from the government to do anything, even to have more than two kids.

actually not “to do anything”. The family planning policy sounds no worse than what’s common in India and better than what’s official in China. I have not been able to find any reports of forced abortion, as in China, or forced sterilization, as in India. Yes, this policy applies not to the whole population but only to a population of undesirable foreigners; so what? Would these people be any better off if the policy were applied to everyone else as well? Burma obviously doesn’t think it has an overpopulation problem, so it sees no reason to do anything about it, but it does have a problem with this population, so it seeks to limit its growth.

This first military operation was triggered last October when a few Rohingya decided to fight back when they heard “that the military had been deploying an alarming number of troops to the northern part of the state, causing concern among local populations and independent observers.” In retaliation, the army has been liquidating the existence of the Rohingya. The Rohingya also fought back in August, which led to the latest crackdown.

Nice. They started the conflict by “fighting back”; back against what? Troops were being deployed in “alarming numbers”. In other words the country’s legitimate government was stationing its army within its territory as it pleased; did it not have the right to do so? What business was it of theirs? What right did they have to be “alarmed”? and what right did they have to prevent it? That alone should be enough to brand them enemies of Burma, and justify expelling them.

Nothing justifies rape, ever, under any circumstances. Nothing justifies deliberately killing civilians. The Israeli army is very careful never to do these things, and clearly the Burmese army is not. That is horrifying and wrong, but hardly unique. But the rest of it sounds just like the accusations we constantly hear against the IDF. Do you give those credence too?

    Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 20, 2017 at 2:31 am

    Oops, I messed up the blockquotes there.

    tom swift in reply to Milhouse. | September 20, 2017 at 2:49 am

    Nothing justifies deliberately killing civilians.

    Generally, terrorists are civilians.

      Milhouse in reply to tom swift. | September 20, 2017 at 3:12 am

      No, they’re not. They’re combatants, whether they wear uniforms or not. Not wearing uniforms just makes them illegal combatants, pretending to be civilians.

        CZ75Compact in reply to Milhouse. | September 20, 2017 at 3:51 am

        I don’t have a problem with a B-52 unloading its payload on, for example, a wedding party heavily populated with illegal combatants. Sure, some civilians will become collateral damage, but palling around with terrorists is a risky decision. And, anyone palling around with terrorists is likely providing material support to the outlaws, so my heart isn’t going to bleed for them.

        The intentional bombing of residential areas by both Axis and Allies during WWII would, hopefully, be vehemently opposed in a modern war. But, I see nothing immoral about, for example, bombing a tank factory staffed by civilian workers.

          Milhouse in reply to CZ75Compact. | September 20, 2017 at 5:07 am

          I wrote deliberately killing civilians, not accidentally or inevitably killing them in the course of killing enemy combatants. and anyone who is part of the enemy armed forces is not a civilian, even if they peel potatoes rather than carry guns; that covers most of the so-called “civilians” killed in genuine anti-terror operations. But in Burma it appears the army is deliberately killing people who are obviously genuine civilians, not terrorist support staff. That can’t be justified.

        From the NY Slimes, no less:

        Why Terrorists Aren’t Soldiers

From 1948 onwards lots of Rohingya, originating in Bangladesh on the other side of the border, crossed over and settled in Rakhine [ILLEGALLY]. They rather liked it there, and decided they wanted it. With full indirect support of East Pakistan they tried to take over the state. That almost became a real war, which they lost. The East Pakistani/Bangladeshis were permitted to stay, but they never got Burmese citizenship. Something they bitterly resent.
Back to the poor pitiable Rohingya. From 1948 onwards they crossed the border and parked their goats in Burma. Relations between the original (Buddhist) Rakhinese and (mohammedan) Rohingya were never good. Perhaps the Rohingya cultural habit of raping Rakhinese girls or robbing and/or murdering non-muslims has something to do with it. Things became really nasty when Rohingyas started to murder and behead Buddhist monks around 2012. The Burmese army had to intervene to prevent all Rohingya from being sent directly to allah. Burmese aren’t exactly as meek as Westerners are, so when Rohingyas raped a Rakhinese girl or murdered someone, they were paid in kind with some interest added.

This article seems to take on faith sources promoting the left-wing meme of Muslims-as-victims. I first heard of these Rohingya years ago in reports about Islamic terrorism in Asia. I saw them as related to other Muslim terrorist groups in Thailand and the Philippines. Now, I see them depicted by mainstream media as victims of “ethnic cleansing”. Here’s an excerpt from a recent article about the Rohingya that provides some balance:

“Buddhists in Burma have seen Rohingyas rioting against them for more than half a century for no apparent reason except the need to create a separate Islam region in Burma with the funding that come from extremist organizations and middle east in addition to the support they have from neighboring Pakistan and Bangladesh. It’s as the last resort they have opted to deal with the obvious problem they have at hand. It was simply a question for Buddhists whether they were willing to die at the Hands of Muslim separatists or try to prevail by fighting back.”

