Eclipsed from the headlines by the ongoing carnage, there is an active
civil resistance in Iraq that opposes the occupation, the torture regime
it protects, and the jihadi and Ba'athist 'resistance' alike.
Submitted by Bill Weinberg on Sun, 03/16/2008 - 18:59.
For starters, your question betrays your bias. By "violence," you clearly mean Tibetan violence—rather than the far greater Chinese repressive violence.
Secondly, is it true that the Dalai Lama has not "condemned the violence"? He has clearly called for both sides to refrain from violence—while having enough humility not to make condescending demands on the oppressed from the safety of exile.
But more to the point, why should the Dalai Lama "condemn the violence"? You sound like Washington and the Israelis, with their incessant demands that the Palestinian leadership "condemn the (Palestinian) violence"—while the Israelis get a virtual blank check to be as violent as they wanna be.
"Where is their Mandela?" Mandela supported armed struggle for a generation before the apartheid regime essentially agreed to acquiesce in its own demise under internal and international pressure. Why don't you put your energies into turning up the external heat on Beijing, and help lay the conditions for a nonviolent solution?
The inconvenient facts and unanswered questions surrounding the attacks are legion, but the endemic sloppiness of the self-styled "researchers" is delegitimizing the entire project of critiquing the "official version." The ostentatiously named "Truth movement" is not clearing the air, but muddying the water.
WW4 Report pamphlets
WAR AT THE CROSSROADS
An Historical Guide Through the Balkan Labyrinth
The Balkan region is intensely multicultural - a point of crossroads and clash for some of the world's major religions, cultural spheres, and economic systems. While there have been vicious wars in Balkan history, these have taken place in the context of manipulation by imperial powers and the self-serving local leaders who cater to them.
opensource technology and the people of May First
Why should he "condemn the violence"?
For starters, your question betrays your bias. By "violence," you clearly mean Tibetan violence—rather than the far greater Chinese repressive violence.
Secondly, is it true that the Dalai Lama has not "condemned the violence"? He has clearly called for both sides to refrain from violence—while having enough humility not to make condescending demands on the oppressed from the safety of exile.
But more to the point, why should the Dalai Lama "condemn the violence"? You sound like Washington and the Israelis, with their incessant demands that the Palestinian leadership "condemn the (Palestinian) violence"—while the Israelis get a virtual blank check to be as violent as they wanna be.
"Where is their Mandela?" Mandela supported armed struggle for a generation before the apartheid regime essentially agreed to acquiesce in its own demise under internal and international pressure. Why don't you put your energies into turning up the external heat on Beijing, and help lay the conditions for a nonviolent solution?