Tibet- occupation or progress?

[ComradeMan]

What are people's opinions here on the "occupation" of Tibet?

In 2009, Freedom House put Tibet in the “Worst of the Worst” list of most repressive disputed territories and nations in the world, together with Russia’s Chechnya and South Ossetia.
^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-10) Worst of the Worst: The World’s Most Repressive Societies (http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/WoW09/WOW%202009.pdf) (PDF (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Portable_Document_Format)), Freedom House (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Freedom_House), March 2009
http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/WoW09/WOW%202009.pdf (Washington based...????)

Added this source from a Scottish Newspaper (don't know what their stance is...)

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/China39s-oppression-of-Tibet-must.3928078.jp

I also found this article
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/526/3935

However the economic figures....
In 2008, Tibet's nominal GDP topped 40 billion yuan (US$5.7 billion), nearly triple the 11.78 billion yuan (US$1.47 billion) in 2000. In the past five years, Tibet's annual GDP growth has averaged 12%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet_Autonomous_Region#cite_note-15
^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-11) Xinhua - Per capita GDP tops $1,000 in Tibet (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-01/31/content_4121797.htm)
^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-12) Tibet posts fixed assets investment rise (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-01/31/content_4121796.htm)
^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-13) Winkler D. 2008 Yartsa gunbu (Cordyceps sinenis) and the fungal commodification of rural Tibet. Economic Botany 62.3
^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-14) Dialogues Tibetan Dialogues Han
^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-15) China and India to trade across Himalayas | World news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,1801322,00.html)
^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-16) Tibetans report income rises (http://news.nen.com.cn/guoneiguoji/280/3349280.shtml)

Any comments?

[h0m0revolutionary]

No doubt it's occupied, insofar as many Tibetans do not want to be ruled from Beijing. And the people of Tibet are repressed by the Chinese State.

However only an idiot would therefore defend the 'right' of the Tibetan people to form their own reactionary little theocracy.

I mean what would be the agent of this national liberation?
And how could it exist alongside a state that would from it's inception seek influence over it?

[Bankotsu]

What are people's opinions here on the "occupation" of Tibet?

In 2009, Freedom House put Tibet in the “Worst of the Worst” list

Freedom house is an organisation widely believed by some analysts to be a tool of the CIA to attack states that U.S doesn't like.



A key part of the media game has been the claim that Yushchenko won ‘exit polls.’ What is not said is that the people doing these ‘exit polls’ as voters left voting places, were US-trained and paid by Freedom House, a neo-conservative operation in Washington. They trained 1,000 poll observers who declared an 11 point lead for Yushchenko which triggered the mass marches claiming fraud. The current head of the Freedom House is former CIA chief and outspoken neo-conservative, R. James Woolsey. On the Freedom House board sits none other than Zbigniew Brzezinski. This is hardly an impartial human rights organization.

http://www.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Zeitfragen/Ukraine/ukraine.html



The CIA's Secret War in Tibet

Kenneth Conboy and James Morrison

April 2002
320 pages, 24 photographs, 9 maps, 6-1/8 x 9-1/4
Modern War Studies
Cloth ISBN 978-0-7006-1159-1, $34.95
http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/images/concia.jpgDefiance against Chinese oppression has been a defining characteristic of Tibetan life for more than four decades, symbolized most visibly by the much revered Dalai Lama. But the story of Tibetan resistance weaves a far richer tapestry than anyone might have imagined.

Kenneth Conboy and James Morrison reveal how America's Central Intelligence Agency encouraged Tibet's revolt against China--and eventually came to control its fledgling resistance movement. They provide the first comprehensive, as well as most compelling account of this little known agency enterprise.

The CIA's Secret War in Tibet takes readers from training camps in the Colorado Rockies to the scene of clandestine operations in the Himalayas, chronicling the agency's help in securing the Dalai Lama's safe passage to India and subsequent initiation of one of the most remote covert campaigns of the Cold War. Conboy and Morrison provide previously unreported details about secret missions undertaken in extraordinarily harsh conditions.

Their book greatly expands on previous memoirs by CIA officials by putting virtually every major agency participant on record with details of clandestine operations. It also calls as witnesses the people who managed and fought in the program--including Tibetan and Nepalese agents, Indian intelligence officers, and even mission aircrews.

Conboy and Morrison take pains to tell the story from all perspectives, particularly that of the former Tibetan guerrillas, many of whom have gone on record here for the first time.

The authors also tell how Tibet led America and India to become secret partners over the course
of several presidential administrations and cite dozens of Indian and Tibetan intelligence documents directly related to these covert operations.

As the movement for Tibetan liberation continues to attract international support, Tibet's status remains a contentious issue in both Washington and Beijing. This book takes readers inside a covert war fought with Tibetan blood and U.S. sponsorship and allows us to better understand the true nature of that controversy.

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/concia.html


Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth

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


Then one pitch-black night in the spring of 1957 six men from Gompo Tashi’s group found themselves spirited away by the CIA, whereupon they encountered with amazement their first airplane — for which the Tibetans had to invent a new word, namdu, or’sky boat’ — and saw their first white man. After an unimaginable flight in the unimaginable machine, six very bewildered Tibetans landed in Saipan for training, though most had no idea where on earth Saipan might be. Over the next five months the Tibetans were trained in modern weapons and guerrilla tactics. They were also trained in espionage and codes, and in the operation of the hand-cranked radio transmitter/receiver.

‘We only lived to kill Chinese,’ recalled one Tibetan veteran. ‘Our hopes were high.’ One of the trainees, Gyato Wangdu (who would later become the last commander of the Chushi Gandrug), asked CIA operations officer Roger McCarthy for ‘a portable nuclear weapon of some kind…that the trainees might employ to destroy Chinese by the hundreds.’ The CIA declined, but McCarthy noted that Wangdu ‘did take to demolition training with renewed enthusiasm’ and became quite taken with bazookas and mortars.

http://www.historynet.com/cias-secret-war-in-tibet.htm/1


Why Washington plays 'Tibet Roulette' with China

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-04/16/content_6622346.htm

[ComradeMan]

I did have my doubts about Freedom House seeing as it is Washington based but I looked through the 18 page pdf and didn't find anything too dodgy. All information is subjective to some extent when it comes from a "source"- However it does not take Freedom House to highlight the Tibetan problem.

[ComradeMan]

So Freedom House is not as Free as it seems? I suppose I was right about them. Nevertheless, a lot of people and organisations are down on China because of its "illegal" occupation of Tibet, so what do you think personally?- have added some other sources into the opening post.

[Bud Struggle]

Interesting that Cuba, Belarus, North Korea, China and Laos are also on the list.

As are Saudi Arabia, Sudan, South Ossetia and Zimbabwe. All in all it's a pretty fair list with Capitalist and Socialist countries alike.

[Bankotsu]

"illegal" occupation of Tibet, so what do you think personally?

Probably depends on whether you are anti-China or pro-China.

I am for multipolar world with China as a strong pole, so you probably know how this goes with me.



Anyway here is an interpretation by Dr. Quigley:


China's suzerainty in Tibet has been generally recognized by the outside world, even in the years when China was rent by civil wars and banditry. By the treaty of May 23, 1957, Tibet itself accepted this status without recognizing that the status of "suzerainty" could become one of direct subordination, under Chinese pressure.

This pressure began at once, and reached an acute stage in March 1959, when the Chinese authorities sought to arrest the Dalai Lama, head of the theocratic Tibetan government. The anti-Chinese revolt that resulted was crushed in two weeks, and the Dalai Lama fled to India.

http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/19.html#73

[ComradeMan]

No doubt it's occupied, insofar as many Tibetans do not want to be ruled from Beijing. And the people of Tibet are repressed by the Chinese State.

However only an idiot would therefore defend the 'right' of the Tibetan people to form their own reactionary little theocracy.

I mean what would be the agent of this national liberation?
And how could it exist alongside a state that would from it's inception seek influence over it?

So do you support the occupation of a country/territory by another power on the basis of the reactionary nature of some of the inhabitants of that country?

I too have problems with the idea of the Dalai Lama and a theocratic state but I also have problems with the Chinese army forcing children to shoot their own parents.

[danyboy27]

well, the chinese are opressing the tibetans by forcing their own rule on them and the dalai lama did the exact same thing.

Sure china bring education and jobs, but that will never even things out if the people of tibet cant be free to make decisions for themselves.

supporting china in that case is exactly like if you would support the us for their occupation of iraq and afghanistan.

[Bud Struggle]

Then one pitch-black night in the spring of 1957 six men from Gompo Tashi’s group found themselves spirited away by the CIA, whereupon they encountered with amazement their first airplane — for which the Tibetans had to invent a new word, namdu, or’sky boat’ — and saw their first white man. After an unimaginable flight in the unimaginable machine, six very bewildered Tibetans landed in Saipan for training, though most had no idea where on earth Saipan might be.

Change the airplanes to flying saucers and the CIA to little green men and you have a great story there. :D

[gorillafuck]

There wasn't a good government before the Chinese invaded, but that doesn't justify it and it's definitely a brutal occupation that should be condemned.

[h0m0revolutionary]

So do you support the occupation of a country/territory by another power on the basis of the reactionary nature of some of the inhabitants of that country?

I too have problems with the idea of the Dalai Lama and a theocratic state but I also have problems with the Chinese army forcing children to shoot their own parents.

If only there were a third-camp that proposed supporting the working class of both territories, pushing for unity against the ruling class of China and would-be ruling class of Tibet. ;)

[ComradeMan]

If only there were a third-camp that proposed supporting the working class of both territories, pushing for unity against the ruling class of China and would-be ruling class of Tibet. ;)

But there isn't.... So do you support the ongoing occupation of Tibet by China?

[Comrade Gwydion]

What are people's opinions here on the "occupation" of Tibet?

(...)

However the economic figures....


Any comments?


Economy never justifies oppresion. It's this same argument that currently makes fucking Pinochet the 'better of two evils' in mainstream media. (Because, yeah, he might have killed some people and stuff, but he did do wonders for the economy!)


Personally, I am for a free tibet, if only to stop the chinese human rights abuse. I think people make a mistake when they compare the current Dalai Lama (Tenzin Ripoche I believe his name is), with the old theocracy's. The current Dalai Lama has shown himself quite open to other religions, and at least over the world more in line with leftist parties then with capitalists. I am still searching for a good book on his exact plans for free tibet, although I believe he abandonded independence a long time ago and is now merely pushing for human rights and perhaps autonomy without independence.

[RGacky3]

Interesting that Cuba, Belarus, North Korea, China and Laos are also on the list.

As are Saudi Arabia, Sudan, South Ossetia and Zimbabwe. All in all it's a pretty fair list with Capitalist and Socialist countries alike.

Out of all of those I thiknk Cuba could be the only one discribed as remotely socialist, and thats not the socialism I fight for.


However only an idiot would therefore defend the 'right' of the Tibetan people to form their own reactionary little theocracy.


I defend their right to form whatever they want, thats what democracy is, thats what autonomy is, thats what socialism is dumb ass.

This is'nt "I defend your right to autonomy, as long as I like what you do with it". You can disagree with their choices, but that does'nt mean their right to autonomy is any less.

[ComradeMan]

Comrade Gwydion.

I wasn't using the economic figures to defend anything, just showing the growth the Chinese may boast as a defence. I hope that's clear.:)

RGacky3

I agree. I believe that Homorevolutionary has made a very dangerous conclusion.

"However only an idiot would therefore defend the 'right' of the Tibetan people to form their own reactionary little theocracy."

Was this not what colonial powers also said? "They'll all kill each other if we go", Was this not basically the position of apartheid South Africa and its homelands, "We're trying to civilise the black man" and so on?

