 |
By *ercury OP Man
over a year ago
Grantham |
Given the genocide now occuring in Rohingya, should the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Aung San Suu Kyi now be revoked?
Her silence is deafening and given the persecution that she suffered, is it acceptable for her as leader of Myanmar to be in denial of what is happening? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Given the genocide now occuring in Rohingya, should the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Aung San Suu Kyi now be revoked?
Her silence is deafening and given the persecution that she suffered, is it acceptable for her as leader of Myanmar to be in denial of what is happening?"
Your lack of replies on this post shows how many of us really give a shit when there is genocide committed against Muslims. And this cretin De facto leader is a false winner of the nobel peace prize and should let journalists in to come the truth...but for some reason it's not allowed.. I wonder why.. bitch will get her dues one day |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Anyone that believes Aung San Suu Kyi is in a position to speak out clearly does not understand where the power lies in Burma. Her position is precarious to say the least and any criticism of the Burmese military could easily release the same sort of violence now being seen inflicted on the Muslim minority on the rest of the country. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anyone that believes Aung San Suu Kyi is in a position to speak out clearly does not understand where the power lies in Burma. Her position is precarious to say the least and any criticism of the Burmese military could easily release the same sort of violence now being seen inflicted on the Muslim minority on the rest of the country. "
Well she just gave her views and spoke out just now blaming the fleeing rohingya and denying military atrocities and not condemning armed buddhists..while hosting another Muslim hating extremist leader in Narender Modi.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well she just gave her views and spoke out just now blaming the fleeing rohingya and denying military atrocities and not condemning armed buddhists..while hosting another Muslim hating extremist leader in Narender Modi.."
Do know what happened to her and her supporters the last time she spoke out against the Burmese military? Do you think that may may be a reason she is denying that the military or the military backed militias are committing atrocities? Do you think that is may have been forced by those who are really in power in Burma to make the statement she has now made? Do you think that maybe she does not get to choose who she hosts as head of state? Or maybe you think the Queen gave Trump his state visit invitation and that it is the Queen who decides what she says when she makes public statements on political issues?
Now I do not know the answers to these questions where they apply to Burma, but I do have some knowledge of Burma's post WW2 history and where power lies in this (UK) country and in Burma, and it does not take a genius to understand that Aung San Suu Kyi is likely to be nothing more than a puppet under the control of the military. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Given the genocide now occuring in Rohingya, should the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Aung San Suu Kyi now be revoked?
Her silence is deafening and given the persecution that she suffered, is it acceptable for her as leader of Myanmar to be in denial of what is happening?"
It's a humanitarian crisis, but it's not genocide, luckily. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Given the genocide now occuring in Rohingya, should the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Aung San Suu Kyi now be revoked?
Her silence is deafening and given the persecution that she suffered, is it acceptable for her as leader of Myanmar to be in denial of what is happening?
It's a humanitarian crisis, but it's not genocide, luckily."
I think the correct term is ethnic cleansing . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think the correct term is ethnic cleansing ."
Ethnic cleansing?
I know I may be seen as splitting hairs but can you tell me exactly which ethnic group are being cleansed? Because as far as I am aware Islam is a religion and Muslims are not all from a single ethnic group.
Further if we are going to start using biological classifications the people being persecuted do not qualify as an ethnic group because classification works in a strict order starting at the bottom with an individual and climbing through family to tribe to people to race (the last 2 being the usual definition of ethnic group). Then Species, Genus, Family, Order, Phylum, and Kingdom.
As far as I know the persecutors and persecuted are not only of the of the race and people but may even be of the same tribe. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I think the correct term is ethnic cleansing .
Ethnic cleansing?
I know I may be seen as splitting hairs but can you tell me exactly which ethnic group are being cleansed? Because as far as I am aware Islam is a religion and Muslims are not all from a single ethnic group.
Further if we are going to start using biological classifications the people being persecuted do not qualify as an ethnic group because classification works in a strict order starting at the bottom with an individual and climbing through family to tribe to people to race (the last 2 being the usual definition of ethnic group). Then Species, Genus, Family, Order, Phylum, and Kingdom.
As far as I know the persecutors and persecuted are not only of the of the race and people but may even be of the same tribe."
There are 7 main ethic groups in Burma; Mon, Karen, Shan, Chin, Kachin, Arakan, and Burman. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There are 7 main ethic groups in Burma; Mon, Karen, Shan, Chin, Kachin, Arakan, and Burman."
I thought they are tribes, not peoples or races. Now accept that intertribal conflict is usually extremely violent but I would not call such conflicts ethnic cleansing.
Now I know many will think I am splitting hairs. But I find the dilution of language by misuse is very dangerous to our ability to process information. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"There are 7 main ethic groups in Burma; Mon, Karen, Shan, Chin, Kachin, Arakan, and Burman.
I thought they are tribes, not peoples or races. Now accept that intertribal conflict is usually extremely violent but I would not call such conflicts ethnic cleansing.
Now I know many will think I am splitting hairs. But I find the dilution of language by misuse is very dangerous to our ability to process information."
They are distinct ethnic groups. You could line them up and differentiate between them. I don't believe the term "tribe" is used in anthropology these days, and it certainly isn't used when talking about Burma. I wouldn't usually nitpick on language but your post did state the importance of it so I thought it appropriate in this case.
Genocide has legal definition and is against international law. One of the key features is actually attempting to kill one group of people. Ethnic cleansing on the other hand does not have a legal definition, and is not against international law in and of itself, although it can constitute a war crime which is illegal.
Like I said, luckily what is happening in Burma is not genocide as although some people are dying, there is not a sytematic approach to kill the Rohingya. Although they have long suffered discrimination, it is rapidly escalating and may be described by some as ethnic cleansing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They are distinct ethnic groups. You could line them up and differentiate between them. I don't believe the term "tribe" is used in anthropology these days, and it certainly isn't used when talking about Burma. I wouldn't usually nitpick on language but your post did state the importance of it so I thought it appropriate in this case.
Genocide has legal definition and is against international law. One of the key features is actually attempting to kill one group of people. Ethnic cleansing on the other hand does not have a legal definition, and is not against international law in and of itself, although it can constitute a war crime which is illegal.
Like I said, luckily what is happening in Burma is not genocide as although some people are dying, there is not a sytematic approach to kill the Rohingya. Although they have long suffered discrimination, it is rapidly escalating and may be described by some as ethnic cleansing. "
Thanks for the reply. I attended anthropology lectures in the 70's and I fully accept that that some terms may well have changed but I do remember the definition of tribe was those with direct but not a close family relationship. I seem to remember that it was something like relations outside 2nd cousin 2 times removed. I can see how saying family is family regardless the distance of that relationship, but considering we all seem to come from 11 males and 8 females (or is it the other way round) the question is at what point do we differentiate between people who are clearly on a slightly different physiological evolutionary path.
I would like to hear your views as so much of the ills of the world seem to boil down to they don't look or sound like us so we must subdue and destroy them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
Nobel peace laureate commits genocide.