PRC Police Shoot Burning Monk

[Lord Blackadder]

Like the title says (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7916544.stm)....:eek:

On the surface this is a real head-scratcher. Why not just put out the fire, then arrest him - unless he was armed? :confused:

I can't figure this one out. Perhaps the strangest part is that he may have survived (or at least nobody has confirmed his death)... if so his soul must stick pretty tightly to his body.

[iJohnHenry]

Is the land in Tibet really that precious, or is the Chinese need to control everything the problem??

[scottkifnw]

Is the land in Tibet really that precious, or is the Chinese need to control everything the problem??

The China-Tibet conflict is about as difficult to fathom as the China-Taiwan conflict for westerners (myself included). I would like to think that the shooting was an act of kindness, rather that and act of expediency. I am not so sure however.

[Zyniker]

The China-Tibet conflict is about as difficult to fathom as the China-Taiwan conflict for westerners (myself included). I would like to think that the shooting was an act of kindness, rather that and act of expediency. I am not so sure however.

Attributing an act of kindness to the Chinese police isn't a very realistic endeavour... At any rate, it's not particularly hard to fathom:
In Asian politics saving face is of utmost importance. Taiwan is a possible mark of shame on China (as would be Tibet if it 'won' its freedom). A basic understanding of this somewhat unique fixture of Asian politics would serve the Western world quite well. For instance: turn North Korea into a possible source of shame for China and China will begin to more actively address the problem. (North Korea has, since the Korean War, and even slightly before that, been a 'pet' of China, more or less. As China has stated it would prefer North Korea not join the little club of nuclear-armed countries, it would be a serious smudge on China's reputation should North Korea follow through with its nuclear ambitions.)

[Lord Blackadder]

I've been exposed to some Chinese history as an undergrad, and the concept of shame is not foreign to me.

But isn't it more shameful to shoot a burning monk than to simply put out the fire and arrest him? It just sounds excessive.

[velocityg4]

I've been exposed to some Chinese history as an undergrad, and the concept of shame is not foreign to me.

But isn't it more shameful to shoot a burning monk than to simply put out the fire and arrest him? It just sounds excessive.
Well if they put out the fire he may still die making his protest successful. However by killing him before he could kill himself makes it their control over his life, thus over the lives of all their people.

[Lord Blackadder]

Makes sense - but also serves as a reminder as to why China's human rights record is considered poor.

[alphaod]

Makes sense - but also serves as a reminder as to why China's human rights record is considered poor.

Like the rest of the world is any better :rolleyes:

[Lord Blackadder]

Perhaps, but that isn't an excuse.

[rhett7660]

It goes onto say that the man was taken to the hospital. Doesn't say if he survived or died. Another thing, not that I would think China's government would come and say, but there is no mention of the gun shoot wound and only witnesses are saying he was shot. Very very interesting. So was he shot, if so the flames were put out to get him to the hospital. So why shoot>>??

[Lord Blackadder]

That was my question...the police are confronted with a self-immolating protester, and for some reason they decide to plug him? It doesn't make any sense because

a) If they wanted him dead he was accomplishing that well enough on his own and

b) By shooting him in broad daylight they essentially guaranteed it would become a sensational event in the press.

Not only cruel but stupid on the part of the police.

[rhett7660]

That was my question...the police are confronted with a self-immolating protester, and for some reason they decide to plug him? It doesn;t make any sense becuase

a) If they wanted him dead he was accomplishing that well enough on his own and

b) By shooting him in broad daylight they essentially guaranteed it would become a sensational event in the press.

Not only cruel but stupid on the part of the police.

I couldn't agree more. Makes you wonder what REALLY happened..

[alphaod]

Perhaps, but that isn't an excuse.

It's not, but there is no need to single out a specific country.

---
"Terrorists are infringing our rights, so the government takes them away."

[Lord Blackadder]

It's not, but there is no need to single out a specific country.

Tell that to the monk.

[coupdetat]

While China has tons of human rights violations, I think it's safe to say that Tibet was FAR nastier before the Chinese took over. Just look up how Tibet used to be run. I went there two summers ago and the entire place is just ass-backwards. I have lots of sympathy for many living in the PRC (I immigrated here as a kid) but I think the Tibetans are a bunch of fanatics.

[Lord Blackadder]

I can only bow before your local knowledge, but this brings up a debate that is particularly relevant in today's world. As in Iraq, does the presence of a bad, corrupt or otherwise repressive government legitimize foreign invasion? And if so, under what circumstances (i.e. is it OK if the UN does it)?

[zap2]

It's not, but there is no need to single out a specific country.

No there is. How else do we(the world) deal with it?


Yes, the US and other Western countries are infringing on human rights, but I'll take the US, UK, France,etc over China!

*I'd look into Japan, but I language thing might be to big...would likely take France off the list to....but the point is there

[Lord Blackadder]

I don't want to sound as if I'm mocking human rights watchdog groups (because I'm not), but they probably find human rights violations in every nation.

But some countries have a much worse record than others.