I think the occupation of tibet is totally fucked up... but after some research i discovered just how oppressive tibetan buddhism can be

Well, self-immolation can send an incredibly powerful political message. I mean, a Tunisian grocer set himself on fire and started the Arab Spring.

All the Dalai Lama is asking for is for Tibet to get the same deal Hong Kong and Macau have, which has already been offered to Taiwan. And his resigning of political leadership in favor of a Prime Minister elected by exiles and openness to not continuing the absurd reincarnation canard after his death shows he isn't seeking political power for either himself or a restoration of the old system, which was indisputably awful.

You've got to be f**king kidding me!

Not the only religious group in the world which has it's own members committing suicide to protest an occupation. But they are the only ones who - being non-violent, don't take anyone else with them.

No condemnation from the Dalai Lama, of course not, these people are trying to achieve the kind of independence which Palestinians or the Northern Irish want, and they hope to raise the issue with what must be the biggest message one person can make - their lives. Why would the Dalai Lama condemn the actions of those few people who are trying to freedom his homeland?

Especially when they are not doing something morally wrong. (life should be cherished according to Buddhism, but life is not sacred in a Western Christian sense...) There is a rational behind the protesting for what is good for the good of those you leave behind. I can't think of any kind of protest which is more justified. Can you?

"It is simply a joke to call the Dalai Lama a non-violent person" - compared to whom? George Bush?

Very good point, orathiac. Self-immolation could even be called the moral form of suicide bombing, since you get the spectacle and unambiguous demonstration of commitment to the cause, and yet no one besides the one person is harmed.

The DL's retirement is a farce. He claimed to 'retire' in 2010, only to back down in March of 2011, claiming that the "Tibetan people" who he always invokes as if he has a monopoly on their 6 million opinions, clamored for him to return. After his 'retirement' he has been very active traveling the world and spreading his message of splitting China to whatever western lackeys will hear him, namely NZ, Australia & the US. With this so-called "retirement", heads of state no longer fear China's wrath for meeting with him, because 'retirement' gives him cover.

If he supposedly only wants Hong Kong status, why does he continually meet with Heads of State? Why did his 'government-in-exile' in 1963 print a Tibetan Constitution which claimed Tibet was independent? The same year he said that Tibet was not part of China and called the Chinese presence an occupation.

Moving to the present, do you know of any other province of another country that attempts to do this continually against the wishes of their own government? What man who leads an attempt to gain Hong Kong status has openly collaborated with foreign intelligence outfits in order to lead insurrections against his own central government? The DL himself claimed he was a "son of India" and has openly clamored for INdia to annex parts of Tibet on his behalf. The US government gives the DL $17 million a year. As Murdoch said, Dalai Lama travels the world wearing Gucci shoes. Oh, but he's a simple lama. Indeed.

It's fascinating that you, ever the skeptic about purported peaceniks who defraud others for money, have such a love for the Dalai Lama, the biggest liberal swindle of them all. Oh but it's China, so you have to take the DL's side.

It's shocking that Ora supports the manipulation of young lamas to engage in suicide for the sake of the Dalai Lama's enormous ego. Funny that you never see old lamas like the DL engage in such a practice, because while others burn they gain the sympathy of people like Ora.

What a fucking swindle.

"Moving to the present, do you know of any other province of another country that attempts to do this continually against the wishes of their own government?"

Scotland, Catalonia, the Basque Country, Northern Italy, Chechnya, Quebec, Nevis, Somaliland, Casamance, formerly South Sudan, Kurdistan, and Aceh, to name a few. But those aren't even perfect examples, since (apart from Quebec and Northern Italy) the main goal of these places is actual independence and not just greater autonomy. You're right that the Tibetans once claimed full independence, but right now the Dalai Lama really is only asking for Hong Kong status. Considering the much looser ties Tibet has had to China at various points in the past that looks like a pretty good compromise.

If China were smart about this issue, they'd do the Hong Kong deal. As protests in recent years have shown, some Tibetans actually do want to be completely free of Chinese rule. After the Dalai Lama dies he won't be there to keep their baser desires in check, so there could very well be actual revolt. If China allowed a Hong Kong style system for Tibet (which, like Hong Kong, they would still dominate and control) that would satisfy most Tibetans both in China and in exile. Same for East Turkestan (I find the Chinese name too hard to spell).

The Communist Party's number one priority is staying in power. Unrest of even the appearance of unrest is a body blow to it's legitimacy. I don't understand why they wouldn't take this opportunity to solve the Tibet issue for a generation at least.

