It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chinese Security Forces Swarm Tibet

page: 16
20
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
I dunno about any maps, that'd probably take some searching....

Edit: found this...
www.tibettruth.com...

[edit on 19-3-2008 by 27jd]

The only map I can get quite easily is this one, because I saw
this film when I was a student. It seems that USA regarded Tibet as
a part of China before 1950, how do you explain that?




posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


Wow the person that posted that is a total retard.

Firstly, what the hell. You can take ANY video and list out THOUSANDS of different things about it and accuse of it being some sort of propaganda.

Ok, why does the video starts right when the action starts?

WHAT THE F*CK!!! WHAT KIND OF DUMBASS QUESTION IS THAT????

If you are filming something and some commotion starts, will you upload the first 10 COMPLETELY UNEVENTFUL minutes of it that has no relevancy to the action at ALL? If I brought a camera along on a trip to Tibet and I'm filming my friend and a traffic jam starts and I think this is going to be worth posting on YouTube so I film the action (it's called turning the camera towards the action, requires a simple hand motion), I will upload the ACTION. No one gives a damn about the whatever I was filming earlier.

Besides, I'm quite sure many others pulled out cameras and handy cell phones to record the commotion as well (I know I would've) but this is apparently the most popular video because it shows the most action and is of the best quality.

The attacker doesn't show much of his face and is wearing a helmet.

Ok, um, when I ride a motorcycle, I wear a helmet. You see, (be prepared for some high-level logic), the purpose of a helmet is to protect your head (which includes the face). To be able to protect your face, it needs to act as a barrier between your face and whatever your face may come in contact with. That said, it kind of needs to block your face. I mean, ok, maybe we should all wear giant fish-bowl helmets that are completely transparent all around so that every person that so happens to be filming something will be able to film our faces to show that we are not an actor staging something, but honestly, I think that's ridiculous.

Here is an example of someone riding a motorcycle with the proper safety precautions of a helmet (good for him):

www.abc.net.au...

He is also not too close to the sidewalk.

Ow. My face hurts from slapping myself in pity of this hopeless person who thinks of himself as some sort of grand critic.

Ok, let me explain this. When you ride a vehicle, you try not to ride too close to the sidewalk. Do you know why? Well, because people walk on sidewalks. That is what sidewalks are for. You walk on them, ok? Now, if you were riding a motorcycle, why wouldn't you ride too close to the sidewalk? Very good, because roads are for vehicles and sidewalks are for pedestrians that you don't want to run over (hopefully).

How does the first attacker recognize anyone with a helmet?

Um, this is a Tibetan mob invading a town. Quite obviously if they were attacking people, they would...attack people (I'm not sure of any easier way to say it). Why would he recognize that person anyway? It's just some innocent civilian on a motorcycle...a perfect opportunity for them to vent their violence on this poor guy. You really think the attacker would go, "Hey, what's up? Take your helmet off so I can see if you're Ronald or not."?

Why is there a rock on the road?

Oh no! There's a rock on the road!

Why is the driver wearing a helmet?

Do we seriously have to go through this all over, AGAIN?

(continued on post below)

[edit on 19-3-2008 by morgul]



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   


The Chinese government argues that Tibet became an integral part of China in the 13th century and has remained Chinese territory ever since.



In fact China's claim arises from a very tenuous assertion.

Until 1294AD China was ruled by Kublai Khan and at that time Tibet was part of the Mongol Empire. Kubli Khan was succeeded by other Mongols but in 1352 there was a rebelion by the Chinese overthrowing Mongol Rule.

To suggest that because the Mongols were driven from China that it somehow implies China then ruled or controlled Tibet is nonsense, but that is just what China asserts.

Tibet had it's own ruler, the Dalai Lama and it's own borders with China.

In 1924 the British invated Tibet under Col Francis Younghusband. The conflict between British India and the Dalai Lama's Tibet was resolved by a peace treaty between Britain and Tibet.

China was completely uninvolved with the process. The Dalai Lama at the time however fled east from Lhasa and took refuge in China whilst a regent negotiated peace with the British.

That's the tenuous history of China's B/S claim on sovereignty over Tibet.

Tibet was an entirely different country with it's own language, Government and treaties.

China invaded an independent nation period.





posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Most of the motorcyclists in Tibet DO NOT wear a helmet!

Hahahaha this really made me laugh!!!

Ok, firstly, how the hell does he know Tibetans do not wear helmets? “Because I am Tibetan and I ride a motorcycle, I just don't wear helmets?” What kind of twisted up logic is THAT?

Also, the motorcyclist is a CHINESE civilian. Why the hell would Tibetans attack their OWN Tibetan if their riot was aimed at Chinese civilians? Why would this event even be IN Tibet? “Because I want to hurt Chinese civilians, I’ll just trash up my own town and throw rocks at my own fellow Tibetans.” Does that make sense? Not at all unless you’re telling me you don’t have a brain.

Why does the attacker keep hitting the helmet not the body of the motorcyclist?

Um, he was just hitting him. Wait, so is there some sort of special point system for this? Maybe the person scores more points if he attacks the civilian’s body instead of his head. You see, the helmet generates this holy aura around it so that you can only hit the body and the head is just out-of-bounds; hitting it will result in disqualification in the art of hurting innocent Chinese civilians.

Seriously, what a dumb question. Besides, the guy did throw a few punches at the motorcyclist’s back before the camera shakes a little.

Where do the attackers come from? Surprisingly, not from the major crowd at the top of the screen but from all other directions! If the crowd on the top are protestors, then the attackers must not be!

Does it matter? Are they not hurting anyone anymore just because they are not within 5 feet of the major crowd? If they stayed with the main crowd and waited for the motorcyclist to come to them, that probably wouldn’t really happen. He would most likely have turned and ridden away. So if there is a flock of chicken and two chickens are ten feet away from the flock, are they no longer chickens?

The rest of the guy’s arguments just wander off the topic of this being propaganda. Entirely randomness… Why does the dog bark at the fence? Why does the corner of that cloud turn slightly pinkish?

We can’t hear the people speaking and so we don’t really know what happens except that most of the attackers have decided to go off and most likely attack someone else for their own enjoyment.

If this were propaganda, it wouldn’t just be thrown together with a bunch of holes. Obviously the makers of the propaganda would try to make it as realistic as possible. Just because the guy doesn’t immediately return to the attack scene where he left his motorcycle doesn’t mean everyone here is an actor and this is all propaganda.

Use your brain to think, not your arse.

~Greg



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by gs001
It seems that USA regarded Tibet as
a part of China before 1950, how do you explain that?


Um, I don't know, maybe the makers of that film and map weren't interested in the minor details at the time, since there were more important things going on? I personally do not have a strong opinion on this matter, to me it appears that Tibet has kinda been back and forth throughout history, what I disagree with is any government using lethal force on protesters.

Anyway, I found a few more....

www.travelblog.org...

www.geckomaps.com...

www.wissenladen.de...



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by morgul
 


I find your posts abusive and WAY overbearing. You seem to be interjecting an abnormal amount of emotion into your posts, as if you are being accused directly. Why is that "Greg"??

[edit on 19-3-2008 by 27jd]



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Um, I don't know, maybe the makers of that film and map weren't interested in the minor details at the time, since there were more important things going on? I personally do not have a strong opinion on this matter, to me it appears that Tibet has kinda been back and forth throughout history, what I disagree with is any government using lethal force on protesters.

Anyway, I found a few more....

www.travelblog.org...

www.geckomaps.com...

www.wissenladen.de...

Do you know what chicanery mean?
whether or not lethal force were used is another issue and has nothing to do with sovereignty.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by morgul
 


While reading your posts I was reminded of a little Dutch girl with her finger in the dam. Relax....I trust the folks here at ATS to make up their own minds.




posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by gs001
Do you know what chicanery mean?


Apparently it means...

1. trickery or deception by quibbling or sophistry: He resorted to the worst flattery and chicanery to win the job.
2. a quibble or subterfuge used to trick, deceive, or evade.

Care to elaborate as to what that had to do with my post?



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


I am very emotional because of just how much dumber and dumber the counter-arguments are getting. This guy takes a video and just starts pointing out random information. "The guy is wearing a helmet". Oooh, therefore this video is propaganda.

??!?!?!

I really wonder what is being taught in school these days. There just is no logical connection. Some people are just so desperate to prove that American media is absolutely correct.

And I do not feel I am being accused directly, I just I feel offended. Why? Because this guy (I will refrain from using the word "idiot" because I guess that's too "overbearing") is countering my step-by-step counter-analysis with illogical evidence. At least this guy could explain some evidence of his own, not just throw a video full of empty statements at me.

But I do apologize if you take offense from my words. I don't usually write like this because usually my opponents counter with logical proof they explain, something I may or may not disagree with but hold in high respect.

Speaking out properly (meaning that you intend for people to not consider you an idiot and to respect your words) takes courage and logic, but babbling out irrelevant or just plain stupid counter-arguments takes nothing.

~Greg



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


Ok. Perhaps that is true, but now that makes me wonder why he even posted it. I was assuming that this video was supposed to oppose my statements as it attempted to but much of it didn't really make sense.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   



The only map I can get quite easily is this one, because I saw
this film when I was a student. It seems that USA regarded Tibet as
a part of China before 1950, how do you explain that?



Because China occupied Tibet before 1950 if you bother to read history.

China invaded Tibet in 1949 and the Dalai Lama did not immediately flee. Initially the Dalai Lama was lured by China's recognition of him and his Government into thinking this was a temporary occupation.

The Tibetan people however rose in rebellion and the Dalai Lama was forced to flee to India because the Chinese blamed him for that rebellion (which again he did not support or sponsor)

Whoever created that map, you have not provided the context, or what the map 's author was trying to prove nor whether the author was even aware of Tibet's treaty with Britain in 1924 recognising Tibet as a sovereign nation.

The Geko map of Tibet shows a treaty line for the border of 1908.

Kham and Amdo were eastern provinces of Tibet under their own Governors which gave allegiance and shared ethnic kinship with Tibetans in Lhasa.



[edit on 19-3-2008 by sy.gunson]



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Apparently it means...

1. trickery or deception by quibbling or sophistry: He resorted to the worst flattery and chicanery to win the job.
2. a quibble or subterfuge used to trick, deceive, or evade.

Care to elaborate as to what that had to do with my post?

Thank you for your explanation
I'm still waitting for maps or documents PUBLISHED BEFORE 1950
which show Tibet was a sovereign nation



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by morgul
 


Well, I can't view the video here from work, so I'll have to take your word for it. And I understand how frustrating it can be when people post what you believe to be utter BS. However, I just wonder why you are getting so emotional on a personal level, is it just this particular subject, or is it any debate? Keeping cool is just as important as presenting facts and logic, because when every other sentence is inflammatory it makes it hard to soak in the logic, ya know?



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by morgul
 


I'm confussed Greg...You descibed yourself as being of "American descent" on page 12, but now your Tibetan. What gives?




posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


I was confused at first at what you were saying, but did you mean this?:

“Because I am Tibetan and I ride a motorcycle, I just don't wear helmets?”

I put it in quotes to show how stupid it would sound for someone to say that. I did not really mean that I am Tibetan or I would not have put it in quotes. Basically, I was just making a point.

Mainly I'm an American (father is half-European), born in Connecticut. But I really hate it when people ask each other that. Does race really matter? Is this world really so segregated and racially divided that a week can't go by that someone has to ask what race someone is?

Anyway, if I were really Tibetan, I'd probably be off attacking police officers.

~Greg

[edit on 19-3-2008 by morgul]



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   



Well, I can't view the video here from work, so I'll have to take your word for it. And I understand how frustrating it can be when people post what you believe to be utter BS. However, I just wonder why you are getting so emotional on a personal level, is it just this particular subject, or is it any debate? Keeping cool is just as important as presenting facts and logic, because when every other sentence is inflammatory it makes it hard to soak in the logic, ya know?



Good point and my apologies. I studied Tibetan history 30 years ago and was quite passionate about Tibetan rights back then.






[edit on 19-3-2008 by sy.gunson]



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by morgul
 


I question your intentions in this thread. Your claims of being American, living sometimes in china, knowing whether chinese wear helmets when riding bikes in Tibet simply do not seem honest to me.

The fit you threw concerning the video seemed...irrational. I am leaning toward the video as having been fabricated for the purpose of propaganda, but I await the analysis of other members here.





posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


Ok, I am fine with your disbelief. There is really not much more I can say on this matter but that you can believe whatever you choose to.

I will carry on with the simple truth and you can carry on pondering over this. It's a win-win for me and I only feel pity for what little things people can become so concerned over.

Whatever the case, you guys can spend the rest of your lives arguing over whether or not the rock on the road in the video was really a rock or how many rocks that guy in the corner had. It doesn't matter to me, it feels good to know the truth and that so many others are deep in their own ignorance. It's a feeling of superiority.

This is my last comment on this topic; I am moving on to explore the other threads this forum has to offer. Hope to meet you again in some other debate,

Have fun,
~Greg



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   
I checked the views of my local Chinese embassy about Tibet in their website.

The Chinese government claims that Tibet was declared as a province of China in 1911 when Sun Yat Sen overthrew the Manchu rulers and declared the modern republic. The Tibetans themselves however were no party to nor signatories to that declaration and no representative of the Government in Lhasa was present.

The Embassy's website also refers to Tibet as an independent province under the Quing dynasty.

In 1642 the then Fifth Dalai Lama went to the throne of the Ming Emperor and demanded formal recognition of Tibet as a sovereign nation and that recognition was granted.

Manchus became involved when the Mongol Dzungars earlier invited by the Dalai Lama's Gelugspa sect invited Manchu assistance to rid Tibet of the political intrigues of Lhazang Khan.

The Dzungars became unpopular. The young sixth Dalai Lama was discovered in Eastern Tibet near the border with China. In 1720 the Manchus who were at war with the Dzungars sent the Dalai Lama with a Chinese army to drive the Dzungars from Lhasa. The Chinese left in 1723, but tried to impose a kind of regent and Chinese embassy known as the Ambon.

In 1727 the chinese tried to impose their own form of Government on Tibet.
The Resident Manchu Ambon assassinated the Tibetan regent after the death of the 6th Dalai Lama. The Ambon themselves were then killed in retaliation.

In 1749 the manchu chinese tried to re-invade Tibet and establish Chinese control but they were driven back by military force.

In 1751 there was a treaty agreed between the Nepalese Newari kings and the 7th Dalai Lama which made no reference to Chinese rule of Tibet and acknowledged the Dalai Lama as the ruler of Tibet.

There were two further invasions of Tibet by Chinese. The last in 1910 was a betrayal after diplomatic talks between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Emperor at Beijing the year before.

During the revolution of 1911 Manchu troops rebelled against their Manchu leaders and the tibetans rallied to drive them back out of Tibet in 1912.

Thus until the Maoist invasion of 1949 there was no Chinese control over tiber and Tibet struck various treaties and agreements with other nations as a sovereign power.

FREE TIBET


[edit on 19-3-2008 by sy.gunson]




top topics



 
20
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join