Terrorist attack in Thailand; New Year's countdown cancelled

[Datajack Franit]

Originally posted by GePap


Wait, you wer ethe guy who instantly blamed Islam....so what are you laughing at?

Because the terrorist attacks were performed by...

[Tingkai]

Getting back to Thailand

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Maybe. But since the junta has the support of the King, it's not clear what they gain from this maneuver.

The junta has lost popular support since the coup, particularly after the screw up on trying to control currency inflows last month. When a rash government policy causes the stock market to crash 15 percent in one day, people start to questioning the idiots.

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
And Thaksin is about 1/2 step away from being a Bond villain anyway, so its not like this is out of character...

You've got to be joking. Thaksin didn't employ violence to stay in power.

He was democratically elected in fair elections by large majorities.

Hardly the making of a Bond villian, now if we were talking about Lee and mini-Lee ...

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Yes, because the Tibetans, Chinese, and Japanese have such peaceful histories following the introduction of Buddhism.

Ashoka is the archetype of a Buddhist ruler. Look up his edicts sometime.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I have little doubt that in the absence of a PRC invasion Tibet would have modernized its society.

One merely look at places like Nepal, Bhutan, and Sikkim to see why one should have had doubts.

Let's conveniently forget India, whose very presence lends stability to the said places, eh?

Meanwhile the propaganda campaign is used to counter calls for international attention to the human rights situation in Tibet today.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

And the rest of China is ignored except by right-wingers using it to bash China to try and get some trade concessions. The human rights situation in Tibet is no worse than in China proper, as as one old peasant said, "I may not be free under Chinese communism, but I am better off than when I was a slave." (John Pomfret, "Tibet Caught in China's Web," Washington Post, 23 July 1999.)

That is like saying that "No, we're not treating you any worse, we treat our own citizens like sh*t, too!"

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

And this discussion was brought up because someone claimed that Buddhism really was the religion of peace. This is just to point out that Buddhists have been as nasty as everyone else.

Again, look at Ashoka and others who embraced Buddhism out of personal conviction. You find that their policies are enlightened even by TODAY'S standards.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

I daresay peasants in Bhutan, Sikkim, and Nepal are not much worse off than peasants in the PRC, even now, when land privatization has benefited many peasants.

I'd say that the peasants in Bhutan and Sikkim and Nepal are far better off than under the PRC, because Bhutan's king has handed most of his executive powers to the Prime Minister and has tried to modernise with Indian help, Sikkim is now a proper state of India, with all that that implies, and Nepal is now a democracy modeled on India.

EDIT: It appears that we have taken it upon ourselves to help out the Bhutanese modernise when we can.

[Pekka]

"n internal affair of the country in question. "

Right. And this is the claim for one-China policy, and if it was to happen, that Taiwan was ****ed up by the PRC, woudl you say, well, it is an internal fair?

This is to say, while even if it could be true, it's not really a proper argument. What are you anyway, a commie? The PRC illegally took power, the real government of China still resides in Taiwan

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Coming from you this is too ironic....

that I consider human rights an internal affair of a country WITHIN limits? I dont see why. Genocide and brutal ethnic cleansing, for ex, is outside those limits. The human rights violations within China proper have not reached those extremes, unless Im missing something. And human rights violations ARE relevant when we are, say, judging the right of a country that calls for the extinction of a neighbor to acquire nuclear weapons. which is also not at issue here.

I certainly think human rights violations in China proper SHOULD be a concern of ours. But its a far lower concern than our many strategic issues with them. Their treatment of Tibet, OTOH, is, rightfully, a greater concern, as their claim to it is less clearcut. Similarly their treatment of both Tibet and of Hong Kong are indications (IMO) of their seriousness about maintaining a "one state, two societies" policy toward Taiwan.

Why dont you tell me what your issue is - do you think we should pay MORE attention to the human rights violations in China proper, or less to violations in Tibet. Or are you just interested in stalking me with claims that my statements are "ironic" without specifying what is ironic about them?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Pekka
"n internal affair of the country in question. "

Right. And this is the claim for one-China policy, and if it was to happen, that Taiwan was ****ed up by the PRC, woudl you say, well, it is an internal fair?

This is to say, while even if it could be true, it's not really a proper argument. What are you anyway, a commie? The PRC illegally took power, the real government of China still resides in Taiwan

I think China has special obligations toward Tibet, and Hong Kong, and would towards Taiwan. To the extent that China fails in its special obligations toward Tibet and Hong Kong, we would be entitled to tilt further toward Taiwan.

Im not a commie, merely one who realizes the US and the West in general must "ration" their use of power, and must prioritize what they ask for from another great power.

[Pekka]

Well, I wasn't taking you on what we must do, we don't need to do anything.

But China can claim it's authority over any close region and claim it an internal affair, so I don't think that flies as an argument alone.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Coming from you this is too ironic....

If the above cryptic statement is a reference to Israel, I have never said that Israeli actions in Gaza and the West Bank were a purely internal Israeli affair, in the way that actions within the 1949 armistice lines are a purely Israeli affair. I HAVE said that Israel has a CLAIM to the territories, and so that their status is not simply "occupied territories" but disputed territories. I certainly do not here deny that PRC has a CLAIM to Tibet, nor do I claim that every Han Chinese who enters Tibet to live is an illegal settler. Nor that the mere presence of Han Chinese in Tibet constitutes a human rights violation against the people of Tibet.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Ashoka is the archetype of a Buddhist ruler. Look up his edicts sometime.

Look up Stalin's Soviet constitution of 1935. It's one of the most enlightened constitutions ever written.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


If the above cryptic statement is a reference to Israel, I have never said that Israeli actions in Gaza and the West Bank were a purely internal Israeli affair, in the way that actions within the 1949 armistice lines are a purely Israeli affair. I HAVE said that Israel has a CLAIM to the territories, and so that their status is not simply "occupied territories" but disputed territories. I certainly do not here deny that PRC has a CLAIM to Tibet, nor do I claim that every Han Chinese who enters Tibet to live is an illegal settler. Nor that the mere presence of Han Chinese in Tibet constitutes a human rights violation against the people of Tibet.

It has more to do with the whole idea of China having to take greater care with Tibetan rights than rights in the rest of China, given the status of Tibetans under Chinese rule. You brought that notion up, which again, I found ironic.