Originally posted by Arapahoe:why not compare, both have legitmate right to shoot within their national boundary, both have exceptional situation a threat to its security. threaten gov. Both shoot at unarmed religion sect, which dominate its population.
Take an easy way out without asking hard enough about role of government. accepting status quo? water would not know what water is.
Therefore, those who had supported the Nazis needed to be informed on how correct their choice was with an emphasis on the strength of the party and the leadership. Those who opposed the Nazi Party had to be convinced that it was pointless continuing with their opposition
When the national guards walked into the Kent State University, shooting at the unarmed student demonstrators, when Thai soldiers opened fire at the students demonstrator in the streets of Bangkok, were foreign parties allowed in to ask hard question about the role of the US government and the Thail government? Should the world over attacked the US government interest worldwide to force the US government to step down in the name of keeping moral balance and humanity?
any question ever asked of the US why they only started kicking the nazis ass es in late 1941 after nazis invaded and conquered more more than half of euripe? it is a matter of their own interest or for the sake of moral balance and humanity.
I do not argue with you or try to justify the level of forces used in crashing peaceful demonstration or social riots. I question the intention of western organisations in making use of tibetans in exile to achieve their own agenda. I am against the double standards used and hypocracy involved in the Western organisations and government dealing with countries like China.
Originally posted by Arapahoe:why not compare, both have legitmate right to shoot within their national boundary, both have exceptional situation a threat to its security. threaten gov. Both shoot at unarmed religion sect, which dominate its population.
Take an easy way out without asking hard enough about role of government. accepting status quo? water would not know what water is.
Therefore, those who had supported the Nazis needed to be informed on how correct their choice was with an emphasis on the strength of the party and the leadership. Those who opposed the Nazi Party had to be convinced that it was pointless continuing with their opposition
There is a big difference between peaceful protests and rioting.
In Myanmar, the monks stage peaceful protests againts the government, the military comes in and start shooting.
In Tibet, racial rioting has already gotten people killed and business destroyed, then the chinese government sent in security forces to maintain civil order.
If you want to compare this situation with nazi germany, majority of german citizens hate german jews as they claim jews steal their business and their money, (majority tibet chinese hate han chinese as they claim han chinese steal their business and their money) instead of starting their own business/making their business competitive with the jews, the nazi kill the jews and take all the jews property. This act is so popular at that time that the nazi bacame a legitimate government
The chinese government just step in to maintain civil order in a time of chaos.
The standard of living for the average tibetian has gotten better over the years as there is no ruling class to treat them as slaves. Of course the tibetian monks are not happy as traditional tibetian monk is a powerful figure who can stand toe to toe with the ruling class (remember the head monk, the dalai lama has a palace).
Burmese monks and tibetian monks are very different. Burmese monks remain monks all their lives, tibetian monks has a chance to be part of the ruling class until the practice is stop by the chinese government.
So it depends where you stand, should the tibetian ruling class be allowed to continue to oppress the average tibetian or should the chinese government be allowed to impose control on the tibetian ruling class?
Ever ask yourself why there are all these interest group supporting the Cause for Tibet?
Anti-China lor.
Bash them during oylmpics lor.
You think they really care bout Tibetan cause?
Don't make me laugh lah.
USA kill and torture Iraqis, don't make noise, China make noise.
Want me to support their anti-China cause?
They can fuck off lah.
I'm not that easily fooled or manipulated.
Some small small propaganda campiagn want to influence me, fuck off.
I hope USA or Israel hosts Oylmpics.
I also want to make noise.
Tell them to fuck off.
Kill Iraqis and Palestinians.
Anti-China, come and suck my cock lah.
Originally posted by eagle:actually that means bye bye to Dr Chee
haha...must remember to say that to him next time I see him at the MRT station :)
Originally posted by sgdiehard:The common interest of these organisations and groups are to serve their financers. Who funded them? the US and western government.
Restoring moral balance and humanity? Silence in support when Chechyna was brutally crashed by the Russian, Invasion of Iraq, support of taleban and then fight against them in their own land where they prefer to live in stoneage...these are for restoring of moral balance and humanity? Where is morality in all these incidents?