[Kayser_Soso]

First of all China is not a socialist country, so I have little sympathy for them though I admit they did improve the situation in Tibet. Freedom House is total bullshit- as are most similar NGOs. Their job is to eliminate by any means necessary those regimes which do not comply with multinational corporations for whatever reasons.

[ComradeMan]

First of all China is not a socialist country, so I have little sympathy for them though I admit they did improve the situation in Tibet. Freedom House is total bullshit- as are most similar NGOs. Their job is to eliminate by any means necessary those regimes which do not comply with multinational corporations for whatever reasons.

Kayser, I tend to agree with you even though you are an evil-Stalinist, LOL!!!! :D Just kidding. Re the comments about Freedom House, I too wonder about how NG so-called NGO's are, but where do we get stats from? That is the problem, especially with modern stuff. I think that stats are stats and if you are careful about the conclusions then it does not matter where you get them from as long as their factual correctness can be validified--- it is a problem however and I do acknowledge it.

Do you really think the Chinese have improved the situation in Tibet though?

[Kayser_Soso]

Kayser, I tend to agree with you even though you are an evil-Stalinist, LOL!!!! :D Just kidding. Re the comments about Freedom House, I too wonder about how NG so-called NGO's are, but where do we get stats from? That is the problem, especially with modern stuff. I think that stats are stats and if you are careful about the conclusions then it does not matter where you get them from as long as their factual correctness can be validified--- it is a problem however and I do acknowledge it.

If an organization is truly objective about stats, the stats will often go against their agenda. For example, the IMF and World Bank hate Belarus, but their own statistics show the improvements that Lukashenko is responsible for.

Various organs of the United Nations also can provide more balanced statistics.



Do you really think the Chinese have improved the situation in Tibet though?

Hell yes. Prior to that it was a theocracy rife with slavery.

[ComradeMan]

If an organization is truly objective about stats, the stats will often go against their agenda. For example, the IMF and World Bank hate Belarus, but their own statistics show the improvements that Lukashenko is responsible for.

Various organs of the United Nations also can provide more balanced statistics.



Hell yes. Prior to that it was a theocracy rife with slavery.

I must admit that Tibet gets very one-sided treatment in the West, but it is still a "foreign" occupation with a string of atrocities attached.

What is your opinion of the current Dalai Lama who claims to be a Marxist?

[Kayser_Soso]

I must admit that Tibet gets very one-sided treatment in the West, but it is still a "foreign" occupation with a string of atrocities attached.

What is your opinion of the current Dalai Lama who claims to be a Marxist?

The Dalai Lama is fully of shit, plain and simple. He wants to be reinstalled as the theocratic dictator, and his Marxism is absolute nonsense- this guy routinely speaks on behalf of US-backed imperialist causes, such as their ongoing war to overthrow Belarus. The Buddhists say that desire is the cause of all suffering, and that one should not attach to worldly possessions, but he sure misses his palace. He and his monks in the US certainly have no need to desire, with their taxpayer funded lavish lifestyles.

[Bankotsu]

I must admit that Tibet gets very one-sided treatment in the West, but it is still a "foreign" occupation with a string of atrocities attached.My view is that Tibet is part of China. The period of time that Tibet has been part of China is longer than the period of time, say Hawaii or Alaska has been part of USA.



q: One of those issues being trumpeted is Tibet and support for the Dalai Lama. Is Tibet a kind of microcosm of the kind conflict that illuminates our bigger relationship with China?



Kissinger: Tibet has been for hundreds of years part of China. Therefore, the mere raising of an issue that sounds as if we're trying to separate a part of China creates special sensitivities. I do not like some of the things that the Chinese are doing-- many of the things the Chinese are doing in Tibet--but it's not as simple either as some of the people pretend who don't even know what it is that is being asked for by the Tibetans.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tibet/interviews/kissinger.html


The very idea, the very concept that Tibet suffered a "foreign" invasion is just false anti-China propaganda.

[RedStarOverChina]

Whether or not Tibet was part of China is debated to this day because the political situation in East Asia prior to the arrival of Nationalism (a Western ideology) is very hard to describe using the political terminology and definitions of today.

