Military Governments Promote Terror

[JudgeDredd]

Topic's title is supposed to be "Militarized Governments Attract Terrorism"
(altered to match NG's limited title length).
---------

Anyway, this is meant as a statement, not a question. So i'd like everyone to take a moment to think of current or past examples of pro-military governments, then consider whether groups are drawn into conflict with that governments overexertion of political control thru military means, as opposed to purely democratic means.

Basically speaking, doesn't a governments hard line approach get mirrored by those who oppose it? Doesn't this result in a self-fulfilling situation if allowed to continue or escalate?

The most current example might be characterized by Pakistan, with Pervez Musharraf imposing emergency rule "to retain control of the country", whilst conceeding that he is prepared to forego his military uniform "only if he is re-elected into power", not that he was elected in the first place.

Perhaps posed as a question thusly; Where's the correct balance between benign government vs malignant government? Likewise, what best characterizes the right balance between overt stability vs weak instability?

.

[bluedemonspeedracer]

Well there is one military government that did not lead to domestic terrorism but instead peacful dissent. Have you ever heard of Myanmar?

[Idiot-Finder]

At 11/18/07 01:51 PM, bluedemonspeedracer wrote: Well there is one military government that did not lead to domestic terrorism but instead peacful dissent. Have you ever heard of Myanmar?

Burma.

[bluedemonspeedracer]

At 11/18/07 03:27 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:

At 11/18/07 01:51 PM, bluedemonspeedracer wrote: Well there is one military government that did not lead to domestic terrorism but instead peacful dissent. Have you ever heard of Myanmar?

Burma.

Aren't they both the same thing?

[Empanado]

At 11/18/07 11:00 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: Basically speaking, doesn't a governments hard line approach get mirrored by those who oppose it? Doesn't this result in a self-fulfilling situation if allowed to continue or escalate?

Yes, that's one of the things that happened with Pinochet.
The irony with the Tata was that one of the main reasons that fueled his rise to power was the misconception about Allende being backed by vast, well-armed popular militias and cuban-influenced extremist groups that would in any moment stage a self-coup and install a repressive communist dictatorship. Decades later (Well, actually right away, but only admitted after the return to democracy) it was confirmed that this wasn't the case, and the few groups organised enough to pose any resistance only started to become overtly violent and armed in order to contest the use of force by the military. Of course, this isn't to say that the resistance cells were heroic spartan warriors of the upmost integrity; Miristas were followed by Frentistas which were followed by Lautaristas, and each group became more insane than the last.
But yeah, Pinochet's attempt to thwart revolutionary forces planning to install a communist government spawned a series of revolutionary forces planning to install a communist government. Strange, how these things work.

[JudgeDredd]

At 11/18/07 01:51 PM, bluedemonspeedracer wrote: Well there is one military government [Burma] that did not lead to domestic terrorism but instead peaceful dissent.

Yep. Hundreds killed.. thousands imprisoned.. mostly Buddhist Monks. I take it that your point then is that peaceful protest doesn't work.

.

[Idiot-Finder]

At 11/18/07 07:02 PM, bluedemonspeedracer wrote:

Aren't they both the same thing?

Myamar is a name came up by the corrupt government, it's real name was Burma.

[swiftpeach]

At 11/18/07 01:51 PM, bluedemonspeedracer wrote: Well there is one military government that did not lead to domestic terrorism but instead peacful dissent. Have you ever heard of Myanmar?

haven't you heard of Spain under Franco's Rule.... He was a LOVED dictator.

Before he died he handed the country back to the Royal family, something that he always promised to do.

I didn't wikipedia this to find that out... i learnt it in WWII History... germany tried to bribe Franco with weapons and equipment so that after the civil war was over, Spainish troops would help germany.

But if you want more information or proof just Wikipedia Spain

[AapoJoki]

At 11/19/07 09:24 AM, Idiot-Finder wrote:

At 11/18/07 07:02 PM, bluedemonspeedracer wrote:

Aren't they both the same thing?

Myamar is a name came up by the corrupt government, it's real name was Burma.

Not true. In Burmese, the official name of Burma was Myanmar even before the coup d'etat. The military regime only changed the international name, and to the Burmese people themselves, the name change made no difference, except maybe when they speak English or other foreign language. Even if the people had opposed the "new" name, I'm sure it still wouldn't be the worst thing that regime has done. If there was a regime change, the official name would still be Myanmar, at least in Burmese.

The name "Myanmar" has existed since the 13th century, actually. To me, it doesn't make much difference which name you use, as long as you don't use the name Burma just to protest against their government. The people in Burma won't give a shit, since they officially call it Myanmar anyway.

