Custer is too optimistic. The CCP needs to understand that the West spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year demonizing the Chinese government, people, culture, language, and even the entire East Asian race- look at activist “Asian American” websites for a slew of American offenses.

The general public in most Western countries will simply never see it from the rational standpoint- they are arrogant, deeply biased, brainwashed and hypocritical. They don’t WANT to believe anything good about the Chinese- the government, people, language or culture. If you get down to it, it turns out they just don’t care about these pet causes as much as they say they do- feed Africa, free Tibet, end poverty, go green- as you can see from their track record, their words do not match their actions.

They always seen them as a fundamental “racial and religious threat”. So-called Tibet Independence advocates capitalize on this. They portray “the evil Chinese” as buck-toothed, yellow skinned, soulless, money grubbing, spreading AIDS.

Even the most “politically” of the deranged Western perception of China will call the Chinese a materialistic culture- both a bias from Christianity and general ignorance/stupidity.

Rather, the CCP perhaps understands the West all too well.

March 15, 2010 @ 12:53 pm | Comment

politically correct perceptions, that is

There are too many racial and religious biases to list. It’s pointless to engage with such stupid people, frankly.

Historians and scholars from the West are much less biased- as they’re capable of independent research.

On that front, “the Chinese” have been doing a good job presenting the irrefutable facts like the vast improvement in living standards in Tibet.

March 15, 2010 @ 12:55 pm | Comment

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4975/

Here is an example of the Free Tibet campaign’s sickening racial propaganda

Even the CCP won’t stoop to those levels. Since they can’t leverage racial bias, which is the number one motivator for anti-Chinese (spun as pro-Tibet in the West’s MSM) agitation, there’s little they can do to appeal to the bigotry that is the cornerstone of Western foreign policy.

March 15, 2010 @ 1:03 pm | Comment

Merp, those last five or six comments of your with the insane anti-Americanism (and I mean insane, even for merp) will never get published here.

How on earth did these relatively innocuous links lead to so much hatred and vitriol from you?

March 15, 2010 @ 1:51 pm | Comment

It’s because he’s racist.

March 15, 2010 @ 5:46 pm | Comment

@Richard

You should set up a ranking system. To rank merp like post into oblivion.

March 15, 2010 @ 7:06 pm | Comment

The Dalai Lama’s affiliation with the CIA is well known yet ABC, NBC, or CBS never reported about it. The first time that some Western Media disclosed about it is from some BBC documentary. Maybe the major news media in the US doesn’t know (which is dumb) or maybe they don’t want to disclose the fact. Is that transparency to you? Do we expect some kind of ‘transparency’ from the Chinese media?

March 16, 2010 @ 12:01 am | Comment

The fact that the CIA aided the Dalai Lama has been documented in the US media. It’s not news anymore. And so what? That is not a matter of transparency but of relevancy. Do you think every story about him should begin, “The Dalai Lama, who half a century ago was aided by the CIA when he fled Tibet….”? Where is the relevance of the CIA to stories about how the Dalai Lama wants greater autonomy for Tibet?

Following this line of thinking, are NBC and CBS lacking transparency when they don’t reference the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward in every story about China?

This is a typical pugster thought-free comment. Vintage.

March 16, 2010 @ 12:11 am | Comment

Following this line of thinking, are NBC and CBS lacking transparency when they don’t reference the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward in every story about China?

Indeed. There are endless variations of what China has done in its past that could be used. For example:

“China, which fought the United Nations in Korea in the 1950s to keep the Stalinist North Korean regime in place and supported its attempts to take over the entire Korean peninsula, …..”

March 16, 2010 @ 12:22 am | Comment

And besides, Raj, pug is just plain wrong, as usual. We have to assume that whatever he says is nonsense. At least Merp documents stuff, even if he’s selective about what he cites. Pug = hot air.

March 16, 2010 @ 1:00 am | Comment

Rather it should be said that it is not well-known because that viewpoint is rarely, if ever, presented- NYTimes has a sizable readership but it does not have the reach of CNN or Fox.

March 16, 2010 @ 2:02 am | Comment

Is it relevant to the story? There is a huge amount of background information the media can give in regard to everything and everyone they cover. How much should they tell in a TV spot on the DL that lasts 30 seconds to a minute (the usual time for such stories)? If the CIA is a key part of the story then yes, they should tell it. But if it’s strictly background information of no immediate relevancy, then of course the media will usually leave it out.

