PDA

View Full Version : Chinese guards 'kill Tibetans'



Jay
05 Oct 06,, 20:31
At least two Tibetans were killed and seven others wounded when Chinese border guards opened fire on them, a refugee support group has said.

The head of the UN-sponsored Tibet Refugee Reception Centre in Nepal, Loudhup Dorjee, said the alleged incident happened on Saturday.

He said about 70 Tibetan men, women and children had been trying to cross the Nangpa La pass from China into Nepal.

Forty-two managed to enter. He had no information on the fate of the others.

'Two people down'

Earlier, mountaineering website MountEverest.net carried what it said was an eyewitness report of the shooting from an unnamed climber in the area.

"Without warning, shots rang out. Over, and over and over. Then the line of people started to run uphill," the climber said.

"We saw two shapes fall. The binoculars confirmed it: two people were down, and they weren't getting up. Then more Chinese army swarmed through Advanced Base Camp."

There has been no word from the Chinese authorities.

Correspondents say hundreds of Tibetans try to cross the Himalayan border every year in an effort to flee Chinese rule.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5409916.stm

:frown:

Tronic
05 Oct 06,, 21:38
Damn those commies... :mad:

lemontree
06 Oct 06,, 05:26
This lays credence to what I have been saying all along - that the CPC wants the world to believe that the Tibetans have amalgamated in their society - which of course is untrue.

starsiege
06 Oct 06,, 07:38
damn commies! :mad:

reminds me of the berlin gate and the east germans who tried crossing into western germany

and isnt it ironic that the un should simply choose to ignore the chineese occupation of tibet?

667medic
06 Oct 06,, 10:36
and isnt it ironic that the un should simply choose to ignore the chineese occupation of tibet?
Welcome to the real world kid...
Don't expect the Chinese to behave like that bastard Nehru....

Dreadnought
06 Oct 06,, 17:40
Any wonder why we in the West hate Communism. That article is just another reminder why.:mad:

astralis
06 Oct 06,, 18:10
jay,

do you have a source for that article? thx.

lemontree,


This lays credence to what I have been saying all along - that the CPC wants the world to believe that the Tibetans have amalgamated in their society - which of course is untrue.

the CCP doesn't particularly care what the world thinks as to this regard (and for what the world thinks, it acknowledges that tibet is part of china). the vast, vast majority of chinese believe it; enough han settlers and PAP are in tibet to make it stick. and for them, that is enough.

Jay
06 Oct 06,, 18:27
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5409916.stm

astralis
06 Oct 06,, 19:31
my thanks.

lemontree
07 Oct 06,, 06:34
lemontree,

the CCP doesn't particularly care what the world thinks as to this regard ...
On the contrary they care very much.

(and for what the world thinks, it acknowledges that tibet is part of china).
...much to their own chargin associated with the something called appeasement, for a country that assisted the west during the cold war. The recognition was a matter of political necessity.

the vast, vast majority of chinese believe it; enough han settlers and PAP are in tibet to make it stick. and for them, that is enough.
It is the Tibetans that matter and not the thoughts of a people who quote from the "leettle led book".

astralis
07 Oct 06,, 06:59
On the contrary they care very much.

i meant relative to what they want the chinese population to believe. as with most things for the CCP, domestic opinion comes first.


The recognition was a matter of political necessity.

even if it wasn't, i have doubts that very many people would challenge it. tibet is not vital to anyone except, of course, the tibetans and the chinese. and in the chinese eyes (and quite rightly, IMO), china has a better claim on tibet than america does on hawaii.


It is the Tibetans that matter and not the thoughts of a people who quote from the "leettle led book".

to a point.

by the way, the chinese quote from the "leetle led book" about as often as americans quote from the pilgrim's progress these days. :biggrin:

durtyburd
08 Oct 06,, 07:16
I don't like communists either, but Tibet has traditionally been a part of China for a large portion of its history, especially in the last 600 years.

starsiege
08 Oct 06,, 07:42
I don't like communists either, but Tibet has traditionally been a part of China for a large portion of its history, especially in the last 600 years.

but its like saying i occupied ur house for 600 years so i want it for myself.lol!

astralis
08 Oct 06,, 14:03
tell it to the americans first- america's a hell of a lot larger than tibet is.

or the israelis, or the russians, or the english...etc etc.

this is not a new theme in history. for that matter, chiang kai-shek did it to the native taiwanese, as well. where are the complaints?

Jay
08 Oct 06,, 18:43
I dont see US citizens fighting their border patrol force to flee from US in to say Mexico or Canada. Infact I dont see Hawaiins protesting about the US occupation. So no, Tibet cannot be compared with United States of America.

astralis
08 Oct 06,, 18:54
jay,


Infact I dont see Hawaiins protesting about the US occupation. So no, Tibet cannot be compared with United States of America

there are friggin SOUTHERNERS who still complain about the yankees. :biggrin:

as for hawaiians protesting the US occupation, it's big enough to merit a holy wikipedia page. :biggrin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_Independence

lemontree
09 Oct 06,, 05:15
I don't like communists either, but Tibet has traditionally been a part of China for a large portion of its history, especially in the last 600 years.
Do quote a source. Tibet had been a protectorate of China, till they declared independence. There is a world of a difference between protectorate status and territorial claims.

durtyburd
09 Oct 06,, 08:51
Do quote a source. Tibet had been a protectorate of China, till they declared independence. There is a world of a difference between protectorate status and territorial claims.


The 5th Dalai Lama referred to himself as a subject of the third Emperor, Shunzhi, of the Ching Dynasty. From that moment, Tibet became a part of the Chinese empire. It wasn't a "protectorate". It was an integral part of the Ching empire.

http://cc.purdue.edu/~wtv/tibet/5th.html

Tibet had been ruled by the Chinese since the 1600's.

Chinese rule of Tibet was consolidated during the Ching dynasty. Chinese rule continued until pressure from Western powers gave rise to internal strife and sedition which caused the Ching dynasty to lose control of several parts of China. One of the areas in which the Ching dynasty was unable to reassert it's centralized authority was Tibet. In the chaos that Western imperialism caused, Tibet achieved a state of semi-independence that lasted from 1911 to 1950. This 39 year period is what you might be referring to as the "protectorate status". Irrespective of what you call it, it was a temporary condition that could not continue as China recovered from the shock of Western imperialism and came to reassert itself as the empire that it rightfully is.

In effect, Tibet was self-ruled for a mere 39 years, compared to over 300 years of solid Ching rule.


This is one place where you can get some history on the subject.

http://cc.purdue.edu/~wtv/tibet/history.html#iif02

edit: The "Ching" dynasty that I mentioned is often mentioned in other sources as the "Qing" dynasty. The Ching dynasty (or Qing as some people call it) lasted from 1644-1911.

durtyburd
09 Oct 06,, 08:58
There were also periods before the Ching dynasty during which Tibet was ruled by courts in Beijing, although they weren't "Chinese" courts. They were Mongol courts who happenned to be based in Beijing.

lemontree
09 Oct 06,, 10:48
The 5th Dalai Lama referred to himself as a subject of the third Emperor, Shunzhi, of the Ching Dynasty. From that moment, Tibet became a part of the Chinese empire. It wasn't a "protectorate". It was an integral part of the Ching empire.

http://cc.purdue.edu/~wtv/tibet/5th.html

Tibet had been ruled by the Chinese since the 1600's.

Chinese rule of Tibet was consolidated during the Ching dynasty. Chinese rule continued until pressure from Western powers gave rise to internal strife and sedition which caused the Ching dynasty to lose control of several parts of China. One of the areas in which the Ching dynasty was unable to reassert it's centralized authority was Tibet. In the chaos that Western imperialism caused, Tibet achieved a state of semi-independence that lasted from 1911 to 1950. This 39 year period is what you might be referring to as the "protectorate status". Irrespective of what you call it, it was a temporary condition that could not continue as China recovered from the shock of Western imperialism and came to reassert itself as the empire that it rightfully is.

In effect, Tibet was self-ruled for a mere 39 years, compared to over 300 years of solid Ching rule.

This is one place where you can get some history on the subject.

http://cc.purdue.edu/~wtv/tibet/history.html#iif02

Unfortunately your source has the stamp of the CPC, hence it is biased and a communist version.

Chinese influence over Tibet starts in 1720 when the Tibets take the assistance of the Manchus against the Mongols of central Tibet. This was the protectorate period. The Manchus were thrown out by the 1730s after they tried to exert too much influence over Tibetan affairs. The Manchus kept making invasion attacks on the Tibets but they remained a separate entity. The arrival of British dominance enabled the Tibetans to acutally enjoy true freedom from 1911 to 1949.

The problem with the Chinese doctrine is that even if a soldier had set his foot on another land the CPC lays claim to that territory.

lemontree
09 Oct 06,, 10:54
There were also periods before the Ching dynasty during which Tibet was ruled by courts in Beijing, although they weren't "Chinese" courts. They were Mongol courts who happenned to be based in Beijing.
Where do you read this rubbish?

durtyburd
09 Oct 06,, 11:01
Well, I posted a link.

It's a pretty well known fact that the Mongol Khans that ruled Tibet and most of Asia had moved their court to Beijing (or Peking whatever you want to call it).

durtyburd
09 Oct 06,, 11:08
Unfortunately your source has the stamp of the CPC, hence it is biased and a communist version.



What are you talking about?

It's from Purdue University, which is in the United States. It's not Chinese.

The discourse between the 5th Dalai Lama and the Ching emperor really DID happen. The 5th Dalai Lama really did subjugate himself to the Ching emperor. The History channel had a program about it, too. Are you going to tell me that the History Channel is communist, too?

Besides, I don't see you quoting any sources.

This guy says what I say is rubbish even though I actually have sources. He fails to provide any sources yet expects to be believed at face value.

lemontree
09 Oct 06,, 11:11
Well, I posted a link.

It's a pretty well known fact that the Mongol Khans that ruled Tibet and most of Asia had moved their court to Beijing (or Peking whatever you want to call it).
You trying to say that the Great Wall built, to keep the Mongols and others before them away, was untterly useless?

667medic
09 Oct 06,, 11:12
Well, I posted a link.

It's a pretty well known fact that the Mongol Khans that ruled Tibet and most of Asia had moved their court to Beijing (or Peking whatever you want to call it).

By that stupid logic Afghanistan, Pakistan, Burma, Bangladesh, SriLanka etc belong to India. Subsequently, half of the world should belong to the British:rolleyes:

durtyburd
09 Oct 06,, 11:15
You trying to say that the Great Wall built, to keep the Mongols and others before them away, was untterly useless?

Well, actually, yes it was pretty useless. Walls like that usually are pretty useless.

Kublai Khan moved his court to China after conquering China.

667medic
09 Oct 06,, 11:16
What are you talking about?

It's from Purdue University, which is in the United States. It's not Chinese.

The discourse between the 5th Dalai Lama and the Ching emperor really DID happen. The 5th Dalai Lama really did subjugate himself to the Ching emperor. The History channel had a program about it, too. Are you going to tell me that the History Channel is communist, too?

Besides, I don't see you quoting any sources.

This guy says what I say is rubbish even though I actually have sources. He fails to provide any sources yet expects to be believed at face value.

History Channel even said that Colombus set out on a voyage to look for China but discovered America:rolleyes:

durtyburd
09 Oct 06,, 11:23
By that stupid logic Afghanistan, Pakistan, Burma, Bangladesh, SriLanka etc belong to India. Subsequently, half of the world should belong to the British:rolleyes:

There's a bit of the logic that I use that you miss which makes this not the case. Those places that you just listed do not belong to India because India could not (or didn't want to) maintain effective control over them. Likewise, half of the world doesn't belong to the British because the British could not maintain effective control over half the world.

The only justification for the existence of the United States is that the Americans WON their war of independence and thereby proved the British crown's inability to maintain effective control over 13 of the American colonies.

If a country can WIN it's independence, be it through war or protest, then fine, it deserves its independence. But if a country cannot WIN it's independence (as is the case with Tibet), then it really doesn't deserve independence.

There is a HUGE difference between declaring independence and achieving independence. A declaration is meaningless and not worthy of notice, while an achievement is a tangible and forcefull act that cannot be countered.

lemontree
09 Oct 06,, 11:32
What are you talking about?

It's from Purdue University, which is in the United States. It's not Chinese.
Its an official version by Dr. Nathan Wong, he lists the CPC chinese version of the history.


The discourse between the 5th Dalai Lama and the Ching emperor really DID happen. The 5th Dalai Lama really did subjugate himself to the Ching emperor. The History channel had a program about it, too. Are you going to tell me that the History Channel is communist, too?
In 1642, the Fifth Dalai Lama, was Ngawang Lozang Gyatso and he interacted with the last Ming emperor and not the Manchu Ching emperor. The Manchu Ching dynasty startes only in 1644.
The Manchus real relationship with any Dalai Lama startes with Kalsang Gyatso the 6th Dalai Lama.


Besides, I don't see you quoting any sources.
This guy says what I say is rubbish even though I actually have sources. He fails to provide any sources yet expects to be believed at face value.
Your basics dates lines are wrong hence you need links. I am not known to knowingly BS on this forum.
http://www.friends-of-tibet.org.nz/tibet.html
http://www.studentsforafreetibet.org/article.php?id=373
http://www.fatherryan.org/holocaust/Tibet/index.html

durtyburd
09 Oct 06,, 11:33
History Channel even said that Colombus set out on a voyage to look for China but discovered America:rolleyes:

Well, Columbus actually set out to find "Cipangu", which was the term that Europeans used for the almost-mythical islands of Japan, and THEN make his way to China.

He never made it to Cipangu or China, instead he stumbled upon the Caribean Islands on his first voyage and then the North American mainland on his fourth voyage (nevermind that he was on the wrong latitude line to begin with and would have never run into Japan no matter how far west he traveled).

The fact remains that he stumbled into America, and by doing so, actually discovered America. He wasn't the first to discover America, and the History channel plainly admits this. Vikings, Inuit, and various steppe people's from Northeastern Asia stumbled upon America first. The fact that he wasn't the first to discover America doesn't take away from the fact that he did, in fact, for his people, in his time, discover America (although he didn't quite understand what it was that he found). More importantly, he was the first to actually chart his findings in order so that his discovery actually meant something valuable to the world.

durtyburd
09 Oct 06,, 11:50
http://www.friends-of-tibet.org.nz/tibet.html
http://www.studentsforafreetibet.org/article.php?id=373
http://www.fatherryan.org/holocaust/Tibet/index.html

Ha! Now I'm laughing. You're accusing me of using biased sources! Yet look at your URL's! "friends-of-tibet", "students for a free tibet", and "father ryan"!

I visited all three of your sources only to find that they belong to political protest/lobby organizations that have an obvious agenda. Freinds of Tibet keeps talking about "occupied Tibet" and even asks for donations to help with efforts to free Tibet. "Students for a a free Tibet" is also a political action group with an agenda (they're name even implies they're bias). The only source that I had any hope for was the "father ryan" site, yet when I visited the site, the first line was "Tibet's Cultural and Religious Genocide". It turns out to belong to a high school student who made the site as part of his class's genocide study project.

At least my source was academic in nature (university of Purdue) and did not have any overt bias the way that your sources did.

Could you please post a more credible source that doesn't exude bias? Could you use an actual academic source made by people with degrees?

durtyburd
09 Oct 06,, 12:19
Your basics dates lines are wrong...

I just read through some of the sources that you provided, and their date lines agree with mine.

The Ching dynasty (1644-1911).

Your sources call it the Qing dynasty, but mine call it the Ching dynasty. Regardless, they're two different pronounciations of the same word and your sources agree with the basic date line of 1644-1911.

The difference between your sources and mine is that yours say that the Dalai Lama accepted the position of "spiritual advisor" to the Ching (Qing...whatever) emperors, while mine say that the Dalai Lama pledged himself as a subject of the Ching emperor.

I find that my sources are more likely accurate. What is this nonesense of "spiritual advisor"? The Ching emperors had armies marching across Tibet all of the time. Doesn't sound like the Dalai Lama was the Ching emperor's version of Billy Graham (at least I don't remember Carter sending an army to Billy Graham's hometown to subjugate it and make Billy Graham bow before his ruler).

Also, your sources also point out that the Dalai Lama made deals with the Mongol rulers that preceded the Ching dynasty. It's funny how your sources paint such a rosey picture and say that they "made deals", whilst my sources indicate that the Tibetans simply surrendered to the Mongols so as not to be annhialated.

1644-1911...that's 267 years of Chinese rule. That is plentiful enough time for China to establish its legitimate claims to Tibet.

lemontree
09 Oct 06,, 12:30
Ha! Now I'm laughing. You're accusing me of using biased sources! Yet look at your URL's! "friends-of-tibet", "students for a free tibet", and "father ryan"!

I visited all three of your sources only to find that they belong to political protest/lobby organizations that have an obvious agenda. Freinds of Tibet keeps talking about "occupied Tibet" and even asks for donations to help with efforts to free Tibet. "Students for a a free Tibet" is also a political action group with an agenda (they're name even implies they're bias). The only source that I had any hope for was the "father ryan" site, yet when I visited the site, the first line was "Tibet's Cultural and Religious Genocide". It turns out to belong to a high school student who made the site as part of his class's genocide study project.
Your links are those of an occupying communist regime that has tried to block Google. My websites are those of Tibetans in exile.


Could you please post a more credible source that doesn't exude bias? Could you use an actual academic source made by people with degrees?
Suit yourself, even this cut and dry site below gives different times lines, from what the twisted CPC version gives.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/tibet-faq/

Try and read this book - History As Propaganda - Tibetan Exiles versus the People's Republic of China John Powers

lemontree
09 Oct 06,, 12:37
The difference between your sources and mine is that yours say that the Dalai Lama accepted the position of "spiritual advisor" to the Ching (Qing...whatever) emperors, while mine say that the Dalai Lama pledged himself as a subject of the Ching emperor.
Thats the communist version and they are liars.

I find that my sources are more likely accurate.
see above

What is this nonesense of "spiritual advisor"? The Ching emperors had armies marching across Tibet all of the time.
Central Tibet was under the Mongols and it was only untill the Manchu dynasty that the Mongols were defeated in 1780s. Yes Chinese armies were marching into Tibet but were getting thrashed by the Tibetans and the Mongols all that time.


It's funny how your sources paint such a rosey picture and say that they "made deals", whilst my sources indicate that the Tibetans simply surrendered to the Mongols so as not to be annhialated.
The same as today...?

1644-1911...that's 267 years of Chinese rule. That is plentiful enough time for China to establish its legitimate claims to Tibet.
An illegitimate rule.

durtyburd
09 Oct 06,, 12:52
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/tibet-faq/


This is the time line directly cut and pasted from your source. Note: This is not marked as copyrighted in any way, so no copyrights are being infringed.

1644 Manchu overthrow Ming, conquer China, and establish the Qing dynasty
1653 "Great Fifth" Dalai Lama meets Qing Emperor Shunzhi near Beijing
1682 Fifth Dalai Lama dies; regent conceals death for the next 14 years
1716-21 Italian Jesuit priest Ippolito Desideri studies and teaches in Lhasa
1717 Dzungar Mongols invade Tibet and sack Lhasa; 5th DL's tomb looted
1720 Dzungars driven out; Qing forces install Kesang Gyatso as the 7th DL
1721 The position of Amban is created by a 13-point Qing decree on Tibet
1724 A Chinese territorial government is created for Qinghai (Amdo)
1750 Ambans murder regent; rioters kill Ambans; Qing troops sent to Tibet
1792 Qing troops enter Tibet to drive out Gorkha (Nepalese) invaders
29-point Qing decree prescribes "golden urn" lottery for picking DL
and PL, bans visits by non-Chinese, and increases Ambans' powers
1854-56 Nepal defeats Tibet; peace treaty requires that Tibet pay tribute
1876 China agrees to provide passports for a British mission to Tibet
1885 Tibet turns back British mission, rejects Chinese-granted passports
1893 China and Britain agree to regulations on trade between India & Tibet
1894 Tibetans build a wall north of Dromo to prevent trade with India
The 13th Dalai Lama takes control of the Tibetan government at age 18
1904 British troops under Colonel Younghusband enter Tibet & occupy Lhasa
A treaty signed which required Tibet to pay an indemnity to Britain
1906 The 1904 Anglo-Tibetan treaty is "confirmed" in Anglo-Chinese treaty
1907 "Suzerainty of China over Thibet" recognized in Anglo-Russian treaty

Not only does it agree with my timeline, but it also pretty much agrees that the Chinese had established control over Tibet at the beginning of the Ching dynasty. This detailed timeline even shows that the Chinese were controlling travel, trade, and policy in Tibet. Chinese emperors were even selecting the Dlai Lamas! In other words, Tibet was effectively a part of China.

Also, please note that my source was from an organization at Purdue University, which is in Indianna, U.S.A. Purdue is definitely not a propaganda tool of the Chinese government.

lemontree
09 Oct 06,, 13:36
1904 British troops under Colonel Younghusband enter Tibet & occupy Lhasa
A treaty signed which required Tibet to pay an indemnity to Britain
1906 The 1904 Anglo-Tibetan treaty is "confirmed" in Anglo-Chinese treaty
1907 "Suzerainty of China over Thibet" recognized in Anglo-Russian treaty[/I]
I know this part very well, my regiment was part of this historical expedition and the one before it that reached and sacked Peking.


Not only does it agree with my timeline, but it also pretty much agrees that the Chinese had established control over Tibet at the beginning of the Ching dynasty. This detailed timeline even shows that the Chinese were controlling travel, trade, and policy in Tibet. Chinese emperors were even selecting the Dlai Lamas! In other words, Tibet was effectively a part of China.
Tibet was grudgingly tolerating Chinese interference due to their reduced military power.


Also, please note that my source was from an organization at Purdue University, which is in Indianna, U.S.A. Purdue is definitely not a propaganda tool of the Chinese government.
Agreed but the inference made is same as Chinese CPC sources. It is not a Tibetan source.

durtyburd
09 Oct 06,, 13:51
Tibet was grudgingly tolerating Chinese interference due to their reduced military power.


They grudgingly tolerated Chinese rule for 267 years?

Oh come on! If people accept outside rule for 267 years, I'd say then they have pretty much given up their sovereignty and legitimized the outside rule.

For example, Catalonia and Navarre in Spain are far beyond the point of no return. It's been so long that they've lost all legitimate claim to any sovereignty (especially considering the conditions under which they entered the Kingdom of Spain...via marriage of nobility for Catalonia and voluntary entry for Navarre---well, sort of voluntary). To the chagrin of the Catalan nationalists, I say, too freakin' bad (I'm slightly optimistic since the officer corps in Spain issued statements saying that they would support military intervention if any part of Spain tried to secede). I would hope that if Catalonia or Navarre ever tried to secede, the result would be a civil war in which the Castillians would get to use their superior numbers to once again reign in the Catalans and Basques.

667medic
09 Oct 06,, 13:54
Well, Columbus actually set out to find "Cipangu", which was the term that Europeans used for the almost-mythical islands of Japan, and THEN make his way to China.

He never made it to Cipangu or China, instead he stumbled upon the Caribean Islands on his first voyage and then the North American mainland on his fourth voyage (nevermind that he was on the wrong latitude line to begin with and would have never run into Japan no matter how far west he traveled).

The fact remains that he stumbled into America, and by doing so, actually discovered America. He wasn't the first to discover America, and the History channel plainly admits this. Vikings, Inuit, and various steppe people's from Northeastern Asia stumbled upon America first. The fact that he wasn't the first to discover America doesn't take away from the fact that he did, in fact, for his people, in his time, discover America (although he didn't quite understand what it was that he found). More importantly, he was the first to actually chart his findings in order so that his discovery actually meant something valuable to the world.

How strange that the native Americans aren't called Red Chinese but Red Indians:rolleyes:

lemontree
09 Oct 06,, 13:59
They grudgingly tolerated Chinese rule for 267 years?

Oh come on! If people accept outside rule for 267 years, I'd say then they have pretty much given up their sovereignty and legitimized the outside rule.

For example, Catalonia and Navarre in Spain are far beyond the point of no return. It's been so long that they've lost all legitimate claim to any sovereignty (especially considering the conditions under which they entered the Kingdom of Spain...via marriage of nobility for Catalonia and voluntary entry for Navarre---well, sort of voluntary). To the chagrin of the Catalan nationalists, I say, too freakin' bad (I'm slightly optimistic since the officer corps in Spain issued statements saying that they would support military intervention if any part of Spain tried to secede). I would hope that if Catalonia or Navarre ever tried to secede, the result would be a civil war in which the Castillians would get to use their superior numbers to once again reign in the Catalans and Basques.
Poor example.
- Saudi Arabia and most of Arabian countries were under Turkish rule far more that 300 years.
- India was also under invasion from Mughals, Afghans and later the English.

None of the peoples tolerated their foreign rulers and kept up their struggle. The very fact that the Tibetans separated at the very chance they got in 1911 proves that they were and still are tolerating the Chinese.

gilgamesh
09 Oct 06,, 14:04
If a country can WIN it's independence, be it through war or protest, then fine, it deserves its independence. But if a country cannot WIN it's independence (as is the case with Tibet), then it really doesn't deserve independence.



Bovine Fecal Matter!

durtyburd
09 Oct 06,, 14:48
Poor example.
- Saudi Arabia and most of Arabian countries were under Turkish rule far more that 300 years.


Don't get me started on this one.

They achieved their independence (albeit almost under dubious circumstances). French support for the rebelious egyptian pasha, British/French/Russian pressure in Greece and Macedonia, and Russian/Austrian pressure from the north and west worked to dwindle down the Ottoman Empire. I think that the French support of the egyptian Pasha was a bad move. But NOOOOOOOOOO, the French had to build their precious Suez Canal to ease their travel to the far-east. They just had to kick the sick old man while he was down. By the time that Britain, France, Austria, and Prussia realized what a horrible idea it was to let the Ottomans fall so low (and let the Russians get so high), it was too late. After the Congress of Paris, the best they could do was put the sick old turk on life support and hope he makes it long enough for the western powers to come up with a new counter weight to Russia.

Then everything changed, France warmed up to Russia, Britain stopped caring so much, Turkey found itself tied to Austria and the new benefactor, Germany. WWI pulled the plug on the life support and the rest of it gave way (Palestine, Arabia, Mesopotamia). It was a miracle that as much of Turkey held together as it did. I bet more than one Turk wondered how they went from being supported by Germans, Austrians, British, and French against the Russians to being supporters of Germans and Austrians against the British, French, and Russians (political allegiences of 19th and early 20th century Europe can send one spinning in dizziness).

Anyhow, if you ask me, I'd say that the middle east was nice, orderly, and peacefull under Ottoman rule.

By the way, this has always been my answer to the problems with Israel, Palestine, Arabia, and Iraq: "Bring back the Ottomans and to hell with the consequences!" We can put the Israelis and the Palestinians under a Turkish boot and then they can ALL be equally unhappy!

astralis
09 Oct 06,, 17:10
lemontree,


Thats the communist version and they are liars.

be honest. the qing dynasty formally claimed tibet. sun yat-sen/sun zhongshan, the father of the modern chinese republic, called for a "five-race republic" that included- you guessed it- tibetans. chiang kai-shek explicitly stated that tibet also belonged to china. of course, as you know, mao zedong went ahead and re-conquered the place.

in other words, since around the 1700s, the chinese (communist or not) have been claiming some form of sovereignty over tibet.

your problem is not so much with "communist sources", but simply that the vast majority of chinese, and chinese sources, claim tibet as their own. you can quite ironically go to taiwan- a free country, i hope you can agree with that?- and find academics quite willing to make the comparison between tibet and taiwan, that tibet is/deserves to be part of china while taiwan is not, based upon historical precedent.

and those people are NOT communists- they usually identify with the pro-independence movement, the greens.

starsiege
09 Oct 06,, 19:49
Poor example.
- Saudi Arabia and most of Arabian countries were under Turkish rule far more that 300 years.
- India was also under invasion from Mughals, Afghans and later the English.

None of the peoples tolerated their foreign rulers and kept up their struggle. The very fact that the Tibetans separated at the very chance they got in 1911 proves that they were and still are tolerating the Chinese.

my point exactly!

gunnut
09 Oct 06,, 22:07
I would like to take the position of the devil's advocate.

Why is Tibet so precious to the west? Why do I see "Free Tibet" bumper stickers in the US? Do these people even know what that means? Do these people even understand what the current situation, or past histories are?

Is Tibet being oppressed? By who?

Most westerners say Tibet is being oppressed by the communist Chinese. OK. What is the alternative? The alternative is a theocracy that brainwashes people into devoting their entire life to a religion and a living god at the expense of their quality of life.

The funny thing is these "Free Tibet" people are mostly the Hollywood type liberals who would gasp at the mention of a "theocracy."

We constantly talk about helping the poor. When someone actually tries to do something to bring these people out of the middle ages, we biatch and moan.

Between being oppressed by a religion and being oppressed by communists, I think I would like to be oppressed by the communists, and eveyone knows I bear no good will toward the commies.

Think about that.

starsiege
10 Oct 06,, 00:23
I would like to take the position of the devil's advocate.

Why is Tibet so precious to the west? Why do I see "Free Tibet" bumper stickers in the US? Do these people even know what that means? Do these people even understand what the current situation, or past histories are?

Is Tibet being oppressed? By who?

Most westerners say Tibet is being oppressed by the communist Chinese. OK. What is the alternative? The alternative is a theocracy that brainwashes people into devoting their entire life to a religion and a living god at the expense of their quality of life.

The funny thing is these "Free Tibet" people are mostly the Hollywood type liberals who would gasp at the mention of a "theocracy."

We constantly talk about helping the poor. When someone actually tries to do something to bring these people out of the middle ages, we biatch and moan.

Between being oppressed by a religion and being oppressed by communists, I think I would like to be oppressed by the communists, and eveyone knows I bear no good will toward the commies.

Think about that.

pray do provide us some evidence of ur so called "religious opression" ?

are the people required to go to the monastry? NOpe
are they required to give money to the monastry? nope
do they do that out of their interest? yes

the mistake u make is that u try to put urself on the seats of the tibetians. tibetians "like" to support their monastries and their elader, the dalai lama. at least by doing so they dont go about killing people or taking away their freedom of speech. under the commie regime, millions have been killed and displaced. while its all so fun to connect the tibetians with some of the hippy libs down on south cal, it is far removed from the live of an ordinary tibetian.

why dont u ask any tibetians u know if they would prefer the commies over the dalai lama? heh? that would be a good start, to ask what the people wish, than to make decision for themselves right?:biggrin:

durtyburd
10 Oct 06,, 01:08
why dont u ask any tibetians u know if they would prefer the commies over the dalai lama? heh? that would be a good start, to ask what the people wish, than to make decision for themselves right?:biggrin:

Self-determination is only a cover for nationalism.

Secessionist movements are to be impeded wherever possible in order to make for a more secure and orderly world.

If self-determination becomes the norm, then every two-bit chicken farmer around the world is going to plant a flag and attempt to secede claiming, "self-determination".

Secessionists must be fought wherever they exist. They are a force for instability, violence, and economic ruin. Globalisation is supposed to be bringing the world together, not tearing it apart.

starsiege
10 Oct 06,, 01:16
Self-determination is only a cover for nationalism.

Secessionist movements are to be impeded wherever possible in order to make for a more secure and orderly world.

If self-determination becomes the norm, then every two-bit chicken farmer around the world is going to plant a flag and attempt to secede claiming, "self-determination".

Secessionists must be fought wherever they exist. They are a force for instability, violence, and economic ruin. Globalisation is supposed to be bringing the world together, not tearing it apart.
TYPICAL COMMIE LINE!

u are soo pathetic. are we the "borg"? yeah it will be super cool when i come to ur house with big guns and make u my hostages and then claim that i own the house. and guess what! u cant do jack s*** about it cos i can claim im toing ur "globalization" line

either u are ignorant or ur ignorant. :mad:

i dont wanna type anything further..cos this is hilarious

durtyburd
10 Oct 06,, 01:24
u are soo pathetic. are we the "borg"? yeah it will be super cool when i come to ur house with big guns and make u my hostages and then claim that i own the house. and guess what! u cant do jack s*** about it cos i can claim im toing ur "clobalization" line


I'm not talking about using globalization as a cover for conquest, so you're missing the point entirely.

I'm talking about "self-determination" merely being a cover for nationalism. Self-determination is a vile concept that only serves to cause conflict and ruin. Secessionists must be destroyed, wherever they are.

No part of any country has any right to secede. If the South in the US was wrong in trying to secede, then so is every other secessionist movement that has arisen since then.

