Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Hard-Yards Push-Push asks: How is CCP's creditability? Re: Da Lama wants dialog (with China) while hobnobbing with Japan's extremists - remember Yukio Mishima and his ilk and their seppuku rituals - think self-immolations for Da Lama's ignorant extremist followers - Da Lama has a credibility gap Re: Dialogue is only realistic way to solve problems, says His Holiness
2 views
Skip to first unread message
lo yeeOn
Nov 13, 2012, 7:33:04 PM11/13/12
to
In article <3042255.pTWfGjmum1@Dharma>,
Peter Terpstra <pe...@dharma.dyndns.info> wrote:
>lo yeeOn wrote:
>
>> Da Lama wants dialog (with China) while hobnobbing with Japan's extremists
>> - remember Yukio Mishima and his ilk and their seppuku rituals - think
>> self-immolations for Da Lama's ignorant extremist followers - Da Lama has
>> a credibility gap.
>
>According to the CCP.
Ah, but you are wrong, dead wrong. First, the CCP never brought up
the seppuku ritual suicides to describe today's ritualistic suicides
committed by Da Lama's followers. It is my personal observation. I
see the similarities in the two, namely, 1) both are ritualistic and
extremely grisly and 2) both are for the restoration of an ancient
order that has long outlived its place in the respective society. Do
you see that, darling?
As for the statement: "Da Lama has a credibility gap", it is my own
assessment also. And since I am not CCP, ergo, you are dead wrong
about it being "[a]ccording to the CCP". Do you see that too,
sweetheart?
As for the CCP's creditability, as you asked: my answer would be like
many others: AAA+!
creditable: (of a performance, effort, or action) deserving public
acknowledgment and praise but not necessarily outstanding or
--- Oxford Online
First, we have
"Some foreigners with full bellies and nothing better to do engage
in finger-pointing at us: First, China does not export revolution;
second, it does not export famine and poverty; and third, it does
not mess around with you. So what else is there to say?"
- Xi Jinping (incoming Chinese President)
Second, China is lending the US and the EU (many of which countries
have been financing the NATO budget) billions and billions of USD to
fight their war of terror (which they call war on terror) around the
world, terrorizing Mother Earth and her children. Tell me if such a
lender is not creditable? (Tell me: Has a bank with a large cash
reserve which loans money out ever not creditable?)
Third, China has lifted hundreds of billions of Chinese out of poverty.
Fourth, China is only the third country in the world which has sent
men and women into space.
Fifth, China has the best musicians such as Lang Lang and Yuha Wang to
serve as role models for billions of young people around the world.
Sixth, China has made Tibet immediately accessible to people who want
to travel from Shanghai or Beijing to Lhasa, by plane or by rail.
Seventh, China has built such a powerful nation that the West is
instantly drooling with jealousy every time her people's Congress
meets, in the space of every five years.
Eighth, while Japan wants the US to strengthen their mutual defense
treaty in order to seize a few islands historically a part of China,
China is ready to fight alone, as it always has fought, to defend
itself.
Nineth, China never asks other nations to give it to her, whatever
"it" might be. She always tries to make "it" happen while Da Lama
always begs nations to destabilize China.
Tenth, China under the CCP has not bombed another country and never
exported violence, even as Da Lama and his cohorts have been inciting
violence inside Tibet at the expense of Da Lama's own people. And all
the while, the CCP has been working hard to subsidize the large number
of Tibetan monks and their monasteries in China to try to give them a
stable and sufficient environment to live in.
And many more ...!
So, what more do you want for the CCP's creditability?
lo yeeOn
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>How is CCP's creditability?
Subject: Liu Xiaobo: "Freedom is not free" - an extremist in sheep's
clothing - Complete translation of NED grantee/Nobel "Peace" laureate
Liu Xiaobo's article praising the Iraq War and G W Bush Re: Liu Xiaobo
far more deserving of Nobel Prize than me: Obama
In article <2183874.9YqLQPX36f@Dharma>,
Peter Terpstra <pe...@dharma.dyndns.info> wrote:
>lo yeeOn wrote:
>
lo yeeOn wrote:
So Liu Xiaobo has the freedom to "discuss freedom of expression in
China". Yet Bradley Manning can't "discuss freedom of expression in
America" for fear that it would prejudice the degree of harshness in
his certain conviction.
Liu Xiaobo has nothing to offer the Chinese people because he sold
his soul to foreign subversive organizations already. (See below)
Liu Xiaobo has no credibility because what he wrote about
Afghanistan could not be further from the truth. (See below)
Liu Xiaobo is an agent for western powers. Liu Xiaobo is only
repeating the propaganda of his paymasters. (See below)
lo yeeOn
...
>
>[...]
>
>> Liu Xiaobo will go down the history in disgrace if not forgotten!
>
>"We know that our world, our environment, our economy, our schools
>and corporations, and we humans are in deep trouble. We want to see a
>society and government that is based in compassion, not greed, one
>that is based not in hatred and militarism but in kindness and
>inclusion. We want to see a society that is not caught in blind
>ignorance but has a clear, un-biased and un-bought view of the state
>of the world and our responsibility to it and for it."
>
>-- Roshi Joan Halifax
Ms. Halifax was certainly not wrong. Unfortunately, we don't know the
context of her musing and the poster did not provide a citation for it.
Our environment is in trouble because of excess consumption and excess
production of goods for the purpose of consumption and money making.
Who started this? The West - the developed, the industrialized
nations, led by the United States and followed by Japan, GB, France,
Germany, and now China, India, Brazil, Vietnam, and others.
The West is not only primarily responsible for the modern phenomenon
of over-consumption and over-production of goods which has done
irreparable damage to the planet's environment. It has basically
forced the whole world to conform to its greed-based economic model,
through the WTO and the World Bank, organizations always headed by
appointees from Washington and the European Union.
But the West is still not happy with its over-reaching economic arm
over the entire planet. It wants to use military might to force all
countries in line with its agenda. So, the West has violently brought
down Libya's former government which was self-sufficient and wanted to
sell oil in currency denominated by the Libyan Dinar. Now, Libya is
dirt poor and is a failed state, swarmed by CIA, MI6 and agents from
other Western spy agencies. And it wants to bring down Syria now that
Libya is down; but not before having first shaken down that hapless
country for twenty million USD first to finance the mercenaries who
are now fighting in Syria. We of course spent 9 years devastating
Iraq. And we are not done in Afghanistan after more than a decade.
And we have already innundated Yeman and Pakistan with killer drones.
These wars - America's serial wars - have two remarkable impacts on the
planet, in addition to bringing utter misery to the people who are on
the receiving end of our bombs and missiles.
Number one: the enormous amount of explosives that were detonated in
the name of fighting America's enemies has introduced so much force
into the globe's atmospheric system that it has further worsened the
destruction on the globe's environment the world's economy of greed
has wrecked.
While industrial activities create green-house effect gases (CO2, etc)
that contribute to global warming (a steady secular event), the abrupt
and powerful detonations of mega-bombs and missiles add not only a lot
of energy into the atmospheric system, but also a lot of particles
which will help nucleate liquid drops in the right moments, e.g.,
during the formation of a storm, and finally the worst part, the
minute currents which are not vortex-free. Just as Newton's first law
of mechanics dictates that something which moves to begin with shall
continue to move, the tiny vortices a huge explosion produces will not
disappear, even as it seems to have disappeared locally. And at some
appropriate time later, they can meet up other vortices like a pack of
hungry wolves roaming the wild. They can gather force and become the
likes of Katrina, Rita, Sandy, and other killer storms, thanks to the
law of conservation of angular momentum. We human beings have
foolishly aggravated global warming with all the man-made forcing
functions that are increasingly more violent when they come.
Also as we detonate a bomb, the CO2 produces is in the first place an
excess addition to our atmospheric system that we know we'd be better
off without. But unfortunately, in order to pack that amount of
explosive power into the bomb in the first place, we have to do work
that will have required the generation of an equal amount of CO2 in
the process of making it. (I am here using the energy conservation
law in the estimation of the amount of CO2 required to make a bomb
with that amount of energy released when detonated.) So, the
greenhouse effect from the detonation of a bomb is typically twice as
bad.
In any case, the environment impact of exploding a bomb is very bad.
And if we keep doing it year after year and talking about decades of
war on terror, it is nothing but a war of terror on Mother Earth and
all of humanity.
Now the second is the economics. You know we have spent trillions on
the Iraq war (don't have to trust me, listen to the Nobel economist
Joseph Stiglitz) already. And that was mostly G W Bush's war. Now
Obama has greatly expanded the Afghan war both in terms of the
activities inside Afghanistan as well as the expansion of the war into
Pakistan. And the national debt has grown by many more trillions
since Obama took office for the first term. And he is going to have a
strategic deal with the puppet Karzai government to let us keep Bagram
for at least another deacde. So, that means a lot more USD will go
down the drain. That means that our economy will not recover because
of the burden of the debt. And since the whole world's economy has
been made to link together by the West' WTO and World Bank control,
the whole world's economy will be dragged down.
So, now, you see the two points that I wanted to tell you, concerning
our activities that destroy our environment. These activities not
only destroy our environment, but our economy also. So, Uncle Sam,
please have compassion on 99% of the people on this earth and other
life forms. But since when has any government has the genetic
predisposition to have compassion on the people, not to mention other
life forms? Today, the worst perpetrator of the destruction of our
environment, our economy, and our lives is Uncle Sam. So, what to do?
Ms. Halifax isn't telling us!
But I am telling you: Please, please, people! open your eyes. Stop
the insane war on terror. Stop the United States of America's insane
hegemony agenda. For this reason, we also need to stop blindly
worshipping warmongers (in sheep's clothing) like Liu Xiaobo, who has
worked for Uncle Sam, been paid big bucks by the NED and has paid back
by glorifying the Iraq War and demonizing the Taliban - the effect of
which is our interminable war that is going to last at least two
decades, if Uncle Sam is able to keep to his plan - his strategic
alliance with his Afghan puppet and all that bull!
So, when we listen to Ms. Halifax, we should be thinking about the war
on terror which has increasingly terrorizing the American citizens
back in return. This has nothing to do with God or Allah! It has
everything to do with the cause and effect of our material-based world
that functions according to Newton's laws of mechanics.
lo yeeOn
>
>
>--
>A beautiful song from Tibet
>I miss Dalai Lama
>http://youtu.be/_zo3kYvJr38
If you Hard-Yards feel that it's so cool to sing "I miss Da Lama",
then expect more 15 or 16 year-olds to kill themselves and take
responsibility for their tragic deaths, even though I really don't
necessarily believe the stories. I have predicted the occurrences
were orchestrated and timed for political purposes. Since the stories
came out of Dharamsala, a source with a political agenda and very low
credibility historically, and since horror stories of this kind are
typically not corroborated or verified, it is easy for me to believe
that the deaths are made up for the statistics and for the consumption
of the likes of the VOA and RFA.
And if it is really true that 15 or 16 year-olds can work themselves
up so much desire to die so that Da Lama could return to China one day
and live for another thousand years (even just in their incredibly
ignorant minds), then many adults will have to assume responsibility
for their horribly tragic demise. There are indeed so many ways to
fix the blame before one can arrogantly point the finger at the CCP!
What kinds of rules do they have at these Tibetan monasteries where a
child monk at a tender age of 15 can be free to meditate over such a
ghastly act and no adult would do anything to stop it. Do Da Lama's
handlers expect us to accept that child monks are actively encouraged
to contemplate suicide? Or do these adult monks just plead ignorance
when a child has been found to have pursued a crazy course of action
(destroying a life in any religion is crazy especially when it is
actively pursued by a child against his own). How can these adult
monks stand aside when a child burns himself? What kind of animals
are these monks?
You can't convince a person who can think for himself that you have a
better target for the blame far far removed from the child.
These adult monks should know that their foremost responsibility is
the protection of the child, not to glorify somebody who the child has
never met in person and cannot possibly have established an emotional
bond, except through some kind of abstract channel established through
some kind of active brainwashing.
It is really incomprehensible how stupid Da Lama and his cohorts are
who would sacrifice these children for their own glory. It is sick!
As for you Hard-Yards, your push-push are responsible for hanging a
false hope before those ignorant monks in Tibet. You are responsible
for the deaths of those children, if they did die. Don't just hum "I
miss Da Lama" and think that there aren't consequences as far as your
corrupting the minds of minors are concerned.
---------------
As for my response to the original posting (also from our Hard-Yards),
let's keep in mind that it was about Obama scratching Liu Xiaobo's
icky, stinky back while Liu Xiaobo had previously scratched G W Bush's
icky, stinky back. They are three evil men wallowing in the mud of
warmongering.
Here is the main of my thought about them:
Liu Xiaobo, G W Bush, and Barack Obama all worked for and continue to
work for the neocons. So, not surprisingly, they would scratch each
other's icky, stinky backs.
The only reason why Liu Xiaobo won his Nobel "Peace" Prize is because
the Nobel committee members never bothered to read his published work,
all of which was written in the Chinese language, but relied only on a
few translated items such as self-serving statements he read at his
court trial claiming that he did not hate his captors. Big deal!
Those "captors" treated him professionally, and he got to eat lunch
with his wife every time she visited him.
What he didn't tell in his statements is the fact that he was paid
hundreds of thousands by the NED to do subversive work against China!
And what did he say about the Taliban to show his full support to his
pay master's invasion and occupation of Afghanistan?
Liu Xiaobo said:
The evil Saddam regime was just like the evil Taliban regime,
internally they oppressed their people, externally, they exhausted
their troops on militaristic adventures, not only threatening the
US, but also world peace. In response to such an evil regime, the
people who struggle under the rule of terror, they either become
fundamentalist fanatics through brainwashing, or resign to doing
nothing as they're powerless to do anything; the UN being
increasingly under the control of rogue states, is doomed to be
impotent as it has all the properties of being a place for empty
chats, in the ten plus years since the first Gulf War, the UN had
become Saddam's play thing and hiding place, the solutions submitted
to the UN by countries like Germany and France one by one, were
shelved due to the constraint of not having enough military backing;
various Arab countries, though holding grudges against Iraq, had
never been able to defeat Saddam alone; and Russia and China had
both held close relationships with Iraq, had sided with Iraq ever
since the first Gulf War . . . in a situation in which the UN was in
shortage of courage to face reality and the ability to effectively
adopt coordinated actions, it was finally left to the US which met
the tragedy of 9/11 and which not only possessed the real strength
to topple Saddam, but also the momentum to topple Saddam.
What he said about Taliban's external adventure cannot be further from
the truth!
they exhausted their troops on militaristic adventures, not only
threatening the US, but also world peace.
The Taliban was fighting off the Soviet Red Army during the 1980s.
The Taliban did not involve itself with any war with any country in
the world until G W Bush took a coalition of willing nations to invade
the country, captured Bagram, and tried to turn the country into a
forward operating base against other countries which would otherwise
be unreachable for the US military. The Taliban has fought back ever
since. And despite their lack of spying satellites, killer-drones,
B52s, mega-bombs and missiles, and Blackhawk and Chinook helicopters,
they have fought us and NATO to a stalemate. Right now, the only way
we can hang on to Bagram is to pretend that we are helping the Afghans
to defend themselves. But the interminable killing of the invaders
and their collaborators by the Afghans themselves tells a different
story. So, where does Liu Xiaobo get his information that drove him
to write:
"they exhausted their troops on militaristic adventures, not only
threatening the US, but also world peace"?
Either Liu Xiaobo is shameless liar or he was writing in Chinese what
his American paymaster told him to write. It is easy to see that Liu
Xiaobo's source material came from a US State Department pamphlet
about our War on Terror.
Either way, Liu Xiaobo has totally discredited himself. And the Nobel
Prize people have likewise discredited themselves for awarding him the
prize. And I have heard that this year's literature prize to Mo Yan
is the Nobel people's not-so-subtle way of trying to compensate for
the gargantuan mistake they made over Liu Xiaobo. Now, this is not to
cheapen Mo Yan's accomplishment. Many first-rate writers never won a
Nobel literature Prize and there was at least one notable rejection!
