3 ms·

Every single sentence where you are not speaking solely about your home country is somewhat puzzling. I don't even know where to begin and neither do I feel qu

Every single sentence where you are not speaking solely about your home country is somewhat puzzling. I don't even know where to begin and neither do I feel qualified to provide anything approaching a basic education on this long list of topics, considering my own ignorance. Not that it would fit in a single post. Here's a rough list anyways: - Insurgents aren't the same thing as terrorists. I don't think you want to suggest the Burmese military response to US military occupation will be to target their own civilian population. - Your use of the word jihad(-ism) doesn't make sense in either its arabic meaning or in how it is commonly used in the west. - Please don't try to define people by their religion, or ascribe a religion to them. The only ones who get to do that is the people themselves. - Especially since religion is at best tangential to this whole situation. - You seem to think Myanmar is some "tiny" country with an equally small military. It is not. Their current 'new' government is also not without potential allies. China doesn't appear to care who's at power in Myanmar, but they do depend on it being stable and probably won't just tolerate half a million US troops landing in their backyard to 'liberate' it. - Colonialism is diametrically opposed to the idea of liberation. - Neocolonialism (or "modern day colonialism") is also explicitly about everything but riding in with your military.

robin21 6y ago
> the Burmese military response to US military occupation will be to target their own civilian population. Everyone would have to pick a side. Look at Vietnam. > jihadism TBH, I have just read about what jihad means now and it was interesting. Jihadism is definitely a commonly understood term in the west meaning religiously motivated military movement. It looks like there are many types of Jihad - and one is "jihad of the sword" which is what is understood in the west. Non-violence is especially central to Buddhism. In practice is this the case...maybe not. But it certainly has that "image". If you send forces to a sovereign nation, some might think you are violating their sovereignty politically. But if your justification is religious - like it was with the Taliban - in a sense that it offends their deity - then this is going to have a much deeper and long-lasting resistance - as the US saw. This was my point. There seems more religious motivation to resist occupation in Islam than there is in Buddhism. But in terms of who is violent and non-violent - I don't think that is a good point. Thanks for the thoughts - I learned a few things.

robin21 6y ago

> the Burmese military response to US military occupation will be to target their own civilian population. Everyone would have to pick a side. Look at Vietnam. > jihadism TBH, I have just read about what jihad means now and it was interesting. Jihadism is definitely a commonly understood term in the west meaning religiously motivated military movement. It looks like there are many types of Jihad - and one is "jihad of the sword" which is what is understood in the west. Non-violence is especially central to Buddhism. In practice is this the case...maybe not. But it certainly has that "image". If you send forces to a sovereign nation, some might think you are violating their sovereignty politically. But if your justification is religious - like it was with the Taliban - in a sense that it offends their deity - then this is going to have a much deeper and long-lasting resistance - as the US saw. This was my point. There seems more religious motivation to resist occupation in Islam than there is in Buddhism. But in terms of who is violent and non-violent - I don't think that is a good point. Thanks for the thoughts - I learned a few things.