Olympic torch through London et al

[Squeamous]

Was watching footage of this on the news tonight. It seems like every few paces a Free Tibet protestor broke through the crowd and made a run in front of the procession with a placard or a water pistol, only to be mown down Bodyguard style by a bunch of overzealous uniformed goons like he or she was about to detonate a suicide bomb. I was really shocked at the voracity of the police response. None of the protestors resisted arrest when caught, but at one point a bloke had about 5 policemen on top of him kneeing him in the back. In another scene a man rushed in front of the procession and ran along ahead of it with a banner and a policeman peddled up behind him as fast as his fat donut shitting arse could drive his thighs and literally jumped off the saddle onto his back to bring him down.

WTF?? It was like watching a protest being put down in one of the countries the protest was about.

[Alien5]

yeah i saw and heard it pass by neer to my workplace, cops were everywhere, helicopters were following it for hours and hours, then suddenly it all got louder and people were running towards it, police ran towards it, then it diverted away from the road i was on at the last minute, and i saw absolutely nothing at all. :emo:

police always knee you in the back, its called pinning them to the ground, what do you expect the cops to do? you dont threaten to disrupt an important event and expect to get treated nicely do you?

[benchez' mum]

Meh. Silly Eenglish Pig-Dogs. :snooty:

[Squeamous]

Eh? What fake guns? A luminous pump action water pistol you mean? Yeah, I bet the police get really nervy around schools in summer.

Perhaps if the police jumped en masse on fewer people when they're not struggling or resisting, before kneeing them in their backs they'd get fewer people dying in police custody.

[Alien5]

i thought you said a water pistol, but then i deleted that.

do you know about Geneva Conventions?

[benchez' mum]

Deleted twice. :emo:

Tesco :fist:

[Mr JP Fugley]

i thought you said a water pistol, but then i deleted that.

do you know about Geneva Conventions?

I was always under the impression that there only was the one.

Are there more.

[Alien5]

is that a question? :unsure:

The Geneva Conventions consist of four treaties...blah blah blah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

[Mr JP Fugley]

:naughty:

[Squeamous]

Yes I am aware of 'Geneva Conventions'. Next.

[Alien5]

Its a good read innit? :smilie4:

those Swiss businessmans were bloody nice people.

[Squeamous]

I'm sorry I'm going to have to stop talking to you or I might catch stupid.

[Squeamous]

Almost forgot the et al part.

So I'm watching the telly this morning and Richard dawkins is on talking about religion with a studio audience, and they eventually get onto the subject of the existence of the Devil. Someone actually says....get this....

'Well the devil must exist because how else do you explain Hitler?'

:dry:

Then tonight on that Louis Theroux programme I'm watching grown men act like they achieved some sort of epic victory of man over beast because they cornered a big goat and shot it in the head.

I'm too sensitive for this world :cry:

[Alien5]

i cant argue with that, or that.

[tesco]

Deleted twice. :emo:

Tesco :fist:They marked as spam.:P:lol:

[Snee]

i cant argue with that, or that.

You should write a list of stuff you can argue with, like.

It should have bullet points and stuff, 'cos those are nice.

[Alien5]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AFMqEYd8QE

[Barbarossa]

The whole thing was on News 24 for about 10 hours. It was a farce.

At one point the torch carrier was surrounded by a ring of Chinese assasins, a second ring of bicycle helmet wearing police in yellow vests, and two rings of police ninjas wearing black. :unsure:

I lolled at the commentator when he said that a protestor had come within inches of snatching the flame because he was disguised as a normal bloke :glag:

Anyway, what a waste of everyone's time :dabs:

[Squeamous]

Agreed. Apparently the flame has been extinguished in Paris now.

[Biggles]

Agreed. Apparently the flame has been extinguished in Paris now.

Those French Farmers - probably weren't use French gas or something else.

[Barbarossa]

The police did it :blink:

[Mr. Mulder]

i watched it on teh news, it was lol - specially when that one guy came at the torch with a proper fire extinguisher :lol:

[Squeamous]

Agreed. Apparently the flame has been extinguished in Paris now.

Those French Farmers - probably weren't use French gas or something else.

They know how to make a public nuisance of themselves in France don't they?

[Alien5]

Olympic Street Wrestling.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44545000/jpg/_44545469_pa226x282bike.jpg

[Squeamous]

Brilliant! That was the part where PC plod launched himself off his saddle onto a man carrying a flag. Bet that was the most physical exertion he'd made since he joined the force.

[Biggles]

Those French Farmers - probably weren't use French gas or something else.

They know how to make a public nuisance of themselves in France don't they?

They have had a hell of a lot of practice. That torch never really stood a chance.

[manicgeek]

Sorry but I don't see what's so funny about attacking people carrying a symbol of the Olympic ideal. They're not attacking China, they're attacking the torch oblivious of what that torch is meant to represent. They had a chance to use what that torch represents to say something to China and stupidly they've thrown it away by behaving like thugs.

Instead they end up looking like people who don't get the ideals of the event, or who disagree with those ideals... and if I were Chinese I'd be pleased about that... because the discussion has to become about their behaviour instead about the behaviour of the state of China.

[Alien5]

in the west we believe in freedom of speech and human rights, china had to cut the live news feeds to hide the truth from its people. nobody behaved like thugs, the protesters did everything they could to throw a spanner in the works, and they succeeded.

[Mr JP Fugley]

They should have carried it through France via the gift of a burning sheep.

[manicgeek]

in the west we believe in freedom of speech and human rights, china had to cut the live news feeds to hide the truth from its people.

If you're going to try and sell attacking a symbol of the Olympic ideals as a freedom of speech argument I'm really hoping you're not representing anyone in any kind of court case ever!

And in the news today is reports of attacks upon the symbol, nothing about China, other than in relation to the attacks upon a symbol that isn't even theirs and that in many ways represents everything China does wrong.

So China cut a news feed, just as Western Governments attempt to control the news... so what's new... that's Government for you.

Oooo just caught your edit... No I'm sorry they behaved like thugs, with no sense of decent behaviour towards other individuals, that's why the news outlets are discussing their behaviour instead of running articles about the behaviour of the Chinese state.

[Alien5]

in the west we believe in freedom of speech and human rights, china had to cut the live news feeds to hide the truth from its people.

If you're going to try and sell attacking a symbol of the Olympic ideals as a freedom of speech argument I'm really hoping you're not representing anyone in any kind of court case ever!

And in the news today is reports of attacks upon the symbol, nothing about China, other than in relation to the attacks upon a symbol that isn't even theirs and that in many ways represents everything China does wrong.

So China cut a news feed, just as Western Governments attempt to control the news... so what's new... that's Government for you.