' spreading his message of splitting China' - for someone who opposes Western Colonialism, Putin, i'm surprised you recognise the treaty/(s) by European power which designated Tibet as a part of China.

The point in time when neither British India, nor Russian Asia, nor French Indo-China (Vietnam?) were willing to have any of the others claim Tibet, nor had the power to exert their own influence over it. (of course it was vitally important for Russia, France, and Britian to come to peace agreements regarding Asia just before World war 1, mostly due to the unification of Germany and the threat to their power...

I suppose it doesn't count as an occupation if Western Tyrants aren't taking the lead on it...

'The same year he said that Tibet was not part of China and called the Chinese presence an occupation.' - you know, you're making yourself sound like a complete ass.

Yes, in 1963, a few short years after the Chinese communist Party managed to win the civil war, and then go on to take control/move troops in/occupy the many area around 'China proper' The Dalai Lama may indeed have claimed Tibet as an independant country, as it had been for at least 50 years (if i'm not mistaken) at the point of the invasion.

The fact that today he doesn't make such claims is because times have changed, he's much more willing to accept a compromise with China. You might know this is you didn't have your head up your arse.

't's shocking that Ora supports the manipulation of young lamas to engage in suicide'

Where did i voice such support? Please point it out to me?

"The Dalai Lama may indeed have claimed Tibet as an independant country, as it had been for at least 50 years (if i'm not mistaken) at the point of the invasion."

Really, for claiming I have my head up my ass you haven't the foggiest fucking clue about Tibetan history. Tibet formally acceded to the PRC in 1949. It was not *independent* prior to 1959, or even 1949. Nobody recognized Tibet as an independent country. For 10 years the DL lived in the PRC without a problem, until his desire to launch an insurrection with CIA assistance led to the removal of his Lamaist government from power.

Really, talking about China "invading" Tibet is like saying the IRA "invaded" northern Ireland. Absurd.

"I suppose it doesn't count as an occupation if Western Tyrants aren't taking the lead on it.."

It doesn't count as 'occupation' because Tibet has been part of China for hundreds of years, and because the whole scheme of independence was a foreign plot to begin with, which is why the DL has kowtowed to any western power than will listen to him. Nazi Germany? Sure. British Empire? Absolutely. Now the United States. The British, who you claimed gave Tibet over to China in 1914 with the bogus McMahaon Line, invaded Tibet in 1888 and in 1904, but were pushed back by the Tibetan people and their supposed Chinese "colonialist" overlords.

And really Ora, this isn't support?

"these people are trying to achieve the kind of independence which Palestinians or the Northern Irish want, and they hope to raise the issue with what must be the biggest message one person can make - their lives. Why would the Dalai Lama condemn the actions of those few people who are trying to freedom his homeland? "

Give me a break.

"You're right that the Tibetans once claimed full independence, but right now the Dalai Lama really is only asking for Hong Kong status. Considering the much looser ties Tibet has had to China at various points in the past that looks like a pretty good compromise."

The DL is a liar. Thanks for not addressing the lie that he "retired", like all his other lies. No matter what lies he spreads, his western adorers will believe every word of it.

And thanks for conceding that someone seeking "autonomy" doesn't go around meeting with foreign heads of state against the wishes of the central government they claim they're not separating from. They also don't claim to be a son of an enemy country that has territorial designs on his homeland.

Imagine if New England had a theocratic figurehead who was harbored in Canada and claimed to be a "son of Canada" while advocating Canadian territorial annexations along the border, while taking money from Canada's version of the CIA and openly supporting armed uprisings and brutal attacks in New England.

Oh I can only imagine Invictus supporting such things.

So... not addressing anything I said? OK.

Tibet has no right to a Hong Kong "deal". Hong Kong was built by the British and handed over after 100 years of foreign rule. Ditto Macao & Portugal. Tibet has always been ruled by China. China is not going to give into ethnic separatism and reinstall this theocratic pile of trash just because the CIA will instigate uprisings if they don't.

GFY, Invictus, you haven't responded to half of my points.

"Imagine if New England had a theocratic figurehead who was harbored in Canada and claimed to be a "son of Canada" while advocating Canadian territorial annexations along the border, while taking money from Canada's version of the CIA and openly supporting armed uprisings and brutal attacks in New England."

Well, it would make sense for him to say he's a son of Canada since he sees America as the occupier or whatever of his homeland. As for annexations, India has a pretty good claim to the lands it currently controls, not the least of which is that the people want to be Indian. India's not talking about annexing Lhasa, it's about keeping its Northeast.

