[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

for Su Su and Others: (r)



Dear Aung soe,
Barking dog is not looking for the activists with brain.  it motives is to 
insult the activists for its masters SPDC.  Do not use your precious time to 
counter it.  The best thing is to ignor it.

Sai


>From: "Aung Soe" <aungsoe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: burmanet-l@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: for Su Su and Others:
>Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 06:03:33 PST
>
>hi susu:
>
>r u looking for activists with brain?
>
>u r reading attitudes and opinions of those activists but not how their
>brains function for their survival.  i ain't blaming rachael for exchanging
>her beliefs with her personal freedom 'cause she had no other option to get
>her life back but this trade-off.  every activist knows her position.
>everyone knows aung san suu kyi'll be well treated by regime if she also
>makes such trade-off: between pro-belief and pro-survival. so will our
>freind minn ko naing.
>they remain in cativity for their conscious choice based on their moral
>principles.  it doesn't mean that aung san suu kyi, minn ko naing and other
>prisoners of conscience r brainless and not in touch with reality.  it's a
>matter of choice.  they go with their beliefs.
>rachael went with her passion for life.  i won't say she is an immoral and
>coward member of freeloving society.  but her sudden and unexpected 
>exchange
>of her beliefs with her freedom did shock many activists who were and r
>still considering her as one of their kind of freedom lovers.
>ppl who criticize rachel have mostly known her and shared her with their
>political ideas and contacts regarding democratic struggle in burma.  her
>press statements did crush this trust into pieces.
>ppl r constantly changing both in their attitude and belief.  as we grow to
>high levle of political and social maturity, we tend to place more
>importance on moral beliefs than on materialistic beliefs.  some 
>intelligent
>ppl with halfcooked maturity tends to play between these two choices and
>used to become amoral persons.  they seem to be capable of living in any
>world of any kind of truth.  because, after all, belief and truth r not
>their means to live with on this earth. it is their addiction to "freedom"
>outside the prisoned humanity. submission to unjust laws doesn't seem to
>matter them much.
>
>r u a free person?  am i?  as long as we remain truth conscious and 
>faithful
>to our beliefs, one way or another, we'll never be free in body or mind.  i
>ain't tutoring u about life.  but i'm explaining u about the main chemistry
>that makes up activism and its nature. i don't think, true activism changes
>by time from classic to post-modern.  Time has no functional effect on the
>truth. If truth ain't time-resistent, perhaps, rogers and dawnstars belong
>to classic activism, that simply refuse to negotiate or make a deal.
>
>it is not important who is brainless or who is heartless. but it is
>important how we represent and interpret our beliefs.  Mahatma Gandhi,
>Castro, Malcolm X, Huey Newton, Martin Luther King, Subash Chandra Bose,
>Nelson Mandela, Eugene Debs, Elizabeth C. Staton .....many more... have 
>done
>this representatin and interpretation in different ways.  They survived and
>died for nothing but truth.  It is their living for high moral and natural
>laws that makes black, white, yellow brothers and sisters of both poor and
>rich more equal and free than before.  They never submitted to oppressive
>rules and the rulers.  Are they anarchists or just legal heretics or
>brainless nuts?
>
>activists with such beliefs r not ur enemy, susu. they are ur ally.  and
>they r out there!  embrace them with an open heart and mind.
>aungsoe
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

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