woman who phoned in about Tibet
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Couchtripper Forum Index -> Pirty's Purgatory
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
faceless
admin


Joined: 25 Apr 2006

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ok, I phoned my pal and he's gonna try and get the email forwarded. The problem is that Margaret doesn't have a computer at home, and had to use her boss's account to ask the question (she was reading off a print-out). So if things work out, he'll forward the mail on in the next while.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mandy



Joined: 07 Feb 2007

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FYI, http://davidaslindsay.blogspot.com/2008/01/galloway-muslim.html

I sent in another reply (which is yet to be OK'd bt David for display). It said

Quote:
To clarify this issue, I e-mailed George Galloway and got a v. quick reply (especially bearing in mind it is a Sunday morning).

George Galloway replied that he agreed with my interpretation (i.e. he meant "living man").

p.s. On a personal comment, having listened to hundreds of hours of the TalksSport show, George does support the three ‘religions of the book’ – Christianity, Islam and Judaism. He makes a point of not advocating that one is better than the others. Just as well bearing in mind the levels of trouble we have in the world.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
faceless
admin


Joined: 25 Apr 2006

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
On 27/09/2007, Margaret's e-mail >>>
"Mr Galloway,

I write further to my call to your show on Saturday 22 September when I attempted to respond to a caller's assertions regarding China. Knowing your views on Palestine, I had thought - mistakenly it seems - that you held reasonable and compassionate views.

However, you continually "talked over me" and subjected me to a non-related tirade about Hollywood movie stars, followed by your postulations about the status of both Tibet and His Holiness the Dalai
Lama.

This cynical manipulation prevented me from making the points I had intended and the real issues largely went unheard. In this regard and in the interest of fairness, perhaps you could consider raising the issue of Tibet as the topic for one of your shows.

You know George as well as I do, the Chinese government 's record on human rights abuses, especially within Tibet and which are well documented by United Nations reports.

The invasion of Tibet was illegal for the following reason :-
"The four requirements of statehood in international law are population, territory, government exercising effective control over the population and the capacity to enter into relations with other states" (Tibet Justice Centre - formerly International Committe of Lawyers for Tibet). When the PLA invaded in 1949/50, Tibet possessed all of these attrubutes. The Chinese government would have the world believe otherwise!

Please take note of the following :
"A lie repeated a hundred times becomes the truth" - Chairman Mao

Margaret Donegan,
Pollok,
Glasgow

PS You also aired your assumptions about my political views for your own ends but if you are unwilling to raise the issue of Tibet, perhaps my neighbour Tommy Sheridan will be more accommodating and sympathetic.



Quote:
:------ Original Message -----
From: "George Galloway .com" <georgegallowaydotcom>
To: "*********" <tiscali>
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: Saturday 22 September Talk Show - China/Tibet

Gordon/Margaret,

Sometimes debate does get heated. If I was over the top about the
Dalai Lama it's because I feel strongly about him. Obviously!

I don't dissent from Margaret's point that the occupation was
illegal and there have been widespread human rights abuses.


I will try to come back to Tibet in a future programme.

George



Quote:
----- Original Message -----
From: **********
To: George Galloway .com
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 8:35 PM
Subject: China/Tibet Debate


Mr Galloway

Re my telephone call to you on Saturday 19 January ’08, I enclose the e-mails discussed in their entirety.

I have to add that I am disappointed you chose to publicly deny ever sending this e-mail which I believe you quite clearly did, as would many of your listeners!

You may also wish to remind yourself of the reason why you “did not dissent from my main point” - which was that Tibet was an independent country and that under international law, Tibet possessed all the requirements for statehood and which you will find in my original e-mail to you, now enclosed.

You also said in that reply that you would “try to come back to Tibet in a future programme” - unless of course you are denying this also! I therefore strongly urge you, in an attempt to recover your credibility to invite a qualified speaker, perhaps from one of the Tibet groups or alternatively an MP from the House of Commons similarly interested in Tibet. I know Harry Cohen and Norman Baker are both interested in Tibet but I would certainly suggest that you begin by reading this e-mail out in your next broadcast to your many listeners!

Margaret Donegan (the NON-Buddhist)

Pollok



I've edited this down and removed the other people's (Margaret's workmates) input.

Here are the two audio files, thanks to nekokate for the first one.

http://couchtripper.com/mp3/Margaret-Tibet-01.wma
http://couchtripper.com/mp3/Margaret-Tibet-02.wma
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
nekokate



Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Location: West Yorkshire, UK

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting stuff... I really don't know what to believe about the Tibet situation.

