Tibet is, was, and will always be part of China?

[Hurt]

Quote by: Anmon I don't see why China feels the need to hold on to a poor, sparsely populated area that holds no great importance to her, in the face of the growing world condemnation especially with the Olympics here, when you think how much praise she could get by freeing Tibet instead. So why hang onto Tibet? The only possible reason I can see is China regards her having some vital role in future plans of expansion to the west.

One reason I can think of is this: As soon as they lose Tibet, there goes Taiwan. It's not a light issue to them either. That could be one of several motivating factors.

[Anmon]

I've heard of plans for the Chinese to build a huge super hwy that links China to the middle east, which would pass through Tibet.
Also if you believe the Biblical book of Revelation as I do, it speaks of a huge army from the east coming to the middle east, so big it would drink rivers dry, which only leaves me to conclude that the only nation on earth capable of fielding an army that size is China, and the most logical way to get them and tanks there quickly would be a superhwy that links China and the middle east, that goes through Tibet, over nepal and into Iran.

[vysis]

Quote by: grandpa No, I don't get it. What security? What integrity? A totalitarian government cannot have much of either. In what way are China's repsonses "ordinary"? How is the Tibetan movement more threatening than the Chinese government? A cursory investigation into China reveals it as a threatening entity. I suppose it's "ordinary" in the sense that all governments are threatening, but beyond that... Grandpa h.

Lets see... when theres is an uprising or at least an violent demonstration of this magnitude, the military is usually called in. This is perfectly ordinary.

How is the Tibetan Movement threatening the Chinese Government? Well, first of all, they are trying to become independant, thats already a threat. Its like if everybody in Alaska suddenly decides that they dont want to become part of America anymore... what the you guys do? Let them? Phff, yea right. AND you guys arent EVEN CONNECTED geographically.

And the only thing Threatening about China is its rapid economy. I would say America is the most threatening entity of all considerin it HUGE military budget and unprecedented amount of nuclear weapons (and its fear of other countries have nuclear weapons... hypocritical)

[vysis]

Quote by: lsbskins1 No, it holds no water with me. The problem is that the PRC is full of crap and does not want to admit the real problem. The real problem is that they do not just want to maintain the historic ties between Tibet and China, nor do they want to bring freedom and progress to a region of their own land. They want to dominate and eliminate all things Tibetan. Don't believe me? Check this out (Tibet): - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "In 2005, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's offered to hold talks with the 14th Dalai Lama on the Tibet issue, provided he dropped the demand for independence. The Dalai Lama said in an interview with the South China Morning Post "We are willing to be part of the People's Republic of China, to have it govern and guarantee to preserve our Tibetan culture, spirituality and our environment." He had already said he would accept Chinese sovereignty over Tibet but insisted on real autonomy over its religious and cultural life. The Tibetan government-in-exile called on the Chinese government to respond.[85] The move was seen to be unpopular with some Tibetans in exile, particularly among the younger generation.[85] In January 2007 the Dalai Lama, in an interview on a private television channel, said "What we demand from the Chinese authority is more autonomy for Tibetans to protect their culture." He added that he had told the Tibetan people not to think in terms of history and to accept Tibet as a part of China.[86]" When China stops pratteling on about how Tibet and China are "one" (even though historically they have been seperated and joined and separated and joined more often than Britney Spears has been to rehab or refused to go to court) and steps up and accepts the fact that a real compromise has been offered and admits that what they really want is to dominate and culturally and religiously trample the rights Tibetans should enjoy, then they can talk. Until then they need to get out and STFU!

The fact the you cite wikipedia as a source automatically fails you as a credible and respectable debater.

Also, Canada and America did a pretty good job of " dominate and eliminate all things" Aboriginal [Indian]. How bout we fix up and clean up our own mess before we go half way across the world and start shouting at other people to clean up theirs. Lets not be hypocritics.

And I would like to point out how historically Quebec and Canada are not "one". Ireland and England are not "one". In fact, NO country were ever "one" to begin with. ALL countries and nations are the result of conquest. Also, China never wanted to "dominate and trample the rights of Tibetans". The Tibetans lived peaceful life before they started this whole uprising and guess what? Uprising, especially violent uprisings, can only be dealt with force.

Of course, your going say "China uses excessive force". No China does not. China uses enough force to deal with the uprising. Do you really thing Chinese soldiers have nothing better to do then beat monks? But when it threatens national security and when the monk has a knife. You usually do.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Anmon Also if you believe the Biblical book of Revelation as I do, it speaks of a huge army from the east coming to the middle east, so big it would drink rivers dry, which only leaves me to conclude that the only nation on earth capable of fielding an army that size is China, and the most logical way to get them and tanks there quickly would be a superhwy that links China and the middle east, that goes through Tibet, over nepal and into Iran.

