NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070926/ap_on_re_as/myanmar

YANGON, Myanmar - The government said its security forces opened fire Wednesday on demonstrators who failed to disperse, killing one person, and witnesses said police beat and dragged away dozens of Buddhist monks in the most violent crackdown in a month of protests in Myanmar.

While dissident groups reported as many as five dead, including monks, the military junta's announcement on state radio and television was the first acknowledgment that force has been used to suppress the protests and the first admission that blood had been shed.

I am not surprised that the Junta did this. I pray that this will be the end of that tyrannical regime. Down with the Junta. Free the people.

I am not surprised that the Junta did this.

Neither am I, sadly. :( This needs watching closely to see whether the protests continue despite the repression.

:eek:

Burma... using its troops to politically repress opponents?

Quelle surprise!

Its been a violent crackdown for 45 years. However as the Karen and the other tribes are deemed "non-cuddly" and are in isolated regions, it goes almost unreported.

It's only a matter of time. If the Junta are going to use violence against the monks, there will be a lot of explaining to do as the people, of who at least 90% are Buddhist, revere the monks and see them as the highest spiritual authority in Myanmar.

Something will happen. What that is, we don't know.

Ne Win and the Burmese Way to Socialism Party got the oppression rolling and sometimes one has to violently suppress the masses to make socialism work. Remember in socialism, you're opinion doesn't count, you gave that decision to the government.

I smell something foul and I'm calling bullshit on that. Prove that socialism leads to oppression. True socialism doesn't use violence to suppress opinion. Even dictatorial/authoritarian regimes can employ socialist policies as a carrot-on-a-stick policy to placate the populations but that doesn't make them socialists.

EDIT - as CtP points out, Myanmar is a Military Junta. That doesn't ring of "socialism" does it?

Ne Win and the Burmese Way to Socialism Party got the oppression rolling and sometimes one has to violently suppress the masses to make socialism work. Remember in socialism, you're opinion doesn't count, you gave that decision to the government.

am I the only one who is finding this oddly restrained considering we are talking about some very, very naughty men?

I was expecting a massacre

Remember in socialism, you're opinion doesn't count, you gave that decision to the government.

its a military Junta :confused:

It's only a matter of time. If the Junta are going to use violence against the monks, there will be a lot of explaining to do as the people, of who at least 90% are Buddhist, revere the monks and see them as the highest spiritual authority in Myanmar.

Aye. What he said is the Truth.

Aye. What he said is the Truth.

There's the truth and the "truth". ;)

Myanmar its bloody Burma lets hope it removes fellows that seem to run the country

its a military Junta :confused:

true. I was being fasicious. What has happened in Burma is awful. One can have military dictatorship and be a socialist. Saddam Hussein was another military tyrant/socialist. Matter of fact it's a lot easier to enforce socialism with one's hand on the throat of the citizenry.

I personally hope the regime stays in place. I have a soft spot in my heart for the dictators around the world.

true. I was being fasicious. What has happened in Burma is awful. One can have military dictatorship and be a socialist. Saddam Hussein was another military tyrant/socialist. Matter of fact it's a lot easier to enforce socialism with one's hand on the throat of the citizenry.

You could replace "socialism" with another ideology and that statement would hold true. It is easy to force any ideology on a population when one has a stranglehold on power.

nothing false about the statement. replacing "socialism" with anything else would be true as well

am I the only one who is finding this oddly restrained considering we are talking about some very, very naughty men?

I was expecting a massacreHopefully yes. The very, very naughty men acted exactly the same way last time. Back then they were buying time to finger the key opposition and ensuring the media were removed from the country. It took two weeks. Then they started the massacre.

Right now there's no corporate/political consequences if they do it again. Only the tourism industry is at stake, and so far, tourism in Burma has been mostly limited to retired corporate creeps and that's unlikely to change regardless of what the ironically named SPDC decides to do.

By all appearances, it is naive to think it won't be a repeat of the 8888 Uprising, especially since the SPDC has spend the last decade infiltrating the ranks of the clergy (who serve as the main organising force of the opposition), and presumably will have a much easier time of killing opposition leaders now. But one can always hope. And if you're religious; pray. The SPDC is very likely the most fucked up example of humanity to be found in the last several decades.

