Multiple protests planned for Chinese president's state visit Options

[bear11]

At least 17 Taiwanese-American organizations have announced that they will hold demonstrations in front of the White House. Students for a Free Tibet is organizing a march from the Chinese Embassy to the White House and will follow Hu around Washington, denouncing his country's policies at eight separate rallies that coincide with his meetings. And the Uyghur American Association is also planning protests.

Also joining in on the anti-Hu rallies will be Reporters Without Borders and Amnesty International USA.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political...nned_for_c.html

This post has been edited by bear11: Jan 18 2011, 05:54 AM

[KraterosHellas]

they will NEVER learn. sad deluded maniacs...

[ClassicalMusic]

At least 17 Taiwanese-American organizations have announced that they will hold demonstrations in front of the White House. Students for a Free Tibet is organizing a march from the Chinese Embassy to the White House and will follow Hu around Washington, denouncing his country's policies at eight separate rallies that coincide with his meetings. And the Uyghur American Association is also planning protests.

Also joining in on the anti-Hu rallies will be Reporters Without Borders and Amnesty International USA.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political...nned_for_c.html

Taiwan and Tibet wants America to invade them and bombed them back to the stone age and
turn them into an imperialist colony.

[UnZipped]

and these silly protesters are going to protest on stolen amerindian land... how sad can they be

[Type98G]

Again, how futile.

[Minq]

Don't take it too personally, the public protest during just about every major event.

[Titanium]

Protests are a part of life when it comes to politics. I'm sure if the president of Turkey visited, there would be Armenian and Kurdish protest groups as well.

[ClassicalMusic]

I wonder who is sponsoring them, let me guess the Rockefeller. America's
fu-king Empire need to come to an end.

[LittleDeathAngel]

Random Tibet Person: FREE TIBET!!! I WANT MY FREEDOM!!! FREE TIBET!!!

Random Chinese Person: Dude, you live in America. >_>

Random Tibet Person: YOU MEAN I AM NOT IN TIBET?!?!?! O_O

Random Chinese Person: Yea.... >_>

Random Tibet Person: YOU LIE!!! O_O

Random Chinese Person: Wtf... o_o

Random Tibet Person: CHINESE PEOPLE ALWAYS LIE!!! O_O

Random Chinese Person: Okay... >_>

Random Tibet Person: FREE TIBET!!! I WANT MY FREEDOM!!! FREE TIBET!!! O_O

This post has been edited by LittleDeathAngel: Jan 18 2011, 07:19 PM

[KraterosHellas]

Random Tibet Person: FREE TIBET!!! I WANT MY FREEDOM!!! FREE TIBET!!!

Random Chinese Person: Dude, you live in America. >_>

Random Tibet Person: YOU MEAN I AM NOT IN TIBET?!?!?! O_O

Random Chinese Person: Yea.... >_>

Random Tibet Person: YOU LIE!!! O_O

Random Chinese Person: Wtf... o_o

Random Tibet Person: CHINESE PEOPLE ALWAYS LIE!!! O_O

Random Chinese Person: Okay... >_>

Random Tibet Person: FREE TIBET!!! I WANT MY FREEDOM!!! FREE TIBET!!! O_O

so true

[foi2]

I myself almost fell for the Free Tibet line because that's all the news I had going for me a couple years ago. That is, until I ran across this article

http://exiledonline.com/war-nerd-tibet-five-to-one-against/
By Gary Brecher

and then cared enough to do some more research on my own and decided it was all an elaborate hoax made by bored Westerners so they can feel good about themselves.

The guy who wrote this reads a lot about strategy and is pretty dead on about lots of things going on in the world, and he puts it out in a no-BS kinda way. Just the way I'd expect from a dude into military history.

I'll quote some of the more interesting parts here:

FRESNO, CA — Writing a column on the military history of Tibet seemed like a good idea in the good old days, a week ago, before I started actually trying to research it. I’ve never, ever had a harder time finding decent info on a topic.

One reason is sheer shame; the Brits, for instance, don’t want anybody to know they invaded Tibet in 1904 and slaughtered a whole bunch of Tibetans for no reason except they were bored.

<parts cut>

That book defeated me as one-sidedly as the British defeated the Tibetans in their 1904. That’s right, by the way, the Brits invaded Tibet just a hundred-odd years ago, though nobody seems to remember. I’ll get to that later. My point here is that after I read the “Secret History of the Mongols” I knew less than I did before. Or maybe I just knew once and for all that much as I admire the Mongol warriors, I’ll never really understand how they thought.

...The Tibetans are even harder to figure out, because on top of that Central Asian weirdness is all this Richard-Gere do-gooder nonsense about the peace-loving Tibetans assaulted by the ruthless Red Chinese. Both parts of that story are wrong, wrong, wrong. The Tibetans were never peaceful people at all. They were one of the most warlike peoples in Central Asia and even conquered the Chinese capital, Chang’An, in their heyday. And the Red Chinese—who could be brutal when the situation called for it, sure—were actually very decent when they took over Tibet in 1950. They felt bad about it at the time, a weird mixture of professional military embarrassment and sheer pity, taking the PLA, battle-hardened from twenty years of fighting the Kuomintang and the Imperial Japanese, into battle against the “Tibetan Army,” such as it was.

The military history of Tibet divides pretty clearly into two parts: the glory days of the 7th-9th century, when Tibet actually challenged China for dominance in south-central Asia, and the sad, slow decline ever since, where the slogan would be: “Tibet, where old meets new and loses.” The Chinese takeover in 1950 was just the latest in a series of one-sided defeats for Tibet.

The invasion was organized by one of Mao’s best generals, a short little dude with a knack for one-liners and a can-do attitude. You may have heard of him: Deng Hsiao-Peng. The guy who brought down the Gang of Four, coined the anti-Cultural Revolution line, “It doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white as long as it catches mice”? Yeah, him. He had one of his classic lines about how organizing the attack on poor ol’ Tibet made him feel: “….like a tiger trying to catch a fly.” They love those animal sayings, the Chinese. Don’t like actual animals much, but they love to make them into proverbs—or soup, depending on whether it’s quip-time or lunchtime.

Deng only requested 80,000 troops for the invasion—not much for the PLA and its alleged addiction to human-wave tactics. The plan was always to do an Invasion Lite, with lots of talk about the ancient friendship of Tibet and China—which was also a lie, of course.

Against the Chinese the Tibetans had not so much an army as a mobile family campground—the Tibetan soldiers took their whole families with them on maneuvers. The governor of Tibet’s eastern province called the Lamas back in Lhasa to say, “Umm, I’ve got Chinese massing on the border, Your Holiness Sir!” He was told that it was very impertinent of him to bother the Holy Administrators because they were on their annual picnic. I’m sorry but it’s hard to feel much sympathy with a country like that.

When the Chinese crossed the border, the Tibetans fought as well as they could, which was pretty damn badly. Their army was mostly cavalry, a lot of it still armed with swords. There were about 200 artillery pieces and about that many machine guns to defend the whole country. The Chinese veteran soldiers, who’d marched thousands of miles and fought every kind of enemy, couldn’t believe it when they saw Tibetans charging them with swords raised. They didn’t so much defeat the Tibetans as restrain them, the way you would an escaped lunatic. “Whoa, take it easy there fella, c’mon, put down the sword before somebody gets hurt….” They could have wiped out the entire Tibetan force like the British did in similar circumstances in 1904, but whatever else you can say about the ChiComs, they were a lot harder on their own people than on foreigners, and they just flat-out pitied the Tibetans. They got the captured Tibetan soldiers together and lectured them on socialism—they were big believers in motivational seminars, those Maoists, talk your ear off—then gave the Tibetans money and noodles and a pat on the back and told them to go home and not play with swords any more.

If there were any Tibetan war nerds around in 1950, which is kind of hard to imagine, then it must have been a hard day for them. But they should have seen it coming, because the Brits had invaded Tibet just a half-century before—and they weren’t nearly as nice to the Tibetans. I keep telling you guys, you’ve got the completely wrong idea about the Brits. You’ve been watching too many of those BBC comedies where everybody’s cute and harmless. The Brits, up to the mid-20th-century, were stone killers, the most ruthless conquerors of the past thousand years.

They invaded Tibet in 1904 basically because they were bored. I’m serious. They owned everything on the planet worth having, so they were always having to invent new “menaces” to get funding for more invasions, grabbing the places they hadn’t considered worth taking in their earlier waves of conquest. So in the late 1800s they started talking up the Russian “threat” to swarm over the Himalayas and take away India. That was such utter crap that even the Brits talking up the threat must have had a laugh about it over their port, back at the officers’ club. Russia was weak, so weak that the Japanese crushed it on land and sea in 1905. The British knew Russia was in no position to threaten India. What they wanted was an easy conquest that would produce lots of medals, honors, stuff to wear on their chests in the London social season so they could snag an heiress and never have to work. So they invaded Tibet.

The guy who ran that invasion, Francis Younghusband, was quite a piece of work himself. One of those India-born Brits, who were generally fiercer and crazier even than the homegrown English. And he had that other feature that makes for a really ruthless conqueror: he was, like his biographers say, “deeply religious.” If you hear that about a guy who’s about to invade your country, go down to the basement, hoard lots of water and canned goods, and try to make yourself invisible for the next few years, because it’s not going to be pretty.

Younghusband marched into Tibet in December 1903 with a force of Sikhs and Gurkhas—pretty scary mix, like rottweiler plus pit bull. And the Gurkhas were definitely the pit bulls in that pair. Sikhs are very tough but not blood-crazy. The Gurkhas were not only devoted lovers of knife-work, especially on POWs, but ancient enemies of the Tibetans. It didn’t take much to push them to a massacre. The Tibetans knew the British were dangerous and tried not to resist at all. But as the British force pushed farther and farther into Tibet, the local commanders decided to resist. That was a mistake. This wasn’t Tony Blair’s cool Britannia they were dealing with. On March 31, 1904, Younghusband encountered a Tibetan militia force of about 2000 guarding a pass near Gyantse. He must have had a hard time keeping a straight face or wiping the drool from his lips, thinking about the medals he’d get for this one, because the Tibetans were armed either with spears and swords or at best with matchlock muskets. That’s right: the kind of 17th-century firearm that won’t fire unless you apply the smouldering wick to the firing pan. Younghusband decided to play with the poor fu-kers he was facing. He said, “My friends, my friends, what’s all this hostility? Why dees paranoia? Here, I’ll tell MY soldiers to take the bullets out of their rifles, and you tell YOUR soldiers to put out the flame of their matchlocks.” The Tibetans, who had no idea that Younghusband’s troops had modern repeating rifles, put out their matchlocks. Younghusband then ordered his troops to open fire. 1300 Tibetans were killed, with almost no British casualties.

Younghusband thought it was a great triumph. But this was already late in the Imperial era and the people back home had had enough of this kind of triumph; in fact, it sort of made them sick. The whole thing was hushed up, and remains hushed up to this day—ask any Brit you know if they ever heard of their invasion of Tibet and I guarantee they’ll plead ignorance. It’s probably better that way, makes it easy to put one of those “Free Tibet” rising-sun stickers on your Land Rover without feeling like a hypocrite.

It’s much easier to be a do-gooder about Tibet if you’re totally ignorant of Central Asian history, like the days when Tibetan conquerors filled up whole carts with the ears of guys they’d killed. Even this idea that Tibet is the homeland of Buddhism, the most Buddhist place on the planet, is crap; Tibet got Buddhism very late, trying it on a couple of times before it took.

After reading that, I went on to try to find some evidence about the supposed Tibetan genocide by the CCP. I got nothin. I did find the British invasion the dude talked about though. And based on that, I flipped my original position on Tibet. Just not convinced that the CCP targeted the Tibetans for slaughter or treated them any worse than their own. In fact, if anything, the CCP treated the Han much worse than the Tibetans. The protesters should really be protesting for Han Chinese, not Tibetans.

[catman]

Peanuts compared to what the US president usually gets when he travels. Especially during the Bush years. He caused riots.

This post has been edited by catman: Jan 18 2011, 10:35 PM

[InitialDJay]

not this $hit AGAIN.

SOMETIME, i feel very embarassed being group with these org. without my intention.

[Mid-Night_Sun]

fun cap, on*


US would want to stop China now since it gets harder as time goes by. one of these groups are probably paid to assassinate Hu. if they succeed, it will probably be war. a war that would essentially ruin most of China's progress.

[ClassicalMusic]

They could also be sponsored by the CIA which is a ROGUE organization.

[Lorax]

Most of these groups have been seriously brainwashed by western propaganda. They are dangerous robot servants of the imperialists.

[Minq]

I myself almost fell for the Free Tibet line because that's all the news I had going for me a couple years ago. That is, until I ran across this article

http://exiledonline.com/war-nerd-tibet-five-to-one-against/
By Gary Brecher

and then cared enough to do some more research on my own and decided it was all an elaborate hoax made by bored Westerners so they can feel good about themselves.

The guy who wrote this reads a lot about strategy and is pretty dead on about lots of things going on in the world, and he puts it out in a no-BS kinda way. Just the way I'd expect from a dude into military history.

I'll quote some of the more interesting parts here:



After reading that, I went on to try to find some evidence about the supposed Tibetan genocide by the CCP. I got nothin. I did find the British invasion the dude talked about though. And based on that, I flipped my original position on Tibet. Just not convinced that the CCP targeted the Tibetans for slaughter or treated them any worse than their own. In fact, if anything, the CCP treated the Han much worse than the Tibetans. The protesters should really be protesting for Han Chinese, not Tibetans.

I won't get into the whole Tibetan debate, but the official British Government line is that they do not support Tibetan independence, and recognise Chinese rule.

[Minq]

Most of these groups have been seriously brainwashed by western propaganda. They are dangerous robot servants of the imperialists.

If Chinese think Westerners are brainwashed and Westerners think Chinese are brainwashed, then who is right?

[Lorax]

If Chinese think Westerners are brainwashed and Westerners think Chinese are brainwashed, then who is right?

the Chinese. western media is the most effective propaganda tool in history. China's? Crude in comparison and doesn't influence many Chinese.

[catman]

Funny how easily the word "brainwashed" gets tossed around. I think people who use it should at least provide a definition.