What's your point? That your laws and values should be applicable in every part of the world?

I was replying to this post which asked what we would do.

But I was also illustrating that there are different ways of dealing with the situation.

Do you think that the Chinese way of dealing with this was right?

Do you believe the Chinese way addresses the needs of all the people?

Do you think that rioting and civil unrest are things which come about for no reason?

Do you believe that people should not have the right to say what they think?

Do you believe that the State should not be accountable and open to the people it is supposed to be serving?

Do you believe might is right?

I am curious, what do you believe?

What is the Chinese way that you have in mind? Let's be specific so that I know what we're accused of.

Is there a way that addresses the needs of ALL the ppl? I think our way is most suitable for the needs of most ppl that live on our land, for now. We should continue to tinker with it to improve it, but we don't want any do-gooders to shove their "ways" down our throat. And I don't think Iraqis like that either.

Bin Laden has legitimate grievances too. And I doubt the police of LA or Paris would let rioters off the hook that easily.

Where does that come from? I suggest you find someone with the language skills and translate for you what's posted on popular Chinese BBS.

Of course, which is why the govt. should bring back law and order ASAP. Letting mobsters burning and killing innocent civilians on open streets is irresponsible.

Again, let's hear some specific charges.

[/quote]

You're avoiding my question. I have not accused you of anything, simply asked if you agreed the way China dealt with the Tibet situation was right.

[/quote]

With regard to the all - well I think that most countries tend to be better for some citizens than for others which is why if things get too unbalanced and a particular groups needs are not being addressed they engage in civil unrest. We could see this as a natural way for balance to be regained by their needs then being looked into and met. Would you not agree with that?

[/quote]

You appear to respond to questions in a very defensive way. Clearly if you come on a forum to discuss questions concerning China and Tibet you cannot do that unless you say what your position is and are prepared to listen to other views.

I've noticed that you have added some more comments in while I have been writing this but I don't think you are really discussing this and I have no interest in just doing tit for tat so I will keep to these few points you began with.

I meant that the genocide has already started.

__________________
The Way Of The Intercepting Fist

What you understand as the "Chinese way" may be fundamentally different from what I understand. That's why I ask for clarification, which should not be a problem if you're familiar with the issues involved.


So you believe violence is a legitimate way of getting heard? Like in LA and Paris? How about al-Qaeda?

I haven't made up my mind on this issue, mainly because violence tends to wipe out any sympathy and moral high ground, and ultimately harmful to one's objective.


I edited after posting because I wasn't familiar with the code for multiple quotes. And ad hominem attacks are not effective.

When? Where? How many?

Well from reading posts, I am well aware that many Chinese people have a different view of the situation to us. One of the things which we find concerning is that we are unable to see and talk to Tibetan people so we do not know how they are.

Most of us have a completely different understanding to Tibet's history to yours, believing that Tibet was a sovereign nation before China invaded it in 1950 and we see old films and things which seem to support this.

Buddhism has come to the West and many of us feel very concerned that Tibet has had such problems with it's Monastery's and ability to have autonomy.

We hear you say the Dalia Lama is responsible for the riots in Lhasa when we know he spoke up against them and in particular asked the Tibetan people not to do anything which would give rise to hatred in the hearts of Chinese people. Unfortunately he was unable to speak to the Tibetan people and tell them this.

and so on. It is very difficult for us to know what is going on with Chinese people because you are saying things which we know are not true.

I fear for the people of Tibet if they do any protests when the Olympic flame comes through as I have heard they will be given no mercy.



No, I made clear in an earlier post that anyone who committed the kind of violence the other person spoke of would be treated with utter horror by people here. I however have not seen anyone committing violence of that kind.

What I did see was what the Chinese government allowed out and that was people being very angry and attacking a Chinese man in the street and attacking shops. I did not condone the attack on the man and it made me sad because I did not think that was Buddhism. However it only made me feel stronger that Tibet should be free so that it's people would not act in this way.

We heard awful tales of repercussions against people and these, I'm sorry, seem worse than the protesters action.

LA, Paris and London were protests that I have no problem about. Yes, both in London and Paris someone got treated a bit roughly but no one was damaged. It would have been better if the protests and not involved that.

I am very concerned that in LA the protesters were not allowed to be on the run of the torch and since then the torch run seems to have become bizarre and just orchestrated by your government...but clearly nothing. No, I believe in people's right to protest. I have no problem with that. It is a very basic form of communication

al-Qaeda is a completely different issue.



I think that a lot must have been burning for this violence to happen. We had a lot of riots in the 80's over race issues and people being disadvantaged. We had to take note and change our ways, because they were wrong. I don't believe riots happen for no reason, ugly though they may be. They seem to happen when people are completely desperate.

I think it is extremely unfortunate that angry people turned on other civilians. However, if you can stand back a bit, can you not see that they might have become extremely angry at Tibet now having more Chinese than Tibetans living in it. It may not be comfortable, but do you not think it is understandable? Nothing can make harming another human being right but just think of how many Tibetans have been harmed.

I know you've mentioned this elsewhere so just in case you say it again, if Tibet got it's autonomy, it would not go back to a feudal society. I am very hopeful that it could become a very bright light in a troubled world.

Tibet was independent following the Chinese civil war(s) after the fall of the Qing in 1911. But that independence was not accepted by any of the world's nations except Britain (they had troops in Tibet), so the legitimacy is often questioned. Before the invasion, the monk theocracy basically ruled with oppression equivalent to or worse than that of the communists.

"I did not think that was Buddhism"

Buddhism isn't 100% peaceful...that's a misconception. The Zen-Chan monks of the Shaolin temple and the warrior priests of Japan are famous examples of warlike Buddhists.

Just like saying "that's very Christian of you" - religion doesn't automatically mean a specific group of people is peaceful...and it annoys the hell outa me when people generalize like that.