Aung San Suu Kyi Gets 3 More Years

[Faraday]

Seems like they're trying to finish her off....

 

"Myanmar: Aung San Suu Kyi given three more years for 'election fraud'"

This new sentence is hard labour.

"The new sentence included hard labour, her lawyers said. The 77-year-old Nobel laureate has spent most of her time in detention under house arrest in the capital Nay Pyi Taw."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-62763419

"A spokesperson for Amnesty International told the BBC that the military is using the legal system as "another convenient tool in its arsenal to smother dissent".

"The relentless legal assault on Aung San Suu Kyi is one of the better-known examples of how the military has weaponised the courts to bring politically motivated or farcical charges against opponents, critics and protesters," the spokesperson said.

[BigHewer]

The junta are clearly very afraid of this 77 year old woman.

I doubt very much that world leaders will be queuing up to call for her immediate release though. She squandered a lot of good will during the Rohingya refugee crisis. I remember watching parts of her speech to the International Court of Justice at the time and thought, “right, that’s her done”. 

How many honors, awards etc have been revoked in the last couple of years? Even my darling wife, who never has a bad word to say about anyone, refers to her as “that witch”. 

[NorskTiger]

She failed to remain in the increasingly narrow politically acceptable needle eye of the West, that is for sure. 

   Western "human rights" concerns tend to be filtered thrugh very strict parameter such that the human rights abuses themselves are less important than how the victim of such has earned the right to be on their concerns radar. 

   Julian Assange can also attest to the same situation as ASSK. What is interesting in this case is that the legitimate givernment who is abusing her also is on the short list of ones to be tampered with in a color revolution scheme. Increasingly, Burma is a new proxy-battleground as a large oil pipeline there to China is alleviating some of the vital shipping lanes through the Malakka strait for Chinese oil. 

[PBS]

On 9/5/2022 at 4:44 PM, NorskTiger said:

She failed to remain in the increasingly narrow politically acceptable needle eye of the West, that is for sure. 

   Western "human rights" concerns tend to be filtered thrugh very strict parameter such that the human rights abuses themselves are less important than how the victim of such has earned the right to be on their concerns radar. 

   Julian Assange can also attest to the same situation as ASSK. What is interesting in this case is that the legitimate givernment who is abusing her also is on the short list of ones to be tampered with in a color revolution scheme. Increasingly, Burma is a new proxy-battleground as a large oil pipeline there to China is alleviating some of the vital shipping lanes through the Malakka strait for Chinese oil. 

The milirary are not recognised as the 'legitimate government of Myanmar, they are nothing more than an a cruel, corrupt oppressive dictatorship with an ongoing civil war with multiple  ethnic groups. The only recognised government is the one in exile under the NUG banner.

Edited September 6, 2022 by PBS

[NorskTiger]

Certainly there are plenty of  "cruel, corrupt oppressive dictatorship S" around. Facts are that Burma stil has official bodies and apparatus that goes through the current rulers in charge. 

   At present, it is my understanding that UNSC is asking for all parties to agree to use ASEAN channels for mediation and facillitation of dialogue. 

   Specifically, back in May of 2021 Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam wanted a draft US statement condemning Myanmar to be watered down.  This also included a call for removal of arms embargo. I am not sure about any developments since then, but it is noteable that many regional powers do not seem to think Myanmar should be given the typical black&white demonization of the Western colonial mindsets. 

     However, what this entire thing REALLY comes down to is another proxy-conflict. This time, it is about the vital oil pipelines from oceanside and to China. This pipeline will significantly alleviate the strategic vulnerability of China to accessible oil. Especially now with the new transportation way that is emerging through the Caspian sea, Iran and eastwards accross Indian ocean, it is hard to imagine China letting Western lordships into these lands. 

            

[lspab]

Isn't use of "Burma" a bit of a colonialist anachronism. The name of the country is Myanmar. "Burma" has some murky origins, but basically the British used a bastardised Portugeuse bastardised name for the area.

No one calls Mumbai "Bombay" anymore,  no one calls Chennai "Madras", nor call Kolkata Calcutta. To do so would be disrespectful to Indians.

Next, we would be calling Thailand "Siam".

No hint of irony from the poster when the correspondant goes on about, in pidgeon English, "Burma stil [sic] has official bodies" and in the same breath "many regional powers do not seem to think Myanmar should be given the typical black&white [sic] demonization of the Western colonial mindsets."

The curious switch in terms between "Burma" and Myanmar", together with obviously different fonts is a strong indicator that the correspondant is busy copy/pasting (plagiarising), then attempting some "crafty"  edits to try and present it as his or her own original thoughts. Further evidence is the random switching between alleged Nordic spelling of "Amerika", some British spellings and some American spellings, almost like he/she is mixing up sources.

And the Correspondant, in his/her haste to demonstrate his hatred of the "Anglo" world, just made a false statement. None of those countries wanted the US to water down a statement.

There was no US statement to water down. The countries wanted the United Nations General Assembly  to change a statement. And not because they were pro-Myanmar, or anti-US, but because they felt that was the best way to get unamimous support from the 193 member states. It was actually Liechtenstein who drafted the resolution, not the Great White Satan. Neutral Liechtenstein, unlike the historically blood thirsty and rapey Kingdom of Norway, has some pretty solid non-colonal credentials (I think).

Reading the letter that was seen by Reuters, its obvious that the removal of the test relating to arms sales was not because any of those countries were planning to sell weapons (a cursory check of the current Myanmar  shows that China is the major current supplier of kit). These UN Ambassadors wanted a resolution (General Assembly are non-binding) that had as much support as possible. Russia and China hold a veto vote. A resolution  asking for China to stop arms sales to Mynamar  would obviously not get far.was drawn up.

