| Quote: |
In a sign of China's sensitivity to its human rights record, a Chinese dissident who called for human rights to take precedence over the Olympic Games was sentenced to five years in jail on charges of inciting subversion, his family and lawyer said yesterday.
Yang Chunlin, an unemployed factory worker, helped villagers issue a petition about disputed land last year that declared, "We don't want the Olympics, we want human rights."
Prosecutors had said the petition stained China's international image and amounted to subversion. |
Sydney Herald, 25 March
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/protesters-disrupt-beijing-torch-lighting-ceremony/2008/03/24/1206207020572.html
This is the type of situation where I think the west could really put pressure on China.
If you are going to jail people for speaking out like this then we cannot come to your Olympics. Then China can make it's own choice.
To me it seems the west is usually more interested in money than human rights. Our governments talk a lot about it but never do anything unless there is a financial gain involved. e.g. IraqThose who support this so-called boycott may also use the below image on their sites and blogs:
(via DJ DEEP-GOA's blog) I think sporters should go, you cannot ask them not to as they have trained very hard. However, I think the sporters should stay away from the festivities around the event such as the opening and closing ceremonies for example. Sport, but leave everything else.
Im all for a boycott, and would not be upset to not see the Australian team go over there
China needs to wake up to themselves and if some major countries boycotted there event and they lose BIG MONEY over it, that might help the situation
FREE TIBET
As long as China is violent against Tibet, i shall not see to the event on news or whatever. I also will agree when sporters shall not be present at the start and end events. I even should say that nobody should be present at the start of the games even the public.
| Lord Klorel wrote: |
| I even should say that nobody should be present at the start of the games even the public. |
Well, at the Chinese public will be there. I'm sure there would be severe punishment if a local group mulled over boycotting the cerimonies.For me boycott isn't the right way... no olympic games ?
Sporters trained a lot to gain medals etc.
For me all olympic comitetes should allow their sporters to manifest what they feel about China vs Tibet (now they can't because of the rules).
Even if we boycott olympic games, China will make theyr own event witch comunism countries like cuba and ppl leaving in china will come.
China gov. mastered propaganda verry well (as every comunism country) and they know what they do.
Better to go, not manifest it on olympic stadiums but when any reporter will ask "do You support Tibet" just say Yes (that will be not against olympic event rules) 
There have been half a dozen boycotts of the Olympic Games after WW II and they achieved nothing. If someone can explain to me why a boycott of the upcoming China Olympics should be in any way successful, I might consider supporting it. The chances of an Olympic boycott having any meaningful influence on human rights issues in China are about equal to the Cuban boycott by the Americans (unless the CIA got Castro with the Old-Age-Ray). If some athletes a la "Tommie Smith & John Carlos" could be found, then we might get somewhere. | b4r4t wrote: |
For me boycott isn't the right way... no olympic games ?
Sporters trained a lot to gain medals etc. |
The Olympic games are meant to celebrate the peace and harmony among all participating countries. Such things aren't found in the People's Republic of China. 
It is my opinion that the only people a boycott hurts are the athletes themselves. They go through intense training programs and give up their lives for years on end to simply represent their country and achive life long goals that you could shatter for almost no real reason. Sure there are reasons to dislike China, and I might even agree with a boycott if I felt that it would ahve any real impact or serve any real purpose, but it just won't. Sure it would be symbolic if a country doesn't show, but nothing would happen and nothing would change. Meanwhile, what could be a person's only chance to achieve a life long dedicated goal that they sweat for, bled for, and poured their body and mind into.
| ICMovement wrote: |
| Sure it would be symbolic if a country doesn't show, but nothing would happen and nothing would change. |
If you think it's ok to ignore all those problems, we can't do anything to change your mind. Nevertheless, read the Reporters Without Borders' site on Beijing 2008. | escritor wrote: |
| ICMovement wrote: | | Sure it would be symbolic if a country doesn't show, but nothing would happen and nothing would change. |
If you think it's ok to ignore all those problems, we can't do anything to change your mind. Nevertheless, read the Reporters Without Borders' site on Beijing 2008. |
I can't speak for ICmovement but since I share his opinion on this matter I might say that there is certainly something that would change my mind, namely a few good reasons why this boycott would in any way be less ineffective then the last half-dozen. Not only have past boycotts achieved nothing, they often aggravated the situation by cementing the game host's positions. There is, in my opinion, no reason for assuming that a boycott will compell China to fulfill a single "Reporters sans Frontieres" demand. On the other hand, a Chinese capital city filled with athletes, press and guests might very well result in events similar to this week's Chinese public relations disaster (see "Tibetian Monks Protests"). A boycott might allow us to pat ourselves on the back for our courageous and selfless stand (and not hurt us much where it counts, namely in our wallets), but if such a stand is to be taken seriously I would suggest that the advocates:
- ... make a list of all non-democratic nations which should be banned from international sports events (it will be a long one)
- ... not only harp on Olympia but consider the multitude of other events, from FIFA world cups to the ASIA games.
- ... restrict travel for representatives and citizens of these nations.
- ... boycott goods and services produced there.
- ... extend their demands to areas such as scientific cooperation, the IMF, cultural exchanges, patents & copyrights, and so on...
Not that this would change much if anything, but at least I would be impressed; fighting a battle for human rights on the back of athletes who are the least responsible for the status quo is a bit thin. | MaxStirner wrote: |
[*]... restrict travel for representatives and citizens of these nations.
|
Don't the citizens of such nations have too much bad times already in their own land? Why to make their life hard abroad too? The "enemy" of the pro-Tibet and Reporters Without Borders' boycotts is the Chinese government as a institution that make bad decisions, not the innocent people who suffer because of them. | escritor wrote: |
| MaxStirner wrote: |
[*]... restrict travel for representatives and citizens of these nations.
|
Don't the citizens of such nations have too much bad times already in their own land? Why to make their life hard abroad too? The "enemy" of the pro-Tibet and Reporters Without Borders' boycotts is the Chinese government as a institution that make bad decisions, not the innocent people who suffer because of them. |
Perhaps you misunderstood me. The list from which you quote is no more than a catalog of futilities, of which a boycott is only one. I no more want to make the life of Chinese people more difficult as I would want to hinder athletes in fulfilling their life-long dreams.People are assuming that the Olympics have more relevance then it actually does. If China was to hold the world cup, and then people were to start boycotting it, then that would be significant.
| LumberJack wrote: |
| People are assuming that the Olympics have more relevance then it actually does. If China was to hold the world cup, and then people were to start boycotting it, then that would be significant. |
Ah yes, the World Cup in China. I can vividly picture the German, Dutch and Brit hooligans massacred on Tiananmen Square. On the other hand, Chinese authorities had trouble curbing 30 crying monks, so who knows ...
In any case, Mr. Blatter would as soon order a hit on the Dalai Lama (do they do drive-by's in Lhasa?) as have his World Cup boycotted (McDonalds and Adidas could front the cost). | MaxStirner wrote: |
| Perhaps you misunderstood me. The list from which you quote is no more than a catalog of futilities |
I see. I'm sorry I didn't understand your figure of speech. To be honest, the other items were somewhat strange, but I really thought that was your opinion (I had written a longer reply), thus I decided to not attack each item. I was really dumb.
| LumberJack wrote: |
| People are assuming that the Olympics have more relevance then it actually does. If China was to hold the world cup, and then people were to start boycotting it, then that would be significant. |
The next cup will take place in my country. Let's see if some boycotting will happen due to violence/social problems. 
| escritor wrote: |
| ... I didn't understand your figure of speech. To be honest, the other items were somewhat strange ... |
No problem, as I have been known for strange opinions .
| escritor wrote: |
| ... The next cup will take place in my country. Let's see if some boycotting will happen due to violence/social problems ... |
I certainly don't see that happening. When the World Cup is hosted in South Africa, we will perhaps learn to deal with these issues. Crime and social inequalities have seldom been reasons for boycotting events, the last, I believe, were the Soviets at the U.S: Olympics (and that was just a revenge-boycott for the previous Moscow Games.) In any case, I don't really see a Brazilian World Cup as anything but a grand party with good sports.
