NationStates Jolt Archive

It comes to me now that it would be appropriate to set the record straight on on Tibet, and in particular to refute the myth that Tibet was a free country in any meaningful way, it can not even be said to be a 'nation' in the modern sense because of the lack of industrialization in produce, communications, exchange or any other develops that define a state as modern in the context of diplomacy with other states.

In particular also this serves to refute the notion that the 'exile government' of the Dalai Lama represents any positive or progressive alternate, even from Chinese capitalism. Furthermore it's not a wild statement to assert that this exile government is and continues to be a proxy of US/Western influence, and that the only people who seriously promote 'independence' are a dustbin variety of feudal relics and various slime who want Tibet as a cesspool of servility and incredulity once again.

China is Communist in name only and Han Chinese chauvinism has certainly been exacerbated in recent history, given that fact.

Still, I would be hesitant to automatically fall into support for a clergy-led movement, despite the existence of very real and serious grievances.

These links provide motivation for caution and a duly deliberative approach.

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

Excerpts:

Western news media, travel books, novels, and Hollywood films have portrayed
the Tibetan theocracy as a veritable Shangri-La. The Dalai Lama himself
stated that ³the pervasive influence of Buddhism² in Tibet, ³amid the wide
open spaces of an unspoiled environment resulted in a society dedicated to
peace and harmony. We enjoyed freedom and contentment.² 4

A reading of Tibet¹s history suggests a somewhat different picture.

This ... Dalai Lama seized monasteries that did not belong to his sect, and
is believed to have destroyed Buddhist writings that conflicted with his
claim to divinity. The Dalai Lama who succeeded him pursued a sybaritic
life, enjoying many mistresses, partying with friends, and acting in other
ways deemed unfitting for an incarnate deity. For these transgressions he
was murdered by his priests. Within 170 years, despite their recognized
divine status, five Dalai Lamas were killed by their high priests or other
courtiers. 6

Young Tibetan boys were regularly taken from their peasant families and
brought into the monasteries to be trained as monks. Once there, they were
bonded for life. Tashì-Tsering, a monk, reports that it was common for
peasant children to be sexually mistreated in the monasteries. He himself
was a victim of repeated rape, beginning at age nine. 14

... some ran away; others openly resisted, sometimes suffering dire
consequences. In feudal Tibet, torture and mutilation--including eye
gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation--were
favored punishments inflicted upon thieves, and runaway or resistant serfs.

In 1959, Anna Louise Strong visited an exhibition of torture equipment that
had been used by the Tibetan overlords. There were handcuffs of all sizes,
including small ones for children, and instruments for cutting off noses and
ears, gouging out eyes, breaking off hands, and hamstringing legs. There
were hot brands, whips, and special implements for disemboweling.

When the current 14th Dalai Lama was first installed in Lhasa, it was with
an armed escort of Chinese troops and an attending Chinese minister, in
accordance with centuries-old tradition. What upset the Tibetan lords and
lamas in the early 1950s was that these latest Chinese were Communists. It
would be only a matter of time, they feared, before the Communists started
imposing their collectivist egalitarian schemes upon Tibet.

The issue was joined in 1956-57, when armed Tibetan bands ambushed convoys
of the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army. The uprising received extensive
assistance from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), including
military training, support camps in Nepal, and numerous airlifts.27
Meanwhile in the United States, the American Society for a Free Asia, a
CIA-financed front, energetically publicized the cause of Tibetan
resistance, with the Dalai Lama¹s eldest brother, Thubtan Norbu, playing an
active role in that organization. The Dalai Lama's second-eldest brother,
Gyalo Thondup, established an intelligence operation with the CIA as early
as 1951. He later upgraded it into a CIA-trained guerrilla unit whose
recruits parachuted back into Tibet.28

Many Tibetan commandos and agents whom the CIA dropped into the country were
chiefs of aristocratic clans or the sons of chiefs. Ninety percent of them
were never heard from again, according to a report from the CIA itself,
meaning they were most likely captured and killed.29 ³Many lamas and lay
members of the elite and much of the Tibetan army joined the uprising, but
in the main the populace did not, assuring its failure,²

Whatever wrongs and new oppressions introduced by the Chinese after 1959,
they did abolish slavery and the Tibetan serfdom system of unpaid labor.
They eliminated the many crushing taxes, started work projects, and greatly
reduced unemployment and beggary. They established secular schools, thereby
breaking the educational monopoly of the monasteries. And they constructed
running water and electrical systems in Lhasa.32

Also:

http://rwor.org/a/firstvol/tibet/tibet1.htm

http://zt.tibet.cn/english/zt/history/200402004526101208.htm

and

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E01E6D6163BF937A35752C0A9679
48260&n=Top/Features/Books/Book%20Reviews

Excerpts:

Locked into a high, almost unreachable plateau north of the Himalayas, the
Tibetans developed their own brand of exotic, artistically rich Buddhism.
They also created a religious dictatorship that rivaled any on earth for
cruelty and ignorance.

Many of the secret rituals and much of the art of the Lamas, which was
influenced by Tantric Buddhism, were obscene. Certain obsessions arose in a
society that eventually enrolled one out of every four males in a supposedly
celibate priesthood.

...the 17th-century Dalai Lama who rebuilt the Potala and who could be
classified as one of the most successful religious charlatans ever. He
declared himself and a group of other monks to be immortals who would be
reborn at death in the bodies of carefully selected babies found nearby,
thus perpetuating and exalting a dictatorship of unmarried men.

106 life-size clay sculptures, obviously intended - like similar displays in
other parts of China - to convince the viewer of the wretchedness of life
before the Communists. Nonetheless, ... these sculptures, called ''The
Wrath of the Serfs,'' stick in the mind. There is a monk ''pushing a
screaming boy into a box to be buried alive in the foundation of a new
monastery chapel'' while ''the agonized parents protest in vain.''

... a quote... by a brother of the current, exiled Dalai Lama: ''It has
always been and still is our belief that there is no higher goal than
religious enlightenment. A secular education corresponds only to secular
needs, and in Tibet these are minimal.''

Fun fact: the Dalai Lama stopped calling for Tibetan independence years ago.

tl, dr.

"murderous slave system" just like China with it's executions and sweatshops then.

tl, dr.

"murderous slave system" just like China with it's executions and sweatshops then.

Well if you weren't so lazy I am saying the Chinese system is bad but it is modern and at least it's better than the serf system of torture under the tyranny of the Dalai Lamas, why anyone would support an openly theocratic exile government in this day and age is beyond me.

I actually have to partly agree with Andaras here, but just because the Tibetan government was backward doesn't give China any more right to conquer and annex it any more than the USA is entitled to incorporate Tibet as its 51st state.

I'm certainly not calling for the reinstatement of the Dalai Lama as, essentially, the king of Tibet. Rather, I would support a PRC withdrawal from Tibet, and installation of a more modern government. The shadiness of the previous regime does not justify the behaviors the PRC has displayed in their occupation of Tibet. Brutal cultural genocide, and destruction of irreplaceable historical artifacts and a fascist-like vice grip on the people does not make them any better than the Dalai Lama's government. Coupled with their own internal information tyranny, this system seems even less just.

I actually have to partly agree with Andaras here, but just because the Tibetan government was backward doesn't give China any more right to conquer and annex it any more than the USA is entitled to incorporate Tibet as its 51st state.

The pre-Chinese Tibet you speak of was never a 'nationstate' in any meaningful way.

I'm certainly not calling for the reinstatement of the Dalai Lama as, essentially, the king of Tibet. Rather, I would support a PRC withdrawal from Tibet, and installation of a more modern government. The shadiness of the previous regime does not justify the behaviors the PRC has displayed in their occupation of Tibet. Brutal cultural genocide, and destruction of irreplaceable historical artifacts and a fascist-like vice grip on the people does not make them any better than the Dalai Lama's government. Coupled with their own internal information tyranny, this system seems even less just.
If anything, as displayed by my article, the 'culture' of Tibet was nothing but a dark-age feudal regime of cruelty and servility, enforcing a economic system of serfdom, you can call it that 'culture' all you want, Buddhism like all religions are bloody backward dogmas and deserve to be burnt as the socially-dangerous retardants of progress that they are. You can say 'cultural genocide' all you like, but any clear thinking person would greet the destruction of such a 'culture' with open arms.

Buddhism like all religions are bloody backward dogmas and deserve to be burnt as the socially-dangerous retardants of progress that they are.

The only true retardants of progress at a societal scale are any system of fundamentalist adherents to a particular concept/philosophy/social structure/economic theory/idea/etc that discourages the pursuit of how and why.

In that aspect, religion is no different than any other form of way of life/governance concept that has been put into practice from time immemorial.

Fun fact: the Dalai Lama stopped calling for Tibetan independence years ago.

Fun Fact II: The Dalai Lama has repeatedly said that he will only remain the Dalai Lama for as long as the Tibetans felt it needed to have one, and that he'd be perfectly happy to step down as a significant figure (and to end the Dalai Lama tradition) to be replaced by a truly democratic process.

Of course, he is but one, albeit most powerful, member of the old system, but just trying to put some perspective on the ramblings here.

If anything, as displayed by my article, the 'culture' of Tibet was nothing but a dark-age feudal regime of cruelty and servility, enforcing a economic system of serfdom, you can call it that 'culture' all you want, Buddhism like all religions are bloody backward dogmas and deserve to be burnt as the socially-dangerous retardants of progress that they are. You can say 'cultural genocide' all you like, but any clear thinking person would greet the destruction of such a 'culture' with open arms.

I'd like to thank you for putting some perspective onto yourself before I'd have to go and dig up your post history or anything similarly tedious.

It comes to me now that it would be appropriate to set the record straight on on Tibet, and in particular to refute the myth that Tibet was a free country in any meaningful way, it can not even be said to be a 'nation' in the modern sense because of the lack of industrialization in produce, communications, exchange or any other develops that define a state as modern in the context of diplomacy with other states. <snip>

I think Tibet should be independent, but that doesn't necessarily mean a return to the old system. The Tibetans could make a viable country if they wanted to.

Well if you weren't so lazy I am saying the Chinese system is bad but it is modern and at least it's better than the serf system of torture under the tyranny of the Dalai Lamas, why anyone would support an openly theocratic exile government in this day and age is beyond me.

Why is opposition to chinese rule equivalent to supporting a return to feudalism? The Tibetan people have a right to rule themselves, without being fucked over by the PRC.

Why is opposition to chinese rule equivalent to supporting a return to feudalism? The Tibetan people have a right to rule themselves, without being fucked over by the PRC.

yeah does having had a yucky government in the past mean that it is OK for a more "civilized" country to take you over? do the tibetans have no say in the matter at all?

i dont think they want a return to the 1700s. they want their own country run the way that makes sense to them today.

Anyone expecting the current democratic government in exile to suddenly and inexplicably throw away the current democratic constitution (http://www.tibet.com/Govt/charter.html) is, IMO, an utter fool.

Andaras, your post is bigoted in the extreme. In essence, you argue that a given ethinic group cannot advance beyond feudalism and is forever doomed to it. (I won't touch your slanders upon Buddhism.)

tl, dr.

"murderous slave system" just like China with it's executions and sweatshops then.

But China's murderous slave system has modern infrastructure, which, per the OP, qualifies it as a nation, thus possessing a right to rule Tibet.

The actions of the past government don't justify Chinese action. Their claim can only rest on the (genuine) fact that in the relatively recent past Tibet was a de-facto Chinese province, which is why I think a status not unlike that Hong Kong and Macau currently hold is the most feasible future situation. This seems to be what most people in Tibet are hoping for anyway.

I think the account given of past government in Tibet is someone one sided and sensationalistic. Hyperbole aside, Tibet was no better and no worse than any other nation. Torturing prisoners was hardly uncommon in the 17th and 18th century, and there is nothing to suggest the current would-be rulers are interested in going in for eye gorging as a means of maintaining law and order. This is the 21st century, these days we use waterboarding, goddamit. It'd be up to the Tibetans to work ou amongst themselves the power structure they want for any future government (internal self rule, or complete, whatever) though personally I'm not opposed to the idea of keeping a Dalai Lama, though with some check/balance perhaps.

But China's murderous slave system has modern infrastructure, which, per the OP, qualifies it as a nation, thus possessing a right to rule Tibet.

I dont see how modern infrastructure qualifies a place for nation status over others. A lot of countries lack modern infrastructure. Bhutan didn't have TV until recently, but no one questions the status of their nation.

The actions of the past government don't justify Chinese action. Their claim can only rest on the (genuine) fact that in the relatively recent past Tibet was a de-facto Chinese province, which is why I think a status not unlike that Hong Kong and Macau currently hold is the most feasible future situation. This seems to be what most people in Tibet are hoping for anyway.

I think the account given of past government in Tibet is someone one sided and sensationalistic. Hyperbole aside, Tibet was no better and no worse than any other nation. Torturing prisoners was hardly uncommon in the 17th and 18th century, and there is nothing to suggest the current would-be rulers are interested in going in for eye gorging as a means of maintaining law and order. This is the 21st century, these days we use waterboarding, goddamit. It'd be up to the Tibetans to work ou amongst themselves the power structure they want for any future government (internal self rule, or complete, whatever) though personally I'm not opposed to the idea of keeping a Dalai Lama, though with some check/balance perhaps.

Like maybe the current democratically elected goverment (http://www.tibet.com/Govt/charter.html) that has HH as the head, much like HRH Elizabeth. (I'm sure the OP, unlike reasonable people, will try and claim that the UK is still an undemocratic oppressive feudal state...)

It comes to me now that it would be appropriate to set the record straight on on Tibet, Oh, this is going to be good.and in particular to refute the myth that Tibet was a free country in any meaningful way, "Meaningful"?it can not even be said to be a 'nation' in the modern sense because of the lack of industrialization in produce, communications, exchange or any other develops that define a state as modern in the context of diplomacy with other states.What kind of half-wit argumentation is this? "Nation" has damn little to do with how modern a state is, even in a modern sense.

Speaking of sense, perhaps its time you get some knocked into you. Your pro-Stalinist, pro-Maoist trolling is predictable and tiresome.

Why is opposition to chinese rule equivalent to supporting a return to feudalism? Because stawmen don't shoot back.

Because stawmen don't shoot back.

Or even worse - non-engagement of the thinking facilities and ignorance of current situations is easier to deal with than preconcieved prejudices.

Like maybe the current democratically elected goverment (http://www.tibet.com/Govt/charter.html) that has HH as the head, much like HRH Elizabeth. (I'm sure the OP, unlike reasonable people, will try and claim that the UK is still an undemocratic oppressive feudal state...)

It seems a pretty good and fair arangement, hardly a nightmare of opression and tyranny. The only thing to be wary of is that the Chief Kalon doesn't get carried away with his own power trips like British PM's do. This is why the Dalai Lama needs to retain some real authority and power, IMHO... Keep the ministers in line.

It comes to me now that it would be appropriate to set the record straight on on Tibet, and in particular to refute the myth that Tibet was a free country in any meaningful way, it can not even be said to be a 'nation' in the modern sense because of the lack of industrialization in produce, communications, exchange or any other develops that define a state as modern in the context of diplomacy with other states.

A nation is defined as "a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own." Tibet qualifies. If you can't even agree with definitions of words, and have to tack on these unnecessary made-up definitions (like meeting some vague, arbitrary measure of "industrialization in produce?" Might as well just say people are only people if they don't have a "lack of financial produce" or "less money than I do, lolz!") there is really no point in discussing anything with you.

But that was clear when you took on the tone of "setting the record straight" instead of offering something for discussion. No one has to know that you're a blatant Stalinist who revels in mass murder; you literally can't go a dozen words into one of your trolling threads without shouting to everyone, "I'm a bigot; behold, my bigotry! Amen!"

Translation:
KULAKS AND BOURGEOISE WERE RUNNING TIBET! THE GLORIOUS PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA AND THE EQUALLY GLORIOUS PEOPLES RED ARMY WERE FULLY JUSTIFIED IN ALL STEPS TAKEN TO LIBERATE THE PEOPLE OF TIBET FROM THESE OPPRESSIVE RULERS. THEY MAY ALSO HAVE BEEN LIBERATED FROM OTHER THINGS, LIKE THEIR PROPERTY, CULTURAL BACKGROUND, FAMLIES, AND LIVES, BUT THAT DOESNT MATTER.
WE LIBERATED THOSE BASTARDS GOOD, DIDNT WE?

Golly, sounds an AWFUL lot like the various people who attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Translation:
KULAKS AND BOURGEOISE WERE RUNNING TIBET! THE GLORIOUS PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA AND THE EQUALLY GLORIOUS PEOPLES RED ARMY WERE FULLY JUSTIFIED IN ALL STEPS TAKEN TO LIBERATE THE PEOPLE OF TIBET FROM THESE OPPRESSIVE RULERS. THEY MAY ALSO HAVE BEEN LIBERATED FROM OTHER THINGS, LIKE THEIR PROPERTY, CULTURAL BACKGROUND, FAMLIES, AND LIVES, BUT THAT DOESNT MATTER.
WE LIBERATED THOSE BASTARDS GOOD, DIDNT WE?

Golly, sounds an AWFUL lot like the various people who attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Well put, well put.

I believe the PRC really need to regear itself to with the Tibet issue but it's not advisable to switch to immediate independence for Tibet atm.

It's in PRC's best interest to reform the Tibetan government if PRC need to avoid further international embarrasement in later stage. The PRC must remove the Han dominance in the administration of Tibet. Cool down the economic development to reconcile with the cultural issue. Han chauvinism is definitely a problem, it's creating an ignorant development progress that raising problems like atm. Its not to the current PRC government's interest to maintain this poor status quo in Tibet when they have large agenda to be admitted into International community with respect and better co-op development.

The reasons why I believe Tibet is not deem best for independence atm are all written over in history and there's no one better atm to run the region than the PRC government. It's simply naive to trust the Tibetan government in exile when much of the power would lies within its grasp if they will to become the next government.

There's barely any credibility to trust the Tibetan government in exile to not follow the old system. If we will to assume that the current Dalai Lama is a liberal but still how can one assure that the next Dalai will not when they are under in theocratic rule. Look at Iran, theocracy is evident but it still pretends to be a full democracy with its election and stuff. South Africa would be a good example to follow in the best sense for new independence. There will also be no possible pressure to apply to the Tibetan government if it becomes theocratic by the look of things. According to Dalai Lama's representatives, the exile government want to preserve the rural and cultural life of Tibet. How can economic sanction work under such conditions as economic development is not under their agenda unlike the PRC? It's a lesser of the two evil in this sense.

Transition really needs a process or else look at Africa - the continent used to have a good economy but African nationalism destroyed it. They were too hasty for change and abandoned all economic prospect just so that they can be independent. And at the end, they still landed up to depend on Europe's economic help. Han population atm is largely greater than the Tibetan's so civil war is undoubtly is to follow if independent look at the Irish Revolution and many other African countries too for example.

If the tibetan can't form a more moderate group and reconcile with PRC, independence is bleek and instead gainning more agitation from the PRC. Reconciliation and comprise is the best method for both groups.

I believe the PRC really need to regear itself to with the Tibet issue but it's not advisable to switch to immediate independence for Tibet atm.

It's in PRC's best interest to reform the Tibetan government if PRC need to avoid further international embarrasement in later stage. The PRC must remove the Han dominance in the administration of Tibet. Cool down the economic development to reconcile with the cultural issue. Han chauvinism is definitely a problem, it's creating an ignorant development progress that raising problems like atm. Its not to the current PRC government's interest to maintain this poor status quo in Tibet when they have large agenda to be admitted into International community with respect and better co-op development.

The reasons why I believe Tibet is not deem best for independence atm are all written over in history and there's no one better atm to run the region than the PRC government. It's simply naive to trust the Tibetan government in exile when much of the power would lies within its grasp if they will to become the next government.

There's barely any credibility to trust the Tibetan government in exile to not follow the old system. If we will to assume that the current Dalai Lama is a liberal but still how can one assure that the next Dalai will not when they are under in theocratic rule. Look at Iran, theocracy is evident but it still pretends to be a full democracy with its election and stuff. South Africa would be a good example to follow in the best sense for new independence. There will also be no possible pressure to apply to the Tibetan government if it becomes theocratic by the look of things. According to Dalai Lama's representatives, the exile government want to preserve the rural and cultural life of Tibet. How can economic sanction work under such conditions as economic development is not under their agenda unlike the PRC? It's a lesser of the two evil in this sense.

Transition really needs a process or else look at Africa - the continent used to have a good economy but African nationalism destroyed it. They were too hasty for change and abandoned all economic prospect just so that they can be independent. And at the end, they still landed up to depend on Europe's economic help. Han population atm is largely greater than the Tibetan's so civil war is undoubtly is to follow if independent look at the Irish Revolution and many other African countries too for example.

If the tibetan can't form a more moderate group and reconcile with PRC, independence is bleek and instead gainning more agitation from the PRC. Reconciliation and comprise is the best method for both groups.

As for trusting the TGIE, they've been a constitutional democracy since 1960, not a theocracy. That's better than can be said for the government of the PRC. I know which government I trust to take care of the nation of Tibet. (Hint: It's not the genocidal PRC.)

I believe (...) both groups.

I believe that the PRC should fuck off for itself, either in stages or instantaneously, and that Tibetan goverments should not be influenced by its or its whims. Thats not because they're communists, or chinese, but because they're a pack of bastards. I apply the same principle to Israel, Russia and America.

I actually have to partly agree with Andaras here, but just because the Tibetan government was backward doesn't give China any more right to conquer and annex it any more than the USA is entitled to incorporate Tibet as its 51st state.

Or was entitled to invade Iraq, for that matter. But hey, things happen.

I believe that the PRC should fuck off for itself, either in stages or instantaneously, and that Tibetan goverments should not be influenced by its or its whims. Thats not because they're communists, or chinese, but because they're a pack of bastards. I apply the same principle to Israel, Russia and America.

:)

What she/he said.

Anyone expecting the current democratic government in exile to suddenly and inexplicably throw away the current democratic constitution (http://www.tibet.com/Govt/charter.html) is, IMO, an utter fool.

Andaras, your post is bigoted in the extreme. In essence, you argue that a given ethinic group cannot advance beyond feudalism and is forever doomed to it. (I won't touch your slanders upon Buddhism.)

Ethnicity is no justification for nationhood in modernity.

I suppose I partly agree with you. States that violate human rights including torture and executions should be condemned in the harshest terms whether that be the PRC or a buddhist theocracy if you like in Tibet. Democracy and independence for Tibet is of course the ideal. Though I don't agree all theoracies are inherently bad or stifle advancement. For instance I would have no problem living in the vatican. why? Because the Catholic Church today respects the sancity of human life and doesn't engage in barbarism.

I suppose I partly agree with you. States that violate human rights including torture and executions should be condemned in the harshest terms whether that be the PRC or a buddhist theocracy if you like in Tibet. Democracy and independence for Tibet is of course the ideal. Though I don't agree all theoracies are inherently bad or stifle advancement. For instance I would have no problem living in the vatican. why? Because the Catholic Church today respects the sancity of human life and doesn't engage in barbarism.

Lol, except when it tells Africans that contraception is a sin and causes the death of millions by aids? Or maybe that fascism started out as nothing but the political activities of the Catholic right-wing? How about that catholics celebrated 'the birthday of the Fuhrer' right up until 1945, or the fact that half of the Waffen SS were confessing catholics and never got threatened for their role in the final solution, the only catholic in the Nazi hierarchy ever excommunicated by Dr. Goebells, and that was for marrying a protestant, you see the church has standards, genocide is fine but protestants are bad!

Please keep your backward and anti-social views out of this thread theocrat, if Christianity represented the 'sanctity of human life' then why is redemption in Christianity brought about through the torture and murder of another human being (and eating him cannabalistically in catholicism).

Christianity, like all OT religions, are backward retardants of progress of any kind.

Lol, (..........)retardants of progress of any kind.

....which rather ignores the even greater complicity of smaller protestant churches, the ultimate hostility of Hitler to catholicism, and it and many of its adherents within Germany to he. At least your tendency towards sweeping generalisations and assumptions is not confined to issues Tibet related alone.

Please keep your backward and anti-social views out of this thread theocrat, if Christianity represented the 'sanctity of human life' then why is redemption in Christianity brought about through the torture and murder of another human being (and eating him cannabalistically in catholicism).

I'm not saying the Church has had a perfect past, because it hasn't. However it has apologised for its wrong doing. Contraception may very well be permitted by the next Pope, so thats a none issue. The fact is today the Church is modern and teaches peace and forgiveness(i.e. being against the Iraq war) And the fact is I won't be executed in the vacitan unlike the way I would in your little workers revolution which has little regard for human life.

Regarding the Passion, thats a debate for another thread.

Snip

Basically it's the same bullcrap that Maoist communists have been saying for the last 50 years. If you look at were he gets his info it's mostly from the Revolutionary Communist Party, a party that wants to transform America into a totalitarian communist state like Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Vietnam etc. Yes Tibet was a backward nation but that doesn't justify the genocide of Tibetians and Tibetian monks along with the other 50 million people that Mao murdered or the 25 million people Stalin killed or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. China should leave Tibet alone and allow it to bcome independent.

The Dalai Lama says that the Lama system is over and that Tibet should be a constitutional democracy. Tibetians are not similar to Han Chinese and was never a part of the chinese empire.

Also Communism is a new form of feudalism so things in Tibet haven't changed much since the PRC invaded tibet in 1959.

Not to mention Tibet invaded and subjugated quite a few peaceful kingdoms.

People want an independent Tibet, but honestly why do a bunch of monks need independence. Even Bhutan is getting out of the past now. Tibet would just be a bunch of monks diddling around on an iceblock. China will actually have the land productive.

Not to (....)ve.

Kindly refer me to where the statistics are that define the Tibetan population as a "bunch of monks". Or is this a new subject for you to employ your run to the hills tactic on?


China will actually have the land productive. .

Why do you presume that a modern Tibetan state would not be productive?

Basically it's the same bullcrap that Maoist communists have been saying for the last 50 years. If you look at were he gets his info it's mostly from the Revolutionary Communist Party, a party that wants to transform America into a totalitarian communist state like Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Vietnam etc. Yes Tibet was a backward nation but that doesn't justify the genocide of Tibetians and Tibetian monks along with the other 50 million people that Mao murdered or the 25 million people Stalin killed or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. China should leave Tibet alone and allow it to bcome independent.

The Dalai Lama says that the Lama system is over and that Tibet should be a constitutional democracy. Tibetians are not similar to Han Chinese and was never a part of the chinese empire.

Also Communism is a new form of feudalism so things in Tibet haven't changed much since the PRC invaded tibet in 1959.

Communism is the natural successor of capitalism due to the inherent contradictions in capitalism which inevitably doom it, you cannot deny or stop this undeniable reality.

Now, if you really want me to get into a post about Stalin, please confirm that you want me too, I don't want to take up a whole page and go off topic, I suggest you read my previous posts on the matter to realize your own incorrect ideas.

I do not support current China for reason obvious, but I would however for you to justify your claims of '50 million people', seeing that no evidence for this claim exists and has been locked up for decades, you can't prove a thing, all you and your cronies can do is quote professional slanders and intellectual dishonesty in fraudulent McCarthyist/Nazi propaganda such as Conquest, Solstentizn or the 'Black Book', all fiction.

In regard to 'Stalin', if you want to blame the downtrodden soviet peasants for rising up against their kulak masters and killing many, then do so, but your only defending injustice and attacking self-defense.

China is not any different, it's just the modern industrialised version. The current Communists rule China like the Emperors did a long time ago, with the sword (nowaways a gun).

Well if you weren't so lazy I am saying the Chinese system is bad but it is modern and at least it's better than the serf system of torture under the tyranny of the Dalai Lamas, why anyone would support an openly theocratic exile government in this day and age is beyond me.

It is absolutely true that Tibet, like any nation, is not perfect, and has engaged in its share of abuse of power, exploitation and feudalism.

However, you have done little to link these things with the current government in exile lead by the 14th Dalai Lama. His Holiness has long been aware of and a chief proponent of change in Tibet, both in the way that it's run and the way in which people live. Before the attempt on his life and his subsequent emigration in 1959, His Holiness met and worked diligently with Mao and agents of the Chinese government to try and establish a compromise and a plan to move Tibet into the modern age in its own way and at its own pace. To this day, His Holiness asks not for independence, but autonomy within China's borders. Although it has historically been the Dalai Lama's job to be both secular and spiritual leader, he does not seek this position; he is happy and willing to have the Tibetan people appoint their own secular leader.

Many of the things you say are true--Tibet is not and has never been a perfect society. But to say that it is worse than Chinese rule is like saying that Native Americans today are better off than they were before colonialism, because at least now they have running water and don't make war on each other. Modern does not equal better, and what the exiled government wants to see is not a return to serfdom, but a true democracy.

But China's murderous slave system has modern infrastructure, which, per the OP, qualifies it as a nation, thus possessing a right to rule Tibet.The idea of a nation consitutes a common language, culture, political boundaries, and a common heritage. Not the idea of having a government that has the ability to rule over areas in a modern concept. If you so deem it as such you can just as easily say some other modern nations are not countries, aka the nation of Iran due to praticing a non-traditional type of democtacy, China for embracing a one party system and for killing people based on political views, and a number of other nations in Africa. Yet, Iran is a nation in every sense in the world due to the fact that the people are basically united by one idea of nation and they are group that follows the Koran to the letter. China brutalizes countless people with seperate opinions. And African nations are considered one nation by a number of different virtues.

Communism is the natural successor of capitalism due to the inherent contradictions in capitalism which inevitably doom it, you cannot deny or stop this undeniable reality.

Now, if you really want me to get into a post about Stalin, please confirm that you want me too, I don't want to take up a whole page and go off topic, I suggest you read my previous posts on the matter to realize your own incorrect ideas.

I do not support current China for reason obvious, but I would however for you to justify your claims of '50 million people', seeing that no evidence for this claim exists and has been locked up for decades, you can't prove a thing, all you and your cronies can do is quote professional slanders and intellectual dishonesty in fraudulent McCarthyist/Nazi propaganda such as Conquest, Solstentizn or the 'Black Book', all fiction.

In regard to 'Stalin', if you want to blame the downtrodden soviet peasants for rising up against their kulak masters and killing many, then do so, but your only defending injustice and attacking self-defense.

1) Communism failed. China is only a communist state in name. North Korea is the most backwards state in the world and Cuba is so poor it can't buy anything.
2) You're obvouisly a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Communist_Party%2C_USA).
3) Communism has killed more people than Nazism- about 130 million people.
4) Mao was the worst mass murderer in the history of man 2nd was Stalin.

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

China PRC: 77 million
Soviet Union: 61 million.
Cambodia: 1 million
Yugoslavia: 1 million.
N. Korea 1.5 million

5) ok discuss Stalin cause he was the worst monster in the history of earth.

1) Communism failed. China is only a communist state in name. North Korea is the most backwards state in the world and Cuba is so poor it can't buy anything.
2) You're obvouisly a member of the RCP.
3) Communism has killed more people than Nazism- about 130 million people.
4) Mao was the worst mass murderer in the history of man 2nd was Stalin.

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

China PRC: 77 million
Soviet Union: 61 million.
Cambodia: 1 million
Yugoslavia: 1 million.
N. Korea 1.5 million

5) ok discuss Stalin cause he was the worst monster in the history of earth.
You can't prove anything, and I grow tired of your reflexive anti-communist Nazi-styled propaganda, you remind me of those B-grade American propaganda films. Shoo fly, I am not American so I am not RCP, or MIM for that matter, I am DSP currently.

Their is no evidence for any of your claims in China.

How about we cover the real crimes of capitalism such as third world exploitation, imperialist, colonialist and counter-revolutionary wars, repressions of workers and trade unionists, genocides, massacres and so on. It concludes that capitalism has killed approximately 147 million people between 1500 and 1997.

This includes 70 million Indians during the colonization of the Americas, 10 million due to slavery, 10 million due to World War I, 50 million due to World War II, 3 million due to the Vietnam War, and 1 million due to the Biafra War.

What can one say about Conquest's affirmation of 6,500,000 `massacred' kulaks during the different phases of the collectivization? Only part of the 63,000 first category counter-revolutionaries were executed. The number of dead during deportations, largely due to famine and epidemics, was approximately 100,000. Between 1932 and 1940, we can estimate that 200,000 kulaks died in the colonies of natural causes. The executions and these deaths took place during the greatest class struggle that the Russian countryside ever saw, a struggle that radically transformed a backward and primitive countryside. In this giant upheaval, 120 million peasants were pulled out of the Middle Ages, of illiteracy and obscurantism. It was the reactionary forces, who wanted to maintain exploitation and degrading and inhuman work and living conditions, who received the blows. Repressing the bourgeoisie and the reactionaries was absolutely necessary for collectivization to take place: only collective labor made socialist mechanization possible, thereby allowing the peasant masses to lead a free, proud and educated life.

Through their hatred of socialism, Western intellectuals spread Conquest's absurd lies about 6,500,000 `exterminated' kulaks. They took up the defence of bourgeois democracy, of imperialist democracy. In Mozambique, Renamo, organized by the CIA and the security services of South Africa, has massacred and starved 900,000 villagers since 1980. The goal: prevent Mozambique from becoming an independent country with a socialist direction. In Mozambique, Western intellectuals did not need to invent cadavers, all they needed to do was write about imperialist barbarity. But these 900,000 deaths are a non-fact: no-one talks about them.

Unita, also openly financed and supported by the CIA and South Africa, killed more than one million Angolans during the civil war against the MPLA nationalist government. After having lost the 1992 elections, Savimbi, the CIA man, took up his destructive war yet again.

`The Angolan tragedy threatens the life of 3 million people .... Savimbi refused to accept the government's electoral victory of 129 seats against 91 and has plunged Angola yet again in a ferocious conflict that has taken another 100,000 lives (in the last twelve months).'

GODWINS LAW
Run for the hills, everybody!

Anyone expecting the current democratic government in exile to suddenly and inexplicably throw away the current democratic constitution (http://www.tibet.com/Govt/charter.html) is, IMO, an utter fool.

Andaras, your post is bigoted in the extreme. In essence, you argue that a given ethinic group cannot advance beyond feudalism and is forever doomed to it. (I won't touch your slanders upon Buddhism.)
What? Andaras posted something that ignores some facts, misrepresents others, and tends towards bigotry? Say it ain't so, Joe! Say it ain't so!

Buddhism like all religions are bloody backward dogmas and deserve to be burnt as the socially-dangerous retardants of progress that they are. You can say 'cultural genocide' all you like, but any clear thinking person would greet the destruction of such a 'culture' with open arms.

Here, of course, we get to the real heart of the matter. You don't like theocracies. You don't like religion. It's a tool of oppression. Etc etc. Your argument shows that not only do you not know a thing about Buddhism, you are so biased against religion (even a non-theistic one like Tibetan Buddhists practice) that you have no room to consider the possibility that some faiths are not aimed at oppression and subjugation of their followers. You also seem to be a huge fan of dogma yourself, as long as it's pseudo-communist and not religious.

Andaras, your post is bigoted in the extreme. In essence, you argue that a given ethinic group cannot advance beyond feudalism and is forever doomed to it. (I won't touch your slanders upon Buddhism.)

Absolutely agreed.

Power comes from the barrel of a gun, surely the Tibetans don't have to learn this the hard way.

Since over one million of them have already been slaughtered, I'd say that was the hard way. Which is funny, because you'd think feudalistic torturous abusers of the working class wouldn't waste fifty years in nonviolent protest.

Ethnicity is no justification for nationhood in modernity.Prove it. And by "prove it", I mean offer evidence as opposed to maoist tautological arguments on par with Intelligent Design.

Communism is the natural successor of capitalism due to the inherent contradictions in capitalism which inevitably doom it, you cannot deny or stop this undeniable reality.No. Communism was imagined to be the successor of capitalism. However, Marx expected capitalism to develop into a complete monopoly that eventually only existed by absolute exploitation of the workers to the full benefit of a few owners. This has not come to pass, as capitalism has not entered that stage, save in Russia or China, were state run monopolies primarily serve the few.
Power comes from the barrel of a gun, surely the Tibetans don't have to learn this the hard way.Ghandi disproved Mao.

Ethnicity is no justification for nationhood in modernity.
Of course, it's not like the bulk of nations currently have large ethic majorities. :rolleyes:

People want an independent Tibet, but honestly why do a bunch of monks need independence. Even Bhutan is getting out of the past now. Tibet would just be a bunch of monks diddling around on an iceblock. China will actually have the land productive.

Why do a bunch of accountants need independence? How does one's vocation relate at all to one's personal freedom?

In the spirit of productivity, then, I'm sure you wouldn't mind the government stepping in and repossessing your house/apartment/living quarters to be put to better use.

You can't prove anything, and I grow tired of your reflexive anti-communist Nazi-styled propaganda, you remind me of those B-grade American propaganda films. Shoo fly, I am not American so I am not RCP, or MIM for that matter, I am DSP currently.

Their is no evidence for any of your claims in China.
Bull shit, there is quite a bit of evidence for the deaths caused during both the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, BUT, I know that anything we present, from people's eye witness testimony, to census figures, to respected historians will be summarily dismissed by you as products of propaganda.

You're a bloody broken record dude, and one that has long since lost any meaning or interest.

Also, lets do a bit of math here.
Assuming 'capitalism' killed 150 million people between 1500 and 1997, we can work out the 'deaths per year' caused by capitalism, assuming, of course, that the dirty pigdogs killed a certain quota per year.
My calculator says that comes out to about 301,810 people per year.

Now, taking the figures from Wikipedia, lets take a look at the Communist side of things.
Starting from the rise of the Soviet Union, lets say, 1918 going up to 1991, 'communism' (in the states listed in that last post) was responsible for 141.5 million deaths over 73 years.
Therefore, 'communism' killed 1,938,356 people per year.
Tsk tsk.

Newsflash: The Biafra War had jack shit to do with "capitalism." Or any "ism" for that matter.

If anything, as displayed by my article, the 'culture' of Tibet was nothing but a dark-age feudal regime of cruelty and servility, enforcing a economic system of serfdom, you can call it that 'culture' all you want, Buddhism like all religions are bloody backward dogmas and deserve to be burnt as the socially-dangerous retardants of progress that they are. You can say 'cultural genocide' all you like, but any clear thinking person would greet the destruction of such a 'culture' with open arms.

Again you lump Buddhism with all other religions. There has been no buddhist nations that have invaded, destroyed or repressed other nations. Tibet has never invaded another nation. Cambodia was a peaceful nation until the khmer rouge.

Communism forces people to be athiests.

Again you lump Buddhism with all other religions. There has been no buddhist nations that have invaded, destroyed or repressed other nations. Tibet has never invaded another nation. Cambodia was a peaceful nation until the khmer rouge.

Yeah that's because Buddhism is completely backward in that it absolutely rejects modernity, so it's technological and development disallows it such power, albeit it had a nice time brutalizing and enslaving it's own people until Mao rightfully curbstomped the theocracy. Other ideologies opposing progress, such as Naziism, opposed progress in so far as allowing the material contraptions in allowing them to spread their backwardness, thus Nazi Germany stagnated everywhere except the military, the whole economy (including lending) was geared to a suicidal national death 'strategy'.

Yeah that's because Buddhism is completely backward in that it absolutely rejects modernity, so it's technological and development disallows it such power, albeit it had a nice time brutalizing and enslaving it's own people until Mao rightfully curbstomped the theocracy. Other ideologies opposing progress, such as Naziism, opposed progress in so far as allowing the material contraptions in allowing them to spread their backwardness, thus Nazi Germany stagnated everywhere except the military, the whole economy (including lending) was geared to a suicidal national death 'strategy'.

You mean as backwards as North Korea? or China under Mao? Communism forces people to be slaves for a state system that brutally oppress them? Only reason why China is slightly better now cause they got rid of the Maoist system for a statist capitalist system. If China hadn't it would be as bad North Korea.

Also in North Korea the estmated 500,000+ people who have died since the mid 90's due to famine caused by Kim jong-Il

Yeah that's because Buddhism is completely backward in that it absolutely rejects modernity, so it's technological and development disallows it such power, albeit it had a nice time brutalizing and enslaving it's own people until Mao rightfully curbstomped the theocracy. Other ideologies opposing progress, such as Naziism, opposed progress in so far as allowing the material contraptions in allowing them to spread their backwardness, thus Nazi Germany stagnated everywhere except the military, the whole economy (including lending) was geared to a suicidal national death 'strategy'.

You mean as backwards as North Korea? or China under Mao? Communism forces people to be slaves for a state system that brutally oppress them? Only reason why China is slightly better now cause they got rid of the Maoist system for a statist capitalist system. If China hadn't it would be as bad North Korea.

Also the 500,000+ people died in North Korea because of Kim Jong-Il's forced famine.

You mean as backwards as North Korea? or China under Mao? Communism forces people to be slaves for a state system that brutally oppress them? Only reason why China is slightly better now cause they got rid of the Maoist system for a statist capitalist system. If China hadn't it would be as bad North Korea.

Also the 500,000+ people died in North Korea because of Kim Jong-Il's forced famine.
Communism is nothing but the self-determination of the working masses for liberation and class dictatorship.

Fact: If it wasn't for China, Tibet would still be very primitive.

- Literacy rates increased by 99% with China's help.
- Provincial economic rates increased up to 80% with China's help.
- Crime rates plunged 40% while under China.

Communism is nothing but the self-determination of the working masses for liberation and class dictatorship.Is that why North Koreans need special permission to leave their village? Because of self-determination? As to the Tibetans taking to the streets hoping for self-determination: Were they all businessmen, or were some of them workers?

Again you lump Buddhism with all other religions. There has been no buddhist nations that have invaded, destroyed or repressed other nations. Tibet has never invaded another nation. Cambodia was a peaceful nation until the khmer rouge.

Communism forces people to be athiests.

Communism doesn't force people.

Communism has nothing that deals with religion.

It's just the CCP.

Also, lets do a bit of math here.
Assuming 'capitalism' killed 150 million people between 1500 and 1997, we can work out the 'deaths per year' caused by capitalism, assuming, of course, that the dirty pigdogs killed a certain quota per year.
My calculator says that comes out to about 301,810 people per year.

Now, taking the figures from Wikipedia, lets take a look at the Communist side of things.
Starting from the rise of the Soviet Union, lets say, 1918 going up to 1991, 'communism' (in the states listed in that last post) was responsible for 141.5 million deaths over 73 years.
Therefore, 'communism' killed 1,938,356 people per year.
Tsk tsk.

You included the killings during civil wars for the Communists.

Communism doesn't force people.Patently untrue. My Grandfather was forced to vote by the policemen of the Communist country he fled, despite the fact that the election was rigged in the first place.

You mean as backwards as North Korea? or China under Mao? Communism forces people to be slaves for a state system that brutally oppress them? Only reason why China is slightly better now cause they got rid of the Maoist system for a statist capitalist system. If China hadn't it would be as bad North Korea.

Also in North Korea the estmated 500,000+ people who have died since the mid 90's due to famine caused by Kim jong-Il

So easy for you to talk about Communism like that.

So I can say capitalism forces anyone who doesn't have the educated mind to be whores, prostitutes, pimps, drunks, and bums. Slums exist.

Patently untrue. My Grandfather was forced to vote by the policemen of the Communist country he fled, despite the fact that the election was rigged in the first place.

And what were his punishments if he didn't?

And what country was this?

So easy for you to talk about Communism like that.

So I can say capitalism forces anyone who doesn't have the educated mind to be whores, prostitutes, pimps, drunks, and bums. Slums exist.

Slums exist in pretty much every country.
Besides, under a communist system people would be forced to be whores and pimps too.
But I guess they'd be BETTER whores and pimps, since they'd be assigned to do that job from birth, right?

Again you lump Buddhism with all other religions. There has been no buddhist nations that have invaded, destroyed or repressed other nations. Tibet has never invaded another nation. Cambodia was a peaceful nation until the khmer rouge.

Communism forces people to be athiests.
Uh... actually there have been Buddhist nations that have done so. Buddhism, sadly, isn't always peaceful. Like every other ism, it can be corrupted into an ideology used to kill.

And what were his punishments if he didn't?Jail time, most likely. He was out on the street with his friends when the police came and picked him up to go voting.
And what country was this?German Democratic Republic.

Fact: If it wasn't for China, Tibet would still be very primitive.

- Literacy rates increased by 99% with China's help.
- Provincial economic rates increased up to 80% with China's help.
- Crime rates plunged 40% while under China.
Ah, so it was ok to invade, kill, and attempt to fully destroy their culture in exchange for some improvements to the? Your post assumes of course that Tibet couldn't have modernized on its own, I see nothing within its history that presupposes THAT!

Communism doesn't force people.

Communism has nothing that deals with religion.

It's just the CCP.
See, this is where you go awry. Socialism as an economic social structure has, the same as capitalism, it's own politics as an extension of it's economic relations, communism is the political extension of working class economic power which only grows as industrialization grows.

It's highly likely that in the next revolutionary wave that bourgeois relations will have done away with religion entirely. The bourgeois of course intends to do away with religion as a feudal remnant and replace it with ideas that better fit the bourgeois mentality, thus freedom and liberty are touted. The eventual bourgeois revolution in France was also about freedom over absolute monarchy and religion, the French bourgeois revolutionaries envisioned that a new form of deism or rational/liberal atheism would replace organized religion as feudalism was liquidated. For socialist societies to encounter religion obviously is slightly contradicting, and of course the real opposition which the Russian and Chinese revolutions faced was feudalism and not capitalism, which at that time was not very well developed, alot of traditional Leninism and Maoism was about coping with such conditions as they existed.

Either way, to accuse socialism of doing away with religion really misses the point, the point being that give it another half century and religion as we think of it will nay nearly be entirely destroyed by bourgeois economic relations which are incompatible with religion.

So yeah, if the feudal nostalgics want to bemoan the loss of religion and community, maybe they should be looked to the bourgeois. But as usual they are completely unable to comprehend the march of modernity.

Uh... actually there have been Buddhist nations that have done so. Buddhism, sadly, isn't always peaceful. Like every other ism, it can be corrupted into an ideology used to kill.


What nation is that?

So easy for you to talk about Communism like that.

So I can say capitalism forces anyone who doesn't have the educated mind to be whores, prostitutes, pimps, drunks, and bums. Slums exist.

Yes they do.

Ah, so it was ok to invade, kill, and attempt to fully destroy their culture in exchange for some improvements to the? Your post assumes of course that Tibet couldn't have modernized on its own, I see nothing within its history that presupposes THAT!

Maybe, but either way it would have been bloody, pulling a people out of that backward mode of feudalism always will be.

So easy for you to talk about Communism like that.

So I can say capitalism forces anyone who doesn't have the educated mind to be whores, prostitutes, pimps, drunks, and bums. Slums exist.

Not like slums don't exist in China, North Korea, or Vietnam. Then you start to wonder why we push so hard for education. in China they just need to sign up to dig a ditch. Why be a docter paid $10 an hour when you can dig a ditch for $10 an hour. China has alot of ditch diggers.


You included the killings during civil wars for the Communists.

thats part of communism. The American Civil war happened then to.

What nation is that?
Which nation would you like? China and Japan, both of which claim sizable numbers of Buddhists and have invaded other nations from time to time.

Maybe, but either way it would have been bloody, pulling a people out of that backward mode of feudalism always will be.
Not always, but in any case, it was the Tibetans choice to make, not the CCP's!

Not like slums don't exist in China, North Korea, or Vietnam. Then you start to wonder why we push so hard for education. in China they just need to sign up to dig a ditch. Why be a docter paid $10 an hour when you can dig a ditch for $10 an hour. China has alot of ditch diggers.That's actually not true, just so you know.

The pre-Chinese Tibet you speak of was never a 'nationstate' in any meaningful way.

Are you paid by the PRC by any chance? True, Tibet has been ruled by China many times over its history, but it's worth noting that many Tibetans are not happy with rule by China now. It may be they are only a minority, but if China really wanted to show the world its rule is legitimate, it would allow a completely free referendum for the Tibetan people. It's entirely reasonable that many Tibetans, enjoying the perks of modernization, would prefer to remain part of China. If that's the case, it shouldn't be a problem.

China doesn't want to allow such a thing precisely because there are other regions in the country that very much wish to break away to be independent.

Which nation would you like? China and Japan, both of which claim sizable numbers of Buddhists and have invaded other nations from time to time.

