Is a 'Free Tibet' a possibility?
fyf...@gmail.com
the down-and-outs begging for nickles and dimes in the streets of
Vancouver downtown. I wonder how many of them are able to show where
Tibet is on map. But let us see how possible (or probable) it is for
a 'Free Tibet' to materialize.
There are 58 ethnic groups in China and the Tibetans are not even the
largest one. The attempt to restore a 'Free Tibet' in accordance with
the Dalai Lama's formula, which encompasses about 1/4 of China's
current territory, would mean having to walk over the dead bodies of
the other 57 ethnic groups.
"The Dalai Lama's stated aim is for Beijing to grant some kind of
limited autonomy to Tibet......... has been that the new autonomous
region would include so-called "greater" Tibet, that is, all the
traditionally ethnic-Tibetan areas now parts of the provinces of
Sichuan, Yunnan, Gansu and Qinghai. In total, that would compromise
around a quarter of China's current territory. No government in
Beijing could ever contemplate such a giveaway, which would almost
certainly unleash a nationalist backlash of frightening proportions."
http://en.chinaelections.org/newsinfo.asp?newsid=17363
Territorial claims have to be practical to make any sense.
Vietnam and Mongolia proper were once parts of China for a millennia.
Korea used to rule northern China for a quite a while. Other examples
are the Manchus' rule over Manchuria, Uygurs had their empire for a
millennia too..Baikal Lake was called a Northern lake in China.
Tibetan empire was once so powerful that it ransacked Han capital
too. The whole human history has been the history of empires gobbling
up each in much the same way animals eat up each other in a jungle.
Dalai wants to go back to past history of hundreds if not thousands of
years and start from there. Well, many many years ago Tibetans might
not have been the original inhabitants of Tibet either. The Nazis
went up to visit them in order to find out if they had been the
ancestors from the vanishing island of Atlantas.
At this moment there are about 80K Tibetan exiles. Many of them are
the descendants of the former slave owners. Let them go to Canada or
USA for good since the latter's governments love them so much. For
these 80K Tibetans exiles to establish an autonomous region equal to
the size of 1/4 of China, they have to walk over the dead bodies of
the other 57 ethnic groups scattered everywhere.
Who would take the lead? Perhaps the down-and-outs in Canada, or
Europe...or the beach bums in Australia.. would do so. After all,
they don't have much to do anyway. Thus shouting some slogans while
being unable to point out where Tibet is on map should be a very good
Sunday pastime....
Peter Webb
<fyf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f8afbbe9-e73b-456b...@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> The rallying cry "Free Tibet" can even be observed in the caps worn by
> the down-and-outs begging for nickles and dimes in the streets of
> Vancouver downtown. I wonder how many of them are able to show where
> Tibet is on map. But let us see how possible (or probable) it is for
> a 'Free Tibet' to materialize.
>
> There are 58 ethnic groups in China and the Tibetans are not even the
> largest one. The attempt to restore a 'Free Tibet' in accordance with
> the Dalai Lama's formula, which encompasses about 1/4 of China's
> current territory, would mean having to walk over the dead bodies of
> the other 57 ethnic groups.
>
> "The Dalai Lama's stated aim is for Beijing to grant some kind of
> limited autonomy to Tibet......... has been that the new autonomous
> region would include so-called "greater" Tibet, that is, all the
> traditionally ethnic-Tibetan areas now parts of the provinces of
> Sichuan, Yunnan, Gansu and Qinghai. In total, that would compromise
> around a quarter of China's current territory. No government in
> Beijing could ever contemplate such a giveaway, which would almost
> certainly unleash a nationalist backlash of frightening proportions."
>
> http://en.chinaelections.org/newsinfo.asp?newsid=17363
>
That is an official Chinese Government website, and it provides no
substantiation for its claims..
> Territorial claims have to be practical to make any sense.
> Vietnam and Mongolia proper were once parts of China for a millennia.
> Korea used to rule northern China for a quite a while. Other examples
> are the Manchus' rule over Manchuria, Uygurs had their empire for a
> millennia too..Baikal Lake was called a Northern lake in China.
> Tibetan empire was once so powerful that it ransacked Han capital
> too. The whole human history has been the history of empires gobbling
> up each in much the same way animals eat up each other in a jungle.
> Dalai wants to go back to past history of hundreds if not thousands of
> years and start from there. Well, many many years ago Tibetans might
> not have been the original inhabitants of Tibet either. The Nazis
> went up to visit them in order to find out if they had been the
> ancestors from the vanishing island of Atlantas.
>
> At this moment there are about 80K Tibetan exiles.
The "free Tibet" movement is not solely for the purpose of Tibetan exiles,
Tibetans living in Tibet might like to be free as well.
> Many of them are
> the descendants of the former slave owners. Let them go to Canada or
> USA for good since the latter's governments love them so much. For
> these 80K Tibetans exiles to establish an autonomous region equal to
> the size of 1/4 of China, they have to walk over the dead bodies of
> the other 57 ethnic groups scattered everywhere.
>
> Who would take the lead? Perhaps the down-and-outs in Canada, or
> Europe...or the beach bums in Australia.. would do so. After all,
> they don't have much to do anyway. Thus shouting some slogans while
> being unable to point out where Tibet is on map should be a very good
> Sunday pastime....
>
Well, the only evidence you provide for anything you say is a Chinese
Government web site.
ROFL
PaPaPeng
>The rallying cry "Free Tibet" can even be observed in the caps worn by
>the down-and-outs begging for nickles and dimes in the streets of
>Vancouver downtown. I wonder how many of them are able to show where
>Tibet is on map. But let us see how possible (or probable) it is for
>a 'Free Tibet' to materialize.
Anything for a scam. I recall being in Washington DC in the 90s where
there were 20 year old Vietnam vets claiming PTSD ( Posttraumatic
stress disorder) and begging for money. They couldn't have been born
with that war ended, or at least bafrely made it into grade school.
Yu
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f8afbbe9-e73b-456b...@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > The rallying cry "Free Tibet" can even be observed in the caps worn by
> > the down-and-outs begging for nickles and dimes in the streets of
> > Vancouver downtown. I wonder how many of them are able to show where
> > Tibet is on map. But let us see how possible (or probable) it is for
> > a 'Free Tibet' to materialize.
>
> > There are 58 ethnic groups in China and the Tibetans are not even the
> > largest one. The attempt to restore a 'Free Tibet' in accordance with
> > the Dalai Lama's formula, which encompasses about 1/4 of China's
> > current territory, would mean having to walk over the dead bodies of
> > the other 57 ethnic groups.
>
> > "The Dalai Lama's stated aim is for Beijing to grant some kind of
> > limited autonomy to Tibet......... has been that the new autonomous
> > region would include so-called "greater" Tibet, that is, all the
> > traditionally ethnic-Tibetan areas now parts of the provinces of
> > Sichuan, Yunnan, Gansu and Qinghai. In total, that would compromise
> > around a quarter of China's current territory. No government in
> > Beijing could ever contemplate such a giveaway, which would almost
> > certainly unleash a nationalist backlash of frightening proportions."
>
> >http://en.chinaelections.org/newsinfo.asp?newsid=17363
>
> That is an official Chinese Government website, and it provides no
> substantiation for its claims..
Here is a map showing territory claimed by the Dalai Lama, about 30%
of China for 0.3% of China's current population.
The map is prepared for the International Camapign for Tibet.
http://www.vwmaps.com/tibetdetail.html
ltl...@hotmail.com
It is like claining New York city to be part of Chin because there is
a Chinatown in New York and some Chinese in New York city want to be
Chines citizens.
> The map is prepared for the International Camapign for Tibet.http://www.vwmaps.com/tibetdetail.html- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
aken...@googlemail.com
> The rallying cry "Free Tibet" can even be observed in the caps worn by
> the down-and-outs begging for nickles and dimes in the streets of
> Vancouver downtown. I wonder how many of them are able to show where
> Tibet is on map. But let us see how possible (or probable) it is for
> a 'Free Tibet' to materialize.
What do street people in Vancouver have to do with the murders and
oppression of the people of Tibet?
pen...@freemail.c3.hu
Free air at Tibet.
Free sun at Tibet.
And you're free to die at Tibet.
On May 11, 12:28 am, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yu
He was talking about people will little knowledge of Tibet trying to
get attention.
Yu
The NED is now supporting the Xinjiang separatists and more recently
supporting South Mongolia separatists. South Mongolia is the name for
Inner Mongolia.
CIA's dream is take out 70% of China's land.
This is a map that appears in Dalai Lama's book 'Freedom In Exile"
I can't post the book here but the map looks like this.
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/uighur-map.gif
This monk can be quite wicked given a chance.
Duncan Patton
> Vietnam and Mongolia proper were once parts of China for a millennia.
Only when there was more than one "China" on the go. "China" has similar span
and diversity to Europe, but it is currently ruled like the Vatican courtyard
on the (possibly erroneous) assumtion that Allah is Han-ren.
Dhu
aozo...@aol.com
>
> Who would take the lead? P
I believe the lead was taken when Kosovo was separated from Serbia -
which treated the people in Kosovo much better than you treat the
Tibetans!
fyf...@gmail.com
> On May 11, 1:28 am, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Who would take the lead? P
>
> I believe the lead was taken when Kosovo was separated from Serbia -
> which
What or who is this 'which' here? You mean the government.
> treated the people in Kosovo much better than you
Who is this 'you' here? Do you refer to the Beijing government?
By the way, are you one of those kids begging for nickles and dimes
while wearing a cap with a label 'Free Tibet' in the streets of
downtown Vancouver?
treat the
> Tibetans!
fyf...@gmail.com
> > the down-and-outs begging for nickles and dimes in the streets of
> > Vancouver downtown. I wonder how many of them are able to show where
> > a 'FreeTibet' to materialize.
>
> What do street people in Vancouver have to do with the murders and
> oppression of the people ofTibet?
Nothing, they are ignorant of the kind of cause they are helping to
fight for.
fyf...@gmail.com
>
> news:f8afbbe9-e73b-456b...@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > The rallying cry "FreeTibet" can even be observed in the caps worn by
> > the down-and-outs begging for nickles and dimes in the streets of
> > Vancouver downtown. I wonder how many of them are able to show where
> > a 'FreeTibet' to materialize.
>
> > There are 58 ethnic groups in China and the Tibetans are not even the
> > the Dalai Lama's formula, which encompasses about 1/4 of China's
> > current territory, would mean having to walk over the dead bodies of
> > the other 57 ethnic groups.
>
> > "The Dalai Lama's stated aim is for Beijing to grant some kind of
> > region would include so-called "greater"Tibet, that is, all the
> > traditionally ethnic-Tibetan areas now parts of the provinces of
> > Sichuan, Yunnan, Gansu and Qinghai. In total, that would compromise
> > around a quarter of China's current territory. No government in
> > Beijing could ever contemplate such a giveaway, which would almost
> > certainly unleash a nationalist backlash of frightening proportions."
>
> >http://en.chinaelections.org/newsinfo.asp?newsid=17363
>
> That is an official Chinese Government website, and it provides no
> substantiation for its claims..
>
> > Territorial claims have to be practical to make any sense.
> > Vietnam and Mongolia proper were once parts of China for a millennia.
> > Korea used to rule northern China for a quite a while. Other examples
> > are the Manchus' rule over Manchuria, Uygurs had their empire for a
> > millennia too..Baikal Lake was called a Northern lake in China.
> > Tibetan empire was once so powerful that it ransacked Han capital
> > too. The whole human history has been the history of empires gobbling
> > up each in much the same way animals eat up each other in a jungle.
> > Dalai wants to go back to past history of hundreds if not thousands of
> > years and start from there. Well, many many years ago Tibetans might
> > went up to visit them in order to find out if they had been the
> > ancestors from the vanishing island of Atlantas.
>
> > At this moment there are about 80K Tibetan exiles.
>
> Tibetans living inTibetmight like to be free as well.
Free from what? They used to be slaves in the time of high lamas.
Now they are free not to be owned. In terms of other kinds of
freedom, they don't suffer any more than any other groups in China.
As a matter of fact, they are exempt from the one-child policy which
applies to other groups. So what kind of freedom are you referring
to?
Do you know where Tibet is on the map?
>
> > Many of them are
> > the descendants of the former slave owners. Let them go to Canada or
> > USA for good since the latter's governments love them so much. For
> > these 80K Tibetans exiles to establish an autonomous region equal to
> > the size of 1/4 of China, they have to walk over the dead bodies of
> > the other 57 ethnic groups scattered everywhere.
>
> > Who would take the lead? Perhaps the down-and-outs in Canada, or
> > Europe...or the beach bums in Australia.. would do so. After all,
> > they don't have much to do anyway. Thus shouting some slogans while
> > being unable to point out whereTibetis on map should be a very good
> > Sunday pastime....
>
> Well, the only evidence you provide for anything you say is a Chinese
> Government web site.
>
> ROFL- Hide quoted text -
Peter Webb
<fyf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9c23c709-7d84-4df5...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Free from what?
****************
Occupation by the Chinese.
They used to be slaves in the time of high lamas.
*****************
So?
Now they are free not to be owned. In terms of other kinds of
freedom, they don't suffer any more than any other groups in China.
*************
ROFL. So now China is the acceptable benchmark for human rights, and you
don't consider it reasonable that some people may want more political
freedom that is afforded to the Chinese people?
As a matter of fact, they are exempt from the one-child policy which
applies to other groups. So what kind of freedom are you referring
to?
**************
Freedom to elect their own leaders. Freedom to set their own economic
policies, including the freedom to mint their own currency and control
foreign trade. Freedom of press, of association. There's more, but they
would certainly be on my list of "freedoms" that I am referring to.
Do you know where Tibet is on the map?
***********
Actually, I have been there. Have you, now you are criticising my
credentials?
bmo...@nyx.net
>
> This monk can be quite wicked given a chance.
Hey Yu, how is the circle jerk with LT going?
Your perception of reality sucks, as always.
rst0wxyz
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9c23c709-7d84-4df5...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On May 11, 3:40 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
>
>
> <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > Tibetans living inTibetmight like to be free as well.
>
> Free from what?
He told you already. Free from the torments of the lama masters with
their high positions over them.
>
> ****************
> Occupation by the Chinese.
>
> They used to be slaves in the time of high lamas.
> *****************
> So?
So, they were slaves of the lama masters.
>
> Now they are free not to be owned. In terms of other kinds of
> freedom, they don't suffer any more than any other groups in China.
>
> *************
> ROFL.
You get awfully dirty rolling on the floor laughing.
> So now China is the acceptable benchmark for human rights,
Much better than what it was before the PRC ome into power.
> and you
> don't consider it reasonable that some people may want more political
> freedom that is afforded to the Chinese people?
They are the people of China with all the rights of its citizens plus
a few extras.
>
> As a matter of fact, they are exempt from the one-child policy which
> applies to other groups. So what kind of freedom are you referring
> to?
>
> **************
> Freedom to elect their own leaders. Freedom to set their own economic
> policies, including the freedom to mint their own currency and control
> foreign trade. Freedom of press, of association. There's more, but they
> would certainly be on my list of "freedoms" that I am referring to.
Are these their desired freedoms or your freedoms, or even the
freedoms of the CIA agents who put them up to it? Why take a few
individuals who are part of a plot to undermine China's stabilities?
Why don't you ask the majority of the Tibetans who are happy and
satisfied, and don't give a damn about the Dalai Lama? They rather
live in the modern society of electricity, modern conveniences, and
fast cars and fast travels to wherever they want. Why live a life of
a thousand years ago when you can live today as free as they want?
Why bother most of them with your freedoms when all they wanted are
peace, quiet, food to eat, money to spend, life to enjoy, and
happiness all around the family?
Just take your freedoms and shove it up your ass.
netvegetable
> "The Dalai Lama's stated aim is for Beijing to grant some kind of
> limited autonomy to Tibet......... has been that the new autonomous
> region would include so-called "greater" Tibet, that is, all the
> traditionally ethnic-Tibetan areas now parts of the provinces of
> Sichuan, Yunnan, Gansu and Qinghai. In total, that would compromise
> around a quarter of China's current territory. No government in Beijing
> could ever contemplate such a giveaway, which would almost certainly
> unleash a nationalist backlash of frightening proportions."
>
> http://en.chinaelections.org/newsinfo.asp?newsid=17363
So that's the real reason the People Republic of China opposes Tibetan
self-determination? i.e, There is no such thing as China, just a bunch
of Chinas, under a Han Chinese Empire?
--
A: Top posters
Q: What's the most annoying thing on usenet
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservatives."- John Stuart Mill
netvegetable
>> The "freeTibet" movement is not solely for the purpose of Tibetan
>> exiles, Tibetans living inTibetmight like to be free as well.
>
> Free from what? They used to be slaves in the time of high lamas. Now
> they are free not to be owned. In terms of other kinds of freedom, they
> don't suffer any more than any other groups in China. As a matter of
> fact, they are exempt from the one-child policy which applies to other
> groups. So what kind of freedom are you referring to?
>
The freedom of self-determination would be a start. Right now, the PRC is
locking up people simply for saying "Free Tibet" in public.
netvegetable
>> It is like claining New York city to be part of Chin because there is a
>> Chinatown in New York and some Chinese in New York city want to be
>> Chines citizens.
>
> The NED is now supporting the Xinjiang separatists and more recently
> supporting South Mongolia separatists. South Mongolia is the name for
> Inner Mongolia.
> CIA's dream is take out 70% of China's land.
>
Do you know it's a distinctive trait of third world, totalitarian
shitholes, that they blame foreigners for almost all their problems?
It's true. You'd think there was absolutely no problem Zimbabwe, Burma,
or the PRC that can't be attributed to the CIA.
[snip]
rst0wxyz
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 16:52:46 -0700, fyfp...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> The "freeTibet" movement is not solely for the purpose of Tibetan
> >> exiles, Tibetans living inTibetmight like to be free as well.
>
> > Free from what? They used to be slaves in the time of high lamas. Now
> > they are free not to be owned. In terms of other kinds of freedom, they
> > don't suffer any more than any other groups in China. As a matter of
> > fact, they are exempt from the one-child policy which applies to other
> > groups. So what kind of freedom are you referring to?
>
> The freedom of self-determination would be a start. Right now, the PRC is
> locking up people simply for saying "Free Tibet" in public.
Too bad the PRC didn't lock you up.
You should be locked up somewhere.
Yu
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 08:36:55 -0700, Yu wrote:
> >> It is like claining New York city to be part of Chin because there is a
> >> Chinatown in New York and some Chinese in New York city want to be
> >> Chines citizens.
>
> > The NED is now supporting the Xinjiang separatists and more recently
> > supporting South Mongolia separatists. South Mongolia is the name for
> > Inner Mongolia.
> > CIA's dream is take out 70% of China's land.
>
> Do you know it's a distinctive trait of third world, totalitarian
> shitholes, that they blame foreigners for almost all their problems?
>
> It's true. You'd think there was absolutely no problem Zimbabwe, Burma,
> or the PRC that can't be attributed to the CIA.
Read this declassified CIA document and see how the CIA paid the Dalai
Lama US$180,000 a year for his service to the CIA.
http://www.intellnet.org/documents/700/040/744.html
Welcome if you have any more question.
Sure every country has problem, yet USA doesn't try to help the
Natives of USA and prefer to spent millions on Radio FreeASia to
incite violence in Tibet.
What is you opinion about CIA's global activities?
Yu
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 16:52:46 -0700, fyfp...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> The "freeTibet" movement is not solely for the purpose of Tibetan
> >> exiles, Tibetans living inTibetmight like to be free as well.
>
> > Free from what? They used to be slaves in the time of high lamas. Now
> > they are free not to be owned. In terms of other kinds of freedom, they
> > don't suffer any more than any other groups in China. As a matter of
> > fact, they are exempt from the one-child policy which applies to other
> > groups. So what kind of freedom are you referring to?
>
> The freedom of self-determination would be a start. Right now, the PRC is
> locking up people simply for saying "Free Tibet" in public.
After all the violence and killings and burning the Gov have a duty to
maintain peace and public security. Don't be hypocrite just because it
doesn't happen in your country.
Yu
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 00:28:53 -0700, fyfp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > "The Dalai Lama's stated aim is for Beijing to grant some kind of
> > limited autonomy to Tibet......... has been that the new autonomous
> > region would include so-called "greater" Tibet, that is, all the
> > traditionally ethnic-Tibetan areas now parts of the provinces of
> > Sichuan, Yunnan, Gansu and Qinghai. In total, that would compromise
> > around a quarter of China's current territory. No government in Beijing
> > could ever contemplate such a giveaway, which would almost certainly
> > unleash a nationalist backlash of frightening proportions."
>
> >http://en.chinaelections.org/newsinfo.asp?newsid=17363
>
> So that's the real reason the People Republic of China opposes Tibetan
> self-determination? i.e, There is no such thing as China, just a bunch
> of Chinas, under a Han Chinese Empire?
UN charter on self-determination did not apply to secession movements.
Neither does it apply to any particular ethnic group.
The consensus defined a "people" entitled to self-determination as
persons living in a particular geographic area, rather than persons
sharing a common culture or language.
Don't abuse terms that you half understood.
Peter Webb
> **************
> Freedom to elect their own leaders. Freedom to set their own economic
> policies, including the freedom to mint their own currency and control
> foreign trade. Freedom of press, of association. There's more, but they
> would certainly be on my list of "freedoms" that I am referring to.
Are these their desired freedoms or your freedoms, or even the
freedoms of the CIA agents who put them up to it? Why take a few
individuals who are part of a plot to undermine China's stabilities?
Why don't you ask the majority of the Tibetans who are happy and
satisfied, and don't give a damn about the Dalai Lama?
***************
Because I can't run an election or referendum on this subject in Tibet.
China can, though. Why don't they ask the Tibetan people if they want
independence? Its an excellent question you asked - why doesn't the Chinese
government ask Tibetans what they want, and go along with the majority
position?
Jim Walsh
(in article
<f8afbbe9-e73b-456b...@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com>):
>
> The rallying cry "Free Tibet" can even be observed in the caps worn by the
> down-and-outs begging for nickles and dimes in the streets of Vancouver
> downtown. I wonder how many of them are able to show where Tibet is on map.
> But let us see how possible (or probable) it is for a 'Free Tibet' to
> materialize.
Ok. First let the PRC become a democracy. Second, let the elected
representatives of Tibet chat with the elected representatives of the rest of
China, and work out their grievances.
That would be a Free Tibet in my opinion.
--
Love, Jim
(I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
crossposts.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
fyf...@gmail.com
Are they Chinese too? Are Hawaiians Americans?
>
> They used to be slaves in the time of high lamas.
> *****************
> So?
>
> Now they are free not to be owned. In terms of other kinds of
> freedom, they don't suffer any more than any other groups in China.
>
> *************
> ROFL. So now China is the acceptable benchmark for human rights,
What has this got to do with any country in this world being "a
benchmark for human rights"?
and you
> don't consider it reasonable that some people may want more political
> freedom that is afforded to the Chinese people?
What is the freedom that is offered to the other 57 ethnic groups but
not offered to the Tibetnas? I am sure they want to have more
freedom, so do the other 57 ethnic groups too.
>
> As a matter of fact, they are exempt from the one-child policy which
> applies to other groups. So what kind of freedom are you referring
> to?
>
> **************
> Freedom to elect their own leaders. Freedom to set their own economic
> policies, including the freedom to mint their own currency and control
> foreign trade. Freedom of press, of association. There's more, but they
> would certainly be on my list of "freedoms" that I am referring to.
>
If they could be allowed to do that, why not give the same freedom to
the other 57 ethnic
groups and China would be divided into 58 parts with 58 currencies?
> Do you know where Tibet is on the map?
>
> ***********
> Actually, I have been there. Have you, now you are criticising my
> credentials?
Of course, when you are so stupidly suggesting anyone ethnic group in
China could mint
its own currency, your credential is tentamount to that of those kids'
in downtown Vancouver
begging for nickles and dimes while wearing caps 'Free Tibet'.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Many of them are
> > > the descendants of the former slave owners. Let them go to Canada or
> > > USA for good since the latter's governments love them so much. For
> > > these 80K Tibetans exiles to establish an autonomous region equal to
> > > the size of 1/4 of China, they have to walk over the dead bodies of
> > > the other 57 ethnic groups scattered everywhere.
>
> > > Who would take the lead? Perhaps the down-and-outs in Canada, or
> > > Europe...or the beach bums in Australia.. would do so. After all,
> > > they don't have much to do anyway. Thus shouting some slogans while
> > > being unable to point out whereTibetis on map should be a very good
> > > Sunday pastime....
>
> > Well, the only evidence you provide for anything you say is a Chinese
> > Government web site.
>
> > ROFL- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- 隐藏被引用文字 -
>
> - 显示引用的文字 -- 隐藏被引用文字 -
>
> - 显示引用的文字 -
fyf...@gmail.com
wrote:
In order to decide whether or not Tibet should or should not be
independent, the Beijing government has to ask the other 57 ethnic
groups who are affected by a large piece of land
separating from the whole nation.
What makes you think the native Tibetans have the right to decide
whether Tibet should or should not be independent? Do the native
Hawaiians have the rights to decide whether or not Hawaii should go
for independence? What makes you think Tibetans, being simply ONE of
the 58 ethnic groups, should be given that much political previleges?
fyf...@gmail.com
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 15:28:53 +0800, fyfp...@gmail.com wrote
> (in article
> <f8afbbe9-e73b-456b-932b-69ffffcf3...@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com>):
>
>
>
> > The rallying cry "Free Tibet" can even be observed in the caps worn by the
> > down-and-outs begging for nickles and dimes in the streets of Vancouver
> > downtown. I wonder how many of them are able to show where Tibet is on map.
> > But let us see how possible (or probable) it is for a 'Free Tibet' to
> > materialize.
>
> Ok. First let the PRC become a democracy. Second, let the elected
> representatives of Tibet chat with the elected representatives of the rest of
> China, and work out their grievances.
>
> That would be a Free Tibet in my opinion.
This makes sense, but it is far away from being separation. In order
for Tibet to be considered for separation, the Beijing government has
to ask the other 57 ethnic groups for their approval first, unless
they don't want to stay in power.
>
> --
> Love, Jim
> (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> crossposts.)
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
netvegetable
> On May 12, 1:37 pm, netvegetable <n...@all.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 08:36:55 -0700, Yu wrote:
>> >> It is like claining New York city to be part of Chin because there
>> >> is a Chinatown in New York and some Chinese in New York city want to
>> >> be Chines citizens.
>>
>> > The NED is now supporting the Xinjiang separatists and more recently
>> > supporting South Mongolia separatists. South Mongolia is the name for
>> > Inner Mongolia.
>> > CIA's dream is take out 70% of China's land.
>>
>> Do you know it's a distinctive trait of third world, totalitarian
>> shitholes, that they blame foreigners for almost all their problems?
>>
>> It's true. You'd think there was absolutely no problem Zimbabwe, Burma,
>> or the PRC that can't be attributed to the CIA.
>
> Read this declassified CIA document and see how the CIA paid the Dalai
> Lama US$180,000 a year for his service to the CIA.
> http://www.intellnet.org/documents/700/040/744.html
Nearly half a century ago I see. Long before Nixon went to visit Mao,
back when Taipei was the recognized capital of China, and the PRC was
behind what we called the "Iron Curtain".
> Welcome if you have
> any more question. Sure every country has problem, yet USA doesn't try
> to help the Natives of USA and prefer to spent millions on Radio
> FreeASia to incite violence in Tibet.
I have a question. Whatever the CIA's alleged involvement, you don't
think that shooting Tibetans, and locking them up for speaking their
minds might also be contributing factor to the violence there?
> What is you opinion about CIA's global activities?
I think that back in the 60s, they were very active globally. Back then
you got CIA activities like Operation Phoenix, where CIA went into
foreign countries, and attempted to actively influence the politics
there, by bribery, blackmail, and even assassinations.
You will find that most of their operations in this period were failures.
They're really not very good at getting political outcomes.
The reason they were active in the field then, is because this was
shortly after America's "Red Scare", during which a lot of skilled
diplomats from the US State Department had been marginalized as
"communist sympathizers." Into the power vacuum strolled Allan Dulles and
CIA, offering to advice Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon
on how best to deal with foreign policy difficulties, mostly involving
leaving it to them. So the CIA were free to have boy's own adventures,
blunder around the planet killing people, and generally exacerbate the
very problems they were being paid to solve.
These days, ever since Richard Colby's admissions before Congress in the
late 70s, CIA has been reigned in considerably. I suspect that they do
still have active agents in the field, but the average CIA agent will be
some sort of bespectacled analyst, at home in Washington. They may or may
not come up with reliable intel, but we saw in Iraq how this intelligence
is subject to an awful lot of political interference, depending on who
it's being accumulated for. On that basis, I suspect they're mainly just
another useless government department.
Peter Webb
<fyf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:314890dd-6adf-4bb1...@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On 5月12日, 下午3时19分, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> > **************
> > Freedom to elect their own leaders. Freedom to set their own economic
> > policies, including the freedom to mint their own currency and control
> > foreign trade. Freedom of press, of association. There's more, but they
> > would certainly be on my list of "freedoms" that I am referring to.
>
> Are these their desired freedoms or your freedoms, or even the
> freedoms of the CIA agents who put them up to it? Why take a few
> individuals who are part of a plot to undermine China's stabilities?
> Why don't you ask the majority of the Tibetans who are happy and
> satisfied, and don't give a damn about the Dalai Lama?
>
> ***************
> Because I can't run an election or referendum on this subject in Tibet.
> China can, though. Why don't they ask the Tibetan people if they want
> independence? Its an excellent question you asked - why doesn't the
> Chinese
> government ask Tibetans what they want, and go along with the majority
> position?
In order to decide whether or not Tibet should or should not be
independent, the Beijing government has to ask the other 57 ethnic
groups who are affected by a large piece of land
separating from the whole nation.
*******
No they wouldn't. Just do it for the province of Tibet. I am sure they would
be delighted.
What makes you think the native Tibetans have the right to decide
whether Tibet should or should not be independent? Do the native
Hawaiians have the rights to decide whether or not Hawaii should go
for independence? What makes you think Tibetans, being simply ONE of
the 58 ethnic groups, should be given that much political previleges?
***********
I didn't say anything about only allowing native Tibetans to vote. I said
the people living in the province of Tibet. Why doesn't the Chinese
government have a vote, as you suggested?
Peter Webb
<fyf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:25b7b861-7683-4fac...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
On 5月12日, 下午3时29分, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 15:28:53 +0800, fyfp...@gmail.com wrote
> (in article
> <f8afbbe9-e73b-456b-932b-69ffffcf3...@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com>):
>
>
>
> > The rallying cry "Free Tibet" can even be observed in the caps worn by
> > the
> > down-and-outs begging for nickles and dimes in the streets of Vancouver
> > downtown. I wonder how many of them are able to show where Tibet is on
> > map.
> > But let us see how possible (or probable) it is for a 'Free Tibet' to
> > materialize.
>
> Ok. First let the PRC become a democracy. Second, let the elected
> representatives of Tibet chat with the elected representatives of the rest
> of
> China, and work out their grievances.
>
> That would be a Free Tibet in my opinion.
This makes sense, but it is far away from being separation. In order
for Tibet to be considered for separation, the Beijing government has
to ask the other 57 ethnic groups for their approval first, unless
they don't want to stay in power.
***************
No they don't. They could have a referendum of all people living in the
province of Tibet. Why don't they?
fyf...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - 显示引用的文字 -
Go to post 30 and read what Jim Walsh has to say. It makes sense and
what he has
proposed does not in any way abuse democracy. You are abusing
democracy!
netvegetable
>> >http://en.chinaelections.org/newsinfo.asp?newsid=17363
>>
>> So that's the real reason the People Republic of China opposes Tibetan
>> self-determination? i.e, There is no such thing as China, just a bunch
>> of Chinas, under a Han Chinese Empire?
>
>
> UN charter on self-determination did not apply to secession movements.
> Neither does it apply to any particular ethnic group.
>
> The consensus defined a "people" entitled to self-determination as
> persons living in a particular geographic area, rather than persons
> sharing a common culture or language.
>
> Don't abuse terms that you half understood.
Nevertheless, that is true then? That the real reason the People Republic
of China opposes Tibetan self-determination is that there is no such
thing as China? Just a bunch of Chinas, under a Han Chinese Empire?
fyf...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > 120,000+ Newsgroups
> > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
>
> - 显示引用的文字 -- 隐藏被引用文字 -
>
> - 显示引用的文字 -
I should have all the money at the Royal Bank of Canada too....
Peter Webb
What has this got to do with any country in this world being "a
benchmark for human rights"?
and you
> don't consider it reasonable that some people may want more political
> freedom that is afforded to the Chinese people?
What is the freedom that is offered to the other 57 ethnic groups but
not offered to the Tibetnas? I am sure they want to have more
freedom, so do the other 57 ethnic groups too.
*****************
So, why doesn't China give it to them?
>
> As a matter of fact, they are exempt from the one-child policy which
> applies to other groups. So what kind of freedom are you referring
> to?
>
> **************
> Freedom to elect their own leaders. Freedom to set their own economic
> policies, including the freedom to mint their own currency and control
> foreign trade. Freedom of press, of association. There's more, but they
> would certainly be on my list of "freedoms" that I am referring to.
>
If they could be allowed to do that, why not give the same freedom to
the other 57 ethnic
groups and China would be divided into 58 parts with 58 currencies?
****************
Well, if that's what they want, why not? In practice, I think there would be
few breakaway provinces, but if that is what they want, why doesn't the
Chinese Government follow the will of its people?
> Do you know where Tibet is on the map?
>
> ***********
> Actually, I have been there. Have you, now you are criticising my
> credentials?
Of course, when you are so stupidly suggesting anyone ethnic group in
China could mint
its own currency, your credential is tentamount to that of those kids'
in downtown Vancouver
begging for nickles and dimes while wearing caps 'Free Tibet'.
>
******************
I am not suggesting an ethic group does it. I am suggesting that a country
with the same borders as the province of Tibet does it. Seems imminently
practical.
>
>
>
>
> > > Many of them are
> > > the descendants of the former slave owners. Let them go to Canada or
> > > USA for good since the latter's governments love them so much. For
> > > these 80K Tibetans exiles to establish an autonomous region equal to
> > > the size of 1/4 of China, they have to walk over the dead bodies of
> > > the other 57 ethnic groups scattered everywhere.
>
> > > Who would take the lead? Perhaps the down-and-outs in Canada, or
> > > Europe...or the beach bums in Australia.. would do so. After all,
> > > they don't have much to do anyway. Thus shouting some slogans while
> > > being unable to point out whereTibetis on map should be a very good
> > > Sunday pastime....
>
> > Well, the only evidence you provide for anything you say is a Chinese
> > Government web site.
>
> > ROFL- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- 隐藏被引用文字 -
>
> - 显示引用的文字 -- 隐藏被引用文字 -
>
> - 显示引用的文字 -
Still only got that Chinese Government website as your source of official
news?
netvegetable
Now hang on! Do you mean the recent spate of violence and killings and
burnings in Lhasa, that occurred earlier in '08? Because I know at least
one of the links you snipped out of my reply, depicts how people were
being arrested long before '08.
http://tinyurl.com/6fycff is the story of two young Tibetan monks who
were sentenced to three years in prison simply for unfurling the Tibetan
flag, circa 1999.
Also,
http://tinyurl.com/5za6lc is the story of Ronggyal Adrak, a Tibetan nomad
who was sentenced to 8 years in prison simply for urging religious
freedom in Tibet. That's dated in November 2007.
http://tinyurl.com/6gtm9e is a video showing PRC troops shooting Tibetan
pilgrims like dogs, back in 2006.
So, are you sure you have your causality correct? Are you sure the
suppression is a response to the violence in Lhasa, and not the other way
round?
Or are you saying there's always been violence and killings and burnings
in Tibet, ever since the PRC took over in the 50s, and the PRC has to
apply political and religious suppression as a response?
I just want to know what it is you are arguing.
netvegetable
I am so sorry if I've offended you. I thought we were having lovely chats
together.
Jim Walsh
(in article <4827a29b$0$13948$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>):
>
> Now they are free not to be owned. In terms of other kinds of freedom, they
> don't suffer any more than any other groups in China.
Agree that Tibetans are unfree, like the Chinese in general.
--
Love, Jim
(I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
crossposts.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
Jim Walsh
(in article
<6a31498c-e99b-4acd...@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
>
> They are the people of China with all the rights of its citizens plus a few
> extras.
Which is another way of saying that they are not free.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<ed1a95a4-dbfe-4d2e...@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
Saying "Free Tibet" is not an act of violence. It is not a violation of the
peace or of public security. It is simply an expression of a thought.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<1af2159a-f12e-47c6...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>):
> UN charter on self-determination did not apply to secession movements.
> Neither does it apply to any particular ethnic group.
Of course it does. It actually would have no meaning if it didn't.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<02ddc7bc-b0c7-4cbd...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>):
In other words, you support the CCP's denial of human rights.
Yu
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 23:21:35 -0700, Yu wrote:
> > On May 12, 1:27 pm, netvegetable <n...@all.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 May 2008 16:52:46 -0700, fyfp...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> The "freeTibet" movement is not solely for the purpose of Tibetan
> >> >> exiles, Tibetans living inTibetmight like to be free as well.
>
> >> > Free from what? They used to be slaves in the time of high lamas.
> >> > Now they are free not to be owned. In terms of other kinds of
> >> > freedom, they don't suffer any more than any other groups in China.
> >> > As a matter of fact, they are exempt from the one-child policy which
> >> > applies to other groups. So what kind of freedom are you referring
> >> > to?
>
> >> The freedom of self-determination would be a start. Right now, the PRC
> >> is locking up people simply for saying "Free Tibet" in public.
>
> > After all the violence and killings and burning the Gov have a duty to
> > maintain peace and public security. Don't be hypocrite just because it
> > doesn't happen in your country.
>
> Now hang on! Do you mean the recent spate of violence and killings and
> burnings in Lhasa, that occurred earlier in '08? Because I know at least
> one of the links you snipped out of my reply, depicts how people were
> being arrested long before '08.
>
> were sentenced to three years in prison simply for unfurling the Tibetan
> flag, circa 1999.
>
> Also,
>
> who was sentenced to 8 years in prison simply for urging religious
> freedom in Tibet. That's dated in November 2007.
>
> pilgrims like dogs, back in 2006.
>
> So, are you sure you have your causality correct? Are you sure the
> suppression is a response to the violence in Lhasa, and not the other way
> round?
>
> Or are you saying there's always been violence and killings and burnings
> in Tibet, ever since the PRC took over in the 50s, and the PRC has to
> apply political and religious suppression as a response?
>
> I just want to know what it is you are arguing.
From 1950-1970 CIA sponsored war in Tibet thousands were killed.
From1987- 1989 hundreds were killed or wounded and hundreds of shops,
cars and houses were brunt.
Now 2008 dozen were killed and many houses, cars and building were
burnt to the ground.
This is the violent nature of CIA thugs. The did it all the time all
over the world.
Yu
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 23:33:32 -0700, Yu wrote:
> >> >http://en.chinaelections.org/newsinfo.asp?newsid=17363
>
> >> So that's the real reason the People Republic of China opposes Tibetan
> >> self-determination? i.e, There is no such thing as China, just a bunch
> >> of Chinas, under a Han Chinese Empire?
>
> > UN charter on self-determination did not apply to secession movements.
> > Neither does it apply to any particular ethnic group.
>
> > The consensus defined a "people" entitled to self-determination as
> > persons living in a particular geographic area, rather than persons
> > sharing a common culture or language.
>
> > Don't abuse terms that you half understood.
>
> Nevertheless, that is true then? That the real reason the People Republic
> of China opposes Tibetan self-determination is that there is no such
> thing as China? Just a bunch of Chinas, under a Han Chinese Empire?
China is multicultural and multiethnic.
The minorities have more rights than the Hans. For example they can
have more children. (Average Tibetan family have 4-5 kids and that
contribute to unemployment.)
They get preferential entry to colleges and universities and pay lower
tuition fees.
netvegetable
Are you saying that the rioters in Lhasa, the pilgrims being killed on
Nepal border, and the multiple people being arrested for advocating
Tibetan autonomy, are all undercover CIA agents?
If so, why does China want to possess a nation that seems to be almost
entirely inhabited by undercover CIA agents?
If not, it would seem that an awful lot of people in Tibet don't want the
PRC there, CIA involvement or no CIA involvement.
netvegetable
Except that they don't get the right to say that they don't want to be
part of China. Why not? Is there some fear that the PRC will collapse
like a house of cards, if these people are allowed to speak their minds?
aozo...@aol.com
> On May 12, 3:04 am, aozot...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > On May 11, 1:28 am, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Who would take the lead? P
>
> > which
>
> What or who is this 'which' here? You mean the government.
No! Serbia is not a what - It is a very well known country - so it is
not a what! And a country is not a who! It is not a person but a
known place!
>
> > treated the people in Kosovo much better than you
>
> Who is this 'you' here? Do you refer to the Beijing government?
>
> By the way, are you one of those kids begging for nickles and dimes
> while wearing a cap with a label 'Free Tibet' in the streets of
> downtown Vancouver?
>
> treat the
>
> > Tibetans!
Polly the Parrot
> The rallying cry "Free Tibet" can even be observed in the caps worn by
> the down-and-outs begging for nickles and dimes in the streets of
> Vancouver downtown. I wonder how many of them are able to show where
> Tibet is on map. But let us see how possible (or probable) it is for
> a 'Free Tibet' to materialize.
Not possible, never.
All bleeding hearts, please move on, you are clogging the band width.
fyf...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 09:51:06 +0800, Peter Webb wrote
>
>
>
> > Now they are free not to be owned. In terms of other kinds of freedom, they
> > don't suffer any more than any other groups in China.
>
> Agree that Tibetans are unfree, like the Chinese in general.
>
> --
> Love, Jim
> (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> crossposts.)
>
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
All the down and outs in the city of Vancouver want to take money from
the Royal Bank of Canada. If you don't believe, let them have a
election and decide.
fyf...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
The major difference between students studying political science and
economics is that the students of economics realize such a concept as
scarcity while the poli-science students simply bullshit, as they are
totally not aware of the concept of scarcity.
A Rolls is certain preferred to a second hand Toyata. But try to
apply the down payment for a second hand Toyata to walk into a shop
selling Rolls, and see what would happen.
fyf...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 02:10:17 -0700, Yu wrote:
> >> >> >http://en.chinaelections.org/newsinfo.asp?newsid=17363
>
> >> >> So that's the real reason the People Republic of China opposes
> >> >> Tibetan self-determination? i.e, There is no such thing as China,
> >> >> just a bunch of Chinas, under a Han Chinese Empire?
>
> >> > UN charter on self-determination did not apply to secession
> >> > movements. Neither does it apply to any particular ethnic group.
>
> >> > The consensus defined a "people" entitled to self-determination as
> >> > persons living in a particular geographic area, rather than persons
> >> > sharing a common culture or language.
>
> >> > Don't abuse terms that you half understood.
>
> >> Nevertheless, that is true then? That the real reason the People
> >> Republic of China opposes Tibetan self-determination is that there is
> >> no such thing as China? Just a bunch of Chinas, under a Han Chinese
> >> Empire?
>
> > China is multicultural and multiethnic. The minorities have more rights
> > than the Hans. For example they can have more children. (Average Tibetan
> > family have 4-5 kids and that contribute to unemployment.)
> > They get preferential entry to colleges and universities and pay lower
> > tuition fees.
>
> Except that they don't get the right to say that they don't want to be
> part of China.
Who are these 'they"? Do you have statistics showing the declining %
of business ownership by Tibetan natives? Don't just bull!
Why not? Is there some fear that the PRC will collapse
> like a house of cards, if these people are allowed to speak their minds?
>
> --
> A: Top posters
> Q: What's the most annoying thing on usenet
>
> "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
> conservatives."- John Stuart Mill- Hide quoted text -
fyf...@gmail.com
> >> >http://en.chinaelections.org/newsinfo.asp?newsid=17363
>
> >> So that's the real reason the People Republic of China opposes Tibetan
> >> self-determination? i.e, There is no such thing as China, just a bunch
> >> of Chinas, under a Han Chinese Empire?
>
> > UN charter on self-determination did not apply to secession movements.
> > Neither does it apply to any particular ethnic group.
>
> > The consensus defined a "people" entitled to self-determination as
> > persons living in a particular geographic area, rather than persons
> > sharing a common culture or language.
>
> > Don't abuse terms that you half understood.
>
> Nevertheless, that is true then? That the real reason the People Republic
> of China opposes Tibetan self-determination is that there is no such
> thing as China? Just a bunch of Chinas, under a Han Chinese Empire?
>
gun? Don't simply throw something into the air and treat it done.
> --
> A: Top posters
> Q: What's the most annoying thing on usenet
>
> "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
Jim Walsh
(in article <20080512201729.5bfe5374@dhcppc1>):
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 00:28:53 -0700 (PDT) "fyf...@gmail.com"
> <fyf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The rallying cry "Free Tibet" can even be observed in the caps worn by
>> the down-and-outs begging for nickles and dimes in the streets of
>> Vancouver downtown. I wonder how many of them are able to show where
>> Tibet is on map. But let us see how possible (or probable) it is for
>> a 'Free Tibet' to materialize.
>
> Not possible, never.
Never say "never". I never thought I would see a free Hungary in my lifetime.
--
Love, Jim
(I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
crossposts.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
Jim Walsh
(in article
<948c8738-c890-4352...@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com>):
> China is multicultural and multiethnic. The minorities have more rights than
> the Hans. For example they can have more children. (Average Tibetan family
> have 4-5 kids and that contribute to unemployment.) They get preferential
> entry to colleges and universities and pay lower tuition fees.
The basic problem is that the Chinese are not free.
More specifically.
"China is multicultural and multiethnic." Agree.
" The minorities have more rights than the Hans."
Since all Chinese are denied basic human rights, this is a quibble.
"For example they can have more children. (Average Tibetan family have 4-5
kids and that contribute to unemployment.)"
The idea that there are only a fixed number of jobs and that more children
means more unemployment is very, very silly.
"They get preferential entry to colleges and universities and pay lower
tuition fees." My understanding is that the local elementary and secondary
schools are so terrible, that even with admission preferences they are still
under-represented in universities.
Anyway, none of this justifies the denial of human rights.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<76e2ec65-f3af-440d...@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com>):
>
> From 1950-1970 CIA sponsored war in Tibet thousands were killed.
This does not justify denying the Chinese human rights (including the
Tibetans).
Jim Walsh
(in article
<25b7b861-7683-4fac...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com>):
>
> This makes sense, but it is far away from being separation. In order for
> Tibet to be considered for separation, the Beijing government has to ask the
> other 57 ethnic groups for their approval first, unless they don't want to
> stay in power.
nonsense. The issue of the organization of political structures does not
depend on any such thing.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<935e4963-b55e-417f...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com>):
>
> Go to post 30 and read what Jim Walsh has to say. It makes sense and what he
> has proposed does not in any way abuse democracy. You are abusing democracy!
It scares me when you quote me with praise. How can I find "post 30"?
Jim Walsh
(in article
<314890dd-6adf-4bb1...@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com>):
> What makes you think the native Tibetans have the right to decide whether
> Tibet should or should not be independent?
My sense of simple justice. The people of Germany decide whether it should be
part of the EU (or not). The people of Puerto Rico decide whether it should
be a US territory (or not). The people of Quebec decide whether it should
remain a part of Canada (or not).
Simple justice.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<314890dd-6adf-4bb1...@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com>):
> What makes you think Tibetans, being simply ONE of the 58 ethnic groups,
> should be given that much political previleges?
All 58 have the same rights.
And there is no need that an ethnic group be involved. There is no
"Taiwanese" ethnic group (or rather there are many groups in Taiwan), but
simple justice says that the Taiwanese are entitled to decide their own
governmental structure.
fyf...@gmail.com
With that amount of cash deposit at Canadian banks, why not let the
working poor go for an election and see if they could walk into the
banks and take cash out at any time they want. Well, given the
difference between the rich and the poor in Vancouver, it seems
imminently practical.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Many of them are
> > > > the descendants of the former slave owners. Let them go to Canada or
> > > > USA for good since the latter's governments love them so much. For
> > > > these 80K Tibetans exiles to establish an autonomous region equal to
> > > > the size of 1/4 of China, they have to walk over the dead bodies of
> > > > the other 57 ethnic groups scattered everywhere.
