Fuck free Tibet Theologists.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

Liberal idiots shout suppresion and cheer for a tibet free from China, yet, the Monks kept as slaves and worked to death under a theocracy, were not...

They were joining the peoples army, they were rising from serfdom, breaking their chains, pushing back the tide of Buddhist oppresion and showing solidarity with chinese workers.

Handing Tibet to the Theocracy will enslave all those, who fought to rid themselves of tyranical religeous oppresion.

It would be the same as shouting for the taliban, rather than a revolutionary, now state capitalist society.

China is now a horrible place to live for the workers, but its better than the old Tibet regime, and the one that would emerge from a "free Tibet"

by Michael Parenti
July 7, 2003
http://www.swans.com/library/art9/mparen01.html


Tibet: From Brutal Theocracy to Socialist Liberation to Capitalist Nightmare

http://www.rwor.org/a/125/tibet-background-en.html

[praxis1966]

It's actually pretty amusing when people let their politics get in the way of real world facts. There are three things that you, in particular, and the RCP, in general don't acknowledge in your arguments about Tibet that are of the highest order of importance here.

1) The Dalai Lama has stated on multiple occasions that were he to be named, appointed, or otherwise selected as the head of state in Tibet absent of Chinese authority, he would turn it down. And before you ask, no, I couldn't say whether any future Dalai Lamas would take the same position, but then again neither could you (you know, since you're not clairvoyant).

2) The PRC appoints its own alternative Dalai Lama, otherwise known as the Panchen Lama. So I ask you, given that the Dalai Lama has no actual political authority and the government of the PRC engages in appointing religious leaders, who exactly is engaging in theocratic rule?

3) One can be in favor of an independent Tibet without supporting the Dalai Lama (this is actually my position, incidentally). One thing does not necessarily give over to the other. On the other hand, supporting PRC hegemony in Tibet is, in my mind, a tacit support of colonialism. Quote all the Marxist dogma and MLM/RCP rationalizations at me you like, that's what it is and there's no getting around it.

And as for this bit:


China is now a horrible place to live for the workers, but its better than the old Tibet regime...

Pardon me, but this sounds a bit like saying, 'Well, considering how much better slaves and Native Americans were treated under British colonialist rule in America, the Americans never should have rebelled,' which I have heard. It never occurs to people who say things like that to take into account the complete lack of democracy involved in both colonial situations.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

I DON'T support the capitalist chinese government, yet, i would of supported the workers in china and tibet who fought against the theocracy.

The cultural distinction in Tibet is the religeon, why split them up, when most tibetans do not ever wan't a return to the past theocracy.

Your argument is that, well, im not sure, but why wopuld you support fuedalism at all.

it wont be the dali lama, it will be the whole religeous lumpings returning tibetans and monks into serfs and working them to death and having 100 percent control over them.#

people support it to be cool and bum up with capie richard branston, fuck that shit.

[Comrade Gwydion]

It's actually pretty amusing when people let their politics get in the way of real world facts. There are three things that you, in particular, and the RCP, in general don't acknowledge in your arguments about Tibet that are of the highest order of importance here.

1) The Dalai Lama has stated on multiple occasions that were he to be named, appointed, or otherwise selected as the head of state in Tibet absent of Chinese authority, he would turn it down. And before you ask, no, I couldn't say whether any future Dalai Lamas would take the same position, but then again neither could you (you know, since you're not clairvoyant).

2) The PRC appoints its own alternative Dalai Lama, otherwise known as the Panchen Lama. So I ask you, given that the Dalai Lama has no actual political authority and the government of the PRC engages in appointing religious leaders, who exactly is engaging in theocratic rule?

3) One can be in favor of an independent Tibet without supporting the Dalai Lama (this is actually my position, incidentally). One thing does not necessarily give over to the other. On the other hand, supporting PRC hegemony in Tibet is, in my mind, a tacit support of colonialism. Quote all the Marxist dogma and MLM/RCP rationalizations at me you like, that's what it is and there's no getting around it.

I agree with you mostly, except for a few points.
The Panchen Lama is not some 'alternative Dalai Lama', rather, it's the second highest Lama, who is also responsible for finding the next Dalai Lama. That is why the Chinese have tried to ursurp that position, so that they can appoint the next Dalai Lama. The one that was appointed according to Tibetan Buddist Faith, has miracolously 'dissappeared' a few years after China appointed theirs.

I agree with you that Tibetan independence would not lead to a theocracy. Quite the opposite, because apart from the fact that HH the Dalai Lama indeed would not take up absolute rule, he even seems like a progressive, and often says things I think we can all agree with, albeit without mentioning the 'S-word'.

That said, I support Tibetan indepence (or autonomy), and I support the Dalai Lama is his role as a political/human rights activist who works for a good cause and *seems* to have his heart on the right place. I do not support his as 'future absolute ruler', even though I think he could, within a pre-revolutionairy situation, serve just as well -or better- as the European constitutional monarchies.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

could be as good as monarchs

aint we aiming high

[praxis1966]

I DON'T support the capitalist chinese government, yet, i would of supported the workers in china and tibet who fought against the theocracy.

The cultural distinction in Tibet is the religeon, why split them up, when most tibetans do not ever wan't a return to the past theocracy.

Your argument is that, well, im not sure, but why wopuld you support fuedalism at all.

it wont be the dali lama, it will be the whole religeous lumpings returning tibetans and monks into serfs and working them to death and having 100 percent control over them.#

people support it to be cool and bum up with capie richard branston, fuck that shit.

It's at this point that I'm wondering whether you actually bothered to read my post at all. I just finished saying that I don't support a return to theocracy or feudalism in Tibet. What I did say is that I support an independent Tibet. Since you've misunderstood me, let me be explicit. I support an independent, secularly governed Tibet. That hardly makes my position equitable to Richard Branson's (assuming your characterization of his position is accurate, which is assuming alot given your mischaracterization of my position).

And no, since you brought it up, the only distinction between Tibetans and Chinese is not religion. There's an ethnic distinction as well. Saying the only distinction between Tibetans and Chinese is religion is a gross oversimplification in the same way it would be a gross oversimplification to say the same for Irish Republicans and British Loyalists living in Northern Ireland.

Not that anything in the previous paragraph is really the point, though. The point is that if you're Chinese you can't, nor should you even if able, force workers' liberation on the Tibetan people at gunpoint any more than Americans can force democracy and capitalism at gunpoint upon the people of Iraq. Attempting to do so only causes knee jerk support on the part of the locals for people like the Dalai Lama in Tibet or Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq because those leaders happen to oppose the colonialists/imperialists. The fact of the matter is that nation building doesn't work. Period. I would've thought people would know that by now considering what happened in Iran and places like it.

Anyway, perhaps you don't support the government of the PRC, but you certainly apologize for them when you say things like 'the people of Tibet are better off than they were before.' How, exactly? You are aware that there are sweatshops in China, right?

[Adi Shankara]

could be as good as monarchs

aint we aiming high


I'm sorry Marcos, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one: the Chinese state has done more damage to the environment, culture, and people of Tibet than arguably the last 200 years of prior Lamaist rule has.

the Dalai Lama isn't evil; on the contrary, he is quite a good human being. a little weak willed, not very realistic, doesn't get much done, but he's certainly not evil.

Also, you must remember: there is no full consensus on how the "serf situation" really was in Tibet prior to Chinese colonization, as most of the contemporary sources were written during the time China conquered Tibet as PRC propaganda.

Modern Historians generally recognize that we may never exactly know, but that the Chinese could've been greatly exaggerating, seeing as that's what countries do (such as the USA) when they have weak claims to territory that doesn't belong to them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Tibet_controversy

the above article generally says that there is very little proof there was the level of serfdom China says there was, while others may disagree.