Oooo just caught your edit... No I'm sorry they behaved like thugs, with no sense of decent behaviour towards other individuals, that's why the news outlets are discussing their behaviour instead of running articles about the behaviour of the Chinese state.

the behavior of china wasn't on the news because they paid western TV & sports personalities to try and (fail to) carry the torch through London and Paris.

china behaved like thugs when they took Tibet and still do.

[manicgeek]

the behavior of china wasn't on the news because they paid western TV & sports personalities to try and (fail to) carry the torch through London and Paris.

WOW shit that must have cost them a bob or two, paying off EVERY western journalist... I mean we do have a lot of journalists... and they paid off every one of them did they ?

No I'm not asking what your position on UFOs is!

Oooo caught your edit again... yeah it's a shame the Western news isn't reporting anything about it though... maybe they've been distracted by the thugs attacking the Olympic torch ?

[Alien5]

TV & sports personalities were paid to run around with a torch not journalists.

[Alien5]

the behavior of china wasn't on the news because they paid western TV & sports personalities to try and (fail to) carry the torch through London and Paris.

WOW shit that must have cost them a bob or two, paying off EVERY western journalist... I mean we do have a lot of journalists... and they paid off every one of them did they ?

No I'm not asking what your position on UFOs is!

Oooo caught your edit again... yeah it's a shame the Western news isn't reporting anything about it though... maybe they've been distracted by the thugs attacking the Olympic torch ?

western news isn't reporting what?

[manicgeek]

what im saying is TV & sports personalities were paid to run around with a torch.
So what you're arguing that them running around with a torch that represents the Olympic ideals is offensive or something ? And so they deserved to be attacked ?

Nah!! I don't think that'll hold up either... I've seen some of the crap programs they create and they're a damned sight more offensive than having them carrying a torch through the streets.

[manicgeek]

western news isn't reporting what?

Anything much about Tibet, they're focusing on the Western protests and the behaviour of the protesters... shame really they could have been reporting about how the masses object to the way China treats the people of Tibet with some indepth stuff about the what China does.

[Alien5]

what are you so angry about?

the London & Paris protests succeeded? who cares?

it would have been nice if those two days werent ruined by protests i agree,

but china assumed the police could control them, the police failed today in paris 3 times the torch was extinguished, yesterday in london the police also failed to keep the protesters under control.

i dunno what news you've been watching?

[manicgeek]

Sorry angry :blink: Where was that then ?

I just said I couldn't see that the thuggery did the actual cause any good.

[Alien5]

sorry my mistake.

[4play]

apparently Hitler (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7330949.stm) invented the idea of the Olympic flame so it must be evil (since he was created by the devil). These noble protesters are indeed doing gods work, or are they Buddhists ?

[Mr JP Fugley]

apparently Hitler (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7330949.stm) invented the idea of the Olympic flame so it must be evil (since he was created by the devil). These noble protesters are indeed doing gods work, or are they Buddhists ?

No way, the Olympic flame has been going for like forever.

Like the Marathon and all the other really good Olympic stuff.

[Squeamous]

Sorry but I don't see what's so funny about attacking people carrying a symbol of the Olympic ideal. They're not attacking China, they're attacking the torch oblivious of what that torch is meant to represent. They had a chance to use what that torch represents to say something to China and stupidly they've thrown it away by behaving like thugs.

Instead they end up looking like people who don't get the ideals of the event, or who disagree with those ideals... and if I were Chinese I'd be pleased about that... because the discussion has to become about their behaviour instead about the behaviour of the state of China.

I don't think any part of this sorry tour de farce is funny and I never said I did.

Actually the discussion in all the newspapers this morning was about the behaviour of the police, not the protestors who in the end didn't hurt a soul.

[Biggles]

Sorry but I don't see what's so funny about attacking people carrying a symbol of the Olympic ideal. They're not attacking China, they're attacking the torch oblivious of what that torch is meant to represent. They had a chance to use what that torch represents to say something to China and stupidly they've thrown it away by behaving like thugs.

Instead they end up looking like people who don't get the ideals of the event, or who disagree with those ideals... and if I were Chinese I'd be pleased about that... because the discussion has to become about their behaviour instead about the behaviour of the state of China.

I don't think any part of this sorry tour de farce is funny and I never said I did.

Actually the discussion in all the newspapers this morning was the behaviour of the police, not the protestors who in the end didn't hurt a soul.

I beg to differ - I thought the plod leaping off his bike was class. :glag:

[Squeamous]

Well now you mention it :shifty:.

[manicgeek]

I beg to differ - I thought the plod leaping off his bike was class. :glag:

Yeah I suspect the Chinese thought it was class as well, although they have different motives for thinking so...

[manicgeek]

I don't think any part of this sorry tour de farce is funny and I never said I did.

Actually the discussion in all the newspapers this morning was about the behaviour of the police, not the protestors who in the end didn't hurt a soul.

And who unfortunately, due to some thugs, have achieved absolutely nothing for the people of Tibet... no greater publicity or recognition of their plight... not even a spotlight turned onto the behaviour of the Chinese state...

I'm surprised that the protesters themselves aren't angry at the thugs, I would be.

[Alien5]

i don't think you understand protests then, the more you protest about things, the more people take notice, the more you can get things changed.

maybe you should look up the meaning of protesting in the dictionary, then decide if the protesters or the olympic torch carriers have had the worst publicity over the last two days.

[clocker]

i don't think you understand protests then, the more you protest about things, the more people take notice, the more you can get things changed.


Well, that's the theory anyway.

[manicgeek]

i don't think you understand protests then, the more you protest about things, the more people take notice, the more you can get things changed.

maybe you should look up the meaning of protesting in the dictionary, then decide if the protesters or the olympic torch carriers have had the worst publicity over the last two days.
Yeah right... so many more people now know about how badly China treats the people of Tibet don't they ? And they gained that knowledge from watching people and reading about people attack a western person carrying a torch that represents fairness to all competitors...

If you are seriously arguing that the only way to protest is to attack people then you obviously don't understand what the word protest means... it damned sure as hell doesn't mean assault <- You can look that one up if you like.

[Squeamous]

I don't think any part of this sorry tour de farce is funny and I never said I did.

Actually the discussion in all the newspapers this morning was about the behaviour of the police, not the protestors who in the end didn't hurt a soul.

And who unfortunately, due to some thugs, have achieved absolutely nothing for the people of Tibet... no greater publicity or recognition of their plight... not even a spotlight turned onto the behaviour of the Chinese state...

I'm surprised that the protesters themselves aren't angry at the thugs, I would be.

I didn't see any thugs. Evidently your definition is different to mine.



The English word thug, meaning a violent criminal, comes from the Hindi word thag (and originally from the Sanskrit word sthaga), meaning a thief or villain.

