Advertisement
Bush's 'man of peace'
The New York Times headline on Sept. 18 jumps out: "Dalai Lama says terror may need a violent reply."
The former monarch of Tibet, despite big advance publicity, drew a modest crowd to an event in New York's Central Park. Most who showed up were expecting to hear a message of peace. Perhaps they had heard George W. Bush call him a man of peace. Before the Dalai Lama went to New York he met with Bush at the White House where he was received with honors just one step below those given a head of state. In return, the Dalai Lama has given his blessing to many of Bush's projects.
In an interview just days before the Central Park event, Tenzin Gyatso, the last monarch of Tibet, said he was for nonviolence "whenever possible," but war is justified at times. The particular wars that he thought okay were World War II and the U.S. war on Korea. He thinks the war on Vietnam started out right but ended up badly. Badly for whom, he doesn't say, but the Vietnamese thought it ended well when the U.S. finally withdrew.
Tenzin "Dalai Lama" Gyatso did not clarify what side he thought was right in World War II. He had spent most of that war in the company of a Nazi SS officer, Heinrich Harrer, whose book "My Seven Years in Tibet" is a fictionalized version of their time together in the 1940s.
The Dalai Lama also praised the bombing of Afghanistan by the United States Air Force, calling it a "liberation" of the Afghans. (World Tibet Network News, a support site for the Dalai Lama, has this headline: "Dalai Lama praises U.S. approach to bombing Afghanistan." www.tibet.ca) The Afghans have a very different view of the bombing.
As for the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, the Dalai Lama says it was justified, though he hedged his support. Like Vietnam, it may end up going "badly"; the Iraqis may force the U.S. occupiers to leave.
These views may surprise some who've thought of the Dalai Lama as a pacifist. But Tenzin Gyatso is no pacifist.
As historian A. Tom Grunfeld, author of "The Making of Modern Tibet," says, "The Dalai Lama's description of the Tibet under his serfdom rule as 'Shangri-La' has led to an infatuation with Tibet, which is a fad that will ultimately fade. ... The fascination is not with the real Tibet but a fantasy version. A dose of the real Tibet would leave them deeply disillusioned."
Tenzin Gyatso has many views that would make him quite unpopular if they were more widely known. In "Cuddly Dalai Lama is our fantasy creation," the former director of the so-called Free Tibet Campaign, Patrick French, says, "The Dalai Lama is very different from the genial figure we see in the West." (www.smh.com.au) For example, the Dalai Lama's anti-lesbian/anti-gay views are so extreme his U.S. publisher removed them from the book "Ethics for the New Millennium" for fear they would make the book unsaleable.
French worries that the truth about the Dalai Lama is becoming more widely known and he wants to minimize its impact. The Dalai Lama has been pumped up by the imperialist West to near-god status because he has been useful for their campaign to break Tibet away from China.
Hopefully a dose of the real Dalai Lama will put an end to the illusion that this is someone who is a spokesperson for peace. The real voices for peace will be in the streets of Washington, D.C., on Oct. 25 making it clear that peace means ending the occupation of Iraq and bringing the troops home now, without any qualifications.
Reprinted from the Oct. 2, 2003, issue of Workers World newspaper
This article is copyright under a Creative Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
The New York Times headline on Sept. 18 jumps out: "Dalai Lama says terror may need a violent reply."
The former monarch of Tibet, despite big advance publicity, drew a modest crowd to an event in New York's Central Park. Most who showed up were expecting to hear a message of peace. Perhaps they had heard George W. Bush call him a man of peace. Before the Dalai Lama went to New York he met with Bush at the White House where he was received with honors just one step below those given a head of state. In return, the Dalai Lama has given his blessing to many of Bush's projects.
In an interview just days before the Central Park event, Tenzin Gyatso, the last monarch of Tibet, said he was for nonviolence "whenever possible," but war is justified at times. The particular wars that he thought okay were World War II and the U.S. war on Korea. He thinks the war on Vietnam started out right but ended up badly. Badly for whom, he doesn't say, but the Vietnamese thought it ended well when the U.S. finally withdrew.
Tenzin "Dalai Lama" Gyatso did not clarify what side he thought was right in World War II. He had spent most of that war in the company of a Nazi SS officer, Heinrich Harrer, whose book "My Seven Years in Tibet" is a fictionalized version of their time together in the 1940s.
The Dalai Lama also praised the bombing of Afghanistan by the United States Air Force, calling it a "liberation" of the Afghans. (World Tibet Network News, a support site for the Dalai Lama, has this headline: "Dalai Lama praises U.S. approach to bombing Afghanistan." www.tibet.ca) The Afghans have a very different view of the bombing.
