NationStates Jolt Archive

EDIT: Poll should say ROGUE Province, not ROUGE Province...


LINK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7296837.stm)

Protesters in Lhasa have been rioting all week, leading to clashes between protesters and security forces leaving at least 2 people dead...

Clashes between protesters and security forces in Tibet's main city of Lhasa have left at least two people dead, according to reports.

An emergency official said that many people had been hurt and an unspecified number had died.

Rallies have continued all week in what are said to be the largest protests against Beijing's rule in 20 years.

China's state-run Xinhua news agency said police had fired warning shots and used tear gas to disperse protesters in Lhasa.

A Western tourist in the city told the BBC: "[The rioters] seemed to go for all the Chinese shops and the Chinese people as well. I saw quite a few Chinese people beaten up... it turned totally crazy."
Another eyewitness said there were tanks on the street and he had seen people being carried away on stretchers.

British journalist James Miles, in Lhasa, told the BBC rioters took control of the city centre on Friday.

He some were looting shops and "taking out the contents and throwing them on huge fires which they've lit in the street".

China's government is braced for any further unrest on Saturday, with reports that a curfew is in place.

Beijing accused the Dalai Lama's followers of "masterminding" the unrest, an allegation the Tibetan spiritual leader's spokesman labelled as "absolutely baseless".

From exile in India, the Dalai Lama expressed deep concern and called for an end to the violence.

He called on China to "address the long-simmering resentment of the Tibetan people through dialogue".

The rallies began earlier this week when a number of Buddhist monks were reportedly arrested after a march marking the 49th anniversary of a Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule.

China says Tibet has always been part of its territory - although Tibet enjoyed long periods of autonomy before the 20th Century and many Tibetans remain loyal to the Dalai Lama, who fled in 1959.

Protests also occurred in New York, New Delhi and Kathmandu...Poll Ahoy

Ah, Tibet. Same shit, different management.

*edits*

Incidentally, I'd call the Tibetans more in a blanc province of China than a rouge one, although with the current violence, that could all change.

Well, China didnt run anyone over with tanks, at least they've improved somewhat...

Ah, Tibet. Same shit, different management.

*edits*

Incidentally, I'd call the Tibetans more in a blanc province of China than a rouge one, although with the current violence, that could all change.

lolz :p...I meant rogue...

lolz :p...I meant rogue...
I like it how it is :p

I wonder if the rioters actually want the Dalia lamer back :confused:

also riots happen all the time

I like it how it is :p

I was about the mention that

Go Tibet!

I wonder if the rioters actually want the Dalia lamer back :confused:

also riots happen all the time


From the aricle

China says Tibet has always been part of its territory - although Tibet enjoyed long periods of autonomy before the 20th Century and many Tibetans remain loyal to the Dalai Lama, who fled in 1959.

From the aricle
http://www.leith.co.uk/blog/rose%20tinted%20B-thumb.jpg

Well, China didnt run anyone over with tanks, at least they've improved somewhat...

It's just for "PR" because the world is watching. If they knew they could get away with it, they would.

http://www.leith.co.uk/blog/rose%20tinted%20B-thumb.jpg

umm...Random Picture FTW?

From the aricle

source? non-really because religious Feudal repression is pretty crap

It's just for "PR" because the world is watching. If they knew they could get away with it, they would.

point is the world isn't, though running people over with tanks can't be done all the time because it gets old

It's just for "PR" because the world is watching. If they knew they could get away with it, they would.

The fact that it even got out is pretty outstanding.

umm...Random Picture FTW?
What tint do these spectacles possess, hmm?

Where's the "I have no opinion *sets self on fire*" option?

*runs*

source? non-really because religious Feudal repression is pretty crap


The source and quote are from the OP


What tint do these spectacles possess, hmm?

Oh, Rose-coloured glasses...

Rogue province, but also rouge province.

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-03/36755880.jpg

This might get even more ugly.

What is even more sad for me is that even supposedly free countries (India) are kowtowing Chinese line and preventing protests by Tibetans in their country

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-03/36755880.jpg

This might get even more ugly.

What is even more sad for me is that even supposedly free countries (India) are kowtowing Chinese line and preventing protests by Tibetans in their country

Yep. That's all over the news too

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7295736.stm

End the illegal occupation of Tibet by the imperialist Beijing regime.

Stop the cultural genocide of the Tibetan people.

Free Tibet, now!

(Dang, I'm starting to sound like Richard Gere :eek:)

End the illegal occupation of Tibet by the imperialist Beijing regime.

Stop the cultural genocide of the Tibetan people.

Free Tibet, now!

(Dang, I'm starting to sound like Richard Gere :eek:)
Why don't we end the occupations of:

Native American land by the US
Native American land by Canada
Quebec by Canada
Indigenous land by South American countries
Scotland by Britain
Northern Ireland by Britain
Basqueland by Spain
Catalanland by Spain
Iraq by the US
Aboriginal land by the Australians
African Sudan by the Arabs

I could go on...

End the illegal occupation of Tibet by the imperialist Beijing regime.

Stop the cultural genocide of the Tibetan people.

Free Tibet, now!

(Dang, I'm starting to sound like Richard Gere :eek:)

You know there's one thing I've always wondered about one of the core values of the whole Free Tibet movement. How does one "Free Tibet" without becoming target practice for the PLA?

No sane government on the planet is going start anything over Tibet, no matter what they say publicly.

Why don't we end the occupations of:

Native American land by the US
Native American land by Canada
Quebec by Canada
Indigenous land by South American countries
Scotland by Britain
Northern Ireland by Britain
Basqueland by Spain
Catalanland by Spain
Iraq by the US
Aboriginal land by the Australians
African Sudan by the Arabs

I could go on...

Sigh....considering the fact that the natives are an INCREDIBLY SMALL minority in America that wouldn't be feasible. Plus, the nice thing about America is an indian could actually run for and win an important office. There, the land would be his, for a few years anyway.


Wait.....I thought indians didn't believe in owning land.


Edit: Iraq isn't a territory or part of the U.S, that fails.

You know there's one thing I've always wondered about one of the core values of the whole Free Tibet movement. How does one "Free Tibet" without becoming target practice for the PLA?

No sane government on the planet is going start anything over Tibet, no matter what they say publicly.

It's impossible. Does that make it an unworthy goal?

End the illegal occupation of Tibet by the imperialist Beijing regime.

Stop the cultural genocide of the Tibetan people.

Free Tibet, now!

(Dang, I'm starting to sound like Richard Gere :eek:)

This coming from Mr "I love torturing and killing people and it's OK when I do it" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=551817), is richly ironic.

Edit: Iraq isn't a territory or part of the U.S, that fails.

No, but Iraq is undeniably under American occupation.

I always thought those monks could kick your ass eight ways from sunday. :confused:

Movies and television has lied to me all these years! :mad:

This coming from Mr "I love torturing and killing people and it's OK when I do it" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=551817), is richly ironic.

It's so simple. WHen CHina does it it's wrong. When the USA does it it's okay.

Get with the program. :rolleyes:

This is a split issue for me.

On the one hand, I support the cause of these riots because

a) I am against all forms of human rights violations, including the ones practiced against the Tibetans

b) I believe every territory to have the right to be independent if they so desire (while, admittedly, being somewhat foggy on what constitutes "a territory desiring to be independent" - 50% of the unrigged, democratic popular vote? 70%? Something completely different?)

On the other hand, I'm somewhat skeptical because

a) while I think the Dalai Lama is a nice person, I'm vehemently against any sort of feudal / non-democratic / faith-based government system, and so far it does not look like a "Free Tibet" will exactly be a democratic utopia. However, I also honor the Dalai Lama's readiness to step down and allow such a democratic process at any time his, uh, constituency sees it fit, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

b) no matter the "goodness" of the cause, I believe active violence to be unacceptable, especially against private citizens, and the reports appear to include violence against Chinese shops, shop-owners and other non-military people. I know about the perverse Chinese tactics of socio-cultural undermining via planned Chinese population of Tibetan areas, and I can see how the Tibetans would be angry at the Chinese living there being tools of such tactics, but this does not excuse violence as described above.


Therefore, I applaud the Tibetans' active stand against their oppression, and I wish the cause of a democratic free Tibet good luck and success and in the meanwhile hope for at least a lessening of the human rights violations in the region, but I cannot whole-heartedly say "Go rioters!"

I always thought those monks could kick your ass eight ways from sunday. :confused:

Movies and television has lied to me all these years! :mad:

Those are Chinese Shaolin monks. The Tibetan ones got fat and lazy after ruling by fiat for centuries.

