Tibet: more deaths, injuries in Lhasa as crackdown grows

Update on a series of previous posts here on BB about pro-Tibetan-independence protests in Lhasa: violence grew dramatically today. Snip from report issued today by the US-government-funded news agency RFA, which has correspondents on the ground in Tibet:

“We saw two dead at Ramoche temple, two in the garden, two at the Ganden printing house, and those Tibetans who went to take food to prisoners in Drapchi prison saw 26 Tibetans shot after they were brought in on a black vehicle,” one Tibetan witness said. “There could be about 80 dead, or more, but there is too much commotion here to give an exact number.”

“Several buildings owned by Chinese immigrants and Chinese Muslim immigrants were set on fire,” the witness said. “All those shops owned by Chinese were ransacked and burned. Tibetan shop owners were told to mark their shops with scarves.”

Another source said Ramoche monastery, which has about 110 resident monks, was badly damaged after Tibetans were found running in the area carrying photos of the Dalai Lama and shouting “Independence for Tibet.’”


Snip from a related report on AP, which references the RFA item:

At a demonstration outside the United Nations in New York, Psurbu Tsering of the Tibetan Association of New York and New Jersey said its members received phone calls from Tibet claiming 70 people had been killed and 1,000 arrested. The reports could not be verified.

And snip from a related NYT story:

In the past, China has not hesitated to crush major protests in Tibet or to jail disobedient monks. President Hu Jintao, who is also the general secretary of the Communist Party, served as party boss in Tibet during a violent crackdown against protests in 1989. His support for the bloody suppression of unrest that year earned him the good will of Deng Xiaoping, then the paramount leader, and led directly to his elevation to the Politburo Standing Committee and eventually to China’s top leadership posts.

Image: A man lies injured in the street during street protests today in the "Old Tibetan" neighborhood of Lhasa. (AP Photo)

Update: regular BB discussion participant Takuan points us to this page on the website of Tibet's government in exile (based in Northern India), which lists ways that concerned people might help the people of Tibet.

Update 2: Tibetans in other parts of the world, and their supporters, are also demonstrating in support of cultural, spiritual, and political sovereignty this week.

There are reports from Nepal that 12 monks were injured during protests in Kathmandu.

Some Tibetans in Northern India are attempting to march over the Himalayas, into Tibet. Yingsel Rangzen from Students for a Free Tibet sends these photos, and says, "This movement is happening on many, many fronts."

The group Los Angeles Friends for Tibet has an audio report (and text transcripts) with first-person accounts of the protest/pilgrimage, which led to 100 arrests. MP3 Link, Word doc, PDF. (thanks, Christal)

Update 3: Christal Smith, who produces a radio show called The Tibet Connection, passes along this (unconfirmed) statement from a fellow pro-Tibet activist named Ngawang Norbu:

There was a phone call to my tenant from Lhasa today at 9:00pm saying more then three hundred people were already killed by Chinese troop and they were mostly monks from Sera and Drepung Monastery. Sound of gunshots were heard non stop. Right now Lhasa is like a war zone.

Previously on BB:

  • Tibetan protests in Lhasa turn violent as Chinese forces crack down
  • China sends in troops to quell monks' peaceful protests
  • Police attack peacefully protesting monks in Tibet
  • Protest inside Tibet captured on tourists' cameras
  • Hacking the Himalayas: Xeni's stories and trek-blog from Tibet and India
  • Boing Boing tv: Miss Tibet/Eames Elephants
  • Google, China, and genocide: web censorship and Tibet
  • 94

    1. If you live in a democracy, call your representative NOW. More deaths can be prevented if China feels strong international pressure to STOP KILLING TIBETANS.

      Many of the major democracies have already deplored any use of excess force to Beijing. Your government may have already done the right thing, but you should keep up the outcry.

      Don’t let this become a massacre.

    2. Remember back in 1980 when the Olympics were boycotted. Wouldn’t it be nice to imagine democratic countries would show some spine again?

    3. Canada National Post exerpt

      “The eruption of discontent has become a diplomatic issue, with the United States and European Union urging Beijing to avoid a harsh response.

      On Thursday, Canadian Foreign Minister Maxime Bernier spoke of his concern about the situation.

      “We have serious concerns about the human rights situation in Tibet,” he told the House of Commons.

      “We have consistently urged China to respect freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of religion for all Tibetans.”

      On Friday, the European Union, Britain and Germany all voiced concern over events in Tibet and urged the Chinese government to practice “restraint.”

      U.S. ambassador to China Clark Randt told senior Chinese officials of Washington’s concern over the violence in Lhasa, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

      “He took the opportunity, because of what was going on in Lhasa, to urge restraint on the part of the Chinese officials and Chinese security forces,” Mr. McCormack told reporters.”

    4. Not to be a cynic, I for one will do what little I can, but do you really think the US (or Canadian) governments I might petition would really take a stand? And do you think the Olympic committee is putting any ‘real’ pressure on china?

      Everyone’s been bending to China with it’s economic power. Even google gave in to them and censored themselves.

      I just wish for a way to take action that is more concrete. Like the activists who flew a banner on the great wall, “Free Tibet”.

    5. The only thing I, and we, know for sure is that if no one speaks up: no one will have spoken up.

      I would like to believe that others would speak up for me. Don’t I have to earn that?

      To not try is to be dead. Them, you, me and us.

    6. I just wish for a way to take action that is more concrete. Like the activists who flew a banner on the great wall, “Free Tibet”.

      Unfortunately, the result of public challenges to power such as this isn’t very surprising, and ultimately not very effective (especially considering the costs in human life). (Although I do love the Tank Man.)

      I would argue that a more effective and more “guerilla” strategy (where the oppressed grow stronger while the oppressors grow weaker) is the cultivation of disruptive technologies.

      To quote R. Buckminster Fuller:

      You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.

    7. Olympics boycott if China mishandles Tibet – Gere
      Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:29am IST


      By Paul Eckert, Asia Correspondent

      WASHINGTON (Reuters) – China should suffer a boycott of its cherished Beijing Olympics if it mishandles protests in restive Tibet, Hollywood actor and Tibetan activist Richard Gere said on Friday.

    8. Not to be a cynic, I for one will do what little I can, but do you really think the US (or Canadian) governments I might petition would really take a stand? And do you think the Olympic committee is putting any ‘real’ pressure on china?

      What do you think the people in Tibet are doing? Does one person there standing up and holding a sign or being hauled away make a difference?

    9. For shame! It never stops.

      I have been (somewhat laxly) boycotting China’s goods for some time now, but I think I will strengthen my vigilance now.

