• Piset
  • ranking : Classic Member
  • email : lerssyn@yahoo.com
  • created : 2007-06-14
  • entry : 413
  • visitors : 137295
  • votes : 213
  • send msg :
Mahwatthai's Box Box Box
This blog will present and provide a ground of exchange of the broad spectrum of ideas covering the well being of the nation and the people of Thailand
Permalink : http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/mahwatthai
Sunday , April 6 , 2008
An Appeal to All Human Right Supporters of the World
Posted by Piset , Reader : 692 , 19:05:38  
Print

Here are some collections of the abuses of human rights in the worst term of the civilized world.  Please take a look and decide what should be done with that system, their feadalistic bosses, and their government:

1) 95% of the people are slaves to the serfmasters who punished or even killed these slaves at will.  The local law and tradition also give these slave master that rights.  These slaves became slaves either through birth through parents who were already serfs, or being bought in the slave market, or simply capture and enslaved by the master.  No compensations.  No roofs for their living stables.  Female serfs would be "used" by the masters at will as wished.    Heavy loads of work assignments.  Those who could not complete the assignment would be punished.   Note that that small child would become the slave of the master automatically.

  Here is a slave whose eyes were taken off as a penalty.

These slaves had their hands chopped off as a measure of penalty for whatever displeased the master.

Two serfs with one hand each chopped off chained together

Some displeased slaves were punished by having the skin of their entire body taken off them, according to local law.  Here are the skins.

Here are the feet locks designed to punished the slaves.  Their can neigher move their feet nor lie down for any rest during the punishment.

Never mind where or when it happen.  Let keep that out of the perspective for now.

Folk:

Would you say this is a system that any civilize government must put an end to.  Suppose it happened in E-sarn Thailand, Southern Taiwan, North Korea, Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. whatever.

Would you agree that, there can be no reason to allow this kind of slavery and cruelty on human to continue no matter where it is or when?  Those who were involved in this system should be prosecuted in the International Court.

Do you agree?

Again, let's just take a look at the human right and the rule of law, let's not try to bring up where or when of these pictures.

Read comment

comment 48
Piset date : 11/04/2008 time : 18.03
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/mahwatthai
Piset

Obey:

Christ! Your latest writing sounded like "mom's leftover soup" from the past two weeks' left over food.

If it displeases you or limited your preferred discussion then I must apologize to you. However, unless we take up one issue at a time, we will always end up with "mom's leftover souts."
comment 47
Obeyno1kinobe date : 11/04/2008 time : 14.39
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/obeyno1

Piset,

You always so narrowly define the argument as to exclude any dissagreement with your point.

And it is always a lopsided view. China good. Everyone else bad.

What colour do you like black or White. No don't say blue, you must chose between black and white.

You say never mind when and where with the authority of heaven in your voice, when they are all obviously from one place. Piset defines the boundaries of discussion. Stick to the point.

Your style of argument, is most enjoyable to read through.

I have heard the argument before that Chinese control has improved the quality of life of the Tibets.

This contradicts some of your previous blogs where you say China has always controlled Tibet, and installed the Feudal Lama system. So by your rationale, then all this has happened with tacit Chinese approval.

From what I know life in China (and everywhere else) has not always been a bed of roses. How many slaves, servants, serfs, farmers, advisors, men women and children have been jailed, tortured, killed. How many people died building the great wall. How many victims lost their lives during Mao's reign.How many students died in T square a decade ago. How many people are jailed now for expressing words of dissent.

You have not proven that the current Dalai Lama is responsible for these attrocities. You have not proven that the Chinese invasion improved life more than would have happened anyway as global standards have generally lifted.

To be balanced, what if Chinese rule has improved the quality of life in some ways compared to 50 or 100 years ago. That does not excuse squashing the elements of Tibeten culture the people want to keep. Why shouldn't they be able to have a photo of the Dalai Lama on display.

And you never answer the straight question:
Do you believe the Tibetan people have a right to self determination.

I see 3 broad possible futures:
(1) Tibet is overwhelmed with Han. Cultural genocide is successful
(2) China becomes a democracy in 50 years. 50 years later Tibet becomes autonomous.
(3) The Tibeten culture and identity continues through the repression . The Communist government refuses to deal with the DL and continues to paint him as the Devil. The younger generation intermitantly protest and are crushed. Then turned to armed conflict. Suicide bombers etc Initially in Tibet, but then expanding the conflict to where it really hurts with Dirty bombs in Beijing - like the Chetchens vs Russia. The conflict expands to the Urger Muslims and others. The communist government collapses under it's own myopic vision.
comment 46
FelixQui date : 09/04/2008 time : 23.09
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Piset,
Yes, it is only right the government of that country take action to correct the human rights abuses occurring within its borders. I don't think any one who has commented disagrees with that.

