Tibetan protester burns himself in India

[kılıç_mehmet]

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.