|
| |||||||||||||||
china,tibetans,tibet,soldiers,killing,murdering,innocent,civilians,olympics Olympic host China: Their soldiers killing innocent TibetansOlympic host China: Their soldiers killing innocent Tibetanstags:This isn't graphic because the footage was shot at a distance, but what's happening is pretty clear: Chinese soldiers firing on innocent Tibetan pilgrims who were simply trying to walk to India to see the Dalai Lama. Horrible.
Comments  playlists with this video Serious by kronosposeidon
• Political by kronosposeidon
who voted for this video kronosposeidon
- Gratefulmom
- siftbot
x33 - paganif1
Olympic Host China: Their Soldiers Killing Innocent Tibetans Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 14. d3bas3r
(124 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments         | ||||||||||||||
Stumble This
I'm not saying the situation is anything but grim in Tibet, but as I understand it the Chinese consider Tibet a part of China which would make the Tibetan nationalists rebels. What I'm trying to get at is that there's always (atleast) two sides to an issue, and from what I've gathered the west has chosen to highlight and support the Dalai Lama's plight with strong propaganda against China. Apparently, the situation before the Chinese invasion wasn't any better than today, and while it in no stretch justifies murder like what we witness in the video, I think boycotting the olympics because they're held in China makes little sense.
First of all, it's not like they chose to hold the games there because the Chinese (in our perspective) occupy Tibet nor because they've commited human rights violations. Instead, they chose that particular country because it proved it was able to successfully hold the event, properly set up the various arenas and make sure the games were covered adequately.
Second of all, and this will be my last point, if we should decide on boycotting the games for above mentioned reasons then I'm afraid we'll quickly run out of countries to hold them in. I guess we could hold them on Iceland, but that's kind of self-defeating since the whole idea (as I understand it) is that every country that participates should have a chance of holding the games, and that should be the only thing relevant to the people watching the olympics in my mind. It's completely detached from any of its participating countries' internal policies, and it should stay that way.
just my 2 cents
It's completely detached from any of its participating countries' internal policies, and it should stay that way.
How about boycotting because of their foreign policy - specifically China's financial and military support for the genocidal regime in Khartoum? Quote from the official Olympic website: And yes, boycotting a U.S. Olympics on the same grounds would be justified imo.
[edit] yeah, what 101 said.
"How about boycotting because of their foreign policy - specifically China's financial and military support for the genocidal regime in Khartoum?"
From Wikipedia:
"In recent years, the debt has soared and inflation has stayed low in part because China has been willing to accumulate reserves denominated in U.S. Dollars. Currently, China holds over $1 trillion in dollar denominated assets (of which $330 billion are U.S. Treasury notes).
Almost all the money used for the Iraq war is borrowed from China, so they finance our regime too.
Almost all the money used for the Iraq war is borrowed from China, so they finance our regime too.
I agree with you to an extent. Cash and cash equivalents (like US debt obligations) are fungible, so yes, in a sense China helped finance the war in Iraq, but so did every US taxpayer and any investor in US debt and securities (like several Arab countries). But that doesn't necessarily equate to explicit foreign policy. IIRC, China opposed most (all?) of the Bush administration's proposed U.N. resolutions calling for any military action in Iraq. But that could just as easily be seen as a consistent policy of obstructionism, or a consistent policy of objecting to external interference with sovereign nations.
Basically, what I'm saying is there is a difference between disinterested investment policy, and providing weapons and material for near exclusive oil trade. It really just comes down to the folks with power in each capital trying to get more power, right?
Actually, that wiki quote brings up an interesting side question. I wonder how many US mortgage backed securities are held by China? Heh, now that would be ironic if they're taking massive losses on those.