| HN Mirror

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.

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.

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.

https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/anaylsis/2019/11/21/Myanm...

>>A day earlier, in yet another legal challenge, a Rohingya rights group launched a case calling on courts in Argentina to prosecute military and civilian officials – including Aung San Suu Kyi – under the concept of universal jurisdiction, which pushes for domestic courts to investigate international crimes.

https://burmacampaign.org.uk/argentinean-courts-urged-to-pro...

>If AASK spoke against them they would have imprisoned her again

She could just stay at the Haag and tell the truth...how about that?

The complaint filed in Argentina does not establish any responsibility for genocide by Aung San Su Kyi.

DanBC 1937 days ago

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

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

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.

>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 1937 days ago

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

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

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/2018/07/07/world/asia/myanmar-rohing...

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