I wonder what other countries would have done had such riots and crimes happened on their soil. How many would have acted in so restrained a manner?
It's always easy to criticize other people, before you are put in their shoes.
The rioters, when they beat up civilians and the armed police officers with stones, clubs and bottles, were apparently testing the limits of the Chinese government.
An elderly Tibetan woman cried when she saw blood gushing from an officer's hand. "Why didn't you fight back?" she asked.
The man answered, "Because I hope blood could arouse their conscience."
Latest counts by the Tibetan regional government said 325 people were injured and 13 innocent people died in the riot.
The Dalai Lama and his clique say they want freedom and human rights. The rioters apparently don't have such lofty goals.
Ask what Canadian citizen John Kenwood thought of the riot after he saw at least five people being attacked by the mob, including a motorcyclist in his 20s whom he thought was beaten to death.
Until recently, the Dalai Lama clique had insisted what happened in Lhasa had been "peaceful protests".
If these were "peaceful protests", then what is violence?
If the "rights groups" really care about human rights, why don't they stand out for the rights of the innocent victims? Or maybe they don't believe that all human beings are equal?
Do they know among the 13 civilians killed were five young women who were burned or suffocated to death in fires the rioters had started in downtown Lhasa garments shops where they worked? The oldest was 24, the youngest just 18.
Do they feel the grief of store keeper Liu Guobing and his wife, whose 20-year-old daughter was engulfed in fire because she hadn't risked her life by jumping out of the window of their second-storey shop?
But who was there to claim their rights?
Sometimes mere eloquence doesn't help.
(Xinhua News Agency March 22, 2008)