It's so simple. WHen CHina does it it's wrong. When the USA does it it's okay.

Get with the program. :rolleyes:

When I don't like the program, I usually mod it. Sometimes the results are... not so pleasant.

Hmm let me guess, the Chinese will say '' No way, it's the cradle of the Chinese culture !1''.

End the illegal occupation of Tibet by the imperialist Beijing regime.

Stop the cultural genocide of the Tibetan people.

Free Tibet, now!



Hypocrite. If those were Palestinians you'd be passing out the ammo.

I can't agree more that Tibet is nothing more than a ROUGE province of Tibet, at least on some of their maps.

This is a split issue for me.

[snip]

Therefore, I applaud the Tibetans' active stand against their oppression, and I wish the cause of a democratic free Tibet good luck and success and in the meanwhile hope for at least a lessening of the human rights violations in the region, but I cannot whole-heartedly say "Go rioters!"

Well thought out post, if I may say so :)

I think it's a complex issue. Tibet has long been independent of China but traditionally has on and off been controlled to varying degrees by China, so it's not a clear cut issue. However in the past Tibet always had a degree of self rule.

My mains concerns are

1. That China acts within it's own laws and systems, and does no violate them. Breaking the laws will allow allow an excuse for further rioting and chaos, and ultimate escalation of the situation out of control.

2. China needs to accept the issue isn't going to be going away any time soon. However as long as Taiwan maintains it's claim, the situation is going to be deadlocked. Any settlement, therefore, must involve Taiwan as well, otherwise talks will go nowhere.

3. Meaningful self rule. If Tibet is granted independence, it must be real, rather than forcing a Little PRC on them.

4. Security guarantees for China. China is worried that Tibet will be sympathetic to Taiwan or US interests.

Ideally, if the Tibetan people want to have their own nation, China should do so. Any agreement should be fair to both sides and should be honoured by both, by the Chinese not trying to install puppet governments or interfering in Tibetan affairs, and Tibet should not allow it's land be used to threaten China with bases or defence agreements.

The Tibetans, so far, have done well in not turning to violence and winning sympathy for their situation. They should not let that sympathy wither away by turning to violence now, and the Chinese should begin meaningful talks with the would-be rulers of Tibet to see what the possibilities are for a real settlement. Given Chinas economic weight and the development it has genuinely spent in Tibet, a Hong Kong or Macau like solution may be best.

End the illegal occupation of Tibet by the imperialist Beijing regime.

Stop the cultural genocide of the Tibetan people.

Free Tibet, now!

(Dang, I'm starting to sound like Richard Gere :eek:)
Bugger that, they'll just get abused by their feudal leaders again. Why bother?
I always thought those monks could kick your ass eight ways from sunday. :confused:

Movies and television has lied to me all these years! :mad:
http://www.euronews.net/index.php?page=info&article=475279&lng=1

There's footage of a monk kicking in a shop window, which I found hilarious the first time I saw it. So the movies are like 95% true.

Bugger that, they'll just get abused by their feudal leaders again. Why bother?

Why? Why do you believe that they will go back to a feudalistic order if they ever get free? People do move along eventually don't they? (points to Bhutan).

I'm noticing a certain similarity in events where citizens clash with their government.
it seems that using Tear Gas is a good idea if you like lots of bad publicity.
Sending tanks in is also a step into saying "hey we'll have the situation under control, well our tanks are in control, our soldiers are scared".
Poor Tibet, maybe it'l change after these protests, maybe not.:confused:

Well thought out post, if I may say so :)
Thanks. A Buddhist boyfriend who's a member of a "Free Tibet" sort of initiative goes a long way :]

1. That China acts within it's own laws and systems, and does no violate them. Breaking the laws will allow allow an excuse for further rioting and chaos, and ultimate escalation of the situation out of control.

Human rights transcend national law(s).

2. China needs to accept the issue isn't going to be going away any time soon. However as long as Taiwan maintains it's claim, the situation is going to be deadlocked. Any settlement, therefore, must involve Taiwan as well, otherwise talks will go nowhere.

Good point.

3. Meaningful self rule. If Tibet is granted independence, it must be real, rather than forcing a Little PRC on them.

I'd say similarly, but keep in mind the Dalai Lama himself currently asks for not complete sovereignty, but has said he'd be satisfied with only a sort of autonomous status as part of the PRC.

The Tibetans, so far, have done well in not turning to violence and winning sympathy for their situation. They should not let that sympathy wither away by turning to violence now, and the Chinese should begin meaningful talks with the would-be rulers of Tibet to see what the possibilities are for a real settlement.

Yes, especially with the first I see a real danger. Losing their image as "those peaceful Buddhist people" would severely damage their international support.

Hypocrite. If those were Palestinians you'd be passing out the ammo.

Tibet has been a distinct and sovereign nation. "Palestine" has not.

Tibet has its own unique language, culture and religion. "Palestinians" are Arabs who happen to be sitting on a disputed plot of land.

Tibet was invaded by the ChiComs, who proceeded to destroy its religious and cultural heritage and continue to do so today. Arabs invaded Israel in 1948 and continue firing rockets into Israel after Israel withdrew from Gaza.

"Palestine" could have been an independent state in 1948, but Arabs weren't satisfied with a compromise and thought they could get all the land by starting a war. Arabs could have granted independence to "Palestine" at any time between 1948 and 1967, but refused to do so. The ChiComs have never offered any form of independence to Tibet.

Try again.

FREE TIBET.

Good for them. Popular uprisings against injustice and oppression are always a plus in my book.

Well, China didnt run anyone over with tanks, at least they've improved somewhat...

The tanks are out though..

http://www.deccanherald.com/UserFiles/DHGallery/Mar162008/index_gallery.jpg

Tibet has been a distinct and sovereign nation. "Palestine" has not.

Tibet has its own unique language, culture and religion. "Palestinians" are Arabs who happen to be sitting on a disputed plot of land.

Tibet was invaded by the ChiComs, who proceeded to destroy its religious and cultural heritage and continue to do so today. Arabs invaded Israel in 1948 and continue firing rockets into Israel after Israel withdrew from Gaza.

"Palestine" could have been an independent state in 1948, but Arabs weren't satisfied with a compromise and thought they could get all the land by starting a war. Arabs could have granted independence to "Palestine" at any time between 1948 and 1967, but refused to do so. The ChiComs have never offered any form of independence to Tibet.

Try again.

FREE TIBET.


Holy crap, New Mitanni is sticking up for a group of people who not only are non-white, but also non-Christian and non-American.


Im proud of you.

Tibet has been a distinct and sovereign nation. "Palestine" has not..

Neither has America.


Tibet has its own unique language, culture and religion. "Palestinians" are Arabs who happen to be sitting on a disputed plot of land...

One could say the same with regard for Israel.


Tibet was invaded by the ChiComs, who proceeded to destroy its religious and cultural heritage and continue to do so today. Arabs invaded Israel in 1948 and continue firing rockets into Israel after Israel withdrew from Gaza.
...

...pussyfooting around who is building colonies in whose territory.


FREE TIBET.

.....because Communism is deemed contrary to US interests. Much like Kissinger and the Kurds you'd fuck them in a heart beat. In fact....Didn't he & the US cut off aid to Tibetan groups in the early 70's?

Why don't we end the occupations of:

Native American land by the US
Native American land by Canada
Quebec by Canada
Indigenous land by South American countries
Scotland by Britain
Northern Ireland by Britain
Basqueland by Spain
Catalanland by Spain
Iraq by the US
Aboriginal land by the Australians
African Sudan by the Arabs

I could go on...

Since when has Quebec been occupied by Canada? The people of Quebec have twice been given the opportunity to leave Canada and have twice chosen to remain part of our country through democratic referendums.

Same goes for Scotland and Northern Ireland, how are they "occupied" by Britain. I'm sure that if either wanted to secede from the UK they could.

Not that I'm saying a lot of other places aren't under military occupation, many are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_occupations), but some of your examples aren't forms of a military occupations...

This is probably all Björk´s fault. Yeah.:mp5:

Lets all hope this doesn't turn into Tianeman Square Two. I don't really know too much about the whole situation.

Lets all hope this doesn't turn into Tianeman Square Two. I don't really know too much about the whole situation.

I know, sequels usually are never as good as the originals.

