Six Muslims Charged With Killing Buddhist Monk During Religious Riots That Killed Dozens of Muslims

news from burbank to burmaReason 24/7An outbreak of sectarian violence in Burma earlier this year was largely directed by Buddhists at Muslims, and included the burning down of a mosque. The government of Myanmar (Burma) has now filed charges.

From the BBC:

Burmese officials have charged six Muslim men over the death of a Buddhist monk during an outbreak of religious violence in March.

The men face death sentences for the monk's murder in Meiktila. The rioting saw at least 43 people - almost all of them Muslim - killed.

Human Rights Watch published satellite images before and after the violence, showing the damage done to predominantly Muslim communities, and has called the pattern of violence against local Muslims since last summer a campaign of “ethnic cleansing”. Thousands of Muslims were displaced by the violence this spring.

Follow these stories and more at Reason 24/7 and don't forget you can e-mail stories to us at 24_7@reason.com and tweet us at @reason247.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • $park¥||

    Yeah, but they're getting rid of Muslims so it all good, right?

  • Brandybuck||

    According to an (ex) friend of mine, the First Amendment does not cover Islam, and thus Muslims have no rights.

  • $park¥||

    I heard on the radio this morning that it also shouldn't cover Canadians who hold up Toronto Strong signs during a hockey game.

  • tarran||

    The whining of the DJ's was so unintentionally comical.

    IF you are such a pussy that a sign that says Toronto Stronger hurts your feelings, it does imply that your are worthless and weak.

  • Brett L||

    Bombs and booms may break our bones but signs hurt our little feelings!

  • Paul.||

    When you fear Canada, the terrorists have won.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Technically they're right; the First Amendment doesn't cover anything that happens in Toronto.

  • $park¥||

    Technically you're wrong because the First Amendment doesn't specify nationality.

  • SIV||

    It specifies location, as "in the USA"

  • Paul.||

    According to an (ex) friend of mine, the First Amendment does not cover Islam, and thus Muslims have no rights.

    According to the media, Muslims are too stupid and primitive culturally othered to understand such baroque concepts as the first amendment, so shut up or they'll get riled up.

  • Doctor Whom||

    Someone I know is fond of saying, "Error has no rights." Consequently, if you disagree with any point of his particular interpretation of his particular religion, then you just need to siddown and shaddap.

  • Zeb||

    I think that the whole point of the first amendment is that error does have rights.

  • rickraul102||

    my best friend's step-mother makes $84/hr on the laptop. She has been without work for 9 months but last month her income was $20795 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site.... WWW.DAZ7.COM

  • Hugh Akston||

    This would be like charging a civilian for damaging a cop's baton with his face.

  • Aresen||

    I am sure some prosecutor, somewhere has thought of this.

  • SIV||

    "Stole more chains than he could swim with"

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I don't think Buddhists burnt anything down. They're Buddhists. Do you know how many Hollywood actors are Buddhists? A lot, that's how many.

    Myanmar should change its name again and go into hiding.

  • Brandybuck||

    Buddhism is a religion of peace...

  • sasob||

    And tolerance!

  • ||

    Seriously, would Richard Gere burn down anything except Debra Winger's pants? Not that I blame him. No, this is fishy.

  • sasob||

    Buddhists usually burn themselves "down" - or the monks, at least, used to be famous for it

  • Aresen||

    I thought Buddhists just burned themselves down.

  • $park¥||

    At least we now know the Buddhist to Muslim exchange rate too.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Buddhist violence. Odd. Then again, I suppose that could be said of Christian violence, too, for the same reason.

  • Rich||

    One wonders: What is the common element in all this violence?

    Could it be ....... Satan HUMANS?!

  • Pro Libertate||

    No, that doesn't make any sense. Could it be loose clothing?

  • $park¥||

    I'd blame the color yellow. Or orange. I'd blame the colors yellow and orange.

  • Rich||

    Loose clothing ....... due to GLOBAL WARMING!!

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yes, I suppose that could be true. Does violence track with warming periods in the Earth's history?

  • ||

    I thought violence tracked pretty much directly with human history.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Well, we've been warming the world since the beginning, right?

  • SugarFree||

    When flint first struck spark and fire blossomed forth, we damned ourselves for eternity. Our original sin is soot black and can never be cleaned away.

  • $park¥||

    Thou shalt not burn that which has already been burned.

  • Pro Libertate||

    God made entropy, and we futilely attempt to defy it by our very existence. Go and be orderly no more!

  • Bardas Phocas||

    Maybe just the humidity.

  • SugarFree||

    Radical Buddhalmists only know killing. They should be mass deported from America.

  • Pro Libertate||

    What about Sikhs?

  • $park¥||

    They might be too hard to find.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Matthew 7:7 - Ask and it shall be given, Sikh and ye shall find.

  • SugarFree||

    Sikhs are a deadly milkshake of violent Islamic and Buddhistic ideologies. And they carry knives, I hear. Why would anyone ever need a knife for anything ever?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Look at their temples! Less than a mile from ground zero!

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's a lot of Buddhists. In New York? Maybe they aren't quite as nonmaterialist as we've been led to believe?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Are you kidding? Look at their bling!

  • Pro Libertate||

    Say, have we been deceived? Is this like Gandhi and his letters to Hitler?

  • Mike M.||

    The Buddhists don't generally go around aggressively attacking others and promoting violence, but they sure as hell aren't pacifists either. If you fuck with them, they're more than capable of defending themselves with violence.

    If the Muslims in Burma have been pulling the same kind of crap that they do everywhere else in the world (gee, what are the odds of that?), it doesn't surprise me a bit that the Buddhists would eventually decide they're just not going to put up with it.

  • sasob||

    I suppose someone will call me (an atheist) a religious bigot, but I really can't get too exercised about some Muslims having to endure a bit of religious intolerance. It's all too much like poetic justice.

  • Rich||

    What'll really be funny is when they start turning the other cheek.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Every religion in the world is intolerant of others when they have power. Maybe it's a power problem, rather than a religion problem? Do you want to go over Christianity's history of intolerance when it was in charge in the west? I mean real Christianity, not the watered-down secularist crap we have in the west today.

  • sasob||

    So if some group has power, how and whether that power gets used isn't determined by what they believe - but only by the mere possession of it? Notice I say "by what they believe" - not "what they profess to believe."

    Lots of gun owners have the "power" to go out an murder complete strangers and probably even get away with it - but they don't, do they? Could it have something to do with what they believe?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    So if some group has power, how and whether that power gets used isn't determined by what they believe - but only by the mere possession of it?

    To a large extent yes. Especially when the person/group in question has held power for a long time. Ideologues only differ in their manners of wielding power briefly after they get it. Look at the Communists...within a few years after they finally got power they were a garden-variety totalitarian state, indistinguishable from the fascists who were supposedly their polar opposite.

  • A Serious Man||

    The Buddhists don't generally go around aggressively attacking others and promoting violence, but they sure as hell aren't pacifists either. If you fuck with them, they're more than capable of defending themselves with violence.

    Yep.

    "A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense. Never for attack."

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I was going to attempt to parody your attitude, but you beat me to the thread. Congrats.

    Even when Muslims are attacked, it's their fault. I guess the Crusades were their fault, too.

  • Paul.||

    They were taunting Christians with their regular baths, warm climes and belly dancers.

  • WTF||

    I guess the Crusades were their fault, too.

    Obviously. The Crusades were basically a belated counterattack in response to the Muslim conquest of the Holy Lands. If the Muslims hadn't invaded and conquered the Holy Lands, there would have been no Crusades.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    At the time of the first crusade, the Muslims had been in possession of the Holy Land longer than the US been in possession of California. So I guess we need to evacuate and give it back to Mexico?

  • Paul.||

    So I guess we need to evacuate and give it back to Mexico?

    Do you really want an answer to that?

  • ant1sthenes||

    So long as we make any remaining residents honorary Mexican citizens.

  • Paul.||

    In all serialness, there are two versions of the Crusades:

    1. Christian Knights sent by God charging into the muslim hoards to stop the spread of Islam.

    2. What essentially turned into an open trade route with Europeans finally able to get a warm bath (not joking), trading in spices, silks, and a whole shitload of intermarrying.

    One historian (if I recall) referred to it as "The Nudge of Constantinople"

  • Mike M.||

    Your attempt at moral equivalence amuses me.

    The last time I checked, Buddhism predates Islam by about 1,200 years. Gee whiz, I wonder who was there in Burma first and who the real troublemakers are.

    And it's kind of funny how you don't see too many Buddhists on the Arabia peninsula killing people.

  • Calidissident||

    "The last time I checked, Buddhism predates Islam by about 1,200 years. Gee whiz, I wonder who was there in Burma first and who the real troublemakers are."

    By this logic, Christians are the troublemakers in America? I mean, obviously the followers of Native American religions were here first.

  • Mike M.||

    Ummmm, yes. The great lesson of several thousand years of world history is that if you let outsiders come in and kill you and steal your land, they'll do just that.

  • Calidissident||

    And this is relevant to this situation how? Muslims are 5% of the population in a country run by a junta made up mostly of Buddhists. If the Burmese should be up in arms against somebody for killing and taking land, it should be the government, not Muslims. Furthermore, Muslims have been in Burma a long time and as Islam is a religion and not a genetic grouping, some have ancestors who were there long before then. Others are descended from Bengali Muslims who moved there during British rule. There wasn't a Muslim invasion and conquest of the area. In fact, the area in question wasn't a part of Burma until the 18th century, when it was conquered by the Burmese Empire.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The great lesson of several thousand years of world history is that if you let outsiders come in and kill you and steal your land, they'll do just that.

    And they'll do all the mental gymnastics necessary to believe it was right and just that they did that. Just like you and the other neocons around here do w/r/t Iraq and Afghanistan.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The Buddhists don't generally go around aggressively attacking others and promoting violence

    Based on what? Name a Buddhist power that has refrained from attacking weaker groups around it. Asoka, for example, sure as hell didn't let it stop him from conquering and maintaining his empire.

  • Calidissident||

    Muslims haven't exactly had the political power in Burma to oppress to Buddhists. The junta has been brutal to all Burmese, but Muslims have faced an added layer of oppression over the years. Your attitude is disgusting. You don't know anything about the situation, and yet you feel confident in saying "Yeah, I don't really know the specifics, but if Buddhists are attacking Muslims, then obviously the Muslims had it coming."

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    That's funny, Myanmar isn't among the top drinking countries in the world, so why would they be violent?

    The top drinkers in the world are totally the ones you would least expect /sarc

    http://flowingdata.com/2011/02.....the-world/

  • Paul.||

    That's funny, Myanmar isn't among the top drinking countries in the world, so why would they be violent?

    Because they're not among the top drinking countries in the world.

  • SugarFree||

    Because abortion, Paul.

  • Paul.||

    And what causes the need for abortion?

  • Zeb||

    Patriarchy?

  • Zeb||

    No, wait. It's gay marriage, right?

  • Underzog||

    That's horrible. If the Muslim is being prosecuted in Myanmar, he is one less person to come to America to blow us up.

    Where's the justice? (snicker)

    "There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement