Originally posted by chinawhite
Your trying to apply modern ethics to past ethnic conflicts?.
Nope. I'm applying modern ethics to modern conflicts.
China is not Han Chinese,
Never said it was. But I did say the majority of "Chinese" immigrants to Tibet are Han.
Your argument is simply based on the fact that you consider China only as Han Chinese
No, but obviously your counters to my argument are based on that premise. At no point have I said that China is exclusively Han.
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
chinawhite, if you refuse to read what I type, this is going to go round and round in circles for a long, LONG time...
And you think I reckon you read mine?
I know I don't accuse you of doing something immediately after you have said you don't do it without describing exactly why I think you do do it.
Perhaps I was just too subtle in talking about Japan's atrocities.
And which part, exactly, of this, don't you get...
Well no wonder. I ask you which part you didn't understand and you respond by asking "what part?". No, no, no, this is where you make a dclarative
statement, not an iterrogative question. Please, go back and read it again. You are determined to put your distorted view of "smug, superior
Australians" or something into my words, stop it. Why can't you separate the actual victims of Japanese crimes from the Central Committee?
If the Chinese government did not begin the riots, why did they allow the protests to proceed and then to become
Why did they allow the Tibetan protest to become riots?. Because they didn't. Things happen which are out of peoples control
In cities like Guangzhou, Beijing and Shanghai. Bulldust. They have no problem stepping on Falun Gong's necks. The CCP may not have been explicitly
complicit in the 2005 riots, but they clearly gave their tacit approval to the protests and through their own inaction/negligence/pisspoor enforcement
allowed the protests to become riots. The riots were out of their control for one of two reasons: 1. They allowed it to happen deliberately. 2. It
happened because they were too useless to prevent it.
There were not more than 200 million witnesses. Just because there were 200 million people present that does not make them all
Are you suggesting that the Japanese occupied areas didn't encounter Japanese?
No. I'm saying that not everyone was an eyewitness to the crimes. Not every Frenchman or woman living under German occupation witnessed massacres,
war crimes or forced deportations.
Obviously the time after the PRC came to power, the general attitude reflected Anti-Japanese culture.
Obviously that was then and this is now.
Why do American text books teach them how they teach them reflecting the American prespective on the issue such as the killing of Native
Americans (which as I gather from American members is blamed on the British)
I cannot speak to that. If it is true then the Yanks have proven themselves to be truly venal. I leave it up to them to confirm or deny. If they
confirm then I spit on the committee that okayed such a book for classroom use.
Why do the Japanese teach their students that they went into Asia to save their Asian brothers.
Because they have never faced the reality of what they did or why they went there. The Germans have never claimed such a justification for WW2.
BECAUSE EDUCATION IS TAUGHT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE COUNTRY
See comments about Germany.
excusing China's crackdown in Tibet
Standard police procedure.
Crap. Not standard police procedure in Australia and you know that for a fact. I have lived in two Australian capital cities and six other cities or
towns and I have never in my life seen an armoured car with a water cannon attached. I have never seen a tear gas shell fired. I have never seen the
police fire on a crowd with live ammunition. I have taken part in protest marches and never seen a riot shield or a bamboo cane.
I have seen news reports of the Victorian Police at Richmond Primary School and they were publicly excoriated for their actions. Funny, but it was the
Vic cops who came in for a public drubbing following the WTO protest fiasco, too. Worse, following the Richmnd Primary School debacle it was reported
that Chinese media was using this as an example of "standard" western policing tactics when it was anything but and the public outcry proved it. So,
the Chinese media (not in any way answerable to the Chinese government) were lying to the Chinese people about how western police forces operate (if
that report from China is true).
Which isn't what I said anyway and you know it. That prticular quote, using the word "crackdown" wasn't a question. It was a response to your
declaration that nobody was excusing the Chinese authorities actions in Lhasa.
I am pointing out that its not a fantasy land in reality and what the Chinese Police did are STANDARD procedure in any land.
No, they are not and I've already shown that.
Your the one trying to nit-pick at actions and then determine that they are against human rights
No, I am not. Human rights are human rights. There ain't no nit-picking there.
Police firing into a crowd "in self-defence" is the worst form of post-panic justification. If the police were scared for their lives they should
have radioed their position and peril and then legged it. Firing into an already hostile crowd guarantees escalation. Unless you've got a bullet for
everyone in the crowd. All that does is show how poorly-trained Chinese cops are and how pisspoor their decision-making is.
You also mention that I used history as justification. No I dont
*cough, cough* Sorry, what was that?
I use it to say to people here that their countries dont have clean hands and shouldn't be the people criticizing other people because they
are living on the graves of dead natives
And as I keep pointing out, you're just a tad late to that dance. We (Australians) do have the right and the responsibility to criticise. Just as
(the majority of) Germany's post-war actions give them the right to criticise Japan's post-war refusals to admit the truth.
If that's your justification for China ruling Tibet
What is your justification for nationhood?.
You seem to believe the word was created with set boundaries.
If only that were true I'd be slowly grinding to a self-contradiction induced catatonic paralysis at the thought of James Cook and Arthur Phillip.
Instead of asking a further question, just answer the one you were given.
Whats your argument that Tibet is a independent country. That would be a start
The fact that it was. The fact that you had to invade it to establish your authority over it. That looks like a pretty good starting place. Oh, look,
I already did that:
Never mind the fact that China was not ruling Tibet when it invaded after the CCP victory over the KMT.
And the CCP was not ruling lots of areas of China. So what?
So, the fact that China did not have sovereignty over Tibet at the time of their invasion in no way negates China's claim to Tibet being a natural
and contiguous part of China...so the fact is you can't justify China's claim to Tibet.
I don't need to. I'm not the US government.
Don't bring a red herring up if you don't know how to cook it.
You wanted me
to justify the adding of Uighar groups to terror lists. Why would I
justify it? I didn't do it and I like to talk about
an entity called East Turkestan.
edit: these effing quotes are going to be the death of me!
[edit on 24-3-2008 by HowlrunnerIV]
[edit on 24-3-2008 by HowlrunnerIV]