*looks at Speed 2, Matrix Reloaded, The Godfather III and Batman and Robin*

Why don't we end the occupations of:

Native American land by the US
Native American land by Canada
Quebec by Canada
Indigenous land by South American countries
Scotland by Britain
Northern Ireland by Britain
Basqueland by Spain
Catalanland by Spain
Iraq by the US
Aboriginal land by the Australians
African Sudan by the Arabs

I could go on...


There is a difference.
1. Neither the US, Canada, nor any south american country invaded the western hemisphere. They were born in the hemisphere.
2. Scotland doesn't seem in much of a hurry to secede the UK.
3. There are talks going on with Northern Ireland while China has chosen to blow up monasteries and shoot monks and other religious people with maching guns. I much prefer the method in which the Brits are dealing with seperatists in N. Ireland and how the Canadians are dealing with Quebec to the brutal, blood thirsty anti religion methods of the Chinese.
4. The Spanish have two groups who want their own countries. They are dealing with them in a manner similar to the situation in Canada and UK. The Spanish aren't going around blowing up churches or having their military shoot whole ethnic groups on site. The spanish are approaching the groups in a conciliatory manner, much unlike how China is dealing with Tibet, a country it invaded not in the BC's era, but in the middle of the 20th century and has illegally occupied since, via the use of brutal oppression and racial aparthied.

5. Unlike the Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1950, the US is not annexing Iraq. When US say they are giving people freedom, they actually give them freedom. They don't use liberation as a pretext for invasion and annexation.

6. That's for the Australians to decide for themselves. I don't think Australia is engaged in the type of aparthied and racial genocide which the Chinese are committing in Tibet.

7. The Arabs supposedly came from Africa, if you really believe the out of Africa theory so it was their land to begin with.
Though there is good argument that Darfur should be independent because of the genocide there, just like Kosovo is, and just like Tibet should be.

It's so simple. WHen CHina does it it's wrong. When the USA does it it's okay.

Get with the program. :rolleyes:

Yes.. while.

1950: China invades Tibet saying it is freeing them from the evils of religious medieval society. In same week, China announces Tibet is now territory of China whereby annexing a country that is bigger than afghanistan. Genocide and aparthied against native Tibetans begins and continues to this day. Tibet's leader in exile continues call for an end to violence and continues to seek a nonviolent solution to the problem. In response China has issued arrest warrants for him and his followers.

2003: United States invades Iraq to free Iraqis from the brutal repression of Saddam Hussien. Saddam was gassing his own people. US troops stood between Shiite death squads and their intended Sunni, Christian and Assyrian victims whereby raising the US death toll substantially but preventing the type of ethnic cleansing and genocide we have seen in Tibet, Kosovo, Darfur, and other places. 4,000 Americans died so that over 27 million people would not have to face Iranian funded Shiite death squads bent on ethnic cleansing of Iraq. Iraq held successful elections and is the only democratic country in the Arab world. It's hold on power is stabilizing and rebel leaders like Al Sadr have been working with the government in move of national reconciliation.
Iraq, unlike Tibet or Taiwan, was never stripped of its UN membership.
Iraq is still an independent state and will always be an independent state.

Tibet has a right to be free.Why should they have to live under a COMMUNIST regime.If you ask me,I would be celebrating the independence of a second nation on this Earth.

Nepal has ordered it's forces to attack Tibet protestors.

http://voanews.com/english/2008-03-15-voa14.cfm

They are probably doing it at the request of China.

Try again.

FREE TIBET.

You just want the Tibetans to get killed by Chinese troops in gruesome ways Mr I get pleasure watching people suffer (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13520183&postcount=188) and want them all to die. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13517564&postcount=159)

Nepal has ordered it's forces to attack Tibet protestors.

http://voanews.com/english/2008-03-15-voa14.cfm

They are probably doing it at the request of China.

Nepal has slipped dramatically from Indian influence to Chinese. The prince "going mad" and murdering most of the royal family, the traditional democratic party getting sidelined by the maoist rebels who suddenly rose to prominence with a flush of weapons and cash. China sure plays it good.

Meanwhile, China has declared a "people's war" :rolleyes:to quell the unrest.

Expect more people's bodies.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080316/ts_nm/china_tibet_dc
Chinese officials have declared a "people's war" of security and propaganda against support for the Dalai Lama in Tibet after riots racked the regional capital Lhasa, and some sources claimed the turmoil killed dozens.

1950: China invades Tibet saying it is freeing them from the evils of religious medieval society.

2003: United States invades Iraq saying it is freeing Iraqis from the brutal repression of Saddam Hussien.

Fixed for accuracy.

I'll give you that Saddam Hussein's no more. But then again, neither is the Tibetan theocratic rulers.

Tibet's theocratic monks were hardly sunshine and roses, and kept the people in a perpetual state of religious slanted slavery.


Genocide and aparthied against native Tibetans begins and continues to this day.


I'm sure you'll point us to evidence that China is engaged in any form of systematic killing of the Tibetan people's. Otherwise, it's a load of overhyped bollocks.

Meanwhile.


US troops stood between Shiite death squads and their intended Sunni, Christian and Assyrian victims whereby raising the US death toll substantially but preventing the type of ethnic cleansing and genocide we have seen in Tibet, Kosovo, Darfur, and other places

Ahahahahaha. Let's ignore Tibet for a moment, and take a look at the death toll in Iraq thanks to the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Opinion Research Business survey
1,033,000 violent deaths.
Iraqi Health Ministry survey
151,000 violent deaths out of 400,000 excess deaths due to the war.
Lancet survey
601,027 violent deaths out of 654,965 excess deaths.

Taking the lowest shown number, which is just Iraqi deaths, perhaps you'd care to compare it to how many people died from Chinese sponsored violence in Tibet?


4,000 Americans died so that over 27 million people would not have to face Iranian funded Shiite death squads bent on ethnic cleansing of Iraq.


Get your facts right. 4,000 Americans died so they could conquer and occupy a country under the incompetent management of the Bush agenda who made things worse for the average Iraqi than under Saddam. They didn't die for any of that freedom and glory rubbish you like to peddle.


Iraq held successful elections

If by "successful" you mean "fraudulent" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4562178.stm)


only democratic country in the Arab world.


Liar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey


Iraq, unlike Tibet or Taiwan, was never stripped of its UN membership.
Iraq is still an independent state and will always be an independent state.

An independent state, so long as its resources are practically given away to the US (http://globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm) hmm?

In summary, the US may not be as bad as China when it comes to active repression, but it's sure as hell not that "bringer of freedom and democracy" that ignorant nationalists like to spout.

Tibet deserves and should be declared independance. When the time is right, they will call upon western countries like U.S., U.K., France, Germany, and other countries like that. China will be totally pissed, but they can't stand up to NATO. Even Russia won't come to their aid. Tibet just needs to get some more independance fever and walla Tibet is an American friendly country.

Fixed for accuracy.

I'll give you that Saddam Hussein's no more. But then again, neither is the Tibetan theocratic rulers.

Tibet's theocratic monks were hardly sunshine and roses, and kept the people in a perpetual state of religious slanted slavery.



I'm sure you'll point us to evidence that China is engaged in any form of systematic killing of the Tibetan people's. Otherwise, it's a load of overhyped bollocks.

Meanwhile.



Ahahahahaha. Let's ignore Tibet for a moment, and take a look at the death toll in Iraq thanks to the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Opinion Research Business survey
1,033,000 violent deaths.
Iraqi Health Ministry survey
151,000 violent deaths out of 400,000 excess deaths due to the war.
Lancet survey
601,027 violent deaths out of 654,965 excess deaths.

Taking the lowest shown number, which is just Iraqi deaths, perhaps you'd care to compare it to how many people died from Chinese sponsored violence in Tibet?



Get your facts right. 4,000 Americans died so they could conquer and occupy a country under the incompetent management of the Bush agenda who made things worse for the average Iraqi than under Saddam. They didn't die for any of that freedom and glory rubbish you like to peddle.



If by "successful" you mean "fraudulent" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4562178.stm)



Liar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey



An independent state, so long as its resources are practically given away to the US (http://globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm) hmm?

In summary, the US may not be as bad as China when it comes to active repression, but it's sure as hell not that "bringer of freedom and democracy" that ignorant nationalists like to spout.

1. I doubt that the Tibetan rulers were as bad as China makes them out. After all, we need to remember that the PRC is vehemently anti religion. We're not just talking anti buddhism, but it is also anti- christian and anti jewish, and anti islamic. PRC police shoot up people's homes if they hold nonstate religious services or if they convert to a religion that is not approved by the communist party.
Tibet, being the center of Buddhism and being right on their border was a threat to their anti religion crusade.