That is what i am saying. Because of the injustice and failure that people sees in their governments we are witnessing trend of polarized power that is funded outside the direct influence of gov.
do not mistaken the injustice action done by institutional gov run by JFK Harvard graduate.
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
haha...must remember to say that to him next time I see him at the MRT station :)
You take MRT also meh or you go over MRT station to shop?
A self proclamied doctor taking MRT. sheesh!
If you do take MRT, it's either you are:
1) not a doctor
or
2) a very useless doctor.
i think some ppl got the information wrong.
in 1912 , 13th dalai lama unilaterally declare separation from china, from 1912- 1950 tibet gain de-facto independence, although no country as ever recognise tibet as a nation.
what does it tell us, tibet was never granted independence from china.China are too busy fighting Japs, domestics war that they fail to act on tibet at the point of time.
if we trace back to the qing dynasty of the 17 century, Tibet was already a part of the empire under the join administration of the dalai lama and Qing should exercise control jointly.
In 1951 the People's Republic of China and the Tibetan government to sign the Seventeen Point Agreement thus reintegrated Tibet.
this treaty already stated that Tibetan agree to reintegrated into china. the circmstances in which it was sign was debatable. however a treaty will always be a treaty and enforceable. when we lost the opium war and british demand HK. Qing, GMT, CCP all respected the treaty until it expire in 1997. Isnt that treaty was sign in debatable circumstances?
The Dalai lama should know religions and politics should not mix. more than often it lead to disasters , terrorism eg.taleban.
i have been to Nepal refugees camp where there are lotsa lama and i dont rated them tat holy in my own personal opinion.
Maybe the Lama should learn from shaolin temple. left religion out of politics.
After the treaty, the Tibetan found that the PRCs are taking over their jobs , erase their unique cultural livelihood, thus they want their independance back.
PRCs are taking over their jobs , erase their unique cultural livelihood, thus they want their independance back.
If true, it reminds me of current Singapore situation.
China did well by tibet
A Chinese student in France, watching the recent Olympic protest in Paris, reported the following on his blog: A French girl, aged five or six, asked her mother why people were trying to snatch the Olympic torch from Chinese athletes.
Her mother replied: " The Chinese have occupied Tibet by force for 50 years. Those protesters want to take this chance to express their wish for freedom."
The Tibet Autonomous Region, like Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, is one among China's 34 provincial administrative regions. No government in the world denies this fact. Neverthless, the French mother imparted her perception of Tibet as " occupied " to her child.
The French celebrated enthusiastically the Chinese Cultural Year in 2003. Why, suddenly, has a wall appeared between China and the West ?
The trigger was the riots in Lhasa on March 14. Rioters destroyed 908 shops , seven schools, 120 residential homes, five hospitals and 10 banking network points. At least 20 buildings were burned down and 84 vehicles were smashed. Eighteen innocents were burned or stabbed to death and 380 civilians were injured.
The Dalai clique based in India depicted these flagrant criminal acts as " peaceful demonstrations " and made up a non-existent " death list " of nearly 100 " protesters ". Western media broadcast these claims to the world.
The Dalai clique's secessionist activities began after the Dalai Lama fled China in 1959. Before he fled, he was a member of the Chinese central government. In February 1951, not long after the People's Republic of China was founded, the Dalai Lama appointed Ngapoi Ngawang Jigme as his chief negotiator with the central government.
On May 23, 1951, the Agreement of the Central People's Government and the Local Government of Tibet on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet was signed in Beijing.
The Dalai Lama sent a telegram to Chairman Mao Zedong to express his support for the agreement and his determination to implement it. In September 1954, he was elected vice-chairman of the Standing Committee of the First National People's Congress and, later in 1956, he became the chair of the Preparatory Committee for the Tibet Autonomous Region.
The relationship between Dalai Lama and the central government changed after he fled China. But the fact that Tibet is an inalienable part of China cannot be changed because of his defection. As the now 98-year-old Ngapoi Ngawang Jigme has said : " So-called " Tibet independence " had never existed before the 20th century. It was fabricated by people with ulterior motives."
