Burma: HRW satellite images 'show Rakhine destruction'

1. If it were perpetrated by Muslims against Xians it would receive more airplay, but it would be pointed out why the tensions existed and what the history is. We'd need to be even-handed about it, as we are with religious violence in Nigeria.

It would also be mostly likely put in the passive, as Muslim-on-Xian violence was in Iraq or anti-Xian persecution in Malaysia or Egypt, or spun to reflect some Western preoccupation, as we've done with the Xian exodus from the West Bank.

Historically there was no Muslim-on-anybody persecution or violence. We ignore anti-Xian pogroms and how minorities or even majorities were treated under Muslim rule. We pick and choose times of less-than-European oppression and gloss over the preponderance of the evidence.

2. The ethno-religious strife in Burma receives rather more attention in the MSM than Muslim-on-Hindu or Muslim-on-Ahmadi persecution and violence does.

"Historically there was no Muslim-on-anybody persecution or violence."

Mohammed himself converted by the sword. His followers conquered much of North Africa in a very short time and even moved in to conquer Spain. They reportedly went as far as Avignon and Lyon in France.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_invasion_of_Gaul

Did I misunderstand your statement?

The Muslim religion was originally spread by means of violence to great extent.

The proof is in how quickly it spread to large numbers of people. Muslims were quite violent from the very beginning. Muslims took Jerusalem by force before Christians went in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%28637%29

Jerusalem was a Jewish city. It came under the authority of the Romans and then when Rome became Christian, the Christians. The Muslims put Jerusalem under siege and made it one of their holy shrines.

Whooo! History. It's a bear sometimes.