Pages

Jump to bottom

33 comments

1 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 8:10:31am

My own feeling is that Aung San Suu Kyi is a position somewhat similar that of John Boehner vis-a-vis the Tea Party on this matter: She may hold the leader’s chair, but is unwilling or unable to really countermand her followers too strongly.

it may also be that the anti-Muslim violence isn’t happened where she lives and thus she sees as something happening to other people in another place and not of great concern. Lastly, instead of bigotry it might well be calculation, a decision offend others in power with a defense of a despised minority.

2 CuriousLurker  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 10:36:42am

re: #1 Dark_Falcon

Really, Dark—I mean, really?

Since you brought them up, let’s use the Tea Party as a substitute for the the Rohingya minority, even though the is TP much larger & less vulnerable one.

Let’s say that under a Democratic president, as we have now, the government actually started making some of the ridiculous conspiracy theories come true and began rounding up Tea Partiers and murdering & displacing them, confiscating their property, putting them in forced labor camps, etc.

Next, imagine that a politician, say an independent, gained fame as an opposition leader to the brutal government that was in place, spent many years under house arrest, and eventually won a Nobel Peace Prize.

Now that we’re in a similar spot in our mental exercise, picture the politician refusing to condemn anti-Tea Party violence and dragging out the MBF to point out how “both sides” are wrong. Would you still make excuses for that stance? Somehow I doubt it—my guess it you’d be righteously outraged and would have empathy to spare for the TP.

Too close to home? Let’s make it an Arab Muslim country and political opposition leader instead, and this time the minority will be Jews or Christians. How do you feel about the politician winning his/her Nobel Peace Prize, then refusing to condemn the killing of Jews (or Christians)?

3 cinesimon  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 1:05:36pm

re: #1 Dark_Falcon

Yeah poor her.

And to the last part I might agree, to a pint: it looks like her leadership qualities were only good enough for the level of city councillor. If that.

4 ausador  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 1:05:52pm

If you want to cherry pick a persons statements with a preconceived bias that they are guilty then it becomes easy to make that person out as a “bad person.”

This article is pretty much a hit piece written from a very slanted point of view and is bullshit, pure and simple. How about if we read something written in a slightly more journalistic format?

During the interview she was asked to condemn Wirathu, a Buddhist monk labelled the “Burmese Bin Laden” who has been stoking hatred against Muslims, denouncing them as “crude and savage”. She replied: “I condemn hatred of any kind.” Similarly, she was asked to condemn violence against Muslims and answered: “I condemn any movement that is based on hatred and extremism.”

Muslims have been the main victims since the violence began in western Rakhine state last year, but so far most criminal trials have involved prosecutions of Muslims, not members of the Buddhist majority.

Anti-Muslim sentiment is closely tied to nationalism and the dominant Buddhist religion, making leaders reluctant to speak up.

Aung San Suu Kyi showed frustration with her interviewer at the number of questions about the violence. “I would say instead of asking us members of the opposition what we feel about it, what we intend to do about it … you should ask the present government of Burma what their policy is,” she said.

Uhh, in case you have forgotten this is the leader of the “opposition” to the existing government we are talking about here. One that spent 21 years mostly under house arrest for speaking out against them and who has only been free for less than three years now.

If you think that she is now free to completely speak her mind against the standing government, or empowered to attack powerful national religious figures head on then you couldn’t be more wrong.

My point is that you have absolutely no idea how Aung San Suu Kyi actually feels about any of this, she is a politician in a precarious situation still striving just to bring basic democracy to her country.

Would it make you feel any better if she had instead railed openly against Wirathu and the government and been re-arrested and her party forcibly disbanded again? What good would that do for anyone, Muslim or Buddhist?

5 cinesimon  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 1:09:50pm

re: #4 ausador

Your understanding of the term ‘cherry pick’ is rather odd.
Actually funnily enough, the article you post uses cherry picking devices far more obviously.
Notice her comments when she changes the subject to ‘Buddhists moving out of the country for various reasons’ when asked about the Muslims being thrown - and killed - off their lands?

Classic.

6 ausador  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 1:12:05pm

re: #5 cinesimon

Your understanding of the term ‘cherry pick’ is rather odd.

The source article cited for this page did not include other quotes from the interview, so yes “cherry picked.”