As for the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, the Dalai Lama says it was justified, though he hedged his support. Like Vietnam, it may end up going "badly"; the Iraqis may force the U.S. occupiers to leave.
These views may surprise some who've thought of the Dalai Lama as a pacifist. But Tenzin Gyatso is no pacifist.
As historian A. Tom Grunfeld, author of "The Making of Modern Tibet," says, "The Dalai Lama's description of the Tibet under his serfdom rule as 'Shangri-La' has led to an infatuation with Tibet, which is a fad that will ultimately fade. ... The fascination is not with the real Tibet but a fantasy version. A dose of the real Tibet would leave them deeply disillusioned."
Tenzin Gyatso has many views that would make him quite unpopular if they were more widely known. In "Cuddly Dalai Lama is our fantasy creation," the former director of the so-called Free Tibet Campaign, Patrick French, says, "The Dalai Lama is very different from the genial figure we see in the West." (www.smh.com.au) For example, the Dalai Lama's anti-lesbian/anti-gay views are so extreme his U.S. publisher removed them from the book "Ethics for the New Millennium" for fear they would make the book unsaleable.
French worries that the truth about the Dalai Lama is becoming more widely known and he wants to minimize its impact. The Dalai Lama has been pumped up by the imperialist West to near-god status because he has been useful for their campaign to break Tibet away from China.
Hopefully a dose of the real Dalai Lama will put an end to the illusion that this is someone who is a spokesperson for peace. The real voices for peace will be in the streets of Washington, D.C., on Oct. 25 making it clear that peace means ending the occupation of Iraq and bringing the troops home now, without any qualifications.
Reprinted from the Oct. 2, 2003, issue of Workers World newspaper
This article is copyright under a Creative Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
posted by:
|
|
Unsubscribed |
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Unsu...
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Mon, September 3, 2007 - 9:54 AMLiberation News advocates the total destruction and elimination of all religious states, whether they be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or whatever. The American, French, and Russian revolutions were major advances in many ways, including the fact that they were decisive blows for the separation of church and state. Likewise the Chinese revolution ended feudal slavery in many forms. This included the Buddhist theocracy that enslaved the people of Tibet. That theocratic government declared that their peasant slaves, slaves who faced extreme exploitation, hunger, torture, and death under their ruler's "enlightened" hands, were only paying for the bad karma of other lives and may be born in a better position in another life.
Today the CIA, coupled with many misguided new-age liberals, would re-impose this theocracy on the people of Tibet. The Chinese government needs to be overthrown by the Chinese people in a political revolution that defends and extends the gains of the Chinese socialist revolution against the brutal pro-capitalist policies of the present day Communist Party. Such a political revolution would institute true worker's democracy and bring all of China forward. Dalai Lama rule would be a drastic step backward for the people of China just as the CIA's theocratic Mujahideen and Taliban rule was a major step backwards in Afghanistan. -Steve Argue
Liberation News
lists.riseup.net/www/info/...ation_news
-
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Tue, September 4, 2007 - 3:03 AMSo you've got a hate-on for Kundun, ey?
Any particular reason?
Me, I hate this one cunt down at the Farmer's Market. I'm like: "bitch you see me here four times a fuckin' week; how about a fuckin' 'how are you today, sir'?!?!?!?"
I have an *actual* reason - no matter how petty, to hate that whore, see. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Tue, September 4, 2007 - 8:24 AMI don't like your hateful language against women.
The Dalai Lama is a CIA shill that owned slaves and supports U.S. imperialist wars while claiming to be a man of peace. -
-
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Tue, September 4, 2007 - 8:33 AMcommies have no sense of humor.
-
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Thu, September 6, 2007 - 12:11 AM<<The Dalai Lama is a CIA shill that owned slaves and supports U.S. imperialist wars while claiming to be a man of peace.>>
Drivel. -
-
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Thu, September 6, 2007 - 12:15 AM"Drivel."
*laughing*
Concisely put, Nolen. :) -
-
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Thu, September 6, 2007 - 12:36 AM<<Concisely put, Nolen. :)>>
Thanks. Is it just me or has tribe devolved into a gathering of negative conformists who want a venue to spout their bile. -
-
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Thu, September 6, 2007 - 12:40 AMWhat's a negative conformist? -
-
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Thu, September 6, 2007 - 1:08 AMI might not support Church rule as a form of government, but I would rather see an indigenous Tibetan government made of local citizens to a Chinese dictatorship, regardless of religion.
