Tibet Information Network (TIN) is funded by NED
Yu
I just found out that Tibet Information Network (TIN)is funded by the
U.S. National Endowment of Democracy (NED).
Check of NED.org if you have time.
NED also funded large number of other Tibet activist groups eg.
International Campaign for Tibet of USA and Tibetan Center for Human
Rights and Democracy. These bodies then churn out large amount of CIA
propaganda about Tibet as part of US effort to demonize China.
Tibet Information Network (TIN) is another CIA directed ngo.
NED also funded the VIP reference, Wie Jingshen Foundation and Harry Wu
Laogai Foundation.
About National Eddowment of Democracy (NED)and its CIA connection.
***********
The post-Watergate enquiries into the activities of the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the US exposed details of its covert
political activities in other countries in order to promote US foreign
policy objectives. Amongst such activities were the secret funding of
individuals, political parties and non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) favourable to US interests and funneling of money to counter the
activities of those considered anti-US.
After taking over as the President in January, 1977, Mr.Jimmy Carter
banned such activities and imposed strict limits on the CIA's covert
operations in foreign countries. During the election campaign of 1980,
Mr.Ronald Reagan used effectively against Mr.Carter the argument that
the post-Vietnam and post-Watergate decline of the US under Mr.Carter
was due to the emasculation of its military and intelligence apparatus.
After his election in November, 1980, and before his taking-over as the
President in January, 1981, Mr.Reagan appointed a transition group
headed by the late William Casey, an attorney and one of his campaign
managers, who was to later take over as the CIA Director, to recommend
measures for strengthening the USA's intelligence capability abroad.
One of its recommendations was to revive covert political activities.
Since there might have been opposition from the Congress and public
opinion to this task being re-entrusted to the CIA, it suggested that
this be given to an NGO with no ostensible links with the CIA.
The matter was further examined in 1981-82 by the American Political
Foundation's Democracy Programme Study and Research Group and, finally,
the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was born under a
Congressional enactment of 1983 as a "non-profit, non-governmental,
bipartisan, grant-making organisation to help strengthen democratic
institutions around the world."
Read more about NED and CIA links.
http://www.saag.org/papers2/paper115.html
How the U.S. Purchased the 1990 Nicaragua Elections (NED)
http://www.brianwillson.com/awolnicelection.html
http://www.connix.com/~harry/covops.htm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
GMCarter
>
>
>I just found out that Tibet Information Network (TIN)is funded by the
>U.S. National Endowment of Democracy (NED).
>Check of NED.org if you have time.
Does this mean that they cannot be trusted? I'm not so sure that's
true. The paper you site gives no reason to believe they are CIA
funded or controlled by the CIA.
snip..
>Read more about NED and CIA links.
>http://www.saag.org/papers2/paper115.html
Interesting site. Another from that site is
http://www.saag.org/papers/paper102.html
where they discuss
Nepal update: The Maoist menace-Part II(May be read along with the
previous paper on the subject: The Maoist menace continues)
Let me be clear. I personally am not particularly interested in
political systems per se. Communist, capitalist, socialist each have
great potential for good and great potential for evil. About the only
system I find completely objectionable is fascism.
The United States has committed all sorts of atrocities either
directly or indirectly. I'm sometimes ashamed to be an American. The
Chinese government has similarly perpetuated all sorts of horrific
programs. This is often due to people being in power wielding it
foolishly and being stuck in their own greed and stupidity. These are
traits we must all struggle with and overcome in order that we may
live in peace together on this one small planet.
My primary interest is to reduce suffering and help people celebrate
the joy of our differences rather than fear them.
George M. Carter
Bill Carter
GMCarter wrote:
>
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 03:16:32 GMT, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >I just found out that Tibet Information Network (TIN)is funded by the
> >U.S. National Endowment of Democracy (NED).
> >Check of NED.org if you have time.
>
> Does this mean that they cannot be trusted? I'm not so sure that's
> true. The paper you site gives no reason to believe they are CIA
> funded or controlled by the CIA.
Comrade Yu is one of the CCP propaganda operatives infesting the
newsgroups, he spams this kind of lame hogwash day after day. He's
been trying to link the NED with the CIA for months but there's no
evidence for it whatsoever. The NED shows their entire database of
grantees at their web site for all to see. Comrade Yu spends a lot
of time sifting through it looking for donations to organizations
who oppose the policies of the CCP, then he comes here and tries
his best to smear them.
> My primary interest is to reduce suffering and help people celebrate
> the joy of our differences rather than fear them.
A noble objective, but don't expect Yu and his cronies to share
it with you.
--
time...@austin.rr.com
Please remove the anti-spam "-X" from return address...
Yu
gm...@ix.netcom.com (GMCarter) wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 03:16:32 GMT, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >U.S. National Endowment of Democracy (NED).
> >Check of NED.org if you have time.
>
> true. The paper you site gives no reason to believe they are CIA
> funded or controlled by the CIA.
Reagan simply created a body parallel to the CIA to carry out covert
political activities. This is the National Endowment for Democracy.
The funding come from US Tax payers, but it call itself ngo.
NED is a mini-CIA minus the name.
NED work in 3 main areas.
1) Unions
2) Media and publications
3) infiltrate political parties.
NED take side in other nation's politics backing parties friendly to US
national interest.
For example in France NED tried to sabortage socialist president
Francois Mitterand by backing 2 right wing groups against him.
In 1984, NED via FTUI channeled $1.4 million to two center-right
groups in France,
1) Force Ouvriere, an anticommunist trade union,
and
2) Inter-University Union, an anticommunist student federation with
reputed ties to the Service d'Action Civique, an extreme-right
paramilitary group.
They opposed the policies of President Francois
Mitterand's Socialist Party. These grants were never publicly reported
because FTUI promised the French recipients it would keep the
agreement secret.
FTUI is well known for its CIA links and right wing ideology.
Please read:
http://www.pir.org/gw/ftui.txt
In the 90s NED backed a large number of media, unions, and political
parties against China.
One, may or may not support these groups, but Tibet Information
Network's claim for being an objective reporter is a lie.
TIN is neither objective nor a real ngo. It is part of a western
propaganda machine serving the geostrategic interest of western nations.
All the NED backed media are cheap lie machines.
Chinese VIP reference is one example that many are familiar with.
______________
Trojan Horse
The National Endowment for Democracy
By William Blum, former U.S. state department official
How many Americans could identify the National Endowment for
Democracy? An organization which often does exactly the opposite
of what its name implies. The NED was set up in the early 1980s
under President Reagan in the wake of all the negative
revelations about the CIA in the second half of the 1970s. The
latter was a remarkable period. Spurred by Watergate -- the
Church committee of the Senate, the Pike committee of the House,
and the Rockefeller Commission, created by the president, were
all busy investigating the CIA. Seemingly every other day there
was a new headline about the discovery of some awful thing, even
criminal conduct, the CIA had been mixed up in for years. The
Agency was getting an exceedingly bad name, and it was causing
the powers-that-be much embarrassment.
Something had to be done. What was done was not to stop
doing these awful things. Of course not. What was done was
to shift many of these awful things to a new organization, with
a nice sounding name -- The National Endowment for Democracy.
The idea was that the NED would do somewhat overtly what the CIA
had been doing covertly for decades, and thus, hopefully,
eliminate the stigma associated with CIA covert activities.
It was a masterpiece. Of politics, of public relations,
and of cynicism.
Thus it was that in 1983, the National Endowment for
Democracy was set up to "support democratic institutions
throughout the world through private, nongovernmental efforts".
Notice the "nongovernmental" -- part of the image, part of the
myth. In actuality, virtually every penny of its funding comes
from the federal government, as is clearly indicated in the
financial statement in each issue of its annual report. NED
likes to refer to itself as an NGO (Non-governmental
organization) because this helps to maintain a certain
credibility abroad that an official US government agency might
not have. But NGO is the wrong category. NED is a GO.
Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation
establishing NED, was quite candid when he said in 1991: "A lot
of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the
CIA."{1} In effect, the CIA has been laundering money through
NED.
The Endowment has four principal initial recipients of
funds: the International Republican Institute; the National
Democratic Institute for International Affairs; an affiliate of
the AFL-CIO (such as the American Center for International Labor
Solidarity); and an affiliate of the Chamber of Commerce (such as
the Center for International Private Enterprise). These
institutions then disburse funds to other institutions in the US
and all over the world, which then often disburse funds to yet
other organizations.
In a multitude of ways, NED meddles in the internal affairs
of foreign countries by supplying funds, technical know-how,
training, educational materials, computers, faxes, copiers,
automobiles, and so on, to selected political groups, civic
organizations, labor unions, dissident movements, student groups,
book publishers, newspapers, other media, etc. NED programs
generally impart the basic philosophy that working people and
other citizens are best served under a system of free enterprise,
class cooperation, collective bargaining, minimal government
intervention in the economy, and opposition to socialism in any
shape or form. A free-market economy is equated with democracy,
reform, and growth; and the merits of foreign investment are
emphasized.
From 1994 to 1996, NED awarded 15 grants, totaling more than
$2,500,000, to the American Institute for Free Labor Development,
an organization used by the CIA for decades to subvert
progressive labor unions.{2} AIFLD's work within Third World
unions typically involved a considerable educational effort very
similar to the basic NED philosophy described above. The
description of one of the 1996 NED grants to AIFLD includes as
one its objectives: "build union-management cooperation".{3}
Like many things that NED says, this sounds innocuous, if not
positive, but these in fact are ideological code words meaning
"keep the labor agitation down ... don't rock the status-quo
boat". The relationship between NED and AIFLD very well captures
the CIA origins of the Endowment.{4}
NED has funded centrist and rightist labor organizations to
help them oppose those unions which were too militantly pro-worker.
This has taken place in France, Portugal and Spain amongst many
other places. In France, during the 1983-4 period, NED supported
a "trade union-like organization for professors and students" to
counter "left-wing organizations of professors". To this end it
funded a series of seminars and the publication of posters, books
and pamphlets such as "Subversion and the Theology of Revolution"
and "Neutralism or Liberty".{5} ("Neutralism" here refers to being
unaligned in the cold war.)
NED describes one of its 1997-98 programs thusly: "To
identify barriers to private sector development at the local and
federal levels in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and to push
for legislative change ... [and] to develop strategies for
private sector growth."{6} Critics of Yugoslav President
Slobodan Milosevic have been supported by NED grants for
years.{7}
In short, NED's programs are in sync with the basic needs
and objectives of the New World Order's economic globalization,
just as the programs have for years been on the same wavelength
as US foreign policy.
Because of a controversy in 1984 -- when NED funds were used
to aid a Panamanian presidential candidate backed by Manuel
Noriega and the CIA -- Congress enacted a law prohibiting the use
of NED funds "to finance the campaigns of candidates for public
office." But the ways to circumvent the spirit of such a
prohibition are not difficult to come up with; as with American
elections, there's "hard money" and there's "soft money".
As described in the "Elections" and "Interventions"
chapters, NED successfully manipulated elections in Nicaragua in
1990 and Mongolia in 1996, helped to overthrow democratically
elected governments in Bulgaria in 1990 and Albania in 1991 and
1992, and was busy working in Haiti in the late 1990s on behalf
of right wing groups who were united in their opposition to
former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide and his progressive
ideology.{8} NED has made its weight felt in the electoral-
political process in numerous other countries.
NED would have the world believe that it's only teaching the
ABCs of democracy and elections to people who don't know them,
but in all five countries named above there had already been free
and fair elections held. The problem, from NED's point of view,
is that the elections had been won by political parties not on
NED's favorites list.
The Endowment maintains that it's engaged in "opposition
building" and "encouraging pluralism". "We support people who
otherwise do not have a voice in their political system," said
Louisa Coan, a NED program officer.{9} But NED hasn't provided
aid to foster progressive or leftist opposition in Mexico, El
Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, or Eastern Europe -- or, for that
matter, in the United States -- even though these groups are hard
pressed for funds and to make themselves heard. Cuban dissident
groups and media are heavily supported however.
NED's reports carry on endlessly about "democracy", but at
best it's a modest measure of mechanical political democracy they
have in mind, not economic democracy; nothing that aims to
threaten the powers-that-be or the way-things-are, unless of
course it's in a place like Cuba.
The Endowment played an important role in the Iran-Contra
affair of the 1980s, funding key components of Oliver North's
shadowy "Project Democracy" network, which privatized US foreign
policy, waged war, ran arms and drugs, and engaged in other
equally charming activities. At one point in 1987, a White House
spokesman stated that those at NED "run Project Democracy".{10}
This was an exaggeration; it would have been more correct to say
that NED was the public arm of Project Democracy, while North ran
the covert end of things. In any event, the statement caused
much less of a stir than if -- as in an earlier period -- it had
been revealed that it was the CIA which was behind such an
unscrupulous operation.
NED also mounted a multi-level campaign to fight the leftist
insurgency in the Philippines in the mid-1980s, funding a host of
private organizations, including unions and the media.{11} This
was a replica of a typical CIA operation of pre-NED days.
And between 1990 and 1992, the Endowment donated a
quarter-million dollars of taxpayers' money to the Cuban-American
National Fund, the ultra-fanatic anti-Castro Miami group. The
CANF, in turn, financed Luis Posada Carriles, one of the most
prolific and pitiless terrorists of modern times, who was
involved in the blowing up of a Cuban airplane in 1976, which
killed 73 people. In 1997, he was involved in a series of bomb
explosions in Havana hotels.{12}
The NED, like the CIA before it, calls what it does
supporting democracy. The governments and movements whom the
NED targets call it destabilization.{13}
NOTES
1. Washington Post, September 22, 1991
2. NED Annual Reports, 1994-96.
3. NED Annual Report, 1996, p.39
4. For further information on AIFLD, see: Tom Barry, et al., The
Other Side of Paradise: Foreign Control in the Caribbean (Grove
Press, NY, 1984), see AIFLD in index; Jan Knippers Black, United
States Penetration of Brazil (Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1977),
chapter 6; Fred Hirsch, An Analysis of Our AFL-CIO Role in Latin
America (monograph, San Jose, California, 1974) passim; The
Sunday Times (London), October 27, 1974, p.15-16
5. NED Annual Report, November 18, 1983 to September 30, 1984,
p.21
6. NED Annual Report, November 18, 1983 to September 30, 1984,
p.21
7. See NED annual reports of the 1990s.
8. Haiti: Haiti Progres (Port-au-Prince, Haiti), May 13-19, 1998
9. New York Times, March 31, 1997, p.11
10. Washington Post, February 16, 1987; also see New York Times,
February 15, 1987, p.1
11. San Francisco Examiner, July 21, 1985, p.1
12. New York Times, July 13, 1998
13. For a detailed discussion of NED, in addition to the sources
named above, see: William I. Robinson, A Faustian Bargain: U.S.
Intervention in the Nicaraguan Elections and American Foreign
Policy in the Post-Cold War Era (Westview Press, Colorado, 1992),
passim
Yu
timef...@austin.rr.com wrote:
Try and be more creative in your flame.
> The NED shows their entire database of
> grantees at their web site for all to see.
That is not true. For example you can't find Wei Jingsheng Foundation
listed on the database.
Wie Jingsheng Foundation recieved money from NED.
The NED plot against Mitterand was also kept secret until the French
press reported it.
Blair Sheridan
>In article <39a91bf6...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> gm...@ix.netcom.com (GMCarter) wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 03:16:32 GMT, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >I just found out that Tibet Information Network (TIN)is funded by the
>> >U.S. National Endowment of Democracy (NED).
>> >Check of NED.org if you have time.
