China Lashes Out at Critics Over Tibet Crackdown

FOXNews.com ^ | 03/23/08 | AP

[cardinal4]

What is China supposed to do, sit back and watch.

Uh, no, they need to get of a territory that is not theirs..

[Allegra]

Look what happened in Afghanistan.

The Taliban's not in power anymore and al Qaeda is getting its butt kicked?

[kenth]

The Olympic Games are supposed to be the time the world comes together.

---

When have the Olypics ever not been political? The fact that athletes represent their respective countries mean that politics is inherent to the games.

[TigersEye]

A report on the whole weeks events in Tibet.

Exiled Tibetan Administration: Complete one-week update on Tibet Protests

What witnesses are saying ( Events in Lhasa and Around Tibet as the Chicoms Enforce No Freedom)

[ninonitti]

Perhaps sterilizing some more Tibetan women might help as an alternative.

Is that before or after they're raped by the Chinese Peoples Army?

[TigersEye]

Do you support the lives being taken by those rioters?

Absolutely! Tibetans have every reason to rise up and kill their oppressors. The Chinese have acted like complete barbarians.

Tibetans crossing Nangpa Pass fired upon by border police, one year on from death of Tibetan nun

A group of Tibetans - mainly monks, nuns and including two children - were fired upon by People's Armed Police (PAP) as they attempted to cross the border into Nepal and exile on October 18, according to several members of the group who have now reached Kathmandu. No Tibetans in the group were killed or injured but several of them, including three monks in their twenties from eastern Tibet, were taken into Chinese custody.

(snip)

The shooting took place just over a year after a 17-year old nun, Kelsang Namtso, was shot dead by PAP border guards on September 30, 2006, in an incident that led to widespread condemnation of China after it was captured on film by a climber. Kelsang Namtso's death follows other incidents where Tibetans had been fired upon by PAP when attempting to cross the pass into exile, in 2005 and 2002. The shooting on October 18 indicates that firing at unarmed Tibetans escaping into exile, including children, is still regarded by the Chinese authorities as 'normal border management', as Beijing informed Western governments last year.

Video of Chinese soldiers shooting at unarmed Tibetans fleeing Tibet.

Nun shot in back and killed.

You can't get more blood thirsty and evil than to shoot unarmed people in the back trying to escape and then try to excuse it as "a national security risk." Horrible!

[ninonitti]

As soon as China leaves, Islamic fundamentalist take advantage of the weakend situation and move in.

Nice try. Islamic fundamentalism is not a threat to an independent Tibet but thanks for trying to push a hot button.....It shows you're up on your current events and are trying to play to the room.

[cardinal4]

You can't get more blood thirsty and evil than to shoot unarmed people in the back trying to escape and then try to excuse it as "a national security risk." Horrible!

You guys really opened my eyes yesterday. There is someone posting on this very thread from PLAN HQ!

[TigersEye]

They are numerous.

[catfish1957]

Okay, then tell me again what is conservative about supporting Chinese Communists? That’s sounds pretty objective to me.

....and your strange comments about foreign entanglements.... You must be too young to remember Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater. One of the most conservative of principles is having a strong defense against foreign invaders. I think you strongly confusing Conservatism with Libertarianism.

[BJungNan]

....and your strange comments about foreign entanglements....

They are not my comments. Recognize this guy?

Let me quote him for you.

"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop."

George Washington, the first US President, advised the country to avoid "foreign entanglements". He was joined by Thomas Jefferson who favored "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none" and John Quincy Adams who wrote that the US "goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy."

You can not get any more conseravative than the principles espoused by those three. So from which perspective do you opine?

You must be too young to remember Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater. One of the most conservative of principles is having a strong defense against foreign invaders.

Your citation of Goldwater and Reagan and a strong defense is wholly different to the point you are making regarding China, Tibet and U.S. intervention.

I think you strongly confusing Conservatism with Libertarianism.

You might be making a stronger point here if you were citing Winston Churchill and his views on the state of England leading up to World War II. But you don't need my help with your history, do you.

[BJungNan]

You can't get more blood thirsty and evil than to shoot unarmed people in the back trying to escape and then try to excuse it as "a national security risk." Horrible!

Atrocities do not dismiss the view of national security. National security does not make it right to do as shown in the video. But, your emotionalism does not change facts as to why China is there and you have not answered that question even yet. You are illogical. At least state your view why you think China is there.

[TigersEye]

What have I said that indicates emotionalism? Nothing. I simply posted some facts.

I did fully address your ridiculous Islamic-fundie threat on a previous thread. You rejected it but I did address it. It has nothing to do with the atrocities committed on Tibetans. The PRC called the shooting of unarmed people, with their backs turned towards them, as a security threat. That is a simple fact.

Your theory, which even the PRC hasn't been arrogant enough to say, that they occupy Tibet to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from invading China is absurd.

There is no historical precedent for it.

Islamic fundamentalists have been beaten, for all practical purposes in Afghanistan.

They aren't going to come from Pakistan for several reasons. One, they are being fought by elements of Pakistan's government. Two, Pakistan has its hands full with India. Three, the fundies in Pakistan are more concerned with what is happening in Iran. Four, the Hindu Kush (foothills of the Himalayas) in Pakistan are to rugged for an invading force to go up to attack Tibet. Above the Hindu Kush (which is almost equivalent to the high peaks of the Rocky Mountains) are the high peaks of the main Himalayan range. It is not practically passable by an invading force. Which is why historically no invasion of Tibet has ever been mounted from that direction. It's hard enough from the NW, north and NE where historical challenges have occurred.

Another reason it is absurd is that Al Queada has shown no designs on China. They receive support from China indirectly through Iran and Syria. So do Sunni terrorists in Iran. The only Muslims the Chinese have problems with are the Uiguirs who are positioned NW of Tibet and would not go through Tibet to get to interior China. They also have no designs on conquering China they just want their own autonomy right where they are.

As I have said before your excuses for ChiCom barbarism are absurd and morally sick. They lack historical grounding. They lack political reality. They lack geographical pragmatism.

China invaded Tibet 58 years ago when there was no Islamo-fascist movement. They wanted to use the "Roof Top of the World" as a launch platform for ballistic missiles against India and as a high altitude radio listening base. They wanted the rich resources of minerals and the forests which they have strip mined to a great extent already. The wanted to exert some sort of perverted nationalistic pride by claiming that Tibet was always Chinese. An assertion contradicted by Tibet's unique racial heritage, unique language in no way related to any Chinese dialect and the history of back and forth territorial claims which never included the whole territory of historical Tibet and at best could boast that they installed some ministers that could report back to China on behalf of Tibetan administrators. The truth being that Tibet has stronger historical claims based on past dynastic defeats and territorial conquest.

All this I have told you before and you are unable to refute. In typical ChiCom style you ignore it and deny it with weak assertions you cannot back up and with nonsensical distractions from Chinese atrocities that cannot be justified.

[TigersEye]

ping to post #73. I invite your corrections or expansions on the points I have made. Or you can blow it off and go do something fun. : )

[cardinal4]

All this I have told you before and you are unable to refute. In typical ChiCom style you ignore it and deny it with weak assertions you cannot back up and with nonsensical distractions from Chinese atrocities that cannot be justified.

I have nothing to add except that the Chinese dont have moral, or political safeguards. Shooting a 17 year old nun in the back for security reasons tells me all I need to know. They are wrong for what they are doing, and Bjungnan is a PLAN shill. Re-reading her/his posts, I'll bet he/she is posting from a Chinese server that allows PLAN agents access to the uncensored internet, while their citizens are forced into abortions, communism, totalitarianism, much less having a friggin computer to access the censored 'net..

[TigersEye]

Could be. He is in China right now. He has also had the gall to say there is no censorship of the media or internet there, citing his access to FR, and then holds up the alphabet networks as proof of propaganda in the U.S..

[RouxStir]

“So what you are advocating is that they Olympics be used for political purposes.”

And do you think China is not using the Olympics for political purposes...presenting a false impression of the reality of life in China??

[cardinal4]

He is a PLAN agent..

[catfish1957]

George Washington? There is no relevance to this statement in the late 1790's versus the dynamics of the politcal landscape today.

I am tired of arguing with you. All I needed to know about the PRC happened at Tiananmen Square on June 4th, 1989. If you do have some connection to the ChicCom's let them know America will never forget those brave students, who gave their lives for freedom that day!!!!!

[BJungNan]

My gosh, are you totally incapable of sticking to a thought... You said, how is it a conseravative view that the U.S. should not get involved in Tibet?

I said it is a completely conservative notion. George Washington, Jefferson and Adams all said as much.

If going back to the U.S. constitutional founders in not conservative, then what the heck do you call conservative?

You better get yourself and education. What scares me is that people like you vote. You are a perfect candidate for Jay Leno's Jaywalking segment.

Leno: "Who forwarded the concept that the U.S. should avoid foreign entanglements?" You: Ah, gee, hum...

I understand why you are tired of arguing. Your brain hurts from the effort.