A question for those who support China's atrocities in Tibet

Post Reply New Topic

I was going to say that I could not think of one person that supported China's treatment of Tibet, then I read ascan's post.

Tibet was conquered and occupied by Chinese imperialism. Most of the US States voluntarily joined.

China makes use of the same type of arguments when it wants to impose its will on Tibet - it is trying to modernize that country and rescue it from feudalism. Japan's monarchy endorsed and encouraged Japanese imperialism and atrocities, so taking the emperor down a notch and imposing a pacifist constitution on them was in order.

Japan had been modernising since the middle of the 19th Century - it was a modern industrial economy (like Britain), not an isolated backwater like Tibet. You're comparing apples to oranges.
When the Emperor surrendered, two of the country's cities had been destroyed by nuclear weapons, much of the country had been reduced to rubble, etc - Japan had to accept any form of government dictated by the occupiers; the Americans could have hanged Hirohito as a war criminal. The change from the quasi-Fascist regime prior to 1945 and the current parliamentary system was imposed at gunpoint by external forces.

He is the reincarnation of Buddha, eH? I'd like to see some Proof of this! I happen to believe in reincarnation-but I DO NOT accept peoples claims of being incarnations of famous people at face value! The Dalai Lama is NOT a saint-he is a human and humans are Selfish and self-interested. WHY is it ok for Tibetans to take out their frustration with the Chinese Government out on ethnic chinese civilians who live in Tibet?!?!? Do you REALLY THINK thats what Buddha taught???
Victimizing innocent people because someone ELSE victimized you is certainly NOT Good Karma! Its just a pathetic excuse.

He didn't claim to be Buddha at all, but he was searched for and found by signs that pointed the way to him. Then he also had to pass a test where items were laid out and he had to pick the ones which were his in his last life and he passed that test and no other child did. That's how you know he is who he said he is.

Secondly, the Dalai Lama is not in Tibet and is not involved in the riotings. He has spoken out against them and he said he would step down as the leader of the government in exile if the riots don't stop. He is trying to gain independence with non-violent methods, but some Tibetans are frustrated and fed up and are obviously pursuing a different strategy than his.

And maybe the reason why they aren't following the religion of Buddhism anymore is because China has done a good job of turning some of them into atheist communists. Maybe the ones who are rioting are the ones who aren't Buddhist because of China's attempts to eradicate religion in the 70s.

As I understand it, South Carolina was the first state to secede from the union, and following that you Yanks had a bit of a scrap amongst yourselves. I don't suppose they came back into the fold voluntarily, it was more a case of being militarily defeated. I don't reckon many from the south, at that time, wanted to be part of the union anymore than the majority of people from Tibet want to be part of China.

Yes, the people of Tibet have their own culture, just as those in the southern states of the US had theirs and that to some extent led to the fighting I mentioned in the first paragraph. I expect those in the south wanted to go about their business without a bunch of Yanks from up north telling them what they could, and could not, do. So, you see there are some similarities, but of course it depends how you look at it. It would be quite easy to find many things that are completely different, but in the context of my reply to your post my comparison was adequate -- almost everyone recognises China's sovereignty over Tibet, just as they recognise that South Carolina is part of the USA.



I've not said I support it. I'm just trying to look at it rationally. As for your last paragraph see my reply to Psychlone.

You can't really force someone to do something they don't want and say it's for their own good.
At least not a sovereign nation. If Tibet wants to be ass-backwards, then they should be left in peace.
Any argument along the line "They're helping them" is utter humbug.
On the other hand, Tibet shouldn't be forced back into the tyrannical rule of the lamas either, IMO.
Let them just be free, OK? They don't really have anything anyone wants anyway.

But no matter how you spin it or what angle you look at it from, the Chinese Communist Party is probably the most evil entity in existence today and the worst thing ever to happen in the history of China.

Read Nine commentaries on the Chinese communist party or watch the videos.
After reading or watching this, no one, not even a dedicated communist, could think otherwise and still be truthful to themselves.

I agree. That's what I've been arguing. They shouldn't have the lamas forced back on them, but they should have a national referendum to decide what sort of government they should have. If they want a secular democracy, that's good, but it should be their choice and neither Beijing nor anyone else should force them to be anything else.

And I have also seen from documentaries I've watched that the Tibetans may have been impoverished, but the ones who were alive back then have said in interviews that they were happier then. They may not have had brothels and video arcades, but they didn't starve and they had festivals and other things which kept them entertained and happier. In fact, it may be that they were even happier than we in the west are. We may have tv and internet and video games, but can we say that makes us happier than someone who is satisfied with dancing around and singing with a community? People in the developed world are more isolated from their community than in impoverished places.

And btw, there were millions of Tibetans who died of starvation AFTER the communist take over when Mao nationalized all the farms and forced them to grow wheat instead of their traditional foods and then the crops all failed and there was mass starvation and suffering. So you can see from this they were clearly better off before Mao took over. And the brothels and other things popping up in Lhasa are mainly for the benefit of the Chinese immigrants and not the native Tibetans. They rioters are destroying these things much like how the Chinese destroyed their monasteries and libraries in the 70s. Why aren't China defenders saying China was wrong to destroy these ancient Tibetans buildings? But yet they complain if a Chinese built brothel was destroyed...

Actually, I don't think the Civil War was right either. The South wanted to secede and they should have been allowed to do so. I agree that their practice of slavery was wrong, but I would point out that there were also some states in the North which allowed slavery, and it was only 20% of southerners who actually owned slaves. It was wrong for them to enslave people, but it was also wrong for the Union to invade and annex them when they wanted to secede. Slavery wasn't the only reason why the civil war was fought, and slavery would have ended no matter what anyway because there was growing resistance to it and modern machinery was making the practice less economically sound.

So no, I don't think it was right for the North to invade and annex the south. If the civil war had not been fought then over 600,000 people would not have died and that was a very large percentage of the population in those days. I think I heard that would be the equivalent of several million deaths today...

But my point is any territory where the people want to be free should be allowed to do so. That's what democracy is about.

If the American SW were ceded to Mexico and/or gained independence from the USA-WTF do you think the Mexicano's would do to all of the non-latino's who remained??? The answer: THEY WOULD BE MASSACRED! You clearly are unwilling to listen to reason because you happen to sympathize with the Tibetans and you'll defend them NO MATTER WTF THEY DO! I dont buy that BS about the Dalai Lama being the incarnation of Buddha. Anecdotes about him "passing the sacred tests" and others seeking him out based NOT on any verifiable evidence but on their own hunches Prove Nothing pal. If I could witness him undergoing a past-life regression and if the things he said turned up physical evidence I just might be willing to consider it.
But you've provided a much evidence for the Dalai Lama being Buddha's incarnation as you have for the resurrection of Christ . Suppose I bought a piece of land in the US and declare that land be independent from the United States should I get MY own country?

WRONG

Tibet has VAST uranium deposits, some of the largest in the world. That is the REAL reason China clings to Tibet so tightly.

OK, didn't know that.
So, they could instead set up a trade instead.
They're saying they're doing it for the Tibetan people.
How about giving Tibet whatever it wants instead, in exchange for mining the uranium?

Oh, wait... I forgot... They're f*****g evil. That's why...

So you admit the real reason isn't to "help" the people who live there.

Really? More evil than al-Qaeda, which openly calls for the slaughter of everyone (man, woman and child) who is not a Sunni Muslim (i.e. most of humanity)? More evil than the totalitarian monarchy that runs Saudi Arabia (a far more repressive country than China) and funds just about every hate-preaching madrassa in the world? More evil than the Mugabe regime in once-prosperous Zimbabwe, which has caused about a quarter of the population to flee the place while the elite lives in luxury? More evil than the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda?
Yes, China is a brutal dictatorship, but there are worse. While Mao was probably the worst ruler in China's history, the current leaders are not so bad - let's not forget that China's economic boom has lifted millions out of poverty. The Chinese leadership can boast of doing more to lift people out of poverty than Western aid ever has.
Given how many government-sponsored or government-tolerated massacres in the world the Western media has ignored (ever heard of Acteal?), all this noise over repression in Tibet is blatant propaganda.

By the same token, that is also why the West is so keen on Tibetan independence - an independent Tibet would owe its existence to the West and, cut from China, would depend on India and the West to survive.
If Tibet does have uranium, that would explain the West's attitude. Ordinary Tibetans are just pawns in a geopolitical game.

An independent Tibet may be a good thing for stability in Asia by providing a buffer state between the great players in the region. That's the reason Mongolia was able to remain independent, btw. Mongolia was basically a Soviet puppet until the end of the cold war, but it did its job of providing a buffer with China which helped alleviate tensions and border tensions and so forth.

So an independent Tibet would be a good thing for easing tensions between China, India, Pakistan, etc. Not only is it good for Tibetans to have their own country, but also for world peace so there isn't a major war breaking out in Asia that could turn nuclear.