>>
>> Does this mean that they cannot be trusted? I'm not so sure that's
>> true. The paper you site gives no reason to believe they are CIA
>> funded or controlled by the CIA.
>
>
>Reagan simply created a body parallel to the CIA to carry out covert
>political activities. This is the National Endowment for Democracy.
>The funding come from US Tax payers, but it call itself ngo.
Where is the contradiction here? Or do you not see one and I just
misunderstood your phrasing?
Yu
In most people's mind a non-governmental organization (NGO) is a grass
root organization form by concern citizens on their own
initiation with an agenda that is independent of the political
establishemnt.
NED is none of that.
NED was initiated right from the top of the Washington political
establishment to promote US national interest.
It is entirely funded with American tax money.
The list of directors of the NED give us a good indication of its
nature.
Bob Graham - member of the US Senate Committee for American Intelligence
Issues
Connie Mack member of senate Intelligence Committee
Morton Abramowitz - the former Assistant Secretary of State for
Intelligence
Richard G. Lugar - member of the Senate Committee for American
Intelligence Activities
Most of NED funds are chanelled through other "NGOs" with links to the
CIA.
Examples are Freedom House and AFL-CIO. With this arrangement CIA is in
effective control of the NED.
Anydody is of course free to make up his own mind about the NGO status
of NED, but to me this is clear cut case of CIA front operation.
GMCarter
snip...
>In most people's mind a non-governmental organization (NGO) is a grass
>root organization form by concern citizens on their own
>initiation with an agenda that is independent of the political
>establishemnt.
>
>NED is none of that.
>NED was initiated right from the top of the Washington political
>establishment to promote US national interest.
Any or all of this may be true. But it appears to be irrelevant to the
case in point. You have provided no reliable evidence that
NED funds TIN.
or that NED funding has any impact on the content of TIN's work.
George M. Carter
GMCarter
>In article <39A93ECD...@austin.rr.com>,
> timef...@austin.rr.com wrote:
>
>Try and be more creative in your flame.
>
>> The NED shows their entire database of
>> grantees at their web site for all to see.
>
>That is not true. For example you can't find Wei Jingsheng Foundation
>listed on the database.
>Wie Jingsheng Foundation recieved money from NED.
>The NED plot against Mitterand was also kept secret until the French
>press reported it.
I'm very sorry to say it, but this type of comment only diminishes by
sense of your reliability.
Be clear. I think the Chinese people are mostly good, decent human
beings. I think China is a beautiful country, as is the United States.
My beef is with ANY government that commits acts of violence in the
name of some ideology. Ideologies that rely on violence have already
failed.
George M. Carter
Blair Sheridan
>In article <j9ojqs4450g9ia351...@4ax.com>,
> Blair Sheridan <tran...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>In most people's mind a non-governmental organization (NGO) is a grass
>root organization form by concern citizens on their own
>initiation with an agenda that is independent of the political
>establishemnt.
>
>NED is none of that.
>NED was initiated right from the top of the Washington political
>establishment to promote US national interest.
>It is entirely funded with American tax money.
>The list of directors of the NED give us a good indication of its
>nature.
To be honest, I'm not particularly interested in who created NED or
why. I just wanted to clear up the funding issue.
There are no restriction in the U.S. to NGOs receiving public tax
money.
-----------------------------------------
"...and lo, did the anvil drop upon Tom Goodman's head and
yea verily was he made a cretin. Thenceforth, ascribeth he to
me a love for the Chinese Communists, which I have not, as
though the Nazis' 'Gott mit uns' were not enough. Oy vey."
Yu
gm...@ix.netcom.com (GMCarter) wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 08:31:47 GMT, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> snip...
>
> >In most people's mind a non-governmental organization (NGO) is a
grass
> >root organization form by concern citizens on their own
> >initiation with an agenda that is independent of the political
> >establishemnt.
> >
> >NED is none of that.
> >NED was initiated right from the top of the Washington political
> >establishment to promote US national interest.
>
> case in point. You have provided no reliable evidence that
>
> NED funds TIN.
I don't know if you know anything about doing a rearch.
Try here and you will find that TIN is funded by NED.
http://www.ned.org/database/projects.asp
If you still cannot find it, try attend a beginner course somewhere.
> or that NED funding has any impact on the content of TIN's work.
You may also claim that CIA do charity work.
> George M. Carter
Yu
Blair Sheridan <tran...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 08:31:47 GMT, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> blathered:
>
> >In article <j9ojqs4450g9ia351...@4ax.com>,
> > Blair Sheridan <tran...@newsguy.com> wrote:
grass
> >root organization form by concern citizens on their own
> >initiation with an agenda that is independent of the political
> >establishemnt.
> >
> >NED is none of that.
> >NED was initiated right from the top of the Washington political
> >establishment to promote US national interest.
> >The list of directors of the NED give us a good indication of its
> >nature.
>
> To be honest, I'm not particularly interested in who created NED or
> why. I just wanted to clear up the funding issue.
>
> There are no restriction in the U.S. to NGOs receiving public tax
> money.
>
> -----------------------------------------
True, NED broke no US law in sarbotaging other countries.
If other countries were to finance US political parties it will break US
laws.
NED flood the world with anti China propaganda by funding organization
like TIN.
This is a political motivated move.
Yu
gm...@ix.netcom.com (GMCarter) wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 02:47:22 GMT, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > timef...@austin.rr.com wrote:
> >
> >Try and be more creative in your flame.
> >
> >> The NED shows their entire database of
> >> grantees at their web site for all to see.
> >
> >That is not true. For example you can't find Wei Jingsheng Foundation
> >listed on the database.
> >Wie Jingsheng Foundation recieved money from NED.
> >The NED plot against Mitterand was also kept secret until the French
> >press reported it.
>
> sense of your reliability.
NED trying to sarbotage France was real. It was discovered by the French
press. Later on even the US press reported it.
Try and read up more. This is a good site to start with.
http://www.pir.org/gw/ftui.txt
Yu
Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <itgkqsoaptjlg4opr...@4ax.com>,
> Blair Sheridan <tran...@newsguy.com> wrote:
blathered:
> >
> grass
> > >root organization form by concern citizens on their own
> > >initiation with an agenda that is independent of the political
> > >establishemnt.
> > >
> > >NED is none of that.
> > >NED was initiated right from the top of the Washington political
> > >establishment to promote US national interest.
> > >It is entirely funded with American tax money.
> > >The list of directors of the NED give us a good indication of its
> > >nature.
> >
> > To be honest, I'm not particularly interested in who created NED or
> > why. I just wanted to clear up the funding issue.
> >
> > There are no restriction in the U.S. to NGOs receiving public tax
> > money.
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
>
> True, NED broke no US law in sarbotaging other countries.
> If other countries were to finance US political parties it will break
US
> laws.
NED through the US based International Republican Institute (IRI)
chanelled money and people to support Mongolia Democratic Union.
The result was Mongolia Democratic Union won the election (4 years ago).
This was clear cut case of taking side in other country's democratic
election to produce a gov picked by the Washington politician.
The Mongolia Democratic Union after 4 years of mis-managing the country
was recently kicked out of office.
> NED flood the world with anti China propaganda by funding organization
> like TIN.
> This is a political motivated move.
>
Bill Carter
GMCarter wrote:
> Any or all of this may be true. But it appears to be irrelevant to the
> case in point. You have provided no reliable evidence that
>
> NED funds TIN.
>
> or that NED funding has any impact on the content of TIN's work.
Comrade Yu digs up old web pages which make allegations about NED
contributions to right-wing organizations during the Reagan
administration in 1984, the Cold War era. Somehow this translates
to complete CIA control over whatever group receives NED funding
today. Its just a transparent effort to smear critics of CCP policy.
GMCarter
snip...
>Try here and you will find that TIN is funded by NED.
>http://www.ned.org/database/projects.asp
Thank you for the reference. According to the site, they provided
Tibet Information Network with $20,000. Not exactly an amount
associated with a bribe or providing a rationale to publish
propaganda. This doesn't support your case, in my view.
They say they are:
"National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a private, nonprofit,
bipartisan, organization created in 1983 to help strengthen democratic
institutions around the world. Funded by an annual congressional
appropriation, the Endowment’s grants program assists organizations
abroad working for democratic goals. The Endowment’s programs
encourage democratic political development primarily in three major
functional areas -- pluralism; democratic governance; and education,
culture, and communications."
These appear to be laudable goals.
George M. Carter
Yu
gm...@ix.netcom.com (GMCarter) wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 12:55:48 GMT, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> snip...
>
> >Try here and you will find that TIN is funded by NED.
> >http://www.ned.org/database/projects.asp
>
> Thank you for the reference. According to the site, they provided
> Tibet Information Network with $20,000. Not exactly an amount
> associated with a bribe or providing a rationale to publish
> propaganda. This doesn't support your case, in my view.
As I have told you before, and have given examples, that database is
incomplete.
It's like tracking down a drug merchant, you will not know the complete
picture.
> They say they are:
>
> "National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a private, nonprofit,
> bipartisan, organization created in 1983 to help strengthen democratic
> institutions around the world. Funded by an annual congressional
> appropriation, the Endowment’s grants program assists organizations
> abroad working for democratic goals. The Endowment’s programs
> encourage democratic political development primarily in three major
> functional areas -- pluralism; democratic governance; and education,
> culture, and communications."
>
> These appear to be laudable goals.
Don't be naive!
The NED board is packed with people with intelligence back ground.
Most of NED grants are channeled through organizations like the AFL-CIO
and Freedom House.
These are well known CIA fronts.
This site is about CIA and unions.
http://www.crocker.com/~acacia/text_labor_cia.html
bud_s...@my-deja.com
Blair Sheridan <tran...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 08:31:47 GMT, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> blathered:
>
> >In article <j9ojqs4450g9ia351...@4ax.com>,
> > Blair Sheridan <tran...@newsguy.com> wrote:
blathered:
> >>
> >> >In article <39a91bf6...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> >> > gm...@ix.netcom.com (GMCarter) wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 03:16:32 GMT, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I just found out that Tibet Information Network (TIN)is funded
by
> >the
> >> >> >U.S. National Endowment of Democracy (NED).
"Is funded by the NED" sounds like the NED is TIN's sole source of
money (or at least were it gets most of its money). Is that true? There
would seem to be a big difference between getting 80% or 20% of your
money from a government organization. An 80-100% funder is pretty
indispensible and the fundee knows that. If the NED is just one of many
sources of funding it can be replaced if it starts trying to tell the
fundee (directly or indirectly) what to do.
> >> >> >Check of NED.org if you have time.
> >> >>
> >> >> Does this mean that they cannot be trusted? I'm not so sure
that's
> >> >> true. The paper you site gives no reason to believe they are CIA
> >> >> funded or controlled by the CIA.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Reagan simply created a body parallel to the CIA to carry out
covert
> >> >political activities. This is the National Endowment for
Democracy.
> >> >The funding come from US Tax payers, but it call itself ngo.
> >> Where is the contradiction here? Or do you not see one and I just
> >> misunderstood your phrasing?
> >
> >In most people's mind a non-governmental organization (NGO) is a
grass
> >root organization form by concern citizens on their own
> >initiation with an agenda that is independent of the political
> >establishemnt.
> >
> >NED is none of that.
> >NED was initiated right from the top of the Washington political
> >establishment to promote US national interest.
> >It is entirely funded with American tax money.
> >The list of directors of the NED give us a good indication of its
> >nature.
>
Yu
bud_s...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <itgkqsoaptjlg4opr...@4ax.com>,
> Blair Sheridan <tran...@newsguy.com> wrote:
blathered:
> >
> blathered:
> > >>
> > >> >In article <39a91bf6...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> > >> > gm...@ix.netcom.com (GMCarter) wrote:
> > >> >> On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 03:16:32 GMT, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >I just found out that Tibet Information Network (TIN)is
funded
> by
> > >the
> > >> >> >U.S. National Endowment of Democracy (NED).
>
> money (or at least were it gets most of its money). Is that true?
There
> would seem to be a big difference between getting 80% or 20% of your
> money from a government organization. An 80-100% funder is pretty
> indispensible and the fundee knows that. If the NED is just one of
many
> sources of funding it can be replaced if it starts trying to tell the
> fundee (directly or indirectly) what to do.
Ok if some body is caught taking $10,000 from the KGB.
1) Do you belive that is all there is.
2) that the $10,000 is too small a sum in influence his dicision.
We are unlikely to ever see the full picture of USA's espionage
operation. What we do see are some leaks, some goof or small peices of
information from places like congressional testimony.
Take for example, the story of how CIA turn over Nelson Mandella to the
South African security force. The guy involved was leaking the story to
his friends in a party.
NED and TIN are very wierd organizations. I said that long ago, not from
one piece of evidence, but from a whole pattern of their operation.
Anybody with a sound mind will be very suspicious of CIA after its years
of involvement in Tibet.
bud_s...@my-deja.com
Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
> I just found out that Tibet Information Network (TIN)is funded by the
> U.S. National Endowment of Democracy (NED).
> Check of NED.org if you have time.
> NED also funded large number of other Tibet activist groups eg.
> International Campaign for Tibet of USA and Tibetan Center for Human
> Rights and Democracy. These bodies then churn out large amount of CIA
> propaganda about Tibet as part of US effort to demonize China.
> Tibet Information Network (TIN) is another CIA directed ngo.
> NED also funded the VIP reference, Wie Jingshen Foundation and Harry
Wu
> Laogai Foundation.
>
> About National Eddowment of Democracy (NED)and its CIA connection.
> ***********
[Correspondence with TIN]
From: elmer swanson [mailto:elmer_...@hotmail.com]
Sent: 29 August 2000 17:20
To: t...@tibetinfo.net
Subject: TIN Report authors
Tashi Delek,
Can you help me with a couple of questions about TIN?
I am corresponding on an internet news group with somebody
who thinks the lack of reporters names on TIN reports and
funding from the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy is
very suspicious.
Do you have any boilerplate policy statements you could
E-mail me that describes [....] what percentage of TIN's
funding comes from the NED?
Sincerley,
Bud Swanson
********************************************
From: Richard Oppenheimer <ric...@tibetinfo.net> Save Address - Block
Sender
To: 'elmer swanson' <elmer_...@hotmail.com> Save Address
Subject: RE: TIN Report authors
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 14:22:17 +0100
Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close
Dear Mr Swanson,
It sounds like an interesting news group! Any chance of the URL?
I'd like to read what they have to say, though I do not want to get
embroiled in a political argument. That's not what we are here for.
In answer to your query:
[......]
What percentage of TIN's funding comes from the NED? The National
Endowment for Democracy, which gave TIN a grant for the first time
last October, is only one of nearly fifty donors to TIN. The grant
it gave was equivalent to just over 3% (three per cent) of TIN's
annual budget requirements. As with all grants that TIN receives,
it was only accepted on condition that there were no strings
attached and that acceptance would in no way compromise TIN's
editorial independence.
Sincerely,
Richard Oppenheimer
Director, Tibet Information Network
Website: http://www.tibetinfo.net
Yu
bud_s...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8oa164$3vs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >
the
> > U.S. National Endowment of Democracy (NED).
> > Check of NED.org if you have time.
> > NED also funded large number of other Tibet activist groups eg.
> > International Campaign for Tibet of USA and Tibetan Center for Human
> > Rights and Democracy. These bodies then churn out large amount of
CIA
> > propaganda about Tibet as part of US effort to demonize China.
> > Tibet Information Network (TIN) is another CIA directed ngo.
> > NED also funded the VIP reference, Wie Jingshen Foundation and Harry
> Wu
> > Laogai Foundation.
