- cross-posted to:
- world@quokk.au
- world@quokk.au
- cross-posted to:
- world@quokk.au
- world@quokk.au
You must log in or register to comment.
Myanmar’s military government bomb small protest against them, with victims including children
mods should take down this post for the bs misleading title not matching the article content
Real headline is always in the comments. Thank you for your service 🫡
The article title is extremely misleading, making this look like a terrorist attack during a random religious festival. The rest of the article describes this instead as violence perpetrated by the military junta on a small protest.
Good god, never could I have imagined I’d read a headline like this in my lifetime. So many news stories are deeply disturbing. There is something about the combination of terrorism via a novel and whimsical delivery method is absolutely horrifying.
This was a military operation.
Still a terrorist attack, if you ask me. The terrorists just happen to be state sponsored.
As most are.
You’re correct, but states usually have a monopoly on violence, and state sanctioned terrorism is rarely called such. If you’re using violence and fear to achieve a political goal, that’s terrorism. Every state employs it to some extent. (Usually not this obviously though.)
I’m of the view that there’d be more productive discussions if we collectively started to use the word “terrorism” in a more nuanced way that allowed for the possibility that not all terrorism is necessarily morally bad.
What got me started thinking this was that there is a character in Star Trek: Deep Space 9 who is open about the fact that she used to be a terrorist — except this was in the context of resisting a brutal occupation of her planet. I have recently been rewatching the show, and it’s interesting to see how the narrative frames this as an overall morally good thing whilst also reckoning with the aspects of the resistance that were morally bad. Makes me wistful for that kind of nuance in real world discussions of violent resistance.
It might also make it easier to vehemently condemn senseless acts of state sanctioned terrorism such as this bombing. Though based on the long history of interactional inaction towards multiple genocides, that probably wouldn’t make much difference.
Yep, I agree. The state gets to call anything they want terrorism (even when it isn’t) and nothing they do is called terrorism. It’s just a cudgel they can use to suppress dissent. We need to point out when they do terrorism, and also point to where terrorism has been used to do good, so they lose this tool that let’s them do anything they want.
So state sponsored terrorism
Fair enough IMO
Like they said, terrorism.
I posted this story from Irrawady yesterday: https://lemmy.ca/post/52965387. The numbers are much higher.
So, 32-min dead, 5 from the people who’d been providing protection, some from the non-violent group & some from the junta-resistance group,
& the rest were all just candlelight-vigil Buddhists, participating in a normal periodic festival,
AND the junta also returned to bomb again,
AND the junta also bombed other 2 other regions in the Northern Shan State, according to that story…
Given today’s “journalism”, I don’t expect this to even exist according to the West’s reporting.
For context, for people who don’t follow the violences in Buddhist regions of the world, in this case I’m defaulting to siding with the Buddhists, but … please keep in mind that the Buddhists in Sri Lanka apparently have been good a genociding Tamils, & the “Buddhists” of Pol Pot’s regime certainly made effective/murderous communists, or whatever they were “identifying” as ( that country was as Buddhist as any country could be, until then, ttbomk ) … so, same as with Africa, the only default-position that automatically is going to be right, is that line from the youtuber of Africa who tries explaining African politics/wars/genocides for the outside-world… “it’s complicated”.
< digging >
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/myanmars-junta-doesnt-have-to-win-it-just-has-to-wait/
Right.
So, the junta’s dismantling gov’t-by-the-people-for-the-people.
Their action demonstrates that they’re the bad-guys, then.
That article, however, caused me to see that IF a government isn’t ruling entire-regions of a country, THEN … it shouldn’t be recognized as government of those regions, should it?
Shouldn’t locally-legitimate government be a global civil-right, at some point/degree of dispute?
Making international-law so the rabies that Assad was enforcing in Syria, automatically can’t be treated-as “legitimate” by world governments?
( he was ethnic-minority, genociding Syria’s majority, because as soon as he caved, then the ethnic-majority would be retaliating against his ethnic-minority again…
which means that the country has, objectively, to be carved into ethnic-regions, & deemed to be distinct countries, instead-of kept in its if-this-side-is-ruling-they-are-genociding-the-other/if-the-other-side-is-ruling-they-are-genociding-the-1st-side political-rabies.
Obviously, this also indicates that enforcing non-partisan gov’t, UN-neutral, would be also strategic & wise, & could even prevent carving-up-countries, if held long-enough, but … it costs outside-countries, so they aren’t likely to be investing in that, are they?
but since when has either world-strategic or wisdom had ANY say in human geopolitics??
Bah and Humbug, on all this ego-driven butchery-addiction! )
_ /\ _
I recently watched the satirical video “Honest Government Ad | Visit Myanmar!” and it was surprisingly informative. I knew that the junta was bad, but through this, I learned a heckton more about how deep the problem goes.
Thanks for this. I also learned more of the context of the conflict.
the “Buddhists” of Pol Pot’s regime certainly made effective/murderous communists
Your post shows a lot of errors and erroneous logic. Pol Pot wasn’t “Buddhist” Pol Pot was a communist. Conflating conflicts in Sri Lanka to the conflict in Myanmar into a “violence in Buddhist regions around the world” is a logical fallacy, and intellectually stupid as can be. A brief look at your post history shows your interest in colouring every conflict into a religious one is rather disturbing.
