Serious [Who are Rohingya? 】Why Malaysia and Muslims are not disgusted by their ancestors traiterous characters?

[Nice-Gook]

Those Msian cheena very smart and sly. They want to have best of both worlds. Keep badmouthing Msia, but dont wish to renounce and migrate to Sinkieland. They know they have more to lose if taken up pink ic. They own properties, lands, so generous of BN. Yet they are never satisfied and keep demanding more and more. DAP demand equal rights. Tat means they are going against the constitution as agreed upon by all parties and races and they are now questioning the Bumi rights/privileges. I have seen what happened to those cheena indon during Suharto downfall. Luckily DAP is out. If they are still in parliament as the garment, i fear another riot may erupt.

don't kmow whether you are aware that DAP was PAP in malaysia ...the political party by Devan Nair...when UMNO was not Barison National but another called the Alliance ....when SG parted with Malaysia there was a tacit unwritten agreement that both will not interfere into each other politics ....but LKY circumvented it by getting an Indian to establish a party which will essentially appeal to the chinese and thus DAP was born ...Tunku alao played the same game and supported the Malay political party in Singapore ....but unfortunately only Devan won the election in malaysia and the chinese rejected DAP and throw their full support for MCA and indians for MIC

that's why Mahathir use to descibe DAP as the Trojan horse left behind by Singapore even a couple of years ago....but took DAP as coalition psrtner in the last election

but in reality both didn't trust each other one single bit..both were playing the game of thrones ....DAP hoping Mahathir to kick the bucket soon or at least Anwar to be in this year as Anwar could easily be manipulated while Mahathir hoping that UMNO MPs will join his Bersatu party to to form a bigger number than Pakatan Rakyat or DAP for that matter...both backfired, and luck favoured Mohideen

 

[duluxe]

rohingya enjoying themselves fcuking minahs....

 

[Nice-Gook]

the question of banglas screwing local malays had been an on going problem for the malysian govt for a long long time...nothing new really ...it was a big problem for malaysian ah nehs ,where ah neh women were left dangling with children born illegitimayely to Bangls after which the banglas left for Bangladesh for good

the plight and problem blew up to take a political dimension where once upon a time all entry to banglas to malaysia were banned ..MIC and MCA got into that act.....but why MCA ?,the chinese party ? Yes,some married chinese malaysian women also got themselves entangled with Banglas as weĺl.

But when Najib came to power ,especially the current UMNO president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi ,who then was a deputy PM...almost all work pass approved were for Banglas only..he openly stated that the preference was for Banglas over others

But Rogingya, though very much a Bangla in everything are never known to be a trouble maker or stealing local woman...my guesstimate is ,being a refugee they know where they stood and are quite law abiding....but the Rohingya women are known to be forced into prostitution and labour in the border area of Thailand/Malaysia ...not to mention ,hundreds and hundreds of them buried in mass ummarked graves , for reasons unknown...lately some mass graves were found in those areas

why is DAP is up against this lot is mystery to me ....Maybe ,it could very well be a Christian vs Muslim thingy since most of the top leaders in DAP are christians...the matter of fact is that christians in malaysia are given the short end in many affairs in Malusia whreas a Muslim Indo illegals and Rohingya refugees as a Muslim status quo in the eyes of Bumis is far far better.

 

[tanwahtiu]

The BE did all those evil no peace but war things to many Asia and Asians countries.

Only white 5 eye countries can be wealthy, peaceful and are fully guarded with gunboats, Atomic bombs, napalm bombs and anything in between.

Rise of any Asians countries will disrupt US dominance in crude oil trade and commissions of using US currency to trade in oil.

This time cant stand China rise today where US are challenge in oil trade...

Factually wrong ..Why ?

A country such as Bangladesh never existed at all.Todays Bangladesh was former East Pakistan and former East Pakistan was British colony as the British India .Which included Myanmar formrly called Burma ...the entire lot was called the British lot .,,today split into 3 different countries ..that is Myanmar ,Bangladesh and India

the problem laid on how the British drew the boundary line tasked to one MacMohan ..after ,the world war 2.,.the land that was occupied by the Bengali speaking Rohingyas was drawn into Burma ..and most other parts that were occupied by Bengali speaking Muslims were drawn as East Pakistan ,,,hence the root of the problem

not to mention the one who led the Burmese rebellion is the very father of Aung SAN Suu Kyi ,,,,yes,who than formed the present military junta in power ..,the very person who drove away the ethnic chinese and the ethnic Indians as refugees .,,one of whom is our very own tiger balm Aw family.