2. Religious slavery? What is that I pray tell.

3. It happened in 1950, in 1959, and it's happening now. Everytime the Tibetans call attention to the fact that China illegally invaded and illegally annexed Iraq.


4. The US was not able to prevent everyone from dying. But it did prevent widespread ethnic cleansing. Also, unlike Tibet, the majority of the Iraqi civil deaths were the result of Islamo fascists from Iran and other anti freedom countries. Less than 4 to 5% were killed by American forces compared to when China invaded Tibet, 80% of the Tibetan deaths were the result of Chinese troops shooting at defenseless women and children.

5. 4,000 Americans, mostly from accidents occuring on US bases in Iraq rather than in combat, died because of a failure to verify information. We did not go to Iraq to annex it or to take its oil. China went to Tibet to annex Tibet and take all of Tibets resources. We didn't go in to conquer as you call it. If our goal was conquest we would have done that in 91 or during the Clinton years. If Bush wanted to conquer Iraq he would have done it in 2001. He didn't. Know why? Because he didn't give a shit about Iraq or other foreign policy stuff except for trade with Mexico. That is why Mexico is so cozy with Bush. His number one thing was domestic issues like education. Foriegn policy only became important to him after 9/11. At the time he was elected he didn't even know who the Presidents of Iran or Russia were. Yet you make it sound like he was bent on world conquest before he was even President.
Unlike Tibet, Iraq is in full charge of its oil and other resources. There are a lot of Iraqis who are afraid of the death squads but who believe that because Bush toppled Saddam, Iraq will be a better place.

6. Most observers certified the elections which were open and transparent. Unlike elections in China or other communist states. Just because there were people going waving guns at people does not make the election fraudalent. In fact, there are Islamist parties who won seats in the Iraqi parliament because the elections were fair and they were transparent.

7. The Turks are not Arabs and neither are the Israelis nor are the Iranians.

8. Actually the US is sending more resources to Iraq than it taking out. Also, we are not claiming Iraq's resources for ourselves. China annexed Tibet so China can have all of Tibet's resources.
The Iraqi parliament, not the US government, decides how much US and other companies have to pay for Iraqi oil.

I give that the US has not always acted as a friend of democracy in the past. But Bush's policies have to been to promote democracy and freedom. His administration may insist that it be American style democracy which I don't agree with. But the fact is, he's fighting for democracy because he believes that every single person on earth has the right to live as free people unless they have committed acts of genocide or terrorism.

Also, any country that engages in genocide or ethnic cleansing in today's world, has no right to keep the territory they committed the genocide/ethnic cleansing on. For precedent, see Kosovo.

every single person on earth has the right to live as free people unless they have committed acts of genocide or terrorism.

So when US troops kill and rape Iraqi schoolgirls, is that revoking the right they already have, or was there never a right to begin with?

Has anyone seen this video of Chinese soldiers killing Tibetan Pilgrams?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkMcj4vQtRU

I think this video happened before the riots, but I can see why people would riot if Chinese were shooting people for no reason.

Wow, only 20 posts Before this turned into an America Bashing thread. Amazing how good NSG is at on staying on topic, huh?

Lets all hope this doesn't turn into Tianeman Square Two. I don't really know too much about the whole situation.

Although if it does, to most college-aged and younger citizens of China it will be Tiananmen Square one, since it's been purged from most every form of media in China.

Tibet's theocratic monks were hardly sunshine and roses, and kept the people in a perpetual state of religious slanted slavery.

Whether you agree with a theocracy or not, I think it's a leap to call it "slavery".

I'm sure you'll point us to evidence that China is engaged in any form of systematic killing of the Tibetan people's. Otherwise, it's a load of overhyped bollocks.

According to the Heritage Foundation:

"After invading Tibet in 1950, the Chinese communists killed over one million Tibetans, destroyed over 6,000 monasteries, and turned Tibet's northeastern province, Amdo, into a gulag housing, by one estimate, up to ten million people. A quarter of a million Chinese troops remain stationed in Tibet. In addition, some 7.5 million Chinese have responded to Beijing's incentives to relocate to Tibet; they now outnumber the 6 million Tibetans. Through what has been termed Chinese apartheid, ethnic Tibetans now have a lower life expectancy, literacy rate, and per capita income than Chinese inhabitants of Tibet."

Why? Why do you believe that they will go back to a feudalistic order if they ever get free? People do move along eventually don't they? (points to Bhutan).

Indeed. To all those suggesting that the TGIE is a feurdal theocracy, you might look into the facts of the issue before posting ignorant BS.

Why would the CTA toss out The Charter of Tibetans in-Exile (http://www.tibet.com/Govt/charter.html), the Kalon Tripa, the Assembly of Tibetan People's Deputies, and all the other trappings of democracy they have achieved?

The tanks are out though..

http://www.deccanherald.com/UserFiles/DHGallery/Mar162008/index_gallery.jpg

A small and admitedly pedantic quibble: those are APCs, not tanks. ;)



In a fun little exercise, the PRC has trotted out their pet fake Lama to denounce the riots (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/16/content_7799802.htm).

According to the Heritage Foundation:

"After invading Tibet in 1950, the Chinese communists killed over one million Tibetans, destroyed over 6,000 monasteries, and turned Tibet's northeastern province, Amdo, into a gulag housing, by one estimate, up to ten million people. A quarter of a million Chinese troops remain stationed in Tibet. In addition, some 7.5 million Chinese have responded to Beijing's incentives to relocate to Tibet; they now outnumber the 6 million Tibetans. Through what has been termed Chinese apartheid, ethnic Tibetans now have a lower life expectancy, literacy rate, and per capita income than Chinese inhabitants of Tibet."

is engaged in

...

...

I know the elipses should say it all, but I really have no idea. ?

1. I doubt that the Tibetan rulers were as bad as China makes them out. After all, we need to remember that the PRC is vehemently anti religion. We're not just talking anti buddhism, but it is also anti- christian and anti jewish, and anti islamic. PRC police shoot up people's homes if they hold nonstate religious services or if they convert to a religion that is not approved by the communist party.


And you have proof of these claims? The shootings.


Tibet, being the center of Buddhism and being right on their border was a threat to their anti religion crusade.

Pfft. I find a more likely explanation being territorial control and living space.


2. Religious slavery? What is that I pray tell.


Serfdom with religious connotations. Rather than feudal lords, you had monks.


3. It happened in 1950, in 1959, and it's happening now. Everytime the Tibetans call attention to the fact that China illegally invaded and illegally annexed Iraq.


When the hell did China invade Iraq?


4. The US was not able to prevent everyone from dying. But it did prevent widespread ethnic cleansing.

You do realize that all those deaths would not have occurred without US occupation? Saddam's days of purging the Kurds in any significant numbers ended years before Gulf War part II.


Also, unlike Tibet, the majority of the Iraqi civil deaths were the result of Islamo fascists from Iran and other anti freedom countries.


Anti-freedom countries. That's rich. Coming from a country that actively works to strip its citizens of freedom while being cheered on by those same citizens.

Again, those deaths wouldn't have been possible without US involvement.

Wriggle as you like, you can't deny that the US tossed the match into the fuel.


Less than 4 to 5% were killed by American forces compared to when China invaded Tibet, 80% of the Tibetan deaths were the result of Chinese troops shooting at defenseless women and children.

Nice percentage. Proof?


We did not go to Iraq to annex it or to take its oil.


Then explain this.[/quote]

Not to take it's oil hmmm? And don't give me that "Where's my cheap oil?" straw man.


China went to Tibet to annex Tibet and take all of Tibets resources.


This, is at odds with this.


Tibet, being the center of Buddhism and being right on their border was a threat to their anti religion crusade.

So which one is it hmm? Can't make up your mind?


We didn't go in to conquer as you call it


Hmmm. Invade a sovereign nation. Topple the government. Occupy. Establish a puppet government.

Seems like all the hallmarks of a conquest.


If our goal was conquest we would have done that in 91 or during the Clinton years.


Clinton, insofar as we know, had no interest in doing so. And are you seriously claiming that Bush Sr. is the same man as Bush Jr.?

Bush Sr at least seemed to possess a working brain, and listened to his advisor's who told him what a mess it would be.


If Bush wanted to conquer Iraq he would have done it in 2001. He didn't. Know why? Because he didn't give a shit about Iraq or other foreign policy stuff except for trade with Mexico.


[url=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/11/bush_began_iraq_plan_pre_911_oneill_says/]Liar (http://globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm)


His number one thing was domestic issues like education.


