Earning respect.. (my reply)

[c04061998@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Let's hope that we learn from each other.

----Original Message Follows----
To: burmanet-l@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Earning respect..
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 21:38:52 PDT

Thank you for your permission to post this in public.

You have some good points and your points are well taken z!

Perhaps the following new article will summarize for all.

Please see my comments down below.

Yours,
Mr. "Soe Than"

----Original Message Follows----
To: "Soe Than" <c04061998@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Earning respect..
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 10:17:06 +0700

At 06:56 PM 10/2/99 -0700, you wrote:

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

-- Which we all love!

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?

-- Nope.  I rather not see a civil war divided into North Burma and South
Burma.  Killing one's life is not the answer.  Lord Budda said so.  Two
wrongs do not make it right.

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.

-- Yes, sadly.  But not my SPDC.  :-)  Honest!!

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.

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

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.

-- I really do not see her as advocating violence whatsoever.  I think you
may have overstated that she is only preaching non-violence way of means for
her own agenda - that she has to live up to the international standard.
That is not really her.  I met her in person!  (in 95-96)

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.

-- Yes, it makes sense.

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.

-- Hmmm I may be much younger than you are but I thought he fought because
"foreingers" were occupying Burma.  No?  Do not forget, his grandfather also
fought against foreingers!  GO-BURMA-GO!

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

-- Their motives - as self described by them were clear.  They were ready to
"die" for whatever they believed in.  Is this really a wise of them to storm
a building taking up hostages in the friendly neighbor Thailand?  They were
clearly mIsGuIdEd..  Hello????  Anyone there??

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.

-- Yes, this makes sense.

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

-- Duh!  For the obvious reason - mostly to defend themselves.  Of course
unless you are Sadam Husein or Laurent Kabila.  You do not see half of the
countries on earth invading each other territory to make a point, do you?

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

-- Why, thank you!  Do you people often accuse everyone whom you have a
disagreement with "sympathizer of the most violent and unprincipled regime"
and kick them out of your circle?  Or is this one of your tatics of saying
"Ahh I cannot win this kid in this, it is just easier to put him down and
label him something else..!"  This is how you aliante some good hearted men
and women.

No wonder why some groups have frictions because of "Tway kwey".

______________________________________________________

Thailand to be more vigilant on Myanmar
exiles
06:52 a.m. Oct 02, 1999 Eastern

By Anchalee Koetsawang

BANGKOK, Oct 2 (Reuters) - The siege by five
heavily-armed dissidents of the Myanmar embassy in
Bangkok which ended after 25 hours on Saturday was a
rude shock that will force Thailand to be more vigilant,
government officials said.

Interior Minister Sanan Kachornprasart told a news
conference that Thailand will no longer use kid gloves in
dealing with Myanmar dissident exiles.

``We have not been vigilant or strict with them so far. What
happened on October 1-2 was the biggest price we paid
and the most valuable lesson we learn from being kind to
these people,'' Sanan told reporters after the dissidents
escaped to safety on the Thai-Myanmar border by
helicopter.

``Thailand is a Buddhist country and we are open and kind
to people who turn to us for shelter. That attitude makes us
vulnerable, and we let our guard slip sometimes. From now
on we will be more strict and careful,'' Sanan said.

He did not explain how Thailand's policy would be different.

Thailand has been a magnet for exiled Myanmar dissidents
over the last few decades and saw a huge influx of radical
students in the wake of the country's last pro-democracy
uprising in 1988.

The Thai capital Bangkok is the bases for several exiled
Myanmar groups and there are hundreds of thousands of
refugees and illegal workers across the country, most of
whom are concentrated in the border areas.

Thailand also provides official shelter for Myanmar students
under the aegis of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR) and there are around 900 of them
at Maneeloy Centre in Thailand's western Ratchaburi
province.

Officials said they believed all of those involved in the
embassy siege had been staying in Thailand for several
years.

Five dissidents toting assault rifles and grenades stormed
Myanmar's embassy on Friday and took 89 people,
including foreigners hostage.

They demanded the release of all Myanmar political
prisoners, a dialogue between the Myanmar military
government and the pro-democracy opposition -- led by
Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi -- and the convening of a
democratic parliament.

The drama ended after 25 hours of negotiations led to an
deal in which the government provided a helicopter to take
them to the Thai-Myanmar border, with Deputy Foreign
Minister Sukhumbhand Paribatra on the same flight as a
guarantee of safety.

All the hostages were released unharmed.

The attackers, calling themselves the ``Vigorous Burmese
Student Warriors'' were transported to a destination they
requested near on the border near western Ratchaburi
province.

Sanan said that if the dissidents left Thailand for Myanmar, it
would be up to Yangon to decide what to do with them.

He said the dissidents were given safe passage out of
Bangkok because they were not considered ``terrorists'' but
people fighting for democracy in their own country.

``But after this incident, we will be much more careful,''
Sanan said.

``I would like to tell other foreigners coming to Thailand that
we will do our best to make sure this is a safe place for
them,'' he said.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com