Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Red Justice · Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 1:39 am Post subject:

[quote="RadgeJougal"]RJ - the campaign to get Tibetan independence is not about the Dalai Lama. In fact, the Dalai Lama has said repeatedly it wants it to remain a colony of China in Hong Kong fashion.

"It is the resort of the uneducated and illiterate."

Not just the illiterate. The boy is a hypocrite - he goes on about how the UK terrorises Ireland, yet doesn't seem to realise that it is ten times worse in Tibet. He ignores it because he poses as a Communist.

I am a Republican Socialist with mates pal like it or not hope mad dog is not Mr Adair in Ayrshire ha ha Laughing

Be careful!

I am very proud proud to support the Irish struggle against the British who are you mad dog?

RJ also complains that he has been tortured by the British police in Dundee. Rolling Eyes

I'd like to see him have some personal experience of the Chinese police, then he'd know how cuddly ours are.

I advise you comedian don't go there!
Who are you spy novel reader lol

Where do you get that information? Have I ever claimed such? On this forum? News to me I am not aware of being tortured by the Brits but remember mad thingy what goes around comes around lol Very Happy

Anyway, this is the usual level the internet sinks to. I think I have a right to condemn those who turn a blind eye to left wing atrocities, but condemn right wing ones. That's what Western intelligentsia did when Beria and Stalin liquidated their left wing colleagues. They pretended that no government "by the people" could ever do such a thing.

Oh, and by the way, I'm much more educated than you - on Tibet anyway.

"lackeys of imperialism"

That would be Mashimaro. And Red Justice (only the left wing variety).

Very much the left wing variety RaJ (deliberate mistake) watch yourself![/quote]

_________________
"We need independence but we also need socialism"
http://scottishsocfree.blogspot.com
http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=6732691161

Red Justice · Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 1:46 am Post subject:

Holebender · Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:58 am Post subject:

Still resorting to threats, "Red".

Your friends have been telling you for quite some time that you need help; I think it's time you listened to them.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Lewis · No Longer a Wean Joined: 21 Feb 2008 Posts: 81

RFM · Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:37 pm Post subject:

Well Lewis,
this may startle you, but sarcasm is the least convincing method of argument to convince anybody of the points you are trying to make.

The Tibetans had an election which the international monitors, including Americans, judged as reliable. No reports of violence at polling places, fraudulent ballots in circulation, multiple vote casting, all the other things that go on in the countrys of some of our friends and allies that we seem to accept as "the birth pangs of democracy". That election was won in a absolute majority by the party that stands for closer ties with China. Now you might think a sarcastic, cynical criticism based on nothing more than sneers about China is terribly persuasive, but the fact remains the Tibetan people have spoken through the ballot box. Which is a damn sight more than one can say for places like Montgomery, Alabama, Bagdad, Lebanon, Palestine or a dozen more places in the world which we call our allies and friends.

If you were to think about it for a second, laying aside your strange views of Colloden and 1745, China is a next door neighbor to Tibet, so to speak, a growing prosperous country whose currency has yet to be devalued on the world markets, who finances the American current accounts and budget deficit by purchasing ever declining in value American government securities, a country which is a world wide creditor, not a debtor, and one of the world's largest commercial sellers of pharmaceuticals, textile goods, technology and finished materials. I would say the Tibetans are smarter than you are.

And in that you find some sort of comparison with the slaughter of Scots Highlanders by the Duke of Wellington with a modern up-to-date army as an appropriate example?

Give me a break!

Red Justice · Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 6:43 pm Post subject:

Red Justice · Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 6:58 pm Post subject:

[quote="RFM"
this may startle you, but sarcasm is the least convincing method of argument to convince anybody of the points you are trying to make.

I agree with you RFM it just provides enemies with ammunition. Best to keep cool when provoked as not to do so gives extra ammo to opportunists to enjoy posting more nonsense.

I will be keeping my cool from now on this forum and without an easy target my adversories can squirm amongst themselves.
_________________
"We need independence but we also need socialism"
http://scottishsocfree.blogspot.com
http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=6732691161

Lewis · No Longer a Wean Joined: 21 Feb 2008 Posts: 81

Well that's very interesting. I understand your point, I'm usually a little less sarcastic and I have no idea what came over me.

Lewis · No Longer a Wean Joined: 21 Feb 2008 Posts: 81

I would like to add, even though there is so much money, what percentage is owned by the richest 100 people of China? Because I highly doubt that the strong economy reflects on the majority of the populace.
_________________
Hammish Independence

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 928

Red Justice wrote "take me to a doctor and I will be passed as not requiring professional help".

Psychiatrists all have psychiatric problems. It's their own psychiatric problems that gets them interested in psychiatry in the first place. I was told this by a psychiatrist friend of mine. She said that, when she was a student at Dundee/Ninewells, studying to become a doctor specialising in psychiatry, she and her fellow students had all discussed this, and every one of them had become interested in psychiatry because of their own problems. I went to visit her when she was in Liff Hospital, Dundee. She was pregnant and her junkie husband had left her for a sixteen year old girl so she slashed her wrists as a "cry for help". Not too long after that, she managed to pull herself together, and she was soon back practicing as a psychiatrist, and dealing with patients, instead of being a patient. Lovely lassie, as a friend, but you'd have to be nuts to go and see her professionally.

When I was in London I knew a guy who believed in polyandry. He was absolutely serious. He believed that every woman should have ten husbands, who would worship her as a godess, waiting upon her every whim, and begging to be the one chosen for her favours. But human babies tend to get born in roughly 50/50 proportions. How do you get from 50/50 to 1/10 ? Simple, was his answer. We kill nine out of ten of all women in the world. And who decides on the one out of ten women that gets to live? Well, men, of course, they choose the most attractive ones. This guy sacrificed a sheep to a woman he found attractive. Turned up on her doorstep in London with a loudly complaining sheep and a large knife and ceremonially cut its throat, in order to show his devotion. Where he got a live sheep from in the middle of London is one of life's great mysteries, but apparently he had bought it quite legally, so he couldn't be charged with rustling. But there was blood everywhere, and, instead of graciously accepting the sacrifice, the ungrateful wench got quite upset. And I think some passer-by fainted in the street. And, after that, some policemen and social workers kind of insisted that this guy should see a psychiatrist. He wouldn't be charged with any offence as long as he agreed to see a psychiatrist. They thought the psychiatrist would recommend a long rest in a suitable hospital for this patient. He didn't. The psychiatrist spent a long time talking to the guy, found him very interesting, and then pronounced that the nutter was quite sane. I say the psychiatrist was loony.

Red Justice · Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 9:41 pm Post subject:

I agree Dave I have done a great deal of voluntary work in mental health and understand the issues. I knew a very good community psychiatric nurse with mental health issues who was working in a local hospital she probably knew her clients as good as anyone.

The key is not discrimination which the ignorant do not understand.

Bit off the subject of Tibet but interesting nonetheless.
_________________
"We need independence but we also need socialism"
http://scottishsocfree.blogspot.com
http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=6732691161

RFM · Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 9:53 pm Post subject:

Lewsis,

Thank-you for your rather thoughful reply; we make progress.

A friend of mine who had returned from Naples once told me how taken up he was with the beauty and natural splendor of the city, He was returning after 40 years. The then added, that of course he had a full stomach and clean clothes at this time.

Poverty is not a laughing matter. People live very short lives because they are subject to disease and illness that healthy well fed people can shrug off. They have little if any family ties, because families require a bread winner. Poverty means families split up to try to survive on their own. They have higher incidents of violence because when people are poor they steal from others less able to protect themselves. So quite frankly anybody who runs around talking about the wonderful, rustic world of a culture based on slavery and poverty is talking through their a**. Anybody who buys into that malarkey is plain stupid.

The Tibetans may not have much of a future, given they are a tiny landlocked nation whose religious leaders have been telling them to oppose the one railway link that connects them with China because it is evil. We can suppose however that some of them have been to China and some of them have television sets and can see for themselves. They know only too well that Tibetan "culture" means poverty, deep dark, grinding poverty. They don't need obese westerners who get on a airplane and go home after a few weeks of tourism, telling them how fortunate they are to have such a "culture". They want to live as much as you and I and possibly half as well.

They are not going to get there following the Dali Lama. He is useful to the west as long as he is a source of trouble to China. When the Olympics are over, he will be too. He does not bring one sack of rice, one decent job, one bag of groceries to the people of Tibet. He talks about peace and demonizes the Chinese, who it must be said, are the only country in the world trying to do something long term and productive for them. The USA, France, and UK only see them as pawns in their game of international politics.