Write your representatives and ask them to impose trade restrictions, and write and boycott the corporations that do business with the regime. That's how you stop another massacre, if it's not too late already.

The UN Security Council held an emergency meeting a few hours ago. Let's hope that China and Russia can get behind sanctioning Myanmar.

One can have military dictatorship and be a socialist.

because there is a can element doesn't make a rule, this story has nothing to do with socialism and I'm surprised its come up

The UN Security Council held an emergency meeting a few hours ago. Let's hope that China and Russia can get behind sanctioning Myanmar.

Well, I doubt china will be behind any such measure, considering that they rely of Myanmar for trade in some key natural resources, and China's generally benevolent disposition towards this sort of social crackdown.

If we can get India and China to pressure Myanmar on this issue, it would greatly increase the chances that something will happen. Perhaps we could achieve it in exchange for offering the ASEAN nations some additional trade opportunities, sell them on the future economic potential of a free Burma and agree to put less pressure on China to revalue the yuan?

am I the only one who is finding this oddly restrained considering we are talking about some very, very naughty men?


Well, killing four people and sending hundreds to hospital isn't what I'd normally call "restrained", but when you have 1988 in mind... :(

This may answer your question to some extent:


For not only is Myanmar a profoundly Buddhist country -- the ruling generals are also extremely superstitious. If an overly harsh clampdown of the protests by the security forces were to lead to the death of any monks, the generals would feel they have incurred the wrath of the gods. The monks are fully aware of this strength.

A newly formed underground group, the Young Monks' Union, has for days been calling on citizens in all parts of the country to join their protest. The monks have opted for a clever tactic: Their faith requires them to beg for their daily food every morning. But for days, they have refused to accept alms from members of the military or their relatives. This is one of the movement's most powerful weapons. Such a decision is tantamount to a kind of excommunication in the Buddhist country. The monks apparently want to pressure the lower ranks of the military to break away from the junta leadership.


(link (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,507437,00.html))

Junta has to use force to stop monks from demonstrating...

In the language of nerds, I believe the term is an "Epic Fail".

Down with the junta.

I heard that China was trying to pressure Burma to show restraint because of the Olympics are being held in Bejing. I'm insterested in seeing what China will do now.

here are a couple more sources on Burma (the democratically elected
gov't as well as most of ex-patriots still refer to the country as Burma,
as they view the junta as illegitimate. it was the junta that changed the name)


there is also the Burmese indymedia
http://burma.indymedia.org/

oh, and myspace free Burma pages as well.
http://www.myspace.com/uscampaignforburma

http://www.freeburmacoalition.org/
and of course there are a slew other sites as well.



Your Homework?:
The Burmese Conflict in a Nutshell: Burma/Myanmar 101
Burma’s Conflict in a Nutshell: Burma/Myanmar Backgrounder

prepared by the Free Burma Coalition
30 September 2005
http://www.freeburmacoalition.org/fbcbackgrounder.htm

i heard the junta is cracking down on internet cafes to try and keep the things behind closed doors.

and soldiers are guarding temples so monks cannot get out and lead protests.

i wonder if any of them have internal conflicts about their next lives,
if they are Buddhist, which in Burma..., the "land of pagodas"



i used to have some pics saved that did a really good job with perspective and
showed the height of this pagoda really well.
this pic is ok.
see that tiny person in the background?
this is the world's largest pagoda.
http://www.sacredsites.com/asia/burma/rangoon.html

When pasifist Buddist priest are out marching and protesting you know somethings f-ed up.

I'm still shocked at the low level of deaths, to be quite honest. I was somewhat anticipating tanks rolling down the street of Rangoon and all of that.

But no. A few people have died. Not that many. More die of malaria every day in Burma.

I'm still shocked at the low level of deaths, to be quite honest. I was somewhat anticipating tanks rolling down the street of Rangoon and all of that.

But no. A few people have died. Not that many. More die of malaria every day in Burma.
You mean, the deaths we know about.

