> 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.

> 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.