P.S: the Dalai Lama is sympathetic to Marxism; he says he is not even sure he want's to lead if granted independence, nor does he want to see a theocratic state imposed; only a socialist democracy.

Mao has crapflooded the world with so much bullshit, it's sometimes hard to seperate the fact from fiction. It's the reason why we still have some people who have no clue that East Turkestan was once a seperate nation, not a part of China like the PRC loves to claim.

[R_P_A_S]

very insightful! I never knwo what side to take on this.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

Oh fuck off, with your shame fein flag living in the US.
god damn plastic eh

The situation in Ireland, where colonial settlers have after 800 years of imperialist conquest, partitioned the state, have treated nationalists as second class citizens and before the partition had the Royal Irish constabulary the black and tans, the potato famine.

where as, in tibet, Chinese revolutionaries, along with tibetan monks and workers, rose up together and destroyed the old fuedal order.

And yes the chinese government is disgusting there are sweatshops, does that mean the fact china wiped out slavery, working workers to death and enforcing religeous authoritarian misery should be forgotten, and that tibet should now be a seperate entity, though only the religeous nutters want it, not the average worker, whose life has been better off under Mao, then only slightly better off under the capitalists, than under fuedalism

Fuedalism

capitalism

socialism

communism

[praxis1966]

The Panchen Lama is not some 'alternative Dalai Lama', rather, it's the second highest Lama, who is also responsible for finding the next Dalai Lama. That is why the Chinese have tried to ursurp that position, so that they can appoint the next Dalai Lama. The one that was appointed according to Tibetan Buddist Faith, has miracolously 'dissappeared' a few years after China appointed theirs.

I stand corrected then. If what you say is true, however, that still sounds alot like the PRC's engaging in theocratic politics to me.

[Adi Shankara]

where as, in tibet, Chinese revolutionaries, along with tibetan monks and workers, rose up together and destroyed the old fuedal order.

And yes the chinese government is disgusting there are sweatshops, does that mean the fact china wiped out slavery, working workers to death and enforcing religeous authoritarian misery should be forgotten, and that tibet should now be a seperate entity, though only the religeous nutters want it, not the average worker, whose life has been better off under Mao, then only slightly better off under the capitalists, than under fuedalism

again, that's not exactly how it happened...


By 1957, Kham was in chaos. PLA reprisals against Khampa resistance fighters such as the Chushi Gangdruk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chushi_Gangdruk) became increasingly brutal. They included beatings, starving prisoners, and the rape of prisoners' wives in front of them until they confessed.[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_invasion_of_Tibet#cite_note-knaus134-41) Monks and nuns were forced to have sex with each other and forcibly renounce their celibacy vows. After torture, these men and women were often killed.[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_invasion_of_Tibet#cite_note-knaus134-41) Numerous cases of children being forced to shoot their parents to death were reported to the International Commission of Jurists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Commission_of_Jurists).[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_invasion_of_Tibet#cite_note-42) By the late 1950s, the number of Tibetan freedom fighters numbered in the tens of thousands.[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_invasion_of_Tibet#cite_note-Roberts.2C_John-43) Kham's monastic networks came to be used by guerrilla forces to relay messages and hide rebels.[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_invasion_of_Tibet#cite_note-knaus86-44)The Chinese turned one oppressive state into another greatly oppressive one.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

here as trotsky would have made it a paradise.

Mao did the best he could, Tibet is massively better off thanks to his wanting to help the serfs of tibet, he didn't need to, its not like he wanted to euphemisticly sport fuck tibet is it

thats coming from a guy who dislikes Maoism.

[RedStarOverChina]

1) The Dalai Lama has stated on multiple occasions that were he to be named, appointed, or otherwise selected as the head of state in Tibet absent of Chinese authority, he would turn it down. And before you ask, no, I couldn't say whether any future Dalai Lamas would take the same position, but then again neither could you (you know, since you're not clairvoyant).