You mean, the deaths we know about.
If lots more had died, we'd know about it. People would complain.

Write your representatives and ask them to impose trade restrictions, and write and boycott the corporations that do business with the regime. That's how you stop another massacre, if it's not too late already.

The UN Security Council held an emergency meeting a few hours ago. Let's hope that China and Russia can get behind sanctioning Myanmar.

Myanmar has been under sanctions and trade restrictions for years. It doesn't do its business with European or US trade much. The fact that it's still running around doing well for it's self (the junta, the people, not at all), is proof that the sanctions just don't work.

If lots more had died, we'd know about it. People would complain.

I've heard some estimates in the last few days in the hundreds. They've kicked out journalists and are trying to stop people using the net to send photos and videos. It is really hard to have any reliable number.

I'm surprised at how little talk about this there is on NSG.

How much is the US media focusing on this?

Myanmar has been under sanctions and trade restrictions for years. It doesn't do its business with European or US trade much. The fact that it's still running around doing well for it's self (the junta, the people, not at all), is proof that the sanctions just don't work.


Actually, I happen to agree with this.

As the 90s were coming to a close, there were many people who were against the sanctions on Iraq for exactly this reason.
Those sanctions are to blame for 1-2 million deaths, with at least half of that the population of children under 5 years of age.

I asked someone, what about Burma, the sanctions there?
One person said they thought Aung San Suu Kyi (the nobel peace prize winner held by the regime, mostly under house arrest. in regular prison as of the last week) knew what was best for her country.

But then I come back to the
http://www.freeburmacoalition.org
which throughout the 90s was for sanctions and did a very good
job of getting many corporations to divest from Burma including Levis and Pepsico to name a few.
Because of all the activism Archbishop Desmond Tutu said "Burma is the next South Africa."



The FreeBurmaCoalition has brought back the argument against sanctions.

from their website:
Who amongst the Burmese pays the price of Western boycott and international isolation?
Evil Generals? Noble Dissidents? Or ordinary people and their children??!!
Reflect before You Act!

also:
"Isolation is the regime's default condition. It is what fuels the present system. Burma might not become a democracy overnight, but it
will certainly improve with more outside interaction. Would Indonesia be better off if no one had visited during its 30 years of military rule?"
--Thant Myint-U, author of "River of Lost Foot Steps", on the boycott of Burma/Myanmar

and a longer bit if one wants to read it.
http://www.freeburmacoalition.org/dearfbcletter.htm

Karen rebels attack Myanmarese troops in the south (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world/20070930-burma-France24-exclusive-Payen-clashes-monks-protests.html).

Woo for socialism, eh?

Ain't nobody socialist in Burma (f*** this "Myanmar" shit). Just a bunch of bad guys who want to have all the power.

Woo for socialism, eh?

It's a sad story... Too bad they didn't succeed. I hope some good will come of this. :(

Karen rebels attack Myanmarese troops in the south (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world/20070930-burma-France24-exclusive-Payen-clashes-monks-protests.html).
It would be interesting to know how often this kind of thing happens in the various non-Bamar states.

Karen rebels attack Myanmarese troops in the south (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world/20070930-burma-France24-exclusive-Payen-clashes-monks-protests.html).
Yeah, erm, they're super screwed.
Woo for socialism, eh?
How the fuck is this anything to do with socialism?

I've heard some estimates in the last few days in the hundreds. They've kicked out journalists and are trying to stop people using the net to send photos and videos. It is really hard to have any reliable number.

I'm surprised at how little talk about this there is on NSG.

How much is the US media focusing on this?
My previous point about Malaria still stands. Oh yes.

It would be interesting to know how often this kind of thing happens in the various non-Bamar states.

I believe the Karen have been fighting for independence from Burma for some time.

wiki says
Karen people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_people)
says they've been fighting for independence since 31 January 1949.

If we can get India and China to pressure Myanmar on this issue, it would greatly increase the chances that something will happen.

