Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:
Line 4: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
my take on this
:Here's the NLD's Manifesto [http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/docs/NLDElectionManifesto1989.htm]. We should see what thier position on [[abortion]] before posting any of this. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:58, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
:Here's the NLD's Manifesto [http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/docs/NLDElectionManifesto1989.htm]. We should see what thier position on [[abortion]] before posting any of this. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:58, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
==Sept 2007 uprising==
The viewpoint of Western liberals seems to be that any police shootings of unarmed civilians is absolutely inexcusable, no matter what the provocation is.
Ref: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070926/ap_on_re_as/myanmar
Even trying to grab weapons away from police - in response to being told to disperse - is not considered by liberals to be sufficient justification for police to "open fire" on a crowd. I guess the cops are supposed to "take the first bullet", i.e., suffer the first wounds.
What I suspect is that it may be a strategy on the part of revolutionaries to attract sympathy by artfully provoking the police into -- seemingly -- firing the first shot in the battle. The aim is to blame the initiation of violence on the security forces. The idea that goading someone into harming you is itself a provocation of violence - and that the provocateur is not entirely innocent is never considered by liberals. They claim an unlimited right to provoke, to break rules. Nothing they do ever merits a severe response.
I am not siding with the government, as several liberals have posted or emailed me privately. I am addressing one issue only: who started what, and is the force used by the various sides justified. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:05, 26 September 2007 (EDT)