Earning respect.. (r)

[bina@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

At 06:56 PM 10/2/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Ako Indiana khmyar -
>
>Please forgive me for posting my response or reply in public.

I dont mind conducting this argument in public.  That is one of the blessings of democracy and free speech.

>Gen. Aung San was a nationalist who fought fascist Japanese and colonial British.  In other words, these are foreigners.  He has earned many respects for his true conviction and what he has done for Burma.
>
>What is happening here is quite different.  A civil affair.  Burmese v.s. Burmese.

So you condone violence, as long as it is against someone of a different culture, or different color?  But in the case of a civil dispute, only one side can use violence, the other side must humbly beg for justice, no matter what abuses he suffers?  This is strange.  Why would anyone make this argument?

>I must urge you and your colleagues to find another way to fight against the Military Regime.  Please follow a none-violent path.  We need not to shed one innocent blood.

If you are a reader of this list, you know that there is a daily shedding of innocent blood throughout Burma, approved of and conducted by your SPDC dictatorship.

The world community perhaps can ignore this reality, because it is happening far away from them.  It will be harder to do that now, as the crisis is brought closer to home for them.

>I do not need to go into lengthy explanation on what I meant.  It  explained for itself.

So you claim.  As I said earlier, this is the dictator's tactic of using (usurped) authority in place of logic and reason.

>I know that ASSK would never, ever look at them as heroes.  She would not advocate this and I believe you know this also.

As General Secretary of the NLD, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has the responsibility to uphold internationally accepted norms of conduct.  Also, I believe that, personally, she would always avoid violence to the greatest extent possible.

Everyone knows, however, that there may appear a situation in life in which following one's principles are more important than maintaining social norms or even preserving life.  One example is Bogyoke Aung San's decision to take up arms against the British and Japanese occupations of Burma.

I do not believe he did this because the British and Japanese were "foreigners".  He did it because, out of love for his suffering countrymen, he could no longer personally tolerate the injustice and violence of the British and Japanese rule.

What do you think were the motives of those who took your embassy?

>We do not believe violence in our civilized and progressive society.  We must reject it at any cost or avoid it.

There is no civilized society in Burma today, in the common understanding of the word.  And, to the extent that the international community aids and abets the criminal SPDC regime, the rest of the world has yet to achieve a fully civilized society. 

Violence is, unfortunately, sometimes the only path to justice.  Otherwise, why do states keep armies?

Your pious talk of non-violence cannot hide your sympathy for the most violent and unprincipled regime in Asia today, Mr "Soe Than".