> >
> > About National Eddowment of Democracy (NED)and its CIA connection.
> > ***********
>
Bud,
Thanks for your effort.
First of all, let me clarify my position about TIN (Tibet Information
Network).
I have always believe that TIN is a propaganda machine for western Gov.
There is no need for TIN to change policy because of a grant from NED,
an American organ for espionage.
Why?
Because to start with, TIN and NED share the same agenda.
You need futher proof look at the work of Kate Saunders the wellknown
TIN journalist.
She wrote a book called "Laogai, Eighteen Layers of Hell" in which she
claimed that "6 million to 8 million people are forced
to undertake hard labour in camps throughout China, and
millions more are held in detention centres, prisons and “re-education
through labour” institutions."
Her book was forworded by Harry Wu # another notorious lair.
Please note that it was written in present tense, which means that she
is claiming that right now there are 6-8 mil Laogai prisoners. This is
not a cumulative figure.
(http://www.parliament.the-stationery-
office.co.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/nineties/text/61218-15.htm)
This women is so obviously a lair and TIN is a lair.
she further claimed that the gulag system has become an increasingly
important part of the China’s developing economy.
http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news186.htm
“The gulag system has become an increasingly important part of the
country’s developing economy...the
multi-million-dollar rush to invest in mainland China by companies
across the world has marginalized concern for the
abuses of human rights in China’s ‘laogai’ system. As trade increases,
so does a demand for products made with a ‘stable
supply of labour’, better still, at ‘zero labour cost’.”
• Kate Saunders ‘Beneath The Iron Crust’
She is not making an error of judgement. She is a deliberate lair.
Anybody who has seen the real China will not call the gulag an
important part of China's economy.
She is part of a propaganda machine to exploit Tibet issue.
# Kate Saunders teaming up with Harry Wu is interesting.
President Jiang told a German dignatary that Wu worked for the CIA.
He has information not available to us. Anyway. Harry Wu recieved about
USD600,000 from NED over the last 10 years.
Ray
self-righteous yanks. I don't give a rat's ass they might claim to be
some of the most anti-big corporation, anti-big government in the US.
The bottom line to me is they are fanatically hostile to ZhongGuo (maybe
not a single ZhongGuoRen as an individual, but ZhongGuo as a country) as
The Washington Post. They are brainwashed by the very propaganda crap
funded by those big corporations and/or big government in the interests
of the US. What you have been trying to do is described perfectly by the
idiom "Yu2 Hu2 Mou2 Pi2" (trying to negotiate a transfer of the fox's
fur with the fox). Would any american, no matter how fair-minded they
claim to be, want our lovely ZhongGuo to become a major power, which
inevitably will cut into the level of power and wealth enjoyed by the US
right now? Hell no! Just look at what they did to the former USSR. The
entire US (government and people as a whole) is in essence a well-oiled
capitalist sales machine. Everything they do is ultimately to sell more
"Made in USA" products, which are becoming increasingly "intelletucal"
as the rest of the world catchs up in terms of making low-cost physical
products. Do the yanks really give a shit about letting the rest of the
world become better informed through the Internet? Hell no! They just
want to sell more of their networking equipment and also profit from
their de facto stronghold on Internet standards. The US military already
has the spying/tracking mechanism built in on every Ethernet-equipped
computers--the hardware MAC address. Spreading their propaganda through
the English-dominated Internet contents is just a nice side-benefit.
In article <8odoal$2ff$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> In article <39aa427c...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> gm...@ix.netcom.com (GMCarter) wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 02:47:22 GMT, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <39A93ECD...@austin.rr.com>,
> > > timef...@austin.rr.com wrote:
> > >
> > >Try and be more creative in your flame.
> > >
> > >> The NED shows their entire database of
> > >> grantees at their web site for all to see.
> > >
> > >That is not true. For example you can't find Wei Jingsheng Foundation
> > >listed on the database.
> > >Wie Jingsheng Foundation recieved money from NED.
> > >The NED plot against Mitterand was also kept secret until the French
> > >press reported it.
> >
> > I'm very sorry to say it, but this type of comment only diminishes by
> > sense of your reliability.
>
> NED trying to sarbotage France was real. It was discovered by the French
> press. Later on even the US press reported it.
> Try and read up more. This is a good site to start with.
> http://www.pir.org/gw/ftui.txt
>
>
>
>
Bill Moore
Ray <ab...@home.com> wrote:
>Yo buddy, stop wasting your time trying to enlighten these
>self-righteous yanks. I don't give a rat's ass they might claim to be
>some of the most anti-big corporation, anti-big government in the US.
>The bottom line to me is they are fanatically hostile to ZhongGuo (maybe
>not a single ZhongGuoRen as an individual, but ZhongGuo as a country) as
>The Washington Post. They are brainwashed by the very propaganda crap
>funded by those big corporations and/or big government in the interests
>of the US. What you have been trying to do is described perfectly by the
>idiom "Yu2 Hu2 Mou2 Pi2" (trying to negotiate a transfer of the fox's
>fur with the fox). Would any american, no matter how fair-minded they
>claim to be, want our lovely ZhongGuo to become a major power, which
Not as long as China is run by paranoid, petty men who rule without
the will of the people and think nothing of murdering innocent
children to keep their illegitimate grip on power.
--
Remove 'blackhole.' from the address to send e-mail
Ray
In article <96791669...@irys.nyx.net>, bmo...@blackhole.nyx.net
Bill Moore
Words which only try to insult. Words without substance. As opposed to
these: China is run by paranoid, petty men who rule without the will
of the people. That's not self-righteousness, it's just truth.
Tingli Pan
Bill Moore wrote:
> In article <abu5e-3352AD....@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>,
> Ray <ab...@home.com> wrote:
> >A big medal for you, self-righteous dimwit!
>
> Words which only try to insult. Words without substance. As opposed to
> these: China is run by paranoid, petty men who rule without the will
> of the people. That's not self-righteousness, it's just truth.
Very interesting truth here. I think Canada was the first few nations in the
west
to recognize PRC as nation, which was ruled by CCP. And when ever the
Chinese government officials visit Canada, the Canadian government always
come out for welcome. In this way, I assume that Canadian people, who
elected its own government, think that it is correct to be friend with the
paranoid, petty men. The conclusion here is that IT IS the intention of
Canadians to befriend with those paranoid, petty men. Or on the other hand
what the Canadian government does is not what the Canadian people want to
do, it means the representation of the government is dubious. Or it is more
likely, the majority don't think as you do.
Btw, Chinese government is aways been viewed by some as ruled by paranoid
petty men. That is the reason why China was invaded one century ago. That is
the reason it was invaded fifty years ago. And it can be the reason for being
invaded in the future.
ltl...@mindspring.com
Micky Wong <mic...@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
> Tingli Pan wrote:
> >
> > At least, the Chinese won't talk about human rights while sending
> > bombers to Kosovo to kill people.
> >
>
> Does your comment justify CCP's slaughter of Chinese people?
>
> Care to explain why did CCP sign the UN Charter of Human Rights?
My speculaton.
In the long run, it is the right thing to do especially when the so
human rights can be translated into human needs. Not a matter of
right or wrong, a matter of priority.
Micky Wong
What a nice hypothesis ...:-)
So it is the right thing for Chinese to stop killing each other,
and stop being a menace to it's neighbours,
but because of the matter of CCP's priority, CCP should keep on
going to slaughter more Chinese for another 10? 20? 50 years,
and remain a rogue state?
before Chinese should stop killing each other?
or before the angry peasants rise up to kill the CCP
ruling class?
Phipps
>
> Yo buddy, stop wasting your time trying to enlighten these
> self-righteous yanks. I don't give a rat's ass they might claim to be
> some of the most anti-big corporation, anti-big government in the US.
> The bottom line to me is they are fanatically hostile to ZhongGuo (maybe
> not a single ZhongGuoRen as an individual, but ZhongGuo as a country) as
> The Washington Post. They are brainwashed by the very propaganda crap
> funded by those big corporations and/or big government in the interests
> of the US. What you have been trying to do is described perfectly by the
> idiom "Yu2 Hu2 Mou2 Pi2" (trying to negotiate a transfer of the fox's
> fur with the fox). Would any american, no matter how fair-minded they
> claim to be, want our lovely ZhongGuo to become a major power, which
> inevitably will cut into the level of power and wealth enjoyed by the US
> right now? Hell no!
Nobody but the Chinese have an interest in China becoming a major power.
Insofar as it has unresolved territorial disputes with many of its
neighbors, has been steadily building up its military power projection
capabilities, and has been increasingly assertive where the other
country is weak - challenging the Philippines over the disputed
Spratleys but not challenging Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands: it
is hardly surprising that PRC's neighbors view its rising power with
great misgivings.
You are completely off the mark as far as your accusations of the US
preventing PRC from becoming wealthy: PRC enjoys a $ 60 bn+ current
account surplus in bilateral trade.
> Just look at what they did to the former USSR.
What did they do - as opposed to what the Russians did themselves???
> The
> entire US (government and people as a whole) is in essence a well-oiled
> capitalist sales machine. Everything they do is ultimately to sell more
> "Made in USA" products, which are becoming increasingly "intelletucal"
> as the rest of the world catchs up in terms of making low-cost physical
> products.
The US is headed for a $ 400 bn trade deficit. Hardly sounds like a
"well-oiled sales machine."
> Do the yanks really give a shit about letting the rest of the
> world become better informed through the Internet? Hell no! They just
> want to sell more of their networking equipment and also profit from
> their de facto stronghold on Internet standards.
Other countries were connected to the Net long before anyone realized
its commercial potential, which didn't take off until Netscape and later
Windows IE were developed. You are just plain wrong on this one.
But it is an interesting concept. You should be aware that the Web was
created by a Briton working for the European supercollider organisation
CERN, and that the Internet standards are governed by an international
organisation.
> The US military already
> has the spying/tracking mechanism built in on every Ethernet-equipped
> computers--the hardware MAC address.
Wouldn't you consider it rather stupid for the US military to develop
tracking systems for MacOS instead of the Win/DOS platform - which has
more than 9 times the installed base of MacOS? What is your source for
that info?
Spreading their propaganda through
> the English-dominated Internet contents is just a nice side-benefit.
>
> In article <8odoal$2ff$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In article <39aa427c...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> > gm...@ix.netcom.com (GMCarter) wrote:
> > > On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 02:47:22 GMT, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >In article <39A93ECD...@austin.rr.com>,
> > > > timef...@austin.rr.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Try and be more creative in your flame.
> > > >
> > > >> The NED shows their entire database of
> > > >> grantees at their web site for all to see.
> > > >
> > > >That is not true. For example you can't find Wei Jingsheng Foundation
> > > >listed on the database.
> > > >Wie Jingsheng Foundation recieved money from NED.
> > > >The NED plot against Mitterand was also kept secret until the French
> > > >press reported it.
> > >
> > > I'm very sorry to say it, but this type of comment only diminishes by
> > > sense of your reliability.
> >
> > NED trying to sarbotage France was real. It was discovered by the French
> > press. Later on even the US press reported it.
> > Try and read up more. This is a good site to start with.
> > http://www.pir.org/gw/ftui.txt
I see that Yu has taken advantage of my trip to spread his same lies.
He has never managed to provide the references of the French Press
scandalizing over funding of FO and UIA. Maybe it was in the Communist
Party's official mouthpiece, l'Humanite. Was it reported in the
mainstream Press... say, France-Soir? Le Figaro? Le Monde... which has
never been shy about criticizing the US?
Force Ouvriere is an independent trade union: that is, it is not
politically affiliated to a party, unlike CFDT and CGT. FO was formed by
part of the old CGT by splitting off, as the CGT had come under the
control of the Communist Party (PCF) - as it is to this day, who used it
as a vehicle to sabotage the 3rd and later 4th and 5th Republics through
damaging political strikes.
http://www.force-ouvriere.fr/journal/histoire/375.html
FO does not have "foreign affiliates. As do left-wing
Union Nationale Inter-unversitaire (UNI) is what some would call "right
wing", but by French standards. Its positions are close to those of e.g.
Charles Pasqua, an RPR former minister of the interior under VGE. UNI is
no further to the right than was Thatcher. On the whole, they are to the
left of the Democrats in the US.
The web page cited by Yu was careful to say that it has "reputed" (by
whom?) ties to SAC. It was wise of them to do so, as there are
enforceable laws against libel in the US.
The allegation is of course ludicrous, since the Mitterand government
would have shut the students union down if indeed it did have ties to
SAC, or even if there were credible indications that it did. At the very
least, individual members could not hope to survive long in the national
education system, nor would the 'grandes ecoles' such as Essec or HEC
have tolerated them: students have been expelled for less than that.
Yu has the right to post links raving far-left screeds... but he should
at least have the decency of warning people that he was posting a link
to a lunatic-left rant which criticized assistance to the Solidarity
trade union - which brought down the Communist dictatorship in Poland.
Yu
mrph...@slip.net wrote:
> Ray wrote:
> > > Try and read up more. This is a good site to start with.
> > > http://www.pir.org/gw/ftui.txt
>
> I see that Yu has taken advantage of my trip to spread his same lies.
>
> He has never managed to provide the references of the French Press
> scandalizing over funding of FO and UIA.
After both NED and FTUI admitted financing the French political groups
apparently to "strengthen" democracy in France, why do you still want to
know the name of the France press reporting it?
What you need is clear thinking. Are you still saying that FO and UIA
never took money from NED?
The key issue here is NED is secretly funding FO and UIA
and NED is an organ for espionage.
Whether NED sarbotaging of Franáois Mitterrand benifit the world or not
is a different matter.
> Maybe it was in the Communist
> Party's official mouthpiece, l'Humanite. Was it reported in the
> mainstream Press... say, France-Soir? Le Figaro? Le Monde... which has
> never been shy about criticizing the US?
>
> Force Ouvriere is an independent trade union: that is, it is not
> politically affiliated to a party, unlike CFDT and CGT. FO was formed
by
> part of the old CGT by splitting off, as the CGT had come under the
> control of the Communist Party (PCF) - as it is to this day, who used
it
> as a vehicle to sabotage the 3rd and later 4th and 5th Republics
through
> damaging political strikes.
>
> http://www.force-ouvriere.fr/journal/histoire/375.html
>
> FO does not have "foreign affiliates. As do left-wing
You know? But it was taking money from the NED.
If you don't trust the French Press read the LA times.
Stanley Meisler, "Allocation of Funds in France Embarrassing," Los
Angeles Times, February 6, 1986, p. 25
------
> Union Nationale Inter-unversitaire (UNI) is what some would call
"right
> wing", but by French standards.
More accurately, by your standard. Don't try to represent the French
people.
The National Inter-University Union, was widely viewed as a cauldron of
rightist extremism and xeno-phobia and rumored also to have ties to
terrorists.
Paul E. Kanjorski, "Group Cloaked in Secrecy Meddling in Foreign
Affairs," Atlanta Constitution, May 24, 1991, p. A17.
-----
More than half a million dollars had gone
to a student group that had fewer than 1,000 members and was an
offshoot of an organization known for its violent and criminal
predilections.
Jefferson Morley, "Better NED Than Dead?" Dissent, Spring 1986.
> Its positions are close to those of
e.g.
> Charles Pasqua, an RPR former minister of the interior under VGE. UNI
is
> no further to the right than was Thatcher. On the whole, they are to
the
> left of the Democrats in the US.
>
> The web page cited by Yu was careful to say that it has "reputed" (by
> whom?) ties to SAC. It was wise of them to do so, as there are
> enforceable laws against libel in the US.
>
> The allegation is of course ludicrous, since the Mitterand government
> would have shut the students union down if indeed it did have ties to
> SAC, or even if there were credible indications that it did. At the
very
> least, individual members could not hope to survive long in the
national
> education system, nor would the 'grandes ecoles' such as Essec or HEC
> have tolerated them: students have been expelled for less than that.
>
> Yu has the right to post links raving far-left screeds... but he
should
> at least have the decency of warning people that he was posting a link
> to a lunatic-left rant which criticized assistance to the Solidarity
> trade union - which brought down the Communist dictatorship in Poland.
Really?
How about the ultra-Marxist LA Times?
Stanley Meisler, "Allocation of Funds in France Embarrassing," Los
Angeles Times, February 6, 1986, p. 25
Again, I stress, NED is very much like CIA. It plays dirty.
Whether these dirty tricks benifit you or not depend on who you are, but
don't be naive to think that all the human right groups or the Tibet
Information Network funded by NED are honest good hearted people.
They have America's geo-strategic interest in mind when they report
about Tibet.
abia...@my-deja.com
1899. In 1899, USA massacred estimated 1 - 3 millions of Filipinos.
In article <39B730...@slip.net>,
mrph...@slip.net wrote:
6785_D88
abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> At least PRC did not invade Philippines like USA did to Philippines in
> 1899. In 1899, USA massacred estimated 1 - 3 millions of Filipinos.
>
Of course not! PRC was never able to invade anyone. Not because it would not.
It was because it could not. You need to give yourself a bath in ice water,
dumb boy!
6785_D88
Micky Wong
Tingli Pan <tin...@corecomm.net> wrote:
>
>
> Micky Wong wrote:
>
> > Tingli Pan wrote:
> > >
> > > At least, the Chinese won't talk about human rights while sending
> > > bombers to Kosovo to kill people.
> > >
> >
> > Does your comment justify CCP's slaughter of Chinese people?
>
> slaughtering Chinese justify bombing the Kosovo?
>
> > Care to explain why did CCP sign the UN Charter of Human Rights?
>
>
>
Thanks for enlighten netters on why PRC is viewed by many a truly shameless
rogue state.
Micky Wong
ltl...@mindspring.com
Micky Wong <mic...@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
>
>
> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <39B51762...@nortelnetworks.com>,
> > Micky Wong <mic...@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
> > > Tingli Pan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > At least, the Chinese won't talk about human rights while
sending
> > > > bombers to Kosovo to kill people.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Does your comment justify CCP's slaughter of Chinese people?
> > >
> > > Care to explain why did CCP sign the UN Charter of Human Rights?
> >
> > My speculaton.
> > In the long run, it is the right thing to do especially when the so
> > human rights can be translated into human needs. Not a matter of
> > right or wrong, a matter of priority.
>
> What a nice hypothesis ...:-)
>
> So it is the right thing for Chinese to stop killing each other,
> and stop being a menace to it's neighbours,
> but because of the matter of CCP's priority, CCP should keep on
> going to slaughter more Chinese for another 10? 20? 50 years,
> and remain a rogue state?
> before Chinese should stop killing each other?
> or before the angry peasants rise up to kill the CCP
> ruling class?
I think we need to tell the difference between human rights and human
needs. Human needs are universal; human rights are not universal. Non-
safty related human rights are not human needs.
Skipper
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> I think we need to tell the difference between human rights and human
> needs. Human needs are universal; human rights are not universal. Non-
> safty related human rights are not human needs.
Human rights not universal?
In America a murder may continue to live in jail for over 10 years
before given final death sentence and die. The system makes sure that
unfair trial is unlikely and the murderer's human right is protected.
In PRC a murderer normally gets a death sentence and die in a few
weeks.
Are you suggeting you Chinese folks shoud not be protected by the same
human right? So why are there so much noise about Dr We Ho lee? He
needs not a unversal human right like American white does?
Human needs universal?
People living in the cold region need thick clothing. But people
living in the hot region need very little clothing. How would human
needs universal?
--
Skipper
Life is beautiful, wonderful and magical.
abia...@my-deja.com
is PRC spy. Now what has made you changed minds?
According to ABC news, over 50% of American inmates in the death roll
were found mistrial. And rich people like OJ Simpson can walk free
because he has money to hire the best lawyers in the nation. And
Vincent Chin was beaten to death in Detroit in the 80s just because of
his Chinese ethnicity and those racist murderers set free. So please
stop preaching us "American judicial system" or "American human
rights", will you?
Oh, talking about human rights, is anyone wondering why USA still
imposes Cuban embargo?
In article <8pbg3f$gba$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Micky Wong
Albert <a...@nospam.prnet.hhrnet.jp> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 13:05:43 -0400, Micky Wong
> <mic...@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
> >
> >What a nice hypothesis ...:-)
> >
> >So it is the right thing for Chinese to stop killing each other,
> >and stop being a menace to it's neighbours,
>
> So is it right for the Europeans to kill the native Indian and
> aboriginals of Australia which is an illegal dictatorship like the
> illegal US.
I suggest that you may want to adjust your sense of time first.
Care to tell us how many Hong Kong people were killed by British in the
past 30 years?
Care to enlighten us that How many Amirican Indians or Australia
aboriginals were killed by Europeans in the past 100
years?
Do you know how many million Chinese were killed by the CCP in the past
30 years?
Do you know how many FaLunGong Believers were killed by the CCP in the
past month? and during the past year?
While two wrongs do not make one right, It is truly remarkable that CCP
educated bunch keeps using the past cruelty of
others to justify the ongoing slaughering of peaceful non-violant
meditation practioners.
What a SHAME for today's Mainland Chinese!
What a SHAME for the CCP ruling Class!
What a SHAME for the Butchers with Chinese Socialism Characteristics!
>
> >but because of the matter of CCP's priority, CCP should keep on
> >going to slaughter more Chinese for another 10? 20? 50 years,
> >and remain a rogue state?
> >before Chinese should stop killing each other?
> >or before the angry peasants rise up to kill the CCP
> >ruling class?
> >
> >>
Micky Wong
Can you help to enlighten us, does the rampant corruption of CCP
ruling class, the widespread and everlasting ravaging of China's
state property by CCP cadres, is a form of enhancing Chinese
people's human needs?
or is it a form of organized marauding of a nation by 60 million
organized
Mafia with Chinese characteristics?
Micky Wong
While discussion of abstract concept is usually not as convincing
as discussion within the context of some practical and real issues;
Can you help to enlighten us, does the rampant corruption of CCP
ruling class, the widespread and everlasting ravaging of China's
state property by CCP cadres, is a form of enhancing Chinese
people's human needs?
or is it a form of organized marauding of a nation by 60 million
organized Mafia with Chinese characteristics?
IMHO, if the CCP is truly what they claim to be, the purpose of
party is for Chinese people's welfare. - we all know this is one
big cruel farce of the 20th centry -, CCP should have the courage
to disband itself immediately. This is the only way that CCP can
serve to enhance Chinese people's human needs.
aldra...@my-deja.com
wrote:
>In article <39B4514D...@corecomm.net>,
> Tingli Pan <tin...@corecomm.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Micky Wong wrote:
>>
>> > Tingli Pan wrote:
>> > >
>> > > At least, the Chinese won't talk about human rights while
sending
>> > > bombers to Kosovo to kill people.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Does your comment justify CCP's slaughter of Chinese people?
>>
>> Did I ever justify the slaughtering of CCP? Otoh, does the
>> slaughtering Chinese justify bombing the Kosovo?
>>
>> > Care to explain why did CCP sign the UN Charter of Human Rights?
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>>
>
>Thanks for enlighten netters on why PRC is viewed by many a truly
shameless
>rogue state.
>
>
"many" here = outdated naive "imperialists or neo-imperialists" ... ?
... ;-)
Not so very long ago, two great generals and one President threatened
the Chinese with the bomb thereby forced Mao to build the bomb at a
most difficult time in the midst of the Cultural Revolution to shut off
their mouths. "Power comes out of the barrel of the gun" after all.
But fortunately for us and the world, one President, a former teacher,
who must have read a lot of Chinese history and philosophy, stopped his
general. Another highly intelligent and far-sighted President thought
that "it is better to talk to the Chinese than to fight them" and he
and his equally highly educated and far-sighted lieutenants spent a
great number of years struggling to build up a relationship with China.
They must have realised that China with 1.2b people, a very long
history and a vast land area (they must have also read Suntzu), is a
country not so easy to subjugate lest they themselves be assimilated
and their country become part of China ... no? .... ;-)
But the sad thing is that there are still a lot of short-sighted idiots
around still trying to do China in ... no? To them I would like to
simply say "Be careful lest you help to blow up the world to pieces"
... ok?... ;-(
Have a nice day,
>
Aldragon-II _ _ _
"Democracy though sound in concept, well and good, is no panacea
because of its natural defects in practice. What's really important is
a system of good governance (doesn't really matter what it is called so
long as it produces the most good to the most people of a country) with
a good system of strong and fair law and order and education, and
education is the key. Democracy will come naturally when a country is
strong and ready, not the cart before the horse."
Micky Wong
Thanks for your fairy tale. This is great evidence for the world
to see, what kind of idiots CCP's genetic engineering can produce.
It is obvious from your opinions, the far-sightness of CCP cadres
has created the miracle of Beijing's sunless sand-storms, and dried
up Yellow-River's muddy flows, and even helped people along the
Yangtze river banks had to fight for drink waters.
Have a nice day to you too.
:) :) ^o^
Tingli Pan
Micky Wong wrote:
I wonder why Clinton didn't tell Jian about that when they met in UN?
Talking about shameless, eh, eh, eh!
Micky Wong
6785_D88 wrote:
>
> abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > At least PRC did not invade Philippines like USA did to Philippines in
> > 1899. In 1899, USA massacred estimated 1 - 3 millions of Filipinos.
> >
>
> Of course not! PRC was never able to invade anyone. Not because it would not.
CCP did invade Tibet, because PRC is militarily stronger than Tibet.
It's funny that dumb boy should mention Philippines, USA has returned
Philippines
to Philippinos long time ago, while the PRC is still occupying Tibet,
and shamelessly
brutalize the Tibetan people.
Today's PRC is enjoying a free hand in killing any Tibetan who refuse
submiting to the new serfdom with Chinese Socialism Characteristics!
Micky Wong
Are U speaking on Jian's behalf?
I'm not speaking for the shameless Clinton.
It is obvious that Clinton and Jian can find
many mutually agreeable yet shameless views
or pleasures to share with.
To compare PRC with USA, one most obvious difference
lies in the USA citizen can openly call Clinton
shameless, while any PRC citizen, if openly called Jian
shameless, may risk of being miraculously disappearing
from the socialism paradise.
^o^
Micky Wong
Tingli Pan <tin...@corecomm.net> wrote:
>
>
> Micky Wong wrote:
>
> > In article <39B4514D...@corecomm.net>,
> > Tingli Pan <tin...@corecomm.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Micky Wong wrote:
> > >
> > > > Tingli Pan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > At least, the Chinese won't talk about human rights while sending
> > > > > bombers to Kosovo to kill people.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Does your comment justify CCP's slaughter of Chinese people?
> > >
> > > Did I ever justify the slaughtering of CCP? Otoh, does the
> > > slaughtering Chinese justify bombing the Kosovo?
> > >
> > > > Care to explain why did CCP sign the UN Charter of Human Rights?
> > >
> > > Why not?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for enlighten netters on why PRC is viewed by many a truly shameless
> > rogue state.
>
> I wonder why Clinton didn't tell Jian about that when they met in UN?
> Talking about shameless, eh, eh, eh!
>
What a delight to encounter a spokeperson for Jian!
It is obvisous that Clinton and Jian would have found some mutually
agreeable and somewhat shameless views or pleasures to share
with each other.
If anyone need to compare USA with PRC, one most obvious difference
lies in: a USA citizen can freely call Clinton shameless without fear of
repercussion; While any PRC serf, who dare to openly call Jian
shameless, may risk CCP's retaliation of miraculous disappearing act
with Chinese Characteristics.
^o^ ^o^
C.W. Huang
> The system makes sure that
> unfair trial is unlikely and the murderer's human right is protected.
Give me a f*cking break. You don't seem to advocate rights for Dr. Lee.
Scoundrels like you send innocent people to electric chairs and joyfully
claim that justice has been served.
Micky Wong
Wonder why u are so excited?
U want a f*cking break? there is no need to ask permission from the
skipper.
Put Dr. Lee inside PRC, will he enjoy a fair trial? or will any news
papaer
inside China even dare to report a "traitor" and "Spy"'s case?
Now u are free to go to have a f*cking break.
Have a good f*ck with your beloved CCP.
Tingli Pan
Micky Wong wrote:
> In article <39B99E7A...@corecomm.net>,
> Tingli Pan <tin...@corecomm.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for enlighten netters on why PRC is viewed by many a truly shameless
> > > rogue state.
> >
> > I wonder why Clinton didn't tell Jian about that when they met in UN?
> > Talking about shameless, eh, eh, eh!
> >
>
> What a delight to encounter a spokeperson for Jian!
Don't overestimate yourself. You are just talking to a common person,
not any spokesman of Jian or who ever.
> It is obvisous that Clinton and Jian would have found some mutually
> agreeable and somewhat shameless views or pleasures to share
> with each other.
Were you there during the meeting? Or is this just your own imagination?
> If anyone need to compare USA with PRC, one most obvious difference
> lies in: a USA citizen can freely call Clinton shameless without fear of
> repercussion; While any PRC serf, who dare to openly call Jian
> shameless, may risk CCP's retaliation of miraculous disappearing act
> with Chinese Characteristics.
Tell me, who has disappeared because of calling Jian shameless? OTOH, as
far as I know, that in Canada, a boy had used some words in his mail, he
has been under survelence by the government for a long time. I guess, this
is not included in human rights of Canada.
Tingli Pan
Micky Wong wrote:
> "C.W. Huang" wrote:
> >
> > Skipper wrote:
> >
> > > The system makes sure that
> > > unfair trial is unlikely and the murderer's human right is protected.
> >
> > Give me a f*cking break. You don't seem to advocate rights for Dr. Lee.
> > Scoundrels like you send innocent people to electric chairs and joyfully
> > claim that justice has been served.
>
> Wonder why u are so excited?
>
> U want a f*cking break? there is no need to ask permission from the
> skipper.
>
> Put Dr. Lee inside PRC, will he enjoy a fair trial? or will any news
> papaer
> inside China even dare to report a "traitor" and "Spy"'s case?
I wonder. Especially, to those who think they are fighting for free
world.
Dr. Lee, whose wife was an FBI informer. He, himself, according to
news report, tried to sell the secret to Taiwan, an enemy of CCP, is
charged by US government. Is there something fishy here?
ltl...@mindspring.com
productivity. Privatization smear the originally clear distinction
between what is private and what is state owned. Increased corruption
occured as a result of privatization efforts.
Is corruption unique in the PRC? Don't think so.
Taiwan Nobel Prize winner, a Li guy who is also the head of the Taiwan
Academy of Sciences, estimated up of 50% of Taiwan government officials
had black gold link.
In America, a state governer is the highest elected officier of a
soverign state. Yet one was sentenced for corruption a short while ago
and another state governer was sentenced several years ago.
Is the PRC fulfilling the citizens' need?
I think we should look at the trend. To be sure, she committed terrible
blunders. On the whole, she is getting better and better.
Good government is a need. Political freedom that gives the citizens
more control over the government is secondary. It is not true that
there were never any good government before democracy. It is not true
that all democratic governments are good governments.
The following is from another netter.
=====================================================================
If you ask any average citizen in the PRC whether they are free, they
will tell you that they are definitely free to say or do what they
want; just like in Singapore. The Law there is fair to all, just like
in Singapore. Their crime rate is low, just like in Singapore. Do you
know that public transport ie. buses, in China is not lighted up at
night between bus stops. The light come on only when the bus stops to
let passengers alight. Try that in Singapore!
There is complete freedom if you have no political aspirations...
http://x66.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=667518087
=====================================================================
aldra...@my-deja.com
wrote:
>
>
>aldra...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 15:03:58 GMT, Micky Wong <mick...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <39B4514D...@corecomm.net>,
>> > Tingli Pan <tin...@corecomm.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Micky Wong wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Tingli Pan wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > At least, the Chinese won't talk about human rights while
>> sending
>> >> > > bombers to Kosovo to kill people.
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > Does your comment justify CCP's slaughter of Chinese people?
>> >>
>> >> Did I ever justify the slaughtering of CCP? Otoh, does the
>> >> slaughtering Chinese justify bombing the Kosovo?
>> >>
>> >> > Care to explain why did CCP sign the UN Charter of Human
Rights?
>> >>
>> >> Why not?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Thanks for enlighten netters on why PRC is viewed by many a truly
>> shameless
>> >rogue state.
>> >
>>
>> >
>
Yeah, exactly the kind of outdated idiotic products of past
imperialists who can't think properly and believe they are still living
in the past world of imperialism in spite of what I have written!
Still can't understand that the two hundred or so years of humiliation,
the Long March and the Cultural Revolution have changed the mindset of
the majority of the Chinese people and most of the world and woke
them up.
Why do you think a great far-sighted President and his most able and
far-sighted ieutenants spent a great number of difficult years to try
to build up a good relationship with China? The process is still going
on and incomplete even after about a quarter of a century. And it will
be a great tragedy if these outdated short-sighted idiotic products
around are allowed to force a return to the old strained relationship.
In political, social, economic and military terms, the stakes are too
high in this most dangerous world! So don't try your luck ... ok? ...
;-((
Btw, can't you see that the problems you referred to above, even if
they are correct, they are more problems of fast opening up and
capitalism than anything else. Can't you understand that ...? If want
to learn spend more time to study the Taiwan model and the Singapore
system ... ok?... ;-))
>
Have a nice day,
Aldragon-II _ _ _
"Democracy though sound in concept, well and good, is no panacea
because of its natural defects in practice. What's really important is
a system of good governance (doesn't really matter what it is called so
long as it produces the most good to the most people of a country) with
a good system of strong and fair law and order and education, and
education is the key. Democracy will come naturally when a country is
strong and ready, not the cart before the horse."
>
>Have a nice day to you too.
>
>:) :) ^o^
Micky Wong
Thanks for your enlightening information;
IMHO, since a spy or a spy couble has a lot more chances
of becoming double or triple agents, Wonder why some
US Citizen are wipping up so much "Patriotism" towards a
butcher regime - the PRC under the notorious role of CCP,
and are so eager to make a "traitor" or "spy" suspect
of their own nation to became a martyr victim of "racism"?
The paradox of today's wantun mess inside PRC might be explainable
by the bizarre behavior of those US Citizen of Chinese Patriotism.
The strength of USA is demonstrated in the fact that the US society
has the strength and self-confidence to tolerate this kind of
"traitor like" behavior, -according to CCP's standards -,
while the PRC has demonstrated CCP's weakness by, in order to
maintain "stability", ccp need to jail, torture, maim and kill
peaceful non-violant meditation practitioner, including old ladies
and young children.
What an amazing contrast of two nations at the opposite edges of
human spectrum.
Micky Wong
aldra...@my-deja.com wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 12:13:38 +1000, Micky Wong <micky...@bigpond.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
Snip
> >
> >Thanks for your fairy tale. This is great evidence for the world
> >to see, what kind of idiots CCP's genetic engineering can produce.
> >
> >It is obvious from your opinions, the far-sightness of CCP cadres
> >has created the miracle of Beijing's sunless sand-storms, and dried
> >up Yellow-River's muddy flows, and even helped people along the
> >Yangtze river banks had to fight for drink waters.
>
> >
> Yeah, exactly the kind of outdated idiotic products of past
> imperialists who can't think properly and believe they are still living
What happened to Beijing's Past Blue Sky and what happened to
Yellow-River and Yangtze River are continuous miracles occured
in year 2000 and in the past several years.
How can you say this are outdated idiotic products of past imperialists?
This is "debat without sincerity!"
FYI, all the damage done to Beijing's past blue sky, to the flows of
the Yellow River and the Yangtze River are the "Great Success"
of "CCP's Glorious, Absolute Correct and Great" Leadership.
To be too humble when you claim Party's credits.
Micky Wong
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >
> Many SOEs did not perform as expected. They were privatized to improve
> productivity. Privatization smear the originally clear distinction
> between what is private and what is state owned. Increased corruption
> occured as a result of privatization efforts.
Shall we believe that the sole reason of corruption is the result of
privatization efforts? but not the direct result of "Power Corrupts, Absolute
Power Corrupts Absolutely."
If you have not heard above this common-sense wisdom by Lord Acton:
"Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely", I suggest you to do some
elementary study first.
According to overseas stock listing, the privatization of the SOE has not
even kicked off yet! How many SOE has been officially privatized, and
publicly listed and traded on international stock-exchange yet? We only see
one or two CCP owned "SOE"s has been listed or tried to list on international
stock exchanges, although many SOEs are laying off works by the tens of
millions, we have yet to see, any SOE has been behave or reporting their
books as a truly "Private Enterprise" yet. To China's newly unemployed
"leadership class" What another cruel farce!
>
> Is corruption unique in the PRC? Don't think so.
I agree that corruption is not unique in the PRC, however, by scale and depth
of permeation, PRC has gained the honour of being the Champion Nation
of Corruption in Human History.
And PRC is the only nation in recent human history, with it's behavior to
tell the world: In order to maintain stability, the state will need to jail,
tortue, maim and kill peaceful, non-violent, meditation practictioners,
including old ladies and young children.....
Such a glorious record, what a glory for the "glorious, forever-correct
great" party!
Micky Wong
Tingli Pan <tin...@corecomm.net> wrote:
>
>
> Micky Wong wrote:
>
> > In article <39B99E7A...@corecomm.net>,
> > Tingli Pan <tin...@corecomm.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for enlighten netters on why PRC is viewed by many a truly shameless
> > > > rogue state.
> > >
> > > I wonder why Clinton didn't tell Jian about that when they met in UN?
> > > Talking about shameless, eh, eh, eh!
> > >
> >
> > What a delight to encounter a spokeperson for Jian!
>
> Don't overestimate yourself. You are just talking to a common person,
> not any spokesman of Jian or who ever.
>
> > It is obvisous that Clinton and Jian would have found some mutually
> > agreeable and somewhat shameless views or pleasures to share
> > with each other.
>
> Were you there during the meeting? Or is this just your own imagination?
>
> > If anyone need to compare USA with PRC, one most obvious difference
> > lies in: a USA citizen can freely call Clinton shameless without fear of
> > repercussion; While any PRC serf, who dare to openly call Jian
> > shameless, may risk CCP's retaliation of miraculous disappearing act
> > with Chinese Characteristics.
>
> Tell me, who has disappeared because of calling Jian shameless? OTOH, as
> far as I know, that in Canada, a boy had used some words in his mail, he
> has been under survelence by the government for a long time. I guess, this
> is not included in human rights of Canada.
While you did not provide any specifics about the Canadian boy, do I have an
obligation to provide specifics?
Did Canadian government ever claim that Canada is perfect, and the goverment
is "glorious, ever-correct and forever great" ? or did Canadian governemtn
has the need to jail, tortue, maim and kill peaceful meditation practioner,
including old ladies and young children, just for the sake of "maintain
stability of the society"?
From a different angle, have you seen any Chinese media reporting
someone calling Jian Shameless?
Do you want us to believe that out of 1,500,000,000 people, especially among
those twenty to fifty million newly unemployed "leadership class" "old
brothers", not even one of them want to call Jian shameless? Is it possible?
What a delight to carry on a discussion with Chinese Socialism
Characteristics?
aldra...@my-deja.com
wrote:
>In article <39B99E7A...@corecomm.net>,
> Tingli Pan <tin...@corecomm.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Micky Wong wrote:
>>
>> > In article <39B4514D...@corecomm.net>,
>> > Tingli Pan <tin...@corecomm.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Micky Wong wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Tingli Pan wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > At least, the Chinese won't talk about human rights while
sending
>> > > > > bombers to Kosovo to kill people.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Does your comment justify CCP's slaughter of Chinese people?
>> > >
>> > > Did I ever justify the slaughtering of CCP? Otoh, does the
>> > > slaughtering Chinese justify bombing the Kosovo?
>> > >
>> > > > Care to explain why did CCP sign the UN Charter of Human
Rights?
>> > >
>> > > Why not?
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > Thanks for enlighten netters on why PRC is viewed by many a truly
shameless
>> > rogue state.
>>
>> I wonder why Clinton didn't tell Jian about that when they met in
UN?
>> Talking about shameless, eh, eh, eh!
>>
>
>What a delight to encounter a spokeperson for Jian!
>
>It is obvisous that Clinton and Jian would have found some mutually
>agreeable and somewhat shameless views or pleasures to share
>with each other.
>
>If anyone need to compare USA with PRC, one most obvious >difference
>lies in: a USA citizen can freely call Clinton shameless without fear
>of repercussion; While any PRC serf, who dare to openly call Jian
>shameless, may risk CCP's retaliation of miraculous disappearing >act
with Chinese Characteristics.
>
Ha, you really think that's real good for a nation, you really think
it's really good for them to be able to make a mockery of the President
of the most powerful country in the world; can't you see that this is
just one of the practical defects of democracy ...? ... ;-((
Had you read enough Chinese history and philosophy and enough
of American history and provided you have a reasonably good head, and
used it properly and opened your eyes wide, you might have appreciated
why the CCP despite its problems has the superior system ... no? ...
;-))
The USA system is no doubt a very good system but unfortunately it has
also produced some adverse side effects and some short-sighted
"over-educated" people. Fortuately for the US and the world, there are
not so many of them around! ... ;-))
>
Have a nice day,
>
Aldragon-II _ _ _
"Democracy though sound in concept, well and good, is no panacea
because of its natural defects in practice. What's really important is
a system of good governance (doesn't really matter what it is called so
long as it produces the most good to the most people of a country) with
a good system of strong and fair law and order and education, and
education is the key. Democracy will come naturally when a country is
strong and ready, not the cart before the horse."
>
>^o^ ^o^
aldra...@my-deja.com
>
Go and learn how to read and think properly before you reply will you
and be honest and quote the relevant paragraph adequately you are
arguing against ... ok? ... ;-((
>
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 11:44:49 GMT, Micky Wong <mick...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>In article <8pdlu3$rg8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>
ltl...@mindspring.com
Micky Wong <mick...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8pdioq$o30$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > >
> > Many SOEs did not perform as expected. They were privatized to
improve
> > productivity. Privatization smear the originally clear distinction
> > between what is private and what is state owned. Increased
corruption
> > occured as a result of privatization efforts.
>
> Shall we believe that the sole reason of corruption is the result of
> privatization efforts? but not the direct result of "Power Corrupts,
Absolute
> Power Corrupts Absolutely."
Power is the capacity to do work.
It can get things done or prevent event things from being done. Power
itself is neither good or bad. Power over people is the same.
I believe Lord Acton actually said, "Power tends to corrupt,..."
A probability, not a certainty. Only God has absolute power.
>
> If you have not heard above this common-sense wisdom by Lord Acton:
> "Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely", I suggest you
to do some
> elementary study first.
Why do you think power always corrupt?
All new parents get new power, the newly welded power over their baby.
Are they more corrupted than before the birth of their child?
>
> According to overseas stock listing, the privatization of the SOE has
not
> even kicked off yet! How many SOE has been officially privatized, and
> publicly listed and traded on international stock-exchange yet? We
only see
> one or two CCP owned "SOE"s has been listed or tried to list on
international
> stock exchanges, although many SOEs are laying off works by the tens
of
> millions, we have yet to see, any SOE has been behave or reporting
their
> books as a truly "Private Enterprise" yet. To China's newly unemployed
> "leadership class" What another cruel farce!
Only a tiny fraction of all private business are listed to trade in the
stock changes. Look around you. You painter who paint your neighbor's
house and may very well be the boss of his own private company.
> > Is corruption unique in the PRC? Don't think so.
>
> I agree that corruption is not unique in the PRC, however, by scale
and depth
> of permeation, PRC has gained the honour of being the Champion Nation
> of Corruption in Human History.
The GLF and the CR are mistakes.
Excluding that, I don't think I saw evidences showing the PRC as more
corrupted and/or more brutal.
Tingli Pan
Micky Wong wrote:
> Tingli Pan wrote:
> >
> > Micky Wong wrote:
> >
> > > Wonder why u are so excited?
> > >
> > > U want a f*cking break? there is no need to ask permission from the
> > > skipper.
> > >
> > > Put Dr. Lee inside PRC, will he enjoy a fair trial? or will any news
> > > papaer
> > > inside China even dare to report a "traitor" and "Spy"'s case?
> >
> > I wonder. Especially, to those who think they are fighting for free
> > world.
> >
> > Dr. Lee, whose wife was an FBI informer. He, himself, according to
> > news report, tried to sell the secret to Taiwan, an enemy of CCP, is
> > charged by US government. Is there something fishy here?
>
> Thanks for your enlightening information;
>
> IMHO, since a spy or a spy couble has a lot more chances
> of becoming double or triple agents, Wonder why some
> US Citizen are wipping up so much "Patriotism" towards a
> butcher regime - the PRC under the notorious role of CCP,
> and are so eager to make a "traitor" or "spy" suspect
> of their own nation to became a martyr victim of "racism"?
Tell me about that, that Dr. Lee might be a double or triple spy.
It seems that you've read too much cheap spy novels. Not to
mentione mix it up with "Patriotism" or "traitor" or "spy" or
"martyr" or "racism". What was really getting into your mind,
that you need to pile all those words together, without much
sense?
> The paradox of today's wantun mess inside PRC might be explainable
> by the bizarre behavior of those US Citizen of Chinese Patriotism.
It seems that you are confused from the begining. The US policy towards
China is clear, whether is by Clinton, or Gore, or Bush, is to build up
a healthy relation while critisizing its difficiency. Only those extreme
right wing crazy men would talking something like you. Go figure,
whose behavior is bizarre.
>
> The strength of USA is demonstrated in the fact that the US society
> has the strength and self-confidence to tolerate this kind of
> "traitor like" behavior, -according to CCP's standards -,
> while the PRC has demonstrated CCP's weakness by, in order to
> maintain "stability", ccp need to jail, torture, maim and kill
> peaceful non-violant meditation practitioner, including old ladies
> and young children.
What are you talking about it again? It is not tolerence for something.
It is about the law. If your kind of tolerence is allowed, then Dr. Lee
won't be prosecuted in the first place. ( I think he isn't young either)
What are you? Coming from Mars. And talking about tolerence
about spy and such kind of rubbish?
> What an amazing contrast of two nations at the opposite edges of
> human spectrum.
I know, I know. That why US has the highest rate of prisoners.
Tingli Pan
Micky Wong wrote:
> In article <39BA4E73...@corecomm.net>,
> Tingli Pan <tin...@corecomm.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Micky Wong wrote:
> >
> > > In article <39B99E7A...@corecomm.net>,
> > > >
> > > > I wonder why Clinton didn't tell Jian about that when they met in UN?
> > > > Talking about shameless, eh, eh, eh!
> > > >
> > >
> > > What a delight to encounter a spokeperson for Jian!
> >
> > Don't overestimate yourself. You are just talking to a common person,
> > not any spokesman of Jian or who ever.
> >
> > > It is obvisous that Clinton and Jian would have found some mutually
> > > agreeable and somewhat shameless views or pleasures to share
> > > with each other.
> >
> > Were you there during the meeting? Or is this just your own imagination?
> >
> > > If anyone need to compare USA with PRC, one most obvious difference
> > > lies in: a USA citizen can freely call Clinton shameless without fear of
> > > repercussion; While any PRC serf, who dare to openly call Jian
> > > shameless, may risk CCP's retaliation of miraculous disappearing act
> > > with Chinese Characteristics.
> >
> > Tell me, who has disappeared because of calling Jian shameless? OTOH, as
> > far as I know, that in Canada, a boy had used some words in his mail, he
> > has been under survelence by the government for a long time. I guess, this
> > is not included in human rights of Canada.
>
> While you did not provide any specifics about the Canadian boy, do I have an
> obligation to provide specifics?
Is there something wrong in Canada, that the Canadian people don't realize
what happened around them? That they even don't realize that there is an
electronic surveulence system around them.
> Did Canadian government ever claim that Canada is perfect, and the goverment
> is "glorious, ever-correct and forever great" ? or did Canadian governemtn
> has the need to jail, tortue, maim and kill peaceful meditation practioner,
> including old ladies and young children, just for the sake of "maintain
> stability of the society"?
Oh, ya? I even remember that there is even the language police in Canada,
checking signs of store for using English. I never heard about that in any
other place around the world. Not even in China.
> From a different angle, have you seen any Chinese media reporting
> someone calling Jian Shameless?
Neither do I see anything American media calling Jian shameles. Not
from New York Times, or Washington Post. During the 60 minutes
interview of Wallace and Jian, I never saw that either.
Do you have any problem with that?
> Do you want us to believe that out of 1,500,000,000 people, especially among
> those twenty to fifty million newly unemployed "leadership class" "old
> brothers", not even one of them want to call Jian shameless? Is it possible?
It might be. And so what?
> What a delight to carry on a discussion with Chinese Socialism
> Characteristics?
Especially, with a right wing extremist.
Micky Wong
>
> In article <8pftch$7bb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Micky Wong <mick...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <8pdioq$o30$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > Many SOEs did not perform as expected. They were privatized to
> improve
> > > productivity. Privatization smear the originally clear distinction
> > > between what is private and what is state owned. Increased
> corruption
> > > occured as a result of privatization efforts.
> >
> > Shall we believe that the sole reason of corruption is the result of
> > privatization efforts? but not the direct result of "Power Corrupts,
> Absolute
> > Power Corrupts Absolutely."
>
> Power is the capacity to do work.
Unrestrained absolute power is the root of human evil.
Unrestrained absolute power is the opinium of the tyranny.
Only the truly sick minds will perpetualy seek absolute and
unrestrained power.
Those who enjoy unrestrained absolute power often become
the victim of power. CCP is one shinning example. The worse
is yet to come for the CCP.
> It can get things done or prevent event things from being done. Power
> itself is neither good or bad. Power over people is the same.
CCP's abuse of absolute power can be the fitting model of your view.
CCP's power had caused incalculable suffering of the Chinese people,
it is obvious that you seem to enjoy the same power which is killing
and maiming FaLunGong followers.
CCP's power is preventing Chinese people to be their own masters,
and makes Chinese mass to remain ignorant and stupid, to serve
as CCP's slaves in the serfdom with Chinese Socialism Characteristics.
The abuse of power by CCP's caders has earned CCP the notority
of most corrupted political entity of human history.
The consequency of CCP's abuse of power is today's rampant corruption
that permeates CCP's leadership. This is CCP ultimate nemeses.
>
> I believe Lord Acton actually said, "Power tends to corrupt,..."
> A probability, not a certainty. Only God has absolute power.
>
You are correct on this. What Lord Acton did not said, and have not
imagined was that unrestrained absolute power in China during CCP's
rule was the root of ever so many evil deeds.
> >
> > If you have not heard above this common-sense wisdom by Lord Acton:
> > "Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely", I suggest you
> to do some
> > elementary study first.
>
> Why do you think power always corrupt?
After you have explained what Lord Acton said, here you are repeating
yourself unnecessarily.
> All new parents get new power, the newly welded power over their baby.
> Are they more corrupted than before the birth of their child?
From time to time, we do hear from news media, there are some wacky
parents who may tortue, maime or killing their own childrem.
While CCP likes to make the slaves of Party's serfdom to believe:
the Party is the Parents of all slaves, CCP's behavior has demonstrated
just such cruel and wacky parents who abuses their power.
Could this be your reason to glorify power, especially absolute and
unrestrained power?
Micky Wong
Pardom me! I did not realize that you can talk sense. :)
For someone who demands to talk sense, whether Dr.Lee is a
double or triple spy or not, why should such a speculation
got anything to do with what I read, or if the spy novels
were "cheap" or "expensive"?
>
> > The paradox of today's wantun mess inside PRC might be explainable
> > by the bizarre behavior of those US Citizen of Chinese Patriotism.
>
> It seems that you are confused from the begining. The US policy towards
> China is clear, whether is by Clinton, or Gore, or Bush, is to build up
> a healthy relation while critisizing its difficiency. Only those extreme
> right wing crazy men would talking something like you. Go figure,
> whose behavior is bizarre.
Without confusion, how can tens of millions of unemployed angry
workers be celebrated as CCP's glorious achievement of SOE's
privatization?
While you are talking to me, shall I catagorize you as a
right wing crazyman with bizare behavior?
>
> >
>
> > The strength of USA is demonstrated in the fact that the US society
> > has the strength and self-confidence to tolerate this kind of
> > "traitor like" behavior, -according to CCP's standards -,
> > while the PRC has demonstrated CCP's weakness by, in order to
> > maintain "stability", ccp need to jail, torture, maim and kill
> > peaceful non-violant meditation practitioner, including old ladies
> > and young children.
>
> What are you talking about it again? It is not tolerence for something.
> It is about the law. If your kind of tolerence is allowed, then Dr. Lee
> won't be prosecuted in the first place. ( I think he isn't young either)
> What are you? Coming from Mars. And talking about tolerence
> about spy and such kind of rubbish?
How convenient for you! If you don't like what others said,
just catagorize them as rubbish.
You want to talk about law, whose law?
The law of the PRC? or the law of USA? or the law of Taiwan?
I thought these forums are named alt.chinese.text, and
soc.culture.taiwan, not alt.usa.text or soc.culture.usa,
wonder why you concentrating on talking about US law?
Since Taiwan was not, is not, and will not be part of PRC,
only PRC law is more fitting to be talked about in the newsgroup
of alt.chinese.text.
This is why I'm talking about how CCP has abused their power and
insulted PRC's constitution while jailing, maiming, torturing and
killing peaceful non-violant meditation practitioners, this is in
reality, a serious crime against humanity.
Whether you like it or not, this need to be said: for any state
or government, when using brutal force to jail, maim, torture
and kill peaceful non-violant citizens for their religious
believes is a crime which should be condemned by all decent human being.
Micky Wong
>
> In article <8pftch$7bb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Micky Wong <mick...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <8pdioq$o30$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > Many SOEs did not perform as expected. They were privatized to
> improve
> > > productivity. Privatization smear the originally clear distinction
> > > between what is private and what is state owned. Increased
> corruption
> > > occured as a result of privatization efforts.
> >
> > Shall we believe that the sole reason of corruption is the result of
> > privatization efforts? but not the direct result of "Power Corrupts,
> Absolute
> > Power Corrupts Absolutely."
>
> Power is the capacity to do work.
Unrestrained absolute power is the root of human evil.
Unrestrained absolute power is the opinium of the tyranny.
Only the truly sick minds will perpetualy seek absolute and
unrestrained power.
Those who enjoy unrestrained absolute power often become
the victim of power. CCP is one shinning example. The worse
is yet to come for the CCP.
> It can get things done or prevent event things from being done. Power
> itself is neither good or bad. Power over people is the same.
CCP's abuse of absolute power can be the fitting model of your view.
CCP's power had caused incalculable suffering of the Chinese people,
it is obvious that you seem to enjoy the same power which is killing
and maiming FaLunGong followers.
CCP's power is preventing Chinese people to be their own masters,
and makes Chinese mass to remain ignorant and stupid, to serve
as CCP's slaves in the serfdom with Chinese Socialism Characteristics.
The abuse of power by CCP's caders has earned CCP the notority
of most corrupted political entity of human history.
The consequency of CCP's abuse of power is today's rampant corruption
that permeates CCP's leadership. This is CCP ultimate nemeses.
>
> I believe Lord Acton actually said, "Power tends to corrupt,..."
> A probability, not a certainty. Only God has absolute power.
>
You are correct on this. What Lord Acton did not said, and have not
imagined was that unrestrained absolute power in China during CCP's
rule was the root of ever so many evil deeds.
> >
> > If you have not heard above this common-sense wisdom by Lord Acton:
> > "Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely", I suggest you
> to do some
> > elementary study first.
>
> Why do you think power always corrupt?
After you have explained what Lord Acton said, here you are repeating
yourself unnecessarily.
> All new parents get new power, the newly welded power over their baby.
> Are they more corrupted than before the birth of their child?
From time to time, we do hear from news media, there are some wacky
parents who may tortue, maime or killing their own childrem.
While CCP likes to make the slaves of Party's serfdom to believe:
the Party is the Parents of all slaves, CCP's behavior has demonstrated
just such cruel and wacky parents who abuses their power.
Could this be your reason to glorify power, especially absolute and
unrestrained power?
>
> >
Micky Wong
Please refer to alt.president.clinton.*, Even clinton himself
feels proud of this display of the "defects of democracy".
This is the major difference between a US President and a Chinese
Eunuch.
Micky Wong
Pardom me! I did not realize that you can talk sense. :)
For someone who demands to talk sense, whether Dr.Lee is a
double or triple spy or not, why should such a speculation
got anything to do with what I read, or if the spy novels
were "cheap" or "expensive"?
>
> > The paradox of today's wantun mess inside PRC might be explainable
> > by the bizarre behavior of those US Citizen of Chinese Patriotism.
>
> It seems that you are confused from the begining. The US policy towards
> China is clear, whether is by Clinton, or Gore, or Bush, is to build up
> a healthy relation while critisizing its difficiency. Only those extreme
> right wing crazy men would talking something like you. Go figure,
> whose behavior is bizarre.
Without confusion, how can tens of millions of unemployed angry
workers be celebrated as CCP's glorious achievement of SOE's
privatization?
While you are talking to me, shall I catagorize you as a
right wing crazyman with bizare behavior?
>
> >
>
> > The strength of USA is demonstrated in the fact that the US society
> > has the strength and self-confidence to tolerate this kind of
> > "traitor like" behavior, -according to CCP's standards -,
> > while the PRC has demonstrated CCP's weakness by, in order to
> > maintain "stability", ccp need to jail, torture, maim and kill
> > peaceful non-violant meditation practitioner, including old ladies
> > and young children.
>
> What are you talking about it again? It is not tolerence for something.
> It is about the law. If your kind of tolerence is allowed, then Dr. Lee
> won't be prosecuted in the first place. ( I think he isn't young either)
> What are you? Coming from Mars. And talking about tolerence
> about spy and such kind of rubbish?
How convenient for you! If you don't like what others said,
just catagorize them as rubbish.
You want to talk about law, whose law?
The law of the PRC? or the law of USA? or the law of Taiwan?
I thought these forums are named alt.chinese.text, and
soc.culture.taiwan, not alt.usa.text or soc.culture.usa,
wonder why you concentrating on talking about US law?
Since Taiwan was not, is not, and will not be part of PRC,
only PRC law is more fitting to be talked about in the newsgroup
of alt.chinese.text.
This is why I'm talking about how CCP has abused their power and
insulted PRC's constitution while jailing, maiming, torturing and
killing peaceful non-violant meditation practitioners, this is in
reality, a serious crime against humanity.
Whether you like it or not, this need to be said: for any state
or government, when using brutal force to jail, maim, torture
and kill peaceful non-violant citizens for their religious
believes is a crime which should be condemned by all decent human being.
>
> > What an amazing contrast of two nations at the opposite edges of
> > human spectrum.
>
> I know, I know. That why US has the highest rate of prisoners.
ltl...@mindspring.com
Micky Wong <mick...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <8pftch$7bb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Micky Wong <mick...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > In article <8pdioq$o30$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > Many SOEs did not perform as expected. They were privatized to
> > improve
> > > > productivity. Privatization smear the originally clear
distinction
> > > > between what is private and what is state owned. Increased
> > corruption
> > > > occured as a result of privatization efforts.
> > >
> > > Shall we believe that the sole reason of corruption is the result
of
> > > privatization efforts? but not the direct result of "Power
Corrupts,
> > Absolute
> > > Power Corrupts Absolutely."
> >
> > Power is the capacity to do work.
>
> Unrestrained absolute power is the root of human evil.
So, Micky Wong's unrestrained and absoulute power to post on the
internet (if no one take it away) is the root of human evil. Right?
abia...@my-deja.com
been existing at least for 2000 years, dumbass!
In article <8pfs7f$66v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Tingli Pan
Micky Wong wrote:
> Tingli Pan wrote:
> >
> > > IMHO, since a spy or a spy couble has a lot more chances
> > > of becoming double or triple agents, Wonder why some
> > > US Citizen are wipping up so much "Patriotism" towards a
> > > butcher regime - the PRC under the notorious role of CCP,
> > > and are so eager to make a "traitor" or "spy" suspect
> > > of their own nation to became a martyr victim of "racism"?
> >
> > Tell me about that, that Dr. Lee might be a double or triple spy.
> > It seems that you've read too much cheap spy novels. Not to
> > mentione mix it up with "Patriotism" or "traitor" or "spy" or
> > "martyr" or "racism". What was really getting into your mind,
> > that you need to pile all those words together, without much
> > sense?
>
> Pardom me! I did not realize that you can talk sense. :)
Because what you said doesn't make any sense in the
first place.
> For someone who demands to talk sense, whether Dr.Lee is a
> double or triple spy or not, why should such a speculation
> got anything to do with what I read, or if the spy novels
> were "cheap" or "expensive"?
>
Because you just wrote a bunch of nonsesense.
>
> >
> > > The paradox of today's wantun mess inside PRC might be explainable
> > > by the bizarre behavior of those US Citizen of Chinese Patriotism.
> >
> > It seems that you are confused from the begining. The US policy towards
> > China is clear, whether is by Clinton, or Gore, or Bush, is to build up
> > a healthy relation while critisizing its difficiency. Only those extreme
> > right wing crazy men would talking something like you. Go figure,
> > whose behavior is bizarre.
>
> Without confusion, how can tens of millions of unemployed angry
> workers be celebrated as CCP's glorious achievement of SOE's
> privatization?
You don't make much sense over here again. I've been talking about
Sino-American relations, you jumped to the unemployed workers.
Ok. Since you are afraid talking about the relations between China
and America, let's go to the "angry workers".
I am afraid that you might not be knowledgable to accept the idea of
the privitization, which, both in and out of China, consider as a
neccessary step to improve China. And I am afraid that you are too
ignorant too rialize the unemployed people have learnt the new way
find their new chance in a more and more privatized environment.
And I am afraid that there are too many things for you to accept,
either in China or in the world, since you are just an echo of the
right wing extremist.
Btw, Canada's unemployment is high, and how do those "unemployed
workers" do. I guess they are happy, and relaxing since it is in "Canada".
>
> While you are talking to me, shall I catagorize you as a
> right wing crazyman with bizare behavior?
I believe before writing this sentence down, you must have stood
in front of your mirror for a significant time. Nothing can be a more
precising discription.
> >
> > > The strength of USA is demonstrated in the fact that the US society
> > > has the strength and self-confidence to tolerate this kind of
> > > "traitor like" behavior, -according to CCP's standards -,
> > > while the PRC has demonstrated CCP's weakness by, in order to
> > > maintain "stability", ccp need to jail, torture, maim and kill
> > > peaceful non-violant meditation practitioner, including old ladies
> > > and young children.
> >
> > What are you talking about it again? It is not tolerence for something.
> > It is about the law. If your kind of tolerence is allowed, then Dr. Lee
> > won't be prosecuted in the first place. ( I think he isn't young either)
> > What are you? Coming from Mars. And talking about tolerence
> > about spy and such kind of rubbish?
>
> How convenient for you! If you don't like what others said,
> just catagorize them as rubbish.
It seems that you've just talked a lot about "spy", "martyr", "patriot",
etc. etc..
> You want to talk about law, whose law?
> The law of the PRC? or the law of USA? or the law of Taiwan?
Obviously, you are totally lost during not such a long argument. Dr. Lee
is an American citizen. He is prosecuted in American court. He is in
American jail. Just try to mobilize all your brain cells, make a wild guess,
which law we are talking about.
> I thought these forums are named alt.chinese.text, and
> soc.culture.taiwan, not alt.usa.text or soc.culture.usa,
> wonder why you concentrating on talking about US law?
See above.
> Since Taiwan was not, is not, and will not be part of PRC,
> only PRC law is more fitting to be talked about in the newsgroup
> of alt.chinese.text.
Did I tell you to mobilize your brain cells. You haven't, have you?
Dr. Lee is a Chinese although he is a US citizen. And I don't think
it is wrong to discuss about him in alt.CHINESE.txt. Or is this the
best you can do?
> This is why I'm talking about how CCP has abused their power and
> insulted PRC's constitution while jailing, maiming, torturing and
> killing peaceful non-violant meditation practitioners, this is in
> reality, a serious crime against humanity.
I believe that in Canada, if you stand in the center of a busy street,
peacefully and non-violant, you would be thrown into a jail in no
time. Wooo. Talking about Canadian jail.
> Whether you like it or not, this need to be said: for any state
> or government, when using brutal force to jail, maim, torture
> and kill peaceful non-violant citizens for their religious
> believes is a crime which should be condemned by all decent human being.
Or, not again. You start your nonsense again. Give us any info that
those "non-violant" peaceful" people been killed in China. I would
rather say some people are so "peaceful" and "non-violent" they
even refuse to see the doctor when sick. They died for that.
So, as a decent human being, we should let them die like that. Is
that what you want to tell us?
aldra...@my-deja.com
wrote:
>
>This is the major difference between a US President and a Chinese
>Eunuch.
>
Or are you telling us that you are a Eunuch with balls but no brain ...
? ... ;-))
>
Have a nice day,
>
Aldragon-II _ _ _
"Democracy though sound in concept, well and good, is no panacea
because of its natural defects in practice. What's really important is
a system of good governance (doesn't really matter what it is called so
long as it produces the most good to the most people of a country) with
a good system of strong and fair law and order and education, and
education is the key. Democracy will come naturally when a country is
strong and ready, not the cart before the horse."
>
Brian Jackson
Tingli Pan <tin...@corecomm.net> wrote:
>Oh, ya? I even remember that there is even the language police in Canada,
>checking signs of store for using English. I never heard about that in any
>other place around the world. Not even in China.
You've never heard about it in Canada, either.
You have a fragment of some half-remembered information, and proceed
to fill in the blanks from your imagination.
There are not "language police" in Canada, and English is not
mandatory on store signs or anywhere else. If it were the case, how
could all those Chinese malls exist in Vancouver suburbs, with not an
English word in sight?
The only place that public language display is covered by any
regulations, is in the province of Quebec. The *provincial*
authorities, in an effort to protect their *minority* language, have
made laws to assert the French language in outdoor signs. Personally,
I don't like it, many non-francophone Quebeckers don't like it, but
the fact is that French-speakers (a minority in Canada, a majority in
Quebec) support it. And it falls within provincial rights.
A comparable situation - imagine this: The Tibetan Autonomous Regional
government institutes regulations which require all public signage to
be in the official language of government and commerce in that region
- Tibetan. The use of Chinese language on store signs is restricted as
to relative quantity, and the size of the Chinese must be not more
than one third the size of the Tibetan. Violators are prosecuted.
Any chance the Tibetan AUTONOMOUS Region could ever have such a
policy? Not on your life. Quebecois feel it's necessary for the
safeguarding of their cultural continuation, and they have sufficient
autonomy to do so.
Didn't you bring out Canada/Quebec issue before, during Tibet
discussion? I thought you would remember.
A blast from the past '-)
--
"Correction: 1649, not 1449 or 1949 :-). Three years after 1643
as it should be clear to any reader with an IQ of 85 or better."
- Liguo Sun
ltl...@mindspring.com
Please tell why Chinese language sign more than one third of French
sign will threaten French cultural continutation?
>
> Didn't you bring out Canada/Quebec issue before, during Tibet
> discussion? I thought you would remember.
>
> A blast from the past '-)
>
> --
> "Correction: 1649, not 1449 or 1949 :-). Three years after 1643
> as it should be clear to any reader with an IQ of 85 or better."
> - Liguo Sun
>
aldra...@my-deja.com
wrote:
[...]
>
>The strength of USA is demonstrated in the fact that the US society
>has the strength and self-confidence to tolerate this kind of
>"traitor like" behavior,
[...]
>
Dare to try it and see what will happen to you ...? ... ;-))
How many of her own citizens has the US sent to the Electric Chair for
spying against her, do you know and how would you explain that ...? ...
;-((
Imho, the strength of the US lies elsewhere (not as you think) -- in
education, economics and the gun, and again I must emphasise the key is
education!
>
>
Have a nice day,
>
Aldragon-II _ _ _
"Democracy though sound in concept, well and good, is no panacea
because of its natural defects in practice. What's really important is
a system of good governance (doesn't really matter what it is called so
long as it produces the most good to the most people of a country) with
a good system of strong and fair law and order and education, and
education is the key. Democracy will come naturally when a country is
strong and ready, not the cart before the horse."
>
Tingli Pan
Brian Jackson wrote:
> In article <39BC28E5...@corecomm.net>,
> Tingli Pan <tin...@corecomm.net> wrote:
>
> >Oh, ya? I even remember that there is even the language police in Canada,
> >checking signs of store for using English. I never heard about that in any
> >other place around the world. Not even in China.
>
> You've never heard about it in Canada, either.
>
> You have a fragment of some half-remembered information, and proceed
> to fill in the blanks from your imagination.
>
> There are not "language police" in Canada, and English is not
> mandatory on store signs or anywhere else. If it were the case, how
> could all those Chinese malls exist in Vancouver suburbs, with not an
> English word in sight?
>
> The only place that public language display is covered by any
> regulations, is in the province of Quebec. The *provincial*
> authorities, in an effort to protect their *minority* language, have
> made laws to assert the French language in outdoor signs. Personally,
> I don't like it, many non-francophone Quebeckers don't like it, but
> the fact is that French-speakers (a minority in Canada, a majority in
> Quebec) support it. And it falls within provincial rights.
Tell me that, is Quebec in Canada? So, what is wrong with the statement
that "there are language police" in Canada? And I don't think it is a
"minority" langauge.
Whether it is right or wrong, whether you like it or not, whether the
French-speakers support it or not. There are "language police" in
Canada. And what ever you want to tell us, or want to persuade us,
still can not change the fact.
> A comparable situation - imagine this: The Tibetan Autonomous Regional
> government institutes regulations which require all public signage to
> be in the official language of government and commerce in that region
> - Tibetan. The use of Chinese language on store signs is restricted as
> to relative quantity, and the size of the Chinese must be not more
> than one third the size of the Tibetan. Violators are prosecuted.
> Any chance the Tibetan AUTONOMOUS Region could ever have such a
> policy? Not on your life. Quebecois feel it's necessary for the
> safeguarding of their cultural continuation, and they have sufficient
> autonomy to do so.
Tell me that any other region, similar to Quebec, have the law that the
local language should be larger than three times of the national language.
For example, in Wales, the size of English language should be less than
one third the size of the local language (what is it called?) If that is
the case, I might try to support the similar law in Tibet.
And how about in Thailand?
> Didn't you bring out Canada/Quebec issue before, during Tibet
> discussion? I thought you would remember.
I do. Because my opponents are from Canada, and it is easy for them
to understand when using Canada as the example. Like, Mike Cleven,
Bill Moore, and Miky Wong.
> A blast from the past '-)
None of us changed. Neither do I nor you.
hxy...@my-deja.com
> government institutes regulations which require all public signage to
> be in the official language of government and commerce in that region
> - Tibetan. The use of Chinese language on store signs is restricted as
> to relative quantity, and the size of the Chinese must be not more
> than one third the size of the Tibetan. Violators are prosecuted.
>
> Any chance the Tibetan AUTONOMOUS Region could ever have such a
> policy? Not on your life. Quebecois feel it's necessary for the
> safeguarding of their cultural continuation, and they have sufficient
> autonomy to do so.
Obviously, this guy has never been to Tibet, and never read any
official documents of Tibet's language policy. Sure, because he read
neither Tibetan nor Chinese. And those TIN people have no interest
whatsoever in sending him a report on this topic, in English. Pity for
him!
It seems that the only thing the local Tibetan officials should learn
from those fussy Quebecois is to demand "the size of the Chinese be not
more than one third the size of the Tibetan".
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
elmer_...@my-deja.com
hxy...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <XTiv5Yht...@inet.co.th>,
> bri...@inet.co.th (Brian Jackson) wrote:
> > A comparable situation - imagine this: The Tibetan Autonomous
Regional
> > government institutes regulations which require all public signage
to
> > be in the official language of government and commerce in that
region
> > - Tibetan. The use of Chinese language on store signs is restricted
as
> > to relative quantity, and the size of the Chinese must be not more
> > than one third the size of the Tibetan. Violators are prosecuted.
> >
> > Any chance the Tibetan AUTONOMOUS Region could ever have such a
> > policy? Not on your life. Quebecois feel it's necessary for the
> > safeguarding of their cultural continuation, and they have
sufficient
> > autonomy to do so.
>
> Obviously, this guy has never been to Tibet, and never read any
> official documents of Tibet's language policy.
I have never read any official documents of Tibet's language policy,
nor do I read Tibetan or Chinese, but I have seen lots of store signs
in Tibet. Most have Chinese characters above, slightly smaller Tibetan
script below. This pattern was so common I thought it might be
following some sort of government regulation. On the other hand there
are some store signs with Chinese but no Tibetan language, at least in
Lhasa.
> Sure, because he read
> neither Tibetan nor Chinese. And those TIN people have no interest
> whatsoever in sending him a report on this topic, in English. Pity for
> him!
>
> It seems that the only thing the local Tibetan officials should learn
> from those fussy Quebecois is to demand "the size of the Chinese be
not
> more than one third the size of the Tibetan".
>
Regarding the issue of "language police" in Quebec, from what I've
heard and read, there are Quebec provincial civil servants whose job it
is to inspect signs to be sure they follow the letter of the law. They
dish out sitations and fines but don't have power to arrest anybody.
The law's critics call them language police, Quebec law supporters
scoff at that label.
Have a nice day :)
Bud Swanson
haozertree
Micky Wong wrote:
> I thought these forums are named alt.chinese.text, and
> soc.culture.taiwan, not alt.usa.text or soc.culture.usa,
> wonder why you concentrating on talking about US law?
LOL, it makes me wonder too, since you are posting this message
in English, with contents that have nothing to do with the culture
of China or Taiwan, nor the politics of Tibet, why don't you
concentrate on talking about Culture for once?
> Since Taiwan was not, is not, and will not be part of PRC,
> only PRC law is more fitting to be talked about in the newsgroup
> of alt.chinese.text.
Since blah blah blah, only PRC law is more fitting to be talked about in
the newsgroup of talk.politics.china but then all of the political zealots don't
care, so I don't either. So my final question is, IS there a specific group
which REALLY talk about Chinese culture rather than having TIers, human rights,
and Communist wanna-be's spamming about the evils/goods of the Chinese/US
government which we already know anyways?
haozertree
Micky Wong wrote:
> Unrestrained absolute power is the root of human evil.
> Unrestrained absolute power is the opinium of the tyranny.
>
> Only the truly sick minds will perpetualy seek absolute and
> unrestrained power.
In 1998, some 120 nations around the world had voted for the
creation of ICC (International Criminal Court), which would leverage
the power of world politics not to those few superpowers, but to
everyone. However, there were 7 nations which voted against
the initiative. It was not too surprising to see China voting against
the bill, but the biggest opponent of the bill was actually the US.
The reason for this was simple, the US currently has the absolute power
in world politics, creating such a court would shift US' power in
international politics to lessor nations (to everyone actually).
Personally I think the likes of J. Helms (who rallied to kill the bill)
do have truly sick minds, but for reasons other than trying to seek
absolute and unrestrained power for their beloved nation.
> Those who enjoy unrestrained absolute power often become
> the victim of power. CCP is one shinning example. The worse
> is yet to come for the CCP.
I don't think the US, having unrestrained absolute power in world
politics will be the victim of power. In fact I am glad that our politicians
have worked hard so that US could continue to have this power over other
lessor nations.
Of course, I don't plan to ever travel to countries which we bombed.
sl...@ix.netcom.com
Yu wrote:
> In article <39B730...@slip.net>,
> mrph...@slip.net wrote:
> > Ray wrote:
>
> > > > Try and read up more. This is a good site to start with.
> > > > http://www.pir.org/gw/ftui.txt
> >
> > I see that Yu has taken advantage of my trip to spread his same lies.
> >
> > He has never managed to provide the references of the French Press
> > scandalizing over funding of FO and UIA.
>
> After both NED and FTUI admitted financing the French political groups
> apparently to "strengthen" democracy in France, why do you still want to
> know the name of the France press reporting it?
>
> What you need is clear thinking. Are you still saying that FO and UIA
> never took money from NED?
>
> The key issue here is NED is secretly funding FO and UIA
> and NED is an organ for espionage.
> Whether NED sarbotaging of Fran醥is Mitterrand benifit the world or not
> is a different matter.
Just give you some flavor of what russians are doing something
different now. The Russian media-magnate Vladimir Gussinsky
as reported by Pravda, is in New York and Washington, accompanying
by Congressman Thomas Lantos and Senator Gordon Smith to
try to get American investment into the Russian media businesses.
http://www.pravda.ru/abroad/2000/09/18/16238.html
Compare to NED's chicken feed donation to some chinese pro-
democracy publications, what are the russians trying to do? Trying
to ask the CIA running their national TV and radio stations?
Now, talking about foreign influence into the media business.
Should the US worry about Japan's Sony ownership of Columbia
pictures or Canadian ownership of MGM. And time and again
I reminded you that the internet service China.com run by the
New China News Agency is 10% owned by America Online.
You display no worries at all to such facts. It seems only NED's
peanut donation to TIN and other pro-democracy Chinese
publications worries you the most.