The Burmese considered all other ethnicities in their land given by the British as foreigners ...and with valid reasons too because their entire economy was in the hands of chinese and Indians..,and the Burmese themselves treated as worse than 3rd class citizens in their own land

this this fear isolated themselves till lately

 

[Nice-Gook]

The BE did all those evil no peace but war things to many Asia and Asians countries.

Only white 5 eye countries can be wealthy, peaceful and are fully guarded with gunboats, Atomic bombs, napalm bombs and anything in between.

Rise of any Asians countries will disrupt US dominance in crude oil trade and commissions of using US currency to trade in oil.

This time cant stand China rise today where US are challenge in oil trade...

colonists were generally a cruel lot but among them the British came as the top lot .....they educated the local lot ,for the very reason we had LKY and many more ...the British left a strong parlimentarian system and built the infrastructures for our civil service and our armed forces too ....without which we would be like many African countries till today struggling to find their own feet ,so as to speak ....even where the Dutch ruled Indonesia ..it has hardly any infrastructure like what the British left for us .

having said that,the MacMahan line is the root of many problem including China vs India ...this border war is actually a hangover from the British and not really China vs India thingy ....it's a very complicated story ...in fact ,no border existed between China and India but between Tibet and India ....so when China took Tibet into their control than it became a china and india border problem ....actually ,China would have tolerated it if not for Dalai Lama,...
you see ,when China seized Tibet the Dalai Lama fled to India with his followers ...India not only gave him refuge but allow him to operate a administration of sorts outside China ..

 

[JohnTan]

the problem laid on how the British drew the boundary line tasked to one MacMohan

The root problem is not the MacMohan line. The root problem is the unresolved religious hatred between the moslems and the hindus and the moslems against the buddhists in India, including its permanently lost regions of pakistan and bangladesh. The moslems have been waging aggressive warfare and slaughtering hindus for at least 800 years in inda. Today in india, their mosques, madrassahs and magrams glorify this period of ethnic cleansing and forced conversions of hindus into islam as their 'golden age'.

No matter how you draw the MacMohan line, the moslem indians in india will still hate the hindu indians, will want more land and pressure their leaders to wage war against the hindu side of the line for military expansion and conquest in the name of their religion. You can already see that in kashmir today.

 

[Nice-Gook]

The root problem is not the MacMohan line. The root problem is the unresolved religious hatred between the moslems and the hindus and the moslems against the buddhists in India, including its permanently lost regions of pakistan and bangladesh. The moslems have been waging aggressive warfare and slaughtering hindus for at least 800 years in inda. Today in india, their mosques, madrassahs and magrams glorify this period of ethnic cleansing and forced conversions of hindus into islam as their 'golden age'.

No matter how you draw the MacMohan line, the moslem indians in india will still hate the hindu indians, will want more land and pressure their leaders to wage war against the hindu side of the line for military expansion and conquest in the name of their religion. You can already see that in kashmir today.

thats what the current government of India and Modi says but the previuos government ,the congress which ruled india for more than 60 years never said such

yes history can be written and rewritten by victors of course ...neither you or me can bear witness to it

 

[JohnTan]

thats what the current government of India and Modi says but the previuos government ,the congress which ruled india for more than 60 years never said such

yes history can be written and rewritten by victors of course ...neither you or me can bear witness to it

The 3 hindu-moslem wars over Kashmir and the breakaway of East Pakistan says this.

This is an interesting article about the blooming of madrassahs all over india, pakistan and bangladesh, and how they are directly linked to militancy despite their denials.

https://www.ft.com/content/d807f15a-7db0-11e5-98fb-5a6d4728f74e

Most graduates are qualified to do nothing in the modern world except become a preacher or open yet another madrassa. “Even a madrassa teacher has no awareness of the world,” concedes Ashrafi in Lahore. “The world is his room.”

 

[Nice-Gook]

The 3 hindu-moslem wars over Kashmir and the breakaway of East Pakistan says this.

