| P-Staker 14.08.2008 10:46 |
One international affair that ticks me off to no end is the unwarranted nice treatment received by a juju doctor from backwater China calling himself a leader of Tibet. Countries that are very willing to suppress separatists at home, such as Great Britain and Spain, readily welcome this figure who has no business in a modern society. Dalai Lama is the most un-democratic leader on the planet. He's not elected but chosen as a child based on a completely unverifiable (and, some would say, superstitious) belief that he's a reincarnation of some Buddhist big cheese or other. That's as if a president of a Western country was chosen for being the Second Coming of Jesus. Recently, Tibetans have shown complete disregard for the tradition and message of peace contained in the Olympic Games, and abused it for their political goals. Yet, instead of showing them their place, the West swallowed it up like it swallows Dalai Lama's cheap, instant spirituality. I say, fuck Tibet. |
| Freya is quietly judging you. 14.08.2008 11:01 |
China should get right out of Tibet, everybody knows that. |
| thomasquinn 32989 14.08.2008 11:22 |
The Dalai Lama's no saint, despite what his followers say (as he is quite fond of stirring up shit), but this guy is pushing it. No, their leader is no hero, but what China does to Tibet and the Tibetans resembles Stalin at his worst, after having taken private lessons with Hitler and Djengis Khan. |
| john bodega 14.08.2008 11:29 |
No way. Fuck the Chinese Olympics. It's a total fucking farce that they should never have been allowed to host in the first place. |
| Micrówave 14.08.2008 11:40 |
Fuck Brad Pitt. |
| thomasquinn 32989 14.08.2008 11:43 |
P-Staker wrote: I say, fuck Tibet.Congratulations. I hear Gary Glitter is on his way as we speak. |
| Lady Nyx 14.08.2008 12:08 |
ThomasQuinn wrote:BA-zing!P-Staker wrote: I say, fuck Tibet.Congratulations. I hear Gary Glitter is on his way as we speak. |
| Micrówave 14.08.2008 15:06 |
P-Staker wrote: Dalai Lama is the most un-democratic leader on the planet. He's not elected but chosen as a child based on a completely unverifiable (and, some would say, superstitious) belief that he's a reincarnation of some Buddhist big cheese or other.Let's go get that son of a bitch!!! Him and Jim Hutton. Damn them. Damn them both to hell!!! P-Staker wrote: Recently, Tibetans have shown complete disregard for the tradition and message of peace contained in the Olympic Games, and abused it for their political goals.No, it's just hard to swim and play basketball wearing those robes. But it would sure look cool. Go Team Tibet! |
| Garfield I. Uberson 14.08.2008 16:50 |
Free Willy!!! |
| Music Man 14.08.2008 17:51 |
Dude...China is just a gathering place for a bunch of people to play games internationally and distribute medals. They're not making it the capital of the world. |
| Raf 14.08.2008 19:38 |
Zebonka12 wrote: No way. Fuck the Chinese Olympics. It's a total fucking farce that they should never have been allowed to host in the first place.Ditto. Am I the only one here boycotting them? |
| Mr Mercury 14.08.2008 19:45 |
Raf wrote:Nah. I havent bothered my ass watching it either. And what pisses me off is that I have to pay a TV licence fee so that the BBC can broadcast the fucking thing.Zebonka12 wrote: No way. Fuck the Chinese Olympics. It's a total fucking farce that they should never have been allowed to host in the first place.Ditto. Am I the only one here boycotting them? |
| Freya is quietly judging you. 14.08.2008 21:26 |
Quite. Oh well, tradition and that. |
| YourValentine 15.08.2008 04:18 |
Queenzone is not blocked in Bejing, therefore I hijack this thread for posting a link to the website of a German TV show website which hosts blocked Human Rights websites link The Chinese people should have the option to see everything even if they don't agree to the content. |
| thomasquinn 32989 15.08.2008 04:52 |
So, consequently, we'll have been blocked by now :) Or perhaps Hu Jintao secretly listens to decadent western popular music by sexual deviants (i.e. Queen) at night :P |
| thomasquinn 32989 15.08.2008 04:52 |
YourValentine wrote: Queenzone is not blocked in Bejing, therefore I hijack this thread for posting a link to the website of a German TV show website which hosts blocked Human Rights websites link The Chinese people should have the option to see everything even if they don't agree to the content.Wouldn't the destination of that link be blocked in China? |
| YourValentine 15.08.2008 05:00 |
Not yet - they are online in Bejing since August 6th. Edit: I misunderstood the question. The website does not link to the blocked websites but hosts the content on pdf pages thus allowing Chinese visitors to view the "forbidden" content. |
| thomasquinn 32989 15.08.2008 05:09 |
YourValentine wrote: Not yet - they are online in Bejing since August 6th. Edit: I misunderstood the question. The website does not link to the blocked websites but hosts the content on pdf pages thus allowing Chinese visitors to view the "forbidden" content.So, it's just a matter of time before the Chinese block *that* website, I'm afraid... |