Authoritarian Communism is like white washing a wall by painting it black. In seeking to abolish class society, it creates its own class society between the ruling vanguard of the communist party, and everybody else. They become the new aristocrats only more powerful and their control more absolute.
If the Tibetan people wanted to get rid of their own religious rule, thats up to them. However, you have to be incredibly naive to think the Chinese occupation is whats good for the people of Tibet. -
-
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Thu, September 6, 2007 - 1:10 AMPersonally, I have more respect for those who believe in fighting for a cause than I have for pacifists. I would prefer if he advocated war against Chinese rule.
However, I will agree that his relationship with the US government has been a little too cozy, but that does not give legitimacy to Imperialist invasion and occupation. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Thu, September 6, 2007 - 4:49 AMi agree with sent here. the dalai lama may not be perfect, but it is for the tibetans to choose their own leader. irregardless of the dalai lama's teen rule of tibet and his future plans for his country, the chinese occupation of tibet is wrong. even if some good has come out of it.
why is china being allowed by most major world governments to keep tibet and steal their land and resources? as opposed to palestine, which the same governments insist be "liberated" from israel? money money money
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Thu, September 6, 2007 - 8:57 AM>> I don't like your hateful language against women. <<
I reject your politics. Your stance fails to compel. Your obsessions are petty and your issues with language are certainly no support for your position.
Got any more issues to mismanage and discredit?
Nothing puts a sterner face on the day than being shown yet again why and how liberals fail to make positive impact in a world where they hold the money and the best positions from which to shape the minds of the youth. Thank you for reminding me why I stopped giving pseudo-activist privileged-suburbanite "politics" any credit.
And, shame on you. Go prevent some suffering, or guzzle some antifreeze. Be quick about it.
-
-
-
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Tue, September 4, 2007 - 8:53 AMHo Chi Minh was trained by the CIA (actually the OSS - the forerunner of the CIA). Which raises the question, so what? -
-
Unsu...
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Tue, September 4, 2007 - 9:13 AMHo Chi Minh worked with the OSS fighting Japanese imperialism. But Truman betrayed Ho Chi Minh in 1945 by giving Vietnam to the French. Ho Chi Minh then did the right thing by fighting the French and American occupations.
The U.S. government used Ho Chi Minh when it was at war with Japan, but they never had any intention of putting him in power.
The Dalai Lama has been on the CIA pay roll for decades and carried out a CIA contra war against the Chinese revolution. While Ho Chi Minh was fighting for the liberation of Vietnam, the Dalai Lama was fighting to bring his feudal class back to power. This backward goal was used by the CIA in an attempt to gain a foot hold in China to regain imperialist control of China. Today the Dalai Lama continues to be a puppet of U.S. imperialist interests. -
-
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Wed, September 5, 2007 - 8:14 PMYour headline, as well as the report on the interview with His Holiness the Dalai Lama by Laurie Goodstein (Dalai Lama Says Terror May Need a Violent Reply, September 18, 2003), gives the misleading impression that His Holiness is endorsing violence as a way to confront terrorism. I am sure, as many of your readers are aware, His Holiness has always advocated nonviolence as the most effective method for dealing with conflict. More specifically, with regard to the war on Iraq, His Holiness has publicly issued a statement expressing his opposition to war as the momentum was building towards invasion.
As the Official Representative of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, I was personally present at the interview that was the basis of your article. I can assure that your article has taken His Holiness' comments out of context.
www.tibet.com/NewsRoom/nytimes1.htm -
-
Unsu...
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Wed, September 5, 2007 - 9:30 PM"His Holiness has always advocated nonviolence as the most effective method for dealing with conflict."
I’m not sure how anyone can say, “His Holiness” so many times without blushing.
What is even more embarrassing for the followers of “His Holiness” is that these statements are flat out lies.
This guy carried out a CIA sponsored war in Tibet, owned slaves, and for the most part, as the article points out, has supported other U.S. wars. To say that “His Holiness has always advocated nonviolence” is disconnected from reality.
This doesn’t just come from the New York Times. As the article points out, “The Dalai Lama also praised the bombing of Afghanistan by the United States Air Force, calling it a "liberation" of the Afghans. (World Tibet Network News, a support site for the Dalai Lama, has this headline: "Dalai Lama praises U.S. approach to bombing Afghanistan." www.tibet.ca) The Afghans have a very different view of the bombing.”
The Dalai Lama also sepported the U.S. war on Korea. “He thinks the war on Vietnam started out right but ended up badly. Badly for whom, he doesn't say, but the Vietnamese thought it ended well when the U.S. finally withdrew.”
