D
Deleted member 675
Guest
So much for Tibetan's "peaceful" protests.
They were peaceful until Tibetans were assaulted by Chinese Police/thugs. Then the long-term resentment towards outsiders boiled over and things turned nasty.
So much for Tibetan's "peaceful" protests.
They were peaceful until Tibetans were assaulted by Chinese Police/thugs. Then the long-term resentment towards outsiders boiled over and things turned nasty.
The motive of these highly orchestrated riots is nothing more than spite.
even attacking the religious houses of other faiths
he has shown himself closer to being its Robert Mugabe
those countries that host organisations funding and promoting Lamist Terrorists will be reminded about the help they need from China to fight those that they label terrorists themselves
I love how there's justifying of attacking and murdering Chinese civilians.
Can I have some media quotes that JUSTIFY people being killed, please? So far I have only read factors that are behind Tibetan grievances as to why they protested in the first place.
The police need protect the innocent people, especially against the looters.
Actually the average Tibetan's life is probably better, since they are part of China, so much more resources the government invested to tibet, even the Dali lama acknowledged that.
but call for China to restrain itself and not Tibetans... that's called justifying it.
When China doesn't address human rights concerns brought up by others, they get accused of justify it. So if all the China critics don't address the violence by Tibetans, they're all justifying it.
The problem is that the Han/Muslim immigrants have benefited the most. Some Tibetans have done better, but overall unemployment is higher for them than it is for the outsiders who moved in. China encouraged more consumerist attitudes in Tibet partly because I think it believed younger people would be interested in wealth rather than politics or religion. But as those girls 'n guys found the new luxuries they were bombarded with through the media to be out of their reach it made them more resentful of China/Chinese people.
China is a single government countries can call upon to act with decorum - there is no one amongst the protestors and rioteers they can talk to, especially as they have no contact with Tibet because China has blocked access and communications.
They have also called for a speedy end to the turmoil without more violence and talks to resolve existing problems. The situation can't end without violence if civilians use violence, can it?
China has used its position in the international community, such as on the UN Security Council, to limit official action taken against certain human rights abusers, which is why it has been criticised. Furthermore it has a great deal of influence with those countries.
In comparison I can't remember the last time the US vetoed or threatened to veto a Chinese resolution on Tibet. Similarly none of China's critics have as much influence in Tibet as China does. There's little they can do to calm things down, other than pressure Beijing because Beijing is the one party who might listen even if that's unlikely.