| John S Stuart 15.08.2008 09:27 |
Freya is quietly judging you. wrote: China should get right out of Tibet, everybody knows that.First: Freya, I am confused by your argument - Tibet IS in China and not vice-versa, so your comments do not make sense. The UK is a principality made up of Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales. So to paraphrase your own comment: "Britain should get right out of Wales, everybody knows that" - doesn't make sense does it? Second: Despite propaganda in the West, the Chinese DO support and accept religious freedom as part of their social fabric - but there are conditions. In China - freedom of religion is acceptable provided that religious belief is kept private. That is - religion of the self and state are kept seperate. Granted, most Chinese are traditionally Buddhists anyway, but there are indeed Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Muslim and Jewish Chinese - worshipping in very grand Cathedrals, Mosques and Synagogues. Indeed, I find it very ironic that George Dubya found the need to criticise Chinese religious freedoms from inside a Chinese protestant church! link "Mr Bush will however make a symbolic gesture of support for China's Christian community by attending a protestant church on Sunday in Beijing, albeit one that is part of the state-backed official church". Essentially: Any Chinese person IS free to worship how they will. They are allowed to meet in Temples or Church (Ironically it was Mao's cultural revolution which restored many grand Buddhist temples), along with like-minded individuals. However, for the sake of social order, the Chinese also believe it to be a bad thing to take religion "outside". This means no "Orange Walks" in China. No Hare Krishna's at Airports. No Gospel choirs in the park, no Mormons knocking on doors - and I guess more importantly - no bombs on busses by relious fanatical extremists - but inside the home - or inside the church building - you can drink as much "opium for the masses" until your soul is content. Living in Scotland, I know first hand the derisive problems whereby judging someone by the colour of their scarf is perceieved as more important than judging someone by the colour of their skin. So I actually AGREE with the Chinese policy. In my view, I see this as doing more good for society than evil - and I do not see this as a human rights issue at all. (In my opinion!). So back to Tibet. Tibet is in China. Tibet is subject to Chinese law. Tibetan Buddhists are FREE to worship as they will. Indeed there is a special Budhist temple set aside for the Dali Lama in Beijing should he ever wish to return - and the Chinese government have approached him to do so. The Chinese have no problem with Tibet. The problem arises because the Dali Lama wants to shout from the rooftops. Tibetan's themselves are not really interested in economical or political independance. Rather, they too support the Lama's "claim" to crow like a cockeral. Unfortunately, they live in a society which forbids them from doing so - ergo conflict of interests. Remember, China is home to around 2.5 billion people. This is likely to double in the next 20 years. The logistics of such sizes are phenominal - and keeping religion to self - in my mind - the correct decission at the correct time. But I am open to debate. |
| YourValentine 15.08.2008 10:54 |
Very interesting thoughts, John. While I agree with you that religion should be private and not dominate public life, I still think that people have a right to decide themselves how their state should work. Apparently, you accept the Chinese position that Tibet is an integral part of China while many Tibetians claim that Tibet is under unlawful Chinese occupation. What do you think about this? |
| Lady Nyx 15.08.2008 11:02 |
so i think i learned something from this i may not have been aware of so lemme see if i understand this.... china has never had a problem with tibet and has actualy treated tibet well, its tibet that has a rebel rouser for a leader that makes them seem like a 'victim'? correct me if im wrong! it just seems like the dalai lama seemed like an honorable man until now. i dont know or understand anything about politics so.... |
| 7Innuendo7 15.08.2008 11:32 |
correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that the culture of the Han Chinese, and that of the Tibetans, are distinct. regarding Tibet & the DL as a source of 'cheap and instant spirituality' marginalizes a peaceful culture that's been around for millennia. Blaming the DL for crowing about genocide also seems a bit like blaming the victim. The Han Chinese are clearly NOT suffering at the hands of the Tibetans. It seems there are some general parallels with the situation of South Africa, and neo-colonial captialism. Or you could draw comparisons with the Native American community in North America. or did Tentzin Gazto just open a can of whupass on Ulan Bator and Nepal? Darfur? who needs Chuck Norris when we got the DL? why not preserve the function of a peaceful society, if only for tourist purposes? China is out of balance, and will be for the foreseeable future. But they can't hide it for long. China will want pieces of Siberia, once it warms up enough to grow crops. China wants its hegemony like any other empire. how China handles Tibet will show how it eventually crumbles from the inside. with a populous neighbor such as India, a second nuclear neighbor in Pakistan, and the combined populations seperated mainly by the Himalayas, it's only a matter of time before too many people with access to guns have no access to butter. We all know what happens after that. fuck fucking the poor and powerless for fuck's sake! |
