The Monks march on Burma

[Gan]

Burma's ruling military junta has warned it is ready to "take action" against Buddhist monks leading mounting protests, state media have reported.

Brig Gen Thura Myint Maung, minister for religion, warned them not to break Buddhist "rules and regulations" as Rangoon saw the largest march yet.

He blamed the protests on "destructive elements" opposed to peace in Burma.

President George W Bush is set to announce fresh US sanctions on Burmese leaders, the White House says.

The sanctions, which will include a ban on US visas, will be announced during Mr Bush's speech at the United Nations on Tuesday, US National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said.

The military government has so far showed restraint against the protests.
Monks are highly revered in Burma and correspondents say any move by the junta to crush their demonstrations would spark an outcry.

But there are fears of a repeat of 1988, correspondents say, when the last democracy uprising was crushed by the military and some 3,000 people were killed.

'Communist plot'
Some monks' representatives had called for the entire country to join them in their campaign to overthrow the government, which began eight days ago.

Monday saw marches in at least 25 towns and cities, including Mandalay, Sittwe and Pakokku.

Turnout estimates in Rangoon, Burma's biggest city, range from 50,000 to 100,000.

According to state media, the minister for religion spoke after meeting senior members of the Buddhist clergy, whom he warned to control the militant young monks who appear to be leading the current street protests.

In the first public response by the junta to the mass protests, he said action would be taken against the monks' protest marches "according to the law if they cannot be stopped by religious teachings".

No further details were forthcoming, but there was no hint of reconciliation in the government's message, BBC Asia correspondent Andrew Harding reports.

State television said the demonstrations of the past week were being fomented by communists and exiled media and student groups.

Dalai Lama appeal
Our correspondent says Monday's marches are a show of defiance unthinkable just a few weeks ago.

Five columns of monks, one reportedly stretching for more than 1km (0.6 miles), entered the city centre to cheers and applause from thousands of bystanders.

Civilians who joined in included officials from the opposition National League for Democracy (NLD) party, led by Aung San Suu Kyi.

The authorities are likely to be under huge pressure from their close neighbour China to avoid bloodshed and instability, our correspondent notes.

But if the demonstrations continue, he adds, the generals may see their authority ebb away and their options narrow.

The European Union has urged the junta to show the "utmost restraint" in dealing with the protests and to take the opportunity to "launch a process of real political reform".

The exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, has given his backing to the monks' call for freedom and democracy but urged the military not to react with violence to the protests.

UK Ambassador Mark Canning said Burma's leaders were now in uncharted territory and he expressed concern about a possible government counter-reaction.

"That... would be a disaster, although in terms of probability it, I'm afraid, ranks quite high," he told the BBC.

Detained leader
A hard-core group of more than 1,000 of the maroon-robed monks and 400 sympathisers went to Aung San Suu Kyi's street at the end of Monday's march, the Associated Press reported.

They chanted a prayer for peace in the face of the riot police blocking access to her home, where she is under house arrest, before dispersing peacefully.

Monks have been urging Burmese people to hold 15-minute evening prayer vigils.

The organisation that has emerged to lead the protests, the Alliance of All Burmese Buddhist Monks, has vowed to continue marches until it has "wiped the military dictatorship from the land".

The protests were triggered by the government's decision to double the price of fuel last month, hitting people hard in the impoverished nation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7010839.stm
__________________________________________________ ____

[Warriorbird]

The things people will do for an earlier release date.

[Parkbandit]

The things people will do for an earlier release date.

Some people have no idea how great we have it here.

[Gan]

The things people will do for an earlier release date.

rofl

/Gemstone

+100 pts.

[Celephais]

rofl

/Gemstone

+100 pts.
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=27320

[Gan]

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=27320

Looks like the ignore feature wins that one...

[Celephais]

Looks like the ignore feature wins that one...
That thread had degraded quite heavily as it was... so I think an appropriate re-topicing was in order.

[Sean]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/09/26/myanmar.crackdown/index.html

YANGON, Myanmar (CNN) -- At least five protesters have been killed by Myanmar security forces Wednesday, according to opposition reports, as the anticipated crackdown began.


Security forces use tear gas in a bid to disperse protesters in Yangon, Wednesday. Image made from television.

1 of 3 more photos » The unconfirmed report of fatalities came from the chief editor of the Democratic Voice of Burma, Aye Chan Naing, from his office in Oslo, Norway.

"A statement from the main Buddhist organization leading the demonstrations said five monks have been killed," he told CNN.

Myanmar's ruling junta acknowledged that one civilian had been killed and three wounded in the suppression of anti-government protests, The Associated Press reported.

Speaking from neighboring Thailand, the spokesman for the resistance organization the National Council of the Union of Burma (Myanmar), Soe Aung, told CNN that at least one monk died after clashes with security forces in Yangon.

The AFP news agency also reported officials as saying that at least three monks had died, including one who was shot as he tried to take a firearm from a soldier. The agency also reported officials as saying that two other monks had been beaten to death. A protester who was not a monk had died after being shot, it quoted Yangon General Hospital as saying.

It is not known if these fatalities are the same as those reported by the Democratic Voice of Burma and the National Council of the Union of Burma.

Meanwhile, an opposition Web site gathering information from sources inside Myanmar reported security forces have shot at least two protesters near Sule Pagoda, a Buddhist monument and landmark located in Yangon's city center.

"One protester reportedly died, according to people who took part in the demonstration," the Web site said. "The soldiers continued firing at the demonstrators, who numbered several thousand." Click here to see Web site

Since last week thousands of monks, barefoot and dressed in red robes, have taken to the streets of Yangon, with little incident. However, on Wednesday the opposition-issued report -- which CNN cannot independently verify -- painted a different picture.

Earlier in the day security authorities used tear gas, warning shots and force to break up a peaceful demonstration by scores of monks gathered around the Shwedagon Pagoda.

The Web site reports that protesting "monks were beaten and bundled into waiting army trucks," adding about 50 monks were arrested and taken to undisclosed locations.

In addition, the opposition said "soldiers with assault rifles have sealed off sacred Buddhist monasteries ... as well as other flashpoints of anti-government protests."

It reports that the violent crackdown came as about 100 monks defied a ban by venturing into a cordoned off area around the Shwedagon Pagoda, Myanmar's holiest Buddhist shrine.

It says that authorities ordered the crowd to disperse, but witnesses said the monks sat down and began praying, defying the military government's ban on public assembly.

Security forces at the pagoda "struck out at demonstrators" and attacked "several hundred other monks and supporters," the opposition Web site detailed.

Monks were ushered away by authorities and loaded into waiting trucks while several hundred onlookers watched, witnesses said. Some managed to escape and are headed towards the Sule Pagoda, a Buddhist monument and landmark located in Yangon's city center.

Aye Chan Naing, speaking to CNN, said that any violence used against monks could draw more of the population into the protests. "I think it will really anger the general public," he said. "It's a really shocking situation for a lot of people."

Speaking to CNN from Thailand, editor of Irrawaddy Magazine Aung Zaw said protestors he had spoken to were determined to continue their demonstrations, using hit-and-run protests, despite there being "a lot of injuries and wounded people."

He added that the developments in communications and technology since 1988 - when the last major protests and crackdown took place - had also helped, although some phone lines in Myanmar had been cut in recent days. "In spite of that we are getting images and information," he said.

He said that there were also fears about refugees being unable to escape into neighboring countries such as Thailand, India and China. "In Thailand several checkpoints have been closed down," he said. There was no comment from Thai authorities on his claim.

Observers have been preparing for possible violence in Myanmar, where human rights concerns have emerged as an international issue.

"We have no rights, no rights of media, no rights of freedom, no freedom at all," one man told CNN's Dan Rivers, near the Myanmar-Thai border.

Don't Miss
Bush: U.S. to tighten sanctions on Myanmar
China quietly prods Myanmar leaders to calm tensions
U.N. envoy to Myanmar urged to meet junta
Monks lead violent Myanmar protests
Myanmar junta begins crackdown
A small but persistent protest movement against the regime began in August after the government hiked fuel prices. Since then, authorities have arrested several hundred protesters, but demonstrations led by the monks have gone largely unchallenged by the military, which has ruled the country since the 1960s.

In Myanmar Monday, Brig. Gen. Thura Myint Maung -- who says the monks make up only two percent of the country's populace -- has asked senior monks to rein in the protests that have gripped the country.

He said that if the protests did not end, then army would be forced to act according to its own regulations.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown Wednesday called for a U.N. envoy to be sent to the troubled country to monitor the situation there. He also underscored any trampling of human rights would not be accepted.

"The whole world is now watching Burma and this illegal and oppressive regime should know that the whole world will hold it to account," he said, speaking at the Labour Party conference. "I want to see all the pressures of the world put on this regime."

Speaking to the U.N. General Assembly's annual session Tuesday, U.S. President George W. Bush said his administration will impose stiffer sanctions against the country's military regime.

"The United States will tighten economic sanctions on the leaders of the regime and their financial backers. We will impose an expanded visa ban on those responsible for the most egregious violations of human rights, as well as their family members," he said.

"We will continue to support the efforts of humanitarian groups working to alleviate suffering in Burma (the country's traditional name) and urge the United Nations and all nations to use their diplomatic and economic leverage to help the Burmese people reclaim their freedom."


Soe Aung said he believes "decisive" international action is needed to make changes in the country.

"There should be some action -- decisive action -- taken by the international community. At least there should be an urgent meeting of the Security Council level," he said. E-mail to a friend

[Gan]

"We have no rights, no rights of media, no rights of freedom, no freedom at all," one man told CNN's Dan Rivers, near the Myanmar-Thai border.


The events in Burma should be a wake up call to other countries and their repressive leadership.

[Latrinsorm]

The events in Burma should be a wake up call to other countries and their repressive leadership.I'm afraid it will be for quite the opposite reason you intend: repress a population for 40+ years and even shoot some peaceful protesters in broad daylight and all the world imposes are economic sanctions.

At the same time, I'm hopeful someone will cowboy up.

[Gan]

I'm afraid it will be for quite the opposite reason you intend: repress a population for 40+ years and even shoot some peaceful protesters in broad daylight and all the world imposes are economic sanctions.

At the same time, I'm hopeful someone will cowboy up.

So I'm going to throw a match on the petrol then.

Should another country/nation state intervene militarily?

[Gan]

An update for those keeping up with the story.



Burma’s generals silenced the Buddhist monks yesterday morning.

For a week and a half, the monks had been on the streets of Rangoon in their tens of thousands, and their angry calm gave courage to the people around them.

But overnight, they were beaten, shot and arrested, and locked in their monasteries. Handfuls of them emerged yesterday – two or three brave individuals, a dozen at most – but nothing to approach the mass marches of the previous nine days. Everyone felt their absence.



There are so many heartbreaking things about what is going in Burma, but for a foreigner one of the hardest to bear is the optimism. There are few foreign journalists here, but people treat them as saviours, encouraging them to get the story and the pictures out, with a touching faith that it will make a difference.

“Tell them to send foreign troops, UN troops,” said a young monk at the Mwe Kya Kan pagoda. “Please, fly them to our country to save our lives.”
An American in Rangoon told me yesterday about an opinion poll carried out on Burmese attitudes to US foreign policy.

“Like most people, they thought that it sucks,” he told me. “But not for the usual reason. Burmese wanted to know why George Bush hasn’t invaded their country yet.”




http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2545351.ece

[Tsa`ah]

So I'm going to throw a match on the petrol then.

Should another country/nation state intervene militarily?

They don't have any natural resources of global interest ... sanctions will have to do.

[Stanley Burrell]

Should another country/nation state intervene militarily?

I think the real solution is using their vBulletin ignore feature obviously.

[Gan]

So I'm going to throw a match on the petrol then.

Should another country/nation state intervene militarily?

I love it how none of the flaming liberals wish to answer this, noting the exception of the nonsensical post of Stainley.

[TheEschaton]

We shouldn't invade the country, obviously not.

However, we didn't invade Bosnia, and I think we achieved a good humanitarian end in that case using military force.

-TheE-

[ElanthianSiren]

I love it how none of the flaming liberals wish to answer this, noting the exception of the nonsensical post of Stainley.

Or perhaps the "flaming liberals" don't have as much time on their hands (as you do) and aren't about to be baited by that type of loaded question.

Now, then in the two minutes I do have; I believe that the UN should get involved first. Apparently, it's what the monks are asking for anyway. If you wish to move things militarily, taking proper procedural account of the situation and its intricacies is probably a good idea. SURELY NOT THAT THOUGH!!! I wonder where this cautionary idea comes from.

[ElanthianSiren]

We shouldn't invade the country, obviously not.

However, we didn't invade Bosnia, and I think we achieved a good humanitarian end in that case using military force.

-TheE-

Sure sure, go ahead and say what I was thinking in a sentence. I hate you non sarcastic non verbose people!

[Gan]

Or perhaps the "flaming liberals" don't have as much time on their hands (as you do) and aren't about to be baited by that type of loaded question.
Question was posed 9/26 at 3:17 pm. Since then you've had the chance to post 7 other times. Which I can guarantee is the least of all the other self implicated flaming liberals here. Thanks for stepping up to the plate though. ;)


Now, then in the two minutes I do have; I believe that the UN should get involved first. Apparently, it's what the monks are asking for anyway. If you wish to move things militarily, taking proper procedural account of the situation and its intricacies is probably a good idea. SURELY NOT THAT THOUGH!!! I wonder where this cautionary idea comes from.

