Do No Evil – A commentary on the current protests against China's role in Darfur and its resistance to Tibet's struggle for independence with a Spadecaller video advocating a boycott against the Beijing Olympics.
I can't, in good conscience, watch the Olympics. I feel badly for the athletes, but the greater value is in human rights. This propping up of the Chinese regime by the International community, including our government, is disgusting.
I feel bad too. Boycotting the Olympics would not be fair for all those athletes who trained so hard for their passion, but on the other hand, the human rights... Hearing about the violence in Tibet, the protestations during the torch relay... so sad
I hate to interrupt this hysterical frenzy of xenophobia aimed at China but there is one solid fact that is consistently, some would say conveniently, overlooked.
The Dalai Lama is on your CIA payroll. He has been since Day One. The information is easily found; use your search engine.
What does this mean? Perhaps it suggests that beyond the jolly, giggling, quasi-mystical facade the man is a political operative, primarily in your country's employ, the purpose of which is the continuance of the Cold War. However it is precisely because of that facade nobody is prepared to ask him the hardball questions all political leaders should have to answer to.
Let that sink in for a moment and perhaps you will come to understand the full implications of its meaning and how this relates to current events. I would hope that some of you are prepared to give this far deeper thought than an impulsive, emotionally-charged response but I am also realistic enough to know that it is highly unlikely.
A CIA involvement in Tibet wouldn't surprise me at all. Neither would finding that a 'spiritual' leader is less than perfect. Neither lets China off the hook for human rights violations.
Nor does it let the US off the hook for the same. It never ceases to amaze me the number of well-meaning Americans and their celebrities that take to the streets about the misdeeds of China, or a number of other nations for that matter, based on scant information, yet when it comes to the diabolical and nefarious activities of their own government they stay quietly at home feigning blissful ignorance.
The CIA in Tibet has been ongoing for half a century, as has US interventionist policy been the mainstay for many of the world's nations. Such activities have led to the planned destabalisation of governments, the installation of proxy sycophants eager to do America's bidding for the opportunity to wield ruthless power, appalling wars, industrial carnage and chaos and the deaths of millions, yes millions. This attracts little interest amongst Americans themselves but when it comes to China every American is quick to condemn and pull out a pedestal to stand on. Such hypocrisy.
Nor does it let the US off the hook for the same>>>>
Where did I say it did? I've marched, I've written, I've emailed, I've posted, I've given my money to activist groups, I've voted critically & carefully, & stated my dissent to anyone within earshot for years. I owe you or no one else an 'apology' for picking on China.
My comments were not directed at you personally. The fact that you didn't say it made me draw attention to it. I sincerely congratulate you on voicing your protestations at your government's hypocrisy.
I wasn't asking for an apology from you. I'm asking for one from the majority that brought Bush to power not once but twice and who have now put McCain ahead in the polls.
I'm asking for an apology from a nation, your nation, that relentlessly imposes itself on all others while feigning insincere concern over China's claims to Tibet simply so that it can further advance its interests in a region very far from home.
"Neither lets China off the hook for human rights violations."
Of course not. But we should realize that a return to power of the Dalai Lama and the religious class in Tibet would be an enormous step backwards, equivalent to a return to the dark ages.
When the Chinese invaded, they put an end to slavery and to absolutely brutal oppression of the serf class by the religious and landowner classes. They called the serfs "horses that talk" and treated them no better than beasts of burden. Torture was commonplace. Landowners could take the wives and daughters of serfs for sex without repercussion. The illiteracy rate was 95% with most of the literate being the religious class. Tibet was a hellhole. China changed that. While many Tibetans likely want China out, it is highly unlikely that any besides the monks would want things back under the despotism of the Lamas.
When the Chinese invaded, they put an end to slavery and to absolutely brutal oppression of the serf class by the religious and landowner classes>>>
The Chinese murdered thousands. Slaughtered them. Seems we're at a standoff, of which version of history is correct.
Yes we are. What is a fact is that the Tibetans up until China reclaiming Tibet in 1950, having never relinquished sovereignty, lived as slaves under the monarchy.
What is also a fact is that the quality of life for Tibetans today is significantly better than it was prior to 1950 in relative terms with increased wealth and prosperity and improved infrastructure. All wealth prior to 1950 was in the hands of the monarchs alone. The same monarchy that people such as yourself wish to return to power.
The West's history with China has been bitter for centuries. It is no surprise that any view of China will automatically be a negative one as it has been. Every significant Western power prior to the emergence of the USA as the world's dominant force has had a piece of China. Every Western power, including the USA, still wants to have a piece of China.
Don't believe everything you read about China, especially from the West which has demonised China for centuries, and still does today.
I saw in that man something very political under the cloak of mysticism. Now your post tells a lot about what the real thing is probably like. The US has him as a chess to criticize China; Dalai gets the pay, the attention and the hope to return as king.
For well-meant ordinary citizens, I think it's important not to be used unknowingly. Whatever that is on your agenda, it is not good to let Dalai make use of human rights issue for separatism, for his personal power and to hurt innocent people.
That man is evil but a good actor.
Success of rioters and support of them will have dire consequences for the big population of innocent Chinese people and in a less direct way, the world at large.
The Dalai Lama is not so much evil as opportunistic.
Tibet as part of China is not a modern day concept but an ancient one. Tibetan independence is a contemporary and fashionable idea. I saw this morning on BBC World however a Chinese American in San Francisco sum it up succinctly when he said that protesting for independence for Tibet from China is like asking for independence for Hawaii from the USA. It's just not going to happen.
Some may then say the Chinese are brutal despite the fact that most of the deaths in the recent riots were of Han Chinese at the hands of Tibetans.
The Dalai Lama has accused China of cultural genocide. A very emotive phrase but if we were to truly examine what it means the same could be said of America's cultural imposition on the world via Macdonalds, Starbucks, Hollywood and such like. Let's go back further to the Westernisation of the world and the push to convert all to Christianity, is this not cultural genocide also?
I believe it is.
"Some may then say the Chinese are brutal despite the fact that most of the deaths in the recent riots were of Han Chinese at the hands of Tibetans."
Do you have any collaborating evidence that has NOT been filtered by, or approved by the Chinese government?
I just googled it and came up with this in which it says the Tibetan's started violence when Chinese officials were away and targeted "non Tibetans" in protests. Best if you read what it says for your self then google other stories to back it up but they are out there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_unrest_in_Tibet
Why are Tibetans so non-accommodating? A likely reason is the Dalai Lama. At least, he did not do his job well as a spiritual leader. Worse still, he's the cause for all the trouble which has resulted in riots and bloodshed. Do you believe he's spiritual by nature because he's the ... reincarnation? He got ordained at the age of two because he belonged to one of the upper slave-driver families. Because of the upbringing he got good training in being a spiritual actor.
For fun, google "Dalai lama" and "CIA."
U.S. intelligence has been funding the "free Tibet" movement for decades.
Don't we pretty much fund a lot of movements against opressive nations? Hell, don't we theoretically go to WAR to free people of oppressive tyrants? What's next, Richard Gere works for the CIA?
To answer your first and second questions, no. It is however what your country says it does. The evidence to the contrary is strewn across the last half century. The Shah of Iran, the Iran-Contra Deals, Nicaragua, even Saddam Hussein himself, and of course there are many others. Surely you are not that naive. However as you have brought up Richard Gere, perhaps you are.
"Don't we pretty much fund a lot of movements against opressive nations? Hell, don't we theoretically go to WAR to free people of oppressive tyrants?"
No, we instigate instability when it furthers our ends. We have NEVER engaged in an altruistic foreign policy of spreading freedom and self-determination.
We have backed Tibet to help destabilize the Chinese. Much like we arguably were running arms to Darfur to destabilize Sudan, and like we armed and trained the KLA to destabilize the former Yugoslavia, and like we armed and trained the Mujaheddin to destabilize the USSR.
All of these efforts have to do with securing natural resources and access to markets. We have on a regular basis backed some of the foulest dictators on the skin of this earth.
natureboy
How do you justify the treatment of the monks in Tibet by the Chinese government?
How do you justify any violence?
jaydee
So... does that mean that you denounce the colonists for revolting against England and the American revolution?
I have repeatedly said the American revolution was based on a lie, they told the people it was to be free from the Monarch and the oppression of his taxes which was simply put a lie. The King was not in power to make any rules from the 1700's on, it was the british Parliament which was run buy the rich merchant of the day, Nobility for the record ruled the other house but the balance of power remained in Parliament. The entire truth is American merchants saw the money going to England and thought why should they be out in the cold? All you did was trade one ruling class for another, English merchants for American merchants. As for the violence, America like all countries has the right to self determination so do I denounce them no, but I do denounce the lie they told to get public support. Is that clear enough for you?
Well, Jaydee's "New Book of History" is quite unique.
Hardly. You should read Howard Zinn's "A people's history of the United States." The "revolutionary war" against the British was about trade, and the working people were not the ones situated to profit from the change, it was the merchant class and the already rich who stood to make out. Many of those fighting on the side of the "revolutionaries" were conscripted. Desertion was a problem.
There was a peoples revolution going on at the time, but it was manifested in incidents such as the whiskey rebellion and Shay's rebellion, not the war against the British.
" So... does that mean that you denounce the colonists for revolting against England and the American revolution?"