Depends. Currently, because China is supporting the junta, India is forced to be agreeable to the junta and not antagonise it and push it completely into the Chinese orbit. I personally find this policy of India distasteful...but then India does not even speak out against dictatorships in Pakistan and Bangladesh...what to speak of Myanmar. For far too long India has kept mum about Suu ki..who probably follows Gandhian ideals more than anybody in India now..:rolleyes:

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20070927&fname=raman&sid=1
The Myanmar Dilemma
India and China should at least try to work together with the international community to end the repressive policies of the Myanmar junta. Their initiative may fail, but that is not a valid argument for not trying,,, ...
B. Raman

With the Myanmar military junta determined, if need be, to unleash another bloodbath reminiscent of that of 1988, in order to re-assert its control over the country and its people, Indian and Chinese policy-makers are facing a difficult dilemma.

Rightly or wrongly, the international community is convinced that only China and India, which have been following a policy of active engagement with the junta, despite its ruthless suppression of its people, are in a position to moderate the behaviour of the junta. But neither country is presently inclined to do so.

Their policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries is cited as the ostensible reason for their reluctance to exercise pressure on the junta. A more important reason is their perception of the importance of Myanmar for their respective national security. Interest in Myanmar's oil and gas reserves for meeting their growing energy requirements is one reason. For India, another reason is the likely benefits of Myanmar's co-operation in dealing with the insurgencies in North-East India. An additional reason for China is Myanmar as a gateway to the Indian Ocean and as a potential energy route for reducing its dependence on the Malacca Strait for the movement of its energy supplies from West Asia and Africa. While pursuing their respective economic and security interests, the two countries have been keeping a wary eye on each other in order to see that one does not make a strategic headway at the expense of the other.

The junta is hoping to take advantage of the perceived need of India and China for Myanmar to overcome the pressure from the international community for a change in its repressive policies. The developing situation in Myanmar poses a more difficult dilemma for China than India. If there is bloodshed and further instability in Myanmar, India's economic and strategic hopes can be belied, but there is unlikely to be any damage to its international position.

However, if there is bloodshed in Myanmar, not only can China's economic and strategic calculations go wrong, but its international position and its dreams of making a grand success of next year's Beijing Olympics can receive a set-back. The benign role which China has been trying to play in respect of North Korea's military nuclear ambitions and its concern over the situation in Myanmar--palpable, but not yet overtly expressed-- are a reflection of a China sensitive to the views and concerns of other countries--particularly the US-- as it moves towards the Olympics.

China needs the co-operation of the US for making a success of the Olympics--whether it be in making a grand spectacle of it or in ensuring its security. Well-known Hollywood personalities are already helping the organisers of the Games for making a grand spectacle of them. American security advice is eagerly sought and accepted.

The Chinese policy-makers have a nagging fear that traditional anti-China elements in the West--particularly in the US-- could politically sabotage the impact of next year's Olympics as the US sabotaged the impact of the Moscow Olympics in 1980 by exploiting the intervention of the Soviet troops in Afghanistan.

One saw how promptly the Chinese policy-makers introduced correctives in their policy towards the Sudan, when American activists led by Mia Farrow started calling for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics if China did not change its policy on Darfur.There is an undercurrent of concern in the policy-making circles in Beijing that if the situation in Myanmar leads to a bloodbath, this could provide another handle to these activists to revive their campaign for a boycott of the Olympics under the pretext that it is the Chinese support, which has enabled the Myanmar junta to resist international pressure.

The Chinese policy-makers have not yet been able to find a way out of the dilemma. Myanmar has today one of the most ruthless juntas of the world. It is conceivable that even a change in Chinese and Indian policies may not make it see reason in the short term. But the realisation that the entire international community--including India, China and the ASEAN-- are now united in opposing the policies of the junta could bring about a change in the medium and long term.

India and China should enter into mutual consultations as to how the two, working together and with the international community, could bring about an end of the repressive policies of the junta. Given the kind of junta Myanmar has, their initiative may fail, but that is not a valid argument for not trying.

I recently received this email...from a friend of my fathers. The media is censored...and The Burmese Government lies.