Unless one understands the Tributary system in East Asia, there's no chance of grasping the nature between Tibet and China. Even then, there are certain difference between a Tributary state (a subject nation that has a great amount of "sovereignty"---which too, is a Western concept) and Tibet, which has little sovereignty under the Qing Dynasty.

Under Western definition, a sovereign nation has to have several things, they include: the right to choose its own leader; its territory not occupied by foreign troops.

If we strictly adhere to this notion of statehood, then VERY FEW East Asian "states" are really states. Because under the Tributary system in East Asia, China was responsible for guaranteeing the safety and political stability of its subject nations, which included everyone from Mongolia, Korea, Vietnam to many South East Asian countries, including even Sri Lanka. Kings, Khans Dalai Lamas and other leaders of the tributary state must receive Chinese titles in order to be considered politically legitimate. So at least formally, China reserves the right to appoint leaders of its Tributary states.

Korea is the classical example of this. When invaded (twice by Japan), China sent troops and occupied the country temporarily. Korean kings must receive China's blessings, which they often do.

Tibet, however, is a tributary state on a different level. The Qing Dynasty have troops stationed in Tibet permanent since late 1700s. Also from that same period of time, The Qing Emperor's agents became directly involved (instead of nominally involved as was the case in Korea) in the election of Dalai Lamas.

Therefore, by Western definition, Tibet was definitely NOT independent, but largely autonomous.

The argument over whether Tibet was independent is,t o me, quite meaningless beyond its implications to Western political ideologies and definitions, and thus should be left to the political scientists.

The important question instead, is whether Tibet SHOULD BE independent. Korea and Mongolia were not independent nations either, but they became independent nevertheless.

[RedStarOverChina]

Lo siento. Revleft was really slow yesterday.

[RedStarOverChina]

Lo siento. Revleft was really slow yesterday.

[RedStarOverChina]

Lo siento. Revleft was really slow yesterday.

[TheCuriousCommunist]

The Dalai Lama is fully of shit, plain and simple. He wants to be reinstalled as the theocratic dictator, and his Marxism is absolute nonsense- this guy routinely speaks on behalf of US-backed imperialist causes, such as their ongoing war to overthrow Belarus. The Buddhists say that desire is the cause of all suffering, and that one should not attach to worldly possessions, but he sure misses his palace. He and his monks in the US certainly have no need to desire, with their taxpayer funded lavish lifestyles.

What? "Theocratic Dictator"? "Misses his Palace"? "Taxpayer funded lavish lifestyles"?
WTF?
His Holiness was never a "Theocratic Dictator". He was forced out of his country in his teens by Maoist devils. He misses his palace because it was his home. As for lavish lifestyles, that is pure shit. His Holiness lives an a tiny, overcrowded, Indian hamlet. Yes, US monks are supported by taxpayers money, but those are donations by devout Buddhists. His Holiness is a great humanitarian and statesman, who deserves better than this singleminded shit.

[SouthernBelle82]

Economy never justifies oppresion. It's this same argument that currently makes fucking Pinochet the 'better of two evils' in mainstream media. (Because, yeah, he might have killed some people and stuff, but he did do wonders for the economy!)


Personally, I am for a free tibet, if only to stop the chinese human rights abuse. I think people make a mistake when they compare the current Dalai Lama (Tenzin Ripoche I believe his name is), with the old theocracy's. The current Dalai Lama has shown himself quite open to other religions, and at least over the world more in line with leftist parties then with capitalists. I am still searching for a good book on his exact plans for free tibet, although I believe he abandonded independence a long time ago and is now merely pushing for human rights and perhaps autonomy without independence.

That would be a good start and if he is that open minded now perhaps he would be if his goals were successful. It's easy to be open minded now when you need more people on your side. If he has that history than he's probably pretty set there by now. As far as abandoning independence perhaps he just wants to see if he can get one goal and than go from there.

[Kayser_Soso]

What? "Theocratic Dictator"? "Misses his Palace"? "Taxpayer funded lavish lifestyles"?
WTF?
His Holiness was never a "Theocratic Dictator". He was forced out of his country in his teens by Maoist devils. He misses his palace because it was his home. As for lavish lifestyles, that is pure shit. His Holiness lives an a tiny, overcrowded, Indian hamlet. Yes, US monks are supported by taxpayers money, but those are donations by devout Buddhists. His Holiness is a great humanitarian and statesman, who deserves better than this singleminded shit.


All joking aside, when attempting to justify respond to Michael Parenti's famous article, some Western based Free Tibet folks didn't even attempt to dispute his claims. Instead they insisted that he just didn't understand Tibetan culture(and of course THEY did, beings American and Canadian college students). Rather amusing seeing that Neo-Confederates basically say the same thing about the American South under slavery.

[ls]

Tibet is a complex affair and most Tibetan "pro-freedom" protestors just want to introduce a new form of neoliberalism, hence the "liberation movement" is utterly bourgeois.

[Hiero]

No doubt it's occupied, insofar as many Tibetans do not want to be ruled from Beijing. And the people of Tibet are repressed by the Chinese State.

However only an idiot would therefore defend the 'right' of the Tibetan people to form their own reactionary little theocracy.



Wow, how disgusting. "Thoose people are oppressed, but too stupid to know what they should want"


What? "Theocratic Dictator"? "Misses his Palace"? "Taxpayer funded lavish lifestyles"?
WTF?
His Holiness was never a "Theocratic Dictator". He was forced out of his country in his teens by Maoist devils. He misses his palace because it was his home. As for lavish lifestyles, that is pure shit. His Holiness lives an a tiny, overcrowded, Indian hamlet. Yes, US monks are supported by taxpayers money, but those are donations by devout Buddhists. His Holiness is a great humanitarian and statesman, who deserves better than this singleminded shit.

His "holiness" used to get dragg around on huge cart thing by slaves. Thoose "Maoist devils" were actually Tibetans.

[Bankotsu]

Some other links of interest:



REFLECTIONS ON TIBET

In the current debate on Tibet the two opposing sides see almost everything in black and white—differing only as to which is which. But there is one issue that both Chinese authorities and Tibetan nationalists consistently strive to blur or, better still, avoid altogether.

At the height of the Cultural Revolution hundreds of thousands of Tibetans turned upon the temples they had treasured for centuries and tore them to pieces, rejected their religion and became zealous followers of the Great Han occupier, Mao Zedong.

To the Chinese Communist Party, the episode is part of a social catastrophe—one that it initiated but has long since disowned and which, it hopes, the rest of the world will soon forget.

For the Tibetan participants, the memory of that onslaught is a bitter humiliation, one they would rather not talk about, or which they try to exorcise with the excuse that they only did it ‘under pressure from the Han’.

Foreign critics simply refuse to accept that the episode ever took place, unable to imagine that the Tibetans could willingly and consciously have done such a thing. But careful analysis and a deeper reflection on what was involved in that trauma may shed light on some of the cultural questions at stake on the troubled High Plateau...

http://www.newleftreview.org/?view=2380




Free Sikkim? Hope someone from the west starts a movement to free sikkim. Maybe the Free Tibet movement can raise the Sikkim issue too?






This spring the world’s attention was drawn to Tibet, where on 10th March this year the people commemorated the 49th anniversary of the Tibetan upheaval against the Chinese occupation. The protests spread from Tibet across the whole world and along the route of the torch relay for this year’s Olympic games people demanded: “Free Tibet!”.

In the Southern part of the Himalaya another occupied territory did not attract any attention at all: Sikkim.

The Kingdom which had defended its independence for 300 years against powerful neighbours was annexed by India in April 1975 and became the 22nd state of the Indian Union. The 85th birthday of the 12th Chogyal of Sikkim gives me the opportunity to focus on the fate of the tiny Himalaya Kingdom...

http://es-es.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=172037779677&ref=mf


Dalai Lama and his links to Nazis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdVeodXcpPE

[ComradeMan]

Tibet is a complex affair and most Tibetan "pro-freedom" protestors just want to introduce a new form of neoliberalism, hence the "liberation movement" is utterly bourgeois.