| John S Stuart 15.08.2008 11:41 |
YourValentine wrote: Very interesting thoughts, John. While I agree with you that religion should be private and not dominate public life, I still think that people have a right to decide themselves how their state should work. Apparently, you accept the Chinese position that Tibet is an integral part of China while many Tibetians claim that Tibet is under unlawful Chinese occupation. What do you think about this?YV: You ask very deep questions - which I would need pages to reply - so forgive me if I simplify, and by definition open myself to public attack, but bear with me... I'll start with human rights... First: There is NO human rights act. This is a myth. We here in Europe (both UK and Germany) subscribe to the European Court of Human Rights. However, in the US and Canada, they subscribe to the (alternative) US version of Human Rights. These rights (although similar)are different acts. For example, it is legal in Texas to kill a robber, as there, one has the right to protect one's home and property. However, here in the UK (or Europe) the right to life is greater - therefore in European thought this would still be seen as murder. Simply Europe has one set of human rights legislation, while the Americas has another. Then again, so do the Chinese! There IS a set of Chinese human rights - which are set in legislation - but they do differ from both the European and American acts, and as an "objective space alien observer" who is to say which continent has the best set of acts - in the best interests of human beings? So before we judge the Chinese, we really need to examine their culture first. To start with they have a population of 2.5 billion. This is set to double over the next 20 years. So while I do recognise the right to bear children, how does a nation of 5 billion sustain itself? How does it feed itself? How does it look after its social underbelly. The one child policy makes sense under these conditions. Especially as most Chinese are not as economically mobile - or as educated as we Western Nations - so the majority of any future population would be condemned to a life of poverty. It is all a matter of perception. Why should the Chinese take lessons from the US re: Capital punishment - when the US itself also believes in the death penalty? What about Guentanimo, or US torture of political prisoners on Scottish 'planes or the invasion of Iraq? What about the UK/US forces in Afghanistan, The Falklands, or the Russians in Georgia? Simply my point is that we in the west seem to be both very judgemental and hypocritical in that we condemn the Chinese - for the very same behaviour we condone at home. All vey ironic. As for my personal position on Tibet: I too am a hypocrite. The UK has annexed Northern Ireland, Gibralter, and India. It was the UK which created modern problems in the Middle-East by creating both Jordon and Pakistan. The US has over-thrown elected governments in South America (remember Oliver North?) simply because these elected governments did not fit in with the views of US politicians. Yes, there are problems in Tibet, but I do sympathise with the Chinese when they say that the West are dabbling in affairs which do not concern us, and that we should set our own house in order - before we try to clean up the back yards of others. So as I write this, I am mindful that we (the UK) - IMO - illegally occupy the Falklands, and as such, at present, the Falklands are British. Whether I agree or disagree with this is immaterial because international law (at present) also view the Falkands as British also. So how can I support the people on Tibet, and reject the people of Argentina - when both are saying exactly the same thing? That is double-standards at its worst. But as I say - this is a very simplified view of a very complicated argument. |
| YourValentine 15.08.2008 12:05 |
I agree that there is other injustice in the world but two wrongs don't make a right imo. You did not really answer my question, i.e. if you think that Tibet is an integral part of China as China claims or if it is unlawfully occupied. This has nothing to to with the one child policy or other inner-Chinese laws imo. You say the West should look into their own colonial history first and care about their own unlawful occupation policy first and I strongly agree that this is very important but it does not mean we cannot call invasion an invasion only because it's far away, does it? It's not your fault that the UK invaded Ireland, India or the Falklands. As a human being you can always raise your voice against any injustice, no matter where it occurs, at home or elsewhere. It's certainly true that the bad examples set by the West makes it very difficult to call for human rights with some authority. |
