and of course your hostility made you draw false associations...yeah I got it .. thanks...
Aung San Suu Kyi.. The Fall of a Human Rights Icon..
- Thread starter Bells
- Start date
- Status
so you contradict yourself in only a few lines...
they are threatening war.....
Certainly this would be the interpretation by the Myanmar military.
It is not possible to determine right or wrong until you get a handle on the reality of what is going down in Myanmar, currently.
Aung has no control over the military. Her influence over the military is limited to what her global standing allows and how the people of Myanmar support her.
If you are successful in tearing her down then the consequences may be considerably worse than what they are now.
She would be imprisoned or executed as being redundant to the military's ambitions.
How many times has she been imprisoned by the military?
Why wasn't she executed years ago?
Perhaps these questions are way over your head so I will stop asking them...
Last edited:
hee hee..
You know if you read this thread there is not one single occasion where you have agreed with what I have posted....
I have even reflected your own commentary and still achieved disagreement.
And you wonder why the world is in the state it is in now.....
Any one can sign up to the UDHR whether of not it is officially recognized or not is another thing.
One of the biggest problems of the UDHR is that it is treated like an exclusive nations only club when it should be a charter for the people individually as well.
All citizens of Australia for example should sign up as part of the responsibility of citizenship. (especially article 18)
But go on disagree to your hearts content...
Last edited:
did not... again your own association due to your open hostility.
The post was early in the development of the idea as well...later in the thread the idea evolved into global citizenship, UN taking responsibility for stateless persons etc... and it is still evolving...
There is nothing stopping the UN from offering the Rohingya and other stateless persons global citizenship thus defeating the Myanmar Military's prime manipulation tool.
It is just a matter of UN reform of their charter.
How ever in the mean time the UN can achieve virtually the same immediate effect by leasing land from the Bangladesh Government and claim it as diplomatic UN space. Thus creating a safe zone with out the huge impost of a UN military presence.
Bells
Also, thinking over night, I was not mocking or diminishing the victim.. I was mocking and diminishing your highly detailed account of rape and torture as being an over indulgent sanctimonious, self righteous diatribe designed to shock the audience into some sort of sympathetic state. A standard media tactic that has been over used recently world wide so much so that the very acts they are describing are becoming the new norm and both mock and diminish the victims.
Example:
15 years ago,
If a POTUS tweeted an abusive video of him hitting a golf ball into the back of a woman ( Hillary) and thought it was funny, he would cause such a global outrage. Today it has been virtually ignored.
Another:
Every night now on SBS for over 60 days there has been images of emaciated malnourished children starving to death in places like Yemen, South Sudan.
People are becoming apathetic... Bells
more so than ever before...
Also, thinking over night, I was not mocking or diminishing the victim.. I was mocking and diminishing your highly detailed account of rape and torture as being an over indulgent sanctimonious, self righteous diatribe designed to shock the audience into some sort of sympathetic state. A standard media tactic that has been over used recently world wide so much so that the very acts they are describing are becoming the new norm and both mock and diminish the victims.
Example:
15 years ago,
If a POTUS tweeted an abusive video of him hitting a golf ball into the back of a woman ( Hillary) and thought it was funny, he would cause such a global outrage. Today it has been virtually ignored.
Another:
Every night now on SBS for over 60 days there has been images of emaciated malnourished children starving to death in places like Yemen, South Sudan.
People are becoming apathetic... Bells
more so than ever before...
Last edited:
Good idea, let's make the UN a tool for ethnic cleansing, not an institution in opposition to it.
bah!
The Bangladesh PM has suggested that a safe zone be established in Myanmar by the UN.
I think the lessons of Srebrenica, Bosnia genocide, would stop them from trying to do the same thing.
The problem is that right now, there are over 400000 asylum seekers wallowing in the mud with no useful legal status, and no useful legal protection and no where to go to get it.
Allow them global citizenship by being on UN controlled land in Bangladesh affords them legal protection as per the UN.
At the moment the only protection they have in reality is via the Bangladesh government and they have indicated they are losing patience and may get into some ethnic cleansing of their own...
Allow them global citizenship by being on UN controlled land in Bangladesh affords them legal protection as per the UN.
At the moment the only protection they have in reality is via the Bangladesh government and they have indicated they are losing patience and may get into some ethnic cleansing of their own...
it all ready is a tool for ethnic cleansing
Bells
I have had a chance to have a reasonably thorough read of the ISCI Rohingya report 2015.
It occurs to me that one of it's primary causation, suggested by the report, of most of Myanmars muslim associated problems is intense fear of Islamization or Islamification of the entire nation.
Do you agree?
I have had a chance to have a reasonably thorough read of the ISCI Rohingya report 2015.
It occurs to me that one of it's primary causation, suggested by the report, of most of Myanmars muslim associated problems is intense fear of Islamization or Islamification of the entire nation.
Do you agree?
Last edited:
No one learns lessons, that's the true lesson.
Bells
Staff member
Does your room mate know that you are suggesting removing the Muslim ethnic minority from Myanmar to put them in an internment camp in Bangladesh, making them "citizens of the world" (which does not even exist and will still leave them stateless and without citizenship to their home country) because Burmese Buddhist don't want them there? Did you tell him about your prattle about how Indonesian Muslims pose a threat to the Buddhists in Myanmar and so on and so forth?
Look dude, your argument is tantamount to the 'I have a black friend' response.
Perhaps you aren't aware of how you come across here, but that was literally what you said.
You make these ridiculous claims with no factual base or connection to reality. For example:
I provided you with the "facts":
And you have completely avoided providing the link where you claimed that they stated that part of their agenda was the ideal of securing a separate state under a federation. So can you please provide a link where they have said they want their own separate state? Because "self determination" does not mean a separate state. Self determination is a fundamental human right that everyone enjoys or should enjoy. But you made this claim (and it isn't the first time, you earlier argued that the Rohingya want their own state without any support for your claim, despite all evidence that contradicts you) and have again failed to support it.
So I'll ask again..
Can you please provide a link that the ARNO want their own separate state?
Sorry if it offends your delicate sensibilities, but I tend to not be kind to people who spend pages condoning ethnic cleansing and genocide and making every excuse for it, nor do I take kindly to people who suggest that the UN should also aid and abet said abuse of human rights by removing them and putting them in a detention/internment camp and leaving them effectively stateless with a non-existent 'citizen of the world' title that means diddly squat and would not guarantee them their human rights. Instead of making up titles, and scenarios such as the military holding Aung San Suu Kyi hostage by threatening to kill people if she does not do as they demand, perhaps it's time to deal with reality.
Fighting back after a massacre is not a threat of war. It's called self defense against an oppressive regime.
Can you please provide a link where the few hundred men and boys who make up this new organisation and who have no arms aside from what they can make up themselves, have threatened a "war" with Burma?
Great. Which begs the question.. Why is she still banning the UN and human rights observers from the country?
Are you suggesting we keep supporting a government that is complicit in ethnic cleansing and genocide?
And you keep making up these weird scenarios and, well, conspiracies. What? Are you again alluding that the military is holding people hostage and will kill them and they had all of this planned out and her role in it all along?
And considering you don't even understand what "self determination" means and you seem to believe it means wanting a separate state, or using terms like "without prejudice" without understanding what it actually means, I really do not think you are in any position to be telling anyone that something is way over their heads.
It would help if you delved into reality instead of making up these bizarre scenarios and conspiracies in your bid to defend a government that is complicit in genocide and ethnic cleansing.
Bells
Staff member
To quote my 12 year old.. It's because your argument is 'stupid head'.
Provide me a link to the UN site where you, as an individual, can "sign up" to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
When you fail to find that link, I want you to look up the word "intrinsic". And then look up the word "inalienable". The UDHR might start making sense to you then.
I literally, and I mean literally, just face palmed.
What do you think the UDHR is, exactly?
Sure. And then you can get a participation medal pinned to your chest, like they do with the kids who come last in school races so they don't feel left out.
Nah dude. At this point I am just laughing at you.
You said that the Burmese do not want them there and that was your solution.
Do you even read what you type on this site?
"Global citizen" does not exist. Nor can it exist under international law.
You would effectively be rendering these people as Stateless when the problem they face is the fact that they have already been stripped of their citizenship. What? Do you think "global citizen" will mean they can just go home?
