NationStates Jolt Archive

The reactionary fuedal theocratic minions of the Dalai Lama have been attacking the Olympic torch ceremonies throughout Europe and the United States. These are the same forces which recently have been attempting to forment racial rioting in Tibet, where ethnic Chinese have been attacked by terrorist fundimentalists attempting to ethnically cleanse what they percieve to be a greater Tibet.

When these racist attacks were put down by the Red Army these same elements who want to return Tibet to its ignorant and impoverished fuedal past when the common people were virtual slaves to the Buddhist monasteries took their terror international. They tricked many "progessive" westerners into supporting their cause, people who would never support their ideological equals Al Queada, by playing on their ignorance of both Chinese history and the reality of the racial violence going on in Tibet today. I

f you are going to oppose ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and religious terrorists in the Middle East, then you must also defend China's right to deal forcefully with the same elements without their own borders.

The reactionary fuedal theocratic minions of the Dalai Lama have been attacking the Olympic torch ceremonies throughout Europe and the United States. These are the same forces which recently have been attempting to forment racial rioting in Tibet, where ethnic Chinese have been attacked by terrorist fundimentalists attempting to ethnically cleanse what they percieve to be a greater Tibet.

I guess youll be providing a source to back that up?

Unless some monks take down the torch bearer in a volley of recurve-bow fire...

I don't actually know, but I wouldn't get all worked up over it.

thats the beauty of china. they dont need others to defend them. they can take care of themselves.

To be fair, people demonstrated against the Iraq war as well, and pretty much anything they don't approve of. This is something the Chinese government, who themselves have complained about double standards on Iraq and, possibly more pointedly, on Xinjiang, fail to realise - that it's people who are demonstrating not governments.

The difference is that they're allowed to demonstrate.

Why should we single out China's sensitivities and desire to use the Games as a prop for their government as an excuse to clamp down on those people who want to demonstrate.

Hell, it's hard enough getting Fred Phelps to stop demonstrating at funerals, why enforce the difference?

The reactionary fuedal theocratic minions of the Dalai Lama have been attacking the Olympic torch ceremonies throughout Europe and the United States. These are the same forces which recently have been attempting to forment racial rioting in Tibet, where ethnic Chinese have been attacked by terrorist fundimentalists attempting to ethnically cleanse what they percieve to be a greater Tibet.

When these racist attacks were put down by the Red Army these same elements who want to return Tibet to its ignorant and impoverished fuedal past when the common people were virtual slaves to the Buddhist monasteries took their terror international. They tricked many "progessive" westerners into supporting their cause, people who would never support their ideological equals Al Queada, by playing on their ignorance of both Chinese history and the reality of the racial violence going on in Tibet today. I

f you are going to oppose ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and religious terrorists in the Middle East, then you must also defend China's right to deal forcefully with the same elements without their own borders.

I think that someone needs to brush up on History just a tad as well as the written word to understand that the only genocide going on is the one perpetrated by the government in Beijing.

I think that someone needs to brush up on History just a tad as well as the written word to understand that the only genocide going on is the one perpetrated by the government in Beijing.

Beijing can always point to the USA as an example of a foreign race moving in and pushing out the native race - we can argue about it among ourselves but the fact remains that the Beijing Government can, and does, use that argument to its people.

It can also point to Iraq, it can point to many things.

What it cannot point to is the fact that people are allowed to demonstrate over pretty much anything in London, Paris and San Francisco - that's the difference.

I'm going to assume you are Chinese, and from China from that statement. There is a difference between protesting for freedom, and terrorism

Let me ask you two questions:

1)How many of these protesters in China have been killed?

2)How many Chinese policemen or soldiers have been killed?


Also then, what are your thoughts on Ghandi?

Snip

You remind me of a less extreme version of another poster.

I'm am not arguing that peaceful demonstrations in the west should be stopped, though the demonstrations in London, Paris, and San Fransisco have not been exactly peaceful. What I am arguing is that these demonstrations are being orchestrated by the Dalai Lama's gang of theocratic reactionaries. These are the same people who have been stirring up ethnic and religious hatred in Tibet. Even the biased western media have at least ocassionally mentioned the anti ethnic Chinese character of these riots. Chinese shops have been burnt sometimes along with their Chinese workers.

Even if some on the Tibetan side are scum bags, it does not excuse China's actions. The Tibetan resistance has also been less violent than many others, recent riots not withstanding, and they deserve credit for that. Perhaps the World is too quick to defend the tibetans unquestioningly, but there are plenty of other reasons to condemn giving China the Olympics, or anything else.

Or are you one of those ignorent comunists plauging the internet, who probably believes everything the Chinese Government puts out?

I'm going to assume you are Chinese, and from China from that statement. There is a difference between protesting for freedom, and terrorism

Let me ask you two questions:

1)How many of these protesters in China have been killed?

2)How many Chinese policemen or soldiers have been killed?


Also then, what are your thoughts on Ghandi? I do not know the eact number of causualties on either side, but I know the rioters have killed.

I respect Gandhi as a great anticolonial revolutionary. Some of his tactics were brilliant, but I don't believe his example is generalizable to all struggles. I'm also not as impressed with his Hindu religious underpinnings to his theory of struggle. I do respect his ultimately ineffective attempts to stop the religious violence that overtook the Indian subcontinent after independence.

I'm am not arguing that peaceful demonstrations in the west should be stopped, though the demonstrations in London, Paris, and San Fransisco have not been exactly peaceful.

In the grand scheme of protests, they were actually peaceful. More peaceful than I was expecting to be quite honest. Especially in San Fran.

What I am arguing is that these demonstrations are being orchestrated by the Dalai Lama's gang of theocratic reactionaries.

Proof?

These are the same people who have been stirring up ethnic and religious hatred in Tibet. Even the biased western media have at least ocassionally mentioned the anti ethnic Chinese character of these riots. Chinese shops have been burnt sometimes along with their Chinese workers.

Considering what the Chinese Government has done to Tibet, does it come as a surprise?

The riots in Paris, at least, are no surprise. They probably just feel it's been to long without one.;)

The reactionary fuedal theocratic minions of the Dalai Lama have been attacking the Olympic torch ceremonies throughout Europe and the United States. These are the same forces which recently have been attempting to forment racial rioting in Tibet, where ethnic Chinese have been attacked by terrorist fundimentalists attempting to ethnically cleanse what they percieve to be a greater Tibet.

When these racist attacks were put down by the Red Army these same elements who want to return Tibet to its ignorant and impoverished fuedal past when the common people were virtual slaves to the Buddhist monasteries took their terror international. They tricked many "progessive" westerners into supporting their cause, people who would never support their ideological equals Al Queada, by playing on their ignorance of both Chinese history and the reality of the racial violence going on in Tibet today. I

f you are going to oppose ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and religious terrorists in the Middle East, then you must also defend China's right to deal forcefully with the same elements without their own borders.


I like you. You're silly. :)

I'm am not arguing that peaceful demonstrations in the west should be stopped, though the demonstrations in London, Paris, and San Fransisco have not been exactly peaceful. What I am arguing is that these demonstrations are being orchestrated by the Dalai Lama's gang of theocratic reactionaries. These are the same people who have been stirring up ethnic and religious hatred in Tibet. Even the biased western media have at least ocassionally mentioned the anti ethnic Chinese character of these riots. Chinese shops have been burnt sometimes along with their Chinese workers.

I think you underestimate the feelings on Tibet and, although the Dalai Lama is certainly a powerful symbol, hence the focus in comparison to Xinjiang, I doubt he's really organising the demonstrations themselves - I'd say at most, he doesn't exactly stop them.

The Chinese government allows demonstrations when it suits them, after the Embassy bombing in Belgrade, my colleague complained that her daughter was missing school since she was being bussed to the American embassy to throw stones.

I do think slapping China in the face in this way does not help matters but then I'd also say that China needs to live up to its commitments.

Snip.

...I will not need any instruments to perform on your argument an AUTOPSY!

Listen.

Was China happy when Japan occupied it?

No?

Then why the hell would Tibet want to be occupied by China?

--------------

Is China a sovereign country?

Yes?

Then why the hell do you argue that Tibet wasn't?

--------------

Do foreign countries have the right to occupy others based on idiotic feelings of superiority?

No?

Then why the hell do you argue that China has such a right?

--------------

Do you have any knowledge of Asian history at all?

No?

Then why the hell don't you SHUT UP?

Then why the hell don't you SHUT THE FUCK UP?

Quite the temper.. :p

Edit: I'm sigging that.

Even if some on the Tibetan side are scum bags, it does not excuse China's actions. The Tibetan resistance has also been less violent than many others, recent riots not withstanding, and they deserve credit for that. Perhaps the World is too quick to defend the tibetans unquestioningly, but there are plenty of other reasons to condemn giving China the Olympics, or anything else.

Or are you one of those ignorent comunists plauging the internet, who probably believes everything the Chinese Government puts out? I believe China has strayed from the path of Marxist-Leninist-Maoism, but I still defend then state from attack by Counter Revolutionies. The Dalai Lama and his ilk aren't even capitalist counter revolutionaries(like the one rampant in most of China's cities). These zealots are precapitalist, they harken back to Tibet's "glorious" past of peasants endlessly toiling for their monk masters, having no hope of reward in this life, but instead promised the illusion of a better incarnation the next time around.

Quite the temper.. :p

Edit: I'm sigging that.

Let me check if it's kosher before you sig.

I believe China has strayed from the path of Marxist-Leninist-Maoism, but I still defend then state from attack by Counter Revolutionies. The Dalai Lama and his ilk aren't even capitalist counter revolutionaries(like the one rampant in most of China's cities). These zealots are precapitalist, they harken back to Tibet's "glorious" past of peasants endlessly toiling for their monk masters, having no hope of reward in this life, but instead promised the illusion of a better incarnation the next time around.

Andaras Prime is that you?

Andaras Prime is that you?

No. He's more like Andy Jr. Not quite up the the full blown commie level.

-snip-

Hello Mr. Puppet. Didn't we address this subject last month and pretty much tear up your silly arguments?

You remind me of a less extreme version of another poster.

Indeed, and the above poster doesn't sound like a less extreme version, but just another of his several puppets. I'm wondering if he's posting around ban or just got tired of being ignored under his other names.

...I will not need any instruments to perform on your argument an AUTOPSY!

Listen.

Was China happy when Japan occupied it?

No?

Then why the hell would Tibet want to be occupied by China?

--------------

Is China a sovereign country?

Yes?

Then why the hell do you argue that Tibet wasn't?

--------------

Do foreign countries have the right to occupy others based on idiotic feelings of superiority?

No?

Then why the hell do you argue that China has such a right?

--------------

Do you have any knowledge of Asian history at all?

No?

Then why the hell don't you SHUT THE FUCK UP?

No China was not happy under Japans occupation, but Tibet has historically been a part of China. China during the late 19th and early 20th century was generally to weak to execises control over all of its territory, but even the Tibetian nationalists have to admit in gave at least formal allegence to the Chinese state.

Hello Mr. Puppet. Didn't we address this subject last month and pretty much tear up your silly arguments?



Indeed, and the above poster doesn't sound like a less extreme version, but just another of his several puppets. I'm wondering if he's posting around ban or just got tired of being ignored under his other names.

Was Andaras banned!? :eek:

Indeed, and the above poster doesn't sound like a less extreme version, but just another of his several puppets. I'm wondering if he's posting around ban or just got tired of being ignored under his other names.

I just figured he was less extreme 'cuz he didn't use all of the buzz words and call for mass murder. I could be wrong.

No China was not happy under Japans occupation, but Tibet has historically been a part of China.

It has? Holy shit mate. I must've missed that one in my History of Asia class. Do you have proof of that one?

Hello Mr. Puppet. Didn't we address this subject last month and pretty much tear up your silly arguments?



Indeed, and the above poster doesn't sound like a less extreme version, but just another of his several puppets. I'm wondering if he's posting around ban or just got tired of being ignored under his other names.
This may not be my only name, but i have never posted here on the subject of these riots before. Note this is a recently resurrected nation, not a new one.

Let me check if it's kosher before you sig.