From: Miemie
Sent: Fri 9/28/2007 12:18 AM
Subject: bludgeoning monks by the 'lone-tein'

We just got phone call with our sister living in Yangon about a few hours
ago.

We saw on BBC world, saying that 200 monks were arrested. The true picture
is far worse!!!!!!!!!

For one instance, the monastery at an obscure neighborhood of Yangon, called
Ngwe Kyar Yan (on Wei-za-yan-tar Road, Yangon) had been raided early this
morning. A troop of lone-tein (riot police comprised of paid thugs)
protected by the military trucks, raided the monastery with 200 studying
monks. They systematically ordered all the monks to line up and banged and
crushed each one's head against the brick wall of the monastery. One by
one, the peaceful, non resisting monks, fell to the ground, screaming in
pain. Then, they tore off the red robes and threw them all in the military
trucks (like rice bags) and took the bodies away.

The head monk of the monastery, was tied up in the middle of the monastery,
tortured , bludgeoned, and later died the same day, today. Tens of
thousands of people gathered outside the monastery, warded off by troops
with bayoneted rifles, unable to help their helpless monks being slaughtered
inside the monastery. Their every try to forge ahead was met with the
bayonets.

When all is done, only 10 out of 200 remained alive, hiding in the
monastery. Blood stained everywhere on the walls and floors of the
monastery.

Please tell your audience of the full extent of the fate of the monks please please !!!!!!!!!!!!
'Arrested' is not enough expression. They have been bludgeoned to death !!!!!!

Aye Aye
Hong Kong

The media is censored...and The Burmese Government lies.

OMFG military dictatorship lies!1!! This am nevar happenz be4!!! :rolleyes:

Yes, it's terribly sad, but I have little sympathy for the opposition given that they fail at revolution 101. In a nation like Burma you need the army on-side before you can revolt.

Ho hum. Eventually it will collapse, and then I will rejoice. As for the Karen, wahoo, that's Britain's fault again:

"I say, chaps, thanks awfully for fighting those Japs for us. Tell you what, you can be independant!"

Some time later

"Oh. About that independance thing. We lied. AHAHAHA! Bye now, you filthy little yellow chaps!"

Cue almost 60 years of warfare and repression; the Karen deserve a damn sight more support than Aung San Suu Kyi et al in my book.

I didn't realize a peaceful protest was considered a "revolt". my bad.

I didn't realize a peaceful protest was considered a "revolt". my bad.

You could tell people a male elephant has given birth to an albino parakeet and you'll have posters rolling their eyes, stating 'meh' and calling it obvious.

Frankly it's a crying shame that this will be forgotten by C'mas.

Atopania - Yes, it's terribly sad, but I have little sympathy for the opposition given that they fail at revolution 101. In a nation like Burma you need the army on-side before you can revolt.

Amm... you need the army on-side to revolt against....the army??

How they missed your strategic insight in Burma.

Amm... you need the army on-side to revolt against....the army??


Haven't armies split before between nationalist and revolutionary factions?

Besides, it's not like the rioters/revolters/etc have copious amounts of weaponry and training to make any form of civil disobedience anything but suicide by army.

It's a practical requirement, but not particularly workable.

Haven't armies split before between nationalist and revolutionary factions?

Besides, it's not like the rioters/revolters/etc have copious amounts of weaponry and training to make any form of civil disobedience anything but suicide by army.

It's a practical requirement, but not particularly workable.

I simply took umbrage at the idea that the monks 'failed' for not obtaining army support.

My bet is that if China had withdrawn support, then the regime may well have crumbled - alas, that simply didn't happen and the army was given tacit approval to go on a killing spree.

On a side note - what on earth was Gordon Brown saying when he came up with the 'age of impunity is over' line, one that seems to have been picked up and repeated when, clearly, the age of impunity is alive and well and, for the most part, entirely tolerated.

Amm... you need the army on-side to revolt against....the army??

Yes. You do. Look at Hungary '56, for example, where the Hungarian troops by and large either did nothing or joined the revolt; and the Soviet garrison dithered. Had the Hungarian troops come out for Moscow the '56 rising would've been crushed much, much faster.

In fact, in the instance of military dictatorships, if you can't have at least part of the army on-side, and/or the police (usually paramilitary), your revolt is doomed, doomed, doomed. Hell, in general, if you're going to revolt you need the army to be sympathetic! It's Basic Revolutionary Strategy 101!

A revolution is a revolt against the established order - when that order is the army itself, it's unlikely you're going to get their support.

There's plenty of revolutions where the revolutionaries had to build their own army to counter the established army.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea to get the army on your side, I'm saying it was highly unlikely in Myanmar where the army is in power.

America should give those people some M16s, or something else...

Up to 4,000 monks are now locked up, with many now dead.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7022437.stm

If lots more had died, we'd know about it. People would complain.

People have been complaining. I've heard figures numbering into the thousands, and versions of the story that range from a few monks being refused the ability to exit buildings, to machine-gun fire into crowds.

Information coming out of Burma is being deliberately supressed and confused.

The sad thing is - we used less pretext for the Iraq 'War'. Of course, kicking the little kids in the playground is much less dangerous than fighting where the other big kids play.

Wednesday October 3, 2007 8:46 AM

YANGON, Myanmar (AP) - Soldiers announced that they were hunting pro-democracy protesters in Myanmar's largest city Wednesday and the top U.S. diplomat in the country said military police were pulling people out of their homes during the night.

Military vehicles patrolled the streets before dawn with loudspeakers blaring that: ``We have photographs. We are going to make arrests!''

Shari Villarosa, the acting U.S. ambassador in Myanmar, said in a telephone interview that people in Yangon were terrified.

``From what we understand, military police ... are traveling around the city in the middle of the night, going into homes and picking up people,'' she said.

The U.N.'s special envoy, Ibrahim Gambari, declined to comment on his four-day mission to Myanmar, where the military junta last month crushed mass pro-democracy demonstrations led by the nation's revered Buddhist monks.

Villarosa said embassy staff had gone to some monasteries in recent days and found them completely empty. Others were barricaded by the military and declared off-limits to outsiders.

``There is a significantly reduced number of monks on the streets. Where are the monks? What has happened to them?'' she said. The Democratic Voice of Burma, a dissident radio station based in Norway, said authorities have released 90 of 400 monks detained in Myitkyina, the capital of Kachin state, during a midnight raid on monasteries on Sept. 25.

A semblance of normality returned to Yangon after daybreak, with some shops opening and light traffic on roads.

However, ``people are terrified, and the underlying forces of discontent have not been addressed,'' Villarosa said. ``People have been unhappy for a long time ... Since the events of last week, there's now the unhappiness combined with anger, and fear.''

Some people remained hopeful that democracy would come.

``I don't believe the protests have been totally crushed,'' said Kin, a 29-year-old language teacher in Yangon, whose father and brother had joined a 1988 pro-democracy movement that ended in a crackdown in which at least 3,000 people were killed.

``There is hope, but we fear to hope,'' she said. ``We still dream of rearing our children in a country where everybody would have equal chances at opportunities.''

The military has ruled Myanmar since 1962, and the current junta came to power after snuffing out the 1988 pro-democracy movement. The generals called elections in 1990 but refused to give up power when Suu Kyi's party won.

The military crushed the protests on Sept. 26 and 27 with live ammunition, tear gas and beatings. Hundreds of monks and civilians were carted off to detention camps. The government says 10 people were killed in the violence. But dissident groups put the death toll at up to 200 and say 6,000 people were detained.

Gambari went to Myanmar on Saturday to convey the international community's outrage at the junta's actions. He also hoped to persuade the junta to take the people's aspirations seriously.

He met junta leader Senior Gen. Than Shwe and his deputies and talked to detained pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi twice.

Gambari avoided the media in Singapore, where he arrived Tuesday night en route to New York. He was not expected to issue any statement before briefing U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Friday.

The junta has not commented on Gambari's visit and the United Nations has only released photos of Gambari and a somber, haggard-looking Suu Kyi - who has spent nearly 12 of the last 18 years under house arrest - shaking hands during their meeting in a state guest house in Yangon.

