The borders of ancient Greece is much different from the borders of contemporary Greece. During the heydays of Alexander, much of what is now known as Iran was within the Greek kingdom. Iran today remains its own sovereign nation. Moreover, the territory that is Greece today, was captured and overrun by Romans, itself becoming a Roman province under Augustus in just before the first century. At that point legally, the Sovereign nation of Greece ceased to exist. Similar to Chinese culture, Greek culture endured, and the people living there under Roman rule began to reassert themselves politically upon the fall of the Roman empire in or around the 5th century. Greece today holds no claim on Iranian territory. If it were to do so, most people would consider it to be an intellectually dishonest claim. Likewise a part of the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedonia is today recognized as a sovereign nation called the Republic of Macedonia (itself formed with the dissolution of Yogoslavia, a nation that no longer exists). If we were to flip the argument around one might argue that the people living in Tibet, historically their own sovereign kingdom be granted their independence from China (the foreign invader) since they have thousands of years of their own history. You're seem to read what I write but not understand what I'm saying; I never said that Xinjiang doesn't belong to China; it does. But the way that you're arguing seems to point to the fact that you think I'm arguing that it doesn't. I'm not. What I'm saying is, that basing the PRC's qualification to politically hold possession of Xinjiang today, on previous China history is a bad idea because it would open up foreign claims to PRC territory using the same rationale. PRC sovereignty does not extend thousand of years into the past. The PRC, legally is only recognized as having been in existence since 1949. Whatever land forms in its possession at the time, gained or lost since its inception, is what defines the current borders of the PRC today. Further, listings in the world heritage sites only denotes the current political and sovereign borders that any particular site happens to be in. It does not in any way denote Unesco World Heritage acceptance of Chinese political claims dating from thousands of years ago. This is exactly in line with what I was saying; that Chinese ethnic culture extends back thousands of years. PRC political and legal sovereignty only extends back to 1949. Eg. If... and this is a big if; in future years, for some bizarre reason, half of the PRC would fall into the hands of say, the Russians; all those Unesco sites previously known and recognized as being of Chinese culture, will remain unchanged. That is, they will still retain their Chinese cultural heritage. But those sites of Chinese cultural heritage would then have to be acknowledged as being legally within Russian sovereign territory. While China may have once owned the land form that is part of Vietnam during the Ming Dynasty; Chinese descendents there today are legally considered Vietnamese, their sovereign nation is the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (and not the PRC). Why do have to speak to me in such deriding tones? If you want a discussion, that's fine; but I'm not about to argue through a cloud of insults. You yourself stated that: ...Which I basically disagreed with, as the PRC regularly does pretend to be anything else by not even being able to keep to what is promised within its own communist system. They're not bad for being communists; they're bad because they lie to the Chinese people and not keeping with the communist faith that they promised. Their being communist or not is rather inconsequential. As a matter of fact, by behaving the way they are, they're liars more so than communists. IE. they only pretended to be communist, when in fact, the whole nation is run by a politically connected few, like the mafia. If the PRC were genuinely a nation that ran on communist ideals, it would be wonderful place as everyone would be treated equally and fairly. The problems that we see in Xinjiang today would probably not even have come up as all races would get the same share. But that isn't the case, is it? Given that capital punishment is rather common in the PRC, I have a feeling this guy is going to be toast. But it would be interesting to see what political angle the PRC would use to spin his execution.
Geeze your stubborn lol Besides the Roman invasion, Greece was also invaded by the Turks for nearly 500 years as well, so according to you wouldn't Greece only have existed for a few hundred years then?? LOL, why don't you tell this to the Greeks or to the Greeks in this forum and see if they agree with you?? LOL Now care give me examples of some countries that have NEVER been invaded or rule by someone else?? If your argument is China's has no claim on Tibet because historically Tibet hasn't been ruled continuously by China, then can't I say the same thing about the USA and Australia and New Zealand?? Since the white populace in these countries had NEVER set foot on these countries until the last few centuries!! So using your words isn't their claim on these countries INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST!! Good, since you agree that Xinjiang belongs to China, then please cut the rest of the BS, because thats all that matters! Heck, when did I use the term PRC in this discussion eh?? PRC is just a ideological nickname coined by the commies, it doesn't mean a different country or entity!! There is only one China get it?? So using your logic didn't the US lied in the case of the Kwangju massacre? I mean wheres the US's support for Democracy and human rights that it always boasts about in Kwangju?? And regarding the sigificance of communism, yes sometimes the CCP lies to the people (I not going to deny that) but communism can sometimes help to perpetuate the lying, because ultimately a communist govt is alot less accountable to it's people and thats why I have said repeatedly that China needs to change, but that change must be mustn't cause chaos and unstability. LOL because your boring arguments are stupid and your recycling it again and again which is frankly tideous, and you even lack the common civility to answer my previous questions! you keep dodging them! Now lets test this nonsenical argument of yours, what you continue to insinuate is China has NO legitimate claim on Tibet and Xinjiang because historically China has NOT occupied or ruled Tibet and Xinjiang continuously. Well lets take a look at Great Britain. Tell me how come the British claim some far away islands like Gibratar, the Falklands, and even Diego Garcia as British territory today?? (some of these island are nearly half way around the world from Britain) when the British has NEVER historically or continuously occupied or ruled these Islands?? Historically these Islands ownership have been disputed and changed hands often, and the British have only ruled these islands in the last few centuries, and lets not forget the British only acquired theses Island through war and conquest!! So according to you and using your principles, does the British have a legitimate claim on these Islands or not?? Heres are some links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Gibraltar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia And dude, let me remind you, don't dodged my questions and please answer them!
"Now lets test this nonsenical argument of yours, what you continue to insinuate is China has NO legitimate claim on Tibet and Xinjiang because..." NO. That is NOT what I'm saying. Perhaps if you learned to read English with a bit more comprehension, you'll realize that I've been agreeing with you all along but for a different reason. Otherwise, this is pointless because I've already explained it several times. All the illustration in the world won't help you understand because you seem to be so focused on accusing me of saying that Xinjiang or Tibet doesn't belong to the PRC... They both do. But to continue to discuss this with you is already pointless.
Firstly, predictably you once again avoided and dodged my questions, how pathetic lol And NO you did not really agree with me, you instead used innuendo and insinuation (check what these words mean in a dictionary if you don't understand) ie. sly indirect comments to hint and question China's claim on those areas. Here are a couple of examples of your insinuations: Lastly, I'm glad you agree that this discussion is pointless, especially when one party refuses to answer most of the questions from the other party and continues to recycle his shallow argument. Yes its time to end this discussion its frankly getting boring.
i could care less about what happens but all i know is that facebook/twitter and just about every other fuckin website that i usually go on is blocked in china cuz of some of good for nothin ppl killing and pillaging villiages from what i hear. im in shanghai for a month to visit relatives and w/o facebook, theres like nothing for me to do online so FUCK THESE RIOTERS....and the government too i guess lol. (i kinda skipped most of what seems to be a seriously heated argument to express my major dissatisfication with this situation)
Man, these rioters are fanatics. These stupid guys brought about 20 knives to a mosque and asked other Uighurs to take the knives to kill people. But no one in the mosque wanted to follow them. They got mad and chased the Uighurs. When police arrived, they tried to kill the police. There was like 5 or 6 warning shots in the video. They got shot, but still managed to get back up and attack...pretty stupid. [video=youtube;AWWJPf9Ygkg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWWJPf9Ygkg"[/video] http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=522_1248117537 Cellphone video of police shot 3 rioters in Xin Jiang, China on July 5, 2009 This is the cellphone video recorded during the riot in the city of Urumqi of Xinjiang province in China. The video shows 3 rioters armed with machetes injuring bystanders in the crowed city. They charged at the police, ignoring the warning shots fired in the sky. The police has no choice but to fire at them. Two were killed, one were critically injured and more than 20 machetes were found at a bag they left.