Nobody argues that China is a paradise, but considering how often its internal affairs have been the subject of invasion, subversion and provocation by the western nations, and the fact they are doing well is regarded as a threat to the domestic tranquility of the west, what could one reasonably expect?

Red Justice · Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:45 am Post subject:

Tibet is an autonomous region of China, meaning that it is an
integral part of China and is under the ultimate authority of the
Beijing government, but enjoys wide self-governing powers. Tibetans
are among the approximately 56 distinct nationalities in China.
Within Tibet, other nationalities include Moinbas, Lhobas, Naxis,
Huis, Dengs and Sherpas.

Few in the United States would know that the elected chair of Tibet's
regional government is Qiangba Puncog, a former factory worker who
joined the Communist Party of China in 1974 and spent his life in
public service. Instead, U.S. propaganda has been such that Tibet is
almost synonymous with the Dalai Lama, the head of the "Tibetan
Government in Exile."

This so-called government in exile, representing the former religious
ruling class, is fully funded and supported by the United States.
U.S. imperialist politicians and spokespeople routinely show their
support for the Dalai Lama as a way of diplomatically needling the
Chinese government. For example, on Oct. 17, 2007, the U.S. Congress
awarded the Dalai Lama the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor—the U.S.
government's "highest civilian honor."

When Iraq war supporters and supporters of militarizing the U.S.-
Mexican border portray the Dalai Lama as "a unifying voice for global
peace" and a holy man, the truth must be quite different. That can be
seen by looking at the historical record of those who now try to
speak in the name of Tibetan people.

Theocratic rule

Tibet became part of the Chinese empire in the 13th century, when it
was conquered by Genghis Khan. Life in Tibet in the subsequent
centuries was characterized by Buddhist clan fighting and feudal
economic relations.

The political rule of the Dalai Lamas began in 1578. The Dalai Lamas
were like god-kings, using their religious authority alongside brutal
repression to govern Tibet. In 1660, for example, the fifth Dalai
Lama directed the Mongol army to "obliterate the male and female
lines, and the offspring too `like eggs smashed against rocks. … In
short, annihilate any traces of them, even their names.'"1

In his book "Buddha's Not Smiling: Uncovering Corruption at the Heart
of Tibetan Buddhism Today," Erik D. Curren describes life under the
Dalai Lamas: "History belies the Shangri-La image of Tibetan lamas
and their followers living together in mutual tolerance and
nonviolent goodwill. Old Tibet was much more like Europe during the
religious wars of the Counterreformation. "2

Tibet under the lamas was characterized by feudal economic and social
relations. The source of power and wealth was land. Land, in turn,
was divided among the monasteries, the nobility and the Lhasa
government.

Tibet is 70 percent grassland and its economy has always been
agricultural. Until 1959, most of the arable land was organized into
manorial estates. These estates were owned by elite landowners or
rich monasteries and were worked by serfs. Most rich monasteries
amassed wealth through active participation in trade, commerce and
money lending. Children were conscripted from poor families against
their will to join monasteries at a young age and work for life.

Second in political power to the lamas was a feudal hereditary
aristocracy. Most descended from an aristocracy dating back to before
the Mongolian invasion. The commander-in- chief of the Tibetan army, a
member of the Dalai Lama's cabinet, owned 4,000 square kilometers of
land and 3,500 serfs.3

The vast majority of Tibetans were serfs or peasants. Others occupied
lower ranks in the social hierarchy as slaves and beggars. Serfs
faced a lifetime of servitude at the disposal of lords and the
monasteries. They were bound to the land without pay and they had no
access to education or medical care. Serfs raised livestock and field
crops and transported their lords on demand. They could not even
choose to marry without the consent of a lord or a lama.

Serfs were heavily taxed by both the aristocratic landowners and
monasteries. Taxes supported the rule of the theocracy. Serfs were
taxed upon marriage, childbirth and death. Taxes were also levied
for, among other activities, planting trees, keeping animals,
religious festivals, going to prison, being unemployed and travel. If
the taxes were not paid, the debt was either handed down to family
members or paid by a monastery at up to 50 percent interest. Those
who could not pay faced slavery.4

Imperialist interests

Entering the 20th century, Asia was a battleground for the world
imperialist powers. Tibet was no exception. In addition to its forest
and mineral wealth and proximity to oil, Tibet occupied a strategic
geopolitical place in Asia. Tibet borders India and Nepal to the
south. British and U.S imperialism looked to Tibet as a gateway to
the heart of China.

In 1904, British troops from India invaded Tibet. Maj. Francis
Younghusband led an expedition to seize Lhasa, carrying out several
massacres along the way. After seizing the capital, Younghusband
forced officials there to sign a treaty recognizing British
mercantile interests in Tibet. In 1906, the British imposed similar
terms on the disintegrating Chinese regime. China had by that time
been forced to sign unequal treaties with all the imperialist powers.

In 1911, the Chinese empire collapsed in the face of a revolutionary
military uprising. In 1912, Sun Yat-sen declared China a republic. In
the power struggles that followed, central authority weakened as
power was dispersed to various warlords across China. Tibet
essentially functioned as an separate entity—still under the
protection of Britain—although no government in the world recognized
independence.

After the revolution

The victory of the 1949 Chinese Revolution marked a turning point for
Tibet. In 1949, the Communist Party of China had drafted a
constitution that included the provision that "all Mongolians,
Tibetans, Miao, Yao, Koreans and others living in the territory of
China shall enjoy the full rights to self-determination. "

No area constituted a greater challenge for the communists than
Tibet. The CPC had decades of practical experiences in dealing with
the complicated problems of building unity with the many oppressed
peoples and nationalities throughout China. During the historic Long
March of 1935, Mao led the 7,000-plus-mile retreat from southern
China. In each region, with the exception of Tibet, the communist-led
Red Army was able to negotiate terms of friendship with the national
minorities, who provided food and shelter for the retreating peasant
army.

In Tibet, the local population was still so much under the domination
of the religious ruling class that the communists made little
progress. The Red Army was met with so much hostility that they could
not buy food from the local populace and thus they had to forcibly
procure what they needed to survive. Mao described these problems to
the world-famous chronicler of the Chinese revolution, Edgar Snow.

"This is our only foreign debt, and some day we must pay the Mantzu
(sic) and the Tibetans for the provisions we were obliged to take
from them."5

It is likely that China would have proceeded very cautiously with the
introduction of central government control, and especially socialist
measures in Tibet, had it not been for international factors. Shortly
after the United States invaded Korea in June 1950 under the mantle
of the United Nations, the Tibetan ruling-class political parties
appealed to the same United Nations to intervene in Tibet.

Ironically, the Soviet Union was boycotting the U.N. Security Council
as a protest against the refusal to seat the People's Republic of
China in the Security Council following the 1949 victory. Thus, the
United Nations was turned into a complete puppet for U.S. foreign
policy. At the same time that China was preparing to send more than a
million soldiers to fight against advancing U.S. troops on its
eastern border in late 1950, it made the decision to also move its
army into Tibet on its western border.

In 1950, the first units of the People's Liberation Army entered
Tibet. As the first presence of Chinese authority in nearly 40 years,
the revolutionary army was initially greeted with distrust. Tibetan
lords and monasteries in particular feared the new armies, because
they feared that the Chinese communists would redistribute land and
endow serfs and slaves with rights.

But the Chinese communists came armed with a Leninist position on
national minorities—expressed in their recognition of the right to
self-determination— and the class loyalties of peasants of all
nationalities. When Tibetan aristocrats tried to militarily block the
PLA from entering Tibet, most of the peasant troops defected and
crossed to the side of the communist troops.

In May 1951, Tibetan and Chinese leaders signed the "Agreement of the
Central People's Government and the Tibetan Local Government on
Measures for Peaceful Liberation of Tibet." This agreement, known as
the 17-Point Agreement, recognized that "the Tibetan people shall be
united and drive out the imperialist aggressive forces from Tibet;
that the people of Tibet shall return to the big family of the
motherland, the People's Republic of China." Guided by the principle
of self-determination, the agreement recognized the rule of the Dalai
Lama and the freedom of religion. It further recognized and promoted
the Tibetan language and culture.

Over the next years, a class struggle emerged in Tibet based on the
continued existence of the old feudal ruling class coexisting with
the Chinese revolution's advancing of workers' and peasants' rights.
The new revolutionary central government concentrated its efforts and
resources on building schools, roads and highways in Tibet. The
Chinese also distributed newspapers and introduced telephone and
postal service. Communists built hospitals and health clinics in
rural regions of Tibet where people had never seen health care.
Interest rates were reduced, although the communists did not
initially confiscate any estates.6

As land reform efforts gained momentum, however, the hostility of the
Tibetan feudal lords mounted. Meanwhile, U.S. and British
imperialists saw the opportunity to regain influence in the region
and at the same time roll back communist influence.

Beginning in the early 1950s, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency
began to train counterrevolutionar y military units in Tibet. Many of
those recruited were members of the former elite. Gyalo Thondup, for
example, the Dalai Lama's older brother, coordinated military action
with the CIA from a U.S. base in India and Nepal.7

In 1956-57, CIA-trained rebel forces in Tibet attacked a PLA outpost
in Lhasa.8 The rebel militias disintegrated, however, failing to win
public support. In March 1959, landlord-backed rebels marched into
Lhasa, killing or wounding anyone suspected of cooperating with the
revolutionary government. Despite this, PLA troops stayed in their
barracks for 10 days.

Journalist Anna Louise Strong reports the explanation she was given
by PLA officials:

"The `kasha' was still the lawful government and the people of Lhasa
had not yet taken sides. In such situations, our strategy is always
never to start or develop the fighting but let the enemy start it and
continue it until it is fully clear to all people who are the
aggressors and the destroyers of law. Then, when we counter attack,
we have the people with us, their support shortens the fighting and
lessens the casualties in the end. The rebels lost the people of
Lhasa in those ten days."9

Following the failure of this reactionary armed uprising in 1959, the
Dalai Lama fled to India to establish a new "government in exile."
The Chinese government recognized the authority of the second most
influential lama, the Panchen Lama, in the Dalai Lama's absence.
Former serfs voted for the first time ever in 1961. In 1965, China
recognized the Tibetan Autonomous Region.

From the early 1960s until 1973, "Khamba" contras carried out attacks
on Tibet from bases in the Walanchung-gola and Mustang regions of
Nepal. The "Tibetan Government in Exile" received approximately $1.7
million per year from the CIA. Contras were airlifted into Tibet for
attacks against the government.10

In the subsequent decade, the religious theocracy was dismantled,
bringing about a very different social structure in Tibet. Slavery
was abolished, many of the taxes were eliminated and serfs were given
paid employment on new civic projects, such as establishing running
water and building infrastructure.

The fruits of liberation

Today, monasteries are open in Tibet and monks are free to practice
their religion. In the new social structure, religion is no longer
used as an instrument of repression.

Economic development, a goal for all of China, has been even more
vital in Tibet as one of the most underdeveloped regions of an
underdeveloped country. Gross domestic production grew by a factor of
30 between 1951 and 2000. In 1950, there was a single 125-kilowatt
power station in the entire region; in 2000, there were 401 power
plants producing 356,200 kilowatts.

In pre-revolution Tibet, there were no schools at all. Education was
the sole province of the monasteries. By 2000, 86 percent of school-
age children were enrolled in schools.

Even relative to the rest of China, conditions in Tibet are becoming
comparable. In 2000, the number of hospital beds and doctors per
thousand population is higher than for China overall.11

None of these gains would have been possible under the old
imperialist- backed ruling class.

In fact, it is precisely regions like Tibet—among China's least
developed regions—that stand to lose the most in the event of a
counterrevolution in China. Tibetans would find themselves in the
position of the citizens of the Caucasus or other poorer republics of
the former Soviet Union, who have seen unemployment and poverty
skyrocket since the restoration of capitalist rule in 1991.

Tibetan workers and peasants—like workers and peasants from the other
national minorities in China—undoubtedly weigh the benefits of unity
with China against the exiles' misleading promises of the green
pastures of independence.

For that reason, socialists and progressive people have nothing in
common with the "Tibetan government in exile" or the Dalai Lama.
_________________
"We need independence but we also need socialism"
http://scottishsocfree.blogspot.com
http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=6732691161

Holebender · Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:21 am Post subject:

Wellington? Do you mean Arthur Wellesley, First Duke of Wellington? The man who commanded at Waterloo? The man who was born in 1769?
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 928

Holebender wrote "Still resorting to threats, 'Red'. "

Red Justice responds "No".

So "I am a Republican Socialist with mates pal like it or not......Be careful" doesn't sound just a wee bit like "watch it, pal"?

Holebender wrote

"Your friends have been telling you for quite some time that you need help; I think it's time you listened to them."

Red Justice asks

"who are friends who are telling me I need help?"

Donald told you so. Isn't he a friend?

Red Justice asks Holebender "Do you still like the police HB?"

I was not aware that Holebender had a particular affection for the police. However, I do know that he and you have a "history". Both of you were at one time members of Independence First. The question of your behaviour towards another fellow member, an English woman, was raised at an IF meeting. That meeting voted to suspend you from membership, pending consideration of your expulsion at the next meeting. Since you were not present, somebody had to write you a letter, informing you of this decision. Normally, the task of writing letters about collective decisions falls to the Secretary. However, the Secretary of IF was, quite frankly, scared of writing to you. She was afraid of being the bearer of bad news to you. Because the Secretary was scared to carry out her job, Holebender said that he would write to you. It is true that at the time the police had charged you with an offence of which you were later convicted. But Holebender was not "siding with the police", merely informing you of a collective decision taken on grounds of "bringing the campaign into disrepute".

Red Justice tells Holebender "Think you are another like RJ that enjoys spreading false rumours".

Radge Jougal can be a pain. Holebender I have rather more time for. But none of what I have written here is false. And no, I don't enjoy the need to say it one little bit, but I think you were being unfair to Holebender.

carol · Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:37 pm Post subject:

you're beneath contempt Dave, once again you drag RJ through the mire. Why's it always the most vulnerable you kick hard at? I am not scared of RJ, I myself was in a pretty vulnerable situation at the time due to family circumstances, health etc and preferred not to be the one to write to him. I can relate to mental health problems, I would never turn on anyone like you have done, and know to tread sensitively. I was appalled at the way RJ was dealt with in his absence, moreso at a 'public' meeting.

Your smearing just causes further divisions

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 928

Carol wrote "once again you drag RJ through the mire".

As a matter of fact, the only thing I said about Radge Jougal was that sometimes he "can be a pain". I presune RJ would be the first to admit that some of his posts were INTENDED to be rather painful for me.

"I was appalled at the way RJ was dealt with in his absence, moreso at a 'public' meeting."

Oh, if you mean "Red Justice", not "Radge Jougal", then it is certainly not my intention to "drag him through the mire". But he made what I consider to be unfair remarks concerning a friend of mine, so I felt I had to respond. The meeting referred to was not "public", it was for members only, and open to all members, including "Red Justice". You may be saying now that you were "appalled", but you didn't say this at the time. You showed nervousness about carrying out the Secretary's job in this particular instance, so Holebender volunteered to carry out the task. I thought Red Justice's remark about Holebender being another, like Radge Jougal, who enjoys spreading false rumours, was unfair. I also thought Red Justice's remark about Holebender "liking the police" was unfair. Because of those unfair remarks, I felt I had to do a little bit of putting the record straight. But like I said, I didn't enjoy having to do so, not one little bit. Having carried out the unpleasant but necessary task of putting the record straight where Holebender is concerned, I would be very glad to leave it at that.

carol · Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 3:35 pm Post subject:

you take great pleasure stirring up s**t.

There was no reason to bring IF business into this thread

Lewis · No Longer a Wean Joined: 21 Feb 2008 Posts: 81

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 928

Carol wrote "you take great pleasure stirring up s**t".

There may be times when it gives me some pleasure to stir things up, for instance, it could perhaps be legitimately suggested that I have rather enjoyed creating difficulties for certain members of Angus Council through the local press. However, this particular matter gives me no pleasure at all, quite the opposite in fact, it makes me feel sad. It was Red Justice himself whose "watch it" message to Radge Jougal prompted Holebender to recall similarities with certain past events. It was Red Justice who referred to certain past events with his remark about Holebender allegedly "liking the police". All I did was to try to set the record straight where Holebender was concerned.

"there was no reason to bring IF business into this thread".

I could see no way of setting the record straight without doing so.

Having said that, returning to the original subject of this thread, I welcome Red Justice's most recent post on this. It reads as if he has quoted most of it from some official Chinese source, which inevitably means there is an element of propaganda involved, but, nevertheless, it provides a mass of detailed evidence which contradicts the Lamaist propaganda with which many of us are more familiar, and, for that reason alone, it is welcome.