Dalai Lama: China Has Created 'Hell on Earth' in Tibet

Fox ^ | 3/10/2009 | Fox

[Red in Blue PA]

DHARMSALA, India — Chinese rule in Tibet has created a "hell on earth" that has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Tibetans, the Dalai Lama said Tuesday in a speech to mark the 50th anniversary of the failed uprising that sent him into exile.

Speaking to thousands of supporters, the Tibetan spiritual leader said Chinese martial law, and hard-line policies such as the Cultural Revolution, had devastated the Himalayan region.

"These thrust Tibetans into such depths of suffering and hardship that they literally experienced hell on earth," he said in this Indian hill town, where he and the self-proclaimed government-in-exile have been based since shortly after fleeing their homeland. "The immediate result of these campaigns was the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Tibetans."

[Red in Blue PA]

One of the world's few remianing gulags, contrary to what the PRC may say.

I leave for Nepal in a few weeks and would love to head into Tibet. However, as long as the Chinese have control over it, I never will. This probably means I will never see it.

[Rennes Templar]

Sad the West never came to Tibet’s defense.

[Red in Blue PA]

If memory serves, the CIA dropped some arms behind Tibetan lines during the Chinese onslaught, but it was too little, too late.

Exhibit A in why self-defense and being prepared is so important.

[iopscusa]

What has the Dalai Lama done to help his country besides become some sort of popular personality mining the progressive western guilt for what end??? I said to a friend, who thinks the DL is a great man, what has he done but left his followers to face the Chicoms as a defenseless foe! And yet the idiots in the West lap up the DL’s stupid pacifism as something grand....fools & tools all!

[Red in Blue PA]

You may not agree with his tactics, but theses same tactics have worked int he past against others. (See Gandhi, MLK).

And read up on what he went through before dismissing him. He was in Tibet when many of the atrocities were committed and was only a boy yet had to act as a man.

For you to dismiss him so casually, to me, only shows ignorance of the entire situation, no offense intended.

[agere_contra]

Sad the West never came to Tibet’s defense.

But, but, think of all the powerfully-worded car stickers we've devoted to Tibet. We made a difference!

[jrg]

And yet the idiots in the West lap up the DL’s stupid pacifism as something grand....fools & tools all!

This answer shows someone who knows absolutely nothing about Buddhism and the reason why His Holiness would respond in this way.

Buddhism's main tenet is that one should not kill, even to the point of giving up one's own life in order to avoid killing another.
Sounds ridiculous to the western mind, but from an eastern point of view, considering impermanance, karma, and reincarnation, you will suffer much, much more harm by killing another.
The Chinese who are responsible for all of the evil in Tibet will have a huge karmic debt to pay (as will the radical Muslims), and will spend several kalpas in the hell realms as a result of their actions here.

[Jimmy Valentine's brother]

This from the guy who claims that communism is more humane than capitalism. What a hustler

[SouthDixie]

A resolution to the many problems in Tibet is yet to come, but people around the world are working together to help the people of Tibet. The biggest problem is that not many people are aware of the situation in Tibet. The location of this broken country leaves Tibet isolated from most of the world. The Chinese government also prohibits any Tibetans from fleeing the country. Aliens are also rarely allowed in or out of Tibet, and because of this we do not really see what goes on inside the borders of this country.

[GUNGAGALUNGA]

Well Lama....that is what you get for trying to stiff me when I was your looper.

[JimC214]

The only problem with using passive resistance, is that the Chinese have no problem killing any one. The Brits had a conscience when dealing with Gandhi. The Reds couldn't care less if they kill you during a protest.

[GOPJ]

Think how charming it’s going to be when China is the dominant force in the world.

[ArrogantBustard]

but theses same tactics have worked int he past against others. (See Gandhi, MLK).

Gandhi and MLK had the advantage of facing civilised opponents. Dalai Lama is opposing communist barbarians. His prospects for success are not as great.

[Little Ray]

Funny. The Yamabushi were Buddhist monks, and they had no problem chopping people up.
Likewise Tibetan Buddhism - the Tibetans had a martial tradition and gave the Chinese fits until they were finally crushed.
I can think of lots fun Buddhists groups who had no problems with violence.

[iopscusa]

R&B, I take no offense, but from you that would not be uncommon. MTW, what are the results of the tactics of MLK and Gandi that you allude to? I see an embittered and failed black society that has a crime rate that is many times that of other groupings of race with increasing militancy towards advancing Socialism, I see an India that swings from Socialism to Communism and has a stratified society with enormous poverty as well as a civil war islam. So what results are you describing as favorable?

[iopscusa]

Thanks for the followup. So the great Buddhist = peace and MLK = Justice is not only not TRUE but have the support of the neo-communist here on FR!

[Red in Blue PA]

If you ascribe all of the negatives of the black community to MLK, then I cannot help you.

[Red in Blue PA]

What you say is entirely correct, and why I would change tactics somewhat.

[Red in Blue PA]

Well said.

Many here on FR do not mind displaying their ignorance.

[Red in Blue PA]

“I can think of lots fun Buddhists groups who had no problems with violence.”

If what you say is true, why have 1.6 MILLION Tibetans been killed by the PRC?

[cmdjing]

Because they haven’t. The 1.X million Tibetans killed is a shibboleth of the Free Tibet movement.

[Little Ray]

‘Cause the CIA stopped providing arms and ammos, and essentially sold the Tibetan resistance down the river? ‘Cause the PLA can field a truly huge army? ‘Cause the PRC is not sensitive to casualties? ‘Cause they have no problems with deporting or wiping out entire villages to suppress guerilla activity?

Any of the above is probably sufficient and all of ‘em are true...

[Red in Blue PA]

If you believe that, then you probably also believe the moon landing was faked.

Numbers do not lie.

1.4 - 1.6 Million Tibetans have been killed by the PRC since their invasion.

[jrg]

I can think of lots fun Buddhists groups who had no problems with violence.

and there are lots of christians who have no problem with it eithsr.

[dfwgator]

Figures you’d show up on this thread.

[MyTwoCopperCoins]

Gandhi and MLK had the advantage of facing civilised opponents.

Did George Washington not get the memo? Gandhi knew exactly what he did, and it had nothing to do with any civility. The British involvement in World War II resulted in 2.5+ million Indian troops serving the British war efforts, in all theatres. The British wisely read what it would amount to, if British rule had continued in India. The only key they hoped to have was that the Indian state was more or less disunited at the time, and only Gandhi could bring them together. And he did.

Indian troops storming a German trench, after bombing it with hand-grenades. Circa 1945.

[ArrogantBustard]

An uncivilised opponent would have crushed (or attempted to crush) the Indian independence movement.

[Little Ray]

Nope we don’t. Some folks just need killin’.

[jrg]

some folks just need killin
and when they come for our 401k's, I think they are gonna get what they need. I'll take the karmic hit on that one

[MyTwoCopperCoins]

Anyone attempting to crush the movement would have had to contend with war-hardened, WW-2 troops, numbering in the millions. That was something the British understood they could not contend with for too long, and that is why they left India, whilst remaining in the other colonies.

[GoldwaterChick]

Save for later.

[Little Ray]

I’d think that would be a karmic plus, actually... Not that that counts for Christians.
Besides they’ve pretty much trashed my 401k anyways. Now I’m just hoping that it will come out ahead in the long run.

[Ditto]

Gandhi and MLK had the advantage of facing civilised opponents.

I'm not sure I would characterize guys like Bull Conner and his Klan buddies as civilized, but I'll agree that eventually civilized people did intervene after they saw what was going on.

For the Brits, I'd say they calculated correctly that the costs of holding on to India simply was not worth it.

[dfwgator]

Yeah, but at least right before they die, they’ll receive total consciousness, so at least they’ll have that going for them.

[ArrogantBustard]

I'd like to remind you both that we're comparing the the British and Amercian government (yes, even the likes of Bull Connor) with the Peoples' Republic of China. Does the phrase "Cultural Revolution" ring any bells with you? The Chicoms didn't hesitate to kill upwards of 50 Million Chinese who were considered "enemies of the State". You think they'd have hesitated to wipe out twice that many Indians or Negroes? Really? You think UK and USA are morally equivalent to PRC?

I sincerely hope not ...

[MyTwoCopperCoins]

I’m not saying that. What I said was that the British didn’t have an option to run a Mao on India, civilized or not.

[ArrogantBustard]

OK ... fair assessment. I maintain, however, that if the Brits had the morals of Mao, they’d have given it a go ... hence my claim that Gandhi had the advantage of a civilised opponent.

[AustinBill]

This would be the same Dalai Lama who last year proudly proclaimed that he was a "Marxist Monk"? (see this item for details)

[Ditto]

You think UK and USA are morally equivalent to PRC?

I never said any such thing. Read it again. But don't take the 'civilized' stuff too damn far either. The British did a number of good things for India but don't kid yourself. They could and did on occasion play pretty damn rough in India and elsewhere.

By 1947, the Brits were just too damn broke and war weary to hold on in India any longer. Gandhi was actually good for the Brits. He was able to keep the lid from blowing off the pressure cooker and that allowed the Brits to leave in an orderly fashion with their heads held high and with minimal bloodshed.

[Red in Blue PA]

You are aware that gulags still exist in Tibet?

Sounds like you are not.

[Ditto]

They exist in a lot of places besides Tibet, but what does that have to do with anything that I said?