Full article:

According to the article, the problem the Burmese have is not with a particular religion but with proselytizing. And as we know all-too-well, Muslims proselytize with a vengeance. The article has an interesting photo of just how the Rohingya proselytize.

As for why Aung San Sue Kyi is being mugged by the media, have you noticed that for the illiberal left, not saying something is as a bad as saying something? Not only do we no longer have freedom of speech, we longer have the freedom NOT to speak!


Open letter to you – I have a couple questions.

On a blog in which we have discussed over and over the. Ins of mainstream media, do you cite sources like The NY Times and Al-Jazeera? I really do not trust them – is there some kind of Gell-Mann effect here?

On a blog in which The Professor talks about Pallywood the ability for bad actors to play victims and perpetrate propaganda, do you not try to balance the possibility that the Burmese army is a bad actor with the Ruainnga speaking Bengalis being bad actors?

On a blog in which we talk about immigration, amnesty, deportation, and protecting borders, is there not a balanced view of one nation’s ability to control its own borders and deal with what by all credible accounts is largely recent (20th C) influx of immigrants under British rule, a situation over which significant conflict occurred. While there were Muslims in Rakhine (Arakan) before the 19th C, the population explosion as a result of colonial rule raises legitimate questions about a nation’s right to establish who are its citizens in such situations, much as the US deals with amnesty or Israel deals with its Arab refugee issues.

Given that under Islam, many many countries have been ethnically cleansed, I don’t see any balance in discussing that here. Or the fact that once again no Islamic nation really wants to take in these refugees anymore much like Arab Palestinian refugees.

By background, I have significant connection to one or more Muslim-majority countries. My own marital status, beliefs, etc. could put me at personal risk in some of these depending on how I expressed them. Including having been in situations where I have faced some difficult situations. I also have wonderful personal connections to them. And a very personal view of the evil in certain parts of the world.

No need to go in any details, but I am no armchair philosopher. I do think in a blog where we all highly value intelligent insight and unbiased thoughtful takes, I don’t particularly think you are adding much here.

We are all aware and get hit with the message of how awful their plight is and believe that their villages are being razed to the ground bad things happening etc.

Don’t you think that a bit more investigation or balance is called for?

Myanmar has a history of horrific violence and many sad stories to tell. Why is this story more important than any others – or similar situations such as the Baloch people of Iran?

Why does the media promote one vs. another?

And why do you choose the one that the leftist mainstream media and biased NGOs promotes over others?

    The Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows:

    You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories.

    In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

    — Or so democrat media hopes.

It’s regrettable that some good people get caught up in this sort of thing, and are killed, driven from their homes, etc., but it’s necessary. Since there is no way to separate good Muslims from the “convert, submit, or die” sort, they all must go.

“Ethnic cleansing” isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it depends on what is being cleansed. Most western nations have yet to learn this, and they will pay a high price for the education they have coming.

Rohingya are not even remotely innocent in all this, and are illegal aliens within Myanmar, rioting to demand citizenship and molesting (to put it mildly) Rakhinese (indigenous Burmese) girls.

Stop me when this sounds familiar…

So what? Myanmar has the right of self-determination. Complaining about this is like Queen Victoria complaining about Indian removal in the USA.

Like we did jack all to stop the destruction of Tamil rebels in Sri Lanka, we will do nothing about what is going on in Myanmar.

Only ignorant fools failed to realized that Aung San Suu Kyi was a politician of Myanmar.

    Paul In Sweden in reply to Fluffy Foo Foo. | September 20, 2017 at 12:50 pm

    Queen Victoria’s Coronation was not until 1838 by then the Democrat Party’s Indian Removal program under Democrat President Andrew Jackson was pretty much over and a new Indian Treaty signed. So there would be little point in the Queen’s complaints especially with the memory of the Indian wars in America sponsored by King George. People tend to forget that Britain fought the Indians in America as part of their big move against the French Canadian and French Caribbean territories afterwards tried to pay for the expense of their colonial conquests on the American Colonists starting the American Revolution.

      Fluffy Foo Foo in reply to Paul In Sweden. | September 20, 2017 at 6:24 pm

      Indian removal wasn’t finished until after the Civil War. Andrew Jackson and The Trail of Tears was just one part of it. Lincoln ran on Free Soil… free soil taken from Native Americans.