#1Oct 1st, 2007
of the monks dumped in the jungle
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...icle_id=484903
*graphic images in article
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...icle_id=484903
*graphic images in article
Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
#2
Re: Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
Oct 1st, 2007
A gentle people slaughtered.
And still the UN looks on and does nothing
And still the UN looks on and does nothing
#3
Re: Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
Oct 1st, 2007
What do you want the UN to do?
People are killed in the US by the government. Should the UN intervene?
As bad as it is it's internal. If the UN is expected to intervene and send an armed force to a country based on internal strife, there isn't a country in the world the UN wouldn't deploy in.
People are killed in the US by the government. Should the UN intervene?
As bad as it is it's internal. If the UN is expected to intervene and send an armed force to a country based on internal strife, there isn't a country in the world the UN wouldn't deploy in.
#4
Re: Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
Oct 1st, 2007
Americans aren't marching by the thousands with the very real possibility that their life could end.
If the UN security council can't act on this, then there really is no point to even asking them about anything. There are UN mandates, NATO mandates, and then we have this situation, where people are willing to put their own lives in immediate peril to protest an oppressive and corrupt regime. These people are ready for democracy, but lack sufficient force to bring about change. That, should be what the UN security council looks for.
If the UN security council can't act on this, then there really is no point to even asking them about anything. There are UN mandates, NATO mandates, and then we have this situation, where people are willing to put their own lives in immediate peril to protest an oppressive and corrupt regime. These people are ready for democracy, but lack sufficient force to bring about change. That, should be what the UN security council looks for.
#5
Re: Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
Oct 1st, 2007
This is very very bad bad news...I can't even begin to imagine the burden of bad karma one would carry with them for killing a monk!
When a gov't/military kills a monk, priest, rabbi, father, elder..it means corruption and evil has prevailed.
When a gov't/military kills a monk, priest, rabbi, father, elder..it means corruption and evil has prevailed.
#6
Re: Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
Oct 1st, 2007
I would say that there is greater reason for the UN to go into Burma or Zimbabwe than there ever was to invade Iraq. The UN is a great place for small countries to get to be heard, but it is a ponderous outfit to get moving for any kind of emergency.
#7
Re: Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
Oct 1st, 2007
Too bad those monks don't own large amounts of oil reserves or the Republicans would be marching there immediately.
This is not to make light of the situation. On the contrary, I am as outraged about it as any of you are. But it does prove a point that Bush and the Republican calls for democracy and for an end to tyranny is stimulated by their interests in oil. Nothing more.
This is not to make light of the situation. On the contrary, I am as outraged about it as any of you are. But it does prove a point that Bush and the Republican calls for democracy and for an end to tyranny is stimulated by their interests in oil. Nothing more.
#8
Re: Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
Oct 1st, 2007Quote:
Of course it is. This is not to make light of the situation.
Dress it up any way you like and still your post smacks of self-satisfaction that monks are dead, dying, and imprisoned, which appears to be fine as long as you can link it to your all-consuming hate
#9
Re: Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
Oct 1st, 2007
I was referring to capital punishment in the US.
I think the UN posed sanctions against Burma but when there is a corrupt regime, it usually only hurts the people. If you mean that the UN should be involved in this sort of thing, well I'm on side for that. But there must be some distinction between this and civil unrest that should be handled internally by the government and the courts.
I think the UN posed sanctions against Burma but when there is a corrupt regime, it usually only hurts the people. If you mean that the UN should be involved in this sort of thing, well I'm on side for that. But there must be some distinction between this and civil unrest that should be handled internally by the government and the courts.
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington
Americans aren't marching by the thousands with the very real possibility that their life could end.
If the UN security council can't act on this, then there really is no point to even asking them about anything. There are UN mandates, NATO mandates, and then we have this situation, where people are willing to put their own lives in immediate peril to protest an oppressive and corrupt regime. These people are ready for democracy, but lack sufficient force to bring about change. That, should be what the UN security council looks for.
#10
Re: Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
Oct 1st, 2007Quote: Originally Posted by Unforgiven
Sanctions won't help. The Government is the Military, and they obviously do not care about the people of Burma, they are oppressing them fine without any outside help. There have been many conflicts where governments are toppled and a wide range of reasons for doing so. How many governments have been toppled only to be replaced by worse regimes? In my opinion this is a clear case of a group of people who not only want those freedoms, but are willing to die for those freedoms. That the UN Security council can't act on these types of situations shows how defunct that body of the UN really is.I was referring to capital punishment in the US.
I think the UN posed sanctions against Burma but when there is a corrupt regime, it usually only hurts the people. If you mean that the UN should be involved in this sort of thing, well I'm on side for that. But there must be some distinction between this and civil unrest that should be handled internally by the government and the courts.