Every time the word Tibet comes into a thread, you know we’re in for reflexive troll hijacking.

March 16, 2010 @ 2:24 am | Comment

Richard,

I said from NBC, ABC, or CBS, not some obscure footnote from Ny Times more than 10 years ago.

March 16, 2010 @ 4:30 am | Comment

The Peking Duck’s comment board has become essentially a cesspool of Chinese nationalism during Richard’s (understandable) absence for work projects. If China bashers like the Nanhe Mutton Kebab guy can be moderated or banned, why can’t China flunkeys receive equal treatment?

March 16, 2010 @ 4:55 am | Comment

Mange was never banned. Some of his comments were deleted, same as Merp.

March 16, 2010 @ 5:35 am | Comment

And pug, it IS a footnote. The CIA helped the DL more than 40 years ago. Why do you expect the media to highlight that now? You are a broken record. Repeat, it is a matter of relevancy, not transparency.

March 16, 2010 @ 6:23 am | Comment

The “autonomous” regions in China are huge mistakes. Not sure if they have that in Australia or not, I don’t see any autonomous regions in America… What a great country.

The Chinese governments are so stupid, so incompetent, they never learned the advanced techniques from the Europeans, despite that region has been part of China for many centuries, even before the existence of the United States, and Australia. They (the Chinese governments, current and previous) even preserved the minority’s culture by spending public fund to restore their religious temples. Promoting religion? No separation of church and state? — Another proof of Chinese inferiority.

March 16, 2010 @ 8:00 am | Comment

TC Lim, who exactly are you talking to? Your hyper-defensive tone in response to I-don’t-know-what seems to reflect only your own deep-seeded inferiority complex. Who here said China was inferior? I want you to answer that.

Otherwise, a fine comment.

If I thought China was inferior I wouldn’t have lived there, I wouldn’t keep going back there, and I wouldn’t write a blog about it.

March 16, 2010 @ 8:07 am | Comment

“If I thought China was inferior I wouldn’t have lived there, I wouldn’t keep going back there, and I wouldn’t write a blog about it.”

Great way to put it. As I wrote on Custer’s post yesterday, the issue at hand isn’t a China image problem, it’s a CCP image problem, which to me isn’t all that big a problem as I would not admire the policies of the CCP no matter how they were made palatable to Western media tastes.

The major issue with the CCP image problem is that this conflated by many simple-minded folks with the image of the Chinese nation and its people. As much as pug, merp (and the CCP itself coincidentally) seem to want to interpret every protestation against CCP policy (Tibet or otherwise) as an assault on the Chinese people, it is a simplistic and caustic way of looking at things.

I’ve never considered China or the Chinese people to be inferior, I do however consider the CCP too inferior a political organization to lead such a great country and people.

March 16, 2010 @ 8:59 am | Comment

Well said. I may not go quite as far as you, as I actually believe there are good (and bad) sides to the CCP, and I know it has many members who really do want the best for the Chinese people, and there have been a lot of improvements. Yes, the country does deserve better; but so does America, for that matter.

March 16, 2010 @ 9:14 am | Comment

Even the most “politically” of the deranged Western perception of China will call the Chinese a materialistic culture- both a bias from Christianity and general ignorance/stupidity.

Some cultures are more materialistic than others. In China’s case, materialism has been the official state ideology since 1949. Exactly what effect this has had on Chinese culture is debatable but surely nobody would claim that it has had no effect at all?

They don’t WANT to believe anything good about the Chinese- the government, people, language or culture.

Lots of people do want to believe that sort of thing, unfortunately for the CCP many of them want to believe it about Tibet – that it is or was some a Shangri La where people live in harmony and enlightenment according to ancient Oriental wisdom.

It also doesn’t help the CCP’s cause that they virtually cast themselves as Goliath.

March 16, 2010 @ 9:41 am | Comment

Richard,

Don’t get me wrong. I have no doubt that there are well-intentioned Party members who want to do the right thing for China and its people and reform the system. How could such a large organization not have such people in its ranks?