But Narcissus and others have asked highly pertinent questions:
1. What if the country's government refuses to or can not take any effective action?
2. What if the country's government is a prime violator of human rights?
comment 45
Piset date : 09/04/2008 time : 21.24
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/mahwatthai
Piset

Thanks for all the inputs. Now, perhaps it would do us some good to concentrate, once again on the topic.

If things as shown happen in any country, it is only right that the central government of that country do something about that to stop it and punish those violators of the human rights.

Ian:

No, all I knew about the Federal laws was those I accidentally touched upon during and after the school day. I know nothing at all about Malaysian constitution other than than the Sultan takes turn to be the Head of the State.
comment 44
narcisuss date : 09/04/2008 time : 16.17
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss
I  come in peace :)

c38, "The only avenue to intervene with violatin of human rights in any particular country now is through the UN as a UN decision and action."
That is the only way that has attained mutual acceptance by the states that constitute it, because they can influence it even when they themselves have done something wrong.

As Felix mentions, it is a weak institution. And I would say that it does not work.
So when intervention is warranted and the UN is helpless, someone else needs to intervene.
comment 43
FelixQui date : 09/04/2008 time : 12.57
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Piset,
I am inclined to agree with you in comment 38 that the UN, weak as it is, is the only super-state body that can legitimately authorise an unwanted (sometimes states or groups ask for it) military intervention against a state on grounds of domestic issues, however serious. It gave the go ahead for US action against Afghanistan after 9/11, and perhaps sensibly refused such consent against the US's disastrous interference in Iraq, about the rightness of which I remain uncertain. I am certain that Saddam was committing massive human rights violations, I am also certain that Bush told whopping lies to justify his war and that he should be impeached for misleading congress - perhaps China could move a UN resolution against him?

As you also note, quoting Nixon, "It is useless to negotiate from the position of weakness," which makes the UN a super-body of dubious value, although it's probably better than nothing, and might one day lead to something better, perhaps a United States of Earth, with a constitution similar to that of the US (I'm not American - I just think their founding fathers got a few things pretty much right in that admirably clear and short document), and with officials elected by the people of the earth, with an armed force that is under strict civilian control and which is strong enough to easily intimidate any rogue member.
comment 42
FelixQui date : 09/04/2008 time : 12.32
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Just to make it explicit: I also agree with Lincoln that it was a civil war, even though the southern states had already left the United States. But had the Confederated States won, it would not have been a civil war, unless they immediately sought a reunion conditional on mutually agreed constitutional amendments which Lincoln had previously (I think rightly) rejected out of hand but which could conceivably have passed if put to the people. Thankfully, Lincoln did the right things for the right reasons: his convictions that "all men are created equal," and that government "of the people, by the people, for the people" is the best form going.
comment 41
Ian date : 09/04/2008 time : 12.21
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Piset, you don't seem to understand federal law, American or Malaysian:-)
comment 40
FelixQui date : 09/04/2008 time : 12.21
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Piset,
Yes, I agree that Lincoln thought of it as a civil war, and some historians argue that he went to war NOT to free the slaves, but to stop the secession of states from the United States. However, the fact remains that states really had seceded from the Union. Had the south won the civil war, they would have continued as an independent nation, and the civil war would have a different name today - probably something like the Confederate War of Independence, to mark it off from teh War of Independence which created teh United States as a separate country that was no longer a colony of England. Those are historical accidents.

I think we should focus on the point you initially raised: was the United States right to go against the Confederate States to oppose slavery, rather than because they had seceded from the United States? If every other nation on earth had recognised the COnfederate States as in independent country (they did not), would that have made Lincoln's war against them wrong?