The feudal dynasties of China had exercised effective sovereignty over Tibet centuries before Europeans landed in the Americas. In the 13th century , the Yuan Dynasty designated Tibet as an administrative region of China. The Ming Dynasty continued to exercise sovereignty over Tibet.
From the 17th century onwards, the Qing Dynasty had comprehensive and sophisticated governance over Tibet. Qing emperors granted honorifics titles to the 5th Dalai Lama and the 5th Bainqen Lama in 1653 and 1713, respectively, officially establishing the " Dalai Lama " and " Bainqen Erdeni " titles. It has since become an established practice that the reincarnations of all future Dalai and Bainqen Lamas are to be approved by the central authority.
From 1727 to 1911, altogether 57 Ambans ( ministers in charge of Tibet affairs in the Qing Dynasty ) were stationed in Tibet to supervise local administration on behalf of the central authority. In the early 20th century, the Republic of China set up an agency for Tibet affairs, with an office in Lhasa, while Tibet sent representatives to the National Congress, as did other provinces. The enthronement of the current 14th Dalai Lama was approved by the then Nationalist government.
Some people say the Dalai Lama wants " high-level autonomy ", not " independence ", for Tibet. But no government in the world would allow such " autonomy " in its territory as the Dalai Lama demands for Tibet.
The so-called " high-level autonomy and real autonomy " he seeks would involve the following: Withdrawal of Chinese troops and military installations from Tibet ; Tibet being able to establish diplomatic ties with other countries and international organisations ; the establishment of a Great Tibetan Zone of 2.4 million sq km, to include areas inhabited by Tibetans in the provinces of Qinghai, Gansu and Sichuan and Yunnan ; non-Tibetans to move out of this zone, etc.
In essence, the Dalai Lama's " high-level autonomy " would deny the central government sovereignty over Tibet and would be tantamount to independence for it. This of course will by no means be accepted by the central government.
The Dalai Lama argues that Tibetans are being reduced to an insignificant minority in their own land, and that there is cultural genocide. The fact is Tibet has made historic achievements in economic and social development. It has achieved an average annual of 12 per cent in the past seven years. Its population has increased from about 1.2 million in 1964 to more than 2.5 million now, with Tibetans constituting 98.4 per cent of the population.
Over the past 20 years, the central government has appropriated more than 700 million yuan ( S$135 million ) for the preservation and maintenance for monasteries, cultural relics and religious sites in Tibet.
There are currently 1,787 religious sites and over 46,000 lamas and nuns in the autonomous region. More than 50 institutes on Tibetan studies have been set up nationwide. Tibetan TV and radio services broadcast in both Tibetan and Mandarin.
Newspapers, magazines and books in Tibetan can be found everywhere. The Tibetan language is taught in all types of schools. As an integral part of Chinese culture, traditional Tibetan culture has been protected by the central government.
Where Tibet is concerned, media reports that ignore China's voice may not be impartial. The Lhasa incident of March 14 was a serious criminal act; the Dalai clique was behind the riot; the police showed great restraint without using lethal weapons.
The Chinese media has reported these facts repeatedly. Regrettably, Western media turned a deaf ear to these reports and have one-sidedly magnified the voices calling for an independent Tibet.
As a result, people may have got the impression that Chinese soldiers cracked down with iron fists on Tibetan monks demonstrating peacefully, and that many Tibetans died from the bullets of the conquerors. However, as the Austrian newspaper der Standard pointed out on March 26, these reports were based in second-hand information from exiled Tibetans living in India and Radio Free Asia, a private radio station funded by the US Congress, have mentioned that neither of these sources is neutral.
More recently, Western media outlets have disclosed that American and German organisations, together with the " Tibetan government-in-exile ", jointly worked out a " Plan of Action " in May 2007 to set off a wave of anti-China demonstrations to coincide with the Beijing Olympics. This , if true, indicates the involvement of international politics in the Tibet issue.
