FAMILY MEMBER OF FREE CHINA MOVEMENT LEADER ARRESTED
china...@my-deja.com
December 24, 2000 20:57:39:
For Immediate Release
Date: December 24, 2000
Contact: Timothy Cooper
Phone: 202-244-9479/ 202-213-3442
Fax: E-Mail: world...@aol.com
FAMILY MEMBER OF FREE CHINA MOVEMENT LEADER ARRESTED
BY CHINESE GOVERNMENT;
(Dissidents call on World Community to Protest
Human Rights Conditions in China)
Washington, D.C.-- Ms. Sharong Lian, sister of
well-known dissident leader of
the Free China Movement Lian Shengde, was arrested on
Dec 19th at Shuangliu
International airport moments before she was to board
a plane to Hong Kong.
Mr. Lian's sister was attempting to travel to the
United States for a year in
order to help Mr. Lian's wife recover from a serious
illness. After obtaining
a passport from a travel agency by changing the
writing of her Chinese
character name, but by keeping the same Romantic
spelling on the passport,
she was detained for 24 hours before being permitted
to contact her parents.
Since then, she has been held in Yi Guanmiao jail.
Chinese authorities seized all of Ms. Lian's personal
belongings, including
over a $1000 in cash and an address book. Chinese
police deny confiscating
the money.
According to Mr. Lian, the Chinese government has been
employing a duel
strategy to silence overseas dissidents in recent
years. In a few of the most
famous cases, including Wei Jingsheng and Wang Dan,
the government used them
as bargaining chips in bilateral relations with the US
government. For
instance, their family members were allowed to leave
China without incident.
But in the cases of less well-known dissident leaders,
who are still actively
opposing the Chinese regime, the government has
employed decidedly harsher
tactics, including intimidation of family members and
the denial of passports
for travel.
Earlier this year, the Chinese government refused to
grant Mr. Lian's parents
their passport applications so that they could visit
their newborn grandson
in America. While arguing with Public Security Bureau
officials in Beijing
about the passport application denial, Mr. Lian's
father was threatened with
jail.
"The Free China Movement-- as should the world--
condemns in no uncertain
terms the Chinese government's arrest and detention of
Ms. Sharong Lian,"
declared Timothy Cooper, international director of the
Free China Movement.
"By its actions, Beijing sends a strong and troubling
signal to the entire
international community. It confirms, once again, that
it intends to travel
down the road of human rights oppression, rather than
go the path less well
traveled toward freedom for its own people," concluded
Cooper.
"Beijing Regime is a master in creating division among overseas
Chinese dissidents. They hope to weave a web of distrust and
discontent among the overseas
dissident leaders by employing a disturbing strategy
of using a few famous
dissident leaders as bargaining chips in bilateral
negotiations, while
treating harshly family members of less well known
dissident leaders, thereby
hoping to sow division in the overseas community.
Their tactics will never
succeed," stated Richard Long, editor of BigNews.ORG,
a/k/a Chinese VIP Reference.
"China's strategy of repression becomes more ruthless
every day," stated
Shengde Lian, executive director of the Free China
Movement. "Though I feel my sister's
pain, and sympathize with
her plight, I will not rest until the people of China
have been freed of such
a government. I therefore call for the immediate
release of Sharong Lian, and
for the world community to lodge the strongest
possible diplomatic protests
against the Chinese government. Will this wave of
oppression never end?"
asked Mr. Lian.
Mr. Shengde Lian was the Chair of Autonomous
Federation of Universities from
Outside Beijing in TianAnMen Square in 1989. He was
arrested immediately
after the June 4th massacre and spent about two years
in QinCheng Prison in
the northern Suburb of Beijing. He was released in
January 1991 after strong
international pressure. Purchasing a Tibetan passport,
Mr. Lian escaped to
the United States in 1994. A documentary about Mr.
Lian's life entitled
"Freedom Fighter" was released last month and will be
shown at the Open Forum
by State Department on February 14, 2001. He has since
become the executive
director of the Free China Movement.
Mr. Lian's passport was also confiscated by the
Chinese Embassy in Washington
DC when he tried to renew it in June 2000. For more
information, please
contact Shengde Lian at: (202) 256-2925.
#30
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
steve_...@my-deja.com
china...@my-deja.com wrote:
This is so typical of the awful corrupt dictatorial government of China.
All Chinese should be ashamed of the CCP.
Yu
steve_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <92tl6f$n6q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> china...@my-deja.com wrote:
Not all Chinese opposition figures have their family members arrested.
However, there are cases where the family do team up eg Wei Jingsheng
and sister.
Lian Shende is involved in a lot of NED (National Endowment for
Democracy, USA) activities. NED is closely linked to the CIA.
Strictly speaking he is no longer a Chinese dissident but serving the
interest of USA like Harry Wu.
Bill Moore
Yeah, and I suppose putting his sister in jail is OK because she's
*obviously* a CIA agent.
--
Remove 'blackhole.' from the address to send e-mail
steve_...@my-deja.com
the CIA? I suppose the MILLIONS of Falun Gong members are on the CIA
payrolls too. Your patriotic love of the PRC should be redirected at
reform in your homeland, not in blaming others for your countries
problems.
steve_...@my-deja.com
Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
I think this is BS. Show the complete headers from the email. This is
too easily faked. I don't believe this.
Regards,
Steve
> > >
> > Are you trying to say that all Chinese freedom fighters are linked
to
> > the CIA?
>
> I did not say that. I don't know all of them.
> CIA is very interested in any Chinese who are willing to trash China.
> Lian Shengde have been writing letters to a CIA front called the
> National Endowment for Democracy asking for money.
>
> Here is a excerpt of the email to Ms. Louisa Coan
> Senior Program Officer for Asia
> National Endowment for Democracy
>
> --------------
> Communication may also be directed to:
>
> Shengde Lian
>
> Acting Executive Director
>
> 1319 18th Street, NW
>
> Washington, D.C. 20036
>
> Telephone/Fax: 202-296-5101/296-5183 or 202-331-8248
>
> Email: yny...@aol.com
>
> I. Summary:
>
> The Free China Movement, as a powerful, legitimate, generally
recognized
> and a well built bridge between the political
> opposition forces inside the People's Republic of China and the
> international community, on behalf of all principal, and leading
> opposition forces, particularly including, but not limited to, the
> Chinese Political Opposition Movement, including Chinese
> Democratic Party, respectfully requests a grant from the National
> Endowment for Democracy in the amount of $258,000.00 in
> order to provide logistical supports for all pro-freedom, prodemocracy
> forces inside China, including the newly formed Chinese
> Political Opposition Movement, including Chinese Democratic Party.
> Support of this proposal will directly impact the scope and
> impact of organizing activities of the Chinese Political Opposition
> Movement, including Chinese Democratic Party.
>
> II. Background:
>
> The legitimacy and strength of Free China Movement is established in
the
> fact that Free China Movement is deeply rooted in the
> land of China even though the majority of the delegates convened at
the
> historical Room #121, Cannon Building, Capitol Hill
> are the dissidents on exile. Free China Movement is not merely a
> dissident organization on exile. After founding of Free China
> Movement, wave after wave, the opposition forces inside Communist
China
> has quickly grown under the direct leadership of
> Mr. Wang Xizhe, the front runner and founding members of the Movement.
>
> Free China Movement's major in-China projects are the projects of
> assisting to mobilize, form and lead the Chinese political
> opposition movement whose branches has now extended to 22 major cities
> of 19 provinces and all 3 cities directly under the
> central government in China. The spokesperson for All China Political
> Opposition Movement are Xu Wenli, Lin Mu and Qin
> Yongmin. Its overseas spokesperson is Mr. Wang Xizhe, the Coordinating
> Director and Spokesperson for Free China
> Movement. The All-China Political Opposition Movement has 25
> go-to-public front-running organizers. Furthermore, more
> than 200 leading dissidents in 22 cities and provinces are the member
of
> the Movement.....
Yu
steve_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <92u65r$5h0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <92tvsu$g0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > steve_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > In article <92tl6f$n6q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > china...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > Not all Chinese opposition figures have their family members
arrested.
> > However, there are cases where the family do team up eg Wei
Jingsheng
> > and sister.
> >
> > Lian Shende is involved in a lot of NED (National Endowment for
> > Democracy, USA) activities. NED is closely linked to the CIA.
> > Strictly speaking he is no longer a Chinese dissident but serving
the
> > interest of USA like Harry Wu.
> >
> Are you trying to say that all Chinese freedom fighters are linked to
> the CIA?
I did not say that. I don't know all of them.
Shengde Lian
Acting Executive Director
1319 18th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone/Fax: 202-296-5101/296-5183 or 202-331-8248
Email: yny...@aol.com
I. Summary:
II. Background:
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Yu
steve_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <92uquq$lhu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> I think this is BS. Show the complete headers from the email. This is
> too easily faked. I don't believe this.
>
> Regards,
> Steve
It is not fake.
Please visit this Free China Movement site:
http://freechina.net/sg.html
Look at item 6.
----------------
6.Proposed Application for Funding to NED on behalf of CDP
---by Joel Segal, Dr.Menges Constantine, Dianna, shengde Lian and
Gallup Marshall
------------------
*CDP= China Democratic Party
This was the e-mail I downloaded about 9 months ago.
(You can't download now.)
It clearly stated *Application for Funding to NED on behalf of CDP*.
This is how CIA hope grab power in Beijing.
CIA--> NED --> Free China Movement ---> Chinese Democratic Party.
Lian Shengde is one of their rising star.
A movie is being made to promote Lian Personality cult.
They did that for Dalai Lama.
Brian Jackson
>This is how CIA hope grab power in Beijing.
>CIA--> NED --> Free China Movement ---> Chinese Democratic Party.
Do you suppose the CIA is hoping to grab power in Malaysia, Cambodia,
Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Korea, Burma......as well? They're going
to be awfully busy if they succeed. Those are just a few of the other
Asian countries where civil groups trying to foster democracy have
received grants from NED (which is of course what the US congress has
directed NED to do).
Have you warned Dr. Mahathir yet about this insidious plot to grab
power in his (and your?) country? If so, has he taken your warning
seriously? Do you defend Malaysia as tenaciously against this threat
as you do for China?
Malaysia Kini (Malaysia Today) Online is currently the most
independent media source in that country. So far (touch wood), the
government has not interfered as they do with other media outlets.
Malaysia Kini has received grants from NED, and in my opinion they are
very worthy of the assistance. Do you (Yu) see it as a CIA attempt at
grabbing power in KL?
Brian
--
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."
-- George Bernard Shaw
ltl...@mindspring.com
There are many ways to promote democracy in a country. Funding a "most
independent media source" in that country is different from funding
anti-government groups in that country. Currently, most PRC citizens
will see anti-PRC governemnt as anti-PRC citizens.
Citizens of a country can do whatever they want, including engaging in
anti-government activity. Struggle to improve one's country is the
right and the responsibility of every citizen. As a group, they are the
only people who can judge the costs and the benefits of their
activities. Citizens of another country, simply do not have the same
previlege and are unlikely to have the insider knowledge.
Needless to say, all American government agencies, CIA, NED, and
whatever can do anything to benefit the U.S. directly or indirectly. It
is their job. Realistically, zero-sum game in the international arena
is sometimes inevitably. But I hope you stop pretending foreign funding
of anti-PRC groups is to benefit the PRC citizens unless you can supply
concrete evidences.
> Brian
> --
> "Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."
> -- George Bernard Shaw
>
Nelson Lu
>Needless to say, all American government agencies, CIA, NED, and
>whatever can do anything to benefit the U.S. directly or indirectly. It
>is their job. Realistically, zero-sum game in the international arena
>is sometimes inevitably. But I hope you stop pretending foreign funding
>of anti-PRC groups is to benefit the PRC citizens unless you can supply
>concrete evidences.
I don't know if the CIA funded Solidarity and other opposition groups in
Poland, but I'd say that if it did, it benefited Polish citizens.
ltl...@mindspring.com
Every government and its agencies all works to benefits its own
national interests. Their activity may benefit citizens of other
countries. But any such claim has to be evidence driven. In the case of
Eastern Europe, Poland was not the only country that had changed.
Besides, there are many way to promote democracy.
Democracy is rule by the people. It begins with the citizens. Reforms
toward a better democratic system is about raising the productivity and
therefore capability of the citizens such that they can be fairminded
and responsible citizens. Currently the PRC government is working hard
to raise the productivity and the capability of the citizens. The
situation is different from communist Poland and other Eastern bloc
countries of the yesteryears.
Nelson Lu
>Besides, there are many way to promote democracy.
>Democracy is rule by the people. It begins with the citizens. Reforms
>toward a better democratic system is about raising the productivity and
>therefore capability of the citizens such that they can be fairminded
>and responsible citizens. Currently the PRC government is working hard
>to raise the productivity and the capability of the citizens. The
>situation is different from communist Poland and other Eastern bloc
>countries of the yesteryears.
"Raising the productivity and the capability of the citizens" is not
necessarily a noble goal, if the result is the enslavement of the citizens
and/or surrounding nations. The Nazis tried to raise the productivity and the
capability of its citizens, too (whether if it did it in reality is besides the
point; the Nazis clearly tried to), and I would dare say that in that case the
result was disasterous for the German citizens and the countries nearby.
And PRC's situation is not all that different from Czechoslovakia or Hungary
in the yesterday years; those countries clearly had more market force-driven
economies, and now are better at integrating their economies into the overall
European economy. It doesn't make the their former communist regimes laudable
ones, and they should still have been overthrown.
There is nothing I see in the PRC regime that makes me feel that it has gained
any moral right to exist. I still believe it would be in the interest of all
involved, *including the citizens of China*, to see the PRC regime overthrown.
bud_s...@my-deja.com
While I am no fan of the CCP, isn't it true that Hitler talked about
liebenram (or breathing room, i.e. the need for Germans to take over
and move into eastern europe), undermench (or subhumans, i.e. the Slavs
occupying that breathing room who where to be expelled, enslaved or
killed) and the Third Reich (or a new empire the equal of Rome's or
Napoleon's to be populated by Germans in the aforementioned formerly
Slav lands)?
The CCP, in contrast, talks about reforming China's economy and joining
the WTO. Expanding trade generally isn't the policy of an aggressive,
expansionist state. Hitler's economic policy was autarky if I'm not
mistaken.
>
> And PRC's situation is not all that different from Czechoslovakia or
Hungary
> in the yesterday years; those countries clearly had more market force-
driven
> economies, and now are better at integrating their economies into the
overall
> European economy. It doesn't make the their former communist regimes
laudable
> ones, and they should still have been overthrown.
>
> There is nothing I see in the PRC regime that makes me feel that it
has gained
> any moral right to exist. I still believe it would be in the
interest of all
> involved, *including the citizens of China*, to see the PRC regime
overthrown.
>
Nelson Lu
>While I am no fan of the CCP, isn't it true that Hitler talked about
>liebenram (or breathing room, i.e. the need for Germans to take over
>and move into eastern europe), undermench (or subhumans, i.e. the Slavs
>occupying that breathing room who where to be expelled, enslaved or
>killed) and the Third Reich (or a new empire the equal of Rome's or
>Napoleon's to be populated by Germans in the aforementioned formerly
>Slav lands)?
While it's quite different, and perhaps nowhere as bad, the CCP does promote
its own brand of xenophobic nationalism. I'd say that in that manner it's
not necessarily the case that the PRC is less threatening to other countries
than Nazi Germany was.
>The CCP, in contrast, talks about reforming China's economy and joining
>the WTO. Expanding trade generally isn't the policy of an aggressive,
>expansionist state. Hitler's economic policy was autarky if I'm not
>mistaken.
Well, expanding trade doesn't necessarily mean that a country ends its
imperalistic attitudes. In the case of Germany, granted, the case was more of
an exploitation of resources rather than genuine trade, yet the Nazis
envisioned the incorporation of all of Europe (if not more) into an economic
entity. I'd say that expanding trade isn't, in itself, good or bad; it depends
on the ultimate goal of that trade expansion.
ltl...@mindspring.com
In the Chinese Classic, the Great Learning, its talks about [my
paraphrase] "The great learning is to enlighten the citizens' bright
virute, to renew the citizens such that they will only stop at the
best possible." Raising the citizen's capability is intrinsically an
unending process.
Democracy means rule by the people. It is only as good as the people.
Good democracy depends on the capability of citizens. It depends on the
their capability to overcome their fears, their prejudices, their
ignorance and etc, an unending process. Today's America, a great
democracy, is no exception. When the LA citizens failed to overcome
their fear of the street gangs, the LA Rampart corruptions were the
results. When the citizens of New Jersy failed to overcome their fear
of minority spawned crimes, racial profiling was the results.
> And PRC's situation is not all that different from Czechoslovakia or
Hungary
> in the yesterday years; those countries clearly had more market force-
driven
> economies, and now are better at integrating their economies into the
overall
> European economy.
Of course China is different from Czechoslovakia or Hungary. It is
easier to improve a small country with few people than a large country
with a hugh peasant population. Taking the Eastern bloc as a whole, the
PRC is doing pretty good. If you want to talk about Czechoslovakia or
Hungary alone, then comparison with the Guangdong province is more
appropriate.
> It doesn't make the their former communist regimes laudable
> ones, and they should still have been overthrown.
>
> There is nothing I see in the PRC regime that makes me feel that it
has gained
> any moral right to exist. I still believe it would be in the
interest of all
> involved, *including the citizens of China*, to see the PRC regime
overthrown.
>
Nelson Lu
>In article <935e9v$r6e$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
> n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) wrote:
>> "Raising the productivity and the capability of the citizens" is not
>> necessarily a noble goal, if the result is the enslavement of the
>citizens
>> and/or surrounding nations. The Nazis tried to raise the
>productivity and the
>> capability of its citizens, too (whether if it did it in reality is
>besides the
>> point; the Nazis clearly tried to), and I would dare say that in that
>case the
>> result was disasterous for the German citizens and the countries
>nearby.
>
>In the Chinese Classic, the Great Learning, its talks about [my
>paraphrase] "The great learning is to enlighten the citizens' bright
>virute, to renew the citizens such that they will only stop at the
>best possible." Raising the citizen's capability is intrinsically an
>unending process.
And the key there is to make the citizens informed and empowered -- which the
PRC is only not doing, but is actively discouraging.
>
>Democracy means rule by the people. It is only as good as the people.
Correct; which is why you need to educate the people and empower them toward
those means.
>Good democracy depends on the capability of citizens. It depends on the
>their capability to overcome their fears, their prejudices, their
>ignorance and etc, an unending process. Today's America, a great
>democracy, is no exception. When the LA citizens failed to overcome
>their fear of the street gangs, the LA Rampart corruptions were the
>results. When the citizens of New Jersy failed to overcome their fear
>of minority spawned crimes, racial profiling was the results.
And yet despite these flaws, I dare say that the United States treats its
minorities fairer than 90% of the world's countries, at least. It's not a
perfect system -- there can never be a perfect system created by humans, given
that humans are imperfect beings -- but it's a better system than the PRC.
>Of course China is different from Czechoslovakia or Hungary. It is
>easier to improve a small country with few people than a large country
>with a hugh peasant population. Taking the Eastern bloc as a whole, the
>PRC is doing pretty good. If you want to talk about Czechoslovakia or
>Hungary alone, then comparison with the Guangdong province is more
>appropriate.
The mechanism may be different, but the principles are the same. You can't
have a good society for the people unless you stop lying to them just to keep
your hold on power and stop threatening them with imminent destruction if they
dare oppose you. Spain was a largely rural nation, in some ways not unlike
China, but after the passing of Francisco Franco it has modernized quickly.
Even if it hadn't, the Spanish government is contributing much more to the
world than the Chinese government just based on its willingness to empower its
people. I'll be blunt, but the Chinese government remains an evil autocracy.
And it should be overthrown.
Yu
CIA and NED did indeed funded the Solidarity.
It is important not to oversimplify a complex issue.
Some may argue that if USA doesn't overthrow the president of Indonesia
tomorrow it therefore has no desire to overthrow Saddam Hussein of Iraq
or if CIA helps the people of Poland it cannot be supporter of military
coup in Chile or the death squads in South America.
The crux of the matter is not whether CIA is good or bad, but in all
these situations it serves the interest of USA alone, as ltlee1 pointed
out.
It will be foolish indeed to believe that a CIA puppet (e.g.. Chinese
Democratic party) in Beijing will receive the same amount of American
aids as Israel or Poland.
To gain NED/CIA favor a Chinese dissident must first support Tibet
independence. Wang Si Zhe 王希哲 ,the leader of the Chinese Democratic
Party has done so. Lian Shengde is his lieutenant.
Americans don't really fear Communism in China.
Trashing Commie give them some cheap thrill; they are familiar with the
vocabulary. Deep inside, American fear a strong China
with a strong economy that compete with American for market and natural
resources.
So they want to break up China's western region, Xinjiang and Qinghai
and Tibet that connect China with Central Asia and middle east.
An article in the Economist (December 19, 1998) concluded, "combine
ethnic tensions on the fringes of the Chinese empire with regional
tensions along the coast and you have good reason to believe that China
is more likely to disintegrate than is commonly believed." Robert D.
Kaplan (author of China: A World Power Again) argues,
The cheapest way for the anti china alliance to do so is to install
their puppet in Beijing.
ltl...@mindspring.com
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> In article <9366c3$7ce$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
The question should be:
What make you think the citizens are not informed and empowered?
> I dare say the average Chinese know more about America than average
> American citizens know more about China.
>
> > >Democracy means rule by the people. It is only as good as the
people.
> >
> > Correct; which is why you need to educate the people and empower
them
> toward
> > those means.
> >
> > >Good democracy depends on the capability of citizens. It depends on
> the
> > >their capability to overcome their fears, their prejudices, their
> > >ignorance and etc, an unending process. Today's America, a great
> > >democracy, is no exception. When the LA citizens failed to overcome
> > >their fear of the street gangs, the LA Rampart corruptions were the
> > >results. When the citizens of New Jersy failed to overcome their
fear
> > >of minority spawned crimes, racial profiling was the results.
> >
> > And yet despite these flaws, I dare say that the United States
treats
> its
> > minorities fairer than 90% of the world's countries, at least.
>
> I am not here to judge America. I, however would like to use the LA
> Rampart case as an example demonstrating the linkage between
> productivity and problems that usually associated with the lack of
> democracy.
>
> The Rampart casse began with teenages in bad situations. The local
> citizens, however, could not offer much help they themselves are not
> well off. They don't have the time and/or the material resources.
Under
> this circumstances, those unfortunate teenages had no one to trun to
> for help. They could only join the street gangs. Results: More
gangster
> and more gangster related crime. In response, the community turned a
> blind eye toward police brutality.
>
> My point is simply this: the good or bad of a democracy depends on the
> citizens' capability to overcome their limitations. All things being
> equal, more productive citizens are invaribly more capable citizens in
> solving local problem and in dealing with national issues. In this
> sense, reform to improve citizen's productivity and therefore
> capability is reform toward democracy.
ltl...@mindspring.com
What make you think the citizens are informed and empowered?
I dare say the average Chinese know more about America than average
American citizens know more about China.
> >Democracy means rule by the people. It is only as good as the people.
>
> Correct; which is why you need to educate the people and empower them
toward
> those means.
>
> >Good democracy depends on the capability of citizens. It depends on
the
> >their capability to overcome their fears, their prejudices, their
> >ignorance and etc, an unending process. Today's America, a great
> >democracy, is no exception. When the LA citizens failed to overcome
> >their fear of the street gangs, the LA Rampart corruptions were the
> >results. When the citizens of New Jersy failed to overcome their fear
> >of minority spawned crimes, racial profiling was the results.
>
> And yet despite these flaws, I dare say that the United States treats
its
> minorities fairer than 90% of the world's countries, at least.
I am not here to judge America. I, however would like to use the LA
Rampart case as an example demonstrating the linkage between
productivity and problems that usually associated with the lack of
democracy.
The Rampart casse began with teenages in bad situations. The local
citizens, however, could not offer much help they themselves are not
well off. They don't have the time and/or the material resources. Under
this circumstances, those unfortunate teenages had no one to trun to
for help. They could only join the street gangs. Results: More gangster
and more gangster related crime. In response, the community turned a
blind eye toward police brutality.
My point is simply this: the good or bad of a democracy depends on the
citizens' capability to overcome their limitations. All things being
equal, more productive citizens are invaribly more capable citizens in
solving local problem and in dealing with national issues. In this
sense, reform to improve citizen's productivity and therefore
capability is reform toward democracy.
> It's not a
Nelson Lu
>CIA and NED did indeed funded the Solidarity.
>
>It is important not to oversimplify a complex issue.
Which you then proceeded to do for the rest of the article. Effectively, if
anyone receives American assistance, then they are puppets and sellouts.
That's way too much of an "oversimplification of a complex issue."
To me, I don't care who's behind them. If their cause is right, it's right;
I don't care if it's Slobodan Milosevic behind them.
Nelson Lu
>What make you think the citizens are informed and empowered?
>I dare say the average Chinese know more about America than average
>American citizens know more about China.
And guess why they don't know about China? I suppose you think the lack of
a Chinese free press has nothing to do with it?
>My point is simply this: the good or bad of a democracy depends on the
>citizens' capability to overcome their limitations. All things being
>equal, more productive citizens are invaribly more capable citizens in
>solving local problem and in dealing with national issues. In this
>sense, reform to improve citizen's productivity and therefore
>capability is reform toward democracy.
Not if the end result of that "improvement" is aggression, as was the case with
Nazi Germany. Nothing good can come out of this improvement if the rights of
the people are not guaranteed.
Nelson Lu
>What make you think the citizens are informed and empowered?
>I dare say the average Chinese know more about America than average
>American citizens know more about China.
And guess why they don't know about China? I suppose you think the lack of
a Chinese free press has nothing to do with it?
And what the Chinese citizens know about the United States are highly skewed
by the unfair coverage of the Chinese governmental news organs on the United
States. Watching even the sanitized version that is broadcast here in the
Bay Area, I still cannot believe how much of a twisting of truth is done by
the Chinese governmental media. They even made Slobodan Milosevic sound like
the victim of aggression. In the United States, there is nothing on that scale
to distort the Chinese government; therefore, the people "know" less about the
Chinese government. If the United States were an autocracy bent on
brainwashing the American people into thinking that the United States is the
victim of Chinese imperialism, you can be sure that the Americans would "know"
a lot more about China than they currently do.
>My point is simply this: the good or bad of a democracy depends on the
>citizens' capability to overcome their limitations. All things being
>equal, more productive citizens are invaribly more capable citizens in
>solving local problem and in dealing with national issues. In this
>sense, reform to improve citizen's productivity and therefore
>capability is reform toward democracy.
Not if the end result of that "improvement" is aggression, as was the case with
Nazi Germany. Nothing good can come out of this improvement if the rights of
the people are not guaranteed.
I don't condone the actions of the officers in the Rampart Division of the
LAPD. They should be punished to the extent of their misconducts. However,
the reason why Rampart got so much coverage is precisely because this is the
kind of behavior that is not common or tolerated in the United States. If the
same thing happened in Taiwan 25 years ago, there would be very little press
coverage about it. And I'd think that it would be the same thing in China,
even today.
ltl...@mindspring.com
n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) wrote:
> In article <936d8l$1ee$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <ltl...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
>
> >What make you think the citizens are informed and empowered?
> >I dare say the average Chinese know more about America than average
> >American citizens know more about China.
>
> And guess why they don't know about China? I suppose you think the
lack of
> a Chinese free press has nothing to do with it?
No, free press has nothing to do with Americans relative lack of
information.
Language capability has. Do you know which country have most school
kids studying English? America? Wrong. It is the PRC. Why? The kids and
their parents know very well that they need English to access the world
beyond China.
in addition, the persistent negative stereotyping of China and Chinese
also discourage Americans' desire to get more informed. If they think
they know everything about China and Chinese, no reason to learn more.
Personal experience: I came to American to attend college. An American
student and I got 100% on our first exam. The professor acknowledged
the scores and then explained to the class that although both the
American student and I got the same score, there was a difference. The
American student got good score through understanding. I got good score
through rote memorization. It is funny that several days later she
covered the topic of sterotyping and gave many Americans' wrongly think
the PRC citizens as all wearing blue Mao jacket working busily like
blue ants as an example of stereotyping.
>
> >My point is simply this: the good or bad of a democracy depends on
the
> >citizens' capability to overcome their limitations. All things being
> >equal, more productive citizens are invaribly more capable citizens
in
> >solving local problem and in dealing with national issues. In this
> >sense, reform to improve citizen's productivity and therefore
> >capability is reform toward democracy.
>
> Not if the end result of that "improvement" is aggression, as was the
case with
> Nazi Germany. Nothing good can come out of this improvement if the
rights of
> the people are not guaranteed.
What guaranty? The only guaranty is the citizens' capability to
overcome their own fear, ignorance, prejudice, and etc. Take a look at
the Wen Ho Lee case. Guaranty is no guaranty until some citizens, the
insiders, gathered enough courage to speak up. Free press? The New York
Times later admitted that they failed to present a balanced view on Dr.
Wen Ho Lee.
Yu
n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) wrote:
> In article <9365po$s2n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>
> >CIA and NED did indeed funded the Solidarity.
> >
> >It is important not to oversimplify a complex issue.
>
> Which you then proceeded to do for the rest of the article.
Effectively, if
> anyone receives American assistance, then they are puppets and
sellouts.
> That's way too much of an "oversimplification of a complex issue."
NED fund going to all these Tibet Separatist organizations helping
China?
International Campaign for Tibet
Tibet Multimedia Center
Tibet Times Newspaper
Tibetan Review English-language monthly news
Tibet Voice Project
Tibet Fund
Tibetan Youth Congress
Tibet Information Network
Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO)
CIA NED is out to break up China.
> To me, I don't care who's behind them. If their cause is right, it's
right;
> I don't care if it's Slobodan Milosevic behind them.
>
Nelson Lu
>In article <936lk7$b8k$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
> n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) wrote:
>> Which you then proceeded to do for the rest of the article.
>Effectively, if
>> anyone receives American assistance, then they are puppets and
>sellouts.
>> That's way too much of an "oversimplification of a complex issue."
>
>NED fund going to all these Tibet Separatist organizations helping
>China?
> International Campaign for Tibet
> Tibet Multimedia Center
> Tibet Times Newspaper
> Tibetan Review English-language monthly news
> Tibet Voice Project
> Tibet Fund
> Tibetan Youth Congress
> Tibet Information Network
> Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO)
I don't know enough about all of these groups. However, Tibet Independence,
depending on how it's done, is not necessarily harmful to China; in fact, it
can be argued that Tibet will eventually be such a drain on Chinese resources
that it's better off to let Tibet go as a separate nation.
And even if it's harmful to China to let Tibet become independent, the rights
of peoples to self-determination overrides that concern. The welfare of China
cannot override the welfare of the world.
>CIA NED is out to break up China.
Even if, for the sake of argument, it is, it doesn't mean that every
organization that it helps is out to break up China. And even if *that* is
true, you haven't shown how that's necessarily harmful to humanity.
Yu
CIA stands for the welfare of the world?
This is what they want for Tibet.
http://www.freetibet.org/images/asiamap.gif
http://www.freetibet.org/images/tibetmap.gif
Who lead NED?
These are people who are directors of NED and their profile will help
people understand the nature of NED (National Endowment for Democracy):
Morton Abramowitz - the former Assistant Secretary of State for
Intelligence.
Also a member of the Board of Trustee of Freedom house, a welknown CIA
front.
Said to be Al Gore’s choice for CIA director.
Interestingly, in 1980, he helped established intelligence relationship
with China; help built two SIGINT stations in western
China located at Qitai and Korla in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous
Region. The SIGINT stations helped in monitoring USSR
military activities. (The U.S. Intelligence Community By Jeffrey T.
Richelson)
Ambassador Wolfowitz is an expert on intelligence analysis. He has
written papers on the subjects In February 1995, President
Clinton appointed Ambassador Wolfowitz to the Commission on the Roles
and Capabilities of the US Intelligence Community.
Paul Wolfowitz is also a member of the Board of Trustee of Freedom
house, a wellknown CIA front.
Fred Charles Iklé
He was Undersecretary of Defense for Policy in the Reagan
administration, 1981-1988. From 1973 until January 1977, Dr.
Iklé served Presidents Nixon and Ford as Director of the U.S. Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency.
His job was to analyse intelligence reports and advise the President on
the best strategy in negotiation with the USSR
Paula J. Dobriansky as a member of the US Advisory Commission on Public
Diplomacy.
Public Diplomacy is a polite term for American propaganda directed at
foreign countries.
Also a member of the Board of Trustee of Freedom house, a welknown CIA
front.
Tom Donahue from the AFL-CIO
The Department of International Affairs (DIA) of the AFL-CIO operated a
string of CIA-linked agents and right-wing union
leaders throughout the Third World and more recently in Eastern
Europe and Russia.
Bob Graham - member of the US Senate Committee for American Intelligence
Issues
Connie Mack member of senate Intelligence Committee
Richard G. Lugar - member of the Senate Committee for American
Intelligence Activities
Most of NED funds are chanelled through other "NGOs" with links to the
CIA. Examples are Freedom House and AFL-CIO.
With this arrangement CIA is in effective control of the NED.
For info. on NED: http://members.aol.com/superogue/ned.htm
> >CIA NED is out to break up China.
>
> Even if, for the sake of argument, it is, it doesn't mean that every
> organization that it helps is out to break up China. And even if
*that* is
> true, you haven't shown how that's necessarily harmful to humanity.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Jigong
Bill Moore wrote:
She has been feeding her brother in the US with sensitive info about China.
Why should she be given the chance to pass more inhfo to her brother, who is,
in effect a 'running dog' of CIA?
Jigong
Brian Jackson wrote:
> In article <930l9r$7oj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >This is how CIA hope grab power in Beijing.
>
> >CIA--> NED --> Free China Movement ---> Chinese Democratic Party.
>
> Do you suppose the CIA is hoping to grab power in Malaysia, Cambodia,
> Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Korea, Burma......as well?
CIA is doing its utmost to maintain US superiority in every area (military,
commerce, technology, etc) so that other countries will continue to kow-tow
to the great America! Those countries whcih don't kow-tow to the great
America are frequently 'punished' by Uncle Sam and its allies.
Jigong
Nelson Lu wrote:
You are talking about the scenario during or immediately after the 'cold war'
period. The agenda of the US was slightly different at that time. The
americans and its allies were all out to contain Communism and to 'prove'
that the 'Western' system works best while 'Communism' should vanish from
this planet.
The agenda of the Americans in the post-cold war era is slightly different.
The Americans are all out to maintain the American superiority in every
fronts. The huge hammer is always out there, getting ready to knock those who
do not 'kow-tow' to the great America!
Jigong
tremendously. Only a very small percentage are still living below the poverty line.
Many have studied overseas. Many are also working overseas. The Chinese people are
generally happy with the government and the direction they are moving towards.
Overthrowing the government is not necessary a better choice. Indonesians have done
it three years ago. They are in much deeper shit now. The people of Yugoslavia are
in deep shit too after 'adopting' the Americans' choice of leadership.
The fact is , no other country on this planet, which adopted western-style of
democracy in the past 20 years has outperformed China , in terms of economic
development, technological advancement, infrastructure development, freedom to
choose their way of life, etc.
Based on development and experience of countries all over the world, it is safe to
conclude that there is no better alternative system of government for China.
Overthrowing the present government will only bring about more misery, unrest,
lawlessness and poverty to China, while it serves the evil intention of the US and
its allies in containing China.
Jigong
Nelson Lu wrote:
> In article <938g5j$hv1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >In article <936lk7$b8k$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
> > n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) wrote:
>
> >> Which you then proceeded to do for the rest of the article.
> >Effectively, if
> >> anyone receives American assistance, then they are puppets and
> >sellouts.
> >> That's way too much of an "oversimplification of a complex issue."
> >
> >NED fund going to all these Tibet Separatist organizations helping
> >China?
> > International Campaign for Tibet
> > Tibet Multimedia Center
> > Tibet Times Newspaper
> > Tibetan Review English-language monthly news
> > Tibet Voice Project
> > Tibet Fund
> > Tibetan Youth Congress
> > Tibet Information Network
> > Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO)
>
> I don't know enough about all of these groups. However, Tibet Independence,
> depending on how it's done, is not necessarily harmful to China; in fact, it
> can be argued that Tibet will eventually be such a drain on Chinese resources
> that it's better off to let Tibet go as a separate nation.
You don't seem to understand the situation. Tibet issue is just a means for the US
and its allies to break up China. Once Tibet goes independence (or become a stooge
of USA? Don't forget that Tibet is a very strategic location for military
purposes!) Xinjiang and other provinces will follow. China will become the
'warring nations' again.
> And even if it's harmful to China to let Tibet become independent, the rights
> of peoples to self-determination overrides that concern.
Why aren't the western countries supporting the indepedence of Acheh Irian Jaya,
etc then if they are really sincere about the welfare and well being of the
people?
> The welfare of China
> cannot override the welfare of the world.
The most important role of the government of China is to take care of the welfare
of China, not the world. The welfare of the world is the business of the UN. If
the government can't even take care of the welfare of China and its people, it
would be meaningless to talk about the welfare of the world.
Nelson Lu
Jigong <Jigong...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>The agenda of the Americans in the post-cold war era is slightly different.
>The Americans are all out to maintain the American superiority in every
>fronts. The huge hammer is always out there, getting ready to knock those who
>do not 'kow-tow' to the great America!
Unproven rhetoric.
But even if, for the sake of the argument, your assertions are true, so what?
"Good for the United States" does not mean "bad for the people of the country
involved." I certainly believe that it's in the interest of the United States
for the CCP to fall apart; I also believe that it's in the interest of the
Chinese people for that to happen.
Nelson Lu
>CIA stands for the welfare of the world?
Do you know how to read? Or are you simply intentionally misconstruing my
arguments?
I am saying that whether the CIA is behind it is irrelevant. The movement has
to be evaluated on its own merits. Even if it's true that the CIA is behind
it, it doesn't make the movement good or evil.
Nelson Lu
Jigong <Jigong...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>You don't seem to understand the situation. Tibet issue is just a means for the US
>and its allies to break up China. Once Tibet goes independence (or become a stooge
>of USA? Don't forget that Tibet is a very strategic location for military
>purposes!) Xinjiang and other provinces will follow. China will become the
>'warring nations' again.
Not if China lets them go peacefully. Wars only start because people want to
fight over the land, the people, the resources. There wouldn't have been a
Balkan war had not the Serbs, the Croats, the Bosnians, &c., wanted to fight
over the same land and resources.
Besides, perhaps China *should* be broken up. There is no natural reason for
China to exist in its current state.
>Why aren't the western countries supporting the indepedence of Acheh Irian Jaya,
>etc then if they are really sincere about the welfare and well being of the
>people?
Because it's not in their national interests.
I am not saying that the western governments are "good" morally; they are
clearly watching out for their own interests. However, in the case of Tibet,
what their own interests are clearly coincide with the people's right to
self-determination. That they are not doing the right thing in the case of
Aceh and Irian Jara has no bearing on whether if they are doing the right thing
in the case of Tibet.
>The most important role of the government of China is to take care of the welfare
>of China, not the world. The welfare of the world is the business of the UN. If
>the government can't even take care of the welfare of China and its people, it
>would be meaningless to talk about the welfare of the world.
I have no ability to influence what the government of China thinks. What I can
talk about is what I think is right. It would be best for the people of the
world if the CCP is overthrown and replaced by a democratic government. That
being said, I have no ability to bring that to a fruition.
ltl...@mindspring.com
Every human see the world through a lens. Americans and Chinese are not
different in this aspect. The difference is the language capability and
a desire to learn from another culture which have nothing to do with
autocracy.
Chinese who can read English can access both sources. Times magazine
and other magazines are available in many large Chinese cities. OTOH,
Chinese publications are in much less demand in the US are less
available. You can also compare the number of students from the PRC
studying in the US with the number of American teacher/students in the
PRC. The former is about 25 times larger than the later over the years.
To be sure, not all students from the PRC return to China. Wether they
stay in the U.S. for good or not, they do communicate with their
friends and relatives and tell them about America.
For those Chinese who cannot read English. They have access to a wide
variety of translated work. In comparison, there are not many chinese
work translated into another languages.
>
> >My point is simply this: the good or bad of a democracy depends on
the
> >citizens' capability to overcome their limitations. All things being
> >equal, more productive citizens are invaribly more capable citizens
in
> >solving local problem and in dealing with national issues. In this
> >sense, reform to improve citizen's productivity and therefore
> >capability is reform toward democracy.
>
> Not if the end result of that "improvement" is aggression, as was the
case with
> Nazi Germany. Nothing good can come out of this improvement if the
rights of
> the people are not guaranteed.
>
> I don't condone the actions of the officers in the Rampart Division
of the
> LAPD. They should be punished to the extent of their misconducts.
Seems like you miss my point. The Rampart division policemen were not
born evil. The did what they did because their behavior was condoned by
the local citizens. Local citizens condoned them because they were not
resourceful enough to deal with the gangster problems themselves.
> However,
> the reason why Rampart got so much coverage is precisely because this
is the
> kind of behavior that is not common or tolerated in the United
States.
To the local people who had to face the gangsters day in and day out,
the Rampart case was unfortnate collaterals. The case got national
attention because it was unexpected. It reflects the discrepancy
between ideals and practices. Laws will not solve the problem. To
prevent tomorrow's Rampart corruption, the only way is to pour
resources into the community. If the teenages can get help, there will
not be gangster problem. No gangster problem, no Rampart police
corruption.
> If the
> same thing happened in Taiwan 25 years ago, there would be very
little press
> coverage about it. And I'd think that it would be the same thing in
China,
> even today.
The press only constitutes a small percentage of information exchange
among the citizens. In addition, insiders and their information are the
key to their many problems. The press without the necessary insider
information contributes little. In the Rampart police corruption case,
it was not the press that had uncovered the polices' wrong doings. The
LA police high command, the insiders, had first exposed the corruption.
In some other instances, the press without the necessary insider
information is actually harmful. Dr. Wen Ho Lee's case is an excellent
example. Do you think the New York Time's biased reporting is doing Dr.
Lee or anyone justice?
Nelson Lu
>Chinese who can read English can access both sources. Times magazine
>and other magazines are available in many large Chinese cities. OTOH,
>Chinese publications are in much less demand in the US are less
>available. You can also compare the number of students from the PRC
>studying in the US with the number of American teacher/students in the
>PRC. The former is about 25 times larger than the later over the years.
>To be sure, not all students from the PRC return to China. Wether they
>stay in the U.S. for good or not, they do communicate with their
>friends and relatives and tell them about America.
It still has to do with the availability of *free* media sources and the
demand. Of course the Chinese who have American media sources available to
them would gobble them up -- they're the only forms of relatively free press
available to them, even if they're censored. If the United States were an
autocratic state and China were a free democracy, I'd have to think that
Americans would be the ones gobbling up all available Chinese press where
possible. As it stands, who needs the lies of the Xinhua when you have the
resources of AP, Reuters, Agence France Presse, CNN, and a lot more available
to you?
>information is actually harmful. Dr. Wen Ho Lee's case is an excellent
>example. Do you think the New York Time's biased reporting is doing Dr.
>Lee or anyone justice?
Well, I find it odd that you (correctly) call New York Times' reporting
biased, and at the same time apparently find the freedom of the press
irrelevant. Without the freedom of the press, reporting will always be
biased -- in favor of whoever rules.
Bill Moore
Writing the NED for money is a far cry from being a "running dog" for the
CIA. You've been reading too many of Yu's CIA posts. He'd have you believe
that the chief threat to China is the CIA. Either that or he really likes
posting megabytes of CIA articles. At any rate, it is painfully clear to
anyone who hasn't been brainwashed by CCP propoganda that the CIA isn't the
problem, the CCP is. The people the creeps in the CCP call
splittists are often heroes. But this NG is too full of CCP crap for it to
even be possible to have reasonable a discussion about it. Too bad.
--
Remove 'blackhole.' from the address to send e-mail
Tom Abbott
wrote:
>In article <936lk7$b8k$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
> n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) wrote:
>> In article <9365po$s2n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> >CIA and NED did indeed funded the Solidarity.
>> >
>> >It is important not to oversimplify a complex issue.
>>
>> Which you then proceeded to do for the rest of the article.
>Effectively, if
>> anyone receives American assistance, then they are puppets and
>sellouts.
>> That's way too much of an "oversimplification of a complex issue."
>
>NED fund going to all these Tibet Separatist organizations helping
>China?
> International Campaign for Tibet
> Tibet Multimedia Center
> Tibet Times Newspaper
> Tibetan Review English-language monthly news
> Tibet Voice Project
> Tibet Fund
> Tibetan Youth Congress
> Tibet Information Network
> Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO)
>
>CIA NED is out to break up China.
>
>
Tibet is not part of China. China has enslaved Tibet for
over 50 years. Any action which frees Tibet from China is
justified.
TA
Tom Abbott
Beijing wins the prize for world bully. They play
hardball with everyone, and then whine when someone plays
hardball with them. Not that they have had much hardball
from the appeaser Clinton, but that's about to change.
TA
Tom Abbott
<Jigong...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Nelson Lu wrote:
>
>> In article <934epq$blu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <ltl...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Needless to say, all American government agencies, CIA, NED, and
>> >whatever can do anything to benefit the U.S. directly or indirectly. It
>> >is their job. Realistically, zero-sum game in the international arena
>> >is sometimes inevitably. But I hope you stop pretending foreign funding
>> >of anti-PRC groups is to benefit the PRC citizens unless you can supply
>> >concrete evidences.
>>
>> I don't know if the CIA funded Solidarity and other opposition groups in
>> Poland, but I'd say that if it did, it benefited Polish citizens.
>
>You are talking about the scenario during or immediately after the 'cold war'
>period. The agenda of the US was slightly different at that time. The
>americans and its allies were all out to contain Communism and to 'prove'
>that the 'Western' system works best while 'Communism' should vanish from
>this planet.
>
The United States did that in reaction to communist claims
that they were going to bury the United States. Naturally,
we will resist.
>The agenda of the Americans in the post-cold war era is slightly different.
>The Americans are all out to maintain the American superiority in every
>fronts.
This is something that any other country would do: try to
maintain its status quo.
> The huge hammer is always out there, getting ready to knock those who
>do not 'kow-tow' to the great America!
Many countries, including China, do not kow-tow to the US,
yet they remain unscathed. How do you explain this, if the
US is so anxious to use its "hammer"?
TA
Yu
Correction:
CIA and its propaganda machines have been working on Tibet for the
last 50 years.
In the early 50s CIA sponsored Dalai Lama on a road show in USA to boost
support for Tibet. That was against US Laws for CIA to sell prpoaganda
in USA. CIA also started trainning a team of Tibet separatist at the
Cornell university. These people then form the man power of Tibet
propaganda machinery today.
CIA also founded the Tibet House to promote the Dalai Lama. (Partially
declassified CIA document). This organization has strong link to the
entertainment industry of USA.
(http://www.infowar.com/iwftp/cloaks/99/CD_1999-148.txt)
-------------
Ethnic genocide of the Native Americans took place in the last 50 years
right under the nose of the CIA/FBI and they care little care little.
http://www.isis.csuhayward.edu/ALSS/soc/NAN/dd/6800sj/slj.htm
In the mid-1970s a Choctaw-Tsalagi Indian Health Services doctor was
approached by a 26-year-old American Indian woman who desired a "womb
transplant." She had been
Sterilized when she was 20 at the Indian Health Service hospital in
Claremont, Oklahoma. It was discovered that 75 percent of the Claremont
sterilizations were non-therapeutic, that women American Indians were
being prompted to sign sterilization forms they didn't understand, that
they were being told the operations were reversible, and that some women
were even being asked to sign sterilization papers while they had yet to
come out of birthing sedation.
Common Sense magazine reported that the Indian Health Service "was
sterilizing 3,000 Indian women per year, 4 to
6 percent of the child bearing population...Dr. R. T. Ravenholt, [then]
director of the federal government's Office of Population, later
confirmed that 'surgical sterilization has become increasingly important
in recent years as one of the advanced methods of fertility
management'."
Yu
Should be " sponsored Dalai Lama's eldest brother,Thubten J. Norbu, on a
road show."
Thubten J. Norbu is currently the leader of the ITIM (International
Tibet Independence Movement)
ltl...@mindspring.com
Recycling old post:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sounds like you have a rosy view on the media.
Care to consider an insider view?
"Pressure from the political, economic, and idea markets combine and
collide to yield news that frustrates all sides. Elites face a
ceaseless threat of oversimplification and stereotype from opponents
taking advantage of the volatile combination of aggressive reporting
and uninformed public opinion. Under these conditions they have no
choice but to engage in news management. For their part, journalists
must endure the manipulative efforts of their sources while coping with
conflicting pressures to generate accountability, remain objective, and
contribute to the bottom line of their employers. As a result,
journalists' sincere and energetic attempts to illuminate the powerful
often yield coverage that serves the long-term interests of nobody:
neither the manipulators nor the media, and certainly not the general
public. No single rational force guides the media's focus and slant.
This threatening situation redoubles politicians' anxiety and
determination to evade or manipulate reporters, which in turn dampens
the autonomy of the press and the public. As we have seen, increasing
economic competition offers little hope of escaping these dilemmas..."
(DEMOCRACY WITHOUT CITIZENS: Media and the decay of American politics
by Robert M. Entman, 1989)
More recent example on how the media actually contributed to social
problem rather than help solving it.
Excerpt from
The Blame Game
How Racial Coverage Affects Public Opinion
By Elaine C. Ray
http://newswatch.sfsu.edu/Journal/8_Fall99/TheBlameGame.html
=====================================================================
In an interview conducted this fall, Gandy discussed his findings.
NW: In "Race and Risk," you and your fellow researchers argue that
media outlets frame stories about black people in a way that emphasizes
the negative.
Gandy: Yes. There's the general finding that news about black people,
African Americans, is generally bad news. We searched for phrases
within stories that talked about "more likely" and "less likely" and an
absolutely incredible proportion of those phrases--something like 75
percent--were negative.
======================================================================
Of course, you may not have to rely on the expert if you talk to your
afro-american friends or colleagues. My impression is that afro-
Americans do not trust the media as much as you do.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nelson Lu
[most of long post that apparently degrades democracy/freedom of the press
deleted]
>
>Of course, you may not have to rely on the expert if you talk to your
>afro-american friends or colleagues. My impression is that afro-
>Americans do not trust the media as much as you do.
Of course the media is not trustable, per se; they are there to make money, not
to benefit society.
However, a society where the media is controlled by the state absolutely (as
is the case with China), the situation will always be far worse, since the
problems you identified with free press not only won't be eliminated but would
in fact be multipled many folds.
ltl...@mindspring.com
n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) wrote:
> In article <93bgbj$ojd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <ltl...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
>
> [most of long post that apparently degrades democracy/freedom of the
press
> deleted]
> >
> >Of course, you may not have to rely on the expert if you talk to your
> >afro-american friends or colleagues. My impression is that afro-
> >Americans do not trust the media as much as you do.
>
> Of course the media is not trustable, per se; they are there to make
money, not
> to benefit society.
Capitalism means everyone is free to maximize his own gain. No
organization except the government is obligated to benefit the society.
Pollution is an obvious example caused by for-profit organizations
knowingly or unknowingly externalized their costs in the society's
expanese. Holier-than-thou organizations (aka human rigths groups) are
also externalizing their costs in the form of increasing or encouraging
misunderstanding between American and Chinese citizens. However, all
individuals can decide to benefit the society through his own effort
within or outside the confine of their trades.
>
> However, a society where the media is controlled by the state
absolutely (as
> is the case with China), the situation will always be far worse,
since the
> problems you identified with free press not only won't be eliminated
but would
> in fact be multipled many folds.
Not true.
What I said all along is simply this: The citizens', including
reporters and government officials', capability to overcome their own
fear, bias, greed and etc is the key toward a better, more democratic
society.
After all, man creates the system, not the other way around.
Take a look at the Rampart case again, if you wish.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20001001mag-lapd.html
Excerpt from Lou Cannon's insider account:
"The citizens of Los Angeles are not blameless. What distinguishes this
scandal from other Los Angeles police scandals is not just its scale
(massive) but the sheer lack of public outcry in response to it. The
muted reaction may have something to do with the fact that, unlike the
Rodney King beating and the assault on the truck driver Reginald Denny
during the 1992 riots, the Ovando shooting was not especially suited
for TV. Nonetheless, the story has received vigorous coverage from The
Los Angeles Times and weekly newspapers -- and still people remain
relatively unperturbed over police abuses.
In interviews in the Rampart area this summer, I found residents far
more worried about emboldened gangs than police misconduct. Residents
say that officers, now concerned about being perceived as overly
aggressive, too often cruise down the street in their patrol cars -- a
practice known within the L.A.P.D. as drive and wave -- instead of
engaging in aggressive policing. "People have to make a choice, and
most residents fear the gangs more than the police," said Gregory
Rodriguez, a Latino writer who until recently lived on the edge of
Rampart, where freshly painted graffiti attest to the resurgence of
gangs. Violent crime is up 9 percent this year in poor neighborhoods
after years of decline. Gang-related homicides are up 116 percent.
Arrests and field interviews of suspected criminals are down.
The predominantly Latino community of Rampart has been supportive of
the L.A.P.D. "One reason the Rampart case hasn't produced the public
outcry of the King case is that this is not a case with white officers
and a black victim," noted Erwin Chemerinsky, a University of Southern
California law professor who has reviewed the L.A.P.D.'s Rampart
inquiry for the Police Protective League. A 1997 poll by the Center for
the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University found that
Latinos had higher regard for the police than any ethnic group; blacks
had the least. After the Perez disclosures, police supporters staged a
well-attended pro-Rampart rally; a protest rally scheduled for the
following day never came off."
Tom Abbott
wrote:
I notice you did not refute my claim that Tibet is not
part of China.
TA
Jigong
CIA is a threat to many nations. This is a fact.
The success of USA in bombing Yugoslavia was partly the effort of CIA in providing
vital information. You can't deny this.
> At any rate, it is painfully clear to
> anyone who hasn't been brainwashed by CCP propoganda
With the door wide open. With 10 million Internet users, hundreds of thousands of
Chinese studying overseas and millions of Chinese moving in and out of China every
year , yet there are so many Chinese who are 'brainwashed' by CCP propaganda?
Don't you find it unrealistic to make such an assumption?
> that the CIA isn't the
> problem, the CCP is.
CCP has contributed tremendously towards a better life for the Chinese in the past
20 years or so. The Chinese people are generally happy with the direction the CCP
government is leading them towards. This is a fact.
CIA is an agency whose main purpose is to obtained as much secret information as
possible about nations all over the world, for the American government to use for
the advantage of USA, and frequently, at the disadvantage of other nations. This
is also a fact which you can't deny.
> The people the creeps in the CCP call
> splittists are often heroes. But this NG is too full of CCP crap for it to
> even be possible to have reasonable a discussion about it. Too bad.
The problem is that people like you are unable to look at issues regarding China
from the correct perspective. Instead of finding out more about China from people
with personal experience and seeing China personally, people like you prefer to
hold on to your misinformed views about China.
Go to China. Open your eyes and your ears wide. Come back here and tell us what
the Chinese people at the street feel about their leaders like Deng Xiaoping, Zhu
Rongji, etc.
There is no point accusing others simply based on the mirrage which as appeared
from nowhere!
Jigong
Tom Abbott wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 12:42:03 +0800, Jigong
> <Jigong...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Brian Jackson wrote:
> >
> >> In article <930l9r$7oj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >This is how CIA hope grab power in Beijing.
> >>
> >> >CIA--> NED --> Free China Movement ---> Chinese Democratic Party.
> >>
> >> Do you suppose the CIA is hoping to grab power in Malaysia, Cambodia,
> >> Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Korea, Burma......as well?
> >
> >CIA is doing its utmost to maintain US superiority in every area (military,
> >commerce, technology, etc) so that other countries will continue to kow-tow
> >to the great America! Those countries whcih don't kow-tow to the great
> >America are frequently 'punished' by Uncle Sam and its allies.
>
> Beijing wins the prize for world bully.
Whcih independent nation has China invaded in the past 50 years?
Wich nations have China bulllied? In what way?
> They play
> hardball with everyone,
Hardball? You mean China should not stick to its priciple? You mean Chinese
leaders should behave like thos who have 'no balls'?
> and then whine when someone plays
> hardball with them.
You mean the Grat America?
> Not that they have had much hardball
> from the appeaser Clinton, but that's about to change.
Clinton has the interest of the American people at heart when he deals with
China. He has also started to understand China better after he became the
President of USA. He did try, successfully, to a certain extend, to look at
China from a 'different perspective', different from that portrayed by most
western media.
Jigong
Tom Abbott wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 12:47:17 +0800, Jigong
> <Jigong...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Nelson Lu wrote:
> >
> >> In article <934epq$blu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <ltl...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Needless to say, all American government agencies, CIA, NED, and
> >> >whatever can do anything to benefit the U.S. directly or indirectly. It
> >> >is their job. Realistically, zero-sum game in the international arena
> >> >is sometimes inevitably. But I hope you stop pretending foreign funding
> >> >of anti-PRC groups is to benefit the PRC citizens unless you can supply
> >> >concrete evidences.
> >>
> >> I don't know if the CIA funded Solidarity and other opposition groups in
> >> Poland, but I'd say that if it did, it benefited Polish citizens.
> >
> >You are talking about the scenario during or immediately after the 'cold war'
> >period. The agenda of the US was slightly different at that time. The
> >americans and its allies were all out to contain Communism and to 'prove'
> >that the 'Western' system works best while 'Communism' should vanish from
> >this planet.
> >
>
> The United States did that in reaction to communist claims
> that they were going to bury the United States. Naturally,
> we will resist.
You mean Jiang Zheming has made scuh 'claims'?
Your imagination is really fantastic!
> >The agenda of the Americans in the post-cold war era is slightly different.
> >The Americans are all out to maintain the American superiority in every
> >fronts.
>
> This is something that any other country would do: try to
> maintain its status quo.
For USA is to make sure that other nations' military and economic might do not
come close to theirs!
> > The huge hammer is always out there, getting ready to knock those who
> >do not 'kow-tow' to the great America!
>
> Many countries, including China, do not kow-tow to the US,
> yet they remain unscathed. How do you explain this, if the
> US is so anxious to use its "hammer"?
China has been consistently deprived of low interest loan IMF, high tech
equipment like super computers, satellites, etc. Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia was
bombed by the Americans. etc. etc.
Cuba, Iraq, Libya, Iran, North Korea, Vietnam, etc. have chosen not to kow-tow to
USA. They have been consistently 'hammered' in various ways by the Great Uncle
Sam!
Nelson Lu
Jigong <Jigong...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>Whcih independent nation has China invaded in the past 50 years?
>Wich nations have China bulllied? In what way?
Invaded: Vietnam, India, Afghanistan, South Korea, the Soviet Union
Bullied: most of these (except the Soviet Union), plus pretty much all of the
other countries in Asia except the Middle East
Nelson Lu
Jigong <Jigong...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>Cuba, Iraq, Libya, Iran, North Korea, Vietnam, etc. have chosen not to kow-tow to
>USA. They have been consistently 'hammered' in various ways by the Great Uncle
>Sam!
>
If you admit that the Chinese government is in the same category as the
governments of these countries, then there is nothing more that needs to be
said.
Yu
Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 00:35:37 GMT, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <hlch5ts5so996kket...@4ax.com>,
> > Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 01:18:48 GMT, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <936lk7$b8k$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
> >> > n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) wrote:
> >> >> In article <9365po$s2n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Yu
<yug...@my-deja.com>
> >> >wrote:
> I notice you did not refute my claim that Tibet is not
> part of China.
>
> TA
Tibet is a part of China. Even the Dalai Lama doesn't ask for
independence.
bud_s...@my-deja.com
But unlike pollution, isn't news a product, subject to competitive
pressure? If a news provider loses its reputation for accuracy, let
alone honesty, isn't it in financial not just ethical danger? Much like
an auto maker that has lost its reputation for quality or safety?
steve_...@my-deja.com
> with a strong economy that compete with American for market and
natural
> resources.
> So they want to break up China's western region, Xinjiang and Qinghai
> and Tibet that connect China with Central Asia and middle east.
>
I think you neglect the possibility that the people of Tibet and
Xinjiang do not want to be controlled by the Dictators in Beijing on
their own accord. Couldn't it be true that the people of Tibet and
Xinjiang themselves do now want to be a part of the PRC. Why must it be
a CIA plot? Couldn't there be other possibilities?
> An article in the Economist (December 19, 1998) concluded, "combine
> ethnic tensions on the fringes of the Chinese empire with regional
> tensions along the coast and you have good reason to believe that
China
> is more likely to disintegrate than is commonly believed." Robert D.
> Kaplan (author of China: A World Power Again) argues,
steve_...@my-deja.com
Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <4spj5t8u1l9rjfnke...@4ax.com>,
> Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 00:35:37 GMT, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In article <hlch5ts5so996kket...@4ax.com>,
> > > Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 01:18:48 GMT, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >In article <936lk7$b8k$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
> > >> > n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) wrote:
> > >> >> In article <9365po$s2n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Yu
> <yug...@my-deja.com>
> > >> >wrote:
> ------------
> > I notice you did not refute my claim that Tibet is not
> > part of China.
> >
> > TA
>
> Tibet is a part of China. Even the Dalai Lama doesn't ask for
> independence.
>
of the PRC.
ltl...@mindspring.com
Accuracy, true. Quality and safety, also true.
But another aspect of selling is pleasing the customers. Say something
nice about America will sure please the America. Say something bad,
true or not true, about China or another country may be more pleasing
especially when the citizens are in a foul mood because of domestic
events.
Americans always complain about the reporting of domestic news as not
fair or not accurate. They don't have the same complaints concerning
foreign news. Few poeple will notice if a reporter makes a mistake in
foreign news and fewer will complain.
Yu
steve_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <9365po$s2n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >Deep inside, American fear a strong China
> > with a strong economy that compete with American for market and
> natural
> > resources.
> > So they want to break up China's western region, Xinjiang and
Qinghai
> > and Tibet that connect China with Central Asia and middle east.
> >
> I think you neglect the possibility that the people of Tibet and
> Xinjiang do not want to be controlled by the Dictators in Beijing on
> their own accord. Couldn't it be true that the people of Tibet and
> Xinjiang themselves do now want to be a part of the PRC. Why must it
be
> a CIA plot? Couldn't there be other possibilities?
The Separatist movement in Tibet is a CIA plot.
It started in the 50s when CIA offered Dalai Lama $180,000 a year if he
joined the American camp in the cold war. (partially declassified CIA
document)
Dalai also claimed Qinghai to be part of Tibet even though population of
Qinghai is only about 20% Tibetans because Qinghai will cut off eastern
China from Xinjiang.
The old Xinjiang separatist leader, Isa Yusuf Alptekin worked for the
CIA Radio Liberty in Munich, Germany.
His son Erkin Alptekin (current Xinjiang separatists leader) is a key
figure in UNPO (Chairman of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples
Organization)
Both Dalai Lama and Taiwan separatists are represented in UNPO.
UNPO receives funding from the CIA-NED.
Secretary general of UNPO was Van Praag, the legal advise of the Dalai
Lama. He is an American citizen, the real master mind behind all these
puppets.
abia...@my-deja.com
Tibet affairs in the 60s.
In article <93dt8d$p5s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
steve_...@my-deja.com wrote:
abia...@my-deja.com
Republic of CHINA, therefore, Taiwan is part of CHINA.
Hope this helps!!!
In article <93dtg7$p90$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Jeff Chen
abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Even TI fundamentalists like you have accepted Taiwan is part of the
> Republic of CHINA, therefore, Taiwan is part of CHINA.
Even CCP running dogs like you have accepted mainland is part of China,
and you used Republic of CHINA, therefore, Beijing is part of Republic
of CHINA.
> Hope this helps!!!
Hope this helps!!! But I know morons like you wont help.
--
shadow of abia...@my-deja.com
cleaner of lies by abia...@my-deja.com
Brian Jackson
>There are many ways to promote democracy in a country. Funding a "most
>independent media source" in that country is different from funding
>anti-government groups in that country. Currently, most PRC citizens
>will see anti-PRC governemnt as anti-PRC citizens.
But why should they think that opposing one party dictatorial rule is
equivalent to opposing the people as a whole? Doesn't that sound a bit
simplistic?
Why were the Indonesians who brought down the Suharto dictatorship
seen as patriotic, and the Thais who opposed a dictator the same?
People who worked with local civil groups to improve human rights,
struggle for press freedom and a host of other causes all over Asia
were never seen as being against their country. Quite the contrary.
Why is it only in China that striving for these ideals is against the
country, against the people?
Entrenched status quo powers always portray such movements in this
way, so it's no suprise that China's rulers do it. This is the same
for all authoritarian rulers, where the prime motive is to retain
power. That a ruling clique labels any given movement or group as
traitorous or subversive does not make it so.
>Citizens of a country can do whatever they want, including engaging in
>anti-government activity. Struggle to improve one's country is the
>right and the responsibility of every citizen. As a group, they are the
>only people who can judge the costs and the benefits of their
>activities. Citizens of another country, simply do not have the same
>previlege and are unlikely to have the insider knowledge.
Do you think the China Democracy Party is acting to harm the interests
of Chinese people? Do you really believe that such activists are
acting in the interest of the CIA, or out to destroy China, as Yu
apparently does?
Here is a small list of NGO's which are current or past recipients of
grants from NED, ones which have websites. Apologies in advance if any
links are not active, this was current in Feb. 2000. These are not
China or Tibet related, so that perhaps we can get beyond the
emotional charge that those would evidently have for you. Let me know
if any of them look to you like traitors to their people.
Brian
Asia-Pacific Human Rights NGO Facilitating Team
www.hr-alliance.org/aphr-ft
Asian Cultural Forum on Development
ksc11.th.com/acfodbkk
Associates to Develop Democratic Burma
sunsite.unc.edu/freeburma/ba/ba.html
The Burma Fund
www.burmafund.org
Burma Lawyers' Council
www.ned.org/grantees/blc
Cambodian Institute for Human Rights
www.ned.org/grantees/cihr
Chin Human Rights Organization
www.chro.org
Citizens' Alliance to Help Political Prisoners in North Korea
www.nkhumanrights.or.kr/e_index.html
Democratic Voice of Burma
www.communique.no/dvb/
Documentation Center of Cambodia (DC-CAM)
www.bigpond.com.kh/users/dccam.genocide
Forum of Democratic Leaders in the Asia-Pacific (FDL-AP)
www.fdl-ap.org
Press Freedom Guardian
www.pressfreedom.com
Vietnam Transparency in Government Project
www.bpsos.org/VTG/vtg.html
--
"The maxim that people should not have a right till they are ready to
exercise it properly, is worthy of the fool in the old story who
resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim."
--Macaulay
Jigong
Nelson Lu wrote:
What nonsense are you talking about?
Jigong
Nelson Lu wrote:
You are trying to distort history!
Please read the right history book. Don't read too much of fairy tales, adn take
fairy tales as history!
Tom Abbott
wrote:
>In article <4spj5t8u1l9rjfnke...@4ax.com>,
> Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 00:35:37 GMT, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <hlch5ts5so996kket...@4ax.com>,
>> > Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 01:18:48 GMT, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <936lk7$b8k$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
>> >> > n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) wrote:
>> >> >> In article <9365po$s2n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Yu
><yug...@my-deja.com>
>> >> >wrote:
>------------
>> I notice you did not refute my claim that Tibet is not
>> part of China.
>>
>> TA
>
>Tibet is a part of China.
Tibet is only part of China because China conquered it.
Chinese do not consider Tibetans to be ethnic Chinese do
they?
>Even the Dalai Lama doesn't ask for
>independence.
>
>
He's just being diplomatic. You think he would not accept
indepedence for Tibet if it was offered?
TA
Tom Abbott
<Jigong...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Tom Abbott wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 12:42:03 +0800, Jigong
>> <Jigong...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Brian Jackson wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <930l9r$7oj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >This is how CIA hope grab power in Beijing.
>> >>
>> >> >CIA--> NED --> Free China Movement ---> Chinese Democratic Party.
>> >>
>> >> Do you suppose the CIA is hoping to grab power in Malaysia, Cambodia,
>> >> Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Korea, Burma......as well?
>> >
>> >CIA is doing its utmost to maintain US superiority in every area (military,
>> >commerce, technology, etc) so that other countries will continue to kow-tow
>> >to the great America! Those countries whcih don't kow-tow to the great
>> >America are frequently 'punished' by Uncle Sam and its allies.
>>
>> Beijing wins the prize for world bully.
>
>Whcih independent nation has China invaded in the past 50 years?
>Wich nations have China bulllied? In what way?
>
I have lots of examples. A couple that come to mind are
Beijing bullying England about Falon Gong protestors, or
bullying Bill Clinton when Taiwan's new president made a
visit to the U.S. Clinton wouldn't even meet with him, nor
any senior democrat government official, and when
Republicans tried to meet with him, the Clintonistas did
everything they could to put a stop to it. Of course, in
Clintons case, maybe it should be described as payback or
blackmail, rather than bullying.
Beijing even bullied the people running some beauty
pagents about how the contestant from Taiwan could not be
designated as being from the Republic of China.
China's leaders are so arrogant they think they can bully
the whole world like they bully their own people.
And I guess I ought to mention that bullying tactic of
threatening the United States with nuclear war if the U.S.
interferes in Beijing's conquest of Taiwan. That little bit
of bullying is going to backfire on them, though. Can you
say ballistic missile defense? :)
>> They play
>> hardball with everyone,
>
>Hardball? You mean China should not stick to its priciple?
What principle?
> You mean Chinese
>leaders should behave like thos who have 'no balls'?
>
You imply that all males are bullies?
>> and then whine when someone plays
>> hardball with them.
>
>You mean the Grat America?
>
I *don't* mean the appeaser Clinton. The only people he
knows how to play hardball with are defenseless women and
Republicans. And it really takes no guts on Clinton's part
to play hardball with Republicans since he has his whole
political party protecting him, and the liberal news media
promoting his causes.
>> Not that they have had much hardball
>> from the appeaser Clinton, but that's about to change.
>
>Clinton has the interest of the American people at heart when he deals with
>China.
Clinton has Clinton's interests at heart in everything he
does, and his dealings with Beijing have seriously damaged
United States national security. He's the first president I
have ever seriously considered to be a traitor to his
country.
> He has also started to understand China better after he became the
>President of USA. He did try, successfully, to a certain extend, to look at
>China from a 'different perspective', different from that portrayed by most
>western media.
That's because Clinton was paid by Beijing to have a
different attitude.
I'll form my own personal attitude not on what the western
media says but on what China's leaders say, and they say
that the United States is their number one enemy; that war
with the United States is inevitable; and that they will
nuke the United States if the U.S. interferes in their
landgrabs of the future.
I'll take them at their word, and be governed accordingly,
and I'm sincerely hoping that the new leaders of my country
will do the same.
TA
Tom Abbott
No, the Soviet communist, Khrushchev, made that specific
claim at the United Nations. I remember him taking his shoe
off and banging it on his desk as he screamed his invective.
And you cannot deny that Chinese communism preached, as
did Khrushchev, that communism was the wave of the future
and countries like the United States were the enemy of
communism and would eventually be overcome and absorbed into
a communist world.
>> >The agenda of the Americans in the post-cold war era is slightly different.
>> >The Americans are all out to maintain the American superiority in every
>> >fronts.
>>
>> This is something that any other country would do: try to
>> maintain its status quo.
>
>For USA is to make sure that other nations' military and economic might do not
>come close to theirs!
>
That is "maintaining the status quo". How much danger is
China in from the current military status quo? I would say
very little. But if China changes the status quo and
becomes a danger to others, then how much danger is China
in? I would say very much more danger.
The current military status quo may have its good points,
wouldn't you say?
>> > The huge hammer is always out there, getting ready to knock those who
>> >do not 'kow-tow' to the great America!
>>
>> Many countries, including China, do not kow-tow to the US,
>> yet they remain unscathed. How do you explain this, if the
>> US is so anxious to use its "hammer"?
>
>China has been consistently deprived of low interest loan IMF,
China seems to be getting everything it wants
economically. The only loans I can think of that were
turned down had to do with disenfranchising Tibetans by
relocating ethnic Chinese to Tibetan lands. Is that what
you are referring to?
> high tech
>equipment like super computers, satellites, etc.
You've got to be kidding. Bill Clinton has supplied China
with hundreds of supercomputers and is trying even as I
write to give China even more sophisticated computers. And
China can thank Clinton for their commercial and military
missiles and satellites, too. If the United States was
using its "hammer" on China, China wouldn't have any of
these things. And I dare say, that if the postions were
reversed, China's leaders would *not* be supplying the U.S.
with supercomputers or building up our missiles and launch
capabilities.
> Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia was
>bombed by the Americans. etc. etc.
>
Accidentally. And the Chinese embassy was not the only
embassy that was hit. The Swedish delegation was having a
party with foreign guests from many countries at the time
and it was also hit by American bombs.
Funny, only China accused the U.S. of deliberately bombing
them.
>Cuba,
Fidel Castro tried to initiate a nuclear attack on the
United States, so naturally we are not too cooperative with
Cuba since Castro is still in power.
China's leaders should study how Castro, getting reckless
with nuclear weapons, almost caused a global nuclear war
during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.
China's leaders seem to be heading down that same unknown,
unknowable path of nuclear threats and blackmail and war.
Even if they don't intend to have a nuclear war, they may
put themselves in a postion where it is almost inevitable,
as Mr. Khurshchev found out.
> Iraq, Libya, Iran, North Korea,
We will continue to hammer these countries as long as they
pose a threat to the United States.
> Vietnam,
We are normalizing relations with Vietnam. Vietnam may
want a counterbalance to China. Ironic, isn't it.
> etc. have chosen not to kow-tow to
>USA. They have been consistently 'hammered' in various ways by the Great Uncle
>Sam!
They have given the U.S. reason to hammer them. If
China's leaders are smart they won't give us a reason to
hammer them, although they have made one big mistake already
with their nuclear war threats.
This can be mitigated, but it will take a change of
attitude on China's leaders part. If they continue to
consider the U.S. an enemy, and act accordingly, then the
U.S. will *be* their enemy, because we must defend
ourselves, but we prefer a peaceful, friendly path, so don't
make us choose another.
TA
Nelson Lu
OK, leaving aside the "bullied" part (since that requires subjective
evaluation), which of the countries that I listed did China *not* invade?
In other words, just what exactly did I distort?
Nelson Lu
You're the one who brought up examples of these countries as other examples
of countries who would not "kow-tow" to U. S. interests. Well, as you should
know, these countries' governments (except possibly Vietnam's) have all shown
a constant brutality toward their own people, and this is well-documented and
not a fabrication of the CIA.
If you are voluntarily classifying China into the same category as these
countries, I guess you've made my point about the CCP.
bud_s...@my-deja.com
n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) wrote:
> In article <935jcl$d6f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <bud_s...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>
> >While I am no fan of the CCP, isn't it true that Hitler talked about
> >liebenram (or breathing room, i.e. the need for Germans to take over
> >and move into eastern europe), undermench (or subhumans, i.e. the
Slavs
> >occupying that breathing room who where to be expelled, enslaved or
> >killed) and the Third Reich (or a new empire the equal of Rome's or
> >Napoleon's to be populated by Germans in the aforementioned formerly
> >Slav lands)?
>
> While it's quite different, and perhaps
> nowhere as bad, the CCP does promote
> its own brand of xenophobic nationalism.
> I'd say that in that manner it's
> not necessarily the case that the PRC
> is less threatening to other countries
> than Nazi Germany was.
See what you think of this:
"...Western intellectuals long fixated on Europe see Chinese
authoritarianism through the distorting lenses of German Nazism and
Russian communism. They forget that all political systems take their
attributes from the cultures to which they are applied. Russian
communism, for instance, was determined less by Karl Marx than by the
effect of the absolutist Eastern Orthodox Church on turn-of-the-century
Russian intellectuals and political radicals.
"Chinese communism, at least since Mao's death, in 1976, has been
influenced by Confucian pragmatism. The comparisons some right-wing
commentators make between the rise of Hitler's Germany and the re-
emergence of China are invidious. From the moment Hitler achieved power,
he steadily narrowed the scope of individual freedom; China's rulers
have expanded it...."
(China, A World Power Again by Robert D. Kaplan, Atlantic Monthly;
August 1999)
>
> >The CCP, in contrast, talks about reforming China's economy and
joining
> >the WTO. Expanding trade generally isn't the policy of an aggressive,
> >expansionist state. Hitler's economic policy was autarky if I'm not
> >mistaken.
>
> Well, expanding trade doesn't necessarily mean that a country ends its
> imperalistic attitudes. In the case of Germany, granted, the case
was more of
> an exploitation of resources rather than genuine trade, yet the Nazis
> envisioned the incorporation of all of Europe (if not more) into an
economic
> entity. I'd say that expanding trade isn't, in itself, good or bad;
it depends
> on the ultimate goal of that trade expansion.
Nelson Lu
>"...Western intellectuals long fixated on Europe see Chinese
>authoritarianism through the distorting lenses of German Nazism and
>Russian communism. They forget that all political systems take their
>attributes from the cultures to which they are applied. Russian
>communism, for instance, was determined less by Karl Marx than by the
>effect of the absolutist Eastern Orthodox Church on turn-of-the-century
>Russian intellectuals and political radicals.
>
>"Chinese communism, at least since Mao's death, in 1976, has been
>influenced by Confucian pragmatism. The comparisons some right-wing
>commentators make between the rise of Hitler's Germany and the re-
>emergence of China are invidious. From the moment Hitler achieved power,
>he steadily narrowed the scope of individual freedom; China's rulers
>have expanded it...."
I believe that this is not the correct assessment of the situation. China's
rulers have expanded the scope of some individual freedom, but the net result
still does not yield a society that is necessarily any freer than Nazi
Germany's; that's because there was nowhere as much individual freedom in
either the Mao days or even the ROC days as the Germans under the Weimar
Republic did. Further, there are some individual freedoms that China's rulers
have restricted rather severely -- more so than under the Nazis -- such as
religious freedom. (That it's currently a better situation than under Mao is
immaterial.)
If Pol Pot had been replaced by someone like Mao, it would be true that
"Cambodia's rulers have expanded [individual freedoms]." That would be a
rather meaningless statement, however.
sluan
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> Americans always complain about the reporting of domestic news as not
> fair or not accurate. They don't have the same complaints concerning
> foreign news. Few poeple will notice if a reporter makes a mistake in
> foreign news and fewer will complain.
You really have made me curious. How did you come to such an idea that Americans
always complain about domestic news being not fair or not accurate?
And then how did you come to another idea that Americans don't have such complaints
concerning foreign news?
Do you then agree that all the news about Tibet, TAM, and Persian Gulf, etc. published
to Americans are all fair and accurate. And the news regarding Clinton's sex scandal
must be false and not fair?
Sluan
bud_s...@my-deja.com
> n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) wrote:
> > In article <934epq$blu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <ltl...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Needless to say, all American government
> > > agencies, CIA, NED, and
> > > whatever can do anything to benefit
> > > the U.S. directly or indirectly. It
> > > is their job. Realistically,
> > > zero-sum game in the international arena
> > > is sometimes inevitably. But I hope
> > > you stop pretending foreign funding
> > > of anti-PRC groups is to benefit
> > > the PRC citizens unless you can supply
> > > concrete evidences.
> >
> > I don't know if the CIA funded Solidarity
> > and other opposition groups in
> > Poland, but I'd say that if it did, it benefited Polish citizens.
>
> CIA and NED did indeed funded the Solidarity.
>
> It is important not to oversimplify a complex issue.
I'm going to make that my motto!
> Some may argue that if USA doesn't
> overthrow the president of Indonesia
> tomorrow it therefore has no desire to
> overthrow Saddam Hussein of Iraq
Not too many people would do that!
The USA government is on record as supporting
the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
On the other hand it has friendly relations
and gives aid to the government in Jakarta.
(This may have something to do with the former regime
invading an internationally recognized sovereign
state (Kuwait), using nerve gas on its citizens (Kurds),
and enforcing a death penalty against opponents of the government.)
> or if CIA helps the people of Poland
> it cannot be supporter of military
> coup in Chile or the death squads in South America.
>
> The crux of the matter is not whether
> CIA is good or bad, but in all
> these situations it serves the interest
> of USA alone, as ltlee1 pointed out.
Alone? Might there not be a little spin off?
There is plenty of stupidity to criticize in U.S.
foreign policy, but if Saddam Hussein had consolidated
his hold in Kuwait and moved on across the border
into Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and further...
well would you really want a proven user of weapons
of mass destruction in control of 30% or so of the
world's proven reserves of petroleum?
Would this endanger "the interest of the USA alone"?
Or would there be a few other countries whose
interests it would not be in?
****************************************
"...within the past five years has China moved from being a net
exporter of oil to being a major and growing importer. Domestic
production is unlikely to keep pace with demand. The implications of
this imbalance for the next two decades are profound. China must have
its incremental oil to underpin its continued and remarkable level of
economic growth...."
http://www.iaee.org/newsltr/98win3.asp
***********************************************
> It will be foolish indeed to believe that a CIA puppet (e.g.. Chinese
> Democratic party)
Evidence please.
> in Beijing will receive the same amount of American
> aids as Israel or Poland.
>
> To gain NED/CIA favor a Chinese dissident must first support Tibet
> independence. Wang Si Zhe 王希哲,
> the leader of the Chinese Democratic Party has done so.
> Lian Shengde is his lieutenant.
>
> Americans don't really fear Communism in China.
> Trashing Commie give them some cheap thrill;
It is fun, I have to admit! :-)
> they are familiar with the
> vocabulary. Deep inside, American fear a strong China
> with a strong economy that compete with
> American for market and natural resources.
Well that's one theory. But why would competition
for resources trump a need for Chinese markets?
If China is poor and in turmoil won't it be hard
for the US capitalists to get cheap Chinese products
or sell computers, machinery, etc. to the Chinese?
25 years ago in the Petroleum Crisis, it was thought
the world might eventually run out of natural resources
and resources like petroleum were the new
key to international power.
But since then commodity costs have been going
down (adjusted for inflation), not up.
Now everyone thinks technology, productivity,
brainpower are more important than natural
resources. If petroleum prices get too high,
petrol will start to be replaced by photovoltaics
and other alternative energy.
In the mean time international trade is a
growth industry and China is the world's biggest
single market.
> So they want to break up China's
> western region, Xinjiang and Qinghai
> and Tibet that connect China with
> Central Asia and middle east.
>
> An article in the Economist (December 19, 1998)
> concluded, "combine ethnic tensions on the
> fringes of the Chinese empire with regional
> tensions along the coast and you have
> good reason to believe that China
> is more likely to disintegrate than
> is commonly believed." Robert D.
> Kaplan (author of China: A World Power Again)
> argues, the cheapest way for the anti china
> alliance to do so is to install
> their puppet in Beijing.
"the cheapest way for the anti china alliance
to do so is to install their puppet in Beijing"?
Where exactly does Kaplan say that?
He does talk about the possibility that China might "separate into
economic fiefdoms, organized around great urban regions such as
Shanghai, in the north, and Kunming, in southern China's Yunnan
Provinces" but the most of the time he sounds more like ITLee!
*********************************************
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99aug/9908china.htm
"Western journalists and intellectuals who have
been raised in secure, upper-middle-class environments
may call for China to welcome a bit of instability
for the sake of change, but for China's leaders chaos
and instability have never been abstractions.....
Westerners defend their intolerance of China's regime
by claiming that new standards of behavior now obtain
worldwide, owing to the West's victory in the Cold War
and heightened concern about human rights.
Even by those standards China's leaders might be
singled out for qualified praise....
Given that China is chronically short of water
and has one of the highest air-pollution indexes
in the world, and also that two thirds of the
population lives in flood zones,
Party rulers have little margin for error.
*********************************************
If this is your idea of a foreign analyst
plotting to undermine China then it sound
like China is pretty safe!
ltl...@mindspring.com
sluan <sl...@cup.hp.com> wrote:
>
>
> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >
> > Americans always complain about the reporting of domestic news as
not
> > fair or not accurate. They don't have the same complaints concerning
> > foreign news. Few poeple will notice if a reporter makes a mistake
in
> > foreign news and fewer will complain.
> You really have made me curious. How did you come to such an idea
that Americans
> always complain about domestic news being not fair or not accurate?
>
Middle school and high school kids somethings play trick with each
other. One presents to another a card with "Don't believe this card"
written on it. It causes a logical dilemma. However, it is only a
dilemma because the card is the sole source of information.
In real life, the press everywhere is never the sole source of
information. In fact it constitutes only a small percentage of total
information exchange. In America, most people drives. A lot of people
still travel by train or by bus daily. People, strangers, frequently
talk to each other while waiting for the train or sitting inside the
bus. Listen or talking to them, you will learn a lot more than what had
reported in the press.
Yes. I learn about American's complains on the domestic news through
the media but also through talking to listening. There are also
organizations who monitor the fairness and accruacy of press coverage.
Last but not least, there are books and studies which dwell on the
problems of the press. I had posted excerpts on this thread. Check it
out if you want.
> And then how did you come to another idea that Americans don't have
such complaints
> concerning foreign news?
>
> Do you then agree that all the news about Tibet, TAM, and Persian
Gulf, etc. published
> to Americans are all fair and accurate.
Don't know your point.
I wrote "They [Americans] don't have the same complains concerning
foreign news. Few poeple will notice if a reporter makes a mistake in
foreign news and fewer will complain."
>And the news regarding Clinton's sex scandal
> must be false and not fair?
>
> Sluan
>
Jigong
Nelson Lu wrote:
China had a 'short 'war' with Vietnam. But did not take a single inch of Vietnamese
land. This is NOT invasion.
China did fight a war with India over undfined border. At the end China occupied part
of the undefined territory while India occupied the rest. This is also NOT invasion.
I don't know when China invaded Afghanistan? Do you mean The Mongolians who built a
huge empire?
China did assist North Korean to push back the 'invasion' by South Korea and USA. I
don't know whcih dictionary defines this as 'invasion' by China?
China 'invaded' Russia? In your dream?
Do you know that Russia took away large parcels of land (as big as the present
Mongolia!)from China during the Qing Dynasty?
Come on, friend, don't be a barking dog who follows the tune of the Western
Imperialists!
Nelson Lu
Jigong <Jigong...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>China had a 'short 'war' with Vietnam. But did not take a single inch of Vietnamese
>land. This is NOT invasion.
Chinese forces were on Vietnamese soil. That counts as an invasion, regardless
of what the end results are; unless, of course, you agree with those right
wing Japanese politicians who argue that Japan merely made an "incursion" into
China.
>China did fight a war with India over undfined border. At the end China occupied part
>of the undefined territory while India occupied the rest. This is also NOT invasion.
Nobody else recognizes it as disputed territory; all of the countries in the
world recognize that part of the world as Indian soil.
>
>I don't know when China invaded Afghanistan? Do you mean The Mongolians who built a
>huge empire?
Same war; the Chinese forces briefly went over the borders with Afghanistan.
>China did assist North Korean to push back the 'invasion' by South Korea and USA. I
>don't know whcih dictionary defines this as 'invasion' by China?
Chinese forces didn't stop at the border; they went into South Korean
territory; and if you want to argue that it's not an invasion because it was
"defensive," remember that North Korea started the war by invading South Korea.
You can either argue that both sides invaded each other, or that North Korea
invaded South Korea; you can't logically argue that South Korea/United States
invaded North Korea but that North Korea/China did not invade South Korea.
>
>China 'invaded' Russia? In your dream?
>Do you know that Russia took away large parcels of land (as big as the present
>Mongolia!)from China during the Qing Dynasty?
Border battles; Chinese forces went over recognized international boundary.
>Come on, friend, don't be a barking dog who follows the tune of the Western
>Imperialists!
Funny, I didn't know that the Soviet Union turned into a western imperialist
power -- or Afghanistan -- or India -- or Vietnam. Only South Korea, among
this list, was arguably a puppet of a western imperialist power. China didn't
go around to rescue her fellow oppressed peoples; it beat up on them.
sluan
>
> In article <3A5B740C...@cup.hp.com>,
> sluan <sl...@cup.hp.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Americans always complain about the reporting of domestic news as
> not
> > > fair or not accurate. They don't have the same complaints concerning
> > > foreign news. Few poeple will notice if a reporter makes a mistake
> in
> > > foreign news and fewer will complain.
>
> > You really have made me curious. How did you come to such an idea
> that Americans
> > always complain about domestic news being not fair or not accurate?
> >
>
> Middle school and high school kids somethings play trick with each
> other. One presents to another a card with "Don't believe this card"
> written on it. It causes a logical dilemma. However, it is only a
> dilemma because the card is the sole source of information.
You are not answering the questions. I don't really understand what you
are trying to say. I have dealt with a lot of middle and high school kids.
I have not seen them passing cards or anything like that.
>
> In real life, the press everywhere is never the sole source of
> information. In fact it constitutes only a small percentage of total
> information exchange. In America, most people drives. A lot of people
> still travel by train or by bus daily. People, strangers, frequently
> talk to each other while waiting for the train or sitting inside the
> bus. Listen or talking to them, you will learn a lot more than what had
> reported in the press.
Information people pass by talking and listening is not the same as the
news reported by the media. You only met and chat with very few people
everyday. What you pass on or be passed on is very limited. You can't
complain about domestic news being not fair nor accurate because you only
get news from people you meet and talk every day. Those people can do the
best in speculating but not reporting news.
>
> Yes. I learn about American's complains on the domestic news through
> the media but also through talking to listening. There are also
> organizations who monitor the fairness and accruacy of press coverage.
> Last but not least, there are books and studies which dwell on the
> problems of the press. I had posted excerpts on this thread. Check it
> out if you want.
Maybe I missed them all. Would you cite some examples?
>
> > And then how did you come to another idea that Americans don't have
> such complaints
> > concerning foreign news?
> >
> > Do you then agree that all the news about Tibet, TAM, and Persian
> Gulf, etc. published
> > to Americans are all fair and accurate.
>
> Don't know your point.
You said in the US foreign news are fair and accurate. So I ask you if
you think US news about Tibet, TAM massacre, and Persian Gulf war, were
fair and accurate.
>
> I wrote "They [Americans] don't have the same complains concerning
> foreign news. Few poeple will notice if a reporter makes a mistake in
> foreign news and fewer will complain."
How is that? Why Americans do not complain about the mistakes in foreign
news? And why some people on this forum kept on complaining that US news lie?
Sluan
ltl...@mindspring.com
bri...@inet.co.th (Brian Jackson) wrote:
> In article <934epq$blu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> >There are many ways to promote democracy in a country. Funding
a "most
> >independent media source" in that country is different from funding
> >anti-government groups in that country. Currently, most PRC citizens
> >will see anti-PRC governemnt as anti-PRC citizens.
>
> But why should they think that opposing one party dictatorial rule is
> equivalent to opposing the people as a whole? Doesn't that sound a bit
> simplistic?
Basically, the CCP is not same as the Republican or the Democratic
Party. The CCP, by itself, is a mass organization with 70 millions
members. Together with the associated All China Women's Federation, the
Chinese Communist Youth League and the All China Federation of Trade
Unions and etc, it represents the will of the people.
The CCP, through its members and members of associated mass
organizations, collect information and formulate policies. It is where
check and balance occur. Its visible hand then direct the state
apparatus, the National People's Congress and standing committee to
enact the laws/policies and the State Council and standing comittee to
execute the laws/policies. As these laws and policies are disseminated
down stream, local CCP members work to facilitate theirs implementation
and frequently interpret the laws and policies to ensure compatibility
with local conditions. Another locus for check and balance.
In short, the CCP is more than a political party. Opposing it is more
than opposing a small number of people.
>
> Why were the Indonesians who brought down the Suharto dictatorship
> seen as patriotic, and the Thais who opposed a dictator the same?
> People who worked with local civil groups to improve human rights,
> struggle for press freedom and a host of other causes all over Asia
> were never seen as being against their country. Quite the contrary.
> Why is it only in China that striving for these ideals is against the
> country, against the people?
Afraid you are comparing apples and oranges. Bruntly put, the PRC has
the potential to be a superpower in the forseeable future; not
Indonesia or Thai. It is prudent for the CIA or other American agencies
to comtemplate all eventualities, including hostility between the two
countries.
> Entrenched status quo powers always portray such movements in this
> way, so it's no suprise that China's rulers do it. This is the same
> for all authoritarian rulers, where the prime motive is to retain
> power. That a ruling clique labels any given movement or group as
> traitorous or subversive does not make it so.
> >Citizens of a country can do whatever they want, including engaging
in
> >anti-government activity. Struggle to improve one's country is the
> >right and the responsibility of every citizen. As a group, they are
the
> >only people who can judge the costs and the benefits of their
> >activities. Citizens of another country, simply do not have the same
> >previlege and are unlikely to have the insider knowledge.
>
> Do you think the China Democracy Party is acting to harm the interests
> of Chinese people? Do you really believe that such activists are
> acting in the interest of the CIA, or out to destroy China, as Yu
> apparently does?
I had commented on the CDP before. Their main selling point is they
reject Tibet as part of China. Such position is currently not supported
by most Chinese.
> Here is a small list of NGO's which are current or past recipients of
> grants from NED, ones which have websites. Apologies in advance if any
> links are not active, this was current in Feb. 2000. These are not
> China or Tibet related, so that perhaps we can get beyond the
> emotional charge that those would evidently have for you. Let me know
> if any of them look to you like traitors to their people.
>
No matter who they fund. US government agencies' primary duty is to
advance US interests.
Nelson Lu
>Basically, the CCP is not same as the Republican or the Democratic
>Party. The CCP, by itself, is a mass organization with 70 millions
>members. Together with the associated All China Women's Federation, the
>Chinese Communist Youth League and the All China Federation of Trade
>Unions and etc, it represents the will of the people.
I suppose the last partial sentence really meant that I wasted all my time in
responding to you. If the premise of your arguments is that the CCP represents
the people, then I suppose there is really no use in talking to you about
human rights.
bud_s...@my-deja.com
I suppose the farther away something is (physically and culturally)
the less people will scrutinize news about it - and the more mistakes
reporters will make and get away with (viz. the sloppy mistake in
Tibet's population made by CNN TIME that the Indian magazine
Frontline found and Yu posted).
So perhaps you could say there is a trade off for Chinese in news
media. Local sources are censored but not sloppy. Foreign media is
uncensored but sometimes sloppy and perhaps also (as you say) biased in
wanting to tell domestic customers what they want to hear.....
But wouldn't an uncensored Chinese media be able to bring out the best
of both worlds? It would be free of the government's agenda but also
suseptible to free market "discipline" of losing customers if it was
found to be inaccurate.
>
> > > >
> > > > However, a society where the media
> > > > is controlled by the state absolutely (as
> > > > is the case with China), the situation
> > > > will always be far worse, since the
> > > > problems you identified with free press
> > > > not only won't be eliminated but would
> > > > in fact be multipled many folds.
> > >
> > > Not true.
> > > What I said all along is simply this: The citizens', including
> > > reporters and government officials',
> > > capability to overcome their own
> > > fear, bias, greed and etc is the key
> > > toward a better, more democratic society.
<story about Ramparts snipped>
bud_s...@my-deja.com
But isn't there a huge difference between freedom (or lack there of)
during the GPCR, 100 Flowers campaign, etc. and the DXP and postDXP
era? In fact isn't it true that....
"In the past decade probably more people in China have seen their
material lives dramatically improve than ever before in recorded
history, even as democracy has led to social collapse and mafia rule in
Russia. The Chinese have also experienced a dramatic increase in
personal freedom. Two China experts, David M. Lampton, of the Johns
Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and Burton Levin, a
former ambassador to Burma, have observed that the Communist Party has
gone from controlling every facet of daily life in China to controlling
the media and the political opposition. Chinese can travel, buy any
books and videos they want, open bank accounts, live together if they
are gay or unmarried, and so on...."
(more of Kaplan from "China, A World Power Again")
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99aug/9908china.htm
*******************************************
This was written before Falun Gong so it should read "...the Communist
Party has gone from controlling every facet of daily life in China to
controlling the media and the political opposition and religion.."
Still do you not think it has some validity?
Nelson Lu
>But isn't there a huge difference between freedom (or lack there of)
>during the GPCR, 100 Flowers campaign, etc. and the DXP and postDXP
>era? In fact isn't it true that....
Perhaps, but again, I don't find it particularly relevant. It's still not
anywhere close to being sufficiently free.
sluan
>
> Basically, the CCP is not same as the Republican or the Democratic
> Party. The CCP, by itself, is a mass organization with 70 millions
> members. Together with the associated All China Women's Federation, the
> Chinese Communist Youth League and the All China Federation of Trade
> Unions and etc, it represents the will of the people.
>
> The CCP, through its members and members of associated mass
> organizations, collect information and formulate policies. It is where
> check and balance occur. Its visible hand then direct the state
> apparatus, the National People's Congress and standing committee to
> enact the laws/policies and the State Council and standing comittee to
> execute the laws/policies. As these laws and policies are disseminated
> down stream, local CCP members work to facilitate theirs implementation
> and frequently interpret the laws and policies to ensure compatibility
> with local conditions. Another locus for check and balance.
>
> In short, the CCP is more than a political party. Opposing it is more
> than opposing a small number of people.
When the CCP leaders decided to crush over thousands of students and civilians
at the TAM Square, the decision was never based on people's will. It was
not even close to be representing all Chinese people at all. The CCP leaders
had a meeting to discuss what to do with the students. Mr. Zhao Tse-Young
was against the brutal killing and has been under house arrest since then.
Deng Shiao Ping was the one who forced his will through and gave the order
of the killing. Why do you still think there was check and balance there?
Sluan
Water Barberian
"Nelson Lu" <n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:93frgc$dp0$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU...
Britain would rather trust Hitler than Stalin. Or Bratt Pitt said that PLA
was
worse than German troops. And here we go again.
I guess there had to be some secret furnaces hidden somewhere in China.
ltl...@mindspring.com
Mistakes, falsehoods, and censorship will only be tolerated as long as
they have little impact on the citizens' life. This is the only
discipline for all presses.
Unless you think Chinese are exceptional stupid. No reason to believe
they will tolerate 'government's agenda' if it impact them subtantially
and negatively.
Yu
Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 23:51:20 GMT, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <4spj5t8u1l9rjfnke...@4ax.com>,
> > Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 00:35:37 GMT, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <hlch5ts5so996kket...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 01:18:48 GMT, Yu <yug...@my-deja.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <936lk7$b8k$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
> >> >> > n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) wrote:
> >> >> >> In article <9365po$s2n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Yu
> ><yug...@my-deja.com>
> >> >> >wrote:
> >------------
> >> I notice you did not refute my claim that Tibet is not
> >> part of China.
> >>
> >> TA
> >
China is a nation with very long history during which every inch of soil
is subject of countless military campaigns.
The latest military conflict was against CIA trained and armed militia.
>Chinese do not consider Tibetans to be ethnic Chinese do
>they?
That is not true. China is a multi-ethnic society.
Most Hans are very fond of the minorities especially their dances and
songs.
>>Even the Dalai Lama doesn't ask for
>>independence.
>>
>>
>
> He's just being diplomatic. You think he would not accept
>indepedence for Tibet if it was offered?
It will not be offered.
Had USA offered Alaska to Russia, it would have been accepted.
ltl...@mindspring.com
I think non-security related human rights items are not human needs.
They are of secondary importance.
Nelson Lu
Water Barberian <som...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The idea that Nazi is better than commies has never been died. That was why
>Britain would rather trust Hitler than Stalin. Or Bratt Pitt said that PLA
>was
>worse than German troops. And here we go again.
Where did I say that Nazis are better than communists (or, more specifically,
the CCP)?
I am saying that "better than Nazis" is not a defense for the CCP's conduct.
Yu
bri...@inet.co.th (Brian Jackson) wrote:
> In article <934epq$blu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Why were the Indonesians who brought down the Suharto dictatorship
> seen as patriotic, and the Thais who opposed a dictator the same?
> People who worked with local civil groups to improve human rights,
> struggle for press freedom and a host of other causes all over Asia
> were never seen as being against their country. Quite the contrary.
> Why is it only in China that striving for these ideals is against the
> country, against the people?
We are here talking about CIA-NED funding Chinese democratic party.
The Indonesians or the Thais did not wellcome CIA funding their
political parties.
> Do you think the China Democracy Party is acting to harm the interests
> of Chinese people? Do you really believe that such activists are
> acting in the interest of the CIA, or out to destroy China, as Yu
> apparently does?
I do know that Wang Xi Zhe, the leader of Chinese Democratic Party
support Tibet Independence.
I do know that NED supports Tibet separatists.
I do know that Bush called China a strategic competitor.
I also know that USA will not allow foreign money into their political
parties.
> Here is a small list of NGO's which are current or past recipients of
> grants from NED, ones which have websites. Apologies in advance if any
> links are not active, this was current in Feb. 2000. These are not
> China or Tibet related, so that perhaps we can get beyond the
> emotional charge that those would evidently have for you. Let me know
> if any of them look to you like traitors to their people.
>
> Brian
Other than their beautiful names do you really know what they do?
It will be utterly stupid to think that USA has no intelligence assets
in these places.
Peopel in less sophisticated societies may not have heard of NED.
That's precisely why Reagan used NED to carry out CIA's job of
infiltrating other countries' political parties, Unions and media.
Tom Abbott
<Jigong...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Nelson Lu wrote:
>
>> In article <3A5B30C4...@rocketmail.com>,
>> Jigong <Jigong...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Nelson Lu wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <3A5A1618...@rocketmail.com>,
>> >> Jigong <Jigong...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Whcih independent nation has China invaded in the past 50 years?
>> >> >Wich nations have China bulllied? In what way?
>> >>
>> >> Invaded: Vietnam, India, Afghanistan, South Korea, the Soviet Union
>> >> Bullied: most of these (except the Soviet Union), plus pretty much all of the
>> >> other countries in Asia except the Middle East
>> >
>> >You are trying to distort history!
>> >Please read the right history book. Don't read too much of fairy tales, adn take
>> >fairy tales as history!
>>
>> OK, leaving aside the "bullied" part (since that requires subjective
>> evaluation), which of the countries that I listed did China *not* invade?
>> In other words, just what exactly did I distort?
>
>China had a 'short 'war' with Vietnam. But did not take a single inch of Vietnamese
>land.
Not for lack of trying. :)
> This is NOT invasion.
>China did fight a war with India over undfined border. At the end China occupied part
>of the undefined territory while India occupied the rest. This is also NOT invasion.
>
>I don't know when China invaded Afghanistan? Do you mean The Mongolians who built a
>huge empire?
>China did assist North Korean to push back the 'invasion' by South Korea and USA. I
>don't know whcih dictionary defines this as 'invasion' by China?
>
The USA was just pushing back the original invasion by
North Korea.
>China 'invaded' Russia? In your dream?
>Do you know that Russia took away large parcels of land (as big as the present
>Mongolia!)from China during the Qing Dynasty?
>
>Come on, friend, don't be a barking dog who follows the tune of the Western
>Imperialists!
TA
Tom Abbott
wrote:
You make my point: Tibetans are not Han, and you agree.
Too bad Han are not so fond of Tibet's ancient religions.
They seem bent on wiping out one of the most valuable
treasures on Earth for their own petty, selfish interests.
>>>Even the Dalai Lama doesn't ask for
>>>independence.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> He's just being diplomatic. You think he would not accept
>>indepedence for Tibet if it was offered?
>
>It will not be offered.
I don't doubt that. I've never known dictators to give up
territory voluntarily.
>Had USA offered Alaska to Russia, it would have been accepted.
>
>
The USA paid good money for Alaska. :)
TA
bud_s...@my-deja.com
> bri...@inet.co.th (Brian Jackson) wrote:
> > In article <934epq$blu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ltl...@mindspring.com
wrote:
> >
> > >There are many ways to promote democracy
> > >independent media source" in that country is different from funding
> > >anti-government groups in that country. Currently, most PRC
citizens
> >
> > But why should they think that opposing one party dictatorial rule
is
> > equivalent to opposing the people as a whole? Doesn't that sound a
bit
> > simplistic?
>
> Basically, the CCP is not same as the Republican or the Democratic
> Party. The CCP, by itself, is a mass organization with 70 millions
> members. Together with the associated All China Women's Federation,
the
> Chinese Communist Youth League and the All China Federation of Trade
> Unions and etc,
Do you see this as an exemplary system or one that will have to do
until PRC becomes more developed?
The membership of all these organizations can't be close to a majority
of 1.3 billion people. But even if they were how do we know that the
will of the membership is expressed by the leadership? Can the
membership stage grassroots movements to replace it's leadership?
Without a trully mass base and a guarantee that the leadership responds
to membership is there not a danger of these organizations (or more
likely the leadership of these organizations) having a vested interests
that may fall at odds with the country as a whole?
> it represents the will of the people.
>
> The CCP, through its members and members of associated mass
> organizations, collect information and formulate policies. It is where
> check and balance occur. Its visible hand then direct the state
> apparatus, the National People's Congress and standing committee to
> enact the laws/policies and the State Council and standing committee
to
> execute the laws/policies. As these laws and policies are disseminated
> down stream, local CCP members work to facilitate theirs
implementation
> and frequently interpret the laws and policies to ensure compatibility
> with local conditions. Another locus for check and balance.
>
> In short, the CCP is more than a political party. Opposing it is more
> than opposing a small number of people.
>
> >
> > Why were the Indonesians who brought down the Suharto dictatorship
> > seen as patriotic, and the Thais who opposed a dictator the same?
> > People who worked with local civil groups to improve human rights,
> > struggle for press freedom and a host of other causes all over Asia
> > were never seen as being against their country. Quite the contrary.
> > Why is it only in China that striving for these ideals is against
the
> > country, against the people?
>
> Afraid you are comparing apples and oranges. Bluntly put, the PRC has
> the potential to be a superpower in the foreseeable future; not
> Indonesia or Thai.
True.
> It is prudent for the CIA or other American agencies
> to contemplate all eventualities, including hostility between the two
> countries.
>
> > Entrenched status quo powers always portray such movements in this
> > way, so it's no surprise that China's rulers do it. This is the same
> > for all authoritarian rulers, where the prime motive is to retain
> > power. That a ruling clique labels any given movement or group as
> > traitorous or subversive does not make it so.
>
> > >Citizens of a country can do whatever
> > > they want, including engaging in
> > >anti-government activity. Struggle
> > > to improve one's country is the
> > >right and the responsibility of
> > > every citizen. As a group, they are the
> > >only people who can judge the costs and the benefits of their
> > >activities. Citizens of another country,
> > > simply do not have the same
> > >privilege and are unlikely to have the insider knowledge.
> >
> > Do you think the China Democracy Party
> > is acting to harm the interests
> > of Chinese people? Do you really believe that such activists are
> > acting in the interest of the CIA, or out to destroy China, as Yu
> > apparently does?
>
> I had commented on the CDP before. Their main selling point is they
> reject Tibet as part of China.
But surely democracy is a legitimate selling point, and rather more
important for Chinese than what happens to Tibet?
> Such position is currently not supported
> by most Chinese.
>
> > Here is a small list of NGO's which
> > are current or past recipients of
> > grants from NED, ones which have
> > websites. Apologies in advance if any
> > links are not active, this was current in Feb. 2000. These are not
> > China or Tibet related, so that perhaps we can get beyond the
> > emotional charge that those would
> > evidently have for you. Let me know
> > if any of them look to you like traitors to their people.
> >
>
> No matter who they fund. US government agencies' primary duty is to
> advance US interests.
1) Do not nations sometimes have ideologies that differ and even
conflict with that nations self-interest? Just as Marxist Leninism
didn't always turn out to advance the interests of the PRC, so to might
the U.S. be promoting an ideology not always in U.S. interests? For
example there is a school of thought that a democratic PRC might be
more antagonistic to the U.S than the experienced, cautious CCP!
"Ironically perhaps, the same CCP regime that is criticized by the West
may actually do a better job of controlling potentially dangerous
nationalism that is bound to be more common and even radical in a more
powerful and confident China....a `democratic` regime in Beijing, free
from the debilitating concerns for its own survival but likely driven
by popular emotions, could make the rising Chinese power a much more
assertive, impatient, belligerent, even aggressive force..."
(from "Self Image and Strategic Intentions" by Fei-Ling Wang)
I hope Wang is wrong of course, but wouldn't realpolitic U.S. officials
consider funding Chinese democrats a needless risk?
2) When an opposition organization - human rights, civil rights, or
political - openly gets money from a foreign group or government, isn't
the openness a sort of brake on the danger of the opposition being
beholden to that foreign power and serving their interests? As Brian
says the regime being opposed is invariably going to portray the
foreign-money-receivers as traitors. It won't be just Yuguang-types on
the internet accusing the opposition recipients of being CIA puppets,
the government will shout it from the roof tops and make sure everyone
knows.
That being the case, won't here be a sort of spotlight on the
opposition organization to prove its loyalty to the motherland? Doesn't
it give the opposition as strong incentive to distance itself from the
foreign help and shed it as soon as feasible?
> > Brian
> >
<NED funded organizations clipped>
> > --
> > "The maxim that people should not
> > have a right till they are ready to
> > exercise it properly, is worthy
> > of the fool in the old story who
> > resolved not to go into the water
> > till he had learned to swim."
> > --Macaulay
Bud
"It is important not to oversimplify a complex issue"
--Yuguang
bud_s...@my-deja.com
> > of losing customers if it was
> > found to be inaccurate.
>
> Mistakes, falsehoods, and censorship will
> only be tolerated as long as
> they have little impact on the
> citizens' life. This is the only
> discipline for all presses.
>
> Unless you think Chinese are exceptional
> stupid. No reason to believe
> they will tolerate 'government's agenda'
> and negatively.
Actually I was inclined to think Chinese
people tended more towards the smart side than
the stupid. But perhaps you could you explain
a little more about this process of toleration
and non-toleration works.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your statement seems
to argue that if people - the Chinese people -
didn't want something, if they found that it
"impacted them substantially and negatively,"
then it wouldn't exist because they would
have put a stop to it.
Therefore arguing about whether any particular
PRC policy (e.g. censorship) is good or bad is
pointless - the Chinese people must have already
thought the matter over and decided it is OK.
But surely there are some PRC government policies
most Chinese people oppose even if they have not
risen up and overthrown the government!
And surely debating issues like censorship is PART
of deciding what is tolerable, or advantageous,
or whatever, rather than a sort of impertinence.
(Having said all that I have to add that as far as I
can tell you are correct that most Chinese inside and
outside of China currently support Beijing and oppose
U.S. and Western government pressure on Beijing. So when
I say debate, I mean debate, not threatening of trade
sanctions on China by the U.S. When I argue for democracy
in the PRC I have to agree the best model may well
be the Taiwan model of gradual reform.
Perhaps for those of us who have not kept track of
your posts on TPC you might repost your position
(if you feel so inclined) on whether and how fast
you feel PRC might become demcratic. When a certain
level of literacy is reached? After another generation?
Is there some guideline you would use besides
"China will become democratic when the Chinese
people decide they want democracy")
Bud Swanson
>
> > > > > > However, a society where the media
> > > > > > is controlled by the state absolutely (as
> > > > > > is the case with China), the situation
> > > > > > will always be far worse, since the
> > > > > > problems you identified with free press
> > > > > > not only won't be eliminated but would
> > > > > > in fact be multiplied many folds.
Yu
Congratulation! Now for the first time you learn the new word "Han".
You should learn more about Chinese before you throw too much dirt and
make a fool of yourself.
What is this "Tibet's ancient religions" you are talking about and also
this thing "the most valuable treasures on Earth"?
Do you happen to keep slaves or perform human sacrifice?
> >>>Even the Dalai Lama doesn't ask for
> >>>independence.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> He's just being diplomatic. You think he would not accept
> >>indepedence for Tibet if it was offered?
> >
> >It will not be offered.
>
> I don't doubt that. I've never known dictators to give up
> territory voluntarily.
>
> >Had USA offered Alaska to Russia, it would have been accepted.
> >
> >
>
> The USA paid good money for Alaska. :)
Really? How much?
How about returning New Mexico to the Navajo Natives?
Have you ask them? make an offer?
ltl...@mindspring.com
You wrote "China will become democratic when the Chinese people decide
they want democracy" as it is not a good answer. But is it the essence
of democracy? Do you think people's rule is meaningful if it is given
to them? In a theocracy, all good things flows downward from the God to
the citizens. Citizens' duty is simply to wait and receive. Should
citizens of a democracy follow the same pattern?
What does it mean by becoming democratic?
Is democracy an all-or-nothing phenomenon? Is it true that once multi-
party direct election is installed, a country will then become a better
country with no other reasons? Does multi-party direct democratic
election alone lead to prosperity? Can a country be really democratic
without citizens of democratic spirit? Can a government be really
democratic if it cannot meet the citizens' need because it lacks
resources to solve many of their problems?
I think the opposite of the above questions are true. Democracy does
not lead to prospertiy. Economic prosperity, on the other hand, will
lead to democracy.
Democratization is a process that increase the government's ability
such that they can better satisfy the citizens' needs. More important,
democratization is a process of increasing citizens' capability to take
care of themselves, their families, and then their country. As long as
people have new challenges and new demands, democratization is a never
ending process. Many people can recognize this kind of democratization
is actully old confucianism staff.
bud_s...@my-deja.com
> > level of literacy is reached? After another generation?
> > Is there some guideline you would use besides
> > "China will become democratic when the Chinese
> > people decide they want democracy")
>
> You wrote "China will become democratic when the Chinese people decide
> they want democracy" as it is not a good answer.
No, no, no. It's not a bad answer. Popular desire for democracy is
essential. It's just that...it would be nice to know a little more.
For example, more than a few people (even Chinese so I'm told) thought
TAM was a an expression of the Chinese people deciding they wanted
democracy.
They, (we), were mistaken it now appears. So the next time we see
unrest in China do you have any guidelines you would use to distinguish
whether it is counter-revolutionary chaos in need of firm security
measures or the people saying it is time for a change?
> But is it the essence
> of democracy? Do you think people's rule is meaningful if it is given
> to them? In a theocracy, all good things flows downward from the God
to
> the citizens. Citizens' duty is simply to wait and receive. Should
> citizens of a democracy follow the same pattern?
>
> What does it mean by becoming democratic?
> Is democracy an all-or-nothing phenomenon?
Agreed, it is not.
> Is it true that once multi-
> party direct election is installed,
> a country will then become a better
> country with no other reasons? Does multi-party direct democratic
> election alone lead to prosperity? Can a country be really democratic
> without citizens of democratic spirit? Can a government be really
> democratic if it cannot meet the citizens' need because it lacks
> resources to solve many of their problems?
>
> I think the opposite of the above questions are true. Democracy does
> not lead to prospertiy. Economic prosperity, on the other hand, will
> lead to democracy.
I buy that, at least partially.
>
> Democratization is a process that increase the government's ability
> such that they can better satisfy the citizens' needs. More important,
> democratization is a process of increasing citizens' capability to
take
> care of themselves, their families, and then their country. As long as
> people have new challenges and new demands, democratization is a never
> ending process. Many people can recognize this kind of democratization
> is actully old confucianism staff.
I'll ask you about that later.
> > Bud Swanson
"It is important not to oversimplify a complex issue."
-- Yuguang
Yu
You think there should be a referendom in response to every emergency?
What Deng did was right and most probably saved China.
The greatness of Deng is he did the dirty job whether people praise him
or not. The more these dirty American crooks try to smear him the more
we love him.
ltl...@mindspring.com
bri...@inet.co.th (Brian Jackson) wrote:
> In article <934epq$blu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> >There are many ways to promote democracy in a country. Funding
> >independent media source" in that country is different from funding
> >anti-government groups in that country. Currently, most PRC citizens
>
> But why should they think that opposing one party dictatorial rule is
> equivalent to opposing the people as a whole? Doesn't that sound a bit
> simplistic?
>
> seen as patriotic, and the Thais who opposed a dictator the same?
> People who worked with local civil groups to improve human rights,
> struggle for press freedom and a host of other causes all over Asia
> were never seen as being against their country. Quite the contrary.
> Why is it only in China that striving for these ideals is against the
> country, against the people?
>
> for all authoritarian rulers, where the prime motive is to retain
> power. That a ruling clique labels any given movement or group as
> traitorous or subversive does not make it so.
They always do that because security is always the duty of the
government. Go to any Christian church and one can always hear the
priest preaching agsinst the devil. See no problem with the priest
preaching the same thing week after week. It is their job. The scrutiny
should be about whether the devil is the devil. It is where the priest
can be judged right or wrong.
> >Citizens of a country can do whatever they want, including engaging
in
> >anti-government activity. Struggle to improve one's country is the
> >right and the responsibility of every citizen. As a group, they are
the
> >only people who can judge the costs and the benefits of their
> >activities. Citizens of another country, simply do not have the same
> >previlege and are unlikely to have the insider knowledge.
>
> Do you think the China Democracy Party is acting to harm the interests
> of Chinese people? Do you really believe that such activists are
> acting in the interest of the CIA, or out to destroy China, as Yu
> apparently does?
>
> Here is a small list of NGO's which are current or past recipients of
> grants from NED, ones which have websites. Apologies in advance if any
> links are not active, this was current in Feb. 2000. These are not
> China or Tibet related, so that perhaps we can get beyond the
> emotional charge that those would evidently have for you. Let me know
> if any of them look to you like traitors to their people.
>
> Brian
> --
> "The maxim that people should not have a right till they are ready to
> exercise it properly, is worthy of the fool in the old story who
> resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim."
> --Macaulay
>
dazu...@my-deja.com
>Do you then agree that all the news about Tibet, TAM, and Persian
Gulf, etc.
>published to Americans are all fair and accurate. And the news
regarding Clinton's
Not really. How many Americans know that Tibet has been part of China
for centuries rather than started 50 years ago when PLA entered the
Tibet? How many Americans know that under the Dalai government, Tibet
was in a serfdom system with 5% ppl had the 90% wealth and serfdom were
no big different with the speaking horses for the serfdom owners. How
many Americans know that the PRC central government pour big money to
Tibet every year? How many Americans know that the thousands Tibetan
temples including Pudala, Dazhao, Zhashilunbu,... have been
repaired or built in last 20 years mainly by PRC government.
(Yes, many Tibetan Temples were destroyed by Tibetan red guards in
the CR as the temples in the other part of China which were destroyed
by other Chinese red guards)
TAM? It has been keep talking on US media for more than 10 years.
However how much the US media talked about the Ken State Massacre in
those periods. Both incidents are quite similar, and are barbaric
killing of protesting students.
Persian Gulf? How many Americans know that due to the blockade lead by
US, the Iraq women and children have no enough milk and medicine? How
many of them know only 4 or 5 UN checking in Iraq had a little problem
in a few hundreds checking and all these problems were solved lately.
However, US and UK still used these cases as the excuses to bomb Iraq
in desert Fox which had no UN proof and were against by many countries
including some US allies?
Also, how many Americans know that their government and media cheated
them in the Kosovo war? They were told that an ethnic cleaning were
happening in Kosovo and 100,000 Albanians were killed and these result
the NATO invasion of Kosovo. However the fact is that only less than
3000 bodies were found by UN in Kosovo after the war. Who knows how
many those ghosts are old and how many are new. Those bodies should
also include the Albanians killed by NATO when those Albanians were
traveling in the tractor teams. Those bodies should also include the
Yugoslavia forces killed by NATO since NATO claimed that they heavily
destroyed the Yugoslavia forces in Kosovo. The fact proved that
Yugoslavia government were telling the truth -- they were fighting with
well documented terrorists KLA rather than conducting an ethnic
cleaning.
Many Americans do know that US government use the old map as the excuse
for her to bomb the Chinese embassy. However how many Americans know
that NIMA officially denied this LIE. NIMA (National Imagery and
Mapping Agency belong to Pentagon) stated "Recent news reports
regarding the accuracy of NIMA maps have been inaccurate or incomplete".
After the first time US officer visited Beijing for the explanation of
embassy bombing, Chinese media reported most of details of those
explanation with the reason why they are not convincible. However US
media basically missed those explanatins since they know those are not
convincible. In the second time US officer visiting, US did not have
the face to repeat at least one of the explanation -- the old map.
BTW, the reason of that average educated Chinese know America way
better than average educated American know about china is obviously
following:
1) The PRC government controlled media give a relatively more objective
and fair report about US than US "free" media's report about China.
2) Chinese know look more sources to learn about US and most of
Americans only depend on their biased main stream media to learn about
China where there are way more negative reports than the positive ones
AFTER the USSR gone. Actually any one who can objectively observe and
visited China in recent 20 years can tell you that Chinese ppl's life
is way better than 20 years ago both economically and politically (in
the aspect of so called Human right, they have way more freedom and the
village level direct election which did not exist 20 years ago).
However 20 years ago, US media treat China way more friendly.
Most of mainland Chinese in US know above facts.
Have a nice weekend!
Dazuixia
>sex scandal must be false and not fair?
>Sluan
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Nelson Lu
>TAM? It has been keep talking on US media for more than 10 years.
>However how much the US media talked about the Ken State Massacre in
>those periods. Both incidents are quite similar, and are barbaric
>killing of protesting students.
4 people died at Kent State. Thousands died at TAM. The incidents are not
comparable, based on that at least. There are many other differences.