Yes, we know how important it is that no child be left behind. That's why he's making things worse for them. (http://nochildleft.com/2004/jun04fair.html)


At the time he was elected he didn't even know who the Presidents of Iran or Russia were.

And this doesn't tell you that something is horrendously wrong?


Yet you make it sound like he was bent on world conquest before he was even President.


You don't have to be a genius to want to rule the world. Even a retarded monkey can hav those kinds of dreams.


Unlike Tibet, Iraq is in full charge of its oil and other resources.


Lie, lie, lie. (http://globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm) That's all you can do isn't it?


There are a lot of Iraqis who are afraid of the death squads but who believe that because Bush toppled Saddam, Iraq will be a better place.


That's not what they're saying. (http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2006/May/looneyMay06.asp)

Granted, this is in areas of turbulence, but the majority think Bush has made a piss poor job of it.


6. Most observers certified the elections which were open and transparent.


You mean American observers? The kind who thought that hiding the truth from the American public about the cost of the war was a good thing?

Yeah right.


Unlike elections in China or other communist states.


China is no more communist than America.


Just because there were people going waving guns at people does not make the election fraudalent.

You mean just like me putting several bullets in your skull isn't murder?


8. Actually the US is sending more resources to Iraq than it taking out.


Resources which are mysteriously being put into projects of little value. (http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2006/May/looneyMay06.asp) And lets not forget those missing 20 billion dollars. Into who's pockets I wonder? (http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=282)


Also, we are not claiming Iraq's resources for ourselves.


More lies. (http://globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm)


But Bush's policies have to been to promote democracy and freedom.


Lies (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337968,00.html), lies (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/09/71778), and more lies. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22794451/)


But the fact is, he's fighting for democracy because he believes that every single person on earth has the right to live as free people unless they have committed acts of genocide or terrorism.


Maybe he believes he is. I can't say to know what goes on in his head, not being his psychiatrist and all. But his actions don't give anyone democracy. He's a monkey with a lit match in a munitions dump. And why would he be "fighting for democracy" if he has to LIE ABOUT IT! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22794451/)

I don't buy the argument of "I thought it was good" to excuse a mass murderer. The Ends do not justify the means. The means here suck, and the Ends don't look like anything you claim it will be.


Also, any country that engages in genocide or ethnic cleansing in today's world, has no right to keep the territory they committed the genocide/ethnic cleansing on. For precedent, see Kosovo.

Where was the United States when Darfur had their ethnic cleansing? Where was the United States when Suharto had 500,000 Indonesians murdered? Oh right, they were supporting him. Where was the United States when Saddam gassed the Kurds? Oh right, they were supporting him too, gave him the chemical weapons he gassed the Kurds with. Until he invaded Kuwait that is.

Fulgencio Batista of Cuba who ruled with an iron fist, Gen. Branco who overthrew elected president Goulart, Rafael Leonidas Trujillo Molina the man responsible for the Parsley Massacre of over 8000 people, the Shah of Iran, the list goes on.

The United States has supported all manners of bloody dictators throughout the years, millions of people dead because of the damned politicking of Washington DC. And let's not forget what the so-called "Americans" did to the native Americans. Smallpox, slaughters and forced relocations.

You want to talk about not having a right to their nation? Dissolve America first, then you can talk.

But you won't will you? You've displayed a tendency to avoid points, and then make some more lies.

So go on, make some more lies. You can surprise me with the truth, but I doubt you will.

Whether you agree with a theocracy or not, I think it's a leap to call it "slavery".


Well fine. Serfdom is the proper term.

...

See, now proof and links, things like that I can go with. Not random stuff that could be from someone's posterior breech for all I know.

Well fine. Serfdom is the proper term.

So what makes you think the TGIE would revert to serfdom if returned from exile?

I know the elipses should say it all, but I really have no idea. ?

NAS asked for evidence that China was currently engaging in killing of Tibetans. Your (linkless) source only showed that they did so 50 years ago.

NAS asked for evidence that China was currently engaging in killing of Tibetans. Your (linkless) source only showed that they did so 50 years ago.

I didn't link, but I cited the source.

I was addressing his claim that China was not practicing genocide against ethnic Tibetans. My source gave evidence to the contrary. No, China is not killing thousands of Tibetans each day today--they are in a different stage of genocide. After killing a million, driving out millions more and importing Han farmers so that Tibetans are now an ethnic minority in their own land, China uses slightly subtler methods of genocide.

The million Tibetans killed by China were also not all killed in 1959. That is the total number of dead since 1959, which continues to this day. Many were killed up through the end of the 70's.

From 1982 to 1983, around 750 Tibetan political activists were jailed and/or executed in the capital of Lhasa.

In 1989 martial law was enforced to repress all forms of protest against China. During this tumultuous time, many Tibetans were killed by police--estimates vary widely from 80 to as much as 400, the higher number as reported by a Chinese journalist.

Source (http://www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/white5.html)

You can read about the capture, torture and murder of nuns throughout the TAR's history, especially from 1994-1998, here. (http://www.savetibet.org/news/positionpapers/nunpersecution.php)

Citing Human Rights Watch here (http://www.savetibet.org/news/positionpapers/prisonsersofconscience.php) in 1995, Tibet's population accounts for .2% of the total population of China--yet the TAR jailed more political and religious prisoners than in the rest of China combined.

EDIT: Poll should say ROGUE Province, not ROUGE Province...

Absolutely anybody who frequents the World of Warcraft forums probably got a good chuckle out of this slip-up, accompanied by an overwhelming sense of deja vu.

I was addressing his claim that China was not practicing genocide against ethnic Tibetans.

I asked him to prove it. You did the work for him, so I suppose it works either way.

However, to classify as a genocide, it must be a systematic and deliberate destruction of a peoples. I am skeptical of applying the term of deliberate population imbalance via importation as it would open the door to anti-immigration idiots using that as an excuse to claim genocide against them by immigrants.

Genocide, as is widely understood, involves the systematic and total destruction of a people. Please keep it that way. I'd rather it not go the way of "terrorism" insofar as who and what it can be applied to.

So what makes you think the TGIE would revert to serfdom if returned from exile?

It would depend on how much power they would be able to wield once they returned. Anything like what the old guard had will assuredly revert to the days of serfdom once more.

It's geography.

Tibet is not economically important to China, or anyone else. Tibet is strategically important land, on the China side of an almost impassable barrier between China and India (the Himalaya mountains.)

Tibet is vastly more important to China than to anyone else. They've had it for half a century. It's part of China, the way Hawaii is part of the United States.

I don't see that changing. Hard luck for the Tibetans who want to keep their traditional lifestyle.

It would depend on how much power they would be able to wield once they returned. Anything like what the old guard had will assuredly revert to the days of serfdom once more.

So you fully expect the current government in exile to chuck all the democratic institutions it's built up over the last 50 odd years? Why on earth? I know I'm generally pesimistic, but I ain't that freaking pesimistic to expect a constitutional democracy to randomly revert to feudalism without a darn good reason...

Screw Tibet. It has no more of a right than any of China's other provinces to independence. All of these provinces were for centuries independent, then under chinese rule, then independent, then again unified... Tibet is the same.

That all being said, the fact it wants independence is almost a good enough reason in and of itself. It is, really. Good enough for them. But not good enough for foriegn intervention.

So I say, Tibet can free themselves like any other historical splinter state, or not at all. There is no pretext for foriegn 'freeing' of anyone. China's claim to Tibet is legitimate, as is Tibets goal of independence. Let them sort it out.

So you fully expect the current government in exile to chuck all the democratic institutions it's built up over the last 50 odd years? Why on earth? I know I'm generally pesimistic, but I ain't that freaking pesimistic to expect a constitutional democracy to randomly revert to feudalism without a darn good reason...

I don't expect it to reestablish the theocratic rule by fiat overnight no. But do keep in mind that I specified a caveat of them having as much power as the old guard did. The temptation, and precedents, are too great to ignore.

I don't expect it to reestablish the theocratic rule by fiat overnight no. But do keep in mind that I specified a caveat of them having as much power as the old guard did. The temptation, and precedents, are too great to ignore.

Quick qusetion: how much do you know about the TGIE?

Latest News Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7299597.stm)

The protesting is spreading across Tibet and neighboring provinces in China

Tibetan protests against Chinese rule have spread to another part of China, after days of demonstrations and violence in Tibet's main city, Lhasa.

Clashes between Tibetan protesters and police in Aba, Sichuan province, saw a police station and cars attacked.

