Opinion: Why is China scared
Peter Terpstra
Asian Age [Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11:58]
By Maura Moynihan
A special ritual of life in Dharamsala is welcoming His Holiness the Dalai
Lama back to his exile home. A victory banner is strung over the road as a
multinational crowd pours into the lanes of Mcleodganj and down Temple Road to
His Holiness’ residence, waiting for a glimpse of the great spiritual master
and honorary citizen of India, waving from the window of a vehicle escorted by
a crack team of Indian commandos.
The Dalai Lama never seems to rest; he just returned from North America, to
commence a week of teachings on the Diamond Sutra and the Four Noble Truths of
the Buddha. It’s impossible to find a hotel room — Dharamsala quivers from the
weight of tourists and pilgrims from five continents who have come to this
refugee town in Himachal Pradesh to touch a piece of old Tibet that fell upon
this hillside 50 years ago.
There is disquiet among Tibetan refugees and their supporters over escalating
Chinese repression in Tibet and Beijing’s success in pressuring world leaders
to back off from the Tibet issue.
Last month United States President Barack Obama declined to meet the Dalai
Lama as it would upset the Chinese Communist Party bosses in Beijing. White
House press secretary Robert Gibbs said: “The stronger relationship that we
have with China benefits the Tibetan people.” A statement so credulous, or
cynical, it seems to have been crafted expressly by the Beijing bureau of
propaganda.
The grim reality of life in China’s Tibet is told in every corner of this
refugee town, especially at the Gu Chu Sum Society created by ex-political
prisoners from Tibet. The office stairwell is lined with drawings depicting
the torture Tibetan nationalists endured in Chinese custody. One man was hung
by his ankles for hours and whipped with barbed wire. Another had his legs and
arms broken, was tossed into a sewage pit and pelted with rocks. A Buddhist
nun was repeatedly raped with an electric cattle prod.
This is how China governs Tibet, and the most dangerous outcome of Mr Obama’s
refusal to meet the Dalai Lama is the message it sends to the Chinese
Communist Party: that their barbarous rule in Tibet can continue without
impediment, that they can proceed with the plunder of Tibet’s lands and the
yoking of Tibet’s rivers.
China has made the mere mention of Tibet so toxic that delegates at last
month’s climate change summit in Bangkok refused to address climate change on
the Tibetan plateau and its deleterious effect on the rivers of nation states
in south and southeast Asia, hardly a small matter.
Control of the Tibetan plateau and its vast riches is a priority for Hu
Jintao’s government. Since March 2008, China has mobilised an estimated 50,000
troops along the Tibet-India border, while protesting against visits by Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh to Arunachal Pradesh and excising Kashmir from India
in a new map and website. China is supplying Nepal with aid and weaponry,
which fuels the advance of Maoist insurgencies across India. Himachal This
Week just ran a two-page story on Chinese spies working in Dharamsala, with a
timeline of a decade of arrests and confessions of agents with plans to attack
the Dalai Lama.
Why does Beijing so fear this gentle Tibetan Buddhist master and purveyor of
the Gandhian legacy of non-violence? On October 1, 2009, the Chinese Communist
Party celebrated 60 years of one-party rule with a Cold War parade of massive
weaponry and Maoist sloganeering. On October 2, India paid tribute to Mahatma
Gandhi on his 140th birth anniversary with an inter-faith service at New
Delhi’s Gandhi Smriti. Dr Singh sat upon the grass amid citizens and guests as
prayers from all religions were read and sung, then scattered rose petals on
the site of the Mahatma’s martyrdom with quiet dignity.
These twin ceremonies just a day apart reveal the vast gap between Mao’s and
Gandhi’s visions of power. His Holiness the Dalai Lama calls Gandhi his
political guru and has steadfastly pursued the path of ahimsa with the Chinese
Communists who call him “an incestuous murderer with evil intentions”. But the
Dalai Lama has not been broken. Witness him upon his lama’s throne, imparting
the wisdom of the Buddha into the golden light of the Kangra Valley, to
students from Mongolia, Vietnam and Laos, whose sanghas were laid waste by the
Communists, who regard him as the Living Buddha.
“Look how much power China has, and they are so paranoid, they take such
desperate measures to keep politicians away from the Dalai Lama,” says
celebrated Tibetan poet Tenzing Tsundue. “The Dalai Lama has no aircraft, no
money, he’s a refugee. China has weapons and banks, but they are terrified of
this simple monk who wants to make peace with them. It shows their great
insecurity. Our power lies in our faith in non-violence. The Tibet movement is
still here after 50 years. We continue to inspire the people of the world who
are looking for solutions to violence and conflict.”
* Maura Moynihan is a writer who has worked with Tibetan refugees in India for
many years. Now based in New York, she is researching a book on America’s
failed China policy.
http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?c=4&t=1&id=25813&article=Why+is
+China+scared
--
'I find hope in the darkest of days, and focus in the brightest. I do not
judge the universe.'
«Dalai Lama»
lo yeeOn
Peter Terpstra <pe...@dharma.dnsdojo.org> wrote:
>Why is China scared
>Asian Age [Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11:58]
>By Maura Moynihan
>*Maura Moynihan is a writer who has worked with Tibetan refugees in
>India for many years. Now based in New York, she is researching a
>book on America?s failed China policy.
Yeap!!!. America's failed China policy began with it negotiating with
the evil Chinese communists as early as in the early 1950s, when the
Dalai Lama was still wining and dining with Chairman Mao and Premier
Chou En-lai in Beijing, for the exchange American POWs held by the
Chinese who captured them during the Korean War, in exchange for
letting go the brilliant scientist Qian Xuesen (who just died
31/10/2009) in Beijing at 98.
That deal has been widely viewed as instrumental in bringing China to
her current eminent position in world politics as well as giving the
US government such a headache to deal with in the past 30-40 years.
And then Richard Nixon, the Republican US president of the 1970s,
further "sold America out" to China, through that cunning SoS,
Dr. Henry Kissinger, who wined and dined Chairman Mao and Premier Chou
En-lai, agreeing to give them even the UN seat that was occupied by
Taiwan's Generalissimo Chiang Kei-Sek at the time, whose top military
adviser also had a daughter who was married to the rocket scientist
Qian who made China such a space giant today.
And the final draw was the evil warrior president George W. Bush whom
His Holiness the Dalai Lama found to be such an irresistable soul-mate
even after the rest of the world had rendered its verdict on him as a
mass murderer: Bush went to Beijing to kowtow to the evil communists
to beg them to keep their mouth shut on the slaughter in Afghanistan
and Iraq while keep their denizens laboring hard to produce the cheap
goods the increasingly impoverished American citizens need to fill
their basic living need.
So, what's new in Maura Moynihan' complaint about Obama? She should
know better that Obama is only following the same failed Bush policy
in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Obama has a greater problem now since
the near decade-long twin wars in Asia have bankrupted America and he
had to borrow more than a trillion USD in his first days as president
of the US in order to turn the stock market around and the US economy
moving along again.
So, Obama likewise had to beg China. And he even had to do more in
order to keep Walmart supplied so that America can grind along just a
little longer.
The Tibetan Independence crowd is getting the feeling that Obama is a
good target to lambast because all the birthers and republicans have
been relentlessly doing the same, attacking him partly based on his
skin-color.
But the TI crowd is foolish. They should understand that Obama can do
no more or no less for the TI cause now or ever.
And the "Dalai Lama never seems to rest" because he is working for the
CIA, a part of the same Obama administration, just as he has been for
the past so many decades and that's why he is visiting the US so much.
And he has to of course jetset back and forth between Northern America
and Dharamsala to entertain his western visitors to raise fund for the
Tibet Independence cause. But by being so restless, the Dalai Lama's
left with no time for lengthy meditation, necessary for any monk, not
to mention the leading monk.
