posted on September 28, 2007 12:22:56 AM new
OK, bushit said he wants to spread democracy....W H Y hasn't he sent troops ??? What? No OIL????
Myanmar Troops Kill 9 More Protesters
Updated 2:40 AM ET September 28, 2007
YANGON, Myanmar (AP) - Soldiers with automatic rifles fired into crowds of anti-government demonstrators Thursday, killing at least nine people in the bloodiest day in more than a month of protests demanding an end to military rule.
Bloody sandals lay scattered on some streets as protesters fled shouting "Give us freedom, give us freedom!"
On the second day of a brutal crackdown, truckloads of troops in riot gear also raided Buddhist monasteries on the outskirts of Yangon, beating and arresting dozens of monks, witnesses and Western diplomats said. Japan protested the killing of a Japanese photographer.
Daily demonstrations by tens of thousands have grown into the stiffest challenge to the ruling junta in two decades, a crisis that began Aug. 19 with rallies against a fuel price hike then escalated dramatically when monks began joining the protests.
With the government ignoring international appeals for restraint, troops fired into packs of demonstrators in at least four locations in Yangon, witnesses and a Western diplomat said. Protesters _ some shouting "Give us freedom!" _ dodged roadblocks and raced down alleys in a defiant game of cat and mouse with soldiers and riot police that went on for most of the day.
Some 70,000 protesters were on the streets at the height of the chaos, though the total was difficult to estimate as different groups broke up and later reformed.
On Friday, Myanmar's military rulers declared no-go zones around five key Buddhist monasteries in an effort to quash the demonstrations, a diplomat said after Southeast Asian envoys were called in by Myanmar authorities for a meeting.
The diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity citing protocol, said regime members told the envoys that security forces had the monks "under control" and would now turn their attention to civilian protesters.
The protesters won support from countrymen abroad as more than 1,000 Myanmar immigrants in Malaysia rallied peacefully Friday outside their country's embassy in the capital of Kuala Lumpur. Riot police backed by water cannon stood watch as the demonstrators shouted "We want democracy!" and held banners that read "Stop killing monks and people."
In Yangon, sandals were strewn by a pool of blood at one spot where people fled approaching police. In a brave challenge, a bare-chested man emerged from one crowd to advance toward riot officers, then was felled by a rubber bullet and suffered a beating by officers who took him away.
The junta's heavy-handed tactics did not bode well for the monks and pro-democracy activists who are trying to bring down a military regime that has ruled since ousting a civilian government in 1962.
State radio said security forces fatally shot nine people, including a Japanese citizen, and wounded 11 people.
Some of the day's most striking photographs showed a gunshot victim identified as the dead Japanese journalist lying in the street, camera still in hand, after two or three bursts of gunfire sent protesters running. One picture, posted on the Web site of the Japanese television network Fuji, showed a soldier pointing his rifle down at the man lying face up on the ground clutching a camera.
Japan's new foreign minister, Masahiko Komura, told reporters in Washington that his country held Myanmar's government accountable for the killing of journalist Kenji Nagai, 50, who was covering the protests for the Japanese video news agency APF News.
The bloodshed followed lesser violence Wednesday, in which the government said police bullets killed one person, while media and dissident reports said up to eight died on the first day of the crackdown in Myanmar, which is also known as Burma.
Dramatic images of bloodied protesters and fleeing crowds have captured world attention and prompted the United Nations and many governments to call for the junta to end the confrontation peacefully.
The United States imposed economic sanctions Thursday on more than a dozen senior Myanmar officials, including the junta's two top generals, and it again urged China as Myanmar's main economic and political ally to use its influence to prevent further bloodshed.
"We feel admiration and compassion for the monks and peaceful protesters calling for democracy," President Bush said. "Every civilized nation has a responsibility to stand up for people suffering under a brutal military regime like the one that has ruled Burma for too long."
Every other time the regime has been challenged, it has responded with harsh force, including in 1988 when troops killed as many as 3,000 pro-democracy protesters. Negotiations are unlikely and compromise is not in the military's vocabulary, analysts said.
"Judging from the nature and habit of the Myanmar military, they will not allow the monks or activists to topple them," said Chaiyachoke Julsiriwong, a Myanmar scholar at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, Thailand.
Some people had hoped the widespread reverence for Buddhist monks in Myanmar might weaken the resolve of rank-and-file soldiers to pursue the crackdown. Most males, including soldiers, serve briefly as monks as their youth. But so far no soldiers have changed sides as happened in 1988 when some air force personnel joined demonstrations.
"The soldiers shooting might be special troops, recruited from the hill country, often from orphanages. They have no family. They are raised (by the military) to do whatever they are told to do," said Aye Chan Naing, chief editor for the Democratic Voice of Burma, an opposition shortwave radio station based in Norway.
The second day of the crackdown began just after midnight Wednesday, with security forces raiding several monasteries considered hotbeds of the democracy movement.