The word 'thug' implies a destructive ignorant/indiscriminate force, which the Olympics protestors certainly were not. I can only assume you're using this term to stimulate debate and rile people. Well, one out of two ain't bad.

I'm not sure how you can assume that the protests have done nothing for Tibet MG. As a scholar of history you should know that small events build into more cohesive protests and can effect change decades down the line. You have a very short-sighted approach to civil unrest.

As to the world's media spotlight and what it's on, it's on the protests against China, which is exactly what the protestors wanted.

[Squeamous]

Yeah right... so many more people now know about how badly China treats the people of Tibet don't they ? And they gained that knowledge from watching people and reading about people attack a western person carrying a torch that represents fairness to all competitors...

If you are seriously arguing that the only way to protest is to attack people then you obviously don't understand what the word protest means... it damned sure as hell doesn't mean assault <- You can look that one up if you like.

No-one attacked anyone. ONE protestor tried to grab the torch, and that was it. Not sure what footage you were watching, maybe it was footage of the last civil unrest in Tibet.

Oh, and the torch is supposed to symbolise peace not 'fairness to all competitors'. Where did you get that from??

[manicgeek]

The torch is supposed to represent the link to the ancient games, one of the ideals of those games was supposedly fairness to all competitors.

I'm happy for you all to agree that thuggery is a valid form of protest and fully expect to hear you supporting the next Muslim who resorts to thuggery in protest over cartoons of his prophet.

Bored now...

[Biggles]

i don't think you understand protests then, the more you protest about things, the more people take notice, the more you can get things changed.

maybe you should look up the meaning of protesting in the dictionary, then decide if the protesters or the olympic torch carriers have had the worst publicity over the last two days.
Yeah right... so many more people now know about how badly China treats the people of Tibet don't they ? And they gained that knowledge from watching people and reading about people attack a western person carrying a torch that represents fairness to all competitors...

If you are seriously arguing that the only way to protest is to attack people then you obviously don't understand what the word protest means... it damned sure as hell doesn't mean assault <- You can look that one up if you like.

Tibet has had more headline news in the last few weeks than in the last 40 years. There cannot be many unaware of what is going on and why people are protesting. I have no idea what you consider a protest consists of in a free society but a handful of minor scuffles trying to grab a torch does not represent thuggery. Did these people raise a hand to a single runner or policeman? People in masks smashing property and having running battles with the police is thuggery. Holding a flag up to a camera and then getting flattened by a flying a policeman is not thuggery - unless you are counting the policeman as the thug, well are you? :shifty:

[Squeamous]

The torch is supposed to represent the link to the ancient games, one of the ideals of those games was supposedly fairness to all competitors.

I'm happy for you all to agree that thuggery is a valid form of protest and fully expect to hear you supporting the next Muslim who resorts to thuggery in protest over cartoons of his prophet.

Bored now...

The torch represents the games. The games are primarily a symbol of healthy competition between nations over violence. Hence, it primarily symbolises peace.

We have established that no-one behaved in a thuggish manner.

EHS

[Alien5]

Gosper, who is a member of the IOC commission advising Beijing on staging the Olympics, described the protesters as "professional spoilers". :glag:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gJWEZlYebk9QTaT2IuZbDBweVxeg

warning: this article does not contain the words thug or thuggery.

---------------
manicgeek: you bastard! you spoiled my olympics! :(

me: boo hoo!

[Squeamous]

Cheeky bastard!

The IOC themselves expressed a hope that the games being held in Beijing would open up dialogue over Tibet back when they awarded it....in fact that was one of their justifcations. Now they're not happy because people are speaking a bit too loudly for their comfort.

Boo hoo indeed. Nasty people taking it out on our shiny torch! And now they're blackmailing everyone by basically saying that if it carries on they might have to stop the relay...and not just this one but all in the future! I've never seen such a pathetic display of cowardice.

[Alien5]

I dunno how people protest in manicgeek's perfect thug-free world?

maybe he's from that utopia called china.

[manicgeek]

The torch represents the games. The games are primarily a symbol of healthy competition between nations over violence. Hence, it primarily symbolises peace.

We have established that no-one behaved in a thuggish manner.

EHS

And some of the protesters thought it could do with having a bit of violence putting back into it did they ?

Have you ? Where was that then ?

[manicgeek]

Tibet has had more headline news in the last few weeks than in the last 40 years. There cannot be many unaware of what is going on and why people are protesting. I have no idea what you consider a protest consists of in a free society but a handful of minor scuffles trying to grab a torch does not represent thuggery. Did these people raise a hand to a single runner or policeman? People in masks smashing property and having running battles with the police is thuggery. Holding a flag up to a camera and then getting flattened by a flying a policeman is not thuggery - unless you are counting the policeman as the thug, well are you? :shifty:

No it hasn't, the protests about Tibet have had loads of publicity, but Tibet and the plight of the people there has had virtually none, in fact they managed to generate more word wide publicity than all of the protests so far when they recently committed acts of violence against the Chinese state, as they're oppressed violence is their only option, unlike the nice comfy Western nations and their peoples who believe that they can be violent because they're free and empowered :rolleyes:

If you don't want to call jumping on a person in the street, and taking something from them thuggery that's entirely your choice, most of us generally call it 'mugging', but in this case we must accept that the criminal wasn't doing it for personal gain, and so thuggery seems to be a more appropriate term.

Feel free to jump on someone in the street and try to take something from them, if you want to test that.... I'm fairly sure the police wont accept it as a valid form of protest, and if you're really unlucky the beak won't either.

[manicgeek]

Gosper, who is a member of the IOC commission advising Beijing on staging the Olympics, described the protesters as "professional spoilers". :glag:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gJWEZlYebk9QTaT2IuZbDBweVxeg

warning: this article does not contain the words thug or thuggery.

---------------
manicgeek: you bastard! you spoiled my olympics! :(

me: boo hoo!
Ah! I see you see the protesters and their actions as some kind of Olympic event then ? Well I suppose that's a novel way of looking at it... now if only the law would see assaulting people that way all the time I could get those nice gadgets I've been after :whistling

[manicgeek]

I dunno how people protest in manicgeek's perfect thug-free world?

maybe he's from that utopia called china.

Hang on... I thought you were saying they weren't thugs... make you're mind up old chap :lol:

[Alien5]

thats your imaginary world im talking about, not mine. :lol:

[manicgeek]

thats your imaginary world im talking about, not mine. :lol:

I think you might want to think about your words and the things you imply with them old chap... see for my world to be 'perfect' and 'thug free' implies recognition by you that your world isn't :lol:

[Alien5]

exactly - my world's not in the least bit perfect, i didn't say it was, i grew up in 70s 80's and 90's London, I also went to school with people affected by the riots, there was nothing perfect & thug free about it.

