jfuh

To which then I'm truly confused as to the intent of the post with relevance to this topic.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming

jfuh

Actually no, my position is not that of the PRC, particularly not that from the government of the PRC, but that of someone who is Chinese American.
I see the situation from a unique 3rd perspective in that those from the PRC would have a difficult time swallowing if not out right calling me a sell out as would those from the west calling me a chicom sympathizer.
My perspective is more so from that of the Old Republic. The Republic of China

jfuh

I wish to point out this photo from the NY Times as well. Has everyone noticed something interesting? None of these soldiers are carrying anything other than batons and riot face shields. Not the stereotypical guns ablaze is it?

Infinite Chaos

I think I understand now - your position is that of what I might call a Taiwanese viewpoint - for you that is the now defunct Republic of China (defunct as in Taiwan does not effectively exercise governmental control over the mainland - and the mainland has claims vice-versa)

To all points and purposes however, the "Old Republic" doesn't exist in its former status - Taiwan (or whoever you accept as the true Govt of the Chinese Peoples) does not control all the land from Tibet's border with India in the west to Taiwans eastern seashore. You hanker for a former glory - much as a Serb may wish to retain a greater Serbia or a Jew might wish to re-create a biblical Israel and all the land therein.

Nevertheless, while your (linked) records state that China never gave up claim over Tibet during the 1912 - 1951 period - Tibet was in effect an independent state exercising its own rule and laws for that time period. It may not have had government as we otherwise know it - its native Tibetan people followed a religion and that included a religious ruler (the 13th Dalai Lama) and others until PROC tanks and soldiers rolled in during 1950-1951.

Infinite Chaos

You are neither implying this troop represents all the chinese soldiers going out to the demonstrations - and thus that all the Chinese soldiers only used batons or that this is the only troop that was sent out to face the rioters - so why post the image and what point are you making?

jfuh

Again, the fallacy then is why would an independent state have it's own designated representation in the domestic legislature of another nation? You're position doesn't hold water.
Religious ruler does not equate to independent state, nor does having a different religion mean anything either otherwise the US would be multiple independent nations.
Hence PRC tanks and soldiers going into Tibet in 1951 is reclamation not foreign invasion.

jfuh

Of course not what I am stating - as I have already - is plain and simple
This is quite a contrary image to the tanks and soldiers rolling in scenario you painted earlier - this seems more riot control than anything else.
Image is not that taken by Chinese media but by David Gray of Reuters running this caption:
Chinese riot police officers marched Monday in the city of Kangding, in Sichuan Province. China has blamed a “Dalai clique” for orchestrating protests in Tibet and neighboring provinces.

Infinite Chaos

This is simply down to cultural background jfuh - the Israelis may say "peacekeeping" when they send troops into Gaza but those having peace "put onto" them have a different viewpoint. Same with any nation or peoples who have their own state (albeit for only 48 years) who then have another people's nation claim imposed on them.

Infinite Chaos

Sorry, I was fancifully influenced by having read of events when the PROC went into Tibet.

Anyhow - I would strongly disagree your image represents the activities of all the Chinese troops in Tibet this last few weeks.

jfuh

I never claimed that it represented ALL the activities - I'm simply questioning this whole brutal crack down against tibetan rioting.
Here are some instances of the media falsely presenting the situation.
From the BBC a news source I trust very much and hold to high regard


The Washington Post, another source I trust

Why are they misrepresenting using an image of Nepalese police and running a caption of Chinese government cracking down?

Does the average reader bother to question these things? No because of the simple reason that the evil Chinese communist resonates - hence there's no need to question.
So Tibetan riots regardless that it were ethnic tibetans that started the riot (ok) that enticed violence that continue to drag this out and want to make this as bloody as possible (don't see how anyone can justify this) who get's the blame? The Evil Chinese Communists. Does anyone bother to question, no just Evil Chinese Communists all the way through.
I have no problem in condemning the communist regime - no problem at all but only if it is rightfully deserved.

I don't want to pull this one out, but, Saddam Hussein was an evil tyrannical SOB. However he did not have WMD's and he had no ties with terrorists groups either - that's all a lie and the media played right along with it for ratings and readership. Anyone that opposed the allegations was automatically seen as a terrorist appeaser, you're against us so you must be with him. Today? Told you so.