You're not trying to say that Abraham Lincoln was a commie, are you?

starsiege
10 Oct 06,, 01:26
I'm not talking about using globalization as a cover for conquest, so you're missing the point entirely.

I'm talking about "self-determination" merely being a cover for nationalism. Self-determination is a vile concept that only serves to cause conflict and ruin. Secessionists must be destroyed, wherever they are.

No part of any country has any right to secede. If the South in the US was wrong in trying to secede, then so is every other secessionist movement that has arisen since then.

You're not trying to say that Abraham Lincoln was a commie, are you?


u are talking as if u assume tibet was always a part of china!.lol. tibet was an independant country most of the time during the last 3000 years, only a few centuries were spent under chineese rule. so ur talk about "Secessionist" would not apply cos tibet is a teritory occupied by china:)

end of talk

durtyburd
10 Oct 06,, 01:41
u are talking as if u assume tibet was always a part of china!.lol. tibet was an independant country most of the time during the last 3000 years, only a few centuries were spent under chineese rule. so ur talk about "Secessionist" would not apply cos tibet is a teritory occupied by china:)

end of talk

Well, there was a period in which Tibet was its own kingdom in the middle ages, but that didn't last all that long. They spent a large amount of time under domination by one power or another (ie mongols--on a couple of occassions).

Tibet has been an integral part of China since around 1644.

2006-1644=362 years

Tibet is chinese...has been for a long while now. Don't bring up 3000 year old ancient history because, well, it's ancient history. Leave ancient history in the past, where it belongs. Instead focus on the realities of the here and now. In the reality of the "here and now", Tibet is a part of China.

No one is going to wrestle Tibet away from China. China is too powerful to let that happen. At some point, after overloardship by a powerhouse for 362 years, you have to just give up and accept that China rules that land.

It is the case that, resistence is futile in regards to Tibet.

Tibet is lost. Mandarin chinese are migrating to the region in numbers which will permanently change the demographics of Tibet. Soon, the Tibetan ethnic groups will be a minority in their own province and the issue will be moot.

starsiege
10 Oct 06,, 01:42
Well, there was a period in which Tibet was its own kingdom in the middle ages, but that didn't last all that long. They spent a large amount of time under domination by one power or another (ie mongols--on a couple of occassions).

Tibet has been an integral part of China since around 1644.

2006-1644=362 years

Tibet is chinese...has been for a long while now. Don't bring up 3000 year old ancient history because, well, it's ancient history. Leave ancient history in the past, where it belongs. Instead focus on the realities of the here and now. In the reality of the "here and now", Tibet is a part of China.

No one is going to wrestle Tibet away from China. China is too powerful to let that happen. At some point, after overloardship by a powerhouse for 362 years, you have to just give up and accept that China rules that land.

It is the case that, resistence is futile in regards to Tibet.

Tibet is lost. Mandarin chinese are emmigrating to the region in numbers which will permanently change the demographics of Tibet. Soon, the Tibetan ethnic groups will be a minority in their own province and the issue will be moot.

u are advocating ethnic cleansing and genocide. what an A******

check this out
"3. TIBETAN NUN'S TALE OF TORTURE REVEALS CHINESE BRUTALITY

TIBETAN NUN'S TALE OF TORTURE REVEALS CHINESE BRUTALITY

Elizabeth Davies

Ngawang Sangdrol was just 13 when she was first imprisoned by China
in Tibet. She was so small her prison guards found it easy to pick
her up by the legs and drop her, head first, on to the stone floor of
her cell.

They beat her with iron rods, placed electric shock batons in her
mouth and left her standing in the baking heat until she collapsed of
exhaustion. They called her the "ballerina", because when the pain
became too much for her, she would stand on the tips of her toes like
a dancer. "The more we cried out in pain," she said, "the more they
laughed."

"They would put a rope around your neck, tie both your hands and hang
you down from the ceiling. They used iron bars to beat you
systematically," she says. "And once you are imprisoned there is no
difference between a child and an adult and an elderly person, or
between a man and a woman. All punishments and torture methods are
equal for everyone."

Ngawang Sangrol, now 28, is a Tibetan nun who spent more than a
decade in prison. Released shortly before a visit by the then Chinese
President Jiang Zemin to George Bush's Texan ranch, she was made to
sign papers promising she would never speak of her experiences in the
notorious Drapchi prison.

She was critically ill after years of abuse and doctors believed she
would not live long. But she has survived to tell her gruesome tale,
to the acute discomfort of the Chinese authorities.

The nun was arrested in 1990 for joining a peaceful demonstration
calling for independence for Tibet. She was freed after nine months,
and rearrested in 1992. In an interview with The Independent, she
said: "I was imprisoned for saying just two things. 'Long live the
Dalai Lama' and 'Free Tibet'. For these I was imprisoned and
tortured. The sufferings our people went through after the invasion
are well documented: everyone seems to know about them. But people
seem to think that these days our problems are over, and this is not
true. I have experienced persecution at the hands of the Chinese, and
I can see it continuing."

There are an estimated 200 political prisoners in Tibet, almost all
monks and nuns whose only crime is to have pledged support to the
Dalai Lama, the head of the Buddhist faith, who leads a government in
exile in India but whom Beijing regards as a separatist threat.

The London-based human rights group Free Tibet, says torture "forms a
part of these prisoners' everyday lives". Human Rights Watch reports
document the "mistreatment in detention" of religious figures and
activists, citing Tibet as one of the two regions in China where
torture is most rife. Beijing denies this, but none of the numerous
claims of torture has been investigated by the Chinese authorities.

Life outside the prison walls is also tough, say rights activists.
Since direct rule was imposed by Beijing in 1950, the authorities
have denied charges of restricting basic freedoms.

Ngawang Sandrol, now living in the US, is in London to urge the UK to
use its forthcoming EU presidency to appoint a special EU rapporteur
for Tibet and to promote negotiations between Beijing and the exiled
Tibetan government.

Posted on 2005-06-29
Back to [Vol. 07 No. 26 June 27, 2005]
":mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

impressive huh? im puking!

durtyburd
10 Oct 06,, 01:51
u are advocating ethnic cleansing and genocide. what an A******


I'm not advocating ethnic cleansing anywhere. Migration is not a form of ethnic cleansing or genocide. Governments have the inherent right to encourage people in their country to move from on place to another. The United States does the same thing by providing money for people who migrate to Alaska. I repeat, the fact that the Chinese government encourages Mandarin Chinese to move to Tibet is not a form of ethnic cleansing or genocide.

I am merely stating the fact that demographic change happens. In Tibet, Mandarin Chinese are migrating to Tibet in record numbers. They will become the majority soon.

starsiege
10 Oct 06,, 01:55
I'm not advocating ethnic cleansing anywhere. Migration is not a form of ethnic cleansing or genocide. Governments have the inherent right to encourage people in their country to move from on place to another. The United States does the same thing by providing money for people who migrate to Alaska. I repeat, the fact that the Chinese government encourages Mandarin Chinese to move to Tibet is not a form of ethnic cleansing or genocide.

I am merely stating the fact that demographic change happens. In Tibet, Mandarin Chinese are migrating to Tibet in record numbers. They will become the majority soon.

all the while native tibetians are tortured and killed . nice. and china has no right to govern tibet, hence the "migration" is illegal settlement.

how many more little kids and girls are being turtured and killed in tibet by the commonists? like the nun in the story i posted?

thousands

and also dont deny the fact that the chineese government demolished thousands of monastries in china!

what would china do if all the chineese monuments are demolished?
that irony.
but i guess talking about human rights to the communists is like talking to a deaf man..cos they are sub human

Officer of Engineers
10 Oct 06,, 02:12
As much as you guys would like Tibet to be solved by the Tibettans, the reality is that you cannot solve Tibet without China's involvement. The Dali Lama's proposal to exclude Han Chinese from any decision simply will not be tolerated by the Chinese no matter what their political bent be they communists or nationalists.

As such, Tibettan Independence is a pipe dream. There's more than enough Han Chinese to prevent it. Now, the question is what can be done to nurture Tibettan culture within this confine.

starsiege
10 Oct 06,, 02:16
As much as you guys would like Tibet to be solved by the Tibettans, the reality is that you cannot solve Tibet without China's involvement. The Dali Lama's proposal to exclude Han Chinese from any decision simply will not be tolerated by the Chinese no matter what their political bent be they communists or nationalists.

As such, Tibettan Independence is a pipe dream. There's more than enough Han Chinese to prevent it. Now, the question is what can be done to nurture Tibettan culture within this confine.

its not a dead dream yet. hopefully a day would come when the commie gov would fall and be overthrown in china and with the help of india and the new "democratic" government in china, tibet can get its independance. and the han chineese can be resettled in western china, and the chineese might like it cos they have a problem with muslims in western china:)

Officer of Engineers
10 Oct 06,, 02:21
China claims both areas. It's NOT a commie thing. It's a CHINESE thing. As much as Kashmir is an INDIAN thing.

From the Qing Dynasty onwards, China has always claimed Tibet regardless if they were Nationalist Kuomantang, Communist Chinese Part, Qing Imperial Court, or the Presidency of Sun Yet-Sen.

And the Han Chinese will not be settled without force and with your suggestion, that means the Indian Army. Good luck in trying to start that war.

starsiege
10 Oct 06,, 02:29
China claims both areas. It's NOT a commie thing. It's a CHINESE thing. As much as Kashmir is an INDIAN thing.

From the Qing Dynasty onwards, China has always claimed Tibet regardless if they were Nationalist Kuomantang, Communist Chinese Part, Qing Imperial Court, or the Presidency of Sun Yet-Sen.

And the Han Chinese will not be settled without force and with your suggestion, that means the Indian Army. Good luck in trying to start that war.

its not a totally impossible scenario

say there is a uprising in china, as it is about to overthrow the commies, the taiwaneese pitch in. the chineese army would be overstreached, esp if the commie leardership is eliminated in the uprising. then it would be easy for india to move into tibet( by the time law and order would have fallen down cos to the loss of leadership). and when the new chineese gov is in power. india would be in control of tibet(aided to a great extent by pre planned and coordinated attacks by tibetian freedom fighters supplied by india(like the mukti vahini in bangaladesh war)). I SERIOUSLY doubt that the new chineese gov would come to take back tibet. esp when it would take years to get their own country back into any semblance of order. abd any new democratic gov would be very sensitive about its public image and would not like to liken themselves to the commies by moving into tibet again. and also the prospect of a fight between india and china would hold back any such impulse actions.

the tibetians could have their own country:)

Officer of Engineers
10 Oct 06,, 02:33
Boy,

You really don't know Tibet, do you. 1st of all, this is the PLA you're talking about? They're over-stretched? 2nd, it ain't the PLA controlling Tibet, it's the PAP and they're not moving anywhere to help.

3rd, the Han Chinese living in Tibet right now outnumbers the Tibettans and at least 15% of them belong to the PAP, PLA, PLA reserves, militia. In other words, it would have to be a pretty messed up China, akin to Warlord China to allow the conditions you're speaking of

...