On another note of hypocrisy, the Dalai Lama says in the statement, “although an average person may feel hesitant from killing animals, because of their conditioning, butchers learn to kill animals without experiencing such discomfort.” The Dalai Lama eats meat! -
-
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Wed, September 5, 2007 - 9:33 PMRight, keep on getting your "facts" from Chinese agitprop. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Wed, September 5, 2007 - 9:40 PM"Right, keep on getting your "facts" from Chinese agitprop."
Sorry, not a reference I've used. -
-
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Wed, September 5, 2007 - 9:48 PMoh, yeah, workers.org is a pretty balanced source of information....
-
Unsu...
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Wed, September 5, 2007 - 9:50 PMHere's a non-"Chinese agitprop" reference for the Dalai Lama eating meat.
Editorial
West Meets East—Vegetarians and the Dalai Lama
www.satyamag.com/july99/sat.60.edit.html
"Last December His Holiness attended a state dinner hosted by French President Jacques Chirac for Nobel Peace Prize recipients and human rights activists in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. When served a special vegetarian meal he asked for the same entrée that everyone else was having (braised calf’s cheek and crayfish stuffed Vol-au-Vent) and reportedly commented, 'I'm a Tibetan monk, not a vegetarian.' Ouch!" -
-
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Wed, September 5, 2007 - 9:51 PMWhat a horrible man, eating meat and insulting those poor vegetarians.... -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.Unsu...
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Wed, September 5, 2007 - 10:26 PMIt's the hypocrisy.
He claims to be a pacifist, but has helped lead a war, and has supported a number of other wars.
He claims to be against harming all living things, but owned slaves and eats meat. -
-
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Thu, September 6, 2007 - 2:19 AMWhy are you so intent on denouncing the Dalai Lama? What has he ever done to you?
1. I have yet to see any convincing evidence that the Dalai Lama supports war.
2. He was the fifth child of a farming family. He certainly owned no slaves when he was enthroned at age 15. As a Buddhist monk, he could have owned no slaves nor other personal property. In any case, he reigned for only a brief period.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenz...Dalai_Lama
3. Although respect for all living things is a basic tenet of Buddhism, some Buddhists are vegetarians, and others aren't. Not being a Buddhist, I don't know all the details, but I am informed that a great deal of meat is consumed in Tibet. According to the official Chinese statistics:
" In 2001, the meat and dairy production of Tibet got close to 150,000 tons and 200,000 tons respectively, representing a per-capita share of 57 kg of meat and 78 kg of milk, figures which are higher than the national average. The per-capita share of meat is higher than the world's average."
www.china.org.cn/english/t...sh/nml.htm
" I have had the privilege of being a Buddhist student of His Holiness and he stated that on doctor's orders he does eat meat every other day. He does not eat much as it is against the precepts but he has been working on being vegan."
www.ivu.org/people/writers/lama.html
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Thu, September 6, 2007 - 5:13 AM"Why are you so intent on denouncing the Dalai Lama? What has he ever done to you?"
As an atheist who sees religion as something that holds humanity back and is based on falsehoods, I oppose the Dalai Lama because he promotes religion.
As someone concerned about social justice, I oppose the Dalai Lama because he is on the side of war and injustice.
As another example, the Dalai Lama explicitly condemns homosexuality, as well as all oral and anal sex. His stand is close to that of Pope John Paul II, something his Western followers find embarrassing and prefer to ignore. His American publisher even asked him to remove the injunctions against homosexuality from his book, "Ethics for the New Millennium," for fear they would offend American readers, and the Dalai Lama acquiesced.
"I have yet to see any convincing evidence that the Dalai Lama supports war."
I believe I have provided ample sources on this, perhaps I'll post a few more when I get a chance.
The Dalai Lama said that the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan may have been justified to win a larger peace, but that is it too soon to judge whether the Iraq war was warranted. "I think history will tell," he said in an interview with The Associated Press, just after he met with President Bush.
The U.S. War on Iraq was obviously an unjustified humanitarian disaster from the beginning, even before the U.S. invaded. This is not a man promoting peace.
"He was the fifth child of a farming family. He certainly owned no slaves when he was enthroned at age 15. As a Buddhist monk, he could have owned no slaves nor other personal property. In any case, he reigned for only a brief period."
He reigned for nine years.
He owned slaves by his own admission.
In addition, it was Buddhist hierarchy that ruled Tibet and owned slaves. Of the practice Parenti states, "A small minority were slaves, usually domestic servants, who owned nothing. Their offspring were born into slavery."