Great. So they a new thing is created to declare them "global citizens". And then what? Where do they go? How do they get there? What rights do they then have in regards to where they live? Say they want to go back to Burma. They are again not Burmese citizens and we are right back to where we are now.
Heh.. So a detention camp with zero prospects for their future, aside from your "global citizen" spiel, when these people just want to be allowed to go home and live as citizens of their country with equal and fair rights.
Because rape and torture is so funny, right?
You do realise that when the genocide was ended, those people returned home, yes? That a large portion of them chose to return to their homes and villages and rebuild?
And then what?
What happens when they leave said UN controlled 'safe zone'? Do they get to go home? Or is that going to be their place of residence for eternity, with no rights to determine their fate through things like, ooohh, voting? How about education? Do the kids get to choose what school or university they attend? And then what happens then? Do you understand the rights you have as a citizen of your home country?
It's racism and a desire for racial purity. In many areas, Burmese Buddhist monks quote Hitler and demand racial purity and racial superiority and literally advocate for a final solution against all ethnic minority groups, in particular the Muslim minority. Hitler and Nazi propaganda is normal in many parts of Myanmar. And the military, government, police literally spout the same propaganda and bus these people around to fight against ethnic minority groups with military and police support, as we saw in 2012, where whole villages and towns that had co-existed peacefully, were torn apart and massacres and ethnic cleansing ensued after the government bused these people in with the support of the military.
When a government and military push for racial purity and set up programs through schools, public messaging, propaganda on social media, the media itself, protests and marches demanding racial purity and spread propaganda like 'the Muslims are coming to get us', etc (much like the rubbish you espoused in this thread to be honest) and threaten local businesses and villages who co-existed peacefully for generations that if they fail to exclude, threaten, harass and even kill their Muslim neighbours, you get what you have in Myanmar.
What we are seeing in Myanmar is a genocide. It follows the exact same pattern that we have seen in previous genocides, where normal rational people are literally spurred on by the Government to attack and threaten and even kill their neighbours and friends. It is a slow process in Myanmar and the government has literally had an ongoing campaign to push this sort of agenda, and the current government has continued with the exact same thing and even increased the propaganda against these ethnic minority groups. That is why I said that Aung San Suu Kyi was stalling for time. Not to save people, but to ensure what they are doing can be completed. This is a process we have seen time and again in a genocide. Hence why when I posted my solution, the first step is to shut down state media and social media, to stop the spread of this type of propaganda that her government and her own office have been spreading. It is the most effective way of actually stopping these sorts of killings and ethnic violence that is pushed by the State and military.
When the Rwandan genocide was ramping up, before the killings started, the UN officers who were there to observe and try to maintain peace in the growing ethnic violence, literally begged for countries like the US and EU nations to fly planes over Rwanda to jam state run radio and TV stations, because that is the main tool in a genocide. The US refused to send any planes and they then blocked EU countries from doing it in the UNSC. Within weeks, the killings started. Had the media been shut down, it would have stopped the genocide. In Myanmar, Buddhist monks go on State media and literally declare that Myanmar needs a final solution and they quote and advocate Nazi rhetoric and tell people to kill their Muslim neighbours because if they don't, they will be killed and overrun by Muslims and other ethnic minority groups, despite the fact that it is utter rubbish. The government provides transport for these people to travel from area to area to spread propaganda.. That is how the government is organising and planning a genocide.
It isn't driven my Islamaphobia as such. It is driven by their desire for a racially pure country. When they destroy the Rohingya, they will then turn to the next ethnic minority group and they have already started to spread propaganda about that too.
Now do you understand?
eh what ever you reckon Bells...
Given that your approach has been a disaster I can only hope you discover a new one and soon.
56+ million displaced persons and growing by the day.. have fun..
the clock is ticking...
maybe one day.. eh?
Given that your approach has been a disaster I can only hope you discover a new one and soon.
56+ million displaced persons and growing by the day.. have fun..
the clock is ticking...
maybe one day.. eh?
Last edited:
If people want to explore the concept of the symbolic individual signing of the UDHR is let me know.
