Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Thousands dead in Burma, Monks executed and dumped in the Jungle


skinfan133

Recommended Posts

Burma: Thousands dead in massacre of the monks dumped in the jungle

By MARCUS OSCARSSON - Last updated at 15:04pm on 1st October 2007

Thousands of protesters are dead and the bodies of hundreds of executed monks have been dumped in the jungle, a former intelligence officer for Burma's ruling junta has revealed.

The most senior official to defect so far, Hla Win, said: "Many more people have been killed in recent days than you've heard about. The bodies can be counted in several thousand."

Mr Win, who spoke out as a Swedish diplomat predicted that the revolt has failed, said he fled when he was ordered to take part in a massacre of holy men. He has now reached the border with Thailand.

click here for the rest of the article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=484903

this is terrible, there should be swift international action

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every time this happens, we're surprised. Every time this happens, we wait or do nothing.
What's the difference between this and the rulers of a nation who routinely torture and kill citizens for dissent (while their families watch) and rape teenage schoolgirls whenever they like?

This is an honest question by the way. Its not political.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my deepest cynical mood, I would tell you that there is little difference... it is the same feigned surprise and the same inactivity by good people who choose to put up with it. The "we" I'm referring to is not the United States, but a larger "we"

Whether it's Cambodia, Serbia, Rwanda or any other situation, we always act shocked and dismayed, when very frequently we saw it coming, saw it happening and chose to close our eyes. I don't know what we could do, but we could do better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my deepest cynical mood, I would tell you that there is little difference... it is the same feigned surprise and the same inactivity by good people who choose to put up with it. The "we" I'm referring to is not the United States, but a larger "we"

Whether it's Cambodia, Serbia, Rwanda or any other situation, we always act shocked and dismayed, when very frequently we saw it coming, saw it happening and chose to close our eyes. I don't know what we could do, but we could do better.

I was referring to Iraq. Saddam and his son's routinely committed those acts I mentioned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said dozens of times that the part of the Iraq invasion I supported and made sense to me was the humanitarian aspect. The Kurdish slaughter was unforgiveable. It was the rest of it that I couldn't quite reconcile. I believed he had WMD's, but didn't think they were a direct threat to us. I believed he was stonewalling UN officials, but didn't know if that justified an invasion that would kill tens of thousands of dead and create probable chaos and more death afterwards. I believed he was a tyrant, supressing his people... why that tyrant and not the one in Rwanda? I don't want to derail this into an Iraq discussion though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said dozens of times that the part of the Iraq invasion I supported and made sense to me was the humanitarian aspect. The Kurdish slaughter was unforgiveable. It was the rest of it that I couldn't quite reconcile. I believed he had WMD's, but didn't think they were a direct threat to us. I believed he was stonewalling UN officials, but didn't know if that justified an invasion that would kill tens of thousands of dead and create probable chaos and more death afterwards. I believed he was a tyrant, supressing his people... why that tyrant and not the one in Rwanda? I don't want to derail this into an Iraq discussion though.

I have the same thoughts as Burgold. What do we (USA) do now? Do we intervene to stop the "evil" thats in the world? Or we do just move on because this does not directly endanger our nation security?

My opinion on this is that if we were to take any action it must be an international effort (UN or in alliance with surrounding local countries) or we mind our business as tragic as it might be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said dozens of times that the part of the Iraq invasion I supported and made sense to me was the humanitarian aspect. The Kurdish slaughter was unforgiveable. It was the rest of it that I couldn't quite reconcile. I believed he had WMD's, but didn't think they were a direct threat to us. I believed he was stonewalling UN officials, but didn't know if that justified an invasion that would kill tens of thousands of dead and create probable chaos and more death afterwards. I believed he was a tyrant, supressing his people... why that tyrant and not the one in Rwanda? I don't want to derail this into an Iraq discussion though.
I agree with you Burgold.

It doesn't need to degenerate into partisan conflict either.:)

But the questions must be asked.

Why Iraq and not Burma?

Why Bosnia and not Darfur?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you Burgold.

It doesn't need to degenerate into partisan conflict either.:)

But the questions must be asked.

Why Iraq and not Burma?

Why Bosnia and not Darfur?

Regarding Iraq, the United States sold him the chemicals and the weapons he used to slaughter thousands of Kurds, not to mention giving him support when his party took power. We are reaping what we sowed.

Then again, what was the alternative at the time: the possiblity of Iran gaining a foothold in Iraq?

The United States cannot save the world (we can't even run our own country right). What we need is a reinvigorated United Nations with a clear and simple purpose. After that, we need the nations that make up this body to work with a larger vision in mind rather than just short-term political/national self-interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Iraq, the United States sold him the chemicals and the weapons he used to slaughter thousands of Kurds, not to mention giving him support when his party took power. We are reaping what we sowed.

