---That Palestinians attacked Israeli athletes in a prior Olympics in Germany. The botched rescue directly caused the deaths of all hostages. The Israelis then assassinated all connected with the original attack (in violation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights) using methods that caused considerable collateral damage (in volation of the Geneva Conventions).
My girlfriend and I watched a movie depicting that event: Syriana. We have an art theater in our city that pulls the interesting shows. Regardless what the shows have (and it was a bit off on the nity gritty facts), it was mostly correct.
---Not one of the three parties - all of whom were guilty of attrocities - were penalized. It is therefore by no means certain China would be penalized for human rights violations on Tibetan protesters.
That shows how the people who control the Olympics thinks: they should show no mercy when it comes to extreme violence and hatred and temporally ban the nations. I guess this shows bad for the sponsors or something... I have no clue why they would put up with this kind of behavior.
---On the other hand, you are absolutely correct that Ghandi's methods are essential in this. But they cannot be applied alone. Britain had been on a rapid decline for many years at that point, was a long way away, and had no real incentive to win.
Too true. India is the second most populous nation, and pretty far away too. Indians could have waged a drawn out war against the UK, but instead chose nonviolence. I mean, what do you do with an army of "sit and say nothing"? It looks really bad to do anything to them, aside from arresting them. However, we can count on cops to hit them, kick them, spit on them, and a whole bunch of other things... and after protesters are out, they'll be sitting again.
China has the idea Draco had: violation of anything they deem severe is punishable by death. The Chinese government has no idea of bounds and limits, as there are none. This works in the Buddhists defense too: they can follow non-violence. Since this action (against the state) will assuredly draw a death sentence, they literally sacrifice themselves in that they will cause change for the better and gain respect for the community.
---It will involve talking, though not with the upper layers (who are unimportant as their information and their orders are all filtered by middle managers anyway). Clandestine lines of communication are the norm for resolving such situations, as was the case in Northern Ireland. Such lines, if they don't exist, should be created. If they already exist, and I have no respect for Tibet if they do not, can be used to manipulate reprisals so that Tibetans are not harmed and yet the Chinese upper echelons are satisfied. Once both sides believe such methods can benefit them, then a resolution that will satisfy both will be found.
Though I fear this is much more cultural than anything else, but I wonder why the Chinese just didn't let them follow whatever they wish, as long as they were subservient to the Chinese government. It seems that would have saved face for both sides, knowing they that they would have been defeated anyways. This goes way deeper than I think any of us Westerners can figure out.
[ Parent ]