As it was, the revised resolution. Belarus insisted on a vote, and was the only country to vote against it. 119 voted in support, 36 abstained. Singapore, Indonesia and Vietnam, countries with a rich anti-colonial past supported it (Vietnam and Indonesia obviously both had a miserable time with European colonists, Singapore had the British communists, the Malay Chinese insurgency, the Japanese Imperialists, with their air burst bombs designed to decapitate Singaporeans of all creeds and none). Brunei (battled Indonesian attempts to invade), Cambodia (horrible history, occupied by both the French and Vietnamese), Laos and Thailand (invited in the Japanese Army) abstained (oh, forgot, Thailand has supplied side arms to Myanmar). China and Russia abstained. Myanmar supported the resolution. Kyaw Moe Tun is a brave guy. I hope even the wannabe Viking acknowledges that, and doesn't make out he's some sort of running dog lackey (is that the right Maoist language to use?).

Clearly, given the way ASEAN countries ultimately voted, they way they voted is not based on a "anti-colonialist" mindset supposed by the correspondant. In fact, the Norwegian correspondant is just another ignorant whiteman who sees the world with a prejudiced colonial mindset. His colonial mindset makes him think that formally colonised countries must all be adopting the same anti-colonial view, when in fact its a hell of a lot more nuanced than that, and he's oblivious of the possible insult he causes when using colonial era language. When he attacks "Amerika" he is in fact looking in a mirror.

*Content removed by Moderator*

 

 

[NorskTiger]

So my dear Ad-hominem partner comntnues to split hairs and vent tons of animosity. Nothing surprising. It wil be interesting to see if I can have one commoent on a posting where he refrains from this perosnalized vitriole if he does not like my pov.

  ANYONE who (by now) has read some of my postings must be of the understanding that I am far removed from a colonial mindset so the mere use of "Burma" instead of "myanmar" is just a pretext from Ispab to ferment more animosity. I otherwise also like Burmese cats and even had a Siamese one a while back. I also still can happen to say Lvov, as used to be the clear and common descriptor of the Originally Polish city before the Ukraine proxy police stepped in with their "worldwise" knowitallism. 

   Instead of WORDS, I prefer acts. I have often met Indians who still say they live in BOMBAY and not "Mumbai". In USA, it is not uncommon to hear the "native americans" themselves say they are INDIANS. According to Isap, are they all colonialism tools?

     The analysis and dissection of my wording and language expression is just outright bizarre. This is akin to blantant cyber stalking and I think I will take the advice goven from others here to be careful with this one. I have no idea who this is, but clearly what an intense one this is. 

 

     It must have taken the above individual a lengthy time to draft this piece. I have a feeling I am reading a legal brief in a million dollar lwsuit about copuright infringement. 

    When it comes to the use of "troll" insinuations, I think this is something he clearly has shown to be very qualified at displaying. 

    Now I will simply put him on ignore list to spare myself and possibly Thaiger from being bothered with having to put out retorts against all these asinine displays of juvenile pettiness. 

    

 

   

[Vigo]

On 9/3/2022 at 8:43 AM, BigHewer said:

The junta are clearly very afraid of this 77 year old woman.

I doubt very much that world leaders will be queuing up to call for her immediate release though. She squandered a lot of good will during the Rohingya refugee crisis. I remember watching parts of her speech to the International Court of Justice at the time and thought, “right, that’s her done”. 

How many honors, awards etc have been revoked in the last couple of years? Even my darling wife, who never has a bad word to say about anyone, refers to her as “that witch”. 

Please keep in mind that she was speaking from a very difficult position, walking a political tightrope. Her first objective was to try and protect the precarious state of democracy. Her position on the ethnic Bengalis aka Rohingya was an attempt to buy time to address a crisis that was not of her doing. I don't believe she bore ill will to these people, but the reality is that there was a genocide and ongoing ethnic based crimes, so whatever I write can be seen as a defense of the indefensible genocide. In an ideal world we would say that she should have taken the righteous way and spoken on behalf of the Rohingya, but the Rohingya were politically self centered on ethnic Bengali politics and  had no hand in the fight for  political freedom of Mme Kyi and her associates. instead, Mme Kyi is savaged and blamed for the injustices of the military regime and of the political mess created by Bangladesh, Pakistan, China and to a lesser extent India and Thailand.

[BigHewer]

4 hours ago, Vigo said:

Please keep in mind that she was speaking from a very difficult position, walking a political tightrope. Her first objective was to try and protect the precarious state of democracy. Her position on the ethnic Bengalis aka Rohingya was an attempt to buy time to address a crisis that was not of her doing. I don't believe she bore ill will to these people, but the reality is that there was a genocide and ongoing ethnic based crimes, so whatever I write can be seen as a defense of the indefensible genocide. In an ideal world we would say that she should have taken the righteous way and spoken on behalf of the Rohingya, but the Rohingya were politically self centered on ethnic Bengali politics and  had no hand in the fight for  political freedom of Mme Kyi and her associates. instead, Mme Kyi is savaged and blamed for the injustices of the military regime and of the political mess created by Bangladesh, Pakistan, China and to a lesser extent India and Thailand.

 

I agree Vigo, it’s important to keep these things in mind. I have considered and continue to do so, but my verdict is still two thumbs down.

Aung San Suu Kyi was the darling of the world when she swept to power in 2015. Right up there with Nelson Mandela and Mother Teresa. She could have had a halo on her head, nobody would have noticed. In a few short years, she took all that global goodwill and p*ssed it away. That’s what happens when you excuse rape and genocide, jail dissenters and run your government as an autocrat. 

Extended jail term, no. I’d say just let her retire in exile somewhere, confined to history as another failed leader.