| John S Stuart 15.08.2008 12:25 |
To YV: I agree with you to a point, and I did say that I had over-simplified greatly to keep things brief, so rather disjointly: Yes, two wrongs do not make a right, and yes we as humans do have individual voices - but under current conditions, I do not think that Tibet should be 'Free'. It is, at present Chinese, and therefore subject to Chinese rule. The only way for that to change is not under a hail of more bullets - but by diplomacy and the ballot box - and international appeal, and that is for the Tibetan people to decide - not some western groups of interfering 'do-gooders'. I see this very similar to the Northern Ireland situation a few years back, in that some US citizens were astonished to discover that many Irish protestants not only existed - but also desired to remain part of the UK - therefore (in the words of Paul MacCartney) "Giving Ireland back to the Irish" was NOT the route desired by many Irish people. Likewise, a majority of Tibetan people are happy to remain under Chinese rule. So to return "Tibet to the Tibetans", is not that comfortable a proposition either. (A few foreign student demonstrators do not for a nation speak!). So I guess I will take the route of the coward and leave the last word for Tibetans. If democratically they seek independance from China then they should be allowed to do so under preaceful means. Other than that, for the moment at least Tibet is Chinese, and that as they say is that. However, I would be very interested to read what our Polish or Chezoslovakian cousins have to say on the matter. |
| john bodega 15.08.2008 13:08 |
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the world that a good comet can't fix. |
| YourValentine 15.08.2008 13:51 |
It's true that many issues are solved by time passing by. We both know that the protestants in Northern Ireland were originally not Irish but moved into Ireland under English occupation. They were ruling class and voted for the division of the country when the "crown" realised that Ireland was too bloody expensive to keep, so they kept the industrialized north and left the worn out and deforested rest of the country to the rebellious natives. Today that is not an issue anymore. Pretty much the same seems to have happened in Tibet: millions of Chinese moved into Tibet after the invasion, which is illegal under Geneva convention, too, - so whom do you ask? The original population or the Chinese immigrants? Might makes right I suppose. |
| Holly2003 15.08.2008 14:10 |
YourValentine wrote: It's true that many issues are solved by time passing by. We both know that the protestants in Northern Ireland were originally not Irish but moved into Ireland under English occupation. They were ruling class and voted for the division of the country when the "crown" realised that Ireland was too bloody expensive to keep, so they kept the industrialized north and left the worn out and deforested rest of the country to the rebellious natives. Today that is not an issue anymore. Pretty much the same seems to have happened in Tibet: millions of Chinese moved into Tibet after the invasion, which is illegal under Geneva convention, too, - so whom do you ask? The original population or the Chinese immigrants? Might makes right I suppose.Hmmm the events you're talking about in ireland happened nearly 900 years ago. I think the "original population" of ireland is long since dead, and if they're not, I don't want to meet them! The ..err "non-original" population, who have ancestors in ireland for nearly 900 years, have the right to settle their own affairs without giving the "original population" a veto. As for might makes right, it's entirely posible the "original population" of ireland were Picts who were then driven out by Gaels. So where does one start when deciding who are the original inhabitants and who are the invaders? What bearing all of this has on tibet is beyond me. |
| YourValentine 15.08.2008 14:47 |
I brought up the Ireland topic in response to John Stuart who mentioned it. From my memory I thought Ireland was conquered in the 17th century (Cromwell) and then English Protestants moved in establishing a majority in the Northern parts of the country. There are similarities to Tibet which was also invaded by a neighbour country. I never knew there were English people in Ireland 900 years ago... |
| Holly2003 15.08.2008 15:33 |
YourValentine wrote: I brought up the Ireland topic in response to John Stuart who mentioned it. From my memory I thought Ireland was conquered in the 17th century (Cromwell) and then English Protestants moved in establishing a majority in the Northern parts of the country.All of the above is accurate, but the Anglo-irish presence dates back to the 1100s. |