China has no interest controlling the middle east (at least not directly). No, China's always been about face. Losing part of the country displays lack of competence and control. The superhighway is probably just China trying to move some of it's people out of the over crowded east. That or it's way of saying "Tibet is ours, and to prove it, we're going to build a highway through it."

Quote by: vysis Lets see... when theres is an uprising or at least an violent demonstration of this magnitude, the military is usually called in. This is perfectly ordinary.

Fire live ammunition and evicting the press, however, is not perfectly ordinary.

The fact the you cite wikipedia as a source automatically fails you as a credible and respectable debater.

However, most wiki pages site their sources, so it's not to hard to check out how true the page.

Quote by: vysis Also, Canada and America did a pretty good job of " dominate and eliminate all things" Aboriginal [Indian]. How bout we fix up and clean up our own mess before we go half way across the world and start shouting at other people to clean up theirs. Lets not be hypocritics.

Fair argument, yet our atrocities are in our past. The little we can do to fix them have been attempted. Guantanamo is a walk in the park compared to some of the things the Chinese government has tried. And even if it were hypocritical, these are people's lives we're talking about. When it comes down to that, the rest is crap.

Also, China never wanted to "dominate and trample the rights of Tibetans". The Tibetans lived peaceful life before they started this whole uprising and guess what? Uprising, especially violent uprisings, can only be dealt with force.

Uprisings, as long as they are peaceful, should not be dealt with force, if only because it looks bad.

I do recognize that the Tibetan protests were violent at times, in fact they killed several innocent people, however that does not mean you open fire on them. Also, the Chinese government reacted against the monks as well, who were peaceful. The ones who were violent weren't the monks.

This isn't as cut and dry as some people make it out to be, but China's actions were less then pure. I shouldn't judge the situation from an armchair, but I've seen this happen many times before. Tianamen square is only the tip of the iceberg. There are many local uprisings due to corruption in local government. The media never gets there fast enough to see incidents sometimes worse then Tianamen unfold in these villages. But it's a trend that has remained with China for as long as I can remember picking up a newspaper.

[Anmon]

[=Winter wind;493999]China has no interest controlling the middle east (at least not directly). No, China's always been about face. Losing part of the country displays lack of competence and control. The superhighway is probably just China trying to move some of it's people out of the over crowded east. That or it's way of saying "Tibet is ours, and to prove it, we're going to build a highway through it."

China has ambitions to be the next world superpower, and a hwy through Tibet can be easily extended to the middle east, they have the man power and dollars to do it, like in my last post, I am a believer of the contents in the book of Revelation, which speaks of a huge clash between the east and west.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Anmon China has ambitions to be the next world superpower, and a hwy through Tibet can be easily extended to the middle east, they have the man power and dollars to do it

But no justification. If China acts without a good reason, every country will condemn it. It could easily turn into something like when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan or when America went into Vietnam. The Chinese government is smart, that's why they wont do it. No, the Chinese government is going to take over the world with economics.

Quote by: anmon I am a believer of the contents in the book of Revelation, which speaks of a huge clash between the east and west.

What verse?

[vysis]

Quote by: Winter wind Fire live ammunition and evicting the press, however, is not perfectly ordinary.

When people a angry mob with knifes and other improvised weapnonary are charging at you and you have a gun. You usually fire.

Also, the point of the military is the suppress the riot. These riots are violent. You don't suppress violent riots with kind words or hugs. Live ammunition is intiminating and thats what needs to be used during riots.

Quote by: Winter wind However, most wiki pages site their sources, so it's not to hard to check out how true the page.

then please cite the source directly.

Quote by: Winter wind Fair argument, yet our atrocities are in our past. The little we can do to fix them have been attempted. Guantanamo is a walk in the park compared to some of the things the Chinese government has tried. And even if it were hypocritical, these are people's lives we're talking about. When it comes down to that, the rest is crap.

attempted. You think that China never attempted the make Tibetan life better? Were do you think 90% of Tibetan economy comes from? Tourism, Tourism from mainland. Without it, Tibetan would be much poorer.

There is no prof that the Chinese government have tried anything worst the Guantanamo (as far as i know), if so. Please cite your source.