If any one wants to explore the concept of a global citizenship as a potential solution to the immediate problem of stateless persons let me know...
send me a PM
Just googled it and found out it is far from a new concept...
even a wiki on it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_citizenship
If any one wants to explore the concept of a global citizenship as a potential solution to the immediate problem of stateless persons let me know...
send me a PM
Just googled it and found out it is far from a new concept...
even a wiki on it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_citizenship
Last edited:
Ever heard of the Cairo Charter of Human rights? ( the Islamic alternative)
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rights_in_Islam
Bells:
Also considered intrinsic and unalienable... by the 40 odd nations that have signed it...
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rights_in_Islam
Bells:
Also considered intrinsic and unalienable... by the 40 odd nations that have signed it...
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
You should read your own link and what "global citizenship" entails.
You didn't read it, did you? From your link:
The CDHRI has been criticized for being implemented by a set of states with widely disparate religious policies and practices who had "a shared interest in disarming international criticism of their domestic human rights record."[1]
Article 24 of the declaration states: "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia." Article 19 also says: "There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia."[12]
The CDHRI has been criticised for failing to guarantee freedom of religion, in particular the right of each and every individual to change their religion, as a "fundamental and non-derogable right".[12] In a joint written statement submitted by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), a non-governmental organization in special consultative status, the Association for World Education (AWE) and the Association of World Citizens (AWC), a number of concerns were raised that the CDHRI limits human rights, religious freedom, and freedom of expression. The statement concludes that "The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is clearly an attempt to limit the rights enshrined in the UDHR and the International Covenants. It can in no sense be seen as complementary to the Universal Declaration."[13] In September 2008, in an article to the United Nations, the Center for Inquiry writes that the CDHRI "undermines equality of persons and freedom of expression and religion by imposing restrictions on nearly every human right based on Islamic Sharia law."[14]
Rhona Smith writes that, because of the CDHRI's reference to Shariah, it implies an inherent degree of superiority of men.[15]
Adama Dieng—a member of the International Commission of Jurists—has also criticised the CDHRI. He argued that the declaration gravely threatens the inter-cultural consensus on which the international human rights instruments are based; that it introduces intolerable discrimination against non-Muslims and women. He further argued that the CDHRI reveals a deliberately restrictive character in regard to certain fundamental rights and freedoms, to the point that certain essential provisions are below the legal standards in effect in a number of Muslim countries; it uses the cover of the "Islamic sharia (Law)" to justify the legitimacy of practices, such as corporal punishment, which attack the integrity and dignity of the human being.[4][16]
In 2009, the journal Free Inquiry summarized the criticism of the Cairo Declaration in an editorial: "We are deeply concerned with the changes to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by a coalition of Islamic states within the United Nations that wishes to prohibit any criticism of religion and would thus protect Islam's limited view of human rights. In view of the conditions inside the Islamic Republic of Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Bangdalesh, Iraq, and Afghanistan, we should expect that at the top of their human rights agenda would be to rectify the legal inequality of women, the suppression of political dissent, the curtailment of free expression, the persecution of ethnic minorities and religious dissenters—in short, protecting their citizens from egregious human rights violations. Instead, they are worrying about protecting Islam."
