“okie .... first, since you love pointing out the
fact that there were tibetan rioters hacking and killing HAN
chinese ... may i ask if you've checked out the pictures of dead
tibetans on the link I posted ? ... going to say they were rioters
who were killed next ?”
Ok, I do not know what link you
are talking about but I am not going to sift through the 15 posts
you have made on this topic. But I assume your point is that there
were also Tibetans killed? Yes, that is true. SO? They were killed
by violent rioters, not peace-loving demonstrators. That is all the
point I was trying to make. That while those rioters were hacking
people, causing mayhem, the international media are COLLECTIVELY
portraying them as peace-loving demonstrators who are crushed by
Chinese troops. That is a serious misrepresentation of facts with
an apparent political objective.
Maybe you could benefit from
viewing this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSQnK5FcKas
Still siding with them? I have
nothing to say...
“... one of the reasons why many people tended
NOT to believe in the official chinese version of the current
troubles, because past experience doesn't lead us to do so ...
Remember the SARS crisis ? ... when the official media and chinese
authorities first attempted to cover up and hide the true extent of
the epidemic, before people overseas started dying and it blew
everything wide open ? ... even the whistle blowing doctor was
taken into custody, for telling the .... truth ?
and again, when other incidents happen, like the
recent spate of lead paint in dolls and food stuff scares, while it
may be tempting to say that it's an attempt to smear China, the
fact remains that even the maling brand of pork and luncheon meat
products was quietly banned for a while in Singapore by the local
authorities (nevermind the slim 10 pills and walnut sex pills and
what not, those were quack meds) .... I cannot tell you how
disappointed (and betrayed perhaps) I felt when I couldn't find my
beloved pork trotter cans at the supermarkets .... so regardless of
how indignant China gets, insisting there is no issues and
everything is a fabrication, people will take a look at the ban and
quietly modify their own consumption habits ....
and in a similar sense, when people read about
the tibetan incident, and read about the official chinese version,
replete with indignant rhetoric quite redolent of the 60's
revolutionary languages, people will remember the crushing of the
students at Tiananmen square by tanks .... now if the chinese were
capable of such cruelty to their own people .... then I guess you
can imagine how people outside of China would connect the dots
.......”
Did you type all this just to
prove the point that it is ok for Western media to lie and write
misleading reports because Chinese government was not forthcoming
with news? And then you stentorianly lecture in the following
paragraphs that A’s wrong-doing does not absolve B’s
crime?
“sigh ... I have been through this frustrating
point 15 times now, I shall type out everything yet again just for
you .... first, read this thread's topic title ... it says free
tibet, not free Iraq, free palestine, or, like what our dear friend
here would like, free lakota ...
I would like to ask you, if a criminal was caught
in the act of murdering someone, would it be an admissible defense
for him to claim in court " Hey ! ... tis unfair ! .. why me ? ...
why single me out ? ... if you want to charge me with this crime,
you must first indict and charge every other murderer ! ... if not,
this is unfair treatment ! " ... even if it is indeed blantantly
unfair in your books ... do you think it absolves the fellow of his
crime ? .... makes him any less guilty ? ....
secondly, yet again, I would like to ask you, why
are you comparing your own country to one which is of such unsavory
repute to you ? ... comparing China to other "imperialist powers"
as you've put them as ... is it a tacit admissible of similar
behavior as those "imperialist powers", to ignore what I've
previously said about "learning from the good, and not the bad" ...
if you acknowledge that what the whites did to the natives in
Australia, the US, and across the new world was bad, why are you
trying to justify China's action by comparing the occupation Tibet
with these countries ....
China too, had suffered invasions and occupations
in her past, including most recently, under the japanese (which the
Chinese goverment and people would never let anyone forget) ....
one would thought that having suffered foreign occupation herself,
she wouldn't want to impose it on another .... but no ! ... now,
you think it's fair to say "tibet now belongs to China, it's a fact
and will never be reversed, so forget and get over it already !?!?
.... double standards ? ... chauvinism ? ... I think it's starting
to smell like fascism ....
and just on the record ... I would like to ask
you for your views on the sovereignty and ownership issues of the
spratley islands ... who do you think owns these islands ?
...”
Now, I am not in favor of using
such simple metaphorical examples (criminals A and B etc.) to
illustrate something as complex as international politics and power
arm-twisting.
This is because in
international politics, there is no dedicated policeman to catch
criminals and definitely no judge to make an impartial
verdict.
And international reality is
based on interpretation and perception, which in turn is decided by
power relations.
Why is Tibet a problematic
case? Why are we discussing it now? This is because the West is
making a case out of it for their political objectives. IT IS A
POLITICAL STATEMENT Do not give me the crap about how they care for
Tibetans and Tibetan culture and all. It takes one a pair of
healthy eyes and a sane mind to see that they don’t. You may have
faith in their inherent goodness. But most of us don’t. Do you
honestly believe that YOU would be discussing the “miserable
subjugation” of Tibetans IF THEY did not make a case out of it to
begin with?
My answer to the question “why
do the white man’s faults absolve China of its wrong-doings” is
predicated on the following understanding:
Reality is based on
interpretation and perception. International reality is contingent
on political interpretation and perception. Something is not
inherently right or wrong. It is right or wrong only when one
interprets it to be one way or the other.
As such, the Chinese occupation
of Tibet (let’s assume for now that Chinese occupation of Tibet
started only in 1950, which is not a correct assumption but it is
not the crucial point here) was not a wrong-doing until the West
started to make a wrong-doing INTERPRETATION out of it (for the
sake of their political objective).
Therefore, the Tibetan issue is
not to be interpreted and discussed in isolation but with respect
to its political motivations. For that reason, there is absolutely
no point in discussing the inherent right/wrong of Tibetan
occupation. It must be discussed, again as I said with respect to
the political objectives behind it.
Since it is a political
statement, as my argument above pointed out, of course, my response
to the Tibetan issue is also a political one: If you are making a
case out of Tibet, I am going to make a case out of North America
and Oceana so that your case of Tibet starts to sound less
convincing.
Once again, international
reality is based on interpretation and perception, which is in turn
decided by power relations. One ignores this fundamental point at
one’s own folly.
By the way, since I do not know
much about nansha qundao, allow me to refrain from commenting on
it.
Very good point.