Até logo
Max (<-- born in Porto Alegre)i have no idea why this thing suddenly happened when the game start soon. seem related to a lot of issues. the government of china should have a talk with them, i believe they can solve this problem. the 13 billion citizens should be proud because this is a big game. in my country also don't have this kind of chance. a chance to tell the world, this is no the 50 years ago - china....
Well, I strongly support Tibetan independence but I am against boycotting the Olympic Games because the sportsmen have been preparing and training for a very long time and it would be very unfair to take away the chance of winning a medal. But I think that no government should forbid expressing sportsmen's own opinions and worldviews.
Generally, I recon that China should not be awarded to organize Olympic Games at all.
| myroom wrote: |
| the 13 billion citizens should be proud because this is a big game. |
According to CountTheWorld, there are less than seven billion people in the world.There has been a lot of argument about the effectiveness of a boycott, which is certainly an important consideration, and yet little talk of the moral perspective of participating in an Olympics which is and will be used by the Chinese government to celebrate and legitimise their position in the world scene.
I agree that the athletes have the most to lose by a boycott but that does not legitimise their attendance, it merely makes their choice more difficult.
If they had nothing to lose would that attend or boycott?
Regardless of the cost to ourselves our answer should be the same if we value our morality.
How about the athletes attending but countries organising a boycott of spectators?
That may be a solution which prevents the athletes from having to sacrifice their career and yet still sends a political and economic message to China that the world does not condone their actions.
Another possibility would be news organisations how are not allowed to send reporters to Tibet and other areas of China refuse to report on the Olympics. It may not be effective in a measurable way but I believe that the overall effect will be to put pressure on the Chinese government top implement change as China clearly wants to become an accepted member of the international community and it must realise that it must meet the standards of that community to do so.
We must not allow them the benefits without the cost.
Please visit http://www.anti-cnn.com to know more about Tibet,
Most of you poor guys are deluded by your so-called candid media,
You don't even have a basic right to know the truth before you speak out you funny statement.
You....... funny and ignorant | bartdou wrote: |
Please visit http://www.anti-cnn.com to know more about Tibet,
Most of you poor guys are deluded by your so-called candid media,
You don't even have a basic right to know the truth before you speak out you funny statement.
You....... funny and ignorant |
Since you are not quoting anyone in particular, I must assume I am one of the "poor, funny, deluted (sic), ignoramuses" you are referring to. Picking the only one phrase from your post which seems to have some content, I will assume "candid media" means "truthful media": You seem to be suggesting that the media is not always reporting events objectively. The cropped image from CNN (in the somewhat tendentious link you have provided) has made the rounds (including a clarification on CNN) and is not really news at all, the same applies to the "Spiegel" content. and complaining about erroneous content in the "Bild" paper, a populist, yellow press rag in Germany is superfluous.
No, no one has "the basic right to know the truth" but I've read enough posts (incl. my own) in this and many other threads complaining about deficits in reporting truthfully on any number of subjects. Having said that, I still prefer believing the NY Times, Frankfurter Allgemeine or Washington Post than the state run media of an oppressive government, and if I see whole provinces or nations expelling reporters, be it North Korea, Zimbabwe or Tibet, I do tend to assume that there is a reason for doing so: namely an attempt to hide human rights violations, election fraud or genocide. If you wish to allay doubts about this, then try using arguments instead of insults and a 24pt font size. | escritor wrote: |
| ... The next cup will take place in my country. Let's see if some boycotting will happen due to violence/social problems ... |
| MaxStirner wrote: |
| I don't really see a Brazilian World Cup as anything but a grand party with good sports. |
I was really talking about Brazil. People, please forgive me for forgetting the upcoming South Africa cup. 
i think the olymic games are allocated to a country something like 10 or 12 years in advance.
countries / cities apply and a slection process takes place.
national olympic committees vote - amongst furious lobbying by business and politicians alike - and the games are allocated.
surely the conditions in china have not changed that much between the award and now - either way.
so any protests should have taken place then not now.
or am i missing something here?
cheers
| icecool wrote: |
surely the conditions in china have not changed that much between the award and now - either way.
so any protests should have taken place then not now.
|
Very true. What if it wasn't going to host the games? Would there be so many protests? | icecool wrote: |
... i think the Olympic games are allocated to a country something like 10 or 12 years in advance. ...
... surely the conditions in china have not changed that much between the award and now - either way. ... |
I believe the selection process for the 2016 Olympics (after London 2012) will begin after Beijing so the preparation period should be about 7 years or so, but I get your point: You are correct that (political) conditions have not changed measurably in China since it was selected for the 2008 games, but the IOC did lay down some ground rules and expectations of which changes were expected in the years leading up to the Olympics.
I am firmly opposed to a boycott but will readily admit that China has not made good on most of these:
- improving administration of law and quality of law enforcement
- protection of minority nationalities rights
- compliance with international standards (incl. labor laws) during the construction of Olympic venues and compensation for displaced persons (due to building activities)
- providing free media coverage available to all (including the Chinese population)
- allowing for peaceful demonstrations
- complete press freedom (and unrestricted access)
- ensuring "green" Olympics incl. fighting air and water pollution
- ...
Regrettably (but probably purposefully) these conditions were formulated so inexactly and loosely by the IOC that China has no trouble in finessing around some of these items which they surely never intended to address anyway.
China's Olympic Report CardNi hao, xixilee.
| xixilee wrote: |
| but but i love beijing!!! |
That's it. People care so much and not all Chinese themselves complain about their situation. | escritor wrote: |
Ni hao, xixilee.
| xixilee wrote: | | but but i love beijing!!! |
That's it. People care so much and not all Chinese themselves complain about their situation. |
There are obviously many well off and happy Chinese, also many poor and happy Chinese.
One thing I have found living in Indonesia, which also has poor human rights, is that those who are poor and not so happy rarely complain about their situation. They have learnt through long experience that it achieves nothing in this sort of regime and attracting attention to yourself is usually a dangerous thing to do.
Also those who are a little better off prefer to pretend everything is fine.I hope athletes of every countries could send a message to Chinese government and that their attiutudes against Tibetian activist could change therefore.
This is my hope for this Games
With the recent news of the disruptions with the torch run and everything. It really gets to me that, those people just don't see, the Olympics is not where they should decide they need to get back at China for their supposed violence and whatnot. The Olympics isn't about the country, it's about the sports and the athletes.
And in regards to what's happening in China and Tibet. As a policy of mine, I never decide on something solely from what I hear from the media. Have the "righteous" protesters personally been to China and Tibet and witnessed what happened? Personally, I think, many protesters at those torch paths did it because they decided it was fun to just...be a part of any protest. Getting international attention and all.
Even for those who were sincerely concerned for the human rights problems in China, again, how many of them witnessed things first hand? And even if their concerns were for good reason, did they really think trying to steal the torch from a handicapped carrier is really gonna change anything? -_-
*sighs* So, boycotting the Olympics would be a very childish move indeed.
Aiz, being strongly opposed to a boycott myself, and generally agreeing with the IOC's policy of political neutrality as well as the prohibition of political statements by athletes during the events and ceremonies, I can generally agree with many of your points.
I can even, to some extent, agree with your criticism of the motivations of a number of protesters during the Olympic flame runs in London and Paris, but to claim that only first-hand knowledge of an event would allow one to form a valid opinion is overreaching. I am certainly often critical of the media, especially non-print media which often seems shallower than others, but I believe I can differentiate sufficiently in order to form an educated, objective opinion on international events, even if I have not been present to gather first-hand impressions.
I am intrigued by the argument that the Olympics is not about politics or human rights, but about sport and the athletes.
To take this argument to it's logical extreme then if the Olympics where to be held in a country which carried out executions of political agitators, adulterers, gays and other unsavory characters in an adjacent stadium then that would be OK. the Olympic committee, athletes and spectators should not get involved in those issues after all.
To me this is ridiculous, it is purely a matter of degree. When do we stand up against the violators of human rights and when do we just turn a blind eye.
The truth is that this is the only real decision involved here.
Obviously we can't call for boycotts over every minor violation of human rights, after all even our western democracies violate these rights.
Where will we draw the line
For some China has crossed it, for others not.
But don't tell me that the Olympics is not about human rights or democracy. As responsible members of the human race we all must consider the consequences of our actions or non action, including Olympic athletes, committees and spectators.
Dan wrote on anti-cnn.com to Chinese:
| Quote: |
| Hello, I'm a Westerner too. Writing from Spain. I'm a fan of China, I love your beautiful country so much. I study Chinese and I'd like to live in China for some years. I comdemn these Tibetan TERRORISTS who are killing Han people. I hate terrorists, my country has suffered terrorism too. Blame those murderers!!! Big support!! I'm so sad because 99% of people in my homeland are totally brainwashed against China. If you love your country you have to do a big effort to show the truth to the whole mankind. Notice that in most Western TV channels all images about separatist violence are CENSORED, people don't know anything about this. The TV tell us that all killed demonstrators are Tibetans killed by the Chinese army. They sometimes say that mobs are doing bad things, but they pay so little attention to that fact that most people miss it. What everybody is keeping in mind is that Dalai rioters are peaceful people being oppressed by Chinese army. They also say that Tibet was invaded by Mao Zedong, as if it hadn't been a part of China ever before.They tell so many lies, you can't imagine. All the time! This is an international complot against China. In my opinion our governors are educating the masses to hate China, there isn't any other reason as far as I can imagine. They want all Westerns to believe that China is an evil empire, a giant version of North Korea. Deal with this, the West hates China. I'm sorry to say this, but that's the truth. Most people used to think that China is an amazing country with its old culture, etc. We are missing all that. Now we are being educated to think that China is only bad things. We NEVER, NEVER, NEVER watch good news from China. Only bad things, totally biased. Deal with it, and get used to this hate asap, because we can't stop it. I really think that the West is a threat for China, you better get used to that. The dream of the Western governments is seeing China totally destroyed, seeing Chinese economy ****** so that your country stay poor forever and the West can go on eating all the resources in earth. The West doesn't want to share wealth with 1300M Chinese, that's why our governments want to fu~~ck China. |
Last edited by bartdou on Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:05 pm; edited 2 times in total | Quote: |
| I agree with everything you said. The problem is that Spanish people don't have a real opinion about anything. They just sit in front of the TV and listen what they guy says, that's how they "learn" about the world. If the guy says that China has killed 1 million Tibetans, they'll believe it all. It is the same in most Western countries, but here it looks to be much worse. Western Democracy kills people's brain. We are supposed to live in absolute "freedom". So... why should we doubt about our system? Isn't it perfect freedom?? We are supposed to live in absolute "freedom of speech". So... why should we doubt about what we read/watch on our "free media"? Etc, etc. Democracy has become a religion, and everybody must trust the democratic system, the tv and the newspapers. If you don't... you hate freedom, lol. That's why it is so easy to make the whole society to hate China. Fortunately, a very few of us love something out of the West too much, so that we can see that everything is a huge lie. In my case, I love China. Reading a lot about China and talking to Chinese friends made me seeing my Western world with another perspective. I realized tha the West isn't better than China. The only difference is that we are economically developed. We are developed thanks to market economy, not thanks to democracy. Market economy makes countries rich, not democracy. After visiting China for study, I saw that people there has the same freedom as us. Maybe even more, as you can walk around at nights in China. In the West, you might be killed thanks to huge crime rates. Also, there is so few drugs in China. In the West, kills are offered all kind of drugs at school!! This is our Freedom!! In China you see so little violence on the TV. In the West, families (parents, kids, elders) enjoy their dinner while they watch terrible movies where people are raped, killed, etc with a lot of blood!! That's why Westerners love wars and violence so much, because we are educated to accept all violence as normal on the TV every day. After China becomes a developed country, many, many Westerners will move to China, you'll see... I'll move to China as soon as I finish my studies if I can. After some years, I'm starting to feel something special. China is not only as good as the Western democracy, it might be even better. China is growing fast, developing fast, you have so many problems, I know. China has many huge problems, yea. But almost every big problem in China is caused by undevelopment, right? When you become a rich country almost every serious problem will be solved, true?. Anyway, in almost every aspect China is far better than any "democratic" country with a similar level of development (India, Latin America,etc). I'm starting to believe that when China becomes a rich country it will be much better than the West in most aspects too. Listen to me, Chinese friends. Our "freedom" is a lie. In every Western country, most youngs take drugs and drink every weekend. Crime is huge. People don't have any hope in the future. We know we are rich thanks to what we stole to the rest of the world in the last century. We know that after 50 years we will be nothing because China and other countries are growing a lot. Our system doesn't work, it is a big lie, and nobody dares to speak and even to think about changing our beloved democracy. In Europe people don't have kids, we wil be a continent of elders by 2050. Many foreigners are coming from everywhere, otherwise our countries would collapse. There is a lot of racism growing everywhere. When muslims want to build a temple, there are violent riots. Some European countries (including mine) want to BAN muslim clothes so that muslum girls can't cover their hair. Is this freedom? In China nobody would ban this, never! Western freedom is a huge lie. Democracy is a huge lie. Just because we enclose a paper in a box once every 4 years we haven't more freedom than China. Please don't believe this, if China becomes a Western style democracy you'll kill China, you'll kill your country. Democracy looks like old Communism, when you read about it, it is wonderful, but in the real world it is shit. We don't have real freedom, we don't have anything, just propaganda. Just look at Taiwan province. In Taiwan they have Western democracy, now Taiwan is crazy, they have fights in the parliament like kids, they had a xenophobic president for years who banned immigrants from the Mainland and **ed the economy. And 3 million Taiwanese moved to the Mainland, which is poorer!!! Isn't this crazy??? People use to move to richer places, not reverse! That shows you what would happen if the whole China had Western democracy. Self destruction!!! I don't know how to explain the proportions of the Democracy myth. It is exactly like Communist Russia. It looks powerful from outside and inside, Russian people believed that their Communism was great too just until a few months before it collapsed. It is the same in the West. Everything is a big lie. And you know we are starting a huge economic crisis, while China keeps growing 10%! I don't know what will happen, I hope I can move to Shanghai soon. I'll tell you something about economic development. The West has a huge recent past about economic wealth, and no future. China is the opposite. This century is yours, not only because you are growing, but because we have no future. I only hope the Western governors dont try to sink China too so that the West doesn't sink alone. |
Well, without wishing to get involved in a 'tit for tat' exchange about China, I'll just address the one issue raised in that posting about Tibetan history.
Tibet has NOT always been part of China. The first time that China claimed sovereignty over Tibet was in 1904 in response to the British invasion of the territory. Prior to that time Tibet was an independant kingdom, since then it's status has been disputed.
It is also a fact at the Maoist government was responsible for the invasion of Tibet in 1950 - like it or not. A case can be made that the invasion actually produced some good - slavery was abolished and the existing system of serfdom was also phased out. Denying that it happened, however, is silly.
On a more personal note, I don't think that the media here in the UK is rabidly anti-China. Many people would actually argue the reverse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tibet | Bikerman wrote: |
Well, without wishing to get involved in a 'tit for tat' exchange about China, I'll just address the one issue raised in that posting about Tibetan history.
Tibet has NOT always been part of China. The first time that China claimed sovereignty over Tibet was in 1904 in response to the British invasion of the territory. Prior to that time Tibet was an independant kingdom, since then it's status has been disputed.
It is also a fact at the Maoist government was responsible for the invasion of Tibet in 1950 - like it or not. A case can be made that the invasion actually produced some good - slavery was abolished and the existing system of serfdom was also phased out. Denying that it happened, however, is silly.
On a more personal note, I don't think that the media here in the UK is rabidly anti-China. Many people would actually argue the reverse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tibet |
Yeah, like it or not, sikipedia is based on all common people among whom 99% are totally brainwashed against China, you are one of these 99% | bartdou wrote: |
| Yeah, like it or not, sikipedia is based on all common people among whom 99% are totally brainwashed against China, you are one of these 99% |
LOL...you just destroyed any credibility that you might have previously had. The history of Tibet is well documented - do your own research if you doubt the wiki article. If you read my posting again you will see that it is not at all anti-Chinese, for the very good reason that I am not anti-China myself.
Your knee-jerk reaction to a perfectly reasonable posting says much more about you than it does about me. | Bikerman wrote: |
Well, without wishing to get involved in a 'tit for tat' exchange about China, I'll just address the one issue raised in that posting about Tibetan history.
Tibet has NOT always been part of China. The first time that China claimed sovereignty over Tibet was in 1904 in response to the British invasion of the territory. Prior to that time Tibet was an independant kingdom, since then it's status has been disputed.
It is also a fact at the Maoist government was responsible for the invasion of Tibet in 1950 - like it or not. A case can be made that the invasion actually produced some good - slavery was abolished and the existing system of serfdom was also phased out. Denying that it happened, however, is silly.
On a more personal note, I don't think that the media here in the UK is rabidly anti-China. Many people would actually argue the reverse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tibet |
Well well, I won't blame you for knowing less about history, also no wonder that Chinese history is so long for most of you guys to understand, more than 5000 years as a country, a myth for you? How long is the history of USA? 200 years?
Tibet has been part of China for almost thousands of years since Yuan Dynasty(1217AD~1368AD), BEFORE US/Canada/AUS/NewZealand were found by the Europeans. Once you guys out of North America/Occeania and free the natives you are qualified for to say this.
how funny you are~~ incredible... | Bikerman wrote: |
| bartdou wrote: | | Yeah, like it or not, sikipedia is based on all common people among whom 99% are totally brainwashed against China, you are one of these 99% |
LOL...you just destroyed any credibility that you might have previously had. The history of Tibet is well documented - do your own research if you doubt the wiki article. If you read my posting again you will see that it is not at all anti-Chinese, for the very good reason that I am not anti-China myself.
Your knee-jerk reaction to a perfectly reasonable posting says much more about you than it does about me. |
I knew you were not at all anti-Chinese, I just corret your misleaded opinion, sikipedia is over-opened and not precise at all, overreliance on it is not a smart choice to a man whose has his own brain and thinking~~~ | bartdou wrote: |
Well well, I won't blame you for knowing less about history, also no wonder that Chinese history is so long for most of you guys to understand, more than 5000 years as a country, a myth for you? How long is the history of USA? 200 years?
Tibet has been part of China for almost thousands of years since Yuan Dynasty(1217AD~1368AD), BEFORE US/Canada/AUS/NewZealand were found by the Europeans. Once you guys out of North America/Occeania and free the natives you are qualified for to say this.
how funny you are~~ incredible... |
Once again with the knee jerk.
I'm not a US citizen - I'm British. We have a slightly longer history, though not, I agree, as long as that of China.
Do you think that the fact that your country has a longer recorded history means that YOU have a greater knowledge of history? That would seem to me to be a non sequeter....
The history of Tibet is setout very comprehensively in the article I referenced. As I said, Tibet has NOT always been Chinese sovereign territory - what part of that statement do you not understand?
India was, at one time, British sovereign territory. Are you suggesting that the UK still owns India? Boundaries and rulers change - that is the nature of things. China has been in control of Tibet at various stages of history and Tibet has been independent at other stages. From 7th to 11th century, for example, Tibet was an empire in its own right. How far do you want to go back in history and what purpose would that serve? | bartdou wrote: |
| I knew you were not at all anti-Chinese, I just corret your misleaded opinion, sikipedia is over-opened and not precise at all, overreliance on it is not a smart choice to a man whose has his own brain and thinking~~~ |
If you want to correct misleading information then do so. What errors are contained in the wiki reference? Be specific. I do not rely on wiki completely but I find it a useful reference and do use it frequently. If you are saying that the entry on Tibet is wrong then prove it, otherwise it's just verbiage. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Boundaries and rulers change - that is the nature of things. China has been in control of Tibet at various stages of history and Tibet has been independent at other stages. From 7th to 11th century, for example, Tibet was an empire in its own right. How far do you want to go back in history and what purpose would that serve? |
"How far do you want to go back in history and what purpose would that serve?"
Since so, do not go back in history for even one minutes,
at the moment, Tibet belongs to China, not mention that "Tibet has NOT always been part of China", because "what purpose would that serve?"
we go back to the time before human exists, every single place is free, so what meaning do we talk about this have??
Last edited by bartdou on Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:13 pm; edited 1 time in total | Bikerman wrote: |
| bartdou wrote: | | I knew you were not at all anti-Chinese, I just corret your misleaded opinion, sikipedia is over-opened and not precise at all, overreliance on it is not a smart choice to a man whose has his own brain and thinking~~~ |
If you want to correct misleading information then do so. What errors are contained in the wiki reference? Be specific. I do not rely on wiki completely but I find it a useful reference and do use it frequently. If you are saying that the entry on Tibet is wrong then prove it, otherwise it's just verbiage. |
Oi Bikerman, you wouldn't get away with an attitude like that at university / any academic setting... and you know it. You are responsible to make your statements credible, and it's been proven often enough that Wikipedia is not so reliable.
Think I'd get away with a paper citing Wikipedia as reference, then telling the prof to prove it wrong? That costs major credibility. | bartdou wrote: |
| we go back to the time before human exists, every single place is free, so what meaning do we talk about this have?? |
I don't really understand what you are saying. I presume your meaning is that since China currently claims Tibet then we should abide by the status-quo? I do not accept that this is a valid argument. Using the same argument you could say that much of Africa, India and China itself should still be British. | Arnie wrote: |
Oi Bikerman, you wouldn't get away with an attitude like that at university / any academic setting... and you know it. You are responsible to make your statements credible, and it's been proven often enough that Wikipedia is not so reliable.
Think I'd get away with a paper citing Wikipedia as reference, then telling the prof to prove it wrong? That costs major credibility. |
What are you talking about? I cited the wiki reference and I believe it is accurate. If you believe it is inaccurate then show me evidence to prove it. This is normal in academia - you cite a source and it is then open for critics to cite counter evidence.
If you have a problem with that then, OK, here's some secondary sources;
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=aa71
http://www.tibettravel.info/tibet-history/
http://cc.purdue.edu/~wtv/tibet/history.html
If you can tell me where these (or other sources) contradict the wiki article then I'd be happy to hear it.
The wiki article contains a fairly comprehensive bibliography - if you are suggesting that I should have personally read each entry then, yes, if I was submitting a thesis on the matter that would be required. I am not doing so, however, so I don't think it is necessary in this case.
Last edited by Bikerman on Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:28 pm; edited 1 time in totalThe Olympic Games are a symbol of peace and harmony... Despite war, disagreements, etc.. It's a time where people put down their hatred and treat others as human. To boycott that, IMHO seems the exact opposite of what needs to be done. =(
@Bikerman:
Well, let's just say I would never use Wikipedia in anything serious I'm publishing. It wouldn't be accepted, at least not at my university.
Of course random people on the Internet use it in their daily random discussions, but I had a different impression of you.
| Arnie wrote: |
@Bikerman:
Well, let's just say I would never use Wikipedia in anything serious I'm publishing. It wouldn't be accepted, at least not at my university.
Of course random people on the Internet use it in their daily random discussions, but I had a different impression of you. |
As I said, I'm not publishing an academic thesis here, merely trying to inform discussion. If I were publishing a paper on the matter then, yes, I would be careful about checking historical sources. I don't think, however, that this level of academic rigour is called for here. I believe that the wiki article is fair and balanced and is therefore a useful reference. History is not my specialism so I have to rely on commentary for my information - I try to ensure that such commentary is accurate, normally by checking the bibliography and sources - and in this case the article seems sound. | Bikerman wrote: |
| bartdou wrote: | | we go back to the time before human exists, every single place is free, so what meaning do we talk about this have?? |
I don't really understand what you are saying. I presume your meaning is that since China currently claims Tibet then we should abide by the status-quo? I do not accept that this is a valid argument. Using the same argument you could say that much of Africa, India and China itself should still be British. |
"Boundaries and rulers change - that is the nature of things. "
Tibet is not always be under the control of China, so were India, Africa...of British,
But NOW Tibet is, if Tibet is able to get out of this control, it does, if it doesn't have this ability, just be one province of China, history can't mean anything, the key is what you can do now!
china is not be british not because british not want china to be of it, but because china did something to make itselt not be of british, and tibet is doing this kind of thing too, succeed? we can't know the answer at the moment.
By the way, Olympic belongs to all the people in the world, it's a good thing for human, not people in which country.
Oh I'm tired, It's Beijing time 2:30am, I must go to sleep, and my English is poor to understand and express totally, so sorry...The problem with Wikipedia here is basically this. | bartdou wrote: |
"Boundaries and rulers change - that is the nature of things. "
Tibet is not always be under the control of China, so were India, Africa...of British,
But NOW Tibet is, if Tibet is able to get out of this control, it does, if it doesn't have this ability, just be one province of China, history can't mean anything, the key is what you can do now!
china is not be british not because british not want china to be of it, but because china did something to make itselt not be of british, and tibet is doing this kind of thing too, succeed? |
Now I'm really confused. You appear to be saying that if the Tibetans want independence then it should be granted. Is that fair? In that case surely the protests are justified since, after all, that is how China itself gained independence from Britain? Surely the thing to do would be to ask the Tibetans themselves via a referrendum. If this is what you are proposing then I see no dispute between us. | Arnie wrote: |
| The problem with Wikipedia here is basically this. |
Would you cite the urban dictionary in an academic thesis?
I agree that wiki cannot always be relied upon for unbiased information. That is why I always read any citation before making it and try (to the best of my own ability) to ensure that it is fair and unbiased.I certainly cited urbandictionary, but as an object of study, not as a source 
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Now I'm really confused. You appear to be saying that if the Tibetans want independence then it should be granted. Is that fair? In that case surely the protests are justified since, after all, that is how China itself gained independence from Britain? Surely the thing to do would be to ask the Tibetans themselves via a referrendum. If this is what you are proposing then I see no dispute between us. |
As a Chinese, I say Tibet can not be independent.
but there's no so called GOOD man or BAD man in the world, every man, every race has his rights to say and gain something. I'm a Chinese and I said something as a Chinese, but I still can say something not as a Chinese sometimes not formally.
sorry for making you confused...because i'm tired.
thanks for your dispute. | bartdou wrote: |
As a Chinese, Tibet can not be independent.
but there's no so called GOOD man or BAD man in the world, every man, every race has his rights to say and gain something. I'm a Chinese and I said something as a Chinese, but I still can say something not as a Chinese sometimes not formally.
sorry for making you confused...because i'm tired.
thanks for your dispute. |
Now I'm completely confused.
I always like to apply the principle of universality when confronted with issues like this (what is good for one is good for all, simply put). So, using the above argument, I would presumably have to say 'as a Britisher' that India, China and most of Africa should not be independent?
Why do you have to say something 'as a Chinese'? Why do you not simply say what you believe? Is it necessary to speak formally as a 'Chinese' person? That seems a strange distinction to me unless you fear reprisals.
The question is quite simple - do you believe that Tibetans should have the right to self-determination? Do you believe that, if a majority support it, the Tibetan people should be allowed to declare independence from China and govern themselves? | Arnie wrote: |
| I certainly cited urbandictionary, but as an object of study, not as a source |
Well, we could debate that, but I suspect that would distract from the main topic so we'll have to save that for another time. Suffice it to say that, yes, I agree that wiki should not be used as a primary source in academic debate but no, I don't think it is out of order to use it in discussion fora providing one first exercises 'due dilligence'.San Francisco running of the torch was a lot more peaceful than I expected =O
Probably because they completely rerouted the running. I t never even left the start line.
It was taken by car a couple of miles away and then went on a new route away from the spectators and protesters to a changed destination, so the whole event was rather pointless.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/san-francisco-olympic-relay-chaos/2008/04/10/1207420521253.html Better than getting people mauled over a torch =O
It's not like the yankee, french, german or even argentinian ever had any sort of problem with continuated human rights abuse; some of the above countries actually have a long tradition of practicing mass murder and torture, and never was that an excuse for screwing a huge festival of any kind.
In some cases it's even been thought as a relief of sorts, and I think that's great.
Last edited by PMK-Bear on Thu Apr 10, 2008 5:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
Im for the boycott, it doesn't seem fair that the world turn their back on suffering people that are butchered on the streets, people that live under a communist regime, all the animals suffering (the place has to be 'cleared' for the Olympics, doesn't it?) and of course, people can't forget other, quite vexing matters of China, the dreaded One Child Policy in par with Chinese culture makes people literally throw out baby girls, because women in China are still only slightly better than animals, whereas boys can inherit the family holdings, a woman is but a maid, so the whole family loses on the birth of a girl. And this phenomenon reaches thousands victims.
Yup, I don't like China, because they do not respect human freedom.
I support the independence of Tibet since the day I watched Seven Years in Tibet. I recommend it to everyone who is interested in learning about that country. I'm for the boycott.
I actually think it's rediculous that a Communist country was even considered for hosting the Olympic Games.
The Olympic Games are supposed to represent peace an unity, a direct contradiction to The Peoples' Republic of China ... and their occupation of Tibet.
*Sighs*
But it's been said, the previous boycotts didn't work -- why would this one?
I'll say one thing: We're (the US since that's what I know best) walking an extremely fine line right now. I'm all for ending the oppression the Chinese government has been causing, but we have to be careful. They do own like 3/4 of the US lol And I wouldn't personally want to piss them off. I can't say I think boycotts or threats of any nature will change things for the better.
| Soulfire wrote: |
I'm for the boycott.
I actually think it's rediculous that a Communist country was even considered for hosting the Olympic Games.
The Olympic Games are supposed to represent peace an unity, a direct contradiction to The Peoples' Republic of China ... and their occupation of Tibet.
*Sighs*
But it's been said, the previous boycotts didn't work -- why would this one? |
One major reason for the Olympics and the IOC attempting to remain as unpolitical as possible, is simply that there are so many member nations with legitimate (and less legitimate) grievances who would gladly use this sports event as a platform to voice their opinions. If you would refrain from letting non-democratic governments host the Olympics, then the next step would probably be restricting the participation. If you want to disqualify nations who condone torture, who deny prisoners legal representation and fair (or any!) trial, who still hold executions, who practice wars of aggression, then a case could even be made against the 2002 Salt Lake City winter Olympics. I know that I am being facetious (but only to an extent), but if you make the Olympics "political", you won't have one event not marred by protests. Boycotts, blockades, trade sanctions, the canceling of treaties, the resignation / non-participation in international organizations, the breaking off of international talks, the withdrawal of diplomatic representation, ... all are both childish and are evidence of incapacity, and will only lead to problems being solved by other means, ultimately military ones.^What all those people should do then? I think first of all the decison to hold olympics in china is partial. If that has not taken place in first hand then this hue and cry would not have imerged. Olympics is not a regional sport ceremony it takes place on global level. Even though as protesting is concerned the decision can be taken place by every nation individually.
In my opinion the countries contesting for medals in sports should call of their participants and call for a different locale for organizing the event, but this in reality would be very difficult to follow!!
I agree that it was a huge mistake to give Olympics to China in first place.
It's obvious that some countries are not appropriate candidates for Olympics.
Now that the mistake has been done for political / commercial reasons, I think it is not fair for the athlets to boycott it because for many competitors it maybe their only chance to participate in their life. And anyway boycott will not help to improve the situation in Tibet. Maybe they will stop the killing during one month but will start again after.
What we can only hope is that CIO will never give again the Olympics to a dictature.
The headlines of the international sports section of yesterday's newspaper was "Pollution is new China's Tibet". They have more trouble to think about than controlling the rebel monks. we know the truth, is enouth.......
http://vhead.blog.sina.com.cn/player/outer_player.swf?auto=0&vid=12417440&uid=1401913474
P.S. Plz let me know if you can see this vidio, thx | Quote: |
¡¡¡¡When We were called Sick man of Asia, We were called The Peril.
¡¡¡¡When We are billed to be the next Superpower, We are called The threat.
¡¡¡¡
¡¡¡¡When We were closed our doors, You smuggled Drugs to Open Markets.
¡¡¡¡When We Embrace Freed Trade, You blame us for Taking away your jobs.
¡¡¡¡
¡¡¡¡When We were falling apart, You marched in your troops and wanted your "fair share".
¡¡¡¡When We were putting the broken peices together again, "Free Tibet" you screamed, "it was an invasion!"
¡¡¡¡( When Woodrow Wilson Couldn't give back Birth Place of Confucius back to Us,
¡¡¡¡But He did bought a ticket for the Famine Relief Ball for us.)
¡¡¡¡
¡¡¡¡So, We Tried Communism, You hated us for being Communists
¡¡¡¡When We embrace Capitalism, You hate us for being Capitalist.
¡¡¡¡
¡¡¡¡When We have a Billion People, you said we were destroying the planet.
¡¡¡¡When We are tried limited our numbers, you said It was human rights abuse.
¡¡¡¡When We were Poor, You think we are dogs.
¡¡¡¡When We Loan you cash, You blame us for your debts.
¡¡¡¡
¡¡¡¡When We build our industries, You called us Polluters.
¡¡¡¡When we sell you goods, You blame us for global warming.
¡¡¡¡
¡¡¡¡When We buy oil, You called that exploitation and Genocide.
¡¡¡¡When You fight for oil, You called that Liberation.
¡¡¡¡
¡¡¡¡When We were lost in Chaos and rampage, You wanted Rules of Law for us.
¡¡¡¡When We uphold law and order against Violence, You called that Violating Human Rights.
¡¡¡¡
¡¡¡¡When We were silent, You said you want us to have Free Speech.
¡¡¡¡When We were silent no more, You say we were Brainwashed-Xenophoics.
¡¡¡¡
¡¡¡¡Why do you hate us so much? We asked.
¡¡¡¡"No," You Answered, "We don't hate You."
¡¡¡¡
¡¡¡¡We don't Hate You either,
¡¡¡¡But Do you understand us?
¡¡¡¡
¡¡¡¡"Of course We do," You said,
¡¡¡¡"We have AFP, CNN and BBCs..."
¡¡¡¡
¡¡¡¡What do you really want from us?
¡¡¡¡Think Hard first, then Answer...
¡¡¡¡
¡¡¡¡Because you only get so many chances,
¡¡¡¡Enough is Enough, Enough Hypocrisy for this one world.
¡¡¡¡
¡¡¡¡We want One World, One Dream, And Peace On Earth.
¡¡¡¡- This Big Blue Earth is Big Enough for all of Us.
|
The solution here is rather simple (which doesn't mean easy): stop butchering monks and there's not going to be any public outcry.
When USA citizens sterilized a third of Bolivia's aborigins for the right to their land, noone even complained. but people did complain when some aborigins began castrating the above mentioned USA citizens with unsharp instruments. Nor did anyone actually care when the Holodomor happened.
Evidently it's not the outcome that's important, just the methods.
NOTE: "Anyone" or "Noone" in this case means worldwide attention; it's not like holodomor victims didn't give a damn about dying of starvation in the streets.
| bartdou wrote: |
| Quote: |
¡¡¡¡When We were called Sick man of Asia, We were called The Peril.
¡¡¡¡When We are billed to be the next Superpower, We are called The threat.
¡¡¡¡
¡¡¡¡When We were closed our doors, You smuggled Drugs to Open Markets.
¡¡¡¡When We Embrace Freed Trade, You blame us for Taking away your jobs.
¡¡¡¡
¡¡¡¡When We were falling apart, You marched in your troops and wanted your "fair share".
¡¡¡¡When We were putting the broken pieces together again, "Free Tibet" you screamed, "it was an invasion!"
etc etc etc
¡¡¡¡
¡¡¡¡What do you really want from us?
¡¡¡¡Think Hard first, then Answer...
¡¡¡¡
¡¡¡¡Because you only get so many chances,
¡¡¡¡Enough is Enough, Enough Hypocrisy for this one world.
¡¡¡¡
¡¡¡¡We want One World, One Dream, And Peace On Earth.
¡¡¡¡- This Big Blue Earth is Big Enough for all of Us.
|
|
Bottom line is this.
No country is perfect, but some are better than others.
How many people try to enter the USA illegally because they believe it is a great place to live?
How many try to enter China legally or illegally because they believe it is a great place to live?
How many people are thrown in prison each year in the USA for criticizing the government?
How many people are thrown in prison each year in China for criticizing the government?
How many areas of the USA are off limit's to tourists, foreigners or journalists?
How many areas of China are off limit's to tourists, foreigners or journalists?
How many independent newspapers are there in the USA?
How many independent newspapers are there in China?
I could go on like this for ever comparing China with many western countries.
No one in their right mind would try to say that China can match the freedom and basic human rights of western countries.
Also those who protest about China, in many cases, also protest the human rights violations which occur in their own countries. Something for which Chinese citizens are arrested for if they try.
This world is far from perfect but I think it is pretty obvious from the migration patterns which countries offer the best and fairest deal for those who live there.
And I am not American so don't even start that one.
The last one makes me laugh though
| Quote: |
¡¡¡¡We want One World, One Dream, And Peace On Earth.
¡¡¡¡- This Big Blue Earth is Big Enough for all of Us. |
I'm sure the Tibetans would like that too, but they don't beat and murder people who won't do it their way. | paul_indo wrote: |
I'm sure the Tibetans would like that too, but they don't beat and murder people who won't do it their way. |
LOL!!!!! The people died on 3.14 were all killed by those monkers, and they are Tibetans
in fact we have nothing to talk about, if you know nothing true about china
chinese don't like westerners' hypocritical democracy, and your democracy may be true, but is for you only, you don't like people not the same with you,
you want they, asians, africans, all people on the world who are not yellow hairs blue eyes and white skin, to die, to disappear on the earth,
at least, the politicians of you think so, and they were and are doing what they think,
if the world is doomed not to be peaceful, just fight,
another world war can solve all problems, even though provisionally,
French film District.b13, why they want to destroy B13?
no matter how you boycott, Olympic Games will be held on time, in Beijing!
you know that even during WW2, it was held by Nazi, at that time all most all the world were agaist Nazi, but why Nazi held Olympic Game normally? because they were big & strong at that time
Last edited by bartdou on Sat Apr 19, 2008 5:29 am; edited 1 time in totalAs we're discussing the inhuman chinese here, let's not forget about other fun stuff like the one-child-policy and its consequences like tens of thousands of children thrown out on the streets to die because they were the 'second child'. Oh, and the all the people killed in various political situations. And the list goes on.
Im not saying that China is a bad country, but it did do some 'bad' stuff.
Chinese don't like us westerners because we're so damn different in culture they can't understand us. They can't understand the freedom we cherish, even though we're becoming more and more enslaved, not so much as the chinese though.
| bartdou wrote: |
| paul_indo wrote: |
I'm sure the Tibetans would like that too, but they don't beat and murder people who won't do it their way. |
LOL!!!!! The people died on 3.14 were all killed by those monkers, and they are Tibetans
in fact we have nothing to talk about, if you know nothing true about china
chinese don't like westerners' hypocritical democracy, and your democracy may be true, but is for you only, you don't like people not the same with you,
you want they, asians, africans, all people on the world who are not yellow hairs blue eyes and white skin, to die, to disappear on the earth,
at least, the politicians of you think so, and they were and is doing what they think,
if the world is doomed not to be peaceful, just fight,
another world war can solve all problems, even though provisionally,
French film District.b13, why they want to destroy B13?
no matter how you boycott, Olympic Games will be held on time, in Beijing!
you know that even during WW2, it was held by Nazi, at that time all most all the world were agaist Nazi, but why Nazi held Olympic Game normally? because they were big & strong at that time |
I stopped reading at the bold. It's obvious you know no more about the west than you think we do about China.Considering the huge (and grouse) amount of cash and support white supremacist and fascist groups get all over the world I'd not be so sure.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| I stopped reading at the bold. It's obvious you know no more about the west than you think we do about China. |
I said "at least, the politicians of you think so, and they were and are doing what they think"
i believe the public in every country are willing for peace, happiness,
but somethimes the public are so helpless,
although many Americans are against the war to Iraq, Bush did it well.... | bartdou wrote: |
¡¡¡¡When We have a Billion People, you said we were destroying the planet.
¡¡¡¡When We are tried limited our numbers, you said It was human rights abuse.
|
He calls all other world's nations 'you', as if China was a different planet. | bartdou wrote: |
LOL!!!!! The people died on 3.14 were all killed by those monkers, and they are Tibetans |
You actually believe that, What is the source of that information
| bartdou wrote: |
chinese don't like westerners' hypocritical democracy, and your democracy may be true, but is for you only, you don't like people not the same with you,
you want they, asians, africans, all people on the world who are not yellow hairs blue eyes and white skin, to die, to disappear on the earth,
|
Well why is it that so many Chinese live in the USA, Australia and many other western democracies and are successful and happy there?
I guess this is an example of China spreading peace to the world.
| Quote: |
A CHINESE cargo ship believed to be carrying 77 tonnes of small arms, including more than 3 million rounds of ammunition, AK47 assault rifles, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, has docked in the South African port of Durban for the transport of the weapons to Zimbabwe, the South African Government has confirmed. It claimed it was powerless to intervene as long as the ship's papers were in order.
Copies of the documentation for the Chinese ship, the An Yue Jiang, show that the weapons were shipped from Beijing to the Ministry of Defence in Harare. Headed "Dangerous goods description and container packing certificate", the document was issued on April 1, three days after Zimbabwe's election. It lists the ship's consignment as including 3.5 million rounds of ammunition for AK47 assault rifles and for small arms, 1500 40 millimetre rockets, 2500 mortar shells of 60 millimetre and 81 millimetre calibre, as well as 93 cases of mortar tubes. |
From Sydney Herald http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/04/18/1208025479295.htmlWhat has happened to this thread?! Are all these pseudo-patriotic if not nationalist posts really any contribution? I'm sure there is a thread somewhere where one can compare which countries have butchered, tortured or oppressed how many of its own or its neighbors' citizens, but this one isn't it.
The original question was: "Should the 2008 Beijing Olympics be boycotted?". If you've followed this thread then you might be aware that I am opposed to a boycott (for arguments, please reread previous posts) but am certainly open for arguments/suggestions.
Some posters have suggested that ...
- ... it was a mistake to award China the privilege of hosting the games in the first place and ...
- ... that more stringent rules should be applied to both potential hosts and participating nations.
There are, in my opinion, two insurmountable problems in this respect:
- Who will be responsible for formulating these rules? ... and ...
- Who will be responsible for enforcing them?
If one sits down just for a minute or two and attempts to write a (very!) rough draft of such rules, it quickly becomes apparent, how impossibly complex and sheer unenforcable these rules would be.
- Democracy: Always a "nice to have / can't go wrong with that one" prerequisite, but where does one draw the line? Unquestionably, some nations are more democratic than others, but where is the cut-off point? And who will decide where that point is? And who will decide if a nation is above or below that point on the scale? The UN? Amnesty International?² Transparency International?³ .... hopeless ...
- Human Rights: Another "goodie". From torture to unlawful imprisonment, from ethnic cleansing to the discrimination of minorities to the "oppression" of secessionist movements, from personal freedoms such as free speech, freedom of the press to individual rights such as abortion, homosexual marriages, freedom of religion, ... . Are all those to be weighted and summed up / averaged in some "I get to host the Olympics!"-matrix?
- ...
In my opinion, there is only one single solution, and that is to separate politics and sports, at least on this level. That is not to say, that either participants or the public should refrain from criticizing the host or participating nations; quite the contrary. If a nation chooses to host the Olympic Games, it will do so in all probability in an effort to portray itself on an international level, and it will have to live with the fact that it has put itself in the very center of attention but it will not able to dictate what type of attention this will be. The NAZIs did a superb job of hijacking the Olympics in 1936, but that was a different time and another place. China, as well as any other future host, will have to accept that both media and modern communication will not allow them to steer public opinion and criticism cannot be muted by "embedded reporters". The happy China World really is a death Goverment which will be implement in all places of the earth, open your eyes, don't be part of the lies, don't be part of the NWO.
You are informed
See more at this video: http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4322095666634526310
If by NWO you are referring to a Novus Ordo Mundi, then I would ask you to supply a few arguments; an "open your eyes (!)" post is insufficient, even if your nick is "mesianica". Mesianica luckily provides a sort of try-before-you-buy service with her posts.
Anyway, I fail to see why exactly is it that chinese politics are an obstacle for holding a huge sports show like this one. It's not like they would be hosting a human rights convention or something.
| bartdou wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | I stopped reading at the bold. It's obvious you know no more about the west than you think we do about China. |
I said "at least, the politicians of you think so, and they were and are doing what they think"
i believe the public in every country are willing for peace, happiness,
but somethimes the public are so helpless,
although many Americans are against the war to Iraq, Bush did it well.... |
It's still a laughable statement at best. It seems fairly apparent that you've never spent much time in the US...or you would recognize we have the most diverse nation of people in the world and we're not killing them. If we wanted an Aryan nation, we would have made it happen by now or went down fighting for it. There's a reason the US sends billions and billions of dollars to Africa and other nations/continents in need. There's a reason the US is doing what we can to attempt to help Mexico turn its government around so people don't have to leave by the millions to find jobs. Your statement is full of nothing but ignorance, foolishness, and flat out stupidity. Again, your view of western people and politicians is as skewed as you think our view of China is.I honestly hope someone reads this.
But my honest opinion is that the it is one of the values of the Olympics that they are supposed to continue despite world issues and conflicts.
Have the games now, don't cancel them, but do not forget about Tibet.
P.S. I'm a Buddhist so i am actually very much against the way china is treating Tibet
I have two opinions.
One, it would be ideal to cancel the games in China because of the grave human rights violations the government has committed. There is the issue of Tibet, the way the government hides things like disease or crime in order to look good, and much more. However, the fact remains that the Olympics serve as a platform for international focus. Everyone's looking at China now. I think other countries, especially those in the first world, can take the Olympics as an opportunity to perhaps pressure China into improving itself. Although we can't really expect massively significant changes to happen, at least awareness of these issues can be increased.
By the way, I also heard that some athletes have backed out because of how polluted China is. They're afraid it will mess with their health. Other people/foreign officials have backed out due to disagreements over the way China is run. This obviously embarrassed the Chinese officials and they've made some steps to improve China. This is just a small example of what I was talking about in the first paragraph. 
| MaxStirner wrote: |
| What has happened to this thread?! |
Nice try, but once the original discussion is gone, it's hard to take it back. Honestly I don't think the Olympics are the only or the main interest of China government, it doesn't make any difference to boicot or not while major european companies still do their business with them (underpaid work, few antipollution measures...).
| paul_indo wrote: |
I guess this is an example of China spreading peace to the world.
| Quote: | A CHINESE cargo ship believed to be carrying 77 tonnes of small arms, including more than 3 million rounds of ammunition, AK47 assault rifles, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, has docked in the South African port of Durban for the transport of the weapons to Zimbabwe, the South African Government has confirmed. It claimed it was powerless to intervene as long as the ship's papers were in order.
Copies of the documentation for the Chinese ship, the An Yue Jiang, show that the weapons were shipped from Beijing to the Ministry of Defence in Harare. Headed "Dangerous goods description and container packing certificate", the document was issued on April 1, three days after Zimbabwe's election. It lists the ship's consignment as including 3.5 million rounds of ammunition for AK47 assault rifles and for small arms, 1500 40 millimetre rockets, 2500 mortar shells of 60 millimetre and 81 millimetre calibre, as well as 93 cases of mortar tubes. |
From Sydney Herald http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/04/18/1208025479295.html |
However, the secretary of South African Ministry of National Defence says, this batch of goods has already got the approval of The national conventional weapons controllingl committee . As Person in charge of this committee, he says, " these are the normal trade between two sovereign states, we have unnecessary interference. " the press spokesman of the tax service bureau of South Africa says, it is very normal that the southern African country uses the port of South Africa to unload and transship. And this chinese cargo ship, totally notifies its goods content transported according to the regulation of South Africa. Zimbabwean government official says to the media, any country has the right to buy the weapons and ammunitions too on the same day, Zimbabwe is no exception.
Military products trade are very normal trade, it goes on very frequently between the sovereign states. The trade of the military products is usually order production, that is to say that should make the order first, and then produce the goods. In this case, it will usually be longer, put forward the demand from one party and deliver to another party, generally speaking it takes 2 until the 4 years,and from delivering to practically using, it still takes some time too. The Chinese munition ship reaches Africa just at the sensitive period that the western countries emphasize in the situation of Zimbabwe. The report of the new society of Germany quoted the words of pool of expert's department of safe arms control problem of research institute of Pretoria of South Africa and said this is a batch of stocks that had mapped out a long time ago. " though the opportunity is not good, do not go beyond the normal range " .
In addition, there is strict management and stipulate in China exporting the weapon, before the weapons exporting of relevant enterprises, they must obtain the identification of end user of the other side country, this kind of identification must have the approve of the organization with sovereign right . That is to say, the corresponding side is a certain regime while exporting, but not a certain political party or someone, once the contract is signed, even if that national government substitutes, the goods will be sent out equally.
There are materials that reveal, in the military products trade to the African countries, countries such as U.S.A., Russia, France, Great Britain,etc. have taken the proportion greatly. From 2000 to 2004, from international export market of conventional weapons, Russian export is 26,900 million dollars, American export is 25,900 million dollars, and the conventional weapons export of China is only 1,400 million dollars.
I don't know this is the example of WHO spreading peace to the world.
An African question expert says, because the relationship between Africa and China has been developed very fast during these years, some western countries are afraid of their interests and some social forces supported by them in Africa being squeezed, so they have special concern on the actions of china to Africa, this is a part that the western countries restrict China in the whole world. The western countries are good at solving the economic problem politically and the political problem economically. The western media is extending this way in reporting the matter of Chinese cargo ship.
so, fuc~k off the http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/04/18/1208025479295.html
Last edited by bartdou on Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:51 am; edited 5 times in total | escritor wrote: |
| bartdou wrote: |
¡¡¡¡When We have a Billion People, you said we were destroying the planet.
¡¡¡¡When We are tried limited our numbers, you said It was human rights abuse.
|
He calls all other world's nations 'you', as if China was a different planet. |
Jesus... "You" stands for people who said as I mentioned in that quote.
Don't let me suspect your IQ | liljp617 wrote: |
| bartdou wrote: | | liljp617 wrote: | | I stopped reading at the bold. It's obvious you know no more about the west than you think we do about China. |
I said "at least, the politicians of you think so, and they were and are doing what they think"
i believe the public in every country are willing for peace, happiness,
but somethimes the public are so helpless,
although many Americans are against the war to Iraq, Bush did it well.... |
It's still a laughable statement at best. It seems fairly apparent that you've never spent much time in the US...or you would recognize we have the most diverse nation of people in the world and we're not killing them. If we wanted an Aryan nation, we would have made it happen by now or went down fighting for it. There's a reason the US sends billions and billions of dollars to Africa and other nations/continents in need. There's a reason the US is doing what we can to attempt to help Mexico turn its government around so people don't have to leave by the millions to find jobs. Your statement is full of nothing but ignorance, foolishness, and flat out stupidity. Again, your view of western people and politicians is as skewed as you think our view of China is. |
I admit what you said, partly. I should not have said that "some want to kill others and make them disappear", it's wrong.
but ontradiction and conflict still exist, even though sending billions and billions of dollars.
seemly I said something absurd, You think my view of western people