[manicgeek]

exactly - i grew up in 70s 80's and 90's London, I also went to school with people affected by some of the riots, there was nothing perfect & thug free about it.

Oh! I see... you're agreeing with me that jumping on people in the street and taking something from them (or attempting to) is thuggish behaviour then ?

[Biggles]

So the Tibetan chap running in front of the torch and happily waving his national flag at the camera who got jumped on by the policeman and had his flag removed was a victim of thuggery? No law against waving a flag that I am aware of and he wasn't interfering with the torch.

The BBC and Sky ran hours of coverage on the protests in London and the ongoing protests in Paris and San Fransisco are keeping the issue at the top of the news. This is not a bad thing is it?. Yes it should be peaceful but that doesn't mean the protesters should apologise for being there. I think most of us know what thuggery looks like and some middle aged chap making a political protest by making a grab for a torch isn't it. The twonk who threw an egg at Prescott a few years ago might be classed as a thug as indeed might be Prescott. Connie Huq was considerably more sorted and philosophical about it than you appear to be. Are you on a wind up or something? :shifty:

[Alien5]

exactly - i grew up in 70s 80's and 90's London, I also went to school with people affected by some of the riots, there was nothing perfect & thug free about it.

Oh! I see... you're agreeing with me that jumping on people in the street and taking something from them (or attempting to) is thuggish behaviour then ?



no, im agreeing that the world has thugs, the protesters in my opinion did what they set out to do, disrupt and spoil. maybe we should agree to disagree before i set the thugs on you.

[manicgeek]

Are you on a wind up or something? :shifty:
How could you think such a thing of me Les :shifty:

[Alien5]

another idiotic regular hiding behind a second account are you? why do i bother?

go back to school and learn the difference between thugs and protesters!

[manicgeek]

another idiotic regular hiding behind a second account are you? why do i bother?

go back to school and learn the difference between thugs and protesters!

No I only have this one account... I feel no need to hide anywhere.

Oh! And I know the difference, and I know that grabbing that torch in that way could constitute assault in law.

Maybe you should go and read something about protesting, you'd probably learn that the most effective protests are those that have been done with the absence of violence and with the absence of direct action... like grabbing a torch.

[Alien5]

another idiotic regular hiding behind a second account are you? why do i bother?

go back to school and learn the difference between thugs and protesters!

No I only have this one account... I feel no need to hide anywhere.

Oh! And I know the difference, and I know that grabbing that torch in that way could constitute assault in law.

Maybe you should go and read something about protesting, you'd probably learn that the most effective protests are those that have been done with the absence of violence and with the absence of direct action... like grabbing a torch.

no the most effective protests are the ones where the message gets beamed all around the world by the news coverage, just like the London and Paris ones of the last few days.

"thugs" grabbing the torch seems to be the only thing that you like to talk about, and you don't seem to know about that either.

the London protesters did use the non-violent approach to lie down in the street, it worked because the police then had to make them take the torch to its destination by bus.

i don't think you've watched or read much news about the protests in London or Paris have you? i sat and watched a lot of news reports and articles as i could today and yesterday.

you keep talking about a "thug grabbing a torch" maybe you didn't see or read enough.

[manicgeek]

"thugs" grabbing the torch seems to be the only thing that you like to talk about, and you don't seem to know about that either.

the London protesters did use the non-violent approach to lie down in the street, it worked because the police then had to make them take the torch to its destination by bus.

i don't think you've watched or read much news about the protests in London or Paris have you? i sat and watched a lot of news reports and articles as i could today and yesterday.

you keep talking about a "thug grabbing a torch" maybe you didn't see or read enough.
Hmmm... maybe a discussion about the laws of the land are over your head old chap, never heard of "Obstructing the Queens highway" ? See what happens is a bunch of criminals gather together and all break the law at the same time, by blocking law abiding citizens access and use of the highway (that's a road)...

Nah!!! Bored again...

[Alien5]

you're changing your arguement from thugs to laws now? bad choice, :lol: ok...all the protesters were released without charge, i clearly saw police and protesters both getting hurt in scuffles, it would be six of one and half a dozen of the other if it made it to court, which it wouldn't, that would probably just bring even more extremely bad publicity, sorry.

[manicgeek]

Hold the phones... I thought you'd watched hours of coverage... do you really know what went on... how can you make claims like this


the London protesters did use the non-violent approach to lie down in the street

and follow that with this

i clearly saw police and protesters both getting hurt in scuffles

Now come on make your mind up which was it thuggery or non-violent... and how did those people you see get hurt in a non-violent protest... heat exhaustion was it ?

What was it you were saying about lame arguments again... :whistling

[Alien5]

if you had read or watched the news you would know there were both scuffles and non-violent protests. the protests were going on at different places along the route and at different times. :slap:

have you seen anything other that a "thug" grabbing the torch mate? please read and watch the news reports, you're making a fool of yourself now.


the "thug" you keep going on and on about was one man on his own, standing in one place at one time of the day. :lol:

http://lonewacko.com/images/get-a-brain-morans.jpg

[manicgeek]

if you had read or watched the news you would know there were both scuffles and non-violent protests.

have you seen anything other that a "thug" grabbing the torch mate? please read and watch the news reports, you're making a fool of yourself now.

watch the news please, there were protests going on at different places and at different times.

the "thug" you keep talking about was one man on his own, standing in one place at one time of the day. :lol:
I think you must have confused yourself old chap... I mean scuffling with the police would be the act of a thug and you said there wasn't any thuggery... didn't you ?

So were there scuffles or not, was it non-violent protest (as per your earlier claim) or not, and if there were who did it if not the protesters ?

I'll tell you what why don't you go and make some notes about what you've said before so that you don't keep contradicting yourself ?

[Alien5]

yes i agree, all scuffles between police and protesters are due to "thugs" manicgeek? :slap:


Several small scuffles broke out as police tackled some of the protesters.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7332942.stm

go and watch the news please you might learn something about successful protests.

[manicgeek]

yes i agree, all scuffles between police and protesters are due to "thugs" manicgeek? :slap:


Several small scuffles broke out as police tackled some of the protesters.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7332942.stm

go and watch the news please you might learn something.
Ah! Learning is it... why didn't you say... I could have helped you there...

Here (http://www.law.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofLaw/Research/HumanRightsCentre/Resources/html/Filetoupload,53016,en.htm) you go, this is a good place to start to learn about China and it's human rights actions/abuses...

Of course it's probably no where near as entertaining as watching thugs challenge Officers of law enforcement, but I'm confident of it's educational value.

[Alien5]

Im not interested.

[Barbarossa]

:glag:

[Alien5]

i was gonna say im not "fucking interested" but i didn't wanna be accused of thuggery. :dabs:

[Squeamous]

The torch represents the games. The games are primarily a symbol of healthy competition between nations over violence. Hence, it primarily symbolises peace.

We have established that no-one behaved in a thuggish manner.

EHS

And some of the protesters thought it could do with having a bit of violence putting back into it did they ?

Have you ? Where was that then ?

Like I said, there was no violence.

[Squeamous]

So the Tibetan chap running in front of the torch and happily waving his national flag at the camera who got jumped on by the policeman and had his flag removed was a victim of thuggery? No law against waving a flag that I am aware of and he wasn't interfering with the torch.

The BBC and Sky ran hours of coverage on the protests in London and the ongoing protests in Paris and San Fransisco are keeping the issue at the top of the news. This is not a bad thing is it?. Yes it should be peaceful but that doesn't mean the protesters should apologise for being there. I think most of us know what thuggery looks like and some middle aged chap making a political protest by making a grab for a torch isn't it. The twonk who threw an egg at Prescott a few years ago might be classed as a thug as indeed might be Prescott. Connie Huq was considerably more sorted and philosophical about it than you appear to be. Are you on a wind up or something? :shifty:

I'm not even sure what the actions of one person have to do with the validity of the protest as a whole anyway, even if that person were behaving badly, which he wasn't.

Theoretically the torch belongs to all mankind anyway :shifty:.

[manicgeek]

Like I said, there was no violence.
Yeah Alien5 has told me... the people who were hurt in scuffles weren't hurt by the violence of course :rolleyes:

[manicgeek]

I'm not even sure what the actions of one person have to do with the validity of the protest as a whole anyway, even if that person were behaving badly, which he wasn't.

Theoretically the torch belongs to all mankind anyway :shifty:.

Really! You think assaulting some one isn't behaving badly ? WOW :blink:
And of course it was the same man who Alien5 saw getting injured repeatedly in 'scuffles' with the police wasn't it ? He must be some kind of thicko to repeatedly get himself injured in lots of different scuffles eh ?

[Alien5]

Yeah i saw the Thug. :rolleyes:

[Squeamous]

I'm not even sure what the actions of one person have to do with the validity of the protest as a whole anyway, even if that person were behaving badly, which he wasn't.

Theoretically the torch belongs to all mankind anyway :shifty:.

Really! You think assaulting some one isn't behaving badly ? WOW :blink:
And of course it was the same man who Alien5 saw getting injured repeatedly in 'scuffles' with the police wasn't it ? He must be some kind of thicko to repeatedly get himself injured in lots of different scuffles eh ?

The only people I saw injured in scuffles were the ones launched upon by the police. They are also the only assaults I witnessed. I'm starting to think you were watching Ghandi or something, not the news.

[Alien5]

I'm starting to think you were watching Ghandi or something, not the news. :glag:

[manicgeek]

The only people I saw injured in scuffles were the ones launched upon by the police. They are also the only assaults I witnessed. I'm starting to think you were watching Ghandi or something, not the news.
Now come on Squeamous, you missed the opportunity to make a joke out of my dislike of seeing a young woman attacked on the streets of my country... I'm sure you can find a way to make that funny can't you ?

[IdolEyes787]

Wow! By my count manicgeek 12 lounge 2.

Time to bring in the big guns.

[Alien5]

Olympic Thuggery

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44545000/jpg/_44545469_pa226x282bike.jpg

[Alien5]

The only people I saw injured in scuffles were the ones launched upon by the police. They are also the only assaults I witnessed. I'm starting to think you were watching Ghandi or something, not the news.
Now come on Squeamous, you missed the opportunity to make a joke out of my dislike of seeing a young woman attacked on the streets of my country... I'm sure you can find a way to make that funny can't you ? changing the subject yet again, must be brushing up on his news.

[chalice]

You're arguing over the most effective form of protest, like.

That's all relative to whether or not the media gives two fucks.

A Buddhist monk self-immolating will probably get you a day and a half of intermittent reportage but a Buddhist monk trying to extinguish a flame will get you just the same.

There's an inevitable ironing in there somewheres.

[manicgeek]

changing the subject yet again, must be brushing up on his current affairs.

Really ?

So come one then oh smart alien one, what different subjects have I covered ?

As far as I know, it's been about thuggish behaviour and how that has served the interests of the people of Tibet poorly...

[Squeamous]

The only people I saw injured in scuffles were the ones launched upon by the police. They are also the only assaults I witnessed. I'm starting to think you were watching Ghandi or something, not the news.
Now come on Squeamous, you missed the opportunity to make a joke out of my dislike of seeing a young woman attacked on the streets of my country... I'm sure you can find a way to make that funny can't you ?

No, I fully exploited the opportunity to make fun of the fact that you think you saw a woman attacked in the street with my 'Ghandi' comment. I miss a lot of things but that kind of opportunity is too easy to miss. I'm surprised you missed it.

Did you know that every day women are attacked on the streets of your country, in actual real life...I mean not in your head. I'm sure any one of those would look upon your insistance that Konnie Huq was attacked with a measure of disbelief.

[Alien5]

did you watch the news? there were thugs grabbing the olympics thing from somegirl from blue peter.

[manicgeek]

No, I fully exploited the opportunity to make fun of the fact that you think you saw a woman attacked in the street with my 'Ghandi' comment. I miss a lot of things but that kind of opportunity is too easy to miss. I'm surprised you missed it.

Did you know that every day women are attacked on the streets of your country, in actual real life...I mean not in your head. I'm sure any one of those would look upon your insistance that Konnie Huq was attacked with a measure of disbelief.

I'm sure the nutters in our society will take great heart from your willingness to dismiss a man assaulting a woman on the streets of Britain, and may all women feel safe in the knowledge that when someone assaults them and takes or attempts to take something from them they can always say well some woman was attacked in a worse way than me, so it's alright for me to be attacked like this can't they ? :rolleyes:

[Squeamous]

did you watch the news? there were thugs grabbing the olympics thing from somegirl from blue peter.

I did....and Harrison Ford grabbed this flaming skewer and threw it at one of the Niponese and it pierced him right through the.....

Hang on. That was Raiders of the Lost Ark :rolleyes:. My bad.

[Squeamous]

I'm sure the nutters in our society will take great heart from your willingness to dismiss a man assaulting a woman on the streets of Britain, and may all women feel safe in the knowledge that when someone assaults them and takes or attempts to take something from them they can always say well some woman was attacked in a worse way than me, so it's alright for me to be attacked like this can't they ? :rolleyes:

I'm not sure 'the nutters in society' all read FST so prolly not.

See what this boils down to is the ridiculous way some people like to exaggerate very mild events to prove a point. Like the way people often compare modern Western leaders to Hitler. Which I know you hate.

[manicgeek]

I'm not sure 'the nutters in society' all read FST so prolly not.

See what this boils down to is the ridiculous way some people like to exaggerate very mild events to prove a point. Like the way people often compare modern Western leaders to Hitler. Which I know you hate.

Ah! So now you think I'm exaggerating the assault on young Miss Huq... so you admit there was an assault then ? And this assault was committed by a decent respectable upright citizen wasn't it ?

[Alien5]

No, I fully exploited the opportunity to make fun of the fact that you think you saw a woman attacked in the street with my 'Ghandi' comment. I miss a lot of things but that kind of opportunity is too easy to miss. I'm surprised you missed it.

Did you know that every day women are attacked on the streets of your country, in actual real life...I mean not in your head. I'm sure any one of those would look upon your insistance that Konnie Huq was attacked with a measure of disbelief.

I'm sure the nutters in our society will take great heart from your willingness to dismiss a man assaulting a woman on the streets of Britain, and may all women feel safe in the knowledge that when someone assaults them and takes or attempts to take something from them they can always say well some woman was attacked in a worse way than me, so it's alright for me to be attacked like this can't they ? :rolleyes:

first "thugs" then "nutters", any more people you'd like to insult? :blink:

[Squeamous]

No I said you were exaggerating a very mild event. If you're going to start doing that 'leading' point making you love so much you can just give it up now because I'm too smart to fall for it. I can see it ratcheting up from a mile away.

[manicgeek]

Ah! I forgot I'm a member of the weaker sex in your opinion aren't I, you can analysis my behaviour because you're a woman and tell me what I'm going to do and say can't you :lol:

[Snee]

You're being unfair now, squeamous. I just watched it, and he nearly touched her, you know.

1-KMVWRFLes

JeZ2kaFMeb4

:o

[Squeamous]

Ah! I forgot I'm a member of the weaker sex in your opinion aren't I, you can analysis my behaviour because you're a woman and tell me what I'm going to do and say can't you :lol:

Nah, it's because I know you so well ;).

[IdolEyes787]

Manicgeek was wrong and he knew he was wrong and still ....
Come on you have to admit that was impressive.:yup:

[Squeamous]

You're being unfair now, squeamous. I just watched it, and he nearly touched her, you know.

:o

:lol:

Well you know, those goons surrounding her were Chinese secret police, and they did spend all day pushing around the organisers and met police, so that protestor never stood a chance.

I wonder how MG feels about these people walking our streets?

[Squeamous]

Manicgeek was wrong and he knew he was wrong and still ....
Come on you have to admit that was impressive.:yup:

Nah, men never admit they're wrong :noes:. Ten a penny my friend.

[manicgeek]

:lol:

Well you know, those goons surrounding her were Chinese secret police, and they did spend all day pushing around the organisers and met police, so that protestor never stood a chance.

I wonder how MG feels about these people walking our streets?

Oh! You know full well that I would have your friendly thug strung up from the nearest lamppost....

[manicgeek]

Nah, men never admit they're wrong :noes:. Ten a penny my friend.

No but we don't half keep getting told we are, because women can never admit they are.

[chalice]

Manicgeek was wrong and he knew he was wrong and still ....
Come on you have to admit that was impressive.:yup:

Nah, men never admit they're wrong :noes:. Ten a penny my friend.

You're so right.

You liar.

[Squeamous]

And on that note...

[manicgeek]

:lol:

Well you know, those goons surrounding her were Chinese secret police, and they did spend all day pushing around the organisers and met police, so that protestor never stood a chance.

I wonder how MG feels about these people walking our streets?

What people... law abiding ones you mean... better than thugs I'd say... you obviously wouldn't !

[manicgeek]

Nah, it's because I know you so well ;).
No you don't apparently.

[Alien5]

Archbishop and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond Tutu urged world leaders not to go to the Games.

"Tell your counterparts in Beijing you wanted to come but looked at your schedule and realised you have something else to do."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7337925.stm

- do something else. :lol:

[Biggles]

In order to give someone a bit of a thugging one has to strike them, verbally abuse them or attack their property. The chap in question was an older middle aged chap of non-thuggish demeanour. He did not hit Konnie or abuse her verbally. He grabbed the torch as a political act and obviously expected to not get far - indeed the surprise was that he got to the torch at all considering the number of police around it. The protest was in the holding of the torch. To compare that to say the anti-globalisation riots where whole streets are trashed seems to me to be something of a dilution of the word thug. It is bit like saying a Mini is big and so is a Hummer. At this rate we could reduce the English language to about three words.

One might question whether direct action makes any difference but equally one could ask whether giving the Chinese lucrative contracts and the Olympic games makes any difference. If our political leaders appear complicit in the oppression of the Tibetan people are we right to sit on our butts and not let them know we are less than happy?

Turning this towards a more positive frame, what are the alternatives. Boycott of all Chinese products? Boycott of all UK companies who buy Chinese products? Boycott of the Olympics?

[manicgeek]

Turning this towards a more positive frame, what are the alternatives. Boycott of all Chinese products? Boycott of all UK companies who buy Chinese products? Boycott of the Olympics?
OR

Accept that the Chinese have a right to Tibet and that the Tibetans claims to be an independent state are false ? Ignore the Tibetan situation and allow them to sort it out for themselves ? Stop telling every other country how they can act (based entirely upon our own view of what is acceptable) ? Start acting as a nation state that recognises the rights of other nation states ?

Well we must try an balance the debate Les.

[Biggles]

We could do that although the claim does not look desperately strong on paper. It seems to be based on the fact that the Mongols conquered both Tibet and China in the 13th century and that the Chinese see themselves as successors to that Empire. Prior to that Tibet was pretty much separate - in fact in the 7th to 9th centuries bits of Western China were subject to the Tibetan Empire.

Equally we could let them sort it out themselves but as there are only a few million Tibetans and a billion Chinese that doesn't seem much of a starter to get anywhere.

Was the invasion in 1950 legitimate? If not then perhaps international law is Tibet's best recourse. As a co-signatory we are duty bound to uphold their rights under international law. However, although appropriate nods have been given towards such rights the World continues to actively deal with China despite questionable activity in Tibet, Burma and Sudan. I am realistic about this though. Money buys the law and the Chinese are very rich these days and own a lot of Western debt. We aren't going to rock any political boats even if it does stick in our craws.

Personally, I think the best the Tibetans can hope for is a return of their Lama and more religious and cultural freedoms. Tibet is China's launching platform for its IBMs - it is not going anywhere.

[manicgeek]

I personally think there is nothing we can do to change China politically, we will have to wait for market forces to do that, we can encourage those market forces to become the primary driver of China by means of trade though.