    10. I looked at the LA times site right after your post, there were several articles about Tibet – what did you mean?

    11. Dear Purly

      Rather than boycotting Chinese goods, have you contacted your local political representative to register your feelings on this matter? Written to your local newspaper?

      Economic boycott can be done for a variety of reasons (practical and political), but it is slow to produce results and is not explicitly clear as to its intent.

      China should not be attacked as an enemy. Rather, the friendship should be mutually improved. If some things China is doing are wrong, they should be corrected with the help of friends. There are 1,300,000,000 souls in China. They all need and want to live too. They will fight to live – as do you and I.

      Do not misunderstand me, I am mainly controlled by my emotions. I will wade in rivers of blood if the opportunity presents itself. I am working on that.

    12. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FL21Ak01.html

      Israel is China’s second-largest arms supplier (the first being Russia). Although diplomatic relations between Israel and China were established only in 1992, military ties go back to the early 1980s. Until formal diplomatic ties were established, the military relationship was covert. Israel sold about US$4 billion worth of arms to China during the covert courtship. In the 1990s, the Sino-Israel military relationship grew rapidly. In fact, arms sales contributed to the strengthening of diplomatic engagement.

      The military relationship hit a trough in 2000, however, when Israel came under pressure from the US to scrap a $250 million deal to sell China the Phalcon, an airborne radar system equipped with advanced Israeli-made aeronautics on board a Russian-made plane. Washington’s argument was that providing Beijing access to the technology would upset the military balance between China and Taiwan and threaten US interests in the region. When the US Congress threatened to cut the $2.8 billion it gives Israel annually if the deal went ahead, Israel buckled and scrapped it.

      For years, the US government has expressed concerns over Israel illegally transferring technology to China. During the Gulf War, the US gave Israel Patriot missiles as protection against Iraqi Scud missiles. In 1992, a US intelligence report revealed that soon after the end of the Gulf War, Israel had sold Patriot anti-missile data to China. Israel denied the intelligence report.

      Washington has also alleged on several occasions that Israel violated agreements by exporting restricted US technology it buys with yearly US subsidies. This was the case with the largely US-funded Lavi fighter-plane program. Israel, the Americans believe, passed on technology to Beijing. China’s F-10 fighter jet is believed to be almost identical to the Lavi.

      Unlike most other arms manufacturers, Israel exports 75% of the total production of its military industries. Israel’s military industry is dependent on exports for its survival. And arms sales to China are among its most lucrative businesses. Therefore, arms trade with China is very important, providing contracts for jobs as well as income to offset the high costs of maintaining Israel’s technology and industrial base. Military trade has also paved the way for broader trade in other dual-use and high-tech goods. China’s immense value as a trade partner for Israel’s military industry is evident from Israel’s engagement with China and Taiwan. In the early 1990s, Israel passed up defense deals with Taiwan so as not to damage its fledging relationship with China.

      Israel has much to lose by angering the Chinese. But it has more to lose by angering the US. The cost of not complying with Washington’s demands could result in a cutback on the nearly $2 billion in foreign military assistance that the US provides Israel annually. It could result in political and diplomatic costs, too, for Israel. It will have to do a fine balancing act if it wants to maintain its military ties with China without provoking Washington’s ire.

    13. I am mainly controlled by my emotions

      I don’t buy it. I believe that you are much less controlled by your emotions than the vast majority of people. You simply express them more directly. Cause and effect, conjoined.

    14. Xinhua confirms ten dead.

      Some of these; “business people” – which would be Han Chinese residents.

      Ten means many more. Tibetans and Chinese are dying.
      We must keep up the clamour.

      There is no need for this.

    15. Israel is China’s second-largest arms supplier (the first being Russia).

      I find most of that article a bit confusing; or confusing to reconcile with other tidbits of knowledge. I’m as critical of Israel as anyone, but isn’t China one of the 5 permanent seats of the U.N. Security Council? Isn’t it a large and established military power capable of producing and developing its own weaponry? Doesn’t the USA via AIPAC heavily subsidize Israel’s military? So they’re just “regifting” that to China?

    16. I don’t think I can justify violence by any armies, and I cannot justify violence by the protestors either.

      Rather than just quoting US-government-funded media agnecies and (potentially US-government-funded) insider information from the protestors, why not give the other point of views? Both the Guardian (UK) and Xinhua (China) has different accounts of the whole accident. Some details are the same, while some are different.

      The blog entry above neglects a few critical details:

      From http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/14/tibet.timeline/index.html

      1. The riot did not start because the army troops arrive at the scene. In fact, the army has been defensive until Friday. Arrests were made for trepassing border and showing the banned Tibetan flag – which is well within the law.

      The following points from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/15/tibet.china2

      2. Stones were thrown at not just Han Chinese, but also non-Tibetans. In fact, most accounts illustrated here are attacks towards non-Tibetans.

      3. “One person told me 300 people have died in the city centre [the Guardian has no information to substantiate this claim].” Interestingly, that sounds like the same *rumor* that Xeni had added at Update #3.

      From http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/15/tibet.china1

      4. The so-called “Students for Free Tibet”, the very people who give you the “news”, are the ones causing violence. While the army troops used teargas and water cannon – which are standard in terms of dealing with violent protests (and in fact, that shows improved restraint on China’s part), the students overturned buses, police cars, fire engines and beat people up with stones and knives. Why does this blog support violence? Using violence against violence is also violence. It doesn’t justify itself.

      Wake up, these people ARE violent separatists.

      5. It is hard to differentiate between the sounds of a teargas cannon and an actual cannon.

      A few points on the misquote of the leadership of PRC from NYT:

      6. President Hu Jintao imposed martial law back in his days when he was the Party Leader of Tibet Autonomous Region in 1989, but he also rejected the numerous requests from the armed police to repress the protestors.

      7. The current Premier of PRC, Wen Jiabao, was the head assistant to General Secretary Zhao Ziyang. He accompanied Zhao to Tiananmen Square during the June 4th, 1989 protests to meet the student leaders.

      It does no good to the situation to post unverified and one-sided claims. Oh, right, it’s a blog.

      But, people, this is a riot, no matter what political causes are behind this, it cannot be resolved under a situation like this. It will turn all the voices into a lost cause.

      Sadly enough, reading the news from Xinhua, I think with such degree of violence the protestors will be very likely neglected as some violent minorities controlled by the pro-U.S. Dalai Lama, who is almost as demonized as bin Laden in the country.

    17. I’m a Chinese living in Hong Kong.
      You know what they say in the news?

      “No one’s hurt and killed, it’s just the rumors and definitely untrue.”

