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

Response to MGG Pillai (r)

> Date sent:      28 Jan 1996 03:23:19
> Send reply to:  Conference "reg.burma" <burmanet-l@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> From:           carol@xxxxxxx
> Subject:        Response to MGG Pillai
> To:             Recipients of burmanet-l <burmanet-l@xxxxxxxxxxx>

> From: carol@xxxxxxx (Carol Schlenker)
> Sir/Madam:
> An entire nation votes a military dictatorship out of office.  That same
> dictatorship, after harassing, exiling, jailing, torturing and even
> murdering the victors, remains in power through brute force.  Can this
> so-called government not be labelled "outlaw"?  Or would you prefer we call
> SLORC "electorally challenged"?

Did Burma vote a military dictatorship out of office?  I am not aware 
of that.  It was to write a constitution.  On the same note, did not 
then the FIS vote the Algerian military controlled government out of 
office?  Is that an outlaw state, too?  Then why is that military 
government not an outlaw and Slorc is?  I hold no brief, nor care, 
for Slorc, but let us look at the issue in the cold light of reality. 
 And, on a slightly different tack, was Suu Kyi a candidate in that 

> Moreover, what you call "pointless raving," I call free speech, a 
> which every person should exercise, even those who use big words like
> "etymological."  But if the conversation is too robust for you, please
> remember that you do have alternatives:  i.e., burmanews-l  (a.k.a.
> "Burmanet Lite:  Half the Messages of Burmanet, and Half the Fun").

This discussion obviously is too much for you, for you do not give me 
that right to my opinion.  I do not intend to leave this discussion, 
unlike dawn star and others who get upset when they are challenged. 

> We are not throwing stones at SLORC.  We are, to quote a much-admired
> Burmanet subscriber, putting the outlaw government "between a rock and a
> hard place."  Many of us, perhaps most of us, believe this is the most
> effective way to get the generals to talk with the democratic opposition --
> the moral equivalent of putting a gun to their thick heads.  But if you have
> better ideas, we'd love to hear them.

The way the discussion turns around often, it is not the moral 
equivalent of anything, except perhaps of pissing in the wind.  
Ultimately, there is a naive belief that battles to overthrow 
governments can be done thousands of miles away.  They cannot be.  
That has to be fought from within;  all that the others can do is to 
give moral and material support.  They cannot do the fighting for 
them.  Nor can they help by hurling insults at anyone who expresses a 
contrary view, or threaten to cancel his internet equivalent of a 
subscription, as my old friend, James Clad, of Georgetown University, 
threatens to do.

 > With all due respect,
> Carol Schlenker
> "Vox Populi Vox Dei"
> >From: "M.G.G. Pillai" <PILLAI@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >Could you please tell me who has decided that SLORC is an "outlaw" 
> >government?  Many Western and Asian countries have resident 
> >ambassadors in Burma, have dealings with SLORC, and behave with it as 
> >they do with Thailand or the Philippines.
> >
> >     What I do see is a deliberate attempt to destabilise the 
> >government.  Western diplomats in Burma give background briefings to 
> >the press there anonymously on events happenings in that country, 
> >those on this discussion group calls them "snoops and thieves", 
> >without understanding what these words mean or deliberate attempt to 
> >change etymological definitions.
> >
> >     I want to see a change for the better in Burma.  If you want to 
> >focus your attention on doing that, you have to do it in the way that 
> >the changes will take place.  All I see now is some people sitting 
> >out in countries as far away from Burma as possible and throw stones.
> >
> >     Let us get this discussion going on how this can be achieved, 
> >instead of the pointless ranting I get every time I inspect my 
> >mailbox.
> >
> >MGG
> >
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Date sent:      20 Jan 1996 14:14:32
> >> Send reply to:  Conference "reg.burma" <burmanet-l@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> From:           RHelvey@xxxxxxx
> >> To:             Recipients of burmanet-l <burmanet-l@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >> It is not irrelevant to conclude that SLORC are thieves and snoops.  Nor is
> >> it improper to blame SLORC for everything that is wrong in Burma today. Let
> >> us not forget SLORC is an outlaw government.  It has assumed total authority
> >> over every aspect of life in Burma. Therefore, whether it wants to
> >> acknowledge the responsibility which accompanies usurped authority, SLORC is
> >> responsible.  It is responsible for the reign of terror it has imposed. It is
> >> responsible for the corruption which exists. It is responsible for all, since
> >> its claims authority for all. It can only be relieved of this responsibility
> >> when it transfer political power to the elected government.  We do not have
> >> to be nice to tyrants. We should only be honest. 
> >> 
> >--
> >M.G.G. Pillai
> >pillai@xxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
M.G.G. Pillai