On Tue, 20 May 2008 22:09:16 +0800, Jim Walsh
<jimNOwalsSPAMh3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 May 2008 19:25:05 +0800, Good soldier wrote
>(in article <i5d534l4o51245da99vi5unf9p8r7d708j@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>
>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 15:27:04 +0800, Jim Walsh
>> <jimNOwalsSPAMh3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 13:34:38 +0800, Good soldier wrote
>>> (in article <gho434t784060avcnqjtb7faqkfuof51q0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 19 May 2008 20:23:44 -0700 (PDT), cope
>>>> <aBurmeseMuslim@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On May 20, 1:35 am, U Ottama <nyanasa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>> Myanmar to Accept International Aid Workers
>>>>>> -http://www.aseannewsnetwork.com/labels/Myanmar.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if those paranoid stupids head accept aid help form other Asian
>>>>> countries, that would not be as helpful as the aid coming form
western
>>>>> sources since the aid supplies from western sources are based on the
>>>>> types of need. Food as well as other supplies are specifically
chosen
>>>>> for the situations and the Terrian and climatic condition. But,
>>>>> don't bother explaining it to the stupid thugs. It's wasy over
their
>>>>> brain ability to understand.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That has not always been true in the past. The western aid groups
have
>>>> made some monumental mistakes in supplying "unknown" types of food to
>>>> people that didn't eat "that kind of stuff" and had no idea how to
>>>> prepare it for consumption.
>
>>> Are you unintentionally giving more moral sup****t to the junta?
>>
>>
>
>>
>> Nope, just stating a fact. Do you have some objection to facts?
>
>You need to see (in the context of the junta's refusal to accept outside
>experts) that Burmese dying for lack of aid will not understand that you
>criticize "outside experts" for academic accuracy.
>
>After the end of the Second World War, in response to widespread
criticism
>that the Pope in particular and the Roman Catholic Church in general did
not
>oppose the Nazis, the Church said that Pope Pius XII had opposed the
Nazis,
>privately.
>
>Camus famously responded:
>
>"...For a long time during those frightful years I waited for a great
voice
>to speak up in Rome. I, an unbeliever? Precisely. For I knew that the
spirit
>would be lost if it did not utter a cry of condemnation when faced with
>force. It seems that that voice did speak up. But I assure you that
millions
>of men like me did not hear it and that at that time believers and
>unbelievers alike shared a solitude that continued to spread as the days
went
>by and the executioners multiplied.... ...What the world expects of
>Christians is that Christians should speak out, loud and clear, and that
they
>should voice their condemnation in such a way that never a doubt, never
the
>slightest doubt, should rise in the heart of the simplest man. That they
>should get away from abstraction and confront the blood-stained face
history
>has taken on today".
>
>I assure you that the Burmese do not understand that you are on their
side.
>You should voice your condemnation of the junta "in such a way that never
a
>doubt, never the slightest doubt, should rise in the heart of the
simplest
>man."
>
>Or you are failing your moral duty.
I see.
You seem to be condemning me for telling the truth on one hand and for
not lying about how bad the Junta is on the other. A rather strange
juxtaposition, I would say.
The Bush administration tried doing this - the Weapons of Mass
Destruction scam. Sounded logical, sounded bad, justified a war, and
what happened? Well, they didn't, and probably never will, find any
WMD's. Apparently they weren't there and that fact has done almost as
much damage to the U.S.'s reputation as the act of going to war. We
are seen to not only attacked a country that did not threaten us but
lied abut why we attacked them.
I have written numerous time about my feelings about the Junta,
stating time and time again that they are a brutal and inhuman
government, but I have no intention in lying about conditions there.
You seem to feel that truth is a variable that can be changed,
depending on what you think about the subject. I feel that truth is
fixed and unchangeable.
Altering the truth or lying, as it is also known, is a
counter-productive policy. One always gets caught. I could write, for
example, that the junta is holding public executions in the town
square on the first Wednesday of each month - a complete fabrication.
And sure enough, someone would respond that they were there last
Wednesday and there was no execution. Immediate loss of credibility.
No, I prefer to write about what I have seen or what I have heard
(from reputable witnesses) or sometime read in a creditable book. Not
make up some derogatory foolishness simply to defame someone.
I believe that the only honest way of writing is to present the facts,
be they complementary or derogatory and let the reader make their own
decision. "Slanting" a story, which I know is common, I find to be
extremely unethical and distasteful.
I could write that "I find some Burmese women to be very pretty" or I
could write that "Kipling's poem On the road to Mandalay" is stirring
poetry but geographically inaccurate". Both are true statements and
whether or not they help or hinder the Junta is immaterial.
In reference to your statement that "I assure you that the Burmese do
not understand that you are on their side". It doesn't concern me one
little bit who's side they think I am on. My reading of the Burmese
dissidents writings, while living in the D.P. camps in Thailand and
eating free rice, is that they lie and exaggerate as quickly and
frequently as the Junta. It is just a matter of who's lies do you want
to listen to......
Cheers,
schweik
(Correct Address is goodsoldierschweikatgmaildotcom)
|
