Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chen Guangcheng, a Blind Activist, Escapes House Arrest in China

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by kyli View Post
    Speaking out is not risky. Trying to rally against the CCP is.
    Ok. Case in point.

    For the last decade or so, the Chinese government has been under pressure because its inability to control the flow of information. The only effective tool against internet is a complete cutoff. If you can read Chinese, you would understand that the attacks and criticism of the Chinese government are extremely common. And people are not afraid to speak out.
    My sense of the situation is that speaking out is more tolerated today than in the past, but are you prepared to say that there is no risk at all to on-line dissenters who attack the CCP and politicians who abuse their power? If so, it would be good to know what personal credentials or experience you have that supports your claim.
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

    Comment


    • #32
      [QUOTE=HKDan;871325]
      If someone managed to get a certain prize winner out of the country, you can bet your ass it wouldn't be considered "not much of a human right victory" Getting Chen out of custody, into the US, and with access to media in today's interconnected world is a clear victory. He will not cease being a pain for China when he is out of the country. Despite all the attention paid to Chinese censorship, there are and always will be ways around it. The language tricks used by Chinese netizens to get around controls are amazingly creative. The influence that Chen will have from the US will be greater than he has had while he was under house arrest simply because they will no longer be literally at his front door.

      Would the terms of the first agreement have been better? Sure. But that didn't work. That they were able to salvage something when the first deal fell apart is an achievement.
      From what perspective are you speaking? From the Chinese leadership's perspective Chen may be a pain in the rear once out of the country, but nothing like he might be in country allowed to continue his agitation thru the Chinese courts or in the streets. From the US perspective, it's a human rights victory on a tiny scale. The real human rights victory would be change within China toward dissenters. I don't see that happening any time soon, at least while technocrats and engineers run the country.

      Perhaps this was a poor example, but what I was trying to get across is that usually when there is a US/China incident, public expressions of anger towards the US for its "interference in Chinese affairs" are extremely common. In contrast, this time, Beijing News posts an apology for an anti-US editorial on Sina Weibo. I think that is significant.
      It is.
      To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

      Comment


      • #33
        [QUOTE=JAD_333;871366]
        Originally posted by HKDan View Post
        From the US perspective, it's a human rights victory on a tiny scale. The real human rights victory would be change within China toward dissenters. I don't see that happening any time soon, at least while technocrats and engineers run the country.
        A human rights victory on a tiny scale is a long way from the US stumbling, or the "Dark day for human rights" style comments that have made their way into the media over the past week regarding this incident. My entire point in this thread is not that this is a watershed event, game changer, or signals a new era of human rights in China. I am simply stating that the US can put this in the win column and carry on. Love or hate the Obama administration, in this instance, they didn't screw the pooch.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
          Hardly a matter of national security and all the DL has is a soap box (and a Rolls Royce and a Gucci watch and silk robes and servants and body guards all paid for by donations from the gullible) but not one soldier from any of the countries he visited.
          You keep harping about DL having a rolls royce or gucci watch or servants or bodyguards. What about the leaders of China and the princelings that have much more stuff than DL has such as ferraris, porsches, paid vacations and hotels, etc.

          Whether you like it or not, DL is the leader of exiled Tibetans, politically and spiritually and the exiled people have chosen to give their Leader the gifts. Do not begrudge them for if you begrudge them, then you must begrudge the entire population of China as well as your people. Your statements just makes me thing of the "h" word and it won't be directed against the DL but against you.

          Comment


          • #35
            They are princelings and they act the part with all the expectations of power, including corruption.

            They DO NOT go about pretending poverty and THE POOR ME attitude and please send an army when I don't want to do the fighting myself.

            The Chinese are willing and able to bleed for Tibet. The DL wants us to do the bleeding for his people. THAT is hypocritical, especially when he's rich enough to build his own army.
            Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 07 May 12,, 10:34.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
              My sense of the situation is that speaking out is more tolerated today than in the past, but are you prepared to say that there is no risk at all to on-line dissenters who attack the CCP and politicians who abuse their power? If so, it would be good to know what personal credentials or experience you have that supports your claim.
              There is an old Chinese proverb saying "Do not push the river, it will flow by itself." The Chinese government learned through years of experience that it is not an almighty god that can control everything and be everywhere. Things changed because it had to change.