I agree with your emphasizing that the important question is the abuse of human rights, and the need to take action against that abuse. Whether Lincoln's government was fighting a civil war or an international war seems a less important question of debatable semantics. When Lincoln begins this famous speech with an opening that says "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal," he also makes clear that for him the most important reasons for going to war are those principles, which he reiterates in his concluding words: "that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

I agree with you fully that there is a real question about what kinds of actions may legitimately be taken against sovereign states, however vile, by other states. There are also real questions about when a part of a state may legitimately wish to secede and form an independent state. Clearly, maps do in fact change, and we can't simply say that all such changes are wrong and that once a part of state A, group B who used be state B, must simply accept that ever after and never wish or seek to become state B'.
comment 39
Piset date : 09/04/2008 time : 12.10
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/mahwatthai
Piset

Ian:

1) In the U.S. Civil War, the south attempted to break the law of the USA by announcing the separation. Lincoln was simply enforcing the law of the USA.

2) Neither Malaya no Singapore was a part of the Malaysia that the Britain created in the process of freeing them from colonial rule. Thus, it had no obligation to obey its' former aggressor's desire that it join the new nation, Malaysia.
comment 38
Piset date : 09/04/2008 time : 11.46
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/mahwatthai
Piset

Felix:

I would not suggest any foreign interferences in any domestic affairs by any one or manyforeign countries. The only avenue to intervene with violatin of human rights in any particular country now is through the UN as a UN decision and action.

Again, no laws of any kind could prevented those aggressive imperialist or colony hunting countries to stop making excuses in interfering with another country's affair, most of the time, to control, to dominate and to exploit the natural resources of another country. That in itself is a violation of human right. Who will put that big bully to the court?

Thus, as Richard said on Vietnam Peace Negotiation, something like,"It is useless to negotiate from the position of weakness."

Thus, each nation's ability to defend itself is very important to prevent any foreign bullies's greeds.
comment 37
Ian date : 09/04/2008 time : 11.46
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

One point to Piset Even Felix referred to it as a civil war comment 34.
However, at the time of that war the Southern states had quit the Union, so in a sense it was not a civil war.

A modern example would be a war between Malaysia and Singapore, by Piset's definition it would be a civil war as they were once joined in a union.
Singapore withdrew (Malaysian version... was kicked out).
comment 36
Ian date : 09/04/2008 time : 11.40
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

piset, comment 24, have you never heard of the holistic approach, even in physics events can rarely be examined in isolation without setting up artificial experiments.
With humans this becomes impossible.

Basically Piset, you set up your own goal oriented parameters for a debate then scream when these self appointed parameters are rejected.
You argue like a politician
comment 35
Piset date : 09/04/2008 time : 11.39
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/mahwatthai
Piset

(delivered 19 November 1863)

Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.

Please note the word, "civil war" which means a domestic conflict.
comment 34
FelixQui date : 09/04/2008 time : 11.16
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Piset,
When the American civil war began, the southern states were NOT in fact part of the United States. They had already seceded from the union, and it was the fact that they were no longer a part of the United States Congress and thus no longer voting there that made it so easy for Lincoln to get his war against them. Therefore, Lincoln and his US army invaded a foreign territory one aim of which was territorial acquisition, as well as the freeing of slaves.
The freeing of the slaves was the ultimate cause of the war, but the slave owning states that had seceded from the United States prior to war had every right to do so, and that was accepted by the US Congress, who then went to war against a foreign alliance, won the war, put the southern states firmly back in the union and freed teh slaves. (In fact, Lincoln only freed the slaves in 1962, 18 months after the war had begun in 1961, and possibly only because he thought it was a strategically sound move.)
comment 33
FelixQui date : 09/04/2008 time : 10.43
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Piset,
I like your cheating analogy.
Just as everyone here has agreed with you that slavery and other human rights abuses are wrong, so too we would probably all agree that cheating is wrong.

Having reached that fairly uncontroversial agreement, people not unnaturally want to discuss what does and does not follow from it. When we detect or become aware of cheating on a massive scale, some of us think that something should be done to stop it, even if the school concerned doesn't appear to want to act and is not our own school. Perhaps others think that no outside interference in the school's affairs is permitted as it cheerfully harms all its students, but it's an obvious question to discuss, and perhaps the question of who may do what is of greater importance than the very straight forward question of whether or not anything should be done.

Having gotten everyone's agreement that something should be done, why are you so opposed to any discussion on who may do what?
comment 32
narcisuss date : 09/04/2008 time : 10.32
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss
I  come in peace :)

And what if the central government itself is responsible for such crimes? Is interference then warranted by external forces, military or diplomatic?
comment 31
Piset date : 09/04/2008 time : 10.29
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/mahwatthai
Piset

narcisuss:

When the Southern States of the US refused to free the slaves and as a result announce its defiance of the United States, then Washington, D.C. send troop to fight the southern states in order to enforce the constitution of the USA. When the Northeast Warlords of China and Thailand defied the government's orders which included the freeing of all slaves, the central government send in troops to put them down.

Notice one thing, that is, it was all done domestically, never need any foreign forces or foreign interferences.

Thus, in your quoted statement, I simply meant any government in any country must see to it that no such violations of human rights be allowed within its territory. Any violators within its territory must be dealt with by its own central government accordingly.
comment 30
FelixQui date : 09/04/2008 time : 10.21
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Piset,
Narcissus is right - the sentence he quotes, again, seemed to suggest that civilised states had an obligation to oppose serious human rights abuses, and it was not clear that you wanted to strictly limit any such action to within a nation's (current? expanded? past? future?) borders.
I'm also wondering if Narcissus's assumption is the the one you want us to make.
comment 29
narcisuss date : 09/04/2008 time : 09.34
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss
I  come in peace :)

c27, I too got the impression that Ian and Felix got from your sentence ""Would you say this is a system that any civilize government must put an end to."


Am I right to assume then that you don't feel a foreign institution (or is it just foreign countries) should ever interfer, even when such atrocities occur?
comment 28
Piset date : 09/04/2008 time : 08.48
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/mahwatthai
Piset

hah hah hah! I have thoroughly enjoyed what is happening here in this particular blog.

This has reminded me of the talking in class about the cheatings in the examinations. All I said was that cheating is wrong and must be punished harshly in order to discourage any potential cheaters from attempting to cheat in the future.

In the class, some felt rather uncomfortable and avoided my eyes. Some tried to argue about special considerations for various "possible misunderstandings," or "necessities." In other word, to many, they simply could not hear about the word "exam cheating" without any unconscious defensiveness for themselves.

In isolating the issue of "human right" abuses in this blog, I can certainly see that some buddies around here still tried to scratch the itches in the rear over the heavy blue jean pant. Didn't work quite well, did it?
comment 27
Piset date : 09/04/2008 time : 06.16
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/mahwatthai
Piset

"I thought you were suggesting that serious human rights violations, such as slavery, meant that neighbouring nations would be wrong to stand by and do nothing to correct those wrongs. "

Can you cite the specific part of my writing that indicated this meaning?

Interfering other countries' affairs such as those done by the US, UK, and USSR during their colonialism days were at best "an excuse" for their own greedy reasons. Never, ever right.
comment 26
FelixQui date : 08/04/2008 time : 23.44
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Piset,
Perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you were suggesting that serious human rights violations, such as slavery, meant that neighbouring nations would be wrong to stand by and do nothing to correct those wrongs. I inferred this from such sentences as, "Would you say this is a system that any civilize government must put an end to." (I'm assuming we can agree that whatever its defects that Thailand's government is civilised when compared with that next door in Burma.)
comment 25
Piset date : 08/04/2008 time : 20.28
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/mahwatthai
Piset

Felix:

Since when has Burma been a part of E-sarn in Thailand?

If people in E-sarn Thailand have carried out some inhumane traditions or local rules, certainly, the government in Bangkok should and must put an end to that, as well as ousting those violators of hunan rights from the government services.
comment 24
Piset date : 08/04/2008 time : 20.11
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/mahwatthai
Piset

Ian:

In your teaching of your own graduate students on their rationalizing of an issue. Wouldn't it be desirable that the issue itself be studied, checked, evaluated separately first and any relations or interactions with any other issue should be considered later.

If you were considering the putting motion of a golf ball, you certainly can considered its physical property first before insisting that using Tiger Woods' club on that is wrong.
comment 23
Ian date : 08/04/2008 time : 17.04
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

piset, following on from Felix's comments, can we expect to see the Chinese army invading Burma soon to liberate the people from the oppression of their Generals?
comment 22
FelixQui date : 08/04/2008 time : 16.18
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Piset wrote: "Would you say this is a system that any civilize government must put an end to. Suppose it happened in E-sarn Thailand, Southern Taiwan, North Korea, Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. whatever."

I think all are more-or-less agreed that this is so, and that Thailand therefore has an obligation to invade Burma to end the brutal slavery of the Buremese people to the evil Burmese army.

Piset wrote: "Would you agree that, there can be no reason to allow this kind of slavery and cruelty on human to continue no matter where it is or when?"

Again, I think every has agreed to this. So when should Thailand take action against the generals in Burma?

Piset wrote: "Again, let's just take a look at the human right and the rule of law, let's not try to bring up where or when of these pictures."

OK, we've done that. We'ew all agreed. It's time to start talking about what does and does not follow from accepting that human rights abuses, such as those in Burma and those evidenced by the photographs, should not be permitted to go unchecked.
comment 21
Ian date : 08/04/2008 time : 15.59
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Piset, in essence you are trying to say that two wrongs make a right, or if you prefer the means justify the ends. This is not the case.
comment 20
Piset date : 08/04/2008 time : 13.08
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/mahwatthai
Piset

Felix:

Again, can we focus on one issue at a time. Let's forget when where and why of the other issues at this moment.

When I started another two blog, we will really open up the interested issues very widely and very scientifically, and historically documented too.
comment 19
FelixQui date : 08/04/2008 time : 08.04
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

And of course, a military or other intervention would be justified only so long as required to right wrongs and to allow the people to begin governing themselves in a healthy, democratic manner. It would not be a excuse for the intervening force to assume some special rights over teh local people, especially if those people no longer wanted the presence of their saviours, nor would it justify other sets of human rights abuses, such as censorship.
comment 18
Piset date : 08/04/2008 time : 06.37
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/mahwatthai
Piset

narcisuss:

Thank you for the first part of your opinion. We will take up the latter part along with Ian's stance in another blog. If no one else start it. I will start a new blog on that specific subject next week, after my busy training week and allowing me 2-3 days of more full fetch researches.
comment 17
narcisuss date : 08/04/2008 time : 00.15
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss
I  come in peace :)

Such atrocities should be punished no matter who the perpetrator, you are right.
Punishment does not necessarily mean providing government by force.
comment 16
Piset date : 07/04/2008 time : 15.15
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/mahwatthai
Piset

Ian:

I really sympathize your obsession with China. Personal accusations (which I am sure you were not serious), or distracting the key issues simply is not in line with the goal of this blog.

What you mentioned had already been discussed in another blog and we have agreed to disagree. Remember? We can carry on that again if you like, under another blog title more accurately reflecting those issues of your interest. If you started it, I will join you.

Cheers
comment 15
Ian date : 07/04/2008 time : 15.07
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Piset, these treatments of humans is inhuman, whether in Tibet, Iran or Africa.
What I resent is China using such events as an excuse to invade Tibet when exactly the same events were happening on her own soil.
China should first put her own house in order.
comment 14
Piset date : 07/04/2008 time : 15.01
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/mahwatthai
Piset

Ian:

My apology for an honest mistake. I really did not see your comment due to my habit of checking the latest comments, thus, your comment must have come with a number of others which happened to escape my eyes.

I fully believe that an issue like this should be discussed on the ground of its own merits without referring to the place or time involved in the first place. As, I and - -+you have noticed the definite biases any time any country's names come into picture.

First, we discuss the merit and the desirable course of corrective actions.

Second, then, we could, if so desired go into the proving of the historical fact as to whether that was fact or fiction.

Third, as the fact we digged up would lead us to, we will find out who did it, where and when.

This should be the most neutral and more reliable way to approach an issue like this. So, no country, no political party, no time, no place discussed at this time.
comment 13
Ian date : 07/04/2008 time : 14.44
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Piset, I wonder why you are ignoring my comment 7 ?
comment 12
Piset date : 07/04/2008 time : 13.55
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/mahwatthai
Piset

Manhunt:

Maybe Nancy Pelosi should hear about all these to get her off her hypnotized state.
comment 11
Manhunt date : 07/04/2008 time : 12.09

Piset - Your photos in this blog made me squirm on my chair all over again. Perhaps you could add the ones from Middle East where they pinned the boy under the tyres and the man who was castrated & stonned to death eventually. The world is much more horrible sometimes but many chose to ignore. Why don't we become politicians for a start?
comment 10
Piset date : 07/04/2008 time : 12.02
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/mahwatthai
Piset

Manhunt:

As I am sure you realize, I would like to discuss justice for the people without being influenced by the prejudices or biases that might be there once any name of any countries or any particular time come into picture.

This way we can all be pefectly rational about what is right and what should be done if this happened.
comment 9
Manhunt date : 07/04/2008 time : 11.35

Piset - My apologies if I sounded defensive. I wish you could see my face which wasn't
In your earlier blogs you quoted about the Chinese forces going into Tibet and I pointed out that there's 2 sides story where much torturings such as your posted photos, had been written in many books. I am not very sure about its truths anyway. So I would welcome your discussion if you could share on how to overcome such abuses.
comment 8
Piset date : 07/04/2008 time : 10.26
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/mahwatthai
Piset

Manhunt:

Why getting so defensive. I have not mentioned any place or any time. Let's for the time being discuss the fact of the violation of human right and what should mankind do with this kind of things whenever and wherever they take place.
comment 7
Ian date : 07/04/2008 time : 10.24
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

I am surprised no one has commented on the ethnic characteristics in these pictures, and so realised that Piset is being subtle in his approach. These pictures are of Tibetan people, on of the Chinese justifications for their invasion.

"Although the CCP cites slavery as a justification for liquidating the Dalai
Lama's government, the practice was by no means confined to Tibet. It is
estimated that in 1930 there were about 4 million child slaves in China
proper (Cantonese: _mui1jai_). [Meltzer93]

This is where most of these pictures have their source:

"In 1959, Anna Louise Strong visited an exhibition of torture equipment that had been used by the Tibetan overlords. There were handcuffs of all sizes, including small ones for children, and instruments for cutting off noses and ears, gouging out eyes, breaking off hands, and hamstringing legs. There were hot brands, whips, and special implements for disemboweling. The exhibition presented photographs and testimonies of victims who had been blinded or crippled or suffered amputations for thievery. There was the shepherd whose master owed him a reimbursement in yuan and wheat but refused to pay. So he took one of the master’s cows; for this he had his hands severed. Another herdsman, who opposed having his wife taken from him by his lord, had his hands broken off. There were pictures of Communist activists with noses and upper lips cut off, and a woman who was raped and then had her nose sliced away."

What Piset is saying as spokesperson for the CPP of China, is that thay had to invade Tibet to prevent these atrocities continuing.

It ignores the facts that the same events were common in China.
comment 6
Manhunt date : 07/04/2008 time : 10.06

Piset - Now what do you plan to do instead of just posting this? They obviously looked like old Asian photos. Now do you believe that such torturings actually happens in Tibet as rumoured?
comment 5
Piset date : 06/04/2008 time : 22.27
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/mahwatthai
Piset

Felix:

You are right in some ways. Amid all the noise about human rights. Places such as the one showed hee have never received any attention in the way of protection of human right, at all.
comment 4
FelixQui date : 06/04/2008 time : 22.04
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

If nobody bothered about it "in Tanzania, Chad, or Boneo, or deep in the jungles of Amazon" that would not make it right, and it would certainly not excuse anyone else doing it.
I'm not sure that I understand your point in commnet 3. Is it to point out that we do not, cannot, always apply our own standards as constently or as rigorously as we would like?
comment 3
Piset date : 06/04/2008 time : 21.18
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/mahwatthai
Piset

If that happened in Tanzania, Chad, or Boneo, or deep in the jungles of Amazon, then, chances are, nobody would bother about that at all.
comment 2
Piset date : 06/04/2008 time : 21.15
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/mahwatthai
Piset

If those being enslaved were the black slaves in the southern states of the U.S. who wished to break away from the US just for the purpose of keeping the slaves, then the Civil War in the US would be supported by some and nobody would try to encourage the slave masters of the south to regain conttrol, set up government in exile or declared the southern states independent from the U.S.
comment 1
FelixQui date : 06/04/2008 time : 20.54
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Piset,
Yes, people who commit such atrocities should be punished if that is possible. You appear to be advocating, for example, that Thailand would be justified in invading Burma to free the Burmese people from their brutal dictators, or at the very least prosecuted in the World Court. Is that right?

I think I have seen one of the photographs a long time ago (decades) and it was reported as being much older, which would be consistent with its appearance. What time period do they span?
Comment

  "If you are not member, please register to comment.
It take only a few steps."

  |  
name :  
email :  
website :  
comment :  
   
   

back top

It Rained Rocks From the Sky

This is a clip showing the rocks falling from stiff and high mountains in Sichuan during the aftershocks following the earthquake on May 12, 2008. The 6 minute "Rock Rain Storm" featuring thousands o

View All
<< April 2008 >>
s m t w t f s
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30