      FFS, please save the Chinese from turning into people as dumb as the North Koreans that blames themselves for the bad and praise the “leadership” for all the good.

      Fuck Communism, I am shameful as a Chinese being ruled by the PRC.

    18. Any adult raised in a democracy who reads news knows what is really happening now in Tibet. Efforts by Beijing to conceal it are laughable.

      The problem is getting people to care enough to do something about it. We all have governments that prefer us to feel helpless – it makes things easy for them. Even if these governments really believe they are doing the best thing,it is still wrong for them and us to take the lazy,easy way. “Kid” above exemplifies this.

      Keep looking for all the news, question everything,keep raising your voice. Beijing WILL respond if the international condemnation is loud enough and long enough. Those who speak of an “Olympic Ideal” of brotherhood and truth should welcome the chance to use the power of the Olympic name to help the Tibetan people.

    19. Beijing has issued an ultimatum: Tibet has until Monday to lie down and accept the boot on the neck and cultural extinction. An ultimatum means many, many more will be killed.

      Last chance: raise your voice


    20. “With a semblance of calm restored, Chinese authorities called on the demonstrators Saturday to turn themselves in and provide police with the names of their fellow rioters.

      “Those who turn themselves in to public security and judicial organs by midnight Monday can receive light or reduced punishment according to law,” said a notice sent out by police and the judiciary in Tibet.

      It said: “Those who surrender can also avoid punishment according to law if they contribute by turning in others.”

    21. Wake up, these people ARE violent separatists.

      Oh those evil motherfuckers! History will surely revile them along with others of that loathsome ilk, like George Washington, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin. Die, you red-robed, chant-spewing, freedom-desiring scum!

    22. “The Olympic Motto

      The Olympic motto is “Citius, Altius, Fortius.” These three Latin words mean “Swifter, Higher, Stronger.” Baron de Coubertin borrowed the motto from Father Henri Martin Dideon, the headmaster of Arcueil College in Paris. Father Dideon used the motto to describe the great achievements of the athletes at his school. Coubertin felt it could be used to describe the goals of great athletes all over the World.”

    23. The Tibetan Government in Exile claims at least 30 dead based on reports by cellphone and other smuggled means. They call on the United Nations to investigate.

      China! If there is nothing to hide,open the door!

    24. @Kid–You’re right they are rioting. Ever wonder why? The Chinese have rejected all the suggestions to peacefully resolve the situation via Tibet’s diplomatic envoy, Lodi Gari and people are angry. Lod Gari, who represents the Dalai Lama, has rejected any calls for separatism: Tibet only wants freedom to govern Tibetans within communist China. They want Freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

      The Dalaia Lama has repeatedly expressed his position that Tibetans use non-violence.(see link below)

      The Tibetan lamas in the uprising were simple asking for a change in the barbaric Chinese law that young children must read books that reject and denounce the Dalai Lama. If you understand Tibetan culture, that’s a bit like asking Christian children to denounce the Pope and the history of the Christian people. It’s like asking Jews to denounce Moses; or Muslims, Allah. Does this seem fair?

      On a positive note, the Chinese have used some restraint in the use of tanks to disperse the uprising.
      For more info,
      go to http://www.savetibet.org/advocacy/index.php

    25. “IOC: Don’t Boycott Olympics Over Tibet

      2 hours ago

      BASSETERRE, St. Kitts (AP) — International Olympic Committee President Jacques Rogge poured cold water Saturday on calls for a boycott of the Summer Games in Beijing over China’s crackdown in Tibet, saying it would only hurt athletes.”

      only hurt athletes? I was an athlete once. I never, ever learned or was taught to subordinate or ignore the safety and basic human rights of others in the name of my winning a prize. On the contrary, the dojo taught me to suffer or even die defending others.

    26. Once again, someone very reasonably states that there are two sides to the conflict; that we are not being given reliable information from either side; that violence is contemptible no matter who is perpetrating it… and Takuan and Antinous jump all over him for not blindly accepting the party line espoused by the Students for a Free Tibet.

      Takuan even goes so far as to make this utterly absurd statement:

      “Any adult raised in a democracy who reads news knows what is really happening now in Tibet.”

      First of all, show me a democracy. America isn’t one, and the news in America is very, very far from being reliable. This facile assertion that we can trust our news media to give us honest, reliable information is outrageous all by itself, but even more so when contrasted with Takuan’s other statements… it’s obviously just a convenient rhetorical ploy he is using to again try to bully someone into not dissenting with his extremely biased point of view. And again, Antinous leaps to Takuan’s side, almost as though Antinous is nothing more than Takuan’s sock puppet.

      Tell the truth, guys… are you one person, or two? Are you working for Students for a Free Tibet? If not, who are you working for? You’ve established a very clear and strong pattern of attacking anyone who insists on an unbiased view, and of pushing your own bias down their throats. You’ve also made many demonstrably untrue statements, such as explicitly claiming that people were being murdered and blood was being shed in the early stages of the demonstration, before things turned uglier and only mace was being used against the protestors.

      Whoever you are and whoever it is that gives you your marching orders, you’re definitely propagandists. I’m sure you’ll continue to get plenty of mileage out of being so staunchly on the side of the conflict that is overwhelmingly more popular with American activists, but that doesn’t make you right or righteous. You’re propagandists, as surely as the Communist Party in the People’s Republic of China are propagandists, and being on one side or the other doesn’t make either of you better than the others. You stink, your bias stinks, your lies stink, and your hearty approval of violence on one side while you denounce violence on the other side stinks most of all.

    27. I confess. I brutally order Tibetan monks to smash their testicles into innocent Chinese soldier boots.
      More, I encourage the filthy Tibetans to cling to their evil millennia, old culture in a selfish attempt to subvert honest Chinese efforts to extract every last natural resource of Tibet. Even more, I openly and freely confess to support the Tibetan Buddhist doctrine of invasion,theft and crushing of allopposition to their evil plan for world domination by non-violence and kindness.

      You would be funny,if people weren’t dying.

    28. Insinuating that I am some kind of troll is not an answer, bt t s xctly wht hv cm t xpct frm y. L t prmt yr gnd, blly whn nyn dsgrs wth y, cry ‘trll!’ whn nyn pnts t yr drty tctcs.