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:dl9TsGZ5_TUJ:www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles...d=4&gl=us -
-
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Thu, September 6, 2007 - 8:44 AMLooks more like you guys are very intent on defending the Dalai Lama. Especially the guy that called my :his Holiness" or whatever. Doesn't matter what steve thinks but Ron, you've made a good attempt at smearing his character. A low blow indeed but nothing new. Arent facts facts? Isnt hypocracy an easily identified attribute? Is it even arguable?
Buddhist monk? More like Master Killer. (If you don't get it then don't comment)
Steve- Arguing with Nazis is dangerous. -
-
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Thu, September 6, 2007 - 8:45 AMdon't you have some NWO conspiracies to peddle?? -
-
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Thu, September 6, 2007 - 9:10 AM<<don't you have some NWO conspiracies to peddle?? >>
oh good one. Shouldn't you be out peddling indestructable passports, disappearing planes, and arabs with box cutters?
-
-
-
-
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Thu, September 6, 2007 - 6:25 AM"Why are you so intent on denouncing the Dalai Lama? What has he ever done to you? "
Because the Dalai Lama is an opponent of China, and Steven is a Stalinist who defends every Stalinist government, as I discovered when he tried to rationalize the former Soviet Union's imperialistic invasion of Afghanistan. Steven actually argued that the Soviets were invited in and they were there only for the good. -
-
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Thu, September 6, 2007 - 7:52 AM<<Because the Dalai Lama is an opponent of China, and Steven is a Stalinist who defends every Stalinist government, as I discovered when he tried to rationalize the former Soviet Union's imperialistic invasion of Afghanistan. Steven actually argued that the Soviets were invited in and they were there only for the good. >>
ha ha. Yeah, and he recently defended Dear Leader in North Korea. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Thu, September 6, 2007 - 8:46 AMI am not a Stalinist. That, however, does not change the fact that the Soviet Union was invited into Afghanistan to deal with the CIA's misogynist killers. Historic truth is historic truth. I think the following is the writing I did that Ron refers to. It was to show how absurd a comparison that was made between Che and Bin Laden was:
Unlike Bin Laden, Che did not target innocent people. In addition, Che was strongly in favor of women's rights, science, the arts, and education. Bin Laden is against all of these things.
Bin Laden the misogynist killer was on the CIA payroll, well known for its disregard for human life. Che was firmly opposed to the evils of the CIA.
The clerical fascists of the Taliban would have never come to power without massive U.S. military aid to the organization they came out of, the Mujahideen with Bin Laden. They were put in power with billions of dollars in U.S. military aid and CIA training.
This massive U.S. intervention in Afghanistan was in opposition to a revolutionary Afghani government led by the PDPA that came to power in 1978 on issues of promoting women's rights and land reform. Literacy campaigns began teaching the poor and women how to read and write.
As early as 1979 the CIA was involved in trying to topple this progressive left nationalist government.
Religious fanatics and wealthy defenders of the old feudal system came together in a terrorist organization called the Mujahideen. With massive assistance from the CIA these fanatical cutthroats waged a war that included murdering women for teaching little girls how to read and write and throwing acid into the faces of women who had become liberated from the veil.
Also included in this holy war against women and literacy were up to 100,000 religious fanatics from other countries who joined with the CIA's Mujahideen. To do this, the CIA directly recruited these foreign fighters and also worked with Islamic groups such as Hamas.
Later, to stop this massive foreign intervention, at the invitation of the Afghani government, Soviet troops moved in to try to stop the CIA's Mujahideen.
U.S. intervention devastated Afghanistan with war and put the worst possible elements in power.
The Red Army was fighting a just cause in Afghanistan while the CIA was giving billions of dollars in military aid to misogynist killers.
Today the pundits of capitalism want to justify U.S. intervention in Afghanistan in the context of the cold war as the U.S. carries out it's next set of atrocities in the country.
A comparison between Afghanistan and neighboring Soviet Central Asia is helpful in seeing the potential modernizing influence of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. In 1980 (before the PDPA came to power) Afghanistan had an illiteracy rate of 90% while Soviet Uzbekistan had a literacy rate on par with the United States. The average life expectancy was 40 in Afghanistan while Uzbekistan's was 70. Afghanistan had one doctor for every 20,000 people while Uzbekistan had one doctor per 380 people.
The status of women in Soviet Central Asia was better than anywhere in the Islamic world. This was reflected in government with 18 percent of all judges and 45 percent of legislative members from the village level being women in Uzbekistan.
The role of the PDPA, with the help of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan had great potential in helping advance the country. Instead, the victory of CIA financed counter-revolution plunged the country backwards.
