text:
Tibetan art

The vast majority of surviving Tibetan art created before the mid-20th century is religious, with the main forms being thangka, paintings on cloth, mostly in a technique described as gouache or distemper, Tibetan Buddhist wall paintings, and small statues in bronze, or large ones in clay, stucco or wood. They were commissioned by religious establishments or by pious individuals for use within the practice of Tibetan Buddhism and were manufactured in large workshops by monks and lay artists, who are mostly unknown. Various types of religious objects, such as the phurba or ritual dagger, are finely made and lavishly decorated. Secular objects, in particular jewellery and textiles, were also made, with Chinese influences strong in the latter.

Himalayan art is an overall term for Tibetan art together with the art of Bhutan, Nepal, Ladakh, Kashmir and neighbouring parts of Mongolia and China where Tibetan Buddhism is practiced. Sino-Tibetan art refers to works in a Tibetan style and with Tibetan Buddhist iconography produced in either China or Tibet, often arising from patronage by Chinese emperors. The artists seem to have been a mixture of Tibetan and Chinese, with some Newari from Nepal, and the place of manufacture is often uncertain between the two. The less common term of Tibeto-Chinese may be used when the Tibetan element is the stronger.

Tibetan religious art has been described as "almost unbelievably conservative", to a large extent representing "the perpetuation of the forms and iconography of the last phase of Buddhist art of India", ending about the 12th century. This was the Pala-Sena art of north-east India, relatively close to Tibet, and the home of key figures like Atisha, a missionary from Nalanda in Bihar. After the decline of Buddhism in India soon after, very little survives from the Indian Buddhist art of this or earlier periods except monumental sculpture, and art historians must deduce much about this vanished culture from Tibetan works. Other influences on Tibetan art over the centuries came from Chinese and Nepalese Buddhist art. Landscape backgrounds were adopted from Chinese painting from about the 14th century for some thanka, and Chinese ornamental styles became dominant around 1700.

The finest achievements are typically considered to be in painted thanka and small bronzes (often gilt-bronze), where the best works have very high levels of technical skill. These were generally private works, only seen within monasteries, and often specifically designed for meditation. More public art includes large statues for prayer halls, large appliqué thankas for temporary display during Tibetan festivals on thangka walls, and sand mandalas, also temporary.

Artists
Painters and at least the modellers of sculpture were mostly monks, but less so for those made in China, or by the many Nepali artists who worked in or for Tibet. Many applied arts were made by lay craftspeople, sometimes working to designs for ornament supplied by monks. Apart from works from recent decades the names of the artists involved are unknown, except in the case of a few leading artist monks, such as Chöying Dorje, 10th Karmapa (1604–1674), and the Mongolian Zanabazar (1635–1715).

There have recently been rather controversial attempts to attribute some surviving works to a well-documented and significant Nepali artist called Aniko or Anige (1245–1306), who worked in painting, sculpture and architecture in Tibet and China, but it remains uncertain if anything by him, rather than his sons or followers, has survived.

Painting
Paintings come in several types and sizes. The most important is the thangka, a broad term for portable paintings on cloth or paper that can be stored rolled-up. Larger ones may also be called "banners", and the really large ones for display on thangka walls at festivals are mostly made from appliqué cloth, with only minimal painting. Even relatively small thangkas which are much taller than they are wide may be called banners.

The usual painting technique is gouache on fine cotton, but other cloth may be used. Painting was over an underdrawing. Colours were originally bright, though many old paintings have faded. Most, and all before the 16th century, are square or have a vertical "portrait" format, and most are under a metre tall. There are also images in silk tapestry using the Chinese kesi technique. The earliest thangka to survive are some from the blocked-up cave near Dunhuang that date from a period of Tibetan occupation there in the 10th century.

Tsakli or "initiation cards" are small painted (or sometimes printed) images on cloth, glued to a card backing, usually showing a relatively simple image of a sacred figure, or a pair. They were produced in sets of perhaps six to over a hundred, and used for instructing monks and also the temporary consecration and protection of sites or objects. The figure may be identified in ink on the back. They are one of a number of Tibetan forms without close comparators in neighbouring Buddhist countries.

Most monasteries and temples in Tibet had wall paintings, a large percentage of which have been destroyed or badly damaged. These were painted over several plaster-like layers of "clay, chopped-up straw, and dung" in the same technique as thangkas. They usually cover the entire wall above a certain level, using much the same subjects and styles as thangkas. Paintings and other works were ritually consecrated upon completion.

Book covers more often included painted decoration than the pages of the book. This is usually on the inside of the wood cover, so the painting is protected. Initially books had the very long, thin, shape of Indian palm leaf manuscripts whatever material was used, allowing only a long row of tsakli-like single figures. Later different shapes were used, allowing larger thangka-style compositions.

Sculpture

The most common material for smaller sculptures is metal, usually "bronze", which is often gilded. Modern scientific analysis shows that the actual compositions of Tibetan "bronze" (or copper alloy) are even more variable than in bronze from other parts of the world, being very often brass and sometimes almost pure copper. The compositions sometimes vary considerably from one end of a statue to the other. Tibetan foundries seem to have used whatever base metal was available, and not to have been too careful in ensuring proper mixing. Pieces made in China or Mongolia are generally much more homogenous.

Precious metals may be used, especially for Imperial Chinese commissions, but figures mainly in gold or silver are very rare; evidently some were made, but they have presumably been recycled as bullion later on. A very high-quality yab-yum pair in the Hermitage Museum with an inscribed date to the Ming Yongle reign of 1403–1425 is made of copper and about 40% gold, but this is a rarity.

Tibet has deposits of gold, but under the influence of Bon, mining was regarded as rather immoral, and only the meagre product of panning in rivers was acceptable. Large inflows of gold came from China only after the Mongol Yuan dynasty began to heavily patronize Tibetan Buddhism in the late 13th century.

Metal sculptures sometimes have colour added by a variety of techniques including inlays, partial gilding, lacquer paint, coloured wax, and using alloys with different metal mixtures, especially zinc to give different colours. Jewels may be inserted into the metal. The usual basic casting technique is lost wax casting; many works, especially in later periods, are cast in several pieces, then joined. Small relics of distinguished teachers were often placed inside the hollow statues, wrapped in paper with writing identifying them.

Many of the common materials for sculpture are not often used in Tibet. Wood was expensive, and generally used for buildings, furniture and caskets rather than sculpture (the wood reliefs at the Jokhang in Lhasa are by Nepali sculptors brought in for the purpose). Wood doorway surrounds in monasteries sometimes had figurative carvings. But small works in wood, ivory, terracotta and stone are found. Stone is mainly used for small steles carved in relief, or rock reliefs carved into cliffs beside paths, which were then painted.

Large sculptures, almost all sacred figures in a meditating or teaching seated position, are mostly for the altars of temples or prayer halls. The Tibetan prototype for these is the Jowo, a bronze statue of the Buddha in Lhasa, supposedly brought from China by a Tang dynasty princess marrying the Tibetan king. Most later Tibetan examples are made of clay or rammed earth over a hollow interior stuffed with straw, with wood supports for the largest. They are then painted and partly gilded, and often finished with varnish.

Tsa-tsa are small relief plaques or miniature chortens made in moulds with clay or rammed earth. Many are left in places considered holy, and the chorten-shaped ones play a part in funerary rituals. Some include ashes from the cremated remains of a deceased person, or objects symbolizing them. Others, like their Indian predecessors, work as souvenirs of pilgrimages, and are taken home to be displayed.

Other media for Buddhist art
There are types of Buddhist art that are deliberately temporary, for use in rituals and meditation. The best known of these is the sand mandala, a largely geometric image made up with grains of sand or minerals, where necessary dyed to give several bright colours. These are placed onto a drawn pattern on a flat and even ground surface with great skill, using cone-shaped funnels called chak-pur and fingers. The mandala is generally square or round, and can be between two and three metres across. Making the mandala is itself a religious act, and the image's temporary nature is part of the teaching. Many are made for festivals, and after a few days on display they are simply swept away. The same patterns are often used in painted thangkas, with or without figures, which are generally not attempted in sand.

Torma are sculpted ritual offerings made of edible materials, with yak butter and flour the most common and often the only main ingredients, along with colourings. They are therefore a form of butter sculpture. Eggs, milk and other ingredients even including meat may be used. They are used in various contexts, the most common of which is being placed on altars. Very large ones may be made for special festivals. Some are eaten after a period of ritual use.

Many types of object for both religious or secular use were lavishly decorated in the same styles, mixing metalwork with gemstones. These include vases, offering plates and model mountain "mandala plates", containers and other objects for altars, rituals, and the private use of senior monks, as well as use by wealthy lay persons. In recent centuries China was the main influence on the rich ornamentation used, with Nepal and India prominent earlier.

Tibetan Buddhism has a number of distinctive ritual instruments, some for use on general altars, and others for special tantric rituals; some are used in both. There are also musical instruments used in religious ceremonies, but these are not covered here. Many of the instruments are shared with the Hindu tantra tradition. Most are usually in bronze, and the most important are the vajra (or dorje), a small ritual weapon that is normally accompanied by a small bell, the phurba dagger, kartika flaying knife, the khatvanga staff or wand, and the kapala, a skull cup, using a real skull, but often with an elaborate metalwork setting. The kangling thigh-bone trumpet, also mainly real bone, may also have metal mounts.

Oracles such as the Nechung or "Official State Oracle" have extremely elaborate costumes and other special ritual implements for giving their predictions. The costumes include much carved bone, as do some of those for performers in the cham dances and adepts in some tantric rituals. Apart from necklaces and other jewellery forms, there are "aprons" with bone plaques large enough to hold complex relief carvings.

Woodblock printing was used for both text and images, or a combination. This was both on paper for books or single sheets, or on textiles, where it was very widely used for prayer flags. As with the prayer wheels outside religious buildings, usually made of brass with the prayer inscribed in relief, setting the text in motion, whether by the wind in the case of flags, or by hand turning in the case of the wheels, was believed to increase the efficacy of the prayer or mantra. Designs including the Wind Horse are among the most popular. Usually, the design for the wooden block was drawn by a monk, but carving the block was done by lay craftspeople outside the monastery.

Secular art

Traditional Tibetan society had a relatively small but wealthy upper class, as well as prosperous merchants. These patronised the religious arts (most wealthy men had spent some of their youth in monastic training), but also the usual range of secular forms. Monasteries also contained secular art in such forms as woolen Tibetan rugs. The usual form of these before 1950 is the khaden or sleeping carpet, also used for sitting or meditating on, with either geometric of simple figural designs, the latter often versions of Chinese motifs. The imitation tiger-skin "tiger rug" at least began as a substitute for real tiger-skins, which Buddhist and Hindu tantric masters are often shown sitting on in Indian art, or wearing as a cloak. But it seems to have become a prestigious thing to sit on for all types of person.

Tibetan clothing for the wealthy was elaborate and very brightly coloured. Chinese silks were much used, and imitated locally. Otherwise women wore skirts of local hand-woven cloth with lines of different colours. The clothing of the poor in 19th-century photographs generally appears very ragged, at least for working men. Tibetan jewellery, worn in profusion by both sexes, was chunky rather than highly refined, usually mainly in silver. Turquoise was one of the gemstones mined in Tibet, and much used. Elite Tibetan women wore their hair elaborately tied high over the head on formal occasions, hanging jewellery on it. Various personal items such as saddles and horse trappings could be highly decorated in similar techniques. The chab chab, worn by women, is a brooch from which a set of small useful tools such as spoons, picks and knives hang by short chains. The chuckmuck, not exclusive to Tibet, is a fire-lighting kit, typically hung from the belt by a short strap. Thokcha are small amulets of various shapes made (or supposed to be made) from meteoric iron, which were in use well before Buddhism arrived.

Furniture, in recent centuries tending to loosely follow Chinese forms, can be very finely made, and are usually highly decorated. Caskets, boxes and covers for manuscripts and storage chests were also important. Tibetan horse trappings, arms and armour for the elite were often highly decorated; a reasonable number have survived because there was relatively little evolution in what was used for fighting until the 20th century, and also because items were given as votive offerings to monasteries.

Buddhist iconography
A high proportion of both thangkas and sculptures have as their main subject a single sacred figure, or two of them embracing in the yab-yum position. These are very often surrounded with other figures, much smaller, often representing a wide range of persons or qualities. Buddhist symbols often appear. The main figures are buddhas, bodisattvas, the various types of "deity" in Tibetan Buddhism, and sometimes distinguished monks of the past, who may be regarded as bodhisattvas. Very often the figures at the top represent the "lineage" of teachings relating to the main figure, including a mixture of semi-legendary early and foundational figures, and more recent monks.

Large numbers of these are yidams or meditation deities. The appearance of these and their surrounding elements is set out in great detail in texts, which the thangkas follow closely, and monks are required to memorize and meditate on these for very long periods. In many cases it is eventually explained to the initiate that the deity has no existence outside the mind of persons meditating on them, and the purpose of the exercise is to realize within the meditator the qualities the deity embodies, as part of the Buddhist practices of refuge and deity yoga.

Tibetan art is especially rich, compared to that of other Buddhist countries, in depictions of "fierce" figures, sometimes called a figure's "wrathful aspect" or "expression". These are to be understood as protective figures, versions of buddhas or bodhisattvas that can also be shown in their pacific aspect. Indeed, thanks to the very complex Tibetan understanding of their nature, important figures have a number of different "aspects", which may be depicted very differently. Sometimes these are shown in compartments around the edge of the composition. They are often depicted standing on much smaller figures personifying the malign forces they have overcome, and the skulls or heads of others may hang from their belt or neck as a mundamala or skull garland. There may also be skulls in their crown.

The foundation story of Tibetan Buddhism has much on early leaders, above all Padmasambhava, subduing evil spirits that previously dominated Tibet. The Dharmapala are one class of these fierce protectors, and one of them, Mahakala, was at various times given a particular role as the national protector, of Tibet and of the Mongol Empire. Tibetan Buddhism also arose and consolidated at the same time as Indian Buddhism declined, a process that is still rather unclear, but at times involved considerable violence, perhaps increasing the perceived need for powerful protective figures.

Narrative depictions of the lives of religious figures are found in thangkas, usually with the various events shown around a much larger central figure. The life of Gautama Buddha is depicted, as well as his previous lives, but the other most important buddhas and bodisattvas generally lack biographies. Tibetan figures such as Padmasambhava, Milarepa, and famous monks such as Sakya Pandita, and the Third Dalai Lama may be treated in a similar style. From the 18th century these scenes may be placed in a detailed landscape drawing on Chinese styles. Another style has a main central figure with much smaller portraits around the edge of the composition, either in compartments or in later examples in a landscape setting. These may be divine figures, or monks who were mentors or pupils.

Other portraits of monks are simpler, concentrating on the main figures. Some may date to the lifetime of the subject, though other are of figures long dead. It has been argued that portraits of living and dead figures are distinguished by the dead being shown seated on a lotus throne, but a recent study rejects this and instead argues that the side on which the tögag monastic robe is folded under the arm may indicate this. Small bronze sculpted portraits are also mostly straightforward, showing the subject seated on a base, not always wearing their ceremonial hat. One such bronze has an inscription saying it was made for the bedroom of a senior lama, perhaps the subject.

Another subject for thangkas is the various heavens or Pure lands of the main buddhas, especially Amitābha's Sukhavati, and the mystic earthly kingdom of Shambhala. In recent centuries, these have also been given panoramic landscape backgrounds. There are also paintings showing monasteries, usually concentrating on the buildings rather than the (often spectacular) settings.

The Ashtamangala, or "Eight Auspicious Symbols" very frequently appear in various contexts, for example held by figures. They belong to wider Buddhist traditions, and originated in India.

Buddhist background

As Mahayana Buddhism emerged as a separate school in the 4th century AD, it emphasized the role of bodhisattvas, compassionate beings who forgo their personal escape to nirvana in order to assist others. From an early time, various bodhisattvas were also subjects of statuary art. Tibetan Buddhism, as an offspring of Mahayana Buddhism, inherited this tradition. But the additional dominating presence of the Vajrayana (or Buddhist tantra) may have had an overriding importance in the artistic culture. A common bodhisattva depicted in Tibetan art is the deity Chenrezig (Avalokitesvara), often portrayed as a thousand-armed saint with an eye in the middle of each hand, representing the all-seeing compassionate one who hears our requests. This deity can also be understood as a yidam, or 'meditation Buddha' for Vajrayana practice.

More specifically, Tibetan Buddhism contains Tantric Buddhism, also known as Vajrayana Buddhism for its common symbolism of the vajra, the diamond thunderbolt (known in Tibetan as the dorje). Most of the typical Tibetan Buddhist art can be seen as part of the practice of tantra. Vajrayana techniques incorporate many visualizations during meditation, and most of the elaborate tantric art can be seen as aids to these visualizations; from representations of meditational deities (yidams) to mandalas and all kinds of ritual implements. There are distinct tantric rituals, mostly originating in India, but some apparently incorporating elements from Tibetan shamanism. These are conducted alone or before a small group of initiates.

Bön
The indigenous shamanistic religion of the Himalayas is known as Bön, which has survived in a monastic form, co-existing with Tibetan Buddhism, and producing similar art. Bon contributes a pantheon of local tutelary deities to Tibetan art. In Tibetan temples (known as lhakhang), statues of the Buddha or Padmasambhava are often paired with statues of the tutelary deity of the district who often appears angry or dark. These gods once inflicted harm and sickness on the local citizens but after the arrival of Padmasambhava these negative forces have been subdued and now must serve Buddha.

Bon images are often extremely similar to Tibetan Buddhist ones, especially those produced by the Nyingma order, which has the closest connections with Bon monasticism. Indeed, even experts are sometimes unable to be sure for which religion some works were produced. Other works depict the distinct Bon deities and historic teachers, but remain generally close to Buddhist styles; there was evidently considerable interchange between artists in both traditions. In general, Bon sacred figures do not appear in the complicated different forms and aspects of Buddhist ones, and a Bon fierce protective deity is likely only to have that form. Some differences are easier to see: Bon art uses the swastika rather than the vajra as a symbol of wisdom, and although their chorten (stupas) are "almost identical", Bon devotees walk round them in the opposite direction (anti-clockwise) to Buddhists.

First transmission
Pre-Buddhist art in Tibet is relatively little understood, apart from small personal items such as thokcha amulets, and prehistoric rock carvings of animals. All are hard to date. Stylistically, Buddhist art tends to be divided, at some periods more than others, into that from Western, Central and Eastern Tibet.

Buddhism achieved its final very strong position in Tibet in several stages, with reverses sometimes following periods of strong growth. The first arrival of Buddhism was traditionally with the two princesses, Nepali and Chinese, who came to marry King Songsten Gampo (reigned c. 627–649). Each came with monks and statues, and both Indian and Chinese styles of Buddhism (both Mahayana, but already somewhat divergent) were encouraged by the court. The core of the Jokhang in Lhasa survives from this period, and the Chinese Jowo statue, but Buddhism was essentially a court religion for some time after, and whether any Tibetan art survives is uncertain.

Songsten Gampo was the first of the "Three Religious Kings" (or "Dharma Kings"), followed by Trisong Detsen and Tri Relwajen, who reigned until about 836 (there are, or may have been, several intervening kings). King Trisong Detsen invited the Indian monk Śāntarakṣita, of Nalanda, who arrived in 761, but whose efforts were, according to Tibetan tradition, frustrated by evil native spirits. After retreating, and spending some years in Nepal, Śāntarakṣita returned with the Tantric adept Padmasambhava, who successfully defeated the evil spirits.

In 791 Buddhism was declared the official religion, and King Trisong Detsen eventually felt he had to make a choice between the Indian and Chinese styles of Buddhism. After hearing both groups of monks making their case, he chose the Indian ones, perhaps for political reasons, and thereafter Sanskrit texts have always been regarded in Tibet as the proper foundation for Buddhism. By this time some large monasteries had been built, and the Tibetan Empire had begun to encroach on China's western borders; the Tibetan paintings found in Dunhuang are one major group of survivals. This period of expansion was soon followed by the Era of Fragmentation after 842, which saw the end of the unified kingdom, and much tension between Bon and Buddhism, which declined severely, especially in Central Tibet.

Second Transmission
The "Later" or "Second Transmission" began under King Yeshe-Ö of the Guge Kingdom in Western Tibet, who succeeded in getting the senior Indian monk Atisha to come to Tibet in 1042. Spreading over the next decades from Western to Eastern Tibet, Atisha and successors such as Dromtön and Marpa Lotsawa established many monasteries, and new orders of monks.

At this period Indian Buddhism was still a force in north-east India, though in decline, with large monastic complexes such as Nalanda in Bengal and modern Bihar, to the south of the region around Lhasa. There were considerable monastic interchanges between the two regions, with texts being taken north for copying and translating, and also evidently movement of artworks and probably artists. A greater number of Tibetan works have survived, many showing accomplished styles, with considerable Indian influence. Apart from portable works, the two outstanding survivals in wall paintings are the monasteries of Tabo and Alchi in modern Ladakh in India, relatively small establishments in Guge which largely escaped later rebuilding and repainting, and Chinese destruction.

The dominant type of monastic Buddhism in north-west India at the time was Vajrayana (or Tantric Buddhism, Esoteric Buddhism), and various sub-schools of this tradition became the norm in Tibet. Over the next century a number of monastic orders or schools emerged, the four major schools, with their approximate dates of foundation, being the Nyingma (c. 8th century), Kagyu (11th century), Sakya (1073), and Gelug (1409). These came to produce art with slight differences in both subject-matter and style.

Mongol gold

The situation transformed dramatically in the second half of the 13th century, as the protracted process of the Mongol conquest of China (1215–1294) drew to a close. Tibetan Buddhism had made considerable inroads in Mongolia, and became the official state religion of the new Mongol Yuan dynasty under Kublai Khan, though other religions were (most of the time) tolerated and sometimes patronized. Drogön Chögyal Phagpa (1235–1280), leader of the Sakya order, was made Imperial Preceptor and head of the new Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs. Over the next century monastic Buddhism received "massive financial and material support by the Yuan state (1260-1368), most prominently in the form of several tons of gold and silver, and hundreds of thousands of bolts of silk".

Tibetan monasteries were established in China, mostly staffed by monks from Tibet. A large number of imperial ceremonies using the monks were established—a reform in 1331 reduced the number from 216 to 200 annually. Each of these might last several days, a "short" one taking a hundred monks for seven days, while a long one used forty monks for three years. These were lavishly rewarded: one seven day ritual was paid for with 600 kilos of silver. Large donations were used for building monasteries in Tibet, or commissioning art, but donations were also given to large numbers of individual monks, who might use them to make art. The Sakya order were the largest beneficiaries, but all orders benefited.

The Yuan emperors maintained large imperial workshops, whose main task was producing Buddhist images and designs for them. About half of the senior artists were Newari or Tibetan, with the rest Chinese. Drawings of the design were typically approved by members of the court and the Imperial Preceptor, who checked the details of the iconography were correct. Often old pieces were copied, and creatively reinterpreted. The Yuan empresses were especially fond of silver statues of female deities, most of which were melted down at some later point, as few of them survive. The records show that in 1329, the year after she became empress during a brief civil war, Budashiri, wife of the Wenzong Emperor, commissioned goddess figures that used a total of 2,220 kilos of silver.

Although the next Ming dynasty presented itself as a native Chinese dynasty expelling the foreign Mongol overlords, the founder, the Hongwu Emperor (r. 1368–1398) had spent several years in a Chinese Buddhist monastery, and he and his successors continued to patronize Tibetan Buddhism, if not on as extravagant a scale as the Yuan. It suited Chinese governments to keep their neighbour to the West peaceful and largely devoted to religion; when necessary the Chinese intervened militarily in the sometimes fierce disputes between the different orders. The next Qing dynasty were Manchus, who kept their elite separate from the Han Chinese. They were largely Tibetan Buddhists, with the older traditions of Manchu shamanism still strong, and continued to patronize Tibetan Buddhism in China and Tibet until the end of imperial rule.

Collecting
There was relatively little Tibetan art outside the country until the end of the 19th century, except that in the Chinese imperial collections and in Tibetan monasteries in China. The first significant foreign collector was Prince Esper Ukhtomsky (1861–1921), a Russian author, publisher and Oriental enthusiast, with close access to the court. Ukhtomsky was strongly attracted to Asian art on aesthetic grounds, and eventually declared himself a Buddhist. During his travels in Tibet and Central Asia he amassed a large collection of Chinese and Tibetan art, that eventually numbered over 2,000 pieces.

In 1902 the collection was given to the Ethnographical Department of the Russian Museum in St. Petersburg. In 1933 it was divided between the Hermitage Museum, who received the largest and best share, and the Museum of the History of Religion, both in what was then Leningrad. The Hermitage's share remains the basis of "one of the world's largest collections of Tibetan art". Unlike most Western museums, whose collections tend to be stronger in objects from southern and western Tibet, the Ukhtomsky collection is strongest in objects from northern and eastern Tibet, making it especially valuable.

In 1911, the Newark Museum in Newark, New Jersey, United States displayed the world's first exhibition dedicated to Tibetan art. The museum continued to add more artifacts until the 1940s, amassing more than 5,000 pieces in its collection including paintings, sculptures, ritual objects, fine textiles and decorative arts. Today the museum houses over 5,500 Tibetan art artifacts, the largest and most distinctive in the Western Hemisphere, in eight permanent galleries with a Tibetan Buddhist altar as its centerpiece. The altar was consecrated in 1990 by the 14th Dalai Lama in 1990.

The upheavals in Tibet and China in the 20th century brought about large movements of portable art to the West, and the destruction of most that remained in the country. There was large-scale destruction during and after the invasion and annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China in 1950 to 1951, the Cultural Revolution of 1966 to 1976, and at other times.

While wall paintings, large altar statues and other large art could usually not be moved, and a high proportion were destroyed, smaller thangka and bronzes were relatively easy to carry and left the country in large numbers. These were also the types of objects that probably had the greatest appeal to Western collectors, and were still relatively cheap in the mid-century. Several important private collections were formed, many of which subsequently passed to museums in the West, a process still continuing. The art historical understanding of Tibetan art, and its dating and regional differences also continues to develop.

Apart from museum collections in Tibet, China, St. Petersburg and Newark, many of the larger Western museums have significant collections, though most thangkas and textiles are not on permanent display for conservation reasons. Dedicated museums for Tibetan art in the West are the Rubin Museum of Art and Jacques Marchais Museum of Tibetan Art, both in New York City, and the Museum of Contemporary Tibetan Art in the Netherlands.

Contemporary Tibetan art
Contemporary Tibetan art refers to the art of modern Tibet, or Tibet after 1950. It can also refer to art by the Tibetan diaspora, which is explicitly political and religious in nature. Contemporary Tibetan art includes modern thangka (religious scroll paintings) that resemble ancient thangka, as well as radical, avant-garde, works. Many artists, especially in monasteries, continue to produce traditional Tibetan styles, which are preferred for religious use, and also have markets inside and outside the Tibetan diaspora.

Popular Contemporary Tibetan artists include Karma Phuntsok, Tibetan-Swiss painter Sonam Dolma Brauen and Jamyang Dorjee Chakrishar.

title: Tibetan art


text:
Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 6

Wild Speculation and Other Error
"September 11, 2001 attacks" - Assumes external attack instead of inside demolition job. No concrete evidence offered to support notion it was an "attack" carried out by suicide hijackers. All stories by FBI et al lead to dead-ends with no resolution or evidence.

"With full tanks of jet fuel, the aircraft were used as flying bombs, one of which was piloted into each of the two towers of the World Trade Center, one into The Pentagon, with a final aircraft crashing into a Pennsylvania field (the intended target of this jet remains unknown)." - Full tanks of fuel, yet the planes had been in the air in some cases for over an hour. Also speculation as to a passenger jet hitting the Pentagon, antiaircraft missile batteries atop the Pentagon make this unlikely and unwarranted even as speculation. Destination of final aircraft is known, so that is a factual error, it was Chicago, which is where it would have been if it hadn't taken off forty minutes late, where it would have struck the Sears tower which was at that time being videotaped by Israeli Moshe Elmakias who has since been arrested and deported back to his mother land, Israel.

"Shortly following the attacks, the United States government accused Al-Qaida..." - Clear speculation, allowed only because "US said it".

"This led to a "War on Terrorism" that included the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan (with support of the United Nations)." - Factual errors. The US invasion of Afghanistan was not supproted by the UN, which forbids retaliation in case of criminal act (terrorism) and forbids defining acts of war as terrorism. Catch-22 for US, so they burn the book and roll over everyone.

"The combined attack of September 11 on the World Trade Center was the deadliest act of terrorism against the United States and one of the deadliest attacks of asymmetric warfare in history." - Acts can not be both acts of war and terrorism. This is Orwellian doublespeak at its finest. Pick one side and stay on it. How is such a self-conflicting statement able to survive scrutiny? Is this page being given any scrutiny or is it monitored by a few fanatics who insist on supporting the FBI fable?

"American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 AM EDT." - Again, unlikely given the antiaircraft missile batteries atop the Pentagon. These missiles can make paperclips out of a fully-armed-and-armored attack aircraft before they get anywhere near the Pentagon, a passenger jet spiraling down to the Pentagon over two and a half minutes would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

"The fourth hijacked plane, United Airlines Flight 93, crashed in a field in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. The evidence suggests that it crashed after passengers and crew tried but failed to retake control of the plane from the hijackers." - Once again, the stories lead to dead ends. Cell phone calls are proved to be impossible, plucky Todd Beamer is found (so the "official" story goes) to have called an AT&T operator and talked to her for thirteen minutes before he pulled a Passenger 57 on Achmed (operator to this day remains unknown, nobody has stepped forward to identify themselves as the operator who listened to Todd Beamer for 13 minutes then relayed the conversation later by phone to his new widow), FAA radar tracks fast-movers intercepting flight immediately before its mid-air disintegration.

"Some passengers and crew were able to make phone calls from the doomed flights. They reported that there was more than one hijacker on each plane (a total of 19 were later identified) and that they took control of the planes using box-cutter knives. Additionally, some form of noxious chemical spray, such as tear gas or pepper spray, was used on at least one flight. There were also reports from at least two of the flights that hijackers claimed to be carrying bombs." - None of these reports are verifiable. One can find innumerable citations of these stories and many others, but none of them are verifiable.

---

Okay, then show me the source which specifically says that its speculation =\ WhisperToMe 00:13, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? You want me to find a source saying there is no source? Is this a serious question or do I misunderstand you? Can you explain what you mean more verbosely so I don't misinterpret your somewhat vague statements? Thank you for your time and patience on this issue, I will not ignore it. - Plautus satire 01:33, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

--- Listen, we have copious sources relating to the stuff you are griping about. I believe that the telephone operator that Beamer was talking to was named Lisa Jefferson, and she was at a GTE center near Chicago. http://www.hazlitt.org/united/Todd-Beamer.html WhisperToMe
 * Oh, I am sorry, you are right, let me examine what your "copious" source claims. For if we can not verify the story from this "copious" source we do not have evidence, but merely another fable. Where are the recordings of this call? Is it reasonable to assume that a typical GTE operator, in addition to reciting a prayer and taking a last request, would not think to record the conversation with the doomed man on the hijacked plane? Apparently this woman was too emotional over the whole thing to click a button. - Plautus satire 03:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Snopes says that cockpit tapes suggest a struggle between hijackers and other non-hijacking passengers. Where is this tape? Once again we find that we quickly encounter a wall shutting out further investigation. We have no public domain evidence, all of it is secret. It is this "secret evidence" that nobody is allowed to see that constitutes what is commonly called the "proof" in this case. - Plautus satire 03:29, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/911/showcase/chi-020419flight93,0,2369725.story - The flight 93 families heard the tape, btw. WhisperToMe 03:34, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * And these tapes are where? How can I listen to them? How can they be subjected to scrutiny? - Plautus satire 03:43, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The article cited above is very interesting. It makes the following claim: "The last minutes of the tape are muffled by the sound of rushing wind as the plane plunged from the sky, family members said, but the recording was clear enough that American and Arabic-speaking voices could be discerned." Rushing wind heard inside a plane? Have you ever been inside a passenger jet? Have you ever heard rushing wind? - Plautus satire 03:45, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This article lists the names of all forty people the airline says was on the flight in question. Did none of the other thirty-nine (13 times 3? Relevant? As relevant as your comments on this issue.) want a chance to pray with the operator and bid fond farewell to their loved ones? Todd Beamer must have had quite a calming influence on those other thirty-nine people, in order to stay on the phone for thirteen minutes while praying with an operator and saying his last goodbyes by proxy to his soon-to-be-widow. Were all of these other people friendless orphans to whom they had nobody to offer a single goodbye? With such level-headed, organized passengers, it's surprising they were not able to overcome the small number of hijackers and pilot the plane safely back to the ground like in a Washywood movie. - Plautus satire 03:53, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * This passage by Plautus is so stupid (<= Why is this going unchallenged by impartial observers? Is this a fair response? - Plautus satire 21:45, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)) and illinformed that it barely merits a response. But I'll give one anyway. Literally dozens of phone calls were made from Flight 93 - Beamer was certainly not the only one. Several of them - Beamer, Glick,Burnett, Lyles - stated on the phone that they intended to overpwer the hijackers. and they died whilst attempting to do just that. The operator that Beamer spoke to was Lisa Jefferson. She stepped forward right away and was never anonymous. Arno 06:32, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Where are recordings of all these phone calls? We were shared the life of Todd Beamer's new widow and his "let's roll" story, what about the other heroes? Who were they? - Plautus satire 21:37, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I have heard that it is technically impossible to make a mobile phone call from a plane (no reception because too far away from ground) - does anyone have reliable info about this question?? I think we can dismiss Plautus' objection that 39 people would have reacted in a different way, like tried to take control of the plane, because they didn't realise what their ultimate fate was. They probably thought that they would survive unhamred if they just behaved as told by the hijackers (even some hijackers didn't know it was a suicide attack). pir 06:22, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nope - The hijackers planned to crash the plane into the Pentagon or the White House; and have you heard of a GTE Airfone before? WhisperToMe 06:26, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mark Bingham, Cee Cee Lyles, Tom Burnett, Jeremy Glick, Sandy Bradshaw to name a few. (The two girls are flight attendants who have been said to have boiled water to throw at the hijackers) WhisperToMe 00:06, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * And where is the evidence that this event you describe of boiling water occured? Where is the evidence for any of these claims made about the events on this flight? Were there eyewitnesses? You do a wonderfully succinct job of presenting these stories, but I'm afraid your evidence for these stories is abit lacking. A story repeated is not necessarily a true story. See: [http:/www.snopes.com/ Snopes] - Plautus satire 02:34, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

13x3 is not relevant, by that reasoning -- 1939 would be a significant and unlucky year. Oh wait, it was. God have mercy upon the people of 393939 (note the inverted 666 hidden in that date). Heh, PLaubus what is 39 inverted...93! Fear the numerology. Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * hehe - Plautus satire 21:37, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And where are the records of these GTE airfone calls? Or records of any reported cell phone calls? Or records of any calls, period? What about recordings of calls? Are there any? - Plautus satire 06:40, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus (or Yet Another Page Turned Into Bash Plautus)
Some of his comments are valid. For instance, he correctly noted that the UN does not support the "War on Terror". While his goal seems to be that of introducing conspiracy theory information to this page -- the fact is, a whole lot of people think that a conspiracy occurred. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Actually, Lir, the UN does support the Afghanistan War, but NOT the Iraq war. You are half right and half wrong. :) - Whisper, too lazy to sign in.

Did they pass a resolution supporting the invasion of Afghanistan, I can't find any such record of that. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Lir, they did pass resolutions condemning the Taliban and Al-Qaida, therefore paving way to the freezing of accounts and the like. WhisperToMe 00:10, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But were they resolutions giving permission for the US to invade Afghanistan? Lirath Q. Pynnor

I admit I read the talk page at close to double speed, but doesn't the "terrorist" question simply pivot on whether or not the intent behind the events was to generate as much fear as possible on a civilian population? That being generally accepted (including from the conspiratorial angle, which at least raises interesting observations), the term seems NPOV to me and thus viable, though would function either way. Chris Rodgers.

UN support for war on terrorism?
The UN does not support the "war on terrorism," which is real war, waged against countries based on the alleged criminal activity of their respective populations. The UN forbids going to war over criminal acts. The UN defines acts of war as other than terrorism. If these demolitions were acts of war, then evidence needs to be provided proving that Afghanistan or Iraq or whoever is being invaded next week are involved, otherwise the invasions are invalid per the UN. The UN has not sanctioned the invasion of Iraq nor the prosecution of an illegal war in Afghanistan in response to an illegal criminal act (conspiracy to demolish and murder). There is no "partly right" here. There is right and wrong. The UN does not support the US at this point, that kind of blanket statement is pretty much a no-brainer. And I'll gratuitously throw in Israel, here. Israel is in flagrant violation of UN Security Council resolutions without pause. It's almost as if they're in a race to clog the UN system with repeated violations that need to be defined and addressed faster than they can be resolved. Sound familiar? - Plautus satire 21:43, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

http://usembassy.state.gov/tokyo/wwwhse0926.html - Hi! WhisperToMe 23:57, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * This document refers to the United Nations Security Council Resolution, which was passed in 2002, well after the invasion of Afghanistan by the US. The UN did not support the invasion of Afghanistan. Nowhere in the UN's web archives of their SC resolutions can one find explicit support for the invasion by the United States of Afghanistan. - Plautus satire 02:29, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * There was no SC resolution specifically on the 2001 war in Afghanistan because none was needed - the war was undertaken under the UN Charter's right of self-defence, which requires no UN endorsement. This right was affirmed unanimously by the UN Security Council shortly after 9/11. The point was noted by Secretary General Kofi Annan on 8 October 2001, who said: "Immediately after the 11 September attacks on the United States, the Security Council expressed its determination to combat, by all means, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts. The Council also reaffirmed the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. The States concerned have set their current military action in Afghanistan in that context." See the full text of his statement at http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_10/alia/a1101021.htm . -- ChrisO 11:42, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry, but the UN does not support or endorse illegal wars like the invasion of Afghanistan by the United States. - Plautus satire 13:44, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I know I'm being trolled, but what the heck...

 * A war does not automatically need the prior authorisation of the UN Security Council. Read Article 51 of the UN Charter (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm), which says:

 * Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

 * In the case of Afghanistan, what happened (in chronological order) was this:

 * The UN Security Council passed resolution 1333 (19 December 2000) "strongly condemning the continuing use of the areas of Afghanistan under the control of the Afghan faction known as Taliban, which also calls itself the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (hereinafter known as the Taliban), for the sheltering and training of terrorists and planning of terrorist acts, and reaffirming its conviction that the suppression of international terrorism is essential for the maintenance of international peace and security"
 * The 9/11 attacks occurred.
 * The 9/11 attacks were blamed by US on al-Qaeda, which the UN had already determined was being sheltered by the Taliban.
 * Immediately after the attacks, the UN Security Council "reaffirmed the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." (Or in other words, "go get 'em".)
 * The Taliban refused to surrender bin Laden and expel al-Qaeda.
 * The United States attacked the Taliban on the basis of "individual self-defence" and Ambassador Negroponte duly notified the Security Council, as required by the UN Charter.

 * This is hardly rocket science. The UN did not explicitly authorise the war in Afghanistan because it did not need to. If the UN had been around in 1941, for instance, it would not have needed to authorise the US declaration of war on Japan. You should have a look to see if any countries introduced Security Council resolutions opposing the war. (Free clue - they didn't). In short, a lack of explicit UN endorsement does not by itself make a war illegal. -- ChrisO 20:33, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * ChrisO: thanks for digging out the Kofi Annan quote. However it doesn't make sense: the idea that the US was entitled to attack Afghanistan because of a state's right to self-defence is based on the assumption that Afghanistan (as a nation state) was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. There is no evidence for that. 9/11 is thought to have been carried out by al-Qaeda and not the government of Afghanistan, and the links between both does not imply anything.Is there any evidence that the Afghan government even knew about 9/11? Did London bomb Dublin after IRA attacks? Did Washington bomb Washington after Oklahoma? It just doesn't make sense, does it. In fact al-Qaeda operates as a transnational organisation and the attack on Afghanistan has done little harm to al-Qaeda. The argument of self-defence doesn't hold. pir 19:28, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Pir, see my explanation above. I agree, it's questionable whether the Taliban knew about the 9/11 plot before it happened (although I suspect that the leadership probably did have some inkling of it). The key issue was that the Taliban did not surrender bin Laden nor cut off support for AQ, despite having been ordered to do so by the UN in 1999 and 2000. In other words, AQ was not simply a terrorist group operating within a country; it was a terrorist group operating openly with the active knowledge and support of that country's de facto government. This is very different to the situation with Ireland and the IRA. The conflict thus changed from being one between a state and a terrorist group, to being one between a state and another regime which was so intertwined with a terrorist group that it was itself, in effect, part of that group.

 * I should make one other point. The Taliban was not the "Afghan government" - it was not recognised as such internationally (if I remember rightly, Pakistan was the only country to recognise the Taliban as the legitimate government). Legally, the legitimate government of Afghanistan was the Northern Alliance coalition, which the Taliban had expelled from Kabul and bottled up in about 10% of Afghan territory before 9/11. If you look at the UN resolutions on Afghanistan, you'll notice that they define the Taliban as a "faction", not as the government - this is why. So our intervention in the Afghan civil war was, legally speaking, an intervention in support of the internationally recognised government against the Taliban insurgency. As far as I'm aware, there's nothing in the UN Charter that requires UN permission for one government to give military assistance to another. -- ChrisO 20:33, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * ChrisO: Thanks for your contribution - you are an effective advocate of the US position. You give us three different though contradictory reasons why the US-led attack on Afghanistan was legal:

 * [1] The Taliban were not the recognised government and the invasion was merely giving military assistance to the legitimate government. Unfortunately, as you state yourself, the US invoqued the right to "individual self-defence".

 * I didn't say that was the reason that the US invoked. I mentioned it to make the point that there was more than one right that the US could have invoked, if it had wanted to. -- ChrisO

 * [2] The Taliban refused to give up bin Laden. In fact they refused to hand him over unless the US produced evidence of his involvement in 9/11 (1). This is quite a sensible position: at that time, the US had not produced any evidence of al-Qaeda's responsibility. It is doubtful that bin Laden would have received a fair trial in the US (e.g. see Guantanamo, or Bush's soundbite that he wanted bin Laden "dead or alive"). EU countries routinely refuse to extradite people to the US if they risk the death penalty (outlawed in the EU). It is not unthinkable that the Taliban would have extradited bin Laden to a third country, if there had been genuine political will to choose the path of law&justice rather than war&mindless retaliation (for example the Taleban offered to hand over bin Laden to Saudi Arabia in 1998 (2) ). On Sept. 20. 2001, the shura, a council of Islamic clerics asked Osama bin Laden to leave Afghanistan voluntarily (3). On September 28., the Taliban changed their position and told bin Laden the leave the country (4). Finally, I can't see how this fits into the "individual self-defence" story.

 * I think there are three distinct issues to address here. The first is that because there was no extradition process between Afghanistan and the US (and the Taliban was not the recognised government anyway), there was no legal mechanism by which OBL could have been handed over.

 * The second is that just about every intelligence service in the world was telling its government that (a) AQ was behind the 9/11 attacks and (b) AQ and the Taliban had become so intertwined that they were, in effect, the same thing. The US concluded that the Taliban was not serious about handing over OBL. In any case, handing over OBL was *not* the key issue. The key issue was the continued existence of AQ, which the UN had already twice condemned the Taliban for sheltering. The Taliban shura would have done nothing about this issue, which was totally unacceptable to the US (understandably). You shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking OBL = al Qaeda; if OBL is ever captured, it's a certainty that US troops will stay in Afghanistan for a long time afterwards to mop up remaining AQ fighters.

 * The third issue is that it fits right into the middle of the "individual self-defence" story, because on September 13, 2001 Congress passed Joint Resolution 63, which stated:

 * Congress hereby declares that a state of war exists between the United States of America and any entity determined by the President to have planned, carried out, or otherwise supported the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.

 * Note the bit about "otherwise supported" - the resolution specifically targeted the sponsors and allies of the 9/11 terrorists, in other words the Taliban. Again, this is an entirely uncontentious principle of international law. When the US declared war on Nazi Germany in self-defence (Hitler actually declared war first, in solidarity with the Japanese), it also declared war on all of Germany's allies (Italy, Romania, Hungary etc). So in a formal sense, the war in Afghanistan actually began on September 13, although it took nearly a month more for military action to commence. -- ChrisO

 * [3] The attack of Afghanistan as Self-defence. Self-defence is the legitimate use of violence to protect oneself in a situation of immediate danger. If the UN allows self-defence it is in the situation where country X is attacked by country Y's military forces. How could this possibly apply to the 9/11 attacks? Al-Qaeda was is not the Afghan military. Also, there was no immediate danger as the attacks had happened already, and the danger that had existed did not just originate from Afghanistan. The attacks had been planned in Hamburg. Most of the perpetrators were Saudi. The suicide pilots had taken flight lessons in the US. etc. To accept the argument that self-defence allowed the attack of Afghanistan, is to allow the invasion of half the world's countries.

 * It applied for two reasons. First, AQ *was* in effect part of the Afghan (Taliban) military. Taliban troops were commanded by AQ commanders, and vice-versa. They fought alongside each other, and the two groups were so closely linked that they could effectively be considered the same. This is obviously very different from the situation in Germany - nobody could possibly argue that AQ's Hamburg cell was operating in cooperation with the German government or military.

 * Second, at the time there *was* a perceived "clear and present danger". I would guess from your edits that you live in the UK (as do I). However, I was actually in the US (including New York) during and immediately after 9/11. There was a very widespread fear that more "spectacular" attacks were about to occur. The Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco was closed because there were fears that a plane would be driven into that, too. I remember driving through Nevada and being stopped by a heavily armed National Guard unit near the Hoover Dam, which was turning back lorries for fear that they might be carrying truck bombs to blow up the dam. Intelligence agencies get reports of supposed terrorist plots all the time, but immediately after 9/11 nobody in the US wanted to take any risks, no matter how improbable they may now seem. The US wanted to destroy AQ as quickly as possible so that it would not have the opportunity to launch any more attacks. Bear in mind that at this time, nobody really knew just what its capabilities were (remember the rumours of chemical and nuclear weapons?). So the US had very good reasons to launch an immediate attack to remove what was seen as an immediate threat - waiting for a legal process to conclude would have taken far too long, could have left the US vulnerable to another AQ attack and would in any case have been political suicide for any US government in that situation.

 * At Wikipedia we must always strive for NPOV and not be advocates for any particular government or other group. From a NPOV, the attack of Afghanistan can not be construed as an act of self-defence.

 * I disagree. A NPOV would say that it was generally accepted that it was an act of self-defence (and give the arguments for this), but also recognise that some did not agree with this view (and give the arguments for that)

 * Even according to what you say, the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan did not have the explicit "support of the United Nations" as stated wrongly in the article. It should be made clear that the UN explicitly endorsed the right to self-defence, that the US interpretation was that it allowed them to invade Afghanistan, and that this interpretation is at least questionable.That is the only point I want to make here. pir 03:13, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Who questioned its legality? Not the UN, not any of the Security Council members, nor the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Some governments did criticise it, but I think you'll find that nobody introduced UN resolutions against it. The situation was very different to Iraq or, for that matter, Kosovo. -- ChrisO 20:40, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * ChrisO : OK the central question here is that of self-defence. I'll pass on the rest.

 * Your reference to US Congress Resolution 63 is pretty irrelevant here, for several reasons, chiefly because it has no validity in the international arena. The copmparison to WW2 doesn't hold either, because there war was declared against countries, in this resolution it is an undefined any entity determined by the President - since when is it possible for a state to declare war against terrorist groups?

 * I agree that just after the attacks an imminent danger was perceived - but this was by the US population not necessarily by the government. You would need to convince us that there was evidence of an imminent threat (I don't think there is any). Secondly you would need to show how exactly the war on Afghanistan could possibly have averted a hypothtical second wave of attacks (the war didn't start until about 3 weeks later, and as I have pointed out, the attacks were not organised in Afghanistan).

 * Btw. we are not splitting hairs here. The reality of the situation is that a country which spends over $400 billion on what they call "defence", more than the fifteen next countries combined, is invading countries on spurious grounds, but claiming it the be 'self-defence'. Just reflect on this for a second.

 * I am glad that you give away the real reason for the Afghanistan war in an aside: [ waiting for a legal process] would in any case have been political suicide for any US government in that situation. The simple truth is that the 9/11 attacks humiliated the world's remaining superpower, and there was incredible pressure for the US to launch military action to restore "credibility" . (This was of course exactly what al-Qaeda had wanted and aimed for). Everybody knew that was going to be the response and that's also why the UN and many nations did not protest but tried to make the best of it. However, it  was not an act of self-defence, it was an act of blind retaliation. The proof is that the war on Afghanistan made al-Qaeda stronger rather than weaker, and it did not make the US safer (even politicians keep on insisting that the danger persists).

 * Do we agree on the following: ?
 * [1] the UN did not 'explicitly' endorse the invasion of Afghanistan ;
 * [2] the UN did 'explicitly' endorse the right to self-defence ;
 * [3] the US claims the war on Afghanistan to be an act of self-defence
 * [4] we should include any effects of the invasion that fit into the self-defence story, as well as those that do not.

 * The best is to let facts speak for themselves. Sorry, I won't have Internet access for a week. pir 02:43, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely, that point needs to be made. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I would not call it questionable at all, Pir. Remmeber that the UN condemned the Taliban and Al-Qaida and agreed to help freeze funds. WhisperToMe 04:00, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * OK - please explain how the invasion of Afghanistan constitutes self-defence. I just don't get it. pir 04:36, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ok, if the U.S. did not invade Afghanistan, then the Taliban would still have been sheltering the leadership of Al-Qaida, and all of the characters that are part of the organization (Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, etc) would still be playing an active role. By attacking the Taliban, the United States removed the government that protected Al Qaida. Therefore, they were able to attack Al-Qaida fiercely. Al-Qaida is still existing, yet many of its core members have been killed or captured. By invading Afghanistan, the U.S. was able to damage Al-Qaida severely. WhisperToMe 04:54, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * WhisperToMe, I fear you're kidding yourself. The war on Afghanistan established al-Qaeda as a serious adversary of the US and led to a great recruiting drive. Any damage that it did to al-Qaeda had been anticipated.The net effect was to make al-Qaeda stronger. Watch out for the next attacks. pir 02:43, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Pir, I disagree. The war helped nab important guys like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who planned many spectacular plots, some of which actually worked, and some of which didn't. Helped make Operation Bojinka back in 1995! Now that he is gone, Al Qaida suffered a huge brain drain... Also, Abu Zubaydah and Ramzi Binalshibh have been captured. And Mohammed Atef is dead. All of this is due to the war. Al-Qaida has been an adversary since 1992, when they first attacked a hotel in Yemen. The attack only killed two tourists instead of soldiers, but by 1998, Al-Qaida got somewhat large recognition, and by 2001, it became a household name for terrorism... WhisperToMe 03:10, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Where is the evidence that the Taliban had bin Laden in custody? In order to "turn over" bin Laden they would have to take him into custody. Was this possible? Was this practical within the arbitrary timeline established by the Pentagon? - Plautus satire 05:21, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Where is the evidence that the US invasion of Afghanistan has impaired "Al-Qaida" in any significant way? By the way, I'd like to point out that the Mossad has already been busted once trying to set up phony al Qaeda "terrorist" cells in Gaza. How many more setups like this have there been? - Plautus satire 05:25, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * The United Nations Security Council demanded that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (aka the Taliban) hand over Osama. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan responded by saying they would not turn Osama over until the U.S. provided evidence that he was guilty. A shura formed in Afghanistan, and made a recommendation to the Taliban leadership to make Osama leave Afghanistan, thereby protecting Afghanistan from invasion. The U.S. rejected that idea. Kingturtle 05:30, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Also no evidence was provided that the Taliban had or could acquire custody of bin Laden. There wasn't even so much as a shred of evidence bin Laden was even in Afghanistan until his funeral in December of 2001. - Plautus satire 05:44, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * His funeral? Did I miss something along the way? -- ChrisO 20:40, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 6


text:
R-13 (missile)

The R-13 (ракета-13) was a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) developed by the Soviet Union starting around 1955. It was assigned the NATO reporting name SS-N-4 Sark and carried the GRAU index 4K50.

History
Development of the R-13 was authorised by the Soviet Supreme Council on 25 July 1955 for use on the Project 629 and Project 658 submarines. The design work was started by OKB-1 under Sergei Korolev before being transferred to CB Miasskoe engineering / Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau (chief designer - Viktor Makeyev). Final technical specifications was approved by 11 January 1956. Serial production was undertaken at Zlatoust Machine-Building Plant in 1959. The R-13 was a single-stage liquid-fuel rocket and entered service in 1961. This missile was somewhat similar in design to the R-11FM missile, which caused some confusion in Western intelligence services during the Cold War. The missiles were phased out from 1965 to 1975.

This missile was the first Soviet design to use a small set of rocket engines (vernier thrusters) to perform course and trajectory alterations instead of aerodynamic control surfaces, although a set of four stabilizers were used to keep the missile on-course during initial flight.

During initial testing before the missiles were deployed, 26 of 32 missiles (81%) were successfully launched. While the systems were deployed from 1961 to 1975, 225 of 311 launches (72%) were successful.

Operators

 * Soviet Navy
 * Soviet Navy

Specifications

 * Length: 11.8 m (38 ft 9 in)
 * Diameter: 1.3 m (4 ft 3 in)
 * Diameter (to stabilizers): 1.9 m (6 ft 3 in)
 * Launch weight: 13.7 t
 * Warhead: single thermonuclear: 1.2 to 2.0 Mt (perhaps as low as 1.0 Mt)
 * Propulsion: liquid-fuel rocket, single stage
 * Oxidizer: AK-271
 * Fuel: TG-02
 * Range: about 600 km
 * Launching technique: surfaced
 * CEP: 1.8 to 4 km (1.1 to 2.5 miles)

title: R-13 (missile)


text:
User talk:Fábio Emilio Costa

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here's some tips:
 * You can introduce yourself on the new users page.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like . If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
 * Remember to use the show preview button before you save a page.
 * If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

Other useful pages are: how to edit, how to write a great article, naming conventions, manual of style and the Wikipedia policies.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela. 23:38, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Harry Potter
RHB(AWB) 21:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC), on behalf of WPHarry Potter

title: User talk:Fábio Emilio Costa