Whilst China remains in the political state it is in (and has been in since the cultural revolution) Tibet has no chance of ever gaining any kind of freedom at all, and even after a political change there will be a period of time before a state the size of China sorts itself out to a point where the Tibetans will have any chance... in other words I don't think it'll change in my life time, but if they're lucky it might happen in my childrens lifetime... assuming we've not all melted by then ;)

And for all of the fun I've had on this thread I do think the protests are a valid and good thing, if only because it shows support for the Tibetan people themselves.

[Squeamous]

We could do that although the claim does not look desperately strong on paper. It seems to be based on the fact that the Mongols conquered both Tibet and China in the 13th century and that the Chinese see themselves as successors to that Empire. Prior to that Tibet was pretty much separate - in fact in the 7th to 9th centuries bits of Western China were subject to the Tibetan Empire.


Trouble is, in the first half of the last century Tibet was functioning as a separate state only in name because I didn't go through the official route to independence. It just declared itself so while there was a power vacuum in China and they got kind of forgotten in the mayhem. China has a pretty strong claim on Tibet, as strong as any. Tibet was conquered and became part of China and has a long long history of such. Even the international community recognises Chinese rule and not the exiled Tibetan government. China also has some claims to have improved the lives of the people in Tibet from what it was before they took it back.

Still, I'm not sure anyone has a right to take a country over just because they think they can do a better job of running it than the indigenous population :dry:.

I can't see Tibetan independence being the immediate goal. They must be allowed religious and cultural freedom though. The current method of control of those things coupled with restriction of movement of people and the building of rail and infrastructure to faciliate movement remind me of something.....

[Squeamous]

I personally think there is nothing we can do to change China politically, we will have to wait for market forces to do that, we can encourage those market forces to become the primary driver of China by means of trade though.

Market forces? You mean obstruct trade?

[manicgeek]

Market forces? You mean obstruct trade?
No quite the opposite, we should be trading with them big time and we should be encouraging other nations to trade with them... for a number of reasons.

Firstly - Trading economies do deliver real improvement to the lives of the people.

Secondly - Trading economies become dependent on trade, and at some point the idea of anyone stopping that trade become a major threat to the political stability of the state, when that tipping point happens with China the political regime has to adapt to ensure it prevents interference with trade less any interference brings about political unrest amongst the people... and with several billion people to keep happy you can bet they'll start to listen to other countries.

Thirdly - Trading with them will encourage an economy to grow throughout the entire country (eventually) This will leave Tibet in a much better position should they ever gain their freedom, with something of their own to provide income for the state and the people, and to provide the state with trading partners, who in turn will have an interest in that country remaining a trading partner with them.

Fourthly - The people of Tibet who currently live in exile will be much more likely to return, if their country has a trading economy, they will still be able to maintain their external associations whilst bringing the skills they have gained in other countries into the Tibetan economy, not to mention the contacts they have made who could also be used to help Tibet after independence.

China has more to lose in the long run if we trade with it... but I'm not sure they've figured that out yet... sssshhhhh!!!!! ;)

[Squeamous]

I don't agree with much of that MG.

The tipping point has already been reached. The Chinese can't run their economy without trade. They know however, that their partners are unlikely to take that way because in the end greed is too powerful. There is very little that is so important it will get in the way of profit. The economies of the countries that trade with China rely on it as well as China's, and any government is going to be worried about the effect reducing trade has on itself. The more trade we do the farther bogged down we get and the less likely it is that anything willl happen with Tibet.

As to the issue of wealth, I'm not sure the Tibetan people would sacrifice their way of life for cash. If you made them financially comfortable they would still be an oppressed people. And you haven't proposed a way for them to gain independance once they're comfortable.....you just say it will 'leave them in a better position for independence'. Do you think one day China will just change its mind randomly? How long will that take? Will Tibet have lost all it's indivuality by then?

Regarding exiled Tibetans, what stops them going back isn't poverty. It's the risk of torture. These people are political agitators and China deals with those ruthlessly. Money isn't going to change that.

[manicgeek]

I don't agree with much of that MG. I know.


The tipping point has already been reached. The Chinese can't run their economy without trade. They know however, that their partners are unlikely to take that way because in the end greed is too powerful. There is very little that is so important it will get in the way of profit. The economies of the countries that trade with China rely on it as well as China's, and any government is going to be worried about the effect reducing trade has on itself. The more trade we do the farther bogged down we get and the less likely it is that anything willl happen with Tibet.

The money that has been generated in the growing economy of China is still limited to the effects it has had on the vast majority of the population, that will change over the coming years. Of course those who have benefited from the money so far have no reason to challenge the existing regime, fear alone will stop that. There are no where near enough people who have benefited yet... but there will be. Yes trade sanctions are hard on both sides of the coin, but that doesn't mean they don't happen, the entire premise of trade sanctions is that it is one country who has sanctions imposed upon them by many countries, thereby lessening the impact upon the economies of the many.



As to the issue of wealth, I'm not sure the Tibetan people would sacrifice their way of life for cash. If you made them financially comfortable they would still be an oppressed people. And you haven't proposed a way for them to gain independance once they're comfortable.....you just say it will 'leave them in a better position for independence'. Do you think one day China will just change its mind randomly? How long will that take? Will Tibet have lost all it's indivuality by then?

Do you think they've lost their individuality in the last 50+ years ? So why do you think they will in the future ? Their independence cannot just be gained... for them to get it lots of things have to happen inside of China, and those changes can only happen once the Chinese political system reaches critical mass, they have to become dependent on trade, they have to have gained a sense of international security from threats, they have to have improved the lives of the people to the extent that the people come to expect certain things from the state and become agitators and descentors when a threat exists to that.

There are two ways to kill Communism, one is to cause it's economy to fail at which point the people will kill it, the other is to cause it's economy to boom, at which point the people will start to perceive it's limitations as a threat to what they want... I'm discounting nukes as I'm sure you'll not consider that a valid way to make communism fail.


Regarding exiled Tibetans, what stops them going back isn't poverty. It's the risk of torture. These people are political agitators and China deals with those ruthlessly. Money isn't going to change that.

It will if Tibet gained it's independence and turned into a poor country with no prospects... people will return if they think there is something to return too... if all their return would bring is poverty they'll stay where they are.

Anyway got to go.

[Biggles]

I think the biggest single gripe the Tibetans have is the seeding of their society with Han Chinese. The Han have never lived there and their culture is quite different from that of the Tibetans. It is ethnic swamping. The Tibetans fear that at the current rate the Chinese are shipping people in or inducing loyal Party Member Chinese people to move to Tibet they will become a minority in their own country and that all the reins of power will be in Chinese hands. When that happens it may well be possible for displaced Tibetans to return as they will represent little threat to Chinese rule. They will, however, return to a Tibet that will be hard to recognise.

If the protests go even a small way to safeguarding some of the cultural aspects of Tibetan life it will be an achievement. The prospects of independence are at best unlikely.

[manicgeek]

I think the biggest single gripe the Tibetans have is the seeding of their society with Han Chinese. The Han have never lived there and their culture is quite different from that of the Tibetans. It is ethnic swamping. The Tibetans fear that at the current rate the Chinese are shipping people in or inducing loyal Party Member Chinese people to move to Tibet they will become a minority in their own country and that all the reins of power will be in Chinese hands. When that happens it may well be possible for displaced Tibetans to return as they will represent little threat to Chinese rule. They will, however, return to a Tibet that will be hard to recognise.

If the protests go even a small way to safeguarding some of the cultural aspects of Tibetan life it will be an achievement. The prospects of independence are at best unlikely.Hmmm the seeding of an outside culture is a problem, but it has never been something that has prevented countries still retaining their own culture, like Georgia and Kosovo... albeit there could be bloodshed over it :(

If Tito failed to wipe out cultural identity the Chinese don't stand a chance.

[Squeamous]

The money that has been generated in the growing economy of China is still limited to the effects it has had on the vast majority of the population, that will change over the coming years. Of course those who have benefited from the money so far have no reason to challenge the existing regime, fear alone will stop that. There are no where near enough people who have benefited yet... but there will be. Yes trade sanctions are hard on both sides of the coin, but that doesn't mean they don't happen, the entire premise of trade sanctions is that it is one country who has sanctions imposed upon them by many countries, thereby lessening the impact upon the economies of the many.

But I thought you wanted free trade and not sanctions, because that would increase wealth and improve everyone's lives? How do you show a country you're serious unless you actually impose sanctions on them? And since that is unlikely to happen I think it's probably down to individuals to start boycotting Chinese goods. A singer at that rally I was at used the lyrics 'there is no government, there's just us...there's just us'. To a point I think he's right.



Do you think they've lost their individuality in the last 50+ years ? So why do you think they will in the future ? Their independence cannot just be gained... for them to get it lots of things have to happen inside of China, and those changes can only happen once the Chinese political system reaches critical mass, they have to become dependent on trade, they have to have gained a sense of international security from threats, they have to have improved the lives of the people to the extent that the people come to expect certain things from the state and become agitators and descentors when a threat exists to that.

In the last 50 years there have still been a generation that remember what it's like to be Tibetan. All it takes is for a couple of generations to be opressed to start the process of wiping out an identity.

Like I said, they already are dependent on trade. The problem is, the rest of the world is dependent on trade with them too......at least the governments are. There are already agitators and dissenters, but they're being crushed. They already expect more but it makes no difference. You've seen what happened in Britain, the more comfortable people get the less they care about politics because there's less to gain from it. The more comfortable China gets financially the less likely it is to change.]




It will if Tibet gained it's independence and turned into a poor country with no prospects... people will return if they think there is something to return too... if all their return would bring is poverty they'll stay where they are.


It's not going to gain its independence by us trading with China. It can either be poorer and freer or richer and more opressed as far as I can see of the situation.

Some of the people who spoke at that rally...people who had never even been on Tibetan soil but called themselves Tibetan, would go back tomorrow and rebuild the country if they could, poverty or not.

[Alien5]

why are you arguing with yourself Squeamous, did you fall asleep too? :unsure:

[Biggles]

why are you arguing with yourself Squeamous, did you fall asleep too? :unsure:

She isn't - those are MG responses to her original comments

:unsure: not sure how she did that to be honest

[Alien5]

so she's not replying to herself? :unsure:

[Biggles]

so she's not replying to herself? :unsure:

No - that would just be weird like :dabs:

Edit: no you are right they were hers :shifty:

[Squeamous]

They were mine alright. Aaaaaaal mine.

[Alien5]

lol n00b!

[Squeamous]

Well I'm not changing it now :snooty:.

[Biggles]

No they were MG's comments. I just cut the wrong quote codes out :blushing:.

:dabs: I had decided to run with confusing Allen

[Squeamous]

Oh! Sorry!

Done.

[manicgeek]

But I thought you wanted free trade and not sanctions, because that would increase wealth and improve everyone's lives? How do you show a country you're serious unless you actually impose sanctions on them? And since that is unlikely to happen I think it's probably down to individuals to start boycotting Chinese goods. A singer at that rally I was at used the lyrics 'there is no government, there's just us...there's just us'. To a point I think he's right.

Sanctions or the threat of sanctions will have a greater effect if we allow them to become more dependent on trade first... and for that to happen the distribution of wealth within China needs time to develop.


In the last 50 years there have still been a generation that remember what it's like to be Tibetan. All it takes is for a couple of generations to be opressed to start the process of wiping out an identity.

Stalin virtually eradicated the Georgians, and they and their culture were repressed for more than 70 years... they're still Georgian today... in fact it would seem that no repressive regime has ever been able to completely wipe out a culture, even some of the Mayan culture survives to this day... and Cortez really did for them.


Like I said, they already are dependent on trade. The problem is, the rest of the world is dependent on trade with them too......at least the governments are. There are already agitators and dissenters, but they're being crushed. They already expect more but it makes no difference. You've seen what happened in Britain, the more comfortable people get the less they care about politics because there's less to gain from it. The more comfortable China gets financially the less likely it is to change.I think you have to accept that wealth is a comparative thing, whilst people are becoming wealthy political change is forced as a direct consequence of that wealth generation and distribution. This holds true for all societies so far, that's how we have ended up with unions and workers rights... a path China has still to walk, and one that will become harder to resist for the regime as the expectations of the people are raised in line with their living conditions and relative personal wealth... by trading with them we cause that personal wealth to increase for the population, thereby increasing the distribution of that wealth and causing the expectations of the population to rise. Yeah that takes a long time... but this is the Chinese we are talking about and they like long games.


It's not going to gain its independence by us trading with China. It can either be poorer and freer or richer and more opressed as far as I can see of the situation.

Some of the people who spoke at that rally...people who had never even been on Tibetan soil but called themselves Tibetan, would go back tomorrow and rebuild the country if they could, poverty or not.

I have to disagree, I accept that my predictions are long term, and that there are many uncertainties in the way they will pan out, like the security question... but ultimately Communism cannot survive against the people... I also understand many would like a quick fix, but that's just not going to happen.

[chalice]

MG, if it wasn't for Squeams and Les (and pwning Allen), you'd be bored to fuck around here.

Ever think about joining in with the craic?

You might just enjoy yourself.

[manicgeek]

You'd be amazed at how much I actually enjoy just reading stuff here... this really is a great board :)