    29. Mr bllyng, nsntn, nd ls frm Tkn nd ntns. I never took a stance against the Tibetans, smply clld fr lss bs nd mr vrfbl trth. Kd clld fr lss bs, mr vrfbl trth, nd lss vlnc n bth sds. You two sure did reply very QUICKLY, didn’t you? Why are you so vehement in your campaign to quash any calls against bias, and why is it such an urgent matter for you that you BOTH respond within two minutes? Ths jst rnfrcs my sspcns tht y r thr th sm prsn, r wrkng tgthr fr sm nrdntly ntrstd nd bsd tsd gncy lk th Stdnts fr Fr Tbt.

    30. Beijing sends in tanks as Tibet erupts

      Protesters claim that more than 100 have been killed as violence spreads and international protests mount

      * Jonathan Watts in Xining
      * guardian.co.uk,
      * Sunday March 16 2008
      * Article history

      About this article
      This article was first published on guardian.co.uk on Sunday March 16 2008. It was last updated at 19:26 on March 15 2008.

      China brought tanks and troops on to the streets of Lhasa, witnesses said yesterday, as the international community urged an end to the bloodshed in Tibet that has already claimed at least 10 – possibly dozens more – lives.

      Security forces were also used to regain control of a second community yesterday as a violent protest in Xiahe, Gansu province, followed the worst riots in Lhasa in almost 20 years. Thousands of protesters smashed government offices in Xiahe after marching through the streets chanting support for the Dalai Lama, according to overseas support groups.

    31. From The Sunday Times
      March 16, 2008
      Fears of another Tiananmen as Tibet explodes in hatred
      The Olympics, just months away, will not stop Beijing cracking down on riots that may have left more than 30 dead
      James Miles of The Economist in Lhasa and Michael Sheridan in Hong Kong

    32. AFP
      March 15, 2008 06:10pm

      TIBET’S government-in-exile said today it had received “unconfirmed reports” of as many as 100 deaths in unrest in the Chinese-controlled Himalayan region.

      “We have unconfirmed reports about 100 people had been killed and martial law imposed in Lhasa,” said a statement from the government-in-exile, which is based in northern India.

    33. Calls for Olympic boycott after Tibet brutality

      By Gethin Chamberlain
      Last Updated: 9:01pm GMT 15/03/2008

      China’s crackdown on demonstrators in Tibet has prompted international condemnation and a call for a boycott of this summer’s Beijing Olympics.
      # Tibet protest crackdown claims up to 100 lives

    34. I think that a boycott is a real possibility. In the 80s, the US boycott was government driven. This time, it’s clear that many athletes worldwide are angry about Tibet and about being told by their local OCs to shut up about it. On a more pedestrian note, athlete comfort, security and convenience are not looking good either. Lots of squat toilets with no doors, even in the new facilities. Air that you can cut with a knife. Knowing that you’ll be followed everywhere. If you’re considering a boycott, the idea of gasping for breath while squatting to pee in front of the synchronized swim team and a couple of surveillance cameras might just put you over the edge.

    35. The downside is that if Beijing becomes convinced they have lost the Games because of their oppression of Tibet, they will take it out on the Tibetans in an orgy of killings and deportations.

      This time is pivotal for Tibet. If Tibet wins today, China will redouble future efforts to exterminate the culture.

      Just as Stalin broke up awkward populations by trainloads to Siberia, so Tibet will be dissolved.

    36. Even if there was nothing going on in Tibet, don’t you think that the games are going to be a disaster? Putting on the Olympics is pretty much the hardest thing in the world. Doing it on the Harkonnen homeworld with oppressed masses, secret police, massive bribery, shoddy construction, etc. has got to go horribly wrong. Maybe they could have pulled it off when Communism was still communism, but now?

    37. @#48:
      How can you not take a stand? By stating that you have not taken a stance, is that not implicit support for the PRC and their tactics?
      The simple matter is that the PRC are an occupational force in a foreign land (aka Tibet). They have no right to be there anymore than the Soviet Union had a right to occupy Estonia,Latvia, or any other Soviet puppet state, or the U.S. in Viet Nam, Iraq, Nicaragua et al. The Tibetans have a long history of self-rule.
      The Peoples Republic of China must quit Tibet. If they continue their policy of violence against Tibet, Tibetans, and Tibetan culture, the people of the U.S. and all caring people of the world must take a stand, and tell their representatives not to allow our participation in (the travesty that is ) the Olympic Games.

    38. “What You Need To Know About China’s Occupation of Tibet

      Key Dates
      Maps: Asia Tibet
      The Issues

      Genocide and human rights
      Since 1950, an estimated 1.2 million Tibetans have been killed by the Chinese. China has ratified a number of UN conventions, including those related to torture and racial discrimination, and yet has repeatedly violated these in China and Tibet.

      Chinese has replaced Tibetan as the official language. Young Tibetans are being re-educated about their cultural past, with references to an independent Tibet being omitted.

      Lack of religious freedom
      The 1982 Constitution of the People’s Republic of China guarantees freedom of religious belief, but China seeks to restrict the numbers of monks and nuns entering monasteries and to discredit the religious authority of Dalai Lama. The child recognised as the reincarnation of the Panchen Lama was rejected and the Chinese installed their own candidate.

      Resource exploitation
      China’s predominant interest in Tibet is no longer ideological, but is based on resource extraction and land for Chinese colonists. Mining and mineral extraction is the largest economic activity in both U’Tsang and Amdo and at least one-half of Tibet’s natural forest has gone since Chinese occupation.

      Chinese migration
      Long-term Chinese settlement in Tibet has been deliberately encouraged, with the result that Tibetans are in the minority in many areas. Independent research puts the number of Chinese in the TAR at 5 ­ 5.5 million versus 4.5 million Tibetans; in Kham and Amdo, Chinese outnumber Tibetans many times over. Chinese traders are favoured by lower tax assessments and the dominant position of Chinese in government administration.”

    39. Chinese security forces enforce curfew in Tibet

      Updated Sat. Mar. 15 2008 7:49 PM ET

      CTV.ca News Staff

      Chinese soldiers swarmed Tibet’s capital on Saturday and cracked down on protesters, while police in another part of the country clashed with Bhuddist monks.

    40. Cupcake Faerie:

      No, desiring less propaganda from both sides and reserving judgment in the absence of reliable information is certainly not giving implicit support for the PRC. We can’t even be sure what their tactics are, when one news source reports that they were initially only using mace while people like Takuan and the Students for a Free Tibet were insisting otherwise. Some are saying 100 killed, some are saying 300 killed, and some are saying nobody has been killed or seriously hurt. I don’t possess any magical ability to discern the truth from all this, and neither do you… nd prtndng tht y d s jst chrry-pckng nfrmtn tht vldts yr njstfd nd nqlfd flngs n th mttr. t’s rrtnl.