#11
Re: Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
Oct 1st, 2007Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington
Indeed. The politically correct strike again. Sanctions won't help. The Government is the Military, and they obviously do not care about the people of Burma, they are oppressing them fine without any outside help. There have been many conflicts where governments are toppled and a wide range of reasons for doing so. How many governments have been toppled only to be replaced by worse regimes? In my opinion this is a clear case of a group of people who not only want those freedoms, but are willing to die for those freedoms. That the UN Security council can't act on these types of situations shows how defunct that body of the UN really is.
I mean, what if we really did something provocative and some other yappy nation was 'offended' or 'shocked' by the world's actions. What would we do now? They'll talk about us and everything. We won't be popular anymore. Like they might not even talk to us anymore or invite us to their cool parties.
We're quickly becoming invertebrates.
#12
Re: Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
Oct 1st, 2007Quote: Originally Posted by goat
You couldn't be any more wrong if you tried. Your post smacks of single minded stupidity....You don't know this poster and you are assuming all kinds of things. Maybe go back and think a bit before you post more of this drivel.Of course it is.
Dress it up any way you like and still your post smacks of self-satisfaction that monks are dead, dying, and imprisoned, which appears to be fine as long as you can link it to your all-consuming hate
#13
Re: Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
Oct 1st, 2007Quote:
Interesting that you would speak for gopher.You couldn't be any more wrong if you tried. Your post smacks of single minded stupidity....You don't know this poster and you are assuming all kinds of things. Maybe go back and think a bit before you post more of this drivel.
You are not he by any chance are you? No biggie if you are, but, if you are posting as a gopher sock puppet then surely it behooves you to say so.
Your assumption that I don't know gopher is somewhat beyond the pale. See, I know you too, and knowing you I could post volumes of your very own blind and insipid stupidity.
My suggestion to you is that you try really hard to wrap your lllliberal head around the unpalatable facts of the big picture and try not to be confused by the bouncing ball sagas.
Do you think you can manage that?
In keeping with the unwaranted attack, and in keeping with the topic..
where, precisely, am I wrong
#15
Re: Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
Oct 1st, 2007
So, let's see.
An unwarranted attack by someones beatch by the name of
Juan, a quasi self important far left nutter and avid proponent of hate towards Americans. talkOn must ring a bell.
Challenged only by a misanthorpist the likes of gerryh. Subscribed to by the obscure Tonington whose only response to my request to know where Juan states I am wrong is to post yet another silly and ad hominem troll poster. Such a clever sticks.
Keep it up if you can or await your calling to join the morons, misfits and malcontents.. that statement is based on the assumption you haven't as yet received your calling and assumes you actually do in fact speak for your very own self.
So Tonington/Jaun, where precisely am I wrong.
And please, no more ad hominems if you please, I beg of you
An unwarranted attack by someones beatch by the name of
Juan, a quasi self important far left nutter and avid proponent of hate towards Americans. talkOn must ring a bell.
Challenged only by a misanthorpist the likes of gerryh. Subscribed to by the obscure Tonington whose only response to my request to know where Juan states I am wrong is to post yet another silly and ad hominem troll poster. Such a clever sticks.
Keep it up if you can or await your calling to join the morons, misfits and malcontents.. that statement is based on the assumption you haven't as yet received your calling and assumes you actually do in fact speak for your very own self.
So Tonington/Jaun, where precisely am I wrong.
And please, no more ad hominems if you please, I beg of you
Last edited by goat; Oct 1st, 2007 at 07:56 PM..Reason: wong bolding
#16
Re: Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
Oct 1st, 2007
This massacre is only being reported by one person. Is there any back-up to his story ? And I have been around here long enough to become familiar with gopher's posts,any political post about anything,and some posts that have nothing to do with politics or the U.S., such as this one invariably ends up with the child writing something deraogatory about the U.S. and/or Bush.
#17
Re: Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
Oct 1st, 2007
Goat
You came into the thread and rather than add constructive dialogue, you flamed on Gopher. Maybe you disagree with his assertion of how democracy is metered out, but there was no "self-satisfaction that monks are dead, dying, and imprisoned". That's just ridiculous. Troll on...
Oh, and you might want to avoid the Ad-hom's yourself
You came into the thread and rather than add constructive dialogue, you flamed on Gopher. Maybe you disagree with his assertion of how democracy is metered out, but there was no "self-satisfaction that monks are dead, dying, and imprisoned". That's just ridiculous. Troll on...
Oh, and you might want to avoid the Ad-hom's yourself
#18
Re: Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
Oct 1st, 2007
I am beginning to suspect you, gopher and Jaun are one and the same.
Can you disprove that.
I also suggest that if you and whomever else is within you, and you all insist on committing unwarranted and undesired ad hominems, that maybe you all could institute a thread in the beach as opposed to the beatch
Can you disprove that.
I also suggest that if you and whomever else is within you, and you all insist on committing unwarranted and undesired ad hominems, that maybe you all could institute a thread in the beach as opposed to the beatch
#19
Re: Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
Oct 1st, 2007
I have yet to fling any ad hominem. Not my style. Ask around. It's also not my style to continue pointless discussions with trolls.
Good day Sir.
Good day Sir.
#20
Re: Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
Oct 1st, 2007Quote:
Not true.I have yet to fling any ad hominem.
As this thread will attest.
Unless of course you are in fact Juan and the other inconsequential chappie mentioned earlier.
If you are going to be a sock puppet Tonington, it is really important that you don't get your winter and summer ones mixed, if you know what I mean.
In the meantime, perhaps you or one of your puppies can answer the question that has been asked a number of times.
And please, do not, I beg of you, continue to disrail the thread as appears to be the wont of you all when youse come across an original thought
#21
Re: Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
Oct 1st, 2007Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington
But where does that lead? Countries can be isolated economically and embargo set to prevent weapons from entering the country but how do you deal with countries like Rwanda and Darfur? Tibet and Chechneya would fit into that catagory as well. Vietnam had some lessons there.Sanctions won't help. The Government is the Military, and they obviously do not care about the people of Burma, they are oppressing them fine without any outside help. There have been many conflicts where governments are toppled and a wide range of reasons for doing so. How many governments have been toppled only to be replaced by worse regimes? In my opinion this is a clear case of a group of people who not only want those freedoms, but are willing to die for those freedoms. That the UN Security council can't act on these types of situations shows how defunct that body of the UN really is.
#22
Re: Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
Oct 1st, 2007Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington
You're not kidding.
As for the notion that maybe this story has no basis, all one need is to check wikipedia's analysis of the Daily Mail which is a decidedly right wing newspaper:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail
quote:
```The Daily Mail considers itself to be the voice of Middle England, speaking up for "small-c" conservative values against what it sees as a liberal establishment. It generally takes an anti-European, anti-immigration, anti-sexual-freedoms, Christian, anti-abortion view, and is correspondingly "pro-family", anti-taxation, pro-capitalism and pro-monarchy, as well as advocating stricter punishments for crime. The paper is generally critical of the BBC, which it perceives as being biased to the left. However, it is less supportive of deregulated commercial television than The Sun, and unlike Rupert Murdoch's tabloid it seems to be broadly nostalgic for what it believes the BBC once was.
In the late 1960s the paper went through a phase of being liberal on social issues like corporal punishment, but this proved short-lived and it soon reverted to its traditional right-wing conservative line.
In Richard Littlejohn, who returned in 2005 from The Sun, it has one of the most right-wing columnists in popular British journalism, alongside Peter Hitchens, who joined its sister title the Mail on Sunday in 2001, when his former newspaper, the Daily Express, was purchased by Richard Desmond, the owner of a number of pornographic titles. The editorial stance was highly critical of Tony Blair, when he was still Prime Minister, and endorsed the Conservative Party in the 2005 general election[4] However, in Blair's earlier years as Labour leader and then Prime Minister the paper often wrote positively about him and his reforms of the party. Opponents of Littlejohn have accused the columnist of being preoccupied with homosexuality (which he frequently calls 'poofery') and lying about asylum seekers being 'hosed down in benefits'[5].
On Middle East issues it is generally pro-Israel ... ```
Therefore, it is doubtful that a right wing source would be exaggerating the extent of the unhappy events that have taken place in that troubled land.
Last edited by gopher; Oct 1st, 2007 at 10:08 PM..
#23
Re: Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
Oct 1st, 2007Quote: Originally Posted by Unforgiven
Rwanda and Darfur are problems, no doubt. I don't think the standard peace keeping model would work, in fact I think the standard model needs refinement. In order to provide security in these situations you can't hand-cuff the peace keepers, they have to be allowed to make/keep peace, and sometimes that involves more offensive maneuvers rather than policing. If I had the answers, well I'd have passed them on, and maybe have a Nobel prize, lol.But where does that lead? Countries can be isolated economically and embargo set to prevent weapons from entering the country but how do you deal with countries like Rwanda and Darfur? Tibet and Chechneya would fit into that catagory as well. Vietnam had some lessons there.
#24
Re: Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
Oct 1st, 2007Quote: Originally Posted by goat
I been around for awhile.I am beginning to suspect you, gopher and Jaun are one and the same.
Can you disprove that.