He's already the ruler of Dharamsala and has repeatedly emphasized and justified the supreme role of the Dalai Lama in Tibetan politics.


2) The PRC appoints its own alternative Dalai Lama, otherwise known as the Panchen Lama. So I ask you, given that the Dalai Lama has no actual political authority and the government of the PRC engages in appointing religious leaders, who exactly is engaging in theocratic rule?
Shocking ignorance on so many levels.

The Pachen Lama has been the second most powerful person in the Tibetan Gelupa Buddhism (after the Dalai Lama) for hundreds of years. The position is not an "alternative Dalai Lama", as you suggested.

Contrary to what you suggested, Dalai Lama has supreme political power within the mini-state of Dharamsala, where he is also the "elected" head of a mock-parliament.




One thing does not necessarily give over to the other. On the other hand, supporting PRC hegemony in Tibet is, in my mind, a tacit support of colonialism. Quote all the Marxist dogma and MLM/RCP rationalizations at me you like, that's what it is and there's no getting around it.
Unfortunately, things are not that clear cut. As we have discussed in the previous thread, PRC's rule in Tibet doesn't fit the description of colonialism. The formation of the Chinese state modeled after Western definitions is a recent phenomenon, even though Tibet has long been incorporated into the Chinese Empire that existed before the introduction of Western nationalism.

Because of the introduction of Western Nationalism, statehood in much of the rest of the world had to be radically redefined. In that sense, China was a recent creation just like Iraq or Nigeria. We cannot call China "colonialist" unless we decide to call all newly formed countries that combine different ethnicities "colonialist".

I believe in reaffirming the definition of China as a multi-ethnic country that strives towards equality between ethnicities.

[Adi Shankara]

P.S: notice it says the Monks had celibacy vows. that's how you know the reports of Monks raping little boys are simply not true; when you hear reports that say "Monks raped little boys", it's not hard to see that those spreading such propaganda are trying to appeal to the inherent homophobia most people have against those who have attraction to men, and to make it appear more of an heinous crime, they'll add on the fact that they were children.

[Adi Shankara]

He's already the ruler of Dharamsala and has repeatedly emphasized and justified the supreme role of the Dalai Lama in Tibetan politics.


Shocking ignorance on so many levels.

The Pachen Lama has been the second most powerful person in the Tibetan Gelupa Buddhism (after the Dalai Lama) for hundreds of years. The position is not an "alternative Dalai Lama", as you suggested.

Contrary to what you suggested, Dalai Lama has supreme political power within the mini-state of Dharamsala, where he is also the "elected" head of a mock-parliament.




Unfortunately, things are not that clear cut. As we have discussed in the previous thread, PRC's rule in Tibet doesn't fit the description of colonialism. The formation of the Chinese state modeled after Western definitions is a recent phenomenon, even though Tibet has long been incorporated into the Chinese Empire that existed before the introduction of Western nationalism.

Because of the introduction of Western Nationalism, statehood in much of the rest of the world had to be radically redefined. In that sense, China was a recent creation just like Iraq or Nigeria. We cannot call China "colonialist" unless we decide to call all newly formed countries that combine different ethnicities "colonialist".

I believe in reaffirming the definition of China as a multi-ethnic country that strives towards equality between ethnicities.

and here comes the Chinese colonialist apologist...



Because of the introduction of Western Nationalism, statehood in much of the rest of the world had to be radically redefined. In that sense, China was a recent creation just like Iraq or Nigeria. We cannot call China "colonialist" unless we decide to call all newly formed countries that combine different ethnicities "colonialist".

Except Iraqis and Nigerians weren't threatened with murder or torture if they refused to join union. Nigerian independence was democratic. Chinese colonization of Tibet was not.

[RedStarOverChina]

and here comes the Chinese colonialist apologist...
:lol:
Decided to come out from under the bridge again, eh?

Thanks for your "contributions".

Except Iraqis and Nigerians weren't threatened with murder or torture if they refused to join union. Nigerian independence was democratic. Chinese colonization of Tibet was not.You clearly do not know much about Iraq or Nigeria...Much less Tibet.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

yeah because religeous people who take vows of celibecy never rape boys


THE LAST 1000 YEARS OF CATHOLIC PRIESTS

but buddhists can't break their vows... right

unreal

[Adi Shankara]

Contrary to what you suggested, Dalai Lama has supreme political power within the mini-state of Dharamsala, where he is also the "elected" head of a mock-parliament.

and shows how very little you know what you're talking about, considering Dharamsala is under Indian administration and currently is under control of the
Bharatiya Janata Party of India. (increased size for emphasis :D)

The Dalai Lama has zero power in Dharamsala; the government in exile controls almost nothing, except informally.


You clearly do not know much about Iraq or Nigeria...Much less Tibet.

and you have proven time and time again, that even as I know little, you know even less than that.

[Adi Shankara]

yeah because religeous people who take vows of celibecy never rape boys


THE LAST 1000 YEARS OF CATHOLIC PRIESTS

but buddhists can't break their vows... right

unreal

but who is to say they all did? you are going to blame an entire country's clergy for raping children (once again, the "little boys" emphasis is meant to appeal to man's sense of homophobia, which should be a dead giveaway on what propaganda this is) because a few rumors spread by Mao's bullshit wing?

[praxis1966]

Oh fuck off, with your shame fein flag living in the US.
god damn plastic eh

Cute. Substitute ad hominem attacks for a real argument. Also, so much for MLMer's so-called internationalist perspective, eh? Just because I don't live in one country doesn't mean I can't support activists in another. I'm so sick and tired of people who can't walk and chew bubblegum at the same time on this issue. Do me a favor, stick to addressing my arguments and I'll do you the favor of addressing yours in return. Until you can do that, however, don't expect me to have alot of respect for your opinions.


The situation in Ireland, where colonial settlers have after 800 years of imperialist conquest, partitioned the state, have treated nationalists as second class citizens and before the partition had the Royal Irish constabulary the black and tans, the potato famine.

I'm completely aware of that. Again, I think, you missed the point of what I was saying.


where as, in tibet, Chinese revolutionaries, along with tibetan monks and workers, rose up together and destroyed the old fuedal order.

Completely untrue. Tibet was invaded. Period. There's thousands of years of recorded history well documenting hostilities between China and it's neighbors, not least of which is Tibet. Chinese territorial ambitions in Tibet extend far, far further back in time than the arrival of Mao.


And yes the chinese government is disgusting there are sweatshops, does that mean the fact china wiped out slavery, working workers to death...

Sweatshops=Slavery=Working workers to death


though only the religeous nutters want it, not the average worker

You're going to have to source this for me, otherwise I'm just going to assume that you're making it up.

[RedStarOverChina]

yeah because religeous people who take vows of celibecy never rape boys


THE LAST 1000 YEARS OF CATHOLIC PRIESTS

but buddhists can't break their vows... right

unreal
This kind of idiocy is beyond naivety. It has more to do with Western racist stereotypes.

Tibetans = pure, spiritual people who could do no wrong.

Han Chinese = polluting, greedy authoritarian colonialists who thinks of subjugating the kind Tibetans every day.

I've seen too much of this kind of not-so-subtle racism from Western liberals.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

im not an ML you muppet praxis

by sankara

but who is to say they all did? you are going to blame an entire country's clergy for raping children (once again, the "little boys" emphasis is meant to appeal to man's sense of homophobia, which should be a dead giveaway on what propaganda this is) because a few rumors spread by Mao's bullshit wing?

no its more a thing about the disgusting rape and pedophilia, most dont advocate grown men fucking little boys

your lack of understanding that pedophilia is wrong, and being gay is normal, is fucked comrade

[Adi Shankara]

This kind of idiocy is beyond naivety. It has more to do with Western racist stereotypes.

Tibetans = pure, spiritual people who could do no wrong.

Han Chinese = polluting, greedy authoritarian colonialists who thinks of subjugating the kind Tibetans every day.

I've seen too much of this kind of not-so-subtle racism from Western liberals.

Meanwhile, in the last thread, you talked of how the Han "liberated" the Tibetans from an "oppressive culture" and a bad society, as if that was the place of the Han Chinese to do that, or as if their own society was somehow benevolent. That made me label you a Chinese supremacist, which made you furious, though I think the label fits well. You literally seem like you hate the Tibetans, and I can't tell why.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

This kind of idiocy is beyond naivety. It has more to do with Western racist stereotypes.

Tibetans = pure, spiritual people who could do no wrong.

Han Chinese = polluting, greedy authoritarian colonialists who thinks of subjugating the kind Tibetans every day.

I've seen too much of this kind of not-so-subtle racism from Western liberals.

i said that, i said its stupid to believe monks are any less capable of rape than priests

[praxis1966]

im not an ML you muppet praxis

If that's the case then why link to an RCP publication in your OP? I think if I was attempting to make an argument, I'd want sources that were more in line with my own personal politics.

[Adi Shankara]

i said that, i said its stupid to believe monks are any less capable of rape than priests

But isn't it also stupid to think that a monk is a rapist just because he's a monk? that seems to be the general consensus amongst the extreme atheists and ultra maoists on here.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

itas funny when Americans are so ashamed and guilty of their country, they cling to the fact, their mothers aunties ex boyfriends dog was from ireland, so they can identify as an oppressed nationalisty, and be irish because its cool.

plastic paddies are so fucking ridiculous, its not even funny.

i dont go on about the fact i have irish relatives, i dont have a fucking shame fein sellout flag, and by every colin farrell film

YOUR AN AMERICAN

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

But isn't it also stupid to think that a monk is a rapist just because he's a monk? that seems to be the general consensus amongst the extreme atheists and ultra maoists on here.

your the one who mentioned rape, not me man

[praxis1966]

itas funny when Americans are so ashamed and guilty of their country, they cling to the fact, their mothers aunties ex boyfriends dog was from ireland, so they can identify as an oppressed nationalisty, and be irish because its cool.

plastic paddies are so fucking ridiculous, its not even funny.

im from the motherof imperialist nations, i dont go on about the fact i have irish relatives, i dont have a fucking shame fein sellout flag, and by every colin farrell film

YOUR AN AMERICAN

I honestly don't know why you consider ad hominem flaming a real argument. But go on, keep calling names. You're only cheapening your position to everyone reading this.

[Adi Shankara]

your the one who mentioned rape, not me man

Point taken, I must've confused it with the bozo arguing that Chinese colonization turned Tibet into a paradise

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

@paraxis

because you have no arguement, except you dont think it will definately become a theocracy, instead you waffle, call me a ML, because i used a RCP article, aswell as a michael parenti one.

[Adi Shankara]

itas funny when Americans are so ashamed and guilty of their country, they cling to the fact, their mothers aunties ex boyfriends dog was from ireland, so they can identify as an oppressed nationalisty, and be irish because its cool.

plastic paddies are so fucking ridiculous, its not even funny.

i dont go on about the fact i have irish relatives, i dont have a fucking shame fein sellout flag, and by every colin farrell film

YOUR AN AMERICAN

hey now, again, with all respect, that's kind've bordering on racism

[praxis1966]

@paraxis

because you have no arguement, except you dont think it will definately become a theocracy, instead you waffle, call me a ML, because i used a RCP article, aswell as a michael parenti one.

Look, I don't know who put the bee in your bonnet, but I'm done arguing with you. Your continued mischaracterizations of my argument and insistence on flaming have convinced me that there's no point in discussing this with you. Consider this my last post in this thread.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

how, i did not mention race once,and hell call me anti american, i don't give a rats ass, im not anti america america is anti me

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

bye praxis, go cheerlead the taleban, the other theocratic entity you should support.

Taleban akbar huh

[RedAnarchist]

Subcommandante Marcos, consider yourself verbally warned for flaming.

[RedStarOverChina]

Meanwhile, in the last thread, you talked of how the Han "liberated" the Tibetans from an "oppressive culture" and a bad society, as if that was the place of the Han Chinese to do that, or as if their own society was somehow benevolent. That made me label you a Chinese supremacist, which made you furious, though I think the label fits well. You literally seem like you hate the Tibetans, and I can't tell why.What have you been smoking? How do you come up with garbage like that?

Quote me on where I said it and how I apparently "hate the Tibetans" or I'm reporting your ass for slander. This is like the third time you've slandered me, I've had enough of it.

[Wanted Man]

Meanwhile, in the last thread, you talked of how the Han "liberated" the Tibetans from an "oppressive culture" and a bad society, as if that was the place of the Han Chinese to do that, or as if their own society was somehow benevolent. That made me label you a Chinese supremacist, which made you furious, though I think the label fits well. You literally seem like you hate the Tibetans, and I can't tell why.

GzKFYcHKbnk

Sounds familiar!

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to get back to responses in the other Tibet thread. Maybe later; but this one was just too silly not to react to.

[Adi Shankara]

What have you been smoking? How do you come up with garbage like that?


Quote me on where I said it and how I apparently "hate the Tibetans" or I'm reporting your ass for slander. This is like the third time you've slandered me, I've had enough of it.

I based it off your previous responses in the last thread, where you justified the hostile Chinese takeover of Tibet. that's why I said "seemed", not are. maybe for reporting me for slander, I should report you for slander?

I noticed you took the easy way out of debate and didn't address my previous concerns. in fact, you completely ignored them.

but hey, got to love so-called "communists" defending the imperialist Chinese empire and their subjugation campaigns against the Uighurs and Tibetans.

[RedStarOverChina]

I noticed you took the easy way out of debate and didn't address my previous concerns. in fact, you completely ignored them.

No, it was you who once again avoided debate entirely and resorted to calling me names. Initially I overlooked your amature attempts at sounding radical, but you seem to have made a habbit out of it.

You called me a supremacist not once but several times, now it's your responsibility to justify your claim. So no, you're not off the hook.

Present evidence that I am a supremacist, or apologize.

You have until this time tomorrow.

[Adi Shankara]

Present evidence that I am a supremacist, or apologize.

You have until this time tomorrow. :lol: quite the ego you got there! but okay, I'll be the bigger man. I apologize for calling you a supremacist, because it may have been misplaced and unjustified.

[Adi Shankara]

Now then...back to where you answer my other posts...?

[Chambered Word]

Meanwhile, in the last thread, you talked of how the Han "liberated" the Tibetans from an "oppressive culture" and a bad society, as if that was the place of the Han Chinese to do that, or as if their own society was somehow benevolent. That made me label you a Chinese supremacist, which made you furious, though I think the label fits well. You literally seem like you hate the Tibetans, and I can't tell why.


But isn't it also stupid to think that a monk is a rapist just because he's a monk? that seems to be the general consensus amongst the extreme atheists and ultra maoists on here.

You seem to miss the points people are trying to make pretty often or are deliberately dancing around them. I don't know which.

RedStar would be correct in saying that Tibet was a very shitty place in terms of living standards. I think evidence has been provided for that already. You should substantiate your claims (i.e that he said the Han Chinese liberated Tibetans from an oppressive culture) with actual evidence, until then you look like a fool.

Marcos appears to be pointing out that monks raped boys in Tibet. I don't see where he implied anything about all Buddhist monks being boy rapists.


but hey, got to love so-called "communists" defending the imperialist Chinese empire and their subjugation campaigns against the Uighurs and Tibetans.

I personally do not support the PRC and I am critical of it in terms of the treatment of the Uighur population, please don't generalize about our attitudes to the Uighurs. :)