This is an interesting article about the blooming of madrassahs all over india, pakistan and bangladesh, and how they are directly linked to militancy despite their denials.

https://www.ft.com/content/d807f15a-7db0-11e5-98fb-5a6d4728f74e

Most graduates are qualified to do nothing in the modern world except become a preacher or open yet another madrassa. “Even a madrassa teacher has no awareness of the world,” concedes Ashrafi in Lahore. “The world is his room.”

religious wars and other atrocities are not exclusive to muslims and Hindus alone in the context of the subcontinent

the Hindus themselves were and are tearing themselves apart for thousands of years ...because there is no such thing as a Hindu, so as to speak....the word Hindu is Persian meaning black or slaves ...and prior to the British no body described themselves as a Hindu...this nomenclature was given by the British to all religion of the sub continent ...it's very well to say that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are one since its root are Abrahimic.

the fights between the Muslims and Hindus of the sub continent is no worse than its ethnicities commonly divided broadly into Aryans vs Dravidians ...just my 2 cents .

 

[JohnTan]

religious wars and other atrocities are not exclusive to muslims and Hindus alone in the context of the subcontinent

the Hindus themselves were and are tearing themselves apart for thousands of years ...because there is no such thing as a Hindu, so as to speak....the word Hindu is Persian meaning black or slaves ...and prior to the British no body described themselves as a Hindu...this nomenclature was given by the British to all religion of the sub continent ...it's very well to say that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are one since its root are Abrahimic.

the fights between the Muslims and Hindus of the sub continent is no worse than its ethnicities commonly divided broadly into Aryans vs Dravidians ...just my 2 cents .

The moslems invaded india to wipe out both the aryans and the dravidians.

If Judaism, Christianity and Islam are one, they wouldn't be fighting so hard amongst each other. They are not one. It's just a PR stunt.

 

[Nice-Gook]

The moslems invaded india to wipe out both the aryans and the dravidians.

If Judaism, Christianity and Islam are one, they wouldn't be fighting so hard amongst each other. They are not one. It's just a PR stunt.

i won't know about that ...but i can say for certain ,according to records avilable ,some of those invading kings didn't really behaved anything remotely Islamic....in any respect ,all invaders except baring the crusaders ,had other materialistc things in mind ...the plunder of cities laden with gold ,silver, wine and women seems the real attraction but religion would have played a part after the conquest ...since a known devil is better than an unknown angel

 

[Nice-Gook]

The moslems invaded india to wipe out both the aryans and the dravidians.

If Judaism, Christianity and Islam are one, they wouldn't be fighting so hard amongst each other. They are not one. It's just a PR stunt.

you don't seems to get my point ?
yes ,that's exactly what I am saying....just as its ridiculous to lump Christianity, Islam and Judaism as one so is Hinduism since under Hinduism Sikhism and Buddhism is also lumped under Hinduism...and if anyone knows Sikkism and Buddhism are directly opposite to what we call as Hinduism .

 

[JohnTan]

you don't seems to get my point ?
yes ,that's exactly what I am saying....just as its ridiculous to lump Christianity, Islam and Judaism as one so is Hinduism since under Hinduism Sikhism and Buddhism is also lumped under Hinduism...and if anyone knows Sikkism and Buddhism are directly opposite to what we call as Hinduism .

Your point is rather complex. Just like there's no such thing called 'China' or 'Chinese'. It's an English word with no close chink equivalent. The country of China refered to itself by the name of its dynasty like Great Sung or Great Ming, rather than China. Closest equivalent is zhong guo, aka 'middle kingdom' and it doesn't roll off the tongue quite well.

 

[Nice-Gook]

Your point is rather complex. Just like there's no such thing called 'China' or 'Chinese'. It's an English word with no close chink equivalent. The country of China refered to itself by the name of its dynasty like Great Sung or Great Ming, rather than China. Closest equivalent is zhong guo, aka 'middle kingdom' and it doesn't roll off the tongue quite well.

nothing complex about the word Hinduism....it originated from a Persian word to call the inhabitans of the Sucontinent people as Hindu people...quite derogatory too ,as we call them Kelings....the word Hindu never denotes any religion so as to speak ....since there is no reference to the word Hindu found in any 'Hindu' holy script ...no historian ever describe the native religions of the sub continent as Hinduism....nothing as a Hindu religion ever existed in the sub continent

but there were many religions and sub religions of the sub continent origin ...just as there were quite a few versions of Islam peculiar only to the sub continent ....yes ,there were earlier Syrian orthodox Christians too and some Jews and Zoorsttoostranist in India

so ,the British wanted to seperate religions of the sub continent origins and lumped all religions with its root based in the sub continent as Hinduism ..thus the terminology relating to a religion

 

[JohnTan]

nothing complex about the word Hinduism....it originated from a Persian word to call the inhabitans of the Sucontinent people as Hindu people...quite derogatory too ,as we call them Kelings....the word Hindu never denotes any religion so as to speak ....since there is no reference to the word Hindu found in any 'Hindu' holy script ...no historian ever describe the native religions of the sub continent as Hinduism....nothing as a Hindu religion ever existed in the sub continent

but there were many religions and sub religions of the sub continent origin ...just as there were quite a few versions of Islam peculiar only to the sub continent ....yes ,there were earlier Syrian orthodox Christians too and some Jews and Zoorsttoostranist in India

so ,the British wanted to seperate religions of the sub continent origins and lumped all religions with its root based in the sub continent as Hinduism ..thus the terminology relating to a religion

The word Hindu is very much misunderstood and misused. Many people have no idea how the word originated. In India, some politicians use the the words Hindu and Hindutva with communal overtones either to promote or oppose some ideology or party. To the rest of the world, Hindu and Hinduism refer to a set of people belonging to definite religious system.



The fact is that the BOTH the words "Hindu" and "India" have foreign origin. The word "Hindu" is neither a Sanskrit word nor is this word found in any of the native dialects and languages of India. It should be noted that "Hindu" is NOT a religious word at all. There is no reference of the word "hindu" in the Ancient Vedic Scriptures.



It is said that the Persians used to refer to the Indus river as Sindhu. Indus is a major river which flows partly in India and partly in Pakistan. However, the Persians could not pronounce the letter "S" correctly in their native tongue and mispronounced it as "H." Thus, for the ancient Persians, the word "Sindhu" became "Hindu." The ancient Persian Cuneiform inscriptions and the Zend Avesta refer to the word "Hindu" as a geographic name rather than a religious name.


When the Persian King Darious 1 extended his empire up to the borders of the Indian subcontinent in 517 BC, some people of the Indian subcontinent became part of his empire and army. Thus for a very long time the ancient Persians referred to these people as "Hindus". The ancient Greeks and Armenians followed the same pronunciation, and thus, gradually the name stuck.


The word "India" also has a similar foreign origin. Originally, the native Indians used to address the Indian subcontinent as "Bharat". As a matter of fact in Mahabharat,which is one of the two "Itihasa", we find reference of the word "Bharat". As per legend, the land ruled by the great King "Bharata" was called Bharat.



The ancient Greeks used to mispronounce the river Sindhu as Indos. When Alexander invaded India, the Macedonian army referred to the river as Indus and the land east of the river as India. The Greek writers who wrote about Alexander preferred to use the same name.



For the Arabs the land became Al-Hind. The Muslim rulers and travelers who came to India during the medieval period referred the Indian subcontinent as "Hindustan" and the people who lived there as Hindus.



Thus, if we go by the original definition of the word Hindu, any person living in the land beyond the river Indus is a Hindu and whatever religion he or she practices is Hinduism, the word Hindu is a secular word. Hinduism denotes any religion or religions that are practiced by the people living in the Indian subcontinent.


The proper word to use for those people who follow the Scriptures of The Vedas is "Sanatana Dharma", not "Hinduism" as is commonly used

https://www.speakingtree.in/blog/meaning-and-origin-of-the-word-hindu

 

[Nice-Gook]

The word Hindu is very much misunderstood and misused. Many people have no idea how the word originated. In India, some politicians use the the words Hindu and Hindutva with communal overtones either to promote or oppose some ideology or party. To the rest of the world, Hindu and Hinduism refer to a set of people belonging to definite religious system.



The fact is that the BOTH the words "Hindu" and "India" have foreign origin. The word "Hindu" is neither a Sanskrit word nor is this word found in any of the native dialects and languages of India. It should be noted that "Hindu" is NOT a religious word at all. There is no reference of the word "hindu" in the Ancient Vedic Scriptures.



It is said that the Persians used to refer to the Indus river as Sindhu. Indus is a major river which flows partly in India and partly in Pakistan. However, the Persians could not pronounce the letter "S" correctly in their native tongue and mispronounced it as "H." Thus, for the ancient Persians, the word "Sindhu" became "Hindu." The ancient Persian Cuneiform inscriptions and the Zend Avesta refer to the word "Hindu" as a geographic name rather than a religious name.


When the Persian King Darious 1 extended his empire up to the borders of the Indian subcontinent in 517 BC, some people of the Indian subcontinent became part of his empire and army. Thus for a very long time the ancient Persians referred to these people as "Hindus". The ancient Greeks and Armenians followed the same pronunciation, and thus, gradually the name stuck.


The word "India" also has a similar foreign origin. Originally, the native Indians used to address the Indian subcontinent as "Bharat". As a matter of fact in Mahabharat,which is one of the two "Itihasa", we find reference of the word "Bharat". As per legend, the land ruled by the great King "Bharata" was called Bharat.



The ancient Greeks used to mispronounce the river Sindhu as Indos. When Alexander invaded India, the Macedonian army referred to the river as Indus and the land east of the river as India. The Greek writers who wrote about Alexander preferred to use the same name.



For the Arabs the land became Al-Hind. The Muslim rulers and travelers who came to India during the medieval period referred the Indian subcontinent as "Hindustan" and the people who lived there as Hindus.



Thus, if we go by the original definition of the word Hindu, any person living in the land beyond the river Indus is a Hindu and whatever religion he or she practices is Hinduism, the word Hindu is a secular word. Hinduism denotes any religion or religions that are practiced by the people living in the Indian subcontinent.


The proper word to use for those people who follow the Scriptures of The Vedas is "Sanatana Dharma", not "Hinduism" as is commonly used

https://www.speakingtree.in/blog/meaning-and-origin-of-the-word-hindu

ok,,you have some valid points here as to the origin of the word Hindu...I can neither agree or disagee as I really don't know

but i learnt a lot during my days in the soc.culture.singapore some of which invarily wanders into soc.culture.indian and there were really some top notch guys who know what they were talking ,one of which was a teaching staff from an ivy league .

now regarding this Hindutva thingy which the current government Modi upholds..many Indians themselves describe it a as sort of Fascism quite close to Nazism

i found out that Hindutva,a philosophy of sort ,has nothing to do with a religion ...the originator was ,i had read ,was an atheist ...and Hindutva are ideala of oness in culture quite akin to Mao version of communism ...maybe I am right or maybe I am wrong ...those who knows more ,please share yours

 

[mojito]

How about sinkies? Will their coolie grand daddies be a shame of their descendent lazy exploitative character? House built by burmese, home clean by maids, rubbish clear by bangla?

 

[Nice-Gook]

How about sinkies? Will their coolie grand daddies be a shame of their descendent lazy exploitative character? House built by burmese, home clean by maids, rubbish clear by bangla?

its a sort of cyclical ,i guess...almost all societies were and are going throught such cycle...the roaring 20s of the United States was quite a decadent lot from their pioneers who broke the wild wild west ...than the two world wars changed that cosy living

even the younger generations of the Japanese today are not the same as their fathers or grandfathers

 

[mojito]

its a sort of cyclical ,i guess...almost all societies were and are going throught such cycle...the roaring 20s of the United States was quite a decadent lot from their pioneers who broke the wild wild west ...than the two world wars changed that cosy living

even the younger generations of the Japanese today are not the same as their fathers or grandfathers

So, are you a shame of your misdeeds? Or are you proud of living like a medieval lordling?

 

[JohnTan]

now regarding this Hindutva thingy which the current government Modi upholds..many Indians themselves describe it a as sort of Fascism quite close to Nazism

It's probably a new thingy since modern India. In the hindu-moslem religious wars, the hindus only started to win more often from the 18th century onwards, when the maratha confederation gain momentum and the moghul empire declined and the other sultanates were much weaker. In modern India, the hindus won decisively against pakistan both militarily and economically.

Such hindutva movement feeds off the military, social and political victories of their religious candidates, just like the moslems who flourished with the rise of their sultanates and various governments. Nazism could have a fair short of flourishing too if they had survived WW2. I understand that the Nazis also produced their own films and music during their short reign in history. If they had lasted longer, tourists would be visiting them today, just like they visit other landmarks of foreign conquest in india like the Taj Mahal or Red Fort.