              Are you talking about a certain group of people or the term is all inclusive. I wouldn't use the word "online dissenters" to describe all the Chinese nitizens who are feed up with corruption or have other grievances. From my observation, there are always ways to get around the censorship. Although the direct attacks on the higher officials are not tolerated, nobody can't stop you from attacking amabo rather than Obama. Most dissenters got into trouble because of direct confrontation or attempt to circulate some information that called for the end of one's party system.

              My point is if the average Chinese people want to know, they will find out what they want to know. If the average Chinese are mad, you and I would find out just simply logging into the internet.

              I am attempting to clarify a misconception. We know what the Chinese public sentiment is if we can read Chinese. The western media know what the Chinese public sentiment is. Of course, they can choose to report them or misrepresent them. The Chinese government knows what the public sentiment is because it wants to know and it has to know, but it can choose to ignore them, reject them, alleviate them, harmonize them, silence them, or confront them.
              This is hardly a sign of Chinese public sentiment. Speaking out, even on the net, is risky for the Chinese and besides there was a good deal of media censorship on the incident in China.
              The Chinese censorship is about stopping the debate that follows the event. The healthy dose debate that is critical to a society by providing feed backs to the decision-maker is clearly missing. It is the price the Chinese government is willing to pay and it is taken a toll on the society.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                They are princelings and they act the part with all the expectations of power, including corruption.

                They DO NOT go about pretending poverty and THE POOR ME attitude and please send an army when I don't want to do the fighting myself.

                The Chinese are willing and able to bleed for Tibet. The DL wants us to do the bleeding for his people. THAT is hypocritical, especially when he's rich enough to build his own army.
                You are wrong. The Tibetans have bled for Tibet. He was just too young to do anything about it and had to flee before he came into age. Not his fault. He's not rich enough to build an army. Army takes a lot of money and his population base is not big enough. He did the best next thing. He got the Tibetans to join the IA and do some work. He never does the poor me or poverty thing. As for the Chinese, they may not go around act poor but they certainly takes the cake when it comes to human rights violation and decency. The DL got nothing on the CCP and its cronies when it comes to massive human right violations. You are way off the mark on this one.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                  You are wrong. The Tibetans have bled for Tibet.
                  I've said him.

                  Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                  He was just too young to do anything about it and had to flee before he came into age.
                  So that re-incarnation thing is a whole bunch of crock then. Sorry, doesn't fly. He claims to be a god.

                  Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                  Not his fault. He's not rich enough to build an army.
                  Chechnya. Afghanistan. Nicaragua. Cuba. Angola.

                  Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                  Army takes a lot of money and his population base is not big enough.
                  Chechnya. Afghanistan. Nicaragua. Cuba. Angola.

                  Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                  He did the best next thing. He got the Tibetans to join the IA and do some work.
                  And serves his propaganda that he's a peaceful man.

                  Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                  He never does the poor me or poverty thing.
                  "I am a simple Buddhist monk — no more, no less," - DL (I am not going to call him holy anything ) April 11, 2011 NYT
                  Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                  As for the Chinese, they may not go around act poor but they certainly takes the cake when it comes to human rights violation and decency. The DL got nothing on the CCP and its cronies when it comes to massive human right violations.
                  The Chinese did more because they have more and they are more. The DL's intent is no less violent than the CCP's. People have disappeared around the DL and have you not noticed that there are no voices of descent against the DL?

                  The DL was on the CIA's payroll and he got fired, not because he would not take blood money. Those years when India turned a blind eye to the insurgency launched from India clearly state, he clearly advocated a violent solution to Chinese occupation.

                  Today, he at the very least allow riots and send his people to be mowed down by Chinese guns. When the Chinese finally learned how to respond (allow the protests to go through but arrest them later at their homes), he turned his attention to Chinese civilians and not just the Han but the Hui as well who incidentally were the original people who proclaimed this resurrection thing.

                  Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                  You are way off the mark on this one.
                  You're moving the goal posts. What I posted has nothing to do with the Chinese but how the man is a snake oil salesman who wants you to buy his charms with your armies.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    I've said him.

                    So that re-incarnation thing is a whole bunch of crock then. Sorry, doesn't fly. He claims to be a god.
                    Show me the proof that he said that he's actually a god. You must have misunderstood the meaning of reincarnation.

                    Chechnya. Afghanistan. Nicaragua. Cuba. Angola.