While the Soviet model did not live up to the potential of a socialist society with real workers democracy, the Soviet Union did, however, make advances that would have been impossible under their capitalist-feudalist system before the 1917 revolution. Today as a result of Yeltsin's capitalist counter-revolution Uzbekistan is falling to the level of Afghanistan. We should not adopt the mistakes of the Soviet Union in the fight against capitalism, but it is also important to reassess what was reality in Afghanistan and what was cold war propaganda.
Ronald Reagan posed in a portrait with the Mujahideen calling them the moral equivalents of the founding fathers. The pundits of capitalism want to simply dismiss this as justified in the fight against communism, but we should never forget the cold war holocaust that was perpetrated in our names by the United States government. In the 1980's alone U.S. support, from Democrats and Republicans alike, to the death squad governments of El Salvador and Guatemala; to the contras of Nicaragua, Angola, and Afghanistan; to the racist governments of South Africa and Israel; to the genocidal governments of Indonesia in East Timor and Iraq and Turkey in Kurdistan; to U.S. invasions of Granada and Panama; the U.S. murdered millions and created misery throughout the world.
Unfortunately, the billions of dollars provided by the U.S. government succeeded in putting the Mujahideen and the Taliban in power. The Mujahideen / Taliban counter-revolution put women back under the veil and stripped women of the right to work, education, and movement in public without a male relative for escort. Women have been beaten in public. Women have been stoned to death for adultery and other so-called crimes against Islam. Starving widows have been buried alive.
Whole villages with people of differing ethnicities and Islamic beliefs have been rounded up and murdered. Homosexuals have been executed for being homosexual. Hindus have been forced to wear insignia showing they are not Muslim. Atheists have been executed for being atheists. Foreign aid workers have been being tried for spreading Christianity. Dancing was not allowed and irreplaceable ancient art has been destroyed.
These were the people the United States put in power in Afghanistan.
The United States continued to support the Taliban up to the year 2001. That year alone the Taliban received more than $120 million in U.S. aid. This means, if indeed it was Osama bin Laden who destroyed the World Trade Center, that this was possibly done with U.S. tax dollars paying for the operation. In any event there is no question as to who put the Taliban in power. By proxy or by Frankenstein Monster the U.S. government is responsible for the September 11th attack. In addition, the U.S. government is responsible for decades of war and oppression against the Afghani people.
Che, on the other hand, is responsible for liberating Cuba from the bloody U.S. backed Batista dictatorship. This, among other things, brought land reform, free access to good healthcare, education for kids even in the most remote rural areas, free education through the university levels, an elimination of hunger, an end to legal discrimination and segregation that existed against Blacks, women’s rights including birth control and free abortion on demand, environmental policies that the World Wildlife Fund says are the only passing policies on global warming in the world, and a promotion of culture.
Che, in fact, is the opposite of Bin Laden. -
-
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Thu, September 6, 2007 - 8:55 AMI'm an atheist. Big deal. The Dali Lama is in favour of science and reason.
He doesn't "push" religion at all.
<<Bin Laden the misogynist killer was on the CIA payroll, well known for its disregard for human life>>
another myth floating around the internet
<<The Red Army was fighting a just cause in Afghanistan while the CIA was giving billions of dollars in military aid to misogynist killers. >>
Bwhaaa!!! A "just cause". Oh, this is rich -
-
Unsu...
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Thu, September 6, 2007 - 9:17 AMBrent would have us believe the Dalai Lama doesn't push religion. There wasn't a single secular school in Tibet under his rule.
And Brent responds to, "Bin Laden the misogynist killer was on the CIA payroll, well known for its disregard for human life" Saying, "another myth floating around the internet" Are you that far removed from reality Brent? -
-
-
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Thu, September 6, 2007 - 9:31 AMsteven, when people talk about proselytizing or pushing your religion, they generally mean pushing it on others. proselytizing is all but outlawed on israel, but it's totally acceptable to push judaism on jews.
one reason that some secular folk don't like jerusalem too much. i can deal with that but i do think the public religious schools should be private. privately funded, not government funded - but since every single religious person comes out to vote, they win their rights fair and square. and all parents have their choice of religious or secular schools. since arabic is the second official language of the state of israel, they speak arabic in arab neighborhood schools. that's democracy. if the tibetans want some buddhism taught in all schools, that's their choice also.
maybe the dalai lama will offer the choice to his people of secular or religious schools, or maybe they will vote for the education they want, it's all theoretical now and you're talking about how things were, many many years ago. you want to compare that time period to other countries and i'm sure you'll find other things to criticize elsewhere. that's progress.
do you not think the dalai lama has become more enlightened since he was deposed? -
-
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Thu, September 6, 2007 - 10:48 AMI wont defend religious rule in Tibet, but that is really the concern of the Tibetan people. Do you think China invaded Tibet out of a sense of compassion? They invaded to seize a military advantage over India and the west, and their rule has been harsh on the native Tibetans.
