- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
I posted this story from Irrawady yesterday: https://lemmy.ca/post/52965387. The numbers are much higher.
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.
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.
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 🫡
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.
So state sponsored terrorism
Fair enough IMO
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.
Like they said, terrorism.
This is what people feared would happen if man took to the sky… When flight was first invented.
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.
