Current Tensions in Xinjiang-China

[applesauce]

sigh..... china fears... blab.blab.blab. no nation in the world can say that XingJang is not a part of china. the Uighurs live there yes its true.... but to claim the area rightfully belongs to them is wishful thinking at best, i agree with some that in the future should the power of the central government weaken then we could see some independence movement succeed, but then again that wouldnt be unheard of, it has happen in the past (think ancient history and what not). now then as some had mentioned the uighurs were never there before the han peoples there is substantial proof to this and china being the oldest continuously civilization on earth does indeed has claims to the area no one can deny, in any map in the west you can see the rules of past chinese empires extending to that area.

on a more political note the area has lots of oil and other resources, the central government will NEVER let it go

 

[quriosity]

1. not saying we should trust PRC's reports of the race of the people killed but does that necessarily mean it is mostly uighurs killed? it is accept by western media the most of the people killed are han and hui

2. aside from religious situation(allow as long as it is inline with government rules) the people(minorities) are known to have more freedom than the han people, ie: no one child laws, extra school points, quotas of various sorts.

3. i believe this protest is based not on religion(this specific case) but on the fact that han people are moving into former Uighur majority areas. the native people have the option of separate school only in their languege, now they complain that job are being taken away and that the economic expansion is no at all benifitting their peoples, i see severals points to this. the standard languege of china, used in business and politics is mandarin when you go to a school that teaches in another languege of course you cannot expect to go far in sociaty.

for other stuff:

now then i agree religiously things are all that free
also as far as "not supporting what is wrong"
this is a riot, people, human beings died, those that had nothing to do with current event only in the wrong time at the wrong place died. what should the police have done?, not crack on down the killers?

as for "What suddenly all the Ughirs are not Muslims anymore ?"

they are muslims, so are the hui that dies and those that are dying in iraq, Afghanistan, bin ladin is muslim, so's the insurgents Pakistan is facing

"China might be a good friend to the Pakistani government, but that should'nt stop the average pakistani from expressing concern about this issue as a human if not as a muslim."

agreed



Xinjiang is China, look it up, it was lost then regained
and sure in the past something happen so it MUST be the same now

"It beggars belief that Uighurs could have invaded the city center from the suburbs, and then kill so many Hans within such a militarised/securatised city"

1. in riot and protests past the capital was always quite
2.yes it beggars the belief, also a reason why there as a han counter protest they say its no longer in the govrnments hand(or something along those lines)


1. its the policy of go west
2. the govenment gives incentives to go west and people hear from their friends about the economic opportunities the government is opening up there. the opportunity is real no brainwashing required.

3. depends on the value of the house, there are 3 choices generally, either to pay you what they think the values of the house is, you choose a apartment/house to rent the government pays for the rent the rest of your life, you are given another house/place to live in that you will own. i agree sometime the deal is crap but all in the name of development. my old house was demolished i didnt like it but whatever.

3. as for the Olympics most of the are torn down was the old style neighborhoods other-wise same as above


lastly as for the "islamic brotherhood" this is just talk when was the last time they all banded together and taken on an enermy and won?
on the thought of all muslim nations dropping relations with china... sigh...international politics and far more complicated then being simply based on religion

ohhhh.... please stop thinking it was a riot... it was a planned terrorist attack or war on China.... even western media also says this...

Security chiefs failed to spot signs calling for Uighur revolt - Times Online

From The Sunday Times
July 12, 2009

Several days before Uighur demonstrators gathered in the streets of the northwest city of Urumqi last Sunday in a protest that began China’s bloodiest bout of civil unrest for 20 years, secret signs started appearing in taxi windows.

Local security chiefs missed the signals. The clues were important because they were alerting Uighurs in the capital of Xinjiang province to demonstrate against the Han Chinese.

The signals told the Uighurs to avenge the racially motivated killings of two Uighur migrant workers that had occurred last month in a toy factory in southern Guangdong province, triggered by rumours that they had raped several women.

As a result the authorities were caught off guard when the protests erupted, amid erroneous stories that the killers of the Uighurs had been allowed to go free.

The taxi signals suggest that the rioting by the Uighur minority was not entirely spontaneous. Having suppressed the violence by flooding the city with tens of thousands of troops and police, China’s authorities are hunting for a fringe of extremists who they accuse of organising the rioting. They have promised the ringleaders will be executed.

Security chiefs failed to spot signs calling for Uighur revolt - Times Online

Russian ministry has stated russian forces confronted some Uighur terrorists in Central Asia while fighting with Chechen rebels... the Chinese govt is just incompetent and callous... they dont have intelligence... why the police did not open fire when terrorists started killing people..? i thought China has strong military... but now i think... China is weaker than India... If terrorists do such here, our NSG commandos will kill them all....

 

[ARSENAL6]

These figures must be taken with a pinch of salt. There are reports, also on teh bbc news website, which put the figures much higher, and the proportion of uighurs killed at 90 percent.

THeres is a reason why. Its the same propaganda that they are used against Iran elections.

 

[Gabbar]

^^^ Thank you for answerin/posting with some logical sense. Many people here get to mud sledging and off topic very easily.

 

[A1Kaid]

Some Indian members and our own Islamist 5th column have made common cause and have found opportunity in these tragic events to malign and little else and it's too bad that the forum has allowed itself to be used in this way.

Thread after thread repeating the same thing, responsible members are dismayed, after all, who is served by this maligning?? Will China be served will Uighurs be served ?? Will Pakistan be served? Who then benfits??

Some say it is "freedom of speech" - good, but why does this forum imagine that it must serve as a mouth piece of those who use an idea such as freedom of speech to malign, confuse and to promote ideas associated with those who use terror as a tactic in the name of their ideology of using religion as a political tool.

Your complaining and moaning is getting old. Your constant rants against sincere and moderate-to-conservative Muslim view points are ridiculous. Your constant suggestion that the other party is always trying to malign is utter alarmist nonsense.


"our own Islamist 5th column"

Allow me to inform you, the term "Islamist" was created by Western Think Tanks and Western historical/politics institutions many located in Washington DC, they created the term "Islamist" to malign conservative and devout Muslims (esp. after 9/11). The fact that you yourself use this offensive and utterly nonsense and foolish word comes as no surprise. So the next time you use this word "Islamist" think about where it was created, how it was created, and most importantly WHY it was created...

"opportunity in these tragic events to malign"-Muse

Speaking for myself, it is not my intent to malign but to achieve historical integrity and to proclaim and strongly channel a view point and sentiment felt by many Muslims and intellectuals around the world in regards to East Turkistan. I myself do not seek to malign China, as I clearly noted (see below)

"I understand you love your country and wish to protect your country and fight for it's ambitions and unity. Though I must say to my great allies and genuine friends that I have a legitimate concern and disagreement with you on the issue of E. Turkistan or the Chinese name given to it "Xinjiang"......"

I also mentioned

"I would like to reaffirm the Chinese are a special civilization and they are our strategic partners, but unlike some Pakistanis I refuse to put my head in the sand and ignore the East Turkistan issue.

"The Chinese are our time tested friends, and both of our civilizations must discuss this issue. We are both a civilized people and we must discuss and negotiate peacefully, and we must resolve this regional issue. The Turks, Pakistanis, and Chinese must together solve this issue, because the current path is counter-productive to the peace and harmony all of our civilizations wish to pursue."

I have been considerably respectful in my debate.


Now I would like to focus on this part of your rant.

"must serve as a mouth piece of those who use an idea such as freedom of speech to malign, confuse and to promote ideas associated with those who use terror as a tactic in the name of their ideology of using religion as a political tool."-Muse

To confuse and promote, I understand that challenging and actually doing research about conventional wisdom or things we are told to believe by some governments can be confusing for some, that is there problem and it is likely they are a lost flock of sheep led by their herder.

Speaking for myself, I have not promoted any ideas associated with those who use terror as a tactic. Now another member had made a similar allegation as you have. Below is what I said to him.

If any Pakistani brother support Free East Turkistan Movement (which is a terrorist movement )then it means he also support Free Balochistan and Free Pakhtunistan Movement and Taliban/AQ Terrorism."-Patriot

"A1Kaid: Nobody is encouraging terrorism, but what is absurd is that you have associated East Turkistan liberation and independence movement with terrorism, such a reductionist mindset is wrong to have. It is not the case I assure you, many Uyghurs are peaceful people but wish to fight for their independence.

Moving onto more serious ideas and thinking."

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-defence/1234-red-chinas-fear-islam-8.html


I refer to this post because I say the same to you.



Just wanted to set the record straight on where I stand in the face of misguided and absurd allegations.

 

[Joe Shearer]

How hilarious!

Dare you say Xinjiang is not a home to Han and other 45 ethnics other than Uighur?

If you learn the history, Han had entered and settled down in Xinjiang with other ethnics centuries before Uighur was formed as an ethnic, and Han stays there with other ethnic groups, albeit smaller in number compared with Uighur.

Whose home is Xinjiang to? It’s the home to all Chinese ethnics living there for centuries!

It’s about social equality that people have to address here, not “whose home” type of foolish and sinister stuff.

Dear Sir,

Your claim is curious to say the least. Can you provide any sources, including Chinese historican records, that the Han Chinese were settled in this region earlier than the 20th century?

The Uighurs seem to have entered the territory presently named Xinjiang around 600 AD. There was no Chinese presence in these territories until after the Ming Dynasty; Emperor Yong Le is reported to have 'gained influence' over Eastern Turkestan, that is today known as Xinjiang, and his dates are nearly 750 years later.

In subsequent centuries, Chinese traders have been reported in Urumqi and other urban centres. Mass migration of Han Chinese began only after PLA occupation of Xinjiang in 1949.

Earlier events are fully recorded in Chinese records of the times, including the travel memoirs of famous traveller monks. If you are not aware of these records, a list can be provided.

'Joe S.'

 

[A1Kaid]

If this is the quality of your research, with due respect, you need be more serious in order to gain a footage in any academia of any sort.

Let me quote the same source that you quote, but more completely:


BTW, Chanyu is also a generic name like “official” or “officer” in Xiongnu system. There are high level Chanyus and low level Chanyus.

In your article, you imply that Uighurs are Xiongnu in some sense, that is wrong, at least not quite correct. You further deduce that Xiongnu’s land is Uighur’s land. That is even more ridiculous.

1. What is Xiongnu?
Xiongnu (or Hsiung-nu) was a derogatory name (I believe, as Chinese characters are in most cases pictographic) coined by the ancient Chinese, literally meaning “ferocious slaves”. This is a generic name that contains a collection of nomadic tribes with many different races and locations in north and northwest of ancient China. For instance, in the Western Zhou(&#21608 period(about 1046B.C.-771B.C.) Xiongnu was also called Hunyi(混&#22839, meaning “mixed barbarians”. (Note that, this is only a simplified translation. Ancient Chinese called “Barbarians” with many different names based on their locations, etc.)

Westerner thus said:


Part of Xiongnu actually assimilated themselves into Chinese. According to your logic, the Chinese at least have equal rights to ET.

A typical such example is 刘渊 (Liu Yuan, ?-310 AD) whose ancestors were awarded Chinese emperor’s surname Liu and belonged to South Xiongnu (in contrast to North Xiongnu at that time). 308 AD,(304 in some articles) Liu Yuan established a small state also called Han, because he believed he inherited from already finished Han Dynasty. It was just one of 16 states during the Age of Fragmentation and vanished later in China.

2. Relationship between Xiongnu and Uighur, and the formation of Uighur.
There is some indication that Uighur ancestors are a mixture of many tribes, some of these may belong to Xiongnu. It is illogical to say that Uighur is the only descendant of Xiongnu,or Uighur is ancient Xiongnu, as Xiongnu is a collection of tribes. If so, by above facts (emperor Liu Yuan of South Xiongnu), modern Chinese are also decedents of Xiongnu and is legitimate owner of Xinjiang. lol

The below quote is a true reflection of history as to when Uighur is actually formed as a national.


BTW, please don’t mix Xiongnu with Tujue (Turkut).


This is what an anti-communist ET website has to say


According to this, their national history can mostly be traced back to 5AD.

In comparison, this is the maps of Chinese sphere of control in Northwest during that time before the formation of Uighur(206BC - 8AD).




BTW, recent discovery of an ancient mummies in Xinjiang (The Mummies of Xinjiang | Archaeology | DISCOVER Magazine ) inadvertently antagonizes some people, because it proves further that Uighurs are not the only native to this land.

BTW again, Chinese history is not and can not be monopolized by Chinese government and parties of any sorts. This history is a result of all scholars with various political backgrounds from across the world, and is backed up by hard evidences and proofs, of course with many questions still remain unanswered. Please point out which source I quoted was from Chinese government that is in contradiction to academic research. Will quotes from terrorist ETIM web site make you feel much happier?

BTW thrice, if twisting history is because Uighurs are Muslims, that is what people call “religious extremist”. In China, Muslims live and do business all over the places. Chinese citizens, regardless of their believes, can call anywhere in China their home.

Let's promote human rights and social equality in Xinjiang together, and stop doing anything counter-productive!

------------------------------------------



You have incorrectly analyzed and interpreted my research and information, and with all due respect the very foundation of your argument is beginning to crumble...


Now let me continue.

In your article, you imply that Uighurs are Xiongnu in some sense, that is wrong, at least not quite correct. You further deduce that Xiongnu’s land is Uighur’s land. That is even more ridiculous.

A) You have incorrectly analyzed my research & information. What I have mentioned is the Xiongnu also known as the Huns are prototypical Turkic people. The Xiongnu, a group of Nomadic tribes in the northern China/Mongolian region, consisting mostly of prototypical Turkic and Mongoloid people. Recent discoveries and research clearly suggest the Xiongnu also known as the Huns were the prototypical Turks nearing the end of the Xiongnu period and into the early phase of the first exclusive Turkic empire, "The Great Hun Empire" ( 204 BC - 216 AD ). Read information below.

"Though there is still much debate as to who exactly the Xiongnu were, or whether they were identical to the Huns, the prevailing theory is that the Huns were the Xiongnu, and archeological and linguistic evidence suggests a Turkic origin for them."

Source:Interactions between China and the Turkic peoples - Asia - ColorQ's Color Club

Another source (below) supports this claim.

"The original geographic location of Xiongnu is generally placed at the Ordos[citation needed]. Recent genetics research dated 2003[15] confirms the studies[16] indicating that the Turkic peoples,[17] originated from the same area and therefore are possibly related."

Source: Xiongnu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well the fact that recent genetic studies have time and time again found a genetic link that many of the people of the Xiongnu were in fact Prototypical Turkic people, because Turkic genetic linkage and trace can be found at the original location of Xiongnu region (Northern China/Mongolia).

Keep in mind the Prototypical Turkic nomads of the Xiongnu later became and formed "The Great Hun Empire", again an exclusive Turkic empire not Mongoloid or Chinese Han. Around this time of 3rd-2nd century BC the Prototypical Turkic people of the Xiongnu began separating from the Chinese Mongoloid and Chinese Han people. Though Turkic and Mongol people are genetically cousins they are respectfully their own ethnic group. Read information and source below.


"Another 2006 study observed genetic similarity among Mongolian samples from different periods and geographic areas including 2,300-year-old Xiongnu population of the Egiyn Gol Valley. This results supports the hypothesis that the succession over time of different Turkic and Mongolian tribes in the current territory of Mongolia resulted in cultural rather than genetic exchanges."

Source: Xiongnu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (footnotes checked and are decent)

Whether Xiongnu was a derogatory name or not doesn't matter, because research strongly suggest these people were Prototypical Turkic peoples.

1. What is Xiongnu?
Xiongnu (or Hsiung-nu) was a derogatory name (I believe, as Chinese characters are in most cases pictographic) coined by the ancient Chinese, literally meaning “ferocious slaves”. This is a generic name that contains a collection of nomadic tribes with many different races and locations in north and northwest of ancient China. For instance, in the Western Zhou(&#21608 period(about 1046B.C.-771B.C.) Xiongnu was also called Hunyi(混&#22839, meaning “mixed barbarians”. (Note that, this is only a simplified translation. Ancient Chinese called “Barbarians” with many different names based on their locations, etc.)-gpit

Whether Xiongnu was a derogatory name or not doesn't matter (though I agree it is a derogatory word), because research strongly suggest these people consisted Prototypical Turkic peoples as well, not only Mongoloid.

Westerner thus said:


Part of Xiongnu actually assimilated themselves into Chinese. According to your logic, the Chinese at least have equal rights to ET.-gpit

No the Chinese do not "at least have equal rights to East Turkistan. Several reasons why the Chinese descendents of the Xiongnu traveled south mainly to Eastern China. You have to remember their is now at this time in history a genetic difference between the Turkic people and Mongoloid people, they are no longer the same group of Xiongnu Nomads mixed into one.

Your source only says "part of Xiongnu actually assimilated themselves into Chinese". Yes that is true and no one has denied that, but that part that assimilated in China was the Mongoloid and Chinese Han branch of the Nomadic Xiongnu people not so much the Prototypical Turkic branch (and Hun Turkic people). I hope this is clear now. The sooner you understand this the better.




B) Now I will move onto what you claim to be the Chinese sphere of control before the Uyghurs arrive to East Turkistan.

According to this, their national history can mostly be traced back to 5AD.

In comparison, this is the maps of Chinese sphere of control in Northwest during that time before the formation of Uighur(206BC - 8AD).


Now this is a major mistake you are making, because you start off your history with the arrival of the Uyghurs in East Turkistan. As I already told you (read below).

"We are not simply talking about the arrival of the Uyghurs we are talking about the Turks whom the Uyghurs stem from, the early Turkic empires are the origins of the Uyghurs. The first Turkic empire "The Great Hun Empire The Great Hun Empire ( 204 BC - 216 AD)" actually first ruled the region now known as E. Turkistan/Xinjiang in the 3rd-2nd centuries BC, again this predates the arrival of the West Han Dynasty by 200 years at least."

"In comparison, this is the maps of Chinese sphere of control in Northwest during that time before the formation of Uighur(206BC - 8AD)."-gpit

"Chinese sphere of control", this means little because this does not mean Chinese settlement of East Turkistan or Chinese cultivation of East Turkistan or Chinese nation-building of East Turkistan. This is a crushing blow to your argument, "Chinese sphere of control" means little at this time of history, anyone can claim "sphere of control" but it was the "Great Hun Empire" the first Turkic Empire that actually settled down, cultivated the land, grew the gardens, and established a flourishing civilization and nation in East Turkistan as early as 204 BC.

By the way I am not denying China expanded Westward, Yes I understand under Emeper Wu Di, the West Han Dynasty did expand westward. However, imperialistic expansion does not necessarily give you legitimate claim to land already cultivated and settled by a Turkic people who had arrived in the 3rd-2nd century BC. Read information below.

"Under Emperor Wu Di, the boundaries of China expanded north into Mongolia, west into Turkestan, east into Korea and south into Indochina. In many cases the Han expanded to head off threats and create a buffer zone around the Han heartland. After lands were conquered settlers were encouraged to move there to firm up China’s claim on the land."

Source:HAN DYNASTY (206 B.C.-A.D. 220) - China | Facts and Details

"China expanded...west in Turkestan" this also supports my claim, the land was already settled and cultivated by the Turkic people, before the Chinese Han under Emperor Wu Di arrived. The land that China expanded westward today was already considered Turkestan. No it was not settled by Uyghurs as they are the decedents of the early Turkic Hun people, by ethnic heritage alone East Turkistan is their homeland.

As I showed you before here is a map of the first "Great Hun Empire" (204 BC - 216 AD) (around 400 years of existence)





C) Now about this 'recent discovery' ( as recent as 1994 really), I think it will surprise you more than it will surprise me.

"BTW, recent discovery of an ancient mummies in Xinjiang (The Mummies of Xinjiang | Archaeology | DISCOVER Magazine ) inadvertently antagonizes some people, because it proves further that Uighurs are not the only native to this land."-gpit"

First let me make this clear, as I said we are not exclusively talking about Uyghurs, they are the decedents of the Great Hun Empire, the first Turkic empire, they stem from the early Turkic people who cultivated East Turkistan.

About this recent discovery.

"
The Mummies of Xinjiang

In the dry hills of the central Asian province, archeologists have unearthed more than 100 corpses that are as much as 4,000 years old, astonishingly well preserved--and Caucasian.

In contrast to most central Asian peoples, these corpses had obvious Caucasian, or European, features--blond hair, long noses, deep-set eyes, and long skulls.

As far back as the second century B.C., Chinese texts refer to alien peoples called the Yuezhi and the Wusun, who lived on China's far western borders; the texts make it clear that these people were regarded as troublesome "barbarians."

Source: The Mummies of Xinjiang | Archaeology | DISCOVER Magazine

In fact the 'recent discovery' of a dead mummy in Xinjiang with European features actually supports my claim even more.

Let me explain (read below)

The nomadic tribes of the Yuezhi are also documented in detail in Chinese historical accounts, in particular the 2nd-1st century BC "Records of the Great Historian", or Shiji, by Sima Qian. According to these accounts:


"The Yuezhi originally lived in the area between the Qilian or Heavenly Mountains (Tian Shan) and Dunhuang, but after they were defeated by the Xiongnu they moved far away to the west, beyond Dayuan, where they attacked and conquered the people of Daxia and set up the court of their king on the northern bank of the Gui [= Oxus] River. A small number of their people who were unable to make the journey west sought refuge among the Qiang barbarians in the Southern Mountains, where they are known as the Lesser Yuezhi.",[9]

According to Han accounts, the Yuezhi "were flourishing" during the time of the first great Chinese Qin emperor, but were regularly in conflict with the neighbouring tribe of the Xiongnu to the northeast.

Some Uyghur scholars claim modern Uyghurs descent from both the Turkic Uyghurs and the pre-Turkic Tocharians (Yuezhi), and relatively fair skin, hair and eyes, as well as other so-called 'Caucasoid' physical traits, are not uncommon among Uyghurs. Modern genetic analysis suggests that aboriginal inhabitants had a high proportion of DNA of European origin[10].

Source: History of Xinjiang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


These early people in East Turkistan with European people were the Pre-Turkic Tocharians. Many Uyghurs are also the decedent of the Prototypical Turkic people as well. Many Uyghurs also have these European features such as blonde hair, fair skin, and colorful eyes.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Uyghur_girl.jpg/250px-Uyghur_girl.jpg
Uyghur girl in Turpan, East Turkistan. She has the same "Caucasoid" features the Prototypical or Pre-Turkic Tocharian people had.

One final note I would like to repeat,

Let's not forget that historically Turks have lived in East Turkistan longer than any other Mongoloid or Chinese Han people. The Gokturk empire The Khazar empire the Uyghur state and other Turkic empires all lived in the region much much longer than any Chinese people.


Check Mate, Vini Vidi Vici!!!

 

[salman nedian]

The basic reason why any Muslim country is not raising voice for the Chinese Muslims is that China doesn’t have any dispute with any Muslim country neither it has been involved in occupying Muslim territories like India, Israel and USA.

The riots in China are again an attempt to destabilize Pak-China relationship.We have seen that many times Chinese were attacked in Pakistan for this cause but the current issue is not the issue which cannot be resolved. If Chinese Muslims need autonomy than we can help to settle their matters peacefully and ensuring the integrity of China.

 

[DistortedIndia]

Western Media = ( BBC, CNN, AFP, Reuters, Globe & Mail, & so on ) is the extension of the Demon "you know who".

< Devil > = << Slaves & Tools of the "you know who" ( America, England, Israel, France, Canada, Australia, & so on ) >>


1) The Demon "you know who" and the Devils is trying to provoke the wise Muslims all over the world to attack and go Armageddon against the Chinese.

2) About 1 month ago, 10 JUN 2009 to be precise, the Head of the Demon "you know who" released 17 Uighur terrorists into a nice hiding place in Palau.

3) Did you know that in Palau the 17 Uighur terrorists received a wonderful welcoming gifts in the form of nice "powerful" mobile phones given by the Demon "you know who" agents?

4) Less than 1 month later, the well coordinated and simultaneous Uighur terrorists attacks happened.


If you happened to still believe on what are being reported on the Demon "you know who" Western Media ( BBC, CNN, AFP, Reuters, & so on ) ,
then please check these gruesome pictures below.

See for yourself, if the face of the victims look like Uighur or ( Han / Hui ).

The gruesome pictures are the result of the well coordinated and simultaneous Uighur attacks on at least 8 different locations throughout city of Urumqi.

Warning Gruesome Pictures: &#198;&#223;&#212;&#194;&#163;&#172;&#206;&#218;&#194;&#179;&#196;&#190;&#198;&#235;&#183;&#162;&#201;&#250;&#193;&#203;&#202;&#178;&#195;&#180;&#163;&#191;&#215;&#233;&#205;&#188;

 

[rubyjackass]

These figures must be taken with a pinch of salt. There are reports, also on teh bbc news website, which put the figures much higher, and the proportion of uighurs killed at 90 percent.

Yup, those figures are very conveniently placed to 'prove' that the rioters were mostly Uighurs and that they stormed into Hun areas claiming they killed so many women od Hun chinese. I dont give a damn for these numbers.


@salman nedian:
In case you did not wake up and see. WHat Uighurs claim is exactly what you wanted as a condition for condemning CHina. THeir territory has been 'occupied'.


ANyway I dont understand why China is being so insecure about not letting media in. Its not like East Tukestan is going to come about in a day if that happened. THe population situation cannot let the formation of East Turkestan. Also some people in support of Uighurs here are overly excited. Even in the best case scenario for Uighurs what they get newly is 0.
The worst being a lot of community leaders getting tried eliminating the top leadership. And I cannot understand how reckless Chinese leadership can be in shamelessly putting the blame on the exiled, without a word on the discontentment in people there.

On one hand they say they wont say a word that would cause the ethnic unity to be disturbed, they do not acknowledge there is a problem and on the other side the figures seem so perfectly tailored.
Even IF the figures are accurate, the credibility they have is nil.


As for some people here more videos are of the type where Uighurs were attacking Huns. How could they escape the clamp down on information flow there? Did we hear from any Uighurs there? But we do hear from the Hui people who claim that Muslims are very happy there.

 

[muse]

Ruby

just look at the kind of job the so called "impartial media" of the West has done so far, Imagine what they will do if allowed unfettered access. - our senior member Fatman 17 has a thread about a CNN interview with Gen Abbas (see current affairs thread) compare what the article says and compare what the report CNN put together says -- if Western media find themselves distrusted, they have only themselves ot blame for allowing themselves to be used as tools of policy of organizations and the governments which sponsoring them.

 

[rubyjackass]

CNN could do that because the questions were exclusively between the CNN reporter and Abbas.
If you let everyone into places of conflict, then it will be difficult for any one agency to deviate from facts. People can listen to all views. The insecurity of administration gives an impression that the problem is very grave and may be out of hands.

The worst thing is, still people like us can't be sure of what happened. And here we see people lapping up Chinese official releases which have higher chances of being untrue and call Uighurs unpatriotic. What if they don't give a damn for the country you want them to be patriotic to? Look at the Chinese govt taking pot shots at the exiled leaders. If it were so easy for them to incite riots from that far, even then it suggests of a serious problem.

I am convinced that the death toll is much higher.

 

[muse]

ruby


But waht you say, that the questions were between Michael Ware and Gen Abbas is only partially true - there is a shot with Ware standing in the hills and claiming that 100 talib are on another hill because the Pak Fauj tolerates --- regardless of what you may want to think, it's pretty clear between the reporter, the producer and the editor, an entirely new story was created complete with images, this new stroy reflected not the facts but the placing of images such that "facts" are created - what part of that is journalism?

You say you are convinced many more people than those reported were killed -- why are you so convinced? Why would you trust Western Media to report figures higher than those reported by the govt?? Why do you not think that the figures are less than those reported by the Chinese?

Don't get me wrong, I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.

 

[rubyjackass]

ruby


But waht you say, that the questions were between Michael Ware and Gen Abbas is only partially true - there is a shot with Ware standing in the hills and claiming that 100 talib are on another hill because the Pak Fauj tolerates --- regardless of what you may want to think, it's pretty clear between the reporter, the producer and the editor, an entirely new story was created complete with images, this new stroy reflected not the facts but the placing of images such that "facts" are created - what part of that is journalism?

You say you are convinced many more people than those reported were killed -- why are you so convinced? Why would you trust Western Media to report figures higher than those reported by the govt?? Why do you not think that the figures are less than those reported by the Chinese?

Don't get me wrong, I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.

The two reportings are entirely unrelated. One is about a general riot other is 'investigative'.
Investigative pieces are not accepted as they come. They will get confirmed or cooled down later. Did other nations rally behind the news without confirmation? No that dint happen. That doesn't usually. In case of riots, when reported by many agencies will give a convergent set of facts for people to understand whats really going on.
But when you do that with a general population which already complains about discrimination, what is gross? People even Chinese want to know about the truth. Also timing of the news matters here. If people know immediately through reliable sources that riots are instigated, then the situation can be diffused easily. Also if they realize that there is indeed a problem, they will give up their false nationalism and try to bring pressure on administration to solve it. If the ethnic fall out is real then let people know about it and work at it.

I don't see where you are trying to go comparing both things as I explained how different they are.

 

[muse]

People even Chinese want to know about the truth

See, you may not have realized it when you wrote it, but you have formed the opinion that the Chinese people are being lied to, that they have not been told the truth

How have you arrived at this conclusion??

If people know immediately through reliable sources that riots are instigated, then the situation can be diffused easily.

Once again, you have concluded that "reliable sources" are simply not the Chinese -- On what basis are concluding these?? And help me out here, who would you say are these "reliable sources"??

Help me figure out why you choose to think that the Chinese who broke the news are "untrustworthy and unreliable" -- I hope you will take the time to think what these assumptions you have made say about how you approach the topic