From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The source for the addition of info to this article is here: [1]. This could be a good place to start when adding basic info, then building it up to contain the current events happening now. Karajou 17:21, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Nice work - I'll put some of my own stuff up tomorrow. Godspeed! --SayaSan

Here's the NLD's Manifesto [2]. We should see what thier position on abortion before posting any of this. 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.


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. --Ed Poor Talk 19:05, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

You write as though the "liberals" acknowledge that the protesters did try to grab weapons, and that this is not sufficient justification for the police to shoot.
But the article you linked to did not acknowledge that the protesters did this. It merely reported the claim from the government that this had happened. As such, there was no clear inference, as you claim, that the provocation was not just cause for the police to fire.
Possibly another factor is that there are reports of soldiers shaving their heads and of the army buying monks robes, the implication being that soldiers would try and infiltrate the monks, allegedly to provide provocation for police action by making it appear that the monks did not remain peaceful. So even if "monks" did try and grab weapons, were they really monks, or soldiers planted in the crowd?
Who started what, and was the force justified? We are talking about a largely-peaceful protest against an oppressive military dictatorship. A dictatorship that reportedly did shoot into a crowd of peaceful protesters in 1988, killing thousands. You are correct. Perhaps in specific incidents the police were justified. Overall, justice seems to be on the side of the protesters.
Philip J. Rayment 00:38, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
We have to take into consideration that Burma/Myanmar went communist after World War II, then a military takeover sometime in the 1970s. It's an Asian contry with ties to China, so what I'm seeing in the news is something similar to the student revolt in Beijing back in 1989. The Burmese want freedom, and those in charge are not going to let it happen. Karajou 09:04, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
It's all moot now, because the security forces opened fire on a crowd that refused to disperse. Unless the crowd was assaulting the police or army with anything as deadly as heavy bricks or rocks, this would be excessive force.
Although no one has asked, my opinion is that the way to disperse a crowd of protesters is to arrest them one at a time. Only rough up those who resist. And carefully avoid shooting anyone if at all possible. It takes longer this way, but it's a better way to treat your people. --Ed Poor Talk 14:50, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Ed, if this is what you think, then why did you post what you did and more importantly why have you not reverted it? I don't think these are unreasonable questions in light of what is happening over there as we speak. These people deserve our support, not cynicism. It kind of almost reminds me of the time when Rwanda was suffering a genocide and all the news and radio stations could do was pedantically debate whether it was 'genocide' or 'mass killings'. Either way, what you are currently mentioning in the mainpage is a moot point, and you should remove it in light of almost every single person in conservapedia disagreeing with you. Please do not block me for expressing my opinion. Sincerely,

Graham. Graham 15:11, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

You are in no danger of being blocked for the respectful expression of an opinion. Please wrote copiously about the genocide in Rwanda. You can probably do it more sympathetically than I can; I am often too blunt or hasty. I met a Rwandan at a peace conference last year and insensitively remarked that, "Oh, I just watched Hotel Rwanda" which made his wife immediately burst into tears. --Ed Poor Talk 15:39, 27 September 2007 (EDT)


I am talking about the mainpage item, which still has a stupid spin at the end of it expressing your completely 'original' opinion, something which everyone else disagree's with. First of all Burma is a pro China military Junta notorious for human rights abuses. I think you should sit down, re-read what you wrote and think about how easily that will have offended the Burmese people so much, not to mention the millions around the world apalled by the Burmese governments actions. Please get back to the point and stop trying to derail the discussion away from your original statement. Graham 15:57, 27 September 2007 (EDT)


Thanks. I hope we can draw a line in the sand and put this down to a genuine misunderstanding. :-) Graham 16:12, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Name change

Although I agree with DanH's reasoning that this article should have the official name rather than the "better known" name, the questionable premise is that Myanmar is truly the official name.

The name was changed from Burma to Myanmar by the military junta, and the democratically-elected government never recognised the name change. Therefore most(?) other countries don't either. See also here (for as long as that link lasts).

I vote for changing it back to Burma.

Philip J. Rayment 23:22, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

I added an infobox that contains the current name of the country in their language. I opted for Myanmar, simply because that's what it is called officially today by that country, no matter how bad the government is there.

The other thing I have an issue with is the presence of info pertaining to the monks' uprising placed before the country has been described. It should be the other way around; describe the country first like any encyclopedia, then add the history and current events. Karajou 18:04, 28 September 2007 (EDT)