How absurd does that headline sound? What would Qwai Chang Caine bomb? Seriously though. I have a hard time imagining Buddhist monks using fireworks for violent or deadly means. I know Reuters is just quoting the "Chinese officials," so the headline title is fine in that regard; I'm just wondering just how awful and violent China's official policies toward Tibetans have to be, for monks to turn so violently militant. Were they really Buddhist monks? Did they really confess? And even if they do possess firearms and such, oh well: maybe they've had enough of being defenseless against violent state tyranny. Good for them, though a peaceful resolution is preferable.
BEIJING (Reuters) - Chinese police arrested nine Buddhist monks suspected of bombing a government building in Tibet, the official Xinhua news agency reported on Saturday. Full Article [http://www.reuters.com/news/international]
The story continues. The following account is where I have a problem with Reuters and their corporate news pals.
"Chinese officials have warned that groups campaigning for independence in Tibet have joined Muslim Uighurs fighting for an independent 'East Turkestan' in the northwest region of Xinjiang," reports the greatest international news agency.
"A mainland-backed paper in Hong Kong reported this week that Tibetan and Uighur forces were also collaborating with al Qaeda to target the Olympic Games in Beijing in August," Reuters added, abetting the tyrannical state with divisive fearmongering.
Was it the meaning of a Murdoch mainland-backed paper? An off-shore propaganda bureau? Notice the link to Muslim groups—BOO!!!—followed by the collaborating with al Qaeda/attack the Olympic Games in Beijing hook. Who owns these newspaper editors?
To their credit (which isn't saying much), Reuters finishes the story with a refutation from a third party: "Human rights groups have said Beijing is using perceived terror threats, denied by exile Uighur and Tibetan groups, to justify tougher controls in these restive regions."
Most important in all of this is that al-Qaeda is a ploy. It's a straw man in the grandiose vein of Emmanuel Goldstein in George Orwell's 1984. It's the name given to those fantastic militants "on the frontlines" who resist neocon-Likudnik enslavement and tyranny. Ask yourself: "How do they know every al-Qaeda militant from every other Iraqi or Afghan citizen resistng the U.S. occupation? Do al-Qaeda carry al-Qaeda ID badges? No. Then how do we verify when official U.S. sources when those sources say 'they were al-Qaeda'?" We don't. Corporate media report the government line without question, because corporate media are profiting from endless war and tyranny too.
I tend to side with the people in struggles versus the state. When it comes to the people of Tibet versus the central Chinese government, private U.S. citizens in large numbers should give their support to the just cause, if they can. And they do. But morally and legally speaking, the U.S. federal government has no authority to intervene in an official capacity. It has no business getting 100% of the people of the USA financially or militarily or however committed, unless China or Tibet attacks "mainland" USA or the U.S. armed forces—or unless one side requests it and the people of the United States declare approval through the Congress. It will take more than a trumped-up "al-Qaeda" infiltration of China or Tibet to warrant a lawful intervention from the United States government. Tell your nearest newspaper editor or publisher to jump in the lake and quit selling us on the 41-year-long genocide and U.S. moneypit known as the Israeli occupation of Palestine, while they're at it.