>
> > > > Who would take the lead? Perhaps the down-and-outs in Canada, or
> > > > Europe...or the beach bums in Australia.. would do so. After all,
> > > > they don't have much to do anyway. Thus shouting some slogans while
> > > > being unable to point out whereTibetis on map should be a very good
> > > > Sunday pastime....
>
> > > Well, the only evidence you provide for anything you say is a Chinese
> > > Government web site.
>
> > > ROFL- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- 隐藏被引用文字 -
>
> > - 显示引用的文字 -- 隐藏被引用文字 -
>
> > - 显示引用的文字 -
>
> Still only got that Chinese Government website as your source of official
> news?- Hide quoted text -
Jim Walsh
(in article
<7e6da0df-0d8a-41be...@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com>):
> On May 12, 4:34 pm, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 May 2008 09:51:06 +0800, Peter Webb wrote
>> (in article <4827a29b$0$13948$afc38...@news.optusnet.com.au>):
>>
>>
>>
>>> Now they are free not to be owned. In terms of other kinds of freedom,
>>> they don't suffer any more than any other groups in China.
>>
>> Agree that Tibetans are unfree, like the Chinese in general.
> All the down and outs in the city of Vancouver want to take money from
> the Royal Bank of Canada. If you don't believe, let them have a
> election and decide.
Well, I am certain that an election would show that they WANT to take the
money. I am also certain that their votes would not mean that they could do
so.
Since we were talking about the lack of human rights in China, your comment
seems like a non-sequitur, eh?
--
Love, Jim
(I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
crossposts.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
Yu
> >> >> >http://en.chinaelections.org/newsinfo.asp?newsid=17363
>
> >> >> So that's the real reason the People Republic of China opposes
> >> >> Tibetan self-determination? i.e, There is no such thing as China,
> >> >> just a bunch of Chinas, under a Han Chinese Empire?
>
> >> > UN charter on self-determination did not apply to secession
> >> > movements. Neither does it apply to any particular ethnic group.
>
> >> > The consensus defined a "people" entitled to self-determination as
> >> > persons living in a particular geographic area, rather than persons
> >> > sharing a common culture or language.
>
> >> > Don't abuse terms that you half understood.
>
> >> Nevertheless, that is true then? That the real reason the People
> >> Republic of China opposes Tibetan self-determination is that there is
> >> no such thing as China? Just a bunch of Chinas, under a Han Chinese
> >> Empire?
>
> > China is multicultural and multiethnic. The minorities have more rights
> > than the Hans. For example they can have more children. (Average Tibetan
> > family have 4-5 kids and that contribute to unemployment.)
> > They get preferential entry to colleges and universities and pay lower
> > tuition fees.
>
> Except that they don't get the right to say that they don't want to be
> part of China. Why not? Is there some fear that the PRC will collapse
> like a house of cards, if these people are allowed to speak their minds?
It is US and NATO that can't live with a powerful and influencial
China. Their fear that their lives will collapse. So the pay all these
people to set fire, kill innocent people and when cought blame it no
lack of free speech.
Yu
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 23:16:51 -0700, Yu wrote:
> > On May 12, 1:37 pm, netvegetable <n...@all.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 May 2008 08:36:55 -0700, Yu wrote:
> >> >> It is like claining New York city to be part of Chin because there
> >> >> is a Chinatown in New York and some Chinese in New York city want to
> >> >> be Chines citizens.
>
> >> > The NED is now supporting the Xinjiang separatists and more recently
> >> > supporting South Mongolia separatists. South Mongolia is the name for
> >> > Inner Mongolia.
> >> > CIA's dream is take out 70% of China's land.
>
> >> Do you know it's a distinctive trait of third world, totalitarian
> >> shitholes, that they blame foreigners for almost all their problems?
>
> >> It's true. You'd think there was absolutely no problem Zimbabwe, Burma,
> >> or the PRC that can't be attributed to the CIA.
>
> > Read this declassified CIA document and see how the CIA paid the Dalai
> > Lama US$180,000 a year for his service to the CIA.
> >http://www.intellnet.org/documents/700/040/744.html
>
> Nearly half a century ago I see. Long before Nixon went to visit Mao,
> back when Taipei was the recognized capital of China, and the PRC was
> behind what we called the "Iron Curtain".
It took them that long to partially declassify their files.
Today USA is even more neurotic about China.
> > Welcome if you have
> > any more question. Sure every country has problem, yet USA doesn't try
> > to help the Natives of USA and prefer to spent millions on Radio
> > FreeASia to incite violence in Tibet.
>
> I have a question. Whatever the CIA's alleged involvement, you don't
> think that shooting Tibetans, and locking them up for speaking their
> minds might also be contributing factor to the violence there?
> http://tinyurl.com/6gtm9e
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6zkq2o
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6fycff
I think these video are fake.
There have been lots of these fake video around.
When the alleged shooting occured you see the man fell to the ground
and people around him show no response at all they just go on walking.
The basic human instinct is to duck and cover.
> > What is you opinion about CIA's global activities?
>
> I think that back in the 60s, they were very active globally. Back then
> you got CIA activities like Operation Phoenix, where CIA went into
> foreign countries, and attempted to actively influence the politics
> there, by bribery, blackmail, and even assassinations.
>
> You will find that most of their operations in this period were failures.
> They're really not very good at getting political outcomes.
>
> The reason they were active in the field then, is because this was
> shortly after America's "Red Scare", during which a lot of skilled
> diplomats from the US State Department had been marginalized as
> "communist sympathizers." Into the power vacuum strolled Allan Dulles and
> CIA, offering to advice Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon
> on how best to deal with foreign policy difficulties, mostly involving
> leaving it to them. So the CIA were free to have boy's own adventures,
> blunder around the planet killing people, and generally exacerbate the
> very problems they were being paid to solve.
>
> These days, ever since Richard Colby's admissions before Congress in the
> late 70s, CIA has been reigned in considerably. I suspect that they do
> still have active agents in the field, but the average CIA agent will be
> some sort of bespectacled analyst, at home in Washington. They may or may
> not come up with reliable intel, but we saw in Iraq how this intelligence
> is subject to an awful lot of political interference, depending on who
> it's being accumulated for. On that basis, I suspect they're mainly just
> another useless government department.
If u think CIA is still active which country is their biggest target
in the next 10 years?
fyf...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 15:40:37 +0800, fyfp...@gmail.com wrote
> (in article
> <25b7b861-7683-4fac-b6f0-7f959f399...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com>):
>
>
>
> > This makes sense, but it is far away from being separation. In order for
> > Tibet to be considered for separation, the Beijing government has to ask the
> > other 57 ethnic groups for their approval first, unless they don't want to
> > stay in power.
>
> nonsense. The issue of the organization of political structures does not
> depend on any such thing.
I wonder if we understand each other well enough. Do you mean the
unelected government in Beijing could allow any province to go
independent at any time they want at will and do so without
repercussion in terms of public pressure?
I very much doubt.
>
> --
> Love, Jim
> (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> crossposts.)
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
fyf...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 19:46:20 +0800, fyfp...@gmail.com wrote
> (in article
> <7e6da0df-0d8a-41be-9416-f9f03102c...@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > On May 12, 4:34 pm, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 12 May 2008 09:51:06 +0800, Peter Webb wrote
> >> (in article <4827a29b$0$13948$afc38...@news.optusnet.com.au>):
>
> >>> Now they are free not to be owned. In terms of other kinds of freedom,
> >>> they don't suffer any more than any other groups in China.
>
> >> Agree that Tibetans are unfree, like the Chinese in general.
> > All the down and outs in the city of Vancouver want to take money from
> > the Royal Bank of Canada. If you don't believe, let them have a
> > election and decide.
>
> Well, I am certain that an election would show that they WANT to take the
> money. I am also certain that their votes would not mean that they could do
> so.
>
> Since we were talking about the lack of human rights in China, your comment
> seems like a non-sequitur, eh?
It is the human right of the down and outs in Canada to take some
petty cash out of a Canadian bank just to buy a cup of coffee. Is it
asking too much? Well, that is what they want, so give it to them.
>
> --
> Love, Jim
> (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> crossposts.)
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
Jim Walsh
(in article
<9401253b-4a31-45f6...@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com>):
> It is the human right of the down and outs in Canada to take some petty cash
> out of a Canadian bank just to buy a cup of coffee. Is it asking too much?
> Well, that is what they want, so give it to them.
No. Stealing the property of others is not a human right. (But you knew that,
didn't you?)
--
Love, Jim
(I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
crossposts.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
Jim Walsh
(in article
<2ee7bea0-c9d3-47f1...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com>):
> Do you mean the unelected government in Beijing could allow any province to
> go independent at any time they want at will and do so without repercussion
> in terms of public pressure?
I can not support the unelected government of the CCP at all.
But I suppose that I would not object to it doing something wise and humane
(ban the use of capital punishment, for example; free public education thru
high school for another).
I have made it clear that the Chinese should have basic human rights, the
sooner the better.
Once the Chinese are free, they will behave better toward their neighbors and
each other. Were the Tibetans to vote for independence (with proper
guarantees regarding the national debt, etc), I suppose the Chinese would let
them go in peace (just as the Canadians would let Quebec go).
And a democratic government of China would not violate the freedom of
religion rights of Tibetans.
--
Love, Jim
(I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
crossposts.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
Jim Walsh
(in article
<5ee602c4-9991-44e7...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>):
>
> It is US and NATO that can't live with a powerful and influencial China.
> Their fear that their lives will collapse. So the pay all these people to set
> fire, kill innocent people and when cought blame it no lack of free speech.
A healthy, economically strong China is a blessing for the world.
rst0wxyz
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 13:46:50 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> (in article
> <02ddc7bc-b0c7-4cbd-b993-28d4f15b9...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 11, 10:27 pm, netvegetable <n...@all.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 May 2008 16:52:46 -0700, fyfp...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> The "freeTibet" movement is not solely for the purpose of Tibetan
> >>>> exiles, Tibetans living inTibetmight like to be free as well.
>
> >>> Free from what? They used to be slaves in the time of high lamas. Now
> >>> they are free not to be owned. In terms of other kinds of freedom, they
> >>> fact, they are exempt from the one-child policy which applies to other
> >>> groups. So what kind of freedom are you referring to?
>
> >> locking up people simply for saying "Free Tibet" in public.
>
> > Too bad the PRC didn't lock you up.
> > You should be locked up somewhere.
>
> In other words, you support the CCP's denial of human rights.
I don't support anything. I have been saying the CCP leadership has
been doing a great job in China, much better than our leadership.
People only think about daily conditions of life, and today, the
Chinese people, and especially the Tibetans people are living much
better than anytime since the beginning of history. They are happy,
have food to eat, money to spend, and all they think about are
themselves, not human rights, not elections, not the CCP, and
certainly not the problems of the world, and they don't give a damn
about what you think.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<8f8056ed-04cc-47cd...@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>):
> they don't give a damn about what you think.
If the CCP really believed that, it would allow the Chinese to freely access
the internet.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<8f8056ed-04cc-47cd...@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>):
> ... the Chinese people, and especially the Tibetans people are living much
> better than anytime since the beginning of history. They are happy, have
> food to eat, money to spend, and all they think about are themselves, not
> human rights, not elections, not the CCP, and certainly not the problems of
> the world, and they don't give a damn about what you think.
The above description of the Chinese people is insulting.
Of course they care about more than food and money. Of course they think
about more than only themselves. Of course they think about human rights,
elections, the CCP, and the problems of the world.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<8f8056ed-04cc-47cd...@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>):
> On May 12, 1:34 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>> In other words, you support the CCP's denial of human rights.
>
>
> I don't support anything. I have been saying the CCP leadership has
> been doing a great job in China, much better than our leadership.
In other words you support the CCP leadership (which prevents the Chinese
from having basic human rights).
fyf...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 21:25:34 +0800, fyfp...@gmail.com wrote
> (in article
> <9401253b-4a31-45f6-ab11-fdeff0880...@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > It is the human right of the down and outs in Canada to take some petty cash
> > out of a Canadian bank just to buy a cup of coffee. Is it asking too much?
> > Well, that is what they want, so give it to them.
>
> No. Stealing the property of others is not a human right. (But you knew that,
> didn't you?)
So who owns Tibet? Whose properties does Tibet belong to?
>
> --
> Love, Jim
> (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> crossposts.)
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
fyf...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 21:23:38 +0800, fyfp...@gmail.com wrote
> (in article
> <2ee7bea0-c9d3-47f1-bec3-ad7022627...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > Do you mean the unelected government in Beijing could allow any province to
> > go independent at any time they want at will and do so without repercussion
> > in terms of public pressure?
>
> I can not support the unelected government of the CCP at all.
>
> But I suppose that I would not object to it doing something wise and humane
> (ban the use of capital punishment, for example; free public education thru
> high school for another).
>
> I have made it clear that the Chinese should have basic human rights, the
> sooner the better.
>
> Once the Chinese are free, they will behave better toward their neighbors and
> each other. Were the Tibetans to vote for independence (with proper
> guarantees regarding the national debt, etc), I suppose the Chinese would let
> them go in peace (just as the Canadians would let Quebec go).
You must be talking in your dreams...Ask not just the people living in
Tibet, but the other 57 ethnic groups and see how they view this
thing.
>
> And a democratic government of China would not violate the freedom of
> religion rights of Tibetans.
>
> --
> Love, Jim
> (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> crossposts.)
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
rst0wxyz
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > **************
> > Freedom to elect their own leaders. Freedom to set their own economic
> > policies, including the freedom to mint their own currency and control
> > foreign trade. Freedom of press, of association. There's more, but they
> > would certainly be on my list of "freedoms" that I am referring to.
>
> freedoms of the CIA agents who put them up to it? Why take a few
> individuals who are part of a plot to undermine China's stabilities?
> Why don't you ask the majority of the Tibetans who are happy and
> satisfied, and don't give a damn about the Dalai Lama?
>
> ***************
> Because I can't run an election or referendum on this subject in Tibet.
> China can, though. Why don't they ask the Tibetan people if they want
> independence? Its an excellent question you asked - why doesn't the Chinese
> government ask Tibetans what they want, and go along with the majority
> position?
They have spoken already. They are content with their lot, happy with
their lives, and love the modern conveniences of today's society.
It's a few who allowed the CIA to corrupt their judgement with
American money, and the Dalai Lama needs money to live a worldly life
to let America to drive him on.
rst0wxyz
> On 5月12日, 下午3时19分, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > **************
> > > Freedom to elect their own leaders. Freedom to set their own economic
> > > policies, including the freedom to mint their own currency and control
> > > foreign trade. Freedom of press, of association. There's more, but they
> > > would certainly be on my list of "freedoms" that I am referring to.
>
> > Are these their desired freedoms or your freedoms, or even the
> > freedoms of the CIA agents who put them up to it? Why take a few
> > individuals who are part of a plot to undermine China's stabilities?
> > Why don't you ask the majority of the Tibetans who are happy and
> > satisfied, and don't give a damn about the Dalai Lama?
>
> > ***************
> > Because I can't run an election or referendum on this subject in Tibet.
> > China can, though. Why don't they ask the Tibetan people if they want
> > independence? Its an excellent question you asked - why doesn't the Chinese
> > government ask Tibetans what they want, and go along with the majority
> > position?
>
> independent, the Beijing government has to ask the other 57 ethnic
They are not the problem, and need not be part of it. The CIA is the
big, big factor in Tibet, and the Dalai Lama is a stooge of the USA.
> groups who are affected by a large piece of land
> separating from the whole nation.
>
> What makes you think the native Tibetans have the right to decide
> whether Tibet should or should not be independent? Do the native
> Hawaiians have the rights to decide whether or not Hawaii should go
> for independence? What makes you think Tibetans, being simply ONE of
> the 58 ethnic groups, should be given that much political previleges?- Hide quoted text -
netvegetable
>> > Read this declassified CIA document and see how the CIA paid the
>> > Dalai Lama US$180,000 a year for his service to the CIA.
>> >http://www.intellnet.org/documents/700/040/744.html
>>
>> Nearly half a century ago I see. Long before Nixon went to visit Mao,
>> back when Taipei was the recognized capital of China, and the PRC was
>> behind what we called the "Iron Curtain".
>
> It took them that long to partially declassify their files. Today USA is
> even more neurotic about China.
So your reasoning is that if they were active 45 years ago, then they
must be more active today? Do you have any evidence to back up this
reasoning?
>
>
>> > Welcome if you have
>> > any more question. Sure every country has problem, yet USA doesn't
>> > try to help the Natives of USA and prefer to spent millions on Radio
>> > FreeASia to incite violence in Tibet.
>>
>> I have a question. Whatever the CIA's alleged involvement, you don't
>> think that shooting Tibetans, and locking them up for speaking their
>> minds might also be contributing factor to the violence there?
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/6gtm9e
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/6zkq2o
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/6fycff
>
> I think these video are fake.
> There have been lots of these fake video around.
So you're not willing to accept video evidence you don't like? Is there
any kind of evidence you would be willing to accept?
> When the alleged
> shooting occured you see the man fell to the ground and people around
> him show no response at all they just go on walking. The basic human
> instinct is to duck and cover.
Well, the Chinese government admitted the incident, but claimed the
soldiers acted in self-defence.
Also, there's an interview with the cameraman who took the footage. He
verifies the information described in the video.
Also, an Australian was among the mountaineers in the party that
witnessed the shootings. In his words, the Tibetans were "shot like rats".
I'd say Pakistan. A nuclear power in danger of becoming fundamentalist
Muslim, that'd have to be their prime target. Or Iran. Or Indonesia.
But I think the Americans know by now that they can't really control the
situation in these countries by espionage. History shows that when
they've tried in the past, they've usually either failed, or created a
problem even worse than the one they set out to solve.
netvegetable
Be that as it *may*, is it true that the real reason the People Republic
of China opposes Tibetan self-determination is that there is no such
thing as China? Just a bunch of Chinas, under a Han Chinese Empire?
--
netvegetable
>> > China is multicultural and multiethnic. The minorities have more
>> > rights than the Hans. For example they can have more children.
>> > (Average Tibetan family have 4-5 kids and that contribute to
>> > unemployment.) They get preferential entry to colleges and
>> > universities and pay lower tuition fees.
>>
>> Except that they don't get the right to say that they don't want to be
>> part of China.
>
> Who are these 'they"?
"They" are ......
http://tinyurl.com/6fycff two young Tibetan monks who
were sentenced to three years in prison simply for unfurling the Tibetan
flag.
http://tinyurl.com/5za6lc is the story of Ronggyal Adrak, a Tibetan nomad
who was sentenced to 8 years in prison simply for urging religious
freedom in Tibet.
http://tinyurl.com/3xlap4 a video from Al-Jazeera, showing a group of
Tibetans pleading to be allowed to tell the truth.
> Do you have statistics showing the declining % of
> business ownership by Tibetan natives? Don't just bull!
Don't worry, I won't.
bmo...@nyx.net
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 06:00:54 -0700, Yu wrote:
> >> > Read this declassified CIA document and see how the CIA paid the
> >> > Dalai Lama US$180,000 a year for his service to the CIA.
> >> >http://www.intellnet.org/documents/700/040/744.html
>
> >> Nearly half a century ago I see. Long before Nixon went to visit Mao,
> >> back when Taipei was the recognized capital of China, and the PRC was
> >> behind what we called the "Iron Curtain".
>
> > It took them that long to partially declassify their files. Today USA is
> > even more neurotic about China.
>
> So your reasoning is that if they were active 45 years ago, then they
> must be more active today? Do you have any evidence to back up this
> reasoning?
A gut feeling is all that is required as proof for apologists such as
Yu or LT Lee.
However, for the rest of us only meticulously documented research is
accepted.
netvegetable
Personally, I wouldn't have thought that meticulously documented research
would be necessary to see the mind numbingly fucking obvious. But I
delude myself that if I repeatedly hammer it down with a sledgehammer,
eventually it might begin to penetrate the skull.
taisun
China. He doesn't looking for independence. Chinese people came from
Africa and lived at Tibet thousand of yesrs before most of them moved
to the east. Tibet is not only Chinese historic home but also their
home until now.
bmo...@nyx.net
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 09:41:34 -0700, bmoore wrote:
> > On May 12, 9:20 am, netvegetable <n...@all.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 12 May 2008 06:00:54 -0700, Yu wrote:
> >> >> > Read this declassified CIA document and see how the CIA paid the
> >> >> > Dalai Lama US$180,000 a year for his service to the CIA.
> >> >> >http://www.intellnet.org/documents/700/040/744.html
>
> >> >> Nearly half a century ago I see. Long before Nixon went to visit
> >> >> Mao, back when Taipei was the recognized capital of China, and the
> >> >> PRC was behind what we called the "Iron Curtain".
>
> >> > It took them that long to partially declassify their files. Today USA
> >> > is even more neurotic about China.
>
> >> So your reasoning is that if they were active 45 years ago, then they
> >> must be more active today? Do you have any evidence to back up this
> >> reasoning?
>
> > A gut feeling is all that is required as proof for apologists such as Yu
> > or LT Lee.
>
> > However, for the rest of us only meticulously documented research is
> > accepted.
>
> Personally, I wouldn't have thought that meticulously documented research
> would be necessary to see the mind numbingly fucking obvious.
I wouldn't have thought so either. But that was before I started
reading soc.culture.china.
> But I
> delude myself that if I repeatedly hammer it down with a sledgehammer,
> eventually it might begin to penetrate the skull.
As the song goes, you ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know.
rst0wxyz
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 23:17:00 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> (in article
>
> > ... the Chinese people, and especially the Tibetans people are living much
> > better than anytime since the beginning of history. They are happy, have
> > food to eat, money to spend, and all they think about are themselves, not
> > human rights, not elections, not the CCP, and certainly not the problems of
> > the world, and they don't give a damn about what you think.
>
> The above description of the Chinese people is insulting.
>
> Of course they care about more than food and money. Of course they think
> about more than only themselves. Of course they think about human rights,
> elections, the CCP, and the problems of the world.
Only Jim Walsh and the CIA constantly talk about human rights,
elections to undermine China's stabilty.
rst0wxyz
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 23:17:00 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> (in article
>
> > they don't give a damn about what you think.
>
> If the CCP really believed that, it would allow the Chinese to freely access
> the internet.
They do have access to the internet, you numbskull.
There are many participants here in SCC from Mainland China.
rst0wxyz
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 23:17:00 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> (in article
>
> > On May 12, 1:34 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
> >> In other words, you support the CCP's denial of human rights.
>
> > I don't support anything. I have been saying the CCP leadership has
> > been doing a great job in China, much better than our leadership.
>
> In other words you support the CCP leadership (which prevents the Chinese
> from having basic human rights).
They have their human rights.
bmo...@nyx.net
> On May 12, 8:29 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 12 May 2008 23:17:00 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> > (in article
> > <8f8056ed-04cc-47cd-90bf-244739b99...@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > > they don't give a damn about what you think.
>
> > If the CCP really believed that, it would allow the Chinese to freely access
> > the internet.
>
> They do have access to the internet, you numbskull.
But that's not what he said. He said they can't *freely* access the
internet. The word "freely" changes the meaning of the statement from
the way you interpreted it.
rst0wxyz
They do have access to the internet freely.
China controlled the bad elements at the beginning.
The U.S. tries to control it afterward, but not so successfully.
We spent a lot of money prosecuting criminals from sexual predators,
porn websites predators, .... And we spent a lot of money jailing
these criminals.
They also have ruined many, many young lives.
Which is more effective?
bmo...@nyx.net
> On May 12, 4:27 pm, bmo...@nyx.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 12, 4:25 pm, rst0wxyz <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 12, 8:29 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mon, 12 May 2008 23:17:00 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> > > > (in article
> > > > <8f8056ed-04cc-47cd-90bf-244739b99...@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > > > > they don't give a damn about what you think.
>
> > > > If the CCP really believed that, it would allow the Chinese to freely access
> > > > the internet.
>
> > > They do have access to the internet, you numbskull.
>
> > But that's not what he said. He said they can't *freely* access the
> > internet. The word "freely" changes the meaning of the statement from
> > the way you interpreted it.
>
> They do have access to the internet freely.
No, they don't. Some topics are censored.
> China controlled the bad elements at the beginning.
"Bad" is a matter of opinion. The government also tries to keep people
from finding out things they don't want them to know about.
> The U.S. tries to control it afterward, but not so successfully.
> We spent a lot of money prosecuting criminals from sexual predators,
> porn websites predators, .... And we spent a lot of money jailing
> these criminals.
> They also have ruined many, many young lives.
> Which is more effective?
We could debate about that all day but it comes down to opinion. I
don't want the government telling me what web sites I can surf and I
doubt you would either.
rst0wxyz
Or maybe China has a better system?
Peter Webb
"rst0wxyz" <rst0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:667743f8-a0ff-4ce8...@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
*********************
The problem is not China's blocking of pornography. Its China's blocking of
political sites they don't agree with. Do you believe that most people in
China can freely access political websites on the internet, or the full
range of Western media? If they can't, why is the Chinese government
blocking them?
Peter Webb
**********************
Like the right to vote, free speech, freedom of assembly, the right to form
trade-unions? Do they have those rights? Why not?
Peter Webb
****************
I see. So if people in China could vote, they would change the government?
Peter Webb
On May 12, 12:19 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > **************
> > Freedom to elect their own leaders. Freedom to set their own economic
> > policies, including the freedom to mint their own currency and control
> > foreign trade. Freedom of press, of association. There's more, but they
> > would certainly be on my list of "freedoms" that I am referring to.
>
> Are these their desired freedoms or your freedoms, or even the
> freedoms of the CIA agents who put them up to it? Why take a few
> individuals who are part of a plot to undermine China's stabilities?
> Why don't you ask the majority of the Tibetans who are happy and
> satisfied, and don't give a damn about the Dalai Lama?
>
> ***************
> Because I can't run an election or referendum on this subject in Tibet.
> China can, though. Why don't they ask the Tibetan people if they want
> independence? Its an excellent question you asked - why doesn't the
> Chinese
> government ask Tibetans what they want, and go along with the majority
> position?
They have spoken already.
*****************
Where? How?
They are content with their lot, happy with
their lives, and love the modern conveniences of today's society.
It's a few who allowed the CIA to corrupt their judgement with
American money, and the Dalai Lama needs money to live a worldly life
to let America to drive him on.
***************
OK, if they like the present arrangement (as you say), why not give them a
vote as to whether they would like Chinese occupation to continue? Then the
world community would accept China's control of Tibet. pretty simple,
really, if what you say is correct.
rst0wxyz
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "rst0wxyz" <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f8a0abb7-a6f9-48ea...@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On May 12, 8:34 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 12 May 2008 23:17:00 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> > (in article
> > <8f8056ed-04cc-47cd-90bf-244739b99...@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>):
> > from having basic human rights).
>
> They have their human rights.
>
> **********************
> Like the right to vote, free speech, freedom of assembly, the right to form
> trade-unions? Do they have those rights? Why not?
What is important to you may not be as big or not at all to people
where their cultural history was the hardship and the struggle for
survival. The right to vote, free speech, freedom of assembly, and
the right to form trade-unions are meaningless when your livelihood
depends the struggle for food, money to buy necessities, your
children's schools, and the control of flood which is a possibility
every year. China has stated many times that societies stability is
the ultmost importance. What good is the right to vote, free
speech,... when the country is in turmoil? bandits everywhere? and
people out to steal from other people? What good is a country with a
leader like George Worthless Bush who can not lead? who spent
trillions on war and send our sons and daughters to foreign land to
die?
Instead of condemning China for what America called the "basic human
rights", you should focus on China's archievement in advancing the
country to the 21th century, enough food for everyone, money to spend
for the ordinary people, an schooling for all children, and colleges
and universities for those who strive for more, and more. China has
never been this well-off. This government does care for its people,
and doing all they can to advance and protect them.
Instead of condemning them, you should congratulate them for a job
well done.
rst0wxyz
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "rst0wxyz" <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
If people could vote, the CIA will be very active passing hundred
dollar bills buying vote tos change China to be America's stooge and
be under America's thumbs.
.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<2783e6ef-2a38-4d72...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>):
Chinese in general and Tibetans in particular are not free to express
themselves. Even the CCP acknowledges that.
Therefore they cannot have spoken already.
When you have been elected as their representative you can tell us what they
think and we will have some reason to believe you.
--
Love, Jim
(I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
crossposts.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
rst0wxyz
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "rst0wxyz" <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Excellent. China should do more of it.
> Do you believe that most people in
> China can freely access political websites on the internet, or the full
> range of Western media?
If they serve a purpose, it would not be blocked. When it is there to
create chaos and dissension like you and Jim Walsh have been doing,
yes, it must be blocked.
> If they can't, why is the Chinese government
> blocking them?
To prevent people like you and Jim Walsh, the CIA and the American
government from subverting the Chinese government. The old saying is
very true:
"An ounce of prevent is worth a pound of cure".
China is taking this advice wisely and seriously.
rst0wxyz
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "rst0wxyz" <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Why tempt the devil when you don't have to. The CIA tried once
already in the 1950s. Why should they give the CIA/American
government another chance?