I live in Los Angeles, Was born in New Jersey. I disagree with you about Tibet. Thus, according to you, I support everything the PRC does and am a brainwashed Chinaman. The only thing that makes me less "American" than you is my yellow skin. I have to conclude that you think I am brainwashed because of my yellow skin. Or that I can't think independently because of my yellow skin. It's people like you that sent the Japanese to camps during WW2. Is a white person who disagrees with you about about one issue (ie. Tibet) a yellow, brainwashed Chinaman too? Should they be deported along with me? Who here has the borg mentality here?
An internet hunt is on for the identity of this attacker on Jin Jing, the wheelchair athlete assualted in the Paris torch relay. And some clues has emerged. Here he is seen in Paris, Here he was being arrested a day earlier in London, apparently a professional protester who travels with the torch. The Chinese are vowing terrible punishments once he is identified. Maybe the triads would put a contract out on him. If I were him, I would be going into hiding about now.
If you peel away all those layers of empty talk about freedom and democracy, beneath it all you will always find just a racist bigot trembling in fear of the perceived "yellow peril".
That's whats annoying. I freely admit that there is more than one side to this Tibet issue. I just hate being considered a brainwashed Chinaman just because I have a point of view that is contrary to the free tibet crowd, many of which who think that Tibet is a Canadian province or support thugs mugging paraplegics. There are smart, informed people on this board who are "free tibet". And then there are others. I'd have to go back, but I suppose the name calling does go both ways. I've just felt it more from the "progressives" who claim moral superiority in the first place.
The one who's autocratic and authoritarian and try to subvert the will of the people is you. You just can't accept that other people have their own way and freedom of thinking. And you use insult to try to force them to submit to your own views. Remember not only you deserve to have democracy and freedom, everyone else in this world deserve it too. Don't try to take away other people's democracy and freedom.
It is like famous CNN, they might be proudly accusing someone as "one party line opinion", but in fact, they are the ones who bear the one party view. so far, American government is untouched.
I find the anti-PRC pundits most amusing. Take Sammy Fisher for example, the moron's best and only line is to claim that Chinese posters "toe the party line. Citing only Chicom sources." I'm doing a quick visual scan, it appears that the said Chinese posters are citing from sources the world over. So apparently the long reaches of the Chinese security apparatus had reached the world over, spanning from the US to Europe to Australia, etc. It has become such a dire situation to be associated with Chinese sources and their alleged "distortions" that the Chinese posters here dissociate themselves from them, citing western sources in most cases. Yet the moronic crew (Sammy, KingCheetah, Dubious, Ottomaton, etc) still claim that those Chinese posters "toe the line," despite never remotely coming close to proving or even attempting to prove the alleged falsities perpetuated by the Chinese media. Hell, I'm personally still waiting for Sammy to answer three basic questions, something I've repeated no less than six times now: Specifically I'm waiting for three things: 1. Headcount that there are 3 million ethnic Hans in Tibet 2. Tibetan is not taught in schools in Tibet 3. Sautman claimed Tibetans are running prostitution joints And KingCheetah, who accused the Chinese Army of inciting riots dressed up as monks now properly made himself scarce with his tail tucked between his legs after that rumour was actually PROVEN (how about that huh) to be a lie perpetuated by the "Free Tibet" groups. Somebody here definitely is brainwashed. Too bad it ain't the Chinese.
Not that I expect you to even read it... source [rquoter] Stories China's media could not write When journalists at China's national broadcaster CCTV log on, one of the first things that pops up on screen is a notice about what not to report. These notices are often short and seldom say who has authorised them, but they all contain strict instructions about how to report a story. Journalists were recently warned off a health scandal, told how to report the death of Benazir Bhutto and had to steer clear of a Hollywood film story. Censorship has been an everyday feature of news reporting in China for as long as the Chinese Communist Party has been in power. But this wide range of so-called sensitive stories shows that, in China, any story on any subject at any time can still fall foul of the censor's red pen. No explanation As 2007 came to a close, it was three very different stories that received particular attention from censors working at China Central Television (CCTV). On 19 December, journalists received a notice banning them from carrying reports about the death of a pregnant migrant worker. The news had previously been widely reported in the Chinese media. The saga began when the woman was rushed to a Beijing hospital with what her husband said was a simple cold. But doctors said she was suffering from pneumonia and needed an emergency caesarean. Her husband, believing the hospital wanted to charge him for an expensive and unnecessary operation, refused. Three hours later his wife was dead. The terse notice banning CCTV journalists from reporting this story did not say why it was sensitive, but health is a hot topic for ordinary Chinese people. Many suspect doctors prescribe expensive drugs and order unnecessary tests and treatment to boost their salaries. Two days later, the CCTV censors were worried about another story - reports that China had banned some Hollywood films from Chinese cinemas. Censors decided this story could not be reported at all. Again, the notice did not say why, but there has been trade friction between China and the US for some time. Perhaps the government did not want to add to the tension by talking about another potential trade dispute between the two sides. 'Avoid drawing fire' The third story that caused problems was the death of Pakistan's former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto two days after Christmas. China and Pakistan are close allies, and the government presumably did not want to cause a friend unnecessary trouble. Of course, it would have been hard to simply ignore the assassination, so on 28 December CCTV journalists received explicit instructions on how to report the killing. Reporters were told to stick to the facts and not connect the incident with Pakistan's internal turmoil or mention the possibility of terrorism. "Avoid drawing fire against ourselves. Avoid being drawn into Pakistan's internal contradictions," the notice read. And this time journalists were told exactly who had authorised this order - the party's Central Propaganda Department. These three stories are just the tip of the iceberg, according to David Bandurski, a researcher with the Hong Kong-based China Media Project, which monitors the media in China. "There are all kinds of bans and missives against all kinds of stories for different reasons," he says. Certain subjects are always out of bounds in China, such as speculation about China's national leaders. Other issues, such as health, education and inflation, are closely monitored because they are potentially controversial. CCTV journalists were recently told to follow the lead of Xinhua, China's national news agency, when writing reports about fuel price rises. Sometimes even innocent stories can become sensitive, such as a recent debate about digital TV, because it touched on the issue of consumer rights. 'Wriggle room' Despite the obstacles, Mr Bandurski says many Chinese journalists are keen to push the boundaries of what is allowed. "The media is becoming savvy about which stories are completely taboo and which stories have some wriggle room, even for a short time," he says. The media was not always so strictly controlled in China. Zhan Jiang, a journalism professor at Beijing's China Youth University for Political Science, says there was more freedom to report political issues in the 1980s. But that relatively relaxed period came to an abrupt end in 1989 with the crackdown on the Tiananmen Square protesters. The professor is not optimistic that things will improve in the short term for Chinese journalists. "On one hand, (Chinese President) Hu Jintao suggests goals to aim for, such as democracy and the rule of law," says Mr Zhan. "But, on the other hand, the forces that oppose democracy, the rule of law and particularly freedom of speech are powerful." [/rquoter]
I read. The whole article too. Unlike you I address the issue instead of the source. As I've already said, I would like to see more press freedom and rule of law existing in China. On the other hand, as I've also said, the Chinese media do not have a history of OUTRIGHT LYING, a pretty low standard apparently not followed by the western media. Still, it does not change the fact that you never discuss the issues. And as a matter of fact, the Chinese media is often right. Not always, but often. Yet you take in comfort in the fact that the word came from the "Free Tibet" groups and western media (even though they've been caught lying), at face value, yet won't give the same slack standards to the Chinese media. Interesting thing, the next time one of those "Free Tibet" groups prove an alleged pre-meditated, non self-defense shooting of a Tibetan monk in the riots by the Chinese police would be the first. Crows are black the world over.
The specific issue that you brought up was that we never 'prove' to you the self-evident fact that your Chinese media sources are heavily edited for political considerations by the masters in Beijing. I addressed that issue. I provided the evidence whose absence was such an achingly disturbing miscarriage of justice. But, like quicksilver, you refuse to be bound by the strictures of logic, pouring out of the boundaries established (by yourself) for the discussion and going off on another diatribe on an unrelated subject, suddenly no longer caring about how we've supposedly wronged the poor honest independent-minded Chinese press. Now, suddenly, the fact that the Chinese press is edited by CPC officials, is no big deal, and the Chinese press are 'almost always' right. Ok. Whatever.
Aren't you the one who claimed people from China are racist towards blacks? Why are you even trying to sound objective.
I claimed that it was well known. Google 'China, racist, black', and find 210,000 hits discussing it.
Just because it's on google, then that must be true for all the one billion plus people from China. Its about as moronic as "People from America are racist towards Arabs"
The Buenos Aires leg of the relay was completed without a hitch. Huge cheering crowds everywhere. Like I said, this torch thing is a good way for China to see clearly "who is with us and who is against us". Marking Argentina down in the "with us" category... Next stop, Tanzania! Expect lots of Africans cheering and dancing. There are no hippies in Tanzania!
I think that you are in for a surprise ride. From what I've learned, a lot of Africans have strong anti-Chiina feelings, not because of Darfur or human rights like the Western neo-liberals want to make you believe (honestly who gives a damn about human rights in Africa), but because China's exploit of Africa's natural resources and their taking-over of the African markets such as the texile market which was a traditional source for income for many locals. In other words, the Chinese are the new Whites in Africa.
What is your definition of freedom? Granted the Rupert Murdochs of the world overtly intend to subvert free speech, but government controled media (and censored interenet) is neither free or fair. Tell what most Chinese are interested in, because thats the only way I'll ever know since all the information we get is all government issue; like; why aren't labor unions stronger in a country with a socialist history? Why isn't the new wealth of China distributed more eqitably to workers, why aren't the people more concerned with the public welfare and allow the oligarchs to pollute their enviroment. Tell us how the people of Hong Kong really feel about the options in their elections.
No offense or anything, do you ever actually listen to yourself? So in other words, DESPITE the fact that you CAN'T prove anything related to your pathetic allegations, heavily edited or not, you nevertheless, STILL CONVICTED the CCP for allegations stemming from the Tibetan exile groups, who had been caught with their pants down lying. Well here is another allegation for you: you're a moron. Prove me wrong. Rather pathetic I think. You are really upset with my non-claims of "poor honest independent-minded Chinese press" because I've never made such a claim. What you are upset is that somebody somehow challenged your world views and falsehoods. I hardly went on a diatribe, like I said in the third time in this thread, I just called a spade a spade. Unless and your Tibetan independence allies somehow conjure up legitimate proof to their allegations, that is all it can remain at this point. Find the proof then we can actually have something to talk about, instead of just me listening to your drivel. Another strawman? Why ain't I shocked? My words were "And as a matter of fact, the Chinese media is often right. Not always, but often." I think there is a bit more latitude between "often" and "almost always." I also don't recall claiming that edited Chinese press is alright, another strawman brought up by you. What I did state, is the fact that you take lying western/pro-Tibetan independence media at face value, when they've been proven to lie, yet refused to do the same for the Chinese press, which hides truth, but doesn't outright lie. So essentially what you are saying is that CNN/BBC/Tibet.org/whatever lie OK, Chinese media lie not OK, is that right? As long as we got that clear.
Actually, I have you pretty much pegged as a jingoistic fascist China-supremacist, so nothing you say really challenges anything I think. You have written yourself out of the ability to influence my thought with your mechanical knee-jerk nationalism. It's like when Aryan Nation talks about white supremacy. I don't even pay attention beyond the surface. There are several Chinese posters whose statements are exposed to the inner sanctum of my thought processes. You, most definitely, are not one of them. You challenge nothing. You are a cartoon caricature.
