> In 2012, she told reporters she did not know if the Rohingya could be regarded as Burmese citizens.

and also

> In a 2013 interview with the BBC's Mishal Husain, Aung San Suu Kyi did not condemn violence against the Rohingya and denied that Muslims in Myanmar have been subject to ethnic cleansing, insisting that the tensions were due to a "climate of fear" caused by "a worldwide perception that global Muslim power is 'very great'". She did condemn "hate of any kind" in the interview. According to Peter Popham, in the aftermath of the interview, she expressed anger at being interviewed by a Muslim.

Sounds like she's a regular old flawed human being who grew up in a part of the world that has some particularly nasty sectarian hatred. And she's not immune to it.

Of course she's not a saint- basically nobody is. But whether it's fair or not, we tend to hold nobel peace prize winners to a higher standard, despite the almost random way they're handed out.

This reminds me of something I've been wondering for a while.

When these deluded, absolutely batshit regimes (Iran, North Korea, Russia) make these petulant "3rd-grade bully" type of statements that obviously have nothing to do with reality...

Why does everybody rush to slap it into a headline?

Yeah, we know Putin is deluded. I'm sure tomorrow he'll say Zelensky is Hitler's grandson and that Russia is days away from taking Kyiv. I'm sure the Kim regime will say they're ready to nuke the whole world if we don't declare them kings of the world. Who fucking cares?

They say some new insane thing every. single. day. And none of it is remotely interesting or useful. So straight to the front page with them! Shit like this is how Trump won a general election.