Consider Lu Shun and Ba Jin, two modern Chinese writers univeresally
praised by those who have read their works. They never won a Nobel
Prize.
And they were not alone either. Lev Tolstoy, Marcel Proust, and many
distinguished 20th century writers did not win the Nobel Prize, even
though they could have easily bested dozens of others who did. So we
can only say that Mo Yan was a safe choice when the Nobel people tried
to make amends for the foolish thing they did with Liu Xiaobo.
As for Obama, the Nobel people were still anxious to "make an impact"
vis-a-vis crying foul about the American war on terror which has
killed and maimed and made homeless untold numbers of innocent people.
Obama sounded like he was gonna do something to end the war. And the
Nobel people wanted to encourage him, thinking that the prize could
have an effect to strengthen Obama's courage to do the right thing.
But Obama had already sold his soul to Mephistopheles. The world had
yet to see him expand the war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen.
The world had yet to see the horror spectacle of the drone strikes.
The world had yet to see how Obama lied for nearly two months by now
to cover up the 9-11 attacks against the US embassy in Benghazi, an
outpost actually to house two or three dozen CIA agents working
illegally in Libya.
Obama was worthless and he knew he was going to work for the awful
evil master Mephistopheles. So, if he says he wasn't even worthy of
tying Liu Xiaobo's sandals, he wasn't saying much to begin with. But
that does not mean th Liu Xiaobo is worth anything. They are just two
zeroes in the world of the natural numbers. Actually, they are two
negative numbers that the world would be better off without.
By the way, Mahatma Gandhi never won a Nobel Prize. So, it says it
all about Obama and Liu Xiaobo. They are, in fact, the opposite of
peace. They are what the world would be better off without!
lo yeeOn
P.S.: Iraq is one of the two dozen countries which refused to send a
delegation to attend Liu Xiaobo's Nobel award ceremony. The reason
was not given but is plain. The Iraqis simply rejected the notion
that the US invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation and destruction
of the country was a good thing for them, much less meant more peace
for the world at large.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <1452787.pqJAIqiqNy@Dharma>,
Peter Terpstra <pe...@dharma.dyndns.info> wrote:
>
>Obama, who received the Nobel Peace Prize 2009, regretted that Liu
>and his wife were denied the opportunity to attend the ceremony in
>Oslo today and called on China to release him.
>
>"One year ago, I was humbled to receive the Nobel Peace Prize an
>award that speaks to our highest aspirations, and that has been
>claimed by giants of history and courageous advocates who have
>sacrificed for freedom and justice. Liu Xiaobo is far more deserving
>of this award than I was," Obama said in a statement.
>
>http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/liu-xiaobo-far-more-deserving-of-nobel-prize-than-me-obama-71850
Liu Xiaobo wrote (my translation to English):
[Senator and former presidential candidate] Kerry [sic, no comma] like
all the leftists of the West, views the unprincipled application of
peaceful-coexistence as the main "national benefit", treats tolerance
of evil regimes as the best policy for allowing different nations to
coexist and for defending world peace. Therefore, he accused Bush's
Middle East policy as a fantasy, advocated that the US should focus on
taking care of its own security, but not export democracy to the
Middle East, the question of whether the Iraqi people should enjoy
freedom should not concern the US. Because "democracy does not suit
the Iraqi people", carries the subtext "the Iraqi people do not
deserve to enjoy freedom and democracy".
. . .
The evil Saddam regime was just like the evil Taliban regime,
internally they oppressed their people, externally, they exhausted
their troops on militaristic adventures, not only threatening the US,
but also world peace. In response to such an evil regime, the people
who struggle under the rule of terror, they either become
fundamentalist fanatics through brainwashing, or resign to doing
nothing as they're powerless to do anything; the UN being increasingly
under the control of rogue states, is doomed to be impotent as it has
all the properties of being a place for empty chats, in the ten plus
years since the first Gulf War, the UN had become Saddam's play thing
and hiding place, the solutions submitted to the UN by countries like
Germany and France one by one, were shelved due to the constraint of
not having enough military backing; various Arab countries, though
holding grudges against Iraq, had never been able to defeat Saddam
alone; and Russia and China had both held close relationships with
Iraq, had sided with Iraq ever since the first Gulf War . . . in a
situation in which the UN was in shortage of courage to face reality
and the ability to effectively adopt coordinated actions, it was
finally left to the US which met the tragedy of 9/11 and which not
only possessed the real strength to topple Saddam, but also the
momentum to topple Saddam.
. . .
In human history, there was never a war to remove a tyranny like the
war to topple Saddam, launched so rapidly, fought in such a civilized
manner, and won so neatly!
(For more of the entire translation of Liu Xiaobo's 2004 article on
the Iraq War and the US presidental election, please see below.)
-----
My post will first report the link between Liu Xiaobo and the NED
(National Endowment for Democracy, a successor organization to the
CIA), then provide an expanded translation of all (whew!) of Liu's
2004 article in praise of the Iraq War and all the wars of aggression
the US waged in the past 60+ years, and finally a discussion of the
fear, the insecurity, and the lack of freedom the Iraqi people
experience today, more than seven years after the US's forced regime
change on the country.
1) The following is an excerpt from a report by Xah Lee, 2010-10-12
entitled "Liu Xiaobo, NED, CIA, USA Support":
(http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/Liu-Xiaobo_NED_CIA.html)
It's widely reported on the web that Liu Xiaobo received funding from
National Endowment for Democracy (NED). This is acknowledged on the
NED site:
* The National Endowment for Democracy Extends Its Warmest
Congratulations to Grantee Liu Xiaobo on Receiving the Nobel
Peace Prize (2010-10-08) At: ned.org
Quote:
Among his many contributions to the advance of democratic ideas and
values in China have been his work as editor of Democratic China
magazine (English via GoogleTranslate) for several years until his
arrest in 2008, and serving two terms as President of the
Independent Chinese PEN Center, from 2003 to 2007. NED is pleased to
have been able to provide grant support to both organizations for
their activities supporting free inquiry and freedom of expression
over the years.
[Note: Liu was cited as president of the Independent Chinese PEN
Center where he posted his 2004 article which I have been trying to
translate. The above NED announcement indicates that it has provided
grant support for this organization over the years as well as perhaps
Liu himself in at the year of 2004 when he wrote his article, and of
course this year by virtue of the opening congratulatory remark. So,
by western standards at least, his sentiment expressed in the 2004
article on the Iraq war and the sitting president at the time can
hardly be viewed as his own personal, independent opinion.]
How Much?
How much? The article didn't say, but from online info the figure may
be over 1M USD, perhaps from 2004 to 2007. It's very time consuming
to gather correct info on the web, but on this site: <Source>,
there's this info:
* ICPC received $135,000 from the NED in 2007:
http://www.ned.org/grants/07programs/grants-asia07.html
* $135,000 from the NED in 2006:
http://www.ned.org/grants/06programs/grants-asia06.html
* $85,000 from the NED in 2004:
http://www.ned.org/grants/04programs/grants-asia04.html
* $145,000 in 2007:
http://www.ned.org/grants/07programs/grants-asia07.html
* $136,000 in 2005:
http://www.ned.org/grants/05programs/grants-asia05.html
* $135,000 in 2004:
http://www.ned.org/grants/04programs/grants-asia04.html
All the links's content are gone as of 2010-10-12, but they are
currently available at the archive.org:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ned.org/grants/04programs/grants-asia04.html
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ned.org/grants/04programs/grants-asia04.html
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ned.org/grants/05programs/grants-asia05.html
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ned.org/grants/06programs/grants-asia06.html
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ned.org/grants/07programs/grants-asia07.html (not available)
(Be sure to save the document on your computer because it might get
removed)
Looking at these doc is quite scary. Usually they have a big section
China, listing lots of money to all sort of organizations that seems
to be politically disruptive for Chinese goverment, e.g. Tibet,
Uyghur, and all with names like "freedom", "human rights", "democracy"
....
2) Translation of Liu Xiaobo's exuberant ruminations on
"The Iraq War and the US presidential Election" (2004)
It is a florid, politically opinionated piece that is extremely
difficult to translate, imho. (I have tried to be faithful to the
sense of the original, even when it does not seem to make much sense.)
In view of NED's substantial financial support of Liu as well as the
organizations he headed, Liu Xiaobo's expressed opinions during this
period cannot be thought of as a genuinely personal view. Nor does
the content of his 2004 article contradict this suspicion.
In the 2004 article Liu Xiaobo wrote about the Iraq War and George
Bush, he gave enthusiastic support of what nearly every intellectual
in the world today recognizes as blatant US hegemony, and he gave this
in language eerily reminiscent of what the world has repeatedly heard
the Bush anti-terror regime speak.
http://www.observechina.net/info/artshow.asp?ID=33140
For the purpose of broadening the world's awareness of Liu Xiaobo's
view on war and peace, I decided to translate this article into
English a little at a time and published my translation as a work in
progress, as I'm not aware of one already existing.
I think it is reasonable to be concerned about the world's awareness
of what this man thinks on the subject of war and peace (or a lack of
this awareness) because by sheer will, the Nobel Peace Committee has
rushed to anoint Liu instead of many others this year, despite the
fact that the Iraqi war was such an abominable war of aggression that
even the Nobel entity itself could not wait to anoint Obama as its
next peace message bearer in year 2009, as soon as he ascended to the
US presidency, based on the premise that Obama had vocally opposed the
Iraq war or its justification as he ran for office.
One cannot easily dismiss Liu's enthusiastic endorsement of the Iraq
war as a minor lapse on his part because of the length he went to to
discredit the points critics of the war were making at the time and
because of his endorsement of the Vietnam war, a war the scars of
which continue to linger on and the ethics of which Liu himself should
have had plenty of time to learn about and reflect over.
Liu's cavalier attitude toward the large number of excess civilian
deaths reported as a result of each war contradicts the values of a
genuine human rights advocate, a label for Liu on which the Nobel
entity anchored its justification.
So Liu Xiaobo thought that the mere fact that Saddam was removed and a
"democratic" Iraq was established was sufficient reason to go to war
(see translation below). But whatever happened to the human rights of
the Iraqis who wanted to live, just as every living creature under the
sun instinctively wants to do, and be with their families but couldn't
because of the war and violence Liu Xiaobo insisted that they must be
inflicted upon by the US? Where is the analysis which attempts to
weigh a human being's right to live against his or her right to vote
in some kind of election? This is something an intellectual would
naturally do: to reflect, compare, reconcile, and conclude about
something he or she values or views as important.
But there was no trace of it in Liu's black and white view of all the
wars the US launched since WWII. There was no trace of aesthetics,
logic, or introspection in anything he said. Liu's 2004 article on
the Iraq war could conceivably be the view of some 16-year old from
Arkansas who was brought up by post-war propaganda alone or it could
be a memo distributed by the NED signed off by Ms. Condoleezza Rice's
office in the White House at the time.
But it is not a piece worthy of a Chinese "intellectual" unless either
the Chinese people today in China are largely more ignorant and more
ill-informed than Liu himself or Liu himself was writing it on behalf
of his western sponsor, namely the Bush administration which was in
power at the time and which was engulfed by the fiery, fanatic dogma
of the Project of the New American Century or PNAC.
As repugnant as I found Liu's piece to be, I've finally completed the
translatioin. And I believe that it ought to provide some educational
value to the public at large since the pompous Norwegian politicians
have stubbornly refused to do their homework before they made their
ignorant choice.
Published in Chinese on observechina.net - a website with the Chinese
name which could be translated as Laogai Foundation Observes - the
article was entitled the Iraq war and the ``Big'' US election (i.e.,
the 2004 presidential election). Laogai is a phonetic spelling for
the Chinese term for reform through hard labor.
Thus wrote Liu:
The Iraq War and the US Presidential Election (2004/10/30)
In this US presidential election, the question of whether the Iraq war
should have been fought has been a major topic of debate between the
Democratic party candidate Kerry and the incumbent president Bush.
Kerry seized on the US's current difficulty in Iraq to make his case,
But Bush's superior anti-terror performance, is not something Kerry's
disparaging remarks can easily erase.
Historically and in reality, the US is not a perfect nation,
nevertheless, at the minimum, it is the most idealistic and most
mission-driven free country, it led the Allies to win the fight
against fascism in WWII, helped put in motion the realization of the
rebuilding of a democratic system for each of the two most criminally
evil nations Germany and Japan, led the opposition fight against
communism/totalitarianism in the Korean war and the Vietnam war, and
in the end won the half-century long cold war between the free world
and totalitarianism; the US also helped Egypt win its independence, it
has continued to protect Israel which is surrounded by Arab countries,
without the protection, the Jews who suffered race-based genocide in
WWII could have been pushed under by the hatred of the Islamic world,
Arab hatred toward the US and the repeated violent attacks on the US
by Islamic terrorism clearly are highly connected with the enduring
American support for Israel.
[A long sentence composed of sub-sentences separated by many commas
and one semicolon.]
All these, have historically pushed the US into a position of
leadership in the free world. The fact that it has the power to draw
worldwide attention to its presidential elections, is also proof of
the US's leadership role in the world.
[Commas in the original text are preserved.]
In the short 12 years between 1989 and September 11, 2001, in a world
which was witnessing a transition from the old century to the new,
suddenly caught between two kinds of entirely opposite experiences
with a dramatic character---a scene depicting a future filled with
bright light and a great tragedy completely covered by dark clouds,
waiting to happen. The end of the old century and the beginning of
the new both possess a very strong dramatic character: As the 50 years
of East-West Cold War tense confrontation ended unexpectedly with the
sudden collapse of the Soviet East Empire, almost overnight we saw the
fall of the Berlin Wall, the elimination of East-West confrontation,
the gradual transformation of the various Eastern European countries
as well as their former archenemy Russia into democracies and
integration into the western civilization, becoming a part of the
West's freedom camp, surrendering without a fight, about which I could
no longer contain my emotion except to give cheer to "the end of
History", as well as the victories of the Gulf War and the war of
Kosovo. As a result, the US and NATO became the unchallenged world
leaders in economic, military, as well as moral terms, and the world
seems to be entering what may be closest to that which Kant called the
"Perpetual Peace".
[another long Liu sentence!]
Yet, the post-cold-war optimism and the prospect of peace merely
lasted 10 years --- and 10 years is but the blink of an eye in history
--- and suddenly ended beneath the white clouds and bright blue sky on
the morning of September 11, 2001. Though unable, for a Chinese, to
personally experience the terror which shakes one's soul to the core,
or the sorrow which rends one's heart and tears up one's lungs, being
far away and separated by the ocean, the impact of the TV images is
already enough! The terrorist sneak attack against the innocent
people and [sic, not "in"] the United States' trademark buildings, the
complete lack of scruples in its evil, the enormous tragedy it
created, and the far-reaching impact it had on the future, all went
far beyond anyone's imagination. In only a blink of the eye, the
world changed its complexion. The happy drama of universal
brotherhood now suddenly became a tragedy which made everyone
dumbfounded and speechless.
The tragedy of 9/11 forced Bush to use the occasion to once again
assume leadership in the mission of global anti-terror war: in today's
world, as the Free World's leader, the US has become the principal
target of all the evil forces, unless the US from now on relinquishes
the leadership duty of establishing a new international order, and
returns to the doctrine of isolationism, the US must take the
initiative to attack, shoulder the leaderhsip responsibility to
eradicate evil and defend freedom, to maintain peace and expand
democracy.
This kind of responsibility's immediate goal is to lead the world to
fight the anti-terror war; its long-term goal is to wholeheartedly
promote worldwide democratization, especially demanding
democratization of the Arab world and the other totalitarian countries,
to establish a new order, and tolerating no more errors of
opportunistic behavior which allow evil totalitarian rule for the sake
of mere profits.