At Ngwe Kyar Yan monastery, chief abbot U Yaywata said soldiers shot up the complex, stole gold and dragged off 70 monks and lay disciples. He said he saw bullet holes in the walls and blood stains on some beds.
"This was not just a robbery. We have been attacked by rebels," he told The Associated Press.
A Western diplomat said she had reports from another monastery where soldiers stormed the compound, destroyed images of Buddha and stole gold. They arrested as many as 80 monks, the diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity citing protocol.
Photos said to be from one of the monasteries show smashed up furniture and bloodstains.
Angry protesters threw stones and shouted at soldiers as word spread about the early morning raids.
"I really hate the government. They arrest the monks while they are sleeping. These monks haven't done anything except meditating and praying and helping people," said a 30-year-old service worker who watched the confrontations from his workplace.
Soldiers also staged a raid on the Mahamuni Paya pagoda in Mandalay, the country's second-largest city, about 430 miles north of Yangon. Witnesses said troops blocked the road to the pagoda from downtown and locked hundreds of monks inside the compound.
As it has in the past, the junta accused protesters of instigating the violence and suggested that a vast conspiracy of "domestic and external elements" _ its usual code words for Western governments and democracy activists _ was trying to destabilize the country.
The regime uncharacteristically did little to stop demonstrations as they grew last week, but authorities leaped into action after Monday saw some 100,000 people take to the streets of Yangon, the country's largest city.
First came official warnings Tuesday against protests, then an overnight curfew was ordered. On Wednesday, the regime finally flexed its military might as soldiers and police beat demonstrators, arrested monks and political activists and, for the first time, fired into some crowds.
Still, by Myanmar standards, the crackdown has been somewhat restrained.
Though no one doubts the military's aim is to snuff out the threat, its response may reflect how the political landscape has changed since the bloody crushing of the 1988 uprising.
Myanmar is now part of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which has called for the regime to show restraint, and the regime has opened up the economy to foreign investors.
China also has been quietly counseling the junta for months to speed up its long-stalled transition to democracy. Some analysts say Beijing wants to avoid a bloodbath in an ally that could taint its hosting of the 2008 Olympic Games.
"China hopes that all parties in Myanmar exercise restraint and properly handle the current issue so as to ensure the situation there does not escalate and get complicated," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said Thursday.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
posted on September 28, 2007 06:25:33 PM new
See the neocons have no answer as usual.....where's the Big Decider, the War President, the guy who wants to bring democracy to the world ??????????
posted on September 29, 2007 06:36:52 PM new
Well as yet I havent seen or heard of any Myanmar Troops threatening US citizens by flying aircraft into US buildings or hosting muslim training camps.
But then that answer will not satisfy your simple mind.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on September 29, 2007 07:29:35 PM new
A grunt from the cave, """Well as yet I havent seen or heard of any Myanmar Troops threatening US citizens by flying aircraft into US buildings or hosting muslim training camps.""
I'm referring to bushit's naive(really stupid) statement about bringing democracy to the world. he didn't say they had to "threaten" US citizens in any way.
Afterall, we're at war in Iraq and THEY had nothing to do with flying planes into US buildings. If that's your criteria why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia ?????...the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.
posted on September 29, 2007 08:18:21 PM newWell as yet I havent seen or heard of any Myanmar Troops threatening US citizens by flying aircraft into US buildings...
Sorta begs the question why we haven't attacked Saudi Arabia, doesn't it? Being as how the 9/11 perps were Saudis, not Iraqis.
posted on September 30, 2007 06:55:59 AM new
The liberals prove there is NO pleasing them.....EVER.
When we attack our enemies/those who present a threat to us and others, they don't like it. They tell us we're NOT the world 'police'.
When we don't get involved then we get to listen to this NONSENSE.
My conclusion = they're NEVER happy unless it's a dem president bombing Iraq. Then that's okay...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on September 30, 2007 07:38:54 AM new
The Iraqis were not a huge threat to you, nor were they attacking you. Your leader, Bush is not interested in nation building or peacekeeping.
Besides, you have a limited military and Bin Laden's goal is to bankrupt you. Your leader is playing right into his hands and losing while you sit back and encourage it.
posted on September 30, 2007 08:16:40 AM new
Great question mingo and you hit the nail right on the head with your response to BearPorn.
Linduh as usual never offers any true meaning other than blame the democrats.
I also recall Bush saying, "We fight the terrorists and we fight all of those who give them aid. America has a message for the nations of the world: If you harbor terrorists, you are terrorists. If you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist, and you will be held accountable by the United States and our friends."
If I recall, isn't Pakistan harboring terrorists? I mean, these are the REAL terrorists who attacked us.
If BearPorn's point is valid, then why aren't we attacking the terrorists in Pakistan??? Typical pro-fascism hypocrites.
posted on September 30, 2007 08:30:09 AM new
Linda_K
posted on September 30, 2007 06:55:59 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The liberals prove there is NO pleasing them.....EVER.
When we attack our enemies/those who present a threat to us and others,"""
("others"?, you mean those that DON'T present a threat to us? That's what your sentence said.)
""" they don't like it. They tell us we're NOT the world 'police'.
When we don't get involved then we get to listen to this NONSENSE."""
(you call bushit's plan to bring democracy to the world "nonsense"? You are right!
If you mean my OP...why is it nonsense? YOUR bushit said we should bring democracy to the world...isn't Myanmar part of the world?
YOU explain WHY we haven't helped them.......))
""My conclusion = they're NEVER happy unless it's a dem president bombing Iraq. Then that's okay..."""
ANOTHER bald faced lie....linduhKKK can't show where anyone said we'd be happy if a Democrat bombed Iraq....where we think it would be OK...
posted on September 30, 2007 08:37:28 AM new
You radicals are SO boring. <YAWN>
You continue to repeat the same nonsense over and over again. We're THERE now, we're making progress and your OWN congress is doing NOTHING about it.....but talking. They're all talk....no action.
We've been over this many times before.
Clinton felt Iraq/saddam was a threat to US and to the ME.
HE bombed them, CLEARLY stated HIS reasons for doing so and they're the SAME thing this administration said.
But of course, you radicals NEVER hold saddam to any blame....LOL You took/take HIS side. Shame on all of you.
The clinton administration even passed the Liberation of Iraq bill to REMOVE saddam from power. Made it our National POLICY.
It took THIS President to take action against that continuing threat.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on September 30, 2007 08:39:32 AM new
Here....LOL.....keep reading this UNTIL it finally sinks into your thick skulls.
CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
========
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
=======================
"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.
For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.
The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.
I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people who's opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.
With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership. And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations -- they would not. I'm happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
During a meeting with "Code Pink" at the US Capitol
March 6, 2003
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP55PgYH15k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_KEWUU33Lg
==================================
"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
September 13, 2001
http://www.wavsource.
==============================
Read ALL the statements from the dems liberals back before the war became difficult.
THEN they were speaking a totally different position. Just because they decided it wasn't going to help their political positions to continue fight....then they threw up their WHITE FLAG of SURRENDER....doesn't mean all did.
Let them OWN their OWN words to American when it WAS advantagous to them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 30, 2007 08:53 AM ]
posted on September 30, 2007 09:29:28 AM new
Again linduh can't address the topic....sad that Alzheimers.....
"""CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
========
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/"""
1998? OLD NEWS OLD NEWS...sorry, linduh but by YOUR standards YOU can't use OLD news
AND you STILL haven't shown "liberal" support said it was OK to bomb Iraq.
However, in YOUR post you quoted,
"""HE bombed them, CLEARLY stated HIS reasons for doing so and they're the SAME thing this administration said."""
However, YAWN, You have used this quote before so here goes:
HE CLEARLY stated his reasons UNLIKE bushit who has given many reasons, most false.
YOU keep claiming Democrats haven't done anything but keep bringing up this quote which shows a Democrat DID do something.....can't make up your mind...confused again???
Still haven't answered why bushit isn't in Myanmar (or any other question) so I'll tell you.
A. No oil.
B. Halliburton, it's susidiaries, Blackwater,etc. haven't let the bushits know yet if a PROFIT CAN BE MADE .
posted on September 30, 2007 09:34:42 AM new
Those who are not too stupid to actually read the link I posted......will see that these quotes were made by the LIBERALS/DEM in congress....by THEIR LEADERS.....by hillary who is NOW leading their party......right in the build up to the Iraq war.
Some just will NEVER be able to accept FACTS, as stated by their own party.
"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.
For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.
The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.
I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people who's opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.
With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership. And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations -- they would not. I'm happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York) During a meeting with "Code Pink" at the US Capitol
posted on September 30, 2007 09:43:22 AM new
linduhKKK, what you fail to grasp is that Democrats whether liberal or not are not brainwashed into thinking exactly alike as you neocons do. We believe in free speech and free thought. Just because a Democrat says something doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
I know that's hard for a Fascist like you to understand that but you still haven't shown where a liberal in HERE has agreed. And even if you could find ONE that does not indicate a consensus. I know "independent thinking" is a foreign concept to you so I don't expect you to understand.....please...go on avoiding questions.....
posted on September 30, 2007 09:53:23 AM new
Yea, what a Fascist ......
"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 30, 2007 09:54 AM ]
posted on October 4, 2007 08:31:07 AM newWe believe in free speech and free thought.
And yet you all are lead down the path of deceipt. If you all really had an original thought, you wouldn't be Demomorons. That is why the un-educated favor you.
.
.
.
If it's called common sense, why do so few Demomorons have it?
posted on October 4, 2007 09:25:09 AM new
The word is spelled "deceit", oh "educated " one.
LOLOLLLLLL!!!!!
Still no answer to why bushit backed down on this...democracy only to a certain country??????? Does bushit's "world" only consist of countries with oil???
Are YOU a Bunghole?