                    Chechnya. Afghanistan. Nicaragua. Cuba. Angola.
                    And guess what? those countries have societies completely destroyed and utterly irrevocably changed and not for the better. Cuba received massive support, in money and materials from SU and Batista was not a good military commander. DL was no military leader. He was too young. Besides, his army was only 5000 strong and in the Tibetan plateau, guerrilla tactics don't work. It is very open and flat terrain and nothing to hide behind. Great country for conventional armies.

                    And serves his propaganda that he's a peaceful man.
                    And by this standard, Gandhi would have even been worse. He supported the INA. Give me a break.




                    The Chinese did more because they have more and they are more. The DL's intent is no less violent than the CCP's.
                    You know what this sounds? An argument made by the rapist saying that the rape was the fault of the victim too.

                    People have disappeared around the DL
                    Show me proof.

                    and have you not noticed that there are no voices of descent against the DL?
                    There have been dissent against the DL, They just haven't been heard or have been strongly discredited as the work of CCP's henchmen.

                    The DL was on the CIA's payroll and he got fired, not because he would not take blood money. Those years when India turned a blind eye to the insurgency launched from India clearly state, he clearly advocated a violent solution to Chinese occupation.
                    THat was when he was still young and not in control. And yes he advocated a violent solution in the beginning like such Nelson mandela and other freedom fighters. When he realized violence or application by force would not work because Chinese army was too strong, he turned to other means. At least, he didn't go through the routes of terrorists.

                    Today, he at the very least allow riots and send his people to be mowed down by Chinese guns. When the Chinese finally learned how to respond (allow the protests to go through but arrest them later at their homes), he turned his attention to Chinese civilians and not just the Han but the Hui as well who incidentally were the original people who proclaimed this resurrection thing.
                    And be turned into a CCP stooge by stifling the people's dissent? Your naivete is quite perplexing. And Chinese should have not been mowing them down. I didn't hear you complaining about that. Of course the Chinese learned how to respond because of the world's reaction. And please explain what do you mean he has turned his attention to Chinese civlians.

                    You're moving the goal posts. What I posted has nothing to do with the Chinese but how the man is a snake oil salesman who wants you to buy his charms with your armies.
                    Bullshit! You have been the one moving the goal posts. You have consistently excused Chinese actions while holding DL's feet to the fire. If you think DL is a snake oil salesman, then the leaders of the CCP have been butchers. And no, I don't think he is a snake oil salesman, just a desperate man who has very little tools to work with. And all I know is that I would take the DL's word any day any time over the words of a CCP leader. After all, China backstabbed India with the 1962 war and DL hasn't.
                    Last edited by Blademaster; 11 May 12,, 11:40.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                      Show me the proof that he said that he's actually a god. You must have misunderstood the meaning of reincarnation.
                      HORSE PUCKEY! I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS! a bunch of kingmakers training a kid to say certain things so that they could be king makers. To the point that the kid himself believes that he's the reincarnation of past DLs. It freaking amazes me that people ask him which was his favourite drinking bowl but no one bothered to ask him why he asked the Mongols to butcher his own cities.

                      EITHER WAY! Past DL were not only military leaders, they were war leaders as well. That means for you to deny that the kid was no military leader means you deny their entire religion. You cannot have it both ways.

                      Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                      And guess what? those countries have societies completely destroyed and utterly irrevocably changed and not for the better. Cuba received massive support, in money and materials from SU and Batista was not a good military commander.
                      Tibet is gone already. It was destroyed already. So, what's the friggin difference.

                      Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                      DL was no military leader. He was too young.
                      That's not what his religion says. And therefore, that's not what his right to rule says.

                      Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                      Besides, his army was only 5000 strong and in the Tibetan plateau, guerrilla tactics don't work. It is very open and flat terrain and nothing to hide behind. Great country for conventional armies.
                      Oh give me a freaking break. Drugs and smuggling is a great past time in Tibet. There's a civil war between the red hats and the yellow hats and poaching is rampant. If violent crime can flourish, so can an insurgency.

                      Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                      And by this standard, Gandhi would have even been worse. He supported the INA. Give me a break.
                      If you want to play that game. Tell me Gandhi would have worked against Hitler or Stalin. Gandhi worked because the British were less barbaric. You actually think Gandhi would have worked against determined butchers? Well, I have news for you. Mao was a butcher.

                      Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                      You know what this sounds? An argument made by the rapist saying that the rape was the fault of the victim too.
                      This is not a court of law. This is war. Might makes right. Of all people, you should know that better than anyone else. You can cry all about the unfairness of this. In the end, there are only victors and losers and no amount of crying unfairness is going to change that. Stalin was a butcher. So was Hitler. So was Khan. So was Tammerlane. Evil men as they come. If you don't learn how to repulse their wrath or at least learn to avoid it, you will be raped and butchered. No amount of cry babying is going to change that.

                      Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                      Show me proof.
                      I know of one case in which a Chinese spy in the DL's inner circle was never heard from again.

                      Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                      There have been dissent against the DL, They just haven't been heard or have been strongly discredited as the work of CCP's henchmen.
                      You mean like the rioters who went after the Hui?

                      Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                      THat was when he was still young and not in control. And yes he advocated a violent solution in the beginning like such Nelson mandela and other freedom fighters. When he realized violence or application by force would not work because Chinese army was too strong, he turned to other means. At least, he didn't go through the routes of terrorists.
                      You mean when he learned that no one trusted him to be a military leader. Like I said, he was fired for his incompetency and India didn't stopped the Tibetan insurgency because he was winning. Make no mistake about this. The decision to stop the violent overthrow was NOT his decision.

                      Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                      And be turned into a CCP stooge by stifling the people's dissent? Your naivete is quite perplexing. And Chinese should have not been mowing them down.
                      YOUR NAIVETE IS MADDENING. Get out of your lawyer mind and get into survival mode. It's killed or be killed. This is NOT VICTIM - AGGRESSOR. This is war. One side is fighting it. The other side is a cry baby.

                      Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                      I didn't hear you complaining about that. Of course the Chinese learned how to respond because of the world's reaction.
                      I respect the gun. I don't respect chants.

                      Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                      And please explain what do you mean he has turned his attention to Chinese civlians.
                      Whose shops were burned and torched during the last riots? If you did not noticed, it was not the Chinese army nor the Chinese police who cracked down on the Tibetans the last time around. It was gangs of civilians with clubs.

                      Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                      Bullshit! You have been the one moving the goal posts. You have consistently excused Chinese actions while holding DL's feet to the fire.
                      No, you've changed. You're arguing like a lawyer. I have consistently viewed the Chinese actions as those of an OCCUPYING POWER! Keyword - POWER! I see their actions as little different than those of Genghis Khan days. I respect that power and I am willing to confront that power - on my own terns and not those of the DL.

                      In fact, on this very forum, I can drag a past thread of which you understood that. There was this Tibetan sympathizer who spouts international co-operation against China. I said when the time comes, he would not be in the front lines with the rest of us but in the back in his comfy chair egging us on.

                      You said co-operation in your school days means you get to be lazy and allow someone else to do the work. Well, there's one and only one way to end Chinese occupation of lands that they considered theirs and that is through bleeding both Tibetan and Chinese blood. I have absolutely zero respect for anyone trying to substitute Tibetan blood with Canadian, American, Indian, British, French ...

                      Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                      If you think DL is a snake oil salesman, then the leaders of the CCP have been butchers.
                      Halleluyah! He gets the point. You don't go after a grizzly bear with a petition or a court order. If you're stupid enough to do so, don't expect me come charging to your rescue.

                      Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                      And no, I don't think he is a snake oil salesman, just a desperate man who has very little tools to work with. And all I know is that I would take the DL's word any day any time over the words of a CCP leader.
                      No, you don't. I know you. You're a lawyer. Whether you like it or not, the DL has no authority to sign anything on behalf of Tibet. The CCP does. Thus, any trade deal that goes through Tibet must be signed by the CCP and not the DL.

                      Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                      After all, China backstabbed India with the 1962 war and DL hasn't.
                      And what was India's response? Crying and begging to the rest of the world about the bully? Or did she rebuild her army? And did I not analyzed and debated with Indian army officers about their effectiveness? And did I not give the edge to the Indians over the PLA?

                      Tibet is lost. The last riots cemented it. The Chinese civilians there (both Han and Hui) are not going to give up their homes without a fight. They cannot be evicted. They have to be killed. For anyone who tells you differently (the DL) is selling snake oil.
                      Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 11 May 12,, 16:09.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        bottom line is, if tibet wants independence, or even "autonomy", then tibetans must be willing to fight for it.

                        if they don't want to fight-- either because they lack the will or because they realize the ultimate futility of doing so when faced by a power a LOT stronger than whatever they can handle-- they shouldn't expect the world to do it for them.

                        and what is the dalai lama doing but trying to get the rest of the world to do what tibetans themselves are not willing to do.
                        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X