D
Deleted member 675
Guest
They were peaceful until Tibetans were assaulted by Chinese Police/thugs. Then the long-term resentment towards outsiders boiled over and things turned nasty.
Unrest in Tibet!!
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
- Status
They were peaceful until Tibetans were assaulted by Chinese Police/thugs. Then the long-term resentment towards outsiders boiled over and things turned nasty.
The motive of these highly orchestrated riots is nothing more than spite. The Dalia Lama knows full well that nothing he does or says will advance his cause one inch, so the only reason to launch these attacks is to try to spoil China's coming out party in August.
He seems to have forgotten his own law of Karma however as all that this has achieved is to show Tibet Separatism for the nasty thuggish and utterly regressive movement that it is. Now it has blood on its hands and in a few hours has crossed the line from perceived peaceful victim to vicious terrorist; xenophobic and religiously intolerant, even attacking the religious houses of other faiths.
The Lama has tried to project himself as a kind of Asian Nelson Mandela, but with these attacks, his intolerance of other races and religions and his attempt to reverse the arrival of the modern world into Tibet, he has shown himself closer to being its Robert Mugabe, another old man terrified of no longer being needed by his people.
I am sure that Beijing is fully aware of the above and that those countries that host organisations funding and promoting Lamist Terrorists will be reminded about the help they need from China to fight those that they label terrorists themselves.
Trust me, the effects of this will carry on long after the headlines are forgotten!
He seems to have forgotten his own law of Karma however as all that this has achieved is to show Tibet Separatism for the nasty thuggish and utterly regressive movement that it is. Now it has blood on its hands and in a few hours has crossed the line from perceived peaceful victim to vicious terrorist; xenophobic and religiously intolerant, even attacking the religious houses of other faiths.
The Lama has tried to project himself as a kind of Asian Nelson Mandela, but with these attacks, his intolerance of other races and religions and his attempt to reverse the arrival of the modern world into Tibet, he has shown himself closer to being its Robert Mugabe, another old man terrified of no longer being needed by his people.
I am sure that Beijing is fully aware of the above and that those countries that host organisations funding and promoting Lamist Terrorists will be reminded about the help they need from China to fight those that they label terrorists themselves.
Trust me, the effects of this will carry on long after the headlines are forgotten!
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
I love how there's justifying of attacking and murdering Chinese civilians. In Iraq when Iraqis kill Americans whether it be soldiers or civilians, they are called terrorists. And in a NYTimes article, the Dalai Lama supported the invasion of Iraq. More hypocrisy as usual.
panzerkom
Junior Member
They were peaceful until Tibetans were assaulted by Chinese Police/thugs. Then the long-term resentment towards outsiders boiled over and things turned nasty.
To be fair, from the clips I've watched and media reports that I've read -- BBC, CNN, and various newspapers based in the States -- my gut feeling is that both sides need to share the blame, although I still need more FACTS to form a final opinion.
Everybody can agree on the fact that the protests have been going on since March 10, in various Tibetan towns in China and also in other countries like India, Nepal, Australia, Belgium, Canada, the U.S. etc. While a lot of media described these protests as "peaceful," arrests were made in almost all of these cases.
A good friend of mine took part in the anti-NMD protests at the Democratic National Convention. I gave her a ride there and watched the whole thing, so I know what a peaceful protest looks like. Just from the media clips, the protests in India, Nepal and Belgium where the protesters were rushing into police officers with sticks and poles can hardly be called "peaceful."
Was the violence on Mar. 14 triggered by police brutality? It's possible, but without independent verification, I'd be a little skeptical, seeing how people rushing in and tackling and throwing punches at police officers is considered "peaceful" by Richard Gere and the Dalai Lama. Go to BBC.com, search for keywords "tibetan" and "india" and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Besides, police brutality should not be an excuse to start a riot. Hundreds were arrested at the Democratic National Convention, people got pepper sprayed and thrown to the ground and handcuffed, but did they go around setting fire to buildings? -- NO!
With that said, I think it's ridiculous for the Chinese government to say that shots weren't fired or to categorically deny deaths from police gunfire before an investigation has taken place.
I'm sure that most of the people here don't want to see a war between China and the United States due to mis-calculation or mis-understanding -- at least, that's part of the reason why I'm here. On the same token, I'm sure most of you guys don't wanna see any innocent people killed, whether they're Tibetan or Muslim or Han Chinese. So let's just get the FACTS first, shall we?
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 675
Guest
They're not orchestrated at all - they're mostly the result of years of feelings of being let down, marginalised and mistreated building up.
How can the Police expect Tibetans to respect other religions when they don't respect Tibetan faith? The authorities should set an example, not demonstrate that might = right.
That's a rather improper comparison and you know it. The Dalai Lama speaks of peace and negotiation. Mugabe screams about beating up his opponents.
1. It is those very organisation that push for a peaceful resolution to the Tibetan problem. Without them young Tibetans have no faith that their grievances will be solved without violence. I wonder if they're starting to think that those pressure groups won't change anything, which is why this happened.
2. What help has China provided the world in fighting terrorism other than fine words?
Can I have some media quotes that JUSTIFY people being killed, please? So far I have only read factors that are behind Tibetan grievances as to why they protested in the first place.
optionsss
Junior Member
Maybe, deadly force is a little misleading, but they definitely should be more aggressive to restore the order. I have read several accounts of Han Chinese living in fears during the violent protest this time and last time. On one account the person state that his family shop was looted and he saw one of his neighbors coming back home almost dripping blood from his head. The police need protect the innocent people, especially against the looters. Actually the average Tibetan's life is probably better, since they are part of China, so much more resources the government invested to tibet, even the Dali lama acknowledged that.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
When the news and foreign governments gloss over Tibetan thuggery and violence upon not just Chinese civilians but also against Muslims by intentionally burning down a mosque, but call for China to restrain itself and not Tibetans... that's called justifying it. And China is accused of also oppressing these Muslims as well but somehow when Tibetans target them for being Musilm, that's not an issue.
When China doesn't address human rights concerns brought up by others, they get accused of justify it. So if all the China critics don't address the violence by Tibetans, they're all justifying it. I love the hypocrisy.
Countdown to lockdown...
D
Deleted member 675
Guest
Indeed, but if the Police bully civilians as well that doesn't help. I find that Police can normally only keep things calm if they set an example for others to follow.
The problem is that the Han/Muslim immigrants have benefited the most. Some Tibetans have done better, but overall unemployment is higher for them than it is for the outsiders who moved in. China encouraged more consumerist attitudes in Tibet partly because I think it believed younger people would be interested in wealth rather than politics or religion. But as those girls 'n guys found the new luxuries they were bombarded with through the media to be out of their reach it made them more resentful of China/Chinese people.
Also the opening up of Tibet has made many people worried about the environmental impacts of development.
China is a single government countries can call upon to act with decorum - there is no one amongst the protestors and rioteers they can talk to, especially as they have no contact with Tibet because China has blocked access and communications.
They have also called for a speedy end to the turmoil without more violence and talks to resolve existing problems. The situation can't end without violence if civilians use violence, can it?
China has used its position in the international community, such as on the UN Security Council, to limit official action taken against certain human rights abusers, which is why it has been criticised. Furthermore it has a great deal of influence with those countries.
In comparison I can't remember the last time the US vetoed or threatened to veto a Chinese resolution on Tibet. Similarly none of China's critics have as much influence in Tibet as China does. There's little they can do to calm things down, other than pressure Beijing because Beijing is the one party who might listen even if that's unlikely. Which, as I said, is why they ask Beijing to keep things calm and not make them worse.
Last edited by a moderator:
optionsss
Junior Member
I kinds of doubt that, normally riots like this took place when people does not have a source of income and are unhappy with the society, but in Tibet's case, those people normally just blame Chinese government for their own problems. They normally rob and attack other people for no particular reason.
Last edited:
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
So in Iraq when the US says the insurgents are of no country's army that justifies violating rights given under the Geneva Convention. But according to you all their violence against Americans is justifible. So the terrorist have a right to be violent because they have no means of communication to the world institutions to address their grievances.
Like the US and Israel? And what about all those countries that I can name that are US allies that violate human rights and never get address at the UN because... they're US allies? I would love to name some but that's not allowed according to the rules. Still your answer glosses over that Tibetans killed innocent civilians.
I love your spin.
Last edited:
- Status