View Full Version : USA/Burma
Tom Cornwall
13-Oct-07, 10:28
I wonder if anyone noticed, as I did while watching the Emmylou Harris story last night on BBC4, that the USA were being just a little bit hypocritical in condemning Burma for their heavy handed reaction to the recent protests in that country. Back in the late 60’s , during the student protests against the Vietnam War, the American police and National Guard reacted almost exactly the same way as the Burmese troops did against the monks. Is this, perhaps, a case of do as I say, not as I do?
j4bberw0ck
13-Oct-07, 10:58
I wonder if anyone noticed, as I did while watching the Emmylou Harris story last night on BBC4, that the USA were being just a little bit hypocritical in condemning Burma for their heavy handed reaction to the recent protests in that country. Back in the late 60’s , during the student protests against the Vietnam War, the American police and National Guard reacted almost exactly the same way as the Burmese troops did against the monks. Is this, perhaps, a case of do as I say, not as I do?
Or is it redolent of a country that learned its lesson, unlike the Burmese, and in just 40 short years has moved from outright repression to something approaching free speech?
Do get a grip.
Hark! I believe I hear a fred hurrying to a chance to beat a protestor an anti-American drum!
orkneylass
13-Oct-07, 12:58
I'm with jabberwock - how far back to you want to go? I am currently watching what is happening in the USA with the possible recognition of the armenian genocide - if we can accept that the way 1960's student protests was dealt with is wrong we can surely accept that the massacre of 1.5 million armenians by Turks only 3 generations ago, an act which Hitler is on record as saying inspired him, should be recognised as genocide rather than ignored.
Or is it redolent of a country that learned its lesson, unlike the Burmese, and in just 40 short years has moved from outright repression to something approaching free speech?
Do get a grip.
Hark! I believe I hear a fred hurrying to a chance to beat a protestor an anti-American drum!
I just tell the truth, you consider telling the truth anti American?
Truth is the military regime in Burma gets a large amount of finance from Chevron who are developing the Yadana oil field and from the gas pipeline to Thailand they own.
Chevron are exempt from American sanctions against Burma.
I'm with jabberwock - how far back to you want to go? I am currently watching what is happening in the USA with the possible recognition of the armenian genocide - if we can accept that the way 1960's student protests was dealt with is wrong we can surely accept that the massacre of 1.5 million armenians by Turks only 3 generations ago, an act which Hitler is on record as saying inspired him, should be recognised as genocide rather than ignored.
So when will America accept what they did to the native population of America as genocide? They wiped out 95% of native Americans, around eleven and three quarter million people.
Hark! I believe I hear a fred hurrying to a chance to beat a protestor an anti-American drum!
You were right.;)
While no mainstream historian denies that death and suffering were unjustly inflicted by a number of Europeans upon a great many American natives, most scholars of the subject maintain that genocide, which is a crime of intent, was not the intent of European colonization. Historian Stafford Poole wrote: "There are other terms to describe what happened in the Western Hemisphere, but genocide is not one of them.
So if removing/slaughtering the indigenous population in any way convenient in order to allow the acquisition of their lands by the incomers....what was it?
Also from Wikipedia
Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation.
It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.
The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against the individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.
Seems like genocide to me.
Originally Posted by wikipedia
While no mainstream historian denies that death and suffering were unjustly inflicted by a number of Europeans upon a great many American natives, most scholars of the subject maintain that genocide, which is a crime of intent, was not the intent of European colonization. Historian Stafford Poole wrote: "There are other terms to describe what happened in the Western Hemisphere, but genocide is not one of them.
Well that's the opinion of an American Roman Catholic priest on the subject.
So you think we should accept the opinion of the Turkish government on the Armenian genocide then?
So if removing/slaughtering the indigenous population in any way convenient in order to allow the acquisition of their lands by the incomers....what was it?.
Like the Scots did to the Picts?:confused
Most historians maintain it was disease that wiped out most of the Indians. Is that part of a genocide?
orkneylass
14-Oct-07, 14:28
You carefully did NOT answer Fred's question Rheghead....
Like the Scots did to the Picts?:confused
Most historians maintain it was disease that wiped out most of the Indians. Is that part of a genocide?
Like the Scots did to the Picts according to writings with as much authority as the Bible.
The fate of the American native population is documented.
Whether or not disease was a factor it is no excuse for the treatment of the survivors, is it?
Like the Scots did to the Picts?:confused
Most historians maintain it was disease that wiped out most of the Indians. Is that part of a genocide?
The same can be said about the Holocaust.
Of the millions of Jews who died the vast majority died of malnutrition and disease not in the gas chambers.
Are you denying the Holocaust happened too?
The same can be said about the Holocaust.
Of the millions of Jews who died the vast majority died of malnutrition and disease not in the gas chambers.
Fred you do surprise me, I thought they mainly died at the hands of the Nazi prison guards, Dr Mengale, and the Gestapo, but then again I might be wrong.
The same can be said about the Holocaust.
Of the millions of Jews who died the vast majority died of malnutrition and disease not in the gas chambers.
Are you denying the Holocaust happened too?
The same can't be said about the holocaust, I am just saying that genocide wasn't the intention of the US army and it wasn't genocide if they didn't intend it to be. I never mentioned the Holocaust, you did.
The same can't be said about the holocaust, I am just saying that genocide wasn't the intention of the US army and it wasn't genocide if they didn't intend it to be. I never mentioned the Holocaust, you did.
So you are telling us that if any historian decides that genocide wasn't the intention.......then it wasn't...regardless of how it appears to the outsider?
In that case, maybe the Holocaust revisionists are right. :roll: And no, I don't think that before anyone goes off half-cocked!
Fred you do surprise me, I thought they mainly died at the hands of the Nazi prison guards, Dr Mengale, and the Gestapo, but then again I might be wrong.
You are invariably wrong.
So you are telling us that if any historian decides that genocide wasn't the intention.......then it wasn't...regardless of how it appears to the outsider?
In that case, maybe the Holocaust revisionists are right. :roll: And no, I don't think that before anyone goes off half-cocked!
I think the UN has specific definitions for genocide, you can check up for yourself but I read somewhere that the north american campaigns do not fit the definition. It may be genocide in the informal sense but not if you are going to make a case.
As a point of interest, I've been to the Holocaust museum and they have a display which covers the North American campaigns. I guess the proprietor thinks it was genocide as well.
Anyway, a good historian doesn't just 'decide' anything, they must have good evidence for their assertions.
The same can't be said about the holocaust, I am just saying that genocide wasn't the intention of the US army and it wasn't genocide if they didn't intend it to be. I never mentioned the Holocaust, you did.
There is no evidence that the death of millions of Jews was Hitler's intention and plenty of evidence that it wasn't.
There is no doubt however of the intentions of the American railroad bosses when they hired buffalo hunters to destroy the Native American's food supply, there was no doubt that without the buffalo huge numbers of Native Americans would starve.
You are invariably wrong.
Thank you fred for those few kind words [lol]
There is no evidence that the death of millions of Jews was Hitler's intention and plenty of evidence that it wasn't.
There is lots of evidence that he approved the creation of extermination groups and was kept regularly informed of their progress.
There is no doubt however of the intentions of the American railroad bosses when they hired buffalo hunters to destroy the Native American's food supply, there was no doubt that without the buffalo huge numbers of Native Americans would starve.
Sorry but I don't think that 19th century railroad bosses had the benefit of anthropology degrees in the study of hunter/gatherer groups. They were just thinking about exploitation of a natural resource without a thought for who else hunted the buffalo. That is a very far cry from genocide.
I think the UN has specific definitions for genocide, you can check up for yourself but I read somewhere that the north american campaigns do not fit the definition. It may be genocide in the informal sense but not if you are going to make a case.
The UN definition specifically omitted "ethnic cleansing" because the Soviet Union would have vetoed it for obvious reasons.
So the definition was the usual fudge to be seen to be doing something but not enough to actually mean much..........and don't you find it interesting that there are countries, including the USA who have ratified it, but only with the proviso that it doesn't apply to them if they don't want it to apply to them?
Imo, the definition is too specific with regard to intent to the exclusion of results.
Anyway, a good historian doesn't just 'decide' anything, they must have good evidence for their assertions.
You think? The accuracy rather depends who wrote the "evidence" on which they base their assertions in the first place..............bearing in mind that history is written by the victors.
You think? The accuracy rather depends who wrote the "evidence" on which they base their assertions in the first place..............bearing in mind that history is written by the victors.
You have described a bad historian, not a good one. Read my post.
You have described a bad historian, not a good one. Read my post.
Nope..........I have described a historian.
Historians need to establish a connection between documents and facts.......but unfortunately many facts aren't documented, and many documents aren't facts.
The better the historian, the greater the reliance on the best available evidence..........but the best available evidence is not necessarily the best evidence.
Sorry but I don't think that 19th century railroad bosses had the benefit of anthropology degrees in the study of hunter/gatherer groups. They were just thinking about exploitation of a natural resource without a thought for who else hunted the buffalo. That is a very far cry from genocide.
No, that is genocide, you didn't need to be an anthropologist to know that the Native American would die without the buffalo, it was plainly obvious.
It's just what the initial post in this thread says. 4th May 1970 at Kent State University the National Guard opened fire on unarmed protesters killing four and wounding nine. 30th January 1972 in Derry British soldiers opened fire on unarmed protesters killing fourteen people.
Acknowledge these facts instead of making excuses for them then we can condemn the Burmese government and acknowledge the genocide of the Native American for what it obviously was instead of reeling out pathetic half baked excuses then we can start talking about what the Turks did to the Armenians.
No, that is genocide, you didn't need to be an anthropologist to know that the Native American would die without the buffalo, it was plainly obvious.
It's just what the initial post in this thread says. 4th May 1970 at Kent State University the National Guard opened fire on unarmed protesters killing four and wounding nine. 30th January 1972 in Derry British soldiers opened fire on unarmed protesters killing fourteen people.
Acknowledge these facts instead of making excuses for them then we can condemn the Burmese government and acknowledge the genocide of the Native American for what it obviously was instead of reeling out pathetic half baked excuses then we can start talking about what the Turks did to the Armenians.
I think you should stop skimming over important facts, stop tarring all circumstances with the same brush and you should objectively think about the causal issues and their effects.
I think you should stop skimming over important facts, stop tarring all circumstances with the same brush and you should objectively think about the causal issues and their effects.
What? The important fact that if we or our allies do it it's justified and if anyone else does it they are evil?
I think you should stop skimming over important facts, stop tarring all circumstances with the same brush and you should objectively think about the causal issues and their effects.
So what causal issues and their effects made it more appropriate for the US Government and the British Government to fire on unarmed protestors and not for the Burmese Government to do the same? :confused
So what causal issues and their effects made it more appropriate for the US Government and the British Government to fire on unarmed protestors and not for the Burmese Government to do the same? :confused
Which occasion was this?
What? The important fact that if we or our allies do it it's justified and if anyone else does it they are evil?
Good and evil is a concept of perspective. They are by definition bipartisan. I've chosen my side, it is clear you've chosen yours going by your pro-terrorist comments.
Good and evil is a concept of perspective. They are by definition bipartisan. I've chosen my side, it is clear you've chosen yours going by your pro-terrorist comments.
I've looked back at the atrocities in the past the eradication of the Native American, the Holocaust, the genocides and ethnic clensing in the Soviet Union, the Orient and the Middle East, all over the word and asked myself how they happened and how they can still be happening today in places like Iraq and the Sudan. What makes it possible?
The answer to that is millions of hypocrites who have chosen their sides and decided that their side can do no wrong. Millions of good Germans and loyal Comrades and patriotic British and Americans have the blood of the innocents on their hands because they refused to see.
Yes I have chosen my side, I look at the facts and I tell it how it is, I'm on the side of reality, the side of truth.
Yes I have chosen my side, I look at the facts and I tell it how it is, I'm on the side of reality, the side of truth.
Like you are on the side of reality and truth that says when jets flew into the trade centre it was a convoluted conspiracy perpetrated by the US government when not a shred of evidence (fake photographs notwithstanding)supports it?:roll:[lol]
Pure fantasy more like.
Like you are on the side of reality and truth that says when jets flew into the trade centre it was a convoluted conspiracy perpetrated by the US government when not a shred of evidence (fake photographs notwithstanding)supports it?:roll:[lol]
Pure fantasy more like.
I state the facts, I tell it how it is.
All the evidence says that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition, there is no evidence at all that it collapsed as a result of terrorist activity.
Those are the facts if you want to believe them or not. The only thing preventing you from seeing the facts is some illogical insane belief that one of us wouldn't do a thing like that but one of them would.
I state the facts, I tell it how it is.
All the evidence says that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition, there is no evidence at all that it collapsed as a result of terrorist activity.
Those are the facts if you want to believe them or not. The only thing preventing you from seeing the facts is some illogical insane belief that one of us wouldn't do a thing like that but one of them would.
On that, we have nothing more to discuss as discussing something who holds a delusion isn't a discussion.
On that, we have nothing more to discuss as discussing something who holds a delusion isn't a discussion.
Well yes, there isn't much to discuss.
I have all the evidence and all you have is blind faith.
I have all the evidence and all you have is blind faith.
Not really because all the wtc7 and 911 conspiracy theories have been debunked after countless hours of investigation, its old and tired stuff now. Good while it lasted though.
So when will America accept what they did to the native population of America as genocide? They wiped out 95% of native Americans, around eleven and three quarter million people.
If we look to our history there are times when we are just as culpable, fortunately there are those that have moved on and can see their fellow man as an equal and not just some thing to be exploited,terminated or enslaved.
Not really because all the wtc7 and 911 conspiracy theories have been debunked after countless hours of investigation, its old and tired stuff now. Good while it lasted though.
You have nothing to support your official explanation at all, no hard evidence whatsoever.
I have masses of hard evidence which proves that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition, I even have a recording of the BBC describing the collapse 23 minutes before it happened, a recording of the building owner saying they decided to "pull it", a recording of the police and firemen clearing the area first and saying the building would be demolished, a recording of some of the demolition charges going off and of course a recording of the total, symmetrical collapse of the building at freefall speed.
You have zilch apart from your need to believe.
So when will America accept what they did to the native population of America as genocide? They wiped out 95% of native Americans, around eleven and three quarter million people.
If we look to our history there are times when we are just as culpable, fortunately there are those that have moved on and can see their fellow man as an equal and not just some thing to be exploited,terminated or enslaved.
Yes but unfortunately there are still many who haven't.
Nothing has changed, what they did to the Native American to take their land they are doing to the people of the Middle East to take their oil. With around two and a half million Iraqis dead since sanctions began and four million refugees the genocide goes on. The American government is putting people in concentration camps without trial and torturing them yet millions of people refuse to see that it is happening, refuse to accept that we are the bad guys, that what we are doing is wrong.
George Brims
15-Oct-07, 22:04
There is lots of evidence that he approved the creation of extermination groups and was kept regularly informed of their progress.
Not only that, but he is on record as joking about the cover story that the Jews had been relocated to the East rather than killed, along the lines of "It's a good thing they were sent away rather than us killing them all, which might look bad after the war". He and his disgusting friend Goering had a fine wee chuckle over than one.
Sorry but I don't think that 19th century railroad bosses had the benefit of anthropology degrees in the study of hunter/gatherer groups. They were just thinking about exploitation of a natural resource without a thought for who else hunted the buffalo. That is a very far cry from genocide.
Yes but the army giving the Indians blankets previously used by smallpox victims was definitely a genocidal act. It was commonly noted that the Indians had low resistance to smallpox and other diseases of the European settlers.
If you want to know what the US government really thought about what they were doing, track down the book "Son of the Morning Star", a biography of that thug George Armstrong Custer. In it you will find a quote from President U.S. Grant, concerning the Indians and the purpose of the army's treatment of them. If you just substitute Jew, Slav, or Gypsy for Indian in that paragraph, it reads like it came straight from Nazi Germany.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.