Unrest in Tibet!!

AssassinsMace said:

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.

Click to expand...

Mace, don't make things up please. That has no relation at all to what I said. I commented that foreign governments have someone that they can talk to in asking China to keep the situation calm. That doesn't lead to anything you said.

Also the Iraqi insurgents are heavily armed so deadly force has to be used - the Tibetans on the other hand are mostly "armed" with rocks and can be controlled with riot Police.

Like the US and Israel?

Click to expand...

The US and Israel have blocked Chinese resolutions on Tibet?

Still your answer glosses over that Tibetans killed innocent civilians.

Click to expand...

I don't remember you asking me if that had happened. Of course it's wrong when that happens, and I have never sought to gloss over it at all. But those troublemakers are a minority - most Tibetans aren't doing that sort of thing. They just want to protest against how they are marginalised in their own home.

Now as for yourself, where have you acknowledged that the Chinese government has killed innocent Tibetans either now or in the past?

Moving on, one problem that is clear is the difficulty in getting accurate reports out of Tibet. The Economist has a reporter there, but apart from that foreign journalists get in.

If some people feel the foreign media has a one-sided view of what is going on in Tibet then, ironically, that is mostly down to the Chinese government limiting access to the region.

OK everybody, lets keep the conversation in Central Asia, otherwise the Purple Tops will close this thread faster than you can say "No Ketchup on my Spinach or Ice in my Vodka"

Fu

They're not orchestrated at all

Click to expand...

I suggest you spend some time and read the very informative article by M K Bhadrakumar, which Autumn Child posted near the top of the first page. I follow the mans articles closely as being a former senior Indian Diplomat in Central Asia and the Mid East, he is what you could call somewhat of an insider. The information and insights he offers are first rate and so when he says when writing in Dharamsala:

How much of the violence on Friday was pre-planned or orchestrated from outside Tibet, it is difficult to assess from Dharamsala. The Chinese authorities have alleged that the "Dalai Lama clique" instigated the violence. But one thing stands out.

The complete coordination with which the apparatus of the Tibetan "government-in-exile" has sprung into high-quality action on the political and propaganda front leaves little doubt that it was at the very minimum anticipating Friday's eruption. Tibetan activists here are more forthcoming. They darkly hinted they were indeed expecting the disturbances. But they refuse to elaborate how they knew or who their collaborators were or what they did with what they knew.

Click to expand...

I think it deserves serious attention.

That's a rather improper comparison and you know it.

Click to expand...

Being considerably your senior in years, I remember very clearly how Mugabe was fated by the West when he was an opposition leader. I say the comparison survives scrutiny very strongly. Add to the equation the way he ruled Tibet before 59 and the fact that his boyhood teacher was a Sergeant in the SS.....

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.

Click to expand...

This is probably the true issue as regards to the real motives of the majority of the rioters. it is the issue of the benefits of development not trickling down far and wide enough, quickly enough. It would be a difficult enough problem at the best of times, but the Politicisation of the issues and the stoking of tensions by the Lama and his clique have done nothing to help alleviate the genuine problems of the Tibetan people and are the clearest possible indicator, that they will be better off once this tired, bitter and used up old man has indeed departed this life!

SampanViking said:

I think it deserves serious attention.

Click to expand...

He doesn't offer any evidence, just guesswork. And at best he suggests someone or some people are behind it. He doesn't implicate the Dalai Lama as you did.

I say the comparison survives scrutiny very strongly.

Click to expand...

I say it doesn't. Mugabe regularly talks about using violence to obtain what he wants. The Dalai Lama says peace is the road for him.

the Politicisation of the issues and the stoking of tensions by the Lama and his clique

Click to expand...

The Chinese have been stoking tensions for a long time and more recently when they tried to "re-educate" monks on who they should be loyal to. It was really bad when the CCP said that it had the right to decide who the next Lama would be. Which is rather ridiculous given its secular nature.

This is what Zhang Qingli said last year:

"The Communist Party is like the parent to the Tibetan people, and it is always considerate about what the children need.... The Central Party Committee is the real Buddha for Tibetans."

That's like Gordon Brown saying the Labour Party is the real Jesus for Christians, Sampan. Even in the UK that would cause outrage.

I can't think of anything more insensitive Zhang could have said. Clearly neither he nor his bosses in Beijing know how to interact with Tibetans in a manner that respects their dignity.

they will be better off once this tired, bitter and used up old man has indeed departed this life!

Click to expand...

Quite the reverse. Without his peaceful guidance even more people will take to violence. Besides you can't blame a guy hundreds of miles away for Tibetans' lack of economic advancement. It's mostly down to the Chinese government and its Tibetan regime.

Mace, don't make things up please. That has no relation at all to what I said. I commented that foreign governments have someone that they can talk to in asking China to keep the situation calm. That doesn't lead to anything you said.

Also the Iraqi insurgents are heavily armed so deadly force has to be used - the Tibetans on the other hand are mostly "armed" with rocks and can be controlled with riot Police.

Click to expand...

And all that stuff about how if you don't have access to the world, violence is all right has anything to do justifying innocent civilians being killed?

The Tibetans were armed by the US and India back in the 1950s. So I geuss that means the occupation of Tibet is justifiable.

The US and Israel have blocked Chinese resolutions on Tibet?

Click to expand...

No the US blocks UN resolutions addressing Israel's treatment of the Palestinians which you said no country does except for China. See the error of you ways?

I don't remember you asking me if that had happened. Of course it's wrong when that happens, and I have never sought to gloss over it at all. But those troublemakers are a minority - most Tibetans aren't doing that sort of thing. They just want to protest against how they are marginalised in their own home.

Click to expand...

All I said in my initial post the China critics are justifying killing innocent civilians. I didn't address you. Since you replied, you were in fact on the side of justifying it or you wouldn't have repied to my post.

Now as for yourself, where have you acknowledged that the Chinese government has killed innocent Tibetans either now or in the past?

Click to expand...

I have never addressed the Tibet issue here unless you're doing what you do and generalizing other opposing comments from others here and making them mine.

I really don't what the truth is regarding Tibet. I certainly know the romantic utopia propaganda image of Tibet is wrong. And I know the West doesn't really care about Tibet except that it gives them a reason to complain about China. Because if they really cared they would've done something by now. But that would open up their ugly history of occupation and oppression to this very day. But now with the justifying of murdering innocent civilians from people who always say that wrong for others to do, this is my first stance.

Sorry Sampan if this violates your warning. I was writing this when you posted your warning.

FuManChu said:

They were peaceful until Tibetans were assaulted by Chinese Police/thugs. Then the long-term resentment towards outsiders boiled over and things turned nasty.

Click to expand...

So now its justifiable that Tibetans turn this into ethnic cleansing? This has effectively become a us versus them race issue. Tibetans arn't targetting the government as they should've been. Rather all minorities in Tibet are targetted which includes the Hui(muslims) and mongols

Funny thing about these tibet activist is that their opression story keep changing when it suits them. The irony is the transition from Tibetans youth prosecuting tibetans during the cultural revolution to Chinese prosecuting Tibetans to finally Han chinese prosecuting Tibetans when in reality Tibetn themselves were really the culprit just like the rest of china.

The only thing to be gained with violence in the free tibet movement now is a harsh crackdown.

So stop spewing propaganda unless you wish to go to tibet and join them in a chinese detention center.
Which is exactly where these rioters will end up. I hope more video footage is taken and these idiots end up in court where they will be processed with due process.

AssassinsMace said:

And all that stuff about how if you don't have access to the world, violence is all right has anything to do justifying innocent civilians being killed?

Click to expand...

You're still misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say any of that at all.

The Tibetans were armed by the US and India back in the 1950s.

Click to expand...

So? That doesn't require China to treat Tibetans poorly now. Those weapons wouldn't be any use now even if they were still around.

Since you replied, you were in fact on the side of justifying it or you wouldn't have repied to my post.

Click to expand...

That is strange thinking. Because I criticise your logic that means I agree with the misconceived view you had of something being the case? Really, I think you need to be less one-sided in your views and consider that maybe someone is criticising your thinking rather than agreeing with your opponents.

I really don't what the truth is regarding Tibet.

Click to expand...

You're very sure that Tibetans have been killing innocent non-Tibetans, so why are you reluctant to admit that Chinese Police/troops/paramilitaries/whoever have been killing innocent Tibetans?

If you want to believe the former but not the latter I think you're being influenced by what you would prefer to be the case (Tibetans causing all the trouble), so you can avoid thinking about what you do not want to be the case (that the Chinese State is causing trouble too).

As for myself I am confident both the former and the latter are true.

hallo84 said:

So now its justifiable that Tibetans turn this into ethnic cleansing?

Click to expand...

Hallo, that is a gross exaggeration. Some Tibetans have got out of control and committed crimes, but there is no ethnic cleansing. Far more Tibetans have been killed over the past decades by the Chinese State than non-Tibetans at the hands of Tibetans, so if there is any ethnic cleansing going on you've got it backwards.

This has effectively become a us versus them race issue.

Click to expand...

It became like that when Beijing encouraged the flood of non-Tibetan immigrants into Tibet and then did its best to keep the Tibetans compliant through coercion.

The only thing to be gained with violence in the free tibet movement is a harsh crackdown.

Click to expand...

If Beijing jails people for trying to use peaceful means of addressing problems then they only leave people with violence. It's sad, but it's the truth.

So stop spewing propaganda unless you wish to join them in a chinese detention center.

Click to expand...

Please do not make unpleasant threats to control what I say.

I find it striking that most people in the Western world seem to be unsympathetic to the most recent Tibetan protests, especially the Free-Tibet faction, who seems to have gotten a lot quieter. A few reasons for this are:

1. Weakening economy at home: many people just don't care about other people's plights when they have many problems of their own closer to home.

2. War in Iraq and Afghanistan, with many cited civilian deaths and human rights abuse: Westerners seem to be more concerned about their country's human rights issues to worry and accuse others of human rights abuse.

3. Pictures of Tibetan protests and police arrests in the United States, Europe, India and Nepal: Pictures of Tibetans being arrested and wrestling with police in other countries overshadow the pictures taken of Chinese police holding shields and batons.

4. Dalai Lama is in India: The Dalai Lama has not been in Tibet for almost 50 years, and much has changed in Tibet since then, so he has no power in telling the people what to do.

5. Most pictures depict the Tibetans as an unruly mob beating innocent bystanders, burning people and belongings, and ransacking stores: This is going to hurt the Tibetan image as a peaceful group who hold non-violent protests against a so-called "violent" Communist regime. I think what happened in Tibet really backfired when things turned violent for the Tibetans. The Communist Party probably wanted things to get a little out of hand before moving in and dealing harshly with the mob. This way, the early stories just show violence being commited by Tibetans against the Han and other Chinese minorities.

6. Completion of the Qinghai-Tibetan railway: Most recent travelers to Tibet who took pictures probably used this railway and found the Chinese hospitality and the modernization or living standards in Lhasa quite good. Many recent pictures from Tibet also show a nice city with green lawns, many restaurants and shops.

7. Perception of China as a rapidly develping country with growing influence: People's perception of China has changed and many in the West are actually quite optimistic about the country, where people are living better and the cities are growing at rates much envied by other developing countries. Also, people are excited about China's first time hosting the Olympics, and wish it success, as the Olympics is a symbolic ceremony of the peaceful gathering of countries that trancends politics and past grievances in giving praise to human culture and the human will to overcome difficulties.

8. Ease of information on issues and events through the internet: People's cultural understanding has expanded greatly thanks to the internet and websites like Wikipedia, where information is shared and presented from all sides to get a fairly balanced view. It's not like before where one group can have a huge sway over the public because access to information is more limited and harder to get, especially during the 60s and 70s when Dalai Lama was popular with the West and China was viewed as isolated.

You're still misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say any of that at all.

Click to expand...

Then explain further because it sounds like you were arguing that because the Tibetans have no country of their own to address world institutions, they have a right to be violent. Just like the US declared no-country's-army-insurgency in Iraq.

If you weren't justifying the attack and murder of innocent civilians by Tibetan thugs, then why did you bother replying to my initial post unless you just want an excuse to argue.

So? That doesn't require China to treat Tibetans poorly now. Those weapons wouldn't be any use now even if they were still around.

Click to expand...

You're really fishing. The Iraq insurgency was armed. The Tibetans were armed. If the surge is working in Iraq, then why hasn't the US ended their occupation. As McCain has said, the US will be there for a hundred years.

That is strange thinking. Because I criticise your logic that means I agree with the misconceived view you had of something being the case? Really, I think you need to be less one-sided in your views and consider that maybe someone is criticising your thinking rather than agreeing with your opponents.

Click to expand...

So you admit you're just looking for an excuse to argue. It was clear. I don't how you can argue against that it's wrong to kill innocent civilains. So your point is I don't have the right to discuss that innocent civilians were killed by Tibetan thugs. What's that about complaing about Chinese censorship again?

You're very sure that Tibetans have been killing innocent non-Tibetans, so why are you reluctant to admit that Chinese Police/troops/paramilitaries/whoever have been killing innocent Tibetans?

If you are sure of the former you should be sure of the latter. If you are unsure about the latter you cannot be sure about the former.

Click to expand...

We do know that as from eye-witness accounts from Western tourists that saw Tibetan thugs stone, stab, and burn people to death. Ironically there are no witness accounts of Tibetans being killed or attacked even. Just hear-say from outsiders. And there's a picture of a fire-fighter laying dead attacked by Tibetan thugs near him. American police shoot people who do that. Are you going to argue now that Chinese civilians attacked them first?