The original Buddha made a choice. He gave up worldly concern and
went on a solitary journey of meditation to free himself from the
burden of living.
The biggest problem with the Tibet Independence involvement with the
Dalai Lama is the inherent contradiction between his theocratic role
and his political requirement.
The endless comparison between Mahamat Gandhi and the Dalai Lama does
not make the comparison valid nor help the TI cause. For one thing,
Gandhi never played the oppressive role that the Dalai Lama played:
In Brad Pitt's Seven Years in Tibet, the current Dalai Lama as a
teenager told the Brad Pitt character to build him a movie house for
him so that he could watch movie night after night. In doing so, he
exploited a vast number of commoners who physically labored and
mentally strained to satisfy His Holiness' selfish desire. They were
stressed by the thought that their work was hurting the earth worms,
which the Dalai Lama and his predecessors had taught them for
centuries that they were their _mothers_.
And the young Dalai Lama monopolized Pitt's character to be his sole
private tutor, instead of deploying the latter's expertise to educate
hundreds of school-age children in those precious seven years.
Imagine that if one of those would-be pupils of the Austrian explorer
would have been a Qian Xuesen, a leading rocket scientist in the world
and had secretly built a "silkworm missile" for his/her people! China
would be even more "scared" about the Dalai Lama and his people now,
instead of just being paranoid about them as Moynihan portrayed.
Realistically, how can Tibet be a viable country by itself without a
class of intellectuals to lead the way first? India had hers and
China also had her own, such as Qian Xeusen.
The alternative would of course be like the current Afghanistan, which
does not have an educated class of people to build a country from.
Instead, it must be babied by the US/NATO troops and their bombs and
missiles, against its own people. When Tibet did that, it would be
right in the backyard of China.
Would any government not be worried about that? Why, of course no
responsible government would not worry sick of such a scenario.
If the Chinese government isn't worried about an independent Tibet in
its back, it would not have done its fiduciary duty to the people it
purports to represent, would it?
And of course India (and Pakistan as a result of the independence deal
from England) during Gandhi's time had a large contingent of a very
educated intellectuals to make India a viable country out of the yoke
of British colonialism.
Furthermore, the case contrasting the occupier and the occupied in
colonial India with the Brits is unmistakably plain while that with
Tibet being under Chinese rule is much much more obscure, to the point
that no nation today recognize the TI crowd's claim of one-sixth of
the total Chinese land mass.
The TI crowd is simply unrealistic!
And of course, many historians would also tell you many other factors
in India and Pakistan's successful independence drive, a condition
which is clearly absent in Tibet now.
lo yeeOn
========
lo yeeOn
>Asian Age [Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11:58]
>By Maura Moynihan
>*Maura Moynihan is a writer who has worked with Tibetan refugees in
>India for many years. Now based in New York, she is researching a
>book on America?s failed China policy.
Yeap!!!. America's failed China policy began as early as in the early
1950s, when the Dalai Lama was still wining and dining with Chairman
Mao and Premier Chou En-lai in Beijing, when it negotiated with the
evil Chinese communists and traded away the brilliant rocket scientist
Qian Xuesen (who just died 31/10/2009) in Beijing at 98 for a number
of American POWs held by the Chinese captured during the Korean War.
(Let it be said that it was actually a win-win situation because it
showed the then American government cared about its soldiers who
fought in a War it sent them to and China got a man who could really
help the Chinese people to leave their shameful past behind to become
a self-reliant nation. But a lot of US historians and political wise
guys have whined bitterly about it ever since, as one of the dumbest
move made by the government in the history of America.)
That deal has been widely viewed as instrumental in bringing China to
her current eminent position in world politics as well as giving the
US government such a headache to deal with in the past 30-40 years.
And then Richard Nixon, the Republican US president of the 1970s,
further "sold America out" to China, through that cunning Secretary of
State Henry Kissinger, who wined and dined Chairman Mao and Premier
Chou En-lai, agreeing to give them not only the UN seat but also the
permanent membership in the Security Council along with the veto power
and all that, which was held by Taiwan's Generalissimo Chiang Kei-Sek
at the time, which they demanded from Nixon in exchange for forming a
diplomatic tie with the US. A little irony in that episode is that
a Chiang top military adviser also had a daughter who was married to
the rocket scientist Qian who made China such a space giant today.
And the final draw was the evil warrior president George W. Bush whom
His Holiness the Dalai Lama found to be such an irresistible soulmate
even after the rest of the world had rendered its verdict on him as a
mass murderer: Bush went to Beijing to kowtow to the evil communists
to beg them to keep their mouth shut on the slaughter in Afghanistan
and Iraq while keep their denizens laboring hard to produce the cheap
goods the increasingly impoverished American citizens need and can
afford to fill their basic living need.
So, what's new in Maura Moynihan' complaint about Obama? She should
know better that Obama is only following the same failed Bush policy
in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Obama has a greater problem now since
the near decade-long twin wars in Asia have bankrupted America and he
had to borrow more than a trillion USD in his first days as president
of the US just to help turn the stock market around and the US economy
moving along again.
So, Obama likewise has to beg China. And he even has to do more in
order to keep Walmart well supplied so that America can grind along
just a little longer with two wars on her back.
The Tibetan Independence crowd is getting the feeling that Obama is a
good target to lambast because all the birthers and republicans have
been relentlessly doing the same, attacking him partly based on his
skin-color.
But the TI crowd is foolish. They should understand that Obama could
do no more or no less for the TI cause now than any US president ever
could.
And the "Dalai Lama never seems to rest" because he is working for the
CIA, a part of the same Obama administration, just as he has been for
the past so many decades and that's why he is visiting the US so much.
And he has to of course jetset back and forth between Northern America
and Dharamsala to entertain his western visitors to raise more fund
for the Tibet Independence cause.
But by being so restless, the Dalai Lama is left with hardly any time
for lengthy periods of meditation, a task necessary for any monk, not
to mention the leading monk.
The original Buddha made a choice. He gave up worldly concerns and
led a solitary life filled with meditation to free himself from the
burden of a common way of living.
The biggest problem with the Tibet Independence involvement with the
Dalai Lama is the inherent contradiction between his theocratic role
and his political requirement and between his professed belief and his
practice.
The endless comparison between Mahamat Gandhi and the Dalai Lama does
not make the comparison valid nor help with the TI cause.
For one thing, Gandhi never played the oppressive role that the Dalai
Lama played:
In Brad Pitt's Seven Years in Tibet, the current Dalai Lama as a
teenager told the Brad Pitt character to build him a movie house for
him so that he could watch movie night after night. In doing so, he
exploited a vast number of commoners who physically labored and
mentally strained to satisfy His Holiness' selfish desire. They were
stressed by the thought that their work was hurting the earth worms,
which the Dalai Lama and his predecessors had taught them for
centuries that they were their _mothers_.
And the young Dalai Lama monopolized Pitt's character to be his sole
private tutor, instead of deploying the latter's expertise to educate
hundreds of school-age children in those precious seven years.
Imagine that if one of those would-be pupils of the Austrian explorer
would have become a Qian Xuesen, a leading rocket scientist in the
world and had secretly built a "silkworm missile" for his/her people!
China would have had more reasons to be "scared" about the Dalai Lama
and his people then, instead of just being paranoid about them now as
Moynihan has portrayed.
Realistically, how can Tibet be a viable country by itself without a
class of intellectuals to lead the way? India had hers and China also
had her own, such as Qian Xeusen.
The alternative if it were to become a sovereign nation would be like
the current Afghanistan, which does not have a substantially educated
class of people to help build a country from. Instead, it must rely
on the US-led NATO troops and their bombs and missiles, against its
own people, to maintain a government, which for all practical purpose
is but a US puppet and the country is nothing but an occupied land.
If Tibet ever became something that, it would then be right in China's
backyard.
Would any government not be worried about that? Why, of course no
responsible government would not worry sick about such a scenario.
If the Chinese government didn't worry about an independent Tibet in
its back, it would not have performed its fiduciary duty to the people
it purports to represent, would it?
And of course India (and Pakistan as a result of the independence deal
from England) during Gandhi's time had a large contingent of a very
educated class of people to make India a viable, self-reliant nation
outside the yoke of British colonialism.
Furthermore, the case contrasting the occupier and the occupied in
colonial India with the Brits is unmistakably plain while that with
Tibet being under Chinese rule is much much more obscure, so much so
to the point that no nation today would recognize the TI crowd's claim
that China owe's it one-sixth of the total Chinese land mass.
The TI crowd is simply unrealistic and appears greedy!
And of course, many historians would also tell you many other factors
in India and Pakistan's successful independence drive from the British
rule, a condition which is clearly absent in Tibet now.
lo yeeOn
========
>A special ritual of life in Dharamsala is welcoming His Holiness the
Peter Terpstra
> His Holiness' followers now think it's kosher to bash the US president
> because he is Obama Re: Opinion: Why is China scared.
Dear Mister Lo YeeOn,
Bashing means hitting, and if Barack Obama was being hit, it would be in all
newspapers, but criticizing that's normal in this world, the best friends are
the one's who criticize you so you can learn and grow.
Yes I now that the CCP does not like that and will brutal suppress, CCP is
above the law and there will come a time that the CCP must give the power to
the people and I hope they do that on a wise way.
Kind Regards,
Peter
--
Amnesty International Report 2009 on China:
http://report2009.amnesty.org/en/regions/asia-pacific/china
Peter Terpstra
Mister lo yeeOn,
You can have your opinions.
The CCP is in your heart and you are defending what they think is true, that's
okay with me, not that I subscribe them.
But the CCP does not have a monopoly on truth, in the world the Chinese
government has a very bad image (lies, murder, torture, corruption and more),
the many billions of dollars that China spends on Propaganda will not change
that image, only transparency and the embracing of Human Values will go!
Kind Regards,
Peter
PS: I had to remove some ng's because my newsagent does not allow so many!
lo yeeOn
Peter Terpstra <pe...@dharma.dnsdojo.org> wrote:
>lo yeeOn in <hcr8l1$s63$1...@reader1.panix.com> :
>
>Mister lo yeeOn,
>You can have your opinions. The CCP is in your heart and you are
>defending what they think is true, that's okay with me, not that I
>subscribe them.
>
>But the CCP does not have a monopoly on truth, in the world the
>Chinese government has a very bad image (lies, murder, torture,
>corruption and more), the many billions of dollars that China spends
>on Propaganda will not change that image, only transparency and the
>embracing of Human Values will go!
>
>Kind Regards,
>
> Peter
>
>PS: I had to remove some ng's because my newsagent does not allow so many!
>
>--
>Amnesty International Report 2009 on China:
>http://report2009.amnesty.org/en/regions/asia-pacific/china
I talked about the Dalai Lama because you posted Moynihan's article
which talked about the Dalai Lama. If you had posted the Amnesty
International Report about China, I probably would have done a follow
up talking about China. But instead you did not respond to my points
about the Dalai Lama and switched the subject to China. Well, of
course there is a little bit of China here and there because the Dalai
Lama has been paid to demonize the Chinese government throughout his
life; and so I also explained why China would have to respond to the
Dalai Lama in this fashion. As for the torture allegations in prisons
against Tibetan detainees, I didn't respond because I knew nothing of
the the truth of the allegations. And judging from past allegations
about the number of Tibetans the communists have killed, at least a
very credible TI supporter has made the allegation that the number of
a million was made up. So, that kind of dispute is not suitable for
me to comment on based on my ignorance of the facts surrounding the
allegations. On the other hand, I have to point out the intellectual
dishonesty surrounding the TI movement headed by the Dalai Lama. Any
point I've made that has also appeared in some Chinese government
publlication is purely incidental. In fact, I believe that most of
the points I've made about the Dalai Lama I've never seen them raised
in any publications, communist or non-communist. For example, my
point about the Dalai Lama's conduct portrayed in the movie "Seven
YEars in Tibet", a movie highly simpathetic to the Dalai Lama. It's
patently so absurd from my eyes. But i've never seen any discussion
about it anywhere else: The boy Lama commanded the Pitt character to
lead "his people" to build a movie house for him. "His people" had to
not only labor hard in the bitter cold days of Tibet but also the
unnecessary emotional distress of seeing their "mothers" writhe in
pain as they die slowly from their injury. Why don't you respond to
that instead of accusing me of following the CCP line? The CCP has
never printed any such criticism about the Dalai Lama, as far as I
know. I happen to believe the movie's story line for two reasons:
1) I've studied Buddhism as a philosophy subject in college and was
deeply moved by its teaching, even though to this day, I am still a
Christian, believing in Jesus' teaching, instead of the Buddha's.
2) The movie is clearly highly sympathetic toward the Dalai Lama and
the TI cause, as it made cardboard portrayal of the communists, which
diminishes the artistic value of the movie rather than to enhance it.
And I also raised the subject of how the Dalai Lama's public cozying
up to George Bush, arguably the worst mass murderer alive. It makes
no sense for a buddhist to publicly endorses the conduct of murderers
even as he's known to be under the CIA's employ.
And then the endless comparison with Mahamat Gandhi makes me want to
puke. For one thing, Gandhi was a commoner and never pretended that
he was perfect or was some god incarnate.
Gandhi commanded his respect through his conduct not through titles
such as His Holiness or Nobel Laureate. Gandhi said memorable things
that people want to follow, even long after his death. And Gandhi had
his action to back up his words. None of these virtues are apparent
in the Dalai Lama.
My favorite Gandhi:
Live as if you'll die tomorrow and learn as if you'll live forever.
This is something that I would like my many Chinese fellowmen to think
about. Many Chinese, like many Americans (the two peoples are getting
increasingly alike, I'm afraid), think of learning as a means to gain
access to a good life and so they obtain a Ph.D. from the MIT, say,
and get a good job, academic or otherwise, then they think they have
achieved their lives' goal. For this reason, China will continue to
be second rate, though many in this group do not realize that. They
like to brag how great China currently is, even though China only
holds a lot of USD which they can't freely spend. And as our esteemed
netter Alberto Fung likes to say, China is on the receiving end of
jobs that Americans do not want. The truth is China does not have an
edge on innovation, exactly as Qian Xuesen, the famed rocket
scientist, has allegedly said. The leadership of Chinese academia is
mediocre and corrupt, as not only Qian but the eminent mathematician
Yau Shingtung has also alleged. China doesn't have an equivalent of
Bell Labs, nor Frances' Grenoble, nor Germany's Max Planck Institutes,
nor Cambridge or Oxford of England. China in fact has a very poor
infrastructure for frontier scientific explorations. And she also has
too many Confucian-minded people to have the tenacity to persue a
study like Tiolkovsky or Thomas Alva Edison did. Russia and America
have had quite a few of those in their cultures, which gave them
unparallel power. So, here lies a hope for the Tibetans: They can
catch up against the Chinese, when they can see that the latter are
not so invincible and that they the Tibetans themselves just have to
clean up their own act, instead of endlessly wasting their time on the
phony Dalai Lama or depend on a few millions a year from the CIA.
lo yeeOn
========
P.S.: I will continue to use the term "bash" because that's what
newspapers typically use when they refer to loud and unrestrained
criticisms.
In article <1412414.jdM9vG3zhG@dharma>,
Peter Terpstra <pe...@dharma.dnsdojo.org> wrote:
>Why is China scared
>Asian Age [Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11:58]
>By Maura Moynihan
>*Maura Moynihan is a writer who has worked with Tibetan refugees in
>India for many years. Now based in New York, she is researching a
>book on America?s failed China policy.
Yeap!!!. America's failed China policy began as early as in the early
1950s, when the Dalai Lama was still wining and dining with Chairman
Mao and Premier Chou En-lai in Beijing, when it negotiated with the
evil Chinese communists and traded away the brilliant rocket scientist
Qian Xuesen (who just died 31/10/2009) in Beijing at 98 for a number
of American POWs held by the Chinese captured during the Korean War.
(Let it be said that it was actually a win-win situation because it
showed the then American government cared about its soldiers who
fought in a War it sent them to and China got a man who could really
help the Chinese people to leave their shameful past behind to become
a self-reliant nation. But a lot of US historians and political wise
guys have whined bitterly about it ever since, as one of the dumbest
move made by the government in the history of America.)
That deal has been widely viewed as instrumental in bringing China to
her current eminent position in world politics as well as giving the
US government such a headache to deal with in the past 30-40 years.
And then Richard Nixon, the Republican US president of the 1970s,
further "sold America out" to China, through that cunning Secretary of
State Henry Kissinger, who wined and dined Chairman Mao and Premier
Chou En-lai, agreeing to give them not only the UN seat but also the
permanent membership in the Security Council along with the veto power
and all that, which was held by Taiwan's Generalissimo Chiang Kei-Sek
at the time, which they demanded from Nixon in exchange for forming a
diplomatic tie with the US. A little irony in that episode is that
a Chiang top military adviser also had a daughter who was married to
the rocket scientist Qian who made China such a space giant today.
And the final draw was the evil warrior president George W. Bush whom
His Holiness the Dalai Lama found to be such an irresistible soulmate
even after the rest of the world had rendered its verdict on him as a
mass murderer: Bush went to Beijing to kowtow to the evil communists
to beg them to keep their mouth shut on the slaughter in Afghanistan
and Iraq while keep their denizens laboring hard to produce the cheap
goods the increasingly impoverished American citizens need and can
afford to fill their basic living need.
So, what's new in Maura Moynihan' complaint about Obama? She should
know better that Obama is only following the same failed Bush policy
in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Obama has a greater problem now since
the near decade-long twin wars in Asia have bankrupted America and he
had to borrow more than a trillion USD in his first days as president
of the US just to help turn the stock market around and the US economy
moving along again.
So, Obama likewise has to beg China. And he even has to do more in
order to keep Walmart well supplied so that America can grind along
just a little longer with two wars on her back.
The Tibetan Independence crowd is getting the feeling that Obama is a
good target to lambast because all the birthers and republicans have
been relentlessly doing the same, attacking him partly based on his
skin-color.
But the TI crowd is foolish. They should understand that Obama could
do no more or no less for the TI cause now than any US president ever
could.
And the "Dalai Lama never seems to rest" because he is working for the
CIA, a part of the same Obama administration, just as he has been for
the past so many decades and that's why he is visiting the US so much.
And he has to of course jetset back and forth between Northern America
and Dharamsala to entertain his western visitors to raise more fund
for the Tibet Independence cause.
But by being so restless, the Dalai Lama is left with hardly any time
for lengthy periods of meditation, a task necessary for any monk, not
to mention the leading monk.
The original Buddha made a choice. He gave up worldly concerns and
led a solitary life filled with meditation to free himself from the
burden of a common way of living.
The biggest problem with the Tibet Independence involvement with the
Dalai Lama is the inherent contradiction between his theocratic role
and his political requirement and between his professed belief and his
practice.
The endless comparison between Mahamat Gandhi and the Dalai Lama does
not make the comparison valid nor help with the TI cause.
For one thing, Gandhi never played the oppressive role that the Dalai
Lama played:
In Brad Pitt's Seven Years in Tibet, the current Dalai Lama as a
teenager told the Brad Pitt character to build him a movie house for
him so that he could watch movie night after night. In doing so, he
exploited a vast number of commoners who physically labored and
mentally strained to satisfy His Holiness' selfish desire. They were
stressed by the thought that their work was hurting the earth worms,
which the Dalai Lama and his predecessors had taught them for
centuries that they were their _mothers_.
And the young Dalai Lama monopolized Pitt's character to be his sole
private tutor, instead of deploying the latter's expertise to educate
hundreds of school-age children in those precious seven years.
Imagine that if one of those would-be pupils of the Austrian explorer
would have become a Qian Xuesen, a leading rocket scientist in the
world and had secretly built a "silkworm missile" for his/her people!
China would have had more reasons to be "scared" about the Dalai Lama
and his people then, instead of just being paranoid about them now as
Moynihan has portrayed.
Realistically, how can Tibet be a viable country by itself without a
class of intellectuals to lead the way? India had hers and China also
had her own, such as Qian Xeusen.
The alternative if it were to become a sovereign nation would be like
the current Afghanistan, which does not have a substantially educated
class of people to help build a country from. Instead, it must rely
on the US-led NATO troops and their bombs and missiles, against its
own people, to maintain a government, which for all practical purpose
is but a US puppet and the country is nothing but an occupied land.
If Tibet ever became something that, it would then be right in China's
backyard.
Would any government not be worried about that? Why, of course no
responsible government would not worry sick about such a scenario.
If the Chinese government didn't worry about an independent Tibet in
its back, it would not have performed its fiduciary duty to the people
it purports to represent, would it?
And of course India (and Pakistan as a result of the independence deal
from England) during Gandhi's time had a large contingent of a very
educated class of people to make India a viable, self-reliant nation
outside the yoke of British colonialism.
Furthermore, the case contrasting the occupier and the occupied in
colonial India with the Brits is unmistakably plain while that with
Tibet being under Chinese rule is much much more obscure, so much so
to the point that no nation today would recognize the TI crowd's claim
that China owe's it one-sixth of the total Chinese land mass.
The TI crowd is simply unrealistic and appears greedy!
And of course, many historians would also tell you many other factors
in India and Pakistan's successful independence drive from the British
rule, a condition which is clearly absent in Tibet now.
lo yeeOn
Peter Terpstra <pe...@dharma.dnsdojo.org> wrote:
>lo yeeOn in <hcrer5$1qv$1...@reader1.panix.com> :
>
>
>> His Holiness' followers now think it's kosher to bash the US president
>> because he is Obama Re: Opinion: Why is China scared.
>
>Dear Mister Lo YeeOn,
>Bashing means hitting, and if Barack Obama was being hit, it would be
Errr, I used the term "bash" because that's what newspapers typically
use when they refer to loud and unrestrained criticisms.
Do you know that a word can be used to mean things figuratively? And
that's how I used it as newspapers like to do often, for effect.
lo yeeOn
========
lo yeeOn
Peter Terpstra <pe...@dharma.dnsdojo.org> wrote:
>lo yeeOn in <hcrer5$1qv$1...@reader1.panix.com> :
>
>
>> His Holiness' followers now think it's kosher to bash the US president
>> because he is Obama Re: Opinion: Why is China scared.
>
>Dear Mister Lo YeeOn,
>Bashing means hitting, and if Barack Obama was being hit, it would be
Errr, I used the term "bash" because that's what newspapers typically
use when they refer to loud and unrestrained criticisms.
Do you know that a word can be used to mean things figuratively? And
that's how I used it: for effect, as newspapers like to do!
lo yeeOn
========
In Brad Pitt's Movie Seven Years in Tibet, the current Dalai Lama as
a teenager told the Pitt character to build a movie house for him so
that he could watch movies night after night. In doing so, he
exploited a vast number of commoners who physically labored and
mentally strained to satisfy His Holiness' selfish desire. They were
stressed by the thought that their work was hurting the earth worms,
which the Dalai Lama and his predecessors had taught them and their
ancestors generation after generation that the worms were their
lo yeeOn
>Asian Age [Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11:58]
>By Maura Moynihan
>*Maura Moynihan is a writer who has worked with Tibetan refugees in
>India for many years. Now based in New York, she is researching a
mentally strained to satisfy His Holiness' selfish desires. They
lo yeeOn
========
>A special ritual of life in Dharamsala is welcoming His Holiness the
lo yeeOn
Peter Terpstra <pe...@dharma.dnsdojo.org> wrote:
>lo yeeOn in <hcr8l1$s63$1...@reader1.panix.com> :
>
>Mister lo yeeOn,
>You can have your opinions. The CCP is in your heart and you are
>defending what they think is true, that's okay with me, not that I
>subscribe them.
>
>But the CCP does not have a monopoly on truth, in the world the
>Chinese government has a very bad image (lies, murder, torture,
>corruption and more), the many billions of dollars that China spends
>on Propaganda will not change that image, only transparency and the
>embracing of Human Values will go!
>
>Kind Regards,
>
> Peter
>
>PS: I had to remove some ng's because my newsagent does not allow so many!
>
>--
>Amnesty International Report 2009 on China:
>http://report2009.amnesty.org/en/regions/asia-pacific/china
I talked about the Dalai Lama because you posted Moynihan's article
My favorite Gandhi:
lo yeeOn
========
P.S.: I will continue to use the term "bash" because that's what
newspapers typically use when they refer to loud and unrestrained
criticisms.
In article <1412414.jdM9vG3zhG@dharma>,
Peter Terpstra <pe...@dharma.dnsdojo.org> wrote:
>Why is China scared
>Asian Age [Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11:58]
>By Maura Moynihan
>*Maura Moynihan is a writer who has worked with Tibetan refugees in
>India for many years. Now based in New York, she is researching a
>book on America?s failed China policy.
Yeap!!!. America's failed China policy began as early as in the early
1950s, when the Dalai Lama was still wining and dining with Chairman
Mao and Premier Chou En-lai in Beijing, when it negotiated with the
evil Chinese communists and traded away the brilliant rocket scientist
Qian Xuesen (who just died 31/10/2009) in Beijing at 98 for a number
of American POWs held by the Chinese captured during the Korean War.
(Let it be said that it was actually a win-win situation because it
showed the then American government cared about its soldiers who
fought in a War it sent them to and China got a man who could really
help the Chinese people to leave their shameful past behind to become
a self-reliant nation. But a lot of US historians and political wise
guys have whined bitterly about it ever since, as one of the dumbest
move made by the government in the history of America.)
That deal has been widely viewed as instrumental in bringing China to
her current eminent position in world politics as well as giving the
US government such a headache to deal with in the past 30-40 years.
And then Richard Nixon, the Republican US president of the 1970s,
further "sold America out" to China, through that cunning Secretary of
State Henry Kissinger, who wined and dined Chairman Mao and Premier
Chou En-lai, agreeing to give them not only the UN seat but also the
permanent membership in the Security Council along with the veto power
and all that, which was held by Taiwan's Generalissimo Chiang Kei-Sek
at the time, which they demanded from Nixon in exchange for forming a
diplomatic tie with the US. A little irony in that episode is that
a Chiang top military adviser also had a daughter who was married to
the rocket scientist Qian who made China such a space giant today.
And the final draw was the evil warrior president George W. Bush whom
His Holiness the Dalai Lama found to be such an irresistible soulmate
even after the rest of the world had rendered its verdict on him as a
mass murderer: Bush went to Beijing to kowtow to the evil communists
to beg them to keep their mouth shut on the slaughter in Afghanistan
and Iraq while keep their denizens laboring hard to produce the cheap
goods the increasingly impoverished American citizens need and can
afford to fill their basic living need.
So, what's new in Maura Moynihan' complaint about Obama? She should
know better that Obama is only following the same failed Bush policy
in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Obama has a greater problem now since
the near decade-long twin wars in Asia have bankrupted America and he
had to borrow more than a trillion USD in his first days as president
of the US just to help turn the stock market around and the US economy
moving along again.
So, Obama likewise has to beg China. And he even has to do more in
order to keep Walmart well supplied so that America can grind along
just a little longer with two wars on her back.
The Tibetan Independence crowd is getting the feeling that Obama is a
good target to lambast because all the birthers and republicans have
been relentlessly doing the same, attacking him partly based on his
skin-color.
But the TI crowd is foolish. They should understand that Obama could
do no more or no less for the TI cause now than any US president ever
could.
And the "Dalai Lama never seems to rest" because he is working for the
CIA, a part of the same Obama administration, just as he has been for
the past so many decades and that's why he is visiting the US so much.
And he has to of course jetset back and forth between Northern America
and Dharamsala to entertain his western visitors to raise more fund
for the Tibet Independence cause.
But by being so restless, the Dalai Lama is left with hardly any time
for lengthy periods of meditation, a task necessary for any monk, not
to mention the leading monk.
The original Buddha made a choice. He gave up worldly concerns and
led a solitary life filled with meditation to free himself from the
burden of a common way of living.
The biggest problem with the Tibet Independence involvement with the
Dalai Lama is the inherent contradiction between his theocratic role
and his political requirement and between his professed belief and his
practice.
The endless comparison between Mahamat Gandhi and the Dalai Lama does
not make the comparison valid nor help with the TI cause.
For one thing, Gandhi never played the oppressive role that the Dalai
Lama played:
In Brad Pitt's Movie Seven Years in Tibet, the current Dalai Lama as
a teenager told the Pitt character to build a movie house for him so
that he could watch movies night after night. In doing so, he
exploited a vast number of commoners who physically labored and
mentally strained to satisfy His Holiness' selfish desires. They
were stressed by the thought that their work was hurting the earth
worms, which the Dalai Lama and his predecessors had taught them and
their ancestors generation after generation that the worms were their
_mothers_.
And the young Dalai Lama monopolized Pitt's character to be his sole
private tutor, instead of deploying the latter's expertise to educate
hundreds of school-age children in those precious seven years.
Imagine that if one of those would-be pupils of the Austrian explorer
would have become a Qian Xuesen, a leading rocket scientist in the
world and had secretly built a "silkworm missile" for his/her people!
China would have had more reasons to be "scared" about the Dalai Lama
and his people then, instead of just being paranoid about them now as
Moynihan has portrayed.
Realistically, how can Tibet be a viable country by itself without a
class of intellectuals to lead the way? India had hers and China also
had her own, such as Qian Xeusen.
The alternative if it were to become a sovereign nation would be like
the current Afghanistan, which does not have a substantially educated
class of people to help build a country from. Instead, it must rely
on the US-led NATO troops and their bombs and missiles, against its
own people, to maintain a government, which for all practical purpose
is but a US puppet and the country is nothing but an occupied land.
If Tibet ever became something that, it would then be right in China's
backyard.
Would any government not be worried about that? Why, of course no
responsible government would not worry sick about such a scenario.
If the Chinese government didn't worry about an independent Tibet in
its back, it would not have performed its fiduciary duty to the people
it purports to represent, would it?
And of course India (and Pakistan as a result of the independence deal
from England) during Gandhi's time had a large contingent of a very
educated class of people to make India a viable, self-reliant nation
outside the yoke of British colonialism.
Furthermore, the case contrasting the occupier and the occupied in
colonial India with the Brits is unmistakably plain while that with
Tibet being under Chinese rule is much much more obscure, so much so
to the point that no nation today would recognize the TI crowd's claim
that China owe's it one-sixth of the total Chinese land mass.
The TI crowd is simply unrealistic and appears greedy!
And of course, many historians would also tell you many other factors
in India and Pakistan's successful independence drive from the British
rule, a condition which is clearly absent in Tibet now.
lo yeeOn
Peter Terpstra <pe...@dharma.dnsdojo.org> wrote:
>lo yeeOn in <hcr8l1$s63$1...@reader1.panix.com> :
>
>Mister lo yeeOn,
>You can have your opinions. The CCP is in your heart and you are
>defending what they think is true, that's okay with me, not that I
>subscribe them.
>
>But the CCP does not have a monopoly on truth, in the world the
>Chinese government has a very bad image (lies, murder, torture,
>corruption and more), the many billions of dollars that China spends
>on Propaganda will not change that image, only transparency and the
>embracing of Human Values will go!
>
>Kind Regards,
>
> Peter
>
>PS: I had to remove some ng's because my newsagent does not allow so many!
>
>--
>Amnesty International Report 2009 on China:
>http://report2009.amnesty.org/en/regions/asia-pacific/china
I talked about the Dalai Lama because you posted Moynihan's article
which talked about the Dalai Lama. If you had posted the Amnesty
International Report about China, I probably would have done a follow
up talking about China. But instead you did not respond to my points
about the Dalai Lama and switched the subject to China. Well, of
course there is a little bit of China here and there because the Dalai
Lama has been paid to demonize the Chinese government throughout his
life; and so I also explained why China would have to respond to the
Dalai Lama in this fashion. As for the torture allegations in prisons
against Tibetan detainees, I didn't respond because I knew nothing of
the the truth of the allegations. And judging from past allegations
about the number of Tibetans the communists have killed, at least a
very credible TI supporter has made the allegation that the number of
a million was made up. So, that kind of dispute is not suitable for
me to comment on based on my ignorance of the facts surrounding the
allegations. On the other hand, I have to point out the intellectual
dishonesty surrounding the TI movement with the Dalai Lama at its
head. Any point I've made that has also appeared in some Chinese
government publication is purely a coincidence. In fact, I believe
that most of the points I've made about the Dalai Lama I've never seen
them raised in any publication, communist or non-communist.
Take for example my point about the Dalai Lama's conduct as portrayed
in "Seven Years in Tibet", a movie highly sympathetic to the Dalai
Lama. The Dalai Lama's behavior was patently absurd in my eyes. Yet
i've never seen any discussion about it anywhere else: The boy Lama
commanded the Pitt character to lead "his people" to build a movie
house for him. "His people" had to not only labor hard in the bitter
cold days of Tibet but to endure also the unnecessary emotional
distress of seeing their "mothers" writhe in pain as they die slowly
from their injuries. Why don't you respond to that instead of
accusing me of following the CCP line? The CCP has never printed any
such criticism about the Dalai Lama, as far as I know. And I believe
the movie's story line for two reasons:
1) I've studied Buddhism as a philosophy subject in college and was
deeply moved by its teaching, even though to this day I am still a
Christian, believing in Jesus' teaching, instead of the Buddha's.
2) The movie is highly sympathetic toward the Dalai Lama and the TI
cause, as it makes no attempt to hide its cardboard portrayal of the
communists, which by the way diminishes the artistic value of the
movie rather than enhances it.
And I also criticized the Dalai Lama's public display of approval of
George Bush who is arguably the worst mass murderer alive. It makes
no sense for a buddhist to publicly endorses the conduct of murderers
even as the endorser himself is known to be in the CIA's employ, hence
that of the mass murderer himself in some sense.
And then the endless comparison with Mahamat Gandhi makes me want to
puke. For one thing, Gandhi was a commoner and never pretended that
he was perfect or some god incarnated as human.
Gandhi commands his respect through his conduct, not through titles
such as His Holiness or some Nobel Laureate. Gandhi said memorable
My favorite Gandhi:
lo yeeOn
========
In article <1412414.jdM9vG3zhG@dharma>,
Peter Terpstra <pe...@dharma.dnsdojo.org> wrote:
>Why is China scared
>Asian Age [Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11:58]
>By Maura Moynihan
>*Maura Moynihan is a writer who has worked with Tibetan refugees in
>India for many years. Now based in New York, she is researching a
>book on America?s failed China policy.
Yeap!!!. America's failed China policy began as early as in the early
1950s, when the Dalai Lama was still wining and dining with Chairman
Mao and Premier Chou En-lai in Beijing, when it negotiated with the
evil Chinese communists and traded away the brilliant rocket scientist
Qian Xuesen (who just died 31/10/2009) in Beijing at 98 for a number
of American POWs held by the Chinese captured during the Korean War.
(Let it be said that it was actually a win-win situation because it
showed the then American government cared about its soldiers who
fought in a War it sent them to and China got a man who could really
help the Chinese people to leave their shameful past behind to become
a self-reliant nation. But a lot of US historians and political wise
guys have whined bitterly about it ever since, as one of the dumbest
move made by the government in the history of America.)
That deal has been widely viewed as instrumental in bringing China to
her current eminent position in world politics as well as giving the
US government such a headache to deal with in the past 30-40 years.
And then Richard Nixon, the Republican US president of the 1970s,
further "sold America out" to China, through that cunning Secretary of
State Henry Kissinger, who wined and dined Chairman Mao and Premier
Chou En-lai, agreeing to give them not only the UN seat but also the
permanent membership in the Security Council along with the veto power
and all that, which was held by Taiwan's Generalissimo Chiang Kei-Sek
at the time, which they demanded from Nixon in exchange for forming a
diplomatic tie with the US. A little irony in that episode is that
a Chiang top military adviser also had a daughter who was married to
the rocket scientist Qian who made China such a space giant today.
And the final draw was the evil warrior president George W. Bush whom
His Holiness the Dalai Lama found to be such an irresistible soulmate
even after the rest of the world had rendered its verdict on him as a
mass murderer: Bush went to Beijing to kowtow to the evil communists
to beg them to keep their mouth shut on the slaughter in Afghanistan
and Iraq while keep their denizens laboring hard to produce the cheap
goods the increasingly impoverished American citizens need and can
afford to fill their basic living need.
So, what's new in Maura Moynihan' complaint about Obama? She should
know better that Obama is only following the same failed Bush policy
in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Obama has a greater problem now since
the near decade-long twin wars in Asia have bankrupted America and he
had to borrow more than a trillion USD in his first days as president
of the US just to help turn the stock market around and the US economy
moving along again.
So, Obama likewise has to beg China. And he even has to do more in
order to keep Walmart well supplied so that America can grind along
just a little longer with two wars on her back.
The Tibetan Independence crowd is getting the feeling that Obama is a
good target to lambast because all the birthers and republicans have
been relentlessly doing the same, attacking him partly based on his
skin-color.
But the TI crowd is foolish. They should understand that Obama could
do no more or no less for the TI cause now than any US president ever
could.
And the "Dalai Lama never seems to rest" because he is working for the
CIA, a part of the same Obama administration, just as he has been for
the past so many decades and that's why he is visiting the US so much.
And he has to of course jetset back and forth between Northern America
and Dharamsala to entertain his western visitors to raise more fund
for the Tibet Independence cause.
But by being so restless, the Dalai Lama is left with hardly any time
for lengthy periods of meditation, a task necessary for any monk, not
to mention the leading monk.
The original Buddha made a choice. He gave up worldly concerns and
led a solitary life filled with meditation to free himself from the
burden of a common way of living.
The biggest problem with the Tibet Independence involvement with the
Dalai Lama is the inherent contradiction between his theocratic role
and his political requirement and between his professed belief and his
practice.
The endless comparison between Mahamat Gandhi and the Dalai Lama does
not make the comparison valid nor help with the TI cause.
For one thing, Gandhi never played the oppressive role that the Dalai
Lama played:
In Brad Pitt's Movie Seven Years in Tibet, the current Dalai Lama as
a teenager told the Pitt character to build a movie house for him so
that he could watch movies night after night. In doing so, he
exploited a vast number of commoners who physically labored and
mentally strained to satisfy His Holiness' selfish desires. They
were stressed by the thought that their work was hurting the earth
worms, which the Dalai Lama and his predecessors had taught them and
their ancestors generation after generation that the worms were their
_mothers_.
And the young Dalai Lama monopolized Pitt's character to be his sole
private tutor, instead of deploying the latter's expertise to educate
hundreds of school-age children in those precious seven years.
Imagine that if one of those would-be pupils of the Austrian explorer
would have become a Qian Xuesen, a leading rocket scientist in the
world and had secretly built a "silkworm missile" for his/her people!
China would have had more reasons to be "scared" about the Dalai Lama
and his people then, instead of just being paranoid about them now as
Moynihan has portrayed.
Realistically, how can Tibet be a viable country by itself without a
class of intellectuals to lead the way? India had hers and China also
had her own, such as Qian Xeusen.
The alternative if it were to become a sovereign nation would be like
the current Afghanistan, which does not have a substantially educated
class of people to help build a country from. Instead, it must rely
on the US-led NATO troops and their bombs and missiles, against its
own people, to maintain a government, which for all practical purpose
is but a US puppet and the country is nothing but an occupied land.
If Tibet ever became something that, it would then be right in China's
backyard.
Would any government not be worried about that? Why, of course no
responsible government would not worry sick about such a scenario.
If the Chinese government didn't worry about an independent Tibet in
its back, it would not have performed its fiduciary duty to the people
it purports to represent, would it?
And of course India (and Pakistan as a result of the independence deal
from England) during Gandhi's time had a large contingent of a very
educated class of people to make India a viable, self-reliant nation
outside the yoke of British colonialism.
Furthermore, the case contrasting the occupier and the occupied in
colonial India with the Brits is unmistakably plain while that with
Tibet being under Chinese rule is much much more obscure, so much so
to the point that no nation today would recognize the TI crowd's claim
that China owe's it one-sixth of the total Chinese land mass.
The TI crowd is simply unrealistic and appears greedy!
And of course, many historians would also tell you many other factors
in India and Pakistan's successful independence drive from the British
rule, a condition which is clearly absent in Tibet now.
lo yeeOn
Peter Terpstra <pe...@dharma.dnsdojo.org> wrote:
>lo yeeOn in <hcr8l1$s63$1...@reader1.panix.com> :
>
>Mister lo yeeOn,
>You can have your opinions. The CCP is in your heart and you are
>defending what they think is true, that's okay with me, not that I
>subscribe them.
>
>But the CCP does not have a monopoly on truth, in the world the
>Chinese government has a very bad image (lies, murder, torture,
>corruption and more), the many billions of dollars that China spends
>on Propaganda will not change that image, only transparency and the
>embracing of Human Values will go!
>
>Kind Regards,
>
> Peter
>
>PS: I had to remove some ng's because my newsagent does not allow so many!
>
>--
>Amnesty International Report 2009 on China:
>http://report2009.amnesty.org/en/regions/asia-pacific/china
I talked about the Dalai Lama because you posted Moynihan's article
which talked about the Dalai Lama. If you had posted the Amnesty
International Report about China, I probably would have done a follow
up talking about China. But instead you did not respond to my points
about the Dalai Lama and switched the subject to China. Well, of
course there is a little bit of China here and there because the Dalai
Lama has been paid to demonize the Chinese government throughout his
life; and so I also explained why China would have to respond to the
Dalai Lama in this fashion. As for the torture allegations in prisons
against Tibetan detainees, I didn't respond because I knew nothing of
the the truth of the allegations. And judging from past allegations
about the number of Tibetans the communists have killed, at least a
very credible TI supporter has made the allegation that the number of
a million was made up. So, that kind of dispute is not suitable for
me to comment on based on my ignorance of the facts surrounding the
allegations. On the other hand, I have to point out the intellectual
dishonesty surrounding the TI movement with the Dalai Lama at its
head. Any point I've made that has also appeared in some Chinese
government publication is purely a coincidence. In fact, I believe
that most of the points I've made about the Dalai Lama are points I
have not seen raised in any publication, communist or non-communist.
Take for example my point about the Dalai Lama's conduct as portrayed
in "Seven Years in Tibet", a movie highly sympathetic to the Dalai
Lama. The Dalai Lama's behavior was patently absurd in my eyes. Yet
i've never seen any discussion about it anywhere else: The boy Lama
commanded the Pitt character to lead "his people" to build a movie
house for him. "His people" had to not only labor hard in the bitter
cold days of Tibet but to endure also the unnecessary emotional
distress of seeing their "mothers" writhe in pain as they die slowly
from their injuries. So why don't you respond to that instead of
accusing me of following the CCP line, without actually providing any
info to back up your assertion? The CCP has never printed any such
criticism about the Dalai Lama, as far as I know.
And there are at least two good reasons for me to believe the movie's
story line:
1) I've studied Buddhism as a subject of philosophy while in college
and was actually deeply moved by its teaching, even though to this
day I am still a Christian, believing in Jesus' teaching, instead of
the Buddha's.
2) The movie is highly sympathetic toward the Dalai Lama and the TI
cause, as it makes no attempt to hide its cardboard portrayal of the
communists, which by the way diminishes the artistic value of the
movie rather than enhances it.
And I also criticized the Dalai Lama's public display of approval of
George Bush who is arguably the worst mass murderer alive. It makes
no sense for a buddhist to publicly endorse the conduct of murderers
My favorite Gandhi:
lo yeeOn
========
In article <1412414.jdM9vG3zhG@dharma>,
Peter Terpstra <pe...@dharma.dnsdojo.org> wrote:
>Why is China scared
>Asian Age [Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11:58]
>By Maura Moynihan
>*Maura Moynihan is a writer who has worked with Tibetan refugees in
>India for many years. Now based in New York, she is researching a
>book on America?s failed China policy.
Yeap!!!. America's failed China policy began as early as in the early
1950s, when the Dalai Lama was still wining and dining with Chairman
Mao and Premier Chou En-lai in Beijing, when it negotiated with the
evil Chinese communists and traded away the brilliant rocket scientist
Qian Xuesen (who just died 31/10/2009) in Beijing at 98 for a number
of American POWs held by the Chinese captured during the Korean War.
(Let it be said that it was actually a win-win situation because it
showed the then American government cared about its soldiers who
fought in a War it sent them to and China got a man who could really
help the Chinese people to leave their shameful past behind to become
a self-reliant nation. But a lot of US historians and political wise
guys have whined bitterly about it ever since, as one of the dumbest
move made by the government in the history of America.)
That deal has been widely viewed as instrumental in bringing China to
her current eminent position in world politics as well as giving the
US government such a headache to deal with in the past 30-40 years.
And then Richard Nixon, the Republican US president of the 1970s,
further "sold America out" to China, through that cunning Secretary of
State Henry Kissinger, who wined and dined Chairman Mao and Premier
Chou En-lai, agreeing to give them not only the UN seat but also the
permanent membership in the Security Council along with the veto power
and all that, which was held by Taiwan's Generalissimo Chiang Kei-Sek
at the time, which they demanded from Nixon in exchange for forming a
diplomatic tie with the US. A little irony in that episode is that
a Chiang top military adviser also had a daughter who was married to
the rocket scientist Qian who made China such a space giant today.
And the final draw was the evil warrior president George W. Bush whom
His Holiness the Dalai Lama found to be such an irresistible soulmate
even after the rest of the world had rendered its verdict on him as a
mass murderer: Bush went to Beijing to kowtow to the evil communists
to beg them to keep their mouth shut on the slaughter in Afghanistan
and Iraq while keep their denizens laboring hard to produce the cheap
goods the increasingly impoverished American citizens need and can
afford to fill their basic living need.
So, what's new in Maura Moynihan' complaint about Obama? She should
know better that Obama is only following the same failed Bush policy
in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Obama has a greater problem now since
the near decade-long twin wars in Asia have bankrupted America and he
had to borrow more than a trillion USD in his first days as president
of the US just to help turn the stock market around and the US economy
moving along again.
So, Obama likewise has to beg China. And he even has to do more in
order to keep Walmart well supplied so that America can grind along
just a little longer with two wars on her back.
The Tibetan Independence crowd is getting the feeling that Obama is a
good target to lambast because all the birthers and republicans have
been relentlessly doing the same, attacking him partly based on his
skin-color.
But the TI crowd is foolish. They should understand that Obama could
do no more or no less for the TI cause now than any US president ever
could.
And the "Dalai Lama never seems to rest" because he is working for the
CIA, a part of the same Obama administration, just as he has been for
the past so many decades and that's why he is visiting the US so much.
And he has to of course jetset back and forth between Northern America
and Dharamsala to entertain his western visitors to raise more fund
for the Tibet Independence cause.
But by being so restless, the Dalai Lama is left with hardly any time
for lengthy periods of meditation, a task necessary for any monk, not
to mention the leading monk.
The original Buddha made a choice. He gave up worldly concerns and
led a solitary life filled with meditation to free himself from the
burden of a common way of living.
The biggest problem with the Tibet Independence involvement with the
Dalai Lama is the inherent contradiction between his theocratic role
and his political requirement and between his professed belief and his
practice.
The endless comparison between Mahamat Gandhi and the Dalai Lama does
not make the comparison valid nor help with the TI cause.
For one thing, Gandhi never played the oppressive role that the Dalai
Lama played:
In Brad Pitt's Movie Seven Years in Tibet, the current Dalai Lama as
a teenager told the Pitt character to build a movie house for him so
that he could watch movies night after night. In doing so, he
exploited a vast number of commoners who physically labored and
mentally strained to satisfy His Holiness' selfish desires. They
were stressed by the thought that their work was hurting the earth
worms, which the Dalai Lama and his predecessors had taught them and
their ancestors generation after generation that the worms were their
_mothers_.
And the young Dalai Lama monopolized Pitt's character to be his sole
private tutor, instead of deploying the latter's expertise to educate
hundreds of school-age children in those precious seven years.
Imagine that if one of those would-be pupils of the Austrian explorer
would have become a Qian Xuesen, a leading rocket scientist in the
world and had secretly built a "silkworm missile" for his/her people!
China would have had more reasons to be "scared" about the Dalai Lama
and his people then, instead of just being paranoid about them now as
Moynihan has portrayed.
Realistically, how can Tibet be a viable country by itself without a
class of intellectuals to lead the way? India had hers and China also
had her own, such as Qian Xeusen.
The alternative if it were to become a sovereign nation would be like
the current Afghanistan, which does not have a substantially educated
class of people to help build a country from. Instead, it must rely
on the US-led NATO troops and their bombs and missiles, against its
own people, to maintain a government, which for all practical purpose
is but a US puppet and the country is nothing but an occupied land.
If Tibet ever became something that, it would then be right in China's
backyard.
Would any government not be worried about that? Why, of course no
responsible government would not worry sick about such a scenario.
If the Chinese government didn't worry about an independent Tibet in
its back, it would not have performed its fiduciary duty to the people
it purports to represent, would it?
And of course India (and Pakistan as a result of the independence deal
from England) during Gandhi's time had a large contingent of a very
educated class of people to make India a viable, self-reliant nation
outside the yoke of British colonialism.
Furthermore, the case contrasting the occupier and the occupied in
colonial India with the Brits is unmistakably plain while that with
Tibet being under Chinese rule is much much more obscure, so much so
to the point that no nation today would recognize the TI crowd's claim
that China owe's it one-sixth of the total Chinese land mass.
The TI crowd is simply unrealistic and appears greedy!
And of course, many historians would also tell you many other factors
in India and Pakistan's successful independence drive from the British
rule, a condition which is clearly absent in Tibet now.
Peter Terpstra
> Errr, I used the term "bash" because that's what newspapers typically
> use when they refer to loud and unrestrained criticisms.
>
> Do you know that a word can be used to mean things figuratively? And
> that's how I used it: for effect, as newspapers like to do!
Yes, but it is all illusion, now one is getting bashed and people forget that
they think that someone really is going to be hit, that critics are not
permitted and should be silenced, I say this because CCP people use the term
bashing to restrain, to minimize and ridicule critics.
What newspapers do happens between your ears, that where the illusion starts!
Peter Terpstra
> I talked about the Dalai Lama because you posted Moynihan's article
> which talked about the Dalai Lama. If you had posted the Amnesty
> International Report about China, I probably would have done a follow
> up talking about China. But instead you did not respond to my points
> about the Dalai Lama and switched the subject to China.
I have nothing with all those fairy tales, I leave untouched to and for you.
Its Just the ordinary Chinese propaganda, China's has a lot of money to
sustain such a huge propaganda machine. Off course its CCP's interest to
blacken DL because he is a honest man, something that the CCP can not bare.
I wish the CCP to become more intelligent so they can see the huge mistakes
they make.
With kind regards,
Peter
lo yeeOn
Peter Terpstra <pe...@dharma.dnsdojo.org> wrote:
>lo yeeOn in <hcu9rt$ct6$1...@reader1.panix.com> :
>
>> Errr, I used the term "bash" because that's what newspapers
>> typically use when they refer to loud and unrestrained criticisms.
>>
>> Do you know that a word can be used to mean things figuratively?
>> And that's how I used it: for effect, as newspapers like to do!
>
>Yes, but it is all illusion, now one is getting bashed and people
>forget that they think that someone really is going to be hit, that
>critics are not permitted and should be silenced, I say this because
>CCP people use the term bashing to restrain, to minimize and ridicule
>critics.
Last time you said it was normal for the Dalai Lama's followers to
bash Obama because it was just words. Now you're saying someone is
going to get hurt. I have never said that "critics are not permitted
and should be silenced", I simply pointed out the hypocrisy. During
George Bush's presidency, these "critics" were completely quiet while
the Dalai Lama kissed the mass murderer's behind. Now, it's normal.
Truth hurts, doesn't it?
lo yeeOn
========
lo yeeOn
Peter Terpstra <pe...@dharma.dnsdojo.org> wrote:
>lo yeeOn in <hcue03$92o$1...@reader1.panix.com> :
>
>> I talked about the Dalai Lama because you posted Moynihan's article
>> which talked about the Dalai Lama. If you had posted the Amnesty
>> International Report about China, I probably would have done a follow
>> up talking about China. But instead you did not respond to my points
>> about the Dalai Lama and switched the subject to China.
>
>I have nothing with all those fairy tales, I leave untouched to and
>for you. Its Just the ordinary Chinese propaganda, China's has a lot
>of money to sustain such a huge propaganda machine. Off course its
>CCP's interest to blacken DL because he is a honest man, something
>that the CCP can not bare.
Nothing I said was fairy tales. Don't be so dishonest.
You still insist what I said was Chinese propaganda, don't you? Even
implying in one breath that I'm _paid_ by a rich and huge propaganda
machine to say what I said.
And not only that, "Its Just <sic> the ordinary Chinese propaganda".
How pathetic!
You obviously didn't even read my posts because in the latest one, I
wrote something very critical of the Chinese current government.
And I often posted article critical of the Chinese government.
But the posts you regular put up are so ludicrous that I feel a duty
to point out the contradictions and hypocrisy.
I have nothing to do with any government and never got paid even a
cent for anything I wrote on the net, even though I receive royalties
for other creative things I wrote.
And do I see jealousy here? Because you are obviously a paid worker
for somebody doing all these contradictory postings, though not being
paid very well. The organization which pays you obviously isn't well
oiled enough to pay much, otherwise, it would have either insisted you
be more consistent in your work or hired someone else who's more savvy
to do the job.
lo yeeOn
========
Peter Terpstra
> Nothing I said was fairy tales. Don't be so dishonest.
Then we disagree.
Have a good life and kind Regards!
peter