The CIA point and uprisings I do say I would oppose that in the New England scenario. HOWEVER the CIA campaign ended decades ago and the uprisings and attacks, such as they are, only get support in the abstract and the Dalai Lama has consistently told people to not engage in violence, as far as I know at least.

But you're such a stooge for Chinese propaganda that none of this will get through to you. Everything in Putin33's mind is black and white, or perhaps red and white. Harhar.

Dalai Lama, it must be said, doesn't want just Tibet, he wants all of greater Tibet, which is ethnically very diverse, and not majority Tibetan. But it's ok for the DL to be a territorial expansionist, and openly call for the ethnic expulsion of non-Tibetans.

He also wants to go much farther than anything HK or Macao has (read the 2008 Memorandum). He demands that the PRC setting up offices for Tibet to have contacts with foreign states. He wants a complete Chinese withdrawal from all of greater Tibet.

the not addressing post was send because I obviously hadn't read the one right below it. Way to escalate it to a go fuck yourself, though.

Why wouldn't Tibetans have a right to more control over their government? I never said they had to return to theocratic rule, and it looks like the Dalai Lama doesn't want that either. Also saying China has "always" ruled Tibet is not quite right. It had a complicated history and came under Chinese suzerainty hundreds of years ago, but Tibet had an independent existence older than the Lamas. Saying Tibet is totally part of China historically is just as silly as saying it's historically independent. Getting a Hong Kong style autonomy would return the relationship to its traditional status, but that does not ipso facto mean a government re-instituting serfdom.

And lastly, believing that Tibetans could only possibly rebel against China at the instigation of the CIA says a lot about you. Why do you never think people can oppose a communist regime for legitimate reasons?

"He also wants to go much farther than anything HK or Macao has (read the 2008 Memorandum). He demands that the PRC setting up offices for Tibet to have contacts with foreign states. He wants a complete Chinese withdrawal from all of greater Tibet."

I haven't read it an will assume everything you say is right. But did you ever think the Tibetans are just asking for more in negotiations so they'll have something to give up and still be happy? That's a pretty standard strategy, and something a player of Diplomacy should understand.

"the Dalai Lama has consistently told people to not engage in violence, as far as I know at least."

Another lie. He did nothing in 2008, when Tibetans were butchering anybody who was ethnic Han in droves. But then again, everything is based on "as far as you know". The point is to spout American propaganda on everything related to China, and then claim that you don't see the issue in black & white terms. Bullshit.

"Well, it would make sense for him to say he's a son of Canada since he sees America as the occupier or whatever of his homeland."

First of all, you in one breath say he doesn't consider it an occupation and is a "compromiser" and in the next breath he does. Make up your mind. Second of all, so do Chicanos in the Southwest. So do Puerto Ricans. Both of which have a much better claim to independence than Tibet does. Last I checked you scoffed at their claims. But since it's China, you're all for these bs autonomy schemes which involve complete military withdrawal and setting up diplomatic relations with foreign governments. Independence in all but name.

"HOWEVER the CIA campaign ended decades ago"

Sure it did.

"I haven't read it an will assume everything you say is right."

You don't bother to read anything at all but make all these claims about what the DL has actually said and done, while calling me a puppet of the PRC. You're ridiculous. Read the 2008 Memorandum he put out, which says all of this.

Red and white. Good night, Usefulidiot33.

"That's a pretty standard strategy, and something a player of Diplomacy should understand."

A hilarious defense of the claim that your buddy is actually a compromiser who isn't scheming for independence. Yes we should all believe he is not pushing to split China not because of what he has done and what he has said and published over the last several decades, but because he's actually somehow more moderate than the image he's portraying himself to the rest of the world for bargaining purposes. All the while he is eager to portray himself to jittery western governments that he isn't seeking independence, he's actually being posturing as being more extreme in order to get more concessions from China!

"Red and white. Good night, Usefulidiot33."

Keep spouting off nonsense that you admit you haven't even read about all because it's about some needling some enemy state that you have always hated, CIAtus.

"I never said they had to return to theocratic rule, and it looks like the Dalai Lama doesn't want that either."

And naturally since he has such a reputation for telling the truth about everything else, and his Tibetan-government-in-exile has openly said that any government without the DL at its head is no government at all, those claims are believable.

"Why wouldn't Tibetans have a right to more control over their government? "

They have regional autonomy, which is better than anything US annexed territories have. They don't have a right to HK status for the reasons I already stated + the fact that they had this HK status you clamor for from 49-59 and it was just a springboard for insurrection & independence. That you don't find 700-800 years of continuous Chinese rule compelling is because you don't find anything the PRC does or says compelling. America has only had 150 years of continuous rule of Chicano lands and you think that's just fine. And before you went on this rant about the penultimate rulers to delegitimize Argentine claims to the Falklands. But now you want to go back to pre-Lamaist Tibet to get Tibet HK status. Brilliant.

" Getting a Hong Kong style autonomy would return the relationship to its traditional status, but that does not ipso facto mean a government re-instituting serfdom."

Except the DL doesn't want HK style autonomy. Autonomy, with complete military withdrawal and diplomatic offices = independence. You know that, which is why the only country you demand this scheme for is China.

"And lastly, believing that Tibetans could only possibly rebel against China at the instigation of the CIA says a lot about you. Why do you never think people can oppose a communist regime for legitimate reasons?"

Unfortunately for you there are multiple books written by CIA operatives themselves about their close ties with the Lamaist rebellion. But any rebellion against an 'enemy state' is glorified by you, no matter if the CIA held its hand. But if the KGB had done something like this, I can only imagine what you'd say.

'And really Ora, this isn't support?

"these people are trying to achieve the kind of independence which Palestinians or the Northern Irish want, and they hope to raise the issue with what must be the biggest message one person can make - their lives. Why would the Dalai Lama condemn the actions of those few people who are trying to freedom his homeland? "

Give me a break.'

no. Not a supporting statement. That is a descriptive statement. I was trying to explain why DL wouldn't condemn the actions. I was not claiming that I personally supporting him or the actions.

Do you have any factual issue with my description?

Also, is it posisble for the CIA to support an indigenous group and despite being propped up by the US that indigenous group still having rights?

It would be like saying that because the KGB supported native americans those people had no right to territorial claims in the US...

' Tibet has always been ruled by China.'

Factually incorrect. Try again please.

'Saying Tibet is totally part of China historically is just as silly as saying it's historically independent.'

And saying Northern Ireland was always part of the United Kingdom, it doesn't matter what the history was, if you ask me, because I believe in the right to self-determination (as per the UN charter)

Of course, in another sense, it doesn't matter what the UN charter states - the physical reality on the ground matters, and that depend on who has the most force.

and if no-one ever recognised Tibet, why did the sign a treaty with Britian in 1911? (see: the Simla Accord)

'That you don't find 700-800 years of continuous Chinese rule compelling is because you don't find anything the PRC does or says compelling.' - as an Irish man, i don't see why 700-800 years of anyone's rule would be compelling, British or Chinese... but then I guess you'll differ on this.

"no. Not a supporting statement. That is a descriptive statement. I was trying to explain why DL wouldn't condemn the actions. I was not claiming that I personally supporting him or the actions.
"

It wasn't a descriptive statement. It was a loaded statement full of loaded political terminology which was clearly sympathetic with the self-immolation scheme for terrorizing China into granting the Dalai Lama his fiefdom back.

"Do you have any factual issue with my description?"

Yes, that this case is in any way similar to Palestine or Northern Ireland. That the self-immolators are fighting for 'freedom' when they want to ethnically cleanse non-Tibetans from 1/4 of China, and that the DL shouldn't condemn those who are being manipulated by elder lamas into committing suicide for the glory of the DL and his theocracy.

"It would be like saying that because the KGB supported native americans those people had no right to territorial claims in the US..."

A better comparison is if the "Native Americans" had no sense of identity or desire for land claims prior to the KGB telling them that they should and do, and then giving them arms to pursue it. Tibet vociferously fought alongside China against the British invasions of the late 19th and early 20th century, there was no claim of independence then or centuries before.

But as usual, European observers, from on high, declare China to be bad and wrong in every case, and to hell with the 56 ethnic minorities living in one country, every ethnicity has to have its own state, with 6 million Tibetans having a right to a state that encompasses 1/4 of a country with 1.3 billion people.

"and if no-one ever recognised Tibet, why did the sign a treaty with Britian in 1911? (see: the Simla Accord)"

More separatist chicanery. First you use Simla (1914, btw), as an argument for why Tibet as part of China is a "colonial" scheme by the British to grant Tibet to China, since the Accord recognizes Tibet as part of China, and then next you use it as part of an argument to say that Tibet was recognized as independent because they signed it. Which is it? Or is it whatever is convenient for you at any given moment? In 1921 the British demanded that the Chinese sign the Simla or else Britain would treat Tibet as an independent country. Why would they make that demand if Tibet was already independent in 1914? Try again.

http://books.google.com/books?id=pdHYzFI20QgC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=simla+recognizes+china+suzerainty&source=bl&ots=Jr7_UNcpjj&sig=jRLmiFKC-lNabI2up63OkUmIaiM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Kd5vT9eIEej50gGNo4zbBg&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=simla%20recognizes%20china%20suzerainty&f=false

"Factually incorrect. Try again please."

