China elicits gnawing envy from those who have no vision in the west
ltl...@hotmail.com
events in China. Sascha Matuszak thinks differently. It is not Chinese
nationalism, but a shared vision about its future that holds China
together. In contraast, he also sensed that many in tha west do not
have similarly optimistic vision about their future.
http://www.anti-war.com/matuszak/?articleid=12757
-------------------------------
The Sword Is Blunted
by Sascha Matuszak
The developed nations of the West are still trying to figure out ways
to deal with the new China. On the eve of China's biggest coming-out
party, the world is not the gracious guest admiring the balustrades.
Instead, the world's media are pointing at the servant in the backyard
and frowning at the dirt on the windows. Far from influencing the
host, accusations and criticism have only brought the whole family out
in defense of the ancestral home.
The new China has been the topic of countless pages predicting
everything from world domination to catastrophic failure. The West
looks on in bewilderment as neither comes to be and – most baffling of
all – the young, educated Chinese it hoped would raise a fist for
Tibet have decided to bring that fist down upon the heads of anti-
China elements the world over. What to do with this anachronism, a
huge, modern nation-state smack dab in the middle of the "post-
nationalist" New World Order?
We in the West expect China to make a Great Leap Forward from
Communist dictatorship to placid European philanthropist, eschewing
all modes of governance in between. However, this new China is a state
like any other, with disgruntled minorities, passionate youth,
desperate workers, and glitzy businessmen. There is no fundamental
difference between China and any other nation. It is this reality that
the West is grappling with: the mundane fact that China will survive
and carry on with its own development no matter what happens.
When the protests in Tibet and the resulting media storm failed to
bring about substantial introspection – in fact the exact opposite –
the West then focused on its last straw: the double-edged sword of
Chinese nationalism, double-edged in that patriotic youth conspiring
over the Internet to boycott Carrefour may also one day conspire over
the Internet to overthrow the Communist Party.
Allow me to dispel these wild hopes and dreams. Short of winning a
nuclear war with China, Tibet will never be independent and will most
likely never enjoy the "true autonomy" the Dalai Lama has been working
toward all his life. The youth of China will not overthrow their
government. China is not going to fall apart under a barrage of news
reports.
Since Deng Xiaoping came to power, the Chinese have been growing more
and more optimistic. With each year comes another improvement in the
standard of living: first it was TVs, now it's new cars, plush
apartments, and organic produce. As optimism is confirmed each year,
confidence takes over.
It is not nationalism that holds China together as much as a shared
vision of the future that is continually reinforced by economic,
social, and political advances. To question this vision is to risk
being branded a traitor. Granted, this may not be what modern Western
nations would call a stable and free environment, but that has more to
do with where we are today as a society than with China's failings.
Those who remember WWII in the U.S. may understand what it is to be
Chinese today. Those who remember the civil rights and peace movements
of the 1960s may also understand.
Westerners latch on to the cause of the day and consider our work as
human beings done when we scream "Free Tibet!" into the wind. Perhaps
jealousy fuels the focus the West has placed on China: not petty
jealousy of material comforts – we have those – but the deep, gnawing
envy of those who have no vision.
[...]
---------------------------
Jim Walsh
(in article
<76968181-b22f-47a3...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>):
>...There is no fundamental difference between China and any other nation.
Actually, like all nations, China is unique.
--
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 =----
Jim Walsh
(in article
<76968181-b22f-47a3...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>):
> The youth of China will not overthrow their government.
Actually, no one predicts that the youth will do. Most predict it will be the
workers. Personally, my money is on the middle class.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<76968181-b22f-47a3...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>):
> Westerners latch on to the cause of the day and consider our work as human
> beings done when we scream "Free Tibet!" into the wind.
You say some silly things. Do you even read what you say?
For example, what possibly could you mean by "our work"? You are not one of
the screamers.
netvegetable
> Western media and analysts routinely evoke nationalism to explain events
> in China. Sascha Matuszak thinks differently. It is not Chinese
> nationalism, but a shared vision about its future that holds China
> together. [snip]
'If you want a vision of the future, picture a boot stamping on a human
face - for ever.' - George Orwell, "1984".
--
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
ltl...@hotmail.com
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:19:30 -0700, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Western media and analysts routinely evoke nationalism to explain events
> > in China. Sascha Matuszak thinks differently. It is not Chinese
> > nationalism, but a shared vision about its future that holds China
> > together. [snip]
>
> 'If you want a vision of the future, picture a boot stamping on a human
> face - for ever.' - George Orwell, "1984".
George Orwell was describing his vision on western culture. The best
vision they can come up with now is the "the end of history." And
American militarism iss the coutner trend. That is exactly why many in
the west are jealousy, "not petty jealousy of material comforts – we
have those – but the deep, gnawing envy of those who have no vision. "
In contrast, the Chinese people are beginning to look at the world
again. They see the west and find a lot of good things. However, they
also believe they can do better.
Rather than emphasizing the bad of China, the west must work harder to
find the good things about China and hte Chinese people. For for
China's sake but for the west's own cultural renewal.
netvegetable
> On Apr 30, 10:24 am, netvegetable <n...@all.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:19:30 -0700, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > Western media and analysts routinely evoke nationalism to explain
>> > events in China. Sascha Matuszak thinks differently. It is not
>> > Chinese nationalism, but a shared vision about its future that holds
>> > China together. [snip]
>>
>> 'If you want a vision of the future, picture a boot stamping on a human
>> face - for ever.' - George Orwell, "1984".
>
> George Orwell was describing his vision on western culture. The best
> vision they can come up with now is the "the end of history." And
> American militarism iss the coutner trend. That is exactly why many in
> the west are jealousy, "not petty jealousy of material comforts – we
> have those – but the deep, gnawing envy of those who have no vision. "
> In contrast, the Chinese people are beginning to look at the world
> again. They see the west and find a lot of good things. However, they
> also believe they can do better.
>
> Rather than emphasizing the bad of China, the west must work harder to
> find the good things about China and hte Chinese people. For for China's
> sake but for the west's own cultural renewal.
I don't believe there is any envy in the West for China. I think it's a
delusion, as is your belief that the whole Western media is in some sort
of conspiracy against China.
ltl...@hotmail.com
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 07:49:02 -0700, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Apr 30, 10:24 am, netvegetable <n...@all.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:19:30 -0700, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> > Western media and analysts routinely evoke nationalism to explain
> >> > events in China. Sascha Matuszak thinks differently. It is not
> >> > Chinese nationalism, but a shared vision about its future that holds
> >> > China together. [snip]
>
> >> 'If you want a vision of the future, picture a boot stamping on a human
> >> face - for ever.' - George Orwell, "1984".
>
> > George Orwell was describing his vision on western culture. The best
> > vision they can come up with now is the "the end of history." And
> > American militarism iss the coutner trend. That is exactly why many in
> > the west are jealousy, "not petty jealousy of material comforts – we
> > have those – but the deep, gnawing envy of those who have no vision. "
> > In contrast, the Chinese people are beginning to look at the world
> > again. They see the west and find a lot of good things. However, they
> > also believe they can do better.
>
> > Rather than emphasizing the bad of China, the west must work harder to
> > find the good things about China and hte Chinese people. For for China's
> > sake but for the west's own cultural renewal.
>
> I don't believe there is any envy in the West for China. I think it's a
> delusion, as is your belief that the whole Western media is in some sort
> of conspiracy against China.
Why the west's enthusiam about Tibet? What have driven westerners to
pay so much attention to Tibet? Is the Tibetans really more spiritual
and a better people? Of course not. Westerners' love affair with Tibet
reflects mainly westerners' problem. Namely, they see their own
societies as dysfunctional. Looks good on the surface, but rotten at
the core. In his book "Virtual Tibet" Orvelle Schell's wrote the
following :
"When one looks back, ...at George Orwell's 1984 and Aldous Huxley's
BRAVE NEW WORLD, those two great dystopian visions of our century, it
is striking that Orwell's book, with its "double-speak," "Big
Brother," and "memory holes," has proved to be lesser of the two,
while Huxley's, with its cloning and its "feelings," its brightly
colored, drug-ridden, shallow, shadowy, but feel-good world, seems,
against all odds, more on target."
Is the west envious of China? Well, for one thing, Tibet is part of
China. The west cannot deal with Tibet without China in the foreground
or in the background. However, the answer is not important. The
important thing is that the west has a problem and no amount China
bashing can solve its problems.
>
> --
> 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 -
>
> - Show quoted text -
netvegetable
Well dystopian visions, in my view, are a mark of a mature society. No
society is perfect, all societies are dysfunctional in some way. And in
"Animal Farm", Orwell basically makes the statement that it is simple
animal nature that makes this so.
That is why we should be all on our guard against Big Brother.
Because all societies are flawed, I would argue that one that is devoid
of this kind of social critique, is incapable of evaluating itself
honestly. That society is thus incapable of adapting and improving. It is
at best, capable only of remaining static - at worst, declining.
>
> Is the west envious of China? Well, for one thing, Tibet is part of
> China. The west cannot deal with Tibet without China in the foreground
> or in the background. However, the answer is not important. The
> important thing is that the west has a problem and no amount China
> bashing can solve its problems.
The problem that democracies have is not envy, but fear. We don't have a
problem with Chinese people becoming a powerful voice in the world
economy. But we do worry about a brutal, totalitarian regime like the PRC
having a say in our economies, though, and by extension, in our politics.
That's why when people see verification of their paranoia in Tibetans
rioting, Tibetans pleading to be able to speak their mind, and Tibetans
being shot like dogs, it's big news in the media.
ltl...@hotmail.com
The best kind of self critique is the ability to see how other
societies are doing the right thing. The Chinese people see a lot of
good things in the west. Hence many Chinese students are studying in
western coutnries. In contrast, the west has holier-than-thou
organizations, aka human rights groups, as the exportin industry.
>
>
>
> > Is the west envious of China? Well, for one thing, Tibet is part of
> > China. The west cannot deal with Tibet without China in the foreground
> > or in the background. However, the answer is not important. The
> > important thing is that the west has a problem and no amount China
> > bashing can solve its problems.
>
> The problem that democracies have is not envy, but fear. We don't have a
> problem with Chinese people becoming a powerful voice in the world
> economy. But we do worry about a brutal, totalitarian regime like the PRC
> having a say in our economies, though, and by extension, in our politics.
Peopke in democracy are still people. And they have envy. Many are
lost and they hope they can find something through Tibet, China.
Demoracy begins with trusting the people. If you cannot 1/5 of
humanity will do the right thing, then you are not believing in
democracy? So, if the Chiense people have problems, let them solve
their own problems. Concerning Tibet, the Chinese people and the
Tibetans have co-existed for millenia. We still have Tibetans today.
How about the Australian aborigins or the native Americans? How are
they being accomdated? If you are worrying about minorities groups.
China knows how to do the right thing. How about Europeans' track
record? May be you should work to make sure there is still aborigins
and native Americans after one thousand year. Not your burden?
>
> That's why when people see verification of their paranoia in Tibetans
> rioting, Tibetans pleading to be able to speak their mind, and Tibetans
> being shot like dogs, it's big news in the media.
Too many fake news.
>
> --
> 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
<0bca5933-1aec-42a0...@w74g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>):
>
> George Orwell was describing his vision on western culture
No, he was not. Animal Farm was explicitly based on the Soviet Union.
Obviously, given the publication date, 1984 could not have been based on
Maoist China, but Orwell (a socialist) was warning us against totalitarianism
in all its forms.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<e7e82282-cd26-4f77...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>):
> Why the west's enthusiam about Tibet? What have driven westerners to pay so
> much attention to Tibet? Is the Tibetans really more spiritual and a better
> people?
The West is not enthusiastic about Tibet. In general, Westerners could care
less about Tibet (or Darfur, or CCP persecution of the Chinese).
Even among those who actively support democracy, the Tibetan issue is not at
the top of the list.
If you go to Amnesty International's web page, a relatively small percent is
devoted to Tibet specifically, or China generally.
Your paranoid exaggerations are based on your narrow self-view.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<9ade7154-9766-409e...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
> So, if the Chiense people have problems, let them solve their own problems.
This sentence implies that Western nations and/or democratic activist are
planning to use force to impose a solution on the Chinese. That is of course
absurd.
The group using force on the Chinese, preventing them from solving their own
problems, is the PLA under the orders of the CCP.
netvegetable
>> Well dystopian visions, in my view, are a mark of a mature society. No
>> society is perfect, all societies are dysfunctional in some way. And
>> in "Animal Farm", Orwell basically makes the statement that it is
>> simple animal nature that makes this so.
>>
>> That is why we should be all on our guard against Big Brother.
>>
>> Because all societies are flawed, I would argue that one that is devoid
>> of this kind of social critique, is incapable of evaluating itself
>> honestly. That society is thus incapable of adapting and improving. It
>> is at best, capable only of remaining static - at worst, declining.
>
> The best kind of self critique is the ability to see how other societies
> are doing the right thing. The Chinese people see a lot of good things
> in the west. Hence many Chinese students are studying in western
> coutnries. In contrast, the west has holier-than-thou organizations, aka
> human rights groups, as the exportin industry.
The only reason the West has organisations like Amnesty International, is
because they couldn't possibly exist in China. They would simply
disappear.
And Amnesty, in particular, has never shirked its obligation to be
critical of Western governments as well, when there are criticisms to be
made.
Seen the images from Abu Ghraib? Months before those images hit the
media, the Amnesty site was already telling us exactly what was going on
in there, from reports they'd gathered.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Is the west envious of China? Well, for one thing, Tibet is part of
>> > China. The west cannot deal with Tibet without China in the
>> > foreground or in the background. However, the answer is not
>> > important. The important thing is that the west has a problem and no
>> > amount China bashing can solve its problems.
>>
>> The problem that democracies have is not envy, but fear. We don't have
>> a problem with Chinese people becoming a powerful voice in the world
>> economy. But we do worry about a brutal, totalitarian regime like the
>> PRC having a say in our economies, though, and by extension, in our
>> politics.
>
>
> Peopke in democracy are still people. And they have envy. Many are lost
> and they hope they can find something through Tibet, China.
>
> Demoracy begins with trusting the people. If you cannot 1/5 of humanity
> will do the right thing, then you are not believing in democracy? So, if
> the Chiense people have problems, let them solve their own problems.
If Chinese people like you don't want Westerners like me commenting on
your problems, don't post here in aus.politics. But seeing as you are
doing so, let me be the first to say that your problem is that your
government sucks.
> Concerning Tibet, the Chinese people and the Tibetans have co-existed
> for millenia. We still have Tibetans today. How about the Australian
> aborigins or the native Americans? How are they being accomdated? If you
> are worrying about minorities groups.
Native Americans and "Indigenous Australians" are legally allowed to
speak their minds in public. Tibetans are not.
> China knows how to do the right
> thing. How about Europeans' track record?
That's an interesting comparison. I think Rudyard Kipling's Poem "The
White Man's Burden" pretty accurately expresses a common Chinese attitude
to Tibet.
> May be you should work to
> make sure there is still aborigins and native Americans after one
> thousand year. Not your burden?
>
>
>> That's why when people see verification of their paranoia in Tibetans
>> rioting, Tibetans pleading to be able to speak their mind, and Tibetans
>> being shot like dogs, it's big news in the media.
I agree wholeheartedly that not enough is being done to accommodate the
traditional lifestyles of indigenous peoples in the West. And I say that
in the full knowledge that there's no danger of me being arrested.
ltl...@hotmail.com
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:20:04 -0700, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> Well dystopian visions, in my view, are a mark of a mature society. No
> >> society is perfect, all societies are dysfunctional in some way. And
> >> in "Animal Farm", Orwell basically makes the statement that it is
> >> simple animal nature that makes this so.
>
> >> That is why we should be all on our guard against Big Brother.
>
> >> Because all societies are flawed, I would argue that one that is devoid
> >> of this kind of social critique, is incapable of evaluating itself
> >> honestly. That society is thus incapable of adapting and improving. It
> >> is at best, capable only of remaining static - at worst, declining.
>
> > The best kind of self critique is the ability to see how other societies
> > are doing the right thing. The Chinese people see a lot of good things
> > in the west. Hence many Chinese students are studying in western
> > coutnries. In contrast, the west has holier-than-thou organizations, aka
> > human rights groups, as the exportin industry.
>
> The only reason the West has organisations like Amnesty International, is
> because they couldn't possibly exist in China. They would simply
> disappear.
>
> And Amnesty, in particular, has never shirked its obligation to be
> critical of Western governments as well, when there are criticisms to be
> made.
It is odd that many westerners somehow see humans right organizations
aka holier-than-thou organizations different from other organizations
such as Revlon. Does AI not sell holier-than-thou like Revlon sells
cosmetics? In this case, both bolier-than-thou and cosmetics make the
consumers of these product feel good about themselves. Are the
managers of AI and the managers of Revlon not equally human with the
same morality and immorality? If so, the question why AI does not
exist in China is no different from why many western companies do not
exist in China. And the same answer. Namely, the Chinese people do not
want their products.
> Seen the images from Abu Ghraib? Months before those images hit the
> media, the Amnesty site was already telling us exactly what was going on
> in there, from reports they'd gathered.
So? What does it prove? The organization's capability reflect the
capability of its members. AI could acess the images because its
members have access the image. It is exactly why AI should leave China
alone. AI does not have member in China. Zero member means zero access
and zero capability.
>
>
> >> > Is the west envious of China? Well, for one thing, Tibet is part of
> >> > China. The west cannot deal with Tibet without China in the
> >> > foreground or in the background. However, the answer is not
> >> > important. The important thing is that the west has a problem and no
> >> > amount China bashing can solve its problems.
>
> >> The problem that democracies have is not envy, but fear. We don't have
> >> a problem with Chinese people becoming a powerful voice in the world
> >> economy. But we do worry about a brutal, totalitarian regime like the
> >> PRC having a say in our economies, though, and by extension, in our
> >> politics.
>
> > Peopke in democracy are still people. And they have envy. Many are lost
> > and they hope they can find something through Tibet, China.
>
> > Demoracy begins with trusting the people. If you cannot 1/5 of humanity
> > will do the right thing, then you are not believing in democracy? So, if
> > the Chiense people have problems, let them solve their own problems.
>
> If Chinese people like you don't want Westerners like me commenting on
> your problems, don't post here in aus.politics.
I don't know why you keep repeating the above. Westerners commenting
on Chinese affair is fine although I could not tell whether your are
westerners or not. Anyway, I think there are Chinese in Australia.
> But seeing as you are
> doing so, let me be the first to say that your problem is that your
> government sucks.
> > Concerning Tibet, the Chinese people and the Tibetans have co-existed
> > for millenia. We still have Tibetans today. How about the Australian
> > aborigins or the native Americans? How are they being accomdated? If you
> > are worrying about minorities groups.
>
> Native Americans and "Indigenous Australians" are legally allowed to
> speak their minds in public. Tibetans are not.
If you know there are laws specifying that Tibetans are legally not
allowed to speak their minds in public, please let me know. Otherwise,
you view reflect your level of ignorance.
>
> > China knows how to do the right
> > thing. How about Europeans' track record?
>
> That's an interesting comparison. I think Rudyard Kipling's Poem "The
> White Man's Burden" pretty accurately expresses a common Chinese attitude
> to Tibet.
I am certainly glad that are increasing number of Tibetans. Would you
not wish there were equally large number Australian aborigins and
native American? Or do you believe those are indeed inferior people.
> > May be you should work to
> > make sure there is still aborigins and native Americans after one
> > thousand year. Not your burden?
>
> >> That's why when people see verification of their paranoia in Tibetans
> >> rioting, Tibetans pleading to be able to speak their mind, and Tibetans
> >> being shot like dogs, it's big news in the media.
>
> I agree wholeheartedly that not enough is being done to accommodate the
> traditional lifestyles of indigenous peoples in the West. And I say that
> in the full knowledge that there's no danger of me being arrested.
Talk the talk is one thing. Walk the walk is another thing.
>
>
>
> > Too many fake news.
>
> --
> 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 -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
bmo...@nyx.net
You conveniently omit the fact that if some Chinese citizens tried to
open a branch of AI in China, they would be beaten and jailed. You are
wildly dishonest.
> > >> > Is the west envious of China? Well, for one thing, Tibet is part of
> > >> > China. The west cannot deal with Tibet without China in the
> > >> > foreground or in the background. However, the answer is not
> > >> > important. The important thing is that the west has a problem and no
> > >> > amount China bashing can solve its problems.
>
> > >> The problem that democracies have is not envy, but fear. We don't have
> > >> a problem with Chinese people becoming a powerful voice in the world
> > >> economy. But we do worry about a brutal, totalitarian regime like the
> > >> PRC having a say in our economies, though, and by extension, in our
> > >> politics.
>
> > > Peopke in democracy are still people. And they have envy. Many are lost
> > > and they hope they can find something through Tibet, China.
>
> > > Demoracy begins with trusting the people. If you cannot 1/5 of humanity
> > > will do the right thing, then you are not believing in democracy? So, if
> > > the Chiense people have problems, let them solve their own problems.
>
> > If Chinese people like you don't want Westerners like me commenting on
> > your problems, don't post here in aus.politics.
>
> I don't know why you keep repeating the above.
It's obvious.
> Westerners commenting
> on Chinese affair is fine although I could not tell whether your are
> westerners or not. Anyway, I think there are Chinese in Australia.
>
>
> > But seeing as you are
> > doing so, let me be the first to say that your problem is that your
> > government sucks.
> > > Concerning Tibet, the Chinese people and the Tibetans have co-existed
> > > for millenia. We still have Tibetans today. How about the Australian
> > > aborigins or the native Americans? How are they being accomdated? If you
> > > are worrying about minorities groups.
>
> > Native Americans and "Indigenous Australians" are legally allowed to
> > speak their minds in public. Tibetans are not.
>
> If you know there are laws specifying that Tibetans are legally not
> allowed to speak their minds in public, please let me know. Otherwise,
> you view reflect your level of ignorance.
He's not ignorant. You are dishonest. You know damn well what the
situation is. You're not fooling anyone.
> > > China knows how to do the right
> > > thing. How about Europeans' track record?
>
> > That's an interesting comparison. I think Rudyard Kipling's Poem "The
> > White Man's Burden" pretty accurately expresses a common Chinese attitude
> > to Tibet.
> I am certainly glad that are increasing number of Tibetans.
I don't believe you.
> Would you
> not wish there were equally large number Australian aborigins and
> native American? Or do you believe those are indeed inferior people.
Your previous comments on this NG indicate that you believe Tibetans
are inferior people. Your POV changes depending on what point you want
to make. That's hypocritical.
>
> > > May be you should work to
> > > make sure there is still aborigins and native Americans after one
> > > thousand year. Not your burden?
>
> > >> That's why when people see verification of their paranoia in Tibetans
> > >> rioting, Tibetans pleading to be able to speak their mind, and Tibetans
> > >> being shot like dogs, it's big news in the media.
>
> > I agree wholeheartedly that not enough is being done to accommodate the
> > traditional lifestyles of indigenous peoples in the West. And I say that
> > in the full knowledge that there's no danger of me being arrested.
> Talk the talk is one thing. Walk the walk is another thing.
Talk the talk is all you do. If you tried to walk you would stumble
and break your leg, because your picture of reality is completely off
the mark.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<9efc57ae-1de7-48f1...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>):
> If so, the question why AI does not exist in China is no different from why
> many western companies do not exist in China. And the same answer. Namely,
> the Chinese people do not want their products.
Amnesty International exists in China. Many of its activities are kept secret
from the CCP, but it exists nevertheless.
And the Chinese are avid "consumers" of its products.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<105c3ab0-4f5a-43dc...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com>):
>
> You conveniently omit the fact that if some Chinese citizens tried to open a
> branch of AI in China, they would be beaten and jailed. You are wildly
> dishonest.
A formal branch does not exist, but AI functions inside of China. Of course
it does so semi-clandestinely. The following statement at the end of the 2007
Report on China provides adequate evidence of that.
Visits
AI representatives attended several human rights-related meetings in Beijing
and Shenzhen.
The whole report makes dramatic reading.
http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Regions/Asia-Pacific/China
J.Venning
news:0001HW.C440D9FB...@news-east.alibis.com...
> Amnesty International exists in China. Many of its activities are kept
> secret
> from the CCP, but it exists nevertheless.
> And the Chinese are avid "consumers" of its products.
>
Mainland China.
netvegetable
>> The only reason the West has organisations like Amnesty International,
>> is because they couldn't possibly exist in China. They would simply
>> disappear.
>>
>> And Amnesty, in particular, has never shirked its obligation to be
>> critical of Western governments as well, when there are criticisms to
>> be made.
>
> It is odd that many westerners somehow see humans right organizations
> aka holier-than-thou organizations different from other organizations
> such as Revlon. Does AI not sell holier-than-thou like Revlon sells
> cosmetics? In this case, both bolier-than-thou and cosmetics make the
> consumers of these product feel good about themselves. Are the managers
> of AI and the managers of Revlon not equally human with the same
> morality and immorality? If so, the question why AI does not exist in
> China is no different from why many western companies do not exist in
> China. And the same answer. Namely, the Chinese people do not want their
> products.
Either that, or like Hu Kia, its members would be harassed, and
ultimately thrown in prison for "inciting subversion of state power".
>
>
>> Seen the images from Abu Ghraib? Months before those images hit the
>> media, the Amnesty site was already telling us exactly what was going
>> on in there, from reports they'd gathered.
>
> So? What does it prove? The organization's capability reflect the
> capability of its members. AI could acess the images because its members
> have access the image. It is exactly why AI should leave China alone. AI
> does not have member in China. Zero member means zero access and zero
> capability.
It proves that AI is extremely good at gathering the facts, disseminating
them, and reporting them. This is shown time and time again. As as a
direct result, governments that indulge in suppression, arbitrary
imprisonment, and torture (such as the PRC, for example) find
organisations like AI extremely embarrassing.
>>
>>
>> >> > Is the west envious of China? Well, for one thing, Tibet is part
>> >> > of China. The west cannot deal with Tibet without China in the
>> >> > foreground or in the background. However, the answer is not
>> >> > important. The important thing is that the west has a problem and
>> >> > no amount China bashing can solve its problems.
>>
>> >> The problem that democracies have is not envy, but fear. We don't
>> >> have a problem with Chinese people becoming a powerful voice in the
>> >> world economy. But we do worry about a brutal, totalitarian regime
>> >> like the PRC having a say in our economies, though, and by
>> >> extension, in our politics.
>>
>> > Peopke in democracy are still people. And they have envy. Many are
>> > lost and they hope they can find something through Tibet, China.
>>
>> > Demoracy begins with trusting the people. If you cannot 1/5 of
>> > humanity will do the right thing, then you are not believing in
>> > democracy? So, if the Chiense people have problems, let them solve
>> > their own problems.
>>
>> If Chinese people like you don't want Westerners like me commenting on
>> your problems, don't post here in aus.politics.
>
> I don't know why you keep repeating the above. Westerners commenting on
> Chinese affair is fine although I could not tell whether your are
> westerners or not. Anyway, I think there are Chinese in Australia.
So in what way are the Chinese people not being left to "solve their own
problems"? What is it you are whinging about?
>
>> But seeing as you are
>> doing so, let me be the first to say that your problem is that your
>> government sucks.
>
>> > Concerning Tibet, the Chinese people and the Tibetans have co-existed
>> > for millenia. We still have Tibetans today. How about the Australian
>> > aborigins or the native Americans? How are they being accomdated? If
>> > you are worrying about minorities groups.
>>
>> Native Americans and "Indigenous Australians" are legally allowed to
>> speak their minds in public. Tibetans are not.
>
> If you know there are laws specifying that Tibetans are legally not
> allowed to speak their minds in public, please let me know. Otherwise,
> you view reflect your level of ignorance.
Sure I know.
Here's the case of Ronggyal Adrak, jailed for 8 years simply for shouting
"Long Live the Dallai Lama!" at a racing festival.
Here's an Al-Jazeera report showing a group of Tibetan monks embarrassing
your government, and telling the world that they are being suppressed
from speaking their minds.
And here's an account, from an aforementioned Human Rights group, of two
young men sentenced, at the Lhasa Intermediate People's Court, to three
years in prison simply for shouting "Free Tibet" and carrying the banned
Tibetan flag.
>>
>> > China knows how to do the right
>> > thing. How about Europeans' track record?
>>
>> That's an interesting comparison. I think Rudyard Kipling's Poem "The
>> White Man's Burden" pretty accurately expresses a common Chinese
>> attitude to Tibet.
>
> I am certainly glad that are increasing number of Tibetans. Would you
> not wish there were equally large number Australian aborigins and native
> American?
Sure. Why not?
> Or do you believe those are indeed inferior people.
>
>> > May be you should work to
>> > make sure there is still aborigins and native Americans after one
>> > thousand year. Not your burden?
>>
>> >> That's why when people see verification of their paranoia in
>> >> Tibetans rioting, Tibetans pleading to be able to speak their mind,
>> >> and Tibetans being shot like dogs, it's big news in the media.
>>
>> I agree wholeheartedly that not enough is being done to accommodate the
>> traditional lifestyles of indigenous peoples in the West. And I say
>> that in the full knowledge that there's no danger of me being arrested.
>
> Talk the talk is one thing. Walk the walk is another thing.
Are you saying I should be arrested?
Jim Walsh
>> AI could acess the images because its members
>> have access the image. It is exactly why AI should leave China alone. AI
>> does not have member in China. Zero member means zero access and zero
>> capability.
Fact: AI has a large amount of access in the PRC.
Fact: That access is provided by Chinese who support its goals.
Fact: Mr. Lee, specifically, and the CCP attack AI because its access is so
good.
ltl...@hotmail.com
> On Thu, 01 May 2008 10:59:13 -0700, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> The only reason the West has organisations like Amnesty International,
> >> is because they couldn't possibly exist in China. They would simply
> >> disappear.
>
> >> And Amnesty, in particular, has never shirked its obligation to be
> >> critical of Western governments as well, when there are criticisms to
> >> be made.
>
> > It is odd that many westerners somehow see humans right organizations
> > aka holier-than-thou organizations different from other organizations
> > such as Revlon. Does AI not sell holier-than-thou like Revlon sells
> > cosmetics? In this case, both bolier-than-thou and cosmetics make the
> > consumers of these product feel good about themselves. Are the managers
> > of AI and the managers of Revlon not equally human with the same
> > morality and immorality? If so, the question why AI does not exist in
> > China is no different from why many western companies do not exist in
> > China. And the same answer. Namely, the Chinese people do not want their
> > products.
>
> Either that, or like Hu Kia, its members would be harassed, and
> ultimately thrown in prison for "inciting subversion of state power".
You are dragging in irrelevancy. If holier-than-thou organizations are
the only companies selling something that 1.3 billion Chinese people
really want or need, no Chinese government which are also comprise of
Chinese people can prevent them from getting it.
> http://tinyurl.com/5fg4mz
>
>
>
> >> Seen the images from Abu Ghraib? Months before those images hit the
> >> media, the Amnesty site was already telling us exactly what was going
> >> on in there, from reports they'd gathered.
>
> > So? What does it prove? The organization's capability reflect the
> > capability of its members. AI could acess the images because its members
> > have access the image. It is exactly why AI should leave China alone. AI
> > does not have member in China. Zero member means zero access and zero
> > capability.
>
> It proves that AI is extremely good at gathering the facts, disseminating
> them, and reporting them. This is shown time and time again. As as a
> direct result, governments that indulge in suppression, arbitrary
> imprisonment, and torture (such as the PRC, for example) find
> organisations like AI extremely embarrassing.
AI is only good as it has tens of thousands or hundreds of thousand of
local members. But AI has no members inside China. It has zero
capability on Chinese issues. Its accusations on China are based on
unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable reports from unknown source with
unknown reliablity.
>
> >> >> > Is the west envious of China? Well, for one thing, Tibet is part
> >> >> > of China. The west cannot deal with Tibet without China in the
> >> >> > foreground or in the background. However, the answer is not
> >> >> > important. The important thing is that the west has a problem and
> >> >> > no amount China bashing can solve its problems.
>
> >> >> The problem that democracies have is not envy, but fear. We don't
> >> >> have a problem with Chinese people becoming a powerful voice in the
> >> >> world economy. But we do worry about a brutal, totalitarian regime
> >> >> like the PRC having a say in our economies, though, and by
> >> >> extension, in our politics.
>
> >> > Peopke in democracy are still people. And they have envy. Many are
> >> > lost and they hope they can find something through Tibet, China.
>
> >> > Demoracy begins with trusting the people. If you cannot 1/5 of
> >> > humanity will do the right thing, then you are not believing in
> >> > democracy? So, if the Chiense people have problems, let them solve
> >> > their own problems.
>
> >> If Chinese people like you don't want Westerners like me commenting on
> >> your problems, don't post here in aus.politics.
>
> > I don't know why you keep repeating the above. Westerners commenting on
> > Chinese affair is fine although I could not tell whether your are
> > westerners or not. Anyway, I think there are Chinese in Australia.
>
> So in what way are the Chinese people not being left to "solve their own
> problems"? What is it you are whinging about?
Did you not read the news? Did foreign leaders not make demands on how
China should deal with the Tibet issue?
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >> But seeing as you are
> >> doing so, let me be the first to say that your problem is that your
> >> government sucks.
>
> >> > Concerning Tibet, the Chinese people and the Tibetans have co-existed
> >> > for millenia. We still have Tibetans today. How about the Australian
> >> > aborigins or the native Americans? How are they being accomdated? If
> >> > you are worrying about minorities groups.
>
> >> Native Americans and "Indigenous Australians" are legally allowed to
> >> speak their minds in public. Tibetans are not.
>
> > If you know there are laws specifying that Tibetans are legally not
> > allowed to speak their minds in public, please let me know. Otherwise,
> > you view reflect your level of ignorance.
>
> Sure I know.
>
> Here's the case of Ronggyal Adrak, jailed for 8 years simply for shouting
> "Long Live the Dallai Lama!" at a racing festival.
Let us say the above is true. That is "Ronggyal Adrak shouted "Long
Live the Dalai Lama"; Ronggyal Adrak went to jail." So? I can also
tell you this. "Timothy McVeigh rent a truck; Timothy McVeigh got
executed." And only a dumb guy will conclude that America must have
laws not allowing people to rent truck.
Again, if you know as a fact that there are laws specifying that
Tibetans are legally not allowed to speak their minds in public,
please cut and paste the law.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6zkq2o
>
> Here's an Al-Jazeera report showing a group of Tibetan monks embarrassing
> your government, and telling the world that they are being suppressed
> from speaking their minds.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3xlap4
>
> And here's an account, from an aforementioned Human Rights group, of two
> young men sentenced, at the Lhasa Intermediate People's Court, to three
> years in prison simply for shouting "Free Tibet" and carrying the banned
> Tibetan flag.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6fycff
>
>
>
> >> > China knows how to do the right
> >> > thing. How about Europeans' track record?