7 cinesimon  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 1:14:52pm

So your defense is, that she’s really not the person her followers have built her up to b. That we shouldn’t expect her to actually hold to the values she championed all those years.

8 cinesimon  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 1:17:25pm

re: #6 ausador

Wow. So, if every single word of an interview is not used, even if it’s not relevant to the issue, you think that means it’s cherry picked?

As I said - rather an odd understanding of the term.

9 ausador  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 1:21:57pm

re: #7 cinesimon

So your defense is, that she’s really not the person her followers have built her up to b. That we shouldn’t expect her to actually hold to the values she championed all those years.

Right, show me where I said any of those words your trying to shove into my mouth?

She is upholding them and she did, a condemnation is a condemnation, what is it you want from her? Should she have jumped up on down on her chair like Tom Cruise on Oprah while shouting “I despise violence against Muslims” ???

10 cinesimon  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 1:23:10pm

re: #4 ausador

“My point is that you have absolutely no idea how Aung San Suu Kyi actually feels about any of this…”
Actually, that was what the interview was about, She made it very clear she’s indifferent to the plight of the Muslim minority and the massacres going on.
To use a weirdly righteous defence that says she’s essentially just another politician, is rather the point of the article you attack for being ‘cherry picked’ - by using a ‘cherry picked’ article of your own to ‘prove’ it.

11 cinesimon  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 1:23:57pm

re: #9 ausador

OOHH yes I’m trying to SHOVE them in your mouth.
Rather emotive, kiddo.

You might try reading the words you actually write sometime.

As for what I want from her? Oh so canned responses used by all politicians, then changing the subject and trying to smooth over the issue is totally upholding the values she was known for. Right. Gotcha.

12 ausador  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 1:30:49pm

re: #8 cinesimon

Wow. So, if every single word of an interview is not used, even if it’s not relevant to the issue, you think that means it’s cherry picked?

As I said - rather an odd understanding of the term.

Show me where it says this in this article…

“I would say instead of asking us members of the opposition what we feel about it, what we intend to do about it … you should ask the present government of Burma what their policy is,”

But I forgot, since she is a Noble Laureate now she should just be able to wave her magic wand and make all the violence disappear just like Obama should have gotten us a single-payer healthcare system during his first year in office.

Sigh…starry eyed idealistic Dems…ughh…still my largest pet peeve since changing sides. They want everything and they want it RIGHT FUCKING NOW and when they don’t get it fast enough all they do is bitch and moan and turn against their own side.

Aung San Suu Kyi does not have the type of power you seem to think she does, the only thing she could do by trying to be too forceful on this issue would be to harm herself and her parties standing. But don’t let that stop you from having a nice little rant about how evil and anti-Muslim she is for being pragmatic and living to fight another day.

13 ausador  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 1:36:20pm

re: #5 cinesimon

Your understanding of the term ‘cherry pick’ is rather odd.
Actually funnily enough, the article you post uses cherry picking devices far more obviously.
Notice her comments when she changes the subject to ‘Buddhists moving out of the country for various reasons’ when asked about the Muslims being thrown - and killed - off their lands?

Classic.

Don’t almost completely re-word/edit your posts after I have already replied to them without noting it as an edit, that is deceitful and a dishonest debate tactic. :(

14 electrotek  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 1:54:32pm

Anyone reading the comments on that link? Deeply disturbing. What if Wirathu came out as an admirer of Anders Breivik? Would these same anti-Muslim bigots cheering the Buddhists for barbarity be so quick to defend him still? They are no different than Islamic extremists, they support barbarity when it is on their side.

15 William Burns  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 1:59:15pm

Nobel Peace Prize winners are kind of a mixed bag. One the one hand, you have your Borlaugs, Kings and Walesas, on the other, your Arafats and Kissingers. Frankly, there’s no reason to be surprised by anything a Peace Prize winner does at this point.

16 ausador  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 3:10:15pm

re: #10 cinesimon

“My point is that you have absolutely no idea how Aung San Suu Kyi actually feels about any of this…”
Actually, that was what the interview was about, She made it very clear she’s indifferent to the plight of the Muslim minority and the massacres going on.
To use a weirdly righteous defence that says she’s essentially just another politician, is rather the point of the article you attack for being ‘cherry picked’ - by using a ‘cherry picked’ article of your own to ‘prove’ it.