So, is it alright? I hope so, it's just to funny to ignore. :)

No China was not happy under Japans occupation, but Tibet has historically been a part of China. China during the late 19th and early 20th century was generally to weak to execises control over all of its territory, but even the Tibetian nationalists have to admit in gave at least formal allegence to the Chinese state.

If China didn't exercise on Tibet actual power, then Tibet was independent.

If Tibetans don't have any true cultural link to China, they are a different nation.

If they are a different nation, China should get the hell out. NOW.

If YOU will lick their boots because they call themselves communists (they aren't), that's YOUR problem. It's not your place to demand that the people of the SOVEREIGN state of Tibet do the same!

This may not be my only name, but i have never posted here on the subject of these riots before. Note this is a recently resurrected nation, not a new one.

We figured that out from the moment you first posted.

It has? Holy shit mate. I must've missed that one in my History of Asia class. Do you have proof of that one?

I thought that China was once actually part of Mongolia, what with Gengis and all.

So, is it alright? I hope so, it's just to funny to ignore. :)

I'll edit out a part of it. Just edit your sig accordingly.

Edit: Just edited.

If China didn't exercise on Tibet actual power, then Tibet was independent.

If Tibetans don't have any true cultural link to China, they are a different nation.

If they are a different nation, China should get the hell out. NOW.

If YOU will lick their boots because they call themselves communists (they aren't), that's YOUR problem. It's not your place to demand that the people of the SOVEREIGN state of Tibet do the same!

*hands Heikoku a cookie*

*hands Heikoku a cookie*

Ooo! Cookies! :D

I'll edit out a part of it. Just edit your sig accordingly.

Edit: Just edited.

Not as funny, but funny enough. :D

I thought that China was once actually part of Mongolia, what with Gengis and all.

Wait, that means Mongolia has the right to occupy China, by Rev's logic!

Just wait till Sanjaagiin Bayar hears about that!

It has? Holy shit mate. I must've missed that one in my History of Asia class. Do you have proof of that one?
Look up the history of Tibet on Wikipedia, start around the section titled "Khoshud, Dzungars, and Manchu". It admits there is a difference of opinion, but it definely documents Chinese claims to Tibet going back centuries

Was Andaras banned!? :eek:

*cough*

Look up the history of Tibet on Wikipedia, start around the section titled "Khoshud, Dzungars, and Manchu". It admits there is a difference of opinion, but it definely documents Chinese claims to Tibet going back centuries

Wiki ain't a good source mate.

I like you. You're silly. :) i like you too... when red arrow asked who was still around over here, you were the first one i mentioned.

Look up the history of Tibet on Wikipedia, start around the section titled "Khoshud, Dzungars, and Manchu". It admits there is a difference of opinion, but it definely documents Chinese claims to Tibet going back centuries

Mongolia occupied most, if not ALL, of China for even longer than that. By your logic, this means what is named China now should be Mongolian territory.

Please don't think you can play games with ME as your opponent. Have you not been taught to respect your betters when it comes to arguing?

I do respect the truly versatile thread title, regardless of what this thread brings.

Look up the history of Tibet on Wikipedia, start around the section titled "Khoshud, Dzungars, and Manchu". It admits there is a difference of opinion, but it definely documents Chinese claims to Tibet going back centuries

I'm sorry but I need better proof than the word claims when it comes to something like this. The year 1630 just does not do it for me. Besides that? It is actually showing that they have better ties with the mongols than with the Manchu.

Wasn't it the Dalai Lama asking NOT to be violent?
Wasn't it the Dalai Lama who offered Bijing an open dialoque, not even requestion independence?
Wasn't he it who called for a modernization of Tibet?

I think you should at times listen to what that man says, cause he's not asking for much.

Wiki ain't a good source mate.
Yeah, but its really easy to access. It may not prove my position is correct, but it does establish I'm not completely making it up as I go along.

I find your mention of famous communists ironic as what were they but revolutionaries before they were leaders?

Yeah, but its really easy to access. It may not prove my position is correct, but it does establish I'm not completely making it up as I go along.

Yeah, I suppose it does. Still, get some real sources.

Yeah, but its really easy to access. It may not prove my position is correct, but it does establish I'm not completely making it up as I go along.

Your point is self-defeating in that the Mongolians would have a stronger claim to China than China has to Tibet.

I already ordered you once not to play games with me.

Mongolia occupied most, if not ALL, of China for even longer than that. By your logic, this means what is named China now should be Mongolian territory.

Please don't think you can play games with ME as your opponent. Have you not been taught to respect your betters when it comes to arguing? Well, ultimately we should all me members of the worldwide dictatorship of the proletariat.

Well, ultimately we should all me members of the worldwide dictatorship of the proletariat.

I prefer to keep what I earn.

I find your mention of famous communists ironic as what were they but revolutionaries before they were leaders?
But not counter revolutionaries, and that is what the Tbetian Theonationalists are.

;)Your point is self-defeating in that the Mongolians would have a stronger claim to China than China has to Tibet.

I already ordered you once not to play games with me.

I'm glad you aprove of my mentioning Mongolia. ;)

Well, ultimately we should all me members of the worldwide dictatorship of the proletariat.

I prefer to keep what I earn.

I agree with Pschycotic Pschycos!

I prefer to keep what I earn. That's why we have to have the reeducation camps... and well the Red Guard.

Your point is self-defeating in that the Mongolians would have a stronger claim to China than China has to Tibet.

I already ordered you once not to play games with me.

You’re a feisty little one but you’ll soon learn some respect

Well, ultimately we should all me members of the worldwide dictatorship of the proletariat.

1- That's not up to discussion in this thread.

2- That's a sound-bite.

3- The dictatorship of the proletariat is a concept - one which you do not seem able to grasp - that either encompasses countries being independent or a world-government. One that is NOT centered in China or anywhere else and one that RESPECTS cultural boundaries. So even assuming this, your point regarding Tibet fails.

Respect your betters when you're arguing, boy.

I repeat, regardless of the theocratic nature of Tibetan society, China is run by a brutal regime that violates human rights. I respect your points about the old Tibetan Government. But when it comes to defending China today, you need to do more than prove it's enemies are bad to prove that China is right. Please start providing real arguments in China's defense, or else drop this attempt at debating immediately.

PS: is it true that your an Andaras puppet? I don't want to waste time repeating an argument I've already had.

Well, ultimately we should all me members of the worldwide dictatorship of the proletariat.

Now hold on there tiger. If we were all leaders, nobody would get anything done. The world needs it's leaders and it needs it's workers and followers. An all leader/follow society couldn't work.

You’re a feisty little one but you’ll soon learn some respect

Take him to the Master's sail barge :D

;)

I'm glad you aprove of my mentioning Mongolia. ;)
If the Mongolians were run by honest to goodness Marxists-Leninists, I would support their claims to both China and Russia.

Respect your betters when you're arguing, boy.

Is that an act or are you serious? If it's an act, bravo, you are doing a good job.

But not counter revolutionaries, and that is what the Tbetian Theonationalists are.

No, they aren't. Indeed they are neither "theonarionalists" nor counterrevolutionaries. They want their country to be left in peace. That does not make them one nor the other.

Especially because any moron can call his agenda a "revolutionary" one.

But not counter revolutionaries, and that is what the Tbetian Theonationalists are.

Ahh...but revolutions have always occurred, thus all new revolutionaries are, in fact, counter revolutionaries.

I repeat, regardless of the theocratic nature of Tibetan society, China is run by a brutal regime that violates human rights. I respect your points about the old Tibetan Government. But when it comes to defending China today, you need to do more than prove it's enemies are bad to prove that China is right. Please start providing real arguments in China's defense, or else drop this attempt at debating immediately.

PS: is it true that your an Andaras puppet? I don't want to waste time repeating an argument I've already had. no i'm not... i hadn't posted here in at least a year before a week or two ago.

The reactionary fuedal theocratic minions of the Dalai Lama have been attacking the Olympic torch ceremonies throughout Europe and the United States. These are the same forces which recently have been attempting to forment racial rioting in Tibet, where ethnic Chinese have been attacked by terrorist fundimentalists attempting to ethnically cleanse what they percieve to be a greater Tibet.

When these racist attacks were put down by the Red Army these same elements who want to return Tibet to its ignorant and impoverished fuedal past when the common people were virtual slaves to the Buddhist monasteries took their terror international. They tricked many "progessive" westerners into supporting their cause, people who would never support their ideological equals Al Queada, by playing on their ignorance of both Chinese history and the reality of the racial violence going on in Tibet today. I

f you are going to oppose ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and religious terrorists in the Middle East, then you must also defend China's right to deal forcefully with the same elements without their own borders.

Obvious troll is obvious.

If the Mongolians were run by honest to goodness Marxists-Leninists, I would support their claims to both China and Russia.

Do you even know what Marxism-Leninism IS?

You don't seem to, because if you did, you'd be aware that neither China is nor Russia was ran by Marxists-Leninists.

Even because their philosophy did not include forcefully taking over sovereign nations.

This bothers me. I keep trying to find worthy opponents, and failing to.

i like you too... when red arrow asked who was still around over here, you were the first one i mentioned.

They won't let me leave. I'm their prisoner. *nod*

Ahh...but revolutions have always occurred, thus all new revolutionaries are, in fact, counter revolutionaries.
that does make a certain amount of sense, but I mean counter revolutionary as in attempt to return to a previous style of government... generally a less egalitarian one.

Hey red, I have a response to one of your posts at the bottom of page four.

You’re a feisty little one but you’ll soon learn some respect

I think you're addressing the wrong person.

that does make a certain amount of sense, but I mean counter revolutionary as in attempt to return to a previous style of government... generally a less egalitarian one.

Our countering a revolution that ousted them from power makes them a counter revolutionary which is a no no in your book.

This bothers me. I keep trying to find worthy opponents, and failing to.

Try fass, he can make you really mad really quick.

Especially because any moron can call his agenda a "revolutionary" one.

True. Even Hitler considered himself a "revolutionary."


(Note: Unintentional Godwin. I was merely elaborating what Heikoku said. I am in no way implying that the OP is related to or similar to Hitler in any way, shape, or form.)

Obvious troll is obvious.

Was it the name?

Generally I need to see blood test results before I draw any conclusions. However, since you don't work for me I won't hold you to that standard.

That's why we have to have the reeducation camps... and well the Red Guard.

WOW...you can't be serous...

Is that an act or are you serious? If it's an act, bravo, you are doing a good job.

I see NSG as a place to do battles of wits.

And once I realize that a given opponent is, well, patently inferior to me, I try to see if he will stop playing games against me, due to the fact that, in a battle of wits, I'm not one to trifle with.

I hope that has answered your questions.

that does make a certain amount of sense, but I mean counter revolutionary as in attempt to return to a previous style of government... generally a less egalitarian one.

Then again, if that's what they are choosing to return to, then it means that the previous "revolution" was simply a failure, and they are bringing about the means to return to the previous working system. In which case they are neither revolutionaries, nor counterrevolutionaries, but simply the rightful government/ideology, attempting to restore order within their boundaries.

Do you even know what Marxism-Leninism IS?

You don't seem to, because if you did, you'd be aware that neither China is nor Russia was ran by Marxists-Leninists.

Even because their philosophy did not include forcefully taking over sovereign nations.

This bothers me. I keep trying to find worthy opponents, and failing to.well no, of course neither China or Russia are run by true Marxist Leninists now... otherwise I won't support a Mongol takeover... the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China were once however... it all ended with the defeat of the Gang of Four... and no i don't mean the punk band.

Please don't think you can play games with ME as your opponent. Have you not been taught to respect your betters when it comes to arguing?

I already ordered you once not to play games with me.

1- That's not up to discussion in this thread.

Respect your betters when you're arguing, boy.


This bothers me. I keep trying to find worthy opponents, and failing to.

Actually...

I think you're addressing the wrong person.

Not at all.

I see NSG as a place to do battles of wits.

And once I realize that a given opponent is, well, patently inferior to me, I try to see if he will stop playing games against me, due to the fact that, in a battle of wits, I'm not one to trifle with.

I hope that has answered your questions.

Sort of, thanks.


I myself just come here to quip and ask questions.

Edit: Also to catch up on current events.

That's why we have to have the reeducation camps... and well the Red Guard.

Forget about REeducation camps, we have to send you to an EDUCATION camp first so you can learn some history!

Do you even know what Marxism-Leninism IS?

You don't seem to, because if you did, you'd be aware that neither China is nor Russia was ran by Marxists-Leninists.

Even because their philosophy did not include forcefully taking over sovereign nations.

This bothers me. I keep trying to find worthy opponents, and failing to.

Maybe they were run by Marxists, maybe not, but they were definitely run by Leninists.

well no, of course neither China or Russia are run by true Marxist Leninists now... otherwise I won't support a Mongol takeover... the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China were once however... it all ended with the defeat of the Gang of Four... and no i don't mean the punk band.

Actually...neither were true marxist-leninst nations.

well no, of course neither China or Russia are run by true Marxist Leninists now... otherwise I won't support a Mongol takeover... the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China were once however... it all ended with the defeat of the Gang of Four... and no i don't mean the punk band.

Marxists-Leninists don't go around forcefully annexing other countries. According to Marx, the "revolution" would come from WITHIN.

Now take me seriously and stop trying to defend points this poorly.

I believe China has strayed from the path of Marxist-Leninist-Maoism, but I still defend then state from attack by Counter Revolutionies. The Dalai Lama and his ilk aren't even capitalist counter revolutionaries(like the one rampant in most of China's cities). These zealots are precapitalist, they harken back to Tibet's "glorious" past of peasants endlessly toiling for their monk masters, having no hope of reward in this life, but instead promised the illusion of a better incarnation the next time around.

Is this all some sort of postmodern exhibitionist satire?

Actually...



Not at all.

Well, I'm arrogant.

Then again, I earned it.

Do you know with how many restrictions I can actually argue?

Is this some sort of postmodern exhibitionist satire?

One would hope so but I have a feeling it aint

Is this all some sort of postmodern exhibitionist satire?

Yeah, it's like Duchamp's fountain, only the art is now representing what goes IN it.

Marxists-Leninists don't go around forcefully annexing other countries. According to Marx, the "revolution" would come from WITHIN.

Now take me seriously and stop trying to defend points this poorly.

Marxists =/= Marxist-Leninists

Marxist-Leninists do go around forcefully annexing other countries. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_Georgia) is just one example.

Remember that for every satirist, there are, sadly, people who actually take this nonsense seriously.:(

I believe China has strayed from the path of Marxist-Leninist-Maoism, but I still defend then state from attack by Counter Revolutionies. The Dalai Lama and his ilk aren't even capitalist counter revolutionaries(like the one rampant in most of China's cities). These zealots are precapitalist, they harken back to Tibet's "glorious" past of peasants endlessly toiling for their monk masters, having no hope of reward in this life, but instead promised the illusion of a better incarnation the next time around.

Isn't that exactly what communism does, only without the promise of eternal paradise?

Marxists =/= Marxist-Leninists

Marxist-Leninists do go around forcefully annexing other countries. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_Georgia) is just one example.

Which adds to the point that these guys weren't Marxists or Leninists. They were to communism what Ron Hubbard was to religion.

No China was not happy under Japans occupation, but Tibet has historically been a part of China. China during the late 19th and early 20th century was generally to weak to execises control over all of its territory, but even the Tibetian nationalists have to admit in gave at least formal allegence to the Chinese state.

I'm sorry, but your statement is a gross oversimplification of the actual situation.

By the middle of the 19th century, Great Britain had effective control of the Indian Subcontinent, and was moving to secure holdings and land in Imperial China. The Middle Kingdom had an advantage over India, in that it was a united nation, but the ruling Manchu Dynasty was weak and dying, wracked with internal struggles and political infighting. The only member of the Dynasty to show political willpower and an honest commitment to China was the woman now known as the Dowager Empress, and her actual power varied from great to figurehead due to various political machinations.

One obvious step by Britain to improve their position in China (a goal opposed by fellow Great Powers Russia and the USA) would have been to take control of the Himalayan Mountain Kingdoms, straddling the border between India and China. These included Nepal, Bhutan, and of course, Tibet. In fact, Britain did invade Nepal, twice, before coming to a political settlement that recognized Nepal's political sovereignty in exchange for exclusive use of their Gurkha tribesmen as mercenaries.

Of the three Kingdoms, Tibet would have been the most valuable to Britain, as it controls the easiest way into China itself. The then Dalai Lama, recognizing this danger, sent emissaries to Peking (later Beijing) and negtiated a protective treaty for his country, making it a vassal state of Imperial China. Note that this status does NOT incorporate the nation in vassalage to the dominant state; rather, it surrenders certain, pre-defined aspects of sovereignty, usually including the right to have a separate foreign policy.
In exchange, the dominant state agrees to defend the vassal from attack. While Britain had willingly fought China in the Opium Wars, those were primarily naval and coastal in nature; it was entirely resonable to assume Britain would think twice about engaging Chinese armies in a protracted inland conflict, and indeed, Great Britain never moved to invade Tibet.

It is from the treaty of vasslage that comes modern China's claims to ownership of Tibet. This claim is plainly erroneous, and based upon no other evidence; China had at no time prior occupied that area, and had never, until it's brutal and unprovoked invasion of Tibet in 1950, actually controlled the region. The then Dalai Lama repudiated the treaty in 1911.

No amount of historical revisionism can legitimize China's occupation of the sovereign nation of Tibet. While the Tibetan government certainly had it's flaws, using such as an excuse for mass murder and attempted genocide by absorption smacks of desperation.

Well, I'm arrogant.

Then again, I earned it.

Do you know with how many restrictions I can actually argue?

The force is with you, young Skywalker, but you are not a Jedi yet.

Isn't that exactly what communism does, only without the promise of eternal paradise?

Not TRUE communism. To which China doesn't come even close.

Which adds to the point that these guys weren't Marxists or Leninists. They were to communism what Ron Hubbard was to religion.

They were most definitely Leninists.

Then again, if that's what they are choosing to return to, then it means that the previous "revolution" was simply a failure, and they are bringing about the means to return to the previous working system. In which case they are neither revolutionaries, nor counterrevolutionaries, but simply the rightful government/ideology, attempting to restore order within their boundaries.I am will to concede it is a matter of prospective, one tends to see the ideologies one agrees with as legitimate and ones enemies as villians righfully resisted.

The force is with you, young Skywalker, but you are not a Jedi yet.

Chuckles.

They were most definitely Leninists.

Maybe, but then again MARX is the true father of communism.

The reactionary fuedal theocratic minions of the Dalai Lama have been attacking the Olympic torch ceremonies throughout Europe and the United States.

Proof? Source? Not Xinhua, I prefer my media not to be controlled by a repressive stat that controls all the information it can.

These are the same forces which recently have been attempting to forment racial rioting in Tibet, where ethnic Chinese have been attacked by terrorist fundimentalists attempting to ethnically cleanse what they percieve to be a greater Tibet.

You mean like how China is attempting to ethnically cleanse what they percieve to be a greater China? East Turkestan Anyone?

When these racist attacks were put down by the Red Army these same elements who want to return Tibet to its ignorant and impoverished fuedal past when the common people were virtual slaves to the Buddhist monasteries

Slavery in Tibet! Well, at least something like that would never happen in China (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6752507.stm).

Slavery in China has repeatedly come in and out of favor. Due to the enormous population of the region throughout most of its history, China has relatively had an almost unlimited workforce of cheap labor. Thus, the economy would naturally rely on a system of serfdom, slavery, or a combination of both. Approximately 5% of China's population was enslaved in ancient Han China (206 BC–220 AD) and slavery continued in China until the early 20th century.[233] Slavery in China was finally abolished in 1910.[234] Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#China)

took their terror international. They tricked many "progessive" westerners into supporting their cause, people who would never support their ideological equals Al Queada, by playing on their ignorance of both Chinese history and the reality of the racial violence going on in Tibet today.

When was the last time Tibetans hijacked a plane and crashed it into a building in Shanghai? or does Protest = Terrorism to you?

If you are going to oppose ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and religious terrorists in the Middle East, then you must also defend China's right to deal forcefully with the same elements without their own borders.

If were going to oppose ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, we should also oppose the cultural genocide in Tibet and Xinjiang.

Chuckles.

The force is strong with this one.

Maybe, but then again MARX is the true father of communism.

I'm not arguing that they were Marxists. Many Marxists will argue that Leninism is not communism.

Snip.

Ouch. ;)

I am will to concede it is a matter of prospective, one tends to see the ideologies one agrees with as legitimate and ones enemies as villians righfully resisted.

Uh-oh. My friend, they will now tear into you. You can NEVER admit you're wrong on NSG.

I'm not arguing that they were Marxists. Many Marxists will argue that Leninism is not communism.

Fair enough.

Now onto the matter at hand.

Did Rev manage to elevate the level of his arguing to a point which could entertain me yet?

I am will to concede it is a matter of prospective, one tends to see the ideologies one agrees with as legitimate and ones enemies as villians righfully resisted.

And thus we've all hit the definition of "conflict". Now...let's go have cookies and warm spiced cider.

However, it is hard to see from a clear perspective when you give a rat's ass. Me? Personally, I couldn't care less. What I see is a group of people wanting self rule, and another people denying that. Thus, the people wanting self rule should have the right to it, and thus are in the right. You, however, are a clear supporter of "modern communism", which is basically false-communism which relies on a strong dictatorial government (whereas true communism requires no government, and allows people to do as they will) to maintain their communist state. Your communism requires sever propaganda to maintain control, and then force in worst case scenarios. Because you have such an interest in it, your perspective tends to be overly clouded by your emotions, which, frankly, suck in debating and pretty much everything else except sex. Regardless, a clear perspective is certainly necessary, and I'm not sure you have it right now.

The force is strong with this one.

If he could be turned, he would be a powerful ally.

I am will to concede it is a matter of prospective, one tends to see the ideologies one agrees with as legitimate and ones enemies as villians righfully resisted.

Your powers are weak old man.

Uh-oh. My friend, they will now tear into you. You can NEVER admit you're wrong on NSG.

Would he even have to ADMIT it?

Yeah, it's like Duchamp's fountain, only the art is now representing what goes IN it.

Actually if it's satire, he's doing a pretty good job. All this thread needs more is a bit of "Criticize Liu Shaoqi" propaganda for the full kitsch effect.

Now onto the matter at hand.

Sounds good to me.

Did Rev manage to elevate the level of his arguing to a point which could entertain me yet?

I don't think so.

I'm sorry, but your statement is a gross oversimplification of the actual situation.

By the middle of the 19th century, Great Britain had effective control of the Indian Subcontinent, and was moving to secure holdings and land in Imperial China. The Middle Kingdom had an advantage over India, in that it was a united nation, but the ruling Manchu Dynasty was weak and dying, wracked with internal struggles and political infighting. The only member of the Dynasty to show political willpower and an honest commitment to China was the woman now known as the Dowager Empress, and her actual power varied from great to figurehead due to various political machinations.

One obvious step by Britain to improve their position in China (a goal opposed by fellow Great Powers Russia and the USA) would have been to take control of the Himalayan Mountain Kingdoms, straddling the border between India and China. These included Nepal, Bhutan, and of course, Tibet. In fact, Britain did invade Nepal, twice, before coming to a political settlement that recognized Nepal's political sovereignty in exchange for exclusive use of their Gurkha tribesmen as mercenaries.

Of the three Kingdoms, Tibet would have been the most valuable to Britain, as it controls the easiest way into China itself. The then Dalai Lama, recognizing this danger, sent emissaries to Peking (later Beijing) and negtiated a protective treaty for his country, making it a vassal state of Imperial China. Note that this status does NOT incorporate the nation in vassalage to the dominant state; rather, it surrenders certain, pre-defined aspects of sovereignty, usually including the right to have a separate foreign policy.
In exchange, the dominant state agrees to defend the vassal from attack. While Britain had willingly fought China in the Opium Wars, those were primarily naval and coastal in nature; it was entirely resonable to assume Britain would think twice about engaging Chinese armies in a protracted inland conflict, and indeed, Great Britain never moved to invade Tibet.