The Dhali Lama is NOT perfect. However, defending an occupation in Tibet because you dont like his government is like supporting the Iraq war because you dont like Saddam. In theory we could have worked with the Iraqi people to make something better, but thats not what we did. Likewise, China didnt invade to help the people of Tibet and it shows. Their rule has been brutal and murderous.
Pointing out character flaws with the Dhali Lama, or problems with Tibets former government may be legitimate, but it is no where near close to being a justification for the invasion and brutal and violence occupation.
-
-
-
-
Re: Dalai Lama: Bush's 'man of peace'
Thu, September 6, 2007 - 9:23 AMGive up the Che myths. He personally oversaw the execution of a shitload of people.
But the “cold-blooded killing machine” did not show the full extent of his rigor until, immediately after the collapse of the Batista regime, Castro put him in charge of La Cabaña prison. (Castro had a clinically good eye for picking the right person to guard the revolution against infection.) San Carlos de La Cabaña was a stone fortress used to defend Havana against English pirates in the eighteenth century; later it became a military barracks. In a manner chillingly reminiscent of Lavrenti Beria, Guevara presided during the first half of 1959 over one of the darkest periods of the revolution. José Vilasuso, a lawyer and a professor at Universidad Interamericana de Bayamón in Puerto Rico, who belonged to the body in charge of the summary judicial process at La Cabaña, told me recently that
Che was in charge of the Comisión Depuradora. The process followed the law of the Sierra: there was a military court and Che’s guidelines to us were that we should act with conviction, meaning that they were all murderers and the revolutionary way to proceed was to be implacable. My direct superior was Miguel Duque Estrada. My duty was to legalize the files before they were sent on to the Ministry. Executions took place from Monday to Friday, in the middle of the night, just after the sentence was given and automatically confirmed by the appellate body. On the most gruesome night I remember, seven men were executed.
Javier Arzuaga, the Basque chaplain who gave comfort to those sentenced to die and personally witnessed dozens of executions, spoke to me recently from his home in Puerto Rico. A former Catholic priest, now seventy-five, who describes himself as “closer to Leonardo Boff and Liberation Theology than to the former Cardinal Ratzinger,” he recalls that
there were about eight hundred prisoners in a space fit for no more than three hundred: former Batista military and police personnel, some journalists, a few businessmen and merchants. The revolutionary tribunal was made of militiamen. Che Guevara presided over the appellate court. He never overturned a sentence. I would visit those on death row at the galera de la muerte. A rumor went around that I hypnotized prisoners because many remained calm, so Che ordered that I be present at the executions. After I left in May, they executed many more, but I personally witnessed fifty-five executions. There was an American, Herman Marks, apparently a former convict. We called him “the butcher” because he enjoyed giving the order to shoot. I pleaded many times with Che on behalf of prisoners. I remember especially the case of Ariel Lima, a young boy. Che did not budge. Nor did Fidel, whom I visited. I became so traumatized that at the end of May 1959 I was ordered to leave the parish of Casa Blanca, where La Cabaña was located and where I had held Mass for three years. I went to Mexico for treatment. The day I left, Che told me we had both tried to bring one another to each other’s side and had failed. His last words were: “When we take our masks off, we will be enemies.”
www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp
-
-
Unsu...
Beyond Rightist Lies, The Real Legacy of Che Guevara
Thu, September 6, 2007 - 9:27 AMBeyond Rightist Lies, The Real Legacy of Che Guevara
By Steven Argue
I posted the following response at the “Activists” site in defense of the legacy of Che Guevara. A series of writings have been posted in opposition to Liberation News at that site:
Glen the troll strikes again. On another site he was blaming "progressives" for homelessness and public urination. In reality it is capitalism that causes homelessness.
Here Glen makes the absurd statement, "I'm sure all those peasants Che murdered were happy for the help."
Che never murdered any peasants, but he did save a lot of their lives. He started out as a doctor traveling throughout Latin America, giving medical care to the poor.