Says you, based only on ONE article written with a very obviously slanted perspective. Do you actually hold any real convictions yourself or are you like the Fox news viewers who simply nod along with whatever nonsense they are told?

Aung San Suu Kyi has fought for more than two and a half decades to bring democracy to her country, endured more than 15 years of house arrest, been beaten, been gassed, been interrogated for days on end without any right to counsel.

Yet all it takes to make her evil in your mind is one article written by a man who had a very obvious agenda in every word he wrote. Tried, convicted, and sentenced in your mind in only a few paragraphs that question and then provide the worst possible interpretation of every word she said?

I’m surprised that Fox hasn’t managed to claim you as one of it’s zombie followers yet if you are swayed by such obvious tactics. :p

17 CuriousLurker  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 3:44:56pm

re: #12 ausador

But I forgot, since she is a Noble Laureate now she should just be able to wave her magic wand and make all the violence disappear just like Obama should have gotten us a single-payer healthcare system during his first year in office.

Sigh…starry eyed idealistic Dems…ughh…still my largest pet peeve since changing sides. They want everything and they want it >RIGHT FUCKING NOW and when they don’t get it fast enough all they do is bitch and moan and turn against their own side.

Aung San Suu Kyi does not have the type of power you seem to think she does, the only thing she could do by trying to be too forceful on this issue would be to harm herself and her parties standing. But don’t let that stop you from having a nice little rant about how evil and anti-Muslim she is for being pragmatic and living to fight another day.

What a load of crap. No one has said she’s responsible for the violence or has the ability to “wave her magic wand” and make the problem disappear.

As for “starry eyed idealistic Dems” bitching & moaning and turning against their own side, you shouldn’t have a problem posting links to numerous examples of people here doing exactly that since it’s a group trait, right? Go ahead, we’ll wait.

Besdies, when did Aung San Suu Kyi become a member of the U.S. Democratic party that we should owe her any allegiance? You’re also ranting about people thinking she’s evil, which no one has said as far as I can see.

18 ausador  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 4:14:00pm

re: #17 CuriousLurker

What a load of crap. No one has said she’s responsible for the violence or has the ability to “wave her magic wand” and make the problem disappear.

Yet it is her responsibility to somehow “denounce” it beyond simply condemning it? What else is it you want?

As for “starry eyed idealistic Dems” bitching & moaning and turning against their own side, you shouldn’t have a problem posting links to numerous examples of people here doing exactly that since it’s a group trait, right? Go ahead, we’ll wait.

LOL! There are hundreds of examples of people turning on the dems (as far as publicly berating them, claiming votes will be withheld, stating their civic support would be withdrawn) because they didn’t give that person what they expected and hundreds of examples of them being tongue lashed by other Dems for not keeping the faith right here on this site.

You forget I have been here for four years now, don’t try to send me on a fools errand hunting up posts that are impossible to search for with tags. You, I, and everyone else here knows that such posts exist.

Besdies, when did Aung San Suu Kyi become a member of the U.S. Democratic party that we should owe her any allegiance? You’re also ranting about people thinking she’s evil, which no one has said as far as I can see.

Aung San Suu Kyi has never been and never will be a member of the Democratic party of the United States of America (unless she is forced to someday seek asylum here).
How about owing her some allegiance for her struggle to establish democracy, self-determination, and human rights in Burma Myanmar?
One strongly slanted article (and if you disagree with that you can kiss my lily white ass) appears and suddenly she is being portrayed as “indifferent to Muslim persecution” so yes I would say that would kind of put her into the “evil” end of the spectrum.

I thought we were the intelligent side of the political equation that used reason and evidence? The response by some to this “hit piece” article unfortunately shows no evidence of that claim. :(

19 CuriousLurker  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 4:31:01pm

re: #17 CuriousLurker

BTW, this?

Sigh…starry eyed idealistic Dems…ughh…still my largest pet peeve since changing sides. They want everything and they want it >RIGHT FUCKING NOW and when they don’t get it fast enough all they do is bitch and moan and turn against their own side.

It applies equally to the GOP these days. Don’t believe me? See Tea Party, GOP purity test, RINOs, threats to primary members who aren’t sufficiently pure, according to whatever the latest ideal is, etc.

20 CuriousLurker  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 4:36:17pm

re: #18 ausador

Okay, since your idea of rational, adult discourse apparently includes:

…(and if you disagree with that you can kiss my lily white ass)

I’m no longer interested in having a conversation with you.

21 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 5:17:09pm

re: #14 electrotek

Anyone reading the comments on that link? Deeply disturbing. What if Wirathu came out as an admirer of Anders Breivik? Would these same anti-Muslim bigots cheering the Buddhists for barbarity be so quick to defend him still? They are no different than Islamic extremists, they support barbarity when it is on their side.

Admiration of Brevik would hurt him relatively little among the bigots, since so many of them see the political left as enabling “Islamization”.

22 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 5:23:30pm

re: #2 CuriousLurker

To answer your question: I’m not righteously outraged by any politician’s waffling or refusing to take a stand. I wasn’t trying to say what Kyi doing was good; I was speculating as to her motives.

My last sentence of that #1 post needs a correction:

re: #1 Dark_Falcon

My own feeling is that Aung San Suu Kyi is a position somewhat similar that of John Boehner vis-a-vis the Tea Party on this matter: She may hold the leader’s chair, but is unwilling or unable to really countermand her followers too strongly.

it may also be that the anti-Muslim violence isn’t happened where she lives and thus she sees as something happening to other people in another place and not of great concern. Lastly, instead of bigotry it might well be calculation, a decision not to offend others in power with a defense of a despised minority.

Again, a calculated decision on her part to minimize or ignore the anti-Muslim attacks is wrong morally, but it is possible she thinks it good strategy.

23 CuriousLurker  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 5:45:43pm

re: #22 Dark_Falcon

To answer your question: I’m not righteously outraged by any politician’s waffling or refusing to take a stand. I wasn’t trying to say what Kyi doing was good; I was speculating as to her motives.

Fair enough, though I feel differently. I’ll retract my down-ding, but I’ll bookmark this for future reference to see if it indeed holds true for any politician.

My last sentence of that #1 post needs a correction:

re: #1 Dark_Falcon

My own feeling is that Aung San Suu Kyi is a position somewhat similar that of John Boehner vis-a-vis the Tea Party on this matter: She may hold the leader’s chair, but is unwilling or unable to really countermand her followers too strongly.

it may also be that the anti-Muslim violence isn’t happened where she lives and thus she sees as something happening to other people in another place and not of great concern. Lastly, instead of bigotry it might well be calculation, a decision not to offend others in power with a defense of a despised minority.

Again, a calculated decision on her part to minimize or ignore the anti-Muslim attacks is wrong morally, but it is possible she thinks it good strategy.

It’s good to know you think it’s morally wrong for her to minimize or ignore the attacks—apparently not everyone does. I think it’s great that she’s taking a stand and has been willing to make personal sacrifices in her quest for democracy, provided that it’s for a democracy which increases freedom & human rights for all of Myanmar’s people, not just some of them.

24 electrotek  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 5:51:05pm

Aung San Suu Kyi is about as cowardly as Imran Khan of Pakistan’s PTI party when it comes to condemning extremists. They both have a soft spot for the extremists that they both need to rely in order to bolster their political aspirations.

25 ausador  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 6:18:45pm

re: #20 CuriousLurker

Okay, since your idea of rational, adult discourse apparently includes:

I’m no longer interested in having a conversation with you.

Oh, I see, so that article was not in your opinion written from a biased point of view as an attack solely meant to gain internet hits then? I suggest you re-read it if you are having doubts.

So if the same author wrote an identical style piece about President Obama where he isolated a few sentences from a longer interview, led up to them by describing how nefarious they were in the text before you read them and then produced a totally worse case interpretation of them afterwards you would be fine with that?

Of course you wouldn’t, in fact I have seen you, yes you personally argue against such transparent and groundless attacks. This time it is different though for some reason, is it simply because it is something you want to believe to be true this time?

26 CuriousLurker  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 6:21:00pm

re: #25 ausador

Which part of “I’m no longer interested in having a conversation with you,” did you not understand?

27 ausador  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 6:21:06pm

re: #24 electrotek

Aung San Suu Kyi is about as cowardly as Imran Khan of Pakistan’s PTI party when it comes to condemning extremists. They both have a soft spot for the extremists that they both need to rely in order to bolster their political aspirations.

WTFF? You got that from where? What evidence do you have for that statement?

28 ausador  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 6:28:41pm

re: #26 CuriousLurker

Which part of “I’m no longer interested in having a conversation with you,” did you not understand?

I see someone ducking the question, not that I should really care in the least bit I guess. Your opinion seems to have been solidly and irrevocably shaped entirely by one negative news article after 25 years and thousands (tens of thousands) of positive ones.

If that is your choice then you are certainly welcome to it I guess, just as I am welcome to my updated opinion of you as well.

29 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 6:34:19pm

re: #24 electrotek

Your accusation is not supported sufficiently by the facts in evidence. Downding for a hyperbolic and inflammatory post.

30 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 6:34:58pm

re: #23 CuriousLurker

Thank you for that.

31 CuriousLurker  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 6:45:48pm

re: #28 ausador

I see someone ducking the question, not that I should really care in the least bit I guess. Your opinion seems to have been solidly and irrevocably shaped entirely by one negative news article after 25 years and thousands (tens of thousands) of positive ones.

Nice try, but I’m not going to be drawn back in to discussing Aung San Suu Kyi with you no matter what opinions or motives you attempt to attribute to me. That door is permanently closed.

If that is your choice then you are certainly welcome to it I guess, just as I am welcome to my updated opinion of you as well.

You are indeed welcome to your updated opinion of me. I’ll try my best not to lose too much sleep worrying about what that might be. //

Are we done now? Why, yes, yes we are.

32 ausador  Sun, Oct 27, 2013 7:36:25pm

Yet the thread still goes on…

Damn I really need to try this one time, I’m sure I too could write a very contentious hit piece about pretty much any Left-wing icon using a few short quotes that I chose to interpret in the worst light possible.

It certainly doesn’t seem to be very hard, hell, David Blair got many folks to turn on Aung San Suu Kyi in less than 10 paragraphs and he was being rather obvious about it. :p

33 cinesimon  Mon, Oct 28, 2013 2:52:04pm

re: #32 ausador

I wonder if you realize that the Democratic Party is an American political party? And that she is not an American?
Gawd I’m not going to respond to all of your bizarre, childish accusations - whether they be at me or any other posters. (yeah editing a post 2 seconds after posting it, by adding a half a sentence, is TOTALLY ‘completely rewording it’. Boy oh boy. Did you only just discover the internet? Debate? Politics? Maybe you ought to try learning honesty, attempt to calm your temper tantrums, and maybe not pretend that you know our motivations and ideology better than we do.

Clearly, we’ve been attempting to debate a 12 year old who knows it all, and doesn’t seem to understand that this issue is not actually about one article.
Kiddo, ASSK’s reputation as a brave truth teller has been in question for a whole lot longer than the past week. More like that past year or two. Do you seriously not understand that this is an issue that is bigger than simply one article? You’re really that unfamiliar with this debate? Actually my question is a bit disingenuous: of course you’re that unfamiliar. You’ve made it quite clear you’ve waded in full of anger and nonsense, to a debate you have no idea has been going on for quite some time.
If you really were the all-knowing mind reader you think you are, you’d know all that.
But maybe you only ‘cherry pick’ the parts from our minds that you think are worth attacking. Oh and the mind of the writer of the article, given you know 100% his motivation for writing the article you have so childishly attacked, and seem to bizarrely think is the entire issue… yeah, bud - I’m sure you’re right: it was all about getting clicks!.

YEP: your mind reading skills are exceptional!


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Trump’s “Stolen Election” Lie Based on Evidence From Pervy Bathroom Cam-Spy OK, this really takes the cake. If you have relatives that still cling to the “election was stolen, dadgum, I jes’ KNOW IT … This should be a slight remedy to the stubborn madness Thanks to online anonymity, the ...
Khal Wimpo (free internal organs upon request!)
4 hours ago
Views: 41 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Best of April 2024 Nothing new here but these are a look back at the a few good images from the past month. Despite the weather, I was quite pleased with several of them. These were taken with older lenses (made from the ...
William Lewis
2 days ago
Views: 157 • Comments: 2 • Rating: 5
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 403 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1