The culture that Pol Pot was of, was Buddhist.
The country was Buddhist.
The regime took people from Buddhist culture & created that.
Cultural-roots do count.
Ideological-roots do count.
That is exactly why Trump is succeeding in his religion’s possessing of the US of A: cultural-roots are leverage.
To me, the “Christians” of Trump’s regime, the “Buddhists” of Pol Pot’s regime ( was the country culturally communist-party, before his regime, for the 3-4 generations required, to define the culture? No? then there had to be many still “Buddhist” people in that regime ), the “Jews” of Netanyahu’s regime, etc, are all playing the same game:
they are having motivation opposite-to what they are purporting to be.
That is significant, in my view.
Historically significant, & significant in whether our-kind survives this century, or not, too.
_ /\ _
I realized that my incompetence-in-communicating probably added this mis-communication:
The inquisitors were Christian, right?
The fact that what they were doing went against everything their root-guru’s religion was made-of, doesn’t have any bearing, to them.
Nazism is Christian, in identity.
The KKK is Christian, in identity.
Identity has deep roots.
Cambodia’s Buddhist.
Has been for centuries.
Yes, I know that Pol Pot was Communist, but when you raise communism in a country as deeply Buddhist as Cambodia, … you end-up with many of the people in the ruling-regime having “Buddhist” identity, fundamentally in them.
THAT is what I meant:
it was the underlying Buddhist-identity, that I was attacking, and not, in any way, pretending that Pol Pot was claiming Buddhism ( which not-even an idiot would claim ).
You simply can’t raise an institution in any culture, without having that-culture being the underlying identity in the people of that regime.
That is why Chinese Buddhism is to me partially an oxy-moron:
Confucianism ( form/tradition/authority/establishment ) is sooo much of the bedrock of the fundamental Chinese mind, and Buddhism is the opposite ( essence, instead-of form, centered ), that the 2 modes of mind are fundamentally mutually-exclusive.
( this doesn’t mean that Chinese Chan Buddhism is somehow worthless: it’s got some excellent insights for us!
However, if one is working at dissolving-beyond-form, then being fundamentally of the form-and-establishment-and-authority-are-LORD religion that Confucianism is, & I’ve linked on other sites to a pair of legal-cases which show Confucianism’s bedrock instinct…
both in Japan & in China, both Confucian-culture ( Japan’s fundamentally more Buddhist & also Shinto ), people have been convicted of murders that they confessed-to, … and then the person they’d “murdered” returned to town, or was found alive.
In Confucian culture, authority is the LORD.
Authority beating people into confessing is “valid” ( and cost authority some “face” in those cases, when accountability came knocking ), for authority to do.
In OUR culture due-process is more real, in Confucian culture … it inherently isn’t.
Same with truly-Buddhist cultures, like Cambodia.
Any truly-Buddhist culture which is temporarily ( for a few generations ) highjacked by some physicalist/materialist ideology … the underlying identites of the people staffing the regime is going to remain rooted in the underlying-culture, isn’t it?
That goes all ways, not just to the traditional-religions, it goes to moneyarchy, it goes to legalism-archy, it goes to physicalism’s religion, it goes to fundamentalist-atheism, it goes to all axiom-based, system-of-meaning that rejects falsification
( which is my definition of “religion” ).
You can’t instantly get the underlying identity out, no matter how you change the apparent identity: it takes generations to do that.
( the Soviet Union lasted long-enough to change the fundamental-underlying-identity in people, not completely, but significantly )
So, you’ve proven I’m incompetent at communicating:
I meant underlying identity, underneath the party-affiliation or otherwise “flag carrying” “identity”,
but I appeared to mean something fundamentally-different.
Typical…
My inability to think the way proper, acceptable, valid, western-minds think, keeps creating miscommunications & problems.
That isn’t likely to cease, as long as I continue earning more-complete understanding, instead of remanufacturing me to make me be acceptably-conforming/“belonging”/etc.
That underlying-level & surface-level both affect outcomes, is to me sooo obvious as to be automatically-assumed.
Normals don’t assume any such thing.
Incompetence-at-communicating can have many causes.
_ /\ _
Thanks for this better source. It’s hard to find quality journalism nowadays, so I appreciate when people like you make it easier to be well informed.
Removed by mod
What the AF. 😖
I fly a paraglider. I was paranoid about getting shot before the Hamas attack on October 7. This just worries me more.
It’s all so sad.
I find it odd that you seem to be more comfortable to think of the impact this will have on paragliders dropping bombs on people than on the innocent people bombed in this attack. I get that being a paraglider must be scary because it inevitably comes with the risk of being shot, but this is a story about civilian deaths due to a bombing, not paraglider deaths due to gunfire.
Not trying to put myself or my own worries above the obvious travesty and senseless murder.
I’m just sharing my perspective and not making any political points.
I’d be a bit nervous. Even in countries where Americans don’t think people have guns, they certainly have long guns.
