(March 26, 2012 at 7:25 pm)Shell B Wrote: The Tibet situation is sad. I doubt it will change, though. I do feel a lot of resentment about it. How fucking hard is it to take a country full of non-violent monks? Fucking pitiful.

Incredibly backwards? yes, buried in mideveal religious oppression? yes. Monks rule the land and serfs were cattle? Yes. Non violent, no.

Have a look at how harmonious and spiritually fulfilling the dalai lama and buddhism will get when allowed an untrammeled theocracy

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

(March 26, 2012 at 7:59 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(March 26, 2012 at 7:25 pm)Shell B Wrote: The Tibet situation is sad. I doubt it will change, though. I do feel a lot of resentment about it. How fucking hard is it to take a country full of non-violent monks? Fucking pitiful.

Incredibly backwards? yes, buried in mideveal religious oppression? yes. Monks rule the land and serfs were cattle? Yes. Non violent, no.

Have a look at how harmonious and spiritually fulfilling the dalai lama and buddhism will get when allowed an untrammeled theocracy

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

And this gives the Chinese the right to rule over other nations?
Meaning that this gives you the right to rule over other nations that you perceive as backwards?
Really, I sometimes have a hard time believing that you people are leftists.
I'm not a *leftist* but I still oppose the Chinese rule and years of oppression that the Tibetans had to suffer, it certainly didn't change the supposed outcome.
Not that I agree with a theocracy in Tibet, but for a nationalistic government that works on the behalf of the people, rather than for Chinese interests in the region.

(March 26, 2012 at 7:59 pm)Chuck Wrote: Incredibly backwards? yes, buried in mideveal religious oppression? yes. Monks rule the land and serfs were cattle? Yes. Non violent, no.

Have a look at how harmonious and spiritually fulfilling the dalai lama and buddhism will get when allowed an untrammeled theocracy

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

Have you looked at all into the amount of opposition the Chinese got when they invaded? I would say that they were non-violent compared to just about every other country on Earth.

The time of conquests are long over. But the Chinese obviously have not gotten over their imperial past in which they have hopelessly tried to take a foothold in neighboring areas, now they are trying to do that by changing the demographics of the places they have taken over.
I think that this equals nothing more than neo-imperialism in today's world.
The fact that they are supposedly communists grants them only the excuse to invade other people's lands.

No,THAT, doesn't give the Chinese right to rule over others. But a desire to emulate genghis khan and use their power to aggrandize themselves by conquering people can't keep them out, surely DOES, even a lowly genghis worship Turk like you must see the impeccable logic.

(March 26, 2012 at 8:31 pm)Chuck Wrote: No,THAT, doesn't give the Chinese right to rule over others. But a desire to emulate genghis khan and use their power to aggrandize themselves by conquering people can't keep them out, surely DOES, even a lowly genghis worship Turk like you must see the impeccable logic.

No, I don't.
It was 1227 when Chingiss died.
And it was under his grandsons when the empire reached it's greatest extent. A time of prosperity and peace ruled the empire, that is for sure, while the Chinese thought of *emulating* not Chingiss and his impeccable moral standpoint, his just laws, nor his tolerance towards people of other ethnicities and faiths, but rather try to forcibly sinicize non-han populations and outlaw their cultures, languages, faiths, and take away their property, nearly 800 years after Chingiss Khan had gone to meet Tengri.
They had not emulated him, but the vile red menace that did the same to the people in Russia, Siberia, Caucasus and Central Asia.

Chingiss was a grand conqueror and a great ruler during a time of conquests, wars and exceptional circumstances.
He rose from the ranks of a lowly tribal chief to the ruler of the world.
You're only being stupid by comparing the occupation of the East Turkestan, Inner Mongolia and Tibet to his glorious deeds.

(March 26, 2012 at 8:08 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(March 26, 2012 at 7:59 pm)Chuck Wrote: Incredibly backwards? yes, buried in mideveal religious oppression? yes. Monks rule the land and serfs were cattle? Yes. Non violent, no.

Have a look at how harmonious and spiritually fulfilling the dalai lama and buddhism will get when allowed an untrammeled theocracy

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

Have you looked at all into the amount of opposition the Chinese got when they invaded? I would say that they were non-violent compared to just about every other country on Earth.

The fact that resistance to tanks, machine guns and howitzers was ineffectually carried out with matchlocks and broadswords, and was effortlessly crushed, doesn't mean the guys with broadswords and match locks were non-violent. It just means they were hopeless backwards. In 1950, they appeared non violent to other country because Tibet was just about the most backwards country in Euroasia.

As to how non-violent they were when they met other backwards people, also with matchlocks and broadswords, whom they count push around, look back another 100 years to when they invaded an area bordering what is now chinese Xinjiang, which at the time was occupied by a real Turkic speaking tribe, in collusion with the Qing dynasty in Beijing. They massacred 250,000 men, women, and children, with broadswords and match locks, literally wiping the tribe out, and incorporated the territory into Tibet.

(March 26, 2012 at 8:45 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(March 26, 2012 at 8:08 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(March 26, 2012 at 7:59 pm)Chuck Wrote: Incredibly backwards? yes, buried in mideveal religious oppression? yes. Monks rule the land and serfs were cattle? Yes. Non violent, no.

Have a look at how harmonious and spiritually fulfilling the dalai lama and buddhism will get when allowed an untrammeled theocracy

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

Have you looked at all into the amount of opposition the Chinese got when they invaded? I would say that they were non-violent compared to just about every other country on Earth.

The fact that resistance to tanks, machine guns and howitzers was ineffectually carried out with matchlocks and broadswords, and was effortlessly crushed, doesn't mean the guys with broadswords and match locks were non-violent. It just means they were hopeless backwards. In 1950, they appeared non violent to other country because Tibet was just about the most backwards country in Euroasia.

As to how non-violent they were when they met other backwards people, also with matchlocks and broadswords, whom they count push around, look back another 100 years to when they invaded an area bordering what is now chinese Xinjiang, which at the time was occupied by a real Turkic speaking tribe, in collusion with the Qing dynasty in Beijing. They massacred 250,000 men, women, and children, with broadswords and match locks, literally wiping the tribe out, and incorporated the territory into Tibet.

Oh. I never heard of that. I'd like to see a link.
I know that we Turks and Tibetans had conflicts in the past, but these were really back in the days of the Uyghur Khanate, quite a while back.

---

Besides, even if it were true, this is not really a reason for me not to support Tibetan independence aswell.