In Singapore, Gambari met with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, the chairman of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations bloc of which Myanmar is a member.

A Singapore government statement said Lee told Gambari that ASEAN ``is fully behind his mission'' to bring about ``a political solution for national reconciliation and a peaceful transition to democracy.''

:(

myanmar is a military government. this is a reminder that such things can and do happen under them. reguardless of any idiology they might otherwise pay lip service to. it IS a terrible and morally inexcusable tragidy. but would we even be hearing about it, if more dominant and influential powers did not themselves have recently commited atrocities to wish to distract us from? or proposed ones to work up popular acceptance of excuses for?

how many of us, have heard ANYTHING AT ALL, about or out of myanmar/burm, for that past, mmm, DECADES?

so now all of a sudden we're hearing this.

couldn't POSSIBLY have ANYTHING to do with the bushwacker's little heart being set on invading iran, whatever excuse his handlers and he can come up with for doing so. or that they didn't manage to convince ANYONE that iran posed any REAL nuclear danger in the forseeable decade, if not longer.

nor that the act of doing so is likely to have greater negative repercussions then ANYTHING iran itself might actually do, left to its own devices.

but this was about myanmar, who'se government has been very very naughty to its own people, for considerably longer, and yes, even more signifigantly then this one recent incident. could it possibly be, that one of the reasons we HAVEN'T been hearing about this has something to do with this same military government have come to power, and maintained there, to serve the intrests of international corporate oil?

you may have heard mention of a suggestion that shell exercise its influence in a more positive manor to perhapse ameliorate the severity of such occurances. you may, upon hearing this have wondered "WTF". well TF, is that the whole reason myanmar HAS the tyrannical military government that it has, is to kiss the ass of big oil.

then again, maybe, you are among the few that already knew this because you've been paying attention. if you are, you are indeed among the very very few. the 10% (or less) truely well informed.

=^^=
.../\...

myanmar is a military government. this is a reminder that such things can and do happen under them. reguardless of any idiology they might otherwise pay lip service to. it IS a terrible and morally inexcusable tragidy. but would we even be hearing about it, if more dominant and influential powers did not themselves have recently commited atrocities to wish to distract us from? or proposed ones to work up popular acceptance of excuses for?

how many of us, have heard ANYTHING AT ALL, about or out of myanmar/burm, for that past, mmm, DECADES?

so now all of a sudden we're hearing this.

couldn't POSSIBLY have ANYTHING to do with the bushwacker's little heart being set on invading iran, whatever excuse his handlers and he can come up with for doing so. or that they didn't manage to convince ANYONE that iran posed any REAL nuclear danger in the forseeable decade, if not longer.

nor that the act of doing so is likely to have greater negative repercussions then ANYTHING iran itself might actually do, left to its own devices.

but this was about myanmar, who'se government has been very very naughty to its own people, for considerably longer, and yes, even more signifigantly then this one recent incident. could it possibly be, that one of the reasons we HAVEN'T been hearing about this has something to do with this same military government have come to power, and maintained there, to serve the intrests of international corporate oil?

you may have heard mention of a suggestion that shell exercise its influence in a more positive manor to perhapse ameliorate the severity of such occurances. you may, upon hearing this have wondered "WTF". well TF, is that the whole reason myanmar HAS the tyrannical military government that it has, is to kiss the ass of big oil.

then again, maybe, you are among the few that already knew this because you've been paying attention. if you are, you are indeed among the very very few. the 10% (or less) truely well informed.

=^^=
.../\...

You spelt ameliorate correctly but not truly?

I read your post twice but don't quite understand how you are connecting Burma to Bush/Iran. Care to explain it more explicitly?

You spelt ameliorate correctly but not truly?Not everyone's a native English speaker. Besides, it makes intuitive sense to spell it truely. It's spelt true after all, not tru.

I read your post twice but don't quite understand how you are connecting Burma to Bush/Iran. Care to explain it more explicitly?Dunno. As far as I can tell, he's speculating that quiet news isn't quiet news because it makes for bad headlines, but because it's non-news and only worth reporting if there's some bigger scandal to cover up who happens to be financed in part by the media.