It is from the treaty of vasslage that comes modern China's claims to ownership of Tibet. This claim is plainly erroneous, and based upon no other evidence; China had at no time prior occupied that area, and had never, until it's brutal and unprovoked invasion of Tibet in 1950, actually controlled the region. The then Dalai Lama repudiated the treaty in 1911.

No amount of historical revisionism can legitimize China's occupation of the sovereign nation of Tibet. While the Tibetan government certainly had it's flaws, using such as an excuse for mass murder and attempted genocide by absorption smacks of desperation.

Historical Smackdown! (Replacing tonights WWE Smackdown)

If he could be turned, he would be a powerful ally.

He will join us or die, Master.*





*Mods, this is a direct quotation from The Empire Strikes Back, not, repeat, NOT, a death threat aimed at anyone.

If he could be turned, he would be a powerful ally.

However, the same logic skill that made me this good also made me a liberal. ;)

Would he even have to ADMIT it?

I suppose not. Andy clones are never that strong in the dark side of the forse.

Uh-oh. My friend, they will now tear into you. You can NEVER admit you're wrong on NSG. I am using traditional Mongol tactics... the feigned retreat, which will cause the enemy to loose formation in their rush to pursue, thus allowing... hmmm maybe now is not the best time to discuss battlefield operations.

Sounds good to me.



I don't think so.

You know what? That's it, I'm gonna beat him by haikus.

You know what? That's it, I'm gonna beat him by haikus.

Ooh, this'll be good! :D

I am using traditional Mongol tactics... the feigned retreat, which will cause the enemy to loose formation in their rush to pursue, thus allowing... hmmm maybe now is not the best time to discuss battlefield operations.

Now I know your plans! *evil cackling*

I am using traditional Mongol tactics... the feigned retreat, which will cause the enemy to loose formation in their rush to pursue, thus allowing... hmmm maybe now is not the best time to discuss battlefield operations.

Notice you were wrong,
Admit to your dumb mistake,
Claim it's all a trick.

However, the same logic skill that made me this good also made me a liberal. ;)

Control, control, you must learn control!

You know what? That's it, I'm gonna beat him by haikus.

"Is this the coronors office? Yes! I would like to buy a plot for Red Guard Revisionists. He's about to be slaughtered by Heikoku. Please prepare a box and plot! Thanks. "

:D

Notice you were wrong,
Admit to your dumb mistake,
Claim it's all a trick.

Here, take the whole box of cookies.

Historical Smackdown! (Replacing tonights WWE Smackdown)
yes but in classic online style, i'm just going to ignore that post and focus on the ones susceptible to pithy one liners type responses.

"Is this the coronors office? Yes! I would like to buy a plot for Red Guard Revisionists. He's about to be slaughtered by Heikoku. Please prepare a box and plot! Thanks. "

:D

Here, take the whole box of cookies.

*Takes a bow*

yes but in classic online style, i'm just going to ignore that post and focus on the ones susceptible to pithy one liners type responses.

If you were going to ignore it, why then did you quote it?

Lighten up, we're on an internet forum for the love of Elune. Enjoy yourself!

*Takes a bow*

*demands an encore*

yes but in classic online style, i'm just going to ignore that post and focus on the ones susceptible to pithy one liners type responses.

"You strike me down I shall become more powerful than you can imagine."

yes but in classic online style, i'm just going to ignore that post and focus on the ones susceptible to pithy one liners type responses.

Ignore evidence,
Claim that it's 'cause you're online,
And not 'cause you're dense.

yes but in classic online style, i'm just going to ignore that post and focus on the ones susceptible to pithy one liners type responses.

Red Guard Revisionists, I have a debate tip for you - utilize the terms "capitalist roaders" and "splittists."

If you were going to ignore it, why then did you quote it?

Lighten up, we're on an internet forum for the love of Elune. Enjoy yourself!

no no, you see i only responded to you.. i don't quote those annoyiong facts at all... they're a couple of pages back by now... its as if they never existed.

*demands an encore*

I am. ;)

no no, you see i only responded to you.. i don't quote those annoyiong facts at all... they're a couple of pages back by now... its as if they never existed.

And I was quoting them because I saw an opportunity for humor.

Though they still exist. Just like those facebook pictures of me and...oh nevermind, let's not go there.

no no, you see i only responded to you.. i don't quote those annoyiong facts at all... they're a couple of pages back by now... its as if they never existed.

That's such an old trick,
Oldest one in a great book,
Nineteen Eighty Four.

I'm sorry, but your statement is a gross oversimplification of the actual situation.

By the middle of the 19th century, Great Britain had effective control of the Indian Subcontinent, and was moving to secure holdings and land in Imperial China. The Middle Kingdom had an advantage over India, in that it was a united nation, but the ruling Manchu Dynasty was weak and dying, wracked with internal struggles and political infighting. The only member of the Dynasty to show political willpower and an honest commitment to China was the woman now known as the Dowager Empress, and her actual power varied from great to figurehead due to various political machinations.

One obvious step by Britain to improve their position in China (a goal opposed by fellow Great Powers Russia and the USA) would have been to take control of the Himalayan Mountain Kingdoms, straddling the border between India and China. These included Nepal, Bhutan, and of course, Tibet. In fact, Britain did invade Nepal, twice, before coming to a political settlement that recognized Nepal's political sovereignty in exchange for exclusive use of their Gurkha tribesmen as mercenaries.

Of the three Kingdoms, Tibet would have been the most valuable to Britain, as it controls the easiest way into China itself. The then Dalai Lama, recognizing this danger, sent emissaries to Peking (later Beijing) and negtiated a protective treaty for his country, making it a vassal state of Imperial China. Note that this status does NOT incorporate the nation in vassalage to the dominant state; rather, it surrenders certain, pre-defined aspects of sovereignty, usually including the right to have a separate foreign policy.
In exchange, the dominant state agrees to defend the vassal from attack. While Britain had willingly fought China in the Opium Wars, those were primarily naval and coastal in nature; it was entirely resonable to assume Britain would think twice about engaging Chinese armies in a protracted inland conflict, and indeed, Great Britain never moved to invade Tibet.

It is from the treaty of vasslage that comes modern China's claims to ownership of Tibet. This claim is plainly erroneous, and based upon no other evidence; China had at no time prior occupied that area, and had never, until it's brutal and unprovoked invasion of Tibet in 1950, actually controlled the region. The then Dalai Lama repudiated the treaty in 1911.

No amount of historical revisionism can legitimize China's occupation of the sovereign nation of Tibet. While the Tibetan government certainly had it's flaws, using such as an excuse for mass murder and attempted genocide by absorption smacks of desperation.

As long as I can quote my own posts - THEY WILL NEVER GO AWAY!

Red Guard Revisionists, I have a debate tip for you - utilize the terms "capitalist roaders" and "splittists." i love the term "capitalist roaders" or every leader since the downfall of TGoF... i also need to work "running dogs" in more.

"You strike me down I shall become more powerful than you can imagine."

I don't know where you get your delusions, laser brain.

*declines to give Heikoku a box of cookies, gives him an entire bakery, instead*

That's such an old trick,
Oldest one in a great book,
Nineteen Eighty Four.

In five years here, I have never...ever seen someone pwn in haiku form!

No China was not happy under Japans occupation, but Tibet has historically been a part of China. China during the late 19th and early 20th century was generally to weak to execises control over all of its territory, but even the Tibetian nationalists have to admit in gave at least formal allegence to the Chinese state.



Was Andaras banned!? :eek:

He has a history of accruing bans. I don't know his current status.


This may not be my only name, but i have never posted here on the subject of these riots before. Note this is a recently resurrected nation, not a new one.

I still have my suspicions. However, on the odd chance that you really aren't who you say you aren't, most of your arguement's were torn up already here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=551934).

China's claims to Tibet are based on off and on occupations. The Chinese government's version of Tibetian history differs from reality.

The Chinese History of Tibet
Tibet has been part of China since the Yuan dynasty (1271-1368). Centuries ago Mongol and Manchu Emperors ruled or influenced large parts of Asia. During the Tang period (618-907), the Tibetan King, Songsten Gampo, married Princess Wen Cheng. The Princess is thought to have had alot of influence in Tibet. During the Yuan dynasty (1271-1368), Tibet was part of the Mongol Empire which was under Yuan rule. At this time, the Yuan Government implemented residence registration, levied taxes, and imposed corvee duties in Tibet. China's "White Paper" claims that the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) "replaced the Yuan dynasty in China and inherited the right to rule Tibet." During the Manchu rule (1644-1911), the Qing army on a number of occasions entered Tibet to protect it. Finally, in 1951, China and the Tibetan Local Government signed a 17-point agreement concerning the peaceful liberation of Tibet. During this time, The 14th Dalai Lama supported this liberation and acknowledged Tibet is one part of China.

The Tibetan History of Tibet
Tibet has a recorded history of statehood extending back to 127 B.C. In the seventh to ninth centuries, the Tibetans often bested the Tang dynasty in battle. Additionally, during this dynasty, the marriage of Princess Wen Cheng and King Gampo was viewed as a strategic move to achieve cooperation and peace between Tibet and China. In 821, after centuries of periodic fighting, China and Tibet signed a treaty where boundaries were confirmed, and each country promised respect for the other's territorial sovereignty. During the Yuan dynasty (1271-1368), the Mongol leader, Genghis Khan, conquered most of Eurasia including China. Thus, instead of China claiming a right to Tibet, Mongolia could assert claim to both China and Tibet. There is no historic evidence to support the assumption that the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) ruled Tibet. In fact, the Qing Emperor in 1652 not only accepted The Fifth Dalai Lama as a leader of an independent state, the Emperor also treated Him as a Divinity on Earth. During this period, Tibet was known in Chinese as Wu-si Zang or Wu-si Guo (guo meaning country). During the Manchu rule (1644-1911), the Qing army was asked by Tibetans to settle disputes. But, this does not support China's right to Tibet. If it did, then the U.S.A. should claim Kuwait and Haiti since it assisted these countries. In fact, on a number of occasions, Tibet exercised power over China, suggesting that perhaps Tibet should claim China! At the time of China's invasion in 1949, Tibet possessed all the attributes of an independent country recognized by international law, including a defined territory, a government, tax system, unique currency, unique postal system and stamps, army, and the ability to carryout international relations. Two years later, the 17-point agreement was imposed on the Tibetan Government by the threat of arms after 40,000 PLA troops had already seized Tibetºs eastern provincial capital, Chamdo. The Tibetan delegates were threatened. The seal of the Tibetan Government was forged by Peking. In Tibet, The 14th Dalai Lama could not freely express His disapproval. However, soon after arriving in India, He repudiated this Agreement stating it was "thrust upon the Tibetan Government and people by the threat of arms." If Tibet had always been a part of China, why was there a need for the 17-point agreement? Finally, the Atlas of Chinese History Maps (published by Chinese Social Science Institute in Beijing) depicts Tibet as an independent country that was never part of China at least before 1280.
http://www.rangzen.com/history/views.htm

(The claims regarding the feudal, theocratic nature of the true government of Tibet were shreded in the thread linked above, and I'll refrain from a repeat, for the moment, in order to address your other falsehoods.)

If China didn't exercise on Tibet actual power, then Tibet was independent.

If Tibetans don't have any true cultural link to China, they are a different nation.

If they are a different nation, China should get the hell out. NOW.

If YOU will lick their boots because they call themselves communists (they aren't), that's YOUR problem. It's not your place to demand that the people of the SOVEREIGN state of Tibet do the same!

Even China recognised Tibetian independence.

