New MidEast Map Published, now includes Burma!

2 Oct, '07

New Middle East Map includes Burma

Why? Come on, it MUST be part of the Middle East, who else is so out of touch with reality that they would spew this in front of the world and believe it?

The following comments were made by their foreign minister at the UN; Mr. U Nyan Win Al-Sahhaf:

“Recent events make clear that there are elements within and outside the country who wish to derail the ongoing process so that they can take advantage of the chaos that would follow,” he said. “They have become more and more emboldened and have stepped up their campaign to confront the government.”
[…]
“The security personnel exercised utmost restraint, and they did not intervene for nearly a month,” the foreign minister said. “However, when the mob became unruly and provocative, they were compelled to declare a curfew. Subsequently, when protesters ignored their warnings, they had to take action to restore the situation. Normalcy has now returned to Myanmar.”
CNN – 2 Oct, ’07

All together now. Ready?

HAHAHHEHAHEHEHAHE EHAHHEHAHEHEHH AHHEHHAHE HEHHAHHA HAHEHHEEEEEE!

Thanks Mr. Win Al-Sahhaf. We believe you.

Regardless, this blog will show its support for the demands of the respect of human rights and democracy in Burma on Oct 4th with the rest of the world. I hope our joint voices will make a difference.

If you have a blog and would like to support the cause, please consider displaying the appropriate banner on your blog on Oct 4th.

Filed in: Human RightsPoliticstwitbthifd
Tagged with:

Comments (17)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Jonathan says:

    Here you can find the video from our demonstration yesterday. (the 4th is a national holiday) Hope that you can do more than we did.

    J.

  2. barry says:

    Wow, I haven’t gotten so little out of that since well… since forever!

  3. Redbelt says:

    If we keep burying the sea we can reach them! :mrgreen:

  4. Louise says:

    Thanks for this information, Mahmood. I have a graphic ready to upload on my blog tomorrow.

  5. For those who want graphics we have a flickr group here.

    Please also sign our list of participants!

  6. mishmish says:

    Burma. Where are the US liberators, defending freedom of speech and all that..?

    Why isn’t Myanmar on the Axis of Evil ?

  7. Mike says:

    The problems in Burma are Burmese problems, let the people there stop working, stop the buses taxis and trucks, stop the trains, stop all services, shut down the country. Unlike Saddam and the terrosists of the world the Burmese rulers threaten no one but their own kindred. Like Poland, let them sort out their problems. The UN charter is to protect nations from other nations….not to come in and decide how a people should, or should not, run their own country. Now if the Burmese rulers start developing nukes and threatening neighbors, you can bet you a$$ the US will the 1st, and probably the ONLY, nation to decide to DO something other than flap their jaw bones…..

  8. mahmood says:

    But it is no longer possible to live in a island shut off from the rest of the world Mike. Nor can you – as a human being – just stand idle when you witness the destitution of another peoples and the flagrant abuse of their human rights by their governments.

    The very least that you can do is highlight their plight as a way to put pressure on the internal mechanism to encourage them to make change for the better happen.

    If you do, today it’s them, tomorrow there is no guarantee that it won’t be you who suffer.

  9. Mavis says:

    I wonder if some of Burma’s problems has to do with this…

    http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Belgium_reopens_Myanmar_humanity_cr_10022007.html

  10. mishmish says:

    Maybe the problem is that Burma doesn’t have much oil or gas…??

  11. Esra'a says:

    Well Said, Mahmood. I’m so sick of the whole “YA LET THEM SORT THEIR OWN SHIT OUT.” Have some decency and compassion, it’s really not much to ask for.

  12. barry says:

    So Mike, if you knew your neighbor was beating the s*** out of his wife every night, you would turn a blind eye to that? Or would you only turn him in if he was threatening you as well?

  13. ash says:

    Mike – part of me agrees with you, and I often have this cynical view these days of “oh, people should sort out their own countries. It’s their responsibility, not the West’s (or America’s, or the UN’s, or whoever)”. But then another part of me imagines what it must be like to live under tyranny, where thousands and even millions are massacred by your own government, where you are in constant fear for yourself and your loved ones. And I imagine those ordinary people, desperate and in dire peril, calling out for help and nobody comes. Nobody.

    Military intervention may sometimes be the answer (it worked in Sierra Leone, though obviously not in Iraq). But more usually it’s impossible (politically, logistically) and other approaches must be tried. What’s the alternative? Just to walk on by as whole populations drown in blood?

  14. Eric Jacobson says:

    Mahmood wrote:

    But it is no longer possible to live in a island shut off from the rest of the world Mike.

    Mahmood, I agree that one cannot live apart from the world, nor should one necessarily ‘stand by’ while others suffer.

    The problem lies in the fact that the US–like any other nation–must be pragmatic about what it can, or should, do to assist others. We learned in Somalia that ‘nation-building’ cannot work unless those we’re trying to help genuinely want a peaceful society; and if there’s no such consensus among the locals, no amount of ‘external intervention’ will solve the problem, unless we’re prepared to come in as conquerors and impose our will by brute force (as the Allies did with the Axis in WWII, for example).

    In Burma’s case, the calculus runs something like this:

    1) The US has precious little additional force available to use–and certainly would never gain domestic popular approval to use it–in Burma;

    2) The world in general would instantly condemn ANY US move to deploy forces to Burma as ‘cowboy aggression’. We both know it;

    3)The UN, the preserve of despots around the world, sure isn’t going to pass any resolutions authorizing any sort of action against Burma;

    4) The US has no strategic interest in Burma per se.

    ====

    In fact, there is one nation–China–which could rein in the Burmese junta if it wished. But China is extremely interested in keeping a dependent Burma, since that nation possesses (pace a comment claiming otherwise) huge natural gas reserves which are of great interest to China. No Chinese Politburo is going to give a toss for ‘Burmese rights’ so long as their client government can reserve those gas fields for Chinese use.

    So, in the world in which we live, Burma is not going to be freed by anyone except the Burmese themselves. And to do that, they’d need guns and ammo–lots of both. THAT is how a nation liberates itself in the face of a ruthless tyranny.

  15. Eric Jacobson says:

    Ash wrote:

    …Just to walk on by as whole populations drown in blood?

    Sometimes, yes–that’s the only alternative. It’s happened repeatedly in recent history: the USSR, China, Cambodia, just to name a few, have all seen wholesale slaughter because the world was powerless to do anything.

    Another alternative is to begin arming and training a credible rebel movement within Burma itself–give the people the means and training to kill those who oppress them.

  16. Aliandra says:

    I’m also an advocate of letting people sort out their own s**t. All conflicts eventually burn themselves out anyway when people decide they’ve had enough pain. That’s what’s starting to happen with Iraq. However, there are some atrocities that do need outside military intervention, Darfur being the foremost example. Four years of harsh language against the Sudanese government have resulted in nothing.

    The fact is, the international community isn’t going to get involved in every war or slaughter. In this case, the humane thing to do is the arm the victims so they can defend themselves.

Back to Top