What's new

Xinjiang Province: News & Discussions

So why are the Uyghurs angry?
Do they really expect to get their own country?
What?
Don't they know what happened in Tibet?
They're getting off much better than they were a few years ago.
 
.
So why are the Uyghurs angry?
Do they really expect to get their own country?
What?
Don't they know what happened in Tibet?
They're getting off much better than they were a few years ago.

This thread is not about separatism or independence, its just about clearing up false accusations of demographic swamping.

If a person supports independence for whatever reason or even for no reason other than them hating China, but doesn't lie about China swamping the Uyghurs in their "native land" with Han immigrants, then whatever, they aren't in charge of anything. I don't care then.
 
. .
Great Qing empire took so large land in the north and west.it's definitely the strongest empire in the whole Chinese story.
 
.
Great Qing empire took so large land in the north and west.it's definitely the strongest empire in the whole Chinese story.

Do not forget that most was voluntarily joined. The Turkic Muslims and their leaders, the Chagatai Prince and Sayyid Naqshbandi Qarataghlik Khojas joined China for protection against the Buddhist Dzunghars. The Khalkha Mongols joined voluntarily and the Dalai Lamas submitted the Qing rule after the Qing defeated anti China elements who were warring in Tibet and restored the then ruling Dalai Lama to power.

Only the Dzunghars and their Aqtaghlik Khoja puppets were involuntarily conquered and defeated.

One of the Chagatai Princes even ruled Kumul into the Republic of China era and was still loyal to China. He died in 1930.
 
.
I think china government should establish a news agency that does the same jobs like this. that news agency will tell the world the bad things about india, the west and japan. or at least analyzing the plots of western in every international issues.
 
.
So why are the Uyghurs angry?
Do they really expect to get their own country?
What?
Don't they know what happened in Tibet?
They're getting off much better than they were a few years ago.


Don't attempt to tell us that Han Chinese people are not angry (at the government, for instance).

Uyghur’s' country is China. They have their country.

BTW, when are Canadians to give back the native Indians (aka, First Nations) their land? They were much better off when you left them alone a few hundred years ago.
 
.
So why are the Uyghurs angry?
Do they really expect to get their own country?
What?
Don't they know what happened in Tibet?
They're getting off much better than they were a few years ago.
Their country Is Turkey Maybe. They can go back there. Xinjiang was chinese since 3000 years ago. At thet Time, Uyghur are single cells in the lake

Great Qing empire took so large land in the north and west.it's definitely the strongest empire in the whole Chinese story.

Great Qing is just Emperor Japan to China. They are all colonists. Great Qing is just a big hell for Han.
 
. .
Death toll in Xinjiang violence rises to 35.
June 27, 2013, 10:28 p.m.

BEIJING - The death toll in Wednesday’s clashes in the western Xinjiang region has risen from 27 to 35, and China’s state-run media are now referring to the incident as a “terrorist attack.”

Initial reports by the official New China News Agency said knife-wielding rioters attacked a police station, a government building and a construction site.

It was the deadliest outbreak of violence in years in the region, where tension has simmered between Uighurs, a Muslim minority group, and ethnic Han Chinese.

The first reports on the violence said rioters killed 17 people and police shot 10 dead. But on Thursday, the news agency said rioters had slain 24 people, including two police officers, and police shot 11 to death. Another 21 people were injured, the agency said Thursday.

The fresh account also for the first time made mention of the ethnicities of those involved, with the news agency saying 16 of the dead were Uighurs. Exactly what prompted the attack remained unclear, however. Xinjiang next week will mark the four-year anniversary of ethnic clashes that killed nearly 200 people in 2009.

A report Friday in the Global Times, a newspaper closely affiliated with the Communist Party, said more than 10 suspects had been arrested, most of whom were aged 18 or 19.

The paper cited an unnamed Xinjiang official as saying that the attackers were mostly Uighurs and mainly targeted Uighur police officers. The Han victims were all migrant workers at a construction site in the town of Lukqun, the paper said.

The World Uyghur Congress, a Germany-based advocacy group, has expressed skepticism about the official accounts of the incident but said it had had difficulty reaching locals because communication links in the area had been shut down.

The Global Times said its reporter was unable to enter Lukqun because the city had been sealed off.

The official also told the paper that authorities believed the attackers had been planning to launch an assault at a commodity fair in the city of Kashi on Friday.

U.S. State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said Wednesday that the Obama administration was "closely following" reports of the Xinjiang violence and urged “Chinese authorities to conduct a thorough, transparent investigation of this incident to provide those detained the due process protections to which they are entitled under China's constitution, laws and international human rights commitments."

He also said Washington remained "deeply concerned" by what he called "ongoing reports of discrimination and restrictions" against Chinese Uighurs and Muslims.

In a commentary Friday in the state-run China Daily, Xinjiang Academy of Social Sciences researcher Shi Lan hit back at the U.S. criticism.

"Some of the Xinjiang terrorist groups get support from the West, which loves to call their usurpations acts of 'independence and religious freedom,'" she said. "Western powers still use double standards when it comes to terrorist attacks on China."

Source: Reuters,LA Times.
 
. . . . . .
Back
Top Bottom