ltlee1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Apr 30, 11:58 am, "OD" <Ya...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>> On Apr 30, 7:40 am, "OD" <Ya...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 30, 7:04 am, "OD" <Ya...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>> ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>>>>> On Apr 29, 11:48 pm, "OD" <Ya...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>> ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 29, 12:29 pm, "OD" <Ya...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 29, 11:36 am, "OD" <Ya...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 29, 9:54 am, "OD" <Ya...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 29, 6:02 am, "OD" <Ya...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CharlesLiu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 28, 7:25 pm, Raymond <ni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:37:37 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bmo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 28, 3:30?pm, "ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 28, 1:31?am, Lproud...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 27, 7:03?pm, CharlesLiu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chliu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It happened agin. First it was petite children's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TV show host Konnie Huq ?in London, then it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crippled paralympian Jin Jin - now a 17 year old
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Japanese table tennis olympian Ai Fukuhara, who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trains in China and has been a good will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ambassador for Japan and China, was jumpped by a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tibetan from Taiwan:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/cn/thread-38991-1-1.html
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why don't you people pick on someone yor own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> size, instead of going after little girls? One
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legged little girles too?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Man, you people must fee real brave.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you expect from the spokeman of Voice of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tibet. Attacking handicap girl in wheel chair is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FANTASTIC.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=d9Amlz2Jvro
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A lot of these Tibetan exiles are misguided. Many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of these folks have never been in Tibet. The Tibet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on their mind is the real Tibet. Yet they think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are better than the millions of real Tibetans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Tibet. Their means is also odd.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Recently, I begin to think they are not responding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the needs of the real Tibetans. These exiles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are a frustrated bunch. And they are responding to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what have bappened in the west. ?Since China
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ba****ng is becoming fahsionable, they just want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be at the center of this China and Chinese ba****ng
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> party. Hence they will do all sorts of strange
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things to attract attention. Luckily, they can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also get some money from westrn countries.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What the spokeman of Vocie of Tibet siad is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revealing. His calculation is not about Tibet. His
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primarily concern is about international publicity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, the Tibet problem is a Chinese problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The solution may go through the Chinese poeple.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, these exiles's protest and Chinese
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ba****ng are carried out to enrage the Chinese
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> poeple ?and make their goal further and further
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away. A new development in China is that some now
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said it openly "Anyone who negotiates with the DL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clique is a traitor."
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that even the poor one-legged fencer is now
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being branded a traitor by many Chinese. Funny how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people on this NG talk a lot about how mean a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people in France were to her but keep quiet about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what Chinese are doing to her. You guys sure have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot of double standards...
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Someone goes to France once and thinks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> she's French. Jin Jing speaks with the voice of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> utterly brainless evil-eyed wolf traitor."
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing but the disinformation service of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> western propaganda
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You bet. There was a minority voice critical to Jin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jin, but the majority voice of reason in China
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blogsphere has came out in sup****t of her.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course China hater like BO would rather ignore
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.google.com/search?q=%E9%87%91%E6%99%B6+%E6%B1%89%E5%A5%B8
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Jin Jin does not sup****t Carfore boycott”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “If Jin Jin can be labeled HJ, who can’t?”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Why call Jin Jin HJ?”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Nationalist “Boxers” call Jin Jin HJ”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Shocked to see Jin Jin labeled HJ”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Jin Jin’s one sentence turning her into HJ, sending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chill up readers spine”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Calling Jin Jing HJ is the first sign of the world
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone wrong.” “Jin Jin from hero to zero(HJ) - a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chinese farce” “defaming [Jin Jin] is not patriotism”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Jin Jin from hero to zero - patriotism has lost its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wit”
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This proves China haters like to twist the facts to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suit their anti- Chinese agenda. When they attack the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary Chinese netters as irrational, rabid - it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no longer about the Chinese government is it?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's the agenda of those that claim pro-Tibetans are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cowards who only attack little girls?- Hide quoted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> text -
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are comparing apples and oranges.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Free Tibet" is a movement sup****ted by CIA/NED an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dother quasi government agencies money. The Tibetan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exiles' activities are goal directed. Concerning the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attack, another netter had point out, the spoken
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persion stating in public that such attack the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defenseless girl was good. That is, good for publicity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hence, the attack was a mean to an end subordinated to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thier pay masters' wish.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The bigger issue, attacking the girl as well as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overall effort to disrupt the Olympic torch relay or the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olympic games do not in anyway benefit the Tibetans in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tibet. China will not give up their legitimate claim on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tibet simply because of theartics peformed by a small
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of people.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can you even say apples and oranges when you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely fail to grasp what is being compared. It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the posters bmoore and CharlesLiu and their agendas. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CharlesLiu thinks bmoore has an agenda of demonizing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chinese then by the same standard he is obviously guilty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of demonizing Tibetans.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, Lui and BM are not comparable because the evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they used are of different. In one case, the attack of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> defenseless girl is lauded by the Vocie of Tibet
>>>>>>>>>>>>> spokeperson as something good because such attack promote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> international publicity. Implaction: The attack is part
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the plan and/or the attack conform to their overall
>>>>>>>>>>>>> goal to gain publicity. There is no comparable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> spokeperson and comparable plan for the verbal attack on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same girl by netter who may or may not be Chinese or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pro-China.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you are not going to address the obvious attempt at
>>>>>>>>>>>> demonization of Tibetans by Charlesliu with the words,
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Pro-Tibet cowards only attack little girls" then there is
>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing further to discuss.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If one has problem with the post by Charles Liu, he or she
>>>>>>>>>>> should feel free to criticize him.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which is what I did!
