The IOC makes me ill...athletes face cuts for taking stand on Tibet

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Running out and grabbing a torch is attacking and violence, but beating the crap out of people, killing them, shooting them, displacing them...what term applies there?

 

 

Well, they are forms of violence in a way, although there is no parity. There's a difference between protesting by grabbing a torch and gunning down unarmed monks.

 

I should also mention that when someone, such as the woman relay runner carrying the torch in SF, does take out a Tibetan flag, what happens? She's gang-tackled by the Chinese goon squad surrounding the torch. Another form of violence.

 

It's just that China's unmitigated violence - torturing and raping nuns, gunning down unarmed people, having them "disappear" from Kirti Monastery and other monasteries in the middle of the night, arresting people for simply carrying a photo of the Dalai Lama, and cultural genocide are all far more violent than a few unarmed protesters could ever be.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

The IOC wanted to take the flame to Mt Everest, and you have to go through Tibet to get there. It was the monks making the political statement by rampaging through the streets ransacking businesses and killing Chinese.

 

 

...after the police began beating them and shooting them, according to ALL accounts - except, of course, the PRC.

 

BTW, you might want to ask someone in Nepal whether there's another way up to Everest or not. And for that matter, whether it's easier than the Tibetan side.

[amplayer]

Well that's just a fantastic idea. Let's punish all the finest athletes in the entire world who have worked their whole lives to get to this moment, only to deprive them of it.

 

 

 

[UstadKhanAli]

Tibetan Monk shortly before a Chinese triathlon athlete handing over the torch:

 

Do you have more information about this photo, Angelo? Thanks!

[UstadKhanAli]

I should point out here too that although John Sayer and I vehemently disagree on this whole Tibet/Olympic Torch stuff, he has helped me with one of the Tibetan-oriented videos. Now how's that for fair play? Just givin' props where props are due.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

 

Do you have more information about this photo, Angelo? Thanks!

 

 

it is in Kathmandu, so the triathlon athlete is Nepalese, not Chinese...

 

From here:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/eveningstandard/4443120a6408.html

 

.

[John Sayers]

 

...after the police began beating them and shooting them, according to ALL accounts - except, of course, the PRC.

 

 

I'm sorry Ken but NOT according to the BBC reporter James Miles who was there on the day and the only reporter in the area. It took hours for the police to actually take control as it was a spontaneous uprising. By then 10 Chinese had be killed in the violence.

 

Here's the report, listen to it

[amplayer]

I understand what you're saying here, and I agree that what China is doing is awful.

 

However, the problem I have is singling out the Olympics. Singling out the Olympics can at best make the leaders in China look bad, and at worst create a situation where athletes are denied the ability to compete. The Chinese leaders have repeatedly shown us that attempts to make them look bad have no effect on their policies.

 

To that end, I will not respect Pres. Bush if he makes any sort of "protest" statement WRT the Olympics in China. It would be completely hypocritical to do so while simultaneously supporting trade with China. It is a mixed message that makes no sense.

 

The only way to create a real solution is to cut off the money trail. Here in the USA, we ALL support China where it counts the most -> with our money. If we REALLY believe that what China is doing is wrong, we have to find a way to hit them where it REALLY hurts -> in their pocketbook. Of course, WE are direct beneficiaries of China's slave labor, and therein lies the real problem.

 

How many REALLY are willing to protest with their pocketbooks and make the economic sacrifice that it would require? Unfortunately, not many is the answer.

 

 

I never advocated violence. I don't condone attacking the runners. I went to SF waving a sign and marching and taking photos, nothing more. That's not only peaceful, it's democratic and appropriate. Let's stay on subject here.

 

[UstadKhanAli]

 

I'm sorry Ken but NOT according to the BBC reporter James Miles who was there on the day and the only reporter in the area. It took hours for the police to actually take control as it was a spontaneous uprising. By then 10 Chinese had be killed in the violence. Here's the report, listen to it

 

 

3/4 into your audio, James Miles says that the spark that ignited the violence in Lhasa began with police beating two monks, which then provoked Tibetans to start pelting the police with stones, and spread throughout the city spontaneously.

 

BTW, Miles reiterates that they were spontaneous, which directly contradicts the PRC's assertion that the "Dalai Clique" masterminded the violence.

 

So again....every single source EXCEPT the PRC has reported that the demonstrations by the Tibetans were peaceful...UNTIL they were attacked. We have all manner of reports, as we have been reporting on this with our radio show, and they all seem to corroborate this.

 

I stand by my statement, and furthermore would like to point out that your "evidence" strongly supports my statement.

 

~~

 

That said, I don't condone the targeting/killing of shopkeepers by the Tibetans, as many Tibetans and Tibetan supporters have pointed out numerous times.

[UstadKhanAli]

Amplayer, you make some very valid arguments, many of which we ("we" being Tibetans and Tibetan supporters) have been grappling with, especially recently.

 

The Tibetans realize that the Olympics may be the best platform for decades to let the world know their plight, and they are desperate to do so, as they are being killed.

 

But yeah, I agree with all your opinions.

