Feminist Hero Installed As Prime Minister Of Myanmar - Her First Major Act? Genocide

Scroll to see replies

Worse is happening elsewhere in the world

Only difference is Muslims are playing victim cause they're the ones doing all the killing in places like Syria and Yemen

actually muslims are the victims in places like yemen,syria and libya, Libya and Syria where the United States and the UK started the civil wars by funding and supply extremists.

another bigot whose hatred blinds him to the facts

Original post by CountBrandenburg

Now now, throwing around words like that aren’t getting us anyway.

Same with this... it’s almost like you guys are grasping at straws to call someone racist.

I don’t think anyone condones the actions of the government in Myanmar, given the expulsion of the Rohingya isn’t just. @Rakas21 has some interesting thoughts, knowing full well the not so ideal nature of the current government there and the unwillingness for adaptations of ideology on both side... I can sort of understand his reasoning there.
We can definitely have charities providing humanitarian aid to the Rohingya refugees but we certainly shouldn’t be interfering with the nature of the government there ( we have had too much interference for a lifetime methinks)
Please keep things civil here :smile:

stop trying to fudge his views, the guy is a clear cut racist with ugly view on the muslim community.

Burma should face sanctions

Reply 41

username358506

Original post by hannah00

The West has supported and continues to support Salafi-jihadists across the Muslim world, however, the biggest oppressor of Muslims is not the West, it is other Muslims.

Reply 42

CountBrandenburg

Original post by hannah00

stop trying to fudge his views, the guy is a clear cut racist with ugly view on the muslim community.

Burma should face sanctions

It would be nonsensical to infer that everything is the fault of the US and the Uk in terms of their foreign policy. Yes the US wasn’t wise in its policy decades ago in Afghanistan... but sooner or later unchecked monitoring of extremist groups caused the outburst of civil war, in addition to general displeasure of undemocratic and oppression governments.
It is still a stretch based on here to call him racist.

Reply 43

CookieButter

Original post by CountBrandenburg

Yes the US wasn’t wise in its policy decades ago in Afghanistan...

Wasn't wise is a huge understatement my friend. The US was complicit in terrorism in afghanistan back then, so too in Syria today and in many other countries across the globe and since the 50s. They helped form Alqaeda. Osma bin Laden was a CIA operative. He was trained by the CIA and for the first 3 or 4 years of the Syrian conflict the US was openly sending arms, and money to Alqaeda, ISIS and the remaining head choppers in that country. Supporting terrorist groups is part of US foreign policy. For many this is a tough pill to swallow but the US is a terrorist state. This is their reality and we pick up the tab, we pay the price, for their support of terrorism, not them.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 44

CountBrandenburg

Original post by CookieButter

Wasn’t wise isn’t an understatement... American governments of old have been committed to ensuring democracy within countries and had believed at points it was their role to do so (look at both American involvement within Indochina and once again... Afghanistan) yes they’ve supplied weapons ( not that I agree with their policy at that time but it is what it is) but with the idea of allowing for democracy.
Furthermore, to exclude singlehandedly the US if you want to blame them is unfair, the UK under Blair was a bad time for foreign policy, and many problems we currently have on the global side stems from the last remnants of Soviet-America tensions one way or another

Reply 45

anarchism101

Original post by AngeryPenguin

I find it worrying how many people have convinced themselves that their "culturalism" is not dog-whistle racism.

"Culture" has become the anodyne replacement for "ethnicity", itself the anodyne version of "race".

Reply 46

mojojojo101

Original post by CountBrandenburg

The US government both in the middle East and South America has been more than compicit in the overthrow of democratically elected governments in order to install despotic dictators.

To say they were trying to ensure democracy is madness. What they were trying to do was stop the spread of Socialism, just as other superpowers had before them, because it posed a threat to their stranglehold on world power.

Reply 47

anarchism101

Original post by AngeryPenguin

I find it worrying how many people have convinced themselves that their "culturalism" is not dog-whistle racism.

"Culture" has become the anodyne replacement for "ethnicity", itself the anodyne version of "race".

Reply 48

CookieButter

Original post by CountBrandenburg

Wasn’t wise isn’t an understatement... American governments of old have been committed to ensuring democracy within countries

Come on my friend. Are you kidding me? The US has throughout the past 50 years been involved in toppling countless democracies and instating and supporting dictatorships across the globe. In Iran they toppled the democratic government of Mosaddegh and replaced him with the ruthless dictator that was the shah. In Guatemala they toppled the democratically elected government of Jacob Arbenz and replaced him with a military junta that went on to slaughter millions of people. In the Congo they overthrew the democratically elected Patrice Lumumba and replaced him with army rule that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Congo. In Brazil they overthrew the democratically elected government of Joao goulart and replaced it with military rule.....etc etc etc etc etc etc....

The US is responsible for ensuring democracy????? That is all BS that they peddle through their media...They don't give a damn about democracy...money, power and control....those are their driving forces and they pursue these goals using any means...from supporting terrorism to committing acts of terrorism.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 49

Napp

Original post by Unkilled

'Fraid not, mate.

If you say so, mate.

Reply 50

El Salvador

Original post by the bear

the real power in Burma is still the armed forces; Mrs Kyi is not in control of them.

Like many Asian names, the convention is that the first word(s) is/are the surname, in this case, "Aung San", or "Counsellor/Minister Aung San", and her father, "General Aung San".

There's also the option of Ms Aung San.

The honorific "Mrs" is for married women and the name would be their husband's. Her late-husband, Dr Michael Aris of St John's Oxford, has the surname "Aris". And thus it would make her "Mrs Aris" or "Mrs Michael Aris" (traditionally, "Mrs Suu Kyi Aris" would suggest that she's divorced).

Alternatively, you can say "Ms Aung San". Just like the First Minister of Scotland "Ms Nicola Sturgeon".

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 51

El Salvador

The military has abolished the office of "prime minister", and thus the Oxford third-class degree graduate was never installed as "prime minister".

She is the "State Counsellor", "Minister of Foreign Affairs", "Minister of the President's Office", and the leader of the ruling party.

The significance is that "prime minister" would make her officially the head of government of Myanmar, which she is not.

If you use the term "prime minister" to mean "the foremost minister in the country", that would be correct, but still inaccurate terminology, especially when we're unsure how much power she has over the military.

Reply 52

username358506

Original post by anarchism101

"Culture" has become the anodyne replacement for "ethnicity", itself the anodyne version of "race".

Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims across the northern Indian Subcontinent would disagree with you - they would argue that they share the same ethnicity, but not the same culture.