1) China isn't Buddhist. Majority of Chinese practice a mix of Buddhism, Taoism, Confucism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China).

2) Japan never forced buddhism. It did force State Shintoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Shinto)during the Showa era (1936-1945)

Marxism like all political pseudo-religions is a bloody backward dogma and deserves to be burnt as the socially-dangerous retardant of progress that it is. Any clear thinking person would greet the destruction of Marxism with open arms.

Fixed. And it can't happen a day too soon.

Fixed. And it can't happen a day too soon.

For once, we agree.

Fixed. And it can't happen a day too soon.

You've just given me far and away the best reason to embrace Marxism I've heard in years.

I refuse to take part in this thread as it will result in me agreeing with New Mitanni.

I refuse to take part in this thread as it will result in me agreeing with New Mitanni.

Oh, come on. Marxism is about freedom.

Whatever Lenin did doesn't change that.

Oh, come on. Marxism is about freedom.

Whatever Lenin did doesn't change that.

Oh, I know, I philisophically like Marxism. I was refering to the belief that Tibet should be free.


As for the post title, I am just trying to piss off Andaras.

As for the post title, I am just trying to piss off Andaras.

That's flamebait, my friend.

Ah, so it was ok to invade, kill, and attempt to fully destroy their culture in exchange for some improvements to the? Your post assumes of course that Tibet couldn't have modernized on its own, I see nothing within its history that presupposes THAT!

And imagine what Tibet would be if China hadn't stepped in.

Still, Tibet belonged to the ancient Chinese empire.

I refuse to take part in this thread as it will result in me agreeing with New Mitanni.

Marxism is more like it.

I don't think Tibet has anything to do with slavery.

Not like slums don't exist in China, North Korea, or Vietnam. Then you start to wonder why we push so hard for education. in China they just need to sign up to dig a ditch. Why be a docter paid $10 an hour when you can dig a ditch for $10 an hour. China has alot of ditch diggers.




thats part of communism. The American Civil war happened then to.

Thats not true. Communism is for how productive you are. Thats why to capitalism standards, there is no such thing as minimum wages in China.

Take a toy factory for example.

The boss tells you to make 100 toys and he'll give you 50 dollars. Then you make 50 dollars per 100 toys you make. That is what China's labor system works.

What most Americans seem to think that working with everyone paid the same is actually what the definition of socialism is, not communism.

That's flamebait, my friend.

No because its done in fun. Well, at least on my part.

Again you lump Buddhism with all other religions. There has been no buddhist nations that have invaded, destroyed or repressed other nations. Tibet has never invaded another nation. Cambodia was a peaceful nation until the khmer rouge.

Communism forces people to be athiests.

China has never invaded any foreign powers ever either. They only invaded Tibet to reclaim what they lost during WW2 and the Revolution.

But remember, the benefits of Tibet received being part of the People's Republic.

1) China isn't Buddhist. Majority of Chinese practice a mix of Buddhism, Taoism, Confucism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China).

2) Japan never forced buddhism. It did force State Shintoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Shinto)during the Showa era (1936-1945)

Shintoism is pretty much brainwash.

China has never invaded any foreign powers ever either.

Wrong. It invaded India and Viet Nam.

Are you paid by the PRC by any chance? True, Tibet has been ruled by China many times over its history, but it's worth noting that many Tibetans are not happy with rule by China now. It may be they are only a minority, but if China really wanted to show the world its rule is legitimate, it would allow a completely free referendum for the Tibetan people. It's entirely reasonable that many Tibetans, enjoying the perks of modernization, would prefer to remain part of China. If that's the case, it shouldn't be a problem.

China doesn't want to allow such a thing precisely because there are other regions in the country that very much wish to break away to be independent.

Obviously China won't be falling to the cracks of allowing free referendum to Tibet. Excellent lesson learned when the Soviet Union collapsed.

1) China isn't Buddhist. Majority of Chinese practice a mix of Buddhism, Taoism, Confucism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_China#Buddhism_gains_political_traction_in_the_north
You were saying? During its very long history, various emperors made Buddhism the state religion and they DID also attempt to expand their territory at the same time.

2) Japan never forced buddhism. It did force State Shintoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Shinto)during the Showa era (1936-1945)
*sigh* Again, depending on the era, Japan did indeed force Buddhism upon its own population. It was also during a Buddhist era that Japan launched its failed invasion of Korea. As for the Showa militarism, while State Shintoism was indeed the norm, it should be noted that a lot of the underlying thought that supported the militarism in Japan and supported the idea of the Imperial Way came from a sect of Japanese Buddhism.

And imagine what Tibet would be if China hadn't stepped in.
Do you have any proof that Tibet would not have modernized on its own or are you just parroting the PRC party line?

Still, Tibet belonged to the ancient Chinese empire.
Lots of places belonged to China, and China lost them. Lots of places used to belong to Rome as well, is that any basis for Italy to launch an invasion of the UK?

China has never invaded any foreign powers ever either. They only invaded Tibet to reclaim what they lost during WW2 and the Revolution.
1. China has indeed invaded foreign powers, both in ancient times and modern. 2. Tibet wasn't lost during WWII, Tibet had been more or less autonomous for years before hand (stretching back to the 1700's) depending upon the fortunes and control of the Qing, but after they fell the region pretty much ruled itself until the invasion by the PA.

Shintoism is pretty much brainwash.
You really don't know what it is you're talking about now do you?

1. China has indeed invaded foreign powers, both in ancient times and modern.

Correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

Well if you weren't so lazy I am saying the Chinese system is bad but it is modern and at least it's better than the serf system of torture under the tyranny of the Dalai Lamas, why anyone would support an openly theocratic exile government in this day and age is beyond me.

Well I think that theocracies are great. Now that torture bit is way out of line.

Well I think that theocracies are great.

Wow.:rolleyes:

Wrong. It invaded India and Viet Nam.

Actually, China fought against India over a border dispute.

And they never invaded Vietnam, they just went in to aid the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, which the Vietnamese were fighting.

Actually, China fought against India over a border dispute.

And they never invaded Vietnam, they just went in to aid the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, which the Vietnamese were fighting.

I'm aware of the causes of both. In both cases China invaded said countries (although, to be fair, its invasion of Viet Nam barely qualifies as an "invasion").

Correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

1. The war with India was a border dispute error. There was nothing "invasive".

2. The war in Vietnam was to aid the Khmer Rouge, but attacking the North side of the Vietnam. It was not an invasion.

Do you have any proof that Tibet would not have modernized on its own or are you just parroting the PRC party line?


Lots of places belonged to China, and China lost them. Lots of places used to belong to Rome as well, is that any basis for Italy to launch an invasion of the UK?

You do realize that Tibetans were still living in caves when the PLA captured them?

You really don't know what it is you're talking about now do you?

You don't know anything about Shintoism, do you?

You do realize that Tibetans were still living in caves when the PLA captured them?
And?

Besides which, a number of buildings did exist as the same time.

You don't know anything about Shintoism, do you?
No, I just live in rural Japan. :rolleyes:

So tell me then, how is Shintoism brainwashing?

And?

Besides which, a number of buildings did exist as the same time.

And who were the buildings constructed by?

Qing Dynasty era.

No, I just live in rural Japan. :rolleyes:

So tell me then, how is Shintoism brainwashing?

Never had your history books teach you about brainwashing Japanese kids to kill Chinese people?

And who were the buildings constructed by?

Qing Dynasty era.
Ah yes, because the Qing were so active in 637 AD, and then again in 1645.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potala_Palace#History

Wanna try again?

Ah yes, because the Qing were so active in 637 AD, and then again in 1645.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potala_Palace#History

Wanna try again?

Right, I'll try it again on you, that it was the Chinese who built it for them.

Never had your history books teach you about brainwashing Japanese kids to kill Chinese people?
Hmm... ya know, in my few years of teaching at Japanese public schools, I've NEVER seen a lesson about killing Chinese kids. Having taken part in Shinto festivals the ONLY bit about China that I have seen was the MADE IN CHINA stamp on many of the prizes at the fairs.

As a matter of fact, I haven't heard ANYTHING about China at all from our local Shinto priest, just blessings from the local kami and invites to get roaring drunk off sake.

Newsflash! WWII is over! It happened over 60+ years ago and State Shintoism no longer exists!

Right, I'll try it again on you, that it was the Chinese who built it for them.
Got proof of that?

Yeah that's because Buddhism is completely backward in that it absolutely rejects modernity

"My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."
o The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality (2005)

"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview."
o The New York Times (12 November 2005)

And imagine what Tibet would be if China hadn't stepped in.

Still, Tibet belonged to the ancient Chinese empire.

We'd better start paying the Native Americans, Celts, Vikings etc. some reps, then.

Never had your history books teach you about brainwashing Japanese kids to kill Chinese people?


History books often are very historically inaccurate.

You do realize that Tibetans were still living in caves when the PLA captured them?

If the Brits were chasing me down to try and capture me in the name of the queen and reclaim my town, I'd hide in some caves too.

1. The war with India was a border dispute error. There was nothing "invasive".


:rolleyes:

China invaded in two fronts. The NE Kashmir part called "Aksai Chin". They needed this territory to build a road from occupied Tibet to occupied Sinkiang. They also invaded the Arunachal Pradesh state in NE India as a pincer movement and withdrew from there after their objectives in capturing Aksai Chin was achieved.

They are still holding on to Aksai Chin and recently they are claiming that Arunachal Pradesh is Chinese....because...hold your breath...because Arunachal Pradesh was a part of Tibet sometime ago..or some such thing...and since Tibet is part of China...so Arunachal Pradesh is part of China.

This is nothing but brazen hegemony. Whatever the fuck is a "border dispute error"...like poor People's soldiers straying across the borders in the dark...and deciding to stay...:rolleyes:

So yeah, if the feudal nostalgics want to bemoan the loss of religion and community, maybe they should be looked to the bourgeois. But as usual they are completely unable to comprehend the march of modernity.

"I feel that the essence of spiritual practice is your attitude toward others. When you have a pure, sincere motivation, then you have right attitude toward others based on kindness, compassion, love and respect. Practice brings the clear realisation of the oneness of all human beings and the importance of others benefiting by your actions."


"I believe that at every level of society — familial, tribal, national and international — the key to a happier and more successful world is the growth of compassion. We do not need to become religious, nor do we need to believe in an ideology. All that is necessary is for each of us to develop our good human qualities."


"The time has come to educate people, to cease all quarrels in the name of religion, culture, countries, different political or economic systems. Fighting is useless. Suicide."

And finally, something I learn ever more deeply each day on NSG:

"It is the enemy who can truly teach us to practice the virtues of compassion and tolerance."

Ethnicity is no justification for nationhood in modernity.
The idea of a nation consitutes a common language, culture, political boundaries, and a common heritage. Not the idea of having a government that has the ability to rule over areas in a modern concept.

Exactly so.

It is absolutely true that Tibet, like any nation, is not perfect, and has engaged in its share of abuse of power, exploitation and feudalism.

However, you have done little to link these things with the current government in exile lead by the 14th Dalai Lama. His Holiness has long been aware of and a chief proponent of change in Tibet, both in the way that it's run and the way in which people live. Before the attempt on his life and his subsequent emigration in 1959, His Holiness met and worked diligently with Mao and agents of the Chinese government to try and establish a compromise and a plan to move Tibet into the modern age in its own way and at its own pace. To this day, His Holiness asks not for independence, but autonomy within China's borders. Although it has historically been the Dalai Lama's job to be both secular and spiritual leader, he does not seek this position; he is happy and willing to have the Tibetan people appoint their own secular leader.

Many of the things you say are true--Tibet is not and has never been a perfect society. But to say that it is worse than Chinese rule is like saying that Native Americans today are better off than they were before colonialism, because at least now they have running water and don't make war on each other. Modern does not equal better, and what the exiled government wants to see is not a return to serfdom, but a true democracy.

Bingo.


What? Andaras posted something that ignores some facts, misrepresents others, and tends towards bigotry? Say it ain't so, Joe! Say it ain't so!

There has been no buddhist nations that have invaded, destroyed or repressed other nations. Tibet has never invaded another nation. Cambodia was a peaceful nation until the khmer rouge.

Patently false on all counts.
Tibet, while Buddhist, did indeed invade other countries. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tibet
The various SE Asian Buddhist empires warred upon each other viciously.

