2 Dead as Protests Break out in Tibet

puke not punk.

 

I believe this is what you said:

It seems that you were trying to assert that shooting people in the back is unlawful anywhere in the world even under the claim of self-defense. But a specific case that took place in your own country shows exactly the opposite, you may consider it as a miscarriage of justice, but obviously your justice system doesn't. Maybe you should just be a bit less self-righteous.

 

You just dont know who you are dealing with.

 

My point was that you would be looked at with a jaundiced eye for making such a claim. You will be investigated thoroughly and questioned extensively. Maybe you should be just a little less paranoid and denfensive.

 

If Tibet ends up like Northern Ireland, who are the ones to suffer? Tibetan Chinese and other ethnic Chinese. Do you and other posters lose anything? No. Do you and other posters gain anything really, except for a pad on the back "I told you so"? No.

I oppose violence, any kind. I oppose war, any kind. I support democracy, but not the one with blood of innocent civilians. Lots of people here oppose the war in Iraq, and some other support the war. But what do you care about is American interest, and own belief or your perception of right or wrong. How many of you will lose sleep at night, that Iraqi civilians are shedding blood every day? I won't, because as a selfish man, I don't relate to them, although I sympathize with them and feel bad for them. Quite frankly, I don't lose anything personally. But, oversea Iraqi people, including those living in US, when they oppose the invasion, they are opposing it from a more personal standpoint. They might have families and friends there facing the danger. They really care about those people.

More and more Americans are against the war in Iraq? Why? All of a sudden they have friends in Iraq? No, the war costs too much money, and that's not good for America. Besides that, the dead Iraqis are still just numbers and a few images on TV. No matter what motivation us outsiders have to support/oppose the war, the killing is happening in that country, and to that people.

Same thing for Tibet. We can argue why it belongs to China, for it's been that way for hundreds of years, or it doesn't belong to China for it has own culture and religion. We can also argue how Dalai Lama's peaceful approach lowered the violence in Tibet, or how CIA's involvement and Dalai's rebellion caused this conflict 50 years ago. But no matter how we argue about it, does anyone of you expect a peaceful breakout from China? If yes, how? With violent riots? If no, why would any ethnic Chinese including Tibetan Chinese supporting blood shedding for their brothers and sisters?

To many posters with Chinese background, no matter what citizenships they have now, the tie to China is always there. They don't want to see turmoil in China, be it in Tibet or Shanghai. There is no noble or righteous goal, but simple tie of blood. On the other hand, the ones advocating "fighting against oppression" don't mind a few hundred or a few million lost lives in a foreign country. That's why you see posters here use Rape of Nanking to bait "nationalist" ethnic Chinese. Millions of lives are just a baiting tool on an internet bbs.

If you want to discuss about feasibility and solutions to improve the situation, by all means. But to argue whether Tibet has the legit demand to be independent, what's the point? Do native Americans have legit demand to drive everyone out? If it's not feasible, what's the point to argue?

If we are in communist utopia, there will be no country, no army, so there will be no conflict and no war. But didn't we decide communism is evil?

 

I appreciate your point. Rocketsjudoka is talking about avoiding bloodshed too. He's talking about finding a solution that will make both the Tibetans and the CPC mostly happy. When you take ethnic Tibetans and marginalize them in their own homeland, you increase the chance of them feeling the need to fight. Happy, empowered people don't riot and destroy.

If you believe the CPC 'Dali Clique' argument that this is all just a handful of fascists imperialists who want to force foreign contries to re-colonize China, then rocketsjudoka's post probably doesn't make sense.

But if these are not riots sponsored by some secret cabal, and Tibetans are really Chinese citizens, and these Chinese citizens really feel that the government in Beijing doesn't care a rat's @ss about what they believe and want, then you should be concerned about your fellow Chinese who are terribly upset, right?

The Dali Lama isn't talking about independence. Undoubtedly there are people who want it, but compromising with the Dali Lama on cultural protections and a degree of autonomy is a way to avoid empowering them.

 

The Dalai Lama may be paying lip service to China's sovereignty now, but he has flip-flopped several times on this position before. There was a golden opportunity back in the early 1980's to reach a settlement, but after the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe, Dalai thought that China would also fall apart and switched to a hardline position of total independence. So I don't blame China for not trusting Dalai's words.

Secondly, even in Dalai's current position, there is also an insurmountable roadblock, in that he claims a "Greater Tibet", including not just the current TAR, but also Tibetan-populated areas in neighbouring provinces. The recent reports in the Western press, in typical fashion, have flippantly made the claim that these areas were part of Tibet before 1950 and was carved off by China only after that. This is absolute and total BS. A simple look at the pre-Communist maps would prove that. In fact, the Dalai Lamas, and the Tibetan kings before them, have not had any administrative control over those areas since the 9th Century! It's like claiming New York's Chinatown should be Chinese territory because there is a large concentraton of Chinese there! And this "Greater Tibet" covers nearly a quarter of China's territory. Do you think there is any chance China would agree to that?

Thirdly, the Dalai Lama wants all non-Tibetans to be removed from "Greater Tibet". Yes, he wants an ethnic cleansing! This not only includes the recent migrants, but also millions of people of dozens of different ethnicities who have lived in these areas for centuries. Do you think there is any chance of that?

So unless Dalai renounces these demands, and make concrete conciliatory gestures, such as disbanding his theocratic "exile-government", renouncing any claims to political power, and publicly committing to the separation of religion and state, etc. there is no chance of a political settlement in Tibet.

As for your fears of Tibetan radicalization and adopting violent and terrorist ways, I think you will find the Chinese government and the Chinese people are made of tougher stuff than you think. In fact, if I put on my cynical hat, I think that's exactly what the Chinese government wants. The only thing Tibetan separatists have got going for them at the moment is this facade of non-violence and pacifism, which has successfully captured the popular imagination (and it is only an imagination) in the west. The adopting of violent and terrorist ways would be the beginning of the end of the "Free Tibet" movement.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/20/tibet.miles.interview/

 

Why bother debating in these threads? Chinese government is the devil, break China up , setup western democracy ! It doesn't matter if the country will fall apart and the ecnomony will tank or that the people will suffer. That's pretty much the view of 90% plus of the people on this bbs.

 

Views of a Briton living in China, from the Daily Telegraph

"My name is Paul Taylor. As my name suggests I am a British citizen. Unlike many of the people pontificating ( including leader writers and self proclaimed experts) I live in China. I can tell you that I enjoy a comfortable lifestyle and live in far greater safety than I ever did in London. Chinese people usually respect and admire foreigners and afford us many privileges.

The Olympic Games mean a lot to the Chinese. They have prepared for them assiduously and at enormous expense. To use the Olympics as an excuse to declare open season on the hard working Chinese will rightly be seen as an affront and atrocious bad manners.

Prince Charles , Gordon Brown on others who are attempting to improve thir atrocious image by attacking China will only reinforce the justified conviction among many Chinese that it is the Chinese themselves who are under attack. On this issue it should be noted that a so called democracy would crack down on rioters far harder than the Chinese communist party. Public opinion would demand it

And since when do we admire and applaud rioters who taget minorities . Arsonists looters etc.

Many ethnic Chinese were killed for no other reason than they are immigrants from other provinces. Tibetans also live in other parts of China, be mindful of your support and promotion of n independent Tibet. It is not economically feasible and apart from limited seasonal tourism and aid would be unsustainable as a modern economy and would remain heavily dependent on its two giant neighbours India and China,

In my firm opinion Tibet should remain within China to share some of the economic progress that such a successful economy generates. The alternative is to become a theme park so that New age hippies and conservative leader writers can gawp.

many of the tourists who arrive in China have already made up their mind. Ironically they use Chinese made transport to go to Lhasa. The amazing train that links lhasa to beijing ( even the Swiss said it couldnt be done) but hard work and science and a huge amount of investment and now there is a train to carry people and goods to tibet. And here is the rub. contrary to the received wisdom of our chattering classes tibetans want consumer goods and non seasonal foodstuffs just as much as the trendies reading my piece. Tibet is landlocked , high altitude plateau with very few natural resources.

The Dalia Lama is only popular for sentimental and new age reasons. China is unpopular because its effective, secular and does not send soldiers all over the world to interfere in other nations domestic affairs and to seize the oil wells. ref UK and US.

I beg the British people to defer from knee jerk reactions based upon incomplete information or on frankly faulty leaders in National newspapers.

Those who know China well and live here are amazed by the way the Chinese focus on getting on with things. Hard working, secular, look after old people, small families, law and order, no vandalism, low crime, respect for education, almost no starvation

I have been in rural areas including many areas with tibetan minorities such as Gansu Yunan and Sichuan. Life in those areas compares well with similar areas in Nepal for example

The UK in fact recognised Tibet as part of China from 1906 so its a bit rich now , 100 years later to change our tune.

We simply cannot afford more new enemies , Britains attempts to interfere in others business usually end as fiascos such as East Timor Kosovo Iraq Afghanistan and Somalia all failed states and ALL created with significant UK assistance

Are we going to add China to tgeh long list of enemies such as Russia Serbia Cuba Iran North Korea Sudan Zimbabwe Cuba etc

cant Gordon Brown and Prince Charles put a sock in it?"

 

It's fun debating here because it's always fun exposing hypocrits and perhaps opening a few people's eyes with facts they may not have known of before. No, I do not expect to really change anyone's mind. But then it doesn't really matter what those people think anyway. As one recent LA Times article pointed out, the Chinese government has already won in the only public opinion arena that counts, that of the Chinese people. The recent events have pushed the 1.3 billion Chinese people firmly behind their government's stance on Tibet. And with that support, there really ain't a thing the Tibetan separatists or their western backers can do. Note the very muted reactions from governments around the world, as compared to the media frenzy. Unlike the talking-heads, the governments live in the real world and know that China is far too powerful to be pushed around and far too important to antagonize.

 

I wish I could say that I am confounded by your flippant and self contradicting ways, but I am not. By your own admission, details and your understanding of the situation in Tibet is sketchy at best, yet you seem to take an accusatory, even condemning tone.

For example, regarding that picture in which Sammy Fisher posted, even though you acknowledge that you (or I) know the circumstances surrounding the death, on one hand you say you are saying that you are merely asking for an investigation; then in the almost immediate next post, you bash Chinese posters for not criticizing the government.

Really, if you don't know the details of the situation, what the hell are the Chinese citizens supposed to criticize? Because you as the judge and jury already convicted them of the crimes?

Americans criticize their government? Great. The same happens in China. What the majority of Chinese posters have resisted doing is condemning UNPROVEN sketchy and therefore biased bashing of China under the guise of fairness and freedom. You on the other hand, takes the biased Tibetan exile slant at face value while not doing the same for biased Chinese government reports, which from what I saw, never approached the absurdity of the exiles.

Back to the dead monk for example, there is no date, no place, no surrounding events. IF it was a Tibetan monk, we don't know where it and under what circumstance it occurred. In fact, we don't even know of that death occurred in the recent disturbances or prior events.

Btw, here is a definition of "self-defence:"

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm

"Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances."

You will find that the legal definition of the term self-defence is not literally restricted to "self" defence as you liked to spin it. Law enforcement also have more leeway.

Your claim of Chinese posters getting defensive about any criticism of the country is nothing short of ridiculous. The far more apt example is the Americans condemning the US government from claiming there are WMD's and Al-Qaeda in Iraq. But even that looks more favourable towards the Chinese. As of right now details in China are sketchy whereas the Bush Administration are proven liars, not to mention there were many unbiased alternative sources which showed that Saddam was actually telling the truth, something Americans conveniently ignored.

 

Giving the victims a human face,

Five young girls, including a Tibetan, burnt to death

 

I don't see you or anybody applying the same standard of extreme distrust when people post pictures of Han killed by Tibetans. Perhaps everybody in Tibet is actually sitting around singing Kumbayah and nobody has been killed at all. I think, however, that this is not likely. When I see plausable photos with plausable claims, I am willing to operate under the assumption that they are real, be they Tibetian, or Chinese, or Mongolian, or whatever. Or are you claiming that Tibetians make false photos while Han never do?

 

A bit of translation for those prople who don't understand Chinese:

The Tibetan girl inverviewed was the only survivor of a burnt down cloth shop. She said the rioters came in the shop and smashed everything. When they left she went out to check and realised the shop was on fire. She shouted into the shop "its on fire, Run!!" and she ran. But the other girls did not follow her so they all got killed in the fire.

One of victims sent a text message to her dad," dad, mom, many mobs are killing people around our store. i can not run out, but i am ok,do not worry about me. you and mom stay at home ."

A 21-year-old Tibetan girl ,who was from a small village in Shigatse, died in the shop. The whole family depended on her wages. Her aunt and elder brother came to the shop and ...

 

18-year-old Chen Jia was the youngest among the five victims.


Survivor Zhuoma (Tibetan) said, "We heard loud noises nearby. The rioters crashed into other stores. We cried and flinched."


Beside the debris, Chen Jia's father can't help himself.

5 girls burn to death in Lhasa riot

Source: CCTV.com | 03-20-2008 09:11

Violence in Lhasa has resulted in a heavy toll in lives and property. Official statistics indicate 13 civilians were burned or stabbed to death. Among them are five girls who worked for a clothing store.

This clothing store in Lhasa was targeted by rioters last Friday. Zhuoma is the only survivor. She says she, along with her friends, had no place to hide, and stayed inside the store when the incident took place.

Rioters broke in and entered the store. After several minutes, it returned to calm. Zhuoma thought the rioters had left, so she called on her friends to escape.

Survivor Zhuoma said, "I saw flames and smoke, then I shouted hurry up, the store's on fire."

Zhuoma ran out and hid in the yard of a nearby hostel. But then she realized what had happened to her friends. Zhuoma is left shocked that she is the only survivor. Days after the violence, Zhuoma still can't accept that her friends are no longer here.

Survivor Zhuoma said, "I never thought about that. We were happy together that morning, but it suddenly changed hours later. I can't believe it, I can't accept the truth that they have left me. I want to ask the rioters why did they do it? I really can't understand why the rioters killed innocent civilians,why they killed our sisters. We, as employees, don't have much money. If they want money, why do they rob us of our lives?"

18-year-old Chen Jia was the youngest among the five victims. Beside the debris, her father can't help himself.

Chen Jia's father said, "My daughter was so feminine, we all loved her."

In an earlier message sent to her loved ones, she said: "Dad, it's so violent outside, we can just stay at the store. Don't worry about me, and tell mother and sister to stay at home and take care."

Official statistics show that so far 156 rioters have surrendered. Local police say they are confident they'll arrest those behind the riots, and will severely punish them.

 

I am not applying double standards at all. Do you or do you not agree with the opinion that a civilian should not die at the hands of another in any circumstance except when the latter mentioned one is under extreme duress (e.g. in self-defence).

If that is true, do you or do you agree that such violent action committed by the second civilian against first is illegal?

Like I said, if you want to challenge the photos of the ethnic Hans being killed was done in self-defence (or any other reason), you are welcome to do so. You didn't.

Furthermore, self-defence has clauses for use of deadly force, as well as a retreat clause. An ethnic Han getting half his face cut off would raise questions as to whether this was done, even if in self-defence, with the appropriate force and the one carrying such actions had no retreat options.

Not that it couldn't be possible. Maybe an ethnic Han with mental problems charged into a Tibetan crowd. But I think it's safe to say that such actions (if any) are exceptions instead of the rule.

Law enforcement on the other hand, has another issue. They are often required to stand their ground to enforce the law. From what I've seen, the photos you and other pro-Tibetan independence crowd posted consisted of single bullet wound, not a lynching style hatchet job. The level of suspicion of senseless violence is therefore, appropriately lower.

Bottom line, if you can actually prove that Chinese police use deadly force without reason, then we have a discussion.