Not really, for hundreds of years prior to the formal incorporation of Tibet into China during the Yuan Dynasty, Tibet & China were informally intertwined with a system of intermarriages. Tibet has always been a tributary state of China. It has never been considered independent.

"as an Irish man, i don't see why 700-800 years of anyone's rule would be compelling, British or Chinese... but then I guess you'll differ on this."

Because unlike the British, the Chinese did not come to rule Tibet with conquest & occupation but through a long tradition of intermarriages & tributary alliances over a period of time. Nobody in Tibet had a problem with this as evidence by the numerous occasions when Tibetans and Han fought side by side in war.

'and that the DL shouldn't condemn those who are being manipulated'

Have you talked to the manipulated? how do you know they are being so coerced into self-immolation. Also, I believe i said, nobody should expect the DL to condemn. Not that i think he should not. I can't even think of a comparison... of course he's not condemning activists who have his agenda at heart... what else would you expect from anyone with a political goal in mind???

'clearly sympathetic with the self-immolation' - sympathy for those who are driven by political reasons to kill themselves, but who in doing so refrain from killing anyone else, yes i think i'll have some of that. Even when i don't have the same sympathy for suicide bombers who believe they will be martyrs who enter heaven.

'Tibet vociferously fought alongside China against the British invasions of the late 19th and early 20th century, there was no claim of independence then or centuries before. '

Fighting against British invasion of Tibet, and the expansion of northern India really goes nowhere to show that they NOW prefer to identify as Chinese. Regardless, most people would fight to defend their homeland, whether they identified as subjects of China or independent Tibetans - your point is largely irrelevant.

'ore separatist chicanery. First you use Simla (1914, btw), as an argument for why Tibet as part of China is a "colonial" scheme by the British to grant Tibet to China, since the Accord recognizes Tibet as part of China, and then next you use it as part of an argument to say that Tibet was recognized as independent because they signed it. Which is it?'

'Convention Between Great Britain, China, and Tibet, [in] Simla' - China withdrew, but it is a fact that Britian negotiated with both parties separately.(China withdrew specifically because Tibet was invited)

Thus your assertion that no-one ever recognised Tibet as a separate independent country is false.

Secondly '1907 Anglo-Russian Convention.' - a completely separate convention between Russia and Britian - though this highligths the fact that 'international recognition' in the late 19th or early 20th century was based solely on the principle of national policy, not some underlying human right/moral imperative.(ie Britian within 10 years having two different policies regarding tibet) Thus i will safely disregard it as unimportant - though your claims are still demonstrated to be false, just unimportant and false.

I'm so glad you sourced a book which claims that in 1914 the Tibetan delegation claimed that previous relationship between the DLs and Chinese Emperors did not imply subordination to China.

I presume this is because the CIA went back in time and fostered a sense of nationlism in the Tibetan delegation. You are nothing if not consistent.

'through a long tradition of intermarriages & tributary alliances over a period of time.' - the Fitzgeralds were considered 'more Irish than the irish themselves'; from the very first Norman settlers in ireland there has been a tradition of intermarriage, which lead to this fact... later intermarriage was banned to prevent settlers 'going native' - similarly 'the flight of the earls' is a famous withdrawal of Irish lords (to Rome, in theory to gain support for a Catholic states) However the title 'Earl' is a British/English one not an Irish one, the fact that two leading Irish nobles accepted an English title and a re-granting of their own lands (in exchange for peace) somehow doesn't count in your mind as a tributary alliance...

I'm so glad you are able to make my point for me.

@Putin: @'"It would be like saying that because the KGB supported native americans those people had no right to territorial claims in the US..."

A better comparison is if the "Native Americans" had no sense of identity or desire for land claims prior to the KGB telling them that they should and do, and then giving them arms to pursue it. Tibet vociferously fought alongside China against the British invasions of the late 19th and early 20th century, there was no claim of independence then or centuries before. '

So wait, there was no interest in independence before the CIA invented it? Well apart from the book you linked... That is utter bollox aswell. You can't simply go into a foreign country and offer guns to some group which you then expect to use them against the government. Sure, you can encourage a revolution, but only if there are people already there who want a revolution but think it is impossible.

No matter what books you publish, or propaganda you produce, there has to be some root group of sympathizers there in the first place.

Meanwhile, their claim to autonomy is justified under international law, or fundamental human rights. Which is a far stronger moral claim that any international recognition or former European treaty/concession could imply.

So, what, Putin, you have nothing??