Article 24 of the declaration states: "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia." Article 19 also says: "There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia."[12]
The CDHRI has been criticised for failing to guarantee freedom of religion, in particular the right of each and every individual to change their religion, as a "fundamental and non-derogable right".[12] In a joint written statement submitted by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), a non-governmental organization in special consultative status, the Association for World Education (AWE) and the Association of World Citizens (AWC), a number of concerns were raised that the CDHRI limits human rights, religious freedom, and freedom of expression. The statement concludes that "The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is clearly an attempt to limit the rights enshrined in the UDHR and the International Covenants. It can in no sense be seen as complementary to the Universal Declaration."[13] In September 2008, in an article to the United Nations, the Center for Inquiry writes that the CDHRI "undermines equality of persons and freedom of expression and religion by imposing restrictions on nearly every human right based on Islamic Sharia law."[14]
Rhona Smith writes that, because of the CDHRI's reference to Shariah, it implies an inherent degree of superiority of men.[15]
Adama Dieng—a member of the International Commission of Jurists—has also criticised the CDHRI. He argued that the declaration gravely threatens the inter-cultural consensus on which the international human rights instruments are based; that it introduces intolerable discrimination against non-Muslims and women. He further argued that the CDHRI reveals a deliberately restrictive character in regard to certain fundamental rights and freedoms, to the point that certain essential provisions are below the legal standards in effect in a number of Muslim countries; it uses the cover of the "Islamic sharia (Law)" to justify the legitimacy of practices, such as corporal punishment, which attack the integrity and dignity of the human being.[4][16]
In 2009, the journal Free Inquiry summarized the criticism of the Cairo Declaration in an editorial: "We are deeply concerned with the changes to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by a coalition of Islamic states within the United Nations that wishes to prohibit any criticism of religion and would thus protect Islam's limited view of human rights. In view of the conditions inside the Islamic Republic of Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Bangdalesh, Iraq, and Afghanistan, we should expect that at the top of their human rights agenda would be to rectify the legal inequality of women, the suppression of political dissent, the curtailment of free expression, the persecution of ethnic minorities and religious dissenters—in short, protecting their citizens from egregious human rights violations. Instead, they are worrying about protecting Islam."
Is this what you advocate?
Now, stop avoiding the question and stop stalling with total BS and can you please support your claims in this thread? Let's start with this:
Can you please provide a link of where the ARNO "stated as part of their agenda the ideal of securing a separate state under a federation"?
It is not the first time that you have claimed that the Rohingya want a separate state or have been advocating a "separatist position" and you have failed to back up that claim.
Can you please provide a link or links to support your claim that the ARNO "have stated as part of their agenda the ideal of securing a separate state under a federation".
Gosh you are being silly....
Of course I read it (both)... but as you were not aware of it let me add further emphasis to the criticism of the CDHRI
The CDHRI is in direct conflict with the UDHR in particular it's refusal to support Article 18 which discusses the right of freedom of thought and belief.
and most revealing is that all though there are less than 8 nations abstaining from signing the UDHR
- Byelorussian SSR (Byelorussia)
- Czechoslovakia.
- Poland.
- Saudi Arabia.
- Soviet Union.
- Ukrainian SSR (Ukraine)
- Union of South Africa.
- Yugoslavia.
There are 40 + nations that have signed the CDHRI
What does that mean?
It means that almost 40 nations have signed to both charters even though the charters are in serious conflict.
They are fundamentally incompatible.
Suffice to say that Islamic countries can not have both CDHRI (Sharia) and UDHR and remain consistent on human rights.
And that serious deception by those who hold to both is being promoted due to vested interest in that deception.
You will also note that there appears no listing of CDHRI member states to be researched on the net.
If you find one let me know please...
What charter are the Rohingya aligned with?
Do they support the UDHR?
The reason this has come up is that whilst they demand human rights as per the UDHR they reject it simultaneously.
The reason I mention this is not Islamophobia but merely to point out the hypocrisy that exists and one of the main reasons why Islam has been so deadly controversial all over the globe lately.
Yemen genocide:
The plight of the Yemen people for example is caused primarily by one of the abstaining nations. Saudi Arabia. (Wahhabism) ( with the support of the USA administration)
Millions are dying, and before years end over a million will most likely be infected with Cholera if they are still alive.
ISIL (extreme Wahhabism)
The violence ( genocide ) perpetrated by ISIL against their own religion is staggering.
Islam is destroying itself in a way never seen before.
Why?
Because their religious dogma rejects most of the UDHR. and in particular Article 18 and sectarian war is the outcome.
Until Islam accepts the fundamental rights espoused in the UDHR there will ALWAYS be conflict. Not only with those that treasure their freedom but with in their own religion.
The reason why I have bothered to mention this is that the idea killer I found for the global citizenship concept, is that for it to function and be offered as potential relief of stateless people and asylum seekers, they would have to accept the UDHR first.
Due to the nature of their religious beliefs this may not be possible.
So the idea is strictly limited to those who can accept the UDHR and those that do accept the UDHR invariably do not need global citizenship as a solution.
oh well my bad... sorry for wasting everyone's time.
Last edited:
- Status