The violence came after exiled Tibetan leaders said a Chinese crackdown had killed at least 80 people in Lhasa.

Indian-based officials said the figure was confirmed by several sources, even though China had put the death toll during Friday's riots at 10.

"The lay people and monks seem to have joined together in a protest... which was focussed around the police presence in the town," she told the BBC.

She said that more than 1,000 monks had been on the streets of the town, which is home to a large monastery.

"According to reliable reports the police opened fire," said Ms Saunders, who is in London but said she had indirect phone and web access to eyewitness accounts. "We know there have been deaths."

The incident followed protests on Friday and Saturday in a Tibetan area of the neighbouring province of Gansu, when monks and demonstrators confronted police in Xiahe.

In Lhasa, where rioting erupted on Friday after days of mainly peaceful protests, Chinese troops were out in force.

Hong Kong Cable TV reported that about 200 military vehicles, each carrying 40 to 60 armed soldiers, had driven into the city.

BTW, just for funs and grins, my "Perfect War" ("http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=532342) scenario started out with something not too far from this... Not exactly the same, but it did start with unrest in the TRA...

BTW, just for funs and grins, my "Perfect War" ("http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=532342) scenario started out with something not too far from this... Not exactly the same, but it did start with unrest in the TRA...

you're link is FUBAR

I fixed it

http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=532342

Crude irredentism and ethnic persecution complexes ftl!

The tanks are out though..

http://www.deccanherald.com/UserFiles/DHGallery/Mar162008/index_gallery.jpg

Those aren't tanks...

The Tibetans have one day left until they get their arses kicked, and one day only. My money's on the Chinese liberally beating the shit out of the Tibetans when they don't go home tommorow tbqh.

I would certainly support a Marxist-Leninist resistance group in Tibet, one that based it's claim for independence upon Lenin's theory of self-determination and the State and Revolution, and not upon archaic religious-ethnic grounds.

I would certainly support a Marxist-Leninist resistance group in Tibet, one that based it's claim for independence upon Lenin's theory of self-determination and the State and Revolution, and not upon archaic religious-ethnic grounds.

You'd give Lenin fellatio if you could

*runs*

You'd give Lenin fellatio if you could

*runs*
Wow, you can't be serious around here without being trolled, as I have discovered trolling is about the only tactic those that disagree with me use. Not unexpected of course.

So when US troops kill and rape Iraqi schoolgirls, is that revoking the right they already have, or was there never a right to begin with?

1. There is no right to rape. Only a couple of US soldiers, out of over 150,000 in Iraq have been accused of rape. The victim was not a "schoolgirl". And the people in that case are being tried for war crimes by the US government. Something that other countries, particularly those not allied with the US, do not do when their soldiers are accused of war crimes. Case in point: Rwanda where thousands of soldiers from NonUS aligned nations have been shown to have engaged in mass rapes of Rwandan women and children. At least the US, UK, France, Australia, et al hold their people accountable for all crimes and any atrocities they might committ.

In Japan one soldier was accused of raping a 16 year old girl. However, the girl said she made up the rape part after the soldier admitted to giving her a kiss. The Japanese government dropped the charges because there was no case. However, it should be noted that the US military continues to pursue the case vigorously. Because it violates the military's moral norms and the US military does enforce morality among its troops. There was a fellow stationed at Fort Benning who was sent to prison for 5 years because he was caught sleeping with one of his wife's coworkers.

China's soldiers are engaged in mass rape but no charges will be filed against them. Nigeria's troops in Rwanda engaged in repeated rapes and were never charged by their home governments.

Around 20 US soldiers in Iraq committed some pretty horrific acts. Guess where they are now: In the US on trial for crimes against humanity.

I asked him to prove it. You did the work for him, so I suppose it works either way.

However, to classify as a genocide, it must be a systematic and deliberate destruction of a peoples. I am skeptical of applying the term of deliberate population imbalance via importation as it would open the door to anti-immigration idiots using that as an excuse to claim genocide against them by immigrants.

Genocide, as is widely understood, involves the systematic and total destruction of a people. Please keep it that way. I'd rather it not go the way of "terrorism" insofar as who and what it can be applied to.

Population imbalance is one of several methods I mentioned. I did not claim that it alone provided proof of genocide, and I listed many other ways in which China has sought to systematically destroy the Tibetan people. You assume in your definition of genocide that the destruction of a people means their physical destruction, but genocide has historically taken many forms---it's not always the Holocaust. China continues to work at the destruction of the Tibetan people by denying them fair and equal education, housing and healthcare, by enforcing laws which make it a crime to practice their religion and speak their language, by importing ethnic Hans to dilute the remaining population, and by imprisoning anyone who speaks out against the propaganda which is destroying the rest of their culture.

I would certainly support a Marxist-Leninist resistance group in Tibet, one that based it's claim for independence upon Lenin's theory of self-determination and the State and Revolution, and not upon archaic religious-ethnic grounds.

Funny, since the Dalai Lama as described himself as "half-Buddhist, half-Marxist":

"Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes—that is the majority—as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair ... The failure of the regime in the Soviet Union was, for me not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist."

Population imbalance is one of several methods I mentioned. I did not claim that it alone provided proof of genocide, and I listed many other ways in which China has sought to systematically destroy the Tibetan people. You assume in your definition of genocide that the destruction of a people means their physical destruction, but genocide has historically taken many forms---it's not always the Holocaust. China continues to work at the destruction of the Tibetan people by denying them fair and equal education, housing and healthcare, by enforcing laws which make it a crime to practice their religion and speak their language, by importing ethnic Hans to dilute the remaining population, and by imprisoning anyone who speaks out against the propaganda which is destroying the rest of their culture.

The claim to keeping an ethnic bloodline is probably the most backward dark-age idea that has yet to die yet, born out of primitive tribal conditions.

Funny, since the Dalai Lama as described himself as "half-Buddhist, half-Marxist":

"Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes—that is the majority—as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair ... The failure of the regime in the Soviet Union was, for me not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist."
Wow, I did not know he was such a shrewd political operator, well I'll give him credit for that, I haven't seen such a downright 'convenient commie' opportunist since Trotsky. Either way, his grasp of Marxism is feeble at best. It's funny thought, I believe he said basically the same thing after the Chinese invasion about Buddhism and socialism while serfs still existed, hypocrisy much?

Wow, you can't be serious around here without being trolled, as I have discovered trolling is about the only tactic those that disagree with me use. Not unexpected of course.
Well arguing doesn't work when you are too full of retarded dogma to recognize the existence of historical events like the Holodomor. What do you honestly expect when you are impossible to reason with?

The claim to keeping an ethnic bloodline is probably the most backward dark-age idea that has yet to die yet, born out of primitive tribal conditions.

I like the way you ignore 90% of what I say and respond to a single point with regurgitated dogma.

Wow, I did not know he was such a shrewd political operator, well I'll give him credit for that, I haven't seen such a downright 'convenient commie' opportunist since Trotsky. Either way, his grasp of Marxism is feeble at best. It's funny thought, I believe he said basically the same thing after the Chinese invasion about Buddhism and socialism while serfs still existed, hypocrisy much?

He might know what Marxism looked like better if it hadn't been served to him by a rifle.

Convenient commie. Do you have anything to back up your summation of a man who has openly spoken about the need for reform in Tibet and worked his entire life to bring equal human rights not only to Tibet, but to the entire world, except empty name-calling?

And you have proof of these claims? The shootings.



Pfft. I find a more likely explanation being territorial control and living space.



Serfdom with religious connotations. Rather than feudal lords, you had monks.



When the hell did China invade Iraq?



You do realize that all those deaths would not have occurred without US occupation? Saddam's days of purging the Kurds in any significant numbers ended years before Gulf War part II.



Anti-freedom countries. That's rich. Coming from a country that actively works to strip its citizens of freedom while being cheered on by those same citizens.

Again, those deaths wouldn't have been possible without US involvement.

Wriggle as you like, you can't deny that the US tossed the match into the fuel.



Nice percentage. Proof?



Then explain this.

Not to take it's oil hmmm? And don't give me that "Where's my cheap oil?" straw man.



This, is at odds with this.



So which one is it hmm? Can't make up your mind?



Hmmm. Invade a sovereign nation. Topple the government. Occupy. Establish a puppet government.

Seems like all the hallmarks of a conquest.



Clinton, insofar as we know, had no interest in doing so. And are you seriously claiming that Bush Sr. is the same man as Bush Jr.?

Bush Sr at least seemed to possess a working brain, and listened to his advisor's who told him what a mess it would be.



[url=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/11/bush_began_iraq_plan_pre_911_oneill_says/]Liar (http://globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm)



Yes, we know how important it is that no child be left behind. That's why he's making things worse for them. (http://nochildleft.com/2004/jun04fair.html)



And this doesn't tell you that something is horrendously wrong?



You don't have to be a genius to want to rule the world. Even a retarded monkey can hav those kinds of dreams.



Lie, lie, lie. (http://globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm) That's all you can do isn't it?



That's not what they're saying. (http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2006/May/looneyMay06.asp)

Granted, this is in areas of turbulence, but the majority think Bush has made a piss poor job of it.



You mean American observers? The kind who thought that hiding the truth from the American public about the cost of the war was a good thing?

Yeah right.



China is no more communist than America.



You mean just like me putting several bullets in your skull isn't murder?



Resources which are mysteriously being put into projects of little value. (http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2006/May/looneyMay06.asp) And lets not forget those missing 20 billion dollars. Into who's pockets I wonder? (http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=282)



More lies. (http://globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm)



Lies (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337968,00.html), lies (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/09/71778), and more lies. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22794451/)



Maybe he believes he is. I can't say to know what goes on in his head, not being his psychiatrist and all. But his actions don't give anyone democracy. He's a monkey with a lit match in a munitions dump. And why would he be "fighting for democracy" if he has to LIE ABOUT IT! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22794451/)

I don't buy the argument of "I thought it was good" to excuse a mass murderer. The Ends do not justify the means. The means here suck, and the Ends don't look like anything you claim it will be.



Where was the United States when Darfur had their ethnic cleansing? Where was the United States when Suharto had 500,000 Indonesians murdered? Oh right, they were supporting him. Where was the United States when Saddam gassed the Kurds? Oh right, they were supporting him too, gave him the chemical weapons he gassed the Kurds with. Until he invaded Kuwait that is.

Fulgencio Batista of Cuba who ruled with an iron fist, Gen. Branco who overthrew elected president Goulart, Rafael Leonidas Trujillo Molina the man responsible for the Parsley Massacre of over 8000 people, the Shah of Iran, the list goes on.

The United States has supported all manners of bloody dictators throughout the years, millions of people dead because of the damned politicking of Washington DC. And let's not forget what the so-called "Americans" did to the native Americans. Smallpox, slaughters and forced relocations.

You want to talk about not having a right to their nation? Dissolve America first, then you can talk.

But you won't will you? You've displayed a tendency to avoid points, and then make some more lies.

So go on, make some more lies. You can surprise me with the truth, but I doubt you will.[/QUOTE]

The US supported Castro, not Batista. After the Cuban revolution Castro announced he was going to help to help the Soviets destroy America. Hence, the embargo against Cuba.

The US wanted to take action Darfur but did not have any support for it due to the failure of credibility emitting from the mishandling of Iraq. If the US punished Sudan there would have been a huge outcry and we would have lost a lot of allies in the war against terrorism.

The Shah of Iran was not a bloodthirsty dictator unlike Ahmanidjad, Chavez, or Saddam.

The rest happened under one President: Reagan. And that was because his priority was not freedom or democracy, it was defeating the Soviets in the Cold War.

1. It's called the right to self determination. If people want live under a feudal style government they have the right to do so. If people want to live under a communist government they have the right to do so. If people want to live under democracy they have that right.

2. It was both. An anti religious fever, desire to build an empire, and control Tibetan resources. You have to remember that the commies who conquered China were anti freedom, anti press, anti religion, anti american. People in China don't even have basic rights.

3. And you base your right on dictating how they live their lives on what? The right of China to dictate to its neighbors via force of arms?

4. The US invasion did have role. But what we did was better than maintaining the status qou where Saddam was only biding his time, waiting for US attention to shift elsewhere before starting up again. Case in point, Kosovo war 1. When Clinton attacked Serbia, Saddam used the distraction to send troops into Kurdistan to attack the Kurds. For that, we carried out a massive bombing of Iraq and extended the no fly zone in the north.

5. The US remains, factually, among the freeist countries in the world. We certainly have a lot more freedom than they do in the PRC, and we have given more freedoms to the people of Iraq than they had under Saddam.
Under Saddam, women were banned from voting and children were considered sex toys. After the US ousted Saddam and a new government was installed by the Iraqi people, women in Iraq can now vote and hold political office. Children in Iraq are now enjoying the same protections as children in the US, the UK, Australia, and other western democracies.

6. Where is the cheap oil? The Iraqis are hardly a puppet government. If they were, then explain the Iraqi governments harsh criticism of US support for Israel during the Israeli Lebanon war of 2006. Explain the Iraqi criticism of US policy toward Iran. Explain why the Iraqi government has asked the US to negotiate a deadline for the withdrawal of US forces. Looks to me that Iraq is not acting the part of a US puppet state.

7. You said the US. That includes all of its people including current and past leadership.

8. I'm not going to stuck in a debate on the merits of Bush administration policy.

Well arguing doesn't work when you are too full of retarded dogma to recognize the existence of historical events like the Holodomor. What do you honestly expect when you are impossible to reason with?

If you want to say that it was wrong for the Ukrainian peasants, millions who live in absolute poverty and servility, to rise up against their feudal kulaks masters, and to wage a civil war to pull themselves out of feudalism and into modernity, then you can do so.

Quick qusetion: how much do you know about the TGIE?

Counter question: How much do you know about human nature?

If you want them not to abuse the system as much as the old guard, assuming China just up and left Tibet, you'd need a hell of a lot of checks. Checks that cannot be compromised.

He might know what Marxism looked like better if it hadn't been served to him by a rifle.

Convenient commie. Do you have anything to back up your summation of a man who has openly spoken about the need for reform in Tibet and worked his entire life to bring equal human rights not only to Tibet, but to the entire world, except empty name-calling?
If that were true he would retire himself from politics entirely and let a civilian group do the government in exile thing.

The US supported Castro, not Batista.


Double (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/castro/peopleevents/p_batista.html) lies. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_castro#Assumption_of_power)


Between April 15 and April 26, Castro and a delegation of industrial and international representatives visited the U.S. as guests of the Press Club. Castro hired one of the best public relations firms in the United States for a charm offensive visit by Castro and his recently initiated government. Castro answered impertinent questions jokingly and ate hotdogs and hamburgers. His rumpled fatigues and scruffy beard cut a popular figure easily promoted as an authentic hero.[56] He was refused a meeting with President Eisenhower. After his visit to the United States, he would go on to join forces with the Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev.[47]


After the Cuban revolution Castro announced he was going to help to help the Soviets destroy America. Hence, the embargo against Cuba.

Prove it, liar.


The US wanted to take action Darfur but did not have any support for it due to the failure of credibility emitting from the mishandling of Iraq. If the US punished Sudan there would have been a huge outcry and we would have lost a lot of allies in the war against terrorism.

More lies. The rest of your argument is more of the same. Lies, lies, more lies and fallacies I told you specifically not to use, but you still did, and not only that, strawmen! That's all you can do. Time and again I prove them to be lies, and you only spout more.

Lies, strawmen, and fallacies. Nothing you say is ever true.

You're finished as a poster. You have no credibility as a pathological liar. Say what you want, I don't care. Nobody will believe you.

If that were true he would retire himself from politics entirely and let a civilian group do the government in exile thing.

"In May 2007, Chhime Rigzing, a senior spokesman for the Tibetan spiritual leader's office, stated that the Dalai Lama wants to reduce his political burden as he moves into "retirement".

Rigzing stated "The political leadership will be transferred over a period of time but he will inevitably continue to be the spiritual leader because as the Dalai Lama, the issue of relinquishing the post does not arise."

The Dalai Lama announced he would like the elected Tibetan parliament-in-exile to have more responsibility over administration."

I think Tibet should be the 51st state.
I saw a poll somewhere that said something like a third of Tibet thought they're future was to become an American state. Could probably find the poll with a search.

you're link is FUBAR

I fixed it

http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=532342

Doh! Thank you! :D

Those aren't tanks...

As I previously (and admitedly pedantically) pointed out.

The Tibetans have one day left until they get their arses kicked, and one day only. My money's on the Chinese liberally beating the shit out of the Tibetans when they don't go home tommorow tbqh.

I would certainly support a Marxist-Leninist resistance group in Tibet, one that based it's claim for independence upon Lenin's theory of self-determination and the State and Revolution, and not upon archaic religious-ethnic grounds.



Counter question: How much do you know about human nature?