Occam sayz speculation like that's called conspiracy theories.

You spelt ameliorate correctly but not truly?

I read your post twice but don't quite understand how you are connecting Burma to Bush/Iran. Care to explain it more explicitly?

He's an anti-Bush troll who tries to connect everything with Bush even when it is not his fault. Just ignore him.

I'd be all for a boycott of the Beijing games...if I thought it would accomplish anything.

America should give those people some M16s, or something else...

Do you seriously want to start walking down that road?

bush's own hypicritical mentioning of it for one thing. that and the oil intrests and oil intrests connection.

ah yess, and i am a somewhat irratic speller arn't i.

=^^=
.../\...

And that explains the media coverage of the issue how?

You spelt ameliorate correctly but not truly?

I read your post twice but don't quite understand how you are connecting Burma to Bush/Iran. Care to explain it more explicitly?

bush's own hypicritical mentioning of it for one thing. that and the oil intrests and oil intrests connection.

ah yess, and i am a somewhat irratic speller arn't i.

(and by all means, ignore ME to your hearts content. the one thing i would urge anyone to not igonore is to do their own thinking. and it isn't about bush himself, though i have a hard time imagining how anyone can love him, but about what the intrests that pull his puppet strings are doing to the kind of world EVERYone has to live in)

=^^=
.../\...

And that explains the media coverage of the issue how?

are you missing the point about who and what the corporate media IS?

not that this invalidates that it should be covered. but it does have, that i can see, have EVERYTHING to do with why we are hearing about it NOW, when there have almost certainly been similar incidents about which we have not heard one little peep.

=^^=
.../\...

I am not surprised that the Junta did this. I pray that this will be the end of that tyrannical regime.
Sadly, it won't. You cannot go unarmed against a military dictatorship and expect to win: the burmese junta isn't the british colonial forces in India... they aren't going to leave peacefully.

Down with the Junta. Free the people.
Eh. Let's hope so.

Sadly, it won't. You cannot go unarmed against a military dictatorship and expect to win: the burmese junta isn't the british colonial forces in India... they aren't going to leave peacefully.


Where would they go anyway? The British colonial forces had England to go back to. The Burmese junta? Nowhere. They're not going to leave unless ousted or somebody invents mass mind control.

America should give those people some M16s, or something else...
No, it shouldn't. At all. A civil war in Myanmar is the last thing we want. See also Afghanistan and South America for how that kind of thing pretty much always turns around and bites the US in the arse after a few years.
People have been complaining. I've heard figures numbering into the thousands, and versions of the story that range from a few monks being refused the ability to exit buildings, to machine-gun fire into crowds.

Information coming out of Burma is being deliberately supressed and confused.

The sad thing is - we used less pretext for the Iraq 'War'. Of course, kicking the little kids in the playground is much less dangerous than fighting where the other big kids play.
Most governments in the Western world think that maybe 300 to 400 people were killed.

The claims of thousands dead are sensationalist rubbish, because it'd be quite clear that more than '12' people died, were the bodycount that high.

are you missing the point about who and what the corporate media IS?

not that this invalidates that it should be covered. but it does have, that i can see, have EVERYTHING to do with why we are hearing about it NOW, when there have almost certainly been similar incidents about which we have not heard one little peep.

=^^=
.../\...

You still haven't said what the hell you are talking about. You are just rambling. Please state clearly what the media's coverage has to do with Iran and Bush without resorting to vague stereotypes and allusions to a corporate-media conspiracy.

And yes, there has been violence in the past, but not like this. There have been major bursts of violence occasionally and when this happens it is covered.

The claims of thousands dead are sensationalist rubbish, because it'd be quite clear that more than '12' people died, were the bodycount that high.

I heard the 'thousands' figure on the Associated Press, I believe, which isn't normally a source of that much sensation, from what I can tell.

The idea that fewer people 'must have' died because otherwise it would be 'quite clear' is an interesting concept. I don't see how it works, though... by your own admission, the likely number of deaths is at least in the hundreds... which, one would have thought is fairly obviously more than 12.