>
> >> That's an interesting comparison. I think Rudyard Kipling's Poem "The
> >> White Man's Burden" pretty accurately expresses a common Chinese
> >> attitude to Tibet.
>
> > I am certainly glad that are increasing number of Tibetans. Would you
> > not wish there were equally large number Australian aborigins and native
> > American?
>
> Sure. Why not?
Look at the track record.
>
> > Or do you believe those are indeed inferior people.
>
> >> > May be you should work to
> >> > make sure there is still aborigins and native Americans after one
> >> > thousand year. Not your burden?
>
> >> >> That's why when people see verification of their paranoia in
> >> >> Tibetans rioting, Tibetans pleading to be able to speak their mind,
> >> >> and Tibetans being shot like dogs, it's big news in the media.
>
> >> I agree wholeheartedly that not enough is being done to accommodate the
> >> traditional lifestyles of indigenous peoples in the West. And I say
> >> that in the full knowledge that there's no danger of me being arrested.
>
> > Talk the talk is one thing. Walk the walk is another thing.
>
> Are you saying I should be arrested?
>
> --
> A: Top posters
> Q: What's the most annoying thing on usenet
>
> "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
netvegetable
Be that as it may, they still would be harassed, and ultimately thrown in
prison were they set up in a major way in the PRC. Just as scores of
human rights activists in the PRC have been.
How about Shi Tao? He was sentenced to 10 years in prison simply for
complaining about media restrictions in a private email.
How about Chen Guangcheng, a blind activist who was sentenced to 4 years
in prison simply for talking to Time magazine about a forced abortion
case in the PRC. His lawyers were arrested and detained just before his
trial.
How about Liu Xinjuan? Thrown in a pychiatric hospital immediately after
she organised a gathering of petitioners against forced land relocation.
True "Big Brother" style political suppression IMO.
>>
>> >> Seen the images from Abu Ghraib? Months before those images hit the
>> >> media, the Amnesty site was already telling us exactly what was
>> >> going on in there, from reports they'd gathered.
>>
>> > So? What does it prove? The organization's capability reflect the
>> > capability of its members. AI could acess the images because its
>> > members have access the image. It is exactly why AI should leave
>> > China alone. AI does not have member in China. Zero member means zero
>> > access and zero capability.
>>
>> It proves that AI is extremely good at gathering the facts,
>> disseminating them, and reporting them. This is shown time and time
>> again. As as a direct result, governments that indulge in suppression,
>> arbitrary imprisonment, and torture (such as the PRC, for example) find
>> organisations like AI extremely embarrassing.
>
> AI is only good as it has tens of thousands or hundreds of thousand of
> local members. But AI has no members inside China. It has zero
> capability on Chinese issues. Its accusations on China are based on
> unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable reports from unknown source with
> unknown reliablity.
It had no members inside Abu Ghraib either, or in Guantanamo Bay, or in
the various immigration detention centers around Australia. Still its
reports are usually pretty accurate, as demonstrated time and time
again.
No. I've heard plenty of world leaders "urge" and "appeal to" the PRC,
but no "demand" as such. Demands are usually followed by threats, but so
far, most political leaders are content to just make noises which bother
you, rather like the media is doing.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> But seeing as you are
>> >> doing so, let me be the first to say that your problem is that your
>> >> government sucks.
>>
>> >> > Concerning Tibet, the Chinese people and the Tibetans have
>> >> > co-existed for millenia. We still have Tibetans today. How about
>> >> > the Australian aborigins or the native Americans? How are they
>> >> > being accomdated? If you are worrying about minorities groups.
>>
>> >> Native Americans and "Indigenous Australians" are legally allowed to
>> >> speak their minds in public. Tibetans are not.
>>
>> > If you know there are laws specifying that Tibetans are legally not
>> > allowed to speak their minds in public, please let me know.
>> > Otherwise, you view reflect your level of ignorance.
>>
>> Sure I know.
>>
>> Here's the case of Ronggyal Adrak, jailed for 8 years simply for
>> shouting "Long Live the Dallai Lama!" at a racing festival.
>
> Let us say the above is true. That is "Ronggyal Adrak shouted "Long Live
> the Dalai Lama"; Ronggyal Adrak went to jail." So? I can also tell you
> this. "Timothy McVeigh rent a truck; Timothy McVeigh got executed." And
> only a dumb guy will conclude that America must have laws not allowing
> people to rent truck.
Timothy McVeigh wasn't executed for renting a truck. He was executed for,
by his own admission, filling this truck up wither fertilizer, and
blowing it up, deliberately killing three hundred people in the process.
Can you discern this subtle difference?
>
> Again, if you know as a fact that there are laws specifying that
> Tibetans are legally not allowed to speak their minds in public, please
> cut and paste the law.
I'm pretty sure these laws exist. Unless the Chinese government is riding
rough shot over the law, and just arresting and imprisoning arbitrarily
arresting people by the score. Is that your theory? Because either way,
it's definitely happening.
>
>
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/6zkq2o
>>
>> Here's an Al-Jazeera report showing a group of Tibetan monks
>> embarrassing your government, and telling the world that they are being
>> suppressed from speaking their minds.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/3xlap4
>>
>> And here's an account, from an aforementioned Human Rights group, of
>> two young men sentenced, at the Lhasa Intermediate People's Court, to
>> three years in prison simply for shouting "Free Tibet" and carrying the
>> banned Tibetan flag.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/6fycff
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > China knows how to do the right
>> >> > thing. How about Europeans' track record?
>>
>> >> That's an interesting comparison. I think Rudyard Kipling's Poem
>> >> "The White Man's Burden" pretty accurately expresses a common
>> >> Chinese attitude to Tibet.
>>
>> > I am certainly glad that are increasing number of Tibetans. Would you
>> > not wish there were equally large number Australian aborigins and
>> > native American?
>>
>> Sure. Why not?
>
> Look at the track record.
What about it?
Jim Walsh
(in article <IdFSj.8826$sd4....@fe109.usenetserver.com>):
> On Fri, 02 May 2008 06:19:14 -0700, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> Again, if you know as a fact that there are laws specifying that
>> Tibetans are legally not allowed to speak their minds in public, please
>> cut and paste the law.
>
> I'm pretty sure these laws exist. Unless the Chinese government is riding
> rough shot over the law, and just arresting and imprisoning arbitrarily
> arresting people by the score. Is that your theory? Because either way,
> it's definitely happening.
The PRC law has several interesting features and there are many ways to deny
human rights.
One is to imprison people for long periods without charging them of any
crime. "Reeducation through labor (laodong jiaoyang ¿Õ Øã ¯, abbreviated
láojiào ¿Õã ) is a system of administrative detentions in the People's
Republic of China which is generally used to detain persons for minor crimes
such as petty theft, prostitution, and trafficking illegal drugs, as well as
crimes against the state such as leading unregistered Chinese House Churches
for periods up to four years." see wikipedia. "Administrative detention"
means no crime need be charged, no trial is conducted. Off to prison one
goes, for up to 4 years.
Another is to imprison them for vague crimes. Examples can be found in a lot
of places. Here is just one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China
The key feature of PRC law is the constitutional provision that states that
everyone must follow the CCP.
"Under the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the guidance of
Marxism- Leninism and Mao ZedongThought, the Chinese people of all
nationalities will continue to adhere to the people's democratic dictatorship
......"
netvegetable
>>> AI could acess the images because its members
>>> have access the image. It is exactly why AI should leave China alone.
>>> AI does not have member in China. Zero member means zero access and
>>> zero capability.
>
> Fact: AI has a large amount of access in the PRC. Fact: That access is
> provided by Chinese who support its goals. Fact: Mr. Lee, specifically,
> and the CCP attack AI because its access is so good.
That's very interesting to hear.
I know for a fact, though, that Amnesty does not officially have a
presence in China. If you go to amnesty.org, and you click on the menu
option to visit the Chinese site, you get this page .....
http://www.amnesty.org/en/no-presence-in-this-country
Wouldn't surprise me at all though, if there were people in China who
were member of Amnesty. Anybody, literally anybody, can be a member. And
those members in China probably whatever help they feel can safely get
away with.
rst0wxyz
> On Fri, 2 May 2008 02:07:10 +0800, bmo...@nyx.net wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
> > You conveniently omit the fact that if some Chinese citizens tried to open a
> > branch of AI in China, they would be beaten and jailed. You are wildly
> > dishonest.
>
> A formal branch does not exist, but AI functions inside of China. Of course
> it does so semi-clandestinely. The following statement at the end of the 2007
> Report on China provides adequate evidence of that.
>
> Visits
>
> AI representatives attended several human rights-related meetings in Beijing
> and Shenzhen.
>
> The whole report makes dramatic reading.
>
> http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Regions/Asia-Pacific/China
As I have said many times, China's worst enemy is the Chinese people
themsrlves.
rst0wxyz
> On Fri, 2 May 2008 01:59:13 +0800, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote
> (in article
>
> > If so, the question why AI does not exist in China is no different from why
> > many western companies do not exist in China. And the same answer. Namely,
> > the Chinese people do not want their products.
>
> Amnesty International exists in China. Many of its activities are kept secret
> from the CCP, but it exists nevertheless.
>
> And the Chinese are avid "consumers" of its products.
Products? What products?
How does Chinese people "consume" these products?
ltl...@hotmail.com
Wow!!! Do you really beleive that any government can blcok the needs
and wants of 1.3 billion people by harassing and throw in jail five or
six people? If that is really what you think, if so, democracy will
have no hope.
> >> >> Seen the images from Abu Ghraib? Months before those images hit the
> >> >> media, the Amnesty site was already telling us exactly what was
> >> >> going on in there, from reports they'd gathered.
>
> >> > So? What does it prove? The organization's capability reflect the
> >> > capability of its members. AI could acess the images because its
> >> > members have access the image. It is exactly why AI should leave
> >> > China alone. AI does not have member in China. Zero member means zero
> >> > access and zero capability.
>
> >> It proves that AI is extremely good at gathering the facts,
> >> disseminating them, and reporting them. This is shown time and time
> >> again. As as a direct result, governments that indulge in suppression,
> >> arbitrary imprisonment, and torture (such as the PRC, for example) find
> >> organisations like AI extremely embarrassing.
>
> > AI is only good as it has tens of thousands or hundreds of thousand of
> > local members. But AI has no members inside China. It has zero
> > capability on Chinese issues. Its accusations on China are based on
> > unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable reports from unknown source with
> > unknown reliablity.
>
> It had no members inside Abu Ghraib either, or in Guantanamo Bay, or in
> the various immigration detention centers around Australia. Still its
> reports are usually pretty accurate, as demonstrated time and time
> again.
Sounds like you don't know the U.S. is in control of Iraq?
I agree with the westerner I cited in the beginning post. He also
thought westerners should leave China alone.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> But seeing as you are
> >> >> doing so, let me be the first to say that your problem is that your
> >> >> government sucks.
>
> >> >> > Concerning Tibet, the Chinese people and the Tibetans have
> >> >> > co-existed for millenia. We still have Tibetans today. How about
> >> >> > the Australian aborigins or the native Americans? How are they
> >> >> > being accomdated? If you are worrying about minorities groups.
>
> >> >> Native Americans and "Indigenous Australians" are legally allowed to
> >> >> speak their minds in public. Tibetans are not.
>
> >> > If you know there are laws specifying that Tibetans are legally not
> >> > allowed to speak their minds in public, please let me know.
> >> > Otherwise, you view reflect your level of ignorance.
>
> >> Sure I know.
>
> >> Here's the case of Ronggyal Adrak, jailed for 8 years simply for
> >> shouting "Long Live the Dallai Lama!" at a racing festival.
>
> > Let us say the above is true. That is "Ronggyal Adrak shouted "Long Live
> > the Dalai Lama"; Ronggyal Adrak went to jail." So? I can also tell you
> > this. "Timothy McVeigh rent a truck; Timothy McVeigh got executed." And
> > only a dumb guy will conclude that America must have laws not allowing
> > people to rent truck.
>
> Timothy McVeigh wasn't executed for renting a truck. He was executed for,
> by his own admission, filling this truck up wither fertilizer, and
> blowing it up, deliberately killing three hundred people in the process.
> Can you discern this subtle difference?
I am glad you finally understand statement like "X did Y, X went to
jail" are highly misleading. Because it lot could happen between "X
did Y and "X went to jail."
> > Again, if you know as a fact that there are laws specifying that
> > Tibetans are legally not allowed to speak their minds in public, please
> > cut and paste the law.
>
> I'm pretty sure these laws exist. Unless the Chinese government is riding
> rough shot over the law, and just arresting and imprisoning arbitrarily
> arresting people by the score. Is that your theory? Because either way,
> it's definitely happening.
If you don't know, it would be honest for you to say so. If you
attitude is that your assumption must be treated be truth, I see no
point for further discussion.
>
>
>
> >>http://tinyurl.com/6zkq2o
>
> >> Here's an Al-Jazeera report showing a group of Tibetan monks
> >> embarrassing your government, and telling the world that they are being
> >> suppressed from speaking their minds.
>
> >>http://tinyurl.com/3xlap4
>
> >> And here's an account, from an aforementioned Human Rights group, of
> >> two young men sentenced, at the Lhasa Intermediate People's Court, to
> >> three years in prison simply for shouting "Free Tibet" and carrying the
> >> banned Tibetan flag.
>
> >>http://tinyurl.com/6fycff
>
> >> >> > China knows how to do the right
> >> >> > thing. How about Europeans' track record?
>
> >> >> That's an interesting comparison. I think Rudyard Kipling's Poem
> >> >> "The White Man's Burden" pretty accurately expresses a common
> >> >> Chinese attitude to Tibet.
>
> >> > I am certainly glad that are increasing number of Tibetans. Would you
> >> > not wish there were equally large number Australian aborigins and
> >> > native American?
>
> >> Sure. Why not?
>
> > Look at the track record.
>
> What about it?
How many of them are left? How many of them are in position of power
since when?
>
> --
> A: Top posters
> Q: What's the most annoying thing on usenet
>
> "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
netvegetable
Sure My point is simply that dissenting views in the PRC are being
censored, people who express them are being severely punished. The
copious amounts of evidence for this is before your eyes. This method
kept 300million + people of the Soviet Union in line for 80 years. Why
can't it work in the PRC?
[snip]
> If that is really what you think, if so, democracy will have no
> hope.
Works pretty well most places in the world. You can't have failed to
notice that most democracies are stable, have strong economies, and a
relatively fair and civil judicial regime.
The PRC has strong economic growth, albeit from an extremely low base -
due in large part to the availability of export markets in affluent
democratic countries. However, I wouldn't give its government or its
judicial regime to a dog.
>>
>> >> > I don't know why you keep repeating the above. Westerners
>> >> > commenting on Chinese affair is fine although I could not tell
>> >> > whether your are westerners or not. Anyway, I think there are
>> >> > Chinese in Australia.
>>
>> >> So in what way are the Chinese people not being left to "solve their
>> >> own problems"? What is it you are whinging about?
>>
>> > Did you not read the news? Did foreign leaders not make demands on
>> > how China should deal with the Tibet issue?
>>
>> No. I've heard plenty of world leaders "urge" and "appeal to" the PRC,
>> but no "demand" as such. Demands are usually followed by threats, but
>> so far, most political leaders are content to just make noises which
>> bother you, rather like the media is doing.
>
> I agree with the westerner I cited in the beginning post. He also
> thought westerners should leave China alone.
And we all agree that to all intents and purposes, they are. So what are
you whinging about?
[snip]
>> > Let us say the above is true. That is "Ronggyal Adrak shouted "Long
>> > Live the Dalai Lama"; Ronggyal Adrak went to jail." So? I can also
>> > tell you this. "Timothy McVeigh rent a truck; Timothy McVeigh got
>> > executed." And only a dumb guy will conclude that America must have
>> > laws not allowing people to rent truck.
>>
>>
>> Timothy McVeigh wasn't executed for renting a truck. He was executed
>> for, by his own admission, filling this truck up wither fertilizer, and
>> blowing it up, deliberately killing three hundred people in the
>> process. Can you discern this subtle difference?
>
> I am glad you finally understand statement like "X did Y, X went to
> jail" are highly misleading. Because it lot could happen between "X did
> Y and "X went to jail."
Such as, in this case?
>
>> > Again, if you know as a fact that there are laws specifying that
>> > Tibetans are legally not allowed to speak their minds in public,
>> > please cut and paste the law.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure these laws exist. Unless the Chinese government is
>> riding rough shot over the law, and just arresting and imprisoning
>> arbitrarily arresting people by the score. Is that your theory? Because
>> either way, it's definitely happening.
>
> If you don't know, it would be honest for you to say so.
I just did.
> If you attitude
> is that your assumption must be treated be truth, I see no point for
> further discussion.
Well they're pretty good assumptions, because Chinese people *are* being
arrested and imprisoned by their own government for speaking their mind -
whether it's happening lawfully or not. Again, here is the evidence. It
is up to you to refute it.
How about Shi Tao? He was sentenced to 10 years in prison simply for
complaining about media restrictions in a private email.
How about Chen Guangcheng, a blind activist who was sentenced to 4 years
in prison simply for talking to Time magazine about a forced abortion
case in the PRC. His lawyers were arrested and detained just before his
trial.
How about Liu Xinjuan? Thrown in a pychiatric hospital immediately after
she organised a gathering of petitioners against forced land relocation.
True "Big Brother" style political suppression IMO.
Hu Kia, thrown in prison for "inciting subversion of state power".
Here's the case of Ronggyal Adrak, jailed for 8 years simply for shouting
"Long Live the Dallai Lama!" at a racing festival.
Here's an Al-Jazeera report showing a group of Tibetan monks embarrassing
your government, and telling the world that they are being suppressed
from speaking their minds.
And here's an account, from an aforementioned Human Rights group, of two
young men sentenced, at the Lhasa Intermediate People's Court, to three
years in prison simply for shouting "Free Tibet" and carrying the banned
Tibetan flag.
Want to see extrajudicial execution? Here's a video of your gallant
troops shooting unarmed Tibetans like dogs.
[snip]
>> >> >> That's an interesting comparison. I think Rudyard Kipling's Poem
>> >> >> "The White Man's Burden" pretty accurately expresses a common
>> >> >> Chinese attitude to Tibet.
>>
>> >> > I am certainly glad that are increasing number of Tibetans. Would
>> >> > you not wish there were equally large number Australian aborigins
>> >> > and native American?
>>
>> >> Sure. Why not?
>>
>> > Look at the track record.
>>
>> What about it?
>
> How many of them are left? How many of them are in position of power
> since when?
Last stat I saw was a few years ago, saying there are some 300 000 pure
blood indigenous people left. It's a difficult stat to refute or verify
though. Indigenous hunter-gatherers don't tend to fill out their census
forms.
There are certainly many, many more mixed blood indigenous people living
in the cities. At a guess, I'd say something in the order of 500k, but I
emphasize that's a guess.
There's been one or two Indigenous Australian Members of Federal
Parliament. There's been many more indiginous Members Of Parliament in
the Northern Territory legislature.
Your point being?
ltl...@hotmail.com
No. You wrote "I'm pretty sure these laws exist."
zzbu...@netscape.net
> Western media and analysts routinely evoke nationalism to explain
> events in China. Sascha Matuszak thinks differently. It is not Chinese
> nationalism, but a shared vision about its future that holds China
> have similarly optimistic vision about their future.
>
> http://www.anti-war.com/matuszak/?articleid=12757
>
> -------------------------------
> The Sword Is Blunted
>
> by Sascha Matuszak
> The developed nations of the West are still trying to figure out ways
> to deal with the new China. On the eve of China's biggest coming-out
> party, the world is not the gracious guest admiring the balustrades.
> Instead, the world's media are pointing at the servant in the backyard
> and frowning at the dirt on the windows. Far from influencing the
> host, accusations and criticism have only brought the whole family out
> in defense of the ancestral home.
>
> The new China has been the topic of countless pages predicting
> everything from world domination to catastrophic failure. The West
> looks on in bewilderment as neither comes to be and – most baffling of
> all – the young, educated Chinese it hoped would raise a fist for
> Tibet have decided to bring that fist down upon the heads of anti-
> China elements the world over. What to do with this anachronism, a
> huge, modern nation-state smack dab in the middle of the "post-
> nationalist" New World Order?
>
> We in the West expect China to make a Great Leap Forward from
> Communist dictatorship to placid European philanthropist, eschewing
> all modes of governance in between. However, this new China is a state
> like any other, with disgruntled minorities, passionate youth,
> desperate workers, and glitzy businessmen. There is no fundamental
> difference between China and any other nation. It is this reality that
> the West is grappling with: the mundane fact that China will survive
> and carry on with its own development no matter what happens.
>
> When the protests in Tibet and the resulting media storm failed to
> bring about substantial introspection – in fact the exact opposite –
> the West then focused on its last straw: the double-edged sword of
> Chinese nationalism, double-edged in that patriotic youth conspiring
> over the Internet to boycott Carrefour may also one day conspire over
> the Internet to overthrow the Communist Party.
>
> Allow me to dispel these wild hopes and dreams. Short of winning a
> nuclear war with China, Tibet will never be independent and will most
> likely never enjoy the "true autonomy" the Dalai Lama has been working
> toward all his life. The youth of China will not overthrow their
> government. China is not going to fall apart under a barrage of news
> reports.
>
> Since Deng Xiaoping came to power, the Chinese have been growing more
> and more optimistic. With each year comes another improvement in the
> standard of living: first it was TVs, now it's new cars, plush
> apartments, and organic produce. As optimism is confirmed each year,
> confidence takes over.
>
> It is not nationalism that holds China together as much as a shared
> vision of the future that is continually reinforced by economic,
> social, and political advances. To question this vision is to risk
> being branded a traitor. Granted, this may not be what modern Western
> nations would call a stable and free environment, but that has more to
> do with where we are today as a society than with China's failings.
> Those who remember WWII in the U.S. may understand what it is to be
> Chinese today. Those who remember the civil rights and peace movements
> of the 1960s may also understand.
They have to rememeber, since they're the wanks who shipped
most of our best technology to China, since they're treacherous,
Let's Make a Deal idiots.
Which is why today the US is starting all over again with
satellite and video tech, since we had to scrap most of everything
previous because of 1960s peace-nik idiots.
So it's not so much China has lots of good TV reception,
they got lots of Hollywood idiots looking to do remakes
of "Debbie Does The Huey"
>
> Westerners latch on to the cause of the day and consider our work as
> human beings done when we scream "Free Tibet!" into the wind. Perhaps
> jealousy fuels the focus the West has placed on China: not petty
> jealousy of material comforts – we have those – but the deep, gnawing
> envy of those who have no vision.
>
> [...]
>
> ---------------------------
netvegetable
>> >> I'm pretty sure these laws exist. Unless the Chinese government is
>> >> riding rough shot over the law, and just arresting and imprisoning
>> >> arbitrarily arresting people by the score. Is that your theory?
>> >> Because either way, it's definitely happening.
>>
>> > If you don't know, it would be honest for you to say so.
>>
>> I just did.
>
> No. You wrote "I'm pretty sure these laws exist."
And then I said: Unless the Chinese government is riding rough shot over
the law, and just arresting and imprisoning arbitrarily arresting people
by the score. Is that your theory? Because either way, it's definitely
happening.
>>
>> > If you attitude
>> > is that your assumption must be treated be truth, I see no point for
>> > further discussion.
Which prompts the question as to why you bothered discussing it in the
first place.
I repeat, there is no envy in the West for the Chinese. It's merely a
delusion of yours, together with your belief that the international media
is in some conspiracy against you.
Truth is, nobody of a sane mind in the West would envy the Chinese their
regime. And though the international media is criticising your
government, it's not actually attacking you - though you don't seem
capable discerning the subtle difference.
rst0wxyz
> On Fri, 02 May 2008 10:40:23 -0700, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > No. You wrote "I'm pretty sure these laws exist."
>
> And then I said: Unless the Chinese government is riding rough shot over
> the law, and just arresting and imprisoning arbitrarily arresting people
> by the score. Is that your theory? Because either way, it's definitely
> happening.
>
> first place.
>
> I repeat, there is no envy in the West for the Chinese.
Correct, there is no envy for the Chinese in the West. They only
wanted to hold them down and keep them down so they can not rise up to
or above the West.
> It's merely a
> delusion of yours, together with your belief that the international media
> is in some conspiracy against you.
Not against LT Lee, but against China and the Chinese people as a
whole.
>
> Truth is, nobody of a sane mind in the West would envy the Chinese their
> regime.
Only wanted to hold them down, and keep them down.
>And though the international media is criticising your
> government, it's not actually attacking you - though you don't seem
> capable discerning the subtle difference.
The government is doing all they can to bring the Chinese living
standard up and the West is doing all they can to destroy their work.
netvegetable
> On May 2, 12:59 pm, netvegetable <n...@all.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 May 2008 10:40:23 -0700, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > No. You wrote "I'm pretty sure these laws exist."
>>
>> And then I said: Unless the Chinese government is riding rough shot
>> over the law, and just arresting and imprisoning arbitrarily arresting
>> people by the score. Is that your theory? Because either way, it's
>> definitely happening.
>>
>> Which prompts the question as to why you bothered discussing it in the
>> first place.
>>
>> I repeat, there is no envy in the West for the Chinese.
>
> Correct, there is no envy for the Chinese in the West. They only wanted
> to hold them down and keep them down so they can not rise up to or above
> the West.
>
>> It's merely a
>> delusion of yours, together with your belief that the international
>> media is in some conspiracy against you.
>
> Not against LT Lee, but against China and the Chinese people as a whole.
>
>
>> Truth is, nobody of a sane mind in the West would envy the Chinese
>> their regime.
>
> Only wanted to hold them down, and keep them down.
Why?
>
>>And though the international media is criticising your
>> government, it's not actually attacking you - though you don't seem
>> capable discerning the subtle difference.
>
> The government is doing all they can to bring the Chinese living
> standard up and the West is doing all they can to destroy their work.
>
If, for e.g, the United States or the EU wanted to destroy China's work,
and "keep them down" as you put it, they could accomplish it simply by
giving their own manufacturing sectors a break, and increasing tariffs on
manufactured goods. It would stunt China's growth, and their own
electorates would applaud them for it. Why don't they just do that?
rst0wxyz
> On Fri, 02 May 2008 13:10:03 -0700, rst0wxyz wrote:
> > On May 2, 12:59 pm, netvegetable <n...@all.com> wrote:
> > Only wanted to hold them down, and keep them down.
>
> Why?
Should we say "self-preservation"?
>
> > The government is doing all they can to bring the Chinese living
> > standard up and the West is doing all they can to destroy their work.
>
> If, for e.g, the United States or the EU wanted to destroy China's work,
> and "keep them down" as you put it, they could accomplish it simply by
> giving their own manufacturing sectors a break, and increasing tariffs on
> manufactured goods. It would stunt China's growth, and their own
> electorates would applaud them for it. Why don't they just do that?
Give it a try.
Chinese workers are happy to get $1.50/hr.
Do you think American workers are happy to get $15.00/hr?
How many percentage of tariff increases to equalize trade?
netvegetable
> On May 2, 1:16 pm, netvegetable <n...@all.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 May 2008 13:10:03 -0700, rst0wxyz wrote:
>> > On May 2, 12:59 pm, netvegetable <n...@all.com> wrote: Only wanted to
>> > hold them down, and keep them down.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Should we say "self-preservation"?
>
Why?
>
>> > The government is doing all they can to bring the Chinese living
>> > standard up and the West is doing all they can to destroy their work.
>>
>> If, for e.g, the United States or the EU wanted to destroy China's
>> work, and "keep them down" as you put it, they could accomplish it
>> simply by giving their own manufacturing sectors a break, and
>> increasing tariffs on manufactured goods. It would stunt China's
>> growth, and their own electorates would applaud them for it. Why don't
>> they just do that?
>
> Give it a try.
>
> Chinese workers are happy to get $1.50/hr. Do you think American workers
> are happy to get $15.00/hr? How many percentage of tariff increases to
> equalize trade?
errrr ... That'll be about 1000%, sir.
Easily done, if they wanted to use human rights abuses as a pretext. And
again, voters in the US and EU who worry about the future of their
manufacturing sectors would applaud them. So what's to stop them?
ltl...@hotmail.com
> On Fri, 02 May 2008 10:40:23 -0700, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >> I'm pretty sure these laws exist. Unless the Chinese government is
> >> >> riding rough shot over the law, and just arresting and imprisoning
> >> >> arbitrarily arresting people by the score. Is that your theory?
> >> >> Because either way, it's definitely happening.
>
> >> > If you don't know, it would be honest for you to say so.
>
> >> I just did.
>
> > No. You wrote "I'm pretty sure these laws exist."
>
> And then I said: Unless the Chinese government is riding rough shot over
> the law, and just arresting and imprisoning arbitrarily arresting people
> by the score. Is that your theory? Because either way, it's definitely
> happening.
>
Don't believe me. But listen to one who have lived in China for many
years. The following is his obversation from the beginning post:
"Although the pro-China demonstrations are the work of a small
minority in China – the educated, urbanized youth – the vision is held
by all, from the struggling taxi driver to the peasant to the big
boss. It is the right of every Chinese to criticize the government
over mahjong and tea."
It is the right of every Chinese to criticize the government. No one
was jailed for what they had said alone. The rest is the usual western
distortion. In this case it is in the form of "Timothy McVeigh rent a
truck; Timothy McVeigh got executed." The new twist on more recent
event is that now they used the footage of Nepalese soldiers beating
up Tibetan protestors to dupe their audience to believe Chinese
authority was supporessing protest.
>
>
> >> > If you attitude
> >> > is that your assumption must be treated be truth, I see no point for
> >> > further discussion.
>
> Which prompts the question as to why you bothered discussing it in the
> first place.
>
> I repeat, there is no envy in the West for the Chinese. It's merely a
> delusion of yours, together with your belief that the international media
> is in some conspiracy against you.
>
> Truth is, nobody of a sane mind in the West would envy the Chinese their
> regime.
If you did not read the beginning post, read it again. The west is
envious of China and the Chinese people's hopefulness. This lack of
vision is cancerous. Westerners need to address their own problems or
they will be going the way of the Mohicans.
> And though the international media is criticising your
> government, it's not actually attacking you - though you don't seem
> capable discerning the subtle difference.
Of course I know that.
netvegetable
> On May 2, 3:59 pm, netvegetable <n...@all.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 May 2008 10:40:23 -0700, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> I'm pretty sure these laws exist. Unless the Chinese government
>> >> >> is riding rough shot over the law, and just arresting and
>> >> >> imprisoning arbitrarily arresting people by the score. Is that
>> >> >> your theory? Because either way, it's definitely happening.
>>
>> >> > If you don't know, it would be honest for you to say so.
>>
>> >> I just did.
>>
>> > No. You wrote "I'm pretty sure these laws exist."
>>
>> And then I said: Unless the Chinese government is riding rough shot
>> over the law, and just arresting and imprisoning arbitrarily arresting
>> people by the score. Is that your theory? Because either way, it's
>> definitely happening.
>>
>>
> Don't believe me. But listen to one who have lived in China for many
> years. The following is his obversation from the beginning post:
>
> "Although the pro-China demonstrations are the work of a small minority
> in China – the educated, urbanized youth – the vision is held by all,
> from the struggling taxi driver to the peasant to the big boss. It is
> the right of every Chinese to criticize the government over mahjong and
> tea."
>
> It is the right of every Chinese to criticize the government. No one was
> jailed for what they had said alone. The rest is the usual western
> distortion.
Why should we believe this person's account over the myriad of other
accounts I've already cited, and linked for you? The video evidence of
extrajudicial execution by your country's troops, Tibetan people pleading
to the media to be permitted to tell their story, and reports of Chinese
activists being jailed on trumped up charges?
> In this case it is in the form of "Timothy McVeigh rent a
> truck; Timothy McVeigh got executed."
No no no. You leave out one important little bit from the story - he
murdered 300 people with that truck!
> The new twist on more recent event
> is that now they used the footage of Nepalese soldiers beating up
> Tibetan protestors to dupe their audience to believe Chinese authority
> was supporessing protest.
You keep returning to that, because it's your one tiny scrap of evidence,
to support your insinuation that everything written about China in any
other language except Mandarin is propaganda.
>>
>>
>> >> > If you attitude
>> >> > is that your assumption must be treated be truth, I see no point
>> >> > for further discussion.
>>
>> Which prompts the question as to why you bothered discussing it in the
>> first place.
>>
>> I repeat, there is no envy in the West for the Chinese. It's merely a
>> delusion of yours, together with your belief that the international
>> media is in some conspiracy against you.
>>
>> Truth is, nobody of a sane mind in the West would envy the Chinese
>> their regime.
>
> If you did not read the beginning post, read it again. The west is
> envious of China and the Chinese people's hopefulness.
Well I can only speak from my perspective, and I find that hard to
believe.To me the plight of the average individual in the People's
Republic seems to me to be utterly hopeless, pointless, and full of
injustice. You see hopefulness, I see a boot stamping on a human face,
forever.
> This lack of
> vision is cancerous. Westerners need to address their own problems or
> they will be going the way of the Mohicans.
You mean we will all end up living in Connecticut?
>
>> And though the international media is criticising your government, it's
>> not actually attacking you - though you don't seem capable discerning
>> the subtle difference.
>
> Of course I know that.
And yet here you are confusing legitimate criticism of your governments'
policies as "envy" of the "Chinese people".
bmo...@nyx.net
It's very simple. That "evidence" which supports LT's agenda is to be
believed. That which does not is not to be believed.
LT is clearly blown out of the water in this debate, as he always is,
anytime he has a "discussion" with a person who tries to be honest. He
is clearly 100% in the wrong, but he just keeps on trying to push his
deceitful agenda, seemingly unaware of how ridiculous he looks.
He's not fooling anyone.
tankfixer
@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, rst0...@yahoo.com says...
> On May 2, 1:16 pm, netvegetable <n...@all.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 02 May 2008 13:10:03 -0700, rst0wxyz wrote:
> > > On May 2, 12:59 pm, netvegetable <n...@all.com> wrote:
> > > Only wanted to hold them down, and keep them down.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Should we say "self-preservation"?
>
> >
> > > The government is doing all they can to bring the Chinese living
> > > standard up and the West is doing all they can to destroy their work.
> >
> > If, for e.g, the United States or the EU wanted to destroy China's work,
> > and "keep them down" as you put it, they could accomplish it simply by
> > giving their own manufacturing sectors a break, and increasing tariffs on
> > manufactured goods. It would stunt China's growth, and their own
> > electorates would applaud them for it. Why don't they just do that?
>
> Give it a try.
>
> Chinese workers are happy to get $1.50/hr.
Not for long....
> Do you think American workers are happy to get $15.00/hr?
> How many percentage of tariff increases to equalize trade?
I suppose the west could ban contaminated goods....
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"
ltl...@hotmail.com
What other myriad accounts? Groups such as AI do not have reporters in
Tibet. They were reporting statements. Statements which were
unsubstantiated and unsubstantible. If you ae of the opinion that
China is guilty before proving innocent. You are the one who has
problem. Not China.
>
> > In this case it is in the form of "Timothy McVeigh rent a
> > truck; Timothy McVeigh got executed."
>
> No no no. You leave out one important little bit from the story - he
> murdered 300 people with that truck!
Similarly, you don't know what was left out between the "X did Y and X
got jailed."
>
> > The new twist on more recent event
> > is that now they used the footage of Nepalese soldiers beating up
> > Tibetan protestors to dupe their audience to believe Chinese authority
> > was supporessing protest.
>
> You keep returning to that, because it's your one tiny scrap of evidence,
> to support your insinuation that everything written about China in any
> other language except Mandarin is propaganda.
There are many instance of false accusation. I return to the above
because no "westerner" has yet the honesty to acknowledge that their
media were lying to them about Tiebt.
>
> >> >> > If you attitude
> >> >> > is that your assumption must be treated be truth, I see no point
> >> >> > for further discussion.
>
> >> Which prompts the question as to why you bothered discussing it in the
> >> first place.
>
> >> I repeat, there is no envy in the West for the Chinese. It's merely a
> >> delusion of yours, together with your belief that the international
> >> media is in some conspiracy against you.
>
> >> Truth is, nobody of a sane mind in the West would envy the Chinese
> >> their regime.
>
> > If you did not read the beginning post, read it again. The west is
> > envious of China and the Chinese people's hopefulness.
>
> Well I can only speak from my perspective, and I find that hard to
> believe.To me the plight of the average individual in the People's
> Republic seems to me to be utterly hopeless, pointless, and full of
> injustice. You see hopefulness, I see a boot stamping on a human face,
> forever.
Do you cnsider youself the most knowledgable guy about China? If not,
your perspective reflects your own ignorance about China and the
Chinese poeple.
>
> > This lack of
> > vision is cancerous. Westerners need to address their own problems or
> > they will be going the way of the Mohicans.
>
> You mean we will all end up living in Connecticut?
The above on going the way of the Mochicans is from Pat Buchanan.
Newest statistics showed that white people are dying out relatively
and in absolutely. Not become they cannot afford to have more kids. If
the white people are full of hope, they certainly want to have more
kids to share the bright future.
> >> And though the international media is criticising your government, it's
> >> not actually attacking you - though you don't seem capable discerning
> >> the subtle difference.
>
> > Of course I know that.
>
> And yet here you are confusing legitimate criticism of your governments'
> policies as "envy" of the "Chinese people".
People can criticize China all they want. I have no problem with that.
However, unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable accusations are never
legitimate criticism.
>
> --
> A: Top posters
> Q: What's the most annoying thing on usenet
>
> "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
bmo...@nyx.net
One problem with that. The Chinese government tries to hide
information that would help determine their guilt or innocence. So you
are being dishonest. AGAIN.
rst0wxyz
> On Fri, 02 May 2008 13:42:47 -0700, rst0wxyz wrote:
> > On May 2, 1:16 pm, netvegetable <n...@all.com> wrote:
> >> Why?
> > Should we say "self-preservation"?
>
> Why?
>
>
> > Chinese workers are happy to get $1.50/hr. Do you think American workers
> > are happy to get $15.00/hr? How many percentage of tariff increases to
> > equalize trade?
>
> errrr ... That'll be about 1000%, sir.
The point I was trying to make is;
$15.00 per hour is just $30,000 per year. You can not get by with
$30,000 a year in California or many other states in the U.S.
American workers have to make much more than that just to get by.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<81c50171-9def-44be...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>):
>
> As I have said many times, China's worst enemy is the Chinese people
> themsrlves.
No. The worst enemy of the Chinese people, is the communist elite who feed
off them.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<9c41c0f6-2f25-4dff...@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>):
1. They provide detailed reports of human rights violations to human rights
activists.
2. They use historical examples of such activists in their efforts to raise
themselves up.
Jim Walsh
(in article <pEGSj.8831$sd4....@fe109.usenetserver.com>):
> On Fri, 02 May 2008 21:09:55 +0800, Jim Walsh wrote:
>
>
>>>> AI could acess the images because its members
>>>> have access the image. It is exactly why AI should leave China alone.
>>>> AI does not have member in China. Zero member means zero access and
>>>> zero capability.
>>
>> Fact: AI has a large amount of access in the PRC. Fact: That access is
>> provided by Chinese who support its goals. Fact: Mr. Lee, specifically,
>> and the CCP attack AI because its access is so good.
>
>
> That's very interesting to hear.
>
> I know for a fact, though, that Amnesty does not officially have a
> presence in China. If you go to amnesty.org, and you click on the menu
> option to visit the Chinese site, you get this page .....
>
> http://www.amnesty.org/en/no-presence-in-this-country
>
> Wouldn't surprise me at all though, if there were people in China who
> were member of Amnesty. Anybody, literally anybody, can be a member. And
> those members in China probably whatever help they feel can safely get
> away with.
>
>
You got it.
Jim Walsh
Jim Walsh
Jim Walsh
(in article
<4b40330d-8f07-4247...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>):
> The government is doing all they can to bring the Chinese living standard up
> and the West is doing all they can to destroy their work.
You don't believe that.
For example, I can name a couple of dozen things the West (which for the sake
of this argument we will pretend to be a single thing) which would make the
work of raising Chinese living standards much harder.
Would you like to look at the list?
Jim Walsh
(in article
<0e59654f-e24c-4920...@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com>):
Well, when I arrived in Taiwan, the tariff on cars was 100%. Tariffs even
higher than that have existed, even in America.
Another technique would be to ban products entirely unless they were made by
union labor.
Another technique would require that the factories that produce the goods
obey American anti-pollution laws.
Another technique would require that the factories that produce the goods
obey American anti-child labor laws.
Another technique would require that the factories that produce the goods
obey American worker safety laws.
Any of these techniques would effectively block all manufactured imports from
China.
The fact that none of these are being done proves that your claim "the West
is doing all they can to destroy their work" is false.
Be a man and admit that your claim was refuted. Don't runaway or change the
subject. Admit it.
(Hint: we all know you have a character defect that prevents you from being
intellectually honest in this way.)
Jim Walsh
(in article
<6dd55ab5-85ba-4aa7...@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>):
> On May 2, 2:08 pm, netvegetable <n...@all.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 May 2008 13:42:47 -0700, rst0wxyz wrote:
>>> On May 2, 1:16 pm, netvegetable <n...@all.com> wrote:
>>>> Why?
>>> Should we say "self-preservation"?
>>
>> Why?
>>
>>> Give it a try.
>>
>>> Chinese workers are happy to get $1.50/hr. Do you think American workers
>>> are happy to get $15.00/hr? How many percentage of tariff increases to
>>> equalize trade?
>>
>> errrr ... That'll be about 1000%, sir.
>
> The point I was trying to make is;
> $15.00 per hour is just $30,000 per year. You can not get by with
> $30,000 a year in California or many other states in the U.S.
> American workers have to make much more than that just to get by.
Your "point" was to avoid facing the fact that he refuted your claim that the
West is doing everything to keep Chinese workers down.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<c404de77-5bc2-4b5e...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>):
>
> It is the right of every Chinese to criticize the government. No one was
> jailed for what they had said alone.
You are a liar. You know that this is not true. This is not an error or an
oversight. You are simply lying.
Even the CCP admits that it imprisons people for what they say. It defends
that practice. It does not deny it.
netvegetable
>> > Don't believe me. But listen to one who have lived in China for many
>> > years. The following is his obversation from the beginning post:
>>
>> > "Although the pro-China demonstrations are the work of a small
>> > minority in China – the educated, urbanized youth – the vision is
>> > held by all, from the struggling taxi driver to the peasant to the
>> > big boss. It is the right of every Chinese to criticize the
>> > government over mahjong and tea."
>>
>> > It is the right of every Chinese to criticize the government. No one
>> > was jailed for what they had said alone. The rest is the usual
>> > western distortion.
>>
>> Why should we believe this person's account over the myriad of other
>> accounts I've already cited, and linked for you? The video evidence of
>> extrajudicial execution by your country's troops, Tibetan people
>> pleading to the media to be permitted to tell their story, and reports
>> of Chinese activists being jailed on trumped up charges?
>
> What other myriad accounts? Groups such as AI do not have reporters in
> Tibet. They were reporting statements. Statements which were
> unsubstantiated and unsubstantible. If you ae of the opinion that China
> is guilty before proving innocent.
You apply extremely rigorous rules of evidence when it comes to
accusations made against the Chinese regime, be it verbal, documented, or
even video evidence. On the other hand, the ramblings of one Sascha
Matzusak is gospel as far as your concerned.
> You are the one who has problem. Not
> China.
>
Actually I have no problem with China at all. It seems to me to be mostly
Chinese people who have a problem, and an awful lot of Tibetans. They are
the ones getting arrested, thrown in nuthouses, or tried and found guilty
on trumped up charges. Behold the boot, stamping on the human face.
>
>
>> > In this case it is in the form of "Timothy McVeigh rent a truck;
>> > Timothy McVeigh got executed."
>>
>> No no no. You leave out one important little bit from the story - he
>> murdered 300 people with that truck!
>
> Similarly, you don't know what was left out between the "X did Y and X
> got jailed."
What a pity that individuals like Ronggyal Adrak, aren't entitled to the
same punctilious presumption of innocence that you apply to your regime.
Jailed for 8 years simply for shouting "Long Live the Dallai Lama!" at a
racing festival.
>>
>> > The new twist on more recent event
>> > is that now they used the footage of Nepalese soldiers beating up
>> > Tibetan protestors to dupe their audience to believe Chinese
>> > authority was supporessing protest.
>>
>> You keep returning to that, because it's your one tiny scrap of
>> evidence, to support your insinuation that everything written about
>> China in any other language except Mandarin is propaganda.
>
> There are many instance of false accusation. I return to the above
> because no "westerner" has yet the honesty to acknowledge that their
> media were lying to them about Tiebt.
Well like I said, it's your one, sole example, so I guess you may as well
keep clinging to it like grim death.
[snip]
>>
>> Well I can only speak from my perspective, and I find that hard to
>> believe.To me the plight of the average individual in the People's
>> Republic seems to me to be utterly hopeless, pointless, and full of
>> injustice. You see hopefulness, I see a boot stamping on a human face,
>> forever.
>
> Do you cnsider youself the most knowledgable guy about China? If not,
> your perspective reflects your own ignorance about China and the Chinese
> poeple.
Nobody knows all there is to know about a country. But I know all I need
to know about your government a myriad of accounts......
Here's an Al-Jazeera report showing a group of Tibetan monks embarrassing
your government, and telling the world that they are being suppressed
from speaking their minds.
And here's an account, from an aforementioned Human Rights group, of two
young men sentenced, at the Lhasa Intermediate People's Court, to three
years in prison simply for shouting "Free Tibet" and carrying the banned
Tibetan flag.
How about Shi Tao? He was sentenced to 10 years in prison simply for
complaining about media restrictions in a private email.
How about Chen Guangcheng, a blind activist who was sentenced to 4 years
in prison simply for talking to Time magazine about a forced abortion
case in the PRC. His lawyers were arrested and detained just before his
trial.
How about Liu Xinjuan? Thrown in a pychiatric hospital immediately after
she organised a gathering of petitioners against forced land relocation.
True "Big Brother" style political suppression IMO.
Want to see extrajudicial execution? Here's a video of your gallant
troops shooting unarmed Tibetans like dogs.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
>>
>> > This lack of
>> > vision is cancerous. Westerners need to address their own problems or
>> > they will be going the way of the Mohicans.
>>
>> You mean we will all end up living in Connecticut?
>
> The above on going the way of the Mochicans is from Pat Buchanan. Newest
> statistics showed that white people are dying out relatively and in
> absolutely.
So what? We're all the same species, in case you didn't know.
> Not become they cannot afford to have more kids. If the
> white people are full of hope, they certainly want to have more kids to
> share the bright future.
No not really. If you look at most of the stats, there is a weird
correlation between wealth and fertility. It appears that the higher the
average PPP indexed income of a country, the lower the birthrate. And the
lower the average PPP indexed income, the higher the birthrate. Go
figure.
>
>> >> And though the international media is criticising your government,
>> >> it's not actually attacking you - though you don't seem capable
>> >> discerning the subtle difference.
>>
>> > Of course I know that.
>>
>> And yet here you are confusing legitimate criticism of your
>> governments' policies as "envy" of the "Chinese people".
>
> People can criticize China all they want. I have no problem with that.
> However, unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable accusations are never
> legitimate criticism.
Again, you apply extremely rigorous rules of evidence, if the evidence is
something you don't like. On the other hand, evidence you do like is
accepted as gospel. I think that's a very unhealthy way of perceiving the
world, somewhat akin to that of a solipsist.
netvegetable
> On Sat, 3 May 2008 05:10:25 +0800, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote (in article
> <c404de77-5bc2-4b5e...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>):
>
>
>> It is the right of every Chinese to criticize the government. No one
>> was jailed for what they had said alone.
>
> You are a liar. You know that this is not true. This is not an error or
> an oversight. You are simply lying.
>
> Even the CCP admits that it imprisons people for what they say. It
> defends that practice. It does not deny it.
Do you think he could be a victim of one of those "political re
eductation programs" ? Do you think we could be talking to Winston Smith,
post room 101?
rst0wxyz
> On Sat, 3 May 2008 00:08:05 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
> > As I have said many times, China's worst enemy is the Chinese people
> > themsrlves.
>
> No. The worst enemy of the Chinese people, is the communist elite who feed
> off them.
Well, as I have said;
China's worst enemy is the Chinese people themselves. The corrupt
CCP officials are part of the "worst" of the Chinese people.
rst0wxyz
> On Sat, 3 May 2008 00:10:45 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> (in article
> > On May 1, 11:47 pm, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
> > Products? What products?
> > How does Chinese people "consume" these products?
>
> 1. They provide detailed reports of human rights violations to human rights
> activists.
> 2. They use historical examples of such activists in their efforts to raise
> themselves up.
China rebutes U.S. charges of human rights violation by saying there
are a lot of human rights violations within the U.S. but the U.S.
never addressed them.
rst0wxyz
> On Sat, 3 May 2008 14:11:32 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 2:08 pm, netvegetable <n...@all.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 02 May 2008 13:42:47 -0700, rst0wxyz wrote:
> >>> On May 2, 1:16 pm, netvegetable <n...@all.com> wrote:
> >>>> Why?
> >>> Should we say "self-preservation"?
>
> >> Why?
>
> >>> Give it a try.
>
> >>> Chinese workers are happy to get $1.50/hr. Do you think American workers
> >>> are happy to get $15.00/hr? How many percentage of tariff increases to
> >>> equalize trade?
>
> >> errrr ... That'll be about 1000%, sir.
>
> > The point I was trying to make is;
> > $15.00 per hour is just $30,000 per year. You can not get by with
> > $30,000 a year in California or many other states in the U.S.
> > American workers have to make much more than that just to get by.
>
> Your "point" was to avoid facing the fact that he refuted your claim that the
> West is doing everything to keep Chinese workers down.
Correction: "To keep China down".
Keeping China down is essentially keeping the Chinese people down as a
whole.
rst0wxyz
> On Sat, 3 May 2008 04:42:47 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> (in article
The FDA is getting to these points. They will open an office in China
to inspect Chinese products for compliance.
mimus
<snip>
I haven't noticed any tidal wave of prospective immigrants legal and/or
illegal to China . . . .
As for the Chinese "vision" of a self-perpetuating hereditary
pseudo-Marxist oligarchy-- what Milovan Djilas called "the New Class"--
operating in secret and with absolute and arbitrary powers over the
populace, I don't think "envy" is the word that I would use for most
people's view of that in "the West".
--
Vse govoryat: Kreml', Kreml'. Oto vsekh Ya sloishal pro nego,
a sam ni razu ne videl. Skolko raz uzhe (toisyachu raz),
napivshis' ili s pokhmelyugi, prokhodil s severa na yug,
s zapada na vostok, iz kontsa v konets, naskvoz' i kak popalo--
i ni razu ne videl Kremlya.
< _Moskva-Petushki_
ltl...@hotmail.com
> On Fri, 02 May 2008 18:30:31 -0700, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> > Don't believe me. But listen to one who have lived in China for many
> >> > years. The following is his obversation from the beginning post:
>
> >> > "Although the pro-China demonstrations are the work of a small
> >> > minority in China – the educated, urbanized youth – the vision is
> >> > held by all, from the struggling taxi driver to the peasant to the
> >> > big boss. It is the right of every Chinese to criticize the
> >> > government over mahjong and tea."
>
> >> > It is the right of every Chinese to criticize the government. No one
> >> > was jailed for what they had said alone. The rest is the usual
> >> > western distortion.
>
> >> Why should we believe this person's account over the myriad of other
> >> accounts I've already cited, and linked for you? The video evidence of
> >> extrajudicial execution by your country's troops, Tibetan people
> >> pleading to the media to be permitted to tell their story, and reports
> >> of Chinese activists being jailed on trumped up charges?
>
> > What other myriad accounts? Groups such as AI do not have reporters in
> > Tibet. They were reporting statements. Statements which were
> > unsubstantiated and unsubstantible. If you ae of the opinion that China
> > is guilty before proving innocent.
>
> You apply extremely rigorous rules of evidence when it comes to
> accusations made against the Chinese regime, be it verbal, documented, or
> even video evidence.
Those accusations are specific and serious. Rigorous rule of evidence
should be applied.
> On the other hand, the ramblings of one Sascha
> Matzusak is gospel as far as your concerned.
Sascha Matzusak knows more about the west than me since he is a
westerner and I am not. I am in no position to challenge him. I also
agree with his observation about China and Chinese people because it
is also what the Chinese had said.
>
> > You are the one who has problem. Not
> > China.
>
> Actually I have no problem with China at all. It seems to me to be mostly
> Chinese people who have a problem, and an awful lot of Tibetans. They are
> the ones getting arrested, thrown in nuthouses, or tried and found guilty
> on trumped up charges. Behold the boot, stamping on the human face.
Your probem: You cannot distinguish what you think and what is the
reality.
> >> > In this case it is in the form of "Timothy McVeigh rent a truck;
> >> > Timothy McVeigh got executed."
>
> >> No no no. You leave out one important little bit from the story - he
> >> murdered 300 people with that truck!
>
> > Similarly, you don't know what was left out between the "X did Y and X
> > got jailed."
>
> What a pity that individuals like Ronggyal Adrak, aren't entitled to the
> same punctilious presumption of innocence that you apply to your regime.
> Jailed for 8 years simply for shouting "Long Live the Dallai Lama!" at a
> racing festival.
You are stilling holding on your "X did Y and X got jailed" way of
thinking. Had you done anything to eliminate the possibility that he
also committed other violations? If not, what make you so sure that he
was jailed simply for shouting "Long live the Dalai Lama?"
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6zkq2o
>
>
>
> >> > The new twist on more recent event
> >> > is that now they used the footage of Nepalese soldiers beating up
> >> > Tibetan protestors to dupe their audience to believe Chinese
> >> > authority was supporessing protest.
>
> >> You keep returning to that, because it's your one tiny scrap of
> >> evidence, to support your insinuation that everything written about
> >> China in any other language except Mandarin is propaganda.
>
> > There are many instance of false accusation. I return to the above
> > because no "westerner" has yet the honesty to acknowledge that their
> > media were lying to them about Tiebt.
>
> Well like I said, it's your one, sole example, so I guess you may as well
> keep clinging to it like grim death.
Of course this is not the only one. For example, the western media
also spreaded the lie on China had killed 1.2 million Tibeans. Anyone
way, facts are facts, the western media were caught lying. I see
nothing wrong for clinging to it. Or do you think I should say the
west was right in dong what they were doing. How about you? Are you
still clinging to the idea that western media will not lie about
Chinese abusing tibet? Not because that is true. But because such
admission will force you to revaluate your own biases against China
and the Chinese people.
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> >> Well I can only speak from my perspective, and I find that hard to
> >> believe.To me the plight of the average individual in the People's
> >> Republic seems to me to be utterly hopeless, pointless, and full of
> >> injustice. You see hopefulness, I see a boot stamping on a human face,
> >> forever.
>
> > Do you cnsider youself the most knowledgable guy about China? If not,
> > your perspective reflects your own ignorance about China and the Chinese
> > poeple.
>
> Nobody knows all there is to know about a country. But I know all I need
> to know about your government a myriad of accounts......
>
> Here's an Al-Jazeera report showing a group of Tibetan monks embarrassing
> your government, and telling the world that they are being suppressed
> from speaking their minds.
So? China is not the only country with extremists. Have you ever
wondered why Timothy McVeigh bombed the American government buidling?
Well, from his point of view, the American government were abusing the
American people and trampling on them. To borrow your phrase, "Behold
the boot, stamping on the human face." And if you think he was the
only one who thought that way. Think again. There was a whole movement
based on that notion and it is still ongoing.
1. Correlaton is not causation. Logic 101.
2. If one looks at the statistics more closely, American middle class
is not doing well during well during the last 30 years. The dire
situation has prompted a Harvard Univ professor to warn about the
disappearing middle class. And of course, during the same 30 years,
fertility rate drop continuously.
>
>
>
> >> >> And though the international media is criticising your government,
> >> >> it's not actually attacking you - though you don't seem capable
> >> >> discerning the subtle difference.
>
> >> > Of course I know that.
>
> >> And yet here you are confusing legitimate criticism of your
> >> governments' policies as "envy" of the "Chinese people".
>
> > People can criticize China all they want. I have no problem with that.
> > However, unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable accusations are never
> > legitimate criticism.
>
> Again, you apply extremely rigorous rules of evidence, if the evidence is
> something you don't like. On the other hand, evidence you do like is
> accepted as gospel. I think that's a very unhealthy way of perceiving the
> world, somewhat akin to that of a solipsist.
>
> --
> A: Top posters
> Q: What's the most annoying thing on usenet
>
> "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
tankfixer
@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, rst0...@yahoo.com says...
In other words China tries to distract attention from her current abuse
by whining about things others do.
Two wrongs do not make a right my friend
rst0wxyz
> In article <9efbcc18-f054-4af3-b382-198ea70ffc62
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 3, 12:15 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 3 May 2008 00:10:45 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> > > (in article
> > > <9c41c0f6-2f25-4dff-ad90-f44991d4e...@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>):
> > > > On May 1, 11:47 pm, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
> > > > Products? What products?
> > > > How does Chinese people "consume" these products?
>
> > > 1. They provide detailed reports of human rights violations to human rights
> > > activists.
> > > 2. They use historical examples of such activists in their efforts to raise
> > > themselves up.
>
> > China rebutes U.S. charges of human rights violation by saying there
> > are a lot of human rights violations within the U.S. but the U.S.
> > never addressed them.
>
> In other words China tries to distract attention from her current abuse
> by whining about things others do.
>
> Two wrongs do not make a right my friend
Maybe both could clean house at the same time? and stop accusing the
other of human rights violations?
tankfixer
@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, rst0...@yahoo.com says...
Our abuses are in the past for the most part.
China's are in the here and now
netvegetable
>> You apply extremely rigorous rules of evidence when it comes to
>> accusations made against the Chinese regime, be it verbal, documented,
>> or even video evidence.
>
> Those accusations are specific and serious. Rigorous rule of evidence
> should be applied.
Why?
[snip]
>> Actually I have no problem with China at all. It seems to me to be
>> mostly Chinese people who have a problem, and an awful lot of Tibetans.
>> They are the ones getting arrested, thrown in nuthouses, or tried and
>> found guilty on trumped up charges. Behold the boot, stamping on the
>> human face.
>
> Your probem: You cannot distinguish what you think and what is the
> reality.
I'd call that a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black. You are
the one who relies entirely on rambling, ponderous anecdotes by bloggers
like Sascha to make your argument, and completely dismisses video,
verbal, anecdotal documented evidence to the contrary.
[snip]
>>
>> What a pity that individuals like Ronggyal Adrak, aren't entitled to
>> the same punctilious presumption of innocence that you apply to your
>> regime. Jailed for 8 years simply for shouting "Long Live the Dallai
>> Lama!" at a racing festival.
>
> You are stilling holding on your "X did Y and X got jailed" way of
> thinking. Had you done anything to eliminate the possibility that he
> also committed other violations? If not, what make you so sure that he
> was jailed simply for shouting "Long live the Dalai Lama?"
>
Prove to me that the man did something wrong to deserve this. Or does
this presumption of innocence apply only to your government, not to the
people it locks up?
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/6zkq2o
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > The new twist on more recent event
>> >> > is that now they used the footage of Nepalese soldiers beating up
>> >> > Tibetan protestors to dupe their audience to believe Chinese
>> >> > authority was supporessing protest.
>>
>> >> You keep returning to that, because it's your one tiny scrap of
>> >> evidence, to support your insinuation that everything written about
>> >> China in any other language except Mandarin is propaganda.
>>
>> > There are many instance of false accusation. I return to the above
>> > because no "westerner" has yet the honesty to acknowledge that their
>> > media were lying to them about Tiebt.
>>
>> Well like I said, it's your one, sole example, so I guess you may as
>> well keep clinging to it like grim death.
>
> Of course this is not the only one. For example, the western media also
> spreaded the lie on China had killed 1.2 million Tibeans.
The source of that information was the Tibetan Government In Exile, not
the Western media. Are you saying it's inaccurate?
> Anyone way,
> facts are facts, the western media were caught lying.
So what. That's one incident, and it doesn't matter how many times you
raise it, it's still only one incident. One distortion of the truth,
inspired by either laziness or stupidity, among hundreds of thousands of
accurate ones, among thousands of separate news agencies outside China.
But I guess like any holocaust denier, flat earther, or hollow earth
theory advocate, you need a straw to cling to. Carry on clinging by all
means.
> I see nothing
> wrong for clinging to it. Or do you think I should say the west was
> right in dong what they were doing. How about you? Are you still
> clinging to the idea that western media will not lie about Chinese
> abusing tibet? Not because that is true. But because such admission will
> force you to revaluate your own biases against China and the Chinese
> people.
How am I biased against the Chinese people? You are the one who is
passionately defending a government that suppresses them, and generally
treats them like dogs.
>
>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Well I can only speak from my perspective, and I find that hard to
>> >> believe.To me the plight of the average individual in the People's
>> >> Republic seems to me to be utterly hopeless, pointless, and full of
>> >> injustice. You see hopefulness, I see a boot stamping on a human
>> >> face, forever.
>>
>> > Do you cnsider youself the most knowledgable guy about China? If not,
>> > your perspective reflects your own ignorance about China and the
>> > Chinese poeple.
>>
>> Nobody knows all there is to know about a country. But I know all I
>> need to know about your government a myriad of accounts......
>>
>> Here's an Al-Jazeera report showing a group of Tibetan monks
>> embarrassing your government, and telling the world that they are being
>> suppressed from speaking their minds.
>
> So? China is not the only country with extremists. Have you ever
> wondered why Timothy McVeigh bombed the American government buidling?
> Well, from his point of view, the American government were abusing the
> American people and trampling on them. To borrow your phrase, "Behold
> the boot, stamping on the human face." And if you think he was the only
> one who thought that way. Think again. There was a whole movement based
> on that notion and it is still ongoing.
In the case of the Oklahoma bombing, the boot came down on the face of
someone who murdered 300 people.
In you country it regularly stomps hard on people simply for expressing
their opinions. Can you discern this subtle difference?
Be that as it *may*, there is a definite correlation between wealth and
low fertility. This is seen to be the case in Japan, Singapore,
Australia, the EU. Even in your country, as the average wealth rises from
shit poor to merely dirt poor, there's been a documented decline in birth
rate.
baldeagle
>
> Our abuses are in the past for the most part.
> China's are in the here and now
The killings of Iraqi civilians are in the past,
The torture of prisoners are in the past,
The detention without trial of people are in the
past..
How long ago...centuries, decades... ?
come, come...you make me laugh.
tankfixer
a0e3e9...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, botak...@yahoo.com.sg
says...
> On May 4, 6:27 am, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
>
> >
> > Our abuses are in the past for the most part.
> > China's are in the here and now
>
> The killings of Iraqi civilians are in the past,
> The torture of prisoners are in the past,
Oh my, so terrible they were too..
making them wear underware on thier heads.
> The detention without trial of people are in the
> past..
Happens in war.
I supose we could be like our adverseries and just kill our prisoners..
> How long ago...centuries, decades... ?
>
> come, come...you make me laugh.
We were discussing how the respective governments treat thier own
citizens.
Try and keep up.
baldeagle
> In article <9348ed77-c10f-4762-a9ad-
> a0e3e9f30...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, botakea...@yahoo.com.sg
> says...
>
> > On May 4, 6:27 am, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
>
> > > Our abuses are in the past for the most part.
> > > China's are in the here and now
>
> > The killings of Iraqi civilians are in the past,
> > The torture of prisoners are in the past,
>
> Oh my, so terrible they were too..
> making them wear underware on thier heads.
>
> > The detention without trial of people are in the
> > past..
>
> Happens in war.
> I supose we could be like our adverseries and just kill our prisoners..
>
> > How long ago...centuries, decades... ?
>
> > come, come...you make me laugh.
>
> We were discussing how the respective governments treat thier own
> citizens.
> Try and keep up.
Do you mean ...taking the life of Iraqi, torturing prisoners,
and detaining foreigners are NOT abuses of human rights.
Go, read the UN charters on human rights.
Then you would realise that the USA is now the greatest
violators of human rights in the world.
ltl...@hotmail.com
> On Sat, 03 May 2008 12:10:46 -0700, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> You apply extremely rigorous rules of evidence when it comes to
> >> accusations made against the Chinese regime, be it verbal, documented,
> >> or even video evidence.
>
> > Those accusations are specific and serious. Rigorous rule of evidence
> > should be applied.
>
> Why?
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Actually I have no problem with China at all. It seems to me to be
> >> mostly Chinese people who have a problem, and an awful lot of Tibetans.
> >> They are the ones getting arrested, thrown in nuthouses, or tried and
> >> found guilty on trumped up charges. Behold the boot, stamping on the
> >> human face.
>
> > Your probem: You cannot distinguish what you think and what is the
> > reality.
>
> I'd call that a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black. You are
> the one who relies entirely on rambling, ponderous anecdotes by bloggers
> like Sascha to make your argument, and completely dismisses video,
> verbal, anecdotal documented evidence to the contrary.
>
Be that as it might. There are ways to minimize biases. For example,
if I am going to criticize country X, I am going to use source from
country X exculsively. While it does not totally preclude mistakes, it
will minimize it. So far, you are doing the opposite, you use
exclusively western sources to criticize China.
> [snip]
>
>
>
> >> What a pity that individuals like Ronggyal Adrak, aren't entitled to
> >> the same punctilious presumption of innocence that you apply to your
> >> regime. Jailed for 8 years simply for shouting "Long Live the Dallai
> >> Lama!" at a racing festival.
>
> > You are stilling holding on your "X did Y and X got jailed" way of
> > thinking. Had you done anything to eliminate the possibility that he
> > also committed other violations? If not, what make you so sure that he
> > was jailed simply for shouting "Long live the Dalai Lama?"
>
> Prove to me that the man did something wrong to deserve this. Or does
> this presumption of innocence apply only to your government, not to the
> people it locks up?
>
I dson't have to. I am willing to accept the psssibility that he was
innocent. How about you? If you cannot accept the possibility that he
is guilty and the Chinese authority is wrong, you are the one who need
to do the homework. It is your choice. To the degree that you do not
accept the Chinese authority is right, you need to provide the proof.
>
>
> >>http://tinyurl.com/6zkq2o
>
> >> >> > The new twist on more recent event
> >> >> > is that now they used the footage of Nepalese soldiers beating up
> >> >> > Tibetan protestors to dupe their audience to believe Chinese
> >> >> > authority was supporessing protest.
>
> >> >> You keep returning to that, because it's your one tiny scrap of
> >> >> evidence, to support your insinuation that everything written about
> >> >> China in any other language except Mandarin is propaganda.
>
> >> > There are many instance of false accusation. I return to the above
> >> > because no "westerner" has yet the honesty to acknowledge that their
> >> > media were lying to them about Tiebt.
>
> >> Well like I said, it's your one, sole example, so I guess you may as
> >> well keep clinging to it like grim death.
>
> > Of course this is not the only one. For example, the western media also
> > spreaded the lie on China had killed 1.2 million Tibeans.
>
> The source of that information was the Tibetan Government In Exile, not
> the Western media. Are you saying it's inaccurate?
It is an fabrication.
>
> > Anyone way,
> > facts are facts, the western media were caught lying.
>
> So what. That's one incident, and it doesn't matter how many times you
> raise it, it's still only one incident. One distortion of the truth,
> inspired by either laziness or stupidity, among hundreds of thousands of
> accurate ones, among thousands of separate news agencies outside China.
How many time you have to put your hand on the stove to learn that it
is the wrong thing to do? For me, one instance is enough to show that
western media do not report about China fairly all the time. Hence, no
one should rely solely on western media to learn about China. How
about you? Are you still rely on western media? If not, what other
source do you use?
>
> But I guess like any holocaust denier, flat earther, or hollow earth
> theory advocate, you need a straw to cling to. Carry on clinging by all
> means.
>
> > I see nothing
> > wrong for clinging to it. Or do you think I should say the west was
> > right in dong what they were doing. How about you? Are you still
> > clinging to the idea that western media will not lie about Chinese
> > abusing tibet? Not because that is true. But because such admission will
> > force you to revaluate your own biases against China and the Chinese
> > people.
>
> How am I biased against the Chinese people? You are the one who is
> passionately defending a government that suppresses them, and generally
> treats them like dogs.
>
If I am wrong in fact, please point it out. If my logical inference is
not logically sound, please point it out.
>
Bushart, Graig, and Barnes studied the militia movement in America.
The following is how they describe the way these soldiers of god saw
America.
"The Federal government, from the perspective of those in the
movements, is a fearsome foe and a threat to American freedoms of
religions, speech, assembly, the right to self-defense and the right
to self-determination. There are a number of examples that, from this
perspective, speak eloquently of the true state of the nation."
As I had told you, China is not the country who has extremists. I
discerned this difference:. I am using local (American) sournces to
show that America government is a threat to American freedoms of
religius, speech , assemby and etc. I don't rely on non-American
source. In contrast, you are relying on non-Chinese sources in your
accusations against China.
You need to look at the statistic more closely. In the case of Japan,
the biggest drop in fertility rate shortly several years after the end
of WWII. In China, increased prosperity does result in lower fertilty
rate among the city folks. But not the country folkers.
>
> --
> 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 -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tankfixer
@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, botak...@yahoo.com.sg says...
> On May 4, 7:02 am, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
> > In article <9348ed77-c10f-4762-a9ad-
> > a0e3e9f30...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, botakea...@yahoo.com.sg
> > says...
> >
> > > On May 4, 6:27 am, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
> >
> > > > Our abuses are in the past for the most part.
> > > > China's are in the here and now
> >
> > > The killings of Iraqi civilians are in the past,
> > > The torture of prisoners are in the past,
> >
> > Oh my, so terrible they were too..
> > making them wear underware on thier heads.
> >
> > > The detention without trial of people are in the
> > > past..
> >
> > Happens in war.
> > I supose we could be like our adverseries and just kill our prisoners..
> >
> > > How long ago...centuries, decades... ?
> >
> > > come, come...you make me laugh.
> >
> > We were discussing how the respective governments treat thier own
> > citizens.
> > Try and keep up.
>
>
> Do you mean ...taking the life of Iraqi, torturing prisoners,
> and detaining foreigners are NOT abuses of human rights.
People get killed in a war.
That civilians get killed is unfortunate.
If the US had desired to commit mass slaughter of civilians in Iraq she
had the means.
If you are calling placing prisoners in uncomfortable positions or
situations torture you would be mistaken.
What country does not detain people in time of war ?
> Go, read the UN charters on human rights.
> Then you would realise that the USA is now the greatest
> violators of human rights in the world.
An absurd contention.
baldeagle
> In article <a3e96237-78b0-4a8a-9718-124801d494c3
> @c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, botakea...@yahoo.com.sg says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 4, 7:02 am, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
> > > In article <9348ed77-c10f-4762-a9ad-
> > > a0e3e9f30...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, botakea...@yahoo.com.sg
> > > says...
>
> > > > On May 4, 6:27 am, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
>
> > > > > Our abuses are in the past for the most part.
> > > > > China's are in the here and now
>
> > > > The killings of Iraqi civilians are in the past,
> > > > The torture of prisoners are in the past,
>
> > > Oh my, so terrible they were too..
> > > making them wear underware on thier heads.
>
> > > > The detention without trial of people are in the
> > > > past..
>
> > > Happens in war.
> > > I supose we could be like our adverseries and just kill our prisoners..
>
> > > > How long ago...centuries, decades... ?
>
> > > > come, come...you make me laugh.
>
> > > We were discussing how the respective governments treat thier own
> > > citizens.
> > > Try and keep up.
>
> > Do you mean ...taking the life of Iraqi, torturing prisoners,
> > and detaining foreigners are NOT abuses of human rights.
>
> People get killed in a war.
> That civilians get killed is unfortunate.
You scumbag.
Bush started a war...and used high altitude
and high tech precision bombs to kill Iraqi civilians
en mass ...to soften Saddam's army will to fight.
This is NO unfortunate accidents...but premeditated,
cold blood killings...certainly a violation of human
rights.
If you wife is raped and killed by a mad rapist,
it is unfortunate...
Starting a war and killing thousand civilians in
cold blood...is NOT unfortunate ...but as evil as
the work of the devil.
It cannot be explained away as "unfortunate".
>
> If you are calling placing prisoners in uncomfortable positions or
> situations torture you would be mistaken.
Water boarding is tortured. The United Nation regard it
as tortured and issue a statement in 2006, calling all
nations to stop this form of torture of prisoners.
John Macain and Obama regard it as torture. The government
of most nations consider it as torture.
To a scumbag who consider the cold blooded killing of Iraqi
as "unfortunate", water boarding is NOT torture !
You have no sense of decency...an absolute freak !
> > Go, read the UN charters on human rights.
> > Then you would realise that the USA is now the greatest
> > violators of human rights in the world.
>
> An absurd contention.
You are absurd. Period
Jim Walsh
(in article
<9efbcc18-f054-4af3...@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
> China rebutes U.S. charges of human rights violation by saying there are a
> lot of human rights violations within the U.S. but the U.S. never addressed
> them.
Strange accusation. If I am able to find a US government response to a human
rights violation accusation, will you admit you mis-spoke.
BTW, saying, "Johnny cheats, too" does not "rebut" a charge of cheating.
Check your dictionary.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<a3e96237-78b0-4a8a...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
>
> Go, read the UN charters on human rights. Then you would realise that the USA
> is now the greatest violators of human rights in the world.
Even if it were true, it would not justify the abuse of Chinese human rights
by the CCP.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<bd86f09b-e058-462e...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>):
> Water boarding is tortured. The United Nation regard it as tortured and issue
> a statement in 2006, calling all nations to stop this form of torture of
> prisoners. John Macain and Obama regard it as torture. The government of most
> nations consider it as torture.
Agree. I moved this post to us.politics only since it is not relevant to the
abuse of Chinese by the CCP.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<4d5e3b4d-d731-4d66...@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
You still ignore the disproof of your claim that the West is doing all that
it can to keep them/it down.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<d5b52c11-5afd-417a...@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com>):
No. You are wrong. None of my points involve quality control.
When will you admit that your claim was false? Do you really lack that degree
of intellectual honesty?
Jim Walsh
(in article
<dec5b395-8bd4-413b...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>):
>
> Sascha Matzusak knows more about the west than me since he is a westerner and
> I am not.
Where do you live Mr. Lee? How long have you lived there?
As far as I can tell, you are at least as much of a Westerner as Matzusak.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<b7075071-130c-4308...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>):
> For example, if I am going to criticize country X, I am going to use source
> from country X exculsively.
Well, that certainly is a lie. You often criticize the USA (properly) using
sources from outside the USA.
And you are right to do so.
Just as I am right to criticize China from inside China.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<b7075071-130c-4308...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>):
> So far, you are doing the opposite, you use exclusively western sources to
> criticize China.
That is also false. Since Tibet is in China, quoting Tibetans saying that
they are not free is using sources inside China.
Jim Walsh
(in article <NI0Tj.36458$kl6....@fe103.usenetserver.com>):
> On Sat, 03 May 2008 15:46:17 +0800, Jim Walsh wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 3 May 2008 05:10:25 +0800, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote (in article
>> <c404de77-5bc2-4b5e...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>> It is the right of every Chinese to criticize the government. No one
>>> was jailed for what they had said alone.
>>
>> You are a liar. You know that this is not true. This is not an error or
>> an oversight. You are simply lying.
>>
>> Even the CCP admits that it imprisons people for what they say. It
>> defends that practice. It does not deny it.
>
> Do you think he could be a victim of one of those "political re
> eductation programs" ? Do you think we could be talking to Winston Smith,
> post room 101?
Most Chinese living in China for any significant part of the period from 1950
to today have experienced "political re-education".
baldeagle
> On Sun, 4 May 2008 07:51:55 +0800, baldeagle wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
> > Go, read the UN charters on human rights. Then you would realise that the USA
> > is now the greatest violators of human rights in the world.
>
>
>
If the USA is clean. having no shit at home,
he is free to throw shit at China. The USA is
NOT clean. Understand.
The USA has no moral authority to preach to
China about human rights.
China do not have to justify to anyone for
its action at home...If you or anyone don't
like it...go and suck your thumb.
You have NO authority over China ...to tell
China what to do...what is right for China.
Jim Walsh
(in article <8-WdndvbcZyTAoHV...@giganews.com>):
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:19:30 -0700, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> I haven't noticed any tidal wave of prospective immigrants legal and/or
> illegal to China . . . .
>
> As for the Chinese "vision" of a self-perpetuating hereditary
> pseudo-Marxist oligarchy-- what Milovan Djilas called "the New Class"--
> operating in secret and with absolute and arbitrary powers over the
> populace, I don't think "envy" is the word that I would use for most
> people's view of that in "the West".
Nicely said.
baldeagle
>
> Most Chinese living in China for any significant part of the period from 1950
> to today have experienced "political re-education".
>
How do you know ?
God told you so..in your dream.
Millions of Chinese peasants were left alone
by Mao...he knew that they were not interested
in politics....nor re-education.
When Mao needed the peasants to fight the KMT,
he did not re-educated them...he persuaded
them to help unite China, by appealing to their
sense of loyalty to China...and to prevent KMT
from breaking up China and to allow China
to fall into foreign rule.
Like it happened so often in Chinese history,
the Chinese peasants rose to the challenge..
they stood solidly behind Mao and were willing
to die for Mao ..and they changed the history of
China.
The millions of peasant were loyal to China and
loyal to Mao...No political re-education was necessary.
Only KMT supporters and the likes of Falungum
were subjected to political re-education...it was
more humane...better than shooting such traitors
of China dead.
J.Venning
news:807c0fe7-c5a3-4fdf...@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On May 4, 1:05 pm, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Most Chinese living in China for any significant part of the period from
>> 1950
>> to today have experienced "political re-education".
>>
>
> How do you know ?
> God told you so..in your dream.
>
This Walsh faggot claims that he knows *everything* and is the authority
on what Chinese should do and how they should live. That is because he is
nothing but a failed man, a homosexual who has left his wife and children to
live as a shit packer on the payroll of the Taiwan government to incite
people against China. Note that he knows nothing about what is going on in
his own country and doesn't comment about them, even though his posts now
number 43,400:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/search?hl=en&group=soc.culture.china&q=Jim+Walsh .
tankfixer
a5e105...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, botak...@yahoo.com.sg
says...
Interesting claim.
Care to back it up ?
> This is NO unfortunate accidents...but premeditated,
> cold blood killings...certainly a violation of human
> rights.
If the US wished to bomb civilians purposely she would have just carpet
bombed them.
>
> If you wife is raped and killed by a mad rapist,
> it is unfortunate...
> Starting a war and killing thousand civilians in
> cold blood...is NOT unfortunate ...but as evil as
> the work of the devil.
> It cannot be explained away as "unfortunate".
I suppose we could have just nuked them.
Would have saved time if the goal was to kill civilians.
>
> >
> > If you are calling placing prisoners in uncomfortable positions or
> > situations torture you would be mistaken.
>
> Water boarding is tortured. The United Nation regard it
> as tortured and issue a statement in 2006, calling all
> nations to stop this form of torture of prisoners.
> John Macain and Obama regard it as torture. The government
> of most nations consider it as torture.
Politicians will say what they think sounds best to those who will vote
for them.
>
> To a scumbag who consider the cold blooded killing of Iraqi
> as "unfortunate", water boarding is NOT torture !
> You have no sense of decency...an absolute freak !
Cutting off the heads of prisoners to be torture.
netvegetable
> On May 3, 6:46 pm, netvegetable <n...@all.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 May 2008 12:10:46 -0700, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> You apply extremely rigorous rules of evidence when it comes to
>> >> accusations made against the Chinese regime, be it verbal,
>> >> documented, or even video evidence.
>>
>> > Those accusations are specific and serious. Rigorous rule of evidence
>> > should be applied.
>>
>> Why?
> Why not?
Because there's no need to. We all saw your government's brutality live
on television back in 1989. Why does your precious regime, which happily
admits that it censors the media and incarcerates political dissidents
btw, deserve any benefit of the doubt whatsoever?
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> Actually I have no problem with China at all. It seems to me to be
>> >> mostly Chinese people who have a problem, and an awful lot of
>> >> Tibetans. They are the ones getting arrested, thrown in nuthouses,
>> >> or tried and found guilty on trumped up charges. Behold the boot,
>> >> stamping on the human face.
>>
>> > Your probem: You cannot distinguish what you think and what is the
>> > reality.
>>
>> I'd call that a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black. You are
>> the one who relies entirely on rambling, ponderous anecdotes by
>> bloggers like Sascha to make your argument, and completely dismisses
>> video, verbal, anecdotal documented evidence to the contrary.
>>
>>
> Be that as it might. There are ways to minimize biases. For example, if
> I am going to criticize country X, I am going to use source from country
> X exculsively.
There are few, if any, sources of criticism in your country, because your
government, by its own admission, censors the media.
[snip]
>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>
>> >> What a pity that individuals like Ronggyal Adrak, aren't entitled to
>> >> the same punctilious presumption of innocence that you apply to your
>> >> regime. Jailed for 8 years simply for shouting "Long Live the
>> >> Dallai Lama!" at a racing festival.
>>
>> > You are stilling holding on your "X did Y and X got jailed" way of
>> > thinking. Had you done anything to eliminate the possibility that he
>> > also committed other violations? If not, what make you so sure that
>> > he was jailed simply for shouting "Long live the Dalai Lama?"
>>
>> Prove to me that the man did something wrong to deserve this. Or does
>> this presumption of innocence apply only to your government, not to the
>> people it locks up?
>>
>>
> I dson't have to. I am willing to accept the psssibility that he was
> innocent. How about you? If you cannot accept the possibility that he is
> guilty and the Chinese authority is wrong, you are the one who need to
> do the homework.
It's a principle called "Habeas Corpus".
Basically I don't believe individuals should be subject to a presumption
of guilt. You, on the other hand, seem to believe that Chinese people
should be, and that the government which tortures them, and locks them up
on trumped up charges, should always be given the benefit of the doubt.
[snip]
>> The source of that information was the Tibetan Government In Exile, not
>> the Western media. Are you saying it's inaccurate?
>
> It is an fabrication.
Bet you have no evidence to refute it though.
>
>
>> > Anyone way,
>> > facts are facts, the western media were caught lying.
>>
>> So what. That's one incident, and it doesn't matter how many times you
>> raise it, it's still only one incident. One distortion of the truth,
>> inspired by either laziness or stupidity, among hundreds of thousands
>> of accurate ones, among thousands of separate news agencies outside
>> China.
>
> How many time you have to put your hand on the stove to learn that it is
> the wrong thing to do? For me, one instance is enough to show that
> western media do not report about China fairly all the time.
And therefore do you argue that Western media is "always" inaccurate? If
not, you only have the one straw you can cling to.
> Hence, no
> one should rely solely on western media to learn about China.
And nobody is. The PRC regime is getting just as much criticism from the
Japanese media, Indonesian media, Indian media, and even middle eastern
media.
The idea that it's only the "Western" media criticising the regime in
Beijing is a lie. It is a lie that is desperately clung to by Communist
Party stooges who would like to paint all criticism of the regime as
racism.
> How about
> you? Are you still rely on western media? If not, what other source do
> you use?
Here's a report from Asia Times Hong Kong, about Hu Kia and Chen
Guangchen both of whom were thrown in prison for embarrassing the party.
[quote]
Human-rights violations in China are still frequently reported. In 2006,
Chen Guangcheng, a blind activists in Shandong province, was sentenced to
more than four years in jail for sabotage.
Hu Jia, an outspoken Beijing-based volunteer for AIDS victims, received a
three-and-a-half-year jail term for calling for "Olympics with a human
rights touch". Both Chen and Hu were harassed for at least several months
by thugs, allegedly plain-clothed police, before their arrests. [/quote]
Here's some more info about Chen Guangcheng, from the China Post in
Taiwan.
Apparently he was thrown in prison on trumped up charges after he
"documented cases of forced abortions and other abuses by officials in
Shandong province."
Here's verification of the story from the Japan Times.
[quote http://tinyurl.com/68hxhx ]
Chen can be described as a "barefoot lawyer" since he has no law degree
and is largely self-taught through getting his wife and older brother to
read law books to him. He provided legal help to friends and neighbors,
successfully arguing, for example, that disabled people who cannot work
are not liable to pay agricultural tax.
His problems began when he took up the cudgels to help people victimized
by family planning officials who flagrantly violated the law through
forced abortions and compulsory sterilizations. If a pregnant woman went
into hiding, the authorities would jail her relatives and neighbors and
beat them until she turned herself in. [/quote]
The afforementioned report about Liu Xinjuan is from a group called
"Human Rights in China", founded by Chinese people who left China after
the Tianamin Square massacre .
Liu Xinjuan was thrown in a pychiatric hospital immediately after she
organised a gathering of petitioners against forced land relocation. True
"Big Brother" style political suppression IMO.
And more confirmation of the story from The Standard, Hong Kong ......
[snip]
>> > But because such admission
>> > will force you to revaluate your own biases against China and the
>> > Chinese people.
>>
>> How am I biased against the Chinese people? You are the one who is
>> passionately defending a government that suppresses them, and generally
>> treats them like dogs.
>>
>>
> If I am wrong in fact, please point it out.
I just did.
> If my logical inference is
> not logically sound, please point it out.
Your logic is flawed because you are blurring the distinction between
legitimate criticism of a nation's government, and a racist attack on the
people of that nation. Either you are:
(a) Too stupid to discern to discern the difference, or
(b) psychologically incapable of discerning the difference because you a
highly indoctrinated, loyal Communist Party apparatchik, or
(c) a paid propaganda spruiker for the Communist Party.
I consider (b) the most likely. (c) is the most unlikely, because I doubt
if anyone would consider what you've written here to be worth paying for.
Am I incorrect?
[snip]
>>
>> >> Here's an Al-Jazeera report showing a group of Tibetan monks
>> >> embarrassing your government, and telling the world that they are
>> >> being suppressed from speaking their minds.
>>
>> > So? China is not the only country with extremists. Have you ever
>> > wondered why Timothy McVeigh bombed the American government buidling?
>> > Well, from his point of view, the American government were abusing
>> > the American people and trampling on them. To borrow your phrase,
>> > "Behold the boot, stamping on the human face." And if you think he
>> > was the only one who thought that way. Think again. There was a whole
>> > movement based on that notion and it is still ongoing.
>>
>> In the case of the Oklahoma bombing, the boot came down on the face of
>> someone who murdered 300 people.
>
>> In you country it regularly stomps hard on people simply for expressing
>> their opinions. Can you discern this subtle difference?
>>
> Bushart, Graig, and Barnes studied the militia movement in America. The
> following is how they describe the way these soldiers of god saw
> America.
>
> "The Federal government, from the perspective of those in the movements,
> is a fearsome foe and a threat to American freedoms of religions,
> speech, assembly, the right to self-defense and the right to
> self-determination. There are a number of examples that, from this
> perspective, speak eloquently of the true state of the nation."
>
> As I had told you, China is not the country who has extremists.
So? The important difference is that Timothy McVeigh, by his own
admission, killed 300 people, and for this he was executed. He was not
executed for expressing his political opinions.
On the other hand, in Mainland China, people get punished for simply
speaking their minds - as the reports above, from Asia Times, The
Standard Hong Kong, Japan Times, Al-Jazeera, and Human Rights in China
show.
> I
> discerned this difference:. I am using local (American) sournces to show
> that America government is a threat to American freedoms of religius,
> speech , assemby and etc. I don't rely on non-American source. In
> contrast, you are relying on non-Chinese sources in your accusations
> against China.
And of course, there is no other way, as the PRC government, by its own
admission, censors the media. And in Mainland China, people get punished
for simply speaking their minds - as the reports above, from Asia Times,
The Standard Hong Kong, Japan Times, Al-Jazeera, and Human Rights in
China show.
>> > 1. Correlaton is not causation. Logic 101. 2. If one looks at the
>> > statistics more closely, American middle class is not doing well
>> > during well during the last 30 years. The dire situation has prompted
>> > a Harvard Univ professor to warn about the disappearing middle class.
>> > And of course, during the same 30 years, fertility rate drop
>> > continuously.
>>
>> Be that as it *may*, there is a definite correlation between wealth and
>> low fertility. This is seen to be the case in Japan, Singapore,
>> Australia, the EU. Even in your country, as the average wealth rises
>> from shit poor to merely dirt poor, there's been a documented decline
>> in birth rate.
>
> You need to look at the statistic more closely. In the case of Japan,
> the biggest drop in fertility rate shortly several years after the end
> of WWII. In China, increased prosperity does result in lower fertilty
> rate among the city folks. But not the country folkers.
Well I'm sure that if you look really hard enough, you can find
verification for any loopy idea you want.
I have to be honest though, I don't give a toss about declining birth
rates in affluent countries, even if most of those countries are
predominantly white. To me, all that means that at some stage my
descendants will end up cross breeding with people of different skin
colour. I'm sure there are some people in the world who fret about that
kind of trivial horseshit, but thank god I don't know any of them.
tankfixer
jimNOwa...@gmNOail.com says...
> On Sun, 4 May 2008 07:51:55 +0800, baldeagle wrote
> (in article
> <a3e96237-78b0-4a8a...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
>
> >
> > Go, read the UN charters on human rights. Then you would realise that the USA
>
> > is now the greatest violators of human rights in the world.
>
> Even if it were true, it would not justify the abuse of Chinese human rights
> by the CCP.
That they must cite those claims each time they are challanged on
China's human rights abuses is an indication they feel guilt about it..
tankfixer
@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, botak...@yahoo.com.sg says...
> On May 4, 12:53 pm, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 4 May 2008 07:51:55 +0800, baldeagle wrote
> > (in article
> > <a3e96237-78b0-4a8a-9718-124801d49...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
> >
> >
> >
> > > Go, read the UN charters on human rights. Then you would realise that the USA
> > > is now the greatest violators of human rights in the world.
> >
> > Even if it were true, it would not justify the abuse of Chinese human rights...
> >
> >
>
>
> If the USA is clean. having no shit at home,
> he is free to throw shit at China. The USA is
> NOT clean. Understand.
I understand you do not.
> The USA has no moral authority to preach to
> China about human rights.
How is being concerned with China's human rights abuses preaching ?
>
> China do not have to justify to anyone for
> its action at home...If you or anyone don't
> like it...go and suck your thumb.
China should answer to the Chinese people.
> You have NO authority over China ...to tell
> China what to do...what is right for China.
Should the Chinese people have a say then ?
ltl...@hotmail.com
My point, many in America also complain on exactly the same issues. In
America, most Americans will brush aside their complaints. It is the
same in China. In addition, many in America are ready to take up arm
and attack the government like McVeigh. Luckily, China's stituation is
not as bad. Again, read the article of the begining post. If you had
lived in China for extended periods, you would reached the same
conclusions like him.
>
> On the other hand, in Mainland China, people get punished for simply
> speaking their minds - as the reports above, from Asia Times, The
> Standard Hong Kong, Japan Times, Al-Jazeera, and Human Rights in China
> show.
Not true. It haven't be proved they were punished for simply speaking
their minds. Don't you know that millions had spoken their minds in
China every years? Were millions of Chinese jailed every year because
they had protested against the government? Of coruse not. So, the
view that people are jailed for expressing their view alone has no
validity. Again, "X did Y, X got jauled" does not mean X got jailed
becaue of Y. To reach that conclusion, you have to show that X did not
violate any other laws and/or there are laws stating that Y is a
punishable offense.
> > I
> > discerned this difference:. I am using local (American) sournces to show
> > that America government is a threat to American freedoms of religius,
> > speech , assemby and etc. I don't rely on non-American source. In
> > contrast, you are relying on non-Chinese sources in your accusations
> > against China.
>
> And of course, there is no other way, as the PRC government, by its own
> admission, censors the media.
So? China has a gudied media makes all accusations automatically
true.
> And in Mainland China, people get punished
> for simply speaking their minds - as the reports above, from Asia Times,
> The Standard Hong Kong, Japan Times, Al-Jazeera, and Human Rights in
> China show.
>
> >> > 1. Correlaton is not causation. Logic 101. 2. If one looks at the
> >> > statistics more closely, American middle class is not doing well
> >> > during well during the last 30 years. The dire situation has prompted
> >> > a Harvard Univ professor to warn about the disappearing middle class.
> >> > And of course, during the same 30 years, fertility rate drop
> >> > continuously.
>
> >> Be that as it *may*, there is a definite correlation between wealth and
> >> low fertility. This is seen to be the case in Japan, Singapore,
> >> Australia, the EU. Even in your country, as the average wealth rises
> >> from shit poor to merely dirt poor, there's been a documented decline
> >> in birth rate.
>
> > You need to look at the statistic more closely. In the case of Japan,
> > the biggest drop in fertility rate shortly several years after the end
> > of WWII. In China, increased prosperity does result in lower fertilty
> > rate among the city folks. But not the country folkers.
>
> Well I'm sure that if you look really hard enough, you can find
> verification for any loopy idea you want.
Great. Sounds like you have found a reason not to look hard on
everything. No wonder you get many things wrong. Are you journalist? I
found some western journalist too lazy to investigate, i.e., look
really hard and too eager to bash China.
>
> I have to be honest though, I don't give a toss about declining birth
> rates in affluent countries, even if most of those countries are
> predominantly white. To me, all that means that at some stage my
> descendants will end up cross breeding with people of different skin
> colour. I'm sure there are some people in the world who fret about that
> kind of trivial horseshit, but thank god I don't know any of them.
Great. But let me add this. If you see all peoples are equal, then you
should accept the fact the Chinese poeple are no different from all
other peoples. If their government treats them unfairly as you have
beleived, they would have raised up and overthrew it like other
peoples, for example, the east Europeans. If you believe your
conception of human rights is right and universal, then the Chinese
people would sooner of later accept the same set of value. Many things
take time and could not be hurried. Believing in democracy is after
all believing the poeple, including their timing. The problem with the
many holier-than-thou organziatons is that they basically don't
believe their values are universal, so they fieel that they have to
force them onto China. Many Chinese poeple resent that.
This is the last post of this thread. Thank you for answering my
posts.
baldeagle
>
>
> > You have NO authority over China ...to tell
> > China what to do...what is right for China.
>
> Should the Chinese people have a say then ?
>
their Government....
Look at how the Chinese mass reacted against
foreign insults to the Olympic torch and
Chinese people(CNN comments)....their actions
speak volumes.
They know that foreigners use human rights in
Tibet as a weapon to attack China. The Chinese
is solidly united against such attacks.
The Chinese has spoken...The voices of the
Chinese masses is louder than thunder.
tankfixer
@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, botak...@yahoo.com.sg says...
> On May 4, 1:05 pm, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Most Chinese living in China for any significant part of the period from 1950
> > to today have experienced "political re-education".
> >
>
> How do you know ?
> God told you so..in your dream.
Is that all you have ?
>
> Millions of Chinese peasants were left alone
> by Mao...he knew that they were not interested
> in politics....nor re-education.
And millions were starved to death by Mao's policies.
> When Mao needed the peasants to fight the KMT,
> he did not re-educated them...he persuaded
> them to help unite China, by appealing to their
> sense of loyalty to China...and to prevent KMT
> from breaking up China and to allow China
> to fall into foreign rule.
News flash but China is still divided.
>
> Like it happened so often in Chinese history,
> the Chinese peasants rose to the challenge..
> they stood solidly behind Mao and were willing
> to die for Mao ..and they changed the history of
> China.
> The millions of peasant were loyal to China and
> loyal to Mao...No political re-education was necessary.
And further millions were murdered for the "greater good"
>
> Only KMT supporters and the likes of Falungum
> were subjected to political re-education...it was
> more humane...better than shooting such traitors
> of China dead.
Sad to see you endorsing work camps where the workers are worked to
death.
baldeagle
xxx
>
> > > Most Chinese living in China for any significant part of the period from 1950
> > > to today have experienced "political re-education".
>
> > How do you know ?
> > God told you so..in your dream.
>
> Is that all you have ?
Garbage.
>
> >
> > Millions of Chinese peasants were left alone
> > by Mao...he knew that they were not interested
> > in politics....nor re-education.
>
irrelevant garbage deleted.
>
>
>
> > Only KMT supporters and the likes of Falungum
> > were subjected to political re-education...it was
> > more humane...better than shooting such traitors
> > of China dead.
>
> Sad to see you endorsing work camps where the workers are worked to
> death.
All real Chinese support the action against the
traitors...to re-educate them.
Work to death?....Usual US propaganda.
Such jingle is getting boring...no one
believe them except brain washed idiots
in the west.
demor...@aol.com
baldeagle
Your picture is better than a thousand
words.
Yes. This show that Chinese are solidly
behind their government against foreign
attacks.
It also show that the notions of Chinese people
don't support their government actions in Tibet..
is full of shit.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/photo.cms?msid=2164429
Indians !?
Indians are confusing...the shake their heads
when saying "yes".
This is not a thunder.
tankfixer
@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, botak...@yahoo.com.sg says...
> On May 5, 5:06 am, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > You have NO authority over China ...to tell
> > > China what to do...what is right for China.
> >
> > Should the Chinese people have a say then ?
> >
> The Chinese know what to do... in support
> their Government....
> Look at how the Chinese mass reacted against
> foreign insults to the Olympic torch and
> Chinese people(CNN comments)....their actions
> speak volumes.
You mean the CCP only let the Chinese people hear what the CCP wanted
them to hear.
The criticism in the west is over how the CCP is treating the peoples of
Tibet.
Not a criticism of Chinese people.
>
> They know that foreigners use human rights in
> Tibet as a weapon to attack China. The Chinese
> is solidly united against such attacks.
And when the CCP decides that entire provencies must starve so that the
CCP looks good to the rest of the world during the Olympics ?
Will they be united then ?
> The Chinese has spoken...The voices of the
> Chinese masses is louder than thunder.
Blah blah blah
tankfixer
@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, botak...@yahoo.com.sg says...
> On May 5, 8:26 am, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
> xxx
> >
> > > > Most Chinese living in China for any significant part of the period from 1950
> > > > to today have experienced "political re-education".
> >
> > > How do you know ?
> > > God told you so..in your dream.
>
>
>
> >
> > Is that all you have ?
>
> Garbage.
> >
> > >
> > > Millions of Chinese peasants were left alone
> > > by Mao...he knew that they were not interested
> > > in politics....nor re-education.
> >
> irrelevant garbage deleted.
Millions starved to suit Mao's twisted policies.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Only KMT supporters and the likes of Falungum
> > > were subjected to political re-education...it was
> > > more humane...better than shooting such traitors
> > > of China dead.
> >
> > Sad to see you endorsing work camps where the workers are worked to
> > death.
>
> All real Chinese support the action against the
> traitors...to re-educate them.
How very facist of you
>
> Work to death?....Usual US propaganda.
> Such jingle is getting boring...no one
> believe them except brain washed idiots
> in the west.
You must make a good wage lying for your masters here.
Will they continue to pay you after August and your services are no
longer required ?
baldeagle
> In article <e38591e5-2623-45c6-8e65-d1b6e2c9fdd3
>
> > On May 5, 5:06 am, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
>
> > > > You have NO authority over China ...to tell
> > > > China what to do...what is right for China.
>
> > > Should the Chinese people have a say then ?
>
> > The Chinese know what to do... in support
> > their Government....
> > Look at how the Chinese mass reacted against
> > foreign insults to the Olympic torch and
> > Chinese people(CNN comments)....their actions
> > speak volumes.
>
> You mean the CCP only let the Chinese people hear what the CCP wanted
> them to hear.
Very good try ...at misrepresenting facts...however..
You are WRONG.
The Chinese watch CNN reports, internet blogs
from BBC....foreign media via internet...
They were inflamed by scenes of a girl on wheel
chair being attacked by burly Tibetan protester.
They watched CNN's anchor man calling Chinese
insulting names.
The Chinese people took the lead...and their
actions speak volumes...
The Chinese has SPOKEN....like thunder.
baldeagle
> In article <ad595f56-139a-404f-af0e-12562c8e13f7
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 8:26 am, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
> > xxx
>
> > > > > Most Chinese living in China for any significant part of the period from 1950
> > > > > to today have experienced "political re-education".
>
> > > > How do you know ?
> > > > God told you so..in your dream.
>
> > > Is that all you have ?
>
> > Garbage.
>
> > > > Millions of Chinese peasants were left alone
> > > > by Mao...he knew that they were not interested
> > > > in politics....nor re-education.
>
> > irrelevant garbage deleted.
>
> Millions starved to suit Mao's twisted policies.
>
>
>
> > > > Only KMT supporters and the likes of Falungum
> > > > were subjected to political re-education...it was
> > > > more humane...better than shooting such traitors
> > > > of China dead.
>
> > > Sad to see you endorsing work camps where the workers are worked to
> > > death.
>
> > All real Chinese support the action against the
> > traitors...to re-educate them.
>
> How very facist of you
What is facist ?
You puke garbage
>
>
>
> > Work to death?....Usual US propaganda.
> > Such jingle is getting boring...no one
> > believe them except brain washed idiots
> > in the west.
>
> You must make a good wage lying for your masters here.
Ya ya ya... Everyone who speak the truth...against
US spin doctors ...must be paid by Beijing.
Typical thinking of a brainwashed idiot....unable to think
rationally.
ltl...@hotmail.com
All the China bashing and Chinese bashing depend the assumption that
the Chinese people are dumb. Under this "dumb Chinese" theory, they do
not know how to seek their human rights. Rather, they will support
their government like stupid lemmings. Under this dumb Chinese
theory, China bashers can ignore all the voices from China and
congredulate themselves on their sense of holier-than-thou. In this
world, many woman buy cosmetics from Revlon to make themselves look
better and feel better. Similarly, many westerners who don't have
vision about their future buy holier-than-thou from selling
organizations to make themselves feel better.
baldeagle
> On May 4, 8:23 pm, baldeagle <botakea...@yahoo.com.sg> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 5:06 am, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
>
> > > > You have NO authority over China ...to tell
> > > > China what to do...what is right for China.
>
> > > Should the Chinese people have a say then ?
>
> > The Chinese know what to do... in support
> > their Government....
> > Look at how the Chinese mass reacted against
> > foreign insults to the Olympic torch and
> > Chinese people(CNN comments)....their actions
> > speak volumes.
>
> > They know that foreigners use human rights in
> > Tibet as a weapon to attack China. The Chinese
> > is solidly united against such attacks.
> > The Chinese has spoken...The voices of the
> > Chinese masses is louder than thunder.
>
> All the China bashing and Chinese bashing depend the assumption that
> the Chinese people are dumb.
This picture of the Chinese painted by
Western media..."the dumb Chinese"
has been etched in the minds of unthinking
Westerners.
Unfortunately for them, the dumb Chinese
are far more intelligent than many Americans.
Look at how Chinese performed at Top US
universities....Always top 5% . To console
themselves, American students called Chinese
names like bookworm, nerds...and similar
unflattering terms.
Now the Chinese is beating the shit out
the American in the games call "booming
economy"....."strong currency" .."better
trade balance"...
Who is the real dumb idiot...? Certainly not
the Chinese.
>... China bashers can ignore all the voices from China and
> congredulate themselves on their sense of holier-than-thou.
These people, like those in mad houses, live in dellusion.
They can't help it. Their minds are in mental straitjackets...
Poor bastards !
Sir John Howard
Hey! Who farted? Oh, its just you, the mouse.