I have ther feeling that, whether Tibet really was part of China or not, or whether any number of the other contentious issues related to the situation are right or wrong, the Western governments and media are certainly capitalising on it for their own benefit - ie. any excuse to stir up anti-China feeling to make it easier for the public to accept if and when they piss China off by cancelling the Sudanese oil contracts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
faceless
admin


Joined: 25 Apr 2006

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the point that Margaret made about the native tibetans now being outnumbered by immigrants is an important one. Especially as Galloway used the point that the majority of the population is now ethnic Chinese to dismiss her argument.

I still don't see why he sees Tibet as part of China though. Does he then, on that logic, believe that Pakistan isn't valid as it was once part of India?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Brown Sauce



Joined: 07 Jan 2007

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

maybe he read this..

Quote:
Tibet is part of China for more than 700 years

(You may have heard a lot about Chinese invasion of Tibet or sympathetic about Tibet Independent movement in Western media. Do you know that China has 56 nationalities and is never a racist country in history. Do you know that Tibetan immigrated to Tibet several thousand years ago from other part of China? Do you know that when Red Army entered Tibet in 1951, they also recovered other part of China (Chinese army invaded China????). Do you know that before 1951, the feudal lords in Tibet who constituted only five percent of the population possessed 95 percent of the means of production. Do you know that Buddhism was brought into Tibet from China Proper before being developed into the current state? Read the Tibet history before passing your judgment about a nation you have been misled in centuries.)

British and America working hard to separate Tibet from China since 19th century.


from

http://www.index-china.com/index-english/Tibet-s.html

'course that is a view of history and not one I personally believe. Even if it's true though, there is no need for any of the cruelty inflicted on the Tibetan people by the Chinese army.




For George to ally himself with these people does him no favours.

His ignorance of the Dali Lamas view on himself, i.e. that of a humble monk, and not of God should also be addressed. It doesn't really matter if a follower of the Dali Lama thinks he's God or not. I'd say a few followers of Arsenal would say that fellow Talksport presenter Ian Wright was God, I'd very much doubt that after hearing what Ian has to say about himself holds that view.

But then I've listened to Ian Wright.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
faceless
admin


Joined: 25 Apr 2006

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

for any site to say that China isn't racist is laughable. The word 'guilo' is a commonly used term meaning 'white ghost' to refer to westerners. Also, when Chinese visitors came to Europe for the first time in the Middle Ages, they (according to an article I read in a magazine called Kindred Spirit) reported back, incredulously, that the westerners didn't even use feng shui to build their cities - something which to them was so unfathomable that from then on they treated them as almost savages.

They probably weren't wrong either...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Brown Sauce



Joined: 07 Jan 2007

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

makes me wonder where they screwed up. Now the only folk who build to feng shui standards are old wrinkled rich ex vegetarians who used to call themselves hippies
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mandy



Joined: 07 Feb 2007

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bearing in mind the false stories about Iraq {including throwing babies from incubators}, and the West's campaign against China (including trying to split off Taiwan), any "evidence" against China needs to be thoroughly tested against manipulation/fabrication.

If the Chinese soldiers really wanted to kill the people on the mountain, it would have been easy to kill them all. But why just kill one or two, leaving the rest to record and talk about it. Doesn't pass the smell test.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Brown Sauce



Joined: 07 Jan 2007

PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

you might be right, but

THE SINO-TIBETAN TREATY OF 821/823 A.D.

Having consulted to consolidate still further the measure of neighbourly contentment they have made a great treaty. Both Tibet and China shall keep the country and frontiers of which they are now in possession. The whole region to the east of that being the country of Great Tibet, from either side of that frontier there shall be no warfare, no hostile invasions, and no seizure of territory....

Now that the dominions are allied and a great treaty of peace has been made in this way, since it is necessary also to continue the communication of pleasant messages between Nephew and Uncle, envoys setting out from either side shall follow the old established route. According to former custom their horses shall be changed at Tsang Kun Yog, which is between Tibet and China. Beyond sTse Zhung Cheg, where Chinese territory is met, the Chinese shall provide all facilities; westwards, beyond Tseng Shu Hywan, where Tibetan territory is met, the Tibetans shall provide all facilities. According to the close and friendly relationship between Nephew and Uncle the customary courtesy and respect shall be practiced. Between the two countries no smoke or dust shall appear. Not even a word of sudden alarm or of enmity shall be spoken and, from those who guard the frontier upwards, all shall live at ease without suspicion or fear, their land being their land and their bed their bed. Dwelling in peace they shall win the blessing of happiness for ten thousand generations. The sound of praise shall extend to every place reached by the sun and moon.....

http://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/treaties/treaties1.html

interesting also is the interference of the fuckin' British, as usual.

