I don't believe anything the media tells me, not at face value, and certainly not from just one source. It is one reason I won't debate the China issue with you. I simply don't know enough about it.
I think most people will believe whatever is spoonfed to them, especially if it is coming from sources they trust. The news media, especially here, does not recommend or state that people have the right to do anything. They report the news. In recent years the US media has been used to spread propagandist information from our own government. I'm sure that isn't new at all but I certainly don't base any opinions I have just on news reports. If they are fed bullcrap as news they report bullcrap as news.
But again, nice dodge on the question.
I share your view on media, they are tools of propaganda. I don't believe them too, because they always have some political aim behind them, trying to convince the people to vote for the politicians and their ideas.
I read different sources too, bith Western and Asian. And they differ each other very much. But sometimes there are identical points, and these points might be the essence of the reports, namely the facts. Everything around the facts are decorations in order to make the facts in favour of the propaganda of the media.
Taking the recent riots as example. One of the commune points of the Western and Chinese media is, that more than hundred people have died and more people injured. While the Western media doesn't go deeper anymore, creating the impression that the dead might be Uigur protestors killed by the armed police, the Chinse media really emphasis on the number of the dead and injured and constantly repeat it to the Chinse people, stating that the Uigur protesters are savage and violent and have injured and killed that many people. So what's the truth, difficult to say, but we need to seek the truth! So I think, that there were casualties on both sides, that are the Uigur protesters, the Han civilians and the Chinse police force. Seeing the riot to be so violent, I can't really support it.
And I have travelled through China I lot and I have no prejudice against its people, because like very society, there are lots of bad guys, but far more good guy in it. And I have to confess, I don't like the Chinese governmental structure. The army is sworn "partly" to the Cummunist Party and "partly" to the people. That sucks, for an army is not supposed to be under the command of a political party. The power is concentrated in the hand of some powerful politicians, while the People's Representative's Congress, the only constitution of the state that resembles much one of a democratic state, has only the power to make suggestions, but no decisions, and are even "encouraged" by the government, to watch upon the officials. Imagine that a parlament need to be told, what they have to do! That's hillarious! Worse than the Paulskirche parlament, which was rated as parlament of "dreamers and sleepers". And there is no real voting system, because the Chinese people haven't thought of taking the political power yet, they only look upon the government to pass policies in favour of them.
But I still think that there are already starting points for changes and reforms. Only everything is inmature and need to be developped. When more people receive education and are above poverty, then they will also care for politics and political rights.
I have sympathy with the minority groups too, but I don't think they can reach anything with injuring people. That's only a good way to let out anger, but a bad way to win political goals. It's obvious, that the Chinese government is well prepared for riots and even foreign sanctions. The only weak point of them is the sentiments of their people, which, sometimes, can really put pressure on them. But right now, with ravaging minority groups, it has quite good control of the sentiments of their people and thus gain their support, even when it incarcerates so many people.
So I believe, creating faith between the minority groups and the majority Chinese and then putting pressure on the government has a higher chance of success than injuring civilians in order to put pressure on the Chinese government.
Besides, I don't like the idea of people from one ethnicity fighting against people from another ethnicity. That's a huge conflict, but there's nothing idealistic about that for me.
Ps.: I don't want to dogde the Hitler question and I have once the same discussion about that topic with another group. I disagree with assassinating Hitler in 1933, because the Germans could have got rid of Hitler and the Nazis by other ways more effectively at that time. the Nazis never had the majority of the German people, but there was just no organized opposition, because the Germans were too split up. In 1933 the best way to deafeat the Nazis was to assemble together, storm into the Nazi buildings and arrest all Nazi officials. However, the German majority didn't realize, that Hitler will do so much crime in the next ten years, even though everything what Hitler wanted were stated in "Mein Kampf". And the Germans wanted to have war, because they felt hummiliated by the defeat in the WWI. If Hitler has only been assassinated, the German people would still get blindfolded by the Nazi propaganda and Himmler, Goebbles or some person like that would have been the successor.
Around 1943 the situation was different. There was no other way to end the war, because Hitler wanted to fight it to the end. Any other attempt to stop the Nazi couldn't work anymore, because the German people had become too weak to turn against the Nazis or had become absorbed by the Nazis due to all these propaganda. Then, the assassination, the last resort, is justified, because it will end the war and prevent the death of millions of people.
I actually think that you are defelcting the main topic by asking the Hitler question. You have to differentiate the assassionation of a lunatic despot with a conflict between ethnic groups, created by prejudices, history, political and religious ideas and so on. With the assassination of Hitler, you have good prospect to end a war and same millions' life. But with a group of people injuring people from another ethnicity, that will sooner or later turn into war or terrorism/city-guerrilla-like warfare, which will claim lifes of thousands of people, and if it escalates, even life of millions.
So are you really about to say "Because the Germans are justified to kill Hitler, people from one ethnicity are also justified to kill people from another ethnicity to reach political goals"? If so, I'll not agree with you, because these are two totally different situations.
I have nothing against them "fighting" for their ideals, but I think the way they do it is wrong.
PPs.: So let's talk about general terms: I reiterate, that wars have done good to mankind's development in the past, while demanding a bloody sacrifice, but wars in the 21th century do more harm than good. That's because almost every big military nations have nukes now. The weapons of mass destruction needn't neccessarily be developed during peace time, because some weapons of mass destruction like biologic weapons can rapidly and cheaply manufactured. The atom bombs were produced
during the WWII and not beforehand. You can not prevent destruction of mankind by preventing these weapons to be produced in peace time. You can only prevent it by preventing wars to break out in the first place.
If these weapons of mass destruction get on the loose, then say good by to Earth and mankind. All territories get contaminated and all people die, and there will be no children left to "life the better life after the war". And if there are historians in the afterworld, they would say that the war was triggered off by an ethnical conflict, which gradually escalated and become a huge international conlict due to the Snow Ball Effect. And eventually all tension bursts out in form of a world war, leading to the extermination of humans. But their discussion would be of no use. It is the duty of everyone to prevent anything like that.
