Censorship in Iraq. A first hand account. IRAQ: Journalist Charges Censorship by U.S. Military in Fallujah By Dahr Jamail Remains of U.S. Marines killed by a suicide bomber in Fallujah on Jun. 26. Credit:Zoriah Miller SAN FRANCISCO, Jul 3 (IPS) - U.S. journalist Zoriah Miller says he was censored by the U.S. military in the Iraqi city of Fallujah after photographing Marines who died in a suicide bombing. On Jun. 26, a suicide bomber attacked a city council meeting in Fallujah, 69 kms west of Baghdad, between local tribal sheikhs and military officials. Three Marines, Cpl. Marcus Preudhomme, Capt. Philip Dykeman, and Lt. Col. Max Galeai, were assigned to 2d Battalion, 3d Marines, 3rd Marine Division, Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii. The explosion also killed two interpreters and 20 Iraqis, including the mayor of the nearby town of Karmah, two prominent sheikhs and their sons, and another sheikh and his brother. All were members of the local "awakening council," one of the U.S.-backed militias that have taken up arms against al Qaeda in Iraq, according to U.S. and Iraqi authorities. Miller was embedded with Marines on a patrol one block from the attack when it occurred. He had originally turned down the option of going to report on the city council meeting that was bombed. Miller ran with the Marines he was with to the scene of the attack. "As I ran I saw human pieces...a skull cap with hair, bone shards," he told IPS during a telephone interview from the so-called Green Zone in Baghdad. "When we arrived at the building it was chaotic. There were Iraqis, police and civilians running around screaming. Bodies were being pulled out of the building." "I went in and there were over 20 people's remains all over the place," Miller continued, "Of the Marines I jogged in with, someone started to vomit. Others were standing around, not knowing what to do. It was completely surreal." "At that moment I realised this was far beyond anything I'd experienced, and I realised I wanted to focus and make sure I could capture what it felt like, and the visual horror," Miller explained. "I thought, 'Nobody in the U.S. has any idea what it means when they hear that 20 people died in a suicide bombing.' I want people to be able to associate those numbers with the scene and the actual loss of human life. And to show why soldiers are suffering from PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder]," Miller told IPS. Miller was taken out of the building by Marines, but then allowed back inside where he took one last photo of the carnage before they closed the scene to him. "We spent most of the rest of the day as Marines picked up body parts and put them in buckets and bags," he said. In an Iraqi Police station in Karmah, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) was brought in to investigate the bombing. Millers' photos were the only ones of the scene, so the NCIS team asked for them. "I made them copies, but then one of the Marines came in and told me to delete my memory card after I give them the photos, and I refused," Miller told IPS, "I told the NCIS that if they forced me to delete them, I would stop sharing them. So they stopped pressing that issue." Miller said that he was following the rules for embedded journalists. "That evening, during the debriefing, the guys [Marines] I was with told me that the higher-ups had said I was a stand-up guy and behaved well and to treat me well. The guys I was with were all very much on my side." Miller explained to IPS that he meticulously showed his photos to the Marines he was with to make sure he was not going to show any photos that would upset the family members of the deceased Marines. "They were all okay with them, so then about 96 hours after the bombing I published the photos on my blog." Then things got interesting. "Tuesday [Jul. 1] I awoke to a call in their combat operations centre, and the person on the phone told me they were a PAO (Public Affairs Officer) at Camp Fallujah, and he wanted me to take my blog down right away," Miller told IPS. "I asked them why, and was told then called back after five minutes by a higher ranking PAO who claimed I had broken my contract by showing photos of dead Americans with U.S. uniforms and boots." Miller said the PAO claimed he was not allowed, by the embed contract, to show dead or wounded U.S. citizens or soldiers in the field. "I never signed any contract for that," Miller said. He was called back after another five minutes and told his embed was terminated and they would send him back to Baghdad on the next flight. He was then taken back to Camp Fallujah where he said, "Everyone was extremely angry and fired up at me." Nevertheless, the lower ranking Marines he had embedded with "were on my side, and they told me they thought that what was happening was wrong." Miller explained that he grew nervous when the flight was cancelled due to a sandstorm, and then a security guard was assigned to him. "I started to feel uncomfortable with this," Miller explained. "The next day, Gen. Kelly, [Major General John Kelly, who is the Commanding General of the I Marine Expeditionary Force] wanted to have some words with me. I was to meet with him at 3 pm, and we sat outside in the sun for two hours and he never showed." Miller was told he would be flown out that night, but he was deleted from the flight and told that General Kelly wanted to see him, so he waited again until Thursday, Jul. 3. Again the general did not appear, so Miller was given an official letter about the grounds for the termination of his embed, signed by Gen. Kelly, and flown to Baghdad. "Now, as I think about it, I think they needed the extra time to figure out what they were going to say about my dismissal," Miller said. "Their original reason ended up being bogus, so they had to figure something else out." The letter he was given stated reasons for his dismissal as "you photographed the remains of U.S. soldiers", "you posted these images along with detailed commentary", and "by posting the images and your commentary you violated 14 H and O of the news media agreement you signed". In addition, the letter, which Miller read to IPS, stated, "By providing detailed information of the effectiveness of the attack and the response of U.S. forces to it, you have put all U.S. forces in Iraq at greater risk for harm." Miller feels the reason for his dismissal is otherwise. "The bottom line is that the thing they cited as the reason for my dismissal was 'information the enemy could use against you'. They realised, probably from keeping track of my blog, that I was not showing identifiable features of a soldier...and they couldn't find a reason to kick me out. Because it was a high ranking person who got killed, they were all fired up." Miller concluded, "Up to that point they said it was because I showed pictures of bodies with pieces of uniform and boots. The letter, though, doesn't mention that at all. I checked the document I had about ground rules for media embeds, and I followed them." The Pentagon would not comment on the story when contacted by IPS, saying they had no information on Miller's case beyond what Central Command had already posted. (END/2008)
The news media are self-censoring reports about Iraq because of concern for public reaction to graphic images and details about death and torture, according to a survey of 210 U.S. and international journalists. Many reporters and editors chose less-graphic images and explicit details, or made them less noticeable, according to an online, anonymous survey conducted between September and October 2004 by two American University professors. The study was released March 17. Findings also included how journalists were using the Internet to enhance coverage of events in Iraq. One-third said they published material -- such as photographic essays, extended interviews and behind-the-scenes reporters' accounts - that was not used in their reports on their news organization's Web site. From World Peace Herald Survey: U.S. media censors Iraq reporting By Angela Woodall WASHINGTON -- The news media are self-censoring reports about Iraq because of concern for public reaction to graphic images and details about death and torture, according to a survey of 210 U.S. and international journalists. Many reporters and editors chose less-graphic images and explicit details, or made them less noticeable, according to an online, anonymous survey conducted between September and October 2004 by two American University professors. The study was released March 17. Findings also included how journalists were using the Internet to enhance coverage of events in Iraq. One-third said they published material -- such as photographic essays, extended interviews and behind-the-scenes reporters' accounts - that was not used in their reports on their news organization's Web site. The survey is a "window on journalists grappling with how to handle the imagery of war," one of the authors, Jane Hall, a journalism professor at American University in Washington, told United Press International. Journalists from a variety of media outlets were asked about coverage from March 2003 to September 2004, from the beginning of the war in Iraq through the first 15 months of the U.S.-led occupation. This was a period of some of the most violent incidents in Iraq after President Bush announced the end of major U.S. combat operations there. A wave of beheadings peaked, four contractors were killed and their charred bodies hung from a bridge in Fallujah, and explicit images from the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal surfaced. Of the 210 respondents -- out of 1,000 invited by e-mail to participate, 73 were in Iraq during and after the war. Half of that group was embedded with the U.S. military during all or part of their time in Iraq. The majority of all the journalists reported to an American audience. The publications involved were not identified. Eighty-three percent of the respondents (175 people) said they served a U.S. audience; 10 percent (21 people) said their audience was from North/South America; 11 percent (24) said their audience was European; 3 percent (6) said they were targeting Eastern European; 7 percent (14) said the catered to Asia; 5 percent (11) to the Middle East; and 6 percent (13) to Africa. Some said they served more than one primary audience. Fifty-nine percent of the respondents were primarily print journalists, 26 percent were broadcast and 12 percent were online. Hall said she and the survey's co-author, M. J. Bear, were looking at how reporters and editors made decisions about what to publish. She said she was struck by how often decisions were made on a case-to-case basis. Only 30 percent of the respondents said they had rules in place for dealing with sensitive information and images at the start of the coverage. The online survey also showed that geography was important for how restrictive the newsroom policy was of showing graphic content. Respondents from European and Middle Eastern news organizations were not as confined as the U.S. media in showing graphic or disturbing images, according to the survey. In contrast, U.S. journalists were concerned about publishing images of dead American or coalition civilians and military personnel. Also, the U.S. military rules prohibit publishing names or images of dead soldiers until their families have been notified. "Our community is notoriously squeamish and vocal about it to boot," said one respondent. "So, we usually avoid dead bodies if we can." Another said journalists wanted to show what was happening in Iraq without shocking and distressing viewers unnecessarily, or encouraging the hostage-takers. "It is a difficult task," the reporter said. But the images of dead Iraqi military personnel and insurgents were more graphic than of American troops or coalition causalities, one journalist said. There is an "unspoken rule" against publishing images of what would be horrifying, such as a "bloody stump on an amputee or a mangled corpse," a journalist said. Another said publishing or broadcasting the dead, dying or injured went too far. "The qualitative results tell about the decision-making process at many institutions and explain why some toned-down coverage was often published," said the authors. But some of the journalists said their reporting was distorted. Out of 73 journalists working in Iraq, 11 said they thought that on one or more occasions editing in the newsroom had distorted the final version of their story. A print journalist embedded with the U.S. military said that on some occasions the reports he sent were subtly edited to make them less negative and more in line with official views, though it was not a systematic practice. Another said: "The real damage of war on the civilian population was uniformly omitted." � UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
ralphrepo's approach has no ground to debate on when west 虛偽 is included in this debate. I can not see why west 虛偽 can't not include in debate since the west started the Tibet for freedom and human right and independence campaign. ralphrepo knows he has no case to win his reason chose can't include west wrong in this debate. I hope my bad english make sense..sorry.
Talking about Chinese or western political agenda or hubris vis a vis Tibet, the characterization of PRC interactions in Tibet by both the Chinese or western press, the goals of Tibetans, their exiles, Chinese in Tibet, westerner's perception, Chinese perceptions, etc., is all fair game in any open discussion about Tibet. Talking about how the US abuses prisoners of war in Guantanamo (because it has nothing to do with the main topic) is a waste of time. If the thread question had been on the issue of US abuse of capture enemy combatants and their fight for legal rights, how many of the people here would have even clicked on the question? Firstly, it would have been off topic and removed, as this forum is dedicated to items of interest to the Chinese arena, and secondly, people here clicked on this thread presumably because they're interested in China and its involvement in Tibet. Otherwise they would have ignored the thing altogether. So in essence, talking about Tibet and its influence by the west or China is germane; including discussion about the west and its involvement with other parts of the world is not. But again, as I had already stated, I started this as an info thread. If other readers wish to add their own info, it's a free world, let the viewer decide for themselves.
Woo touchy aren't we ? Here you go again, being mowed down by your very own brand of crap logic, you now ruled all the rest of the response to you as irrelevant. Get it in your head. This is a forum. It is not your private pro west propaganda station. You write, and readers respond. Which part of that do you not get ? You posted videos, from western sources, bring up analogies about how wonderful the west is when it comes to treating its enemies after the second world war and heck, your eulogies though touching, got my hairs standing on ends. LOL. So, if writers respond to debunk you, to highlight your biases, and to illustrate your ignorance, you would simply hide in your own little shell pretending it does not matter. ONLY you are right and ONLY you have the right to inform. Time to sniff the roses dear Ralphy. You need to catch up on your readings again. less you embarrass yourself further. You can try to confuse the issue further by adding in more of your high sounding statements which simply shows your lack of substance. Nevertheless, I thank you for trying a reply. If you cannot defend the US appalling records in Gitmo, Afghanistan and Iraq, just say so. Sometimes, a little intellectual honesty goes a long way in keeping oneself credible. Cheers and yeah have a good weekend ahead
More news on what the PRC government is doing vis a vis Tibet: In a rush? For a quick synopsis, just read the red highlighted lines. Here is the video that the PRC government is afraid that its people might see: ***WARNING VERY GRAPHIC*** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R42YK84yuSI&feature=related
Such censorships is uncalled for. Freedom of the press must be upheld. Here are some examples of media censorship that is shameful. [SIZE=+2]YouTube Bans Videos That Incite Violence[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] By Peter Whoriskey Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, September 12, 2008; D01 [/SIZE] The video-sharing service YouTube is banning submissions that involve "inciting others to violence," following criticism from Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) that the site was too open to terrorist groups disseminating militant propaganda. The company earlier this year removed some of the videos that Lieberman targeted, many of which were marked with the logos of al-Qaeda and affiliated groups. But the company refused to take down most of the videos on the senator's list, saying they did not violate the Web site's guidelines against graphic violence or hate speech. Now that videos inciting others to violence are banned, more videos by the terrorist groups in question may be removed. "YouTube reviews its content guidelines a few times a year, and we take the community's input seriously," YouTube spokesman Ricardo Reyes said. "The senator made some good points." "YouTube was being used by Islamist terrorist organizations to recruit and train followers via the Internet and to incite terrorist attacks around the world, including right here in the United States," Lieberman said in a statement. "I expect these stronger community guidelines to decrease the number of videos on YouTube produced by al-Qaeda and affiliated Islamist terrorist organizations." The standoff between the senator and the nation's largest video-sharing site aroused arguments that have become commonplace since Sept. 11, 2001: It pitted civil rights -- in this case, free speech -- against demands to crack down on terrorism. In May, Lieberman issued a bipartisan report by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs staff that described how al-Qaeda created and managed its online media. Later that month, Lieberman wrote a letter to officials at Google [which owns YouTube] demanding that the company "immediately remove content produced by Islamic terrorist organizations from YouTube. This should be a straightforward task since so many of the Islamist terrorist organizations brand their material with logos or icons." He also asked Google to explain what changes would be made to YouTube's guidelines to address "violent extremist material." Because the volume of videos uploaded to YouTube is vast -- hundreds of thousands every day -- the company says it cannot monitor what gets posted. Instead, it relies on users to flag videos that violate its "Community Guidelines." When the company removed videos after Lieberman's request in May, the company did so because they violated its existing guidelines prohibiting graphic violence and hate speech. Some of the videos depicted violent attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. But most of the videos highlighted by Lieberman were not removed. "While we respect and understand his[Lieberman's] views, YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone's right to express unpopular points of view," the company said in a statement at the time. The company's stance now appears to have changed. Exactly what kind of videos will be deemed to be "inciting others to violence," will be considered on a case-by-case basis, though First Amendment experts said the company could run into trouble if the phrase is interpreted too broadly. "We subscribe to the common sense rule," Reyes said. "Our guidelines are not written for lawyers." View all comments that have been posted about this article. © 2009 The Washington Post Company
The standards of Media Freedom even from the enlighten democratic countries is getting atrocious. Here are more cases. Media Cover-up Leading Journalists Expose Major Cover-ups in Media [FONT="]The riveting excerpts below are from the revealing accounts of 20 award-winning journalists in the highly acclaimed book Into the Buzzsaw. These courageous writers were prevented by corporate media ownership from reporting major news stories. Some were even fired or laid off. They have won numerous awards, including several Emmys and a Pulitzer. Join in building a better world by helping to spread this news across the land.[/FONT] Jane Akre—Fox News. After our struggle to air an honest report [on hormones in milk], Fox fired the general manager [of our station]. The new GM said that if we didn’t agree to changes that the lawyers were insisting upon, we’d be fired for insubordination in 48 hours. We pleaded with [him] to look at the facts we’d uncovered. His reply: “We paid $3 billion dollars for these stations. We’ll tell you what the news is. The news is what we say it is!” [After we refused] Fox’s GM presented us an agreement that would give us a full year of salary, and benefits worth close to $200,000, but with strings attached: no mention of how Fox covered up the story and no opportunity to ever expose the facts. [After declining] we were fired. (click for more, revealing video clip) Dan Rather—CBS, Multiple Emmy Awards. What's going on is a belief that you can manipulate communicable trust between the leadership and the led. The way you do that is you don't let the press in anywhere. Access to war is extremely limited. The fiercer the combat, the more the access is limited, [including] access to information. This is a direct contradiction of the stated policy of maximum access to information consistent with national security. There was a time in South Africa when people would put flaming tires around people's necks if they dissented. In some ways the fear [now in the U.S.] is that you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck. That fear keeps journalists from asking the tough questions. I am humbled to say, I do not except myself from this criticism. (click for more) Monika Jensen-Stevenson—Emmy-winning producer for 60 minutes. Robert R. Garwood—14 years a prisoner of the Vietnamese—was found guilty in the longest court-martial in US history. At the end of the court-martial, there seemed no question that Garwood was a monstrous traitor. Several years later in 1985, Garwood was speaking publicly about something that had never made the news during his court-martial. He knew of other American prisoners in Vietnam long after the war was over. He was supported by Vietnam veterans whose war records were impeccable. My sources included outstanding experts like former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency General Tighe and returned POWs like Captain McDaniel, who held the Navy’s top award for bravery. With such advocates, it was hard not to consider the possibility that prisoners (some 3,500) had in fact been kept by the Vietnamese as hostages to make sure the US would pay the more than $3 billion in war reparations. [After the war] American POWs had become worthless pawns. The US had not paid the promised monies and had no intention of paying in the future. (click for more) Kristina Borjesson—CBS, Emmy award winner. Pierre Salinger announced to the world on Nov. 8, 1996, that he’d received documents proving that a US Navy missile had accidentally downed [TWA flight 800]. That same day, FBI’s Jim Kallstrom called a press conference. A man raised his hand and asked why the Navy was involved in the recovery and investigation while a possible suspect. “Remove him!” [Kallstrom] yelled. Two men leapt over to the questioner and grabbed him by the arms. There was a momentary chill in the air after the guy had been dragged out of the room. Kallstrom and entourage acted as if nothing had happened. [Kallstrom was later hired by CBS.] (click for more) Greg Palast—BBC. In the months leading up to the November [2000] balloting, Gov. Jeb Bush ordered elections supervisors to purge 58,000 voters on the grounds they were felons not entitled to vote. As it turns out, only a handful of these voters were felons. This extraordinary news ran on page one of the country’s leading paper. Unfortunately, it was the wrong country: Britain. In the USA, it was not covered. The office of the governor [also] illegally ordered the removal of felons from voter rolls—real felons—but with the right to vote under law. As a result, 50,000 of these voters could not vote. The fact that 90% of these were Democrats should have made it news as this alone more than accounted for Bush’s victory. (click for more) Michael Levine—25-year veteran of DEA, writer for New York Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today. The Chang Mai “factory” that the CIA prevented me from destroying was the source of massive amounts of heroin being smuggled into the US in the bodies and body bags of GIs killed in Vietnam. Case after case was killed by CIA and State Department intervention and there wasn’t a thing we could do about it. ... In 1980, CIA-recruited mercenaries and drug traffickers unseated Bolivia’s democratically elected president. Immediately after the coup, cocaine production increased massively. Bolivia [became] the source of virtually 100% of the cocaine entering the US. This was the beginning of the crack “plague.” … The CIA along with State and Justice Departments had to protect their drug-dealing assets by destroying a DEA investigation. How do I know? I was the inside source. ... I sat down at my desk in the American embassy and wrote evidence of my charges. I addressed it to Newsweek. Three weeks later DEA’s internal security [called] to notify me that I was under investigation. ... The highlight of the 60 Minutes piece is when the administrator of the DEA, Federal Judge Robert Bonner, tells Mike Wallace, “There is no other way to put it, Mike, [what the CIA did] is drug smuggling. It’s illegal.” (click for more) Gary Webb—San Jose Mercury News, Pulitzer Prize winner. In 1996, I wrote a series of stories that began this way: For the better part of a decade, a Bay Area drug ring sold tons of cocaine to the Crips and Bloods gangs of LA and funneled millions in drug profits to a guerilla army run by the CIA. The cocaine that flooded in helped spark a crack explosion in urban America. ... The story was developing a momentum all of its own, despite a virtual news blackout from the major media. Ultimately, it was public pressure that forced the national newspapers into the fray. The Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times published stories, but spent little time exploring the CIA’s activities. Instead, my reporting and I became the focus of their scrutiny. It was remarkable [Mercury News editor] Ceppos wrote, that the four Washington Post reporters assigned to debunk the series “could not find a single significant factual error.” A few months later, the Mercury News [due to intense CIA pressure] backed away from the story, publishing a long column by Ceppos apologizing for “shortcomings.” The New York Times hailed Ceppos for “setting a brave new standard,” and splashed his apology on their front page, the first time the series had ever been mentioned there. I quit the Mercury News not long after that. ... Do we have a free press today? Sure. It’s free to report all the sex scandals, all the stock market news, [and] every new health fad that comes down the pike. But when it comes to the real down and dirty stuff—such stories are not even open for discussion. (click for more) John Kelly—Author, ABC producer. ABC hired me to help produce a story about an investment firm that was heavily involved with the CIA. Part of the ABC report charged that the CIA had plotted to assassinate an American, Ron Rewald, the president of [the investment firm]. Scott Barnes said on camera that the CIA had asked him to kill Rewald. After the show aired, CIA officials met with ABC executive David Burke, [who] was sufficiently impressed “by the vigor with which they made their case” to order an on-air “clarification.” But that was not enough. [CIA Director] Casey called ABC Chairman Goldenson. [Thus] despite all the documented evidence presented in the program, despite ABC standing by the program in a second broadcast, Peter Jennings reported that ABC could no longer substantiate the charges. That same day, the CIA filed a formal complaint with the FCC charging that ABC had “deliberately distorted” the news. In the complaint, Casey asked that ABC be stripped of its TV and radio licenses. During this time, Capital Cities Communications was maneuvering to buy ABC. [CIA Director] Casey was one of the founders of Cap Cities. Cap Cities bought ABC. Within months, the entire investigative unit was dispersed. (click for more) Robert McChesney—500 radio & TV appearances. [There has been a] striking consolidation of the media from hundreds of firms to an industry dominated by less than ten enormous transnational conglomerates. The largest ten media firms own all US TV networks, most TV stations, all major film studios, all major music companies, nearly all cable TV channels, much of the book and magazine publishing [industry], and much, much more. Expensive investigative journalism—especially that which goes after national security or powerful corporate interests—is discouraged. Largely irrelevant human interest/tragedy stories get extensive coverage. ... A few weeks after the war began in Afghanistan, CNN president Isaacson authorized CNN to provide two different versions of the war: a more critical one for the global audience and a sugarcoated one for Americans. ... It is nearly impossible to conceive of a better world without some changes in the media status quo. We have no time to waste. (click for more)
China marks 'Serf Liberation Day' in Tibet today , Mr Dui-lai lomo will be pissed that his slaves are now the citizens of China LOL
Free Tibt is a hoax. I regard it as April Fool's Day joke. Tibet is in China, a part of China, a very simple truth. Why are they making this such a hype? They should free Ireland, free California, free Australia and other lands first.
China is getting power/land hungry.....it took back Hong Kong then if i'm not wrong..Macau.....now China wants Tibet and not forgetting Taiwan.Let's hope China is not becoming like the old Japan that once wanna conquer the world as it's empire since it's power is growing and power is an addiction......Maybe one day China wants to conquer whichever country that has Chinese people.....hmm.....seems alot of place......
Do you? -detect Other than shrill distraction, you really haven't added of substance to the discussion about Tibet (you're welcome to start a new thread about other lands elsewhere, but it seems that whenever anyone starts to talk about Tibet, the only thing that Chinese nationalists can do is discuss something else).
cool down man,I'm just giving my own personal point of view here,I too don't like the idea of China taking back Tibet and all those cruel things that they done to the people there,...just calm down
Chinese people is a cruel race in general .. had done some terrible thing in the history of China but mostly toward their on people - sad ..
Sorry Lasalle, but I find that sort of viewpoint to be an erroneous oversimplification. You stated, "Chinese people is a cruel race in general..." because they did terrible things to their own people. In that light then, can you tell me of a race of people with any substantial history, that had not ever done terrible things to their own people? I think that if you genuinely reviewed the course of human history, the Chinese peoples weren't any worse in terms of cruelty, but rather unfortunate in their overall affecting of substantially larger populations densities through its long cultural history. Instead of maligning an entire race or culture, might I suggest that you explore and focus more on the integral events of history; the social and political infrastructures and interactions of those times, to arrive at a deeper understanding of their impact on a people and the world in general? Similarly, the China and Tibet issue is a political argument; it does not reflect on the penchant for cruelty of anyone. Cruelty may be used as an individual's psychologic depraved emotional need (eg a murderer who tortures his victims) or part of a state's politically motivated efforts to suppress opposition (eg the Serbian efforts of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo), however that does not justify broadbrushing an entire race (the Chinese) with such a label. Thus, is China doing bad things in Tibet? (IMHO) of course it is. Does that make Chinese people a cruel race in general? No it does not. <_<
In a rebuttal of the graphic YouTube video (seen here above) that was recently released, this is what PRC officials had to say: While I don't believe the PRC's general interpretive contention, their discussion of the files editing is technically correct; the video was pieced together from a variety of sources. However, just like you can have two distinctly separate crimes caught on two separate tapes (filmed at different times by different people); putting the two together would not be telling a lie, it would be telling both stories at the same time. It seems here that piecing together several videos of Chinese brutality in Tibet is just that, a file that consecutively shows several instances of these allegations. What would be considered a real lie, is if the original video were of people laying on the ground, and a second video of a soldier kicking a log, or hitting a bag of cement, was bluescreened over the first (two separate actions composited together into one scene's action), to give a false visual impression that the soldier was kicking or hitting a person laying on the ground. Then THAT would be fake. But this was clearly not what I saw. The soldiers were really kicking handcuffed tied people. The PRC official's claim of "Tendar died from a disease at home...and that "the injured person in the video was not Tendar and the wounds were fake..." The official claim that Tendar died at home from a disease, taken at face value, cannot be disputed; even the claim of the injured person in the video not being Tendar must be taken at face value, mostly because we have no real way of even knowing who this Tendar is. However, the official really shoots himself in the foot by saying that the wounds were fake. To anyone that had ever worked with burn wounds, necrotizing fasciitis (the flesh eating germ), gangrenous or dead tissue, and had to perform debridement, ...those wounds in the video are absolutely real from the medical point of view. So by telling one lie and insisting that those wounds were fake, this piques the interest of any neutral party; why tell such a lie in the first place, especially when he didn't have to (ie. he could have stated that the wounds were real but were from say, an accident investigation video of patient that was caught in a mechanical thresher, that resulted in both crush and thermal injuries)? Also, in another development: while publicly the PRC is claiming the high road:
Exactly, I suggest they help Sudan first, that's much more urgent. It was the ultimate punch bag against China before the Tibet riots, because Tibet just makes for a much more direct way to demonize China since there is direct involvement. To me, this makes anti-China activist less sincere and more opportunistic because they dropped the Sudan issue(more urgent but less harmful against China) for Tibet in a heart beat. If your going to be supporting a cause, get your facts right, at least know what your talking about. Free Tibet, wait, where is Tibet ??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twHzXN3kNTs Penn and Teller explain why the Dalai Lama sucks ass http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=4328870 Free Tibet, my ass http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=488Ec-BPKIA&feature=related
How does the slogan "Free USA" sounds to you ? USA belongs to the Native Indians in the first place. lol. Check out this article. It states the Cultural and systematic GENOCIDE of the Natives Indians in clear terms. From : http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-242418 Article is written on 12 Apr 2009. Spiritual and Cultural Genocide of the Native American - Part 1 by Ghostwolf . Silence, repression, and disinformation are used knowingly - and unknowingly - to conceal truth; by abusers to keep their victims silent . This is true of every culture and race on our planet. Sexual, physical, emotional - and cultural abuse - thrive in this atmosphere; abuse of all kinds is perpetuated, generation to generation - ending only when society is forced to see the abuse in such a way there can be no denial, no excuses, no rationalization. . Perhaps it is my own experiences of abuse that have made me sensitive to all kinds of abuse; maybe - had things turned out differently - maybe I too would have been one of the willfully ignorant, disdaining my roots and heritage. . I do know that something extremely painful was experienced by my paternal grandparents, something so painful that they knowingly hid their past, their heritage, their American Indian blood from society - and trained their own children to do so also. I do know that the same methods my abusers used to keep me and my siblings silent has been used on my parents and grandparents to keep them silent about their heritage - and not just them. . In my mind - and the minds and hearts of many of my friends - the enforced silence and stereotyping of American Indians - and any other culture - is abuse; social, cultural, and ethnic abuse, perpetuatedand enforced by silence and repression; viciously fed by the disinformation and stereotyping created by the writers of history, fiction, and the media. Do these terms and phrases sound familiar? "Manifest Destiny, primitive savages, cowboys and indians, dirty injuns living in the dirt, bloodthirsty savages, can't even hold their liquor, the only good injun is a dead injun, Custer's last stand..." Our culture, the American culture - and indeed the world culture - constantly propagates and perpetuates the stereotypical - and totally false - image of American Indians as backward, savage, brutal, uncivilized beings to this day. Talk to the people who are not natives, who live near any of the many reservations throughout North America - and you'll hear comments very similar to those heard throughout America prior to Martin Luther King... but directed at the American Indians... the "injuns," "drunken red men," the "uncivilized savages" who brutally murdered settlers... . Many will object, saying "but they were savage and brutal, not only fighting among themselves, warring with each other and more; but they were even more savage and brutal to the settlers!" - and use that as a justification for suppression and brutalization of American Indian culture and people. Yes; those charges are indeed true - But don't forget too that the settlers - with very few exceptions - were making a concerted effort, with the help of the American government, to completely wipe out the Native Americans. . Don't forget that the American government - and by extension, the American people - broke every single last one of the over 350 treaties signed with the American Indians; pushing the American Indians off into unwanted and unusable land - barren reservations - out of site and out of mind. I challenge you to look at every other culture on this planet. Which nation has not been guilty of warring against their neighbors? Which culture has not at one time or another been guilty of horrendous atrocities against their fellow man? Which people have not fought fiercely, desperately against invaders to defend their own way of life? . The Romans against Carthage, the Gauls against Rome, Vikings and Gaels and Scotts and Eires and Mongols and Chinese; the War of the Roses and all the religious jihads of the centuries; the modern gang turf wars and the strife in Ireland; the pro-lifers against the pro-choicers: . No culture is innocent; no people is innocent. That does not justify the spiritual and cultural genocide of any people anywhere; not the American Indians of both continents, not the Oranges or the Greens, not the Shiites or the Sihks or any other culture of this world. . To this day, nearly every one in the world knows of Custer - to this day, Custer and his men are glorified in print and film as heroic soldiers who were slaughtered by the "savages" - much of the world view of America and the American Indians has been formed by the media. . I've met many from other nations who absolutely believe the stereotype promulgated by the media of all nations - not just the American media; people who visit America and are very surprised to find there are no cowboys walking down the streets of New York, no "Indians" sitting on corners in their blankets, puffing away on a pipe. . It is not surprising, then, how few really know about how Custer treated, resolved the "Indian problem"... How few people of the world really know that he and his troops mercilessly massacred entire villages, raping and killing the women, brutally executing every one without exception; the grandmothers and grandfathers, the men and women, the teenagers - and the children and babies? . Custer was not the only one who encouraged the atrocities and stood by as they were committed, not by a long shot. The history of the American Indians and the Settlers is rife with brutality and atrocities on both sides - But the bulk of the horror lays in the laps - and hands - of the settlers and the governments which encouraged the oppression and annihilation of the native populations. . True - there have been some articles that have spoken the truth; a few years back National Geographic printed an article that exposed the truth not only about "Custer's Last Stand", but also about Custer's active attempts to completely wipe out American Indians... There have been a few films that have shown - or attempted to show - the Truth as it actually happened - and those were panned by the non-native critics and journalists.
