Selective Nature?

Eve Garrard's piece at Norm's Blog and the selective nature of the AUT blacklist set me thinking about Tibet and China's role there.

We rarely hear much about the massive settlement process by Tibet or Chinese occupation in 1950 or the later full annexation of Tibet in 1965, which seems to have been conveniently forgotten by many people.

The Chinese 'settlers' in Tibet now number millions.

The only argument trying to justify it, that I ever heard, suggested "China did away with feudalism in Tibet, and brought progress..."

Then surely United States could use a similar argument in Iraq or many of their other foreign policy adventures. British colonial rule could be justified using a Chinese argument, but who now would try to defend the indefensible?

Fact sheet on Tibet is here

Video of Chinese violence

Major Allegations: Key Facts on the Chinese Occupation

Free Tibet