The problem is that the organization itself is ossified (due mostly to the fact that it has not had any political competition with which to develop against in 60 years) and this ossification prevents the government from pushing those talented and well-meaning people to do what’s in the interest of their constituents or making responsible policy decisions in the interests of something other than preserving the primacy of the CCP.

But why defend a corrupt and inefficient organization for the benefit of a few good apples that can’t reform anything because they have their hands tied by an outdated political doctrine? I don’t think pointing out that the Party has some well-intentioned members really justifies support for its continued predominance.

Also, why are all the “improvements” since Mao’s China credited to the CCP? (I assume that when you say “improvements” you are looking at economic reform versus “red” China) Is opening the economy up after screwing things up for 30 years something that the Chinese people need to bow down for? What about all the migrant workers who built China as it is today? When can the current situation stop being compared to China’s situation 30 years ago? We are along way from that China, I think its time we hold the CCP to a higher standard if they really want to justify their “great leadership.

Finally, how does the US not having a perfect government justify the status quo in China? They are completely unrelated, not sure why you would even mention this. I never said the US was a model for efficiency or didn’t need reform…

March 16, 2010 @ 9:58 am | Comment

Richard, I am the only one who said “Chinese are inferior”. Not you or anyone commenting on this blog.

Apparantly you think it’s not appropriate. I promise I will stop saying it. If I forgot and say it again, please filter it out. Thank you.

March 16, 2010 @ 10:04 am | Comment

@t.c. lim: Please google “Native Title – Australia.”

It is unfortunate that the indigenous Australians were nearly wiped out, whether by disease, poverty, hunting (yes, you could hunt them!) or the trusty old method of breeding them out of existence (hmmm… why is China flooding Tibet and Xinjiang with Han?) before Australia started coming to its senses.

March 16, 2010 @ 10:28 am | Comment

As much as pug, merp (and the CCP itself coincidentally) seem to want to interpret every protestation against CCP policy (Tibet or otherwise) as an assault on the Chinese people, it is a simplistic and caustic way of looking at things.

Pug, Merp, HX, etc. know that commenters at this blog (other than the odd troll) don’t conflate the CCP with China, its people and/or its culture, they just ignore that fact. If they acknowledged that fact it would be difficult for them to pretend that their comments are nothing more than biliousness.

March 16, 2010 @ 10:38 am | Comment

And pug, it IS a footnote. The CIA helped the DL more than 40 years ago. Why do you expect the media to highlight that now? You are a broken record. Repeat, it is a matter of relevancy, not transparency.

Yeah so was the Great Leap forward, yet you thought it was more relevant. True that CIA doesn’t dole out as much money as they used to. Yet the Dalai lama is now the NED’s lackie.

http://www.ned.org/events/democracy-service-medal/dalai-lama-honored-with-ned-democracy-service-medal

March 16, 2010 @ 11:18 am | Comment

I think the fact that Dalai Lama was a CIA agent up until Nixon’s visit to China was very relevant today. It epitomizes what DL was and is – a proxy and tool in the anti-China game played by the West. Even today DL and his pitiful exiles are still living on the hand out from US and other West government front and cover organizations like NED.

As for CCP’s clumsiness in PR, I don’t think it hurts, but on the contrary, it actually helps CCP and China. One consequence of all the demonizaiton and anti-China propaganda by the West is that it unites China and it makes China more focused and driven. So, if I were in charge of CCP propaganda department, I wouldn’t be too worried, China really needs some anti-China from the West to keep her united and focused and driven.

Anyway, there is not much point for CCP or China to PR and to win over the West. The US and West have long ago decided that the rise of China will be at the cost of the West and thus China is a threat to the West.

China and CCP just need to be united and focused on development– every year with 10% or 13% GDP growth. Who knows, maybe thirty or fifty years later China will be strong enough to play the proxy game against US, like providing money and support to the native Indians to reclaim their homeland, after all the white people did genecide the native Indians and put them in concentration camp like reservations even today.

March 16, 2010 @ 1:49 pm | Comment

Pug, how in hell is the Great Leap Forward a footnote?

March 16, 2010 @ 2:22 pm | Comment

No GLF is not a footnote and American history wants you to think that way. Yet the Dalai Lama – CIA thing wants to be seen as unimportant when it is not.

March 16, 2010 @ 6:59 pm | Comment

@playfair #27

Exactly what I want to say.
I wish I could say it that well. Thank you.

March 16, 2010 @ 8:45 pm | Comment

Here’s all I ask: what is the proof that the DL was “a CIA agent” for so many years? This is a beloved talking point of the fenqing. I am aware he had help from the CIA when he fled Tibet, and they may have supported him, the way the US supported Chalabi in Iraq for a few years. But I have seen no evidence he was a CIA agent of any kind. Playfair, your last line puts you in the same category as all the other nutcases who hang out here like flies around a rotting melon. I hereby declare you to be a cornucopia of ignorance and tired CCP talking points.

March 16, 2010 @ 9:28 pm | Comment

Andy, per your last comment above:

I don’t think pointing out that the Party has some well-intentioned members really justifies support for its continued predominance.

No disagreement there. I point it out to remind people that the CCP is a hydra – a multi-headed beast that has its good and bad aspects, similar to most governments.

I don’t give the CCP all the credit for the improvements. Mainly those improvements have come by the CCP rejecting its past totalitarian policies and giving people more freedom. But they do get credit for that – it was a huge step. And there is no doubt China enjoys a degree of freedom that’s much broader than what a lot of Americans think. And we have to understand that despite all its awful flaws, most Chinese feel a degreee of gratitude to their government, whether deserved or not. They also feel a degree of fear and animostiy; everyone has complaint against the CCP, but the general consensus seems to be one of approval, certainly more than we see in America at the moment. And I can fully understand their annoyance with foreigners coming in from very different systems and telling them how to run things. I’m not saying I necessarily agree with them, but I understand them.

Finally, how does the US not having a perfect government justify the status quo in China? They are completely unrelated, not sure why you would even mention this. I never said the US was a model for efficiency or didn’t need reform…

It doesn’t/ But put yourself in their shoes. Imagine a bunch of people from Venezuela or Nicaragua trying to dictate to us how we run our government because they perceive their system to be superior. What if, like Merp, they point to all America’s misdeeds and fuck-ups, and insist they know better? This in spite of their own dictatorships and political messes. Most people don’t want to be lectured to, especially when they see those doing the lecturing as coming from systems that are highly suspect. So they are not completely unrelated; they are somewhat unrelated. Two wrongs don’t make a right. But I do understand the argument of hypocrisy when we are perceived as imposing our values and belief systems on the Chinese.

That’s why when I criticize China I do so with all sorts of disclaimers and admit my own country’s faults.

March 16, 2010 @ 10:22 pm | Comment

@Richard
The point is not the CIA. It is the old trick of relating someone to a demonized entity to get a demonization by association. It is a variation of the ad hominem fallacy.

If we are going to play that game, Mr Chairman Mao received more help from the CIA predecessor than any help the DL ever received if any.

And the very CCP would resource to any alliance if it saw its existence in danger. Just see what happened with Nixon/Mao meeting.

The old capitalist satan turned into a convenient ally, when they had no other option to get outside help to keep their grasp of power.

March 16, 2010 @ 11:03 pm | Comment

The point is not the CIA. It is the old trick of relating someone to a demonized entity to get a demonization by association. It is a variation of the ad hominem fallacy

Kinda like how you broadbrush all CCP members by their association to a dead guy

March 17, 2010 @ 12:25 am | Comment

@ecodelta,

Since when Mao received any help? Maybe you have mistaken with KMT’s Chang Kai-Shek.

March 17, 2010 @ 1:04 am | Comment

Pug_wash
“Since when Mao received any help?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_split
Before the divorce…
“During the Second World War (1939–45) Stalin had urged Mao into a joint, anti-Japanese coalition with Chiang. After the war, Stalin advised Mao against seizing power, and to negotiate with Chiang, because Stalin had signed a Treaty of Friendship and Alliance with the Nationalists in mid-1945; Mao followed Stalin’s lead, calling him “the only leader of our party”. Unwisely, Chiang Kai-Shek insisted that Stalin act on the USSR’s illegal occupation of Tannu Uriankhai, in northern Mongolia; Stalin broke the treaty requiring Soviet withdrawal from Manchuria three months after Japan’s surrender, and gave Manchuria to Mao. Moreover, besides the land, Stalin gave the Chinese Communists some $1 billion in matériel and aid to help expel the Nationalists from continental China, and to establish the People’s Republic of China (1 October 1949); yet Tannu Uriankhai remained Soviet.[citation needed] Soon afterwards, however, a two-month Moscow visit by Mao culminated in the Sino–Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Alliance (1950), which comprised a $300 million low-interest loan and a 30-year military alliance.”
I’m sure there’s more…
Makes sense – we looked after “our” guy and the USSR “their” guy.