Uh... actually there have been Buddhist nations that have done so. Buddhism, sadly, isn't always peaceful. Like every other ism, it can be corrupted into an ideology used to kill.

I recently came across this little gem: http://www.darkzen.com/Articles/zenholy.htm
And now a new study emerges that will radically shake up this view of Buddhism. Zen at War is a courageous and exhaustively researched book by Brian Victoria, a western Soto Zen priest and instructor at the University of Auckland. Victoria reveals the inside story of the Japanese Zen establishment's dedicated support of the imperial war machine from the late 1800's through World War II. He chronicles in detail how prominent Zen leaders perverted the Buddhist teaching to encourage blind obedience, mindless killing, and total devotion to the emperor. The consequences were catastrophic and the impact can still be felt today.


1) China isn't Buddhist. Majority of Chinese practice a mix of Buddhism, Taoism, Confucism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China).

2) Japan never forced buddhism. It did force State Shintoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Shinto)during the Showa era (1936-1945)

That still doesn't addressthe fact that these are two example of Buddhist nations that have gone to war. See the book review above for more on the complicity of the Buddhist establishment in WWII.


And imagine what Tibet would be if China hadn't stepped in.

Considering the reforms under his holiness, including the consitutional democracy, it would likely have been much better off.

Still, Tibet belonged to the ancient Chinese empire.

Nope. See the history link above.

China has never invaded any foreign powers ever either. They only invaded Tibet to reclaim what they lost during WW2 and the Revolution.

But remember, the benefits of Tibet received being part of the People's Republic.

LOL

Reading the rest of your comments, I'll just leave it at the old saying about what arguing with fools makes one.

Uh... actually there have been Buddhist nations that have done so. Buddhism, sadly, isn't always peaceful. Like every other ism, it can be corrupted into an ideology used to kill.

Japan comes to mind, although it's more a mix of Shintoism, Buddhism, bits of Catholicism, whichever was more popular at the time and less repressed whenever Japan decided on it's not uncommon extra-national military adventures.

China has never invaded any foreign powers ever either.

Oh really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War)?

Oh really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War)?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13532990&postcount=98

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13532990&postcount=98

Seen it, only realized it was there after I posted.

Seen it, only realized it was there after I posted.

No problem.

Hmm... ya know, in my few years of teaching at Japanese public schools, I've NEVER seen a lesson about killing Chinese kids. Having taken part in Shinto festivals the ONLY bit about China that I have seen was the MADE IN CHINA stamp on many of the prizes at the fairs.

As a matter of fact, I haven't heard ANYTHING about China at all from our local Shinto priest, just blessings from the local kami and invites to get roaring drunk off sake.

Newsflash! WWII is over! It happened over 60+ years ago and State Shintoism no longer exists!

So because State Shintoism doesn't exist anymore, you don't no longer need to learn about your own Japanese history. How much the Japanese disrespected traditional Chinese cultures and how they killed many innocents in China. Have your Japanese textbooks ever taught you that in your life?

Please, you are under the influence of American-Japanese capitalist propaganda.

And don't try thinking you can pull that "PRC paying you" scheme, as I am American.

Oh really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War)?

Yes, really.

Whatever, anyway, lets keep this what the topic is. I disagree what you say about Tibet and the part about "a murderous slave system".

So because State Shintoism doesn't exist anymore, you don't no longer need to learn about your own Japanese history. How much the Japanese disrespected traditional Chinese cultures and how they killed many innocents in China. Have your Japanese textbooks ever taught you that in your life?

Errmmm... NERVUN most likely learned those things from his US history classes back home in Nevada...

Please, you are under the influence of American-Japanese capitalist propaganda.

:rolleyes: NERVUN isn't "under the influence of American-Japanese capitalist propaganda", but rather has the benifit of having actually lived here, like myself. Your ignorance regarding Japan (and China) is showing.

And don't try thinking you can pull that "PRC paying you" scheme, as I am American.

First off, nobody said you were. so red herring. Secondly, being from the US doesn't make you immune from being a mouth piece, paid or un-paid.

Yes, really.

So sending troops into someone else's territory, shooting their troops, claiming their lands as yours, isn't an invasion?

Hmmm...this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion) says otherwise. You fail.

Couldn't this all be resolved with a national vote? Let the Tibet people decide if they want independence and what type of government they'd choose to adopt.

So because State Shintoism doesn't exist anymore, you don't no longer need to learn about your own Japanese history. How much the Japanese disrespected traditional Chinese cultures and how they killed many innocents in China. Have your Japanese textbooks ever taught you that in your life?
Hmm, I'd say no as I learned my history in America, ya know, given I'm an American and all that. Still does not detract from the point that you know nothing about Shintoism and your comment about it being nothing but brainwashing is more than 60 years out of date.

Please, you are under the influence of American-Japanese capitalist propaganda.
That doesn't work when Andaras does it either, all I do is sit and laugh that you guys can't back your point up without resorting to that.

And don't try thinking you can pull that "PRC paying you" scheme, as I am American.
Good, so am I. But as an American I question then how you know so much about Tibet then.

No actually it is relevant NERVUN, and it doesn't make any less of what you said nothing but bourgeois dribble down the front of your shirt.

...wouldn't holding a national election in Tibet solve the problem? Let the people determine for themselves what kind of government to have, or to stay with China if they so desire.

No actually it is relevant NERVUN, and it doesn't make any less of what you said nothing but bourgeois dribble down the front of your shirt.

As a broken record of no value, your argument is meaningless dribble.

this is getting close to a flame war...

No actually it is relevant NERVUN, and it doesn't make any less of what you said nothing but bourgeois dribble down the front of your shirt.
See? My point exactly, you can't back up your points so you attempt to use your broken record, again.

Irrespective to the history of their country...don't the Tibetain people have the right now of popular sovereignty? Let them vote on how they wish to be governed. That should satisfy China and the US...after all, they both claim to be countries for the people.

Irrespective to the history of their country...don't the Tibetain people have the right now of popular sovereignty? Let them vote on how they wish to be governed. That should satisfy China and the US...after all, they both claim to be countries for the people.
It'd be wonderful if China would actually let Tibet vote for such, but given the CCP...

It'd be wonderful if China would actually let Tibet vote for such, but given the CCP...

Which is why I don't understand Andaras's posts. If communism is inevitable, then a majority of the people (the workers) would vote for such a government, so China would have nothing to lose by giving a national election. As it is...Tibet is forced to remain part of China. That reeks of oppression no matter how you slice it or what good has been done.

Interestingly, any vote taking place in Tibet now would be biased by the large numbers of Chinese settlers, non?

Interestingly, any vote taking place in Tibet now would be biased by the large numbers of Chinese settlers, non?

That would be another problem...but if there was a way to poll just those of Tibetian nationality...

1. The war with India was a border dispute error. There was nothing "invasive".Heh, that reminds me of another border dispute error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland_%281939%29).
2. The war in Vietnam was to aid the Khmer Rouge, but attacking the North side of the Vietnam. It was not an invasion.You may need to check up on your definition of "invasion", as it seems to be out of sync with reality.
And imagine what Tibet would be if China hadn't stepped in.Free?
So because State Shintoism doesn't exist anymore, you don't no longer need to learn about your own Japanese history. How much the Japanese disrespected traditional Chinese cultures and how they killed many innocents in China. Have your Japanese textbooks ever taught you that in your life?Strawman?
Please, you are under the influence of American-Japanese capitalist propaganda.Oh dear. Another one.
And don't try thinking you can pull that "PRC paying you" scheme, as I am American.How's that prove anything? Besides, most people here are quite sure you're spouting nonsense without getting paid for it.
No actually it is relevant NERVUN, and it doesn't make any less of what you said nothing but bourgeois dribble down the front of your shirt.Another meaningless accusation, but at least you didn't screw up the use of "bourgeois" this time.
That would be another problem...but if there was a way to poll just those of Tibetian nationality...I'm sure the US would want to avoid that. Try polling all native Hawaiians and see what they think about staying in the US.
No because its done in fun. Well, at least on my part.You may want to rid yourself of that delusion before it nets you a temp-ban. In my experience (and probably most other NSG regulars) that's not going to protect you at all.

I'm certainly not calling for the reinstatement of the Dalai Lama as, essentially, the king of Tibet. Rather, I would support a PRC withdrawal from Tibet, and installation of a more modern government. The shadiness of the previous regime does not justify the behaviors the PRC has displayed in their occupation of Tibet. Brutal cultural genocide, and destruction of irreplaceable historical artifacts and a fascist-like vice grip on the people does not make them any better than the Dalai Lama's government. Coupled with their own internal information tyranny, this system seems even less just.

I'm with you on this.

Which is why I don't understand Andaras's posts. If communism is inevitable, then a majority of the people (the workers) would vote for such a government, so China would have nothing to lose by giving a national election. As it is...Tibet is forced to remain part of China. That reeks of oppression no matter how you slice it or what good has been done.

Vote for it!?! As in bourgeois 'democracy' I assume you mean, ha! Allowing the bourgeois economic power means they automatically control political power, allowing the working masses economic power and they will have political power. You seem to be naive and mesmerized by the bourgeois facade of 'democracy'.

Vote for it!?! As in bourgeois 'democracy' I assume you mean, ha! Allowing the bourgeois economic power means they automatically control political power, allowing the working masses economic power and they will have political power. You seem to be naive and mesmerized by the bourgeois facade of 'democracy'.We're getting tired of your "Bla bla bla bourgeois bla bla" rants. Find something intellectually stimulating and quit it with the mindless drivvel.

You know, I know AP posts quite a bit, but I can't help but read every post thusly:

bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois

I begin to think it's his favorite word. I'd guess it's the most complex one he knows, so he peppers conversations with it in an attempt at erudition.

We're getting tired of your "Bla bla bla bourgeois bla bla" rants. Find something intellectually stimulating and quit it with the mindless drivvel.

To which I would add pick up a thesaurus.

We're getting tired of your "Bla bla bla bourgeois bla bla" rants. Find something intellectually stimulating and quit it with the mindless drivvel.

So what you mean is that you cannot stand adverse opinion so you troll, sure sign of a coward I would say.

So what you mean is that you cannot stand adverse opinion so you troll, sure sign of a coward I would say.

Tsk tsk, no flaming!

So what you mean is that you cannot stand adverse opinion so you troll, sure sign of a coward I would say.
What opinion? You don't provide one beyond saying "You're wrong and a poo-poo headed (Insert Marxist insult of choice here)!" over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

As for trusting the TGIE, they've been a constitutional democracy since 1960, not a theocracy. That's better than can be said for the government of the PRC. I know which government I trust to take care of the nation of Tibet. (Hint: It's not the genocidal PRC.)

In politics, word mean nothing unless there's clear power distribution. History teaches one that unless there's positive results never trust political bodies that urgently need support and have a horrible history. African leaders all preached democracy etc, they mostly ended up like dictators when they are in power. If there's a clear power sharing amongst the TGIE eg. a prime minister or something that can equal to Dalai Lama's power and status, otherwise it's nothings but words.

Kindly refer me to where the statistics are that define the Tibetan population as a "bunch of monks". Or is this a new subject for you to employ your run to the hills tactic on?



Why do you presume that a modern Tibetan state would not be productive?

One of the supposed reasons why this revolt took place was that Tibetan don't want progress in modernization. And again according to Dalai Lama rep in television, modernization is not in their government's agenda compared
to cultural protection.

China is not any different, it's just the modern industrialised version. The current Communists rule China like the Emperors did a long time ago, with the sword (nowaways a gun).

Don't confuse dictatoship of a party with absolute monarchy. The CCP is more or a less an oligarchy, so it main leader not always have the greatest say. And it's well known about division between the reformers and conservatives within the CCP.

It is absolutely true that Tibet, like any nation, is not perfect, and has engaged in its share of abuse of power, exploitation and feudalism.

However, you have done little to link these things with the current government in exile lead by the 14th Dalai Lama. His Holiness has long been aware of and a chief proponent of change in Tibet, both in the way that it's run and the way in which people live. Before the attempt on his life and his subsequent emigration in 1959, His Holiness met and worked diligently with Mao and agents of the Chinese government to try and establish a compromise and a plan to move Tibet into the modern age in its own way and at its own pace. To this day, His Holiness asks not for independence, but autonomy within China's borders. Although it has historically been the Dalai Lama's job to be both secular and spiritual leader, he does not seek this position; he is happy and willing to have the Tibetan people appoint their own secular leader.