      Th vry d tht nt tkng stnc s gvng mplct spprt fr n sd r th thr s xctly th sm grbg rhtrc tht Grg Bsh ws pshng whn h sd “f y’r nt wth s, y’r gnst s.” rfs t ply tht gm, jst s dd wth Bsh’s rtnl fr th wr n rq, nd rsrv th rght t frm my pnns bsd n vrfbl fct nd nt hrsy, prpgnd, prty lns, nd dgm.

      Do you think it would be fair of me to turn around and ask you how you can support the Dalai Lama when he is known to condemn homosexuals? I don’t think that would be fair… but it would certainly be an easy tactic to use against you, and the fact that the Dalai Lama is vehemently anti-gay is easily verifiable, unlike the facts of the violence going on in Tibet right now.

      D y thnk t wld b fr f m t trn rnd nd sk y hw y cn spprt th Dl Lm whn h s knwn t cndmn hmsxls? dn’t thnk tht wld b fr… bt t wld crtnly b n sy tctc t s gnst y, nd th fct tht th Dl Lm s vhmntly nt-gy s sly vrfbl, nlk th fcts f th vlnc gng n n Tbt rght nw.

      Th rst f yr pst, whch y strt wth “Th smpl mttr s…” dscrbs nythng bt smpl mttr. Th nly pssbl wy y cld s ths s smpl mttr s f y hv nqstnngly swllwd th prty ln f n sd r th thr. sk Chns mddl schl stdnt, nd h r sh wll ls tll y tht t’s smpl mttr f Tbt bng prt f Chn, tht t’s smpl mttr f Tbt bng prt f Chn n th Qng Dynsty nd rlr, nd tht t’s smpl mttr f th Bddhst mnks wh rn thngs prr t 1959 bng pprssv slv wnrs wh rglrly trtrd, klld, nd cnsrd thr chttl whl kpng thm t dgrdng lvl f pvrty nd sng thm s frm nmls. Bth y nd tht Chns mddl schl stdnt wll b rctng wht y’v lrnd, nd bth f y wll b prtly rght nd prtly wrng. ftr ll, syng tht Tbt ws prt f Chn n 1958 bcs f th sttn tht prvld 2,000 yrs rlr s lk syng tht mdrn Grmny s prt f tly bcs th Rmns cnqrd t. Th pnt s tht nthr f y wll b syng nythng fr whch thr s nt rtnl nd vn hnst rgmnt, nd fltly prclmng tht yr sd f cntrvrsy s th rght n ds nthng t brng th cntrvrsy t n nd.

      I’ve lived in China, and I am acutely aware (unlike most Americans) that there actually are two sides to this whole thing, and that it isn’t at all clear what the truth is. All I know for sure is that neither side is telling it, and that the Dalai Lama and his friends are not quite the peace-loving enlightened bringers of harmony and high-mindedness that they have managed so well to portray themselves as in our country. I also know, from all the wildly conflicting reports we’re getting about the current unrest, that the situation in Tibet is not necessarily what we think it is.

      As for a ban on the Olympics, I’d be happy to participate in that, since I know first-hand what kind of civil rights violations actually do take place in China. I also know, however, that very, very few Americans who have never spent a significant amount of time in China have a single clue as to what the nature or extent of China’s civil rights problems actually are.

    41. Addendum:

      Then again, very, very few Americans who have spent their entire lives in the States have a single clue as to what the nature or extent of America’s civil rights problems actually are.

    42. Takuan:

      The Allies in World War II killed approximately 11,000,000 people.

      Do you deny this fact?

      People get killed in conflicts, and the number killed by one side versus the number killed by the other side is irrelevant in determining which side is right (if, indeed, either side can be said to be ‘right’). Even if there were ZERO casualties on one side and a billion on the other, you can’t point to that as an indication of who is wrong and who is right, or even an indication that there is a wrong and right to find in the conflict.

    43. so then, if no one is right – or wrong – why are you even concerned with this matter? Is it an academic exercise to you?

    44. I didn’t say that nobody is right. I said that determining who is right is much more difficult that it seems. Most of us have swallowed the propaganda of the Tibetan government-in-exile whole, and that’s as bad as swallowing the propaganda of the PRC whole. W nd t qstn thrty n bth sds f th ss, nd rfrn frm prpgndzng vn whn w thnk w’r n th rght sd. nythng lss s thr prfnd gllblty, r flt-t dshnsty.

    45. Well, you keep assessing the situation then meanwhile the rest of us will work on lowering the body count.

      I suppose you haven’t the experience yet to make the judgment call on what is really happening and what is being reported. I’ve been watching long enough.

    46. No, Takuan, y hvn’t bn wtchng lng ngh, bcs y’v bn wtchng nly n sd, nd lyng thrgh yr tth t th rst f s. ‘d tk y mr srsly f y wr ctlly n Tbt rght nw, rprtng wht y s wth yr wn ys, bt y’r nt… y’r rprtng th prpgnd fd t y by th Stdnts fr Fr Tbt, nd shvng t dwn th thrts f nyn wh drs t qstn thrty n th sd y’v chsn s th rght sd..

      Meanwhile, here’s Antinous wth mr f th frtby htng nd ctclls tht th tw f y nvtbly rsrt t whn y dn’t ctlly hv rl cntr-rgmnt.

      As for lowering the body count, I’m all for it…bt pntng fngrs t th PRC nd blmng thm fr LL th vlnc tkng plc n Tbt s nt gng t d tht. Y cn prtnd tht t wll f y lk, bt tht’s jst y bng dshnst gn. Mny f th rprts cmng t f Tbt sy tht th prtstrs wr vlnt frst, nd tht th plc ntlly nly sd mc n thm vn thgh thy tnmbrd th prtstrs by gd mrgn. This includes, by the way, the very reports right here on BoingBoing that started this conversation.