 

Like most conflicts, it becomes rather complicated when examined closely.

[Hard Truth]

I'm generally in favor of the "engage and influence" school of foriegn policy over the "isolate and vilify" method. I think athletes from all countries should participate in the olympics, but I also support their right to protest or other wise make a statement in a non-violent manner. I would think that a gesture by the participants in the closing ceremonies could be most effective. If the IOC punishes an athlete for making a public statement after they win their events, it would bring shame on the IOC, not the athelete. I don't think the athlete would lose much in the way of endorsements or other rewards if the IOC takes away their title after they have won.

[Hard Truth]

BTW, for the USA governement to withdraw from the Olympics over human rights issues would appear hypocritical and sanctimonious considering the actions of the USA in the last seven years-Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Grahib, use of torture, extraordinary rendition etc. China and the USA are becoming more alike, they're becoming more capitalistic and we're losing our respect for human rights and international law.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

BTW, for the USA governement to withdraw from the Olympics over human rights issues would appear hypocritical and sanctimonious considering the actions of the USA in the last seven years-Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Grahib, use of torture, extraordinary rendition etc.

 

 

There's a LOT of hypocrisy all the way around, including those that you mention...except, sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "extraordinary rendition". What's that?

 

Good points in your other post too.

[slight-return]

Well, they are forms of violence in a way, although there is no parity. There's a difference between protesting by grabbing a torch and gunning down unarmed monks.

 

oooh, that's a tough one and can depend on the philosophy the person applies.

 

In some systems of thought there can be no parity b/c evil isn't a comparitive (ie a well ordered set) in nature... "at least I don't....", "I did evil to stop a greater evil", etc don't excuse an evil

 

[wars and torture and occupation are, often, justified in such a manner]

 

It's certainly not the only way to think about it, some folks I've run into have opined that "righteous evil" (as opposed to apathetic or malicious evil) is a larger evil as it is a machinism that twists love into hate

 

others use a system were the transactional results are scored (this is a venial sin, that is a mortal sin)

 

a lot of systems (we find it in legal philosophy) use a hybrid system where intent, result, and situation are taken into acct and even in them there are areas where that native system can be suspended (strict-liability crimes for instance)

 

 

on a personal note, While I don't find myself an adherent to any particular philosophy, I do notice that once the sword of righteousness is pulled, everyone paints "righteous" on their sword ....

 

Throwing-star bellied sneetches

[slight-return]

 

except, sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "extraordinary rendition". What's that?

 

 

It's essentially the extraditionary equivalent of "double secret probation" from Animal house. People getting shipped around from jurisdiction to jurisdiction w/o judicial oversight or authority.

You cant torture? no problem, ship over there for "security reasons" (aka "b/c I can") so your buddy ...well, let's just say that waterboarding...that was the "good cop" routine.

[John Sayers]

Ken - the Dalai Lama doesn't appear to want a Free Tibet! and he doesn't support your protests.

 

this from 4 hours ago.

 

 

SEATTLE (Reuters) - The Dalai Lama said on Sunday he would resign as leader of Tibet's exiled government if violence in his homeland spreads out of control. "If violence becomes out of control then my only option is to resign," the Buddhist spiritual leader said at a news conference. "If the majority of people commit violence, then I resign." The Chinese government has accused the Dalai Lama of orchestrating last month's deadly riots in the Tibetan capital Lhasa and unrest that followed in other ethnic Tibetan areas, as part of a bid for independence and to ruin the upcoming Olympic Games in Beijing. The Dalai Lama, who fled into exile in India in 1959, would retain his post as spiritual leader of Tibet if he were to step down as the head of state, a threat he also made last month. The 72-year-old Nobel Peace Prize laureate was recognized as the reincarnation of the previous Dalai Lama at the age of 2. The Dalai Lamas are believed to be manifestations of the patron saint of Tibet, according to the Dalai Lama's Web site. China's official Xinhua news agency earlier on Sunday denounced the Dalai Lama as a sham. China has gone on the offensive in the face of mounting international criticism of its handling of the riots, wider unrest and a subsequent crackdown in the run-up to the Olympics. The Dalai Lama said he supported the games and he was saddened by recent anti-Chinese protests that marred the traditional torch relay through the streets of London, Paris and San Francisco. He reiterated comments that he was not pushing for a separate state , saying that Tibet should be "a happy citizen" of China. (Reporting by Laura Myers, editing by Dean Goodman and Eric Beech) http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1330820120080413

 

[deanmass]

I don't think I am alone in thing that 'Free Tibet' means a Tibet free of oppression and violence, not a literal free, independent state.

 

First things first, ya know.

 

I am attending as a volunteer a talk with the Dalai Lama this coming Friday. I am anticipating a pretty rousing conversation.