International law states that recognition can occur by explicit or implicit acts including treaties, negotiations, and diplomatic relations. Mongolia and Tibet signed a formal treaty of recognition in 1913. Historically, Nepal and Tibet had peace treaties. Tibetºs independence was also confirmed at the Treaty of Simla (1914) which was concluded by Tibet and British India. In 1949, Tibet maintained diplomatic, economic, and cultural relations with such countries as Nepal, Sikkim, Mongolia, China, British India, and to some extent, Russia and Japan. Further, Nepal maintained an Ambassador in Lhasa and told the U.N. in 1949 that it conducted international relations with Tibet. In fact, Britian, Bhutan, India, and even China also maintained diplomatic missions in Tibet's capitol, Lhasa. The Tibetan Foreign Office conducted talks with President Franklin D. Roosevelt when he sent representatives to Lhasa to discuss the allied war effort against Japan during World War II. In 1950, El Salvador formally requested that China's aggression against Tibet be placed on the agenda of the U.N. General Assembly. The issue was not discussed. However, during four U.N. General Assembly debates on Tibet (1959, 1960, 1961, & 1965), many countries (e.g., Philippines, Nicaragua, Thailand. United States, Ireland) openly stated that Tibet was an independent country illegally occupied by China. In fact, the U.N. passed three resolutions (1959, 1961, & 1965) concerning Tibet stating that Tibetans were deprived of their inalienable rights to self-determination. Even Mao Zedong during the Long March admitted that Tibet was an independent country when he passed through the border regions of Tibet remarking, "This is our only foreign debt, and some day we must pay the Mantzu (sic) and the Tibetans for the provisions we were obliged to take from them." Tibetans clearly constitute a people under international law, as described, for instance, by the UNESCO International Meeting of Experts on Further Study of the Concept of the Rights of Peoples. They are a distinct people and fulfill all the characteristics of this concept: commonality of history, shared language, culture, and ethnicity.
http://www.rangzen.com/history/views.htm


Wait, that means Mongolia has the right to occupy China, by Rev's logic!

Just wait till Sanjaagiin Bayar hears about that!

:) Indeed.

Look up the history of Tibet on Wikipedia, start around the section titled "Khoshud, Dzungars, and Manchu". It admits there is a difference of opinion, but it definely documents Chinese claims to Tibet going back centuries

Indeed, let us look at it:

Khoshud, Dzungars, and Manchu

In the 1630s, Tibet would become entangled in the power struggles between the rising Manchu and various Mongol and Oirad factions. Ligden Khan of the Chakhar, on the retreat from the Manchu, set out to Tibet to destroy the Yellow Hat school. He died on the way in Koko Nur in 1634 [59], but his vassal Tsogt Taij would continue the fight, even having his own son Arslan killed after he (the son) changed sides. Tsogt Taij was defeated and killed by Güshi Khan of the Khoshud in 1637, who would in turn become the overlord over Tibet, and act as a "Protector of the Yellow Church"[60]. Güshri helped the Fifth Dalai Lama to establish himself as the highest spiritual and political authority in Tibet and destroyed any potential rivals, like the prince of Tsang. The time of the fifth Dalai Lama was, however, also a period of rich cultural development.

His death was kept secret for 15 years by the regent (Tibetan: desi; Wylie: sde-srid), Sanggye Gyatso. This was apparently done so that the Potala Palace could be finished and to prevent Tibet's neighbors taking advantage of an interregnum in the succession of the Dalai Lamas.[61] The Sixth Dalai Lama was only enthroned in 1697.

The Sixth Dalai Lama enjoyed a lifestyle that included drinking, the company of women, and writing love songs.[62] Declaring him to be unworthy as a monk, Mongol leader Lha-bzang Khan invaded Tibet with the approval of China's Kangxi emperor in 1705. The Dalai Lama died soon afterwards, probably killed by someone. Tibetans angrily rejected the spurious Dalai Lama candidate Lha-bzang brought with him and turned to the Dzungar Mongols for relief.

In 1705, Lobzang Khan of the Khoshud used the 6th Dalai Lama's escapades as excuse to take control of Tibet. The regent was murdered, and the Dalai Lama sent to Beijing. He died on the way, in Koko Nur, ostensibly from illness. Lobzang Khan appointed a new Dalai Lama, who however was not accepted by the Gelugpa school. A rival reincarnation was found in Koko Nur.

The Dzungars invaded Tibet in 1717, deposed and killed a pretender to the position of Dalai Lama (who had been promoted by Lhabzang, the titular King of Tibet), which met with widespread approval. However, they soon began to loot the holy places of Lhasa which brought a swift response from Emperor Kangxi in 1718, but his military expedition was annihilated by the Dzungars not far from Lhasa.[63][64]

A second, larger, expedition sent by Emperor Kangxi expelled the Dzungars from Tibet in 1720 and the troops were hailed as liberators. They brought Kelzang Gyatso with them from Kumbum to Lhasa and he was installed as the seventh Dalai Lama in 1721.[65][66]

Following the Qing withdrawal from central Tibet in 1723, there was a period of civil war. Amdo, meanwhile, was declared a Chinese territory under the name Kokonor ('Blue Lake'). (This became the province of Qinghai in 1929.)

After the rebellion of a Qoshot Mongol prince near Koko Nur, the Qing made the region of Amdo and Kham into the province of Qinghai in 1724,[67] and incorporated eastern Kham into neighbouring Chinese provinces in 1728.[68][citation needed] The Qing government sent a resident commissioner (amban) to Lhasa.

"The temporal power [in the mid 1840s] of the Supreme Lama ends at Bathang [see Batang Town]. the frontiers of Tibet, properly so called, were fixed in 1726, on the termination of a great war between the Tibetans and the Chinese. Two days before you arrive at Bathang, you pass, on the top of a mountain, a stone monument, showing what was arranged at that time between the government of Lha-Ssa and that of Peking, on the subject of boundaries. At present, the countries situate east of Bathang are independent of Lha-Ssa in temporal matters. They are governed by a sort of feudal princes, originally appointed by the Chinese Emperor, and still acknowledging his paramount authority. These petty sovereigns are bound to go every third year to Peking, to offer their tribute to the Emperor."[69]

Spencer Chapman gives a similar, but more detailed, account of this border agreement:

"In 1727, as a result of the Chinese having entered Lhasa, the boundary between China and Tibet was laid down as between the head-waters of the Mekong and Yangtse rivers, and marked by a pillar, a little to the south-west of Batang. Land to the west of this pillar was administered from Lhasa, while the Tibetan chiefs of the tribes to the east came more directly under China. This historical Sino-Tibetan boundary was used until 1910. The states Der-ge, Nyarong, Batang, Litang, and the five Hor States—to name the more important districts—are known collectively in Lhasa as Kham, an indefinite term suitable to the Tibetan Government, who are disconcertingly vague over such details as treaties and boundaries."[70]

China began posting two high commissioners, or ambans, to Lhasa in 1727. Pro-Chinese historians argue that the ambans' presence was an expression of Chinese sovereignty, while those favouring Tibetan claims tend to equate the ambans with ambassadors. "The relationship between Tibet and (Qing) China was that of priest and patron and was not based on the subordination of one to the other," according to the 13th Dalai Lama,[71] (The 13th Dalai Lama was deposed (1904), reinstated (1908), and deposed (1910) again by the Qing Dynasty government.) [72] Pho-lha-nas, an important Tibetan aristocrat, ruled Tibet with Chinese support in 1728-47. In 1728 the young 7th Dalai Lama, Kelzang Gyatso was invited to visit Beijing,[73] but Pho-lha-nas only had him moved from Lhasa to Litang to make it more difficult for him to influence the government. After Pho-lha-nas died, his son ruled until he was killed by the ambans in 1750. This provoked riots during which the ambans were killed. A Chinese army entered the country and restored order.

Tibetan factions rebelled in 1750 and killed the ambans. Then, a Manchu Qing army entered and defeated the rebels and installed an administration headed by the Dalai Lama. The number of soldiers in Tibet was kept at about 2,000. The defensive duties were partly helped out by a local force which was reorganized by the resident commissioner, and the Tibetan government continued to manage day-to-day affairs as before. In 1751, the Manchu (and Qing) Emperor Qianlong established the Dalai Lama as both the spiritual leader and political leader of Tibet who lead a government (Kashag) with four Kalöns in it.[74] Under Emperor Qianlong no further attempts were made to integrate Tibet into the empire. Instead, Emperor Qianlong drew on Buddhism to bolster support among the Tibetans. Six thangkas remain portraying the emperor as Manjusri and Tibetan records of the time refer to him by that name.[75]

In 1788, Gurkha forces sent by Bahadur Shah Zafar II, the Regent of Nepal, invaded Tibet, occupying a number of frontier districts. The young Panchen Lama fled to Lhasa and the Manchu Qianlong Emperor sent troops to Lhasa, upon which the Nepalese withdrew agreeing to pay a large annual sum.

In 1791 the Nepalese Gurkhas invaded Tibet a second time, seizing Shigatse and destroyed, plundered, and desecrated the great Tashilhunpo Monastery. The Panchen Lama was forced to flee to Lhasa once again. The Qianlong Emperor then sent an army of 17,000 men to Tibet. In 1793, with the assistance of Tibetan troops, they managed to drive the Nepalese troops to within about 30 km of Kathmandu before the Gurkhas conceded defeat and returned all the treasure they had plundered.[76]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tibet

So according to your source for your argument that Tibet has always been part of China, and particularly was during the period covered by the passage above, your claims are fallicious.

i like you too... when red arrow asked who was still around over here, you were the first one i mentioned.

Ah, now you ring a bell.

Wasn't it the Dalai Lama asking NOT to be violent?
Wasn't it the Dalai Lama who offered Bijing an open dialoque, not even requestion independence?
Wasn't he it who called for a modernization of Tibet?

I think you should at times listen to what that man says, cause he's not asking for much.

Indeed.

Yeah, but its really easy to access. It may not prove my position is correct, but it does establish I'm not completely making it up as I go along.

Actually it does, as pointed out above.

I repeat, regardless of the theocratic nature of Tibetan society, China is run by a brutal regime that violates human rights. I respect your points about the old Tibetan Government. But when it comes to defending China today, you need to do more than prove it's enemies are bad to prove that China is right. Please start providing real arguments in China's defense, or else drop this attempt at debating immediately.

PS: is it true that your an Andaras puppet? I don't want to waste time repeating an argument I've already had.

Seconded.

In five years here, I have never...ever seen someone pwn in haiku form!

I'm sigging it, can I? :D

As long as I can quote my own posts - THEY WILL NEVER GO AWAY!

You're slightly wrong on one aspect - Ci Xi was only interested in power and propping up the Manchu dynasty. Honest commitment would have been Emperor Guanxu and his 100 day reforms.

Other than that, carry on...

I'm sigging it, can I? :D

All yours, my friend.

That's such an old trick,
Oldest one in a great book,
Nineteen Eighty Four.

you will never defeat me with your decadant petty bourgeois arty fartsiness... remember:


"Intellectuals Are The Shoeshine Boys Of The Ruling Elite"



and there must be "Uncompromising War On Art Under The Dictatorship Of The Proletariat"

Ignore evidence,
Claim that it's 'cause you're online,
And not 'cause you're dense.

Notice you were wrong,
Admit to your dumb mistake,
Claim it's all a trick.

*Blows whistle* FOUL! I call foul!

You forgot two fundamental rules of haiku. 1. Never mention what you mean directly. 2. Include a reference to the natural world.

Now do that right or it's red card time. :p

i love the term "capitalist roaders" or every leader since the downfall of TGoF... i also need to work "running dogs" in more.

Ah, a man after my own heart. The Deng Xiaoping revisionist cohort should truly fear you.

*Blows whistle* FOUL! I call foul!

You forgot two fundamental rules of haiku. 1. Never mention what you mean directly. 2. Include a reference to the natural world.

Now do that right or it's red card time. :p

Ahhhh...but if we are part of the natural world, then so are our thoughts, and thus our thoughts are a reference to the natural world.

Snip.

You call me an "artist"
Then add two stupid sound-bites
Is that all you've got?

you will never defeat me with your decadant petty bourgeois arty fartsiness... remember:


"Intellectuals Are The Shoeshine Boys Of The Ruling Elite"



and there must be "Uncompromising War On Art Under The Dictatorship Of The Proletariat"

You have won the thread.

*Blows whistle* FOUL! I call foul!

You forgot two fundamental rules of haiku. 1. Never mention what you mean directly. 2. Include a reference to the natural world.

Now do that right or it's red card time. :p

I'm using haiku FORM. :p

I mean... You really don't expect me to, er... "kare ni kaibou wo suru" (sp)... With references to landscapes and trees, right? ;)

Daistallia 2104 Snip.

I bow before a deeper understanding.

you will never defeat me with your decadant petty bourgeois arty fartsiness... remember:


"Intellectuals Are The Shoeshine Boys Of The Ruling Elite"



and there must be "Uncompromising War On Art Under The Dictatorship Of The Proletariat"

And you are emo because you can't come up with good ones yourself...:(


DISCLAIMER: This is the thread's ONLY emo reference. It's done and over, let's move on.

Ahhhh...but if we are part of the natural world, then so are our thoughts, and thus our thoughts are a reference to the natural world.
The next time I get yelled at by the 国語 teacher here when I forget a reference I am SO gonna use that!

I'm pretty sure though I can't get away with it and great poets in Japanese history will probably slap me silly for trying.

Ah, a man after my own heart. The Deng Xiaoping revisionist cohort should truly fear you. And well they should
as they grovel and undulate on their bellies like worms before their capitalist masters(to misquote vlad ilyich).

Tibet has historically been a part of China.
Liar.

And you are emo because you can't come up with good ones yourself...:(


DISCLAIMER: This is the thread's ONLY emo reference. It's done and over, let's move on.

those weren't emo albums... post punk noise maybe but...

I'm using haiku FORM. :p

I mean... You really don't expect me to, er... "kare ni kaibou wo suru" (sp)... With references to landscapes and trees, right? ;)
Of course. You just have to get creative with the symbolism.

Like the Sakura
Your arguments fall quickly
Before the Spring wind

See?

And well they should
as they grovel and undulate on their bellies like worms before their capitalist masters(to misquote vlad ilyich).

Just look at you go
Can't beat me, thus, attack me
For besting your tripe.

You have won the thread.
yeah but no one will get the reference

I'm sorry, but your statement is a gross oversimplification of the actual situation.

By the middle of the 19th century, Great Britain had effective control of the Indian Subcontinent, and was moving to secure holdings and land in Imperial China. The Middle Kingdom had an advantage over India, in that it was a united nation, but the ruling Manchu Dynasty was weak and dying, wracked with internal struggles and political infighting. The only member of the Dynasty to show political willpower and an honest commitment to China was the woman now known as the Dowager Empress, and her actual power varied from great to figurehead due to various political machinations.

One obvious step by Britain to improve their position in China (a goal opposed by fellow Great Powers Russia and the USA) would have been to take control of the Himalayan Mountain Kingdoms, straddling the border between India and China. These included Nepal, Bhutan, and of course, Tibet. In fact, Britain did invade Nepal, twice, before coming to a political settlement that recognized Nepal's political sovereignty in exchange for exclusive use of their Gurkha tribesmen as mercenaries.

Of the three Kingdoms, Tibet would have been the most valuable to Britain, as it controls the easiest way into China itself. The then Dalai Lama, recognizing this danger, sent emissaries to Peking (later Beijing) and negtiated a protective treaty for his country, making it a vassal state of Imperial China. Note that this status does NOT incorporate the nation in vassalage to the dominant state; rather, it surrenders certain, pre-defined aspects of sovereignty, usually including the right to have a separate foreign policy.
In exchange, the dominant state agrees to defend the vassal from attack. While Britain had willingly fought China in the Opium Wars, those were primarily naval and coastal in nature; it was entirely resonable to assume Britain would think twice about engaging Chinese armies in a protracted inland conflict, and indeed, Great Britain never moved to invade Tibet.

It is from the treaty of vasslage that comes modern China's claims to ownership of Tibet. This claim is plainly erroneous, and based upon no other evidence; China had at no time prior occupied that area, and had never, until it's brutal and unprovoked invasion of Tibet in 1950, actually controlled the region. The then Dalai Lama repudiated the treaty in 1911.

No amount of historical revisionism can legitimize China's occupation of the sovereign nation of Tibet. While the Tibetan government certainly had it's flaws, using such as an excuse for mass murder and attempted genocide by absorption smacks of desperation.

Indeed.

Historical Smackdown! (Replacing tonights WWE Smackdown)

Followed by another from RGR's own source.

yes but in classic online style, i'm just going to ignore that post and focus on the ones susceptible to pithy one liners type responses.

Admission of defeat or admission of trolling?

Red Guard Revisionists, I have a debate tip for you - utilize the terms "capitalist roaders" and "splittists."

:)

*Blows whistle* FOUL! I call foul!

You forgot two fundamental rules of haiku. 1. Never mention what you mean directly. 2. Include a reference to the natural world.

Now do that right or it's red card time. :p

Also, no kigo!

I call foul: ignorance of and confusing poetic forms. Call them senryu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senryu) Heikoku, and you'll be OK. ;)

Daistallia 2104
I bow before a deeper understanding.

Your's was good as well. :)

Just look at you go
Can't beat me, thus, attack me
For besting your tripe.
actually that wasn't an attack on you, so much as reformist psuedorevolutionaries.

Of course. You just have to get creative with the symbolism.

Like the Sakura
Your arguments fall quickly
Before the Spring wind

See?

Maybe, but for the punch to be better-packed, using the form has to suffice. Plus, it's hard to fathom that haikus were done by ALL poets within these restraints. I mean, stylistic changes and so on may or not have survived, but still...

I call foul: ignorance of and confusing poetic forms. Call them senryu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senryu) Heikoku, and you'll be OK. ;)

Senkyuu! ^_^

Very well, they are senryu. ;)

Just look at you go
Can't beat me, thus, attack me
For besting your tripe.

Actually he was attacking the Three Represents, not you.

actually that wasn't an attack on you, so much as reformist psuedorevolutionaries.

That last word you wrote
You can't define it
Sans its opposite.

Maybe, but for the punch to be better-packed, using the form has to suffice. Plus, it's hard to fathom that haikus were done by ALL poets within these restraints. I mean, stylistic changes and so on may or not have survived, but still...
*short sidetrack*
Part of the problem being of course that the 5/7/5 is meant for Japanese sounds not English syllables and a more flexible grammar structure that allows you to drop things and get away with it. Plus Japanese as a language and a culture is far more symbolic than English, leading to very stiled English haiku.
/Sidetrack

The next time I get yelled at by the 国語 teacher here when I forget a reference I am SO gonna use that!

I'm pretty sure though I can't get away with it and great poets in Japanese history will probably slap me silly for trying.

:goes looking for a trout to slap NERVUN with::: :p

Maybe, but for the punch to be better-packed, using the form has to suffice. Plus, it's hard to fathom that haikus were done by ALL poets within these restraints. I mean, stylistic changes and so on may or not have survived, but still...

Actually, the proper Japanese form is even more restrictive, as it counts "on" or mora, not syllables. And were you using kireji? (I wasn't paying enough attention.

Senkyuu! ^_^

Very well, they are senryu. ;)

(^_^) indeed.

*short sidetrack*
Part of the problem being of course that the 5/7/5 is meant for Japanese sounds not English syllables and a more flexible grammar structure that allows you to drop things and get away with it. Plus Japanese as a language and a culture is far more symbolic than English, leading to very stiled English haiku.
/Sidetrack

True.

Still, I can beat him with senryu. ;)

*short sidetrack*
Part of the problem being of course that the 5/7/5 is meant for Japanese sounds not English syllables and a more flexible grammar structure that allows you to drop things and get away with it. Plus Japanese as a language and a culture is far more symbolic than English, leading to very stiled English haiku.
/Sidetrack

Note also that modern haiku in English sometimes break the 5-7-5 "rule" in order to more closely approximate the Japanese feel.

HAIKU

Definition: A haiku is a short poem that uses imagistic language to convey the essence of an experience of nature or the season intuitively linked to the human condition.

Notes: Most haiku in English consist of three unrhymed lines of seventeen or fewer syllables, with the middle line longest, though today's poets use a variety of line lengths and arrangements. In Japanese a typical haiku has seventeen "sounds" (on) arranged five, seven, and five. (Some translators of Japanese poetry have noted that about twelve syllables in English approximates the duration of seventeen Japanese on.) Traditional Japanese haiku include a "season word" (kigo), a word or phrase that helps identify the season of the experience recorded in the poem, and a "cutting word" (kireji), a sort of spoken punctuation that marks a pause or gives emphasis to one part of the poem. In English, season words are sometimes omitted, but the original focus on experience captured in clear images continues. The most common technique is juxtaposing two images or ideas (Japanese rensô). Punctuation, space, a line-break, or a grammatical break may substitute for a cutting word.
http://www.hsa-haiku.org/archives/HSA_Definitions_2004.html

Heheh. NSG's managed to turn a topic starting with a hyperbolic and fallicious post on the Tibetian olympic protests into a discussion on poetic forms. Well done all. My work here is done, so off to work IRL...

I'm pretty certain this thread was intended as satire. As a (necessarily repulsively bourgeois) connoisseur of Maoist-era objets d'art I have to say I was highly entertained by RGR's use of the Cultural Revolution aesthetic.

A "senryu" is any poem in the 5/7/5 form; there are various subgenres. A "haiku" is a senryu with a reference to the time of year. A "hokku" is a senryu which sets up a rude insult, groaner pun, or sexual double entendre. The following is an example of a "haiku" which is also a "hokku":

December seventh,
Nineteen hundred forty-one,
A nip in the air

I'm pretty certain this thread was intended as satire. As a (necessarily repulsively bourgeois) connoisseur of Maoist-era objets d'art I have to say I was highly entertained by RGR's use of the Cultural Revolution aesthetic.it actually had a friend at college years ago who i always greated with the accusation he had been grovelling and undulating on his belly before his bourgeois masters, and he always countered by calling me a capitalist roader and a running dog of Chiang Kai-shek... ah my misspent youth.

I'm going to assume you are Chinese, and from China from that statement. There is a difference between protesting for freedom, and terrorism
Let me ask you two questions:
1)How many of these protesters in China have been killed?
2)How many Chinese policemen or soldiers have been killed?
Also then, what are your thoughts on Ghandi?

1. Protestors - Dalai Lama sources say 140, PR-Chinese sources say none but 22 civilians were killed by rioters
Neither the exiled Tibetan government or the PRC government are credible sources...

2. There is a media clamp down...no on knows for sure, but there were injured police officers

Ghandi was a revolutionary figure who freed India from British colonial rule. He was also a racist who didn't like blacks.



Considering what the Chinese Government has done to Tibet, does it come as a surprise?

Put it in the greater context of history - the Tibetan theocracy in place before the 1949 communist invasion wasn't much better than the current PRC government. People were tortured and had their eyes gouged out by the ruling monk-noble class if they disobeyed orders.

You've all been hooked by a troll. Didn't the OP's name mean anything to you people?

You've all been hooked by a troll. Didn't the OP's name mean anything to you people?

But we still managed to have fun, so what does it matter in the end?

:goes looking for a trout to slap NERVUN with::: :p
See what I mean? :p

Of course given how hard it's been raining up here in Nagano all day long I think the trout are probably just strolling along the streets!

You've all been hooked by a troll. Didn't the OP's name mean anything to you people?

You see, HE entertained ME.

it actually had a friend at college years ago who i always greated with the accusation he had been grovelling and undulating on his belly before his bourgeois masters, and he always countered by calling me a capitalist roader and a running dog of Chiang Kai-shek... ah my misspent youth.

Haha, perfect.

You've all been hooked by a troll. Didn't the OP's name mean anything to you people?

IIRC Red Guard Revisionists was a contemporary of The Red Arrow, if not the same person.

God bless the Red Arrow. He was a great NSer.

Haha, perfect.



IIRC Red Guard Revisionists was a contemporary of The Red Arrow, if not the same person.

God bless the Red Arrow. He was a great NSer.
i talk to red arrow on another forum, though i originally meet him over here. he was just a kid, i don't think he's 18 yet and he was posting all that move on.org spam over here... what about 5 years ago.

But we still managed to have fun, so what does it matter in the end?

Indeed. Plus, as I said above, we managed to turn this into a discussion of poetic forms.

See what I mean? :p

Of course given how hard it's been raining up here in Nagano all day long I think the trout are probably just strolling along the streets!

LOL

Those may be
The trout seen
In Osaka

Yesterday we
Had heavy ame

(5 points to the first to name that form. NERVUN's disqualified on grounds that if he doesn't recognise it instantly, I'll fish slap him again. ;))

i talk to red arrow on another forum, though i originally meet him over here. he was just a kid, i don't think he's 18 yet and he was posting all that move on.org spam over here... what about 5 years ago.

Nice. TRA was a shrill but intelligent guy. I admire and am amused by that.

Can't believe its already been 5 (!) years of Nationstates shenanigans.

Indeed. Plus, as I said above, we managed to turn this into a discussion of poetic forms.



LOL

Those may be
The trout seen
In Osaka

Yesterday we
Had heavy ame

(5 points to the first to name that form. NERVUN's disqualified on grounds that if he doesn't recognise it instantly, I'll fish slap him again. ;))

Tanka?

Nice. TRA was a shrill but intelligent guy. I admire and am amused by that.

Can't believe its already been 5 (!) years of Nationstates shenanigans.
just brought back my oldest dead nation to check my age here... yeah it really has



Welcome, The Northern Allegeny.
You last visited: 06-06-2004 at 7:09 PM

... and i still remembered the misspelling and the password

just brought back my oldest dead nation to check my age here... yeah it really has



Welcome, The Northern Allegeny.
You last visited: 06-06-2004 at 7:09 PM

... and i still remembered the misspelling and the passwordseem to have lost alot of posts in the graveyard

The reactionary fuedal theocratic minions of the Dalai Lama have been attacking the Olympic torch ceremonies throughout Europe and the United States. These are the same forces which recently have been attempting to forment racial rioting in Tibet, where ethnic Chinese have been attacked by terrorist fundimentalists attempting to ethnically cleanse what they percieve to be a greater Tibet.

When these racist attacks were put down by the Red Army these same elements who want to return Tibet to its ignorant and impoverished fuedal past when the common people were virtual slaves to the Buddhist monasteries took their terror international. They tricked many "progessive" westerners into supporting their cause, people who would never support their ideological equals Al Queada, by playing on their ignorance of both Chinese history and the reality of the racial violence going on in Tibet today. If you are going to oppose ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and religious terrorists in the Middle East, then you must also defend China's right to deal forcefully with the same elements without their own borders.

Troll, satire, or on crack? You decide!

Troll, satire, or on crack? You decide! or the truth, unguilded by capitalist affectation.

Troll, satire, or on crack? You decide!

I'd say the former.

Bah, you phillistines don't appreciate a hearty satire when you see one. I bet the average NSGer would call Swift a troll for advocating eating Irish babies.

You have to at least admit that "theonationalist minions of the Dalai Lama" is a great line.

Bah, you phillistines don't appreciate a hearty satire when you see one. I bet the average NSGer would call Swift a troll for advocating eating Irish babies.

You have to at least admit that "theonationalist minions of the Dalai Lama" is a great line.

But you do have to admit that in the wake of Andaras Whatever and United Beleriland it's kind of hard to tell communist satire from the real thing.

But you do have to admit that in the wake of Andaras Whatever and United Beleriland it's kind of hard to tell communist satire from the real thing.

That may be a very good point. I've only recently returned to NSG after a hiatus so I'm not familiar with the postings of Andaras yet. His stuff sounds interesting.

I'm am not arguing that peaceful demonstrations in the west should be stopped, though the demonstrations in London, Paris, and San Fransisco have not been exactly peaceful. What I am arguing is that these demonstrations are being orchestrated by the Dalai Lama's gang of theocratic reactionaries. These are the same people who have been stirring up ethnic and religious hatred in Tibet. Even the biased western media have at least ocassionally mentioned the anti ethnic Chinese character of these riots. Chinese shops have been burnt sometimes along with their Chinese workers.
Source. . . .please???? secondly . . . .Tibetan budhist reactionary????? wha????

or the truth, unguilded by capitalist affectation.

on crack no doubt about it

That may be a very good point. I've only recently returned to NSG after a hiatus so I'm not familiar with the postings of Andaras yet. His stuff sounds interesting.
Boringly repetitious actually. Any thread with him in it usually degenerates into endless loops of him claiming that Stalin was great and that everyone and anything that says otherwise is just capitalistic propaganda. Think Denis from Monty Python and the Holy Grail without the joke.

I have just one thing to say in disagreement to the OP:


GO TIBET.

(waves flag of Tibetan Freedom)

Down with the sellouts. People have no shame these days. The only reason some governments are supporting China is because the Chinese government bribed them. It's not just Tibet, its the fact that the Chinese government continues to directly support bloodthirsty genocidal regimes all over the world from Sudan to Burma.
The Chinese government supports genocide and you expect most of the world not to be upset about it? Come on. It's not just religious Tibetans who protesting the Olympics. You have secular human rights activists who were protesting in London, Paris, Athens, and today in San Francisco.

The Dalai Lama has ordered his people to stop violence and turn themselves in so there can be peaceful solution. He asked to meet with Chinese leader. China's response??? "Death to the Dalai Lama." They even put a bounty on his head.
How about this one? Since when does a peaceful, aspiring nation start forcing a ethnic group into the gulag of "reeducation. Only despotic aparthiedic regimes force people into reeducation camps on the basis of race or ethnicity. Only despotic totalitarian regimes force whole groups into "reeducation camps" because they have contrarian religious or political views.

Because of how China handled this, my opinion of China and most of the world's opinion of China, went down the tiolet and China has only themselves to blame.

Boringly repetitious actually. Any thread with him in it usually degenerates into endless loops of him claiming that Stalin was great and that everyone and anything that says otherwise is just capitalistic propaganda. Think Denis from Monty Python and the Holy Grail without the joke.

Since you seem only able to view life through the prism of capitalist class suppressive thought, you will have to be exterminated when the revolution comes.

*Checks flight prices to Japan - decides to spare NERVUN's life*

Since you seem only able to view life through the prism of capitalist class suppressive thought, you will have to be exterminated when the revolution comes.

*Checks flight prices to Japan - decides to spare NERVUN's life*
Ah yes, curse those evil flight prices. :D

A communist regime the target of a world-wide protest movement? God, I love it! :D

How do you like them apples, ChiComs?

Hands off Tibet!

http://www.dalailama.com
http://www.tchrd.org

f you are going to oppose ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and religious terrorists in the Middle East, then you must also defend China's right to deal forcefully with the same elements without their own borders.

I support the right of the Chinese people to rise up against, and overthrow, the current government of China, through any and all means.

A dead tyrant is a good tyrant.

While I know we aren't getting the full story here (hell, it's happening in China), I am much more inclined to believe that China is at fault here, especially considering it's government's long term history of brutally putting down even peaceful demonstrations. I don't think that one can totally say that the Tibetans are blameless, but I wouldn't call them terrorists by any stretch of the imagination.

First of all, they aren't using terror to try and convince the Chinese government to free them, they are using the power of the media, and will be using diplomacy as soon as China agrees to meet with the Lama. These are both respectable and acceptable forms of protest, and brave considering China's track record with similar protests (running you over with a tank).

The majority of Tibetans are just fine with getting on with their lives, those protesting are mostly those outside the country who have never even been to Tibet yet feel the need to speak on behalf of all Tibetan society. Most are just professional protesters who want to attention whore.

The protests in Tibet itself were a few dozen angry youths who decided they would loot some businesses and ethnic-mob-bash some Han Chinese for fun, yeah that's soooo noble.....

Tibet has ALWAYS been apart of China since hundreds of years, no one ever recognized it as an independent country.

While I know we aren't getting the full story here (hell, it's happening in China), I am much more inclined to believe that China is at fault here, especially considering it's government's long term history of brutally putting down even peaceful demonstrations. I don't think that one can totally say that the Tibetans are blameless, but I wouldn't call them terrorists by any stretch of the imagination.

First of all, they aren't using terror to try and convince the Chinese government to free them, they are using the power of the media, and will be using diplomacy as soon as China agrees to meet with the Lama. These are both respectable and acceptable forms of protest, and brave considering China's track record with similar protests (running you over with a tank).

What Honstria said.

And Andaras, I am not advocating that Tibet merely should be freed.

Screw Tibet.

Free China.

I'd say the former.

Meh. The name leads me to think satire, but I've run into honest to gods Trolls this fucking crazy.

Tibet has ALWAYS been apart of China since hundreds of years, no one ever recognized it as an independent country.

Andaras, please read mine and Daistalia's posts earlier in thei thread before you spout any more gibberish on this topic.

The reactionary fuedal theocratic minions of the Dalai Lama have been attacking the Olympic torch ceremonies throughout Europe and the United States. These are the same forces which recently have been attempting to forment racial rioting in Tibet, where ethnic Chinese have been attacked by terrorist fundimentalists attempting to ethnically cleanse what they percieve to be a greater Tibet.

You know, in today's world writing propaganda in the same style of Enver Hoxha's isn't a jolly good idea. That is, apart from the grammar horrors (not errors, horrors!)

Btw the idea of "greater Tibet" is totally fictious. The Tibetan nationalists are calling for various degrees of autonomy for Tibet - ranging from autonomy of Tibet within the People's Republic of China (as the Dalai Lama asks) to independence for the most extreme fringes. "Greater Tibet" means that they would want to expand the borders of Tibet outside the previous borders of Tibet - just like the idea of "Greater Serbia" would include the serbian part of Bosnia-Hercegovina and Kraijna, or the idea of "Greater Albania" would include Kosovo and parts of Macedonia.


When these racist attacks were put down by the Red Army

It wasn't the Red Army - which was afterwards renamed Soviet Army and now it's the Russian Army. It was the People's Liberation Army.

from wiki: pla
The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) (simplified Chinese: 中国人民解放军; traditional Chinese: 中國人民解放軍; pinyin: Zhōngguó Rénmín Jiěfàng Jūn) is the unified military organization of all land, sea, and air forces of the People's Republic of China. The PLA was established on August 1, 1927 — celebrated annually as "PLA Day" — as the military arm of the Communist Party of China, and was initially called the Red Army until 1946, when it was renamed. The People's Liberation Army's insignia consists of a roundel with a red star bearing the Chinese characters for "Eight One" referring to August 1 (Chinese: 八一; pinyin: bā yī), the date of the 1927 Nanchang Uprising.


their ideological equals Al Queada,
1.it is spelled "Al Qaeda", or "Al Qaida". It think that even "Al Khaydah" could be an acceptable rendition.
2.Al Qaida is a group providing propaganda, intelligence, funding, direction and support for sunni terrorism, calling more or less for a new Caliphate. The tibetan independentists are nationalists. The issues are totally different.

To sum it up, your post is made of fail.

I suspect that it is a bad attempt at trolling coming from anti-chinese reactionaries, aimed at stirring more hate against the People's Republic of China.

The reactionary fuedal theocratic minions of the Dalai Lama have been attacking the Olympic torch ceremonies throughout Europe and the United States. These are the same forces which recently have been attempting to forment racial rioting in Tibet, where ethnic Chinese have been attacked by terrorist fundimentalists attempting to ethnically cleanse what they percieve to be a greater Tibet.

When these racist attacks were put down by the Red Army these same elements who want to return Tibet to its ignorant and impoverished fuedal past when the common people were virtual slaves to the Buddhist monasteries took their terror international. They tricked many "progessive" westerners into supporting their cause, people who would never support their ideological equals Al Queada, by playing on their ignorance of both Chinese history and the reality of the racial violence going on in Tibet today. I

f you are going to oppose ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and religious terrorists in the Middle East, then you must also defend China's right to deal forcefully with the same elements without their own borders.

If this is satire, then you are very good, my friend. If it is not... Well, you still made me laugh so it's still good. :p

Just say "Yay!" for Neo-feudal-Islamo-fascist-Buddhist-imperialist-totalitarianism... fuck yeah! :p

I don't know where you get your delusions, laser brain.

You came here in that thing? You're braver than I thought.

What a great little thread.

This ought to be stickied as an example on "How not to impress with false or otherwise wacky statements"

They don't really want to be messing with them there Buddist monks...after all look at who went to school with them:

Chuck Norris, David Carradine, Uma Thurmann...:eek:

just brought back my oldest dead nation to check my age here... yeah it really has



Welcome, The Northern Allegeny.
You last visited: 06-06-2004 at 7:09 PM

... and i still remembered the misspelling and the password

You forgot the h.

The majority of Tibetans are just fine with getting on with their lives, those protesting are mostly those outside the country who have never even been to Tibet yet feel the need to speak on behalf of all Tibetan society. Most are just professional protesters who want to attention whore.

The protests in Tibet itself were a few dozen angry youths who decided they would loot some businesses and ethnic-mob-bash some Han Chinese for fun, yeah that's soooo noble.....

Tibet has ALWAYS been apart of China since hundreds of years, no one ever recognized it as an independent country.

Speaking of Andaras and his false information!

The reactionary fuedal theocratic minions of the Dalai Lama have been attacking the Olympic torch ceremonies throughout Europe and the United States. These are the same forces which recently have been attempting to forment racial rioting in Tibet, where ethnic Chinese have been attacked by terrorist fundimentalists attempting to ethnically cleanse what they percieve to be a greater Tibet.

When these racist attacks were put down by the Red Army these same elements who want to return Tibet to its ignorant and impoverished fuedal past when the common people were virtual slaves to the Buddhist monasteries took their terror international. They tricked many "progessive" westerners into supporting their cause, people who would never support their ideological equals Al Queada, by playing on their ignorance of both Chinese history and the reality of the racial violence going on in Tibet today. I

f you are going to oppose ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and religious terrorists in the Middle East, then you must also defend China's right to deal forcefully with the same elements without their own borders.

This is the purest, most blatant example of propaganda I've ever read.

Tibet has ALWAYS been apart of China since hundreds of years, no one ever recognized it as an independent country.
Liar.

You came here in that thing? You're braver than I thought.

Never tell me the odds.

The reactionary fuedal theocratic minions of the Dalai Lama have been attacking the Olympic torch ceremonies throughout Europe and the United States. These are the same forces which recently have been attempting to forment racial rioting in Tibet, where ethnic Chinese have been attacked by terrorist fundimentalists attempting to ethnically cleanse what they percieve to be a greater Tibet.

When these racist attacks were put down by the Red Army these same elements who want to return Tibet to its ignorant and impoverished fuedal past when the common people were virtual slaves to the Buddhist monasteries took their terror international. They tricked many "progessive" westerners into supporting their cause, people who would never support their ideological equals Al Queada, by playing on their ignorance of both Chinese history and the reality of the racial violence going on in Tibet today. I

f you are going to oppose ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and religious terrorists in the Middle East, then you must also defend China's right to deal forcefully with the same elements without their own borders.

This is more commonly known as Chinese making up reasons to attack the monks again.

The reactionary fuedal theocratic minions of the Dalai Lama have been attacking the Olympic torch ceremonies throughout Europe and the United States. These are the same forces which recently have been attempting to forment racial rioting in Tibet, where ethnic Chinese have been attacked by terrorist fundimentalists attempting to ethnically cleanse what they percieve to be a greater Tibet.

When these racist attacks were put down by the Red Army these same elements who want to return Tibet to its ignorant and impoverished fuedal past when the common people were virtual slaves to the Buddhist monasteries took their terror international. They tricked many "progessive" westerners into supporting their cause, people who would never support their ideological equals Al Queada, by playing on their ignorance of both Chinese history and the reality of the racial violence going on in Tibet today. I

f you are going to oppose ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and religious terrorists in the Middle East, then you must also defend China's right to deal forcefully with the same elements without their own borders.

WTF

Is the OP a Chinaman? Perhaps he is a senior member of the Chinese Government attempting to change our view point with blatant lies and the Chinese Red Machine Propaganda

There is more than just a religious side to this issue, it is about treating people with a little bit of respect and dignity, which believe it or not does not always have be associated with religion.

Never tell me the odds.

Its a trap.

WTF

Is the OP a Chinaman? Perhaps he is a senior member of the Chinese Government attempting to change our view point with blatant lies and the Chinese Red Machine Propaganda

There is more than just a religious side to this issue, it is about treating people with a little bit of respect and dignity, which believe it or not does not always have be associated with religion.

I'd say the OP is more likely some ignorant high-school or college twerp who thinks it's just so neeto to sound like a little Red prick mouthing party propaganda. :rolleyes:

In any event, the OP doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

You forgot the h.
yeah i know... you can either spell it allegheny(mainly the pennsylvamia) or allegany(mainly in new york)... but allegeny is just wrong... meh all language is idiom anyway, anything that can be understood is correct.

yeah i know... you can either spell it allegheny(mainly the pennsylvamia) or allegany(mainly in new york)... but allegeny is just wrong... meh all language is idiom anyway, anything that can be understood is correct.

There I cannot argue with you but you also just misspelled Pennsylvania :D

You know, in today's world writing propaganda in the same style of Enver Hoxha's isn't a jolly good idea. in the 70s after the fall of the Gang of Four to the crypto Chiang Kai-Shekist forces of reaction the only true beacon of socialism in the stormy seas of reaction was Comrade Hoxha's Albania... unfortunately the days when people could look with hope towards Tirana are long gone.

There I cannot argue with you but you also just misspelled Pennsylvania :D

dyslexia and apathy... together they make a frothy brew

WTF

Is the OP a Chinaman?

The rather archaic term aside, no the OP is a more or less admited troll.

The rather archaic term aside, no the OP is a more or less admited troll. i prefer to think of myself as someone who stimulates debate by taking a rather extreme position then defends it amiably until i inevitably break character... since trolling is frowned upon here. the spelling and grammatical errors are real however, a curse that tends to exclude me from the most serious of discussions... meh serious discussion require to much intellectual rigor anyway.

i prefer to think of myself as someone who stimulates debate by taking a rather extreme position then defends it amiably until i inevitably break character... since trolling is frowned upon here. the spelling and grammatical errors are real however, a curse that tends to exclude me from the most serious of discussions... meh serious discussion require to much intellectual rigor anyway.

Well, that still fits the definition of a troll, even if it's not malicious. As someone above pointed out, we did have fun pouncing on you. :)

And you did help highlight something that is important to me. :)

And even better, you helped spark a discussion of a poetic form...

in the 70s after the fall of the Gang of Four to the crypto Chiang Kai-Shekist forces of reaction the only true beacon of socialism in the stormy seas of reaction was Comrade Hoxha's Albania... unfortunately the days when people could look with hope towards Tirana are long gone.

You mean a country whose primary economic activity was the construction of concrete bunkers everywhere? I mean, there was something like a half million built. That's like 17 per square kilometer, or one for every five people. That sort of construction project just doesn't make any sense, whatsoever.

The Lamas lived in luxury while the average Tibetan was impoverished, and that was NOT China's doing. China's methods are ham-fisted, but they're no worse than the complete class division and subjugation in Lama-ruled Tibet.

You mean a country whose primary economic activity was the construction of concrete bunkers everywhere? I mean, there was something like a half million built. That's like 17 per square kilometer, or one for every five people. That sort of construction project just doesn't make any sense, whatsoever.
they would have been well defended from invasion by the capitalists or their post stalinist minions.


http://www.filestube.com/cb865c43f4fad1aa03ea/go.html

I'd say the OP is more likely some ignorant high-school or college twerp who thinks it's just so neeto to sound like a little Red prick mouthing party propaganda. :rolleyes:

In any event, the OP doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

Yeah that sounds about right, another one of those university students who think they know everything just because they are half way to getting a piece of paper.

The rather archaic term aside, no the OP is a more or less admited troll.

Mmm yes I see. Does it really matter if it is a bit old fashioned?

WTF

Is the OP a Chinaman? Perhaps he is a senior member of the Chinese Government attempting to change our view point with blatant lies and the Chinese Red Machine Propaganda

There is more than just a religious side to this issue, it is about treating people with a little bit of respect and dignity, which believe it or not does not always have be associated with religion.

I don't know if English is your first language or not, so I don't want to make assumptions. Are you aware that the term "Chinaman" is not respectful?

Its a trap.

Your insight serves you well.

Your insight serves you well.

I've been waiting for you, Obi-Wan. We meet again, at last. The circle is now complete. When I left you, I was but the learner; now *I* am the master.

I don't know if English is your first language or not, so I don't want to make assumptions. Are you aware that the term "Chinaman" is not respectful?

At some point, some of these people do not warrant respect.

I've been waiting for you, Obi-Wan. We meet again, at last. The circle is now complete. When I left you, I was but the learner; now *I* am the master.

Only a master of evil, Darth.

Only a master of evil, Darth.

No, I am your father!

No, I am your father!

That's not true! That's impossible!

I don't know if English is your first language or not, so I don't want to make assumptions. Are you aware that the term "Chinaman" is not respectful?

What Pschycotic Pschycos said.

But you may be right it could have been a woman posting and I disrespectfully called her a man.

That's not true! That's impossible!

Search your post history! You know it to be true!

At some point, some of these people do not warrant respect.

"Chinaman" is an insulting and unneccessary term, and has nothing at all to do with the reasons that cause us to disrespect those people.

As a Chinese (from ROC aka Taiwan ) who is not a fan of the PRC govt to say the least, whose great-uncle fought in the patriotic Chinese KMT army against the communists, and as someone who deeply sympathize with Tibet's predicament, I don't think one should stoop to the level of the PRC govt and hurl insults at entire groups of people.

The Lamas lived in luxury while the average Tibetan was impoverished, and that was NOT China's doing. China's methods are ham-fisted, but they're no worse than the complete class division and subjugation in Lama-ruled Tibet.

While I personally agree, that is really up to the Tibetans to judge.

Peace can only last where human rights are respected, where the people are fed, and where individuals and nations are free. True peace with oneself and with the world around us can only be achieved through the development of mental peace.


I speak not with a feeling of anger or hatred towards those who are responsible for the immense suffering of our people and the destruction of our land, homes and culture. They too are human beings who struggle to find happiness and deserve our compassion. I speak to inform you of the sad situation in my country today and of the aspirations of my people, because in our struggle for freedom, truth is the only weapon we possess.


If there are sound reasons or bases for the points you demand, then there is no need for violence. On the other hand, when there is no sound reason that concessions should be made to you but mainly your own desire, then reason cannot work and you have to rely on force. Thus using force is not a sign of strength but rather a sign of weakness.

At some point, some of these people do not warrant respect.

And yet, ironically enough, the Dalai Lama would remind you that all beings are worthy of respect... that even those who inflict deep hatred and ignorance on the world are living beings with their own struggles. Ironic, to me at least, that the man they hate so much loves them all.

The Dalai Lama needs to realize that Buddhism is an opiate of masses and must converted to Marxist atheism.

The Dalai Lama needs to realize that Buddhism is an opiate of masses and must converted to Marxist atheism.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Andaras is an example of what happens when you don't heed one of the classic warnings from Scarface:

Don't Get High on Your Own Supply.

The Dalai Lama needs to realize that Buddhism is an opiate of masses and must converted to Marxist atheism.

This sounds like a meme to me, but I can't quite place it.

Mmm yes I see. Does it really matter if it is a bit old fashioned?

It matters in the same sense that using other archaic racist terms matters. If you're going to be intelectually honest, don't forget to use other equally archaic terms like "******", "dago", and "wop".


Gauthier and Hamilay, thanks for quoting that bit of nonsense (I don't see a certain poster's posts ;)).

Once again, I'll remind the ignorati that Buddhism is fundamentally atheistic.

The Dalai Lama needs to realize that Buddhism is an opiate of masses and must converted to Marxist atheism.

I prefer the Buddhist theory that reality is the opiate of the masses.

The Lamas lived in luxury while the average Tibetan was impoverished, and that was NOT China's doing. China's methods are ham-fisted, but they're no worse than the complete class division and subjugation in Lama-ruled Tibet.Can you back this up?

I don't know if English is your first language or not, so I don't want to make assumptions. Are you aware that the term "Chinaman" is not respectful?

You also realize that this is an internet chatroom and that some of us do not believe in political correctness.

I've been waiting for you, Obi-Wan. We meet again, at last. The circle is now complete. When I left you, I was but the learner; now *I* am the master.

Only a master of evil Darth.