Uilleam

I'm glad you set that straight.

Your diatribe surprises me. Many and sharp the num'rous ills Inwoven with our frame! More pointed still we make ourselves Regret, remorse, and shame! And man, whose heav'n-erected face The smiles of love adorn, – Man's inhumanity to man Makes countless thousands mourn!

I don't think that the Islamic world claims a monopoly on religiously motivated genocide; I don't think that it could, even if it so wished. To suggest that genocide, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, represents a reasonable and legitimate hedge against the possibility of future sectarian violence is extreme, even by your standards. The Gambia may be in the forefront, for reasons of Islam, and because of the West's mealy mouthed attitude to the slaughter, etc occurring in Burma/Myanmar. For years we have had to listen to oxterguff about Bhuddism, from Westerners here, in the West, despite the fact that the most cursory historical research reveals that this creed of peace, tranquillity, submission, etc has a past as violent as many, if not most, religions. I believe that the Rohingya are not the only targets of the regime. There are others, who practice some forms of 'traditional' religions, some embracing some form, or parts of Bhuddism, who are under threat. Anyway, the hearing opens today. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/10/aung-san-suu-kyi-court-hague-genocide-hearing-myanmar-rohingya Aung San Suu Kyi in court as genocide hearing opens in The Hague World’s failure to act over Myanmar is ‘stain on collective conscience’, court told Owen Bowcott in The Hague @owenbowcott Tue 10 Dec 2019 11.36 GMTFirst published on Tue 10 Dec 2019 09.07 GMT The international community’s failure to act over allegations of genocide perpetrated by Myanmar’s military against the Rohingya people is a “stain on the collective conscience” of the world, the international court of justice in the Hague has been told. Abubacarr Marie Tambadou, the Gambia’s attorney general and justice minister, said as he opened his country’s case against Myanmar: “I stand before you to awaken the conscience of the world and arouse the voice of the international community. In the words of Edmund Burke, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing’.” Myanmar’s leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, who was listening in court, is expected to defend her country’s military against the genocide accusations on Wednesday. Tambadou said: “Another genocide is unfolding right before our eyes yet we do nothing to stop it. This is a stain on our collective conscience. It’s not only the state of Myanmar that is on trial here, it’s our collective humanity that is being put on trial.” Before dawn, a long queue had assembled outside the Peace Palace in the Dutch city to witness the first of three days of hearings that will focus attention on military clearance operations in 2017 against the Rohingya Muslim minority, which forced 700,000 people to flee across the border to neighbouring Bangladesh. Aung San Suu Kyi’s decision to fly to the Netherlands has proven popular in Myanmar, a mainly Buddhist country that considers the Rohingya to be illegal immigrants and denies them citizenship She has the status of official “agent” for Myanmar at. the hearing, meaning she is the designated leader of her country’s delegation. On Tuesday, she sat in the front row, her hands resting on a table. As a list of atrocities was read out to the court, she stared ahead at the raised bank of judges in front of her, her face expressionless. Once internationally feted as a human rights champion, Myanmar’s state counsellor has suffered a rapid fall of grace over what the UN has called her “complicity” in the military clearances. The contrast has been repeatedly drawn between Aung San Suu Kyi’s 1991 Nobel peace prize win and 15 years spent under house arrest, and her present position as chief denier that any ethnic violence has been perpetrated against the Rohingya. She will not address what is known as the “world court” until Wednesday morning, when she is expected to argue that the military operations in question were a legitimate counter-terrorism response to attacks by Rohingya militants. The case has been brought by the Gambia, a predominantly Muslim west African state that alleges Myanmar has breached the 1948 genocide convention enacted following the Holocaust. The Gambia’s claim states that Myanmar has perpetrated “manifest” contraventions of the convention through the acts of its military, and continues to do so. Those acts, the court was told, have included “extrajudicial killings, rape or other forms of sexual violence, burning of homes and destruction of livestock … calculated to bring about a destruction of the Rohingya group in whole or in part.” Aung San Suu Kyi’s alleged personal responsibility for the military’s clearance operations was raised by Paul Reichler, a US attorney speaking on behalf of Gambia. He showed the court a photograph of billboards that appeared across the country in which she appeared in front of three of Myanmar’s leading generals above the caption: “We stand with you.” Reichler added: “This shows – it can only have been intended to show – that they are all in it together and that Myanmar has absolutely no intention of holding its emboldened military leadership to account.” Professor Philippe Sands QC, the last lawyer to make submissions for Gambia, told the court that the International Court of Justice is “the ultimate guardian of the [1948] Genocide Convention; it’s on you the eyes of the world are turned.” Sands quoted from the UN fact-finding mission which said that Aung San Suu Kyi had not used her “de facto power or moral authority to stem or prevent the unfolding events or to protect the civilian population”. He recalled that the court last ordered provisional measures in Bosnia to prevent genocide in 1993 and that had been followed two years later by the Srebrenica massacre. Preventative, emergency measures - known as ‘provisional measures’ - must be imposed by the court to protect the remaining Rohingya population, he urged. “There has been a deliberate attempt to prevent access to evidence of genocide,” Sands told the court. “Grave violence and genocidal acts ... [have been committed] in breach of the convention ... There should be far-reaching provisional measures.” Among those in court were several Rohingya survivors who had flown in from Kutupalong refugee camp, the largest outside Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh. “This is a momentous occasion. They have travelled a long way to be here,” Mulvey said outside the court. “They are seeking justice and this is the first and most important step. “They are the representatives from their community. For them it’s a powerful moment to see Aung San Suu Kyi present in court. They have been shocked to see her defending the military. “Aung San Suu Kyi did nothing to stop the killing. She could have asked for help from the international community at the time. And now, as the final insult, she’s defending the army’s behaviour in court.” Khatun, 50, is a leader of the Shanti Mohila, a group of 400 Rohingya women in the Kutupalong camp. Her family and friends were murdered in the 2017 security operations. Begum, 22, was attacked by Myanmar soldiers. Ali, 46, was beaten and sexually tortured by Myanmar police in detention because he was accused of supporting the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, which the Myanmar army describes as a terrorist organisation. Before the hearing, Akila Radhakrishnan of the New York-based Global Justice Center, said: “The international community is many years too late on taking action in Myanmar, but this case represents the first hope in decades for the Rohingya and other persecuted ethnic groups in the country. Indiscriminate killings, widespread rape and sexual violence, arbitrary detention, and torture have been everyday reality in Myanmar for far too long. The court has an opportunity with this case to help end it all.” Nicholas Bequelin of Amnesty International said: “There is a mountain of evidence that the Myanmar military has committed crimes under international law and grave human rights violations against the Rohingya population. “Yet the government of Myanmar – including Aung San Suu Kyi – has continued to dismiss, downplay or otherwise deny these accusations.”

