Wow these guys are retarded

Wait, I thought the Party was supposed to be anti-colonialist. I guess that only applies when it doesn't conflict with their own power and colonialist exploits.
I guess that doesn't make them retarded, although I would argue that that term could apply in some other cases, but it certainly makes them blatantly hypocritical and lacking in any ideals besides the enhancement of their own power... an approach which probably isn't winning many hearts and minds out West.

Why don't they do something meaningful?

Well, at least they made and impression on YOU, t-co. And they provoked you into giving them more publicity.

Just curious, t_co, what could they do that would be more meaningful and effective for their cause? Was blowing up the rail an example you were saying?

Well, Ivan, is ineptitude the impression they want to make?

Seriously, t-co, your opening remarks smack of the contempt a typical fascist has for anything other than raw brutal power.

In the 1940s it was strategically almost impossible for the allies to bomb the railway to Auschwitz. Now imagine the SS sneering: "Nyah-nyah! We're murdering Jews and you can't do anything about it except complain! And we don't care! We don't have to care!"

"Might equals right." That, plus contempt for anything other than raw power, is typical of all fascists, from Hitler to the CCP, and typical of their sympathisers too.

(ETA: No I'm not saying China's current relationship to Tibet is equal to Nazi Germany's relationship to the Jews. The similarity I'm illustrating is, rather, the contempt of fascist and fascist sympathisers for the weak and powerless, and their fascination with power for its own sake.)

So what would be more meaningful, t_co?

More meaningful: A CCTV gala event featuring hundreds of Tibetans whose jobs were threatened if they didn't cooperate, all dancing around in "native" costume and singing, "Thank you for invading us!"

Not exactly, the railway has military significance because it allows China to transport troops and armament quickly and to project its military power toward it's South Asia neighbours. I am wondering whether China's neighbouring states such as India and Bhutan are saying anything about the railway. Anyone knows?

t_co

Have you heard of the word boycott?

I'm just saying the CCP government really won't care about any "boycott" or protests by the Tibetans. It hasn't really cared for the past 30 years.

Here's why a boycott would never make sense: every day, two trains leave. Each train carries between 120-400 passengers paying 3000 RMB each. Most of these passengers will be Chinese tourists from the mainland. Why would a boycott involving overseas tourists affect the operation of the train line then?

And I'm not being fascist. I'm being realist. There's a difference: a fascist glorifies atrocities; a realist anticipates, acknowledges, and proposes methods of dealing with them.

t_co, I guess i'm not gonna get your answer on how these protestors could have been more effective.
:(

t-co, evidently the robotics-cheerleaders at University of Chicago didn't teach you a bloody thing about History. Fascists don't "glorify atrocities." They make apologies for atrocities, and/or cover them up.

Himmler said, of the Holocaust, "this is a chapter in our history which must never be written", meaning, he and the SS knew it was shameful. The Holocaust was considered a "necessity", but the Nazis took no glory in it. Why the fuck do you think most of the outside world didn't know about it in detail for so long?

I repeat: Fascists (including the Communist variety) do not "glorify" atrocities. They lie about them or make apologies for them or rationalise them. Like you do.

Except I'm not apologizing for anything the PRC's done. I'm merely critiquing the idiocy of the Tibetan independence activists. Please, bring up one pro-CCP comment out of the three posts on this thread, Ivan. I dare you to try.

Anyhow, the protestors could be more effective if they just snuck into Tibet and bombed the railway. Or orchestrated a financial attack on Bombadier's stock price or something like that. But if their end goal is merely another round of condemnation of China, what will really change? I'm so sick of people thinking that outside condemnation will somehow end the oppression in Tibet. In fact, I think it probably exacerbates it by making the CCP think that more people care about Tibetan independence than there really are--consequently making the CCP pour even more resources into controlling and repressing the area. So why do these people do this? Don't bother, go back to waving your protest march so you can feel like you've done your bit for Tibet.

t_co, I'm sure that no one thought Tung Chee-Hua was going to be forced by popular opinion to drop his anti-freedom bill. But that is exactly what happened.

People who take your line of thinking are like those guys that stay at home during elections because "their vote doesn't count", when if they did actually vote they could change anything.

If Tibetans rolled over and said nothing, the CCP would be even less serious about talks over the region's future than it is now. Their whole plan is based on the idea that when the Dalai Lama dies, all Tibetans will suddenly love them. If they're shown that won't happen then they'll take negotiation seriously.

The CCP doesn't want Tibetans to love them. It only wants them to do nothing--which is precisely what the Tibetans are doing.

Once the Dalai Lama dies, all the CCP really has to do is encourage various factions within the Yellow and Black Hat sects of Buddhism to each nominate their own new Dalai Lama (seeing as how both Panchen Lamas are under Beijing's thumb, the Tibetans would naturally look to other sources for legitimate reincarnations.) Then, just sit back and watch as the Tibetan movement fractionalizes and crumbles.

Divide and conquer, in the words of Julius Caesar.

t-co,

I hestitate to bash you too much, because I sincerely believe that you have the potential to become a truly great man (both morally and in other ways.)

But when you talk shit, I gotta call you on it. For your own good and for your own instruction, so that you can become a truly great man, later.

(t-co, please don't look a gift-horse in the mouth. I like you and I have a lot of respect for you.)

So, you said: "...sit back and watch as the Tibetan movement fractionalises and crumbles."

Um, Dude. My friend. This is where your very limited education and limited experience fails you.

You don't know the difference between a "movement" and an ancient religious faith.

Tibetan Buddhists are not a "movement", anymore than the Roman Catholic Church is a "movement." Their beliefs, and their moral fortitude, run far deeper than that.

You have mentioned the dissension between the "yellow" and "black" sects of Tibetan Buddhism. Fine. A fair analogy might be, with how the Roman Catholic Church was divided between two competing Popes for most of the 1300s.

But the thing is: Even in the 1300s, BOTH of the competing Catholic Popes were Christians. Or at least they professed to be Christians. So, they were acceptable to whatever half of Christendom chose their side.

But the fucking Communist Party is the AVOWED ENEMY of ALL religions, including Buddhism.

And so, NO "Lama" appointed by any Communist Pigs, will EVER be accepted by ANY Tibetan Buddhists of any faction.

And if you don't understand how seriously MOST Humans take their religious creeds, then you don't know shit about History, or about the World, or about Human Nature.

Simply: Devout religious believers in ANY creed, cannot be bought off.
If it were possible to buy off religious believers with material rewards, then Christianity would have died in its cradle, and so would Islam, etc etc.

ETA: t-co, did you get a date with Maureen Dowd yet? If you do, will you please send her to me after you get tired of her? :wink: :twisted:

Well, that's a fair enough point, Ivan.

But the CCP doesn't need to make the Tibetans stop hating the CCP--it only needs to preoccupy them long enough with their own internal problems so that the CCP can solidify its hold on Tibet. And this railroad would make that much easier.

How could the CCP preoccupy them with their own internal problems? My intuition tells me that the MSS has quite a few double agents buried within the Yellow and Black Hat sects that are ready to muck it up as soon as the Dalai dies. Of course, my intuition also tells me that the CIA and MI6 also have agents, or at least sympathizers, in there (which isn't all that unlikely) so it would be interesting to see how things pan out.

But it's a losing battle for the Tibetans--all the CCP needs to do is keep them weak, and then divide them against each other (much as Suleyman divided Christendom between Francis I and Charles V.) The Tibetans have to unite very quickly behind a new Dalai Lama--which is very difficult considering the vast majority of them are stuck w/out communications in Tibet. During the months that it would take such information to percolate across to those nomads, China could quickly inundate the region with rumors of other Lamas being nominated as well. It could easily melt into chaos, with a backdrop of the steady clack-clack of passenger trains moving into Lhasa.

We all know what happened to the American indian movement after Tecumseh died in 1811. The same would happen with Tibet if the Dalai Lama kicks the bucket.

I'm so sick of people thinking that outside condemnation will somehow end the oppression in Tibet. In fact, I think it probably exacerbates it by making the CCP think that more people care about Tibetan independence than there really are--consequently making the CCP pour even more resources into controlling and repressing the area.

You don't think a terrorist attack on the railway would lead the CCP to pour even more resource into the oppression than it already does? And then the CCP would really put down the tibetans behind the flag of terrorism.

Exactly. A terrorist attack on the railway will give the CCP the best excuse to launch a large-scale crackdown in tibet. It will make it even more difficult for the exiled Dalai Lama to plead his case against CCP human rights violation among the international community.

So afterall, who do you thinks is more "ineptitude" - the protestors or t-co? I know how I'll cast my vote. :lol:

T-co, is your intuition tuned to Cinemax, HBO or Alias?

In case your dead or have been in Edmonton China has had a firm grip on Tibet for a few decades now and that ain't gonna change anytime soon.

My point exactly. Since a terrorist attack is out of the question, then how can you "reject the railway?" Especially if you were never planning on riding on it anyhow? Simply shouting "China, stop the train" is not going to effect any change besides giving the Tibetan Party Secretary a good laugh. It's just a bunch of useless, pointless gesturing. Furthermore, by only claiming that the train will bring in Han migrants and somehow this will "destroy" Tibet, they look like xenophobic idiots: why is voluntary migration bad? We have millions of Mexicans in America, Muslims in Europe... why are Han Chinese in Tibet necessarily bad? And don't say it's bad solely because China's claim to Tibet is illegit; the same could be said of Canadian migration to the Northwest Territory, which goes on each day. Why don't these protestors protest against their own government, where they could at least effect some change because of the democratic system already in place in their home countries? Why?

The point is, it would be much more useful for Tibetan activists to drop ther railway issue altogether, and focus on pragmatic, attainable actions, such as seriously uniting behind the Dalai Lama's "peaceful coexistence and suzerainty" option, which would allow for a solution before he dies and the Tibetan independenc movement fractures. Otherwise, their hand is divided, disorganized, and ineffective--and China will never seriously negotiate. Unless you want a violent end to Chinese rule in Tibet, then you HAVE to have Chinese consent for any change in the Tibetan status quo. And the only way to have Chinese consent is to present a clear, pragmatic negotiating position.

t_co, you seem to be doing a lot of handwaving but your position seems to be changing. You say have some meaningful action instead of protesting, such as attack the railway and then organizing and negotiating.

So you agree that bombing the railway is out of the question. What type of negotiation are you talking about? I don't know the details regrading Tibet, but if it's anything like the Taiwan's situation, where the commies are saying "say you're my bitch, and then anything is open to discussion, except the point that you're my bitch", then from their perspective that type of negotiation is no better than pleading to the international community.

By protesting at least people will know that there are those that oppose this train.

My attack the railway point was just a rhetorical device. I was using it to show how ludicrous any meaningful action would be--and also how ludicrous the current lack of action is. It's a catch-22 situation for the Tibetan activists that is only solvable by concerted, focused negotiations with China.

Even if the negotiations are denigrating, Tibet, sorry to say, doesn't have many options at the present. They've screamed for 30 years now, and no one with power really seems to care (until oil is discovered there... then watch and see heheheh.)

Troll post deleted. "Trinity" is the troll formerly known as "Hello", who posts from Alabama, who has been banned here many times. IP addresses do not lie.

No options, yes, and that's why all you got a little protests. That's why I was surprised you seemed to (at first) have better ideas for them.

Disagree with regards to the oil (though you probably meant it as a joke anyhow). If there is oil the the commies would be all over that place.

I think the smartest thing they've done is try to link with famous people to pull them into the cause. Maybe they could get Brad Pitt to believe that his kid's the next Dali Lama.

Well, I'm just saying that those little protests could be better replaced by concerted negotiations with China. Though denigrating, it's Tibet's only chance of survival. That's my better idea.

With regards to the oil, I was referring to Bush's sudden interest in Darfur as opposed to... oh, Chechnya, Tibet, Congo, Chad, Kurdistan, Baluchistan...

And naming Brad Pitt's kid the next Dalai Lama would be even more denigrating than negotiating with the CCP, because that would delegitimize their religion.

alabama troll joseph strikes again