LOL!!! I heard the same being said about anti-apartheid campaigners in 1985.

[ls]

LOL!!! I heard the same being said about anti-apartheid campaigners in 1985.

Oh, I see, so the situation is the same as in south africa then, my you are a master of perspective.

[ComradeMan]

Oh, I see, so the situation is the same as in south africa then, my you are a master of perspective.


Why do you always have to go on the attack? :D

The point made me laugh, because I actually do remember people saying things like that about the anti-apartheid movement.

If we want a deeper analysis, where's the evidence for your sweeping generalisation of the pro-Tibet lobby as being neo-liberal and bourgeois? And if even if they were neo-liberal and bourgeois are the forbidden to what they may rightly or wrongly perceive as injustice?

Just who isn't bourgeois according to you? LOL!!! :D I get the feeling you'd have us all shot! :)

[RGacky3]

The Buddhists say that desire is the cause of all suffering, and that one should not attach to worldly possessions, but he sure misses his palace. He and his monks in the US certainly have no need to desire, with their taxpayer funded lavish lifestyles.

He's a religious leader, when has any religious leader not been a
hypocrite?


His Holiness is a great humanitarian and statesman, who deserves better than this singleminded shit.

Well, so am I, I'm a great humanitarian and I'm a great statesman, that does'nt mean I should get to rule a country.

That being said, its up to the Tibeten people, if they want to be ruled by the Dali Lama, then thats their choice and I and you (as leftists) should respect that.

As far as if Tibet is part of China, thats up to the Tibeten people is'nt it?

[Bud Struggle]

If indeed communism is the way of the future--the Tibetans need to have their own Revolution. Communist Revolutions forced upon peoples don't work very well as recent history has taught us.

Let history take it's course and let people decide for themselves where and when their Revolutions should take place.

[ComradeMan]

Good point Bud. People need to liberate themselves, exported revolutions will always be seen as a form of imperialism, one way or the other. What invading power has not justified its actions with the whole chestnut of "we are bringing progress and civilisation"...?

[Bud Struggle]

If there is one problem with today's Communists--it's that they don't seem to actually seem to believe that Communism is the way of the future. They don't think the time will ripen and mature so that Revolution and Communism will occur in the world on it's own. They want to push it along. They don't allow for it to grow organically from and through the Proletariat--they wanted it exported by guns and armies.

In lots of ways there is little difference between them and Capitalist Imperialists. Look, personally I don't believe in Communism--but I'm a Catholic and I believe in the second coming of Christ, but you don't see me agitating heaven for Judgment Day. Either Christ will come and I'll be right or he won't and I'll be sadly mistaken, but I'm certainly not going to force you to believe what I believe. I actually would be offended if you believed in Jesus or Catholicism because you were forced to and I'd go out of my way to see that any faith you had in those things was totally of your own accord. I'd explain of you had questions, I'd help if you asked for it--but I would NEVER force. (To the "Watchers": Hey, I'm not selling anything here--I'm just making a point.) I think exporting Revolution to peoples unready for Communism or thrusting it upon them by force of arms--is a completely REACTIONARY method of spreading Communism.

Look at the Iron Curtain countries before the fall of Communism. How much of their protest against "Communism" was against the political theory and how much was against the age old domination of Eastern Europe by Russia? Poland, East Germany, Hungary, etc. never had Revolutions--they got theirs second hand from the Russian Revolution. Communism in Eastern Europe fell for all the wrong reasons. Is that any way to change the world?

Give back the Dali Lama to Tibet--they will either figure out how to free themselves, and prove Marx right--or they won't. Either way you have to give Marxism a chance.

[ComradeMan]

Well us mere continentals are condemned for revolutionary ideas like Post-Marxism LOL!!! :cool: