Sorry but I don't know if others feel the same and I don't know much about the situation there but I have to say the treatment by Burma of the Rohinga makes me think that the population requires a decent and powerful dictator interested in the rights of humanity more than in allowing bigots to abuse others. Clearly, once again, democracy does not work. Buddhism is meant to be a decent, kind, responsible philosophy, not a racist one.

Just to expand on this; we all thought the combination of democracy and Buddhism would mean the Rohingas and any other minority would be treated decently, supported as all human beings should be - much as, in my opinion, the UK should be welcoming not only refugees but anyone wanting to come and live and work here. Humanity is more important than Nationalism. Defending children drowning because otherwise we Brits may have to pay 1p extra tax is appalling. But even worse is when countries reject people because their skin is the wrong shade or they worship a different God or they are considered to undermine a traditional way of life. I don't think the military will be any better than the Suuu lot but then they could hardly be worse.

It really almost warrants invasion, in my opinion. Trouble is - by who? Every other country is just as bad. Even Communism, pretending to defend the poor and vulnerable, turns nasty within days.

Benign autocracy means a decent dictator over ruling the racist and bigoted impulses of the masses. Trouble is - again - they turn within weeks. I remember when Ben Ali was the liberal saviour of Tunisia. And, in many ways, Gaddafi in Libya. And Sadaam in Iraq. When they started.

While not religious I have been interested in the psychology of Buddhism and read a number of books on it over the years. Of any "religion" you can imagine none could be more opposed to violence, aggression or hatred. They even advise against harbouring a negative thought about a person!

The situation in Myanmar is so disappointing. It shows me that those who knock religions for spreading division and war are missing the point: it is people who are wholly responsible, and religion is often only as deep for the majority as symbol and ritual.

Agreed WYOT - Buddhism, of all philosophies, makes the most sense to me, which was one reason why I found the Rohinga situation so appalling. Really - thousands of Burmese behaved like Nazis. I think the world should invade Burma and restore a decent democratic government but, if so, they must insist on human rights - the return of the Rohinga and their protection by the "new" military. Trouble is - once you start interfering, where do you stop? I reckon an invasion of the UK in order to protect the thousands of victims of the False Allegations Industry might be defensible. Any country whose laws can reflect one person's word against another's should be reprimanded.

JK2006 wrote:
we all thought the combination of democracy and Buddhism would mean the Rohingas and any other minority would be treated decently

Indeed we did - not foreseeing the role of the military, who have been governing the country for most of the time since independence. Many join the military in Myanmar to have more of a say. And it's significant that countries who left the Empire around the same time (after WWII) - like India, Pakistan and Israel - have the military in pivotal quasi-political positions, at the heart of the nation. Ready to interve. Eisenhower, in recent times, started the transition trend of the military to government - however, by democratic means.