ouiouiwewe

I guess it is only considered ethnic cleansing when the operation was successful and against an ethnic minority.

That's a good point. However, given the silence of the Uighur in regards to the genocidal acts their mobs committed, aren't they also concealing information? On the other hand, the Chinese government demonstrated record openness to foreign media (at least compared to the past) and this is why the Western media has any substantial news on the table. I wouldn't necessarily say the Uighur as a whole are an oppressed minority, given the extensive priviliges they enjoy over the ethnic Han especially in terms of law and education. A major reason for this uprising to occur is a result of disparity between the socio-economic status of members of the two ethnics. With this said, there's also much parallel between this particular riot and that of the Paris back in 2006. On the other hand, although the notion of religious freedom seems to play a significant role, it is not something that is specific to the ethnic minorities in China. Let us recall the brutality shown towards the Fah Lung Gung religious groups - The vast majority of them are ethnic Han and many of them were butchered like pigs after their phony leader angered the the communist leaders. Anyhow, I find it difficult to sympathsize with the Uighurs if they are willing to condemn others but unwilling to take responsibility.

Your point would have been reasonable except: - It occurred only a few days ago and stories about Xinjiang's riots started weeks ago - It occurred to ABC but did not appear to have occurred to other major Western news outlet (correct me if I am wrong) At the same time, not all journalists are out in the field. Many of them sit in their home offices writing articles based on existing data. So, the concept of disposition and 'sucking-up' shouldn't have mattered. Even with this aside, if a news outlet is to selectively ignore important elements of a conflict because some members of one side attacked their reporters while members of the other acted all sad and pitiful to them, do you think there are reasons to question the objectivity of their analyses? By the way, I do consider the attack on reporters by the Han mob to be quite disgraceful, if it was unprovoked.

The interesting thing is there are other similar Western report, some of which featuring similar angry mobs that are consisted of the Uigur ethnic instead of the Han ethnic. So again, what allowed the Uigur's actions be overlooked whereas the Han's actions be scrutinized when both groups had been reported to committing hate crimes against each other? Would the scenario be evaluated differently if it was a riot in Chechnya between the Russians and Chechens?

Indeed, I did stress that issue in my OP too. However, there are indeed independent news coverage by the Western media this time around. But the puzzling thing I find is that the media's interpretation of the issue is generally not consistent with the evidence they mined. For example, why aren't the Uigurs not given any blame outside of the Chinese media? Why weren't any sympathy given to the Han Chinese whose families were slaughtered by Uigur mobs and looters (as reported by NYT)?

With all this strife going on in the world on a regular basis, the riots that are taking place in Xinjiang is not something I'd normally consider interesting. However, since I generally read 8/10 yahoo top stories per 12 hours, I have read about 6-7 articles about it in total, over the past few days. For pretty much all of them, the story follows the same idea: - Report of unrest - Casulties - Countries barking about human rights - Locals telling their stories However, one thing that catches my eye in this topic is that while there are numerous reports (based on both Chinese and Western sources) on the brutality of the Uigur attacks, such as burning down stores, slaughtering other ethnic people, and causing fear, (as well as the Han ethnic group's retaliation) while a lot of articles expressed/cited condemnations on how the Chinese government is cracking down on this ethnic group and committing genocide. I tried googling for sources that support this claim, but there doesn't seem to be any other than some exiled Uigur leader's (in the U.S.) claim that the casulties on the Uigur side was exaggerated. While I generally place a great deal of doubt on information released by the PRC's media (namely Xinhua), one thing I do find interesting is that very few (if any) Western journalists dwelled on the ethnic cleansing committed by the Uigur side. In fact, some articles even claimed that the Uigurs and Tibetans (from 2008) were simply protesting peacefully despite evidence on the contrary. Then some others accused China of cultural genocide when the melting pot ideology is the foundation of the United States's culture. Anyway, this is a big question mark I have for this news topic. Either I have missed something or there is a lack of objectivity in the Western media when it comes to China. What's your opinion on this? P.S. This article contains an interesting citation of some director of Democracy and Human Rights at the Foreign Policy Institute . Notice the term "peaceful protests": http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/19420/

I am not sure if hand-sanitizers actually help against viruses...

keep in mind it is not just the US nor just the bush administration. this was just the period in time in which specific methods (and those involved) were actually uncovered and discussed publicly. taks Oh, I'm fully aware there are far worse bodies out there (both in terms of methods and frequency of use) - especially North African states, Iran, China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, etc. Still, it's disconcerting that a US administration would have a hand in any sort of torture. It makes it a lot harder to criticise the aforementioned states for the same, for instance. It's difficult to imagine how one can be surprised. If a government is willing to go to war and bomb hostile civillians to protect its interests, then it is not much of a stretch for it to torture enemies for that end as well. Some people still think this world is a lala land.

++ It doesn't hurt to be careful, but right now the outbreak isn't that bad and the pathophysiology of the virus has not really been thoroughly analyzed. On the other hand, SARS was scary because it was something that's significantly different to other prominent types of viral pathogens.

The biggest problem with that is that the virus is especially tough on young people, because of their good immune system. It causes cytokine storms, a negative feedback loop in the immune system, and in essence means that the better your immune system, the more likely you are to die (if you get the virus). But yeah, if this thing gets loose then the poor countries will be hurt the most.. You mean positive feedback?

Still haven't watched the episode. I wonder if they include poison into the equation.

The question should be about whether or not the means justifies the ends and I'd say it is very tough to judge - both sides have their merit. On the other hand, questioning the effectiveness of torture methods is silly and should not be something center to discussion.

I have not seen the episode yet, but I bet it is the Ninja because he is prominently featured in the introduction video of the show and is Japanese. Spartan, on the other hand, will likely not be given a sufficient long range weapon because he, like Viking and Gladiator, is famous for close range combat and thus the producers would naturally be slashing bows from his arsenal.

Agreed. Mythbusters is a hell a lot more scientific than Deadliest Warrior (despite having a computer scientist and a biomed engineering on board). My favourite one is the one with teaching the fish how to get past obstacles.

The difference is that Neo-Cons want to force their views on others and take over, while I do not. I think the world would be better off if everyone just left everyone else alone and minded their own business. I am a fiscal conservative, but on many social issues I have a liberal bias. Of course, placing a label on a person is a lot easier than actually doing a breakdown issue by issue. I mean Neo-Liberal... >.> <.< What's liberal supposed to mean anyway? I see Americans throwing the term around with such disgust that it sometimes become confusing to read political journals and blogs. Now, here's a definition of the term "liberal":