Tibet

[Shdo]

currently under china control, when the Chinese took over over 1 million people died and thousands of shrines were destroyed (i would remind you those are buddhists and i doubt that the shrines were the center of attacks on Chinese forces or something)


at the moment demonstrations are being held in Tibet and the result is over 100 deaths already. what is your stand on the Chinese occupation of Tibet?


hopefully with time we will expend this debate to why did china invaded(apparently to modernize Tibet and to weaken the imperialist forces, with an imperialist move of their own) and what should be the respond? maybe people, groups and countries should ban the coming Olympic games in china?

[melboyd~]

hm, i dont have things to debate here, but just want to point out regarding the coming olympic game in china. my friends presented something abt the hotelier issue in china in our class last week. and it seems like the ppl who work there lack of english language proficiency, thus it concerns the country when it comes to cater the athletes from the participating countries who will stay in those hotels. *XP that's it*

and shdo, thanx for pointing that out, coz i have no idea abt chinese occupation in tibet. i still wonder why there are countries that want to invade others and caused lots of death (i'm quite ignorant to worldly issue..so yea :P), they could have just sit still and live.

[Shdo]

the tibet issue is really weird to me, i dont understand why they invaded there, its not like china lack size.

[Syn]

They invaded Tibet because it's a strategic place. When you are in Tibet, you have the doors for India and Pakistan (spelling?) opened. It is a very important place, not to mention that they also destroyed a lot of forests that brought them the wood they needed.

The Tibet situation is a complicated one and I wish that they stopped acting like this. Saying that the Dalai-Lama is behind this is pure BS, especially when he tries since a long time ago to ease things with the chinese government.

And while I'm at it, they should also release the Panchen Lama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panchen_Lama). Because really, such attitude is not tolerable.

[Shdo]

so what should be done? maybe people should ban the olympics games? they are in china this year.

[Syn]

Yeah, right, if it was that simple, it'd be already done. The situation is extremly complicated and nothing had been done for years now >____>
I doubt anyone on this forum has the total understanding of what's going on for both parties and can make something. It's sad, but it's true.

[Marionette]

This is a sensitive issue, especially for me. But as an Chinese citizen who was mostly educated in the US, here's what I know and think.

I don't think that the China/Tibet dynamic is very unique, I think it's a problem many large, multi-ethic nations have: different ethic groups, especially those with a history of conflict, will compete bitterly. And when a certain area is occupied by ethic minorities who don't identify with the ethic majority, they tend want to secede from the country, like UK/Ireland&Scotland, Canada/Quebec and Russia/various regions.

Basically, it's complicated. BUT from what I have gathered only the Tibetan exiled government claimed that 100+ protesters were killed without much evidence (I think it's possible, but it's still without evidence), and people coming out of there mostly reported Tibetan protesters attacking ethically non-Tibetan residents. For what it's worth, here's the wikipedia article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_unrest_in_Tibet

I think the PRC government, my government, had done Tibet many wrongs (I feel this way at least, I don't know enough about the situation, although probably more than most people in the US does). This time however, even if the PRC government did all the things the the Tibetan protesters claimed they did to them: passing down economic policies unfavorable to the Tibetans, not allowing peaceful protests or even police shooting protesters, does not justify killings civilians only because of their race and religion (Tibetan rioters targeted ethic Hans, Muslim Huis and other minorities). I don't think that this is about Tibetan Independence anymore (to quote the Candian tourist/eye-witness), this is mostly a situation where the regional ethic majority feels threatened by immigrants who are ethic/religious minorities (mostly economically, also culturally), and committing acts of violence against them, and I'm a bit outraged that the west is ignoring that.

[Shdo]

i still dont understand why china need tibet, its not like its rich in resources or there is much land shortage.

[Marionette]

i still dont understand why china need tibet, its not like its rich in resources or there is much land shortage.
Because China is greedy, like every other nation in the world. However, you talked about the recent unrest, so I think you should at least learn a bit more about it before commenting on it.

[Shdo]

that is one of the reason for this thread, dont you think? the little i knew about the tibetian affair was from this book about western philosephy and tibetian one, they mentioned the genocide during the invasion.

[Marionette]

It is, which is why I think you should look into it a bit more. Invasion? Are you talking about the recent event or what happened in 1959? But either way, what make you think that the west and Tibet isn't as biased and propagandist as the PRC on this particular issue?

[Shdo]

i dont care about propaganda, i observe from the sidelines, i dont see any reason for china to control tibet. its not a chinise homeland, i doubt there were attacks by buddhist terrorists and there is no oil there.
so what does china have to do in tibet? in my eyes, nothing. they should either leave or give them cultural independence like their leader asks.


if no1 here can give me a reason for china to control tibet then what should my view be if not pro tibetian? i still dont understand what the chinise doing there.

[Marionette]

Again, I'm not discussing Tibetan Independence issues with you, I'm just calling out your obvious ignorance and misleading statements about the recent event.

What do you mean "i dont care about propaganda"? You mean you don't care that what you are quoting is propaganda?

if no1 here can give me a reason for china to control tibet then what should my view be if not pro tibetian? i still dont understand what the chinise doing there.
Again, please actually read what I'm saying. I'm not being pro either side here, just pointing out that I think what the Tibetan rioters doing in this particular situation is a atrocity and not in line with their leader the Dalai Lama's teaching.

[Shdo]

when i wrote the first post that was the only information i had(pretty old by now), i could either write that or write nothing and thus this thread wouldnt even exist and some people wouldnt even aware of the situation. also keep in mind that by the name tibet in the thread, i am talking about the whole issue, what happend, what happening now and what will be done. if you insist to discuss only one part then feel free to come up with your point of view on that part alone.


i on my side want to know what china have to do in tibet, as of now i still didnt got any answer so ill guess ill wait untill some1 will give me one.

[Marionette]

when i wrote the first post that was the only information i had(pretty old by now), i could either write that or write nothing and thus this thread wouldnt even exist and some people wouldnt even aware of the situation. also keep in mind that by the name tibet in the thread, i am talking about the whole issue, what happend, what happening now and what will be done. if you insist to discuss only one part then feel free to come up with your point of view on that part alone.
That's what I'm doing.

And regardless of why you wrote misleading statements, if it's wrong than it's wrong, and therefore should be pointed out.

[Shdo]

actually i didnt gave wrong data, i wrote "at the moment demonstrations are being held in Tibet and the result is over 100 deaths already. what is your stand on the Chinese occupation of Tibet?"
isnt its true that over 100 people died, i never said that the chinise shoot anyone or ran over people with tanks, i sait that there are demonstrations right now and people died as result, if its from chinise gunfire or escelation to violent riots we dont know since the place is pretty closed up for media and only little bits of information comes out, we can either trust the tibetian version or the chinise but the fact remain that 100 people died and that there is occupation over there that triggered the violance.

[Marionette]

Hum, no it's not true because there's no evidence for any kind of number, especially not something this big. And there's definitely no evidence that the occupation is the only thing that triggered it - for one thing, you don't know what those people are thinking when they burn non-Tibetan owned shops, and the eye witnesses all seem to say that it seems to be about racial hatred more than anything else.

What we have is very little due to PRC censorship, but that doesn't mean that you could speculate anything you want and calls it facts.

[Shdo]

who speculate? there are 100 people dead, this happend when the tibetians started to demonstrate\riot. that what i said and its true, even if all the deads are chinise this still happening as a result for the occupation (the reason beyond the riots) which fuel the riots.

i told no lie, people did die as part of the demonstration, on which side? i never said they were 100 tibetians or 100 chinise so before you personally assualt me at least quate me or better yet...dont personally assualt me.

[Marionette]

Please find a semi-creditable source you quote those things from, because I don't think there is any that would state just how many people died or what the riot is fueled by (independence movement or socio-economic factors).

I don't know whether or not you are lying because I don't know what you are thinking, so I retrieving from saying that you are speculating. But I'm pretty sure what you are saying is speculative and untrue, and that's not a personal attack.
if its from chinise gunfire or escelation to violent riots we dont know since the place is pretty closed up for media and only little bits of information comes out, we can either trust the tibetian version or the chinise but the fact remain that 100 people died and that there is occupation over there that triggered the violance.
And by the way, the Tibetan version and the Chinese version (both completely biased) is not the only sources out there, what I'm believing is the English reporter allowed in Tibet and foreign eye-witnesses.

[Shdo]

i used my country internet channels and news, it will make little sense for you, when i made this thread i used those as info (and they are the ones that made me aware of the situation) but i would remind that i didnt said that this side or that side killed those people, only that 100 people died and that what was known when i read the news, if after the info changed and the number was reduced or increased is no reasonto change the number.


i also find this conversation very fruitless if your whole problem with me since page one is because i wrote the number i was aware of at the time and not your number (which might and might not be true)

[Marionette]

I don't have a number, nobody have a number that they can prove at this point, that's my point. And no, that's not my only reason to claimed that what you are saying is wrong; in fact, I'm more concerned with the fact that you suggest the occupation is the main thing that fueled the riot, when in fact the little (more) reliable information we have suggests otherwise.

I don't care why you wrote what you wrote, if your information is outdated and completely baseless than that's what it is, and that's enough for it to be changed.

[Shdo]

according to you i need to change the first post everytime the number change? when 150 people will die ill need to change it as well? and when its 200? do i need to keep on changing the number to appease you? dont you think its a little too much to ask?

as for claiming that the current riots are not a result of the occupation...plz explain to me what can it be else? and when you do bring a reason ask yourself if that reason root isnt the occupation.

[Marionette]

I don't think that's too much to ask when your number is baseless and untrue because there are no numbers to change.

And I provided proof of why I don't think it is about the occupation is the reason: eye witnesses and the reporter from the Economist both said that violence is directed toward Han Chinese/Muslim Hui civilians (from children to the elderly), mostly Han and Hui owned businesses, also the Lhasa Mosque. And that is what why they think that the riot is about racial tension. You can find all the related reference links from wikipedia, which is all from established western media organizations (who, despite being highly biased on this, reported those things).

[Shdo]

racial tension. those immigrents arrived to tibet after the occupation, there is also many reported discrimination against native tibetians in jobs and such and from what you say the attacks are on businesses. basicly the occupation create this discrimination so yea its the ultimate root of this riots and for the deaths that occured.

[Marionette]

That's like saying 9/11 victims died because of US presences in the Middle East. It suggests that the US is more responsible than terrorist for their death, or even that what the terrorist did to innocent civilians are justified if the US indeed did them wrong (whether they did or not is not the point). There's a huge difference between indirect and direct causes that should be made clear.

EDIT: actually, 9/11 is not a good example because your logic make even less sense. What you are saying is more like saying if legal immigrants are killed by natives it's because of the government letting them in and treating them favorably (causing them to "steal their jobs") when they shouldn't have.

[Shdo]

the diffrence is that the tibetian didnt burned houses in china itself but during their riots, assuming that the chinise telling the truth.
but again ill repeat on what i wrote on the first post:

at the moment demonstrations are being held in Tibet and the result is over 100 deaths already. either way, if you call it demonstrations or riots its still the cause for the deaths, be them chinise or tibetians. my personal opinion is pro tibetian until some pro chinise will give me a good reason for their occupation of tibet.

if you have a diffrent prespective about tibet feel free to post it but that dosnt call for assualting or judging my first post word by word. keep this thread on tibet and not about shdo.

[Marionette]

See my edited post. Are you suggesting that this is understandable because they killed immigrants on their own land?

At this point, I don't give a shit about what you are pro or anti and said nothing about that. And I am not being pro-Chinese (or pro-PRC would be the better way to put it) here at all, I'm believing western eye-witnesses and I'm defending the innocents who died/was harmed. I am challenging your statements (not your opinion or sentiment), which is about the recent event in Tibet, and therefore very much related to the topic.

EDIT:
assuming that the chinise telling the truth.
How many times do I have to show you that these claim didn't just came from China but from almost all western eye-witnesses and established western news agencies? And by the way, they didn't just burn houses, they burned people alive in them - one of them a Tibetan girl who worked in a Han owned store.

[Syn]

so what does china have to do in tibet? in my eyes, nothing. they should either leave or give them cultural independence like their leader asks.
I already told you in the first page. What do you not understand in 'Tibet is a strategic land in Himalaya, giving a point of access to what they didn't have in China for All Asia'?

It saddens me, all those violences, because I don't believe that anything will be solved by the violence... China should have listened the Dalai-lama a long time ago, he's not even asking for free Tibet :(

[Shdo]

that is your point of view and most likely its true, but they must have some excuse beside 'we need land' when some1 conquer another they give all this noble causes and excuses, for example bringing a better regime somewhere or helping this minority or the other from their current govrament.
i dont think their officel reason is 'we want to a little imperialist' and that is what i am looking for. their side.

[Marionette]

Because China consider Tibet a part of their land while Tibetans don't, like UK claiming Ireland/Scotland and such, like I've stated in my first post.

And I still want an answer to my question: are you saying that it's justified for natives to kill unwanted immigrants? How could people discuss something when you insist on providing information without being able to prove their creditability while ignoring strong evidences against you?

[Shdo]

1)i dont think its justified, but does it matter? that is their reason and its a fact on the surface, if there wasnt any occupation then there wouldnt be any deaths right now, either because there would be peace or because those immigrents wouldnt be there from the start.

2)you are free to discuss the situation, actually if you go to the first post you will see that this discussion isnt about the current events only but on the occupation as a whole over all the years, people did it before you started to complain and might return to it one day and it have no relevance to the info i got from my news channels, for the first 1-2 days this was considered the truth and i posted this thread after an hour since i heard the story, hoping to actually learn about this conflict. if the number was changed after a day or two its irrelivent, the number will change again in 2 weeks so will i give exact number at every moment? when the topic is about the whole story of tibet? if you want to keep a count on the dead you are free to do that, make a post every week or so about how many died till now and on what side so you will be content with information that might or might not be true.



*********************************************
i find it weird that they see tibet as part of them, from what i know they have diffrent cultures and were seperated for centuries. are they planing to add the koreas as well? sound like a very weak excuse, i guess ill have to wait until a pro PRC come and explain their side.

[Marionette]

This matters because you are making false claims, which take away your credibility in any discussion. How was it "considered the truth" when there are no proof of it ever? If you insist that the recent event have nothing to do with it, than don't cite it.

And yeah why those people are killed does matter, it changes the nature of the recent event and make it not as relevant to the status of Tibet and more relevant to racism and anti-Muslim sentiments. The fact is many natives persecute immigrant groups because they feels threatened by them financially, culturally or politically, with or without dispute about sovereignty or a government backing the immigrant. Without PRC rule Tibet will still have immigrants (like every region in the world does), and if the current violent groups feel that they are getting too rich or offending their gods by building mosques, the same thing will still happen (therefore, no there won't be "peace").

[Shdo]

actually not, a country dont have immigration if its not allowing it, other countries have immigrents only if they go through certain procedures. if those are illigel immigrents then each country have its own laws and regulations, assuming that without the occupation there would still be chinise minority is pretty much pure speculations. i think that the hate to those immigrents is only the sympthom from the occupation.



but back to your personal assualt on me. when the whole thing started in 14 of march, this was the info that was known, i posted this on the 15, considering time diffrences i can say it was pretty much around the same day. i gave the most raw info that cme at that day, if i were to change it now because the data changed i would need to change it all the time, and as more people would die i would change it again, and if the reports of gunfire would be found true would i change it back to 100? as much as the world knew in day 1 that was the truth. so instead of constantly attacking my data because its simply old and from day 1 of the whole thing why wont you simply write your point of view on the subject, write how many people died in your opinion and stop criticizing me for not reviewing all my posts constantly? its a post from 10 days ago! ofcourse its not accurate, more there might be only 20 dead now and maybe back then actually only 10 died but another 500 died in closed doors, we dont know anything for sure so we can only relate on the data which is, btw, irrelevent to the point of this thread which is the tibetian conflict.


ill say it for the last time, either post on topic or dont post at all i said my things and wont excused myself for posting something over 10 days ago when that info was considered valid.
move on or better yet, get back on topic which is tibet.

[Marionette]

Why is it so hard to understand that if you can't prove your source to be valid, than it is not valid today and it's not anymore valid ten days ago. Despite all your cries of "personal assault" can you cite a source for your "raw information"?

Don't tell me what to say because just because you started this thread, you don't own it and you can't control what I can or cannot say. I don't have a opinion on the status of Tibet because I don't think I know enough about it to make a responsible judgment, but from what I can gather I do have a opinion on what happed one to two weeks ago - and I will call you out when I think you are saying untrue things about it.

There has historically been Han and other ethic minorities living in Tibet, do you think they'll disappear into thin air without the 1959 conflicts?

[Shdo]

sadly you wont understand the language.


you gave also some info, in 10 days it will also be irrelevent, will you go then and fix it up as well?


many immigrents came after the invasion and occupation, those got better conditions then the native tibetians, who were discriminated, and that causes ethnic tension so yea the occupation is related to the current riots even if they were on racial background.

[Marionette]

I'd still like to see it and at least do a background check on the source. What I base my information on is the account of a reporter from the Economist and the only eye third party eye witnesses we have, unless they find something like the rioters are secret agents from the PRC, I doubt that it would be irreverent anytime soon whatever else happens.

Immigrants getting better treatment is not a direct cause to their murder, mobs killing them is. It's related but it doesn't change the nature of it, it's a racially and religiously charged attack on innocent civilians that the Dalai Lama denounces (in fact he threatened to resign if the violence didn't stop), and it's disgusting for the West and people like you to consider them as a part of a movement to fight for freedom of Tibet, when anywhere else it would be called terrorism.

[Shdo]

i didnt said i support the murder of people, i said that the reason for that hate and riots is ultimatly the chinise occupation.


as for the site.

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtPE.jhtml?itemNo=964672&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0

you wont understand it but you still asked.

[Marionette]

Again, this is not about what you support, it's about talking about two different things: protesting against the political status of Tibet and the hatred of minorities, no matter why they hate them it's still not a direct result of PRC occupation. Direct result implies the lack of choice, that they are to forced target civilians. The parents of a criminal is also the ultimate reason for the crime the criminal committed (because they gave birth to him), it doesn't mean much.

What did they article say? That Tibetan protester claimed the 100+ deaths or that "there are 100+ deaths", because if it was the later than it's false, because how would they know a number? Were they there to count the body?

[Shdo]

they said what info that was known in the first day of the riots, if you see the date its the same day and the first day is usally the most chaotic. in every terror attack the number is usally reported slightly bigger then the number that is confirmed hours or a day later. keep in mind that even your trusty reporter cant go and count the bodies, they can only watch from afar, they dont see everything so even their info might be incorrect or maybe they covered for diffrent reasons (pressure from china and such) maybe one day we will know how many people died exactly but till then we can only speculate and chose a number and maybe, but just maybe, actually debate about tibet.

[Marionette]

CCP kicked all the reporters out, they could hardly get a couple photos and see what happened, how do they count the body? The only people there are from CCP and I don't think their number is creditable.

The reporter could be restricted from seeing what CPP doesn't want him to see (crackdown on protesters), but they can't make him see what he did see. Or are you saying CCP agents dressed up as monks and put on a show for him? Or that he lied for them?

EDIT: the reason I brought up the wikipedia page is for the talk page, which generates some pretty interesting discussions. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_unrest_in_Tibet#What_does_this_suppose_t o_mean) part covers the issue of "evidence" (it's not the perfect evidence, but it hold a lot more weight than "speculate and chose a number") of mob violence. It is not to say what everyone says there is definitely true, far from it, but it really seems like they are really trying to be creditable and neutral here.

[Babbo]

And I still want an answer to my question: are you saying that it's justified for natives to kill unwanted immigrants? How could people discuss something when you insist on providing information without being able to prove their creditability while ignoring strong evidences against you?


If you ask babbo this really does seem like a self serving question and kind of silly when you consider the situation even at it's most basic definitions. A sovereign state has the ability to control everything within its borders. Those immigrants are there as a result of the theft of said sovereignty. Why wouldn't the native population be a little pissed?

Your earlier painting of the Tibetans as terrorists seems rather self serving as well. The word terrorism has heavily negative connotations to it. But when you get down to it, it's one of the more effective ways for lesser elements to fight greater ones. Would you think better of them if they fought a full scale war against china?

[Marionette]

If you ask babbo this really does seem like a self serving question and kind of silly when you consider the situation even at it's most basic definitions. A sovereign state has the ability to control everything within its borders. Those immigrants are there as a result of the theft of said sovereignty. Why wouldn't the native population be a little pissed?
They can feel however they want, but if your question is are they justified in any way (morally or politically or any other way) to harm those immigrants...do you really need me to answer that question?
Your earlier painting of the Tibetans as terrorists seems rather self serving as well. The word terrorism has heavily negative connotations to it. But when you get down to it, it's one of the more effective ways for lesser elements to fight greater ones. Would you think better of them if they fought a full scale war against china?
Hum, yeah? That would mean that they would have to face the actual military instead of a inept police force and unarmed civilians who can't run fast enough away from them.

Don't you think your questions are a bit obvious? Or am I not getting what you are saying, mind elaborating? And btw, I didn't paint them as anything, this (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/20/tibet.miles.interview/) did.

[Babbo]

They can feel however they want, but if your question is are they justified in any way (morally or politically or any other way) to harm those immigrants...do you really need me to answer that question?
Duh? Why are the immigrants there in the first place? It seems strange that you feel more empathy for them when they are part of the problem as well. In all honesty babbo doubts that most people here could possibly understand how it feels to live under the control of another country. But guess what? That kind of situation leads to radical actions, they might not be highly justifiable, but they are no less justified than the continued foreign rule.

Hum, yeah? That would mean that they would have to face the actual military instead of a inept police force and unarmed civilians who can't run fast enough away from them.

Ugh. So you're telling me that a nation that has had its state annexed cannot attempt to take it back unless it's with organized military force? That an army somehow makes things right? Are you seriously listening to yourself here o,o?


Don't you think your questions are a bit obvious? Or am I not getting what you are saying, mind elaborating? And btw, I didn't paint them as anything, this (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/20/tibet.miles.interview/) did.

They seem obvious because you're oblivious to what you're doing. They are rioting for reasons that make perfect sense to them. Their home country is under foreign rule is it not? How would you act if someone managed to annex your home? Calling them terrorists in the fashion that you put it, makes it sound like they have no reason for doing this.

We have no evidence of Terrorist activity by Tibetans, no accusation of that nature so far

o,o

[Marionette]

Duh? Why are the immigrants there in the first place? It seems strange that you feel more empathy for them when they are part of the problem as well.
Duh I feel more empathy for them! They have no political agendas and never did a thing to harm, other than bringing in other cultures into Tibet and doing a bit better then them financially. They are not there illegally, because even if you don't think they should be Tibet has legally been a part of PRC for decades and they are merely coming to a new place to make a living, they are not responsible in anyway for whatever was done to the Tibetans. More immigrants moved there recently but many ethically non-Tibetans has been there for generations, way before the annexation.

They are fucking people who has done nothing wrong and lost their lives, don't just call them "a part of the problem". And what do you mean why are they there? There are illegal immgrants crossing the US boarders every day and taking influence away from citizens, it doesn't give anyone a free pass to slaughter them. Are you listening to yourself here?
but they are no less justified than the continued foreign rule.
Don't try to change the subject, because the bottom line is, what injustice the CCP did does not justify them, they are what they are.
Ugh. So you're telling me that a nation that has had its state annexed cannot attempt to take it back unless it's with organized military force? That an army somehow makes things right? Are you seriously listening to yourself here o,o?



They seem obvious because you're oblivious to what you're doing. They are rioting for reasons that make perfect sense to them. Their home country is under foreign rule is it not? How would you act if someone managed to annex your home? Calling them terrorists in the fashion that you put it, makes it sound like they have no reason for doing this.
o,o
You are wrong, terrorists always have their reasons for what they are doing, often good ones, actually. Scottish terrorist who bombed the London bus does and Bin Laden does, what makes them terrorists is that they aim at civilians to create fear. What do you mean "an army somehow makes things right", to fight soldiers and not unarmed civilians obviously makes things more "right"! Even in wars the intentional killing of civilians constitute as war crime!

Quote:
Originally Posted by from your link
We have no evidence of Terrorist activity by Tibetans, no accusation of that nature so far
o,o
I did not call them terrorist, but if this happened anywhere else that's what they would be called, that or ethic cleansing - that was the point I was making when I mentioned that word. You said that I "painted them as terrorists" and I said I painted nothing, because I only described what he described, and it's your choice to say what that "painted".

[Babbo]

Duh I feel more empathy for them! They have no political agendas and never did a thing to harm, other than bringing in other cultures into Tibet and doing a bit better then them financially. They are not there illegally, because even if you don't think they should be Tibet has legally been a part of PRC for decades and they are merely coming to a new place to make a living, they are not responsible in anyway for whatever was done to the Tibetans. More immigrants moved there recently but many ethically non-Tibetans has been there for generations, way before the annexation. How does a political agenda invalidate action? Again. Oblivious to what you're saying. It's only legal from the PRC's perspsective. And babbo never said they are responsible, just that they're part of the problem. Well then, they're unlucky, it doesn't really change the situation though does it?


They are fucking people who has done nothing wrong and lost their lives, don't just call them "a part of the problem". And what do you mean why are they there? There are illegal immgrants crossing the US boarders every day and taking influence away from citizens, it doesn't give anyone a free pass to slaughter them. Are you listening to yourself here? It's their immigration that is part of the problem. It's a by product of the PRC's annexation of Tibet. Whether they deserve it or not is irrelevant. Their presence undoubtedly exacerbates the situation.

Your analogy doesn't really work here. The difference is that Mexico never stole the property that illegal immigrants are moving onto. In fact, it's quite the other way around. Additionally Mexico recognizes the the US claim to that land and has done so for well over a century

Don't try to change the subject, because the bottom line is, what injustice the CCP did does not justify them, they are what they are.

Babbo's not trying to justify it, only to point out that both sides have done wrong and at that same time that it does not in any way invalidate their right to have a state for their nation that they had had in first place <.<


You are wrong, terrorists always have their reasons for what they are doing, often good ones, actually. Scottish terrorist who bombed the London bus does and Bin Laden does, what makes them terrorists is that they aim at civilians to create fear. What do you mean "an army somehow makes things right", to fight soldiers and not unarmed civilians obviously makes things more "right"! Even in wars the intentional killing of civilians constitute as war crime!


Good ones o,o? And babbo thinks you have some misconceptions on the idea of terrorism. They might be killing civilians but their aims are purely political, that is, aimed at government. They attack civilians so that their message is shocking and thus wide spread.

The difference is that this is not a war. They wouldn't be attacking civilians if one was truly feasible, the PRC is equally responsible for putting them in such a position <.<


I did not call them terrorist, but if this happened anywhere else that's what they would be called, that or ethic cleansing. You said that I "painted them as terrorists" and I said I painted nothing, because I only described what he described, and it's your choice to say what that "painted".

When you agree with an idea it's no different from saying it yourself <.<

But in this case you said it yourself so Babbo's not quite sure why you're denying it <.<

and it's disgusting for the West and people like you to consider them as a part of a movement to fight for freedom of Tibet, when anywhere else it would be called terrorism.

[Marionette]

How does a political agenda invalidate action? Again. Oblivious to what you're saying. It's only legal from the PRC's perspsective. And babbo never said they are responsible, just that they're part of the problem. Well then, they're unlucky, it doesn't really change the situation though does it?
Change what situation? It means that they had no "action" that harmed the Tibetans. Many of those immigrants had been there before 1959/49, and the ones that moved later are not there illegally (other countries and the Dalai Lama might not like it, but they all recognize Tibet as a part of the PRC legally, therefore it's legal by both domestic and international law), there's no reason to believe that they didn't make a honest living. What problem?
It's their immigration that is part of the problem. It's a by product of the PRC's annexation of Tibet. Whether they deserve it or not is irrelevant. Their presence undoubtedly exacerbates the situation.

Your analogy doesn't really work here. The difference is that Mexico never stole the property that illegal immigrants are moving onto. In fact, it's quite the other way around. Additionally Mexico recognizes the the US claim to that land and has done so for well over a century
You said "Why are the immigrants there in the first place? It seems strange that you feel more empathy for them when they are part of the problem as well" as if I shouldn't have empathy for them since they are "part of the problem", or since that they aren't suppose to be there. The Mexico analogy was only used for the "illegal" part of your comment, but if the Mexican residents (legal or illegal) committed violence against everyone else, is it ok if it's because that they want their land back?
Babbo's not trying to justify it, only to point out that both sides have done wrong and at that same time that it does not in any way invalidate their right to have a state for their nation that they had had in first place <.<
Did I ever say that it does invalidate? I'm saying those who committed the violence are criminals. And the Han and Muslims civilians are on the PRC's "side" I suppose? What has they done wrong? They can't even decide what our government does!
Good ones o,o? And babbo thinks you have some misconceptions on the idea of terrorism. They might be killing civilians but their aims are purely political, that is, aimed at government. They attack civilians so that their message is shocking and thus wide spread.

The difference is that this is not a war. They wouldn't be attacking civilians if one was truly feasible, the PRC is equally responsible for putting them in such a position <.<
Good ones to them, I may or may not agree. Scottish Independence is at least as good of a reason as Tibetan Independence. If you are arguing that these people are killed to protest PRC occupation, than duh it's purely political; if you are agreeing with me that it's racial discrimination...it's still political. Do you think that they are actually trying to start a war with swords and stones and fire starters?

"They wouldn't be attacking civilians if one (war) was truly feasible" I'll have to check but isn't this exactly what Bin Laden/Al-Qaeda/some Al-Qaeda sympathizers said about what they did? And putting who in what position? The civilians? I don't think so, PRC did not force Tibetans to attack civilians, nor did they forced the victims to provoke the Tibetans, and the rioters are not going to get independence or money or whatever they wanted in doing so (you don't get independence by burning mosques). Therefore they are not directly responsible and definitely not equally responsible, their responsibility in this to a much lesser degree can be argued.
When you agree with an idea it's no different from saying it yourself <.<

But in this case you said it yourself so Babbo's not quite sure why you're denying it <.<
That's not agreeing, that's merely saying that this is what it would have been labeled if it happened somewhere else.

[Shdo]

its seems you dont really understand what he meant.
he said that the immigrents might be legal in PRC but that dosnt mean that its right to the tibetians, those immigrents policies of the PRC discriminate against the tibetians and causes riots, eventually. saying that its legal isnt really a case here because it was legal in afganistan to murder women in the stadium and it was legal in nazi germany to take the rights of inferior races and so many others examples.

you also need to keep in mind that the PRC rule was forced on tibet from the start, now i guess that conquest was also legal on PRC prespective but does that make it right? dosnt it make that war (as legal as it was) the source for the discrimination? babbo say, and i agree, that the immigrants are part of the problem even if they are the victims, we dont blame them either but we are aware that their deaths are the result of the PRC policy in tibet.


btw, did those civilians were forced to immigrate to tibet? cuz if not then that shed more light on the riots and anger, those people came in, took over tibet, force rules that discriminate against the natives in favor of immigrants who chose to come there on their free will. so yes the immigrents are part of the problem if they came there on their own to take advantage of the discriminating laws.

[Marionette]

They are as legal as Americans being in America in general (those who weren't Native Americans, anyway),and non-Mexican descent Texans being in Texas, or English people being in Scotland and Ireland...and so on, also as innocent of what their government did to rule over the place they live in.

I'm not here to argue whether or not what PRC did was right or legal, or whether there have been discriminatory laws. The immigrants have every right to move into a place that they are allowed to go, again by both domestic and international law (if they think that will make their lives better), and thrive there even if it's because the government's economic law is favorable to them - laws that they have not a say in. (and what are they, btw?)

Again, you can call those death a result of PRC rule as much as you can call 9/11 a result of US presence in the Middle East, it's technically true but there are some serious intentional omition of facts, misleading and whitewashing going on there.

[Shdo]

...such as?...

[Marionette]

Such as lifting responsibility off of those who decided to kill them and acted on it without being forced to? They can be provoked, like a cheating spouse or a white man getting a job instead of a black woman can provokes anger, but they are nowhere from being forced to commit any crimes for it. And while it's arguable that the company take some minor responsibility (which, again, is definitely far from being equally responsible as the criminal), that white man did not "brought this on to himself" in any way or form for taking that job.

[Shdo]

those are examples on personal level, where the situation in tibet is on a national level. the PRC discriminate in favor of the whole immigrent population against the whole tibetian natives,its on a much greater scale then some1 taking his anger on some1 else. such discrimination on such magnitude is part of the officel policy of the PRC local rulers if not of the whole PRC political powers, when it reach that amount of level then its beyond something some1 did as a depressed worker, but as a discriminated group...discriminated by the PRC for years over years. so its true that such violant acts are not right but those are the result of the PRC policy, starting with conquest and then delibirate immigration and discrimination to finish the process.

[Babbo]

Change what situation? It means that they had no "action" that harmed the Tibetans. Many of those immigrants had been there before 1959/49, and the ones that moved later are not there illegally (other countries and the Dalai Lama might not like it, but they all recognize Tibet as a part of the PRC legally, therefore it's legal by both domestic and international law), there's no reason to believe that they didn't make a honest living. What problems?Pfft. The PRC won't even let Taiwan "legally" declare independence despite the fact that they're a separate nation state in everything but name and recognized by 24 different countries. Just because its legal in name doesn't make things right. How about the occupation of tibet. Sure seems like a problem to babbo <.<

You said "Why are the immigrants there in the first place? It seems strange that you feel more empathy for them when they are part of the problem as well" as if I shouldn't have empathy for them since they are "part of the problem", or since that they aren't suppose to be there. The Mexico analogy was only used for the "illegal" part of your comment, but if the Mexican residents (legal or illegal) commits violence against everyone else, is it ok if it's because that they want their land back? Babbo never said you should feel none at all. You just seem convinced that there is no good reason for the Tibetans to be rioting. Regardless of the moral implications of what they are doing, any other population would have similar occurrences if they were in a similar situation <.<


Did I ever say that it does invalidate? I'm saying those who committed the violence are criminals. And the Han and Muslims civilians are on the PRC's "side" I suppose? What has they done wrong? They can't even decide what our government does! Guess you didn't. Your tone seems to indicate though. In any case Babbo apologizes for his error.

It's irrelevant whose side they are on. They will be perceived as an enemy as a result of the PRC's occupation. It matters little if they are or not, people always stereotype enemies.


Good ones to them, I may or may not agree. Scottish Independence is at least as good of a reason as Tibetan Independence. If you are arguing that these people are killed to protest PRC occupation, than duh it's purely political; if you are agreeing with me that it's racial discrimination...it's still political. Do you think that they are actually trying to start a war with swords and stones and fire starters? Babbo was talking about terrorism in general. The victims of terrorist attacks are not the main target, civilians are much less likely to be able to effect change than government. Terrorism is always political in its motives. Which is kind of strange if you think about it. How can they be terrorists if this is no longer about effecting radical political change (ie Tibetan independence )and instead about attacking ethnic groups?

"They wouldn't be attacking civilians if one (war) was truly feasible" I'll have to check but isn't this exactly what Bin Laden/Al-Qaeda/some Al-Qaeda sympathizers said about what they did? And putting who in what position? The civilians? I don't think so, PRC did not force Tibetans to attack civilians, nor did they forced the victims to provoke the Tibetans, and the rioters are not going to get independence or money or whatever they wanted in doing so (you don't get independence by burning mosques). Therefore they are not directly responsible and definitely not equally responsible, their responsibility in this to a much lesser degree can be argued. They annexed a territory that had a government. Even if the riots don't have a goal, as long as they are in some way due to the occupation of Tibet, it's kinda hard to say that there the PRC is any less responsible. It's only natural that native populations will resist if they have had their state stolen from them. The PRC continues it's occupation with full knowledge of that fact <.<



That's not agreeing, that's merely saying that this is what it would have been labeled if it happened somewhere else.
Not saying it directly doesn't change anything >.>

No matter how you're looking at it you're saying that it's terrorism <.<

Is this a Chinese/Asian thing?

Babbo had a Political Science teacher who had worked under the Regan administration doing negotiations and what not. Babbo Forgets the specific instance, but Chinese missiles had been found to have been sold by to a belligerent group from the Chinese. So they get to the meeting table as ask whats going on, and what happens? They deny that the missiles were theirs. They had all the markings and signs of being Chinese and had been identified by qualified professionals, yet they would not admit they had done something >.>

Owe up to what you say. Trying to twist your words after the fact is not only silly but cowardly <.<

Such as lifting responsibility off of those who decided to kill them and acted on it without being forced to? They can be provoked, like a cheating spouse or a white man getting a job instead of a black woman can provokes anger, but they are nowhere from being forced to commit any crimes for it. And while it's arguable that the company take some minor responsibility (which, again, is definitely far from being equally responsible as the criminal), that white man did not "brought this on to himself" in any way or form for taking that job.

Think about it this way. Babbo's cousin just moved to a pretty crappy part of phillidpehia so that he can qualify as a resident and get in state tuition. The benefits are there, it's cheap, and he gets the resident status. The thing is, the radio in his car was stolen and he gets a window punched out at least once a week and a tired knifed at least as often. It's a shitty deal thar, but he went there a) with full knowledge of it and b) consequently had to deal with the consequences (which in his case meant not having a radio and finding a good glass guy).

The only difference is that an immigrant in Tibet can get killed or have their house torched and what not. The thing is, they moved into an environment full of all sorts of tensions. And they continue to live in it, whether that's right or not is irrelevant. They are responsible for their actions, though undeniably to a lesser degree than the belligerents, but never the less responsible <.<

[Vizard_King]

I say, free the poor guys.
China doesnt need to be there. If they need something, they should just have a Trade Agreement.
Tibet needs to be under its own control for once

[Shdo]

what do you think about the current problem with the olympic tourch? they actually assualted the runners, trying to put the tourch down (i think they make it 3 times already) what do you think about that? is it a legitimate move as long as no1 getting hurt?

[bradc]

I have agree with Marionette with this one. Is a very sensitive issue; I didn't want to say anything at first because itself is too much of a touchy topic. Where those in other countries don't bother to understand China and how it works; they have opened up to the market, but probably not enough for a greater change that the country itself can do as it has been around for more than 2,000 decades.

China works under a three governing system China/Hong Kong/Taiwan; which they are still working on to broaden business and governing system that still needs to be mended. I can't say the same for Canada when Quebec tried to be Mrs. Separatist and have a divorce with mainland Husband.

Whether it be Tibet, Pakistan and Afghanistan; no matter what country rioting and hurting non-residents are pretty much everywhere these days. How much of it being aired on the news are still an issue in Middle East and South East Asia. This is why in China and the people don't talk about this issue or mention it in the first place; the deeper the unsolved problems are left in the dust, the great the mess are. Which is what we have now.

However, it still won't stop the Olympic Games from happening in Beijing no matter how you hack it. China and Chinese residents believe being together as a whole.

[Shdo]

its clear that the chinise people have this 'one china' prespective, which include taiwan and tibet, but where in taiwan this is mostly agreed by the people there, in tibet it isnt the case. the chinise idea that tibet is part of them while tibetians dont see it like that remind of imperialism or something.


as for the olympic games, this wasnt a good choice to have china as the host because issues with taiwan or tibet but once the choice was made there is no choice but to make it happen.

i also criticize the celebreties who cancel shows and project in china, like the occupation is something new. getting fame (or in the case of the media, rating) on the back of the chinise tibetian problem is shallow and make me wonder about their honesty and good will.

[bradc]

its clear that the chinise people have this 'one china' prespective, which include taiwan and tibet, but where in taiwan this is mostly agreed by the people there, in tibet it isnt the case. the chinise idea that tibet is part of them while tibetians dont see it like that remind of imperialism or something.


as for the olympic games, this wasnt a good choice to have china as the host because issues with taiwan or tibet but once the choice was made there is no choice but to make it happen.

i also criticize the celebreties who cancel shows and project in china, like the occupation is something new. getting fame (or in the case of the media, rating) on the back of the chinise tibetian problem is shallow and make me wonder about their honesty and good will.

Is no longer One China of my tea cup accessories....

This is a global gathering...

Every country has something called, conformity; no one wants it or asks for it. The conflict between China and Tibet has been around for 20 years, if not much longer than you and me before we were born. No country and their government, including the president ever made any good choices. Honestly, the Imperialism of Britain still have Canada under it wings, but Britain and the Queen has backs down and let the country rule itself afterwards. Hong Kong was under British Empire until 1997 where the contract agreement was handed back to China to rule.

We are still under imperial ruling systems to this day under Governments, Prime Ministers and Presidents. Not much has changed for 1000 years, except the people in the country changing its policies within itself.

Is not China's fault that this recent Olympic Game was already decided to be hosted in China since in Athens 2004. Some people never asked for it, as is it with the Vancouver, Winter Olympic Games in 2010 that are still going through the changes. Is a global thing for people gather together and have fun.

[Shdo]

ofcourse its not china fault, its the orginasors fault for chosing them in the first place without thinking about the results (its clear that the violance will grow as the olympic games approach).



btw why wouldnt china give tibet a more free system like hong kong? i understand that PRC are proud that hong kong is ran diffrently, strength in diversity or something.
as of now the tibetians would agree for a partial indepandance.

[bradc]

ofcourse its not china fault, its the orginasors fault for chosing them in the first place without thinking about the results (its clear that the violance will grow as the olympic games approach).

btw why wouldnt china give tibet a more free system like hong kong? i understand that PRC are proud that hong kong is ran diffrently, strength in diversity or something.
as of now the tibetians would agree for a partial indepandance


Then why pinning it all on China? There are always rioting and violence after concerts and cancellation of shows back in 1985; not just the Olympic Games or any games for that matter. What difference does this Beijing Olympic Games have to do those games prior before? It doesn't make China any special than other countries that have hosted the game.

Hong Kong works as a Capitalism and more culturely diverse like Japan; itself is under a different set of laws that are still under China Ruling. Not much we can do about it, there are many protest and activist going on to this day because of certain bills and laws being made that are unlawful. Not much different from America when it passes it own bills.

[Shdo]

its not china fault for having the olympic on their soil but the olympics aside tibet is still under occupation. as i see it only countries that arent part of occupation\war at the moment should host the olympic games (and that include my country, if we had the games many countries wouldnt be able to participate, we can barely play with them on other countries). not because that country is 'evil' or something but just because the idea of the olympic games is that EVERYONE participate unless they dont want to.

[bradc]

its not china fault for having the olympic on their soil but the olympics aside tibet is still under occupation. as i see it only countries that arent part of occupation\war at the moment should host the olympic games (and that include my country, if we had the games many countries wouldnt be able to participate, we can barely play with them on other countries). not because that country is 'evil' or something but just because the idea of the olympic games is that EVERYONE participate unless they dont want to.

If other country were large enough like China, Canada, America and Greece; I very well agree they can very well host it, but even so some part of Europe is too small; like Switzerland. Some countries don't have the money and finance to be able to host the Olympic Games; it's costly to maintain certain events and keeping the spectators happy on the stand.

[Shdo]

i think Switzerland is big enough.
and yes that thing is expensive (mostly because each country make this huge project out of nowhere, but if after several years there is another olympic then cantthey use the same facilities? and who finance that thing anyway? isnt it something international?)

[bradc]

i think Switzerland is big enough.
and yes that thing is expensive (mostly because each country make this huge project out of nowhere, but if after several years there is another olympic then cantthey use the same facilities? and who finance that thing anyway? isnt it something international?)

My dear Shido... It always been a global and international thing.

If the country can shell out the money and provide the facilities, then sure why not? There still some percentages of other countries that are still not caught up the ever changing technology with the advanced modern era, and to provide those facilities; and cough up the money for for the games, as much as they want to participate in it with the rest of the world.

[Babbo]

Is no longer One China of my tea cup accessories....

This is a global gathering...

Every country has something called, conformity; no one wants it or asks for it. The conflict between China and Tibet has been around for 20 years, if not much longer than you and me before we were born. No country and their government, including the president ever made any good choices. Honestly, the Imperialism of Britain still have Canada under it wings, but Britain and the Queen has backs down and let the country rule itself afterwards. Hong Kong was under British Empire until 1997 where the contract agreement was handed back to China to rule.

We are still under imperial ruling systems to this day under Governments, Prime Ministers and Presidents. Not much has changed for 1000 years, except the people in the country changing its policies within itself.

Is not China's fault that this recent Olympic Game was already decided to be hosted in China since in Athens 2004. Some people never asked for it, as is it with the Vancouver, Winter Olympic Games in 2010 that are still going through the changes. Is a global thing for people gather together and have fun.

Um this is getting somewhat off topic, but it actually is entirely china's fault that the Olympics are being held in Beijing. They're the ones who put in the bid to the International Olympic committee to have it held there. Additionally, it was decided during 2001 at the IOC session in Moscow >.>

[bradc]

Um this is getting somewhat off topic, but it actually is entirely china's fault that the Olympics are being held in Beijing. They're the ones who put in the bid to the International Olympic committee to have it held there. Additionally it was decided in 2001 at Moscow >.>

Why would it be China's fault? Then other countries that are part of the International Olympic Committee are at fault as well. It was already Pre-Announced in Athens, Greece in 2004 Olympics Games that the next Olympic Games be in Beijing, China.

[Babbo]

Why would it be China's fault? Then other countries that are part of the International Olympic Committee are at fault as well. It was already Pre-Announced in Athens, Greece in 2004 Olympics Games that the next Olympic Games be in Beijing, China.

Because they wanted it to be hosted there o,o They don't merely pick the city where its held. Countries all but fight for it to be held in their cities. And again, Beijing was decided upon back in 2001 in moscow <.<

[bradc]

Because they wanted it to be hosted there o,o They don't merely pick the city where its held. Countries all but fight for it to be held in their cities. And again, Beijing was decided upon back in 2001 in moscow <.<

I think you lost me there... It was a lucky draw from a hat that it happens to be Beijing. Of course, every other country wanted to host it too; what was already decided can't be changed. Then I guess there won't be any Olympic to watch if was to be cancelled for those who do want to go to China to see it.

[Babbo]

I think you lost me there... It was a lucky draw from a hat that it happens to be Beijing. Of course, every other country wanted to host it too; what was already decided can't be changed. Then I guess there won't be any Olympic to watch if was to be cancelled for those who do want to go to China to see it.


The point is that you said that it wasn't Chine's fault that the Olympics are being held in Beijing. But they would never have been even considered as a host if they had not put in the bid for Beijing to become a candidate, thus it is their fault.

The US for instance considered bidding the 2008 games hosted in New York but decided against doing so <.<

And it was not a lucky draw from the hat. You seem to be simplifying th selection process a bit too much, even if you ignored all the reports of the dirty business in the background of the IOC, it's the furthest thing from luck that got Beijing selected <.< They wouldn't have gotten more than twice as many votes as each of the other competing cities if it were merely luck <.<

[bradc]

The point is that you said that it wasn't Chine's fault that the Olympics are being held in Beijing. But they would never have been even considered as a host if they had not put in the bid for Beijing to become a candidate, thus it is their fault.

The US for instance considered bidding the 2008 games hosted in New York but decided against doing so <.<

And it was not a lucky draw from the hat. You seem to be simplifying th selection process a bit too much, even if you ignored all the reports of the dirty business in the background of the IOC, it's the furthest thing from luck that got Beijing selected <.< They wouldn't have gotten more than twice as many votes as each of the other competing cities if it were merely luck <.<

And who's fault would that be? Wouldn't that be the entire world fault that they placed in Beijing and not elsewhere in other countries; where other people wished it where it could have been elsewhere instead of all this non-sense riot happening within its own country?

Business practices has always been dirty. No different from cheating in soccer games what have you other selection process; including presidency, just to gain the upper hand and get votes from the masses in order to sit on the throne of Parliament Building and White House.

[Babbo]

And who's fault would that be? Wouldn't that be the entire world fault that they placed in Beijing and not elsewhere in other countries; where other people wished it where it could have been elsewhere instead of all this non-sense riot happening within its own country?

Business practices has always been dirty. No different from cheating in soccer games what have you other selection process; including presidency, just to gain the upper hand and get votes from the masses in order to sit on the throne of Parliament Building and White House.

Are you listening to yourself? The PRC made the decision that made it possible, without that action the IOC ("the world" as you put it) could not have chosen Beijing. The ultimate responsibility for the fact that it's being held in Beijing lies with china. This is a simple fact. Babbo's not even sure why he actually has to convince you of this;it's pretty straightforward.

Ugh. Do you honesty not know how to maintain a discussion o,o? You're supposed to respond to arguments. Why the heck are you focusing on the idea of business practices? Regardless of whether that's true or not it doesn't change the fact that it was entirely luck ("a lucky draw of the hat" as you put it) that Beijing was selected.

[bradc]

Are you listening to yourself? The PRC made the decision that made it possible, without that action the IOC ("the world" as you put it) could not have chosen Beijing. The ultimate responsibility for the fact that it's being held in Beijing lies with china. This is a simple fact. Babbo's not even sure why he actually has to convince you of this;it's pretty straightforward.

Ugh. Do you honesty not know how to maintain a discussion o,o? You're supposed to respond to arguments. Why the heck are you focusing on the idea of business practices? Regardless of whether that's true or not it doesn't change the fact that it was entirely luck ("a lucky draw of the hat" as you put it) that Beijing was selected.

Beijing is in and located in China. Luck or not from draw of a hat; the country and city was selected prior before as with other country and city in the future for the other Olympic Games. Whether any country likes it or not; they were chosen to host the events. People can continue to blame other countries when they host the event, one is just as guilty as the other.

Business practices has a lot do with everything and government system because government system relies on businesses to do its bidding and affairs; where religion and government are separated from one another because it contradicts and conflicts with another. But itself can work in harmony if they work together; unfortunately unresolved problems will remain unsolved.

[Shdo]

i dont really understand what are you talking about and how the hell its related to tibet or the olympic games. try to remain on topic, even vagualy.

[bradc]

i dont really understand what are you talking about and how the hell its related to tibet or the olympic games. try to remain on topic, even vagualy.

How? Everything and everyday is business, it's basically life; government with China is about business and economy. As Marionette pointed out before they are greedy blokes; business and government system provides that foundation as a whole. Where religion does not because its a spiritual belief and mind-set that they have; which includes you and me apparently. Government of China wants money, the Olympic Games will provide that as well as Tourism.

Whenever the mention of Tibet and it religion or any other religion and beliefs; the topic of conflict and contradiction raises. Tibetan believe they are separated from China and not used to the foreigners close to their own home, while coming in and out of the country because the Beijing Olympic Games are business and sport endorsement, again everything is business related. As it is with America and other countries.

[Shdo]

the tibetians dont care if people come to visit their country in relation to the olympic, they want political freedom from the PRC who see them as part of china (if every country will take what was once her or they think that was theirs we will have a much shitty world) they use the olympic to raise awarness to their problem but there is no need to go into talks about the nature of countries and buisness when we have a simple case here, one people dont want to be part of china and one those who wants to be one china regardless of the tibetians wishes. i still dont see the economic reasons to take tibet.

[bradc]

the tibetians dont care if people come to visit their country in relation to the olympic, they want political freedom from the PRC who see them as part of china (if every country will take what was once her or they think that was theirs we will have a much shitty world) they use the olympic to raise awarness to their problem but there is no need to go into talks about the nature of countries and buisness when we have a simple case here, one people dont want to be part of china and one those who wants to be one china regardless of the tibetians wishes. i still dont see the economic reasons to take tibet.

Frankly, it's not much different from anywhere else... May it be Tibetan who wants political freedom; Quebecois who wants political freedom, Taiwan who wants political freendom, and whatever other country and city that wants to separate itself from mainland (unless you live on an island in middle of nowhere); thus the Olympic Games brings people together because people want to forget about the politics and business regardless of anyone's wishes...

Is still a running joke with Quebec trying to separate from Canada with Power House Ottawa and Montreal that is still neither French or English; and they are still part of Canada no matter how you hack it. It was how the country was formed and it is with its politics and government.

[Shdo]

no two cases are the same, each country have diffrent reasons to want to keep one group under control, and every group have a diffrent reason to get indepandance.

for example taiwan who claim to be the true china and chiana who claim to be the true china, those are two indepandant groups that got molded in a civil war where tibet was a free country and was conquored by china for some vague reason back in the 50's.
just like every two people are diffrent so does countries who are composed of millions.

[bradc]

no two cases are the same, each country have diffrent reasons to want to keep one group under control, and every group have a diffrent reason to get indepandance.

for example taiwan who claim to be the true china and chiana who claim to be the true china, those are two indepandant groups that got molded in a civil war where tibet was a free country and was conquored by china for some vague reason back in the 50's.
just like every two people are diffrent so does countries who are composed of millions.

Not much different from America trying to be Big Brother and Mr. Policeman of the World, digging their nose into every country that they see fit; and control other countries now? China has been running itself for decades; itself is the second largest country after Russia, who can't keep an eye on herself and what is happening within her own country and her foreign affairs.

This is why China runs a three governing system with Hong Kong/Taiwan; where the politics in clear business outline are on the table within its Parliament System. People can be separated from their mothers at birth but countries are constantly having business ties (excuse the pun) with each other, as well affairs with other mothers of the other countries.

[IngenuityGap]

In regards to Beijing being a "lucky draw", they campaigned heavily for the games in 2000/2001 and were in direct competition with Toronto for it. The IOC wanted China to be more economically open and, as per usual policy, got their fair share for awarding it to China. This was conditional on China cleaning up it's pollution and human rights practices, both of which are still terrible. There are a number of long distance athletes that are reconsidering their usual events due to the pollution in Beijing.

Quebec is a vastly different situation than Tibet (Xizang region), Taiwan, or East Turkistan (Xinjiang region) in the regard that ethnic Quebecois aren't being forced out of their major cities and into poverty areas due to an influx of english Canadians specifically with that goal in mind. The number of Han chinese flowing into Tibet, however, is acting as a colonizing factor. In addition to this, current polls show most Quebecois to be content with abandoning separation and both the PQ and Bloc Quebecois are losing steam to the federalists. China isn't working with Tibet and giving them religious autonomy and political semi-autonomy as is wished. The Dalai Lama has said himself he is a supporter of the games and of Tibet within China, but he urges Tibetan rights be respected.

The Uighers of East Turkistan suffer similar oppression and accusations of terrorist and separatist actions. The ethnic Koreans living in Manchuria (parts of Liaoning, Jilin, and Heilongjiang regions) are also looked at as lower rung in comparison. Same with ethnic Mongolians in Inner Mongolia (Nei Mongol region). All of these groups would be happy to be free of Chinese oppression. Taiwan and Tibet are fine working within a more free China, as is Inner Mongolia. The residents of East Turkistan and Manchuria are more likely to want full separation.

Historically China has relied on these "border provinces" for protection, making it much harder for invaders to get to Beijing and other major centers. It isn't surprising they don't want to give them up. Nor is it surprising that China is using the strong arm style of diplomacy that they used to grind their educated class to dust and cause massive famine within the country on the international scene. They don't know any other way of international relations.




Ok, enough of the history lesson. To sum up, China should really not have received the games in the first place, but now it's far too late for that. The IOC has been proven as corrupt on many occasions, and this is just another example of such. China will not back down on it's human rights record as it sees any criticism as "interference in internal matters". The best idea I've heard so far is the boycott of the opening ceremony. It sends a message without punishing the athletes.



As far as the games bringing in money, this is true, but the construction of the facilities is a huge cost. Canada just recently got finished paying off the Montreal games of 1976, and the projections for costs of the 2010 Vancouver games are already several hundred million above the original budget.

[Shdo]

i agree that every conflict have diffrent reasons and motives as well as diffrent desired outcomes, the players in the game have much importance to what going on and saying that what china do in tibet is like america being mr policeman or canada and quebec is really simplefying things. nothing is the same and from living in a war zone i learned that the same people groups and sides change from year to year and nothing is simple in conflict and that even if you understand one conflict that dosnt really help to understand others.

[Babbo]

i dont really understand what are you talking about and how the hell its related to tibet or the olympic games. try to remain on topic, even vagualy.

Babbo was just trying to point out a blatant misunderstanding of something. Hadn't actually thought there discussion of it would be necessary. In the interest of ending off topic discussion, babbo will just let him (it?) stay misinformed >.>

[bradc]

i agree that every conflict have diffrent reasons and motives as well as diffrent desired outcomes, the players in the game have much importance to what going on and saying that what china do in tibet is like america being mr policeman or canada and quebec is really simplefying things. nothing is the same and from living in a war zone i learned that the same people groups and sides change from year to year and nothing is simple in conflict and that even if you understand one conflict that dosnt really help to understand others.

Simply call it, The Art of War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War). I would too have whole heartedly agree. I still don't understand most the politics that happen in Canada, let alone China with its own system; yet some of us are born and raise from there, or another country.

[minna]

God this thread is a mess....let's get back on topic!
Since this is in the debates section I shall give my PERSONAL opinion on the Tibet matter.

In regards to the China - Tibet history, it stretches back far longer than the take over 50 or so years ago. So no, China didn't just wake up one day and decided that Tibet looked like a nice piece of land for the taking. As to why did China wanted Tibet, I think Marionett has pointed out a very plausible reason. But keep in mind that China has been historically a very powerful force in the Asian region, countires like Japan, Korean, Vietnam have at one stage or another been directly or indirectly been under Chinese rule. Tibet was no exception. Throughout history Tibet has been occupied by the Mongols, the Manchu..both of whom are not Han Chinese and both have in turn conquered and ruled over China for a period of time. Han Chinese did not have a ruling presence in Tibet until the formation of Republic of China, but during this period China did not rule Tibet as they do now. Instead a truce was signed between Tibet and China that allowed Tibet to have limited domestic control of its own affairs, but still not recognised as a separate country. This continued until the Japanese invasion of China and then the civil war. During this period China's control over Tibet dimished as a result of its own problems. It was not until the establishment of People's Republic of China did China seek once again to exert its control over Tibet, this time instead of maintaining an ambigious relationship, China took over Tibet by force. (It is interesting to note that Britain had also attempted to forcefully take over Tibet in the early 1900's.)

So why does China want Tibet? 1) As Marionett mentioned, it is strategically positioned, 2) Historical interest 3) Political situation at the time (China drove out Japan and the Communist Party has just won the civil war, so they are probably trying to show the KMT and rest of the world its power and influence...and sending them a message to not to meddle in their affairs.)

As to the current situation in Tibet. In terms of culture and religion Tibet is very different from Han Chinese. Being governed by China would of course mean such beliefs and practices needs to be 'toned down'. But I disagree with the view that China is trying to wipe out the entire Tibetan culture. But then again reducing the the political power and control of the religious/spiritual leaders by burning temples and jailing monks is definately not the way to go. What China wants is a 'puppet state', one which will preserve the Tibetan culture, but not enough that it threatens the Communist political power. A strategy that China has used with many other ethnic minorities.

Such heavy handed destruction of their culture and religion ...it is understandable that the people of Tibet are angry. But I don't think the way they responded in this incident will do them any good at all. Many of the initial violent protests in Tibet were aimed at civillian Han Chinese. I personally condemn all forms of violence regardless of the reasons or causes. Now think, most of these Han immigrants probably have little knowledge of the political situation in Tibet, so it is hardly fair on them for such thing to have occured. But China certainly doesn't help by bringing in tanks and the army...guess they haven't learnt much from the Tiananmen Square incident. A more peaceful protest would be vastly more effective..why? Because it won't anger the Han Chinese. It woul be beneficial for the Tibetans to have the Han Chinese see their side of the story...yet violence against Han Chinese in Lhasa has instead made the Communist Party's job so much easier in screwing Han Chinese's view on the situation. This combined with the animosity against the biased western media has pitched 92% of China's population against the Tibetans. Especially at a time so close to the Olympics, where all eyes are on China...this perceived lost of 'face' for the Han Chinese will only serve to harden their resolve to keep Tibet as part of China...just perfect for the Chinese government (international protest/boycott will be no help either, it will most likely drive home that 'patriotism'.)

It is ironic what the Tibetan protests have and have not achieved. On one hand it has achieved in making itself known as being separate from China, especially to the Han Chinese who have probably never questioned that. But on the other hand by doing this they have alienated what could be their biggest allie.

LOL it is hard to stick to the topic on this subject....I have gone all over the place too.

[blaaaargh]

Think about it from this point of view...if a bunch of protesters in your home country who were of some minority that experienced oppression suddenly went violent and attacked innocent civilians, looted, and burned buildings...how would you react?

Say they are correct, and they are truly oppressed by the government...does that justify the violence?

[bradc]

Now you know the Origin of the Chinese Language came from Han People from China and Tibet is no different, known as Hanzi/Kanji (JP). Korean never had a language of their own; you would understand why they borrowed and adapted the language system from Chinese People as did the Japanese did. Japan government didn't know when to stop during the World World II, and they were hit the hardest of the most after Hiroshima and Nagasaki was bombed, no war triggered from them since; most things from Japan, Korea and other Asian Countries can be traced back to China no matter how you look at it.

Somethings you don't know about Canada; Chinese were used as slaves to built the CPR (Canadian Pacific Railway) as did the American during British Invasion into America. Blacks were treated equally the same as slaves. These things still happen today as they did years and decades ago, but different because the society changes and becomes more civilize due too many warsfare corruption. Canada did help Hong Kong (People of Republic of China, PRC) get back on its feet when they were invaded by Japan; as they did with the Koreans, but no matter what little things within Chinese History still goes back to China.

End of short history and language lesson.


Blaaaargh has brought up a good point...

Perhaps some part of other countries needs to look into the mirror and look at their own reflection, and see what they have done wrong in the past and what needs to fix than finger pointing, policing how their own government run the country, when you absolute know nothing about them. Stop blaming on others, whether it be Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Monguls, Tibetan; or a Mutt Mixed of any other culture they grew up in. Learn to be civil and be civilize.

[blaaaargh]

I'm not for or against Tibet either way, I think both sides suck to be honest.

The part I don't like is how people are defending the protesters actions and condoning violence, justifying it because the people in question have been mistreated.

Personally, I don't believe violence will solve anything and will just beget more violence.

[Inevitable.Exit]

I'm not for or against Tibet either way, I think both sides suck to be honest.

The part I don't like is how people are defending the protesters actions and condoning violence, justifying it because the people in question have been mistreated.

Personally, I don't believe violence will solve anything and will just beget more violence.Eh. You're correct earlier that people shouldn't support the violence acts of their protests, but at what point do people just give up peaceful protest? Imagine if your ethnic/religious whatever group had been systematically kept down and oppressed for years. I'm beyond positive you would think violence is the only answer. If the protested peacefully, they would be put down quietly by the government, some possibly killed out of view of the worlds eye. The way they protested got attention to something a large amount of people (including myself) were ignorant to.

It would have been the same if say the Civil Rights movement hadn't been as successful as it was. I mean, even after Dr. King's assassination, riots did break out and it was almost a lot worse if it wouldn't have been for other important figures in the African-American community calming everyone.

I remain incredibly indifferent to the whole situation much as you do. It isn't good either way, but to suggest that the subtle notion that Tibetans resorted to violence before trying anything else is beyond absurd.

[blaaaargh]

I'm not suggesting they resorted to violence first, I only meant to address the justification of violence.

I know I would feel completely different if the situation related to me personally. Since it doesn't, my 3rd party point of view is this:

Using violence to draw attention in this manner doesn't draw much sympathy (which is what I believe the point of the action is). As such, it's not a wise course of action since it will probably cause more harm then good for everyone.

[bradc]

I'm not suggesting they resorted to violence first, I only meant to address the justification of violence.

I know I would feel completely different if the situation related to me personally. Since it doesn't, my 3rd party point of view is this:

Using violence to draw attention in this manner doesn't draw much sympathy (which is what I believe the point of the action is). As such, it's not a wise course of action since it will probably cause more harm then good for everyone.

I would give you another rep point with this, but I can't right now; a person actions speak louder than words. If they protest quietly than violence shouldn't break out from the government. If it was a loud protest with riot and violence involved than it does more harm than good, which I agree.

[Shdo]

they have tried quiet protesting in the past, both in tibet and outside. the result? no1 cared until now. no1 would have cared even now if not for the olympics.

[bradc]

they have tried quiet protesting in the past, both in tibet and outside. the result? no1 cared until now. no1 would have cared even now if not for the olympics.

Let's tried the Brad Pitt's and his 7 Years in Tibet Movie; what do you mean no one cared until now? It was the same protest decades ago and even now. What has changed really from the past and present? There were concerts held for Tibet decades ago for the same protest; it wasn't quiet one when alarm went off.

People still care when one talks and discuss about these issues.

[Shdo]

many things changed, the US congress called it a genocide, i dont think they said something like that 10 years ago. other countries around the world criticize china at the same time when in the past you barely heared anything. and celebrities and stars are banning china. so yea, starting to act violant might not be right but they tried the other way for years and no1 gave a damn.

[bradc]

many things changed, the US congress called it a genocide, i dont think they said something like that 10 years ago. other countries around the world criticize china at the same time when in the past you barely heared anything. and celebrities and stars are banning china. so yea, starting to act violant might not be right but they tried the other way for years and no1 gave a damn.

America genocide the Germans after the World War II and even during the rulership of Adolf Hilter during the Holocaust with the Jewish People; if you do some researching. The China Government has done it ages before with Chairman Mao long before America, but that has changed because it wasn't a genocide than a riot violent act of monk(ies) hurting the innocent non-residents within reach of their neighbourhood. However, among other countries who have tried to wipe out other races within their own country are no different.

[Shdo]

what does that got to do with tibet? or the riots? when you quote my post it should be vaguly related to it, agree or disagree but actually say something related to what i said.

[bradc]

what does that got to do with tibet? or the riots? when you quote my post it should be vaguly related to it, agree or disagree but actually say something related to what i said.

Tibetans are monks, Buddhist (Priest, Guru, Shaman...etc). Monkeys are humans who can be violent creatures when they choose to be, as well as peaceful ones. What is the difference between a monk, a monkey and a human when they are all connected back into human history how the world was formed?

[Shdo]

choices. the monk chosed to be peaceful for years and encouraged peace, that gave them nothing, now the people of tibet (not every1 are monks) are fed with waiting for the world to give a damn, so they act violantly and behold, the world starts to give a damn.

[bradc]

choices. the monk chosed to be peaceful for years and encouraged peace, that gave them nothing, now the people of tibet (not every1 are monks) are fed with waiting for the world to give a damn, so they act violantly and behold, the world starts to give a damn.

Explain to me why Martial Arts exist for this very reason? If Martial Arts is for self-defense and peaceful purpose, than acting violently for no reason really sets them apart from the rest of the world. It's no different from elsewhere really.

[Shdo]

i wouldnt say tehre isnt any reason for acting violant here, they tried the other way and that gave them nothing. the reason is the occupation and discrimination even in the years that they did acted peacfully.

[bradc]

i wouldnt say tehre isnt any reason for acting violant here, they tried the other way and that gave them nothing. the reason is the occupation and discrimination even in the years that they did acted peacfully.

One acts violent and got nothing; one act peaceful and got something in return. What did one get in the end, whether they acted violent or peaceful because both are intertwined that each person and individual who can be both peaceful and be violent if they wanted to be. Knowing how to control your anger is the key; being peaceful and harmonizing (music) will bring you more than what one asks for.

[Shdo]

but they were peaceful for years and that gave them nothing and now when they are violant, countries condemn china and call the occupation a genocide, people bann the olympics and celebrities cancel shows. so actually you are wrong, violance actually did brought them something where peace failed for years.

[bradc]

but they were peaceful for years and that gave them nothing and now when they are violant, countries condemn china and call the occupation a genocide, people bann the olympics and celebrities cancel shows. so actually you are wrong, violance actually did brought them something where peace failed for years.

Here is another historical lesson on China...

You are also a monk, monkey, civilian; a person; people were civilized and peaceful for a long time. Until people learned how to make pots and pans; and learn how make weapons and wield them and fighting over land of who owns what that belongs to them.

Let me tell you this; China historically experienced many internal warfares among itself since the Three Kingdoms, Romance of the Three Kingdoms and Three Kingdoms with India, China and Japan; up till the Qing Dynastsy, where it restored peace based on mass military and government system.

I either love being Asian or I hate it; I wouldn't be telling you this.

[blaaaargh]

but they were peaceful for years and that gave them nothing and now when they are violant, countries condemn china and call the occupation a genocide, people bann the olympics and celebrities cancel shows. so actually you are wrong, violance actually did brought them something where peace failed for years.

So you are condoning violence?

Do you also agree that the Palestinians have the right to use violence on the Israelis? Because that is the exact same thing.

[Inevitable.Exit]

So you are condoning violence?

Do you also agree that the Palestinians have the right to use violence on the Israelis? Because that is the exact same thing.That is farrrrr from the same thing. The Israelis do not own Palestine and are not oppressing their peoples. Since the Palestinians are not part of Israel they have no right to protest for change in another society's government.

[bradc]

That is farrrrr from the same thing. The Israelis do not own Palestine and are not oppressing their peoples. Since the Palestinians are not part of Israel they have no right to protest for change in another society's government.

That pretty much sums up about Tibet and its people regarding about China.

Here comes another history lesson:

However, Tibet are Han People and part of China because Tibet borders the Himalaya Mountains that is basically the backdoor to the frontdoor of India; Nepal, India is where the Historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gaurtama existed during the Silk Road/Route Trade Period and Times of Buddhism and Confucianism (Taoist, Yin-Yang) Concept were intertwined conflicted with each other of North and South Schools. A lot historical stuff that are business related are linked with China.

[blaaaargh]

That is farrrrr from the same thing. The Israelis do not own Palestine and are not oppressing their peoples. Since the Palestinians are not part of Israel they have no right to protest for change in another society's government.

Errr...is not the Palestinians original land part of Israel? If it's not then I apologize. But, if it is, then do they not have the same right to protest as the Tibetans?

Ok let me use another "less" volatile example...I'm from Canada. We all agree that Canada originally belonged to the Native Americans right? So I recall a standoff a few years back when some Native Americans were protesting something like a mall being built on sacred land. I believe the protest wasn't violent but turned so, and people died....were they justified in these violent actions?


My personal opinion on all of this is that ALL of these groups are wrong, the Tibetans, Palestinians, and the Native Americans because I don't believe that protesting through violence against civillians who mind their own business is ever justified despite the cause.

The things people are writing in this thread are suggesting that it is OK for some groups to use violence in this manner but not others...depending on their situation. My argument is simply that it is wrong in all cases and not OK.

[bradc]

Errr...is not the Palestinians original land part of Israel? If it's not then I apologize. But, if it is, then do they not have the same right to protest as the Tibetans?

Ok let me use another "less" volatile example...I'm from Canada. We all agree that Canada originally belonged to the Native Americans right? So I recall a standoff a few years back when some Native Americans were protesting something like a mall being built on sacred land. I believe the protest wasn't violent but turned so, and people died....were they justified in these violent actions?


My personal opinion on all of this is that ALL of these groups are wrong, the Tibetans, Palestinians, and the Native Americans because I don't believe that protesting through violence against civillians who mind their own business is ever justified despite the cause.

The things people are writing in this thread are suggesting that it is OK for some groups to use violence in this manner but not others...depending on their situation. My argument is simply that it is wrong in all cases and not OK.

I am from Canada as well my friend.

But is it right no matter which country to force out to use violence? Doesn't it matter which side of the coin one flips, whether it be heads or tails? Every country has done it or another, even those choose not to be involved are involved. Chinese people were used as slaves building the Canadian Pacific Railroad, as were the Blacks being house slaves period and trying to find an escape, while also being wiped by KKK as well; the Native American or the First People were oppressed by their own Government even from this day, trying to live within the society. They live on Reserves or near the North Pole. The Government still chooses to ignore them; while giving the message through song and dance.

[blaaaargh]

I am from Canada as well my friend.

But is it right no matter which country to force out to use violence? Doesn't it matter which side of the coin one flips, whether it be heads or tails? Every country has done it or another, even those choose not to be involved are involved. Chinese people were used as slaves building the Canadian Pacific Railroad, as were the Blacks being house slaves period and trying to find an escape, while also being wiped by KKK as well; the Native American or the First People were oppressed by their own Government even from this day, trying to live in the society and living on Reserved or near the North Pole.

I'm not saying that governments are innocent either, most of the ones in question have done some horrible things in the past.

To be honest, I don't particularly care about the events in question, but I'm more intrigued with people's responses to events like these. Specifically, the thought process that people go through that makes them say "it's ok for these guys to harm others, but no it's not okay for those guys...."

[bradc]

I'm not saying that governments are innocent either, most of the ones in question have done some horrible things in the past.

To be honest, I don't particularly care about the events in question, but I'm more intrigued with people's responses to events like these. Specifically, the thought process that people go through that makes them say "it's ok for these guys to harm others, but no it's not okay for those guys...."

That's what I feel too... Because everyone is just as GUILTY

[Shdo]

to make things clear, i dont think that violance is okay but i pointed out that the tibetians tried the peaceful way for years and in a country like china where the govrement just block what it dosnt want to leak (in or out) you wont hear about it at all.
when they turned to violance it did changed.


*as for the palestinian-israeli thing, i am an israeli and i am aware of the misconseption that people have between palestinians and israeli arabs(same people basicly,the diffrance is that one is inside israel borders and the other is outside). the diffrance is that china stand is that tibet is part of china while in the palestinian conflict both sides agree for a palestinian state and the problem is more with small factions that interupt the process (hamas and settelers)*

[bradc]

to make things clear, i dont think that violance is okay but i pointed out that the tibetians tried the peaceful way for years and in a country like china where the govrement just block what it dosnt want to leak (in or out) you wont hear about it at all.
when they turned to violance it did changed.


*as for the palestinian-israeli thing, i am an israeli and i am aware of the misconseption that people have between palestinians and israeli arabs(same people basicly,the diffrance is that one is inside israel borders and the other is outside). the diffrance is that china stand is that tibet is part of china while in the palestinian conflict both sides agree for a palestinian state and the problem is more with small factions that interupt the process (hamas and settelers)*

Another history lesson, shall we?

This is why China built The Great Wall of China in the first place and closing themselves out from outsiders from invading, from left right and center. To block off the violence that was happening from the outside that kept getting attacked, growing prosperity and wealth with agriculture within for food and family as a nation, exception of Hong Kong PRC and Macau that left for trade globally as a Capitalism Country. But what goes inside of it is all illegal activity, no different from elsewhere again; example of Las Vegas, Nevada in the United States.

[blaaaargh]

to make things clear, i dont think that violance is okay but i pointed out that the tibetians tried the peaceful way for years and in a country like china where the govrement just block what it dosnt want to leak (in or out) you wont hear about it at all.
when they turned to violence it did changed.

This issue has been around for years, I just think its very crappy of them to piggyback on the olympics to get noticed. It isn't going to solve much imo, people didn't care for all these years and they still don't really care.

What they have done for people neutral like me is just made my level of respect for them lower, they are no better then the chinese gov't now.

Put it this way...non-violent protest worked for the Indians vs the British, African Americans in the USA, and Women fighting for their rights. It doesn't always work...but in today's global society you don't get much sympathy thru violent means...check out the Palestinians.

[Shdo]

notice that the examples you gave happend in open democracies of the west.

the trick is to know when to move from violance to peaceful behavior, cuz sadly this world isnt perfect enough to achive everything peacefully, not yet at least.

[blaaaargh]

to make things clear, i dont think that violance is okay but i pointed out that the tibetians tried the peaceful way for years and in a country like china where the govrement just block what it dosnt want to leak (in or out) you wont hear about it at all.
when they turned to violance it did changed.

One more thing...several Native American groups in Canada have protested about their rights for over one hundred years...mostly peaceful...sometimes violent. I don't know where you are from....but I suspect not Canada...so in your country have you heard much about their plight? And do you support their protests? If you haven't heard about them then is the Canadian gov't guilty of blocking the truth?

My opinion is that this type of stuff happening in Tibet is happening all over the world but you never hear about it unless there is a vested political interest for your gov't in it. If stuff like this happened in Canada, USA, Mexico for example (and guess what, it does) then the rest of the world just looks the other way.

[blaaaargh]

notice that the examples you gave happend in open democracies of the west.

the trick is to know when to move from violance to peaceful behavior, cuz sadly this world isnt perfect enough to achive everything peacefully, not yet at least.

The only reason I gave those examples is because I am from the west and never hear about the good stuff in the rest of the world. The media here only tells you the bad stuff overseas.

[Shdo]

actually you dont hear about it untill it becomes violant, or massive like with m.l. king or ghandi.

which also prooves my point that sometimes you need to act violantly to pass the message, since peaceful means dont always work. its not something i support but its the a basic truth of human nature. like that the sky are blue so does conflicts become violant to succed.

[blaaaargh]

actually you dont hear about it untill it becomes violant, or massive like with m.l. king or ghandi.

which also prooves my point that sometimes you need to act violantly to pass the message, since peaceful means dont always work. its not something i support but its the a basic truth of human nature. like that the sky are blue so does conflicts become violant to succed.

I think we both agree then. I just think that while it does bring attention, violent means don't always bring the right kind.

[Inevitable.Exit]

Errr...is not the Palestinians original land part of Israel? If it's not then I apologize. But, if it is, then do they not have the same right to protest as the Tibetans?

Ok let me use another "less" volatile example...I'm from Canada. We all agree that Canada originally belonged to the Native Americans right? So I recall a standoff a few years back when some Native Americans were protesting something like a mall being built on sacred land. I believe the protest wasn't violent but turned so, and people died....were they justified in these violent actions?


My personal opinion on all of this is that ALL of these groups are wrong, the Tibetans, Palestinians, and the Native Americans because I don't believe that protesting through violence against civillians who mind their own business is ever justified despite the cause.

The things people are writing in this thread are suggesting that it is OK for some groups to use violence in this manner but not others...depending on their situation. My argument is simply that it is wrong in all cases and not OK.There is a difference between feeling land belongs to you, and land ACTUALLY belonging to you i.e. recognized by other world governments. The Native Americans in C