I wonder; are they starting to regret getting the Olympics after all?

Perhaps...Probably. Point is, China is not the one who is trying to ruin the Olympics for those of us who enjoy them...the 'REAL' Tibetan protesters and their supporters are the ones doing that.

The first set of photographs raise questions worth investigating but they are not dispositive. The explanation could be that that was the only access to the torch route used by all -- supporters, protesters and ordinary spectators -- who chose not to be at each others' throats despite their respective loyalties. There's another guy farther back draped in a Tibetan flag. Mr. Ching also has a picture of the guy with the Elvis haircut standing near a group with a banner which seems to say "Make the Olympics a point and not a wall" whatever that means. I would not convict on this evidence.

The soldiers with monks' robes is pretty damning. The burden is on the Chinese government to explain that.

Actually, if you read Chinese, you'll know that the Chinese blogosphere is outraged that the second picture of Chinese soldiers with monk's robes is being presented as anything at all - it is apparently from a movie set (the movie title translates to "Legend of Tian Mai" - it's in imdb as The Touch). They also note that the age of the photo - i.e. being from a movie set several years ago and not from this March - is clear from the outdated and inconsistent uniforms on the soldiers, not to mention the fact that they are wearing summer uniforms when in March in Tibet it is still time for winter dress.

The first set of photos also raises questions but proves nothing... there seem to be pro-China and pro-Tibet people all walking together. Are we really sure they are plotting?

I'd be willing to believe the Chinese government is orchestrating situations to diminish support for the Free Tibet movement, but nothing I see here strikes me as remotely credible evidence of it.

From the figure "Our protester with his actual friends; note the flags.", we can see that the writer of this article know nothing about tibet, he even don't know what "Tibet flag" looks like, I saw two Tibet flags in this picture, one is on his head, aonther flag is on another people's body.

[Name deleted because of possible mistaken identity. - the Mgt]

The world got Rick Rolled

Merry:

The first set of photos also raises questions but proves nothing... there seem to be pro-China and pro-Tibet people all walking together. Are we really sure they are plotting?

So two groups of antagonistic protesters -- on their way to a violent riot that has already been going on for weeks around the world -- happily march side by side... then begin a pitched battle against each other as soon as they arrive.

Does this really seem plausible to you?

Dafydd

I appreciate the fact that you ran a correction on the army photo, but you are going to have to find this "it may still be true" story somewhere other than The Epoch Times before it can be considered fully credible. I mean, I just don't trust a paper affiliated with the Falun Gong movement to be completely unbiased in their reporting on China. They might be right, but then it is such a huge story that you'd expect some other more mainstream newspapers to pick it up. For as long as it is just them as the sole source, you have to remain skeptical.

On the other photo, I completely agree that there is something odd about it. It is not, however, actually PROOF of anything other than something odd. You're really telling me it is not possible that they all went there intending to protest peacefully but then got worked up over the course of the day? I mean, you just can't know for sure either way. And anyway, how do you go from "this guy could be pro-China" to "this guy could be a communist Chinese agent?" There is NO proof that the Chinese government is somehow behind it, and although you might believe that, you're basing that on a gut extinct, not some sort of smoking gun in the form of the photograph.

If nothing else, your original point was correct: one photo doesn't tell you the whole story. This is even true when the photo seems to tell the story you want to hear.

I wish there were more views of that scene for a better picture of the situation. (Ducks)

Factoid: The French gendarmerie is under French Army command and not the Ministry of Justice. Like the Chicom torchguards.

Could that other photo be Photoshopped? Adding the red flag, and that girl in front with the red flag...

Seaberry:

Could that other photo be Photoshopped? Adding the red flag, and that girl in front with the red flag...

Do you have any evidence that it is?

Merry:

We have since "corrected" the correction; so far, I've seen no evidence that the picture of the soldiers with the robes is in fact from 2003 or earlier. I'm not saying it isn't; I am saying I haven't seen any convincing evidence yet.

Can you find a link to a website dating from that time that includes this photo? Because we sure haven't been able to do so.

I appreciate the fact that you ran a correction on the army photo, but you are going to have to find this "it may still be true" story somewhere other than The Epoch Times before it can be considered fully credible. I mean, I just don't trust a paper affiliated with the Falun Gong movement to be completely unbiased in their reporting on China.

First, do you consider reporting by "news" agencies affiliated with the PRC to be credible?

Second, this is an ad-hominem akin to liberals saying that we shouldn't take seriously anything in the Washington Times because it's owned by the Unification Church... despite the fact that none of the editorial staff are Moonies. Such attacks relieve the attacker from any duty to answer the charge itself.

But third and most dispositive: The article we quoted is not from The Epoch Times; it was only reprinted by them. The article is from G2 Bulletin, which is affiliated with WorldNewDaily.com... which is not owned by or affiliated with Falun Gong (or the Unification Church, for that matter).

WND is a somewhat sensationalist site (akin to the Drudge Report), but the "controversies" associated with it are no worse that those associated with elite media sources such as the New York Times -- and considerably less egregious than, e.g., the 60 Minutes Wednesday report on the forged Killian memo.

Merry, you're back to trying to show why the article by Gordon Thomas published in the G2 Bulletin -- then merely reprinted by the Epoch Times -- was erroneous.

You can start with this blogger, who tries to prove that the picture is just from a movie; alas, none of his claims are linked, so again, it's impossible to verify anything he says.

But if you can find links for some of this, we'll post them here.

Dafydd

one answer about the question of why pro-china and pro-tibet peoples can walk together peacefuly: did you see many conflicts between pro-china people and pro-tibet people? abs not! Everybody certaily has the right for protest, you can not tell them to leave! nobody care if we walk together!

Additioal, the last figure is so funny, you see, as writer said, the chinese army prentended that they are monks in this March riot, the writer is so funny and naive that I doubt he is intentionly trying to let people has a negative impressition for China.

look at uniforms, look at the climate, and look at some citizens standing aside, if you still do not understand what is my meaning, ok, please think about it: why thay stand on the street of Lasha and let everybody know their plan?

I'm a photographer and I was covering the torch relay in Paris, getting sometimes within 2m from Jin Jing as she was carrying the torch. I didn't personally see the action where the Tibetan protester managed to grab the torch. However, it was not at all uncommon for pro-Tibetan and pro-Chinese supporters to mix up. If you look at the second picture, you'll actually see 2 other people with Tibetan flags wrapped around their shoulders. You can also see that the 2 Chinese girls on the left are running, on the side. The most likely thing is that it was just a group of Chinese supporters running ahead of Tibetan supporters, to reach the roadside. There is really no conspiracy theory worth building based on that photo...

In any case, what kind of Buddhists are these? Their present incarnation, as subjects of Communist China, is not only ephemeral and insignificant, it is their deserved karma from a behavior in a previous life. If they wish to better their condition, they should sincerely renounce the material world of governments, borders, flags and loyalties, (full bellies and healthy, living children too) and strive to know the Unknowable. They should certainly renounce violence or any other kind of acknowledgment of The Material. Then they will be reincarnated into a better existence.

Not ducking this time. It's the way the monks have been controlling them for a couple of thousands of years.

So, can the people who are claiming the photo of the soldiers is from 2003 provide us with more details? Where, exactly, was it taken? On what date? What unit are the soldiers from? What are their names? How did they come to the site? Who is the photographer? Who are the other people in the picture?

If these people know the origins of the photo, they ought to be able to provide at least some of the above details. If they don't, then one asks, why are they claiming the photo is from 2003?

On the Epoch times, fair enough. And no, I don't accept Chinese reporting unquestioningly either. My point - which applies just as easily to WND - is wow, this should be a big story. Until it gets verified somewhere else, I think I'm a bit skeptical. You'll note that at no point have I suggested that I find the accusations in the original post implausible, just that I don't think the evidence marshaled thus far has proven anything one way or the other.

Look, you might have other readers writing you emails trying to "defend the honor of the People's Republic of China," but it certainly isn't me. My problem is this: two minutes on google would have identified some reasons for skepticism with the army/monk robe pictures. Common sense raises some questions with the Paris torch relay pictures (case in point, I live in Washington DC, and I can tell you that I see protesters on opposing issues get along all the time before the news cameras show up). How can any of us claim to be indignant about the MSM standards on Iraq or the standard Dan Rather hatchet job on the truth and then just jump on accusations against the PRC government regardless of the quality of the evidence just because, well, the commies are the bad guys?

On the army photo - I have some doubts about the website you linked, just as you do. My doubts, however, stem from the fact that it doesn't raise the issues the Chinese bloggers raise from the photo. For one thing, it has the wrong movie - everything I've read in Chinese dates the photo from Sept. 2001, not 2003 (and from Legend of Tian Mai, not World Without Thieves). Beyond the fact that that movie used soldiers for extras (as many others filmed in China often do), there are a few points that date the photograph. First, the uniforms are subtly different, as a result of a change in 2005 that put, for example, patches on the right shoulders of uniforms. Second, they are wearing summer uniforms. Third, several Chinese reporters have traced the registration of the buggy in the background - there are problems with the appearance and license. Fourth, a number of the people in the photograph have come forward and given statements complete with ID numbers. None of this is, in my mind, unimpeachable evidence that the photo is from 2001 (though the question of what they are doing being so obvious about it if they are dressing up like monks strikes me as a fair one), but it should be clear that there are, as the original post wondered, clearly conceivable legitimate reasons for the photograph to exist.

Look, nobody is saying that the PRC government is the poor, unfairly maligned victim here. But I do think that you should try to be fair about standards of evidence. There's been a lot of bad reporting on Tibet, and none of it serves the cause of people promoting human rights.

This youtube video raises questions ,including the issue of the soldiers on a movie set

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1ET0NweFoc

Anything can be misleading but a lot of questions raised in the video

Merry:

Look, nobody is saying that the PRC government is the poor, unfairly maligned victim here.

Have you checked with frequent commenters Nk and Seaberry? Because actually, that's exactly what they appear to be saying! Note that Nk also supports the Chinese occupation of Tibet as good for the Tibetans.

I live in Washington DC, and I can tell you that I see protesters on opposing issues get along all the time before the news cameras show up

I certainly saw no such cross-party chumminess when I was participating in pro-choice clinic defenses in the late 1980s; in fact, the pro-choicers hated the pro-lifers with a passion bordering on dementia... and the pro-lifers considered the pro-choicers to be baby murderers.

I suspect the atmosphere between those who support the PRC's occupation of Tibet and those who oppose it is at least as poisonous as that of pro- and anti-abortion protesters twenty years ago... especially considering how many Tibetans have been shot to death by Chinese paramilitaries in recent weeks.

None of this is, in my mind, unimpeachable evidence that the photo is from 2001 (though the question of what they are doing being so obvious about it if they are dressing up like monks strikes me as a fair one), but it should be clear that there are, as the original post wondered, clearly conceivable legitimate reasons for the photograph to exist.

First, we have no idea where, exactly, they're standing, who is standing around them, or how controlled the area is; so we cannot say how "obvious" they are being: If they're staging in an area filled with Tibetans, that would be some evidence against the imposture being for nefarious purposes.

But if they're staging in an area controlled by the Chinese, then they're not being obvious, and it says nothing about whether the purpose is nefarious or benign. Do you have other photos that make clear where they are and who (if anybody) surrounds them?

Second, if there are "legitimate reasons" for the photo, then can't somebody produce it from an innocent, legitimate source? For example, doesn't anybody have the 2003 issue of the annual TCHRD report, and can't he look at the back cover and see if the photo is, in fact, found there?

If you say the uniforms are different from 2003 to 2005, can you post the URL of a website with some side-by-side examples? And have you seen the YouTube video that purports to show very recent activity by the Chinese PLA wearing uniforms that do not have the distinctive patch that is oft cited as evidence that the picture is from 2001 or 2003?

Again, I do not say we have proven that this picture is evidence of anything untoward; but it's certainly provacative, and the putative refutations of it are fairly unconvincing in their lack of links... or indeed any evidence beyond the say-so of people who are attacking the accusation.

I wish somebody would come up with something; I don't like being stuck in limbo, wondering "is it is, or is it ain't?"

Dafydd

In that case, I suggest that you write to the TCHRD and ask for their report. That can't be that hard to confirm.

Here's a Chinese site with notes about the uniform changes, though it won't make much sense if you don't read Chinese:
http://bbs.tiexue.net/post_2692165_1.html

But again, I logged on this morning and read a post that asked, "But can anyone think of an innocent reason why a company of Chinese soldiers should each have a Tibetan monk's robe, when they are trying to suppress protest by a bunch of robed Tibetan monks?" Well, done! Yes, I can think of an innocent reason why Chinese soldiers would have Tibetan monk's robes. The idea that anything can be proof against the PRC unless proven otherwise astounds me. They do enough lousy things in Tibet that we have evidence for, do we really need to go feeding the nationalists by throwing out half-baked accusations?

Oh, and naturally you've seen this, of course:

http://www.savetibet.org/news/newsitem.php?id=1275

Silly to even ask.

According to a site I found, the soldiers in the photo are indeed wearing summer uniform.

Here is summer, and winter uniform.

I cannot read Chinese as well as I would like to, but I can see that since 2005, they started to wear the patch on the arm and the pin on the breast.

However, I do not know how universal that is, since there are other units who did not have those patches.

Sachi, in addition to the ICT press release, the "fake monk" photo has been identified as from the movie set "Red River Valley" by Chinese bloggers:

http://www.loogoo.com/commodity/1886.html

Netters have also identified the protster who attacked the paralympian as ***.

[Name deleted because of possible mistaken identity. - the Mgt]

Just Google or Baidu his name. Here he is, getting arrested in London for violent protest that is illegal by western standards:

http://img8.zol.com.cn/bbs/upload/681/680180_600.jpg

Merry:

Oh, and naturally you've seen this, of course

Perhaps you didn't expect this answer, but yes, actually, we had already seen it. Alas, the post postdates the claim, so it's of no use at all. The site simply repeats what others have already said.

I need a site or link that antedates the claim, hopefully by several years. That would be real evidence.

Charles Liu:

Charles, all that proves is that, if indeed he is a false-flag saboteur, then this isn't the first time he's done it. It doesn't help us understand why someone who was not an agent provacateur would act as if he were a radical Tibetan protester -- and then hang out so comfortably with Chinese Communist supporters.

If this guy really is the violent, radical, anti-Chinese militant this implies... then doesn't that make it even less likely he would be so chummy with those ChiComs?

By the way, Charles... have you seen this?

Dafydd

I've deleted the putative name of the protester in question from all comments that mentioned it because of the now very strong possibilty that it was a case of mistaken identity. See previous comment.

Dafydd

- I will spread the word on the mistaken identity to the Chinese bloggers, Thanks. It's the right thing to do.

- As another commenter said, the photo of bandana man mix in with Chinese flag is a red herring - there are just as many Tibetan flags.

- Also, the "fake monks" photo has been widely discussed in the Chinese blogsphere:

- it is from the movie set "Red River Valley"
- the tent on the pedicab is way old; Tibet tourism bureau standardized the tent style/color 5 years ago
- the monk robes are red/gold, colors of Panchan lamas; Dalai's sect wears all red robe with gold tassles
- The civilians in the photos are either wearing light jacket or no jacket - March in Tibet is still heavy coat season
- If the Chinese government is being deceptive, would they have allowed these people to be out in the open?

Note that Nk also supports the Chinese occupation of Tibet as good for the Tibetans.

Dafydd is right. I do. I won't "nuance" about it. Good nutrition, medical care, literacy, and escape from their abject condition, were things 90% of Tibet's population could hope to get only through reincarnation before the Communist takeover.

nk,
China's strategy of 'happy slaves' may work for awhile, but it will not work long.
And it is not simply Tibet that is enslaved in China.
It is the Chinese people who are enslaved, as well.

I agree, Hunter. I have avoided saying a "plague on both your houses" but if I were to say it, it would not be about either the Tibetan or the Chinese people. It would be about their two competing oppressors -- the monks and the Party bosses.

Good Article, I actually wrote about the Soldiers picture back on April third on my blog. Here is the Link.

I really like this site. Just stumbled upon it searching for some news. I am going to link you to my China site. I live in China and report on what I see here. Good luck and don't trust anything the ChiComs say.

Dafydd, I'm kind of disappointed in your responses here. Normally I've found you to be an open-minded guy and willing to be a bit iconoclastic when the Right Blogosphere grabs a pet issue and runs with it on marginal evidence. I've seen you urge caution before declaring truth, etc. But this time it seems almost as though you have a personal stake in proving that the PRC is fully guilty of not only repressing and occupying Tibet based on questionable claims of possession (true), but also hanging on, no matter what, to the idea that not only did they overreact to the protests in somewhat characteristic fashion, but that they ginned them up to trump up the very opportunity to go in and knock heads. And did so not only in Tibet, but in Paris.

Merry: Look, nobody is saying that the PRC government is the poor, unfairly maligned victim here.

Dafydd: Have you checked with frequent commenters Nk and Seaberry? Because actually, that's exactly what they appear to be saying! Note that Nk also supports the Chinese occupation of Tibet as good for the Tibetans.

Kurmudge: It's a rhetorical device, Dafydd. You authors know about that sort of thing. She was saying that she wasn't suggesting that the PRC government is the poor and unfairly maligned victim. Your response sounds a bit like President Bill parsing the word "is".

Merry: I live in Washington DC, and I can tell you that I see protesters on opposing issues get along all the time before the news cameras show up

Dafydd: I certainly saw no such cross-party chumminess when I was participating in pro-choice clinic defenses in the late 1980s; in fact, the pro-choicers hated the pro-lifers with a passion bordering on dementia... and the pro-lifers considered the pro-choicers to be baby murderers.

I suspect the atmosphere between those who support the PRC's occupation of Tibet and those who oppose it is at least as poisonous as that of pro- and anti-abortion protesters twenty years ago... especially considering how many Tibetans have been shot to death by Chinese paramilitaries in recent weeks.
=====================

Kurmudge: Walking on the same path in Paris, where they have gendarmes looking to prevent trouble, ahead of a group of Chinese heading to the same place, is hardly what I'd call "chumminess". And what you "suspect" about them shooting each other on sight, so poisonous is the atmosphere, is not exactly evidence proving a negative of the type you are demanding of those who are saying nothing more here than "be careful before drawing marginal conclusions, based on the available evidence, about this particular incident." If I were going to a protest, and intent on making a point, I would be avoiding confrontations ahead of time that would prevent me from getting to the actual event.

There is also no sign from the picture that the Chinese were anything other than proud overseas Chinese wanting to express their pride in having their homeland play host for the upcoming events. The putative Tibetan protestor looks a lot grouchier and more intent on a mission than, for example, the smiling girl in the front clutching her Chinese flag.

Merry: None of this is, in my mind, unimpeachable evidence that the photo is from 2001 (though the question of what they are doing being so obvious about it if they are dressing up like monks strikes me as a fair one), but it should be clear that there are, as the original post wondered, clearly conceivable legitimate reasons for the photograph to exist.

Dafydd: First, we have no idea where, exactly, they're standing, who is standing around them, or how controlled the area is; so we cannot say how "obvious" they are being: If they're staging in an area filled with Tibetans, that would be some evidence against the imposture being for nefarious purposes.

But if they're staging in an area controlled by the Chinese, then they're not being obvious, and it says nothing about whether the purpose is nefarious or benign. Do you have other photos that make clear where they are and who (if anybody) surrounds them?

Second, if there are "legitimate reasons" for the photo, then can't somebody produce it from an innocent, legitimate source? For example, doesn't anybody have the 2003 issue of the annual TCHRD report, and can't he look at the back cover and see if the photo is, in fact, found there?

If you say the uniforms are different from 2003 to 2005, can you post the URL of a website with some side-by-side examples? And have you seen the YouTube video that purports to show very recent activity by the Chinese PLA wearing uniforms that do not have the distinctive patch that is oft cited as evidence that the picture is from 2001 or 2003?

Again, I do not say we have proven that this picture is evidence of anything untoward; but it's certainly provacative, and the putative refutations of it are fairly unconvincing in their lack of links... or indeed any evidence beyond the say-so of people who are attacking the accusation.

I wish somebody would come up with something; I don't like being stuck in limbo, wondering "is it is, or is it ain't?"
=======================

Kurmudge: Here you completely turned the original statement on its ear. She said that there were legitimate reasons to believe that the photo may be benign, that it is not irrefutable evidence of Chinese government guilt- and she gave you some reasons to wonder about the provenance of the photo. Your response basically asserts that she has to prove that it is not proof that the Evil PRC staged the whole thing, for whatever reasons- even though the actual Free Tibet movement you purport to defend doesn't agree with you.

I kind of wonder myself why the PRC would be dumb enough to stage this sort of thing badly, when the result is a lot of horrible publicity at the wrong time, and when it would have been easier for them to simply use the right type and season uniforms. Or even not have the allegedly guilty fomentors of violence milling around where everyone could take pictures of them in the staging area with their camera phones.

Dafydd, I'm trying to figure out what it is that has you so defensive here- Sachi is not nearly as certain as you seem to be, and she is the one who started the whole post. It appears to me that Merry is simply pointing out that this is not even close to a closed case, and there are a lot of good reasons to believe that the Chinese government isn't as stupid as it would be for them to do this. I think that they are a lot more sophisticated in the way they play the PR game to preserve their crumbling, corrupt, anti-religious, and doomed authoritarian empire.

And now that I have weighed in, I will probably be marked, like Merry, as an apologist for "the chicoms". Whenever I see that term used these days, I assume it is either an old-line paleocon or an industrial union leader.

Kurmudge:

Dafydd, I'm trying to figure out what it is that has you so defensive here- Sachi is not nearly as certain as you seem to be, and she is the one who started the whole post. It appears to me that Merry is simply pointing out that this is not even close to a closed case, and there are a lot of good reasons to believe that the Chinese government isn't as stupid as it would be for them to do this. I think that they are a lot more sophisticated in the way they play the PR game to preserve their crumbling, corrupt, anti-religious, and doomed authoritarian empire.

First, I'm not on defense; I'm on offense: We presented a thesis, hence we're the "pro" side. Those objecting to the thesis comprise the "con" side.

Second, of course it's not a "closed case;" if it were, I wouldn't be commenting... we would simply move on to the next issue. But I'm unimpressed by the unevidenced defensiveness of the pro-Chinese side (and Merry, whom you quote numerous times, is unquestionably pro-Chinese here).

Although the pro-Chinese commenters here have focused like a laser beam on the bottom photo, nobody has said a word about the Gordon Thomas article from which we quoted -- which is much better evidence for the same point ostensibly made by the photo. Suppose for sake of argument we agree that the photo is innocent; what is your argument against the same accusation raised by the G2 Bulletin article?

Also, I'm a bit surprised that you would so mischaracterize the second photo of the attacker above: You wrote, "Walking on the same path in Paris, where they have gendarmes looking to prevent trouble, ahead of a group of Chinese heading to the same place, is hardly what I'd call 'chumminess'."

Kurmudge, he is not "ahead of" the group; he is in the midst of the group. We don't even know whether he's at the front of them, because we don't know who is in front of that woman on the left side... but she is clearly in front of the attacker.

And they're equally clearly walking at the same tempo. They are walking as a group, K.; they're not rushing past him, as an earlier commenter suggested.

Let me ask you: Why do you find it so difficult to believe that a "crumbling, corrupt, anti-religious, and doomed authoritarian empire" might try to discredit those protesting against it... who have, until now, enjoyed almost universal acclaim and support?

Finally, I don't know where you got the idea that the "the Right Blogosphere" has grabbed the "pet issue" of freeing Tibet and "run[] with it on marginal evidence." You may be thinking of Hollywood... but Richard Gere has rarely been associated with conservatism or the dextrosphere.

In fact, opposition to China's continued occupation of Tibet and brutality towards Tibetans is far more often associated with the stereotypical left winger, always searching for a cause that (a) allows him to pretend to be anti-totalitarian (when in fact he very much supports totalitarianism, so long as we have the "right kind" of leader); yet (b) demands absolutely nothing of him beyond putting a bumper sticker on his Volvo.

I'm not pro-Tibet so much as anti-Red China; and I don't really feel any need to explain why I, a free-market, politically non-Euclidean advocate of liberty and freedom might oppose the world's biggest and most dangerous Communist country... which kidnapped American airmen and held them for ransom as recently as 2001.

Call it a quirk, but it seemed like a good idea at the time. And it still does.

Dafydd

According to reference in the ICT press, the G2 article has been contradicted by Alan Thompson, the press officer of GCHQ.

Mr. Thompson is reported saying:

"I am not aware of Gordon Thomas making any approach to GCHQ prior to publishing on this subject; such an approach would invariably be directed through the Press Office."

And here's the person who made contacted GCHQ - comment #8:

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?showtopic=3178

GCHQ Press Officer Alan Thompson can be reached at 01242 221491 ext 33847

Charlie Liu:

I don't doubt for a second that the PAO at GCHQ is telling the truth. Public affairs officers (the term in the U.S. Navy; same thing as press officer) at intelligence agencies will neither confirm nor deny any queries about intel -- which, by the way, is exactly what Alan Thompson did when that blogger we linked above directly asked him whether Thomas' claim were correct. (And which our own National Security Agency's PAO would do in similar circumstances.)

Knowing that, Thomas would not have contacted the PAO: He knows he would get nothing out of him, and he doesn't want to alert them that he's fishing for classified information.

I have assumed all along that if Gordon Thomas did, in fact, get that intel from GCHQ, he did so through one of his private intelligence sources (of which he has quite a few -- look at his writing career), not through the public affairs office.

Dafydd

Charles,

According to reference in the ICT press, the G2 article has been contradicted by Alan Thompson, the press officer of GCHQ.

It is not a contradiction, since Thomas did not claim he got the information from the press office.

All that this blogger found out, according to his post we linked above, was that Thomas did not talk to the press office.

Obviously, GCHQ will not say anything about their intelligence to a reporter. Gordon Thomas must have gotten the information via personal contact.

The fact Thomas did not contact the press secretary of GCHQ does not mean anything.

OK, one last "conversation" response:

Dafydd: Although the pro-Chinese commenters here have focused like a laser beam on the bottom photo, nobody has said a word about the Gordon Thomas article from which we quoted -- which is much better evidence for the same point ostensibly made by the photo. Suppose for sake of argument we agree that the photo is innocent; what is your argument against the same accusation raised by the G2 Bulletin article?

Kurmudge: I don't argue against it at all- I simply apply the same level of skepticism that I do to Gordon Thomas' fevered rantings on other topics, for example about how the CIA duped George Bush into going to war because the Mossad runs the US intel operation (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/thomas2.html). In other words, I don't buy the Pat Buchanan isolationist thesis for American foreign policy. I need more confirming evidence than an unsourced allegation by a guy who writes for the antiwar crowd against the GWOT.
===================
Dafydd: Also, I'm a bit surprised that you would so mischaracterize the second photo of the attacker above: You wrote, "Walking on the same path in Paris, where they have gendarmes looking to prevent trouble, ahead of a group of Chinese heading to the same place, is hardly what I'd call 'chumminess'."

Kurmudge, he is not "ahead of" the group; he is in the midst of the group. We don't even know whether he's at the front of them, because we don't know who is in front of that woman on the left side... but she is clearly in front of the attacker.

And they're equally clearly walking at the same tempo. They are walking as a group, K.; they're not rushing past him, as an earlier commenter suggested.

Kurmudge: I agree that they are not "rushing past" by the view of the photo; and I am not making the same points as other commenters who do seem to have a "defend China" view; mine is that I don't know based on what I've seen. Could go either way.

But the Tibet protestor is definitely in front of the guy to his left (look at his left hand, and the positions of their left feet- they are not walking in tandem as far as we can tell from this photo, which is my point), and that particular guy does not have Asian features either- he looks more French, in fact. And he is looking away, not at the Tibet Protestor, hereafter known as "TP", who himself is also not looking at anyone, or talking to anyone.

In fact, no one else in the photo is engaging in any of the sorts of social intercourse that you see from a group of people walking together with common purpose. Last July 4th, I was in Washington and walked to the Capitol Mall in a group exactly like that- that close, etc.-we were going to the same place, and I didn't know any of them. In fact, I did the same thing in Paris a few years ago on the mall by the Louvre. I am not saying that they are NOT walking together- I am saying that you cannot draw as a logical inference from the photo that they are, especially with the certainty with which you assert the point. It doesn't even achieve the "preponderance" standard of evidence let alone "clear and convincing".
===================
Dafydd: Let me ask you: Why do you find it so difficult to believe that a "crumbling, corrupt, anti-religious, and doomed authoritarian empire" might try to discredit those protesting against it... who have, until now, enjoyed almost universal acclaim and support?

Kurmudge: I don't find it difficult to believe at all that the Chinese government might have done exactly what you accuse them of doing. I am merely saying exactly what Merry said- based on the evidence provided, we can't reasonably assert that that is the case, or that it is not the case.

We need better evidence. We don't have it now. Gordon Thomas might well have it, but until he provides better support for his sourcing than the vague "somebody told me" I will not accept his statements at face value. Any more than I accept at face value the fevered nonsense, similarly "supported", that the NYT uses to betray the US intelligence community (such as it is) or to accuse Cheney of manipulating intel to promote the war and similar such rot. I require good evidence for assertions- whether they meet my personal views or oppose them. The same standard applies.
===================
Dafydd: I'm not pro-Tibet so much as anti-Red China; and I don't really feel any need to explain why I, a free-market, politically non-Euclidean advocate of liberty and freedom might oppose the world's biggest and most dangerous Communist country... which kidnapped American airmen and held them for ransom as recently as 2001.

Kurmudge: Here is where we might see things slightly differently. Since spending a little bit of time in Taiwan and China, I must admit that I don't any longer have the same image of "Red" China as do many other conservatives (and I have no economic interest whatever- I work for a university, not Wal-Mart). I'd bet that Jim Pinkerton (based on his columns after a visit a couple of years ago) might agree with me.

When I think of the "Red China" I grew up with, I think of the totalitarian state so well described by Guy Delisle in his hysterically funny book about North Korea: http://www.amazon.com/Pyongyang-Journey-North-Guy-Delisle/dp/1896597890

Frankly, in terms of every day life, I have a hard time telling Sunday afternoon in Taipei (or NY) from Sunday afternoon in Beijing or Shanghai. Walk down Nanjing Road away from the Shanghai Bund, past all the bustling stores selling everything, from virtually every DVD you buy at Blockbuster to McDonald's soft serve ice cream, to TVs, cell phones, etc. The streets are full of teenage girls wearing tight blue jeans and high-heeled shoes, each with a cell phone glued to her ear, MandoRock music blasting onto the street from every storefront.

This is no longer a "communist" country by any coherent standard. It is authoritarian, yes (emphatically NOT totalitarian)- the best example of its tight and stupid grip on daily life is the internal rules about moving from the countryside to the big cities, where you need papers to move and work; of course, the people all go anyway, and form the Chinese equivalent in the coastal cities of our illegal immigrant economy. And their views on state control of religion are wildly counterproductive. And the remnants of the "party" still run everything- but it is the dying detritus of bureaucracy trying to hang on, a lot more like Daley's "everyone is for sale" Chicago than Mao's Cultural Revolution.

Are they dangerous? Potentially, sure. Rivals for power and influence? Absolutely. But "Red"? Not on your life. And people who toss those terms ("chicoms") around need to get out more and catch up.

If we need to teach China a lesson, all we need to do is shut down the Long Beach harbor for a year so that their exports are embargoed. They can bristle the missiles all they want, but the government would collapse from the inside.

BTW, about 90% of what I read about the Taiwan v. China issue is rubbish as well. I've even read stuff recently in the wake of the Taiwanese elections that the winning GMD (Chiang Kai-Shek's party) is "pro-mainland", as though they favor the Chinese government. Unlike their more leftist DPP party, they are opposed to a plebiscite on independence, but not because they are closet "chicoms". When I read such drivel, beam me up, Scotty, the inmates got loose again.

No country that votes for the Chinese Idol winners using their cell phones is going to be steered back to a Pyongyang existence. Eventually, Tibet will end up at least no worse than Hong Kong- the genie is out of the bottle.

Again that doesn't mean they can't, or didn't orchestrate the protests in Tibet and pick out a few leaders to gun down. But the quality of the evidence is not even close to good enough to confidently assert that, and the pictures here are not convincing at all. Find better evidence, period. And I am amazed that the Dafydd I have usually read and agreed with (dating back all the way to the early days at PowerLine) is so quick to jump off this particular cliff based on such sketchy suppositions.

Ummm, G2 Bulletin also claims Princess Diana was under NSA survilance when she was murdered:

http://www.google.com/search?q=G2+Bulletin+Diana+NSA

I assum since G2 didn't get this from the NSA press office or the princess herself, it must be true also.

Kurmudge:

[W]hat is your argument against the same accusation raised by the G2 Bulletin article?

Kurmudge: I don't argue against it at all- I simply apply the same level of skepticism that I do to Gordon Thomas' fevered rantings on other topics, for example about how the CIA duped George Bush into going to war because the Mossad runs the US intel operation.

How can you possibly read that Thomas article as saying "the CIA duped George Bush into going to war because the Mossad runs the US intel operation?" It says nothing remotely like that.

The article claims that Mossad passed intel along to the U.S. about a pending attack -- but that the CIA and FBI ignored it because they thought Mossad itself was spying on us, and they weren't speaking to Mossad (they weren't speaking to each other, either). So Israel used both Egypt and France as conduits to try to get the intel to us in a way that we would actually listen.

Gordon Thomas doesn't even imply that he or anyone else thinks that Mossad "runs" anything here; in fact, his article clearly considers Mossad a superior intelligence agency to the pre-9/11 CIA (to which I agree, by the way; I think the CIA is better now but still has a long way to go):

Eight days before the September 11 attack, Egypt's senior intelligence chief, Omar Suleiman, informed the CIA station chief in Cairo that "credible sources" had told him that Osama bin-Laden's network was "in the advanced stages of executing a significant operation against an American target."

Prior to that, the FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley had revealed, there was a similar warning from French intelligence.

Both warnings, Globe-Intel has established, originally came from Mossad.

The Israeli intelligence service chose to pass on its own intelligence to Washington through its contacts in French and Egyptian intelligence agencies because it did not believe its previous warnings on an impending attack by the bin-Laden network had been taken seriously enough in Washington.

Did you mean to link to a different article?

Note that Gordon does not even say or imply that the intel would necessarily have allowed us to prevent 9/11... only that the administration might have "acted" in some way, but the CIA kept the warnings from the president. (He blames NSA Condoleezza Rice and the State Department, then under Colin Powell.)

In fact, every attack on Gordon Thomas I have seen similarly mischaracterizes his articles and positions... raising suspicions about the motives of those initiating the attacks. (I suspect you didn't initiate this one, but were duped by some other anti-Thomas agent that did.)

I don't buy the Pat Buchanan isolationist thesis for American foreign policy. I need more confirming evidence than an unsourced allegation by a guy who writes for the antiwar crowd against the GWOT.

As noted, this article is not in any way "against the GWOT;" nor can I find evidence that Thomas writes for the website antiwar.com; his name does not appear on the masthead (as Buchanan's does, along with other prominent anti-war people). I suspect antiwar.com simply reprinted his column -- just as the Epoch Times reprinted a different one.

Speaking as a very pro-war writer one of whose best friends is virulently anti-war (from the Buchanan "right," not the fever-swamp left), I'm very sensitive to anti-war sentiments masquerading as news articles; I don't get that feeling at all from Gordon Thomas, at least in any of his columns that I have read.

Gordon Thomas might well have [evidence], but until he provides better support for his sourcing than the vague "somebody told me" I will not accept his statements at face value.Any more than I accept at face value the fevered nonsense, similarly "supported", that the NYT uses to betray the US intelligence community (such as it is) or to accuse Cheney of manipulating intel to promote the war and similar such rot.

Kurmudge, we know that the NYT reporting on the intelligence programs was accurate; that is the whole problem -- it was too accurate.

You may argue that what Gordon Thomas wrote violated the national security of Great Britain; but citing the Times' articles on the TSP or the Swift Surveillance program as your reason to doubt the veracity or accuracy of the Thomas article is a bit thick, since the Times' anonymous sources were, in fact, very accurate and precise on those two issues.

The Cheney thing is different, because that is a characterization by some source or by the elite media themselves; I don't for one moment doubt that sources did in fact say that Cheney did blah blah blah. I just doubt the source's accuracy, or the veracity of the media in seeking out those sources.

And the major reason I doubt it is its inherent absurdity: One must believe that Dick Cheney was a traitor to his country, indifferent to the deaths of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis, utterly amoral, and politically suicidal; and one must believe that George W. Bush is a feeble-minded, mewling infant who just cries for his daddy and is easily manipulated by his staff.

Neither of these matches any reality reported by anybody who knows the principals. But both perfectly mesh with the BDS of the elite media.

No such willing (eager!) suspension of disbelief is required to believe the Thomas article; rather, it's a mundane claim, not an extraordinary one.

Thomas says that his sources at GCHQ say that they monitored Chinese false-flag operations to foment riots and blame it on the Tibetans; he doesn't say that GCHQ is accurate -- say, by citing other SigInt agencies -- but I personally believe that if they did indeed say that, it's probably accurate... since it's a very obvious event to notice. It's more akin to saying "there was this Terrorist Surveillance Program that involved monitoring phone calls from known terrorists outside the US to phone numbers inside the US" than it is to saying "Dick Cheney manipulated intelligence in order to trick us into thinking that Saddam Hussein had WMD," or whatever the anti-Cheney loons like to say.

Gordon Thomas reported a hard fact: A major British SigInt agency saw X. There is no interpretation involved, other than identifying units as being Chinese, rather than Tibetan. You can either believe (a) that Thomas is deliberately lying, (b) that his sources were deliberately lying -- or else (c) you pretty much have to buy the entire claim. There is no plausible third path.

I have seen no evidence to take either (a) or (b). If you present some, I will of course consider it.

Anent China, I do not believe that Red China is like it was during the 1960s; but I still call it "totalitarian," even according to what you describe. I use the definition ably advanced by Jonah Goldberg in his brilliant book Liberal Fascism; I see China today as a "liberal fascist" State, at least as totalitarian as Woodrow Wilson's or FDR's America, or as Mussolini's Italy in the 1920s and early 1930s, before they were co-opted by the Nazis.

They are clearly still "red": They are an expansionist, socialist, totalitarian State that attempts (albeit much less successfully than before) to completely control the economy, that threatens its neighbors, that continues to support the unabashedly Marxist-Maoist DPRK, that also militarily supports Iran against Israel and the United States, and that directly attacked us in 2001.

This also pretty much describes Venezuela... and I would call them "red," too.

Red China will continue to be red until they get rid of the Chinese Communist Party, open up to free and fair elections, and implement at least the rudiments of free speech -- for example, they still block internet sites (to the extent they're able) from all information they consider detrimental to CCP's continued rule.

Dafydd

Charles Liu:

Ummm, G2 Bulletin also claims Princess Diana was under NSA survilance when she was murdered:

http://www.google.com/search?q=G2+Bulletin+Diana+NSA

I assum since G2 didn't get this from the NSA press office or the princess herself, it must be true also.

I would be astonished to learn that we did not routinely monitor sigint on all controversial international figures, including Diana.

Here is what Thomas reports:

The NSA has admitted it holds 1,050 documents – transcripts of its satellite surveillance on Diana during the last weeks of her life. Until now NSA has insisted it cannot release the transcripts because "they raise issues of national security."

He does not say that he didn't get this from publicly available sources.

Snideness aside, why do you think that it's even startling or controversial that the NSA would surveille the divorced, former Princess of Wales, the mother of the heir to the throne, who had become increasingly leftist (though not as much as her ex-husband), and who was clearly sleeping with an Egyptian ex-pat, and staying at a hotel with connections to Arab arms dealers?

If you were the NSA, wouldn't you surveille everyone involved?

I'm sure that Thomas is correct that French Intelligence and the Mossad were also surveilling the couple. So what?

Dafydd

Sorry, Dafydd. If Jonah said that China is totalitarian today, he clearly has never spent any time there (I suspect that is true, and that he gets his direct info from Derb, not an unbiased source), and after I read his book (I'm waiting till classes are done) to get the context, I'll tell him so. There is a difference between totalitarian and authoritarian- as the sainted Jeanne Kirkpatrick pointed out. China today, as I said previously, is not significantly different from South Korea under Park Chung-hee- and it is less socialist than San Francisco (that might not be saying much, I admit) or Barack Obama.

No question China was totalitarian, but anyone who can't discern a difference now without taking refuge in a demand for US-style democratic republican government is smoking bad lizard skins. I do disagree devoutly (pun intended) with their stand on religion, and the population control measures. But to anyone who tosses out the "totalitarian" line, all I can say is, go there for a week or so.

I inferred some different things from the Thomas article at Antiwar.com, but I may have been wrong about his points- I'll check back on that when I have a chance. I don't agree with an inference that Rice was somehow responsible for stalling anything, though I wouldn't trust either Burns. And Paul Pillar from CIA ought to be put on trial for something- if anyone "caused" 9-11, it was he.

I notice that you aren't talking about the pictures any longer.

Kurmudge:

I notice that you aren't talking about the pictures any longer.

They speak for themselves. This isn't a BBS, and no discussion is endless; I stand on my previous arguments.

If Jonah said that China is totalitarian today, he clearly has never spent any time there.

Please read more attentively: I did not say Goldberg said China was totalitarian. So far as I recall, he didn't even discuss PoMo China.

Dafydd

One comment deleted for infantile nitwittery.

The Mgt.

Yeah, Dafydd, Jonah didn't really say that China was totalitarian as you quoted him, according to your statement, he compared it to Mussolini's Italy and Tommy W. Wilson's America. It was YOU who said that China was totalitarian. Got it. Again, go read DeLisle's book to get a sense of actual totalitarianism.

And I did check a little bit more on Gordon Thomas- he is a conspiracy theorist who believes that both George Bush presidents didn't care about the Tiananmen Square massacres because they were so anxious to set up trade deals. And he also does indeed believe that Mossad and Israel run US foreign policy. Go search "Gordon Thomas Seeds of Fire" at Google Books and you can read the whole fervid tale of China and the link to Jonathan Pollard; Bebe Netanyahu is a bad guy as was Shamir, who personally approved the whole thing. Pat Buchanan rules- everything is Israel's fault. This is starting to look like the new version of The Clinton Chronicles. Call it The China Chronicles, I guess.

So I get it- forget Occam's razor, the simple and logical conclusions- that some random protestors of the occupation of Tibet got carried away and confrontations followed, as sometimes happens (my experience here at my university is that protestors often do stupid things, and don't think particularly well)- don't apply when we want to make a particular point about certified Bad People.

In this case, China hatched an elaborate double-switch that was sure to be found out. To prevent any embarrassments associated with Tibet from giving them bad PR at time of the Olympics, they had a bunch of easily identified and photographed ringers dress up in Tibet sympathy costumes, go provoke trouble and protests, and did it all so that they could shoot a few protestors and thus warn them to lay off the protests later. And that prevents those future protests and any bad image for the PRC.

And the intrepid Gordon Smith has identifed and verified the whole thing using super-secret informers in British Intel, who watched the whole thing on satellite cameras.

Kurmudge, G2 Bulletin is not a reliable source:

1) search news.google.com - you'll notice almost no mainstream media had picked up this brief, only Phayul and Falun Gong-sponsored Epoch Times.

2) G2 also asserted Princess Diana was under NSA watch when she was murdered.

Also, I noticed in the "walking together" photo the first woman was out-of-focus and her relative size indicate she was way in front of the pack and smiling for the camera. Notice the pepople walking together are not talking or eve looking at eachother.

I believe the flags mixed in is a red herring - they are simply tring to get to the next place to protest.

Kurmudge:

Yeah, Dafydd, Jonah didn't really say that China was totalitarian as you quoted him...

Kurmudge, you tread on dangerously thin ice: we do not allow misrepresentation on Big Lizards, not even in the comments section.

I most certainly did not quote Jonah Goldberg. Read it a third time. I said that I -- not Goldberg, but Dafydd ab Hugh -- applied Goldberg's definition and drew that conclusion.

And I did check a little bit more on Gordon Thomas- he is a conspiracy theorist who believes that both George Bush presidents didn't care about the Tiananmen Square massacres because they were so anxious to set up trade deals.

I cannot tell from your phrasing whether 'not caring about the massacre because you want a trade deal' is the "conspiracy" you allege Thomas believes; but if so, that's paralogical... believing that, whether correctly or incorrectly, is not a "conspiracy." It is a belief about someone's motive, whether a correct or an incorrect belief.

I believe it incorrect; of course, I don't know that actually Thomas said it -- only that you claim he did. But you haven't a very good track record anent close reading, have you?

This consideration also taints your repeated claim that Thomas "does indeed believe that Mossad and Israel run US foreign policy" -- which you prove by telling me I can Google it. I will no longer do your research for you. If you want to make a point about Gordon Thomas, then you Google it, and you post an actual quotation to that effect. (With link and full citation, so we know you're not just quoting some reader's critique of the book.)

After the fiasco of your last citation -- which said nothing at all like what you claimed it said -- I simply don't think you read attentively enough to be believable.

The rest of your post comprises the unbecoming sarcasm generally associated with bewildered people who know they're losing the argument, and can't quite figure out how it got away from them.

Charlie Liu:

And you're reduced to repeating your own talking points -- without responding to the cogent points raised against them the first time they cycled through. Another sure sign.

Dafydd

It's fishy, no matter what those who defend China say.

China has a long history of faking history and outright lying. Just take the worshipping of mass murderer Mao, or take their argumentation about Tibet, or how (Communist) China always points fingers at (democratic) Japan but conveniently forgets it's own aggression to Vietnam, India and Tibet (where, in the latter, Chinese troops behaved like elements of the Japanese army in Nanking). Also it's not new to see some sort of state controlled "spontaneous" rioting (a few years ago there was such "sudden" rioting against Japanese stores and companies in China, the Chinese police only reacted reluctantly).

It's plausible that the Chinese government (which is a dictatorship) would use such methods against enemies (and pro-Tibet groups ARE enemies for Communist China). I don't think it's farfetched or unjustified NOT to believe China in this case. it would fit into the way the Communists think. What's better to aid their idea? A strong, young guy pro-Tibet guy who attacks a weak woman in a wheel chair? That's PERFECT propaganda for supporting their occupation of Tibet. It's just too convenient, too perfect to be an accident.

Speaking of "spontaneous" rioting in China, there's a couple of hundred or even thousand people "spontaneously" protesting at the locations of a French store chain in China. Strange, isn't it?

Greetings. This is Ehron Asher, the blogger referred to several times in this thread. I want to say first that I am not here to debate your politics. I am not here to insult, fight or be confrontational. We may have different beliefs, but we all share the human experience. I am only here on this site to address comments made here about me and my research on this topic, and to hopefully clear up some misstatements and misunderstandings.

I do not agree with the characterization here that a) I am defending China. b) That the evidence I provided was not satisfactorily sourced.
-------------
Re: DATE OF THE PHOTO/FILM
Early in my research, I had arrived at 2003 as the date the photo was taken on a film set in Lhasa. This was given to me by several sources, including the Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Development (TCHRD). This is a Tibetan organization located in Dharmasala. I wrote to them and received an email from Mr. Tashi Phuntsok, which I will reprint here:

"Hello Ehron,
The photo you are referring is nothing to do with the recent unrest in Lhasa. It was true that the photo was depicted in our 2003 TCHRD Annual
report cover. The photo was a part of film shoot made in Tibet where Chinese armies wore the monk robes. We received the photos in 2003.

with regards,
Tashi Phuntsok"
---------------
There is no reason I can imagine that a Tibetan, in the city HQ of the Tibetan government-in-exile, who works for the Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy, would have cause to lie about the origins of a photo that supports the very cause he works for.

Now, Mr. Phuntsok did not state what film it was from, nor did he even say that the photo was taken in 2003. He said that his office received it in 2003.

I later heard rumors that the film in question was "A World Without Thieves", which I then cautiously reported - stating that I could not verify it - and that in fact, the dates didn't match up because 'World Without Thieves' was shot in early 2004.

Further research revealed a 2001 date -- from the Chinese film “The Touch”. This information has since been confirmed by 1) International Campaign for Tibet (who again have no reason to lie about a photo that, if genuine, would support their cause). A link to their confirmation was linked to on my blog. 2) The films' distribution company. I cannot yet provide copy of this communication, but I will have it soon, and hopefully an additional confirmation directly from the filmmakers, which I will update as soon as I have it.
------------
I realize that what you are asking for is a physical source of the photo existing prior to it's recent appearance. At this point, that is simply not something that can be produced, short of ordering a copy of the 2003 TCHRD report, if possible. But I think that holding out for that to make a call on the photo is not logical. I have reported on two sources -- Tibetans who are representatives of Tibetan rights activist organizations -- one of which admits to using the photo on the back cover of Human Rights & Democracy Report in 2003, who have both confirmed that the photo is from a film set. If this info was coming from the Chinese, then I would question it -- because from the Chinese p.o.v., the misappropriation of the photo gives them support in calling the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people liars.
-------------
As far as my comments on Gordon Thomas go... In general, I was not refuting the claims made in the article. In my opening statement I say that the reliability of the article is ‘questionable’, NOT untrue. I was questioning the validity of the claim that British intel has satellite images that show PLA dressing as monks and starting the violence -- and the association of the content of the article with the photo as evidence supporting that claim. I state several times that I do not doubt for one second that the Chinese government is absolutely doing the things the article (and photo) claim.

Rather than offer claims of the article being untrue, which no one other than the GCHQ can really prove or disprove, I suggested that the validity should be questioned, based on several factors: 1) The source of the article, Mr. Gordon Thomas. This is partly a ‘Guilt by association’ suggestion, as well as a critical look at Mr.Thomas' past work as a sensationalist and conspiracy theorist. 2) Most significantly, I show the response I received from the GCHQ which clearly states that it is their firm policy to not confirm or deny inquiries on intelligence matters - and that to the Press Office’s knowledge, Mr. Thomas did not even contact the GCHQ prior to publishing the article about the GCHQ. I realize that Mr. Thomas could have received this info clandestinely. However, given Gordon Brown's position on not attending the opening ceremonies, I would think that if his administration had the hard photographic evidence Mr. Thomas' article claims, that they would have produced it by now.
-----------
Finally, in response to those saying that I am defending the Chinese government... On my blog, I again have stated very explicitly my intentions in pursuing this. If they weren't clear to you, then I suggest re-reading my comments. What it comes down to at the basic level is that personally, I do not believe in the labels ‘right’ or ‘left’, conservative or liberal. The Buddhist path is the middle way. I am open to listening to all sides - and fairly weighing all facts and opinions. For cryin out loud... consider what it is I have done here! I am a Tibetan Buddhist practioner, a supporter of the Tibetan ‘cause’... yet I have gone to great lengths to debunk an image that supports my own cause. Why? Because the truth itself is more important than whose ‘side’ the truth benefits.
----------

If there are any additional questions about sources or anything else I can offer, please just let me know and I am happy to oblige.

May all beings — conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republicans, Tibetans and Chinese — all beings on this planet — always know peace, offer love and respect, be kind, and have happiness and freedom from oppression.

And may all beings benefit from the the truth.

with sincere respect,

Ehron Asher

Ehron Asher:

Thanks for commenting; it's always useful to clear up any misunderstandings. In that spirit...

I do not agree with the characterization here that a) I am defending China. b) That the evidence I provided was not satisfactorily sourced.

Nobody at this site, not even commenters, has characterized you as "defending China." I linked to your blogpost precisely so that people could judge for themselves whether the photo was satisfactorally refuted (I don't think it is, but I don't take it as important evidence in the first place).

As to sourcing, you simply report that some guy from the TCHRD said that the photo was published on the "cover" of their 2003 annual report (back cover, one presumes, since it's clearly not on the front cover, which is visible in the index linked above). Did you e-mail him a copy of the photo, or did you just describe it to him? You admit you haven't seen the issue... you write:

I realize that what you are asking for is a physical source of the photo existing prior to it's recent appearance. At this point, that is simply not something that can be produced, short of ordering a copy of the 2003 TCHRD report, if possible.

My father was a lawyer; many of my online friends are lawyers; I'm used to a very high standard of evidence -- particularly when dealing with a duplicitous nation like the PRC. I believe you that it's very likely that Tashi Phuntsok is pro-Tibetan, not pro-Chinese; but how do we know for sure he has the exact, same photograph in mind? Perhaps your description sounded like some other photo they had on the back cover.

Second, I begin to suspect that you, too, tried to get a copy of that 2003 annual report -- and you were told the same thing I was told: It's not available, but the 2002 and 2004 ones are. Please forgive my skeptical nature, but when the very piece of evidence that would prove the truth or falsity of a verbal claim goes unaccountably missing, while other pieces of evidence from the same source, similarly situated, are readily available... well, let's leave it that I am perhaps more skeptical by nature than you.

Another example of lack of sourcing. You write:

Further research revealed a 2001 date -- from the Chinese film “The Touch”.

This statement is meaningless without knowing what you mean by "research." How do you research a claim like that? When you say it was "confirmed by the films' distribution company" (in your original blogpost linked above), what exactly do you mean by that? Can you reproduce that correspondence here? I would certainly appreciate it.

I'm sure there have been movies made in which Chinese PLA soldiers played Tibetan monks; but how would you know which particular movie supposedly resulted in that photo?

And if you can't know that, then how do you know this photo was from a movie at all? How would Tashi Phuntsok know? He didn't take the photo; he says the TCHRD (I assume that's what he means by the pronoun "we") received it. From whom? Under what circumstances? Did it come in the mail? Did they know who they got it from? Was there even a return address?

There is a legal term I'm sure you're familiar with: chain of custody of evidence. Without knowing the chain of custody, it's hard to take "evidence" seriously. Tashi Phuntsok may be totally convinced; but we have no way of knowing whether Tashi Phuntsok knows anything about chains of custody or qualifying witnesses, or whether he is an honest and well-meaning fool.

He says TCHRD received a photo; we don't know if it was the photo. He doesn't say who he received it from, whether he knows the source, or even whether he has the name of the source. He claims it was from a movie, but how would he know? He doesn't say. Finally, you say it was from the Touch (2001), but you haven't told us exactly what the production company said and why you think that particular movie resulted in that particular photograph.

This is what I mean by unsourced claims.

Now to the G2 Bulletin article. You make several misstatements:

I was questioning the validity of the claim that British intel has satellite images that show PLA dressing as monks and starting the violence -- and the association of the content of the article with the photo as evidence supporting that claim.

Neither Thomas nor we made either claim. We certainly never claimed that the photo was taken by GCHQ satellites (that's not what intelsat photos look like, and this photo was obviously taken from no more than 10 feet up, judging from the angle), and Thomas doesn't refer to this photo at all.

Nor did Thomas claim that "British intel has satellite images that show PLA dressing as monks and starting the violence." He says something quite different:

The images they downloaded from the satellites provided confirmation the Chinese used agent provocateurs to start riots, which gave the PLA the excuse to move on Lhasa to kill and wound over the past week.

He doesn't specify what those intelsat photos showed or what other evidence they used; sigint includes intercepts as well as spy-satellite photos, and the photos may be indeterminant by themselves, without the other evidence that adds to them.

I state several times that I do not doubt for one second that the Chinese government is absolutely doing the things the article (and photo) claim.

Then why would you doubt that GCHQ may know that they're doing it -- even if the British government is unwilling to go public with the evidence for fear of compromising their intelligence capabilities and assets?

(Which, by the way, could also explain why a covert source -- possibly even with the tacit, unofficial blessing of his superiors -- might leak the news to Gordon Thomas; they may be upset that Brown is sitting on the intel and not letting anyone know about it.)

Rather than offer claims of the article being untrue, which no one other than the GCHQ can really prove or disprove, I suggested that the validity should be questioned, based on several factors: 1) The source of the article, Mr. Gordon Thomas. This is partly a ‘Guilt by association’ suggestion, as well as a critical look at Mr.Thomas' past work as a sensationalist and conspiracy theorist.

You have not linked to any Gordon Thomas articles that are either "sensationalist" or conspiracy mongering. Articles by him that others have claimed to be so don't look any different to me than articles by elite media reporters -- including the claim in 2003 that Saddam Hussein had a secret arsenal. Everybody was claiming that.

2) Most significantly, I show the response I received from the GCHQ which clearly states that it is their firm policy to not confirm or deny inquiries on intelligence matters - and that to the Press Office’s knowledge, Mr. Thomas did not even contact the GCHQ prior to publishing the article about the GCHQ.

Suppose you sent e-mail to the NSA in 2004 asking whether they had a surveillance program that recorded calls originating from suspected terrorists abroad and received by phone numbers within the United States. What do you think they would say? "We can neither confirm nor deny..."

Suppose you asked them whether a reporter from the NYT had asked them the same question. "So and so has never made a formal request through this office for that information."

Yet we know for a fact that they did have such a program (President Bush has admitted it) and that reporters from the New York Times did get hold of the information and blow the program by printing it on the front page of the Times (thereby grievously damaging our anti-terrorist surveillance ability).

Your counterevidence is not evidence at all. Of course GCHQ will official refuse to confirm or deny ongoing intelligence operations. And of course Thomas would not get his information from the press officer of GCHQ -- for that very reason. It is obvious that if he actually got the intel at all, it would have to be from a clandestine source... as would be true for any intel that is not officially declassified. Reporters have clandestine sources in all intelligence services, from the old KGB to today's Mossad.

However, given Gordon Brown's position on not attending the opening ceremonies, I would think that if his administration had the hard photographic evidence Mr. Thomas' article claims, that they would have produced it by now.

Why? Has Gordon Brown shown any spine in standing up to Beijing in any substantive way in the past? Boycotting the opening ceremonies is the least he can do; and never let it be said that Gordon Brown did not do the least he could do! (It's hard to blame Brown; I'm a big fan of George W. Bush, but I have to admit he has really not stood up to Red China as he should.)

Finally, in response to those saying that I am defending the Chinese government... On my blog, I again have stated very explicitly my intentions in pursuing this. If they weren't clear to you, then I suggest re-reading my comments.

Nobody here said you were "defending the Chinese government." If that wasn't clear to you, then I suggest you re-read the post and comments here.

What it comes down to at the basic level is that personally, I do not believe in the labels ‘right’ or ‘left’, conservative or liberal. The Buddhist path is the middle way. I am open to listening to all sides - and fairly weighing all facts and opinions.

Oh come now. You don't take sides? Did you write the following, or did you just put it up on your site without demur?

3) So, the article originated on "G2 Bulletin", a subscription only subsidiary of World Net Daily (WND), which are both right-wing, conservative, rumor mills.

Canada Free Press (CFP) is also a right-wing uber-conservative web-publication, that has legally gotten in trouble in the past for getting caught with false stories.

G2, WND and CFP’s other columnists include: Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, the late Rev.Jerry Falwell, Dr. John Hagee, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Robert Novak and Bill O’Rielly.

Sounds plenty partisan to me... but then, perhaps you consider Big Lizards a right-wing uber-conservative web-publication written by people akin to Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, the late Rev.Jerry Falwell, Dr. John Hagee, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Robert Novak and Bill O’Rielly. Yeesh.

And third-way thinking is nothing new; it's a hallmark of Progressivism, from Otto von Bismark to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Progressivists are also called modern liberals. You may have meant something different by the term, but I don't think you can maintain that based upon your own blogpost -- what you wrote or at least decided to post without comment.

Like nearly everybody else, you are a partisan. Like most partisans, you don't recognize your own partisanship; you believe you operate on common sense, not partisanship... but mysteriously, common sense always seems to lead in the same direction. Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Pat Buchanan could all say the same -- though of course, their "common sense" would likely lead in the direction opposite yours.

Being partisan doesn't mean your points are invalid; but it does mean you get no special dispensation from ordinary rules of evidence that apply to all... including us. I am interested in truth as much as you; that's why I sure wish you would document and source your claims in the areas we request above.

It would definitely help clear up any misunderstandings.

Dafydd

Just so you all know we have a Chinese propagandist here on the blog comments under the name of Charles Lui alias Bobby Fletcher

He has been busted by many including western media and Ezra Levant the Human rights hero of Canada.

Heres the scoop on Charles Lui alias Bobby Fletcher

Western Standard: Sowing Confusion; Embarrassed by reports of live organ harvesting, China's sympathizers launch a high-tech disinformation campaign
http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2436

http://organharvestinvestigation.net/media/WesternStandard_040907.htm

Who is posting anti-Tibet comments on North American blogs?
By Ezra Levant on March 31, 2008

http://ezralevant.com/2008/03/who-is-posting-antitibet-comme.html

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)