I wonder who took the video? The access that they had to photograph or film such highly sensitive political material, AND right in front of Chinese police officers in the middle of armed action can be considered remarkably rare in the PRC. I also noted how the action first zooms in, then later zooms back out, and the "cellphone" user, disregarding personal safety despite hearing several shots fired, unflinchingly (the camera never wavers) and expertly pans and frames the assailant being pursued and shot by police as he waves his weapon around. This "cellphone" cameraman shows steadier nerves than most combat journalists in Iraq, who nearly always flinch (camera jerks) when a nearby shot is suddenly or unexpectedly heard. And of course, the police also recovered a large cache of weapons; perfect iron clad proof (all caught on spontaneous "bystander" cellphone video) that these "Uighers" were up to no good. Amazing that a "bystander," happened to be right in the middle of all the action, from beginning to end. On the spot journalism? Or was the whole thing an elaborately staged event? -detect ***sidebar*** How fast does a cellphone video camera zoom? ie. What is the fastest that a cellphone cam can zoom in or out? I don't know, but I'm asking. The video shown here looks remarkably smooth and fast. I've owned lots of phones and none of them were ever that good. It would be interesting to interview the "photographer" of this incident to determine what equipment he used.
~50% of the Chinese mobile market is a variant of what is known as a Bandit Phone... aka. ShanZhai Ji... basically they're the top of the line cell phones w/ all the functionalities of a $1k USD Mobile for ~$200... only they last like 2-6months lol Secondly, mobile web is the #1 source of internet/entertainment in China so mobile phones with data/video/cameras... everyone has one that would make most mobiles in the US look like they're 5-10yrs old... honestly cell phone video's are so easy to distribute, just send it to all ur friends, and someone's bound to walk out of china with a video from a cell w/o problems...
Thanks Aoes, I too, was reading about how far advanced Asian (esp Japanese) phones are, that they essentially have raised their technology so high that they've literally push their phones out of the world market. That is, no one else can use those features mainly because they're far too advanced for the Fred Flintstone type retro-tech still found in the US, LOL... Also, I wasn't questioning the cellphone video distribution but rather the video technical abilities of the phone itself. For example, on my POS Samsung Behold, it would take several seconds each with multiple clicks to go from widest view to most telescopic (magnified) view and vice versa (ie zoom in or zoom out). I found that the posted video, if indeed taken by a cellphone, to be amazing smooth, quick, and seamless, much more like a videocam than a phone. It would seem that the video taker would have had his hand on the zoom control the whole time; that is, being able to pan the phone to follow the action, and then zoom out to better frame the subjects running by. Most videocams would do well to be as smooth.
i haven't tried them myself... but Nokia has mobiles that were made to camcorders rather than digital cameras... the N93 looks like a mini camcorder... so I'm assuming, functionality wise, it works the same as a real camcorder...
Thanks, at your cue, I just looked it up and yes indeed, it can function remarkably similar to a videocam especially in terms of form factor; it can transform (like those toys) literally into a hand holdable videocam that for all appearances, seems to function exactly like one. If the above video was taken with such a camera, then I would believe that it can be done. Debuted in 2006, it's a real shame that it has been discontinued. The n95 doesn't seem to have the same physical form factor, making videos much more difficult (ie like a regular cell phone). The other questions remain unanswered though. I'm a little disinclined to believe that when shots are being fired, any bystander would have the presence of mind NOT to flinch or duck for cover but to continue filming, especially in China with police around. Hence, IMHO I seriously have suspicions over the source and integrity of this video.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aa8_1248037806 Funny, there's brainwashed turds here are supporting the terrorists..lol. Here's a better and more telling story video of these fanatics who tried to hand out machetes to the Uighurs. I love how people in the mosque avoided these fanatics like the plague while they try to hand out machetes. The police saved the Muslim from these psychos..
Rather than funny, it's sad but there are those here who easily fall prey to juvenile emotions as they can't seem to have any political discussion without first calling people names like "brainwashed turds." BTW, those who are genuinely brainwashed, never feel the need to ask questions. I thank you for posting the more extensive video. It clarified some things but raised other questions. Firstly, on the face value of the second video, it would appear that the these men were violent agitators that sought to spontaneously recruit others into armed rioting. But it would seem rather curious that such agitators, knowing that all mosques in Xinjiang have police video cameras installed, would so blatantly attempt such an action that they know the police will immediately see. Regardless, if that is so, then they deserved to be shot. In the following video, it seems that they then were. But were they? I didn't frame by frame review the video, but I didn't see any gross signs of blood (even for the man in the white shirt). If these men were shot with high velocity military AK47's (the PRC standard issue weapon) the wounds would have been considerable. If they were shot with regular pistols, that would require much closer ranges to even hit a running target. I didn't see the peripheral events surrounding the "death" of the second man clearly; were those police officers (all seemed to be dressed in black) running away from him, or where those regular civilians? Were they shooting at him or were the shots coming from another direction? Videos like this can and should certainly be Zapruder dissected, as the idea of agent provocateur is not without foundation given the PRC history of media manipulation, and remains worthy of discussion. If these indeed were violent agitators attempting to incite others to riot, then the Gong On did a splendid job in reacting quickly to a public danger and dealt with them in the only way that they should with any armed criminal; that is, kill them before they have a chance to hurt anyone. If these indeed were planted police agents, well rehearsed and orchestrated; it would seem that the PRC's media manipulation has improved several fold. That would bespeak a dire turn for all of China. Given the second video, I'm more convinced now than I was before (~70%), that it was more the former and not the latter. However, I would still be interested in seeing other independent confirmation, as again, the idea that anyone would rather shoot a cellphone video (and quite well too) than duck when shots are fired seems counterintuitive and certainly flies in the face of survival instinct, that is unless they knew beforehand that the police will be shooting blanks.
Taiwan doesnt give into terrorist demands. Taiwan will not allow Uighur leader Kadeer to visit: official China charges 21 over deadly Xinjiang riots: state media A court in China's restive northwestern Xinjiang region on Friday charged 21 suspects over deadly July riots, state media said, the first reported criminal charges to emerge from the unrest. The charges included homicide, arson, robbery and property damage, Xinhua news agency said, quoting a court in the Xinjiang regional capital of Urumqi. Urumqi erupted in chaos on July 5 as members of the ethnic Uighur minority - most of whom are Muslims - went on a rampage in attacks directed mainly at members of China's dominant Han ethnic group. The violence left nearly 200 people dead, mainly Han, according to government figures. Most of the defendants identified by Xinhua appeared to have Uighur names. Uighur leader disappointed by Taiwan Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer on Friday expressed deep disappointment after Taiwan barred her from visiting and voiced fear that the island may be falling under the spell of communist China. Kadeer, a rights activist from China's Uighur minority who lives in exile in the Washington area, had accepted an invitation from independence-leaning groups to visit Taiwan, which China considers part of its territory. But Taiwan, led since last year by Beijing-friendly President Ma Ying-jeou, said earlier Friday it would bar her visit. Interior Minister Jiang Yi-huah indirectly linked her World Uighur Congress to terrorism. Kadeer, who spent six years in a Chinese prison, said the charges had the familiar echo of Chinese communist propaganda. "I am very concerned about the future of Taiwan. I fear that the shadow of communism may fall on the people of Taiwan," Kadeer said. "The accusations leveled by the Interior Ministry of Taiwan are irresponsible and inflammatory, and the government's decision to ban my proposed visit is a rash one," she said. "It is a great disappointment that a democratic government of Taiwan should choose to bar me from entry. She said that her World Uighur Congress, which is based in Munich and has enjoyed support from a US congressionally funded National Endowment for Democracy, was peaceful and denounced terrorism. Uighurs, who are mostly Muslims, predominate the western region of Xinjiang, where nearly 200 people died in July in China's worst ethnic bloodletting in decades. China has regularly accused Kadeer of fomenting the unrest and of ties with Islamic extremists - charges she strongly denies - and protested when she travels overseas. Kadeer's visit to Taiwan would have followed a trip there by Tibet's exiled spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, another bete noire for China. China considers Taiwan, where nationalists fled in 1949 after losing the civil war to communists, to be an island awaiting reunification, by force if necessary. by Staff Writers Taipei (AFP) Sept 25, 2009 Taiwan said Friday it will bar a visit by exiled Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer while indirectly linking her organisation to terrorism, a move observers predicted will please China. "We have decided not to allow Kadeer entry considering that her visit could affect national interest and social order," Interior Minister Jiang Yi-huah said, according to an official with the Government Information Office. "The World Uighur Congress has close links to a terrorist organisation, this East Turkestan terrorist organisation... We don't wish to see the shadow of terrorism fall on Taiwan," he said in response to a lawmaker's question. It was unclear if Jiang was referring to the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, which is listed as a terrorist organisation by the United States. East Turkestan is a named used by some for Kadeer's home region of Xinjiang. The World Uighur Congress, which is headed by Kadeer, immediately opposed the linkage to terrorism. "We strongly oppose the minister's comment, made with no evidence at all," said Dilxat Raxit, a Sweden-based spokesman for the congress. "We demand that he retracts his statement at once." Kadeer said this week in Washington she planned to visit Taiwan in December following an invitation by groups advocating independence for the island. If Taiwan's government had granted Kadeer a visa, it would in all likelihood have infuriated Beijing, which says she is a "criminal" who orchestrated ethnic violence in Xinjiang in northwest China in July. Beijing is already angered by the screening this week in Taiwan's second-largest city Kaohsiung of a biopic about Kadeer, "The 10 Conditions of Love". The Kadeer film and a recent visit by exiled Tibetan leader the Dalai Lama to Taiwan have strained cross-strait ties, which have otherwise improved markedly since President Ma Ying-jeou came to power here in 2008. "Taiwan's decision is going to be a big relief for Beijing. Unlike the Dalai Lama's visit, Beijing would not swallow its anger this time," said George Tsai, a political scientist of Taipei's Chinese Culture University. The Dalai Lama's visit in late August and early September, at the invitation of the island's pro-independence opposition, placed the China-friendly government in a similar dilemma. It then solved the dilemma by letting him arrive on the island, but refusing to have any of its senior politicians meet him. The fact that the government changed its approach with Kadeer suggested fear of China's reaction, according to observers. "The government apparently made the decision under pressure from China, following the fallout from the Dalai Lama's visit," said Tung Chen-yuan, a political scientist at Taipei's National Chengchi University. Taiwan's ruling Kuomintang party immediately reacted to the decision, saying it was the right thing to do given the stakes. "The government's decision fits national and public interests and the Kuomintang fully supports the decision," the party said in a statement. Analysts had said Taiwan could risk jeopardising a major trade pact with China by allowing Kadeer to visit in December, since top negotiators of the two sides are likely to meet to discuss it during the month. "We regret the government refuses Kadeer's visit on national security reasons," said Sky Chao, spokesman of the opposition Democratic Progressive Party. "We demand an explanation why Taiwan has different standards than the rest of the world to associate Kadeer with terrorism." Guts United Taiwan, one of two pro-independence groups that invited Kadeer to visit, expressed its indignation in a statement. "The decision practically turns Taiwan into a province of China and downgrades the Taiwanese government to an administrative unit belonging to Beijing," it said. The group said its determination to invite Kadeer to visit Taiwan "will not change and we will not give up applying for a visa for her". http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Taiwan_will_not_allow_Uighur_leader_Kadeer_to_visit_official_999.html
Looks like the PRC is now going after the people they should have gone after in the first place; the original rioters in Guangdong. It was the perception that Uighurs had gotten beaten and killed by rampaging Hans, and then the government's unwillingness to investigate, that sparked the Xinjiang riots. One wonders how many lives would have been saved had the authorities did their job in the first place:
