Unrest in Tibet!!

[AssassinsMace]

The question of Tibet in relation to Nazi Germany has some validity. It's not clear of how the Tibet "government" at the time regarded the Nazis but the Nazis certainly had high regard for Tibet. There was a show on the History Channel called Hitler and the Occult which laid out the history of Nazi Germany's contacts with Tibet. Right now over on the CMF board there's a link from some Christian evangelical website, not Chinese, that has a section on the Dalai Lama and his Nazi friends. I have no idea if the information is fabricated, which is why I chose not to link it here, but if true there's a lot of photos there of the Dalai Lama with known Nazis and Nazi sympathizers along with notorious dictators and terrorists that have made international news in years past. And they all look friendly towards one another.

Ever see the Showtime Channel's show with Penn & Teller? They had an episode showing that Tibet isn't or ever was the utopia romantics make it out to be. And it tells of the Dalai Lama's personal fetishes which would be criminal in the West.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Actually, I really doubt that. India had been quite helpful to China barring a few ill-advised comments (and they really had no choice, should look at what some radicals were demanding), breaking up protests and stopping the march.

Why make trouble for India? Pushing India into enemy and friend of America is just asking for trouble, and all this over a few ill-chosen words?

The government has been quiet but the media is as rabid and hypocritical as usual. There's a reason why the government has been silent. It's because they know China could open the borders and flood India with Tibetan refugees.

 

[aquauant]

The problem with this facile analogy is this: The matter is obfuscated and it is introducing false parallels. IN the example above, both individuals are fully responsible for all previous actions because there are only two individuals involved.

Riots and oppression involves tens of millions; individuals who are no longer present was responsible, individuals who are affected bore no responsibility, etc.

Extending your theory of 'national personhood' is incredibly dangerous, and is the same sort of basis that Chinese extreme nationalist youths riots against Japanese football players, or could be used to justify nations starting random wars to justify past wrongs.

I don't need to explain why THAT is nothing but trouble.

I hope you can read carefully. No one is justifying anything here. Rioter rioted, the wife assaulted, both should recieve judgement. But if one can look back the reason behind it and why it happened, one may learn a thing or two. If we are really lucky, we may even find a solution to it.

As for why US has not invaded this or that even though it can. It has, if you didnt notice. invasion comes in the forms of economical, cultural and political,and lastly military. Country/group always uses the least-cost invasion to influence others physically or spiritually or both. I guess the most expensive one is military invasion. It is just a matter of economics, if the benefit of invasion overweights the cost of it, you will probably see that country invaded, in whatever forms the cheapest.

Surely a bigger stick means more cost-effective way to wage an invasion, lowering the barrier to conflict. If both parties hold the same size stick, you can guess about the cost/benefit...anyway, game theory. If you dont see US invades canada or china yet, it is because the size of stick is not big enough to yield the net benefit of invading militarily. Of course, one can always miscalculate and you get iraq.

I reckon you are right that one can discuss the efficient ways of destruction of human life and property in a civilized and well-meaning manner.

 

[Troika]

ff

I hope you can read carefully. No one is justifying anything here. Rioter rioted, the wife assaulted, both should recieve judgement. But if one can look back the reason behind it and why it happened, one may learn a thing or two. If we are really lucky, we may even find a solution to it.

For somebody who extoll others to read carefully, you clearly haven't. I didn't say you use it to justify things here, I said the analogy is unsound and if taken to logical extremes, CAN be used to justify certain obviously bad things.

You also fail to address the fact of unsoundness of analogy. You can concede, we can move on, either way, this is not the place to do it. It is getting off topic.

As for why US has not invaded this or that even though it can. It has, if you didnt notice. invasion comes in the forms of economical, cultural and political,and lastly military. Country/group always uses the least-cost invasion to influence others physically or spiritually or both. I guess the most expensive one is military invasion. It is just a matter of economics, if the benefit of invasion overweights the cost of it, you will probably see that country invaded, in whatever forms the cheapest.

Strawman and changing the goalposts, all in one sentence. There was NO mention of this greater consideration of costs and benefits in your first claim. Also, claim was 'invaded or liberated', are you going to expend 'liberation' to mean 'economic liberation', too?

Surely a bigger stick means more cost-effective way to wage an invasion, lowering the barrier to conflict. If both parties hold the same size stick, you can guess about the cost/benefit...anyway, game theory. If you dont see US invades canada or china yet, it is because the size of stick is not big enough to yield the net benefit of invading militarily. Of course, one can always miscalculate and you get iraq.

Again, you are introducing new terms ex nihilo. In fact, I was the one who first brought up cost-benefit considerations. You are going to take my points and pretend they are your own to refute my point, are you? The point remains that the 'theory' as you first stated is utterly inadequate and is oversimplification in all respects.

I also remind you that so far you have failed to present evidence #1 for your rather sweeping claims. You should start. I'll throw counter examples at you all day. Extraordinary claims like this requires extraordinary proof, not endless assertions.

I reckon you are right that one can discuss the efficient ways of destruction of human life and property in a civilized and well-meaning manner.

That's the idea.

 

[Troika]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao has said he "appreciated" the steps taken by Indian authorities in handling protests by Tibetan refugees in the country.

More than 100 refugees were detained in India while attempting to march to the Chinese border last week.

They were marching as part of the global pro-independence protest.

India has in the past been sympathetic to the Tibetan cause but in recent years Delhi's relations with Beijing have improved.

India has not allowed large-scale public protests for fear of embarrassing Beijing.

"The Tibetan issue is a very sensitive one in our relations with India," Mr Wen was quoted as saying by AFP news agency.

"We appreciate the position and the steps taken by the Indian government in handling Tibetan independence activities masterminded by the Dalai clique."

On Friday, the marchers, who were protesting against China hosting the Olympics, were detained near Dharamsala town, headquarters of the Tibetan government-in-exile, and placed in custody for 14 days.

Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee has said he hoped the troubles would be solved through dialogue and non-violent means.

"We are distressed by reports of the unsettled situation and violence in Lhasa and by the deaths of innocent people," Mr Mukherjee told parliament during a debate on Tibet on Monday.

His remarks were criticised by some opposition parties, who described them as an "inadequate response".

Mr Mukherjee reiterated that India's policy of non-interference in China was still the same despite recent events.

It seems that my instincts were borne out regarding the India issue, anyway.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

AP
Dalai Lama to resign if violence worsens



By GAVIN RABINOWITZ, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 10 minutes ago

The Dalai Lama threatened Tuesday to step down as leader of Tibet's government-in-exile if violence committed by Tibetans in his homeland spirals out of control.

The rioting prompted Premier Wen Jiabao to denounce the Dalai Lama's supporters as separatists and accuse them of instigating the violence in Tibet's capital of Lhasa. It was China's highest-level response to date to the unrest.

The Dalai Lama, speaking to reporters, urged his countrymen to show restraint.

He said that "if things become out of control" his "only option is to completely resign."

Later, one of his top aides clarified the Dalai Lama's comments.

"If the Tibetans were to choose the path of violence he would have to resign because he is completely committed to nonviolence," Tenzin Taklha said. "He would resign as the political leader and head of state, but not as the Dalai Lama. He will always be the Dalai Lama."

The recent protests in the Tibetan capital Lhasa, led by monks, began peacefully March 10 on the anniversary of a failed 1959 uprising against Chinese rule. But they grew increasingly violent, culminating Friday with widespread street violence. Chinese officials say 16 people were killed, but the Tibetan government-in-exile put the toll at 80.

While the situation inside Tibet remains unclear, much of the violence appears to have been committed by Tibetans attacking ethnic Han Chinese, the majority ethnicity in China. In the days since then, worries have grown that Chinese troops trying to reassert control over Lhasa were exacting retribution against the Tibetans.

The Dalai Lama also called on Tibetan exiles beginning a six-month march from India to Lhasa to stop their march at the border.

"Will you get independence? What's the use?" he said.

On Tuesday, the India-based Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy said thousands of Tibetans converged onto the streets in Seda, a county seat in the southern province of Sichuan, and the situation was "extremely tense."

Sichuan, which borders Tibet, has seen other sympathy protests in recent days.

Telephone calls to the county's government, police and religious affairs bureau were not answered.

A woman staying at a hotel said she had heard about the protest from other guests who had been downtown and that police were in the area, which she said was "unsafe." The woman spoke on condition of anonymity because she feared retribution from officials.

The protests have focused world attention on China's human rights record ahead of this summer's Beijing Olympics. The communist government in Beijing wants to ensure that the Aug. 8-24 Summer Olympics boosts its international image.

"By staging that incident they want to undermine the Beijing Olympics Games, and they also try to serve their hidden agenda by inciting such incidents," Wen told reporters at a news conference held at the end of China's national legislative meeting.

The hardline stance taken by the normally mild-mannered premier underscored the communist leadership's determination to regain control over the region and ensure a smooth run-up to the Games.

"There is ample fact — and we also have plenty of evidence — proving that this incident was organized, premeditated, masterminded and incited by the Dalai clique," Wen said. He gave no details.

Wen dismissed claims by the Dalai Lama that there was "cultural genocide" taking place in Tibet and said China will only consider dialogue with the Dalai Lama if the exiled spiritual leader was "willing to give up his proposition for so-called Tibetan independence."

Wen said protesters in Lhasa killed bystanders, smashed public utilities and cars, and set fire to stores.

"They used extremely cruel means," Wen said. "This incident has seriously disrupted public order and life in Lhasa. This incident has inflicted heavy losses of lives and property of the people in Lhasa."

However, Wen said, the city was returning to normal.

"The situation is quiet and calm, and Lhasa will be reopened to the rest of the world," he said.

China's deadline for protesters to turn themselves in or face severe punishment was Monday at midnight. Hours after that deadline passed, the U.S. government-funded Radio Free Asia on Tuesday quoted an unnamed witness as saying that authorities in Lhasa had began arresting hundreds of people.

No details were given and the report could not be independently confirmed because of China's tight control over information and ban on trips by foreign reporters.

Police in Lhasa refused to answer any questions.

An official at the Administrative Department of the city's Communist Party office said Tuesday the city's markets, work places, schools were all back in operation.

"There are no police or troops around our area. But as to whether there are still police sealing off the downtown streets, I am not clear yet," he said. He refused to give his name.

Protests inside China have spilled from Tibet into neighboring provinces and even the capital, Beijing.

As the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama was recognized at age 2 as the reincarnation of the 13th Dalai Lama and enthroned before he turned 4. He assumed full powers at age 15, in the year that troops from Mao Zedong's newly founded communist republic entered Tibet and crushed its small army.

The Dalai Lama fled Tibet following the 1959 uprising, setting up his government-in-exile in Dharmsala.

___

Associated Press writer Audra Ang contributed to this report from Beijing.

This is interesting. I have to go and don't have time to dissect this a bit, but I should say the timing is good.

 

[PrOeLiTeZ]

well all in all lets hope they BOTH have a peaceful solution. its both sides fault so they really cant put all the blame to one side, in which the media is doing currently

 

[Scratch]

In the thumbnail below is a foto of an economist reporter, one of the last foreign reporters in Tibet. Allegedly showing PLA personall on the streets. Whatever they are doing.
His Visa was granted long before the uprise, so he's still there. Unfortunatly, there are no independent news available, wich is IMO cruical for media consumption. The decision to ask foreigners to leave and not allow any foreign media to come in because of "possible threads to their safety" always makes me suspicious.
With that kind of action, you're always prone to suspicions of hiding something others shall not see.

I came across a (german) article expressing an interesting opinion lately. Independance / Autonomie movements that have resorted to violence (terror) in the past (Hisbollah, Abbu Sayyaf) are now "recognized" in a certain way. The world knows about their "problems" and in some cases they've reached agreements that met parts of their demands in the hope of the other side to achieve some level of peace.
The Tibetans who stayed rather quiet over time (no bombings in cities, no airplane highjackings etc.) are hardly recognized for their problems. Only now were reports of violence come out, do people at the media care on a bigger scale.
That somehow is a potential dangerous message to others who seek more freedom.

Those protests are far bigger then just some rioters who seek destruction. They've also spread to neighbouring provinces of the so called "Autonomous region of Tibet", were also a lot of Tibetans live.
And it also reminded me of the uprises by monks and ordinary people in Burma/ Myanmar last year. I see an indirect connection hear. People feel dissatisfied with their way of live in those regions.
Being made a minority in your own homeland isn't a nice feeling anyway.

The man who was in controll during the last big protests twenty years ago in Tibet, is now in charge of the PRC, hopefully he won't choose the same methods to end the protests.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[aquauant]

ff



For somebody who extoll others to read carefully, you clearly haven't. I didn't say you use it to justify things here, I said the analogy is unsound and if taken to logical extremes, CAN be used to justify certain obviously bad things.

You also fail to address the fact of unsoundness of analogy. You can concede, we can move on, either way, this is not the place to do it. It is getting off topic.



Strawman and changing the goalposts, all in one sentence. There was NO mention of this greater consideration of costs and benefits in your first claim. Also, claim was 'invaded or liberated', are you going to expend 'liberation' to mean 'economic liberation', too?



Again, you are introducing new terms ex nihilo. In fact, I was the one who first brought up cost-benefit considerations. You are going to take my points and pretend they are your own to refute my point, are you? The point remains that the 'theory' as you first stated is utterly inadequate and is oversimplification in all respects.

I also remind you that so far you have failed to present evidence #1 for your rather sweeping claims. You should start. I'll throw counter examples at you all day. Extraordinary claims like this requires extraordinary proof, not endless assertions.



That's the idea.

Whether how sound an analogy is depends on how the readers see it. No analogy can completely fit. You try one and see if I can put some holes in it. I probably can. If you read my first post, the riot in tibet reminds me of this story. If it does not work for you, it is fine. It works for me.

I do not recall I said the past deed justifies the present sin. A crime is a crime. You can talk endlessly how unfair it is to china in this mess, how China is the victim here and but I guarantee you are going no where. The reasons behind the riot and the future riots to come may be more important to the problem-solving.

Well, if you take bigger stick literally a bigger stick, then I am sorry for you. maybe I should mention benefit/cost in my footnote before. And if you think I am stealing your idea of benefit-cost thingy, I am sorry. I did not know it is yours.

Maybe the world is complicated for you and asking for why things happen should not be tried. Well, I am on the other side of world where we see things not just at the surface and try to see things from the other side.

To you, "civilized" just means typing here without using threats of killing each other...etc. I have a more utopian and peaceful view of what civilized means. But you may say I am reinventing again or changing the arguement. Well, I dont argue for argue sake. I hope by puting ideas forward we can exchange viewpoints and see things more clearly, even though it may involve borrowing your terms or changing the argument (if you think I had). if it makes you feel better, I concede all points - bad analogy for you, borrowing your points... etc and you won. I think the discussion here is not about you minute-analyzing my opinion.

The more important point is that there are reasons for the riots (past, present and most likely future ones) and more people will die. China can deal with it with big stick (please dont take it literally) because it can, at least temporarily. Or, China takes a good look what the tibetan are looking for. There may be some common ground.

 

[aquauant]

ff



For somebody who extoll others to read carefully, you clearly haven't. I didn't say you use it to justify things here, I said the analogy is unsound and if taken to logical extremes, CAN be used to justify certain obviously bad things.