If you want them not to abuse the system as much as the old guard, assuming China just up and left Tibet, you'd need a hell of a lot of checks. Checks that cannot be compromised.

The CTA government has a better track record of democracy than most Asian democracies - 48 years. I'd say they've established a pretty good foundation.
Here's more info:
http://www.tibet.net/tgie/eng/
http://www.tibet.com/Govt/demo.html
http://www.tibet.com/Govt/charter.html

As for your counter question, as I said above, I'm pessimistic, but to suggest that the TGIE would inexplicably reverse course so violently after almost 50 years is even beyond me.

"In May 2007, Chhime Rigzing, a senior spokesman for the Tibetan spiritual leader's office, stated that the Dalai Lama wants to reduce his political burden as he moves into "retirement".

Rigzing stated "The political leadership will be transferred over a period of time but he will inevitably continue to be the spiritual leader because as the Dalai Lama, the issue of relinquishing the post does not arise."

The Dalai Lama announced he would like the elected Tibetan parliament-in-exile to have more responsibility over administration."

(Linky please...)

The situation Tibet has worsened as the People's Republic has issued a blanket ban on Youtube and all websites discussing the Tibet protests.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23655386

Some sites are also reporting that China has begun to demand that the US and other nations censor their domestic media to block all mention of Tibet. But they seem to conspiracy theory sites.

"Meanwhile, according to the latest information received by the Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy, People’s Armed Police opened fire this afternoon on a demonstration by as many as “thousands” of Tibetans near Kirti Monastery in Aba county, Sichuan province. At least seven people, including monks, were reported killed. Hundreds of people are reported to have been injured."

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/beijing/archive/2008/03/16/tibetan-troubles-spread.aspx

If that is not planned genocide then what is?

As for your counter question, as I said above, I'm pessimistic, but to suggest that the TGIE would inexplicably reverse course so violently after almost 50 years is even beyond me.


I said it wouldn't be overnight. Geez, did you forget that? The reversion would take years, and it would depend on how much power it would wield and what sort of checks there are in place. Right now, the check in place is the fact that they're in exile, and need to look good to the world if they want to have a chance of actually getting Tibet back. It's not a perfect check, seeing Taiwan's record under Chiang Kai-shek, but it's a fairly good one.

Maybe I'll be wrong, and if they actually got Tibet, they won't ever slide down the totalitarian path down the years and decades. But I'm not holding my breath.

I said it wouldn't be overnight. Geez, did you forget that? The reversion would take years, and it would depend on how much power it would wield and what sort of checks there are in place. Right now, the check in place is the fact that they're in exile, and need to look good to the world if they want to have a chance of actually getting Tibet back. It's not a perfect check, seeing Taiwan's record under Chiang Kai-shek, but it's a fairly good one.

Maybe I'll be wrong, and if they actually got Tibet, they won't ever slide down the totalitarian path down the years and decades. But I'm not holding my breath.

Fair enough.

Double (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/castro/peopleevents/p_batista.html) lies. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_castro#Assumption_of_power)





Prove it, liar.



More lies. The rest of your argument is more of the same. Lies, lies, more lies and fallacies I told you specifically not to use, but you still did, and not only that, strawmen! That's all you can do. Time and again I prove them to be lies, and you only spout more.

Lies, strawmen, and fallacies. Nothing you say is ever true.

You're finished as a poster. You have no credibility as a pathological liar. Say what you want, I don't care. Nobody will believe you.

Are you sure you are not mouthpeice for the People's Republic? You seem pretty intent on using fallacies to demonize the Tibetan people and anyone who sympathizes them. Not to mention the spreading of communist propaganda.
I've addressed your points. Others have addressed the same points. You, however have failed to address anyone else's points.

You seem pretty intent on using fallacies to demonize the Tibetan people and anyone who sympathizes them.

Prove the fallacy, liar.


Not to mention the spreading of communist propaganda.


Prove it, liar.


I've addressed your points.

You've not touched any of my points. Like my proof of your lies about US support for Castro, or your lies about who really control's Iraq's oil when I showed the laws being passed that puts them in American hands.

But that's all you can do. Lie some more.

I have better things to do than to talk to Goebbels's ghost.

(Linky please...)

Sorry, it was Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenzin_Gyatso,_14th_Dalai_Lama)

It was fairly big and recent news, and can be verified on the 14th Dalai Lama's personal site (http://www.dalailama.com/page.54.htm) and ABC News. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1921578.htm)

Prove the fallacy, liar.
Prove it, liar.
But that's all you can do. Lie some more.

Could we possibly lay off a little on the mud-slinging? I know it gets bristly, I know I disagree deeply with many people here, but it doesn't need to descend into this.

I have better things to do than to talk to Goebbels's ghost.

Has this thread actually been Godwinned twice now?

Could we possibly lay off a little on the mud-slinging? I know it gets bristly, I know I disagree deeply with many people here, but it doesn't need to descend into this.


Is it mud slinging when it's true? He makes false assertions, I prove that they are false, he makes more false assertions, while acting as if his original assertions were never proven as false.

The logical conclusion is that he is knowingly propagating false assertions, thereby, he is a liar.


Has this thread actually been Godwinned twice now?

I could have used Baghdad Ali I suppose.

I could have used Baghdad Ali I suppose.

Nah, Goebbels is the premium example of a propagandist. And "Goebbels's ghost" is sweet phrasing. Without Hitler or Nazis in general, it's not a Godwinning.

That said, you and USoA really seem to be getting personal over very little substance. How about a do-over?

It's impossible. Does that make it an unworthy goal?

Yes.

Why do I keep fucking up? Tenth time around, "I should know better" gets a bit thin.

Nah, Goebbels is the premium example of a propagandist. And "Goebbels's ghost" is sweet phrasing. Without Hitler or Nazis in general, it's not a Godwinning.

That said, you and USoA really seem to be getting personal over very little substance. How about a do-over?

Godwin is a bogeyman used by intellectual cowards who can't take truth.

Godwin is a bogeyman used by intellectual cowards who can't take truth.

LMAO!

'THIS IS XYZ DENIAL!!!111'

Anything else to add, other than more emotional garbage?
What I said is correct, the only 'evidence' for your claims are vile right-wing tracts which have no fact.

Also, Godwin.

And just to confirm to our Godwin friend here, Chavez has only closed one private media channel, one, RCTV, and he closed them down because of their explicit role in the military coup that briefly ousted him, and because they are run by funds from the US (ie treason).

There you have it, folks, straight from the horse's mouth.

Godwin is a bogeyman used by intellectual cowards who can't take truth.

Accusations of "bourgeoisie" and claims of "only my facts are true, everything countering it is right wing propaganda" is a bogeyman used by an intellectual coward who can't take the truth. I predict he will soon scurry to moderation.

The latest:

Hundreds of Tibetans have died in unrest in Lhasa and elsewhere in the Chinese-ruled Himalayan region, the India-based Tibetan parliament-in-exile said in a statement Monday.

"The massive demonstrations that started from March 10 in the capital city of Lhasa and other regions of Tibet, resulting (in the) death of hundreds of Tibetans, and subsequent use of force... needs to be brought to the attention of the United Nations and the international community," the statement said.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080317090321.tp9mvvpd&show_article=1

Nah, Goebbels is the premium example of a propagandist. And "Goebbels's ghost" is sweet phrasing. Without Hitler or Nazis in general, it's not a Godwinning.Goebbels is a Nazi. Godwin's law has been fulfilled.

.....because Communism is deemed contrary to US interests. Much like Kissinger and the Kurds you'd fuck them in a heart beat. In fact....Didn't he & the US cut off aid to Tibetan groups in the early 70's?

Don't impute any of Kissinger's policies to me. He's had a lifetime of experience selling out allies. I've despised the man since he helped sell out South Vietnam.

So no, I wouldn't "f*ck them in a heart beat." But maybe there's a little of Kissinger in you, eh what?

There you have it, folks, straight from the horse's mouth.

Are you sure that's the right part of the horse?

Tibetans protest at the Chinese embassy in Paris and one of them sneaks up the pole to replace the flag with Tibet flag

http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?c=10&t=1&id=19724&article=Tibetans+storm+Chinese+Embassy+in+Paris

http://www.phayul.com/images/news/articles/080317030222UF.jpg

Lots of photos of protests here

http://www.phayul.com/photogallery/flash/2008/

Graphic content. You are warned.

eh what?

Wtf? Are you on some "Moxy n'Freeum" high

Wtf? Are you on some "Moxy n'Freeum" high

Well, that reference just went over my head :confused: