"Myanmar army launches air strikes in Karen state, group says"
I think was in response to this -
"Meanwhile, one of Myanmar’s two dozen ethnic armed groups, the Karen National Union, said it had overrun an army post near the Thai border, killing 10 people – including a lieutenant colonel – and losing one of its own fighters."
The title is mangled: there is no single image of "scores dead", but there are credible reports of 90+ deaths, making Saturday by far the worst day so far.
Not doubting it, but if we are going to look at images we must acknowledge a child blinded by a rubber bullet in the NYT article means they are not firing live ammunition.
The child with their hand missing on Twitter, shows they are using live ammunition.
I would say the burnt body photos of Aye Ko are the most concerning. To have wounded him then burned him alive on burning tires is a move towards brutality I don't understand from a military on the general population in a non failed state. Since these solders are the general population, the news is not indicating this is sectarian.
> Since these solders are the general population, the news is not indicating this is sectarian.
How the military works in Burma.
Soldiers are recruited from poorest, and least educated parts of the country from the young age - prople easiest to brainwash into belief of their entitlements, speciality, and other moral corruption.
If George Goros did only one percent of what he is accused of by conspiracy theorists he would already be one of the most effective world leaders ever.
I get the mental need for conspiracy theories to have satisfying but ultimately unprovable and nebulous actors that enact the acts theorised about; lizard people? Sure great. A worldwide paedosexual cabal? Why not. But George Soros? Is it the combination of being rich, Jewish, progressive, somewhat influential, and also foreign enough to pin on any theory one likes? I guess the name-dropping by nationalist autocratic leaders doesn't help either.
Funding (activist) organizations is a very effective way to get influence with money. This is exactly what the Gates fundation is doing for example. So it’s stupid to compare the funding that can be somewhat tracked and proved made by an individual or organization (some people did it, hence that name became famous) to crackpot theories like lizard people.
It’s a poor use of time to give every conspiracy theory “due diligence”, as you put it.
For instance: what if it’s aliens? What if it’s the mice-people? What if it’s mind control by giant squid? What if it’s a conspiracy being lead by the silica gel industry?
Do you want to do your due diligence on those, or would you discard them out of hand as patently ridiculous?
So a foundation with the stated goal of financially supporting "civil society groups around the world, with a stated aim of advancing justice, education, public health and independent media." (wikipedia) has funded one of the highest-profile pro-democracy activists of our time? Is that the "conspiracy" here?
Surely there is a rather large gap between an NGO supporting programs that promote democracy and being an actual sock-puppet of George Soros?
The literally anti-democratic Myanmarese military regime shutting down any initiatives that promote forms of democracy makes perfect sense from their point of view.
Being able to point to Soros and such is convenient for a junta, because it makes it look as if democracy (or whatever 'western' value they don't like) is an import imposed on them rather than the grass-roots development it is.
To be fair, most billionaires aren't meddling as openly. You don't hear much about Musk or Buffet spending large sums of money on changing society to align with their political ideology.
Additionally, you should put Soros into the Hedge Funds billionaires group. I don't think there are many of those that "get a free pass", they're usually disliked.
> You don't hear much about Musk or Buffet spending large sums of money on changing society to align with their political ideology.
On that point you're wrong.
Buffett played a role in abortion being legal in the US and is financially the single largest individual promoter of abortion access & rights in the US (and world). He has done his fair share of meddling, whether one agrees with it or not (I'm pro-choice, but that's irrelevant to the point; Buffett is merely quiet about his meddling, whenever possible). It's fair to say that Buffett helped to dramatically change US society through direct political action. Buffett has poured several billion dollars into pro-choice groups, direct abortion funding, abortion political efforts, etc.
For example, from Vox [1]:
"This is how we’ve arrived at a point where Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, two of the biggest philanthropists in the world, are the leading providers of access to contraception worldwide, and Buffett is the leading provider of abortion access for poor women in the U.S."
"The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, named for the late wife of hedge fund billionaire Warren Buffett, is also the biggest funder of access to abortion for low-income women in the United States." [the foundation's money stems from Warren's wealth creation and it appears that Warren's efforts over the decades toward abortion were likely inspired partially by Susan; Buffett also has publicly stated that he greatly fears over-population]
"Bloomberg reports that Buffett has avoided publicity for his work on IUDs and access to birth control, because of fears that it’d damage his reputation in the investment world where he made his fortune. When he began his work on access to contraception, it was a taboo topic, and in many circles it still is."
In his biography, The Snowball, it's noted that Buffett and his partner Charlie Munger created a major abortion organization (later merged with Planned Parenthood), which assisted women in getting access to abortion services prior to Roe v. Wade. And then Munger (as a lawyer) and Buffett (financial backing) were both involved in supporting People v. Belous, which helped make Roe v. Wade possible.
This sounds like a pretty plausible motive and source of the Gates conspiracy theories. Some loud and aggressive minority strongly disagrees with their objective, but figures that saying «contraception is bad» or «helping poor people in Africa survive is bad» is passé. Instead, they go full-tilt spreading vicious conspiracy theories to discredit them.
An army of useful idiots picks them up and spreads them worldwide, lowering the rate of people who will accept help from Gates the presumed supervillain. Partial success.
> Buffett is merely quiet about his meddling, whenever possible
That's what I'm talking about though, and abortions is a single issue, not a "society should be run this way" ideology. Buffet isn't running around sitting in the spotlight talking about how society should function etc. Soros is, that's why Soros gets push back and Buffet does not.
Murdoch might be a case similar to Soros on the right. And he's definitely not getting a free pass.
For what it's worth Soros is quite a well-read guy, if you plan on dominating the world from behind the curtains you need some sort of intellectual cachet. Think he was a student of Popper at some point, and the university bearing his name is pretty well respected.
For comparison, the other multi-multi-billionaires are pretty plain when it comes to their standing on the "intelligentsia" scale. They're pretty good at making money, that's for sure (Soros is, too), but I don't see myself having hours-long conversations about Hobbes, Locke or Mandeville with the likes of Gates, Bezos or the two Google guys, while I'm pretty sure a guy like Soros has read very interesting books like Machiavelli's "Discourses on Livy" (and has actively learned from it) in his early age.
And if you want to control the world "from behind the curtains" you need your Hobbes, Locke and Machiavelli.
Yes, lots and lots of people (I’d say millions) are smarter than some people that have made lots of money, it has always been like that. Yes, I did read more compared to the likes of Bezos or Page, but I’m sure the same holds true for lots of HNers (Gates looks like he reads a lot but he’s reading lots of fluffy stuff, or so my impression is).
And yes, in the very long run people who read more have a more lasting influence (and you could say their ideas “control” the world more) compared to the people who have lots of money, that’s why nowadays Machiavelli is still actively discussed while the Fuggers are mostly just an interesting Wikipedia entry.
For decades, the Karen/Kachin/other ethnic armies have recognized that they can only defend against the Tatmadaw by force of arms. They're not the ones getting shot in the streets, because they're the ones out getting shot at in the hills. So, in a sense the OP is very correct: Myanmar is already home to plenty of examples of how peaceful protests don't work on total monsters - they'll just keep shooting. Ask a Karen how well peaceful negotiation worked on Ne Win. Not that armed conflict is a panacea, obviously - the war is ongoing. However, as far as I can tell, the fact that most of the recent casualties have occurred in cities like Yangon vs, e.g., Pa-an, has to do with how the latter is full of armed guerillas rather than exclusively government troops.
Yep, so well that after Gaddafi came 7 years of civil war and now the country is fucked. Too many people died with the result that now Libya is destroyed.
Their glorious dictator was found hiding in a drain under the road he was fleeing on. Then they executed him. No more glorious dictator. IIRC France helped as well with air strikes on govt. property. Clenched fists and passionate democratic statements don't work all that great against undemocratic entities holding actual firepower.
I have yet to see a gun control scheme that involves taking guns from the army or the government, which is the folks shooting people here.
I’d even argue the military is able to act with such impunity because outside of the occasional smuggled gun, the worst counterforce they need to worry about is a bow and arrow or thrown rock.
It's getting to the stage where a bit of gunboat diplomacy might be in order? Like the US could ask them to respect human rights and democracy while parking a couple of aircraft carriers near Yangon.
37 comments
[ 9.4 ms ] story [ 123 ms ] threadBut nothing to indicate scores shot dead yet.
"Myanmar army launches air strikes in Karen state, group says"
I think was in response to this -
"Meanwhile, one of Myanmar’s two dozen ethnic armed groups, the Karen National Union, said it had overrun an army post near the Thai border, killing 10 people – including a lieutenant colonel – and losing one of its own fighters."
Not doubting it, but if we are going to look at images we must acknowledge a child blinded by a rubber bullet in the NYT article means they are not firing live ammunition.
The child with their hand missing on Twitter, shows they are using live ammunition.
I would say the burnt body photos of Aye Ko are the most concerning. To have wounded him then burned him alive on burning tires is a move towards brutality I don't understand from a military on the general population in a non failed state. Since these solders are the general population, the news is not indicating this is sectarian.
Death toll sources -
Some are using - https://www.myanmar-now.org/en/news/cities-terrorised-as-jun...
BBC used - https://aappb.org/?p=13901
How the military works in Burma.
Soldiers are recruited from poorest, and least educated parts of the country from the young age - prople easiest to brainwash into belief of their entitlements, speciality, and other moral corruption.
Can you elaborate the above statement? Which side are the "Soros' puppets" in this conflict?
I get the mental need for conspiracy theories to have satisfying but ultimately unprovable and nebulous actors that enact the acts theorised about; lizard people? Sure great. A worldwide paedosexual cabal? Why not. But George Soros? Is it the combination of being rich, Jewish, progressive, somewhat influential, and also foreign enough to pin on any theory one likes? I guess the name-dropping by nationalist autocratic leaders doesn't help either.
Aung San Suu Kyi is photographed with Soros. Open Society bank accounts seem legitimate. I'm not on either side here.
I'm frustrated by the top level for throwing out a wild accusation. I'm also frustrated by the other replies, who leap on without due diligence.
For instance: what if it’s aliens? What if it’s the mice-people? What if it’s mind control by giant squid? What if it’s a conspiracy being lead by the silica gel industry?
Do you want to do your due diligence on those, or would you discard them out of hand as patently ridiculous?
The lesson was supposed to show you should have not assumed "aliens", when it is actually "reality".
I want people to adjust their nuance, but that seems difficult.
The literally anti-democratic Myanmarese military regime shutting down any initiatives that promote forms of democracy makes perfect sense from their point of view.
Being able to point to Soros and such is convenient for a junta, because it makes it look as if democracy (or whatever 'western' value they don't like) is an import imposed on them rather than the grass-roots development it is.
Though I gues these days I'm hearing that Bill Gates is microchipping vaccines for to control people. Lol
Additionally, you should put Soros into the Hedge Funds billionaires group. I don't think there are many of those that "get a free pass", they're usually disliked.
On that point you're wrong.
Buffett played a role in abortion being legal in the US and is financially the single largest individual promoter of abortion access & rights in the US (and world). He has done his fair share of meddling, whether one agrees with it or not (I'm pro-choice, but that's irrelevant to the point; Buffett is merely quiet about his meddling, whenever possible). It's fair to say that Buffett helped to dramatically change US society through direct political action. Buffett has poured several billion dollars into pro-choice groups, direct abortion funding, abortion political efforts, etc.
For example, from Vox [1]:
"This is how we’ve arrived at a point where Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, two of the biggest philanthropists in the world, are the leading providers of access to contraception worldwide, and Buffett is the leading provider of abortion access for poor women in the U.S."
"The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, named for the late wife of hedge fund billionaire Warren Buffett, is also the biggest funder of access to abortion for low-income women in the United States." [the foundation's money stems from Warren's wealth creation and it appears that Warren's efforts over the decades toward abortion were likely inspired partially by Susan; Buffett also has publicly stated that he greatly fears over-population]
"Bloomberg reports that Buffett has avoided publicity for his work on IUDs and access to birth control, because of fears that it’d damage his reputation in the investment world where he made his fortune. When he began his work on access to contraception, it was a taboo topic, and in many circles it still is."
In his biography, The Snowball, it's noted that Buffett and his partner Charlie Munger created a major abortion organization (later merged with Planned Parenthood), which assisted women in getting access to abortion services prior to Roe v. Wade. And then Munger (as a lawyer) and Buffett (financial backing) were both involved in supporting People v. Belous, which helped make Roe v. Wade possible.
[1] https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/9/17/20754970/billio...
An army of useful idiots picks them up and spreads them worldwide, lowering the rate of people who will accept help from Gates the presumed supervillain. Partial success.
That's what I'm talking about though, and abortions is a single issue, not a "society should be run this way" ideology. Buffet isn't running around sitting in the spotlight talking about how society should function etc. Soros is, that's why Soros gets push back and Buffet does not.
Murdoch might be a case similar to Soros on the right. And he's definitely not getting a free pass.
For comparison, the other multi-multi-billionaires are pretty plain when it comes to their standing on the "intelligentsia" scale. They're pretty good at making money, that's for sure (Soros is, too), but I don't see myself having hours-long conversations about Hobbes, Locke or Mandeville with the likes of Gates, Bezos or the two Google guys, while I'm pretty sure a guy like Soros has read very interesting books like Machiavelli's "Discourses on Livy" (and has actively learned from it) in his early age.
And if you want to control the world "from behind the curtains" you need your Hobbes, Locke and Machiavelli.
And yes, in the very long run people who read more have a more lasting influence (and you could say their ideas “control” the world more) compared to the people who have lots of money, that’s why nowadays Machiavelli is still actively discussed while the Fuggers are mostly just an interesting Wikipedia entry.
For decades, the Karen/Kachin/other ethnic armies have recognized that they can only defend against the Tatmadaw by force of arms. They're not the ones getting shot in the streets, because they're the ones out getting shot at in the hills. So, in a sense the OP is very correct: Myanmar is already home to plenty of examples of how peaceful protests don't work on total monsters - they'll just keep shooting. Ask a Karen how well peaceful negotiation worked on Ne Win. Not that armed conflict is a panacea, obviously - the war is ongoing. However, as far as I can tell, the fact that most of the recent casualties have occurred in cities like Yangon vs, e.g., Pa-an, has to do with how the latter is full of armed guerillas rather than exclusively government troops.
It went very well. Gaddafi's regime was stomped.
I’d even argue the military is able to act with such impunity because outside of the occasional smuggled gun, the worst counterforce they need to worry about is a bow and arrow or thrown rock.