[freeburma]

She was not. AASK never had any authority over the military. At all. Military was legally above elected government before the coup, controls all the courts, legally guaranteed 25% of the legislature, wrote the constitution, and the comander-in-chief was never appointed by elected government. Military never answered to AASK or took orders from her or the president.

At best, you could call AASK an apologist for military. But that ignores that she was really their prisoner even while “free”, and the delicate negotiation she engaged in an attempt to build a civilian government, as flawed as it was.

[zyl1n]

If military never answered to her or took orders, control all the courts like you said, what is the point of the coup?

[ergocoder]

Because she was gaining more support/momentum, and she is going toward the direction the military doesn't like.

The coup proves that she never really had any authority to begin with.

[nix23]

>that she never really had any authority to begin with.

Why then the lies about the genocide?

[ergocoder]

Maybe she is actually a genocider reborn. Maybe she isn't.

What we know is that she doesn't really have any authority.

If she does something the military didn't like, whoops there's a coup.

If the military is likey or feels so so about it, then it's fine.

If the military wants her to do something, she probably has to.

The coup proves that.

Western people are out of touch. You cannot speak up or playing a martyr in these countries because they will actually kill you and your family and everyone involved.

To answer your question, we'll probably never know.

Apparently, you probably don't know either since your question implied that she had authority.

[nix23]

>Western people are out of touch. You cannot speak up or playing a martyr in these countries because they will actually kill you and your family and everyone involved.

Quite the opposite, you think that was different in Hitlers reich? Do you think peoples who denied concentration camps and had no authority (but knew about it) where innocent?

>If the military wants her to do something, she probably has to.

That's is and was the lamest excuse for every human being ever!

[freeburma]

We can only speculate.

There are different factions in the military, one of which was the architect of Burma’s democratic transition, the other which opposes the transition (who current dictator/CIC is part of).

The military miscalculated, as they didn’t intend for ASSK or NLD to outsmart them in constitution of their own design. Military had expected to win enough seats with their proxy party + military appointed seats to prevent NLD choosing a president. But NLD won enough seats to choose president, and their chosen president gets to appoint commander-in -chief (military must confirm). Never before had a president appointed the CIC. The military saw this has a threat to their power. They do not want to be under any civilian control. And Min Aung Hlaing (current dictator) is also probably afraid of genocide charges if he is no longer in power.

[nix23]

>At best, you could call AASK an apologist for military.

Ah yes, then shes definitely not responsible...irony off.

>>she took the podium on Wednesday at the United Nations’ highest court to defend her homeland against accusations of genocide, arguing that there had been no orchestrated campaign of persecution.

>>Instead, she insisted that what foreign observers have called an organized, years-long campaign of atrocities against the Rohingya has been exaggerated and misconstrued.

2019/12/11 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/world/asia/aung-san-suu-k...

2018/07/07 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/07/world/asia/myanmar-rohing...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide

[freeburma]

I don’t feel like arguing with people who don’t really know anything about Burma or her situation.

She had no involvement in the military’s decisions in Rakhine state. Yes, she defended the perpetrators at ICJ, either as part of a political strategy of reconciliation with military, or because she just felt like defending them because she secretly likes what happened. You guess which explanation is more likely.

[DanBC]

The civilian government is also under investigation. https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/anaylsis/2019/11/21/Myanm...

[freeburma]

Again, the elected civilian government has zero control or decisions or power over the military and border affairs (border affairs, home affairs ministry controlled by military). So when ARSA or AA attack military outposts and police stations, and the Myanmar military chooses to shell villages, kill civilians, and commit war crimes, causing a refugee crisis (or “genocide” as westerners like to throw around) at no point do civilians or the elected government have anything to do with it.

[nix23]

Again why then are they investigated, your story sound too easy and one-sided, if you dont have an argument, you just say "we can just speculate."

Fact is:

-Aung San Suu Kyi defended actively a genocide for not being one, while speaking in The Hague.

-The civilian government was informed and partially included in the genocide.

Both points are fact, and NOT speculations.

[freeburma]

What, exactly, do you mean by the “civilian government was partially included in the genocide?”

The military does not take orders from civilian government, it’s the other way around. Civilian gov has no legal or de facto control over Tatmadaw, or border control, or home affairs (police, courts). There is no civilian legislative control over Rakhine operations. Tatmadaw just does whatever they wants.

And anyone who speaks against their actions is imprisoned. If AASK spoke against them they would have imprisoned her again, like they just did. The politics AASK is dealing with are complex.

[DanBC]

Can you link me to any statements she's made where she condemns the genocidal actions of the military?

[freeburma]

Read her statement she made at ICJ. I think you’ll find the situation is more complex than the simple narrative the international media presents.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/12/transcript-aung-sa...

[nix23]

>I don’t feel like arguing with people who don’t really know anything about Burma or her situation.

And i don't feel like arguing with someone who defends a genocide denier, and explains it with "who don’t really know anything about Burma or her situation".

>either as part of a political strategy of reconciliation with military, or because she just felt like defending them because she secretly likes what happened. You guess which explanation is more likely.

Sound like the later one, defending a genocide for "reconciliation with military" is pure evil, and is never a sound strategy.

[phabora]

This is pure hysterics. You have to back up what you say with arguments.

[nix23]

I wrote that already, and no i don't back it up with arguments but with facts...what do you have?

>>she took the podium on Wednesday at the United Nations’ highest court to defend her homeland against accusations of genocide, arguing that there had been no orchestrated campaign of persecution.

>>Instead, she insisted that what foreign observers have called an organized, years-long campaign of atrocities against the Rohingya has been exaggerated and misconstrued.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/world/asia/aung-san-suu-k...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/07/world/asia/myanmar-rohing...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide