So you admit that you are as biased as he is? Look, you use the term "culture assimilation" as if it is an atrocity only "evil" nations like China are capable of. Let's just draw a comparison between Tibet and Iraq. China liberate Tibetans from slavery system, you say it is culture assimilation. US overthrew Saddam's dictatorship, you say it is not culture assimilation. China used force to remove an anti-China local government, on its own land, you say it is culture assimilation. US used force to remove an anti-US soverign government, half way accross the world, you say it is not culture assimilation. China still let tibetans practice regilious belief, only interfere if it becomes a political hazard, you call that culture assimilation. US won't let anti-US personels into the "elected" Iraqi government and take every step to prevent any fundametal extremist from getting into power. You say that is not culture assimilation. China rounds up those tibetans that opposes chinese ruling, you say it is culture assimilation. US kills insurgent, you say it is fighting terrorism. If the muslims chose to hate US and be determined to carry out their jihad, won't our not letting them go their way an attempt of "culture assimilation" by your definition? If you look at, there is a lot of similarity between the two. It comes down to one thing: securing national interest. When others do it, you see the ugly side of it. When ones own government does it, you regard it all justified.
Should I applause you or boo you for generating opinions for me? My judgement in a murder case would be using evidence to prove murder, yours would be when it comes to Chinese, gather some internet articles that are one sided as proof of murder, and when it comes to Americans, turn off your computer and repeat denial, and claim the prosecutor's mentioning previous cases against Chinese defendants judged by you as irrelavant and invalid precedent. You should go to Dali Lama's medivel slavemaster court as a judge. What a waste of talent. Good day.
The atrocity is some Americans have no problem of a totally Westernized Tibet and Tibetans but have problems of Chinese characters on some street signs.
I can agree to what you are saying. Similar to US in the Civil War, I don't think it's too far from the truth that China is trying to protect it's sovereignty. I don't see the motivations of either occupation as evil. I believe it is better for the region and here is why... under it's previous rule, people did not have a choice to follow a different faith in Tibet. If they choose to do so, they become slaves or will be forced to live in poverty. Religion should ALWAYS be a choice IMO, and that's why I would hate to live under a religious regime. China has a long way to go in order to offer full religious freedom, but a country's stability has to take precedence over freedom. How can a country grant freedom if it cannot protect itself? I respect your point of view, and AMEN right back at ya!
Why what the goal of the North mattered to the South then? I can say the goal of China from the start was one country. And why not let native indians decide whether we should all get out of their turf, which, would be all of north america. If religious belief mixed up with political agenda, then it is no long purly religous any more. Iraqis will have religious freedom as long as we don't name them insurgents. Muslims in Cashmiere will have religious freedom as long as they don't try to get the area seperated from India. Such examples are abandent.
When westeners colonized asian, african countries, do you think they didn't commit "atrocities" by forcing people to convert their religious belief and speak colonizers' language? Is pushing westen format of democracy in middelest an atrocity if those muslims want religious government in which religious leaders tell them what to do?
Posters like NewYorker cry "genocide" out of nothing. It is so absurd that I don't even know where to start. Let's just assume for a second that the video is real, and that the "tibetans" in the video didn't not know the natural reaction to gun shot is running, and that the "tibetans" in the video were so brain dead that they forgot to duck in snow after they heard gunshots. Then I have to ask, if chinese is committing "genocide", wouldn't it be more efficient to shoot the big pack behind, instead of one person 50 yards away from the rest of the group? What is point of warning shot if they were committing "genocide"? It doesn't add up, does it?
I'm sorry? I missed that part of my post. cultural assimilation. cultural genocide. I don't care what you want to call it. But again, I missed the part where I said China was evil or that they alone were capable of actrocities. I think I may have mentioned the "evil" actions of the United States and China a few times. But please, go through my posts and prove me wrong. I don't know what to say. Evidentally I have trouble being understood as again this is never something that I said. I said that the actions since then amount to cultural assimilation. And it is true. It is many things, but no I don't believe that cultural assimilation is the goal. If it were we would build a transatlantic railway and ship in a few hundred thousand of our people a year while denying the local people employment in the new infrastructure we were building. For those that had jobs, if they were perceived to have any ideas counter to what we believed we would put them out of work as punishment. Maybe a little torture. see above They interfere more than when it just becomes a political hazard. They are infiltrating the whole system with "friendly" monks and tightly control all aspects of the functions of religion. This is a heavier hand than what the US uses in Iraq in regards to the Muslim religion. In politics, there is an attempt to include representation from all regions and a tentative balance between ideology but it is true that those that would be anti-us are kept from the system. There is a parallel there that I see. Where did I say it was fighting terrorism. Again, dig it up. The difference is that China rounds up both peaceful and agressive people who oppose Chinese rule. That is not the case in Iraq. That is why there is a fundamental difference between the two that you fail to grasp. As far as I know we haven't kidnapped any six year old boys lately (as a government policy anyway... and Foley doesn't count. He went after teenagers). no. see above. Again, you have misinterpreted who I am. Go through my posts and show me one instance where I justify the war in Iraq. I see some similarity between the two conflicts, but not much. Regards, Brock
again, I never defended America's actions. It is only you defending the Chinese government's actions. Regards, Brock
The problem is you are accussing Chinese of something they did decade ago and US government has been doing the same thing for a long time, even right NOW.
Evil, nah. But it sounds so good... The actions of both conflicts are brutal and ugly. And there are wrongs that are commited that should be recognized. The Civil War is one of the saddest times for our country. That is why China should offer autonomy under the overall rule of China. Everyone would be happy and the people who lived there would be free to choose how they want their culture and liberties to change. I don't view Tibet as integral to China's stability other than what the water provides. All other things are just bonuses for China. No-one is invading over the mountains. Thanks, brother.
You defend its actions by pardoning its crime by your definition of planned assimilation/cultural genocide.
you call it defense, I explained why I personally don't view that conflict as cultural genocide. See above.
I have never swayed in my consitency (maybe when exceptionally drunk). And I have to say that you have never swayed from yours. You still defend the Chinese governments actions by avoiding talking about their actions. Instead you must point to the actions of another.