Che Guevara was in Guatemala as a doctor in 1954 when the CIA overthrew the Democratically elected Arbenz government. That government was seen as a threat to the profits of the Rockefeller family's United Fruit Company because Arbenz advocated land reform. So U.S. imperialism overthrew Arbenz and put a long series of military dictatorships in power that tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands of peasants and kept the people in extreme poverty. At the time of the CIA intervention in Guatemala, Che advocated that Arbenz should arm the people to resist, but Arbenz was not a revolutionary socialist and refusing to arm the people was his downfall.
Later Che was in Mexico when he met a dissident in exile, exiled by the U.S. backed Batista dictatorship in Cuba. The name of that young dissident was Fidel Castro. The Batista dictatorship had murdered tens of thousands of people, many of them student activists.
Castro and Che and a number of other Cuban revolutionaries set out in a boat called the Granma from Mexico for Cuba, armed and ready to lead the insurrection against Batista. The day they were set to arrive a general strike was called in Cuba, but the Granma got caught in stormy waters and arrived three days late. When they arrived Batista knew they were coming and most were killed. Che, Fidel, and a few others managed to escape and make their way into the rural Cuban mountains. There the peasants fed them and they began to build the revolutionary army that overthrew Batista in 1959.
Upon taking power the Cuban revolution, as in any true revolution, liquidated the old power structure. A new revolutionary government was built and the murderers and torturers of the Batista government were put on trial. Eight hundred were executed for their crimes.
Before the Cuban Revolution, Rockefeller’s United Fruit Company owned much of the land. Peasants starved in the off-season and lacked medical care and access to education. When the Cuban revolution came to power in 1959, Fidel Castro’s promise of land reform was quickly carried out. This made Cuba an enemy of the United States government, and the Cubans have never been forgiven since. Later a broader socialist revolution in the economy was carried out.
In addition to land reform the Cuban revolution has provided free access to good healthcare, education for kids even in the most remote rural areas, free education through the university levels, an elimination of hunger, an end to legal discrimination and segregation that existed against Blacks, women’s rights including birth control and free abortion on demand, environmental policies that the World Wildlife Fund says are the only passing policies on global warming in the world, and a promotion of culture.
For the vast majority of the Cuban people today their lives are much-much better than they were under the Batista government. They are a highly educated people doing much better. For a small minority, the wealthy, that profited from the misery of capitalism, their lives got worse. Most of them are now living in Miami. In Cuba, the Cuban people still come out in their millions at rallies in support of the revolution and socialism.
Che didn’t kill peasants, he doctored them, and when he decided that wasn’t enough, he fought along side them to better their conditions. In contrast the US government has murdered millions of peasants through puppet dictatorships, and additional millions murdered directly by the US government in Korea and Vietnam.
After helping lead the Cuban Revolution, Che was caught and murdered by CIA and Green Beret trained, equipped, and led Bolivian soldiers in 1967.
Yet the model of Che’s revolutionary self-sacrifice and dedication continues to live on and inspire new generations of socialist revolutionaries. Likewise, Che’s dedication to socialism, including providing medical care to the poor, lives on with the Cuban revolution.
It is interesting that tiny poor Cuba under a U.S. economic blockade is able to provide good healthcare for everyone. Cuba, unlike the United States, does not let people die in the emergency rooms without treatment or turn sick people away from receiving healthcare because they lack insurance. Cuba has taken the profit out of illness and injury and provide healthcare as a human right.
Likewise, while the United States is sending military troops to set up death squad governments in Iraq and Haiti and to intervene in Afghanistan, the Phillipines, and prop up the death squad government of Colombia, Cuba instead sends doctors. Cuban doctors save lives. They are on the ground in a number of countries providing regular care, and they are also sent to countries in emergencies. A few years back Cuba sent doctors to Central America after a bad hurricane and saved many lives. Likewise they offered to send doctors to New Orleans immediately after Katrina, they were well trained in dealing with that type of situation and would have saved lives, but Bush refused to let them in. A similar thing happened with the Nicaraguan government refusing entry, but that government let the Cuban doctors in due to protests.
While I have important arguments with the Cuban government in saying that revolutionary socialism must be democratic as well as on the essential nature of the Theory of Permanent Revolution in the international program; it would be the height of socialist sectarianism not to recognize the significant gains that have been made through the Cuban revolution that Che Guevara helped lead. -
-
Re: Beyond Rightist Lies, The Real Legacy of Che Guevara
Thu, September 6, 2007 - 1:29 PMFascinating, just fascinating, Communism still has a fan . . . it's kind of like finding a "living fossil," some fish that the paleontogists thought had been extinct for millions of years . . . -
-
Re: Dali Lama -- Slave owning meat eating war monger, etc
Thu, September 6, 2007 - 5:20 PMTotal bummer for all the ET's and saucer people.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