So the USA should not get involved militarily. Check.

[TheEschaton]

Note: I didn't say that. I said the US can lead a NATO-led force, like in Bosnia, and put in air strikes to remove the regime.

Hell, technically, we could have done that in Iraq. But we wanted to shock and awe them terrorists!

[Tsa`ah]

I love it how none of the flaming liberals wish to answer this, noting the exception of the nonsensical post of Stainley.

Well since you didn't like the nature of the realistic answer I provided I'll simply ask you ... When was the last time we intervened on the behalf of an oppressed people for the express purpose of intervening on the behalf of an oppressed people?

It would be one thing if the precedent existed and you posed the question, yet the precedent doesn't exist.

[Gan]

Note: I didn't say that. I said the US can lead a NATO-led force, like in Bosnia, and put in air strikes to remove the regime.

Hell, technically, we could have done that in Iraq. But we wanted to shock and awe them terrorists!

.

We shouldn't invade the country, obviously not.

[ElanthianSiren]

Question was posed 9/26 at 3:17 pm. Since then you've had the chance to post 7 other times. Which I can guarantee is the least of all the other self implicated flaming liberals here. Thanks for stepping up to the plate though. ;)


So the USA should not get involved militarily. Check.

Didn't say that. ANNNNNNNNNNND, I was stating more that I don't have the time to check the boards as often as I once did as I'm out from 9:30-10ish or so. :rofl: for taking it as literally as possible though.

I didn't say that either. I said if you plan on having a military strike, make sure you know what you're getting into. I realize you'd think it was common sense, but it doesn't seem so common.

[Gan]

Well since you didn't like the nature of the realistic answer I provided I'll simply ask you ... When was the last time we intervened on the behalf of an oppressed people for the express purpose of intervening on the behalf of an oppressed people?

It would be one thing if the precedent existed and you posed the question, yet the precedent doesn't exist.

I actually left you out since:
A: I dont consider you a rabid or flaming liberal.
B: Your answer was the most realistic one posted.

But if you want attention then you can now say you've been acknowledged. ;)

[Gan]

Didn't say that. ANNNNNNNNNNND, I was stating more that I don't have the time to check the boards as often as I once did as I'm out from 9:30-10ish or so. :rofl: for taking it as literally as possible though.

I didn't say that either. I said if you plan on having a military strike, make sure you know what you're getting into. I realize you'd think it was common sense, but it doesn't seem so common.

Make up your mind will ya?

You sound worse than Hillary and the rest of the Democrats trying to backpedal after the 9/11 resolution votes were cast to invade Iraq. (Sans Obama of course)

[Tea & Strumpets]

Note: I didn't say that. I said the US can lead a NATO-led force, like in Bosnia, and put in air strikes to remove the regime.

Hell, technically, we could have done that in Iraq. But we wanted to shock and awe them terrorists!

I'm amazed you have the balls to suggest invading another country, while in the same breath you mock the last time we did so. I'm sure this time would be completely different, and if the UN was involved (as if they give a shit) everything would be sunshine and roses.

I think we should give them a hug and I detest anyone suggesting violence FOR ANY REASON AT ALL. You fucking barbarians.

[Parkbandit]

I'm amazed you have the balls to suggest invading another country, while in the same breath you mock the last time we did so. I'm sure this time would be completely different, and if the UN was involved (as if they give a shit) everything would be sunshine and roses.

I think we should give them a hug and I detest anyone suggesting violence FOR ANY REASON AT ALL. You fucking barbarians.


Yea... isn't he also the flaming liberal who said there is never ever a case for war or military action?

[ElanthianSiren]

Make up your mind will ya?

You sound worse than Hillary and the rest of the Democrats trying to backpedal after the 9/11 resolution votes were cast to invade Iraq. (Sans Obama of course)

-How's that? I was against Iraq from the beginning, thanks. Look up the posts.

And why would I make up my mind about something without having all the information on it? TheE and Tsa'ah both gave great suggestions; all I said was, if you plan on striking, make damn sure you have all your ducks in line. Pretty sound advice, wouldn't you agree?

[TheEschaton]

Awwww, I'm just trying to be "realistic" for you, PB. ;)

I personally don't support war. I am saying that a UN led force NOT invading BUT putting on air strikes and then moving in with a peacekeeping force would be a diplomatically acceptable, and while I abhor violence, I'd probably legally alone on this one.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Awwww, I'm just trying to be "realistic" for you, PB. ;)

I personally don't support war. I am saying that a UN led force NOT invading BUT putting on air strikes and then moving in with a peacekeeping force would be a diplomatically acceptable, and while I abhor violence, I'd probably legally alone on this one.