And the world has alot more to worry about than Tibet with a Warlord China with nukes.

starsiege
10 Oct 06,, 02:39
Boy,

You really don't know Tibet, do you. 1st of all, this is the PLA you're talking about? They're over-stretched? 2nd, it ain't the PLA controlling Tibet, it's the PAP and they're not moving anywhere to help.

3rd, the Han Chinese living in Tibet right now outnumbers the Tibettans and at least 15% of them belong to the PAP, PLA, PLA reserves, militia. In other words, it would have to be a pretty messed up China, akin to Warlord China to allow the conditions you're speaking of

...

And the world has alot more to worry about than Tibet with a Warlord China with nukes.

didn't i say that this would be possible during a time of great upheaval during a regime change in china?, any divisions in tibet might be even recalled to help preserve the "bastian of communism". and esp if taiwan joins in, china would have a lot on its plate. and not all the chineese army folks would be loyal to the comminist gov.

Officer of Engineers
10 Oct 06,, 02:41
You're looking at a Warlord China ... and all that it implies - including the likelihood of it happenning.

starsiege
10 Oct 06,, 02:42
You're looking at a Warlord China ... and all that it implies - including the likelihood of it happenning.

a regime change would not mean a warlord china, most would not like the warlords anyways, there would be democracy..after a few years of intercne struggles

Officer of Engineers
10 Oct 06,, 02:44
Then, the condition for your Tibettan Independence would not occur.

Tronic
10 Oct 06,, 02:48
I would like to take the position of the devil's advocate.

Why is Tibet so precious to the west? Why do I see "Free Tibet" bumper stickers in the US? Do these people even know what that means? Do these people even understand what the current situation, or past histories are?

Is Tibet being oppressed? By who?

Most westerners say Tibet is being oppressed by the communist Chinese. OK. What is the alternative? The alternative is a theocracy that brainwashes people into devoting their entire life to a religion and a living god at the expense of their quality of life.

The funny thing is these "Free Tibet" people are mostly the Hollywood type liberals who would gasp at the mention of a "theocracy."

We constantly talk about helping the poor. When someone actually tries to do something to bring these people out of the middle ages, we biatch and moan.

Between being oppressed by a religion and being oppressed by communists, I think I would like to be oppressed by the communists, and eveyone knows I bear no good will toward the commies.

Think about that.

actually... a religious Tibet wouldn't actually be a bad thing.... First, Tibet would most likely be a Republic but even if they are Theocratic, they'll be ruled by monks!!! It will probably be the most peaceful country on the face of the planet... They allowed the Chinese to overpopulate and outnumber the Tibetans and still the monks didn't authorize violence. Had Tibet been muslim, Tibet would've been long burning and civilians bombed... a Religious Tibet would probably be more stable and peaceful then most non-theocratic countries...

Officer of Engineers
10 Oct 06,, 02:50
They allowed the Chinese to overpopulate and outnumber the Tibetans and still the monks didn't authorize violence.

You could've fooled me with the Tibettan uprising and I saw more than few Monks giving just as good as they got with the PAP.

Tronic
10 Oct 06,, 02:56
You could've fooled me with the Tibettan uprising and I saw more than few Monks giving just as good as they got with the PAP.

The uprising started off peaceful, it only got violent when the Chinese army started to slaughter the Tibetans...

starsiege
10 Oct 06,, 02:58
The uprising started off peaceful, it only got violent when the Chinese army started to slaughter the Tibetans...

dont forget tinnamen square! and the brave man who walked in front of the tank!

he died there but rose in everlasting fame :odesseus

Tronic
10 Oct 06,, 03:01
I think he was pulled away from the tank... don't think he died.. probably rusting away in some Chinese jail right now...

starsiege
10 Oct 06,, 03:03
I think he was pulled away from the tank... don't think he died.. probably rusting away in some Chinese jail right now...

i was talking about those who got killed in tinnamen sqare, and also for those brave young men and women who even today suffer in the turture camps

Officer of Engineers
10 Oct 06,, 03:11
The uprising started off peaceful, it only got violent when the Chinese army started to slaughter the Tibetans...
The point is that your monks are just as capable violence, even military actions just as everybody else.

Tronic
10 Oct 06,, 03:25
The point is that your monks are just as capable violence, even military actions just as everybody else.
yes, they are capable... but the difference is that they don't routinely practise their capability... if they did, Tibet would be very bloody...

Officer of Engineers
10 Oct 06,, 04:10
You mean it wasn't? Aside from the uprising, there was also a Tibetan Civil War called the Great Proliterate Cultural Revolution.

gunnut
10 Oct 06,, 04:21
My point is that the Tibetan monks practice brainwashing as much as Kim Jong Il does in North Korea. The difference is the monks have been at it far longer than 60 years.

These people are poor, ignorant, and are happy because they have been oppressed for so long that they don't know a better life exists in this world.

Is that moral?

Maybe. They are happy.

But then again we can look at the Scientologists. Will anyone support a theocratic Scientologist state where the people devote their entire life to the church, to the point of giving up all material goods and personal possession? That's what my friend's relative did. She sold everything she had (which came out to be quite a bit with the house and everything), gave the money to the church, and now lives happily ever after.

This is the life we're talking about for these people. They have no concept of this life. They devote their entire life to the next life, at the behest of the lamas. All their labor in this life goes to the temple/lamas. This is the type of oppression I'm talking about.

Is it oppression? I think so. But some would argue it's not on a philosophical point.

lemontree
10 Oct 06,, 05:03
Don't get me started on this one.

They achieved their independence (albeit almost under dubious circumstances). French support for the rebelious egyptian pasha, British/French/Russian pressure in Greece and Macedonia, and Russian/Austrian pressure from the north and west worked to dwindle down the Ottoman Empire. I think that the French support of the egyptian Pasha was a bad move. But NOOOOOOOOOO, the French had to build their precious Suez Canal to ease their travel to the far-east. They just had to kick the sick old man while he was down. By the time that Britain, France, Austria, and Prussia realized what a horrible idea it was to let the Ottomans fall so low (and let the Russians get so high), it was too late. After the Congress of Paris, the best they could do was put the sick old turk on life support and hope he makes it long enough for the western powers to come up with a new counter weight to Russia.

Then everything changed, France warmed up to Russia, Britain stopped caring so much, Turkey found itself tied to Austria and the new benefactor, Germany. WWI pulled the plug on the life support and the rest of it gave way (Palestine, Arabia, Mesopotamia). It was a miracle that as much of Turkey held together as it did. I bet more than one Turk wondered how they went from being supported by Germans, Austrians, British, and French against the Russians to being supporters of Germans and Austrians against the British, French, and Russians (political allegiences of 19th and early 20th century Europe can send one spinning in dizziness).
Colonial global politics was a legacy of greed and oppression.

Anyhow, if you ask me, I'd say that the middle east was nice, orderly, and peacefull under Ottoman rule.
You seem weel educated, so I presume you are aware of the Armenian genocide by the Ottomans'.

By the way, this has always been my answer to the problems with Israel, Palestine, Arabia, and Iraq: "Bring back the Ottomans and to hell with the consequences!" We can put the Israelis and the Palestinians under a Turkish boot and then they can ALL be equally unhappy!
You seem bent upon condemning the non-muslims to life of slavery and oppression.

lemontree
10 Oct 06,, 05:07
lemontree,

be honest. the qing dynasty formally claimed tibet. sun yat-sen/sun zhongshan, the father of the modern chinese republic, called for a "five-race republic" that included- you guessed it- tibetans. chiang kai-shek explicitly stated that tibet also belonged to china. of course, as you know, mao zedong went ahead and re-conquered the place.

in other words, since around the 1700s, the chinese (communist or not) have been claiming some form of sovereignty over tibet.

your problem is not so much with "communist sources", but simply that the vast majority of chinese, and chinese sources, claim tibet as their own. you can quite ironically go to taiwan- a free country, i hope you can agree with that?- and find academics quite willing to make the comparison between tibet and taiwan, that tibet is/deserves to be part of china while taiwan is not, based upon historical precedent.

and those people are NOT communists- they usually identify with the pro-independence movement, the greens.
But do the Tibetans want it, when the Chinese in Taiwan have a problem living under their own people, why deny the Tibetans the same right.

Had China been under a similar system as Taiwan, the situation may have been different.

gesar
10 Oct 06,, 05:11
yes, they are capable... but the difference is that they don't routinely practise their capability... if they did, Tibet would be very bloody...

not exactly...
you see tibetans did resist the commie liberation army and killed them in large numbers but our cowardly overlords in lhasa left the khampas/amdos holding the **** bucket and surrendered to PLA.:frown: these are same bastards whop betrayed us again in 72-76 when they started to destroy/dismatle the resistence under the indian/nepali pressure.fikin cowards ...:mad:
just because you dont hear it doesnt mean its not happening.bombs go off in regular interval in tibet::rolleyes:

dalai and his clique destroyed the only thing standing for freedom.maybe he wanted hollywood to fight for him...hehehehehe lol.....


as long as we have dalai lama in charge expect situation to reamin status quo but when he is gone its gonna be bada bing bada bang.tibetans in exile have lots of military training so there is a large hostile enitity ready to commit mayhem.believe me they hate the communist bastards.....:mad:

dalai is a gift that keeps on giving hehehehehehe......mongols truly ficked us with him.:bigrin: dont believe the commie ******** of dalai as seperatist leader.he is their best buddy.:mad:

talking to the old timer fighters of CSGD i found that they had utter contempt of PLA as a fighting army.they were very incompetent and attacked in huge swarms....like hyenas when they attack a wilderbeast.:rolleyes: incompetent PLA took around 17 years to defeat a motley crew of around 2000 fighters.:biggrin:

muslim fighters in general were considered brave and vicious.when captured chinese han were shot out of hand while mulslims were sometimes tortured/mutiliated before being killed.

it was very a bad time for my country and family.

ps:i am not advocating total independence from PRC.whether i lke it or not they are cousins and very big...true autonomy would do fine.
i just hate the commie ******** about the peaceful liberation .

anytime brainwashed chicom talks aboutthe peaceful liberation BS i compare it the great liberation of china by the japanese democrats .i mean they just wanted to lift to china of middle ages.....:mad:

lemontree
10 Oct 06,, 05:18
Well, there was a period in which Tibet was its own kingdom in the middle ages, but that didn't last all that long. They spent a large amount of time under domination by one power or another (ie mongols--on a couple of occassions).

Tibet has been an integral part of China since around 1644.

2006-1644=362 years
By your above logic, the Mongols ruled over China from the 12th to the 14th century. That makes China a territory of Mongolia.

Now if you justify Chinese nationalism then your negation of Tibetan nationalism is unfounded.

No one is going to wrestle Tibet away from China. China is too powerful to let that happen. At some point, after overloardship by a powerhouse for 362 years, you have to just give up and accept that China rules that land.
A couple of decades more and things will change.

It is the case that, resistence is futile in regards to Tibet.

Tibet is lost.
So you agree that Tibet is an illegal occupation.

Mandarin chinese are migrating to the region in numbers which will permanently change the demographics of Tibet. Soon, the Tibetan ethnic groups will be a minority in their own province and the issue will be moot.
The Chinese are lucky that the Dalai Lama is not Mohd Ali Jinnah.

lemontree
10 Oct 06,, 05:29
At last we have a Tibetan point of view, and that should rest the debate.

durtyburd
10 Oct 06,, 05:30
...its not a dead dream yet. hopefully a day would come when the commie gov would fall and be overthrown in china and with the help of india and the new "democratic" government in china, tibet can get its independance. and the han chineese can be resettled in western china, and the chineese might like it cos they have a problem with muslims in western china:)

I bolded the pertinent part of that statement.

You accused me of supporting ethnic cleansing and genocide (which I do not), yet here you call for ethnic cleansing and genocide. If resettling Han Chinese by force isn't a form of ethnic cleansing and genocide, then I wouldn't know what is.

If any regime change in China brought up the possibility of any self-determination in Tibet, then the Han living in Tibet should be allowed to vote in any decision-making process. To exclude people who reside in Tibet due to ethnicity would be 1-racist and 2-undemocratic.

Also, I'm pretty sure that if it came down to China Vs India, India wouldn't stand a chance. India would have to go nuclear in order to not be obliterated...any which case it would be obliterated anyways (and Pakistan would probably be responsible for the final deathjab at the critical moment).

Also, I've been calling them Mandarin Chinese all my life, is that a mistake? If so, oops...I guess I've always called people by what dialect they speak. It gets a little bit convoluted, so of course it's easy to call them Mandarin since they usually speak Mandarin, albeit their ethnicity is "Han". Oh well, my apologies for the mix-up.

durtyburd
10 Oct 06,, 05:43
You seem weel educated, so I presume you are aware of the Armenian genocide by the Ottomans'.

Ok, well you got me on that one. That disagreement wasn't peaceful or orderly. On the other hand, it was barely noticed by the outside world. I'm frankly more concerened with the external perceptions of global politics and the ability for those countries that engage in heavy international trade to continue their business without pesky ethnic/religious/class conflicts in market and resource providing countries from spoiling their economic opportunities by disturbing voting constituencies at home. In other words, 1st worlds says to 3rd word, "hey, if you can keep your ethnic struggles out of our headlines, good, then we would appreciate that". The Ottomans were pretty good at downplaying what happenned in Armenia, and that works well enough for me.

lemontree
10 Oct 06,, 05:46
Also, I'm pretty sure that if it came down to China Vs India, India wouldn't stand a chance. India would have to go nuclear in order to not be obliterated...any which case it would be obliterated anyways (and Pakistan would probably be responsible for the final deathjab at the critical moment).
Now you are talking out of your hat. This is not 1962. China will be the one having to use nukes to save itself some major humiliation.

Last time in 1986, we are told that the PLA could'nt guarantee victory to the CPC.

I do not advocate a Sino-Indian war, but if it comes to that, the PLA better be ready for many surprises.

As for Pakistan, remember they just surrendered to the Taliban.

lemontree
10 Oct 06,, 05:49
Ok, well you got me on that one. That disagreement wasn't peaceful or orderly. On the other hand, it was barely noticed by the outside world. I'm frankly more concerened with the external perceptions of global politics and the ability for those countries that engage in heavy international trade to continue their business without pesky ethnic/religious/class conflicts in market and resource providing countries from spoiling their economic opportunities by disturbing voting constituencies at home. In other words, 1st worlds says to 3rd word, "hey, if you can keep your ethnic struggles out of our headlines, good, then we would appreciate that". The Ottomans were pretty good at downplaying what happenned in Armenia, and that works well enough for me.
Well then do reply to "gesar's" post. I am just the third part.

durtyburd
10 Oct 06,, 05:59
Well, Geser's post makes the whole situation look like a clusterf^ck that is better of left to be pacified by the PRC.

lemontree
10 Oct 06,, 06:35
Well, Geser's post makes the whole situation look like a clusterf^ck that is better of left to be pacified by the PRC.
Lol...:biggrin:

starsiege
10 Oct 06,, 07:07
I bolded the pertinent part of that statement.

You accused me of supporting ethnic cleansing and genocide (which I do not), yet here you call for ethnic cleansing and genocide. If resettling Han Chinese by force isn't a form of ethnic cleansing and genocide, then I wouldn't know what is.

If any regime change in China brought up the possibility of any self-determination in Tibet, then the Han living in Tibet should be allowed to vote in any decision-making process. To exclude people who reside in Tibet due to ethnicity would be 1-racist and 2-undemocratic.

Also, I'm pretty sure that if it came down to China Vs India, India wouldn't stand a chance. India would have to go nuclear in order to not be obliterated...any which case it would be obliterated anyways (and Pakistan would probably be responsible for the final deathjab at the critical moment).

Also, I've been calling them Mandarin Chinese all my life, is that a mistake? If so, oops...I guess I've always called people by what dialect they speak. It gets a little bit convoluted, so of course it's easy to call them Mandarin since they usually speak Mandarin, albeit their ethnicity is "Han". Oh well, my apologies for the mix-up.
OH FOR GODS SAKE DONT U SEE THAT IM SARCASTIC? rolfmao!!!

Draconion
10 Oct 06,, 09:20
why should China not kill tibetians trying to seek out of thier country...wont we do the same if some kashmiri is trying to do the same...?...people..dont be hyprocratic...

starsiege
10 Oct 06,, 09:23
why should China not kill tibetians trying to seek out of thier country...wont we do the same if some kashmiri is trying to do the same...?...people..dont be hyprocratic...

Oh really? nice try, i assue ur pakistani?

tibet and kasmir are VERY diff

tibet was an independant country till china occupied it by force

kashmir was a part of india till the muslim armies invaded it. hence muslims cant claim kashmir as their own as the tibetians claim tibet as their own

they are totally different, case closed

and thanks for showing us ur ignorance:):biggrin:

Draconion
10 Oct 06,, 10:50
Oh really? nice try, i assue ur pakistani?

tibet and kasmir are VERY diff

tibet was an independant country till china occupied it by force

kashmir was a part of india till the muslim armies invaded it. hence muslims cant claim kashmir as their own as the tibetians claim tibet as their own

they are totally different, case closed

and thanks for showing us ur ignorance:):biggrin:

on the contrary, i am very much an indian, and that too an army officers' son, who wants to join the fauj, but lets not get down to that...

if that be your reason...then sikkim should not be a part of india...
and we indians are training tibetians for what...?...ghass charana ke liya...?...no..for causing trouble in china...and hell, when did they invade...some 50 years back...let bygones be bygones....live in reality dude...

667medic
10 Oct 06,, 11:11
on the contrary, i am very much an indian, and that too an army officers' son, who wants to join the fauj, but lets not get down to that...

if that be your reason...then sikkim should not be a part of india...
and we indians are training tibetians for what...?...ghass charana ke liya...?...no..for causing trouble in china...and hell, when did they invade...some 50 years back...let bygones be bygones....live in reality dude...

That's the same Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai shyt from the 50's.
The current imbroglio in the border negotiations is over China's claim on Twang. Apparently CIA used to mount ops from Twang in the 60's and so they want Twang to forestall any future insurgensies. They don't want to let bygones be bygones.

As for why we are training the Tibetan volunteers, ask the Chicoms why they are feeding Pakistan.......

lemontree
10 Oct 06,, 11:35
why should China not kill tibetians trying to seek out of thier country...wont we do the same if some kashmiri is trying to do the same...?...people..dont be hyprocratic...
Don't make stupid remarks, because we don't kill civilians near the LOC.

on the contrary, i am very much an indian, and that too an army officers' son, who wants to join the fauj, but lets not get down to that...
Inspite of that you made the above statement?

Those who don't know history suffer the same fate as their ancestors. Read all you can on the subject. No one is advocating war, but there is no harm in being prepared and proactive against a country that is covertly abetting an anti-Indian policy.

starsiege
10 Oct 06,, 17:40
Don't make stupid remarks, because we don't kill civilians near the LOC.

Inspite of that you made the above statement?

Those who don't know history suffer the same fate as their ancestors. Read all you can on the subject. No one is advocating war, but there is no harm in being prepared and proactive against a country that is covertly abetting an anti-Indian policy.

well said man!. draconing is a pakistan, and if he is indian then thats so pathetic..maybe he is one of those commies who still thinks india and china are pals. even after china slapped nehru on his face.

Jay
10 Oct 06,, 22:31
Well, there was a period in which Tibet was its own kingdom in the middle ages, but that didn't last all that long. They spent a large amount of time under domination by one power or another (ie mongols--on a couple of occassions).
Still that does not mean that they cannot have a free country today.

Tibet has been an integral part of China since around 1644.
2006-1644=362 years
If thats your arguement, then its pretty weak. You may need to read about international laws on claiming sovreignity.

In the reality of the "here and now", Tibet is a part of China.
True and for most part, I think it will remain so.

No one is going to wrestle Tibet away from China. China is too powerful to let that happen. At some point, after overloardship by a powerhouse for 362 years, you have to just give up and accept that China rules that land.
I accept that China controls Tibet and its their now, but I dont believe in the reasons they gave for invading Tibet, or holding it for last 50 years.

astralis
11 Oct 06,, 00:32
mods, can we close this thread now? the arguments are getting circular, and it's not as if anyone is really persuading anyone on this point, one way or another. :biggrin:

starsiege
11 Oct 06,, 01:01
mods, can we close this thread now? the arguments are getting circular, and it's not as if anyone is really persuading anyone on this point, one way or another. :biggrin:

we have to close this cos this goes against the commie propaganda?
fat chance!:tongue:

astralis
11 Oct 06,, 01:39
apparently someone didn't bother reading the arguments i or col yu pointed out.

Draconion
11 Oct 06,, 12:02
well said man!. draconing is a pakistan, and if he is indian then thats so pathetic..maybe he is one of those commies who still thinks india and china are pals. even after china slapped nehru on his face.

I for once and for all declare upon my honour that I am an Indian...i think that should settle it...


Don't make stupid remarks, because we don't kill civilians near the LOC.

No one is advocating war, but there is no harm in being prepared and proactive against a country that is covertly abetting an anti-Indian policy.
I am not saying that we kill civilians all the time, but then there are enough rouge officers who; for the want of kills have done things in the past that are at best not discussed...I knew Col.K D Singh, who was present in the Siachen fake killings...and then there was that ketchup colonel...and the works...


are we not prepared...?...Establishment 22...Special Frontier Force...ITBP...we are prepared well enough...i think...

lemontree
11 Oct 06,, 13:17
I am not saying that we kill civilians all the time, but then there are enough rouge officers who; for the want of kills have done things in the past that are at best not discussed...I knew Col.K D Singh, who was present in the Siachen fake killings...and then there was that ketchup colonel...and the works...

You are giving examples of officers who are a disgrace, besides the above example are of fake killings, hence no one was killed as you have stated before.

Draconion
11 Oct 06,, 13:32
point conceeded...

gunnut
12 Oct 06,, 19:47
How interesting that a topic about Tibet and China became a pie fight between Indian and Pakistani...

Jay
12 Oct 06,, 19:52
Tibetans shot 'in self-defence'

China has confirmed that its troops opened fire on a group of Tibetans trying to cross into Nepal, leaving one of them dead.

The official Xinhua news agency quoted an official as saying the border guards fired in self-defence.

Earlier reports said two people were killed as nearly 70 people were attempting to illegally cross the Nangpa La pass on 30 September.

A Tibetan welfare group said 42 of the group had managed to enter Nepal.

Officials said the troops tried to "persuade them to go back home... but the stowaways refused and attacked the soldiers", Xinhua reports.

"Under the circumstances, the frontier soldiers were forced to defend themselves and injured two stowaways," the unnamed official was quoted.

'Dead in the snow'

The news agency report said one of the two injured died later in the hospital while the other was recovering, no other details about the victims were disclosed.

Earlier in the day a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, Liu Jianchao, was quoted saying the matter "would be investigated" if it was found to be true.

On Wednesday a British climber, Steve Marsh, told the BBC of his shock when he saw Chinese border guards shooting dead a Tibetan refugee in a group trying to flee to Nepal.

The incident occurred as Mr Marsh was resting at a camp on the Tibetan side of the Himalayan peak of Cho-Oyu. He said scores of other mountaineers also witnessed it.

He said the soldiers fired twice but the group continued.

There was a third shot, the last in the group fell but was helped to move on a few yards, then there was a fourth shot which left the person dead in the snow.

Soon after the shooting, a group of young children were marched through Mr Marsh's camp by Chinese soldiers. Their fate is unknown.

Tibetan welfare organisations say they had been taken from the escaping group, more of whom moved on to Kathmandu, where the UN refugee agency has questioned them.

Correspondents say hundreds of Tibetans flee to Nepal every year but for years now Kathmandu, keen not to alienate Beijing, has passed new refugees onto India, where Tibet's exiled spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, is based.


From The BBC
---------------------
Its funny, how could the fleeing tibetians attack the heavily armed PAP in the high ranges. If the soldiers fired in self defense then these tibetians would have been super human kung fu masters.

The world should learn PR mantra from the PRC. They are good.

667medic
14 Oct 06,, 15:18
Tibetans shot 'in self-defence'

China has confirmed that its troops opened fire on a group of Tibetans trying to cross into Nepal, leaving one of them dead.

The official Xinhua news agency quoted an official as saying the border guards fired in self-defence.

Earlier reports said two people were killed as nearly 70 people were attempting to illegally cross the Nangpa La pass on 30 September.

A Tibetan welfare group said 42 of the group had managed to enter Nepal.

Officials said the troops tried to "persuade them to go back home... but the stowaways refused and attacked the soldiers", Xinhua reports.

"Under the circumstances, the frontier soldiers were forced to defend themselves and injured two stowaways," the unnamed official was quoted.

'Dead in the snow'

The news agency report said one of the two injured died later in the hospital while the other was recovering, no other details about the victims were disclosed.

Earlier in the day a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, Liu Jianchao, was quoted saying the matter "would be investigated" if it was found to be true.

On Wednesday a British climber, Steve Marsh, told the BBC of his shock when he saw Chinese border guards shooting dead a Tibetan refugee in a group trying to flee to Nepal.

The incident occurred as Mr Marsh was resting at a camp on the Tibetan side of the Himalayan peak of Cho-Oyu. He said scores of other mountaineers also witnessed it.

He said the soldiers fired twice but the group continued.

There was a third shot, the last in the group fell but was helped to move on a few yards, then there was a fourth shot which left the person dead in the snow.

Soon after the shooting, a group of young children were marched through Mr Marsh's camp by Chinese soldiers. Their fate is unknown.

Tibetan welfare organisations say they had been taken from the escaping group, more of whom moved on to Kathmandu, where the UN refugee agency has questioned them.

Correspondents say hundreds of Tibetans flee to Nepal every year but for years now Kathmandu, keen not to alienate Beijing, has passed new refugees onto India, where Tibet's exiled spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, is based.


From The BBC
---------------------
Its funny, how could the fleeing tibetians attack the heavily armed PAP in the high ranges. If the soldiers fired in self defense then these tibetians would have been super human kung fu masters.

The world should learn PR mantra from the PRC. They are good.

If you got Economic and Diplomatic clout, you could say BS and still get away with it:frown:

lemontree
16 Oct 06,, 04:32
How interesting that a topic about Tibet and China became a pie fight between Indian and Pakistani...
Not really, it was almost became a slug fest between two Indians, one was informed and the other is eh...still learning shall we say.

lemontree
16 Oct 06,, 04:37
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2172558.cms
Romanian TV releases Tibet shooting video

BEIJING: A Romanian TV station has released a video that it said shows Chinese forces fatally shooting a Tibetan refugee who was with a group of people trying to flee to Nepal in an incident that prompted an international outcry.

The video from Pro TV shows a distant figure that its narrator says is a Chinese border guard firing a rifle and a separate scene of a person in a line of figures walking through the snow falling to the ground. An unidentified man near the camera can be heard saying in English, "They are shooting them like, like dogs."

Pro TV, Romania's biggest private TV station, said the video was shot September 30 by Sergiu Matei, a Romanian cameraman with an expedition climbing Cho Oyu, a Himalayan peak near China's border with Nepal.

The activist group International Campaign for Tibet, in a written statement, said the video proves Chinese troops fired at unarmed Tibetans and disproves Beijing's statement this week that its forces acted in self-defence after being attacked.

The figures in most of the video are too far from the camera up to one kilometer (half a mile), according to the narrator to make out their identities.

The scene of the man firing a rifle doesn't show what he is shooting at. The person shown falling gets up and starts to run, but a separate scene later shows a shape in the snow that the narrator says is the body of a dead Tibetan man. Men in Chinese military-style uniforms with rifles or machine guns are shown walking through the snow.

"They were shot like rabbits,"Matei said in an interview on Pro TV's website.Witnesses quoted by human rights groups say at least one person, a 25-year-old Tibetan Buddhist nun, was killed in the shooting at the 5,800-meter (19,028-foot)-high Nanpa La Pass.

Chinese soldiers inspect the bodies of the Tibetan refugees they just just shot dead in cold blood. They later buried the bodies on the glacier.

starsiege
16 Oct 06,, 06:32
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2172558.cms
Romanian TV releases Tibet shooting video

BEIJING: A Romanian TV station has released a video that it said shows Chinese forces fatally shooting a Tibetan refugee who was with a group of people trying to flee to Nepal in an incident that prompted an international outcry.

The video from Pro TV shows a distant figure that its narrator says is a Chinese border guard firing a rifle and a separate scene of a person in a line of figures walking through the snow falling to the ground. An unidentified man near the camera can be heard saying in English, "They are shooting them like, like dogs."

Pro TV, Romania's biggest private TV station, said the video was shot September 30 by Sergiu Matei, a Romanian cameraman with an expedition climbing Cho Oyu, a Himalayan peak near China's border with Nepal.

The activist group International Campaign for Tibet, in a written statement, said the video proves Chinese troops fired at unarmed Tibetans and disproves Beijing's statement this week that its forces acted in self-defence after being attacked.

The figures in most of the video are too far from the camera up to one kilometer (half a mile), according to the narrator to make out their identities.

The scene of the man firing a rifle doesn't show what he is shooting at. The person shown falling gets up and starts to run, but a separate scene later shows a shape in the snow that the narrator says is the body of a dead Tibetan man. Men in Chinese military-style uniforms with rifles or machine guns are shown walking through the snow.

"They were shot like rabbits,"Matei said in an interview on Pro TV's website.Witnesses quoted by human rights groups say at least one person, a 25-year-old Tibetan Buddhist nun, was killed in the shooting at the 5,800-meter (19,028-foot)-high Nanpa La Pass.

Chinese soldiers inspect the bodies of the Tibetan refugees they just just shot dead in cold blood. They later buried the bodies on the glacier.


DAMN COMMIES!!!!

PandaRoo
19 Oct 06,, 17:52
Ah-Oh, got caught this time!

Inst
02 Jan 07,, 07:07
Hi guys. I'm looking at the video on Youtube right now, and it's quite disconcerting to watch a blatant Tibetan propaganda video and know that Westerners eat it up. The physical evidence is there, of course, but it's still open to interpretation. One of these days, someone will find a sufficiently malicious way to profit off Western knee-jerk Sinophobia, and then when it gets exposed, they'll stop this bullcrap. Or perhaps they'll just pretend that the Emperor is wearing clothes for the benefit of his subjects.

Some questions:

-Is the PAP equipped with designated marksmen rifles? The only way the PAP could shoot those refugees so accurately would be with designated marksmen rifles; the distance is just so great.

-Do people really look like that when they get shot? One sees absolutely no blood splatter, there's nothing red on the snow. They don't twitch backwards, they just stop moving.

lemontree
02 Jan 07,, 07:59
Some questions:

-Is the PAP equipped with designated marksmen rifles? The only way the PAP could shoot those refugees so accurately would be with designated marksmen rifles; the distance is just so great.
Some here can drop targets at 1000 mtrs and beyong with plain irons sights. So yes its is possible.

-Do people really look like that when they get shot? One sees absolutely no blood splatter, there's nothing red on the snow. They don't twitch backwards, they just stop moving.
Have you ever seen a distant gun shot wound - its small and tiny and very little blood oozes out.

Any other question?

Ray
02 Jan 07,, 11:42
Inst,

So it is a Tibetan propaganda movie?

Great what, that the US has not been blamed by you ! ;)

Officer of Engineers
02 Jan 07,, 14:13
Some here can drop targets at 1000 mtrs and beyong with plain irons sights. So yes its is possible.

With an SKS?

Ray
02 Jan 07,, 14:18
Sks?

Officer of Engineers
02 Jan 07,, 14:22
Sir

A WWII era 7.62AK round standard issued People's Armed Police Force rifle. I say on par with Chinese AK47s in accuracy.

Inst
02 Jan 07,, 16:28
lemontree: Sir, I have no idea whatsoever of what a long-distance gunshot wound looks like. So, it just makes a hole in someone's body, no twitch from the kinetic impact? Thank you.

Ray:

Well, almost everyone uses propaganda, but I had thought that people in the West would have become inured to it. When you watch a propaganda film, your brain should instantly go: why are you insulting my intelligence, man? Damnit, you're full of @*##, everything you say is wrong.

That's why I picked up smoking, because the anti-smoking propaganda videos, while valid, were so damn insulting. Well fsck you American government! I'm going to give myself lung cancer, and hopefully by the time I'm hospitalized, you'll have a universal health insurance scheme I can rip off!

So, I'd think a more subtle and indirect approach would seem a better way to change opinions. They only needed to show that the Chinese PAP was killing Tibetan refugees with their assault rifles, and let the viewer do the rest of the thinking.

667medic
02 Jan 07,, 16:37
So, I'd think a more subtle and indirect approach would seem a better way to change opinions. They only needed to show that the Chinese PAP was killing Tibetan refugees with their assault rifles, and let the viewer do the rest of the thinking.

I don't think the Tibetans have to resort to propaganda. The whole world knows what was done to them in 1959 and 1989:rolleyes:

Ray
02 Jan 07,, 18:18
lemontree: Sir, I have no idea whatsoever of what a long-distance gunshot wound looks like. So, it just makes a hole in someone's body, no twitch from the kinetic impact? Thank you.

Ray:

Well, almost everyone uses propaganda, but I had thought that people in the West would have become inured to it. When you watch a propaganda film, your brain should instantly go: why are you insulting my intelligence, man? Damnit, you're full of @*##, everything you say is wrong.

That's why I picked up smoking, because the anti-smoking propaganda videos, while valid, were so damn insulting. Well fsck you American government! I'm going to give myself lung cancer, and hopefully by the time I'm hospitalized, you'll have a universal health insurance scheme I can rip off!

So, I'd think a more subtle and indirect approach would seem a better way to change opinions. They only needed to show that the Chinese PAP was killing Tibetan refugees with their assault rifles, and let the viewer do the rest of the thinking.

Ah, but then everyone is not as wise, be he an oriental or a westerner!

Viewers don't like to guess!

Bone up on ballistics - internal, external and terminal and you will realise what a bullet can do or cannot do!

Officer of Engineers
02 Jan 07,, 19:37
I didn't see the actual range. So, the distance could be considerable smaller. Clothing does wonders to ballastic properties. These are FMJs which more than likely will go through-and-through. It which case, the person would bleed to death while the mv and mv2 would have stayed with the round.

lemontree
03 Jan 07,, 05:27
With an SKS?
With a Type 81, sir. The PAP are armed with Type-81s in the video (see the clips where the PAP are filmed near the tents), and one with a telescope can be quite effective in good hands.

Officer of Engineers
03 Jan 07,, 06:18
Ok, see it now.

lemontree
03 Jan 07,, 07:23
lemontree: Sir, I have no idea whatsoever of what a long-distance gunshot wound looks like. So, it just makes a hole in someone's body, no twitch from the kinetic impact? Thank you.

There is twitching, and at times there is none, expecially when the target is physically exhausted. Twitching also depends on the body part that has been hit.

The distance of the camera from the subject is too large for any twitching to be seen, even if there was any.

Inst
03 Jan 07,, 14:59
Lemontree: How do rifle ranges work, anyways? For example, for the M16A2, the effective range against a point target is listed as 550 meters. Does this mean a scoped shot, or just a shot through the integrated sights? If the former, then this would go with what I've heard about American rifles being designed to fire to 300-350 meters.

Ray
03 Jan 07,, 15:26
Terminal Ballistics "Wound Ballistics"

note: It was recently discovered diagrams are from work done by
Dr. Martin Fackler. To read more about this true man of science, wikipedia has an extensive biography. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Martin_Fackler


What Kind of Damage Does A Bullet Inflict On A Human Target

7.62 NATO (30 Cal)
m14.jpg (2903 bytes)


7.62 x 39 (AK-47)
ak47.jpg (2295 bytes)


5.56 Nato (.223)
m16.jpg (2189 bytes)

silouette.gif (1064 bytes)7.62 NATO - (30 Caliber) m14.jpg (2903 bytes)
The 7.62 NATO (.308 Winchester) was adopted as the standard cartridge for small arms (rifles) for the American Military in the late 1950's. Even after the M16 became popular during the Vietnam War the 7.62 cartridge still continued in specialized service by snipers, Navy nuclear weapons guards, Navy Seals, and light machine guns. The 7.62 bullet is similar in ballistics to the 30-06 (pronounced "thirty ought six") caliber bullet used in the 1903 Springfield Bolt Action Rifle early in this century, and M-1 Garand Semi-Automatic Rifle of WWII and Korea. The American M-14 Rifle in 7.62 is still in use in our armed forces and saw a resurgence of use by Marines in the deserts of Iraq during the Gulf War due to it's long range, flat trajectory and ability to penetrate steel.
m14.jpg (2903 bytes) 7.62 NATO (.308 Winchester) Adopted In 1957
Used in M14 Rifle, And Light Machine Guns
M1.jpg (3018 bytes) 30-06 (Thirty "Ought" Six) WWI, WWII, and Korea
Springfield Bolt Rifle, M1 Garand, Light Machine Guns

762nato500w.gif (12407 bytes)

Upon entering a fleshy target, the 7.62 bullet travels strait nearly six inches before the massive shock wave ahead of the bullet transfers incredible energy into the target as the bullet begins to tumble. Thus the bullet can exit before the maximum shock wave expansion can occur. 30 Caliber rifle bullets of this type are known to knock men down, and throw them off their feet back some distance. The cartridge is powerful, accurate, and humane in it's ability to kill quickly. The permanent cavity produced remains after the bullet exits the body. The temporary cavity causes tearing of tissues and muscle damage. The temporary cavitation (shock wave) causes death when it impacts the heart or liver but not necessarily in other areas of the torso.



silouette.gif (1064 bytes)7.62 x 39 (AK-47)ak47.jpg (2295 bytes)
The 7.62 x 39 Cartridge is an intermediate size cartridge used around the world in the AK-47 Automatic Rifle and SKS Semiautomatic rifles. While not considered as accurate as American and European weapons, these weapons are famous for their ease of manufacture and incredible reliability.

ak47_500w.gif (7965 bytes)

While not quite as devastating as the 30 caliber rounds, the 7.62 x 39 is still quite deadly having an unusual tendency to remain intact even after taking unusual deviations upon contact with bone.

silouette.gif (1064 bytes)5.56 NATO (.223)m16.jpg (2189 bytes)
The 5.56 NATO (.233) is the work horse of the American Military, as well as the armies of many other countries, being the cartridge used in the M-16 Rifle, first adopted during the VietnamWar and now used in the weapons of many other countries. Click here to read about Eugene Stoner inventor of the M16 / AR15.

556nato500w.gif (35017 bytes)

For a little bullet, the 5.56 bullet produces quite dramatic wounds. While the traditional 30-06 caliber bullet of the M1 Garand and 7.62 bullet of the M14 rifle would immediately knock a man down, the 5.56 bullet instead enters the body, quickly turns sideways after passing through only 4" of flesh, then breaks in two major pieces, as well as many smaller fragments. During the Vietnam War, soldiers reported that shooting an enemy soldier with the M16 did not kill as quickly as the old 30 caliber weapons. Instead soldiers would follow a massive trail a blood a few feet away from where the enemy soldier had been hit to find him dead from massive blood loss. This light-weight cartridge permits soldiers to carry more ammo, but is not as effective at long distances as heavier cartridges and does not penetrate steel as well. The low recoil permits quick follow-up shots and minimal muzzle climb during automatic fire.
http://www.bobtuley.com/terminal.htm

See the url for the accompanying pictures.

durtyburd
03 Jan 07,, 17:56
Tibet has been a part of China for the last 363 years. It is time that the Tibetan separatists give it a rest.

Declaring independence does not make you independent. You have to win it first.

China was justified in invading Tibet 50 years ago. Anytime an outlying province rebels, a central government has every right to use military force to squash such a rebellion.

I don't see the Tibet situation any differently than the Basque situation in Spain. The Basque provinces are just as much an integral part of Spain as Tibet is an integral part of China. The Basques have no right to independence or self-determination and neither do the Tibetans.

The Basque's declared their independence in 1937 and attempted to establish the city if Guernica as their capital. Thank God all mighty, Spanish nationalist forces crushed the separatist movement and preserved the unity of the Kingdom. In much the same way, Tibetans declared independence illegally and eleven years later the Chinese army crushed this illegal insurrection.

There is no place in the modern world for insurrection or separatism.

If they Basques or the Tibetans attempt to achieve independence, there is only one just answer: war...unadulterated and total in its scope.

The preservation of strong central governments and the defeat of separatist movements such as the ones in the Basque provinces, Tibet, or Chechnya are important factors in the establishment of a stable and prosperous world.

Just say NO to the creation of new countries.

lemontree
04 Jan 07,, 07:10
Lemontree: How do rifle ranges work, anyways? For example, for the M16A2, the effective range against a point target is listed as 550 meters. Does this mean a scoped shot, or just a shot through the integrated sights? If the former, then this would go with what I've heard about American rifles being designed to fire to 300-350 meters.
Rifle ranges depend on a number of factors, and some are, the muzzle velocity, design (location of gas vent in the barrel), amount of propellent etc.

Most rifle rounds can traverse a distance of 2.5 to 3 km, the trick is how to hit a target at distant ranges when factors like wind, and increase in the aiming angle of error (angle made by the line of sight to the target and alignment of the weapon) of the firer coming into play. Judging distance and setting the correct range on the sight is very important.

The US army infantry soldiers are trained to hit targets at 400-600 mtrs and the specialist marksmen/ snipers hit targets at double that range.

Telescopes and red dot sights reduce the angle of error

Archer
04 Jan 07,, 14:43
What about the IA, LT? What ranges would a typical IA trooper be proficient at?

Inst
04 Jan 07,, 15:08
Well, I suppose I shouldn't beat around the bush anymore, as you've been all so helpful. The counter theory is that no one was actually shot. The PAP fired warning shots into the air, and the poor Tibetans couldn't take both the shock of the bullet sound and the thin air at altitude.

The main problem with this theory is what the Chinese government is saying. "We fired in self-defense against people smugglers." If they wanted to lie; the heart attack theory is a much more plausible lie.

Officer of Engineers
04 Jan 07,, 16:44
The Chinese need not explain anything. This is their border and they have the right to defend it everyway they see fit, including against women and children.

Ray
04 Jan 07,, 18:05
What about the IA, LT? What ranges would a typical IA trooper be proficient at?

Depends on the weapon.

All must be proficient upto its (the weapon's) effective range.

Ray
04 Jan 07,, 18:06
The Chinese need not explain anything. This is their border and they have the right to defend it everyway they see fit, including against women and children.

Colonel,

Human rights.

I also wonder why India has to explain anything to anyone and yet they have to do!

Global village, I presume.

kosmo
26 Jan 07,, 11:25
For my personal view, I doubt about the authenticity of the video. In the situation,we can see some climbers or travelers settled at a position where they can take video of the course of shooting and they are so exposed to those sentinels as they can point their camera to them at a good view, this imply that the sentinel should also notice the existence. you know they are sentinels, they cannot miss such a big object who are taking photo of them.
under such situation, would the sentinels still dare to shoot the refugee under the inspection of those westerners? would they like to make troubles for themselves, for nation after the exposure of video? Even the sentinels dared to do shooting, would they just simply let those cameramen leave without any obstruction and everything goes seems noting happended?
doubt, full of doubt for the video, If i am PLA and I did shooting like those shown in video, i would catch those cameramen and detain them at least.
But, the actual case is, all those climber left the LIVE place safely without troubles.
So kind the PLA trully are, so fool the PLA really are too