[bluedemonspeedracer]

At 11/19/07 08:03 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 11/18/07 01:51 PM, bluedemonspeedracer wrote: Well there is one military government [Burma] that did not lead to domestic terrorism but instead peaceful dissent.

Yep. Hundreds killed.. thousands imprisoned.. mostly Buddhist Monks. I take it that your point then is that peaceful protest doesn't work.

.

It depends on the situation, all though if your politically near sighted it may appear to do nothing bu non-violent protest does in fact work just not overnight. There protest may at first appear to be a failure, but it actually did succeed in encouraging the west to pressure international sanctions on the country. But was not quite successful enough. Will just have to wait and see.

[swiftpeach]

At 11/20/07 03:08 AM, bluedemonspeedracer wrote:

At 11/19/07 08:03 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 11/18/07 01:51 PM, bluedemonspeedracer wrote: Well there is one military government [Burma] that did not lead to domestic terrorism but instead peaceful dissent.

Yep. Hundreds killed.. thousands imprisoned.. mostly Buddhist Monks. I take it that your point then is that peaceful protest doesn't work.

.

It depends on the situation, all though if your politically near sighted it may appear to do nothing bu non-violent protest does in fact work just not overnight. There protest may at first appear to be a failure, but it actually did succeed in encouraging the west to pressure international sanctions on the country. But was not quite successful enough. Will just have to wait and see.

He has hit on a valid point, the monks protesting probably knew that some of them would die, but they knew that such atrocities against them would draw attention, so they did it as a sacrifice... I see it as the true meaning of sacrifice or matyrdom, none of this jihad.... boom, blow yourself up crap.

[bluedemonspeedracer]

At 11/20/07 06:32 AM, swiftpeach wrote:

At 11/20/07 03:08 AM, bluedemonspeedracer wrote:

At 11/19/07 08:03 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 11/18/07 01:51 PM, bluedemonspeedracer wrote: Well there is one military government [Burma] that did not lead to domestic terrorism but instead peaceful dissent.

Yep. Hundreds killed.. thousands imprisoned.. mostly Buddhist Monks. I take it that your point then is that peaceful protest doesn't work.

.

It depends on the situation, all though if your politically near sighted it may appear to do nothing bu non-violent protest does in fact work just not overnight. There protest may at first appear to be a failure, but it actually did succeed in encouraging the west to pressure international sanctions on the country. But was not quite successful enough. Will just have to wait and see.

He has hit on a valid point, the monks protesting probably knew that some of them would die, but they knew that such atrocities against them would draw attention, so they did it as a sacrifice... I see it as the true meaning of sacrifice or matyrdom, none of this jihad.... boom, blow yourself up crap.

You hit the nail right on the head, unlike most people that live military run nations, these Buddhist monks are famous for sneaking education to its people during times of oppression. Therefore those buddhist monestaries located in some the remote regions of Asia were able to secretly establish social networks that help them get media and educational content from the outside world and secretivly teach it to its citicenz without the Junta noticing. Therefore if it was not for those clever and resourceful monks, those people of Burma may not have resorted to activism and their lack of education would only have them aware of simplistic concepts such as violence and revenge. So yes, under normal circumstances military run nations indeed become a breeding ground for terror. However with Burma, there situation was more unique as they had monk communities that were somewhat hermited from the Junta run government and where able to secretivly teach western democratic political concepts repressed by the Junta that would have ended up forgotten without the monks help.

[Idiot-Finder]

Just hope the monks won't give up as it's a way to expose the Burmese military regime for what they are.

[bluedemonspeedracer]

At 11/20/07 04:45 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote: Just hope the monks won't give up as it's a way to expose the Burmese military regime for what they are.

Otherwise without those monks resourcefulness, knowlege and wisdom, the junta would have erased concepts such as democracy from the peoples minds and people would have even forgotten that there country was even onced named Burma and always would think its Myanmar. People in other military run governments don't have the luxury of underground teachings of educated concepts such as activism and democratic reform from institutions elusive to censorship such as Buddhist monestaries. Therefore most military run countries would censor material to the point that people living their will lack the sophisticated understanding of politics through media isolation. Therefore people fed up with their government will only know simplistic concepts of political pressure such as revenge and terror as reletivly complex concepts such as democracy and activism would elude them. Democracy and activism only seems like simple concepts because we have the luxury of free press and education and we were able to learn those concepts at an extremly young age. That is my theory on why most military run governments become a breeding ground for terror and why Burma was an exception to that pattern.