-TheE-

LOL.. I have no problem with you having a foot in the real world for once.. but you can't have your cake and eat it to. You've claimed before on these forums you are against any and all military action.. a perfect pacifist.. but now you claim to be something else?

I just want to know who Alok is this week.

[Tea & Strumpets]

Awwww, I'm just trying to be "realistic" for you, PB. ;)

I personally don't support war. I am saying that a UN led force NOT invading BUT putting on air strikes and then moving in with a peacekeeping force would be a diplomatically acceptable, and while I abhor violence, I'd probably legally alone on this one.

-TheE-

How shocking that your idea of being realistic is UN led Air Strikes followed by a UN peacekeeping force. Let's be honest, you are just horny for monks. It's funny but not surprising that in this case you suggest a completely unrealistic solution that immediately resorts to violence.

I think in the real world the UN appointed an advisor to the country (starting on the 29th) and is asking the country to attempt to avoid violence.

[TheEschaton]

Errrr, I can separate my personal views from what is legally enforceable. I am a pacificist, but I can see how the U.S.'s role might very well be to lead a multilateral humanitarian effort in Burma. Had we done that in Iraq, I'm sure I'd be alone in my absolutism in regards to my pacifism, instead of being a radical end of a large, broad anti-war movement.

For example, I am Catholic, yet happen to be pro-choice.

[Gan]

For example, I am Catholic, yet happen to be pro-choice.

According to my staunch Catholic neighbor and the Pope, you cant be a practicing Catholic if you are pro-choice.

:lol:

This just speaks volumes.

I hate all kinds of violence, but its OK to bomb the hell out of Burma before we move a peacekeeping force in.


lolololololololol

[TheEschaton]

Wow, your reading comprehension is SHIT.

I feel that bombing Myanmar is NOT okay. However, I also realize, legally (in the international law sense of the word), that the United States probably has the role to do a military intervention.

Did I agree with going into Bosnia? Nope, because I don't believe in violence. Does that somehow negate my ability to see the good ends that came out of bad means? Nope.

-TheE-

[Sean]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/09/28/myanmar.protests/index.html

"The governemt also cut Internet connections Friday, according to reports, severing a vital information link that has been used to digitally smuggle images of the violent suppression out of the secretive state."

[DeV]

I love it how none of the flaming liberals wish to answer this, noting the exception of the nonsensical post of Stainley.I love how you posed the question in response to Latrinsorm's quote then wondered why none of the flaming liberals answered.

What would you, a flaming conservative, propose in this volatile situation?

[Paradii]

I love how you posed the question in response to Latrinsorm's quote then wondered why none of the flaming liberals answered.

What would you, a flaming conservative, propose in this volatile situation?

Kill 'em all, and let the Lord, our savior, sort em out and send them to hell for being pagan bastards.

[TheEschaton]

Funny, that's exactly what al Qaeda says.

[Stanley Burrell]

According to my staunch Catholic neighbor and the Pope, you cant be a practicing Catholic if you are pro-choice.

:lol:

This just speaks volumes.

I hate all kinds of violence, but its OK to bomb the hell out of Burma before we move a peacekeeping force in.


lolololololololol

Holy shit. I'm glad you (and your neighbor) have deciphered the one-track zeal of the entire Catholic body. So much for Theologans. Good job.

Pretend like you have me on ignore too.

[Kembal]

With what assets would we invade with?

Our ability to project power in Southeast Asia is limited, even if we weren't in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. And considering Chinese economic ties with Myanmar/Burma (and the fact it has a border with China), my bet is China would object to a U.S.-led multilateral force, let alone a unilateral one. (yep, just looked it up...Russia and China vetoed a draft Security Council resolution in January.)

The question of intervention is moot, even if there were major economic resources in play. (oil and natural gas are present there, though the infrastructure is terrible, which is why there's not much being produced) The Chinese would never allow it.

[Gan]

I love how you posed the question in response to Latrinsorm's quote then wondered why none of the flaming liberals answered.

What would you, a flaming conservative, propose in this volatile situation?

I love how you posed the question in response to my question's quote without answering mine.

I'll answer your question when you answer mine.

;)

[Gan]

Holy shit. I'm glad you (and your neighbor) have deciphered the one-track zeal of the entire Catholic body. So much for Theologans. Good job.

Pretend like you have me on ignore too.

I took you off ignore, the laugh parade was getting boring up until today. And its not so much my words as it is your Pope's words. You might consider taking up with him the idea of practicing/being a catholic while supporting abortion. I'm sure he's already on record with his response.