These Bhuddists, eh? Say what you like, but they can teach us sons and daughters of the Enlightenment a thing or two about, well....Enlightenment.. .. and, well.... genocide, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. From what I have heard and read about this case, it seems that the Burmese Peace Laureate will argue that the crimes against the unfortunate Royhingya were a necessary police action. Try that rationale when Hamas, Islamic jihad, Hezbollah, or, indeed any other Islamist terror gangs are involved! But hey, these Burmese oppressors are Bhuddists, and the oppressed, it seems, are either the wrong kind of Moslems, or have chosen a persecutor of entirely the wrong kind. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/08/aung-san-suu-kyi-heads-to-hague-for-myanmar-genocide-showdown Aung San Suu Kyi heads to The Hague for Myanmar genocide showdown Peace prize winner will lead her country’s defence against claims at court in Netherlands Owen Bowcott Legal affairs correspondent @owenbowcott A momentous legal confrontation will take place at the UN’s highest court on Tuesday when the Nobel peace prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi appears in person to defend Myanmar against accusations of genocide. Once internationally feted as a human rights champion, Myanmar’s state counsellor is scheduled to lead a delegation to the international court of justice (ICJ) in The Hague. The claim that Myanmar’s military carried out mass murder, rape and destruction of Rohingya Muslim communities has been brought by the Gambia, a west African state that belongs to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. The contrast is repeatedly drawn between Aung San Suu Kyi’s 1991 peace prize win and 15 years spent under house arrest, and her present position as chief denier that any ethnic violence has been perpetrated against the Rohingya. Last year, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum revoked her Elie Wiesel award. Security around the court is expected to be tight. There has been speculation that undisclosed arrest warrants may have been issued in relation to other legal proceedings against Myanmar. Aung San Suu Kyi, as effective head of government, is likely to be able to claim immunity from arrest. Aung San Suu Kyi left Yangon airport on Sunday bound for the Netherlands, where Rohingya supporters said they were planning protests outside court. The US-based Abdul Malik Mujahid, chair of the Burma Task Force, said there would be demonstrations near the Peace Palace on Tuesday and Wednesday. “This is the last chance for her to restore her international stature,” Mujahid said. “The best thing she could say would be to admit that crimes have been committed and [that she will] cooperate. Evidence of genocide should be preserved, the Rohingya should have their citizenship restored and be allowed to return.” Under the rules of the ICJ, member states can bring actions against fellow member states over disputes alleging breaches of international law – in this case, the 1948 convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. It is not the first time the tribunal, also known as the world court, has considered genocide cases – it dealt with several from the Balkan wars of the 1990s – but it is the first case involving countries that are not neighbours. The three-day hearing in the neo-Renaissance-style Peace Palace is what is known as a provisional measures procedure. The Gambia will urge the court to make an emergency declaration that Myanmar must halt a continuing genocide, and the court will consider whether it has jurisdiction and whether there is a plausible case to answer. This preliminary phase of the claim will not involve personal testimony from any of the estimated 700,000 Rohingya who fled to Bangladesh after the start of what are alleged to have been military clearance operations. The Gambia’s submission states: “The genocidal acts committed during these operations were intended to destroy the Rohingya as a group, in whole or in part, by the use of mass murder, rape and other forms of sexual violence, as well as the systematic destruction by fire of their villages, often with inhabitants locked inside burning houses.” Its arguments rely on the findings of UN investigations that described “genocidal intent” in the crimes. The UN special rapporteur Yanghee Lee related first-hand accounts of “attacks in which homes were set ablaze by security forces, in many cases with people trapped inside, and entire villages razed to the ground”. The Gambia’s case will be opened on Tuesday by Abubacarr Marie Tambadou, the country’s attorney general and justice minister, who studied law at Warwick University in England and later served with distinction as a special assistant to the prosecutor at the international criminal tribunal for Rwanda. The hearing, which will be livestreamed, may attract a large international audience. It will be tempting for the Gambia’s lawyers, distracted by Aung San Suu Kyi’s presence, to personalise the accusations, but the focus will remain on the Rohingya victims. In the run-up to the hearing, members of Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy party held rallies in Myanmar’s largest city, Yangon. Among the country’s Buddhist majority, she retains overwhelming support. The international criminal court (ICC), elsewhere in The Hague, has launched a separate investigation into alleged crimes against humanity committed by Myanmar’s leaders in forcibly deporting hundreds of thousands of Rohingya refugees to neighbouring Bangladesh. An Argentinian federal court has begun receiving evidence in another case brought against Aung San Suu Kyi, on the principle that it has universal jurisdiction to consider torture cases from anywhere in the world. Closing submissions from both sides at the ICJ will be made on Thursday. Judgment is expected to be reserved.

The Dhaily Rhabble relentlessly stirring the shit.

It's not "Modern Art", which was a 20th Century phenomenon, but Contemporary "Art". Either way it's a joke. Like 90% of 'Conceptual Art' it should have been left in the pub, where the idea was probably first discussed. I, myself, and other carousers, to be fair, have had many fine ideas, and searing insights, after five pints of Stella, or thereby. Fortunately, they never saw the light of day. Whether the world is a worse, or better, place as a result, is a question best left until a similar amount, of same, or similar, product, is consumed Perhaps the "performance artist" who scoffed the fruit could replace it with his post digestive product. Audiences could say, then, "It's crap", without fear of denunciation. Perhaps the original creator should have used a piece of plastic fruit, which, come to think of it might have had greater resonance. Of course, maybe we should just admire a fellow who can get circa £90K for, what, 10 minutes work. OK, an hour, including the mounting and framing.

Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.

30% is not significant, then. I am truly glad that you are not my accountant. We lost to a fhilth team with 10 men, for a large part of the game. For that part of the game we failed to take advantage of our numerical superiority. Your point is that the reduction of the opposition for 30mins is irrelevant.

Are you now suggesting that 30% is significant?

You are correct obviously. 30%, or thereby, is insignificant. I'm glad you are not my accountant....

By lunchtime tomorrow, at latest, today's fhilth team will be fuck ing legends. How we can take a positive out of that defeats me.

Winning matters; beating these bastards really matters.

Clearly you are very easily amused. They had 10 men for a significant proportion of the match, and we failed to take advantage.

The point is that they were 'minging' and we failed to beat them, even when they were down to 10. We threw the lot at them, and they, somehow, repelled it all, and walked off with the silverware. We fell short. Hence my original point that this victory might have a more +ve impact on their season than on ours.

They won; we failed to beat 10 men. They have a cup; we don't.