Then again, what was the alternative at the time: the possiblity of Iran gaining a foothold in Iraq?

The United States cannot save the world (we can't even run our own country right). What we need is a reinvigorated United Nations with a clear and simple purpose. After that, we need the nations that make up this body to work with a larger vision in mind rather than just short-term political/national self-interest.

What do you do then when some of worst human rights offenders are members on prominant committees and/or the security council?

UN is a good concept, but in reality its a paper tiger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you Burgold.

It doesn't need to degenerate into partisan conflict either.:)

But the questions must be asked.

Why Iraq and not Burma?

Why Bosnia and not Darfur?

I don't know how everyone feels so this is clearly just my opinion, but to me Iraq and Burma are different. In Burma you have the citizens SCREAMING in the streets for democracy, freedom, rights. They are laying their lives on the line by the thousands, willing to die for a chance at a new life. The people have spoken, they want freedom and democracy. They are willing to die (sad, but important - the people must be willing to die for the chance at freedom). They will fail unless they are supported by the world, as the government will simple crush them like they did over a decade ago.

This was not the case in Iraq in my opinion. Yes, there were factions of the population that demanded democratic rights and hated the Iraqi system, but not on the level of Burma. People were not marching in the streets to change their lives willing to be killing my the thousands to force change.

In my mind - people MUST begin the movement for democracy on their own. The movement must be organic, it has to come from the minds and thoughts of the countries own people. Once the citizens of a country believe this and begin fighting for it, it should be the duty of other democratic nations to back them. In Iraq, it felt more like we invaded and then handed it to them, it was not organic and the movement did not grow from within the population.

Just my 2 cents though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how everyone feels so this is clearly just my opinion, but to me Iraq and Burma are different. In Burma you have the citizens SCREAMING in the streets for democracy, freedom, rights. They are laying their lives on the line by the thousands, willing to die for a chance at a new life. The people have spoken, they want freedom and democracy. They are willing to die (sad, but important - the people must be willing to die for the chance at freedom). They will fail unless they are supported by the world, as the government will simple crush them like they did over a decade ago.

This was not the case in Iraq in my opinion. Yes, there were factions of the population that demanded democratic rights and hated the Iraqi system, but not on the level of Burma. People were not marching in the streets to change their lives willing to be killing my the thousands to force change.

In my mind - people MUST begin the movement for democracy on their own. The movement must be organic, it has to come from the minds and thoughts of the countries own people. Once the citizens of a country believe this and begin fighting for it, it should be the duty of other democratic nations to back them. In Iraq, it felt more like we invaded and then handed it to them, it was not organic and the movement did not grow from within the population.

Just my 2 cents though.

You make good points, and I'm inclined to agree with most of them. Except that I don't feel it is a national duty or obligation of a democratic nation to support them. It is a democratic decision of the populace.

In your opinion, should we have done the same to China after the Tianinman Square incident? Why or why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my mind - people MUST begin the movement for democracy on their own. The movement must be organic, it has to come from the minds and thoughts of the countries own people. Once the citizens of a country believe this and begin fighting for it, it should be the duty of other democratic nations to back them. In Iraq, it felt more like we invaded and then handed it to them, it was not organic and the movement did not grow from within the population.

Just my 2 cents though.

I agree with your idea but the big question is how do we determine that the People of that nation wants democracy? Thousands dead in Burma and many thousands more are marching but how do we know its THE Choice for the people of that country. There are that many people if not more who are not marching for democracy (granted they are not being killed). But how do we determine that the people "show" enough for us to support them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with your idea but the big question is how do we determine that the People of that nation wants democracy? Thousands dead in Burma and many thousands more are marching but how do we know its THE Choice for the people of that country. There are that many people if not more who are not marching for democracy (granted they are not being killed). But how do we determine that the people "show" enough for us to support them?

It was unclear how many people supported a revolution for independence in this country. Sometimes, and I'm not talking specifically about Burma, but sometimes democracy comes from the barrel of a gun, whether people want it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you do then when some of worst human rights offenders are members on prominant committees and/or the security council?

UN is a good concept, but in reality its a paper tiger.

The UN is club composed of independent-thinking members.

The members get together every now and then and talk about stuff, but to blame the club rather than the behavior of its members is off point, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was unclear how many people supported a revolution for independence in this country. Sometimes, and I'm not talking specifically about Burma, but sometimes democracy comes from the barrel of a gun, whether people want it or not.

I understood that you werent specifically talking about Burma but if we are going to support these movements internationally, I think we will as a nation get into situations that we will regret.

I might be little cold hearted when I say this but hey if people of Burma want democracy then they have to fight and win it for themselves. Americans and many others in the history spilled their own blood fighting against the odds to win our freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...