Today on Flashpoints: We’ll speak with Professor Vijay Prashad, about the ongoing brutal ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya people from Myanmar, and the deadly role Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi is playing in facilitating the Genocide. Also, we’ll feature an update on the faltering Russia Gate scandal. And we’ll replay our interview with Pierre LaBossier of the Haiti Action Network about Trumps racist remarks last week
Prof Vijay Prashad on The Ethnic Cleansing of The Rohingym People From Myanmar
7 responses to “Prof Vijay Prashad on The Ethnic Cleansing of The Rohingym People From Myanmar”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
For a moment, I thought I was listening to RT (“Russia Today”) on cable. I heard absolutely nothing different from what I hear on RT “news” reports in this Flashpoints coverage of the Trump-Russia connections. Could this possibly just one of the many reasons that KPFA has hemorrhaged listeners and funding over the years?
What does a comparison to another news outlet have to do with anything? My ideas probably share a viewpoint with some news outlet somewhere. So do yours. Big deal!
For my money, Russiagate is a meaningless tempest in a teapot. Of course the Russians took some hands on interest in our election. Of course the US messes around in everyone else’s elections. Grow up. Since when is the mere number of congressional committees making political hay on a convenient issue the measure of its importance? Do you think that surrounding Russia with threatening NATO bases doesn’t affect their election? Probably helps out Putin, is my guess.
So Dennis made a mistake about TV coverage. Big deal! What about his analysis and his viewpoint? A little more important in my eyes than some technical detail.
Since you bring up Ali Abunimah I’m guessing that Zionism is energizing your critique. Instead of pointing out minor errors, why don’t you deal with genocide. Now that’s worth discussing.
Sorry, but your assumptions about what “is energizing” my “critique” is lame. What does anything have to do with Zionism? And why would you leap to that conclusion? Are you so blinkered that you have to cast all discourse into A or B?
My point is simply that the voices that Dennis has on Flashpoints are critical of other media outlets yet seem to know very little about what those outlets are covering these days. And the “Russiagate is a hoax” arguments are truly shocking given what we know and who’s been indicted and who’s plead guilty. Your “tempest in a teapot” is akin to saying that Iran-Contra was merely about weapons.
Marc Herman: As to zionism, I didn’t “assume”, and I didn’t “leap to a conclusion”. As I stated , I offered a GUESS. In retrospect, I should not even have guessed. I’m sorry I did. Such connections are strongly contraindicated in this kind of conflictual back and forth. That may work with buddies, tossing around ideas in a collegial fashion, but not where parties are ready to pounce on the slightest misspeaking.
However, I do believe that Russiagate is an artificial construction, probably known by all the participants to be unworthy of real attention EXCEPT for the one possibility that with so many politicians posing as taking it seriously, it could lead to Trump’s downfall. That is an outcome much to be desired and so, I say, go to it! If, in the end, it turns out to allow Hillary (may discomfort be upon her) to claim that she lost because of Russian interference instead of her own stupidity, then there will be a great gnashing of teeth and rending of garments but I have no power to alter events.
Your main point, about Dennis’s failure to correctly report what other news sources did or didn’t report and how, is trivial and without merit, so far as I am concerned.
Your aside, claiming that KPFA is hemorhaging listeners is more serious. If true, then my explanation is quite otherwise. I feel that KPFA management has contempt for its listeners, ignoring their very real expertise and capabilities, treating them like a bunch of sheep to be shorn and no more. The management attitude seems to be “send us your money and shut up!”
A lot of listeners seem to think this attitude is normal, and don’t object, but I do. I still listen constantly but I don’t contribute lately. I require a bit more respect than that before I loosen my purse strings.
The so-called Russia Gate:
How can an “artificial construction” so far have two indictments, two guilty pleas, and piles of evidence accumulated by a Republican special prosecutor indicating — at the very least — money laundering and conspiracy involving a truly fascist government in Moscow?
I ‘guess’ your tolerance for criminality is much higher than mine.
Marc:
I don’t want to indulge in a vituperation but let’s discuss real issues here.
After thinking about the sources of criminality, I suppose you are right. I am not that impressed by the rule of law. I understand why there is such an emphasis on that concept. It comes from the people who have the power to make laws. Once they make laws that are convenient and comfortable for the crimes they wish to legitimize, then they pump up the propaganda to sucker the population into thinking that “rule of law” is a divine prescription. Rule of THEIR law is what they really mean. Consider the criminal nature of racial oppression through drug laws, through mass incarceration. Are these laws themselves criminal, passed by criminals? I would say so. What about the torture acceptance laws? The only reason they are put forward is because the lawmakers are confident that they will never be the victims, only the torturers. The lawmakers must surely, largely be aware of the criminality of torture laws but they have impunity and so they do what will get them votes, or party support, or donations – in short, power!
I read somewhere that peeing outdoors is illegal in half of the states (I don’t know about California). I break that “law” all the time, as a matter of my ethical philosophy. You have probably sped in your car, or failed to signal. We all do. I am a well-off, white homeowner so I get along, and if I am caught or ticketed, I get through it. I am never stopped, frisked and shot but the cops who do that are acting “legally”.
So criminality is not a holy writ. It is intensely relative and flexible and not necessarily fair.
I don’t like countries messing around in the affairs of other countries. The US messes in the elections, officials, death squads and etc. of practically every other country on the planet. How about that Stuxnet virus the US sent to Iran to sabotage their computers? Or the US financed coup against Hugo Chavez?
Russians, I suppose, do what they can. For every poorer country, I would guess that cyberspace is a godsend and an equalizer. This is a constant of political life now. I don’t want even the hint of war with Russia (or anyone) so I am not concerned with cyber interference. Everyone is doing it. It isn’t that interesting anymore. I am glad to hear that the American president is talking to Putin. He should talk even more (though not about his business deals). That’s what the UN is for. Talking is much better than fighting. I suspect that Trump in his inimitable fashion was expressing his cupidity and greed. In that sense he should be tossed. But in general, talking to the Russians is to be encouraged, not denigrated.
Now you’re engaging in relativist “What About-ism.” What about Venezuela? What about U.S. death squads?
ure those things are bad. But we’re not talking about them, are we? Oops — I guess you are!
Perhaps “What About” analysis enables you not to worry about anything at all. It’s all terrible, so why bother?