Nobodies lives would at stake if these people would just smarten up and not give their country crap on what is probably it's most important year. I don't recall anybody being shot before the riot. Im sure you wouldn't either. I don't recall ANY "human rights abuse" (as you people call it) before the riots. Im sure you can't either. BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ANY

Quote by: Winter wind I do recognize that the Tibetan protests were violent at times, in fact they killed several innocent people, however that does not mean you open fire on them. Also, the Chinese government reacted against the monks as well, who were peaceful. The ones who were violent weren't the monks.

Do you know why they "fired upon monks". The soldier werent ordered to run and gun everybody you see. The monks were fired upon because they ignored warning and even warning shots. How can the Chinese soldier trust that the monks arent dangerous? After all, the US has trained Tibetans in Geurilla warfare before. Dressing up as "monks" and launching a suprise attack would not be suprising. If you ignore warning and get shot, its not the shooters fault. Just like how if somebody stupid enough runs into area 51 and complains about being shot at.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: vysis When people a angry mob with knifes and other improvised weapnonary are charging at you and you have a gun. You usually fire.

cite your source that these people had knifes and improvised weaponry and were charging the police.

Also, the Chinese army is large enough and technologically advance enough to use non-lethal methods of riot control. The United States has demonstrated it's ability to do so.

Also, the point of the military is the suppress the riot. These riots are violent. You don't suppress violent riots with kind words or hugs. Live ammunition is intiminating and thats what needs to be used during riots.

Tear gas, smoke bombs, batons, shields, hoses, tazers, pepper spray, plastic bullets, beanbag rounds...you can see where I'm going.

Live bullets are actually more likely to incur rage and panic as opposed to disorientation and vulnerability in the masses.

You think that China never attempted the make Tibetan life better? Were do you think 90% of Tibetan economy comes from? Tourism, Tourism from mainland. Without it, Tibetan would be much poorer.

A very similar argument the British made to the American colonies.
Half of it is also to swamp the Tibet demographics.

Also, the Tibetan's haven't been treated very well.

http://www.tibet.net/en/diir/pubs/wp...ng%20Truth.pdf

states that 1.2 million Tibetans have died due to violence or other indirect causes since the "Great Leap Forward" (1958-1960).

While this has probably been exaggerated, more accurate polls place the number at 200,000 (according to The Black Book of Communism).

Also, to shrink the proportion of Native Tibetans to Han people, the Chinese government have made all these socioeconomic advantages for Han people which have basically pushed the Native Tibetan people aside.
This is a news report on the above.
Asia Times Online :: China News, China Business News, Taiwan and Hong Kong News and Business.

So, while I think the Tibetan protesters have committed incredibly wrong acts...it has been created by a frankly prejudiced acts by the Chinese government.

There is no prof that the Chinese government have tried anything worst the Guantanamo (as far as i know), if so. Please cite your source.

Lets start with the Tianamin square incident.

That picture sums it up nicely.

The country has the worlds largest population, yet it is ranked highest in number of executions per population.

Singapore: The death penalty - A hidden toll of executions\n\n | Amnesty International

Actually the number is probably higher as the Chinese government has kept the exact nature of the statistic secret.

They constantly sensor sites (it wasn't easy to get the Tiananmen Square picture) and have wire tapped my family's house when we lived in Beijing.

And a personal favorite and a clear winner over Guantanamo Bay for worst human rights violation...

In order to enforce the one-child policy. The Chinese government has forced abortions. It wasn't until 2002 that they outlawed it officially. (it is still done, just not condoned by the national government)


CNN - Chinese witness: Beijing forces sterilizations, abortions - June 11, 1998

Chinese region 'must conduct 20,000 abortions' - Telegraph

Women and Global Human Rights

Dressing up as "monks" and launching a suprise attack would not be suprising. If you ignore warning and get shot, its not the shooters fault. Just like how if somebody stupid enough runs into area 51 and complains about being shot at.

This wasn't area 51, you would never see this in an American protest, and you need to cite all your sources.

[Anmon]

=Winter wind;494011]But no justification. If China acts without a good reason, every country will condemn it. It could easily turn into something like when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan or when America went into Vietnam. The Chinese government is smart, that's why they wont do it. No, the Chinese government is going to take over the world with economics.

I think they will do both like the US did, like most hegemony's do, a mixture of trade and armed might.
I don't think the world would care much if china built a hwy to Iran and invaded her, taking her oil, probably give a cheer if anything, especially Israel.

What verse?

Rev:16:12

[vysis]

Quote by: Winter wind cite your source that these people had knifes and improvised weaponry and were charging the police.

Tibet witnesses describe 'mayhem everywhere' - Los Angeles Times

This is the Los Angelos Times, a credible source. I would have cited Xinhua News Agency as i source, but i doubt you would believe those as credible sources.