I also suggest that if you and whomever else is within you, and you all insist on committing unwarranted and undesired ad hominems, that maybe you all could institute a thread in the beach as opposed to the beatch
Gopher is an irritating, left-wing nutty. (no offense, Gopher
)Juan is much less irritating, only slightly nutty, and is not consumed by his own lefty rhetoric. (no offense, Juan) He ain't Gopher, and vice-versa.
Tonington isn't either of them.
And I'm the resident right-wing, gun-toting redneck.
So there.
A minor suggestion if you wish to enjoy your visits here:
Get polite.
#25
Re: Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
Oct 2nd, 2007Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy
No kidding.I been around for awhile.
Gopher is an irritating, left-wing nutty. (no offense, Gopher
Juan is much less irritating, only slightly nutty, and is not consumed by his own lefty rhetoric. (no offense, Juan) He ain't Gopher, and vice-versa.
Tonington isn't either of them.
And I'm the resident right-wing, gun-toting redneck.
So there.
A minor suggestion if you wish to enjoy your visits here:
Get polite.
Goat, you have done the impossible and made me come to the defense of my esteemed leftish collegues. While I can't agree what color the sky is, with most of them, most of the time, you for sure, don't know them.
That being said, the US would still take flak if we went in and started cracking the junta's skulls in Myanmar. Just guessing, I could be wrong...
#26
Re: Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
Oct 2nd, 2007
I am here to say that I feel for them.
I've seen couple videos of protesters being shot at,* as well, the monks becoming captivies..
now THAT'S GOING TOO FAR.
MONKS BECOMING PRISONERS?
Its same, if not ANYTHING, as saying, "Oh...Burma..we oWn you"
and they do. Its just that Sadddam treated Islam better than what Burma government do to its own religion.
Good, continue the fight :P
I've seen couple videos of protesters being shot at,* as well, the monks becoming captivies..
now THAT'S GOING TOO FAR.
MONKS BECOMING PRISONERS?
Its same, if not ANYTHING, as saying, "Oh...Burma..we oWn you"
and they do. Its just that Sadddam treated Islam better than what Burma government do to its own religion.
Good, continue the fight :P
#27
Re: Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
Oct 2nd, 2007
Wow!
Both Colpy and thomaska ''defend'' 'lefty gopher'.
Ahem.
But 'lefty'? Dunno about that.
After all, I've endorsed Republican Ron Paul for prez, am the biggest pro-lifer on the planet, condemned Malthusianism which is advocated by extremists from both sides of the political aisle, strongly support Second Amendment rights, and have used Pat Buchanan's links more than anyone else's to support my opposition to Bush's war.
Nonetheless, thanks fellas! Ahem ...
Both Colpy and thomaska ''defend'' 'lefty gopher'.
Ahem.
But 'lefty'? Dunno about that.
After all, I've endorsed Republican Ron Paul for prez, am the biggest pro-lifer on the planet, condemned Malthusianism which is advocated by extremists from both sides of the political aisle, strongly support Second Amendment rights, and have used Pat Buchanan's links more than anyone else's to support my opposition to Bush's war.
Nonetheless, thanks fellas! Ahem ...
#28
Re: Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
Oct 2nd, 2007
Yes Juan, this is a better place for the UN to intervene than Iraq.
I see that as pointless though, since the UN doesn't intervene no matter what. The UN is a place to talk with other nations, it is not any kind of authority or power.
Events like this just highlight it, if only people would stop expecting it to be one. IF you want for the UN to act on something your just saying "I don't want to get involved to help the suffering of others", because the UN will never act, no matter how long you wait.
I see that as pointless though, since the UN doesn't intervene no matter what. The UN is a place to talk with other nations, it is not any kind of authority or power.
Events like this just highlight it, if only people would stop expecting it to be one. IF you want for the UN to act on something your just saying "I don't want to get involved to help the suffering of others", because the UN will never act, no matter how long you wait.
#29
Re: Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
Oct 2nd, 2007Quote: Originally Posted by thomaska
No you're not wrong, but just think of the conspiracies it will birth. That being said, the US would still take flak if we went in and started cracking the junta's skulls in Myanmar. Just guessing, I could be wrong...
#30
Re: Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
Oct 2nd, 2007Quote: Originally Posted by thomaska
Very true. Recently there was an article in the Financial Times about how the American government had lost influence in the world because of the war in Iraq. Before the war in Iraq, people generally grumbled about the US, but it was mostly quiet and not very widespread. Even when the USA did wrong on the world stage people assumed that the government meant well.That being said, the US would still take flak if we went in and started cracking the junta's skulls in Myanmar. Just guessing, I could be wrong...
Now, after Iraq, the US government can do no right in the minds of many worldwide. Even when they do something right, and they do, people believe there is a hidden agenda. Something to lament about, obviously.
Back to the subject at hand.
I wonder how many ties China has to Burma.
Similar Threads
29
0