Since China's opening-up three decades ago, the Chinese people have been trying to know more about the world and have tried to be known. The 2008 Olympics is a golden opportunity in this regard. Understanding China --a nation of 1.3 billion people-- is necessary to build a harmonious world. Misunderstanding China or hostility towards China would favour neither China nor the world.
We hope that the world can have a comprehensive view of the past and present of Tibet in particular, and of China in general, so that the gap in perception between Chinese and Westerners can be bridged.
Fanning the flames
In India and most of the world, public opinion has not been swayed by the West’s machinations to politicise the Olympic Games...
The Australian leg of the torch relay was great. They separated the two, as it should be.
Originally posted by ChiBet:
There is a big difference between peaceful protests and rioting.In Myanmar, the monks stage peaceful protests againts the government, the military comes in and start shooting.
In Tibet, racial rioting has already gotten people killed and business destroyed, then the chinese government sent in security forces to maintain civil order.
If you want to compare this situation with nazi germany, majority of german citizens hate german jews as they claim jews steal their business and their money, (majority tibet chinese hate han chinese as they claim han chinese steal their business and their money) instead of starting their own business/making their business competitive with the jews, the nazi kill the jews and take all the jews property. This act is so popular at that time that the nazi bacame a legitimate government
The chinese government just step in to maintain civil order in a time of chaos.
The standard of living for the average tibetian has gotten better over the years as there is no ruling class to treat them as slaves. Of course the tibetian monks are not happy as traditional tibetian monk is a powerful figure who can stand toe to toe with the ruling class (remember the head monk, the dalai lama has a palace).
Burmese monks and tibetian monks are very different. Burmese monks remain monks all their lives, tibetian monks has a chance to be part of the ruling class until the practice is stop by the chinese government.
So it depends where you stand, should the tibetian ruling class be allowed to continue to oppress the average tibetian or should the chinese government be allowed to impose control on the tibetian ruling class?
Ah La mak… when you have Riot that means is not peaceful. When it is peaceful there are no Rioting. Have you ever walk in a protest and with the crowd gathering. Do you think protest only walk and don’t make noise. Many times protest will turn into uncontrol protest. Read this paragraph sound familiar!
this afternoon, shortly after five, when the procession of Muslims celebrating Prophet Mohammed's birthday was passing Lorong Soopoo, near the Kallang gas works, a member of the Federal Reserve Unit asked a group who were straggling away from the procession to rejoin the main stream.
"Instead of being obeyed he was set upon by them. Thereafter a series of disturbances occured as more groups became unruly and attacked passer-by and spectators
there are no diff for the protest as both are protesting for more freedom - an intangible commodity that threaten the status quo of existing gov .
Yes before 1936 the idea of deserving rights became so legitimate
that even religion group fail in their social moral compass, that is
to say it is possible to be blind by reasoning even today. We have
to look at who has the overall control and I am saying the force
was excessive in both Myanmar and tibet.
"The chinese government just step in to maintain civil order in a time of chaos."
Civil Order Yes with “LAW” not with military force to crush the protester. At the end of the day it is a matter of choice of force used. The communist party leader need to show that he is in control that is why military force was used.
The Chinese is begining to show that it needs to demonstrate the abilities to use force to demonstarte leadership to hold the country.
So it depends where you stand, should the tibetian ruling class be allowed to continue to oppress the average tibetian or should the chinese government be allowed to impose control on the tibetian ruling class?
I believe they are seeking for autonomy. I would think that means that they want to keep the freedom of believe and heritage
Originally posted by sgdiehard:When the national guards walked into the Kent State University, shooting at the unarmed student demonstrators, when Thai soldiers opened fire at the students demonstrator in the streets of Bangkok, were foreign parties allowed in to ask hard question about the role of the US government and the Thail government? Should the world over attacked the US government interest worldwide to force the US government to step down in the name of keeping moral balance and humanity?
any question ever asked of the US why they only started kicking the nazis ass es in late 1941 after nazis invaded and conquered more more than half of euripe? it is a matter of their own interest or for the sake of moral balance and humanity.
I do not argue with you or try to justify the level of forces used in crashing peaceful demonstration or social riots. I question the intention of western organisations in making use of tibetans in exile to achieve their own agenda. I am against the double standards used and hypocracy involved in the Western organisations and government dealing with countries like China.
I question the intention of western organisations in making use of tibetans in exile to achieve their own agenda. I am against the double standards used and hypocracy involved in the Western organisations and government dealing with countries like China.
You still haven't figure out?
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
Ah La mak… when you have Riot that means is not peaceful. When it is peaceful there are no Rioting. Have you ever walk in a protest and with the crowd gathering. Do you think protest only walk and don’t make noise. Many times protest will turn into uncontrol protest. Read this paragraph sound familiar!
this afternoon, shortly after five, when the procession of Muslims celebrating Prophet Mohammed's birthday was passing Lorong Soopoo, near the Kallang gas works, a member of the Federal Reserve Unit asked a group who were straggling away from the procession to rejoin the main stream.
"Instead of being obeyed he was set upon by them. Thereafter a series of disturbances occured as more groups became unruly and attacked passer-by and spectators
there are no diff for the protest as both are protesting for more freedom - an intangible commodity that threaten the status quo of existing gov .
Yes before 1936 the idea of deserving rights became so legitimate
that even religion group fail in their social moral compass, that is
to say it is possible to be blind by reasoning even today. We have
to look at who has the overall control and I am saying the force
was excessive in both Myanmar and tibet.
"The chinese government just step in to maintain civil order in a time of chaos."
Civil Order Yes with “LAW” not with military force to crush the protester. At the end of the day it is a matter of choice of force used. The communist party leader need to show that he is in control that is why military force was used.
The Chinese is begining to show that it needs to demonstrate the abilities to use force to demonstarte leadership to hold the country.
So it depends where you stand, should the tibetian ruling class be allowed to continue to oppress the average tibetian or should the chinese government be allowed to impose control on the tibetian ruling class?
I believe they are seeking for autonomy. I would think that means that they want to keep the freedom of believe and heritage
when you have Riot that means is not peaceful - agreed; what i am trying to say is that there were rioting in tibet but not in myanmar, that is why i asked not to compare the two instances.
Civil Order Yes with “LAW” not with military force to crush the protester - depends on the LAW, in Singapore it is againts the LAW to hold public demonstrations; meaning ISD can hold you without charge indefinately (againts the LAW in most democratic country) - using military force to crush the protesters, how do you know when there is a media blackout? My tibetian friends claim their families are subjected to curfew but no one is being crush. But if you are standing at the looters and rioters side, of course it would seem like these people are being treated harshly. you need to remember these group of people had take other people's life/ property first. Singapore also always deploy its military in response to security issues, take mas selamat's escape, the SAF+GURKA was also depolyed in public (MRT stations, checkpoints, airport) to ensure the public's safety, is that wrong? were singaporeans crushed by the deployment of SAF?
I believe they are seeking for autonomy. I would think that means that they want to keep the freedom of believe and heritage - Please read peerless "China did well by tibet" post about the autonomy being requested + China is not supressing tibet's believe and heritage as tibetians are still free to practice their beliefs and language which is more than i can say about Singapore where i cannot speak hokkien or cantonese in schools and there are no hokkien or cantonese programmes on TV. A muslim girl cannot even wear her tudong/headdress in a Singapore school, where is her freedom to practice her beliefs and heritage?
edit - added the point that singapore also always deploy military to enforce civil security
If China were serious about keeping politics out of the Olympics why isn't Taiwan allowed to compete with it's own team and under it's own flag. Taiwan is an independent nation with it's own government, own currency, and it's own military.
Instead China behaves like a spoiled child that kicks, screams, and bullies the Olympic committee to allow China to pollute the games with it's OWN political agenda.
Let's keep ALL of the politics out of the games. Don't fuck with the torch. And let every country compete. Not just the countries that China is comfortable competing against.
Originally posted by Eddie Lee:If China were serious about keeping politics out of the Olympics why isn't Taiwan allowed to compete with it's own team and under it's own flag. Taiwan is an independent nation with it's own government, own currency, and it's own military.
Instead China behaves like a spoiled child that kicks, screams, and bullies the Olympic committee to allow China to pollute the games with it's own political agenda.
Let's keep ALL of the politics out of the games. Don't fuck with the torch. And let every country compete. Not just the countries that China is comfortable competing against.
FYI - United Nations do not recognize Taiwan as an independent nation.
FYI - A lot of countries do not recognize Taiwan as an independent nation.
China is trying to absorb Taiwan so if China allow Taiwan to compete, it means China recognize Taiwan as an independent nation which is directly opposite of what China is trying to do.
Look back into the past Olympics, when has Taiwan ever allowed to join?
Do not bring Taiwan into this discussion. + Taiwan is just a country run by hooligans and gansters in suits. Their parlimentary meetings are conducted like mafia meetings.
The only reason that Taiwan is not a member of the United Nations is because of China's bullying.
Taiwan is a legitmate talking point. China claims both Taiwan and Tibet.
Originally posted by Eddie Lee:
The only reason that Taiwan is not a member of the United Nations is because of China's bullying.
Taiwan is a legitmate talking point. China claims both Taiwan and Tibet.
Sigh....... I do not want to discuss Taiwan as there are too many valid reasons why Taiwan should be an independent country or why Taiwan is part of China
Taiwan was form by the elite ruling class of pre communist china. these elite ruling class abuse the average chinese citizen so badly that there was an uprising againts them and they flee to 'taiwan' where they plan their ambitions of taking back china.
Original Taiwan leaders consider themselves part of china that they had temporaryly loss control of.
If you are chinese, suck it up. All chinese come from China. I also believe that there are still something wrong with China but instead of speaking againts China, we should be considering ways to improve China. Only traitorous chinese who look down on their own race would side with the westerners or maybe weak will individuals who easily succum to western propaganda. You are forgiven if you are a singaporean as singaporeans are trained from young to follow all sorts of propaganda (speak mandarin campaign/ speak proper english campaign etc)
My point was that China has it's own political agenda for the Olympics.
Personally I find that just as annoying as the small group of radical protesters that have been trying to stop the traditional running of the torch.
I'm not Chinese (BTW).
To imply that all people whose ancestors come from China are traitors if they do not blindly follow the propaganda spewed out by the temporary government of mainland China. Is a narrow minded and foolish statement.
Taiwan and Tibet are both parts of China.
I will oppose those who want to split off Taiwan and Tibet away from China.
When the day comes when Lakota, Puerto Rico and other parts of USA are split off, then come and discuss about Tibet and Taiwan.
Otherwise, don't come and give me crap about Taiwan and Tibet.
I will retaliate by raising Alaska, Lakota, Hawaii and Puerto Rico.
I won't sit idlely by while others attack China using Tibet and Taiwan.
Don't forget that the USA actually belongs to England, Spain, and France (lol!)
Puerto Rico?
The majority of Puerto Ricans want to move to the US mainland.
But personally I think they should be granted independence like Cuba and the Philippines were. My biggest fear is that Puerto Rico will someday become a state and we will have even more socialists voting in US elections.
Despite what you read in Pravda the majority of Puerto Ricans have no desire to become part of Cuba. There are more people in Texas Independence movement than the Puerto Rican independence movement.
And for the record we Texans should have never joined the United States. We should have remained an independent nation. Like Taiwan is.
I don't know many Lakota Soiux but as an Ang Moh Cherokee I a consider myself an American.
I am much interested in the present and the future than I am the past.
So Eddie, you are native american in Singapore?
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:So Eddie, you are native american in Singapore?
I am mixed race, mostly white.
All my cousins on my mother's side of the family are all wagon burners :)
I don't live in S'pore full time.
If things go well with my research I hope to create 40-70 jobs in S'pore.
I am only against those who want to use tibetan issue to slap China during Oylmpics, since you do not harbour such intent, I withdraw my opposition to your views about Tibet.