Anyways, some except from this article:

"Through the glass window I could see the mob rushing toward me. They carried knives, stones, sticks. I ran farther back into this courtyard to hide. Outside I could hear them smashing everything."

"In one instance, Phuntsok told reporters, rioters doused a civilian with gasoline and set him on fire while others knocked out an officer and cut a piece of flesh from his buttocks."

"Zhaxi Duoji is a Tibetan who runs the Tibet Cafe and Inn in southwestern China's Yunnan province. He organizes regular tours to Tibet but has put them on hold since the disturbances began.

I can say 90% of ordinary Tibetans are opposed to this kind of violence," he said in fluent Mandarin, adding that he is a Buddhist and not a Communist Party member."


I don't think you understand just how violent these "peaceful" people are:






again, all of the photos above are from Los Angelos Times.

[vysis]

Quote by: Winter wind Tear gas, smoke bombs, batons, shields, hoses, tazers, pepper spray, plastic bullets, beanbag rounds...you can see where I'm going. Live bullets are actually more likely to incur rage and panic as opposed to disorientation and vulnerability in the masses.

Yes, those items will disperse a crowd. But the crowd will only get back again the next day. China's goal is to put down the unrest, not to delay it.

Also, do you really think china has never tried using tear gases etc.. etc..? Of course they have:

Clashes leave 10 dead in Tibet - CNN.com

Quote "Police used gunfire and tear gas to quell the Lhasa protest, according to witnesses, human rights groups and Xinhua."

[vysis]

Quote by: Winter wind Also, the Tibetan's haven't been treated very well. http://www.tibet.net/en/diir/pubs/wp...ng%20Truth.pdf states that 1.2 million Tibetans have died due to violence or other indirect causes since the "Great Leap Forward" (1958-1960). While this has probably been exaggerated, more accurate polls place the number at 200,000 (according to The Black Book of Communism).

That link is dead, please send a new one.

Also, MILLIONS of people died in the "great leap forward". 20-43 million of Chinese people. Yet only 200 000 Tibetans died. I am not trying to make it sound like the lives of 200 000 Tibetans is not a significant number. However, when you consider that 20-43 million people died, it pretty obvious that the chinese government wasn't "treating Tibetans badly." It was universal and everybody was suffering. Tibetans are no exception.

Unless you believe that those 200 000 Tibetan deserve special attention compare to the 20-43 million other people. And that the government should have ignore even more people and let them die to make sure that the 200 000 Tibetans survived the Great Leap Forward. And if you really think that way, I see no further point in continuing this debate.

My source:
Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls

[vysis]

Quote by: Winter wind Lets start with the Tianamin square incident. That picture sums it up nicely.

I cannot comment on the Tianamin Incident because:

A. I wasn't even alive back then
B. I know nothing about it
C. It has nothing to do with our current debate.

If you are trying to say what an oppressive country China is, I agree with you. It is. Democracy doesn't happen overnight, especially not with 1.3 Billion people. However if you look at the significant progress China has made in the past 50 years, you will realize that it is on its way there.

In order to enforce the one-child policy. The Chinese government has forced abortions. It wasn't until 2002 that they outlawed it officially. (it is still done, just not condoned by the national government)

OF COURSE its ENFORCED and forced. The one-child policy is a LAW. Its not optional! These people should be happy they are not getting criminally charged. If you break the law and you don't want to suffer the consequences guess what? You still suffer them!

[Domino]

It all seems like a strategic decision to me: Tibet (more specifically, the Tibetan Plateau) is a wonderful fortress against incursions from the West, which, for China, is pretty much everyone. At the same time, it's a wonderful place from which to attack China. China doesn't really need it, but if they leave Tibet to its own devices, they may be conquered by someone else, then used as a base from which to attack China. If China does have it, it makes them ever so much more defensible.

No politics, no religion, no commerce: just look at a geographic map of the region, and think where you'd put your armies to defend China.

[vysis]

I feel like I'm not getting one very very very basic point across.

The "riots" in Tibet are violent.
The "riots" in Tibet are getting innocent people killed.
The "riots" in Tibet aren't Riots. Its an rebellion.

Of course China would sent the military in. Of course they would use weaponary. They are fully justified to do so.

Canada mobilize their forces and declared martial law over the October Crisis. And that was over 12 guys who were making bombs in their basement and blowing up the mailboxes of english speaking french people.