Richard
“I point it out to remind people that the CCP is a hydra – a multi-headed beast that has its good and bad aspects, similar to most governments.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/world/asia/17iht-letter.html?ref=world
““This is what I call one party, two factions,” Mr. Li said.”

March 17, 2010 @ 5:14 am | Comment

Interesting article, Mike. I’d call it one party, many factions. Not too dissimilar to America’s two parties in that regard, come to think of it.

March 17, 2010 @ 5:40 am | Comment

Mike Golddork,

Gees, read the thread, idiot. Of course Mao’s CCP got help from the soviets. Ecodelta says that Mao received help from CIA’s predecessor.

March 17, 2010 @ 5:50 am | Comment

Bum_ster
Any thread you contribute to arent’t worth reading too deeply into. You seem inordinately keen to show your stupidity across the ethernet.
Still, a simple Google gives me this
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1979&dat=19720226&id=7NIoAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gQYGAAAAIBAJ&pg=2409,5787438
And still you ask….

Richard
CCP sounds more and more like a multi-party system. I’m guessing converting to a multi-party democracy won’t be that hard. Be a pisser for all those democracy advocates outside when the change comes and they’re still…outside.

March 17, 2010 @ 6:06 am | Comment

All this talk of factions reminds me…
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/China’s-plans-behind-the-Xinjiang-tragedy-15889.html

“There are two issues that did not receive enough attention lately. According to a report by BoXun, the most reputable overseas Chinese website, an old party official who retired from the party during the CCP’s 17th Congress revealed that the reason for the explosive situation in Xinjiang was a struggle within the CCP.

From the jailing of Shanghai Mayor Chen LiangYu to last month’s detention of Shenzhen Mayor Xu Zongheng, Hu Jintao joined forces with Wen Jiabao to beat the leading members of the Jiang Zemin faction. Thus the Jiang faction had to find an opportunity to fight back. They did so by fuelling tensions which led to the Shaoguan incident, and by demobilising police during the Urumqi riots, thus enabling Uyghur terrorists to use a peaceful demonstration to murder Han Chinese to the extent that Hu Jintao lost face at the G8 meeting in Italy. Hu had to return to China to secure his own backyard and prevent the situation from getting out of control at his expense.”

Well, since there aren’t any elections, how else does a faction get in power?

Not, of course, that this isn’t unknown to happen in western democracies, mind…

March 17, 2010 @ 6:59 am | Comment

Mike Goldeneye,

And I thought Richard’s NYT’s 10+ year article was original, but you take the cake. First of all, this obscure article is written in some unknown newspaper, in the middle of the cold war, when China and the US was warming relations against the USSR. It stinks like some kind of propaganda piece.

Assuming that this is true, some American from the US Military Mission in Yenan met Mao at around the end of WWII. I don’t see anything unusual with this. However, nowhere in the article says the US Military Mission actually helped out Mao at the time. So do me a favor and get yourself a clue, idiot.

March 17, 2010 @ 8:24 am | Comment

Richard,

Here is the report from ny Times on DL on CIA payroll:

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/02/world/world-news-briefs-dalai-lama-group-says-it-got-money-from-cia.html?pagewanted=1

This was reported in 1998 in which DL denies of $180,000 personal payment from the CIA.

A few years ago, CIA opened its records on Tibet bugets for 1964 and it shows CIA indeed paid $180,000 to DL personally in 1964. The CIA’s document on Tibet buget and on DL salary used to be here:

http://www.intellnet.org/documents/700/040/744.html

but the link is dead now.

March 17, 2010 @ 8:41 am | Comment

Pugster is even dumber than I thought if he doesn’t know about US-CCP meetings in Yenan. This is not “propaganda” but a well-documented historical fact that most anyone with basic knowledge about Sino-US relations knows.

March 17, 2010 @ 8:55 am | Comment

Yes, Yes, playfair, I said this up above, can’t you read? I said this has been well documented. Pug’s argument that this hasn’t been covered is bogus. Yes, the DL got help from the CIA nearly half a century ago. He was not ever a CIA agent, at least not by any sane person’s definition. I made the comparison above to Chalabi in Iraq. He got tons of US aid. Osama Bin Laden got some, too. That did not make either of them agents of the US or the CIA. Quite the contrary. Trying to draw distinctions with fanatics is never easy, but I’ll keep doing my best.

Re. Pug’s comment above: I realize you are at an unfair disadvantage, not having been born with a cerebrum. But really, get a grip. The DL was paid by the CIA in the late 1950s/early 1960s and you are screaming about how it’s never been covered. What you mean is that you can’t find a lot of hits about it on Google (although you definitely can). But there was no Internet then, and its not relevant now to stories about the Tibetans’ eagerness for autonomy, so no, you won’t find as many references to it as you will to news items that occurred post-Internet. You obsess about why the media today aren’t putting the 50-year-old CIA story in their headlines. I go back to my original argument, that by your feeble logic we would have to refer to the Cultural Revolution in every headline to articles about China. Seriously, what would satisfy you? How do you see the DL’s being aided by the CIA half a century ago as being relevant to news about him today?

Obsession.

March 17, 2010 @ 8:58 am | Comment

Pug, write your comment civilly. Your metaphor was was not permissible.

Richard

March 17, 2010 @ 9:48 am | Comment

Richard,

Chalabi was not in the business of religion, nor Osama gets accolades from the West. But our “Spiritual Leader” a.k.a the CIA agent DL gets paid by the CIA while gets all the accolades from the media. Don’t you find it strange?

As for media coverage, there is the question of how do you cover. Do you report the fact in full context within a big story, or do you stuck it on obscure page.

I remember US media loves to point out Mr. Chalabi’s shasy past in Jordan 30 years ago even speaking approvingly of him.

But have you won’t see West media tell its reader the fact that DL used to work for the CIA agent?

March 17, 2010 @ 11:06 am | Comment

The DL never worked as a “CIA agent.” He was aided by the CIA 50 years ago over a period of approximately 5 years. There is a big difference between that and being an agent. And yes, I have seen the Western media tell its readers that, mainly in articles from many years ago when it was still news.

I repeat my argument for the umpteenth time: Should we keep repeating in every story about China that 50 years ago tens of millions died needlessly from starvation? Of course not. When it’s relevant, yes (as in, for example, a retrospective on Mao’s legacy). In most stories on contemporary China it’s not relevant. References to Chalabi’s past were made in profiles; it wasn’t regurgitated every time his name came up. And retrospective of the life of the DL should include at least a passing reference to his having once, half a century ago, been aided by the CIA, and that he never acted as a CIA agent. (And for the record I am no believer in the Free Tibet movement, nor am I a New Age believer in the Dalai Lama myth. But to call him a CIA agent is a bold-faced lie. Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. Jason Bourne was a CIA agent, if a fictional one.)

And we’ll leave it at that, now that the trolls have seized control the the thread.

March 17, 2010 @ 11:35 am | Comment

Anyway… about the “xiaozi” article, it’s an interesting piece, but something makes me feel uncomfortable about this term. It is, after all, just the Chinese translation of the Marxist classification “petty bourgeois.” And I can’t help but think that that’s somewhat un-funny or even disconcerting just a few decades after people were being persecuted, or a decade earlier killed, for their supposedly “bourgeois” nature (land reform in 50s, anti-rightist movement in 57, Cultural Revolution in 60s/70s, Campaign against Bourgeois Liberalism in 86, reeducation against bourgeois counterrev thinking post-89).
Of course, at least it’s used in a joking matter. And there really needs to be some term to refer to the yuppie lifestyle that this cites. But the use of Marxist terminology, whether ironic or not, leaves me a bit ambivalent.

March 17, 2010 @ 1:41 pm | Comment

Fuck_wit
“So do me a favor and get yourself a clue, idiot.”
And the Zionists planned 9/11 with the cinnivance of the CIA…as you alluded to earlier?
Fuckwit

March 17, 2010 @ 2:54 pm | Comment

Connivance, I meant. Bloody qwerty keyboard… 😉

“But have you won’t see West media tell its reader the fact that DL used to work for the CIA agent?”