Ma Hongbao
Yu
sl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
> Yu wrote:
>
> > In article <39B730...@slip.net>,
> > mrph...@slip.net wrote:
> > > Ray wrote:
> >
> > > > > Try and read up more. This is a good site to start with.
> > > > > http://www.pir.org/gw/ftui.txt
> > >
> > > I see that Yu has taken advantage of my trip to spread his same
lies.
> > >
> > > He has never managed to provide the references of the French Press
> > > scandalizing over funding of FO and UIA.
> >
> > After both NED and FTUI admitted financing the French political
groups
> > apparently to "strengthen" democracy in France, why do you still
want to
> > know the name of the France press reporting it?
> >
> > What you need is clear thinking. Are you still saying that FO and
UIA
> > never took money from NED?
> >
> > The key issue here is NED is secretly funding FO and UIA
> > and NED is an organ for espionage.
not
> > is a different matter.
>
> Just give you some flavor of what russians are doing something
> different now. The Russian media-magnate Vladimir Gussinsky
> as reported by Pravda, is in New York and Washington, accompanying
> by Congressman Thomas Lantos and Senator Gordon Smith to
> try to get American investment into the Russian media businesses.
>
> http://www.pravda.ru/abroad/2000/09/18/16238.html
The Russians and the Eastern Europeans had a completely different
approach and I believe they have been very naive.
For example, in the in the 1996 Russian Presidential election , Yeltsin
was 20% behind his communist rival. The sick and drunken Yeltsin was
unable to run an effective campaign.
Newsweek reported, the CIA went in and directed a turn around and
Yeltsin won.
Russians has been naive in blindly following the advise of the west,
right from the begining, and they got what they asked for, a disaster.
I am sure China will fall apart if they follow the same parth.
The Americans themselves will not allowed foreigners to fund or to
direct their election campaign.
>Compare to NED's chicken feed donation to some chinese pro-
>democracy publications, what are the russians trying to do? Trying
>to ask the CIA running their national TV and radio stations?
Russia's business elites are crooks out of control.
They will sell Russia if they can.
Even some American feel sorry for the Russians.
You are saying that Chinese people should follow their example?
>Now, talking about foreign influence into the media business.
>Should the US worry about Japan's Sony ownership of Columbia
>pictures or Canadian ownership of MGM. And time and again
>I reminded you that the internet service China.com run by the
>New China News Agency is 10% owned by America Online.
>You display no worries at all to such facts. It seems only NED's
>peanut donation to TIN and other pro-democracy Chinese
>publications worries you the most.
Of course anybody can buy a few shares in the stock market, but
Rupert Merdoch had to become an American citizen before he could buy
over a CONTROLING STAKE in a US broadcasting corporation.
In the case of NED and TIN the picture is completely different.
TIN is not even a Chinese company.
All I want to point out is
1) NED is created with for espionage.
2) TIN is a partner in that game.
sl...@ix.netcom.com
> In article <39C6A616...@ix.netcom.com>,
> sl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > Yu wrote:
>
> > > The key issue here is NED is secretly funding FO and UIA
> > > and NED is an organ for espionage.
> > > Whether NED sarbotaging of Fran醥is Mitterrand benifit the world or
> > > not is a different matter.
> >
> > Just give you some flavor of what russians are doing something
> > different now. The Russian media-magnate Vladimir Gussinsky
> > as reported by Pravda, is in New York and Washington, accompanying
> > by Congressman Thomas Lantos and Senator Gordon Smith to
> > try to get American investment into the Russian media businesses.
> >
> > http://www.pravda.ru/abroad/2000/09/18/16238.html
>
> The Russians and the Eastern Europeans had a completely different
> approach and I believe they have been very naive.
May be they are not naive, they are just not afraid.
They may think that their citizens are mature and
sophisticated enough to receive all kinds of
information, including those subversive information.
Whereas you think Chinese people are not mature or
sophisticated enough to do that. I was wondering
why would you think that?
> For example, in the in the 1996 Russian Presidential election , Yeltsin
> was 20% behind his communist rival. The sick and drunken Yeltsin was
> unable to run an effective campaign.
> Newsweek reported, the CIA went in and directed a turn around and
> Yeltsin won.
I remember Newsweek said Yeltsin hired a US political
campaign firm to conduct the election campaign for him,
not CIA. It just does not make sense. What makes you
think that CIA conducts a better political election campaign
than a political campaign firm. I never heard any political
campaign managers are drafted from CIA. Simply because they
are no good in conducting election campaigns(may be they are
good in conducting subvertive campaigns, but that does not
help in an open election, does it?). Of course, you may always
think otherwise. And of course, naming CIA as Yeltsin's eventual
election factor may help you sell your conspiracy theory.
> Russians has been naive in blindly following the advise of the west,
> right from the begining, and they got what they asked for, a disaster.
> I am sure China will fall apart if they follow the same parth.
How do you know the Russians are blindly following the advise
of the west? Are you suggesting that China should blindly against
the advise of the west as Russians' result?
> The Americans themselves will not allowed foreigners to fund or to
> direct their election campaign.
Why is that you always have to take Americans as an example.
You just advised people not to blindly follow America's example.
Can Russians be more open and creative than Americans in
this respect?
>
> >Compare to NED's chicken feed donation to some chinese pro-
> >democracy publications, what are the russians trying to do? Trying
> >to ask the CIA running their national TV and radio stations?
>
> Russia's business elites are crooks out of control.
> They will sell Russia if they can.
So you are saying that the chinese politicians are not crooks.
They may be taking bribes, but will not sell China even if
they can. I don't think the Russians will agree with you.
> Even some American feel sorry for the Russians.
> You are saying that Chinese people should follow their example?
Who are those "some Americans" feel sorry for the Russians?
Why is that all of a sudden you are so faithfully following
these "some Americans" 's advise even though just a moment
ago, you advise against following them.
> >Now, talking about foreign influence into the media business.
> >Should the US worry about Japan's Sony ownership of Columbia
> >pictures or Canadian ownership of MGM. And time and again
> >I reminded you that the internet service China.com run by the
> >New China News Agency is 10% owned by America Online.
> >You display no worries at all to such facts. It seems only NED's
> >peanut donation to TIN and other pro-democracy Chinese
> >publications worries you the most.
>
> Of course anybody can buy a few shares in the stock market,
Of couse, buying a few share is not equivalent to owning 100%
of the shares. It is because you own and you run the company.
This is the case of SONY's ownership of Columbia Pictures.
Even 10% ownership have a lot of say in the company, that is
AOL has a lot of say in China.com. If China.com is using such
web pages
http://www.aol.com.hk/zh/index.html
do you think AOL has no say in running China.com.
However, I would think that NED has very little say in the news
and editoral content of the pro-democracy papers it supports.
> but Rupert Merdoch had to become an American citizen before he could buy
> over a CONTROLING STAKE in a US broadcasting corporation.
So, if TIN and other pro-democracy papers are located in the
US, treat them as US broadcast and news publications then.
At least, the US is not afraid of Merdoch posing as an American
but in fact an Australian, whose aim is to poison American ideas
with subversive foreign influence.
> In the case of NED and TIN the picture is completely different.
> TIN is not even a Chinese company.
> All I want to point out is
> 1) NED is created with for espionage.
> 2) TIN is a partner in that game.
Yu, you wrote too much and you misdirected yourself.
Your audience should be those in China who are
extremely paranoid of foreign subversion. If you
are successful, then they will stop reading VIP
reference. But then, if they are that paranoid of
foreign subversion, they would not read anything
outside of official party guide line in the first place.
Again your CAUTION: FOREIGH SUBVERSION
stamp on these publications like VIP Reference will
be in vain. Moreover, you should write your
message in Chinese. 99% of the people in China do
not read English and even if they do, and if they are
that paranoid, they would not trust a source like yours.
Yu
sl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Yu wrote:
>
> > In article <39C6A616...@ix.netcom.com>,
> > sl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > > Yu wrote:
> > The Americans themselves will not allowed foreigners to fund or to
> > direct their election campaign.
>
> Why is that you always have to take Americans as an example.
> You just advised people not to blindly follow America's example.
> Can Russians be more open and creative than Americans in
> this respect?
A) Americans will not allow foreign control of its mass media, TV or
Newspaper. (Columbia picture is only entertainment) neither will they
allow foreign fund nor personels directing their election.
B) Russians let Americans control their media and interfere their
election.
according to slai2, B) is more creative
** USA has a list of corporations that foreigners are not allowed to
control. The weapons, space research corp. TV broadcasters are some
examples. Collumbia picture is not one of them. Don't use Collumbia
picture as a blanket example.
Jim Walsh
Anyone, foreign or not, may say (or express in print) support for
American political candidates. Foreigners are not allowed to
contribute to a candidate, however. In other words, foreigners can
"participate" in American elections in many (but not all) ways.
Anyone, foreign or not, may own shares in corporations which involve
the media. Certain media may not be owned by foreigners (personally I
believe that this is wrong, and should be held unconstitutional). On
the other hand, Americans have wide access to foreign media (including
news media), so the restriction doesn't have much practical effect.
BTW, we noticed that you simply ignored the "why do you argue that
Russia should follow American policy?" question.
Love, Jim
"If a state is governed by the principles of reason,
poverty and misery are the subjects of shame.
If a state is not governed by the principles of reason,
riches and honors are the subject of shame."
Confucius, as quoted by Thoreau in Civil Disobedience.
Yu
jimw...@transend.com.tw wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 03:26:31 GMT, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <39C7BB35...@ix.netcom.com>,
> > sl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >> Why is that you always have to take Americans as an example.
> >> You just advised people not to blindly follow America's example.
> >> Can Russians be more open and creative than Americans in
> >> this respect?
> >
> >A) Americans will not allow foreign control of its mass media, TV or
> >Newspaper. (Columbia picture is only entertainment) neither will they
> >allow foreign fund nor personels directing their election.
> >
> >B) Russians let Americans control their media and interfere their
election.
> >
> >according to slai2, B) is more creative
> >
> >** USA has a list of corporations that foreigners are not allowed to
> >control. The weapons, space research corp. TV broadcasters are some
> >examples. Collumbia picture is not one of them. Don't use Collumbia
> >picture as a blanket example.
>
> Anyone, foreign or not, may say (or express in print) support for
> American political candidates. Foreigners are not allowed to
> contribute to a candidate, however. In other words, foreigners can
> "participate" in American elections in many (but not all) ways.
Money is most important way foreigner can influence US election and vise
versa.
> Anyone, foreign or not, may own shares in corporations which involve
> the media.
Not true.
(A)
Foreigner ownership of TV and Radio broadcasting lincense is
limited by U.S. federal statute, prohibiting foreign-owned or
foreign-controlled corporations from receiving a license to operate an
instrument for the transmission of communications.
A corporation is considered foreign-owned if any director or officer is
an alien or if more than one-fifth of its capital stock is owned
by aliens, a foreign government or a corporation organized under the
laws of a foreign country.
(B)
The President can block the KGB from buying New York Times, for example,
with authority provided by the Exon-Florio Provision.
The Exon-Florio Provision allows for discretionary, presidential
authority for controlling foreign investment in the United States.
Under the amendment the President may disapprove an acquisition if he
finds that there is credible evidence that the foreign investor might
take action that threatens to impair the national security, and existing
laws do not provide adequate and appropriate authority to protect the
national security.
The Exon-Florio regulations do not define national security.
> Certain media may not be owned by foreigners (personally I
> believe that this is wrong, and should be held unconstitutional). On
> the other hand, Americans have wide access to foreign media (including
> news media), so the restriction doesn't have much practical effect.
>
> BTW, we noticed that you simply ignored the "why do you argue that
> Russia should follow American policy?" question.
> Love, Jim
I did not state that as a general principle.
Tam
Jim Walsh wrote:
>
> BTW, we noticed that you simply ignored the "why do you argue that
> Russia should follow American policy?" question.
> Love, Jim
>
> "If a state is governed by the principles of reason,
> poverty and misery are the subjects of shame.
> If a state is not governed by the principles of reason,
> riches and honors are the subject of shame."
> Confucius, as quoted by Thoreau in Civil Disobedience.
I noticed that too.
ltl...@mindspring.com
> > mrph...@slip.net wrote:
> > > Ray wrote:
> >
> > > > > Try and read up more. This is a good site to start with.
> > > > > http://www.pir.org/gw/ftui.txt
> > >
> > > I see that Yu has taken advantage of my trip to spread his same
lies.
> > >
> > > He has never managed to provide the references of the French Press
> > > scandalizing over funding of FO and UIA.
> >
> > After both NED and FTUI admitted financing the French political
groups
> > apparently to "strengthen" democracy in France, why do you still
want to
> > know the name of the France press reporting it?
> >
> > What you need is clear thinking. Are you still saying that FO and
UIA
> > never took money from NED?
> >
> > and NED is an organ for espionage.
not
> > is a different matter.
>
> Just give you some flavor of what russians are doing something
> different now. The Russian media-magnate Vladimir Gussinsky
> as reported by Pravda, is in New York and Washington, accompanying
> by Congressman Thomas Lantos and Senator Gordon Smith to
> try to get American investment into the Russian media businesses.
>
> http://www.pravda.ru/abroad/2000/09/18/16238.html
>
> democracy publications, what are the russians trying to do? Trying
> to ask the CIA running their national TV and radio stations?
>
> Should the US worry about Japan's Sony ownership of Columbia
> pictures or Canadian ownership of MGM. And time and again
> I reminded you that the internet service China.com run by the
> New China News Agency is 10% owned by America Online.
> You display no worries at all to such facts. It seems only NED's
> peanut donation to TIN and other pro-democracy Chinese
> publications worries you the most.
American companies will invest in Russian media business for profit.
Similarly, Sony also bought Columbia picture for profit.
If NED had invested in TIN and other pro-democracy Chinese publications
for profit, then they are comparable.
Tingli Pan
Yu wrote:
> In article <v1egssc6gkq124ntk...@4ax.com>,
> jimw...@transend.com.tw wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 03:26:31 GMT, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <39C7BB35...@ix.netcom.com>,
> > > sl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> > >> Why is that you always have to take Americans as an example.
> > >> You just advised people not to blindly follow America's example.
> > >> Can Russians be more open and creative than Americans in
> > >> this respect?
> > >
> > >A) Americans will not allow foreign control of its mass media, TV or
> > >Newspaper. (Columbia picture is only entertainment) neither will they
> > >allow foreign fund nor personels directing their election.
> > >
> > >B) Russians let Americans control their media and interfere their
> election.
> > >
> > >according to slai2, B) is more creative
> > >
> > >** USA has a list of corporations that foreigners are not allowed to
> > >control. The weapons, space research corp. TV broadcasters are some
> > >examples. Collumbia picture is not one of them. Don't use Collumbia
> > >picture as a blanket example.
> >
> > Anyone, foreign or not, may say (or express in print) support for
> > American political candidates. Foreigners are not allowed to
> > contribute to a candidate, however. In other words, foreigners can
> > "participate" in American elections in many (but not all) ways.
>
> Money is most important way foreigner can influence US election and vise
> versa.
>
> > Anyone, foreign or not, may own shares in corporations which involve
> > the media.
>
> Not true.
>
> (A)
>
> Foreigner ownership of TV and Radio broadcasting lincense is
> limited by U.S. federal statute, prohibiting foreign-owned or
> foreign-controlled corporations from receiving a license to operate an
> instrument for the transmission of communications.
> A corporation is considered foreign-owned if any director or officer is
> an alien or if more than one-fifth of its capital stock is owned
> by aliens, a foreign government or a corporation organized under the
> laws of a foreign country.
That is why Murdoch had to become a US citizen before he bought
Fox.
>