Many of the things you say are true--Tibet is not and has never been a perfect society. But to say that it is worse than Chinese rule is like saying that Native Americans today are better off than they were before colonialism, because at least now they have running water and don't make war on each other. Modern does not equal better, and what the exiled government wants to see is not a return to serfdom, but a true democracy.

If tibetan really want an semi-independence then, like I said, they should bring forth a new political body free from Dalai Lama's connection. A co-op development is best when there's little distrust amongst one another, Cold War is best example about distrust at war with one another. It's hopeless and useless to hope for TGIE, because of their history and connotation to the CCP, to do any progressive in Tibet. Bringing Dalai Lama back to Tibet is like slapping CCP across the face due to Cold War issues. These things go to be done rationally and not emotionally, or else it's another Sudan or Rwanda when it becomes independent.

1) Communism failed. China is only a communist state in name. North Korea is the most backwards state in the world and Cuba is so poor it can't buy anything.
2) You're obvouisly a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Communist_Party%2C_USA).
3) Communism has killed more people than Nazism- about 130 million people.
4) Mao was the worst mass murderer in the history of man 2nd was Stalin.

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

China PRC: 77 million
Soviet Union: 61 million.
Cambodia: 1 million
Yugoslavia: 1 million.
N. Korea 1.5 million

5) ok discuss Stalin cause he was the worst monster in the history of earth.

Vietnam is also a communist state just for the record:) Actually, Stalin and Mao are both facist at best. Stalin even himself admitted to be a bolshevik instead of a communist. They put nationalism priority above people's welfare, a clear facist trait and not communist.

Prove it. And by "prove it", I mean offer evidence as opposed to maoist tautological arguments on par with Intelligent Design.

No. Communism was imagined to be the successor of capitalism. However, Marx expected capitalism to develop into a complete monopoly that eventually only existed by absolute exploitation of the workers to the full benefit of a few owners. This has not come to pass, as capitalism has not entered that stage, save in Russia or China, were state run monopolies primarily serve the few.
Ghandi disproved Mao.

Actually the collapse of the early version of capitalism did occure like Marx said. The Great Depression is what ended Laissez-Faire. It was Laissez-faire that Marx vehemently opposed. But thanks to Keynesian economics, a more moderate version of state intervention, the New Deal, occured than communism in America.

Yeah that's because Buddhism is completely backward in that it absolutely rejects modernity, so it's technological and development disallows it such power, albeit it had a nice time brutalizing and enslaving it's own people until Mao rightfully curbstomped the theocracy. Other ideologies opposing progress, such as Naziism, opposed progress in so far as allowing the material contraptions in allowing them to spread their backwardness, thus Nazi Germany stagnated everywhere except the military, the whole economy (including lending) was geared to a suicidal national death 'strategy'.

Please do not mix Tibetan Buddhism with Buddhism as a whole. In contrary, Tibetan social hierachy is in opposition to the teaching of Buddhism. For example the Dalai Lama use the religion to gain in seat of power while Buddhism's founder rejected royalty in search of an ascetic life. Buddhists are actually discouraged from politics. For example, if the Buddhists' grand masters in Taiwan interfered in political voting in Taiwan it would long be independent or returned to China due to large amount of followers.

In terms of modernization, Buddhism's teaching never opposed it. Actually, buddhist are encouraged in science as there are no conflicting moral issues like creation versus darwanism in christianity. Buddhists are long told there are more than one universe and anything can be achieved if one strives hard hence challenging the authority of Hinduism with the Karma and Caste System issues in history.

Which nation would you like? China and Japan, both of which claim sizable numbers of Buddhists and have invaded other nations from time to time.

Does that mean it buddhism telling them to go to war or their rulers? You really failure to make any good connection. Unlike the crusades, I doubt there are invasions under the name of buddha.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_China#Buddhism_gains_political_traction_in_the_north
You were saying? During its very long history, various emperors made Buddhism the state religion and they DID also attempt to expand their territory at the same time.


*sigh* Again, depending on the era, Japan did indeed force Buddhism upon its own population. It was also during a Buddhist era that Japan launched its failed invasion of Korea. As for the Showa militarism, while State Shintoism was indeed the norm, it should be noted that a lot of the underlying thought that supported the militarism in Japan and supported the idea of the Imperial Way came from a sect of Japanese Buddhism.

It was Shinto Buddhism, not Buddhism in real sense as Shinto's characteristics were prioritzed before Buddhism. As for example it Shintonism that gives the divine right to the emperor which buddhism is not in support of as karma can always be changed. Changing of karma is a crucial factor of buddhism, its one of the greatest conflicting idea that Buddha brought against Hinduism so it a identifying trait for the religion. Robbing it identity trait barely makes it buddhism.

What opinion? You don't provide one beyond saying "You're wrong and a poo-poo headed (Insert Marxist insult of choice here)!" over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Copy/paste counts as an opinion, just not his.

*awaits either a padlock or spam designation for this thread*.

:p

...wouldn't holding a national election in Tibet solve the problem? Let the people determine for themselves what kind of government to have, or to stay with China if they so desire.
Problem with that is that the PRC has been pushing Chinese into Tibet as fast as their trains and buses will let them, and now Han Chinese are a majority in Tibet. Therefore any election would be a sham.

I love how the OP compares Tibet of 100 years ago to China of today and says therefore, because China has slightly better human rights record now it has a defacto right to Tibet. Conveniently ignoring the fact that China has almost always been an oppressive, totalitarian society for centuries and, back when it invaded Tibet, was an incredibly oppressive government pretty much hellbent on subjugating and controlling it's peoples through intimidation, fear and violence (or is the OP unaware of the est 10 million dead from the civil war and the 60 million dead from the Great Leap Forward + Cultural Revolution?). i.e. just as bad, if not worse than anything going on in Tibet at that time. I mean hey, you can do the same with comparing Darfur in 19th Century (heck, now!) and China now and say it's fully within it's rights to invade that country. I'm surprised the OP hasn't been arguing for that.

Why bother comparing apples to apples when you can compare apples to something not even remotely fruit-like? especially when it helps fulfill one's own already well-set prejudices.

Problem with that is that the PRC has been pushing Chinese into Tibet as fast as their trains and buses will let them, and now Han Chinese are a majority in Tibet. Therefore any election would be a sham.
Actually, it'd be quite democratic. It's just that when people consider this question, they think that people who happen to be of Tibetan ethnicity have the right, knowledge and qualification to decide while Han Chinese don't.

Which raises some questions about where exactly the legitimacy of democratic verdicts comes from, but that's for another time and place.

So what you mean is that you cannot stand adverse opinion so you troll, sure sign of a coward I would say.No, what I mean is that I could have a more intellectually stimulating debate when I put words in your mouth. Here, I'll give you a hypothetical example:

Laerod: You know, you sound like that party song the SED (the ruling party of East Germany) always sang: "The Party, the Party, it is always right, and comrades it shall stay that way! / ... / He who insults life is dumb or bad / He who defends humanity is always right!" and so on. Endless droning and repetition of the same words. Here's a link (http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/dokumente/JahreDesAufbausInOstUndWest_liedtextSEDLied/index.html), but it's in German.

Andaras: I find the song rather fitting. It displays the proud German Workers willingness to overthrow the bourgeois capitalist reactionist bourgeoisie that was exploiting them.

Laerod: Could you quit using words you think sound great simply for sayings sake? And the GDR wasn't exactly all that clean on "defense of humanity" and avoiding "insulting life", for the record. They had a habit of shooting people that tried to cross the border to West Germany.

Andaras: The shootings were completely justified, as East Germany was only trying to prevent capitalist bourgeois spies from bringing classified documents to the capitalist imperialist United States.

Laerod: That's bullshit. Provide evidence supporting that please.

Andaras: *Quotes Margot Honecker denouncing the political refugees* See, the bourgeois spies were trying to break holes into the Anti-Fascist Rampart to allow reactionist elements to infiltrate the GDR and cause strife as they did on the 17th of June.

Laerod: As the wife of the Secretary General of the SED, Margot Honecker is hardly an impartial source. And I can tell you from personal experience, that the Berlin Wall was meant to keep East Germans in, as opposed to West Germans or Occupation Forces out. For instance, we were always able to travel from West Berlin to East Germany, despite my dad actually having worked in the primary US spy facility on Teufelsberg back when he was still in the Army, while our East German friends could not travel from East Germany to West Germany without leaving their children behind.
And the 17th of June was hardly instigated, but instead was started by the very workers (from Stalinallee, no less) you praise so often who were fed up with being told to work more for the same amount of pay.

Andaras: You've just been misled by the bourgeois capitalist imperialist propaganda machine.

^This is roughly what a conversation on those issues between us would look like, and I'm sure plenty of other people that have suffered through your drivvel will agree.

I actually learned more typing this hypothetical conversation up than I do when I respond to your party line repetitions.

*awaits either a padlock or spam designation for this thread*.

:p
:D
Joins in waiting.
*attempts to board up thread with the biggest pieces of wood available and tries to secure the entranceway*
*realises he's blocked up the exit instead*
*knocks down old blockade, and has to find new pieces of wood*
{the search continues}

You know, I know AP posts quite a bit, but I can't help but read every post thusly:


I begin to think it's his favorite word. I'd guess it's the most complex one he knows, so he peppers conversations with it in an attempt at erudition.I went and searched for "bourgeois" on NSG. 4 of the 100 posts it showed were not in some way related to AP, and most of the ones that did where either by him or quoting him.

^This is roughly what a conversation on those issues between us would look like, and I'm sure plenty of other people that have suffered through your drivvel will agree.

I actually learned more typing this hypothetical conversation up than I do when I respond to your party line repetitions.

Yep. Actually I have to say that the hypothetical conversation was more intellectually stimulating as well.

The real ones are more entertaining, but entertainment is slightly different. Farting animals are entertaining too, in my book.

Oh well, that's what imagination is for!

Oh well, that's what imagination is for!

Zen, the world is only as obnoxious and stupid as you imagine it is.

For once, we agree.

:D

No, what I mean is that I could have a more intellectually stimulating debate when I put words in your mouth. Here, I'll give you a hypothetical example:

Laerod: You know, you sound like that party song the SED (the ruling party of East Germany) always sang: "The Party, the Party, it is always right, and comrades it shall stay that way! / ... / He who insults life is dumb or bad / He who defends humanity is always right!" and so on. Endless droning and repetition of the same words. Here's a link (http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/dokumente/JahreDesAufbausInOstUndWest_liedtextSEDLied/index.html), but it's in German.

Andaras: I find the song rather fitting. It displays the proud German Workers willingness to overthrow the bourgeois capitalist reactionist bourgeoisie that was exploiting them.

Laerod: Could you quit using words you think sound great simply for sayings sake? And the GDR wasn't exactly all that clean on "defense of humanity" and avoiding "insulting life", for the record. They had a habit of shooting people that tried to cross the border to West Germany.

Andaras: The shootings were completely justified, as East Germany was only trying to prevent capitalist bourgeois spies from bringing classified documents to the capitalist imperialist United States.

Laerod: That's bullshit. Provide evidence supporting that please.

Andaras: *Quotes Margot Honecker denouncing the political refugees* See, the bourgeois spies were trying to break holes into the Anti-Fascist Rampart to allow reactionist elements to infiltrate the GDR and cause strife as they did on the 17th of June.

Laerod: As the wife of the Secretary General of the SED, Margot Honecker is hardly an impartial source. And I can tell you from personal experience, that the Berlin Wall was meant to keep East Germans in, as opposed to West Germans or Occupation Forces out. For instance, we were always able to travel from West Berlin to East Germany, despite my dad actually having worked in the primary US spy facility on Teufelsberg back when he was still in the Army, while our East German friends could not.
And the 17th of June was hardly instigated by the very workers (from Stalinallee, no less) you praise so often who were fed up with being told to work more for the same amount of pay.

Andaras: You've just been misled by the bourgeois capitalist imperialist propaganda machine.

^This is roughly what a conversation on those issues between us would look like, and I'm sure plenty of other people that have suffered through your drivvel will agree.

I actually learned more typing this hypothetical conversation up than I do when I respond to your party line repetitions.




Its awesome how accuratly you summed up Andaras' posts, especially with the bolded comment.

Its awesome how accuratly you summed up Andaras' posts, especially with the bolded comment.I didn't sum up anything. Those are what I'd imagine a conversation on said topic would look like, pretty much in the full length that they would be.

I didn't sum up anything. Those are what I'd imagine a conversation on said topic would look like, pretty much in the full length that they would be.

Thats what I meant by summed up. Sorry my bad.

Yeah that's because Buddhism is completely backward in that it absolutely rejects modernity

Examples, Links and references for that please.


Fact: If it wasn't for China, Tibet would still be very primitive.

- Literacy rates increased by 99% with China's help.
- Provincial economic rates increased up to 80% with China's help.
- Crime rates plunged 40% while under China.

I don't give a flying fuck if they wore untanned hides before the Chinese arrived. They have a right to determine their own future.

Never had your history books teach you about brainwashing Japanese kids to kill Chinese people?.

The abuse and perversion of religon by a state is not distinctly Japanese. Nor, as far as I'm aware, is Shintoism inherently anti-chinese.

How much the Japanese disrespected traditional Chinese cultures and how they killed many innocents in China.?.

Korea, Vietnam, Burma, the Phillipines...everywhere they went they seem to have brutalised the populace to some extent or other. I don't see how this justifies the Chinese state occupying Tibet however.

I didn't sum up anything. Those are what I'd imagine a conversation on said topic would look like, pretty much in the full length that they would be.

You've hit upon an excellent idea - seeing as we all know what Andaras is going to say anyway, we should all just fill out our own ranting replies. Think of all the time we'll save!

I like how the rest of China's non-Han provinces that also have a right to independence, such Xinjiang/ Uyghuristan, Outer Mongolia or Chinese Kashmir, are just ignored by the international community because of Tibet's magical Dalai Lama.

That's pretty much my response to any time anyone brings up the subject of Tibetan independence.

Yes, really.

I think the Mongols and Manchu would disagree with you (not to mention the Japanese in the 'first Sino-Japanese war')...

I like how the rest of China's non-Han provinces that also have a right to independence, such Xinjiang/ Uyghuristan, Outer Mongolia or Chinese Kashmir, are just ignored by the international community because of Tibet's magical Dalai Lama.

That's pretty much my response to any time anyone brings up the subject of Tibetan independence.

Uighurs would present a problem to the US in particular. They are muslim separatists and some of them were trained in the same schools and in the same ideology in Afg and Pak....the kind that targets the US now.

I don't know if there's any issue with Outer Mongolia. The Manchus are higher in the social pecking order (correct me if I am wrong).

Nobody lives in Aksai Chin. That doesn't mean that India should give up its claim.

My response to Free Tibet would be Free China. The Chinese themselves are not free. A free China could very well embrace a multi-faith, multi-ethnic pluralism where Tibet can have its place if majority Tibetans so wish.

I don't know if there's any issue with Outer Mongolia.
"Outer" Mongolia is the independent country: it once ruled China, but China has never ruled it (may sometimes have collected some tribute and some lip service, but that's all). The poster is probably thinking about "Inner" Mongolia, which has very few Mongol inhabitants left.
The Manchus are higher in the social pecking order (correct me if I am wrong).
Manchus no longer exist as a separate group; they have assimilated and interbred. The language is only spoken by a few very elderly people (hasn't been passed down to the young for a long time).

Nobody lives in Aksai Chin. That doesn't mean that India should give up its claim.
This is correct.

"Outer" Mongolia is the independent country

Yeah...I always get confused with Inner and Outer..:p

Manchus no longer exist as a separate group; they have assimilated and interbred.

I guess its "manchu traits/attributes" then? My impression is from the smugness of a Chinese friend introducing his gf as "she's manchu" like that's something prized.

But China's murderous slave system has modern infrastructure, which, per the OP, qualifies it as a nation, thus possessing a right to rule Tibet.

Oooh, I get it. It's the system that determines whether an action is wrong. If you have a murderous slave system with a modern infrastructure, it's ok. If you have a murderous slave system with a feudal infrastructure, it's wrong. Evil has nothing to do with what's being done, but with who's doing it. Thanks everyone for putting me straight.

I don't give a flying fuck if they wore untanned hides before the Chinese arrived. They have a right to determine their own future.

QFT

What opinion? You don't provide one beyond saying "You're wrong and a poo-poo headed (Insert Marxist insult of choice here)!" over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

ROFLMAO

Vote for it!?! As in bourgeois 'democracy' I assume you mean, ha! Allowing the bourgeois economic power means they automatically control political power, allowing the working masses economic power and they will have political power. You seem to be naive and mesmerized by the bourgeois facade of 'democracy'.

And you seem to be mesmerized by a system that claims to be fair to all but ignores the opinion of the masses. If communism is truely inevitable, the workers will vote for it as it is in their best interest. If the bourgeois are not the majority, they will not have the vote swung their way in a national election. I'm talking popular vote here, man. You fail. Who is more naive?

I guess its "manchu traits/attributes" then? My impression is from the smugness of a Chinese friend introducing his gf as "she's manchu" like that's something prized.
Probably Manchu ancestry is valued? I had not heard that before, but interesting.

I don't think the U.S should support any secessionist movments. It's none of our business what they do with their land. Plus, they could go right back and call for us to give our states the right to secede, not a good thing.

I don't think the U.S should support any secessionist movments. It's none of our business what they do with their land. Plus, they could go right back and call for us to give our states the right to secede, not a good thing.

I don't think there is much fear of that. No nations are seriously pressuring China to give anything up in any province. Most heads of state won't even meet with the Dalai Lama. Making agreeable noises, maybe, but no serious action. No one wants a bomb on their head, or a trade war, or anything not-nice. Beware of scary people with scary weapons.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23686441/
Tibetans divided over protest strategy

Dalai Lama vows to quit if violence worsens, but youth voice frustration

Hmmm, that might work.

I don't think the U.S should support any secessionist movments. It's none of our business what they do with their land. Plus, they could go right back and call for us to give our states the right to secede, not a good thing.

You're right seceding is bad. We should give America back to England.

I just read that Hu Jintao, the current head honcho, was the one who authorised military action on a previous revolt in 1989 in Tibet in his capacity as provincial leader (party secretary of Tibet).

This blog has decent footage and info

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/03/images-and-news.html

And you seem to be mesmerized by a system that claims to be fair to all but ignores the opinion of the masses. If communism is truely inevitable, the workers will vote for it as it is in their best interest. If the bourgeois are not the majority, they will not have the vote swung their way in a national election. I'm talking popular vote here, man. You fail. Who is more naive?

Ever heard of 'false consciousness' or 'acting against your own interests'? Your an excellent example of it.

I just read that Hu Jintao...
Who? I crack myself up sometimes...

Ever heard of 'false consciousness' or 'acting against your own interests'? Your an excellent example of it.

His what is an excellent example? :D

But China's murderous slave system has modern infrastructure, which, per the OP, qualifies it as a nation, thus possessing a right to rule Tibet.

You forget the most important qualification: its communist government.

Who? I crack myself up sometimes...

When Jiabao can be the PM...Who can be the president..:p

When Jiabao can be the PM...Who can be the president..:p

But Hu is the president. :p

But Hu is the president. :p

I dunno.... THIRD BASE!

You're right seceding is bad. We should give America back to England.

Maybe, if they fix their teeth and don't make us drink tea. No stamp taxes either, that really pissed us off last time.

How much more absurd can the Chinese leadership get...:rolleyes:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/18/asia/tibet.php
China on Tuesday called for an international investigation of the Dalai Lama, accusing him of masterminding the violent Tibetan protests spreading across China,.....

and

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200803190921.htm
Beijing (PTI): China on Wednesday said 105 persons have surrendered before police for their role in the riots in Lhasa during the fiercest pro-Tibet independence monks-led protests in two decades on Friday last that left 13 persons dead.

The Tibetan regional government had set Monday midnight as the deadline for the rioters to turn in promising leniency to those who fell in line and harsh action to those who did not.

Baema Chilain, vice-chairman of the regional government, said the people who surrendered had been directly involved in the beating, smashing, looting and arson. "Some have turned in the money they looted," Baema was quoted as saying by official Xinhua news agency.

The rampaging mobs had attacked banks, government buildings, schools and shops and set fires at more than 300 places after the protests erupted into large scale violence. Thirteen persons were either hacked to death or burnt, regional government said.

Doje Cering, a 25-year old villager, who smashed a sedan and a van with stones said he was drunk at home when he heard someone shouting, "get out, or we will burn down your house". Then, he just blindly followed them, Xinhua said.

"I was very disturbed by what I did. My family has persuaded me to give in to police," he said.

Oh really :rolleyes:

I'll buy into this, as a student of political science and economics.

1. The People's Republic of China is neither "people"-oriented, nor a true Republic. A one-party state is hardly a republic. And as for the "people" part, I hope that Andras is aware that out of 1,300 million people in China, 800-900 million are still living in abject poverty in the countryside. So much for "modernisation" in China.

2. Communism, as an economic system, does not work. In principle, based on Marx's teachings, it is an admirable system - "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". However, in real life, the system is plagued with far too much corruption and far too many free-riders to actually work, as evidenced by the total economic collapse of the USSR. China today is not, economically, a communist nation.

3. Communism, as a political system (distinct from economics) is a brutal, repressive system which enshrines one-party rule, lack of free speech, lack of free assembly, lack of civil rights and, ultimately, a feudal system. In any Communist nation, the classes are present and alive: a) The high officials, who live like the Emperors and Empresses of days gone by, b) The middle and lower officials, who live like the nobility and clergy of the past, and c)everyone else, who live like the peasants that they were before the "glorious revolution". China is, at present, a politically communist nation.
In addition, the lack of restraint on a ruler's power leads, inevitably, to brutal policies that have the sole object of the glorification of the leader.

4. The United Nations Charter enshrines the right to national self-determination. That is to say that if a group of people decide to make their own nation, it is a nation. The political system that they choose to live under, the level of infrastructure present in the land they live on, these matter not at all. The PRC has signed and ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and should therefore allow the Tibetan people to decide their own fate. Of course, they won't.

5. The method in which the PRC seized Tibet was not remniscent of a liberation. It was an invasion, pure and simple.

6. The Dalai Lama preaches, as the ideal economic system, a variant of Marxism, and has repeatedly criticise the amorality and greed of the capitalist system. Hardly the behaviour expected from a person who believed in serfdom (another straw man demolished).

7. Since the late 19th century, Tibet had been modernising. Slowly, but it was happening. The number of serfs was greatly reduced, offices and officials became secular rather than religious in nature. This puts paid-in-full to the notions of "liberation" and "modernisation" (and another).

8. Andras has been noted to resort to several despicable debating "tactics", including, but not limited to, the following: straw-manning his opponents, indulging in sweeping generalisations, issuing deliberately inflammatory remarks, engaging in hypocrisy of the highest order, and being intellectually dishonest. Quite frankly, he's a bore, and would lose any debate in which he failed to enjoy the partiality of the judges. If he were to study at any university, he would flunk, because he does not know how to argue his point logically, which is essential to passing any degree path. Quite frankly, what he says is barely worth listening to.:gundge:

800-900 million are still living in abject poverty in the countryside.

Evidence? I'm not disputing your claim, I'm just curious.

You've hit upon an excellent idea - seeing as we all know what Andaras is going to say anyway, we should all just fill out our own ranting replies. Think of all the time we'll save!Think of all the rules we'd break... While setting up a hypothetical conversation once may not be a rule infraction, an orchestrated effort by the majority of the posters in the thread probably would be trolling.
Ever heard of 'false consciousness' or 'acting against your own interests'? Your an excellent example of it.Plenty of people have ideas of how to run things, but the downside is that their ideas usually only benefit themselves. That's why democracy tries to give everyone a voice and part in decisions, so that the shitheads cancel eachother out. "False consciousness" and "acting against your own interests", while based on reality, are primarily excuses for one group of shitheads to disenfranchise everyone else and screw things up without anyone countering them.

The Dalai Lama is very generous:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnHaTlI1p7o&feature=related

:)

So what you mean is that you cannot stand adverse opinion so you troll, sure sign of a coward I would say.

No, but thanks for playing. What we'd like is a little more fact and a little less propaganda from you.