You also fail to address the fact of unsoundness of analogy. You can concede, we can move on, either way, this is not the place to do it. It is getting off topic.



Strawman and changing the goalposts, all in one sentence. There was NO mention of this greater consideration of costs and benefits in your first claim. Also, claim was 'invaded or liberated', are you going to expend 'liberation' to mean 'economic liberation', too?



Again, you are introducing new terms ex nihilo. In fact, I was the one who first brought up cost-benefit considerations. You are going to take my points and pretend they are your own to refute my point, are you? The point remains that the 'theory' as you first stated is utterly inadequate and is oversimplification in all respects.

I also remind you that so far you have failed to present evidence #1 for your rather sweeping claims. You should start. I'll throw counter examples at you all day. Extraordinary claims like this requires extraordinary proof, not endless assertions.



That's the idea.

Whether how sound an analogy is depends on how the readers see it. No analogy can completely fit. You try one and see if I can put some holes in it. I probably can. If you read my first post, the riot in tibet reminds me of this story. If it does not work for you, it is fine. It works for me.

I do not recall I said the past deed justifies the present sin. A crime is a crime. No one here said the riot is justified. You can talk endlessly how unfair it is to china in this mess, how China is the victim here and but I guarantee you are going no where. The reasons behind the riot and the future riots to come may be more important to the problem-solving.

Well, if you take bigger stick literally a bigger stick, then I am sorry for you. maybe I should mention benefit/cost in my footnote before. And if you think I am stealing your idea of benefit-cost thingy, I am sorry. I did not know it is yours.

Maybe the world is complicated for you and asking for why things happen should not be tried. Well, I am on the other side of world where we see things not just at the surface and try to see things from the other side.

To you, "civilized" just means typing here without using threats of killing each other...etc. I have a more utopian and peaceful view of what civilized means. But you may say I am reinventing again or changing the arguement. Well, I dont argue for argue sake. I hope by puting ideas forward we can exchange viewpoints and see things more clearly, even though it may involve borrowing your terms or changing the argument (if you think I had). if it makes you feel better, I concede all points - bad analogy for you, borrowing your points... etc and you won. I think the discussion here is not about you minute-analyzing my opinion.

The more important point is that there are reasons for the riots (past, present and most likely future ones) and more people will die. China can deal with it with big stick (please dont take it literally) because it can, at least temporarily. Or, China takes a good look what the tibetan are looking for. There may be some common ground. People have died needlessly. Rioters should be judged. But let this open a chance of peace for the future.

 

[Finn McCool]

The Dalai Lama urged his followers to remain peaceful, saying he would resign as head of Tibet's government-in-exile if the situation spun out of control.

From an AP news story.

You all will say that this is too late, and that the Dalai Lama (who is a terrorist, apparently) orchestrated the violence etc. etc. I will not try to defend the DL for ignoring the violence in its early stages, nor will I defend the Tibetan mobs for killing innocent civilians, which is despicable. I will however say that the DL didn't do this earlier because he realized that chaos will attract media attention and embarass China. Despite the fact that I believe he is a peace-loving person (he is after all the highest Buddhist religious figure) I think he was willing to abide some violence in order to draw attention. He made a decision as a leader, now he will have to deal with the consequences. But he IS after all a leader of a large community comparable to a nation. Presidents as Prime Ministers resort to violence on a massive scale to solve their problems all the time, and threaten to do so even more often. China included. The Dalai Lama used violence (or more accurately allowed violence to happen) because he believed it would advance the interests of his nation, such as it is. Heads of state do it all the time. He now has decided that violence no longer suits the aims of his nation, so he has changed course. Call it disingenuous if you will. I make no judgement. I only offer an explanation.

I still do not understand why (aside from more obvious reasons having to do with the structure of China's government and realpolitik) it would be so dangerous for China to allow Tibetans to have a measure of self government and to preserve their culture within the PRC. Can anyone offer a reason why that is so dangerous? I certainly haven't seen one here.