Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Buddhist fundamentalism/terrorism???

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Gubook Janggoon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired Global Moderator

Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2187
  Quote Gubook Janggoon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Buddhist fundamentalism/terrorism???
    Posted: 19-Feb-2006 at 03:37
I've heard of both Muslim and Buddhist terrorist groups destroying temples and what not in Southern Thailand, but that was through a school presentation and I can't vouch much for the validity of the statement.
Back to Top
Scytho-Sarmatian View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 290
  Quote Scytho-Sarmatian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2006 at 03:58
Originally posted by flyingzone

Originally posted by Scytho-Sarmatian

In Vietnam, there is a fundamentalist Buddhist group called Hoa Hao.  They have a tendency toward militancy.  That is to say, during the Vietnam War they had their own militia for self-defense.  However, they have no connection whatsoever with terrorism and they have a policy of tolerance and acceptance of other religions.  I have heard that you would not want to mess with them, though.

I am MOST impressed by how much (strange information) my fellow forumers know ...

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

 

It's not so much WHAT you know, it's WHO you know.

You can find out a lot of amazing things about peoples' histories that you probably wouldn't find anywhere else if you get to know people from various backgrounds.

Back to Top
Scytho-Sarmatian View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 290
  Quote Scytho-Sarmatian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2006 at 04:02

Originally posted by Gubook Janggoon

I've heard of both Muslim and Buddhist terrorist groups destroying temples and what not in Southern Thailand, but that was through a school presentation and I can't vouch much for the validity of the statement.

It would be a little misleading to describe the Buddhist groups in S. Thailand that you are mentioned as "terrorists."  They are actually local people provided with arms and training by the Thai army so that they can serve in self-defense militias.  Beyond that, I don't have much more information.  If anyone does, please provide it, so maybe we can get to the bottom of what is really going on over there.

Back to Top
jfmff View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 16-Nov-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 188
  Quote jfmff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2006 at 05:58
Leonidas:

The Dalai Lama is being pragmatic. The chinese will never give independence to Tibet and the UN will never suport such thing. However, authonomy is a completely diferent thing and would very likely have suport from the internatrional comunity.  If the Tibetans get the authonomy the Dalai Lama wants, they get most of the freedoms they want: religious and cultural freedoms (among others that I don't remember but which are the basic and fundamental freedoms that they want). Besides, from authonomy they can work towards independence. He is being pragmatic. There is a Portuguese saing that says something like "the good is enemy of the perfect". It aplies perfectly on this case: If you want a perfect solution you will end up with noting. If you try a good solution, at least you will acomplish important things, although not the ideal ones.
Regarding his leadership, if the Dalai Lama ever comes to rule Tibet he already said that he would make elections. Trying to change leadership now would be a huge mistake to the tibetan cause.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2006 at 06:09
If you want Buddhist Terrorism, look at Sri-Lanka.

In 1983 huge numbers of Tamils were massacared by Buddhists who being urged on and inflamed by the Buddhist Monks. As a result the Tamil revolt began.
Back to Top
flyingzone View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 11-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2630
  Quote flyingzone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2006 at 09:18

Originally posted by jfmff

Leonidas:

The Dalai Lama is being pragmatic. The chinese will never give independence to Tibet and the UN will never suport such thing. However, authonomy is a completely diferent thing and would very likely have suport from the internatrional comunity.  If the Tibetans get the authonomy the Dalai Lama wants, they get most of the freedoms they want: religious and cultural freedoms (among others that I don't remember but which are the basic and fundamental freedoms that they want). Besides, from authonomy they can work towards independence. He is being pragmatic. There is a Portuguese saing that says something like "the good is enemy of the perfect". It aplies perfectly on this case: If you want a perfect solution you will end up with noting. If you try a good solution, at least you will acomplish important things, although not the ideal ones.
Regarding his leadership, if the Dalai Lama ever comes to rule Tibet he already said that he would make elections. Trying to change leadership now would be a huge mistake to the tibetan cause.

Thank you jfmff. I couldn't have said it better myself. It seems Leonidas prefers some kind of armed conflicts or resistance organized by some more militant leaders. Do you think that would be good for the Tibetan people? Do you think in the end, the Tibetan people would gain MORE after a prolonged and bloody arm conflict? And what tactics could the Tibetans use? What options do they have? If you talk about conventional warfare, Tibet wouldn't stand a chance against the PLA. So are you talking about guerrilla warfare? Terrorism? Sabotages? But at what cost? For how long? And even if they DO gain their "independence" after a prolonged bloody conflict (which I doubt if it would happen), it would only tarnish the image of Tibet internationally. Have you also considered the will of the Tibetan people?

Again, the old saying, "Hasn't history taught us enough?"

The Dalai Lama may look like a simple-minded and naive man with its assertion for non-violence and peace, but I am sure he is a lot wiser than he appears to be.  Pragmatism is the word here. Just to quote jfmff again here:

"If you want a perfect solution you will end up with noting. If you try a good solution, at least you will acomplish important things, although not the ideal ones."

As for the separation of religion and state, there is probably no one here in the forum more adamant on it than me (actually I am sure there is ...). But listen, this is the reality of Tibet now. Imagine what confusion it would create if the Dalai Lama decided to "quit" as Tibet's leader now. And given how consistent his actions and his beliefs have always been, I believe he really means it when he says if he ever comes to power in Tibet, he would make elections. This guy has credibility, something that is rare to find in today's world leaders.

Back to Top
flyingzone View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 11-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2630
  Quote flyingzone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2006 at 09:20

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

If you want Buddhist Terrorism, look at Sri-Lanka.

In 1983 huge numbers of Tamils were massacared by Buddhists who being urged on and inflamed by the Buddhist Monks. As a result the Tamil revolt began.

Omar if you know more about the subject, could you explain more? When I was "researching" on Buddhist terrorism (using the internet only), I also got the impression that the Sri Lankan case may come closest to "Buddhist terrorism" (at least at the state-level).

Back to Top
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
  Quote Quetzalcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2006 at 20:29

 

This thread has been started out of ignorance, but at the same time the author of the initial post showed much ignorance. Buddhism has no dark side whatsoever, it is the ignorant minds that can hardly comprehend a sophiscated doctrines will spread lies and confusion about such matter.

To start with Buddhism is an esoteric religion, rooted in reality, claiming to be a Buddhist doesn't make one such. True buddhism is practiced only by the initiates or the monks and each of the monks learn according to his level of intelligence (and karma (let take that point out for the sceptics)). Zen buddhism is sort of heresy and a corruption of the real Buddhism as taught by the Conqueror, the Buddha. Zen buddhism has embraced many tools of buddhism like Meditations which will have many benefits even to vile individual like a cruel Samurai. With meditation a samurai will control his emotion and improve his memory and will be more efficient in the terrible act of destroying life. (note I'm not condemning the act myself (I'll be an hypocrite if I do), I'll just warn how offensive it is and tremendous effect it will have on one karma, killing is a foul practice, not even the lowest life form). Tibetan Buddhism has also been corrupted but a few initiates still pass  the proper tradition. Buddhism doesn't claim to be eternal and can become corrupt and extinct with time. (But the seeds of knowledge remains for ever in those who has done good and had come into contact with the dharma (the knowledge) and can be revived aeons after a system has been destroyed (sceptics and atheists should ignore this part) An ignorant man will deduce Buddhism claim one to be imortal, on the contrary no one or  part of entity is imortal) .

 

I'm not a buddhist, and neither I'm I an initiate but I'm well acquainted with the doctrines. But as the buddhist say, "ignorance is the first poison and knowledge (afflicted intelligence is infact ignorance despite the fact that it passes as knowledge among most layman) the cure to ignorance."

 

As for human skin, skull mumbo jumbo, a weak mind will not understand the meaning of it, but it simply symbolise the impermanent nature of man.

Violence is a big no in buddhism as I've hinted above, only a fool will embrace terrorist acts and claim he is a buddhist (he/she not only commiting an atrocious repulsive act but discrediting the dharma. Buddhism has absolutely no relationship with a religion like Islam but it has many similarities with Christianity, both preach about compassion but I consider christianity a religion while Buddhism isn't. Buddhism is like an experiment (trial and error with many paths some well established by predecessors some corrupted), a constant search for perfection inside and at time one must abandon doctrines learned to find new ways (acting like a pioneer of some sort or trying to revive lost knowledge).

In other word Buddhism is not for layman, it will only lead to confusion. And one need to have a rather high IQ to grasp a few of the sophiscated concepts.



Edited by Quetzalcoatl
Back to Top
flyingzone View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 11-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2630
  Quote flyingzone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2006 at 21:00
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

This thread has been started out of ignorance, but at the same time the author of the initial post showed much ignorance. Buddhism has no dark side whatsoever, it is the ignorant minds that can hardly comprehend a sophiscated doctrines will spread lies and confusion about such matter.

...

In other word Buddhism is not for layman, it will only lead to confusion. And one need to have a rather high IQ to grasp a few of the sophiscated concepts.

In making these statements in proclaming other people's ignorance and exalting your own intellectual sophistication and superiority, I think you are giving everyone here an excellent example of what Buddhist teaching preaches AGAINST. Thank you.

In a way, we all are ignorant, aren't we? And those who think they are not are actually the ones that Buddhist teaching sees the biggest fool of all.

Actually most forumers here, including the ignorat me, know that Buddhism is more a philosophy than a religion. However, it is always seen as a religious institution from a social scientific perspective.

Buddhism, just like every "philosophy" or religion, is not immune to misinterpretation. Muslims claim their religion is non-violent and peaceful and so do Christians and Jews. But look at the reality. Claiming that Buddhism can defy human misinterpretation and abuse exhibits an even more incomprehensible level of ignorance in regard to human nature. One may be excused for being ignorant about Buddhism which is, afterall, a very complex system of beliefs. Yet not understanding such a simple phenomenon in human nature is really mind-boggling, and shall we say, a sign of real ignorance?

Back to Top
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
  Quote Quetzalcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2006 at 21:36
Originally posted by flyingzone

In making these statements in proclaming other people's ignorance and exalting your own intellectual sophistication and superiority, I think you are giving everyone here an excellent example of what Buddhist teaching preaches AGAINST. Thank you.

When I read your reply, you immediately hit me as someone who is trying to mask his confusion behind bombastic words -- and confuse you really are.

To start with, ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of; one cannot know everything and is exposed to afflictive intelligence all the time. So ignorance is natural if one doesn't cultivate his mind, open his mind to the world and have the ability to discriminate between wrong and right.

Exalting my Intellectual sophistication and superiority? May I remiind you that we are in the intellectual discussion section, therefore, I'm in my right to correct a wrong or a misconception.  And before commenting about one's post in such pompous language and attitude please try at least to read and understand the post thoroughly; for I'm not a Buddhist (and i've made it clear above) and as such you are not to associate my thoughts with Buddhism but with matter being discussed.

In a way, we all are ignorant, aren't we? And those who think they are not are actually the ones that Buddhist teaching sees the biggest fool of all.

 

Actually most forumers here, including the ignorat me, know that Buddhism is more a philosophy than a religion. However, it is always seen as a religious institution from a social scientific perspective.

See my  reply above concerning ignorance.

Buddhism, just like every "philosophy" or religion, is not immune to misinterpretation. Muslims claim their religion is non-violent and peaceful and so do Christians and Jews. But look at the reality. Claiming that Buddhism can defy human misinterpretation and abuse exhibits an even more incomprehensible level of ignorance in regard to human nature. One may be excused for being ignorant about Buddhism which is, afterall, a very complex system of beliefs. Yet not understanding such a simple phenomenon in human nature is really mind-boggling, and shall we say, a sign of real ignorance?

 

I think you should try to read my post above again, infact, I've clearly metioned that buddhism is corruptible and can even become extinct. However, nowhere have I mentioned Buddhism as a philosophy; buddhism isn't a religion or a philosophy; it is a path and the dharma (knowledge) and dharmahood (Buddhists) provide guidance. Buddhist doctrines are adaptable and always changing. Doctrines can be rejected if an initiate finds it no longer suitable for his spiritual progress.



Edited by Quetzalcoatl
Back to Top
flyingzone View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 11-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2630
  Quote flyingzone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2006 at 23:12

You have every right to correct a misconception, and as you correctly pointed it out, that's the very purpose of us coming here for discussions. But Quetzalcoatl, before you even started pointing out where the misconceptions were, the entire first paragraph of your post was unnecessary put-downs on not the message itself, but the messanger. Was that really necessary? The only reason why I see you doing that was simply to make yourself look smarter and more enlightened than the persons whom you're going to talk with (e.g. calling someone whom you don't even know having a "weak mind" - what purpose does that serve except self-congratulating your own "superior" and "strong" mind?). Constructive comments and even criticisms are the basis of intellectual discussions, but bad attitude and intellectual snobbishness are not. I would have reacted entirely differently to your comments (some of which do make sense) if you had not put them in such a pompous and offensive manner. 

By the way, even though you THINK what you wrote makes good sense, for me I think a large part of it was confusing and deciphering it requires effort - you have inadvertently confounded the sociology of an issue with the spiritual teaching of a great school of thoughts in your haste to show off how much you "know".

My ignorance is as deplorable to you as your arrogance to me.

Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2006 at 01:07
Originally posted by flyingzone

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

If you want Buddhist Terrorism, look at Sri-Lanka.

In 1983 huge numbers of Tamils were massacared by Buddhists who being urged on and inflamed by the Buddhist Monks. As a result the Tamil revolt began.

Omar if you know more about the subject, could you explain more? When I was "researching" on Buddhist terrorism (using the internet only), I also got the impression that the Sri Lankan case may come closest to "Buddhist terrorism" (at least at the state-level).


Unfortunately I don't know any more. I learnt that off my Tamil Dentist, I've never heard the other side. I don't know very much about the beginnings of that conflict

EDIT: Tamils are Hindu

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

Buddhism has absolutely no relationship with a religion like Islam but it has many similarities with Christianity, both preach about compassion but I consider christianity a religion while Buddhism isn't.

Well, while your insulting others about being ignorant you may care to look at yourself. Buddhism has no relationship with Islam but is similar to Christianity? Thats illogical. Islam and Christianity are birds of a feather. If its similar to Christianity, you can bet its similar to Islam and vice versa.


Edited by Omar al Hashim
Back to Top
malizai_ View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan

Alcinous

Joined: 05-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2252
  Quote malizai_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2006 at 01:28

The answer lies in the fact that it has taken this long to even come up with a viable example.

Bhuddism is a state of mind rather than a box u tick under religion. The thai primeminister may call himself buddhist, but is he in practise?

Back to Top
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
  Quote Quetzalcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2006 at 03:54
Originally posted by flyingzone

You have every right to correct a misconception, and as you correctly pointed it out, that's the very purpose of us coming here for discussions. But Quetzalcoatl, before you even started pointing out where the misconceptions were, the entire first paragraph of your post was unnecessary put-downs on not the message itself, but the messanger. Was that really necessary? The only reason why I see you doing that was simply to make yourself look smarter and more enlightened than the persons whom you're going to talk with (e.g. calling someone whom you don't even know having a "weak mind" - what purpose does that serve except self-congratulating your own "superior" and "strong" mind?). Constructive comments and even criticisms are the basis of intellectual discussions, but bad attitude and intellectual snobbishness are not. I would have reacted entirely differently to your comments (some of which do make sense) if you had not put them in such a pompous and offensive manner. 

By the way, even though you THINK what you wrote makes good sense, for me I think a large part of it was confusing and deciphering it requires effort - you have inadvertently confounded the sociology of an issue with the spiritual teaching of a great school of thoughts in your haste to show off how much you "know".

My ignorance is as deplorable to you as your arrogance to me.

Oh please, it's not my fault if I'm straight talking type of guy.  I've defined what I mean by ignorance and never claimed I'm superior to anyone. Perhaps you are not weighing my seemingly blunt words adequately. I just going straight to the point not wasting time to sound polite. If I've offended you I apologize. You can of course disagree with me but please don't think it's personal. Words like ignorance and weak minds are not used as insults but as a state of mind that can afflict anyone.

It's just I'm intense in everything I do, my use of vocabulary reflects the intensity of my thoughts. But I'm not claiming superiority on anyone or never I'm saying I'm right and your are wrong full stop. If I say you are wrong, I mean I disagree with you but tomorrow I may find out you were actually right. So it is a debate and I'm exposing my thoughts with conviction; you don't necessary need to agree with me or feel offended if I disagree with you.

Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2006 at 04:33
flyingzone:
"It seems Leonidas prefers some kind of armed conflicts or resistance organized by some more militant leaders. Do you think that would be good for the Tibetan people?"
Yes, i do. With your line of logic i would still be an ottoman.

"So are you talking about guerrilla warfare? Terrorism? Sabotages? But at what cost?"
Yes guerrilla and sabatoge would be fine, works well up in those mountains. They just need to some money and some leaders, who should know the answers to all your questions. Do you put a price on freedom and dignity?

" For how long? "
as long as it takes

" it would only tarnish the image of Tibet internationally."
i dont think image should be one first and foremost piority. im sure people understand your fighting fascists.

"Imagine what confusion it would create if the Dalai Lama decided to "quit" as Tibet's leader now. And given how consistent his actions and his beliefs have always been, I believe he really means it when he says if he ever comes to power in Tibet, he would make elections. This guy has credibility, something that is rare to find in today's world leaders."
I didnt say quit his position or reliquish anything, the position of the dalia lama is the head monk of the yellow hats. Even he will agree with me.

There use to be kings and other political roles in tibet before and during the creation of his position, so there is no contradiction or lack of historical examples of what im saying. There is nothing confusing about a religious leader doing religious things and a more 'earthly' ruler doing earthly things. How can he or anyone argue that a religoius head should hold political power especailly if its absolute. That is a complete condradiction to his religious role and duties. His moral power is strong enough.

"The Dalai Lama may look like a simple-minded and naive man with its assertion for non-violence and peace, but I am sure he is a lot wiser than he appears to be.  Pragmatism is the word here."
I dont think he is stupid, he is very intelligent and yes maybe pragmatic. But in saying that or becuase he is a reeeaally nice guy doesnt qualify his ability to figure out what to do next , given he is completely restricted by a moral code. He can give the tibetans the greatest PR job but:
  • the west will never actaully back them or do so in any relaible way
  • the chinese will eventually kill off the tibetan culture/relgion/people
  • the chinese will intervene and influence his replacement
so i cannot see how there is a choice (or anything to lose) but to fight back. Time is a luxury in their situation, every year lost is a year you have to reverse.

Back to Top
flyingzone View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 11-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2630
  Quote flyingzone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2006 at 15:09
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

Oh please, it's not my fault if I'm straight talking type of guy.  I've defined what I mean by ignorance and never claimed I'm superior to anyone. Perhaps you are not weighing my seemingly blunt words adequately. I just going straight to the point not wasting time to sound polite. If I've offended you I apologize. You can of course disagree with me but please don't think it's personal. Words like ignorance and weak minds are not used as insults but as a state of mind that can afflict anyone.

It's just I'm intense in everything I do, my use of vocabulary reflects the intensity of my thoughts. But I'm not claiming superiority on anyone or never I'm saying I'm right and your are wrong full stop. If I say you are wrong, I mean I disagree with you but tomorrow I may find out you were actually right. So it is a debate and I'm exposing my thoughts with conviction; you don't necessary need to agree with me or feel offended if I disagree with you.

I need to apologize to you too as my initial reaction to your post also appeared to be blunt and harsh. Getting overly defensive is an unfortunate knee-jerk reaction that most of us have, and I am definitely not an exception to that. I should have taken more time to read your post and chew on it instead of reacting to the few words that I didn't like to see.

Obviously you're much more knowledgeable in Buddhism than me and a lot of us here, and please don't allow this brief confrontation to distract you from correcting my mistakes and sharing with us your insight. Actually this thread started off as a question, not a definitive statement, so in a way I was pleading ignorance on the topic and your observation was indeed correct.

 

Back to Top
jfmff View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 16-Nov-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 188
  Quote jfmff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2006 at 17:22
I agree with some points made by Quetzalcoatl and disagree with some. I will just mention one: buddhism in general is not iniciatic and esoteric. Tantric buddhism is iniciatic and esoteric. Theravada buddhism (Southern buddhism) is very down to earth and is not iniciatic. There are dozens of vipassana retreats for lay (as well as monastic) persons that go from one day retreats to few months retreats (which is a lot, believe me!).


Edited by jfmff
Back to Top
tubo View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 06-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 57
  Quote tubo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2006 at 22:21
there are better people well versed in buddhist doctrines than me but let me say that some of the tantric practises in tibetan budhism are symbolic.....the bones of the dead are meant to show the impermanance of life and so on.


ps:regarding dalai lama he is losing his name and respect among the tibetan youths.i pity the monkey communists when he dies as the tibetan youth  would be free to do what we want without him.how an we forget that he  betrayed thousands to khampas?
brave commies are only brave against unarmed monks...hehehehe...my uncle has lots of stories about these commies crying when getting shot in the head.
Back to Top
flyingzone View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 11-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2630
  Quote flyingzone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2006 at 22:40

Originally posted by tubo

ps:regarding dalai lama he is losing his name and respect among the tibetan youths.i pity the monkey communists when he dies as the tibetan youth  would be free to do what we want without him.how an we forget that he  betrayed thousands to khampas?
brave commies are only brave against unarmed monks...hehehehe...my uncle has lots of stories about these commies crying when getting shot in the head.

Tubo, I can understand many Tibetans' resentment against Communist China. But your language is clearly inappropriate here. You can make your point without making such derogatory remarks about people - any people, even those you dislike intensely. I don't see any humor and fun when you're describing people getting killed.

There have been too many insults, insensitivities, lack of civility, and rudeness going on here lately. Do you really want to turn every thread here into a senseless battleground for mutual hatred????

People, please try to restrain yourselves. Be sensitive all the time and be apologetic when it's timely.  

Back to Top
flyingzone View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 11-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2630
  Quote flyingzone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2006 at 22:56

Originally posted by Leonidas


so i cannot see how there is a choice (or anything to lose) but to fight back. Time is a luxury in their situation, every year lost is a year you have to reverse.

I know most people don't find the PRC very trustworthy. But you don't find the idea of "limited autonomy" of Tibet within China feasible at all?

Take Hongkong and Macau as examples. Even though the Chinese central government do attempt to intervene in their local politics since their return to Chinese rule, overall (in its crudest sense), China has still been able to restrain itself from OVER-intervening. Due to the greater difference in culture, maybe Tibet COULD enjoy an even higher degree of autonomy and self-determination??? I know China is not a federal country, but I can see Tibet being something like Quebec in the Canadian confederation.

I am pointing this out just as an alternative to a blood fight for independence.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.