Posted on 03/26/2008 8:54:27 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
Countries urged to see 'true face' of Dalai Lama
By Qin Jize (China Daily)
Updated: 2008-03-26 07:10
Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang yesterday again urged the international community to see the Dalai Lama's "true face" and offer no support for his secessionist activities.
Qin made the remarks in response to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent call for China to consider a new policy to address the Tibet issue and to start talks with the Dalai Lama.
US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi also visited the Dalai Lama last week.
Qin said the position of just a few countries did not represent that of the international community.
More than 100 nations have expressed their support and understanding of the Chinese government's attitude to protecting the lives and property of its citizens from violent riots, he said.
Qin said the central government's policy toward the Dalai Lama is consistent and explicit, saying it not only listens to what he says but, more importantly, observes what he does.
China yesterday also criticized a British newspaper's report that linked the Beijing Olympics with the Berlin Games of 1936, saying the story is an insult to Chinese citizens and to the people of the world.
A report published in the British newspaper the Sunday Times said China is holding the Olympics for the same reason Adolf Hitler did in 1936, as an opportunity to collect accolades.
Qin said the Beijing Olympics is a magnificent sports meeting, and people from all nations have expressed their wishes to use it as an opportunity to enhance global understanding, friendship and cooperation.
"The Olympic torch symbolizes humankind's noble ideals and beautiful aspirations," Qin said.
" It also casts light on the gloomy mentality of some people, which will help the common people see their true face," he said.
"The Beijing Olympic Games must be a success with all the efforts made by the people of the
“...that’s why it was banned by China’s censors”
Why? You are both on the same page when it comes to Tibet’s very legitimate struggle for independence.
Hardly. I may not favor Independence for Tibet (unless mutually agreed upon), but I definitely do not agree with China's handling of Tibet.
“...I’d suggest you stop with the insults because I don’t have the time for childish nonsense”
Give me a break - you started with the liberal comparisons.
No, actually it was you with your "Chicom Magnet Thread" and "Chicom Tool" comments. Scroll through if you can't remember.
“The Yuan and Qing dynasties were both ‘foreign’ rule over China, but it is Chinese history because it was during the Yuan time period that the independent states [of China] were unified for the first time...”By that logic, the constituent colonies should necessarily be independent countries (as they were prior to the Mongol conquest). If they want to be in a ChiCom federation, that’s their right. However, we are not talking about a voluntary union here but a continuation of the colonization by the ChiComs.
Not at all. China has maintained those boundaries (with the exception of the foreign controlled areas during the Qing Dynasty) since unification, only the governments have changes; Yuan / Ming / Qing / Republic of China / Brief "Dynasty" by Yuan ShiKai / People's Republic of China.
You also seem to be forgetting that not all Tibetans want Independence, including the Dalai Lama.
Dr. Marten - it’s hardly my fault if your posts on Tibet are remarkably identical to the ones posted by the PLAN agents on this forum. They use the very same logic and arguments to support ChiCom dominance and genocide.
BTW, what is this business about “mutually-agreed upon independence”? Do you think the United States would have ever become independent if the British had a say and veto power over the revolutionaries? Why is it any different in case of China - the oppressor and colonizing power in Tibet?
“I definitely do not agree with China’s handling of Tibet.”
Well...at least there’s something that we agree on even if we disagree on the need for an oppressed peoples to enjoy liberty and freedom.
BTW, what is this business about “mutually-agreed upon independence”? Do you think the United States would have ever become independent if the British had a say and veto power over the revolutionaries?
As I mentioned, not all Tibetans want independence - Dalai Lama included.
The "independence protests" that we've seen recently are a combination of pro-independence splitists and those who simply want the autonomy they were promised by the Chinese before that agreement was unilaterally revoked in 1959. They want the Chinese to stop polluting their religious, cultural and language traditions and they want the government to stop the relocation of Han Chinese to the region. There's a huge disparity between Han Chinese and Tibetans in the region because the governments policies are all stack in favor of Han Chinese.
Why is it any different in case of China - the oppressor and colonizing power in Tibet?
As Fishing-guy stated in response to my poor analogy:
A better analogy for Tibet would be if the native American nations want to go independent from the United States. The Tibetans can choose the way of Geronimo, and they will get the same fate as he did.
The problem with China is that there is not a system where the common folks can address their grievances.
Sorry. But even in the wiki link, it never stated that Tibet was a part of China.
You could not be more wrong, and yet you plod forward as though you are 100% correct. Pathetic doesn’t begin to describe it.
Re: As I mentioned, not all Tibetans want independence - Dalai Lama included.
Again. You are playing fast and loose with the facts. The Tibetans (including the Dalaia Lama) would love independence, but they know that that after this many years of occupation it is unlikely.
Sorry. But even in the wiki link, it never stated that Tibet was a part of China.