      No matter who the rightful rulers of Tibet actually are, and no matter what atrocities and human rights violations have been committed by Tibet’s rulers (both the PRC and the Buddhist monks), the fact is that the PRC is at this moment in charge of Tibet. The violence going on right now is a matter of protestors being quelled by their country’s de facto legitimate government, no matter what the country’s history says about that government’s actual legitimacy. I guarantee you that if a thousand people showed up in Washington, DC and started throwing rocks and setting fire to police cars, there would be civilian deaths before it was over… and it doesn’t matter if the protestors showed up to protest the illegal war in Iraq, or if they showed up to demand that the government round up all the black folks in America and ship them back to Africa. Governments quell protests all over the world, and when protests turn violent, governments respond with violence. The use of violence by either side is regrettable and, to me, reprehensible… but the use of violence even when it is lethal does not grant one side or the other any claim to being right.

      f y wnt t wrk n lwrng th bdy cnt s y clm, thn y shld stp fnnng th flms nd strt wrkng twrds gttng th PRC nd th Tbtn gvrnmnt-n-xl tlkng t ch thr. f y hd ny cl t ll s t hw Chns ppl thnk (thy dn’t thnk lk s, trst m), y’d knw tht pntng yr fngr t thm nd strdntly nsstng tht Y r rght nd tht thr s n cntrvrsy s nly gng t hrt, nt hlp, yr cs. Frnkly, thgh, jdgng frm ll th ns y’v md n t lst thr dffrnt thrds fr thr dffrnt rtcls hr t BngBng, sspct y my b scrtly dlghtd t th pprtnty t pff yrslf p nd dnnc th PRC, n mttr hw mny crpss pl p r whs crpss thy r.

    47. Let’s see now; you’ve accused me of bullying, lying (stinking as well) etc. etc. and have so far presented your credentials as an objective observer with first hand experience….. hmmmmm.

      Nope. Don’t believe you.

      Tibet needs our help. China will use whatever means available, fair or foul,to advance Chinese hegemony over Tibet.

      I repeat my earlier statements: Contact your local government representative and express your feelings about this latest Chinese aggression.

      The vast resources of the web are at your fingertips, seek out and learn the truth, do the right thing. The people of Tibet are struggling for what you take for granted everyday.

      Help them.

    48. China’s Tibet crackdown highlights US rights policy flaws

      5 hours ago

      WASHINGTON (AFP) — China’s crackdown on Tibetan protests has dealt a major embarassment to US President George W. Bush’s administration, which removed the Asian giant from a human rights blacklist just three days before the bloody repression, experts say.

      Rights groups and some lawmakers were dismayed by the State Department’s decision last Tuesday to drop China from its list of the world’s worst human rights violators despite what they called Beijing’s worsening rights record even as it prepared to host the Olympic Games in August.

      As Chinese troops moved Friday to quell the worst protests in 20 years against Beijing’s rule in Tibet amid claims of heavy casualties, Bush could come under pressure to restore human rights as top priority in bilateral relations, experts said.

    49. you’ve accused me of bullying, lying

      Last week you were only vacuous and inane. I think that you got upgraded.

    50. Should Bush boycott Olympics?

      Updated: Friday, March 14, 2008 10:31 PM PDT

      Rep. Frank R. Wolf of Virginia recently criticized President Bush’s plans to attend the Olympic Games this summer in Beijing. The Republican congressman argued that it would be like President Franklin D. Roosevelt attending Adolf Hitler’s Berlin Olympics in 1936. Wolf, who co-chairs a congressional caucus on Sudan, wants China to do more to push the Sudanese to halt the mass killings in Darfur. Director Steven Spielberg recently withdrew as artistic director of the Beijing Games because of China’s position on Darfur. Do you think, like Spielberg, that Bush should boycott the Beijing Olympics?

    51. The plus side of Bush visiting China is the not insubstantial possibility of pesticide-laced potstickers or a stadium collapse.

    52. Last Updated: Sunday, 16 March 2008, 04:58 GMT

      Dalai Lama’s Tibet bloodshed fear

      The Dalai Lama says he does not back a Beijing Olympics boycott
      The Dalai Lama has said he fears there will be more deaths in Tibet unless Beijing changes its policies towards the Chinese-controlled territory.

      The Tibetan spiritual leader told the BBC he had “grave concerns” over Friday’s deadly protests in Lhasa city.

      But he emphasised that he still supported Beijing’s staging of the Olympic Games this summer.

    53. China declares ‘people’s war’ to control Tibet



      March 15, 2008 at 10:40 PM EDT

      BEIJING — Chinese officials have declared a “people’s war” of security and propaganda against support for the Dalai Lama in Tibet after riots racked the regional capital Lhasa, and some sources claimed the turmoil killed dozens.

      Residents of the remote city high in the Himalayas said on Sunday that anti-riot troops controlled the streets and were closely checking Tibetan homes after protests and looting shook the heavily Buddhist region.

    54. What I am observing in this thread is that some writers are writing about how to discuss the topic, rather than discussing it. What does this accomplish? I do agree that we must stick to the facts–like eyewitness accounts, videos, and photographs, such as in the nytimes and bbc.

      One of the biggest areas of contention is whether Tibet as always a part of China. There have been times when it was ruled by China, there have been times of Tibetan-Chinese governments joined by marriage, there have been times when Tibet invaded mainland China. Although there are many other examples, depending on what period of history you focus on, I think the most important thing is the presnt time.

      Impoverished Tibetans can benefit economically from China, but they are becoming sinicized for many reasons. Chinese can benefit culturally, and perhaps spiritually, from Buddhism, which once flourished magnificently in China–once one of the great cultures of the world.

    55. Sunday 4.30pm British Isles time.

      Latest news by phone from Amdo, North Eastern Tibet. More than 30 people killed, monks and laypeople, by Chinese troops suppressing a demonstration of about 2500 at Ngawa.

      Chinese authorities have offered money to anyone who informs on protesters. Chinese have also said they will arrest anyone who shelters a protester.

    56. have they also threatened to arrest the Tibetans that have protected Chinese from angry rioters?

      I have read at least one eye witness account of a monk sheltering a Han boy.

    57. The Government of Tibet in Exile has a comprehensive website detailing plans for democracy, the Dalai Lama is on record many times saying he wants a democracy.

      Your dismissal of any chance for Tibet is just saying you think China should do whatever she wishes with Tibet.

      As for encouraging overall rights in China, Beijing has long since co-opted this and made it a mockery and smokescreen for ongoing cultural genoicde.

      But you already know this.

    58. Motisbeard, if your arguments are as good as you claim, why are you being such a foul-tempered blowhard about them, instead of letting them stand on their own merits?

      Let’s talk about what kinds of behavior do and don’t go with what kinds of argument.

      You keep saying neither side knows what’s going on; yet you’ve repeatedly bullied and insulted those who disagree with you. You’ve said they’re deluded, irrational, propagandists, untruthful, sockpuppets, and in the pay of Students for a Free Tibet.

      If you really believed that no one knows what’s going on in Tibet, you wouldn’t be belittling your fellow readers. You wouldn’t be calling them nasty names for making the arguments they do, because by the logic of your own argument, you’d have to acknowledge that they might be right.

      But you haven’t shown them any such respect. You also haven’t shown any sense of doubt about what’s going on over there. You’ve taken a stand firmly on the side of the Han Chinese, and bullyragged and sneered at anyone who thinks the Tibetan resistance might have some right on its side.

      Therefore, I don’t think you’ve been telling the truth when you’ve said (loudly, repeatedly) that you don’t think anyone can know what’s going on in Tibet. I think you believe that they can know, at least in part, what the situation is over there. I further think the reason you claimed to believe that no one can know anything was that it was an easy way to dismiss all the data cited by the people you were arguing with.

      You have dismissed a great deal of data. Takuan and others keep posting it, and you either ignore it, or reply to it with hot air and handwaving. (You also reply with claims that you and your droogs are the only reasonable, objective, unbiased, thoughtful participants in the conversation, which is so obviously untrue that it constitutes a tactical error all by itself.)

      The point at which your data-dodging genuinely amazed me was when Takuan asked you, point-blank:

      #63 posted by Takuan, March 15, 2008 8:09 PM

      China has killed more than 1,000,000 Tibetans.

      Do you deny this fact?

      You could have quibbled with that number; many people have. There are different estimates available of the number of Tibetans that have died as as a result of the Chinese “pacification” and “modernization.” Naturally, the PRC’s figures are the lowest; but even their numbers show a loss of around 200,000 ethnic Tibetans. Other conservative estimates say the number’s at least 400,000, which is about one-third as many deaths as are estimated by the Central Tibetan Administration-in-exile. Given that there were only about two and a half million* ethnic Tibetans to start with, any of those estimates would be startling, and would certainly cast doubt on the benevolence of the PRC’s rule in Tibet.

      That’s a question you had to respond to, if you honestly cared about the facts being argued. However, ou didn’t respond in terms of the facts or the extant argument. Instead, you pulled a shabby rhetorical dodge:

      #64 posted by Motisbeard, March 15, 2008 8:16 PM


      The Allies in World War II killed approximately 11,000,000 people.

      Do you deny this fact?

      People get killed in conflicts, and the number killed by one side versus the number killed by the other side is irrelevant in determining which side is right (if, indeed, either side can be said to be ‘right’). Even if there were ZERO casualties on one side and a billion on the other, you can’t point to that as an indication of who is wrong and who is right, or even an indication that there is a wrong and right to find in the conflict.

      That isn’t valid, and you know it.

      It’s not even valid for WWII alone. Does the number of people killed by the Allies reflect the rightness of their cause? Yes, it does — because the total number of those killed by the Axis must include the millions dead in the concentration camps, plus tens of millions of other civilians* killed in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. The Allies’ total does not. (Yes, Dresden. Yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Bad, but nowise comparable.)

      It becomes even less valid when you compare the relative circumstances. WWII was a continent-wide all-out declared war between the armies of the great powers and their allies. But in the case of Tibet, we’re talking about the peacetime deaths of civilians resulting from the policies and actions of the PRC’s peacetime government. When the regime in control (which has seized power in the name of liberating and uplifting the people of the region) manages to kill somewhere between ten and forty percent of the locals, depending on whose estimate you use, then yes: that number says a great deal about the righteousness of their occupation.

      Your point is entirely invalid. But let’s ignore its invalidity for a moment, and take it on its own terms. By making that point, you’ve staked your entire argument on the principle that the Chinese are there in Tibet by “right,” no matter what effects the exercise of that right produces. You’ve never given us any justification for the “China has the right to be there, and that’s that” position; but we’ll let that pass for the moment.

      So, bearing that in mind, let’s look at your most recent comment:

      #69 posted by Motisbeard, March 15, 2008 9:06 PM

      No matter who the rightful rulers of Tibet actually are, and no matter what atrocities and human rights violations have been committed by Tibet’s rulers (both the PRC and the Buddhist monks), the fact is that the PRC is at this moment in charge of Tibet. The violence going on right now is a matter of protestors being quelled by their country’s de facto legitimate government, no matter what the country’s history says about that government’s actual legitimacy. (…) Governments quell protests all over the world, and when protests turn violent, governments respond with violence. The use of violence by either side is regrettable and, to me, reprehensible… but the use of violence even when it is lethal does not grant one side or the other any claim to being right.

      That is, you’ve gone from “PRC governance is overall a good thing,” your original position in this thread, to “the number of Tibetans they’ve killed doesn’t affect the rightness of the PRC cause,” and now finally to “the question of the Chinese right to govern Tibet, and how well they’re governing it, are both irrelevant because the PRC’s in power and therefore is the legitimate authority, so they have the right to suppress protests and kill protesters.”

      My conclusion: you don’t think this argument is about what’s true. You think it’s about who wins the argument.

      There are two kinds of debate. The baser sort thinks it’s an arbitrary game, propositions have no more long-term significance than what’s trump in a hand of bridge, arguments and evidence are arbitrary game tokens, and the point of the exercise is to see who wins.

      Real debate is a testing of propositions and arguments against each other within the terms of the rules of logic and evidence. A truly great debate is one where both sides come out of it with new knowledge and understandings that neither had going in, but none of them can remember which side supposedly won.

      You, Motisbeard, are the sort who think an argument is about who wins, and you’ve treated your fellow readers very badly in an attempt to pressure them into letting the winner be you. It’s not an attitude I’d care for unders any circumstances. In this one, it suggests its own punishment.


      I hereby declare that MOTISBEARD is the loser in this argument. His ass has been kicked. Whatever privileges and benefits he believes should accrue to the winner of an argument shall pass him by, and will instead light on Takuan and Antinous, and on Cupcake Faerie, BoodaBill, Trnck, Zuzu, Purly, Jody, TseeBaeng, Holtt, Doug Rogers, Akasha, DragonFrog, and all the rest. Let them rejoice. Let Motisbeard gnash his teeth in the darkness.


      By my hand and for the good of France,

      TNH, Moderator

    59. Teresa,
      Thanks for taking the time for so carefully and eloquently dispelling the hatred that comes in the form of Motisbeard. It’s fitting that a person supporting the authoritarian Chinese regime would have a hate-filled heart, and cruel speech.

      As a practicing student of Tibetan buddhism, I have learned to have compassion and patience with hatred, no matter what form it comes from, and from whomever it comes from, even if it’s my own mind.

      I often act and speak in a cruel way because I am hurt, for beneath anger lies vulnerability. I need to be strong and right, because I have be taught–erroneously– that the answer is either black or white. You’re either with the Chinese or against them. You’re either with the terrorists or against them. Where has this thinking gotten us?

      [Tibetan Dharma logic, based on the Indian master, Nagarjuna, says that things can be both true, untrue, both true and untrue, and both neither true nor untrue! It depends on your logic, and the postulates you pick to argue.]