[doug osborne]

Should the IOC have chosen China as the host for the Olympics? One could argue that a large, powerful nation with a rich atheletic history should not be excluded, since the mission of the IOC is atheletic, not political (not to say that politics won't play a role). China, like the US, incarcerates many of its citizens unjustly (we have a huge disparity in the racial makeup of our inmates, we jail a significant number of our own for victimless crimes, we use Capital Punishment with no justification, we ran Abu Graib and Gunatanemo...). China has had a great involvement in Darfur, and could have done much to stop the genocide. China stops their citizens from expressing opinion with bullets (we have our Kent State and other uses of extreme force).

 

As repressive as China is right now, they are leagues better than they were twenty and forty years ago. Their citizens have received increases in their standard of living far beyond just about any nation on earth in that time (while the spending power of US citizens has decreased). Time will tell whether they are the new Nazi Germany or a new free society, but I think we should leave that for the politicians, and history, not the IOC.

 

China under this type of public pressure will not publicly back down. Culturally, it would be rare for them do react any way but by hardening their current policy. They would be wise to just ignore the armbands and any protest, and go on with the games. IMO, we should make our individual opinion and public policy be known, and let China run these Olympics, for the atheletes.

[UstadKhanAli]

China would be wise to stop the brutality and killing. Their repression of their "minority" people (Uighurs, Tibetans, and many of the people in the Yunnan province) "disappear", get sent to prison labor camps, and get tortured and killed. They are one of the most repressive regimes in the world, and this regard, have not improved all that much...I mean, sure, if you want to compare it to the Cultural Revolution, in which millions of people were out and out killed, yeah, gee, that's an improvement.

 

Bringing up the standard of living for Han Chinese is great, and China's done a fantastic job of that. But since we are talking about human rights here, China absolutely sucks in this regard, and has not improved any in the past twenty years since the time of Tiananmen Square. Hey, it's Tiananmen Square ALL the time in Tibet and East Turkestan!!!

 

~~~~~~~

 

And yes, "Free Tibet" means that Tibetans are free from repression, brutality, oppression, etc., and have some manner of self-determination.

 

And John, I posted that somewhere else on this thread almost two weeks ago.

[UstadKhanAli]

Here's some potentially good news...the Dalai Lama says his aides are talking to China.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/world/asia/14dalai.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

 

SEATTLE

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Ken - the Dalai Lama doesn't appear to want a Free Tibet! and he doesn't support your protests. this from 4 hours ago.

 

 

And btw, I know you like to keep throwing things in my face that you feel are contradictory...but you might want to know that the Dalai Lama not only supports our efforts wholeheartedly, he's actually told The Tibet Connection this.

 

You know, it's difficult to tell us that the Dalai Lama doesn't support us when we actually talk to him.

[John Sayers]

then why is he reported:

 

"he was saddened by recent anti-Chinese protests that marred the traditional torch relay through the streets of London, Paris and San Francisco".

[UstadKhanAli]

Well, that we haven't spoken to him about, but presumably because they had elements of violence or were supremely disruptive, as we discussed, which he is extremely disapproving of, as you know. And which we at The Tibet Connection do not condone either, I might add. He's mentioned several times that protests and activism are all fine as long as they are not violent, so I'm assuming this is why he disapproves.

 

At any rate, I'm getting ready to go on a much-needed bullhorn-free vacation , so I'll "see" you and everyone else when we return!! Thanks for the tip on the web host, John.

[John Sayers]

my pleasure - have a good trip mate.

[John Sayers]

This letter to the editor of the Sydney Morning Herald fairly sums up my views on this matter.

 

 

In the late 1950s and early 1960s I worked in a Christian missionary school near the Tibetan border in north India, where refugees were entering in their thousands. A number of my students were Tibetan children. Talking to the refugees and my students, I learned about Tibet and its people before and after the physical occupation by China. There were three classes of people in Tibet: the feudal landlords who owned all the land, monks who spent their time reading scriptures and begging, and serfs who worked the land for the feudal lords. The Dalai Lama presided over the whole life of Tibetans as god-king. The landlords treated the serfs with the same ruthlessness as the landlords of the Dark Ages in Western Europe. There were no roads, no hospitals and no modern schools in Tibet, no human rights, and no democracy. Outsiders were banned during the Dalai Lama's time. The refugees did not speak of a genocide of Tibetans by the Chinese. The refugees who came to India were mainly the feudal landlords with their wealth in gold, their servants and some monks, together with the Dalai Lama. The Chinese takeover changed the face of Tibet. They built roads, schools and hospitals and other infrastructure necessary for an acceptable modern life. They instituted land reforms and gave dignity in life to the serfs. That the monks still comprise a sizeable population in Tibet is significant, and makes me wonder how much the spiritual life of Tibetans has been affected by the Chinese. Lindsey Hilsum, China correspondent for Britain's Channel 4 News has given an interesting perspective on the unrest in Tibet. In the New Statesman (March 19) she wrote that the unrest in Tibet is caused by the economic disparity between the Tibetans and the Han Chinese and Hui Muslims who own the majority of shops and businesses. These Chinese minorities, with their better business acumen, have benefited most from the upturn in the Tibetan economy. This has fuelled the resentment of Tibetans against its Chinese minorities. Freedom or religion has very little to do with what is happening in Tibet now. Bill Mathew Parkville (Vic)