"::::::First off, Miles and Blume came to the same conclusion, and Blume said he did interviews, so I'm assuming Miles didn't pull his statements out of his behind and actually talked to some residents about the riots. That would be the logical conclusion since he's one of the few in Lhasa for the riots, so why would he just hang around making assumptions about what they were complaining about without any evidence whatsoever? Even if Miles didn't interview anybody, Blume still did and he still came to the same conclusions so your point is absolutely moot. Your criticism is REALLY getting ridiculous here. Miles already says what the primary reason is (ethnic hatred), and one must assume that he had to talk to people in Lhasa to find out why, otherwise he would've made the same conclusion that you and many other misinformed do - that the riots were for nationalism/independence. The fact that the rumours of monks getting killed angered the residents and helped start the riots is already mentioned in the article. Not to mention that I ALREADY ADDRESSED THAT POINT OF YOURS. So what if monks getting killed is part of the reason why riots started? Does that point to nationalism or does that point to the same type of anger you or I would feel if we saw nuns getting shot by the police? I already addressed your ""proof"" of nationalism by the Chinese flag being trampled. You are free to actually read what I say. And someone who attributes flag burning and pro-tibet slogans as proof that the riots were not because of ethnic hatred, but because of nationalism (and implying that the cause of the riots were for independence/autonomy) has no right to criticize how the current article is written. Your own ""proof"" is 100% presumptuous, while the argument I make is actually from what the Tibetans have reportedly said. Until you actually find that someone in Lhasa being interviewed complaining about wanting independence or autonomy, or any evidence that the Tibetans rioted out of nationalism, besides your own presumptuous interpretations, then I advise you to drop the issue because you seem downright biased and unreasonable right now. Sorry, to say but the evidence is stacked against your view. Last, no one said it was all about the rising prices. If you read the article, it clearly states that the riots occurred for several reasons, of which only one was inflation. So basically, YOU ARE JUST SPECULATING. You cannot just include your own, personal opinions and interpretations into the article. The fact is that the reporters who were there actually described what the residents were complaining about, and at the very least, offered their professional interpretation of what the riots were about (James Miles), which is supported by their interviews with the residents of what they were complaining about.216.252.71.154  

"