      My heart says that the Chinese people need our love and compassion at this point, not hate. The government needs to have other regimes communicate in a productive way that fosters opening to new ways of being. Friendlier to their own people, for example, in the form of clean water, and more tolerant to those who are different, like the Tibetans.

      China only needs to look a few hundred years back, inwardly, into the soul of their own culture, and they will find Vajrayana Buddhist texts, commentaries, and practices extraordinarily similar to Tibetan Tantric practice.

      The Chan (Chinese Zen) masters taught the Japanese and blended with Tibetan Dzogchen in many ways.

      How ironic that the Chinese have shed their own culture’s wisdom and compassion so completely that their own great poets and immortal Chan masters can now be viewed only in a “museum” of the old ways that were liberated by Maoism.

    60. An admirable point of view, and said view is the source of my support for Tibet. All people are intrinsically valuable,but at this time, in this place, Tibet has something we all need.

      I was reading a bit of the Dalai Lama’s proposed plan for a special zone for Tibet. The “Zone of Peace”. What a beautiful idea.

    61. Tibet As A Zone of Peace

      In his “FIVE POINT PEACE PLAN STATEMENT” delivered in 1989 the Dalai Lama committed himself to developing Tibet, following liberation into a “Zone of Peace”. The specific points regarding the Zone of Peace he made in his lecture in Norway on 12/11/89 were as follows:

      * a. the entire Tibetan plateau would be demilitarized;

      * b. the manufacture, testing, and stockpiling of nuclear weapons and other armaments on the Tibetan plateau would be prohibited.

      * c. the Tibetan plateau would be transformed into the world¹s largest natural park or biosphere. Strict laws would be enforced to protect wildlife and plant life; the exploitation of natural resources would be carefully regulated so as not to damage relevant ecosystems; and a policy of sustainable development would be adopted in populated areas;

      * d. the manufacture and use of nuclear power and other technologies which produce hazardous waste would be prohibited;

      * e. national resources and policy would be directed towards the active promotion of peace and environmental protection.

      * f. organizations dedicated to the furtherance of peace and to the protection of all forms of life would find a hospitable home in Tibet;

      * g. the establishment of international and regional orga-nisations for the promotion and protection of human rights would be encouraged in Tibet.

    62. I’ve just removed Motisbeard’s last comment in this thread. He recast his argument yet again, and presented it in the same facile style and at the same length that he did in his previous formulations.

      My suspension of disbelief has snapped.

      I think we’re getting hit with astroturf. I think Motisbeard was only here to argue that the Bush Administration didn’t screw up completely by removing China from the human rights blacklist three days before this bloody repression started in Tibet.

      China’s played Bush for a sap. Now that they have what they want — to be off the human rights blacklist in time for the Olympics — they’ve gone straight back to business as usual in Tibet. They didn’t even wait a few weeks to make it look less obvious.

      Bush can’t abide being made to look like a fool.

      I’ve seen blog astroturfing before, on occasions when Bush & Co. have wanted to suppress public reaction to the news of some snafu. The first time I saw it was when I wrote in my own weblog about the looting and destruction of Baghdad, especially its museums and libraries. It was one of the first big, unambiguous, easily understood pieces of evidence that the invasion of Iraq wasn’t proceeding anything like they’d had in mind.

      Suddenly, my website was getting drive-by sloganeering attacks from dozens of anonymous and semi-anonymous strangers who’d never been there before. There wasn’t a lot of variation in what they were saying, which made it easier to trace them back to a small number of belligerently right-wing weblogs. I assume that handful of blogs all got it from roughly the same source, because otherwise I’d have to believe that several very different writers spontaneously came up with the same take on a complex and fast-developing news story.

      I believe the people who posted nastygrams to my weblog on that occasion were essentially unpaid volunteers, who got worked up by their cheerleaders and sent out to give those evil unpatriotic liberals a piece of their mind. I’m not sure Motisbeard or some of the others who’ve shown up here are the same kind of amateurs. They might be. Kind of odd if they are.

      I’m going to start looking more closely at people with little or no comment history who turn up on Boing Boing and start posting tirelessly about Tibet. Has anyone else here noticed how little variation there is in their viewpoints?

      (Note: I am not talking about Kyle Armbruster. I may not trust all his sources, but I do trust him.)

    63. I know from about five years ago the extent the PLA goes to to post counter-propaganda world wide. They have an extensive budget and have gotten better,
      Some of the earliest were pretty laughable, but I think they figured out cheaping out on the hired help was not working. This would have been regarding Sino-Japanese relations.

    64. Teresa, Well I showed up suddenly and only post about Tibet, but I am pro conflict resolution, and not belligerent! I was lured to this site from rense.com and a tech article, another one of my passions.

      Thank you for keeping this discussion constructive. One-sided thinking comes from fear, flight-or-fight, and rigidity–good if you’re being attacked by a tiger, not good for discussing ideas with a balanced emotions.

      I look forward to reading your article on the Irag looting.

      Takuan, I have also been thinking about PLA, which we have Arafat to blame for, who made suicided bombing a political and military technique. Were the Tibetans to become suicide bombers, it would not work in the same way. First of all, they don’t have enough people to get away with it, nor do they have a belief system that thinks you’re better off by killing others and that you will go to heaven.

      I’m feeling facetious: Why doesn’t the CIA continue it’s 1950’s covert op and back Tibetan guerilla warfare. Blowing up the Tibetan train tracks would really piss off some Chinese! just kidding.

    65. PLA

      People’s Liberation Army
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      People’s Liberation Army

      The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) (simplified Chinese: 中国人民解放军; traditional Chinese: 中國人民解放軍; pinyin: Zhōngguó Rénmín JiÄ›fàng JÅ«n) is the unified military organization of all land, sea, and air forces of the People’s Republic of China.


      Palestine Liberation Organization

      The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) (Arabic: منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية‎; Munazzamat al-Tahrir al-Filastiniyyah (help·info) or Munazzamat al-Tahrir al-Filastiniyyah) is a multi-party confederation regarded since 1974 as the “sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.”[1]

    66. You mean Arafat wasn’t Chinese? Oops, my mistake. PLO and PLA. Big differences. The PLA is now using sophisticated media control, psychological tactics, and billions of dollars on the TIbet train to dilute the Tibetan population. The PLA blow themselves up.

    67. Tian,

      Please don’t link to graphic, violent images without a warning, and please don’t post links without any comment.

    68. to TAKUAN,

      you quoted that over 1 million tibetans have been killed by the chinese. do you have any evidence to back that up?

    Comments are closed.