3 ms·

> but the democratic part was accused for not opposing in any visible way. I definitely found that strange at the time, especially since said democratic part h

> but the democratic part was accused for not opposing in any visible way. I definitely found that strange at the time, especially since said democratic part had previously gotten a peace nobel prize, but considering she was imprisoned by the military before and after this whole semi-democratic experiment, is it well accepted now that she was mostly under the control of the military and had very little choice in any of the matter? Or do people still think she was mostly complicit for not speaking up, at the risk of compromising the little bit of democracy they had.

joshstrange 6y ago
My understanding is she feared exactly what happened, a coup, if she spoke out. I'm not saying that is wrong or right but that's the position she was in and the choice she made with, now proven, fears of coup. Did she have a choice? Of course she had a choice but it would appear she saw it as "be morally correct" or "maintain democracy" and decided to go with the latter. I hate to say it but I'm not sure if I would have picked a different course of action given the same choices.
- lostlogin 6y ago
  > I'm not saying that is wrong or right but that's the position she was in and the choice she made with, now proven, fears of a coup. I am - it was wrong. Her position went beyond making a hard choice, she defended the genocide and the generals. Describing the generals involved as ‘sweet’ and the victims as ‘terrorists’, she is part of the problem. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/23/aung-san-suu-kyi-fall-from-grace-myanmar https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/23/aung-san-suu-k... https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/nov/12/aung-san-suu-kyi-amnesty-highest-honour-shameful-betrayal https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/nov/12/a...
  - colinmhayes 6y ago
    That's politics baby. If you call people you have the power to destroy you evil you're going to get destroyed.
    - ehsankia 6y ago
      Yeah, I'm not well versed enough to talk about the morality of it either, but I would assume that if she had come out against it, the military would've kicked her out, so they would've ended up with both a genocide and a coup. So it seems that it may have been a lose-lose situation anyways.

joshstrange 6y ago

My understanding is she feared exactly what happened, a coup, if she spoke out. I'm not saying that is wrong or right but that's the position she was in and the choice she made with, now proven, fears of coup. Did she have a choice? Of course she had a choice but it would appear she saw it as "be morally correct" or "maintain democracy" and decided to go with the latter. I hate to say it but I'm not sure if I would have picked a different course of action given the same choices.

lostlogin 6y ago
> I'm not saying that is wrong or right but that's the position she was in and the choice she made with, now proven, fears of a coup. I am - it was wrong. Her position went beyond making a hard choice, she defended the genocide and the generals. Describing the generals involved as ‘sweet’ and the victims as ‘terrorists’, she is part of the problem. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/23/aung-san-suu-kyi-fall-from-grace-myanmar https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/23/aung-san-suu-k... https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/nov/12/aung-san-suu-kyi-amnesty-highest-honour-shameful-betrayal https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/nov/12/a...
- colinmhayes 6y ago
  That's politics baby. If you call people you have the power to destroy you evil you're going to get destroyed.
  - ehsankia 6y ago
    Yeah, I'm not well versed enough to talk about the morality of it either, but I would assume that if she had come out against it, the military would've kicked her out, so they would've ended up with both a genocide and a coup. So it seems that it may have been a lose-lose situation anyways.