Burma marks 1988 protest with government permission

Just remember it had nothing to do with SuuKyi ARIS. She refused Aung Naing and two other students to help lead the movement. Later she jumped on the democracy bandwagon and hijacked everything with the help of E
nglish media let by BBC.

And the whole world was fooled.

Look out, Indigenous. Your jealousy? is showing. Whether what you say is true or not is irrelevant. Look at the end result, present day situation. I personally don't believe you but that too is irrelevant. Facts, nothing but the facts. It's a lot different in 2012 than 1988, you would have to admit it unless you are some bureau of disinformation. You didn't go to school courtesy of backyhochiminhchinky, did you?

lorna doone wrote:

Look out, Indigenous. Your jealousy? is showing. Whether what you say is true or not is irrelevant. Look at the end result, present day situation. I personally don't believe you but that too is irrelevant. Facts, nothing but the facts. It's a lot different in 2012 than 1988, you would have to admit it unless you are some bureau of disinformation. You didn't go to school courtesy of backyhochiminhchinky, did you?

Look out Lorna Doone, you are showing your ignorance.
Jealous? You must be out of your mind. SuuKyi is a traitor. Because of that she had to lead a miserable life. All this glorification of her in a few Western countries, England, America,Norway,Switzerland, France and Switzerland is hollow at best and consolation prize -manipulation- to find excuse to do business with Burma.

Dear girl , don't be naive. SuuKyi is after power, wanting to humiliate her brother Aung San Oo for disowning her for marrying Michael Aris, a man of the country, England, that assassinated her father.
You, like the rest of the world, don't know much about Burma. A little knowledge id dangerous. You, like the whole world, have been brainwashed by the Western media, that is the most powerful entity, without responsibility.

We must all seek truth. Truth is beauty and basis of morality.
A few Burmese includimg myself know SuuKyi's whole life and what she really is. She is Alice in Wonderland. That id the truth and that is relevant. The article is about the positive development concerning the relationship bryween the government and the 8888 generation students. The positivity has nothing to do with housewife SuuKyi ARIS, that is her real name.

Yes, this is 2012. All the positive changes comr from a personal source outside Burma. SuuKyi is always negative about the Burmese government. She has to be. Their failings are her glory.
Look what she had said about foreign investment
Her rhetoric about ethical is so laughable;everyone including Burmese government wants ethical government. What makes an investment ethical requires a social mechanism, a corpus of laws based on equity and natural justice.That is beyond a housewife with a mere third class degree.
Dear girl, you don't know the design of Western governments, who are ostensibly pro-SuuKyi Aris.
Just wait. After so much lip service, they will ditch her. That is realpolitik.
Poor SuuKyi.

Thank you so much for your comments, Indigenous. I appreciate them. It almost sounds as if you are a family member, mad because SuuKyi married outside the Burmese people. An Italian marries a Persian, so the Italian is no longer Italian, nor is the Persian a Persian. I don't go along with that. That is convoluted thinking. An Irish lad marries a Scottish lassie. The lad is still Irish, the lassie Scottish and the bairns Scot/Irish. Michael Aris, English, SuuKyi Burmese, sons, English/Burmese. Truth. There are beaucoup people in America bringing out the failings of the Obama adminsitration. There are two sides of every coin. On batteries there is positive and negative, positive and negatives forces. Guess what. The fewer negatives in the government of Burma, the fewer SuuKyi can point out. The more positives in the Burmese government, the more you can point out. This makes total sense to my mind. Does this make sense to the Burmese mind?

Your statement, everyone including the Burmese goverment was ethical government. Goverments do not want ethics. Governments want power. There is not one government on earth striving for ethics. It is all about power. It is the people who are to bring ethics into government. This is the purpose of the Constitution of the United States, to bring ethics into government and try to keep ethics in government. No government official from the lowest to the highest will bring ethics into government, The government does not bring ethics into government; the governed is the ones who bring ethics into government. What is ethics? For those who don't know, ethics is moral principles or values. Do you honestly think or believe the Burmese, American or any government on earth is concerned about ethics. NO, NO, a thousand times NO. It is POWER they are after. Get real.

When I said everyone including Burmese government, I only meant Burmese people in general, barring the remnant corrupt agents of the state, and the majority of the Cabinet and Parliament. That is because of the pervasive influence of BUDDHISM.
Dear girl, Lorna, you are intelligent and morally developed - far more than the Western journalists, particularly those of England, who, with their agenda, had fooled the whole world by praising her sky high and projecting her as a saint- but you need solid facts.
What you said about governments lusting for power is true generally. But there are a few exceptions, so few as to find one readily. However, Tibetan government of Dalai Lama can be cited as one. As for ondividuals, as opposed to collective government, Nelson Mandela is a very good example, like Mahatama Gandhi. They are truly great. SuuKyi ARIS does not reach their feet.
By the way I am not a member of her family. She has only ONE BROTHER, Aung San Oo, who she had not spoken to for more than 40 years. I don't care if she had married a monkey or a dog provided she leaves Burma alone. Many many Burmese are so ashamed of her for her treason.
Her father, founder of modern Burmese, fought for independence from England and paid with his life. Everyone, barring that usurper Shu Maung, loves General Aung San. He was -and is - the most revered man of Burma. An Englishwoman branded him in her letter to the editor of INDEPENDENT newspaper of England ' traitor' for fighting for freedom of all indigenous people of Burma- from the English.
For her, to marry Michael Aris proves she simply did not care for Burma or Burmese people.
Her hormoned got the better of her.
FACT!

This has nothing directly to do with Burma but can be understood worldwide. There was a man named John Ross, born in Turkeytown, Alabama 7/8th Scottish, 1/8th Cherokee. In his later years he bacame Principal Chief of the Cherokee nation. while he, as Principal Chief of Cherokee nation, was in Washington DC, negotiating with the government, some lesser chiefs, full bloods, were back in Tennessee, signing away Cherokee land to the federal government and preparing to move over 1,000 miles west to Oklahoma. When Chief John got back home, he had no home, the others having signed it away. They then went on the Trail of Tears. Chief John Ross buried his wife in an unmarked grave in Kentucky and moved on west to Oklahoma. It was the full bloods who signed the land away, not the mixed bloods and there is animosity between the two groups today 2012, this occurring 173 years ago. What does this have to do with the situation in Burma you ask. what does this have to od with SuuKyi you ask. If you don't see the similitude of the two situations, how can you discern what is going on, what is truth. Myself, for example. Though I am Scottish Highlander by culture and ancestry, in my ancestry I have Scottish, Celt, Pict, Irish, Welsh, Saxon, Norman, Viking, German, Belgae, Dutch, Dane, Norwegian, Swedish, Finn, Swiss, Spanish, French ancestors in my blood line. You are mad because a Burmese married an Englishman. You permit hatred of English to pass judgement on someone. Aaaah, such is mankind. Would you be mad if SuuKyi had married Chinese or Vietnamese?

I cannot believe you listed Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi NEVER, NEVER, NEVER advocated violence. He did his utmost to promote peace between Hindus and Muslims and between all peoples. I have never heard Dalai Lama want anything other than peace. But Mandela, you gotta be kidding. The confiscation of property, rape and murder of whites like his buddy, Robert Mugabe, in Zimbabwe and you wnat to link Mandela with the likes of Mahatma Gandhi and Dalai Lama. That is simply amazing. I am not meaning to offend but wondering, are you Burmese Buddhist? I ask this because you lump Dalai Lam and Mahatma Gandhi with a Communist. Are you Communist? Don't get offended. I'm just asking.