You could not be more wrong, and yet you plod forward as though you are 100% correct. Pathetic doesn’t begin to describe it.
Well aren't you the pot calling the kettle black. The irony here is that you don't see it.
I'm still waiting for those unbiased / academic links.
I gave you a timeline of dates and facts. Any “academic” links would only corroborate this. If you wish to prove them wrong, do so. But if not, this will be my last post to you, as this is going nowhere.
I gave you a timeline of dates and facts. Any “academic” links would only corroborate this.
If you wish to prove them wrong, do so. But if not, this will be my last post to you, as this is going nowhere.
By your own post #47 your reading of history would justify Mongol claims to China. Or Chinese claims to Mongolia. Or Chinese claims to the ‘Stans (and yes, China is beginning to assert itself in the ‘Stans).
Or British claims to the US, since they’ve only been gone a couple hundred years.
The fact is that until the early fifties China never occupied Tibet. Tibet paid an annual fee to China to be left alone, and that ended in 1913.
Tibet was independent until the invasion of 1953. Chinese historians may differ. Pro-Chinese historians may differ, and pro-Chinese posters may differ as well. The fact remains that it ruled itself until 1953 when China invaded. If you disagree, who was the Chinese governor prior to 1953? Where were his Chinese troops garrisoned? There wasn’t one, and there weren’t any.
This thread is a pretty good litmus test, to see who comes out of the woodwork to defend Chinese claims to a country that has no desire to be Chinese and never did.
Great post...you’re right. Threads like these make it easy to identify the ChiComs on this forum. I guess certain fellow FReepers (and I don’t include the PLAN trolls in this list) will do/say anything in exchange for ChiCom favors.
A better analogy for China’s claims on Tibet would be to say Spain has a legitimate claim to the entire continental U.S. because they once had possession of what is now Texas.
You don't know squat about Tibetan Buddhism.
My analysis is very simple:
1. The Dalai Lama is a cult lead by a guy who has the mind and real life experiences of a child and who is supported by a system that is similar to Burma in its suppression of the human existence. It was worth CIA intervention to support this cult against the evils of communism in the past but not now (comment 22).
2. China exists as a typical communist country (comment 22).
3. Those who pledge their full support to China or the Dalai Lama are choosing the lesser of two evils. Based on Taiwan’s elections and knowing many people who have lived in China and Taiwan, I tend to think the Tibetans would fair much, much better under China (comment 22).
Ironically, the US presidential election and US politics in general mimics the same complexities as this argument. There are no good choices over the short term and the long term requires a dynamic approach and a lot of patience.
He’s a self-confessed “lifelong Dhimmicrat” and a moderate. LOL....nuff said.
[Source: the ChiCom’s FRome page]
“You don’t know squat about Tibetan Buddhism.”
“When Tenzin Gyatso was about two years old a search party was sent out to find the new incarnation of the Dalai Lama.[3] Among other omens, the head on the embalmed body of the thirteenth Dalai Lama (originally facing south) had mysteriously turned to face the northeast, indicating the direction in which the next Dalai Lama would be found. Shortly afterwards, the Regent Reting Rinpoche had a vision at the sacred lake of Llhamo La-tso indicating Amdo (as the place to search) and a one-story house with distinctive guttering and tiling. After extensive searching, they found that Thondup’s house resembled that in Reting’s vision. They presented Thondup with various relics and toys—some had belonged to the previous Dalai Lama while others had not. It was reported that Thondup correctly identified all items owned by the previous Dalai Lama, exclaiming “That’s mine! That’s mine!””
“As well as being one of the most influential spiritual leaders of Tibetan Buddhism, the Dalai Lama by tradition is also Tibet’s absolute political ruler. In 1939 at the age of four he was taken by lamas in a procession to Lhasa, where an official ceremony recognized him as the reborn spiritual leader of Tibet. His childhood was spent between the Potala and Norbulingka, his summer residence.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenzin_Gyatso%2C_14th_Dalai_Lama
At least John Smith and Mormons had better visions and live better lives.
“My analysis...”
You’re being too kind to yourself.
“I tend to think the Tibetans would fair much, much better under China (comment 22).”
Have you ever spoken to or met a single Tibetian? I guess not. I can also bet that I’ve known and met more ChiComs and Chinese (they are not the same) than you - having lived and worked with them for some time. Tell you the truth - after our heated arguments, even the mainlanders would grudgingly accept facts that you refuse to acknowledge.
“China exists as a typical communist country”
BS
With this post, you have been certified as an ignorant tool of the ChiComs. Congrats on this singular dishonor - the days you spent in the re-education camp are proving to have some use after all.
Sure they did. At least what you have posted there doesn’t repeat the idiotic western view that the Dalai Lama is considered a god. But you keep repeating your other liberal dogma. It’s a good example of how ingrained the communist mindset has become in Americans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.