As I pointed out earlier, Hawaii's relationship with the US is a better analogy for the Tibet/China relationship although China's claim is certainly stronger, reaching much further back in time.
If your need to correct injustice in this world is so strong perhaps you should clean up your own backyard first by perhaps returning the stolen land you presently live on, America, and rightfully return it to its indigenous people. This would set the example that you are prepared to give up all that you have for justice's sake, lest your words and sentiments be deemed empty and hollow.
I fully understand however if that doesn't suit you right now and you choose to file it away in the too hard basket.
Since I posted the video last night on YouTube, I have recieved 3 nasty emails...LOL!
Some people must be afraid of losing money, if the Olympic games don't come off as they anticipated. It was good to see Spielberg withdraw his support of the games -- despite his initial role as an artistic consultant.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
rhettdejesus1975
getbackerzoo
moomaypcc
Ciera Marie
soulkeeper009
seohunk
dexlovex2
marco1
deadlyhaiku
alllo
alamala
Emmanuel70
gamahuche
2sidestoeverything
Jaydee40
wanderingmind
Generica
drnets
Shadowolf
Tessylo
brookehudson
TGrass3001
nowsourcing
smartsweetheart
Catus
tongfanpupay
RobbieWilliams
Nowalive
lavena13
samurnovsky
Topiclounge310
amdforever
MajJohn
kungfudunk13
oleyval
sandking101
Iris-Iris
pagey
dietpicturez
Dex_84
Medicpharm
myathesmith
Genre159
phanphorntraisak
atlanta74
anv.prince
bbb.bowbow
SenorCoconut
garier
cole122386
171)
It is by no coincidence that the earth's last two treasure troves for black gold are to be found in Sudan and Iraq, where war, death and destruction abound. The exploitation of these nations by China and the United States has become too obvious to ignore,
Canada oil reserves ~200 billion barrels
Iraq oil reserves ~120 billion barrels
Sudan oil reserves ~5 billion barrels, hardly a "treasure trove" as you put it.
I agree, if it was all about oil then lets invade Canada!
Canadian oil is in bituminous sands, also called tar sands or extra heavy oil. The crude bitumen extracted from these deposits is a viscous, solid or semisolid form that does not easily flow at normal environmental temperatures and pressures, making it difficult and expensive to process into gasoline, diesel fuel, and other products.
As soon as it becomes easy and cost effective to extract fuel grade products from tar sands have no doubt that there will be massive coverage of "the secret weapons of mass destruction" by FOX news and by the neocons in the weekend news shows, but I am sure that will only be a "coincidence".
"The crude bitumen extracted from these deposits is a viscous, solid or semisolid form that does not easily flow at normal environmental temperatures and pressures, making it difficult and expensive to process into gasoline, diesel fuel, and other products."
At $110 dollars a barrel it is profitable. But since we are stealing oil from Kuwait, Iraq and Sudan (some claim Afghanistan) it doesn't matter to us anyway, does it?
"As soon as it becomes easy and cost effective to extract fuel grade products from tar sands have no doubt that there will be massive coverage of "the secret weapons of mass destruction" by FOX news and by the neocons in the weekend news shows, but I am sure that will only be a "coincidence"."
I have always been suspicious of those Canadians...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/20/60min...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23958032/
Google is your friend.
Canada's not a second or third world country like the US has a history of picking on, they seem to like better odds than Canada would give them.
Jaydee, who are we stealing oil from? Or where are we buying it at less than than the going rate?
We heard these tired arguments when we went into Kuwait to remove saddam's army. Many said we were only going there to steal the oil. Guess how much we are paying for Kuwaiti oil. Go on, guess.
Tony you don't need to steal oil from any one, all the oil companies need to do is take some of the oil off the market or make it risky to buy it and the price goes up making the cheap oil they have access to cost more and that increases profits. As for Iraqi oil only god knows how much has left that country because nobody else does.
Tony:
How ridiculous... oil reserves are different than undrilled oil. Are you really that berift of common sense or trying to become a propagandist? Well, you will need a little more work at it. LOL!
"How ridiculous... oil reserves are different than undrilled oil. Are you really that berift of common sense or trying to become a propagandist? Well, you will need a little more work at it. LOL!"
Oil reserves *are* undrilled oil by definition. Saudi Arabia's current oil reserves are far less than they were 50 years ago. Because much of it has been "drilled". Take a minute or two and digest that if need be.
Stating facts is not propaganda. If you have a problem with my facts feel free to contest them.
Sudan's importance is not limited to its oil. The sub-saharan belt called the "Pan-Sahel" stretches from coast to coast, and most if not all of the countries in it have oil. But only the countries on the coasts have seaports. One of those is Sudan.