[IOW: "China watch out! I'm gunning for you." This sounds like a
call for a foreign power to attack China. Isn't it some form of
subversion then?]
On October 30th, right before the presidential election, Terror-Devil
Bin Laden again surfaced in a video, and admitted for the first time
that he masterminded 9/11. He also declared that he had seen the
radical anti-Bush film Fahrenheit 9/11. Bin Laden's appearance has
suddenly taken the impending US presidential election back to the time
of that tragedy three years ago.
Yes, 9/11 changed everything, a completely new force which overwhelms
all threats suddenly appeared. The state of the world, especially in
regards to the war plans of the US and its allies, necessarily
underwent drastic changes. In order to respond to a global terrorist
threat which would not stop at anything, Bush, Jr.'s administration's
"pre-emptive" war strategy is the correct choice. True, we cannot
view Islamic-Fundamentalist terrorism as a challenge in the sense that
it's the third most powerful totalitarian force after fascism and
communism. Yet, one point is clear: the cultural and systemic root
which engendered this kind of threat, is necessarily extremely
intolerant and blood-thirsty, and is actually the means of carrying
out evil aims, which are entirely different from WWII and the Cold
war, and carries an entirely new barbaric quality:
1. The totalitarian evil of fascism and communism is clearly marked by
national boundaries, yet the evil of terrorism is hidden and
transcends national boundaries; [Note: the singular use of ";" among
the five enumerated paragraphs here is Liu's own.]
2. The former kinds arose in time of wars and the Cold War, they're
the result of wars between nations or the struggle between two
systems, whereas the latter kind arises in peace time, and gives rise
to a war between nations and a global terrorist organization, and is a
result of conflicts between different religious and cultural systems.
3. The aim of the former is to attack national sovereignty, armies,
and systems; yet the aim of the latter is to attack the innocent poor
and public facilities.
4. The means used by the former is military hardware, with the aim to
destroy the adversary and preserve the self, whereas the principal
means of the latter is the human body, with the aim of creating a
sensational terrorizing effect when both the target and the self
perish together.
5. During the Cold War period, even though both sides of the
confrontation held enough nukes to destroy the entire world, yet both
sides avoided resorting to any means to achieve their goal, without
regard to the results, because of the parity in military strength
between opposing sides, further because of the tragic prospect in
which the fish net also breaks even as the fish die in it, yielding no
winner, and also because of a minimum of rationality both sides
possessed. Yet, terrorism does not care about comparing the actual
strengths of the parties, only about achieving the aim, it doesn't
care about the means, it just wants to adopt the role of the weak and
launch an all-out attack, when a terrorist commits a suicide attack,
valuing not even his own life, he would just as soon completely
dismiss compassion and proportion in his judgment, and at the same
time resort to the cruelest, the most deracinating means to kill a
large number of civilians, and causing fear and panic among people.
Therefore, it is not aiming at defeating and conquering the party of
strength, rather it merely attempts to destroy for the sake of
destroying, to terminate for the sake of terminating. If they possess
weapons of mass destruction, in addition to the desperados who
volunteer themselves as suicide bombers, then the tragedy of the
result would be unimaginable.
Against such terrorist policy as to arbitrarily trample on the
baseline of civilization in inflicting extreme harm to its citizens,
the use of force by the US should not raise doubts in anyone's mind.
Only resolute decisiveness can prevent a repeat of the tragedy similar
to 9/11, and reduce the threat of an increasingly internationalized
brand of terrorism and its weapons of mass destruction. This choice,
in contrast with the doctrine of appeasement and reactive military
strategy, should require a relatively smaller investment and cost. It
is not only for the greatest national interest of the US, because its
national security and the survival of its freedom depends on it, but
also for the long-term benefit of all mankind, because it is needed to
sustain world peace and progress in global democratization.
Kerry [sic, no comma here] like all the leftists of the West, views
the unprincipled application of peaceful-coexistence as the main "national
benefit", treats tolerance of evil regimes as the best policy for
allowing different nations to coexist and for defending world peace.
Therefore, he accused Bush's Middle East policy as a fantasy,
advocated that the US should focus on taking care of its own security,
but not export democracy to the Middle East, the question of whether
the Iraqi people should enjoy freedom should not concern the US.
Because "democracy does not suit the Iraqi people", carries the
subtext "the Iraqi people do not deserve to enjoy freedom and
democracy".
Bush, like all responsible leaders of large Western countries regards
promoting worldwide "freedom and democracy" as an important component
of "national interests", and eradicating evil regimes as principal
means to promote freedom and democracy and defend world peace.
Because "freedom and democracy" possesses universal value, every
person in the world---regardless of race, culture, nationality,
religion, etc.---is entitled to live a life of freedom and in a
democratic system. So, the re-election-seeking Bush made the correct
decision by insisting on going to war to topple Saddam, even though no
weapons of mass destruction were found, eradicating Saddam's tyrannic
rule and establishing a free Iraq, and then promoting freedom and
democracy in the entire Middle East, provide a sufficient reason for
going to war to topple Saddam.
Kerry accused Bush's "axis of evil" allegation as arrogant and
reckless, yet in reality, just as President Reagon during his time
referred to the Soviet Union as an Evil Empire, Bush's allegation
against Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, were just a statement of fact.
Particularly in the case of Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il, they are
the two worst tyrants in the world. Wasn't Saddam's regime evil
enough? Hadn't Saddam fooled the UN enough? Did Saddam's threat
concern only the US but not the entire world, especially the many
European countries? Did the Europeans have to wait until they were
personally the victims of terrorist attacks before they would take the
initiative to fight back and to ask for the help of the militarily
superior US? Did the US's Western allies in the free world have to
wait until the time when Saddam launched a more damaging terrorist
attack to reunite them? Most importantly, the most fertile breeding
ground for terrorism being the dictatorship and fundamentalist
fanaticism in the Arab region, did the free world and the whole world,
despite their being repeatedly subjected to the harm of terrorism,
have to continue to adopt the attitude of appeasement to protect and
support the evil regimes, and as result helplessly watch terrorism
turn into tragedy? What we need are responsible politicians from the
free world who are willing to come courageously forward and declare
war against terrorism and its breeding ground!
Kerry seized on the failure to find weapons of mass destruction to
criticize Bush for launching the war to topple Saddam, yet the
important meaning of pre-emption is to prevent what is yet to come.
The US's official declaration of war in WWII was counter-attack, the
Afghan anti-terror war was also counter attack, though both achieved
victory, this kind of counter-attack victory, even more brilliantly
achieved, can only serve as a remedy, like sacrificing a lamb to avoid
going to jail. The US and the whole world have already paid a huge
comprehensive price for this kind of counter-attack, and the general
negative effect of this kind of price is huge, so much so that even a
final victory cannot remedy. So, in view of the fact that terrorism
has been put in action, the anti-human, anti-civilization, and
anti-freedom atrocities already caused to happen and those being
prepared to happen, in view of the fact that terrorist attacks are
difficult to prevent, in view of Saddam's propensity to go to war and
support terrorism, his continuing pursuit of weapons of mass
destruction, his repeated violations of UN resolutions on nuclear
weapons inspection, his evil was clearly no less than Bin Laden's.
Saddam repeatedly went to war and had ruled his country as a dictator,
so he would far exceed Bin Laden in terms of their capacities to
create terrorist disasters. Did we then have to wait until the time
when Saddam already produced weapons of mass destruction and deployed
them before we would respond? The war of toppling Saddam at the
minimum eliminated the one tyrant most likely to produce and also
deploy weapons of mass destruction, since Saddam was not only thirsty
for war, but was also a tyrant who had deployed biological weapons of
mass destruction against the Kurdish Iraqis. If we continue to
condone evil until we're attacked by weapons of mass destruction
launched in a terrorist attack before we counterattack, then the
consequence will not be imaginable.
Kerry accused Bush for committing the error of abandoning the UN and
bypassing the UN in favor of unilateralism, leaving the US in a kind
of international isolation. Yet in reality, this kind of accusation
is specious: are Germany and France the only countries which can
represent Europe, and Britian, Italy, and various Eastern European
countries cannot? Moreover, most of the traditional Asian allies of
the US (such as Japan and South Korea) all support anti-terrorism. As
for the question of UN authorization, due to obstruction by Germany,
France, and China which formed a majority, under the impossible
situation in which the US and the UK had done all they could but
without success, they had no choice but to act.
In today's world where dealing with global and local crisis,
especially in regards to evil, irresponsible countries, no tangible
result can be obtained without US participation. The evil Saddam
regime was just like the evil Taliban regime, internally they
oppressed their people, externally, they exhausted their troops on
militaristic adventures, not only threatening the US, but also world
peace. In response to such an evil regime, the people who struggle
under the rule of terror, they either become fundamentalist fanatics
through brainwashing, or resign to doing nothing as they're powerless
to do anything; the UN being increasingly under the control of rogue
states, is doomed to be impotent as it has all the properties of being
a place for empty chats, in the ten plus years since the first Gulf
War, the UN had become Saddam's play thing and hiding place, the
solutions submitted to the UN by countries like Germany and France one
by one, were shelved due to the constraint of not having enough
military backing; various Arab countries, though held grudges with
Iraq, had never been able to defeat Saddam alone; and Russia and China
had both held close relationship with Iraq, had sided with Iraq ever
since the first Gulf War . . . in a situation in which the UN was in
shortage of courage to face reality and the ability to effectively
adopt coordinated actions, it was finally left to the US which met the
tragedy of 9/11 and which not only possessed the real strength to
topple Saddam, but also the momentum to topple Saddam.
In human history, there was never a war to remove a tyranny like the
war to topple Saddam, launched so rapidly, fought in such a civilized
manner, and won so neatly! Although, the current security situation
in Iraq is not stable, local violence and hostage-taking continue to
occur, so there are some who call this a "tragic victory", and there
are others who rejoice in others' misery and stand on the sidelines
and call it "the second Vietnam". Yet, the Saddam's threat against
world peace and his tyrannic rule against his own people is now gone,
the Iraqi people are now free, and the general election scheduled for
next January will be held. Regardleses of how the anti-US media
discredits the Bush administration, most Iraqi people still think: an
Iraq without Saddam will be better. Just as Mainland Media <<Fa Zhi
Wan Bao (http://fzwb.ynet.com/)>> October 25th reported on Iraq
<<Interview with the Iraqi people: children do not hate American
soldiers but feared Saddam>>.
There is no free lunch anywhere in the world. The success of any
righteous enterprise demands lots of suffering, even at a tragic
price. This is especially true when law-abiding and civilized free
countries are confronted with immoral and unreasonable authoritarian
regimes, evil forces of terrorism and fundamentalism and the like and
must enter into a contest, it is necessary to pay a huge price to win
the final victory. The horrible catastrophe of 9/11 is the price for
the US to promote freedom, the anti-terror war after 9/11 is only the
beginning of an open contest between the forces of freedom and
terrorism, NATO soldiers and civilian casualties are the price we must
pay to fight terrorism, to overthrow Saddam's tyranny, and to build a
democratic Iraq.
Whether it is anti-terror wars or foreign relations, Bush isn't a
perfect president, nevertheless after all he won the reactive war in
Afghanistan and then the pre-emptive war in Iraq in succession.
Leftists in the West can seize on temporary setbacks to make a big
deal about them, yet in history many years must transpire before
people can talk about what Bush has done the way we talk about
Churchill of the early years of WWII or about Reagan of the cold war,
both of whom are now regarded as great strategists with great wisdom.
Regardless of how much danger the war to topple Saddam will entail,
the danger of inaction will be even greater, WWII and 9/11 are our
proof!
Therefore, no matter what, the Iraq war is righteous! And President
Bush's decision was correct!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
So said Liu Xiaobo! What a complete lack of nuance, what a distorted,
one-sided view of modern world history! Did Condi ghost-write this
piece for him when she was still ghosting every foreign policy line
George Bush spoke in 2004?
And for the western media and propaganda instruments to ignore his
views on the colonialization of China by the West and on the neocon
wars can mean only one thing: he is promoted and propped up precisely
because he is working for US government foreign policy interests.
3) The immensely sad story of the Iraqi people who find neither
freedom nor security in their own country today, more than seven years
after the US made a forced regime change in that country.
BBC report 30 August 2010:
Bittersweet memories of life in Iraq during invasion
. . .
Zeinab Mayouf's husband was killed in 2005. She says he was shot by
the Americans when the car he was travelling in failed to stop when
ordered to.
"When the Americans came, we thought things would get better," she
said, as her eight-year-old daughter clung to her arm.
"When Saddam was overthrown, we thought everything would change. But
it didn't. After they killed my husband, I couldn't stand them."
The US military disputes her claim, and has rejected her application
for compensation. Whatever the truth, Zeinab is one of many thousands
of widows created by this conflict. Uncertain future
Back in Laith's garden, the heavy metal fan says he is planning to
move to Texas. His visa application has been approved and he is hoping
that a new life in America will offer him a brighter future. But he is
also nostalgic - for a past before US troops invaded his country.
"For me and my friends, [under Saddam] we were really more
free. Because we could go out any time we wanted, listen to any type
of music that we wanted."
Today, he says, he no longer feels free and secure wearing his heavy
metal clothes in public, or indeed going openly to certain parts of
the city.
"Now you cannot go wherever you want, because you are afraid. Before,
the situation was secure.
"[It was a life] where if you went out and came back in the morning,
you were not afraid that someone would attack you, you were not afraid
that someone would kidnap you, or blow themselves up in a coffee shop
or whatever."
Life in Iraq is much more secure than it was three years ago, when
sectarian violence nearly plunged the country into a full-scale civil
war.
. . .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11128747
[So, the BBC tried to close this immensely sad story about the lack
of freedom and security for the Iraqi people in a more cheerful light.
Yet, in an article published 30 December 2010, the BBC reported that
violent deaths in Iraq may be hitting a hard lower limit: i.e., the
violent death rate is not going below this limit of about 4K per year.
So, whatever happened to the human rights of these 4,000 Iraqis who
wanted to live and be with their families but couldn't because of
the war and violence Liu Xiaobo insisted that the US as the world's
sole superpower should export to that poor and defenseless country?
Liu Xiaobo, the Nobel Peace laureate thought that casualties such as
what the Iraqis are now forced to absorb are simply the "price" to pay
for their "freedom" because there was, to him, no "free lunch" in this
world. Liu used the term "casualties" in his 2004 article as if it
was an abstract concept in some kind of rhetorical argument.
If a similar regime-change war were to be exported to China as Liu
has argued that it should happen as a global democratization effort,
the million excess deaths that accompanied the Iraq war would most
likely be translated to 50 million deaths for the Chinese people, as
the Chinese population is 50 times greater. What, then, does he or
any of his Nobel Peace prize supporters, make of these 50 million
people's human rights, their rights to want to be alive and be with
their loved ones but unable to?
So, BBC reported 30 December 2010:
Iraq Body Count (IBC), which collates casualty reports, said deaths
dropped by 15% from 2009 to just under 4,000.
It said two bombs exploded each day on average, each killing four
people.
But the group warned the number may have reached an "impassable
minimum", and that civilians were likely to die at a similar rate for
years to come.
. . .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12091385
]
A floor of 4,000 deaths annually because of a wound the neocons opened
that cannot heal. Think about that! So much for the human rights for
the Iraqi people whose lives were snuffed out against their wishes!
So much for the human rights for Iraq's million orphans, widows, and
grieving mothers, who had Nobel Peace laureate Liu Xiaobo's brand of
"democracy and freedom" shoved down their throats!
Liu Xiaobo will go down the history in disgrace if not forgotten!
lo yeeOn
========
>
>Love, Peter
>
>--
>A beautiful song from Tibet
>I miss Dalai Lama
>http://youtu.be/_zo3kYvJr38
Peter Terpstra <pe...@dharma.dyndns.info> wrote:
>lo yeeOn wrote:
>
>> Da Lama wants dialog (with China) while hobnobbing with Japan's extremists
>> - remember Yukio Mishima and his ilk and their seppuku rituals - think
>> self-immolations for Da Lama's ignorant extremist followers - Da Lama has
>> a credibility gap.
>
>According to the CCP.
Ah, but you are wrong, dead wrong. First, the CCP never brought up
the seppuku ritual suicides to describe today's ritualistic suicides
committed by Da Lama's followers. It is my personal observation. I
see the similarities in the two, namely, 1) both are ritualistic and
extremely grisly and 2) both are for the restoration of an ancient
order that has long outlived its place in the respective society. Do
you see that, darling?
As for the statement: "Da Lama has a credibility gap", it is my own
assessment also. And since I am not CCP, ergo, you are dead wrong
about it being "[a]ccording to the CCP". Do you see that too,
sweetheart?
As for the CCP's creditability, as you asked: my answer would be like
many others: AAA+!
creditable: (of a performance, effort, or action) deserving public
acknowledgment and praise but not necessarily outstanding or
--- Oxford Online
First, we have
"Some foreigners with full bellies and nothing better to do engage
in finger-pointing at us: First, China does not export revolution;
second, it does not export famine and poverty; and third, it does
not mess around with you. So what else is there to say?"
- Xi Jinping (incoming Chinese President)
Second, China is lending the US and the EU (many of which countries
have been financing the NATO budget) billions and billions of USD to
fight their war of terror (which they call war on terror) around the
world, terrorizing Mother Earth and her children. Tell me if such a
lender is not creditable? (Tell me: Has a bank with a large cash
reserve which loans money out ever not creditable?)
Third, China has lifted hundreds of billions of Chinese out of poverty.
Fourth, China is only the third country in the world which has sent
men and women into space.
Fifth, China has the best musicians such as Lang Lang and Yuha Wang to
serve as role models for billions of young people around the world.
Sixth, China has made Tibet immediately accessible to people who want
to travel from Shanghai or Beijing to Lhasa, by plane or by rail.
Seventh, China has built such a powerful nation that the West is
instantly drooling with jealousy every time her people's Congress
meets, in the space of every five years.
Eighth, while Japan wants the US to strengthen their mutual defense
treaty in order to seize a few islands historically a part of China,
China is ready to fight alone, as it always has fought, to defend
itself.
Nineth, China never asks other nations to give it to her, whatever
"it" might be. She always tries to make "it" happen while Da Lama
always begs nations to destabilize China.
Tenth, China under the CCP has not bombed another country and never
exported violence, even as Da Lama and his cohorts have been inciting
violence inside Tibet at the expense of Da Lama's own people. And all
the while, the CCP has been working hard to subsidize the large number
of Tibetan monks and their monasteries in China to try to give them a
stable and sufficient environment to live in.
And many more ...!
So, what more do you want for the CCP's creditability?
lo yeeOn
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>How is CCP's creditability?
Subject: Liu Xiaobo: "Freedom is not free" - an extremist in sheep's
clothing - Complete translation of NED grantee/Nobel "Peace" laureate
Liu Xiaobo's article praising the Iraq War and G W Bush Re: Liu Xiaobo
far more deserving of Nobel Prize than me: Obama
In article <2183874.9YqLQPX36f@Dharma>,
Peter Terpstra <pe...@dharma.dyndns.info> wrote:
>lo yeeOn wrote:
>
lo yeeOn wrote:
So Liu Xiaobo has the freedom to "discuss freedom of expression in
China". Yet Bradley Manning can't "discuss freedom of expression in
America" for fear that it would prejudice the degree of harshness in
his certain conviction.
Liu Xiaobo has nothing to offer the Chinese people because he sold
his soul to foreign subversive organizations already. (See below)
Liu Xiaobo has no credibility because what he wrote about
Afghanistan could not be further from the truth. (See below)
Liu Xiaobo is an agent for western powers. Liu Xiaobo is only
repeating the propaganda of his paymasters. (See below)
lo yeeOn
...
>
>[...]
>
>> Liu Xiaobo will go down the history in disgrace if not forgotten!
>
>"We know that our world, our environment, our economy, our schools
>and corporations, and we humans are in deep trouble. We want to see a
>society and government that is based in compassion, not greed, one
>that is based not in hatred and militarism but in kindness and
>inclusion. We want to see a society that is not caught in blind
>ignorance but has a clear, un-biased and un-bought view of the state
>of the world and our responsibility to it and for it."
>
>-- Roshi Joan Halifax
Ms. Halifax was certainly not wrong. Unfortunately, we don't know the
context of her musing and the poster did not provide a citation for it.
Our environment is in trouble because of excess consumption and excess
production of goods for the purpose of consumption and money making.
Who started this? The West - the developed, the industrialized
nations, led by the United States and followed by Japan, GB, France,
Germany, and now China, India, Brazil, Vietnam, and others.
The West is not only primarily responsible for the modern phenomenon
of over-consumption and over-production of goods which has done
irreparable damage to the planet's environment. It has basically
forced the whole world to conform to its greed-based economic model,
through the WTO and the World Bank, organizations always headed by
appointees from Washington and the European Union.
But the West is still not happy with its over-reaching economic arm
over the entire planet. It wants to use military might to force all
countries in line with its agenda. So, the West has violently brought
down Libya's former government which was self-sufficient and wanted to
sell oil in currency denominated by the Libyan Dinar. Now, Libya is
dirt poor and is a failed state, swarmed by CIA, MI6 and agents from
other Western spy agencies. And it wants to bring down Syria now that
Libya is down; but not before having first shaken down that hapless
country for twenty million USD first to finance the mercenaries who
are now fighting in Syria. We of course spent 9 years devastating
Iraq. And we are not done in Afghanistan after more than a decade.
And we have already innundated Yeman and Pakistan with killer drones.
These wars - America's serial wars - have two remarkable impacts on the
planet, in addition to bringing utter misery to the people who are on
the receiving end of our bombs and missiles.
Number one: the enormous amount of explosives that were detonated in
the name of fighting America's enemies has introduced so much force
into the globe's atmospheric system that it has further worsened the
destruction on the globe's environment the world's economy of greed
has wrecked.
While industrial activities create green-house effect gases (CO2, etc)
that contribute to global warming (a steady secular event), the abrupt
and powerful detonations of mega-bombs and missiles add not only a lot
of energy into the atmospheric system, but also a lot of particles
which will help nucleate liquid drops in the right moments, e.g.,
during the formation of a storm, and finally the worst part, the
minute currents which are not vortex-free. Just as Newton's first law
of mechanics dictates that something which moves to begin with shall
continue to move, the tiny vortices a huge explosion produces will not
disappear, even as it seems to have disappeared locally. And at some
appropriate time later, they can meet up other vortices like a pack of
hungry wolves roaming the wild. They can gather force and become the
likes of Katrina, Rita, Sandy, and other killer storms, thanks to the
law of conservation of angular momentum. We human beings have
foolishly aggravated global warming with all the man-made forcing
functions that are increasingly more violent when they come.
Also as we detonate a bomb, the CO2 produces is in the first place an
excess addition to our atmospheric system that we know we'd be better
off without. But unfortunately, in order to pack that amount of
explosive power into the bomb in the first place, we have to do work
that will have required the generation of an equal amount of CO2 in
the process of making it. (I am here using the energy conservation
law in the estimation of the amount of CO2 required to make a bomb
with that amount of energy released when detonated.) So, the
greenhouse effect from the detonation of a bomb is typically twice as
bad.
In any case, the environment impact of exploding a bomb is very bad.
And if we keep doing it year after year and talking about decades of
war on terror, it is nothing but a war of terror on Mother Earth and
all of humanity.
Now the second is the economics. You know we have spent trillions on
the Iraq war (don't have to trust me, listen to the Nobel economist
Joseph Stiglitz) already. And that was mostly G W Bush's war. Now
Obama has greatly expanded the Afghan war both in terms of the
activities inside Afghanistan as well as the expansion of the war into
Pakistan. And the national debt has grown by many more trillions
since Obama took office for the first term. And he is going to have a
strategic deal with the puppet Karzai government to let us keep Bagram
for at least another deacde. So, that means a lot more USD will go
down the drain. That means that our economy will not recover because
of the burden of the debt. And since the whole world's economy has
been made to link together by the West' WTO and World Bank control,
the whole world's economy will be dragged down.
So, now, you see the two points that I wanted to tell you, concerning
our activities that destroy our environment. These activities not
only destroy our environment, but our economy also. So, Uncle Sam,
please have compassion on 99% of the people on this earth and other
life forms. But since when has any government has the genetic
predisposition to have compassion on the people, not to mention other
life forms? Today, the worst perpetrator of the destruction of our
environment, our economy, and our lives is Uncle Sam. So, what to do?
Ms. Halifax isn't telling us!
But I am telling you: Please, please, people! open your eyes. Stop
the insane war on terror. Stop the United States of America's insane
hegemony agenda. For this reason, we also need to stop blindly
worshipping warmongers (in sheep's clothing) like Liu Xiaobo, who has
worked for Uncle Sam, been paid big bucks by the NED and has paid back
by glorifying the Iraq War and demonizing the Taliban - the effect of
which is our interminable war that is going to last at least two
decades, if Uncle Sam is able to keep to his plan - his strategic
alliance with his Afghan puppet and all that bull!
So, when we listen to Ms. Halifax, we should be thinking about the war
on terror which has increasingly terrorizing the American citizens
back in return. This has nothing to do with God or Allah! It has
everything to do with the cause and effect of our material-based world
that functions according to Newton's laws of mechanics.
lo yeeOn
>
>
>--
>A beautiful song from Tibet
>I miss Dalai Lama
>http://youtu.be/_zo3kYvJr38
If you Hard-Yards feel that it's so cool to sing "I miss Da Lama",
then expect more 15 or 16 year-olds to kill themselves and take
responsibility for their tragic deaths, even though I really don't
necessarily believe the stories. I have predicted the occurrences
were orchestrated and timed for political purposes. Since the stories
came out of Dharamsala, a source with a political agenda and very low
credibility historically, and since horror stories of this kind are
typically not corroborated or verified, it is easy for me to believe
that the deaths are made up for the statistics and for the consumption
of the likes of the VOA and RFA.
And if it is really true that 15 or 16 year-olds can work themselves
up so much desire to die so that Da Lama could return to China one day
and live for another thousand years (even just in their incredibly
ignorant minds), then many adults will have to assume responsibility
for their horribly tragic demise. There are indeed so many ways to
fix the blame before one can arrogantly point the finger at the CCP!
What kinds of rules do they have at these Tibetan monasteries where a
child monk at a tender age of 15 can be free to meditate over such a
ghastly act and no adult would do anything to stop it. Do Da Lama's
handlers expect us to accept that child monks are actively encouraged
to contemplate suicide? Or do these adult monks just plead ignorance
when a child has been found to have pursued a crazy course of action
(destroying a life in any religion is crazy especially when it is
actively pursued by a child against his own). How can these adult
monks stand aside when a child burns himself? What kind of animals
are these monks?
You can't convince a person who can think for himself that you have a
better target for the blame far far removed from the child.
These adult monks should know that their foremost responsibility is
the protection of the child, not to glorify somebody who the child has
never met in person and cannot possibly have established an emotional
bond, except through some kind of abstract channel established through
some kind of active brainwashing.
It is really incomprehensible how stupid Da Lama and his cohorts are
who would sacrifice these children for their own glory. It is sick!
As for you Hard-Yards, your push-push are responsible for hanging a
false hope before those ignorant monks in Tibet. You are responsible
for the deaths of those children, if they did die. Don't just hum "I
miss Da Lama" and think that there aren't consequences as far as your
corrupting the minds of minors are concerned.
---------------
As for my response to the original posting (also from our Hard-Yards),
let's keep in mind that it was about Obama scratching Liu Xiaobo's
icky, stinky back while Liu Xiaobo had previously scratched G W Bush's
icky, stinky back. They are three evil men wallowing in the mud of
warmongering.
Here is the main of my thought about them:
Liu Xiaobo, G W Bush, and Barack Obama all worked for and continue to
work for the neocons. So, not surprisingly, they would scratch each
other's icky, stinky backs.
The only reason why Liu Xiaobo won his Nobel "Peace" Prize is because
the Nobel committee members never bothered to read his published work,
all of which was written in the Chinese language, but relied only on a
few translated items such as self-serving statements he read at his
court trial claiming that he did not hate his captors. Big deal!
Those "captors" treated him professionally, and he got to eat lunch
with his wife every time she visited him.
What he didn't tell in his statements is the fact that he was paid
hundreds of thousands by the NED to do subversive work against China!
And what did he say about the Taliban to show his full support to his
pay master's invasion and occupation of Afghanistan?
Liu Xiaobo said:
The evil Saddam regime was just like the evil Taliban regime,
internally they oppressed their people, externally, they exhausted
their troops on militaristic adventures, not only threatening the
US, but also world peace. In response to such an evil regime, the
people who struggle under the rule of terror, they either become
fundamentalist fanatics through brainwashing, or resign to doing
nothing as they're powerless to do anything; the UN being
increasingly under the control of rogue states, is doomed to be
impotent as it has all the properties of being a place for empty
chats, in the ten plus years since the first Gulf War, the UN had
become Saddam's play thing and hiding place, the solutions submitted
to the UN by countries like Germany and France one by one, were
shelved due to the constraint of not having enough military backing;
various Arab countries, though holding grudges against Iraq, had
never been able to defeat Saddam alone; and Russia and China had
both held close relationships with Iraq, had sided with Iraq ever
since the first Gulf War . . . in a situation in which the UN was in
shortage of courage to face reality and the ability to effectively
adopt coordinated actions, it was finally left to the US which met
the tragedy of 9/11 and which not only possessed the real strength
to topple Saddam, but also the momentum to topple Saddam.
What he said about Taliban's external adventure cannot be further from
the truth!
they exhausted their troops on militaristic adventures, not only
threatening the US, but also world peace.
The Taliban was fighting off the Soviet Red Army during the 1980s.
The Taliban did not involve itself with any war with any country in
the world until G W Bush took a coalition of willing nations to invade
the country, captured Bagram, and tried to turn the country into a
forward operating base against other countries which would otherwise
be unreachable for the US military. The Taliban has fought back ever
since. And despite their lack of spying satellites, killer-drones,
B52s, mega-bombs and missiles, and Blackhawk and Chinook helicopters,
they have fought us and NATO to a stalemate. Right now, the only way
we can hang on to Bagram is to pretend that we are helping the Afghans
to defend themselves. But the interminable killing of the invaders
and their collaborators by the Afghans themselves tells a different
story. So, where does Liu Xiaobo get his information that drove him
to write:
"they exhausted their troops on militaristic adventures, not only
threatening the US, but also world peace"?
Either Liu Xiaobo is shameless liar or he was writing in Chinese what
his American paymaster told him to write. It is easy to see that Liu
Xiaobo's source material came from a US State Department pamphlet
about our War on Terror.
Either way, Liu Xiaobo has totally discredited himself. And the Nobel
Prize people have likewise discredited themselves for awarding him the
prize. And I have heard that this year's literature prize to Mo Yan
is the Nobel people's not-so-subtle way of trying to compensate for
the gargantuan mistake they made over Liu Xiaobo. Now, this is not to
cheapen Mo Yan's accomplishment. Many first-rate writers never won a
Nobel literature Prize and there was at least one notable rejection!
Consider Lu Shun and Ba Jin, two modern Chinese writers univeresally
praised by those who have read their works. They never won a Nobel
Prize.
And they were not alone either. Lev Tolstoy, Marcel Proust, and many
distinguished 20th century writers did not win the Nobel Prize, even
though they could have easily bested dozens of others who did. So we
can only say that Mo Yan was a safe choice when the Nobel people tried
to make amends for the foolish thing they did with Liu Xiaobo.
As for Obama, the Nobel people were still anxious to "make an impact"
vis-a-vis crying foul about the American war on terror which has
killed and maimed and made homeless untold numbers of innocent people.
Obama sounded like he was gonna do something to end the war. And the
Nobel people wanted to encourage him, thinking that the prize could
have an effect to strengthen Obama's courage to do the right thing.
But Obama had already sold his soul to Mephistopheles. The world had
yet to see him expand the war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen.
The world had yet to see the horror spectacle of the drone strikes.
The world had yet to see how Obama lied for nearly two months by now
to cover up the 9-11 attacks against the US embassy in Benghazi, an
outpost actually to house two or three dozen CIA agents working
illegally in Libya.
Obama was worthless and he knew he was going to work for the awful
evil master Mephistopheles. So, if he says he wasn't even worthy of
tying Liu Xiaobo's sandals, he wasn't saying much to begin with. But
that does not mean th Liu Xiaobo is worth anything. They are just two
zeroes in the world of the natural numbers. Actually, they are two
negative numbers that the world would be better off without.
By the way, Mahatma Gandhi never won a Nobel Prize. So, it says it
all about Obama and Liu Xiaobo. They are, in fact, the opposite of
peace. They are what the world would be better off without!
lo yeeOn
P.S.: Iraq is one of the two dozen countries which refused to send a
delegation to attend Liu Xiaobo's Nobel award ceremony. The reason
was not given but is plain. The Iraqis simply rejected the notion
that the US invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation and destruction
of the country was a good thing for them, much less meant more peace
for the world at large.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <1452787.pqJAIqiqNy@Dharma>,
Peter Terpstra <pe...@dharma.dyndns.info> wrote:
>
>Obama, who received the Nobel Peace Prize 2009, regretted that Liu
>and his wife were denied the opportunity to attend the ceremony in
>Oslo today and called on China to release him.
>
>"One year ago, I was humbled to receive the Nobel Peace Prize an
>award that speaks to our highest aspirations, and that has been
>claimed by giants of history and courageous advocates who have
>sacrificed for freedom and justice. Liu Xiaobo is far more deserving
>of this award than I was," Obama said in a statement.
>
>http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/liu-xiaobo-far-more-deserving-of-nobel-prize-than-me-obama-71850
Liu Xiaobo wrote (my translation to English):
[Senator and former presidential candidate] Kerry [sic, no comma] like
all the leftists of the West, views the unprincipled application of
peaceful-coexistence as the main "national benefit", treats tolerance
of evil regimes as the best policy for allowing different nations to
coexist and for defending world peace. Therefore, he accused Bush's
Middle East policy as a fantasy, advocated that the US should focus on
taking care of its own security, but not export democracy to the
Middle East, the question of whether the Iraqi people should enjoy
freedom should not concern the US. Because "democracy does not suit
the Iraqi people", carries the subtext "the Iraqi people do not
deserve to enjoy freedom and democracy".
. . .
The evil Saddam regime was just like the evil Taliban regime,
internally they oppressed their people, externally, they exhausted
their troops on militaristic adventures, not only threatening the US,
but also world peace. In response to such an evil regime, the people
who struggle under the rule of terror, they either become
fundamentalist fanatics through brainwashing, or resign to doing
nothing as they're powerless to do anything; the UN being increasingly
under the control of rogue states, is doomed to be impotent as it has
all the properties of being a place for empty chats, in the ten plus
years since the first Gulf War, the UN had become Saddam's play thing
and hiding place, the solutions submitted to the UN by countries like
Germany and France one by one, were shelved due to the constraint of
not having enough military backing; various Arab countries, though
holding grudges against Iraq, had never been able to defeat Saddam
alone; and Russia and China had both held close relationships with
Iraq, had sided with Iraq ever since the first Gulf War . . . in a
situation in which the UN was in shortage of courage to face reality
and the ability to effectively adopt coordinated actions, it was
finally left to the US which met the tragedy of 9/11 and which not
only possessed the real strength to topple Saddam, but also the
momentum to topple Saddam.
. . .
In human history, there was never a war to remove a tyranny like the
war to topple Saddam, launched so rapidly, fought in such a civilized
manner, and won so neatly!
(For more of the entire translation of Liu Xiaobo's 2004 article on
the Iraq War and the US presidental election, please see below.)
-----
My post will first report the link between Liu Xiaobo and the NED
(National Endowment for Democracy, a successor organization to the
CIA), then provide an expanded translation of all (whew!) of Liu's
2004 article in praise of the Iraq War and all the wars of aggression
the US waged in the past 60+ years, and finally a discussion of the
fear, the insecurity, and the lack of freedom the Iraqi people
experience today, more than seven years after the US's forced regime
change on the country.
1) The following is an excerpt from a report by Xah Lee, 2010-10-12
entitled "Liu Xiaobo, NED, CIA, USA Support":
(http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/Liu-Xiaobo_NED_CIA.html)
It's widely reported on the web that Liu Xiaobo received funding from
National Endowment for Democracy (NED). This is acknowledged on the
NED site:
* The National Endowment for Democracy Extends Its Warmest
Congratulations to Grantee Liu Xiaobo on Receiving the Nobel
Peace Prize (2010-10-08) At: ned.org
Quote:
Among his many contributions to the advance of democratic ideas and
values in China have been his work as editor of Democratic China
magazine (English via GoogleTranslate) for several years until his
arrest in 2008, and serving two terms as President of the
Independent Chinese PEN Center, from 2003 to 2007. NED is pleased to
have been able to provide grant support to both organizations for
their activities supporting free inquiry and freedom of expression
over the years.
[Note: Liu was cited as president of the Independent Chinese PEN
Center where he posted his 2004 article which I have been trying to
translate. The above NED announcement indicates that it has provided
grant support for this organization over the years as well as perhaps
Liu himself in at the year of 2004 when he wrote his article, and of
course this year by virtue of the opening congratulatory remark. So,
by western standards at least, his sentiment expressed in the 2004
article on the Iraq war and the sitting president at the time can
hardly be viewed as his own personal, independent opinion.]
How Much?
How much? The article didn't say, but from online info the figure may
be over 1M USD, perhaps from 2004 to 2007. It's very time consuming
to gather correct info on the web, but on this site: <Source>,
there's this info:
* ICPC received $135,000 from the NED in 2007:
http://www.ned.org/grants/07programs/grants-asia07.html
* $135,000 from the NED in 2006:
http://www.ned.org/grants/06programs/grants-asia06.html
* $85,000 from the NED in 2004:
http://www.ned.org/grants/04programs/grants-asia04.html
* $145,000 in 2007:
http://www.ned.org/grants/07programs/grants-asia07.html
* $136,000 in 2005:
http://www.ned.org/grants/05programs/grants-asia05.html
* $135,000 in 2004:
http://www.ned.org/grants/04programs/grants-asia04.html
All the links's content are gone as of 2010-10-12, but they are
currently available at the archive.org:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ned.org/grants/04programs/grants-asia04.html
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ned.org/grants/04programs/grants-asia04.html
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ned.org/grants/05programs/grants-asia05.html
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ned.org/grants/06programs/grants-asia06.html
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ned.org/grants/07programs/grants-asia07.html (not available)
(Be sure to save the document on your computer because it might get
removed)
Looking at these doc is quite scary. Usually they have a big section
China, listing lots of money to all sort of organizations that seems
to be politically disruptive for Chinese goverment, e.g. Tibet,
Uyghur, and all with names like "freedom", "human rights", "democracy"
....
2) Translation of Liu Xiaobo's exuberant ruminations on
"The Iraq War and the US presidential Election" (2004)
It is a florid, politically opinionated piece that is extremely
difficult to translate, imho. (I have tried to be faithful to the
sense of the original, even when it does not seem to make much sense.)
In view of NED's substantial financial support of Liu as well as the
organizations he headed, Liu Xiaobo's expressed opinions during this
period cannot be thought of as a genuinely personal view. Nor does
the content of his 2004 article contradict this suspicion.
In the 2004 article Liu Xiaobo wrote about the Iraq War and George
Bush, he gave enthusiastic support of what nearly every intellectual
in the world today recognizes as blatant US hegemony, and he gave this
in language eerily reminiscent of what the world has repeatedly heard
the Bush anti-terror regime speak.
http://www.observechina.net/info/artshow.asp?ID=33140
For the purpose of broadening the world's awareness of Liu Xiaobo's
view on war and peace, I decided to translate this article into
English a little at a time and published my translation as a work in
progress, as I'm not aware of one already existing.
I think it is reasonable to be concerned about the world's awareness
of what this man thinks on the subject of war and peace (or a lack of
this awareness) because by sheer will, the Nobel Peace Committee has
rushed to anoint Liu instead of many others this year, despite the
fact that the Iraqi war was such an abominable war of aggression that
even the Nobel entity itself could not wait to anoint Obama as its
next peace message bearer in year 2009, as soon as he ascended to the
US presidency, based on the premise that Obama had vocally opposed the
Iraq war or its justification as he ran for office.
One cannot easily dismiss Liu's enthusiastic endorsement of the Iraq
war as a minor lapse on his part because of the length he went to to
discredit the points critics of the war were making at the time and
because of his endorsement of the Vietnam war, a war the scars of
which continue to linger on and the ethics of which Liu himself should
have had plenty of time to learn about and reflect over.
Liu's cavalier attitude toward the large number of excess civilian
deaths reported as a result of each war contradicts the values of a
genuine human rights advocate, a label for Liu on which the Nobel
entity anchored its justification.
So Liu Xiaobo thought that the mere fact that Saddam was removed and a
"democratic" Iraq was established was sufficient reason to go to war
(see translation below). But whatever happened to the human rights of
the Iraqis who wanted to live, just as every living creature under the
sun instinctively wants to do, and be with their families but couldn't
because of the war and violence Liu Xiaobo insisted that they must be
inflicted upon by the US? Where is the analysis which attempts to
weigh a human being's right to live against his or her right to vote
in some kind of election? This is something an intellectual would
naturally do: to reflect, compare, reconcile, and conclude about
something he or she values or views as important.
But there was no trace of it in Liu's black and white view of all the
wars the US launched since WWII. There was no trace of aesthetics,
logic, or introspection in anything he said. Liu's 2004 article on
the Iraq war could conceivably be the view of some 16-year old from
Arkansas who was brought up by post-war propaganda alone or it could
be a memo distributed by the NED signed off by Ms. Condoleezza Rice's
office in the White House at the time.
But it is not a piece worthy of a Chinese "intellectual" unless either
the Chinese people today in China are largely more ignorant and more
ill-informed than Liu himself or Liu himself was writing it on behalf
of his western sponsor, namely the Bush administration which was in
power at the time and which was engulfed by the fiery, fanatic dogma
of the Project of the New American Century or PNAC.
As repugnant as I found Liu's piece to be, I've finally completed the
translatioin. And I believe that it ought to provide some educational
value to the public at large since the pompous Norwegian politicians
have stubbornly refused to do their homework before they made their
ignorant choice.
Published in Chinese on observechina.net - a website with the Chinese
name which could be translated as Laogai Foundation Observes - the
article was entitled the Iraq war and the ``Big'' US election (i.e.,
the 2004 presidential election). Laogai is a phonetic spelling for
the Chinese term for reform through hard labor.
Thus wrote Liu:
The Iraq War and the US Presidential Election (2004/10/30)
In this US presidential election, the question of whether the Iraq war
should have been fought has been a major topic of debate between the
Democratic party candidate Kerry and the incumbent president Bush.
Kerry seized on the US's current difficulty in Iraq to make his case,
But Bush's superior anti-terror performance, is not something Kerry's
disparaging remarks can easily erase.
Historically and in reality, the US is not a perfect nation,
nevertheless, at the minimum, it is the most idealistic and most
mission-driven free country, it led the Allies to win the fight
against fascism in WWII, helped put in motion the realization of the
rebuilding of a democratic system for each of the two most criminally
evil nations Germany and Japan, led the opposition fight against
communism/totalitarianism in the Korean war and the Vietnam war, and
in the end won the half-century long cold war between the free world
and totalitarianism; the US also helped Egypt win its independence, it
has continued to protect Israel which is surrounded by Arab countries,
without the protection, the Jews who suffered race-based genocide in
WWII could have been pushed under by the hatred of the Islamic world,
Arab hatred toward the US and the repeated violent attacks on the US
by Islamic terrorism clearly are highly connected with the enduring
American support for Israel.
[A long sentence composed of sub-sentences separated by many commas
and one semicolon.]
All these, have historically pushed the US into a position of
leadership in the free world. The fact that it has the power to draw
worldwide attention to its presidential elections, is also proof of
the US's leadership role in the world.
[Commas in the original text are preserved.]
In the short 12 years between 1989 and September 11, 2001, in a world
which was witnessing a transition from the old century to the new,
suddenly caught between two kinds of entirely opposite experiences
with a dramatic character---a scene depicting a future filled with
bright light and a great tragedy completely covered by dark clouds,
waiting to happen. The end of the old century and the beginning of
the new both possess a very strong dramatic character: As the 50 years
of East-West Cold War tense confrontation ended unexpectedly with the
sudden collapse of the Soviet East Empire, almost overnight we saw the
fall of the Berlin Wall, the elimination of East-West confrontation,
the gradual transformation of the various Eastern European countries
as well as their former archenemy Russia into democracies and
integration into the western civilization, becoming a part of the
West's freedom camp, surrendering without a fight, about which I could
no longer contain my emotion except to give cheer to "the end of
History", as well as the victories of the Gulf War and the war of
Kosovo. As a result, the US and NATO became the unchallenged world
leaders in economic, military, as well as moral terms, and the world
seems to be entering what may be closest to that which Kant called the
"Perpetual Peace".
[another long Liu sentence!]
Yet, the post-cold-war optimism and the prospect of peace merely
lasted 10 years --- and 10 years is but the blink of an eye in history
--- and suddenly ended beneath the white clouds and bright blue sky on
the morning of September 11, 2001. Though unable, for a Chinese, to
personally experience the terror which shakes one's soul to the core,
or the sorrow which rends one's heart and tears up one's lungs, being
far away and separated by the ocean, the impact of the TV images is
already enough! The terrorist sneak attack against the innocent
people and [sic, not "in"] the United States' trademark buildings, the
complete lack of scruples in its evil, the enormous tragedy it
created, and the far-reaching impact it had on the future, all went
far beyond anyone's imagination. In only a blink of the eye, the
world changed its complexion. The happy drama of universal
brotherhood now suddenly became a tragedy which made everyone
dumbfounded and speechless.
The tragedy of 9/11 forced Bush to use the occasion to once again
assume leadership in the mission of global anti-terror war: in today's
world, as the Free World's leader, the US has become the principal
target of all the evil forces, unless the US from now on relinquishes
the leadership duty of establishing a new international order, and
returns to the doctrine of isolationism, the US must take the
initiative to attack, shoulder the leaderhsip responsibility to
eradicate evil and defend freedom, to maintain peace and expand
democracy.
This kind of responsibility's immediate goal is to lead the world to
fight the anti-terror war; its long-term goal is to wholeheartedly
promote worldwide democratization, especially demanding
democratization of the Arab world and the other totalitarian countries,
to establish a new order, and tolerating no more errors of
opportunistic behavior which allow evil totalitarian rule for the sake
of mere profits.
[IOW: "China watch out! I'm gunning for you." This sounds like a
call for a foreign power to attack China. Isn't it some form of
subversion then?]
On October 30th, right before the presidential election, Terror-Devil
Bin Laden again surfaced in a video, and admitted for the first time
that he masterminded 9/11. He also declared that he had seen the
radical anti-Bush film Fahrenheit 9/11. Bin Laden's appearance has
suddenly taken the impending US presidential election back to the time
of that tragedy three years ago.
Yes, 9/11 changed everything, a completely new force which overwhelms
all threats suddenly appeared. The state of the world, especially in
regards to the war plans of the US and its allies, necessarily
underwent drastic changes. In order to respond to a global terrorist
threat which would not stop at anything, Bush, Jr.'s administration's
"pre-emptive" war strategy is the correct choice. True, we cannot
view Islamic-Fundamentalist terrorism as a challenge in the sense that
it's the third most powerful totalitarian force after fascism and
communism. Yet, one point is clear: the cultural and systemic root
which engendered this kind of threat, is necessarily extremely
intolerant and blood-thirsty, and is actually the means of carrying
out evil aims, which are entirely different from WWII and the Cold
war, and carries an entirely new barbaric quality:
1. The totalitarian evil of fascism and communism is clearly marked by
national boundaries, yet the evil of terrorism is hidden and
transcends national boundaries; [Note: the singular use of ";" among
the five enumerated paragraphs here is Liu's own.]
2. The former kinds arose in time of wars and the Cold War, they're
the result of wars between nations or the struggle between two
systems, whereas the latter kind arises in peace time, and gives rise
to a war between nations and a global terrorist organization, and is a
result of conflicts between different religious and cultural systems.
3. The aim of the former is to attack national sovereignty, armies,
and systems; yet the aim of the latter is to attack the innocent poor
and public facilities.
4. The means used by the former is military hardware, with the aim to
destroy the adversary and preserve the self, whereas the principal
means of the latter is the human body, with the aim of creating a
sensational terrorizing effect when both the target and the self
perish together.
5. During the Cold War period, even though both sides of the
confrontation held enough nukes to destroy the entire world, yet both
sides avoided resorting to any means to achieve their goal, without
regard to the results, because of the parity in military strength
between opposing sides, further because of the tragic prospect in
which the fish net also breaks even as the fish die in it, yielding no
winner, and also because of a minimum of rationality both sides
possessed. Yet, terrorism does not care about comparing the actual
strengths of the parties, only about achieving the aim, it doesn't
care about the means, it just wants to adopt the role of the weak and
launch an all-out attack, when a terrorist commits a suicide attack,
valuing not even his own life, he would just as soon completely
dismiss compassion and proportion in his judgment, and at the same
time resort to the cruelest, the most deracinating means to kill a
large number of civilians, and causing fear and panic among people.
Therefore, it is not aiming at defeating and conquering the party of
strength, rather it merely attempts to destroy for the sake of
destroying, to terminate for the sake of terminating. If they possess
weapons of mass destruction, in addition to the desperados who
volunteer themselves as suicide bombers, then the tragedy of the
result would be unimaginable.
Against such terrorist policy as to arbitrarily trample on the
baseline of civilization in inflicting extreme harm to its citizens,
the use of force by the US should not raise doubts in anyone's mind.
Only resolute decisiveness can prevent a repeat of the tragedy similar
to 9/11, and reduce the threat of an increasingly internationalized
brand of terrorism and its weapons of mass destruction. This choice,
in contrast with the doctrine of appeasement and reactive military
strategy, should require a relatively smaller investment and cost. It
is not only for the greatest national interest of the US, because its
national security and the survival of its freedom depends on it, but
also for the long-term benefit of all mankind, because it is needed to
sustain world peace and progress in global democratization.
Kerry [sic, no comma here] like all the leftists of the West, views
the unprincipled application of peaceful-coexistence as the main "national
benefit", treats tolerance of evil regimes as the best policy for
allowing different nations to coexist and for defending world peace.
Therefore, he accused Bush's Middle East policy as a fantasy,
advocated that the US should focus on taking care of its own security,
but not export democracy to the Middle East, the question of whether
the Iraqi people should enjoy freedom should not concern the US.
Because "democracy does not suit the Iraqi people", carries the
subtext "the Iraqi people do not deserve to enjoy freedom and
democracy".
Bush, like all responsible leaders of large Western countries regards
promoting worldwide "freedom and democracy" as an important component
of "national interests", and eradicating evil regimes as principal
means to promote freedom and democracy and defend world peace.
Because "freedom and democracy" possesses universal value, every
person in the world---regardless of race, culture, nationality,
religion, etc.---is entitled to live a life of freedom and in a
democratic system. So, the re-election-seeking Bush made the correct
decision by insisting on going to war to topple Saddam, even though no
weapons of mass destruction were found, eradicating Saddam's tyrannic
rule and establishing a free Iraq, and then promoting freedom and
democracy in the entire Middle East, provide a sufficient reason for
going to war to topple Saddam.
Kerry accused Bush's "axis of evil" allegation as arrogant and
reckless, yet in reality, just as President Reagon during his time
referred to the Soviet Union as an Evil Empire, Bush's allegation
against Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, were just a statement of fact.
Particularly in the case of Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il, they are
the two worst tyrants in the world. Wasn't Saddam's regime evil
enough? Hadn't Saddam fooled the UN enough? Did Saddam's threat
concern only the US but not the entire world, especially the many
European countries? Did the Europeans have to wait until they were
personally the victims of terrorist attacks before they would take the
initiative to fight back and to ask for the help of the militarily
superior US? Did the US's Western allies in the free world have to
wait until the time when Saddam launched a more damaging terrorist
attack to reunite them? Most importantly, the most fertile breeding
ground for terrorism being the dictatorship and fundamentalist
fanaticism in the Arab region, did the free world and the whole world,
despite their being repeatedly subjected to the harm of terrorism,
have to continue to adopt the attitude of appeasement to protect and
support the evil regimes, and as result helplessly watch terrorism
turn into tragedy? What we need are responsible politicians from the
free world who are willing to come courageously forward and declare
war against terrorism and its breeding ground!
Kerry seized on the failure to find weapons of mass destruction to
criticize Bush for launching the war to topple Saddam, yet the
important meaning of pre-emption is to prevent what is yet to come.
The US's official declaration of war in WWII was counter-attack, the
Afghan anti-terror war was also counter attack, though both achieved
victory, this kind of counter-attack victory, even more brilliantly
achieved, can only serve as a remedy, like sacrificing a lamb to avoid
going to jail. The US and the whole world have already paid a huge
comprehensive price for this kind of counter-attack, and the general
negative effect of this kind of price is huge, so much so that even a
final victory cannot remedy. So, in view of the fact that terrorism
has been put in action, the anti-human, anti-civilization, and
anti-freedom atrocities already caused to happen and those being
prepared to happen, in view of the fact that terrorist attacks are
difficult to prevent, in view of Saddam's propensity to go to war and
support terrorism, his continuing pursuit of weapons of mass
destruction, his repeated violations of UN resolutions on nuclear
weapons inspection, his evil was clearly no less than Bin Laden's.
Saddam repeatedly went to war and had ruled his country as a dictator,
so he would far exceed Bin Laden in terms of their capacities to
create terrorist disasters. Did we then have to wait until the time
when Saddam already produced weapons of mass destruction and deployed
them before we would respond? The war of toppling Saddam at the
minimum eliminated the one tyrant most likely to produce and also
deploy weapons of mass destruction, since Saddam was not only thirsty
for war, but was also a tyrant who had deployed biological weapons of
mass destruction against the Kurdish Iraqis. If we continue to
condone evil until we're attacked by weapons of mass destruction
launched in a terrorist attack before we counterattack, then the
consequence will not be imaginable.
Kerry accused Bush for committing the error of abandoning the UN and
bypassing the UN in favor of unilateralism, leaving the US in a kind
of international isolation. Yet in reality, this kind of accusation
is specious: are Germany and France the only countries which can
represent Europe, and Britian, Italy, and various Eastern European
countries cannot? Moreover, most of the traditional Asian allies of
the US (such as Japan and South Korea) all support anti-terrorism. As
for the question of UN authorization, due to obstruction by Germany,
France, and China which formed a majority, under the impossible
situation in which the US and the UK had done all they could but
without success, they had no choice but to act.
In today's world where dealing with global and local crisis,
especially in regards to evil, irresponsible countries, no tangible
result can be obtained without US participation. The evil Saddam
regime was just like the evil Taliban regime, internally they
oppressed their people, externally, they exhausted their troops on
militaristic adventures, not only threatening the US, but also world
peace. In response to such an evil regime, the people who struggle
under the rule of terror, they either become fundamentalist fanatics
through brainwashing, or resign to doing nothing as they're powerless
to do anything; the UN being increasingly under the control of rogue
states, is doomed to be impotent as it has all the properties of being
a place for empty chats, in the ten plus years since the first Gulf
War, the UN had become Saddam's play thing and hiding place, the
solutions submitted to the UN by countries like Germany and France one
by one, were shelved due to the constraint of not having enough
military backing; various Arab countries, though held grudges with
Iraq, had never been able to defeat Saddam alone; and Russia and China
had both held close relationship with Iraq, had sided with Iraq ever
since the first Gulf War . . . in a situation in which the UN was in
shortage of courage to face reality and the ability to effectively
adopt coordinated actions, it was finally left to the US which met the
tragedy of 9/11 and which not only possessed the real strength to
topple Saddam, but also the momentum to topple Saddam.
In human history, there was never a war to remove a tyranny like the
war to topple Saddam, launched so rapidly, fought in such a civilized
manner, and won so neatly! Although, the current security situation
in Iraq is not stable, local violence and hostage-taking continue to
occur, so there are some who call this a "tragic victory", and there
are others who rejoice in others' misery and stand on the sidelines
and call it "the second Vietnam". Yet, the Saddam's threat against
world peace and his tyrannic rule against his own people is now gone,
the Iraqi people are now free, and the general election scheduled for
next January will be held. Regardleses of how the anti-US media
discredits the Bush administration, most Iraqi people still think: an
Iraq without Saddam will be better. Just as Mainland Media <<Fa Zhi
Wan Bao (http://fzwb.ynet.com/)>> October 25th reported on Iraq
<<Interview with the Iraqi people: children do not hate American
soldiers but feared Saddam>>.
There is no free lunch anywhere in the world. The success of any
righteous enterprise demands lots of suffering, even at a tragic
price. This is especially true when law-abiding and civilized free
countries are confronted with immoral and unreasonable authoritarian
regimes, evil forces of terrorism and fundamentalism and the like and
must enter into a contest, it is necessary to pay a huge price to win
the final victory. The horrible catastrophe of 9/11 is the price for
the US to promote freedom, the anti-terror war after 9/11 is only the
beginning of an open contest between the forces of freedom and
terrorism, NATO soldiers and civilian casualties are the price we must
pay to fight terrorism, to overthrow Saddam's tyranny, and to build a
democratic Iraq.
Whether it is anti-terror wars or foreign relations, Bush isn't a
perfect president, nevertheless after all he won the reactive war in
Afghanistan and then the pre-emptive war in Iraq in succession.
Leftists in the West can seize on temporary setbacks to make a big
deal about them, yet in history many years must transpire before
people can talk about what Bush has done the way we talk about
Churchill of the early years of WWII or about Reagan of the cold war,
both of whom are now regarded as great strategists with great wisdom.
Regardless of how much danger the war to topple Saddam will entail,
the danger of inaction will be even greater, WWII and 9/11 are our
proof!
Therefore, no matter what, the Iraq war is righteous! And President
Bush's decision was correct!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
So said Liu Xiaobo! What a complete lack of nuance, what a distorted,
one-sided view of modern world history! Did Condi ghost-write this
piece for him when she was still ghosting every foreign policy line
George Bush spoke in 2004?
And for the western media and propaganda instruments to ignore his
views on the colonialization of China by the West and on the neocon
wars can mean only one thing: he is promoted and propped up precisely
because he is working for US government foreign policy interests.
3) The immensely sad story of the Iraqi people who find neither
freedom nor security in their own country today, more than seven years
after the US made a forced regime change in that country.
BBC report 30 August 2010:
Bittersweet memories of life in Iraq during invasion
. . .
Zeinab Mayouf's husband was killed in 2005. She says he was shot by
the Americans when the car he was travelling in failed to stop when
ordered to.
"When the Americans came, we thought things would get better," she
said, as her eight-year-old daughter clung to her arm.
"When Saddam was overthrown, we thought everything would change. But
it didn't. After they killed my husband, I couldn't stand them."
The US military disputes her claim, and has rejected her application
for compensation. Whatever the truth, Zeinab is one of many thousands
of widows created by this conflict. Uncertain future
Back in Laith's garden, the heavy metal fan says he is planning to
move to Texas. His visa application has been approved and he is hoping
that a new life in America will offer him a brighter future. But he is
also nostalgic - for a past before US troops invaded his country.
"For me and my friends, [under Saddam] we were really more
free. Because we could go out any time we wanted, listen to any type
of music that we wanted."
Today, he says, he no longer feels free and secure wearing his heavy
metal clothes in public, or indeed going openly to certain parts of
the city.
"Now you cannot go wherever you want, because you are afraid. Before,
the situation was secure.
"[It was a life] where if you went out and came back in the morning,
you were not afraid that someone would attack you, you were not afraid
that someone would kidnap you, or blow themselves up in a coffee shop
or whatever."
Life in Iraq is much more secure than it was three years ago, when
sectarian violence nearly plunged the country into a full-scale civil
war.
. . .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11128747
[So, the BBC tried to close this immensely sad story about the lack
of freedom and security for the Iraqi people in a more cheerful light.
Yet, in an article published 30 December 2010, the BBC reported that
violent deaths in Iraq may be hitting a hard lower limit: i.e., the
violent death rate is not going below this limit of about 4K per year.
So, whatever happened to the human rights of these 4,000 Iraqis who
wanted to live and be with their families but couldn't because of
the war and violence Liu Xiaobo insisted that the US as the world's
sole superpower should export to that poor and defenseless country?
Liu Xiaobo, the Nobel Peace laureate thought that casualties such as
what the Iraqis are now forced to absorb are simply the "price" to pay
for their "freedom" because there was, to him, no "free lunch" in this
world. Liu used the term "casualties" in his 2004 article as if it
was an abstract concept in some kind of rhetorical argument.
If a similar regime-change war were to be exported to China as Liu
has argued that it should happen as a global democratization effort,
the million excess deaths that accompanied the Iraq war would most
likely be translated to 50 million deaths for the Chinese people, as
the Chinese population is 50 times greater. What, then, does he or
any of his Nobel Peace prize supporters, make of these 50 million
people's human rights, their rights to want to be alive and be with
their loved ones but unable to?
So, BBC reported 30 December 2010:
Iraq Body Count (IBC), which collates casualty reports, said deaths
dropped by 15% from 2009 to just under 4,000.
It said two bombs exploded each day on average, each killing four
people.
But the group warned the number may have reached an "impassable
minimum", and that civilians were likely to die at a similar rate for
years to come.
. . .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12091385
]
A floor of 4,000 deaths annually because of a wound the neocons opened
that cannot heal. Think about that! So much for the human rights for
the Iraqi people whose lives were snuffed out against their wishes!
So much for the human rights for Iraq's million orphans, widows, and
grieving mothers, who had Nobel Peace laureate Liu Xiaobo's brand of
"democracy and freedom" shoved down their throats!
Liu Xiaobo will go down the history in disgrace if not forgotten!
lo yeeOn
========
>
>Love, Peter
>
>--
>A beautiful song from Tibet
>I miss Dalai Lama
>http://youtu.be/_zo3kYvJr38
lo yeeOn
Nov 13, 2012, 11:38:15 PM11/13/12
to
a large cash reserve which loans money out ever not creditable?)
Third, China has lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty.
Fourth, China is only the third country in the world which has sent
men and women into space.
Fifth, China has the best musicians such as Lang Lang and Yuha Wang to
serve as role models for billions of young people around the world.
Sixth, China has made Tibet immediately accessible to people who want
to travel from Shanghai or Beijing to Lhasa, by plane or by rail.
Seventh, China has built such a powerful nation that the West is
instantly drooling with jealousy every time her people's Congress
meets, in the space of every five years.
Eighth, while Japan wants the US to strengthen their mutual defense
treaty in order to seize a few islands historically a part of China,
China is ready to fight alone, as it always has fought, to defend
itself.
"it" might be. She always tries to make "it" happen while Da Lama
always begs nations to destabilize China.
Tenth, China under the CCP has not bombed another country and never
exported violence, even as Da Lama and his cohorts have been inciting
violence inside Tibet at the expense of Da Lama's own people. And all
the while, the CCP has been working hard to subsidize the large number
of Tibetan monks and their monasteries in China to try to give them a
stable and sufficient environment to live in.
And many more points can be made ...!
always begs nations to destabilize China.
Tenth, China under the CCP has not bombed another country and never
exported violence, even as Da Lama and his cohorts have been inciting
violence inside Tibet at the expense of Da Lama's own people. And all
the while, the CCP has been working hard to subsidize the large number
of Tibetan monks and their monasteries in China to try to give them a
stable and sufficient environment to live in.
lo yeeOn
Nov 14, 2012, 12:18:30 AM11/14/12
to
In article <3042255.pTWfGjmum1@Dharma>,
Peter Terpstra <pe...@dharma.dyndns.info> wrote:
>lo yeeOn wrote:
>
>> Da Lama wants dialog (with China) while hobnobbing with Japan's extremists
>> - remember Yukio Mishima and his ilk and their seppuku rituals - think
>> self-immolations for Da Lama's ignorant extremist followers - Da Lama has
>> a credibility gap.
>
>According to the CCP.
Ah, but you are wrong, dead wrong. First, the CCP never brought up
the seppuku ritual suicides to describe today's ritualistic suicides
committed by Da Lama's followers. It is my personal observation. I
see the similarities in the two, namely, 1) both are ritualistic and
extremely grisly and 2) both are for the restoration of an ancient
order that has long outlived its place in the respective society. Do
you see that, darling?
As for the statement: "Da Lama has a credibility gap", it is my own
assessment also. And since I am not CCP, ergo, you are dead wrong
about it being "[a]ccording to the CCP". Do you see that too,
sweetheart?
As for the CCP's creditability,
Peter Terpstra <pe...@dharma.dyndns.info> wrote:
>lo yeeOn wrote:
>
>> Da Lama wants dialog (with China) while hobnobbing with Japan's extremists
>> - remember Yukio Mishima and his ilk and their seppuku rituals - think
>> self-immolations for Da Lama's ignorant extremist followers - Da Lama has
>> a credibility gap.
>
>According to the CCP.
Ah, but you are wrong, dead wrong. First, the CCP never brought up
the seppuku ritual suicides to describe today's ritualistic suicides
committed by Da Lama's followers. It is my personal observation. I
see the similarities in the two, namely, 1) both are ritualistic and
extremely grisly and 2) both are for the restoration of an ancient
order that has long outlived its place in the respective society. Do
you see that, darling?
As for the statement: "Da Lama has a credibility gap", it is my own
assessment also. And since I am not CCP, ergo, you are dead wrong
about it being "[a]ccording to the CCP". Do you see that too,
sweetheart?
As for the CCP's creditability,
you said:
>How is CCP's creditability?
And my answer would be like many others: AAAPlus!
>How is CCP's creditability?
"creditability".
what more do you want for the CCP's creditability?
lo yeeOn
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Tibetans calling for the return of Da Lama to live for ten thousand
years we've been hearing about lately with the equally grisly and
ritualistic sucides by disembowelment, or seppuku, that was practiced
with the aim of calling for the return to a by-gone era where the
Japanese emperor was worshipped and obeyed as an entity endowed with
divine power:
Subject: Da Lama wants dialog (with China) while hobnobbing with
Japan's extremists - recall Yukio Mishima and his ilk and their
seppuku rituals - think self-immolations for Da Lama's ignorant
extremist followers - Da Lama has a credibility gap Re: Dialogue is
only realistic way to solve problems, says His Holiness
Seppuku, also known as hara-kiri, is a form of grisly ritual suicide
by disembowelment, practised by ancient Japanese Samurais and more
recently by extremist Japanese, such as Yukio Mishima and his
followers, who believe in the divinity of the Japanese empire.
In 1967, Mishima enlisted in the Ground Self Defense Force (GSDF)
and underwent basic training. A year later, he formed the Tatenokai
(Shield Society), a private army composed primarily of young
students who studied martial principles and physical discipline, and
swore to protect the Emperor. Mishima trained them himself. However,
under Mishima's ideology, the emperor was not necessarily the
reigning Emperor, but rather the abstract essence of Japan. In Eirei
no Koe (Voices of the Heroic Dead), Mishima actually denounces
Emperor Hirohito for renouncing his claim of divinity at the end of
World War II.
In 1970, famed author Yukio Mishima and one of his followers
committed public seppuku at the Japan Self-Defense Forces
headquarters after an unsuccessful attempt to incite the armed
forces to stage a coup d'etat.
Mishima committed seppuku in the office of General Kanetoshi
Mashita. His second, a 25-year-old named Masakatsu Morita, tried
three times to ritually behead Mishima but failed; his head was
finally severed by Hiroyasu Koga. Morita then attempted to commit
seppuku himself. Although his own cuts were too shallow to be fatal,
he gave the signal and he too was beheaded by Koga.
- wikipedia
For further comments of mine, see below.
article <2401128.rsoJvLfEtR@Dharma>,
Peter Terpstra <pe...@dharma.dyndns.info> wrote:
>Dialogue is only realistic way to solve problems, says His Holiness
>November 12, 2012 9:48 am
>
>OKINAWA: Departing from the sea front hotel amidst a slight morning
>drizzle, His Holiness visited the Konpacto and Bodaiju (Bodhi tree
>park) at Okinawa Island in Japan. About 150 people came to the park for
>the event.
>
>His Holiness planted a tree sapling at the park and wrote a message of
>peace to the younger generations of Okinawan people.
>
>In the message His Holiness wrote, “No good result will come out from
>violence. Violence is not the correct way to solve your problems
>and pursue your needs. The realistic way to solve problems is through
>dialogue”.
>
>His Holiness then visited the Himeyuri stupa and war museum. The
>Himeyuri stupa and war museum is dedicated to the hundreds of
>Japanese teachers and students who were posted at Okinawa Island as
>nurses during the second world war. More than 227 young girls
>died during that operation.
>
>In the afternoon, His Holiness gave a public talk on ‘The strength to
>overcome difficulties’ at the Kenritsu Budo hall. The talk was
>organised by Dr Nagamunei and group. More than 5,000 people came to
>attend the talk.
>
>Addressing the public, His Holiness said “a calm mind is very
>important for a peaceful and happy life. Physical and material comfort
>doesn’t necessarily guarantee 100% happiness”.
>
>His Holiness also said that neuroscientists in America has found out
>through an experiment that after practising compassion, stress and
>blood pressures of people are reduced. So, a healthy mind is very
>crucial for a healthy body.
Da Lama should offer his advice, seriously, to his followers in those
monasteries where self-immolations have been repeatedly committed.
Note that seppuku, errrh, self-immolation, is a depraved form of
violence.
Da Lama should have offered his "compassion" recipe to those 15/16
year-olds and 18 year-olds who allegedly have committed seppuku, errrh, I
mean self-immolation, so that they could have had a way to reduce
whatever stress they had and hence their blood pressures. Had he done
that, those young lives would mostly be still living and breathing!
No, instead Da Lama did all he could to raise their stress by telling
the world that the Chinese government's policy of using the Chinese
language as the medium of teaching and learning was tantamount to
cultural genocide. Da Lama actively encouraged kids to become truant.
Instead of helping to establish guidelines and a suicide-prevention
network, the kind of work Da Lama should be ready to offer as a form
of charity, especially when he charges western celebrities or exotic
faith seekers a lot of money for his advice, he has been sitting on
his fat ass and pointing a finger at the Chinese government, the party
he and his TGIE (Tibetan Government in Exile) have alternately begged
and screamed at to negotiate for a form of "genuine" autonomy for
Tibet under Chinese sovereignty.
By making virulent accusations at the party you purportedly want to
negotiate with, you make meaningful negotiation impossible. And so
you stall the negotiation and exacerbate the suffering of your
followers who have hung their hope on your leadership and dimplomacy.
And by obscuring how China's sovereignty over Tibet should interact
with your idea of a "genuine" autonomy, you have made your negotiating
position impossible to decipher and settlement impossible to reach.
Meanwhile, you go to Japan for 12 days, clearly with the intention to
coincide your presence in Japan with the Chinese leadership transfer
that has been taking place in Beijing. And you volunteered yourself
to talk about the islands hotly disputed between China and Japan.
How do you think the injection of yourself into the debate of those
islands helps you further your TGIE representative's position
vis-a-vis the autonomy talk with China according to your "Middle Way"?
So as you watched the 15/16 year-olds among your followers commit
seppuku, errrh, self-immolation, for your own aggrandizement, you
did not tell them that you had no intention to negotiate with the
Chinese government to ease their pain, unless China would hand over
one sixth of its territory to you. But did those 15/16 year old
children know that one sixth of China's terroritory was your aim,
instead of their chance to grow up being well-educated and empowered
to have a better life for themselves and their loved ones? No, they
certainly did not know that. Da Lama, you deceived them. You are
responsible for these grisly ritual child-sacrifices for your own
glory and your western paymaster's hegemonic agenda.
You know why you have an audience in Japan. There is a rightist group
which consists of Japanese, like the late Yukio Mishima and his fellow
believers and followers, who believe in taking Japan back to its vile
militarist past. Mishima, although a great writer of stories, spent
years, and many hours daily to build up a state of great anger that
could sustain the physical agaony of seppuku.
As Mishima and his fellow extreme rightists committed their seppuku,
they shouted the return of Imperial Japan where the emperor would be
revered as god. Da Lama, what is the difference between the Japanese
extremists who committed seppuku while shouting for the return of an
Imperial Japan and those extremist followers of yours who committed
self-immolation to give the TGIE an iconic Tibet is burning message
while they shouted for your return to Tibet and live for another ten
thousand years?
I see none, they are both extremist acts calling for a return of the
equivalent of the Dark Ages for both peoples.
In fact, when you claim you want to negotiate with the Chinese
government for a "genuine" autonomy, you shouldn't be injecting
yourself among the Japanese rightists who want Japan to claim the
islands all Chinese, whether they live in Hong Kong, or Taiwan, or
Mainland China, think are historically theirs, the islands they call
Diaoyu Tai Islands. There are at least three things all Chinese have
in common: they think that Diaoyu Tai Islands are Chinese territory,
not Japanese; they all have very bad memories of Japan's occupation of
China's northeast and later its full-blown invasion of China 1937-1945;
and Tibet has always been a part of China. By hobnobbing with Japan's
rightists, you go contrary to your claim to want to negotiate a
"genuine" autonomy for Tibet under Chinese sovereignty.
By hobnobbing with the Japanese rightists, you will further lose your
credibility in a billion Chinese eyes. No matter what you say, you
will only strengthen the Chinese government's credibility at the same
time. So, you have a lot of explaining to do before your followers,
unless you think they are just idiots worthy of your contempt!
Da Lama, if you are compassionate, you would immediately start your
compassion practice in Tibet by broadcasting your suicide-prevention
guidelines and help network and implore adult monks to give daily
lessons on the vice of killing oneself. Give them your recipe for
reducing stress and blood pressure. Da Lama, you should start act
like a spiritual healer, instead of a self-serving agent for the West.
You should at once redeem yourself for the destruction of those young
lives by stopping further such acts.
lo yeeOn
---------------------------------------------------------------------
By GILLIAN WONG Associated Press
BEIJING November 12, 2012 (AP)
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/china-slams-dalai-lama-tibetan-immolates-17697568#.UKFkDsjyb-Q
China accused the Dalai Lama on Monday of allying with Japanese
right-wingers in an island dispute as a way of attacking China and
blamed him for glorifying a wave of self-immolations among
Tibetans. The comments came as another Tibetan set himself on fire to
protest Chinese rule, Tibetan exiles and a rights group said.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said the Dalai Lama's
comments in Japan on the island dispute showed his "reactionary
nature" and determination to split China apart under the guise of
religion.
"To achieve his separatist goal, he associated with the Japanese
right-wing forces. Chinese people despise him for what he did. We
are firmly opposed to any country's providing a stage for him," Hong
said.
Chinese media have said the Dalai Lama called the islands by their
Japanese name during a news conference in Yokohama last Monday but an
Associated Press review of a tape of the event showed he referred to
them only as "the islands."
On Monday in Okinawa, the Dalai Lama criticized Chinese media for
making up a claim that he sided with the Japanese.
Tensions have run high over the islands, known as Senkaku in Japanese
and Diaoyu in Chinese, since the Japanese government nationalized some
of them in September in a bid to prevent Tokyo's right-wing governor
from buying them. Violent anti-Japanese protests broke out in a number
of Chinese cities, and Beijing has sent ships to conduct near-constant
patrols near the uninhabited rocks.
Hong also attacked the Dalai Lama for reportedly accusing the Chinese
government of failing to investigate the root cause of despair and
hopelessness among Tibetans that many say have prompted people to take
their lives as a form of protest. China has long accused the Dalai
Lama and his supporters of inspiring such acts, despite his
condemnation of all forms of violence.
"Not only did the Dalai not condemn them, but he actually glorified
these acts, which are against the national law and religious
principles," Hong said.
The remarks came as a 24-year-old Tibetan man set himself on fire at a
prayer ceremony in Tongren county in western China's Qinghai province,
becoming the seventh person in six days to self-immolate in the
region, the rights group Free Tibet said.
Nyingkar Tashi is reported to have died in the protest in which he
called out for freedom in Tibet and for the longevity of the Dalai
Lama, the group said. A statement from the self-declared Tibetan
government-in-exile in Dharmsala, India, provided similar details.
A Tongren government official who picked up the phone said he could
not comment, while Ma Chunyin, head of the Tongren Communist Party
Propaganda Department, said he did not know about the reported
self-immolation.
Tibet support groups overseas have said the increase in protests in
recent days is meant to highlight Tibetan unhappiness with Chinese
rule as the country's leaders hand over power to younger successors at
a party congress in Beijing.
"Throughout the 18th Party Congress the new unelected leaders have
been reminded on an almost daily basis of Tibetans' rejection of
Chinese rule, and of the terrible failure of policies to cement the
occupation," Free Tibet Director Stephanie Brigden said.
The Dalai Lama fled to India following an abortive 1959 uprising
against Chinese rule over Tibet. He denies seeking the region's
independence, saying that he wishes Tibetans to enjoy real autonomy
and protection of their traditional culture Buddhist
Associated Press writers Christopher Bodeen in Beijing and Mari
Yamaguchi in Tokyo contributed to this report..
---------
12 November 2012 Last updated at 07:48 ET
China warns Dalai Lama on Tibet immolations comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20293887
China has criticised Tibet's spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, over
comments he reportedly made on a spate of self-immolations by ethnic
Tibetans.
Speaking in Japan, the Dalai Lama was quoted saying China was not
"seriously" looking at the causes of the protests and focusing on
blaming him instead.
China's foreign ministry accused him of "glorifying" the
self-immolations.
Nearly 70 Tibetans have set themselves alight since 2011 in what
activists say are protests against Beijing's rule.
Most are reported to have died. State media reported another
self-immolation on Saturday, bringing to seven the number in the past
week.
Gonpo Tsering, 18, set himself alight near a monastery in Hezou city
in Gansu province, Xinhua news agency reported
Beijing says Tibetans have religious freedom and accuses exiled
Tibetan leaders of stirring up unrest.
The latest incidents have taken place as China's Communist Party holds
a congress in Beijing that will begin the process of transferring
power to a new generation of leaders.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hong Lei, said: "Not only did the
Dalai not condemn them, but he actually glorified these acts, which
are against the national law and religious principles."
He also accused the Dalai Lama of siding with right-wingers in Japan
over a tense territorial dispute with China.
The Dalai Lama, who is on a visit to Japan, had used the Japanese name
for an island chain claimed by both Beijing and Tokyo, Mr Hong said.
On the subject of self-immolations, the exiled spiritual leader had
reportedly urged the Chinese government to investigate their cause.
"China does not look into it seriously and tries to end [the
incidents] only by criticising me," Kyodo news agency quoted him as
saying.
Foreign media are banned from the Tibet region, making the
self-immolation cases hard to verify.
Chinese state media have confirmed some of the self-immolations, but
not all.
>
>Speaking about the war-torn historical background of Okinawa island,
>His Holiness said, "Past is only a memory, an experience. We cannot
>change it. But the future depends on the present. And using the
>experience of the past, we have to build a peaceful and happier
>world".
>
>At the same time, His Holiness mentioned that the method to achieve
>happiness should be realistic.
>
>"We have to look from various angles. One dimensional outlook is not
>enough. The method to attain peace should be realistic and holistic,"
>His Holiness said.
>
>"Fear, anger, jealousy, hatred, distrust; these negative emotion
>comes from the basis of self-centric arrogance. We have to train our
>mind to develop more compassion. Once we develop a sense of
>well-being for others, we develop a calm mind," His Holiness added.
>
>His Holiness also stressed the need for secular moral ethics through
>a modern secular education.
>
>"Secularism means respect to all religious traditions including
>non-believers. Secular ethics promotes common interests on the basis
>of mutual respect and mutual harmony", His Holiness said.
>
>A question and answer session was held after the talk.
>
>Tomorrow His Holiness will give a group interview to Okinawa TV and
>Ryukyu Shimpo newspaper. He will then leave for Tokyo where he will
>give a public talk on balancing the body and mind and will meet
>political leaders from various political parties of Japan.
>
>http://tibet.net/2012/11/12/dialogue-is-only-realistic-way-to-solve-problems-says-his-holiness/
rst0
Nov 14, 2012, 12:30:33 PM11/14/12
to
> > Hard-Yards Push-Push asks: How is CCP's creditability?
>
> Well are you able to answer mister lo yeeOn?
No need to respond to a Dalai Lama and CIA stooge.
Their job is to stir-up revolt to cause deaths.
>
> Well are you able to answer mister lo yeeOn?
No need to respond to a Dalai Lama and CIA stooge.
Their job is to stir-up revolt to cause deaths.
lo yeeOn
Nov 14, 2012, 9:18:45 PM11/14/12
to
In article <5569981.WgQA62Ev4j@Dharma>,
provided in that response. But since you ask, here I am, again!.
Here are some evidence that the CCP has plenty of credibility - and
then we'll go to your "creditability" as a corollary, ok?
1) we have
"Some foreigners with full bellies and nothing better to do engage
in finger-pointing at us: First, China does not export revolution;
second, it does not export famine and poverty; and third, it does
not mess around with you. So what else is there to say?"
- Xi Jinping (incoming Chinese President)
2) China is lending the US and the EU (many of which countries have
4) China is only the third country in the world which has sent men and
women into space.
5) China has the best musicians such as Lang Lang and Yuha Wang to
plenty of credibility.
Therefore, although people don't talk about "creditability" as you
idiotically have done, it is obvious that the CCP'scredibility also
translates well into their "creditability". There is your answer.
To the contrary, Da Lama and the TGIE say one thing and do another.
They say: we want to talk to the CCP about our idea of a "genuine"
autonomy for Tibet while accepting China's sovereignty over us.
Yet, they immediately turn around and say:
"China is effectively occupying Tibet because there are X,Y,Z,W,V,
regions in China where Tibetans live, which are not designated
Tibetan autonomous regions. So they are violating their
Constitution. We're just asking them to follow the their
Constitution..."
(In other words, they are asking the CCP to enlarge TAR to include
X,Y,Z,W,V and give them all to Da Lama and his TGIE in order to
satisfy their criterion for "genuine" autonomy or self rule.)
And as Da Lama and cohorts' alleged self-immolation incidents were
being reported, they always say that the self-immolators shouted for
the return of Da Lama and for Tibet's independence.
So it is clear that Da Lama and "his people" do not have the same idea
of they really want from the CCP!
Do they want independence?
Or do they want Da Lama's Middle Way for Tibetan autonomy?
In the end, Da Lama may not at all represent the Tibetan people at
all.
When the children who died a grisly death that Da Lama and his TGIE
cohorts glorified wanted a different vision for Tibet, then it is
clearly a waste of time for the CCP, i.e., the Chinese government, to
negotiate with them - the people who chant a different tune, the tune
of "My way is the middle way".
No way! That is really the story.
And if the Tibetans in China who listen to Da Lama have no "voice", it
is because Da Lama and his TGIE cohorts are putting a restraint on
them. They want them to sacrifice their lives but they do not make
any serious effort to negotiate. They do not bring good faith to the
negotiation table where good faith is the first requirement of any
successful negotiation.
And of course, the CCP has known that Da Lama does not represent the
Chinese Tibetans in the first place.
Why? Because Da Lama and his cohorts have never specified how the two
fundamental tenets of Da Lama's Middle Way "autonomy" should interact!
Tenet number 1: China has sovereignty over Tibet (which Da Lama
claims to accept)
Tenet number 2: Da Lama's "Middle Way" or "genuine" autonomy
So, if you have children committing seppuku, errrh, self-immolation
while a large crowd of adult monks stand watching and do nothing, then
every time Da Lama or his cohorts aren't happy about something, they
can incite a bunch more of grisly horrors from your ignorant children
in order to terrify the society. Now under such a prospect, does
China have the right to shut down your monastery and arrest those who
are aiding and abetting the grisly ritual suicide, in order to keep
peace and security in the community, or not? Or, it would be entirely
under your control so as to keep aiding and abetting the sacrifice of
children in order to satisfy Da Lama's and cohorts' depraved desire?
In other words, where does your autonomy begins and ends while being
subject to China's sovereign rule?
Da Lama and his TGIE cohorts never specified.
They are clearly intentionally vague about their position so that they
can always use an excuse to stir up trouble and create social tension
with the aim to destabilize China.
In the end, Da Lama and his TGIE cohorts serve their western clients
at the expense of China. So you, Hard-Yards think that the CCP can't
see such a possibility and therefore nib the trouble in the bud right
there when it is still doable?
The CCP has a lot of credibility. Other nations have seen that they
can do business with them. Even Taiwan can trust them. And that's
why no country recognizes the TGIE. The only reason why Da Lama is
bandied around in western press is because a certain country and its
formidable group of allies want to use Da Lama to press down China.
It is a geopolitical decision of the West toward China. But they
still do business with the CCP because CCP has impeccable credibility.
So what more do you want for credibility or "creditability" from the
CCP?
Again, If you meant to ask me about the CCP's credibility, you know of
course it has plenty.
How do we know? We know because China does not say one thing and then
does another when it does business with others, unlike Da Lama who has
a huge credibility gap by saying one thing and then immediately doing
something else - that was my original claim.
And from our discussion above, the contrast between the CCP's firm and
universal reputation of possessing it and Da Lama's equally clear lack
of it cannot be more sharply illustrated.
lo yeeOn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
My previous response attached:
In article <3042255.pTWfGjmum1@Dharma>,
Peter Terpstra <pe...@dharma.dyndns.info> wrote:
>lo yeeOn wrote:
>
>> Da Lama wants dialog (with China) while hobnobbing with Japan's extremists
>> - remember Yukio Mishima and his ilk and their seppuku rituals - think
>> self-immolations for Da Lama's ignorant extremist followers - Da Lama has
>> a credibility gap.
>
>According to the CCP.
Ah, but you are wrong, dead wrong. First, the CCP never brought up
the seppuku ritual suicides to describe today's ritualistic suicides
committed by Da Lama's followers. It is my personal observation. I
see the similarities in the two, namely, 1) both are ritualistic and
extremely grisly and 2) both are for the restoration of an ancient
order that has long outlived its place in the respective society. Do
you see that, darling?
As for the statement: "Da Lama has a credibility gap", it is my own
assessment also. And since I am not CCP, ergo, you are dead wrong
about it being "[a]ccording to the CCP". Do you see that too,
sweetheart?
As for the CCP's creditability, as you asked: my answer would be like
many others: AAA+!
So, what more do you want for the CCP's creditability?
lo yeeOn
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> Hard-Yards Push-Push asks: How is CCP's creditability?
>
>Well are you able to answer mister lo yeeOn?
Don't just delete my response and then ask for answers I've already
>
>Well are you able to answer mister lo yeeOn?
provided in that response. But since you ask, here I am, again!.
Here are some evidence that the CCP has plenty of credibility - and
then we'll go to your "creditability" as a corollary, ok?
1) we have
"Some foreigners with full bellies and nothing better to do engage
in finger-pointing at us: First, China does not export revolution;
second, it does not export famine and poverty; and third, it does
not mess around with you. So what else is there to say?"
- Xi Jinping (incoming Chinese President)
been financing the NATO budget) billions and billions of USD to fight
their war of terror (which they call war on terror) around the world,
terrorizing Mother Earth and her children. Tell me if such a lender
is not creditable? (Tell me: When is someone with a bank with a large
cash reserve which loans money out ever not creditable?)
3) China has lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty.
their war of terror (which they call war on terror) around the world,
terrorizing Mother Earth and her children. Tell me if such a lender
is not creditable? (Tell me: When is someone with a bank with a large
cash reserve which loans money out ever not creditable?)
4) China is only the third country in the world which has sent men and
women into space.
5) China has the best musicians such as Lang Lang and Yuha Wang to
serve as role models for billions of young people around the world.
6) China has made Tibet immediately accessible to people who want to
travel from Shanghai or Beijing to Lhasa, by plane or by rail.
7) China has built such a powerful nation that the West is instantly
drooling with jealousy every time her people's Congress meets, in the
space of every five years.
8) while Japan wants the US to strengthen their mutual defense treaty
space of every five years.
in order to seize a few islands historically a part of China, China is
ready to fight alone, as it always has fought, to defend itself.
9) China never asks other nations to give it to her, whatever "it"
ready to fight alone, as it always has fought, to defend itself.
might be. She always tries to make "it" happen while Da Lama always
begs nations to destabilize China.
10) China under the CCP has not bombed another country and never
begs nations to destabilize China.
exported violence, even as Da Lama and his cohorts have been inciting
violence inside Tibet at the expense of Da Lama's own people. And all
the while, the CCP has been working hard to subsidize the large number
of Tibetan monks and their monasteries in China to try to give them a
stable and sufficient environment to live in.
And many more points can be made ...!
You can not lie and fib to have these things done; so, the CCP has
violence inside Tibet at the expense of Da Lama's own people. And all
the while, the CCP has been working hard to subsidize the large number
of Tibetan monks and their monasteries in China to try to give them a
stable and sufficient environment to live in.
And many more points can be made ...!
plenty of credibility.
Therefore, although people don't talk about "creditability" as you
idiotically have done, it is obvious that the CCP'scredibility also
translates well into their "creditability". There is your answer.
To the contrary, Da Lama and the TGIE say one thing and do another.
They say: we want to talk to the CCP about our idea of a "genuine"
autonomy for Tibet while accepting China's sovereignty over us.
Yet, they immediately turn around and say:
"China is effectively occupying Tibet because there are X,Y,Z,W,V,
regions in China where Tibetans live, which are not designated
Tibetan autonomous regions. So they are violating their
Constitution. We're just asking them to follow the their
Constitution..."
(In other words, they are asking the CCP to enlarge TAR to include
X,Y,Z,W,V and give them all to Da Lama and his TGIE in order to
satisfy their criterion for "genuine" autonomy or self rule.)
And as Da Lama and cohorts' alleged self-immolation incidents were
being reported, they always say that the self-immolators shouted for
the return of Da Lama and for Tibet's independence.
So it is clear that Da Lama and "his people" do not have the same idea
of they really want from the CCP!
Do they want independence?
Or do they want Da Lama's Middle Way for Tibetan autonomy?
In the end, Da Lama may not at all represent the Tibetan people at
all.
When the children who died a grisly death that Da Lama and his TGIE
cohorts glorified wanted a different vision for Tibet, then it is
clearly a waste of time for the CCP, i.e., the Chinese government, to
negotiate with them - the people who chant a different tune, the tune
of "My way is the middle way".
No way! That is really the story.
And if the Tibetans in China who listen to Da Lama have no "voice", it
is because Da Lama and his TGIE cohorts are putting a restraint on
them. They want them to sacrifice their lives but they do not make
any serious effort to negotiate. They do not bring good faith to the
negotiation table where good faith is the first requirement of any
successful negotiation.
And of course, the CCP has known that Da Lama does not represent the
Chinese Tibetans in the first place.
Why? Because Da Lama and his cohorts have never specified how the two
fundamental tenets of Da Lama's Middle Way "autonomy" should interact!
Tenet number 1: China has sovereignty over Tibet (which Da Lama
claims to accept)
Tenet number 2: Da Lama's "Middle Way" or "genuine" autonomy
So, if you have children committing seppuku, errrh, self-immolation
while a large crowd of adult monks stand watching and do nothing, then
every time Da Lama or his cohorts aren't happy about something, they
can incite a bunch more of grisly horrors from your ignorant children
in order to terrify the society. Now under such a prospect, does
China have the right to shut down your monastery and arrest those who
are aiding and abetting the grisly ritual suicide, in order to keep
peace and security in the community, or not? Or, it would be entirely
under your control so as to keep aiding and abetting the sacrifice of
children in order to satisfy Da Lama's and cohorts' depraved desire?
In other words, where does your autonomy begins and ends while being
subject to China's sovereign rule?
Da Lama and his TGIE cohorts never specified.
They are clearly intentionally vague about their position so that they
can always use an excuse to stir up trouble and create social tension
with the aim to destabilize China.
In the end, Da Lama and his TGIE cohorts serve their western clients
at the expense of China. So you, Hard-Yards think that the CCP can't
see such a possibility and therefore nib the trouble in the bud right
there when it is still doable?
The CCP has a lot of credibility. Other nations have seen that they
can do business with them. Even Taiwan can trust them. And that's
why no country recognizes the TGIE. The only reason why Da Lama is
bandied around in western press is because a certain country and its
formidable group of allies want to use Da Lama to press down China.
It is a geopolitical decision of the West toward China. But they
still do business with the CCP because CCP has impeccable credibility.
So what more do you want for credibility or "creditability" from the
CCP?
Again, If you meant to ask me about the CCP's credibility, you know of
course it has plenty.
How do we know? We know because China does not say one thing and then
does another when it does business with others, unlike Da Lama who has
a huge credibility gap by saying one thing and then immediately doing
something else - that was my original claim.
And from our discussion above, the contrast between the CCP's firm and
universal reputation of possessing it and Da Lama's equally clear lack
of it cannot be more sharply illustrated.
lo yeeOn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
My previous response attached:
In article <3042255.pTWfGjmum1@Dharma>,
Peter Terpstra <pe...@dharma.dyndns.info> wrote:
>lo yeeOn wrote:
>
>> Da Lama wants dialog (with China) while hobnobbing with Japan's extremists
>> - remember Yukio Mishima and his ilk and their seppuku rituals - think
>> self-immolations for Da Lama's ignorant extremist followers - Da Lama has
>> a credibility gap.
>
>According to the CCP.
Ah, but you are wrong, dead wrong. First, the CCP never brought up
the seppuku ritual suicides to describe today's ritualistic suicides
committed by Da Lama's followers. It is my personal observation. I
see the similarities in the two, namely, 1) both are ritualistic and
extremely grisly and 2) both are for the restoration of an ancient
order that has long outlived its place in the respective society. Do
you see that, darling?
As for the statement: "Da Lama has a credibility gap", it is my own
assessment also. And since I am not CCP, ergo, you are dead wrong
about it being "[a]ccording to the CCP". Do you see that too,
sweetheart?
many others: AAA+!
lo yeeOn
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>How is CCP's creditability?
0 new messages