Another post on this forum, this recent story, and a previous discussion with some fellows in China makes me think that this would make a good discussion topic.

A little background information -- everyone knows that the Dalai Lama won the Nobel Peace Prize a while back, but not everyone knows that he endorsed and supported the uprising / insurgency against Chinese rule in 1959 and continued his support of guerilla-style attacks on the Chinese military and civilians working on highway and rail projects in Tibet until the late 60s ~ early 70s.

So, here is the topic for discussion:

If Osama bin Laden denounces violence and adopts a non-violent form of resistance to Western military presence in the Arab world, should he be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize?

He masterminded the killing of 3,000 American civilians and God knows how many others. He could convert to Buddism and join the Red Cross for all I care. No matter what he does with the rest of his life he should be tried and executed for the crimes he has comitted. He is currently the most wanted terrorist on the planet, going on Al-Jazeera and giving us a stunning rendition of "Give Peace a Chance" will not change that nor will it bring back the lives of the people that he has helped kill.

CP

Your question may be a valid one, but your attempt to draw any comparison between Bin Laden and the Dalai Lama is absurd. First of all, you would need to provide some support for your spurious claim that the Dalai Lama edorsed violence against the aggresive Chinese invasion of their country. In fact, when members of the CIA trained Tibetan Resistance Movement were parachuted into Tibet, they went to the Dalai Lama - this was in 1958 - and asked that he request aid for their movement from the US. He refused to do so. Please provide something to back up your claims - something beyond Chinese propaganda designed to whitewash their cruel subjegation of the Tibetan people and the pogrom against their culture.

As for the question itself - I really couldn't say whether or not a peace prize would be in order, but I do firmly believe - as my Mennonite upbringing taught me - that there are no people beyond redemption, that people can change utterly. Indeed, the concept of being "born again" is all about complete and utter change. If Bin Laden were to embrace such a change to nonviolence, that would be a very good thing. It does not mean he should then be forgiven his crimes, or that he should not face punishment.

Such a change would pose a much more serious problem for Western cultural colonialists than violent resistance. As with the British, we are (one hopes) too compassionate, too Christian, to continue oppression in the face of nonviolent resistance. Imagine how the plight of the Palestinians would be changed in our eyes, if instead of fighting back, they laid down in front of Israeli tanks. Nonviolence and compassion have in the long run always been more powerful than might and force, even in defeat.

I'm totally touched. Kinda like what happened to the Native Americans, right? I promise you I'll run on a platform of allowing casinos in Tibet if I ever run for the NPC.

Admins, sorry bout the double post, please combine them if possible?



LOL, me spurious? EDITED TO REMOVE PERSONAL ATTACK[
Hmmm, okay, edit to make the omnipresent admin happy: how about my spurious claims versus your ignorant comments?

Now, I take it you won't deny the fact that the CIA funded the Tibetan guerillas. The Dalai Lama's brothers worked for the CIA, the Dalai Lama himself got money from the CIA, and he did not speak out against the violence against Chinese until the late 60s ~ early 70s, and shortly after he said that violence against Chinese is not helping, the guerilla attacks stopped. The Dalai Lama and his government gave their tacit blessings to the guerilla attacks, if not outright endorsed and supported them. Even pro-Tibetan independence website like tibetinfo.net acknowledges the fact that the Dalai Lama knew of the guerilla activities and did nothing about them. Since tibetinfo.net is down, check out this article by a pro-democracy English-speaking fellow in China. His source is a range of books by Western scholars, not just "Communist propaganda".

"In 1956-57, armed Tibetan bands ambushed convoys of the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army (PLA). The uprising received extensive assistance from the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), including military training, support camps in Nepal, and numerous airlifts.23 Meanwhile in the United States, the American Society for a Free Asia, a CIA front, energetically publicized the cause of Tibetan resistance, with the Dalai Lama's eldest brother, Thubtan Norbu, playing an active role in that group. The Dalai Lama's second-eldest brother, Gyalo Thondup, established an intelligence operation with the CIA in 1951. He later upgraded it into a CIA-trained guerrilla unit whose recruits parachuted back into Tibet.24"


"The Dalai Lama's annual payment from the CIA was $186,000. Indian intelligence also financed both him and other Tibetan exiles. He has refused to say whether he or his brothers worked for the CIA. The agency has also declined to comment.38"

Sorry j10pilot, but the source you cited is apparently Chinese-friendly, as he calls the Chinese invaders to Tibet ""Liberation Army" and the Tibetian resistance "bands". I wonder whom the Chinese liberated in Tibet. It wasn't Tibetians.
If the CIA supported the resistance in Tibet than that is admirable, as Tibet was invaded by the Chinese.
Nevertheless, your comparison of the Dalai Lama and Osama Bin Laden is laughable at best. One _may_ have approved the resistance movement in his occupied home country, the other one actively engaged in mass murdering thousands of civilians in a foreign country. Unless you cite sources that hint toward an involvement of the Dalai Lama in comparable acts of terror, your question remains provocative if not insulting.

I think you need to re-read that article. Perhaps you are referrnig to the formal name of the Chinese army, which is the People's Liberation Army (PLA). The writer never agree to the official Chinese stance that they were "liberators." In addition, he cited works by Dr Michael Parenti, Hugh Deane, George Ginsburg and Michael Mathos, none of whom are Chinese.

Osama bin Laden was part of the Mujahadin (spelling?) movement against the Soviets in Afghanistan and was actually an ally of the CIA. According to himself, he became anti-America after the Golf War and the establishment of permanent American military bases in his home country Saudi Arabia -- an act which he perceives to be against Islam or something along that line.

The bottomline is -- it is all about perspective.

Certainly! He would fit in well with other terrorists (Arafat) and incompetents (Carter, IAEA/ElBaradei, Koffee Annan, UN Peacekeeping Forces).

Alfred would certainly be proud of Bin Laden's "explosive" past!

The Nobel peace prize has fast become an irrelevant liberal popularity prize, a real disservice to the past winners.

This is like saying "you can take the girl from the farm but not the farm from the girl." I am all for giving people second chances, sometimes third, but I do not now or will I ever believe it is acceptable for a human such as bin Laden who knowingly and planned for months or years the killing of his fellow man to be awarded a peace prize simply by agreeing to stop enabling terror. He should not receive a peace prize, he should receive a summons in a world court for Crimes Against Humanity.

The Dali Lama and bin Laden are different cases entirely, the Dali Lama was driven from his homeland and as the leader of his people's religious beliefs, he was doing what was in their best interests as a religion. Bin Laden may think that is what he is doing by killing Americans, but he is mistaken. He has caused and planned terror for far too long to start becoming a Beatles acolyte.

If Osama bin Laden denounces violence and adopts a non-violent form of resistance to Western military presence in the Arab world, should he be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize?
The Nobel Peace Prize is irrelevant. The World has given that prize to Yassar Arafat, and he still made no considerable effort to reign in on Islamic Terrorist groups. And then there are people who deserve the a peace prize but don't actually get awarded one. That group of people are the War Protestors and the Draft Dodgers who tried to stop the Vietnam War during the 1960s, using peaceful methods.

Isn't that the truth. In fact, such an award is worth nothing based on some
of the indivuals who have received it.

If Osama bin Laden denounces violence and adopts a non-violent form
of resistance to Western military presence in the Arab world, should he
be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize?

This reminds me of the recent Tookie Williams case. The guy did some
really, really awful stuff - including cold-blooded murder. Yet people
rallied behind him as if he did something so incredible when he began
to renounce the gang violence that he was instrumental in creating.
There are millions of everyday people who strive to do right by
others and make a difference in whatever minute way possible, who have
not exercised extreme acts of violence and hatred. Those are the people
who deserve such of an award.

No, doomed, Yogurt has given us only a partial truth at best.

I won't argue that Jimmy Carter was a successful president, but he received the Nobel Prize, for work done after he left office.



http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/10/11/

Carter's work with Habitat for Humanity alone is an accomplishment, though unrelated to his Nobel selection. Of course, he could have been doing something really "useful," with his time like playing golf in Scotland.

Comparing Carter's Nobel Prize to a hypothetical selection of bin Laden is a cheap shot.

Yogurt try to contain your venom.

I'll grant you the HfH, a worthy project, but as you said is unrelated.



He was on the "incompetent" list, not the "terrorist" list:)

I was trying to make the point that the Nobel Peace Prize is about as meaningful as the Oscars. Less people pay attention every year. Largely just a bunch of socialists congratulating themselves.

The prizes, save maybe science, are a joke. That was really shown by virtue of Bloody Tookie Williams getting nominated four times for two books that nobody read. It's truly a mockery of what once was a reputable award.

But Carter re: N. Korea?? He gave away the farm so they could develop nukes. Can they repossess Nobels?

Your smiley face, which I didn't include the quote above, doesn't deter my next question: Why are you calling bin Laden incompetent?

If Osama bin Laden denounces violence and adopts a non-violent form of resistance to Western military presence in the Arab world, should he be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize?
DP already mentioned Tookie, who did receive a Nobel prize. Quite frankly I don’t care if the Holy Ghost descends on a body-shaking, long lost forgotten language-sputtering Osama in the middle of his next video update. He owes a debt to mankind that needs to be repaid in the commodity he dealt in: blood. Render unto Caesar and all that.

I suppose when someone doesn't have much too contribute, they can always call people a"bunch of socialists."



There is also a Nobel Prize for literature.

http://almaz.com/nobel/literature/alpha.html

Is literature prize a joke, too? Is science not a joke because you find it useful, while finding little value in fiction? Do you read quality fiction--Steinbeck, Faulkner, Bellow, Singer, etc? Just wondering.

BTW: I think Larry McMurtry should be awaded a Nobel for literature soon.

BoF, it looked like I was agreeing about Carter, but actually I didn't mean
to do that. I was talking specifically about Arafat, and the like.
That man was a sleeze through and through. And when they awarded
him the Nobel Peace Prize they lost all credibility. No disrespect intended for
Jimmy Carter. He's a compassionate man who has actually helped people.

Oh come on BoF, whenever we engage I always ratchet down the rhetoric, since I expect the same of you

I did not use the term socialist as a demonization. Outside of the US, socialists aren't afraid to be known as socialists. I don't need to put in a link to Wiko to say that it if just a bunch of social and political ideologies lumped together to make a model, just like communism and democracy.
I thought it was a more precise, and measured descriptor to say "socialists" that Liberals, etc., since it is a "global" award.



Indeed, I have & do, (though only roughly a quarter of my reading is fiction). Which goes to my point that to even consider giving the award to a two-bit murderous street thug to advance their socio-political cause is to belittle the contributions of the exact authors you cited.


Now another point:




If you read my argument again, I hope you will note that I used "and" in my argument in the sense of a conjunction, not in the logical sense.
If I said a block was made up of big houses and white houses, the discovery of a big house that is not white does nothing to disprove the argument.
I apologize, but as a math and science kind of guy, I tend to gravitate to things like set theory and old fashioned logic in arguments.