>>
>>>>>>>>> Not true. Your first post of this thread is the following.
>>
>>>>>>>>> "What's the agenda of those that claim pro-Tibetans are
>>>>>>>>> cowards who only
>>>>>>>>> attack little girls?"
>>
>>>>>>>>> You are respoinding to Liu saying those who verbal attacked
>>>>>>>>> Jin are having an agenda.
>>
>>>>>>>> No, that's not what I said. I'm accusing Charles of having an
>>>>>>>> agenda.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My previous post simply pointed out one cannot
>>>>>>>>>>> compare the attack by Tibetans and the verbal attack by
>>>>>>>>>>> bloggers from Chinese websites.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then what you said had nothing to do with what I said, and
>>>>>>>>>> you're wasting my time.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the above question from the first post is
>>>>>>>>> not a way to compare the pro-Tibetans attack little girl and
>>>>>>>>> netters verbally attack Jin?
>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, that's what I have been saying.
>>
>>>>>>> Not true. You are comparing the two. In case your memory fails
>>>>>>> it. Here it is:
>>
>>>>>>> "It's the posters bmoore and CharlesLiu and their agendas. If
>>>>>>> CharlesLiu thinks bmoore has an agenda of demonizing Chinese
>>>>>>> then by the same standard he is obviously guilty of demonizing
>>>>>>> Tibetans."
>>
>>>>>> Sorry, but you simply just don't have a clue what is being said
>>>>>> here. I finished with this.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Something you seem to also be willing to take part on,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even when you claim others are doing it to the Chinese.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> China ba****ng or anything ba****ng is a matter of whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the criticism is from a position of fact and logic. Let
>>>>>>>>>>>>> me lay out my case against the "free tibet" sup****ters.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> People can use "facts" and "logic" to demonize others. You
>>>>>>>>>>>> know it, since you try to do it all the time.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How so?
>>
>>>>>>>>>> See your words below.
>>
>>>>>>>>> If you don't agree with something, please be specific.
>>
>>>>>>>> I specifically don't agree with any of it.
>>
>>>>>>> I see. I wrote most pro-tibetans, including the exciles, had not
>>>>>>> set foot in tibet. And you don't agree with it. I wrote they the
>>>>>>> Tibet on their minds was not the real Tibet and the same
>>>>>>> conlcusion had been reached by Orveill Schell. And you don't
>>>>>>> agree with it. It is fine that you don't disagree. Please
>>>>>>> explain why you don't agree.
>>
>>>>>> You're forgetting the Tibetans living in China.
>>
>>>>> What about them?
>>
>>>> Do you think they have unrealistic views of Tibet?
>>
>>> They will have a realistic view of Tibet. But they did not attack
>>> the Olympic or other silly stunts to garner international
>>> publicity. All pubicity stunts were done by pro-Tibetans outside of
>>> Tibet, not from inside.
>>
>> Why didn't you mention the events within Tibet that have taken place
>> over the last couple of months? What do these events say to you
>> about how Tibetans feel?
>
> The event that one couldl be sure because there were ample evidences
> was a two-day riots targeting the Han and Hui business people in
> Lhasa. All other supposed events were unsubstantiated and
> unsibstantiable. Yes. You mentioned a Canadian had mentioned some
> protests. But I doubt he had observed anything himself. Else there
> would not be any "may be" in his statement. In comparison, the pro-
> Tibetans outside Tibet waged a more extensive campaign filled with
> silly stunts aiming to attract international publicity.
I MAY HAVE BEEN of the opinion you were here for honest discussion when I
first posted to SCC, but I see now you are not.
Do you see how language works and how the Canadian tourist could use "may
be" without calling into question the peacefulness or existence of the
earlier protests?
> How do they feel? Who are the "they"? The rioters, the victims of the
> riots? All Tibetans? Please feel free to answer your own question and
> substantiate it.
You're the one that making the claim to know who the "pro-Tibetans" are
and
where they live, you substantiate it. If you know that Tibetans living in
Tibet are not "pro-Tibet" then substantiate it.
|