Convention Between Great Britain and Thibet (1904)

http://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/treaties/treaties10.html

and,

AGREEMENT BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN, CHINA AND TIBET AMENDING TRADE REGULATIONS IN TIBET OF 1893 (1908)

section 14 sums it up,

14. The English, Chinese, and Tibetan texts of the present Regulations have been carefully compared, and, in the event of any question arising as to the interpretation of these Regulations, the sense as expressed in the English text shall be held to be the correct sense.

http://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/treaties/treaties13.html

It was all about "trade" of course, which means rippin' off the dumb locals. Now it's all about rippin' off the dumb locals mineral resources.

Not only that, but the fucking Chinese want to put their man at the top of an idea that their ideals don't accept.

The 1982 Constitution of the People's Republic of China guarantees freedom of religious belief, but China seeks to restrict the numbers of monks and nuns entering monasteries and to discredit the religious authority of Dalai Lama. The child recognised as the reincarnation of the Panchen Lama was rejected and the Chinese installed their own candidate.

It's sort of like the Italians not liking the latest flavour Pope, so they invade the vatican and put their own man in. One difference is that at least the Italians are catholics.

When in 1959 the Dalai Lama went to China to speak with Chairman Mao Zedong. Mao told him, "Religion is poison. ... Tibet and Mongolia have both been poisoned by it."

So the egotistical megalomaniac went to do something about it. Maybe the egotistical megalomaniacs in Washington and London are using all this for their own advantage, I'm sure that they are, and nonetheless will be amongst the first to try and profit from the new trade framework provided by the rail link from china to Tibet. But this shouldn't dilute the particularly bitter coffee smell that's coming out of Tibets new coffee shops populated by people that can't speak the native tongue, write the native script but sure as hell can do their bullying best to destroy a foreign culture.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
faceless
admin


Joined: 25 Apr 2006

PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just received this... pity about the cat comment, but she's got a point for sure.


Quote:
Mr Galloway

I refer to my telephone call to your show on Saturday 19 January 2008 where you invited me to send you a copy of an e-mail sent from your office regarding Tibet, which you flatly denied had come from you personally. A copy of this was subsequently sent to you.

I am disappointed that to date I have still not received the courtesy of a reply together with your comments or even an indication that you are looking into this matter.

I therefore have to conclude that you are simply avoiding the issue!

However, this doesn’t altogether surprise me, as it became quite clear that you were attempting to argue from a position of someone not in possession of the full facts but who simply had “bits” of information from which you had already formed your rather biased opinion.

Of course, no-one expects you to be knowledgeable about every topic under discussion but it would have been more gracious to have simply admitted this.

As I find you uncharacteristically quiet, I am wondering what the matter is George - “cat” got your tongue???

Margaret Donegan
Pollok, Glasgow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Kailash



Joined: 15 Mar 2008

PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 2:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I read this thread with great interest as I was quite surprised (and shocked) by GG's blunt declamation's on TIbet on that evening a few months back. Was this the GG whose fiery on-air oratory I'd been applauding for months? Sounded more like crackling propaganda spitting out of a PRC party megaphone!

His comments sat uncomfortably with me over the next day - to the point where I was compelled to write to him just prior to his show the following evening:

Quote:

Dear George,

I am writing to address the points raised on last nights show by Margaret in Glasgow regarding China and Tibet and your responses to them.

I would like to preface my comments by stating that I have enormous respect for you as a person, politician, pundit and public spokesman. I am 100% behind your stance on Iraq as well as your equally righteous views on the Palestinian struggle and Zionism. I applaud your consistent stance against all forms of racism and also find your opinions on issues such as Zimbabwe quite informative and enlightening.

As I am writing to you in disagreement with your stated views on the Dalai Lama and Tibet, I feel it is important to add that I myself am not a Buddhist, am not affiliated with any "Free Tibet" campaign, nor am I a "Hollywood Liberal". I have however travelled independently in remote regions of Tibet and seen with my own eyes the present conditions Tibetans are living in and the marked contrast between their situation and that of the prominently represented Han Chinese military and civilian population.

Margaret mentioned the fact that China Invaded Tibet in 1949, to which you interjected "that's one way of putting it". I am wondering what other way you would describe the campaign of the so called "Peoples Liberation Army" who marched into Tibet, crushed the Tibetan resistance and subsequently engaged in crimes against humanity including suppression of human rights, state terrorism, torture and mass murder that resulted in the deaths of over one million Tibetans, the exodus of many thousands more and the destruction of thousands of monasteries and temples - the ruins of which are still scattered across Tibet.

When she went on to describe how Tibetans themselves are "now in a minority in their own country" and cited the example of continued human rights abuses of Tibetans being imprisoned for being heard to say "Long live the Dalai Lama", you immediately seized upon this opportunity to discredit the Dalai Lama by describing him as "...the Dalai Lama who thinks he's God".

I would like to point out to you that no Buddhist, not least the Dalai Lama, thinks he or she is God - not even the Buddha himself thought he was God. Your claim that the Dalai lama thinks he is God is wrong. He is believed by millions of Tibetans to be a re-incarnation of Avalokiteśvara (who is not "God"). Re-incarnation is an integral part of Buddhist doctrine and to discredit the Dalai Lama for his belief in it is to discredit all Tibetan Buddhists.

Tenzin Gyatso, the man otherwise known as the 14th Dalai Lama, has used his status as the highest profile Tibetan not to tout his purported "divinity" but to promote the cause of Tibetans inside Tibet, a people with no rights to express their legitimate grievances. As someone who supports the rights of Tibetans to be treated fairly I was most surprised to hear you discredit the Dalai Lama so vehemently.

He is most certainly not seeking "divine, feudal providence" over Tibet. As head of the secular Tibetan Government in Exile in India, he seeks to raise awareness of the struggle of these voiceless people.

His intention is certainly not to "break China up" or "weaken it". He
campaigns for an autonomous status for Tibet within the Chinese state, similar to that now held by Hong Kong.

He is a man who has favors Marxism to Capitalism and democracy over dictatorship. Meanwhile the supposedly communist Chinese are appointing their own hand picked Tibetan lamas to use Tibet's medieval religious/astrological system to instate spiritual leaders which they hope will pacify the Tibetans.

I honestly feel that on this very rare occasion you have got it wrong
George. Unfortunately your exchange with Margaret in Glasgow was all too brief and myself and surely many other listeners were not given the opportunity to hear more reasoning behind your clearly adamant sentiments.

Apologies for the long mail George, I know you are a very busy man who is inundated with all forms of correspondence. I do hope you will read this out - at least in part - and respond.

Kind regards,



George didn't read it out but was kind enough to respond personally within an hour of being off the air. I wont include his response (assuming that it was indeed him who responded) but the overall gist of it was this - whilst GG maintains the overall view he expressed to Margaret, he understands that in the "cut and thrust" world of live radio, some callers will inevitably receive a slightly raw deal. He is always open to debate on the issue - even going as far as suggesting he is not beyond "having his mind changed", asking me for recommendations on reading material that might broaden it visa-vis the Dalai Lama and Tibet.

I was impressed with the quick response and open minded sentiment it expressed.

Fast forward a couple of months and the subject of China and Tibet is once again raised. Margaret is back on the air and this time given more air-time (though just as much of a "raw deal" so to speak). Much to my disappointment, GG not only repeats all of his original assertions - but adds a host of others, all of which are (in this posters opinion) naive at best. As revealed in earlier posts on this thread - GG also goes on to deny that an email sent in his name was in fact written by him.

It seems that the George who emailed me had a an attitude that contrasted greatly to that of the on-air George. I am guessing the opinions the public George expresses visa-vis Tibet are informed by his principled stand against what he quite reasonably considers to be hypocritical China-bashing from western Governments and their attendant wings in Hollywood and elsewhere. Whilst I agree that it's unreasonable for western commentators to continually point the finger at China whilst disregarding their own countries imperialistic mis-adventures around the world (or in the case of Australia, America and others - the cultural genocide successfully carried out in their own back yards) - the Tibetans themselves still have very real and legitimate grievances that are often ignored by those on the old/hard left. This dis-regard breeds ignorance on the issue that can be quite startling when coming from the likes of Galloway. He reduces the entire issue down to the ridiculous notion that the Dalia Lama thinks he's God and is seeking to break up China, the highly contentious claim that Tibet is historically a part of China that has been recently re-claimed (rather than invaded) and the controversial (yet still valid, depending on your point of view) belief that the well being of Tibetans is a secondary concern to that of China's territorial sovereignty and geo-political concerns.

Things are happening right now on the streets in Tibet which are a landmark in the regions turbulent recent history. Sadly George is off the air for the next 6 weeks and will not have to deal with calls relating to these events. I'm sure he would make many references to the rampant anti-Chinese propaganda being played out on the news - and if he were unable to move beyond his stock "Dalai Lama thinks he's God" line of argument then I guess I'm quite content to not hear it.

Sorry to bump this old post by the way - I figured given Tibet's suddenly raised profile in the media right now it was once again relevant.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
faceless
admin


Joined: 25 Apr 2006

PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

no worries about bumping it at all - some things need time to mature.

Great post btw.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Couchtripper Forum Index -> Pirty's Purgatory All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Couchtripper - 2005-2015