Now of course, pro-Tibet people would say that "The Chinese Government is abusing human rights." or "The Chinese government is using excessive force"

Do you know why? Because Tibetans aren't co-operating. Of course we have to use force. If a angry mobs comes at you, of course you wouldn't attack them. Any basic human being knows that. You ask them to stop, of course they wont stop. That is when you are forced to use violence. But then people moan and whine about human about.

Article 20 in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association."

However, the riots aren't peaceful. Do you really think the Chinese government, or even the soldiers would stand and watch as rioters threaten their safety and the safety of those around them? Of COURSE NOT.

To further prove my point.

YouTube - Tibet violence march 15th 2008

The only crime this man commited is being Han Chinese and as a result One Tibetan (the red guy) Grabs a rock and beings violently beating the Motorist. Not only does nobody stop the red guy, several other rioters join and and begin pelting stones at his motorcycle.

Please take a look of any of these videos. I deliberatly avoided videos that may have connection with the Chinese government because I know you would say that they would not be trustworthy. However, even if they did originate from The Chinese government, it still does not break the fact that these are videos. Videos cannot be photoshopped

YouTube - FACE THE TRUTH OF TIBET VIOLENCE WITH NEW ZEALAND MEDIA

YouTube - [Sky News] Dozens Killed In Tibet Riots 2008.03.15

Take a look at the beginning, by no means peaceful.

YouTube - Tibetan Violence captured by Australian Tourist in Tibet


I am sure after seeing these vidoes that you would agree with me that China was MORE then justified to use to force it did to quelch this quasi-rebellion.

[InTheFlesh?]

No one on this thread has suggested the Tibetan people were cuddly bunnies at the uprising, this is not what the debate was about.

The point is that the human rights abuses, and oppression of a people shouldn't be allowed, regardless of whether or not 200, 300 1000yrs ago people from your country or mine were doing the same.

Even so, as has been said, the movement to Free Tibet has been around since the Cultural Revolution in 1951 with non violence at its heart. The desire to free Tibet did not start in March with this 'rebellion'. But with the Olympics coming up and it having been such a long time, I can imagine the non-violence will go down the pan.

Again I am slightly perturbed by the casual acceptance of military violence and oppression of liberty as moral. Why are human rights abuses trivialised with quotation marks, as if they are some fanciful liberal concept that must be paid lip service to?

Grampa, I know it was a long time ago, but yeah I agree with you, often the greatest cause of violence in our history has not been the gun or sword but the pen and map.

[vysis]

Quote by: InTheFlesh? No one on this thread has suggested the Tibetan people were cuddly bunnies at the uprising, this is not what the debate was about.

What I am trying to say is that there is no violation of human rights or not nearly as large as everybody makes it out to be.

How does a country deal with violent riots and uprising. Of course by using violence. You have to use fire to fight fire. Do you really think those Tibetans would calm down if the Chinese government told them to stop? Pro-Tibet people say that the Chinese government is "abusing human rights by arresting important figures (monks) of the Tibetan "government"". Of course they would be, you cut of the head and the body dies. Or would you rather have the Chinese government just kill all the rioters instead? I think if we weight the two different options, arresting a few monks does not seem so significant.

Even so, as has been said, the movement to Free Tibet has been around since the Cultural Revolution in 1951 with non violence at its heart. The desire to free Tibet did not start in March with this 'rebellion'. But with the Olympics coming up and it having been such a long time, I can imagine the non-violence will go down the pan.

There will always be people who want to be independant. We had the FLQ in Quebec and the Bloq Quebecois now. We have radicalists in Taiwan and many other countries with the same problem.

However, these outspoken people usually drown out those who do not wish to seperate. Do you honestly think 100% of Tibetans want to be independant? Of course not! You can control their body but you can't control their heart. If 100% of Tibetans really wanted to be seperated, Tibetan would have been a long time ago.

[Hurt]

Quote by: vysis What I am trying to say is that there is no violation of human rights or not nearly as large as everybody makes it out to be. How does a country deal with violent riots and uprising. Of course by using violence. You have to use fire to fight fire. Do you really think those Tibetans would calm down if the Chinese government told them to stop? Pro-Tibet people say that the Chinese government is "abusing human rights by arresting important figures (monks) of the Tibetan "government"". Of course they would be, you cut of the head and the body dies. Or would you rather have the Chinese government just kill all the rioters instead? I think if we weight the two different options, arresting a few monks does not seem so significant.

The monks don't encourage violent uprisings; so is it fair - even if it's the lesser of two evils - to do such a thing?

[vysis]

Quote by: Hurt The monks don't encourage violent uprisings; so is it fair - even if it's the lesser of two evils - to do such a thing?

What would you do in such an situation?