Oddly, Playfair, you don’t see the same about Mao being a CIA agent (well, he accept the greenbacks too…), but then again, the 50 centers don’t seem to dwell on that either. How odd ;-D

Xiaozi – never knew that’s what they referred to the students around here as 😉

And poor poor Pug_wash – confronted with the evidence that his beloved Mao was a CIA agent just like that Tibetan dude…must hurt! I see the rejection of the article – so heartfelt. Later on he’ll feel just like those Talebs in Afghanistan that have to come to terms that Hekmatyar took greenbacks from the Great Satan like everyone else did….even Osama Bin Liner and Saddam Hussein.

Kinda fucks up their arguments. No worries 🙂

Hmmm…this might be a family blog…must tone down the swearing…

March 17, 2010 @ 3:04 pm | Comment

Mike Golddump,

And the Zionists planned 9/11 with the cinnivance of the CIA…as you alluded to earlier?

Did I ever say that, idiot? For the 3rd time, I say it is controversy because of the way the towers fell.

KevinthedumplingofPudong,

Since my response was whitewashed yesterday, I will say it again. I said it was propaganda because it was written during during the cold war era glorifying the CCP against the ‘soviet aggression.’ Imagine we see a US newspaper today glorifying Mao, that would be something else. Maybe I fell asleep in history class but I don’t recall the US-CCP meetings in Yanan after WWII, but I do know that the CCP and the Nationalists did have some peace talks before it broke down after WWII. Maybe if either you or Mike Golddung can point out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Mission earlier, maybe I know what you are talking about. Also, if this fact is so ‘well known,’ maybe you can point out to a recent article of this failed diplomacy, otherwise you are making things up.

March 17, 2010 @ 9:17 pm | Comment

Mike GoldTroll,

And poor poor Pug_wash – confronted with the evidence that his beloved Mao was a CIA agent just like that Tibetan dude…must hurt! I see the rejection of the article – so heartfelt.

The only problem with your statement is that what you said is total hogwash. First of all, I said that the Dalai Lama was CIA’s lackie, (that means that the Dalai Lama is used by the CIA) not a CIA agent. Second, the CIA was formed after WWII, so the people who ‘worked’ with Mao wasn’t called the CIA. Maybe they are called OSS or something similar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_mission
http://www.china.org.cn/english/2004/Aug/105006.htm

According to the article:

General Joseph W. Stilwell first suggested sending the mission and President Franklin D. Roosevelt approved it. The detached military unit sent to Yan’an was responsible for transmitting weather information, assisting the Communists in their rescue of downed American flyers and evaluating their Communist hosts’ contribution to the war effort against Japan.

Oh yeah, I guess the Americans were a great help to Mao by giving them weather information. Seems to me that Mao’s communists helped the Americans more and these Americans were there for diplomatic reasons and information gathering than helping them out.

Later on he’ll feel just like those Talebs in Afghanistan that have to come to terms that Hekmatyar took greenbacks from the Great Satan like everyone else did….even Osama Bin Liner and Saddam Hussein.

Keep talking Mr. Goldtroll.

March 18, 2010 @ 4:52 am | Comment

Fuck_wit
“Did I ever say that, idiot? ”
You alluded to it, fuckwit. That’s pretty close to a yes…

And Wikipedia all you got? No wonder you’re thick.

March 18, 2010 @ 5:17 pm | Comment

Mike, you need to be more gracious in victory. Pug, you have to stop being a sore loser when (as most often happens) you lose arguments.

March 19, 2010 @ 12:24 am | Comment

Just another Troll who likes more about me rather than the topic at hand.

March 19, 2010 @ 9:19 am | Comment

@pug_ster
so the people who ‘worked’ with Mao wasn’t called the CIA. Maybe they are called OSS or something similar.

So that makes Mao… an OSS agent?

March 19, 2010 @ 11:34 am | Comment

Slim, I should 😉
You know – I been reading about China’s Yuan of recent, how it’s devalued and all. Never gave it much thought – I mean, China makes everything so it’s bound to be cheaper there, right?
Then I read the 50 centers who contribute and I realise that…well, heck, yes. The Yuan is devalued. I mean, shit, if their contribution is the best that 50 cents can buy….

🙂

March 19, 2010 @ 2:39 pm | Comment