Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Westerners: FREE TIBET!

Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 1:06:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I was having a conversation with a fellow American Born Chinese the other day and we touched upon the curiosity of how most Chinese are fairly ambivalent about the status of Tibetan sovereignty while it seems that Caucasians are stereotypically easily excitable and opinionated about that particular issue.

I wanted to spark a 2-part discussion.

First, do you think it is a fair statement that many Caucasians seem to be strangely vocal about something that is so far divided from what should be their own personal political interests? Or is this just a faulty stereotype on my part?

Secondly, is there any legitimacy to Tibetan independence? Personally, I have little to no knowledge over it. My parents are of Hong Kong descent and thus, have little knowledge of Communist China policy since Hong Kong was under British rule during my parents' childhood. The general consensus among my family members and my other Chinese peers is that Tibet has been considered part of China for centuries upon centuries and given a fair degree of autonomy, and that the issue of Tibetan independence only started to become an issue recently in the 1900s with the political involvement of western nations who have no legitimate basis in their assertions or "propaganda".

This Western propaganda, we believe, is targeted at chipping away at Chinese unity and is what lead to a break in Tibetan-Chinese relations. Attempts to quell uprisings and riots that stem from this Western propaganda are misinterpreted as human rights violations and used to further fuel Western Propaganda.

Again, I speak from ignorance and this just summarizes hearsay among my social groups. Let's discuss?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 1:59:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I have little knowledge of it, and really, can only see their independent sovergnty as justified under extreme cases. For one to support them obtaining sovergnty in non-extreme or even normal circumstances, would mean we'd have to accept Texas, or some other state being allowed to say "hey, we're ditching this nation." Last time someone tried that, we said "no."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 2:06:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Admission: 15 minutes ago I knew nothing about the Tibetan independence movement. I know know slightly more than that, and the little research I have done seems to support your social groups' analysis, with qualifications. The TIM (Tibetan Independence Movement) organisations I discovered tended to be located in Western countries. There's the free Tibet campaign http://www.freetibet.org... located in England, the International Tibet Independence Movement http://www.rangzen.com... located in Indiana and a bunch of others in other Western countries. The only Eastern movement I could find was the Tibetan Youth Congress http://en.wikipedia.org... composed of Tibetan exiles. There is also a bunch of western celebrities that support the Tibetan independence movement. However, the obvious reason this could be is because the Chinese government obviously cracks down on dissident elements relatively harshly and so pro-independence movements in Tibet are suppressed or under-reported.

The reason your friends might be ambivalent about Tibetan independence could simply be because they are not Tibetan. I don't know if any of them are, but I know people from England don't really care about the issue of Scottish independence, while Scots do tend to have an opinion on the matter.

As for whether the Tibetan independence movement has any legitimacy, I have no idea.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 3:12:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 1:06:14 PM, Kleptin wrote:
A "free Tibet" has become something of a cacamamie cause célèbre in the United States for a couple of reasons. For one, an interest in Buddhism (and Tibetan Buddhism in particular) is very much in vogue in the U.S. and the West, which translates into an idealization of Tibetan spirituality and culture and a sympathetic support for the Tibetan cause. Also, don't underestimate the Dalai Lama's charm factor, so to speak. He's probably personally responsible for the favorable feelings that a great many Westerners have regarding the Tibetan people's quest for independent nationhood. The reverence, love and pathos that the Dalai Lama engenders transfers directly to his countrymen. For another thing, the domination of Tibet by the People's Republic makes a nice communist bashing issue. Certainly the same focus and support is not given, for example, to the Palestinians or the East Timorese victims of Indonesian imperialism. Nope, because they aren't being deprived of human rights and life by villainous anti-American commies. Well, even though the era of Mao is passé in China; that is, even though China isn't really actively aspiring to be a communist society anymore, it's still the object of anti-communist attitudes in the U.S., at least on the conservative side of the political spectrum, and the Tibet issue is serviceable to those who wish to give vent to such attitudes, and to voice criticism of what's left of the "Red Menace" in Asia.

Well, these different factors comprise a perfect storm of pro-Tibetan, anti-Chinese public sentiment in this country related to an annexation of territory on China's border that is really not at all beyond the pale vis-à-vis the United States' violent theft of the South West from Mexico, or France's attempted colonization of Algeria, etc. In short, although the invasion and domination of a neighbor isn't very morally laudable behavior, it's the case that Americans selectively and hypocritically focus on China for somewhat subjective and illegitimate reasons. (And I didn't even touch on the xenophobic fear of Chinese economic expansionism, i.e. the foreboding concern that the Chinese industrial power house might soon pose a threat to America's economic hegemony, and how this might psychologically factor into the villainization of China's territorial expansionism in Tibet.)
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 3:19:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 3:12:47 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/24/2011 1:06:14 PM, Kleptin wrote:
A "free Tibet" has become something of a cacamamie cause célèbre in the United States for a couple of reasons. For one, an interest in Buddhism (and Tibetan Buddhism in particular) is very much in vogue in the U.S. and the West, which translates into an idealization of Tibetan spirituality and culture and a sympathetic support for the Tibetan cause. Also, don't underestimate the Dalai Lama's charm factor, so to speak. He's probably personally responsible for the favorable feelings that a great many Westerners have regarding the Tibetan people's quest for independent nationhood. The reverence, love and pathos that the Dalai Lama engenders transfers directly to his countrymen. For another thing, the domination of Tibet by the People's Republic makes a nice communist bashing issue. Certainly the same focus and support is not given, for example, to the Palestinians or the East Timorese victims of Indonesian imperialism. Nope, because they aren't being deprived of human rights and life by villainous anti-American commies. Well, even though the era of Mao is passé in China; that is, even though China isn't really actively aspiring to be a communist society anymore, it's still the object of anti-communist attitudes in the U.S., at least on the conservative side of the political spectrum, and the Tibet issue is serviceable to those who wish to give vent to such attitudes, and to voice criticism of what's left of the "Red Menace" in Asia.

Well, these different factors comprise a perfect storm of pro-Tibetan, anti-Chinese public sentiment in this country related to an annexation of territory on China's border that is really not at all beyond the pale vis-à-vis the United States' violent theft of the South West from Mexico, or France's attempted colonization of Algeria, etc. In short, although the invasion and domination of a neighbor isn't very morally laudable behavior, it's the case that Americans selectively and hypocritically focus on China for somewhat subjective and illegitimate reasons. (And I didn't even touch on the xenophobic fear of Chinese economic expansionism, i.e. the foreboding concern that the Chinese industrial power house might soon pose a threat to America's economic hegemony, and how this might psychologically factor into the villainization of China's territorial expansionism in Tibet.)

Wonderful adoxography there! Might I state that although many a sciolistic dilettante would consider this merely voluminous verbiage, I am inclined to be believe that your post is clear to a degree of brobdingagian exactitude.

Charles your post may be hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian, but in reality it hits some key points.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 3:33:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 3:19:05 PM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
At 10/24/2011 3:12:47 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/24/2011 1:06:14 PM, Kleptin wrote:
A "free Tibet" has become something of a cacamamie cause célèbre in the United States for a couple of reasons. For one, an interest in Buddhism (and Tibetan Buddhism in particular) is very much in vogue in the U.S. and the West, which translates into an idealization of Tibetan spirituality and culture and a sympathetic support for the Tibetan cause. Also, don't underestimate the Dalai Lama's charm factor, so to speak. He's probably personally responsible for the favorable feelings that a great many Westerners have regarding the Tibetan people's quest for independent nationhood. The reverence, love and pathos that the Dalai Lama engenders transfers directly to his countrymen. For another thing, the domination of Tibet by the People's Republic makes a nice communist bashing issue. Certainly the same focus and support is not given, for example, to the Palestinians or the East Timorese victims of Indonesian imperialism. Nope, because they aren't being deprived of human rights and life by villainous anti-American commies. Well, even though the era of Mao is passé in China; that is, even though China isn't really actively aspiring to be a communist society anymore, it's still the object of anti-communist attitudes in the U.S., at least on the conservative side of the political spectrum, and the Tibet issue is serviceable to those who wish to give vent to such attitudes, and to voice criticism of what's left of the "Red Menace" in Asia.

Well, these different factors comprise a perfect storm of pro-Tibetan, anti-Chinese public sentiment in this country related to an annexation of territory on China's border that is really not at all beyond the pale vis-à-vis the United States' violent theft of the South West from Mexico, or France's attempted colonization of Algeria, etc. In short, although the invasion and domination of a neighbor isn't very morally laudable behavior, it's the case that Americans selectively and hypocritically focus on China for somewhat subjective and illegitimate reasons. (And I didn't even touch on the xenophobic fear of Chinese economic expansionism, i.e. the foreboding concern that the Chinese industrial power house might soon pose a threat to America's economic hegemony, and how this might psychologically factor into the villainization of China's territorial expansionism in Tibet.)

Wonderful adoxography there! Might I state that although many a sciolistic dilettante would consider this merely voluminous verbiage, I am inclined to be believe that your post is clear to a degree of brobdingagian exactitude.

Charles your post may be hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian, but in reality it hits some key points.

Hmm, dear Logic_on_rails, you sound more like logic gone off the rails with your mockingly backhanded acknowledgment that I succeeded in articulately articulating some key points. (And, btw, your use of the word "adoxography" is inapt, unless you consider the political and moral questions related to the Tibet issue to be "trivial".)
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 3:45:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 3:33:10 PM, charleslb wrote:

Hmm, dear Logic_on_rails, you sound more like logic gone off the rails with your mockingly backhanded acknowledgment that I succeeded in articulately articulating some key points. (And, btw, your use of the word "adoxography" is inapt, unless you consider the political and moral questions related to the Tibet issue to be "trivial".)

Kafka was a genius and Shakespeare was a poet.

Rushdie, however, was a hifalutin blowhard.

Imo.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 4:07:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 3:45:03 PM, Ren wrote:

Kafka was a genius and Shakespeare was a poet.

Rushdie, however, was a hifalutin blowhard.

Imo.

Let's return to the topic of the thread, shall we. To that end let me resay that:

A "free Tibet" has become something of a cacamamie cause célèbre in the United States for a couple of reasons. For one, an interest in Buddhism (and Tibetan Buddhism in particular) is very much in vogue in the U.S. and the West, which translates into an idealization of Tibetan spirituality and culture and a sympathetic support for the Tibetan cause. Also, don't underestimate the Dalai Lama's charm factor, so to speak. He's probably personally responsible for the favorable feelings that a great many Westerners have regarding the Tibetan people's quest for independent nationhood. The reverence, love and pathos that the Dalai Lama engenders transfers directly to his countrymen. For another thing, the domination of Tibet by the People's Republic makes a nice communist bashing issue. Certainly the same focus and support is not given, for example, to the Palestinians or the East Timorese victims of Indonesian imperialism. Nope, because they aren't being deprived of human rights and life by villainous anti-American commies. Well, even though the era of Mao is passé in China; that is, even though China isn't really actively aspiring to be a communist society anymore, it's still the object of anti-communist attitudes in the U.S., at least on the conservative side of the political spectrum, and the Tibet issue is serviceable to those who wish to give vent to such attitudes, and to voice criticism of what's left of the "Red Menace" in Asia.

Well, these different factors comprise a perfect storm of pro-Tibetan, anti-Chinese public sentiment in this country related to an annexation of territory on China's border that is really not at all beyond the pale vis-à-vis the United States' violent theft of the South West from Mexico, or France's attempted colonization of Algeria, etc. In short, although the invasion and domination of a neighbor isn't very morally laudable behavior, it's the case that Americans selectively and hypocritically focus on China for somewhat subjective and illegitimate reasons. (And I didn't even touch on the xenophobic fear of Chinese economic expansionism, i.e. the foreboding concern that the Chinese industrial power house might soon pose a threat to America's economic hegemony, and how this might psychologically factor into the villainization of China's territorial expansionism in Tibet.)
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 4:21:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 3:33:10 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/24/2011 3:19:05 PM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
At 10/24/2011 3:12:47 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/24/2011 1:06:14 PM, Kleptin wrote:
A "free Tibet" has become something of a cacamamie cause célèbre in the United States for a couple of reasons. For one, an interest in Buddhism (and Tibetan Buddhism in particular) is very much in vogue in the U.S. and the West, which translates into an idealization of Tibetan spirituality and culture and a sympathetic support for the Tibetan cause. Also, don't underestimate the Dalai Lama's charm factor, so to speak. He's probably personally responsible for the favorable feelings that a great many Westerners have regarding the Tibetan people's quest for independent nationhood. The reverence, love and pathos that the Dalai Lama engenders transfers directly to his countrymen. For another thing, the domination of Tibet by the People's Republic makes a nice communist bashing issue. Certainly the same focus and support is not given, for example, to the Palestinians or the East Timorese victims of Indonesian imperialism. Nope, because they aren't being deprived of human rights and life by villainous anti-American commies. Well, even though the era of Mao is passé in China; that is, even though China isn't really actively aspiring to be a communist society anymore, it's still the object of anti-communist attitudes in the U.S., at least on the conservative side of the political spectrum, and the Tibet issue is serviceable to those who wish to give vent to such attitudes, and to voice criticism of what's left of the "Red Menace" in Asia.

Well, these different factors comprise a perfect storm of pro-Tibetan, anti-Chinese public sentiment in this country related to an annexation of territory on China's border that is really not at all beyond the pale vis-à-vis the United States' violent theft of the South West from Mexico, or France's attempted colonization of Algeria, etc. In short, although the invasion and domination of a neighbor isn't very morally laudable behavior, it's the case that Americans selectively and hypocritically focus on China for somewhat subjective and illegitimate reasons. (And I didn't even touch on the xenophobic fear of Chinese economic expansionism, i.e. the foreboding concern that the Chinese industrial power house might soon pose a threat to America's economic hegemony, and how this might psychologically factor into the villainization of China's territorial expansionism in Tibet.)

Wonderful adoxography there! Might I state that although many a sciolistic dilettante would consider this merely voluminous verbiage, I am inclined to be believe that your post is clear to a degree of brobdingagian exactitude.

Charles your post may be hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian, but in reality it hits some key points.

Hmm, dear Logic_on_rails, you sound more like logic gone off the rails with your mockingly backhanded acknowledgment that I succeeded in articulately articulating some key points. (And, btw, your use of the word "adoxography" is inapt, unless you consider the political and moral questions related to the Tibet issue to be "trivial".)

Sorry to be jumping off topic again, but "articulately articulating"? Really? Have you been playing Chrono Cross too much recently?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 4:48:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 3:33:10 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/24/2011 3:19:05 PM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
At 10/24/2011 3:12:47 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/24/2011 1:06:14 PM, Kleptin wrote:
A "free Tibet" has become something of a cacamamie cause célèbre in the United States for a couple of reasons. For one, an interest in Buddhism (and Tibetan Buddhism in particular) is very much in vogue in the U.S. and the West, which translates into an idealization of Tibetan spirituality and culture and a sympathetic support for the Tibetan cause. Also, don't underestimate the Dalai Lama's charm factor, so to speak. He's probably personally responsible for the favorable feelings that a great many Westerners have regarding the Tibetan people's quest for independent nationhood. The reverence, love and pathos that the Dalai Lama engenders transfers directly to his countrymen. For another thing, the domination of Tibet by the People's Republic makes a nice communist bashing issue. Certainly the same focus and support is not given, for example, to the Palestinians or the East Timorese victims of Indonesian imperialism. Nope, because they aren't being deprived of human rights and life by villainous anti-American commies. Well, even though the era of Mao is passé in China; that is, even though China isn't really actively aspiring to be a communist society anymore, it's still the object of anti-communist attitudes in the U.S., at least on the conservative side of the political spectrum, and the Tibet issue is serviceable to those who wish to give vent to such attitudes, and to voice criticism of what's left of the "Red Menace" in Asia.

Well, these different factors comprise a perfect storm of pro-Tibetan, anti-Chinese public sentiment in this country related to an annexation of territory on China's border that is really not at all beyond the pale vis-à-vis the United States' violent theft of the South West from Mexico, or France's attempted colonization of Algeria, etc. In short, although the invasion and domination of a neighbor isn't very morally laudable behavior, it's the case that Americans selectively and hypocritically focus on China for somewhat subjective and illegitimate reasons. (And I didn't even touch on the xenophobic fear of Chinese economic expansionism, i.e. the foreboding concern that the Chinese industrial power house might soon pose a threat to America's economic hegemony, and how this might psychologically factor into the villainization of China's territorial expansionism in Tibet.)

Wonderful adoxography there! Might I state that although many a sciolistic dilettante would consider this merely voluminous verbiage, I am inclined to be believe that your post is clear to a degree of brobdingagian exactitude.

Charles your post may be hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian, but in reality it hits some key points.

Hmm, dear Logic_on_rails, you sound more like logic gone off the rails with your mockingly backhanded acknowledgment that I succeeded in articulately articulating some key points. (And, btw, your use of the word "adoxography" is inapt, unless you consider the political and moral questions related to the Tibet issue to be "trivial".)

If you are going to be anti-Buddhist, get rid of your avatar.

Tibet is nothing like Palestine. Palestine was never independent. Tibet was.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
JuiceSqueeze
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 8:39:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
For another thing, the domination of Tibet by the People's Republic makes a nice communist bashing issue. Certainly the same focus and support is not given, for example, to the Palestinians or the East Timorese victims of Indonesian imperialism. Nope, because they aren't being deprived of human rights and life by villainous anti-American commies.


That's bogus. US donates billions annually to the UNRWA and Palestinian Authority. US gives squat to Tibet.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 2:16:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 4:21:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

Sorry to be jumping off topic again, but "articulately articulating"? Really? Have you been playing Chrono Cross too much recently?

Revisit the context, I was mocking the self-contradictory mockery of Logic_on_rails.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 2:53:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 4:48:42 PM, DanT wrote:

If you are going to be anti-Buddhist, get rid of your avatar.

Because I'm capable of apprehending how the involvement of some Free-Tibet folks in Buddhism, and the appeal of the Dalai Lama, contributes to their position on the issue of Tibetan independence I'm therefore anti-Buddhist? I in fact said nothing whatsoever derogatory of Buddhism; and in point of another fact I share many of the spiritual views and values that comprise the Buddhist worldview. However, this doesn't mean that I can't or won't think critically about the way some people's Buddhist affiliations might influence and bias their perspective on Tibet.

And, btw, calling me anti-Buddhist for not being a booster of the Tibetan cause is along the lines of the same tack that supporters of Israel take when they insinuate that anyone who's pro-Palestinian is anti-Jewish. In other words, it's along the lines of playing the race card and is tantamount to making the charge that you're a racist Sinophobe for being sympathetic to the plight of Tibet. This is an allegation that I won't actually attempt to lodge against you, but you see how unfair it would feel if I did. Let's both try to take a higher road, shall we.

Tibet is nothing like Palestine. Palestine was never independent. Tibet was.

This sounds like the hackneyed line that Palestine was never a nation, that there was no Palestinian people, blah, blah, blah. Why, you might ask yourself, must you validate the Tibetan cause with a statement that seeks to invalidate the Palestinian struggle? Doesn't this perhaps indicate the selectiveness of your sympathies regarding the causes of dispossessed peoples, and your attempt to rationalize it?

And why, btw, are your sympathies selective in the way that they are? Could it perhaps be that you and a great many others have been instilled by American culture and media with pro-Israel and anti-China sentiments? Could it be, then, that your sympathies aren't even authentic, aren't authentically your own, i.e. that they're just the product of socio-cultural conditioning? Perhaps you might wish to reflect on this possibility, and reflect further and more critically on the issue of Tibet, and seek to formulate your own opinions, rather than merely imbibing those of your society.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 3:32:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 8:39:55 PM, JuiceSqueeze wrote:
For another thing, the domination of Tibet by the People's Republic makes a nice communist bashing issue. Certainly the same focus and support is not given, for example, to the Palestinians or the East Timorese victims of Indonesian imperialism. Nope, because they aren't being deprived of human rights and life by villainous anti-American commies.


That's bogus. US donates billions annually to the UNRWA and Palestinian Authority. US gives squat to Tibet.

"Billions" with a B, surely this is a typo, or else I really must say lol! (The U.S.'s contribution is in the millions, but certainly not billions) Well, I'll say lol! anyway. The UNRWA and U.S. aid to the Palestinians is in truth designed to keep them stuck in the cycle of being dispossessed and disenfranchised refugees. Nope, no authentic altruism there. Certainly the United States political and foreign policy establishment has been no great and benevolent friend to the Palestinian people, having chosen to be staunchly supportive of its client, the state of Israel.

As for your assertion that the U.S. "gives squat to Tibet", that's rubbish. I quote from an article on the International Campaign for Tibet's web site, titled US Congress advances legislation to fund programs to help Tibetans inside Tibet and in exile:

"In a strong assertion of support for Tibet, the US Congress has advanced legislation that provides millions of dollars for Tibet programs. The funding is provided in the State-Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2010. The House of Representatives passed it version of the bill on July 9 by a vote on 318-106; the Senate Appropriations Committee approved its version on the same day.

'These bills highlight the United States Congress' belief that the Tibetan culture and identity continues to face challenges on the Tibetan plateau and its appreciation of the effort being made by Tibetans in exile to preserve them,' said Todd Stein, Director of Government Relations at the International Campaign for Tibet. 'Congress also offers a new investment in helping Tibetan refugees sustain their unique identity by revitalizing half century-old settlements in South Asia.' ..."

This is hardly "squat", and it's hardly the only economic assistance that Tibetans are receiving from the West.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 3:42:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 2:53:10 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/24/2011 4:48:42 PM, DanT wrote:

If you are going to be anti-Buddhist, get rid of your avatar.

Because I'm capable of apprehending how the involvement of some Free-Tibet folks in Buddhism, and the appeal of the Dalai Lama, contributes to their position on the issue of Tibetan independence I'm therefore anti-Buddhist? I in fact said nothing whatsoever derogatory of Buddhism; and in point of another fact I share many of the spiritual views and values that comprise the Buddhist worldview. However, this doesn't mean that I can't or won't think critically about the way some people's Buddhist affiliations might influence and bias their perspective on Tibet.


No because you are belittling a Good cause, and painting Buddhists as agitators.

And, btw, calling me anti-Buddhist for not being a booster of the Tibetan cause is along the lines of the same tack that supporters of Israel take when they insinuate that anyone who's pro-Palestinian is anti-Jewish. In other words, it's along the lines of playing the race card and is tantamount to making the charge that you're a racist Sinophobe for being sympathetic to the plight of Tibet. This is an allegation that I won't actually attempt to lodge against you, but you see how unfair it would feel if I did. Let's both try to take a higher road, shall we.


You are the one bringing religion into the mix.


Tibet is nothing like Palestine. Palestine was never independent. Tibet was.

This sounds like the hackneyed line that Palestine was never a nation, that there was no Palestinian people, blah, blah, blah. Why, you might ask yourself, must you validate the Tibetan cause with a statement that seeks to invalidate the Palestinian struggle? Doesn't this perhaps indicate the selectiveness of your sympathies regarding the causes of dispossessed peoples, and your attempt to rationalize it?


No it indicates that the two are not the same.

From 1516 to 1918 Palestine was a territory of the Ottoman Empire known as Ottoman Syria
From 1918 to 1920 Palestine was a territory of the League of Nations
From 1920 to 1948 Palestine was a territory of the British known as the British Mandate for Palestine
In 1948 Israel was established.
In 1988 Palestine declared themselves Independent fro Israel.
In 1994 The Palestinian National Authority was established

The last time Palestine was a Nation was in 1517 under the Mamluk Sultanate

The Ganden Phodrang government controlled Tibet from 1642 until the 1950s.
Tibet was last independent in 1951, after gaining dependence in 1912 from the Qing Dynasty.

Under the Ganden Phodrang the Dalai Lamas and the Kashag was in charge of the Tibetan Government.

And why, btw, are your sympathies selective in the way that they are? Could it perhaps be that you and a great many others have been instilled by American culture and media with pro-Israel and anti-China sentiments? Could it be, then, that your sympathies aren't even authentic, aren't authentically your own, i.e. that they're just the product of socio-cultural conditioning? Perhaps you might wish to reflect on this possibility, and reflect further and more critically on the issue of Tibet, and seek to formulate your own opinions, rather than merely imbibing those of your society.

I am not one to hop on the band wagon. I have my own mind. I am able to rationalize.

You on the other hand are a socialist defending china, typical.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 4:13:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 3:42:15 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/25/2011 2:53:10 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/24/2011 4:48:42 PM, DanT wrote:

If you are going to be anti-Buddhist, get rid of your avatar.

Because I'm capable of apprehending how the involvement of some Free-Tibet folks in Buddhism, and the appeal of the Dalai Lama, contributes to their position on the issue of Tibetan independence I'm therefore anti-Buddhist? I in fact said nothing whatsoever derogatory of Buddhism; and in point of another fact I share many of the spiritual views and values that comprise the Buddhist worldview. However, this doesn't mean that I can't or won't think critically about the way some people's Buddhist affiliations might influence and bias their perspective on Tibet.


No because you are belittling a Good cause, and painting Buddhists as agitators.

So thinking critically about a "good cause" is to be dismissed and disallowed as "belittling" it? I see.

And, btw, calling me anti-Buddhist for not being a booster of the Tibetan cause is along the lines of the same tack that supporters of Israel take when they insinuate that anyone who's pro-Palestinian is anti-Jewish. In other words, it's along the lines of playing the race card and is tantamount to making the charge that you're a racist Sinophobe for being sympathetic to the plight of Tibet. This is an allegation that I won't actually attempt to lodge against you, but you see how unfair it would feel if I did. Let's both try to take a higher road, shall we.


You are the one bringing religion into the mix.

In a relevant explanatory way. And note that I suggested that the current vogue for Buddhism in the West might be biasing some in favor of Tibet, I never said that it turned people anti-Chinese, the way that you accused me of being anti-Buddhist (little do you know how far from the truth that is, btw).


Tibet is nothing like Palestine. Palestine was never independent. Tibet was.

This sounds like the hackneyed line that Palestine was never a nation, that there was no Palestinian people, blah, blah, blah. Why, you might ask yourself, must you validate the Tibetan cause with a statement that seeks to invalidate the Palestinian struggle? Doesn't this perhaps indicate the selectiveness of your sympathies regarding the causes of dispossessed peoples, and your attempt to rationalize it?


No it indicates that the two are not the same.

From 1516 to 1918 Palestine was a territory of the Ottoman Empire known as Ottoman Syria
From 1918 to 1920 Palestine was a territory of the League of Nations
From 1920 to 1948 Palestine was a territory of the British known as the British Mandate for Palestine
In 1948 Israel was established.
In 1988 Palestine declared themselves Independent fro Israel.
In 1994 The Palestinian National Authority was established

The last time Palestine was a Nation was in 1517 under the Mamluk Sultanate

Again I say blah, blah, blah. You're just regurgitating the historical dates & factoids that the deniers of Palestinian peoplehood, so to speak, trot out to dissemble the simple and real fact that there is a Palestinian people, and that they've been and continue to be victimized by the state of Israel.


The Ganden Phodrang government controlled Tibet from 1642 until the 1950s.
Tibet was last independent in 1951, after gaining dependence in 1912 from the Qing Dynasty.

Under the Ganden Phodrang the Dalai Lamas and the Kashag was in charge of the Tibetan Government.



And why, btw, are your sympathies selective in the way that they are? Could it perhaps be that you and a great many others have been instilled by American culture and media with pro-Israel and anti-China sentiments? Could it be, then, that your sympathies aren't even authentic, aren't authentically your own, i.e. that they're just the product of socio-cultural conditioning? Perhaps you might wish to reflect on this possibility, and reflect further and more critically on the issue of Tibet, and seek to formulate your own opinions, rather than merely imbibing those of your society.

Oh my, you persist in trying to validate the Tibetan liberation movement at the expense of denying validity to Palestinian aspirations toward nationhood by contrasting historical dates & factoids! (Btw, it's not actually as cut and dried as you would have it that Tibet was an independent land, i.e. that it was immune from its "independence" being severely compromised by regional realpolitik long before the 1950 invasion. Tibet's history, and its historical relations with China are far more complex than you seem to appreciate.)

I am not one to hop on the band wagon. I have my own mind. I am able to rationalize.

Yes, you certainly can and do rationalize.

You on the other hand are a socialist defending china, typical.

Dismissive ad hominem observation.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 4:36:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 4:13:14 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/25/2011 3:42:15 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/25/2011 2:53:10 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/24/2011 4:48:42 PM, DanT wrote:

If you are going to be anti-Buddhist, get rid of your avatar.

Because I'm capable of apprehending how the involvement of some Free-Tibet folks in Buddhism, and the appeal of the Dalai Lama, contributes to their position on the issue of Tibetan independence I'm therefore anti-Buddhist? I in fact said nothing whatsoever derogatory of Buddhism; and in point of another fact I share many of the spiritual views and values that comprise the Buddhist worldview. However, this doesn't mean that I can't or won't think critically about the way some people's Buddhist affiliations might influence and bias their perspective on Tibet.


No because you are belittling a Good cause, and painting Buddhists as agitators.

So thinking critically about a "good cause" is to be dismissed and disallowed as "belittling" it? I see.

You are not thinking critically, you are generalizing. Every party you mentioned, you generalized.


And, btw, calling me anti-Buddhist for not being a booster of the Tibetan cause is along the lines of the same tack that supporters of Israel take when they insinuate that anyone who's pro-Palestinian is anti-Jewish. In other words, it's along the lines of playing the race card and is tantamount to making the charge that you're a racist Sinophobe for being sympathetic to the plight of Tibet. This is an allegation that I won't actually attempt to lodge against you, but you see how unfair it would feel if I did. Let's both try to take a higher road, shall we.


You are the one bringing religion into the mix.

In a relevant explanatory way. And note that I suggested that the current vogue for Buddhism in the West might be biasing some in favor of Tibet.

A.) That fad went out the window years ago.
B.) Most people in the US even know what Buddhism is

I never said that it turned people anti-Chinese, the way that you accused me of being anti-Buddhist (little do you know how far from the truth that is, btw).

Well why don't you explain your sentiments towards Buddhism. Do you even know what Buddhism is about?



Tibet is nothing like Palestine. Palestine was never independent. Tibet was.

This sounds like the hackneyed line that Palestine was never a nation, that there was no Palestinian people, blah, blah, blah. Why, you might ask yourself, must you validate the Tibetan cause with a statement that seeks to invalidate the Palestinian struggle? Doesn't this perhaps indicate the selectiveness of your sympathies regarding the causes of dispossessed peoples, and your attempt to rationalize it?


No it indicates that the two are not the same.

From 1516 to 1918 Palestine was a territory of the Ottoman Empire known as Ottoman Syria
From 1918 to 1920 Palestine was a territory of the League of Nations
From 1920 to 1948 Palestine was a territory of the British known as the British Mandate for Palestine
In 1948 Israel was established.
In 1988 Palestine declared themselves Independent fro Israel.
In 1994 The Palestinian National Authority was established

The last time Palestine was a Nation was in 1517 under the Mamluk Sultanate

Again I say blah, blah, blah. You're just regurgitating the historical dates & factoids that the deniers of Palestinian peoplehood, so to speak, trot out to dissemble the simple and real fact that there is a Palestinian people, and that they've been and continue to be victimized by the state of Israel.


And you just regurgitating the typical liberal BS, which has no basis in reality.


The Ganden Phodrang government controlled Tibet from 1642 until the 1950s.
Tibet was last independent in 1951, after gaining dependence in 1912 from the Qing Dynasty.

Under the Ganden Phodrang the Dalai Lamas and the Kashag was in charge of the Tibetan Government.



And why, btw, are your sympathies selective in the way that they are? Could it perhaps be that you and a great many others have been instilled by American culture and media with pro-Israel and anti-China sentiments? Could it be, then, that your sympathies aren't even authentic, aren't authentically your own, i.e. that they're just the product of socio-cultural conditioning? Perhaps you might wish to reflect on this possibility, and reflect further and more critically on the issue of Tibet, and seek to formulate your own opinions, rather than merely imbibing those of your society.

Oh my, you persist in trying to validate the Tibetan liberation movement at the expense of denying validity to Palestinian aspirations toward nationhood by contrasting historical dates & factoids! (Btw, it's not actually as cut and dried as you would have it that Tibet was an independent land, i.e. that it was immune from its "independence" being severely compromised by regional realpolitik long before the 1950 invasion. Tibet's history, and its historical relations with China are far more complex than you seem to appreciate.)

Well the People's Republic of China has just as much right to Tibet as the Republic of China has to the People's Republic o China.

You are a typical liberal perverting words, and names. The People republic of China is not the same as the Chinese Empire. The only thing they have in common is name, which they share with the Republic of China.



I am not one to hop on the band wagon. I have my own mind. I am able to rationalize.

Yes, you certainly can and do rationalize.


You on the other hand are a socialist defending china, typical.

Dismissive ad hominem observation.

like you have been of just about everything we have just discussed?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 5:44:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Dear DanT, it's somehow no surprise to see that you're a "libertarian".
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 6:39:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 5:44:12 PM, charleslb wrote:
Dear DanT, it's somehow no surprise to see that you're a "libertarian".

Meaning?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
JuiceSqueeze
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 8:48:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
sad this thread has been hijacked into anti-israel bashing, but anyways:

"Billions" with a B, surely this is a typo, or else I really must say lol! (The U.S.'s contribution is in the millions, but certainly not billions) Well, I'll say lol! anyway. The UNRWA and U.S. aid to the Palestinians is in truth designed to keep them stuck in the cycle of being dispossessed and disenfranchised refugees. Nope, no authentic altruism there. Certainly the United States political and foreign policy establishment has been no great and benevolent friend to the Palestinian people, having chosen to be staunchly supportive of its client, the state of Israel.


US contribution to the Palestinians has amounted to several billion dollars over the last few years. US donates about 300 annually to the UNRWA, but this is in addition to the 500-600 million provided every year in bilateral aid (mixture of security and economic aid.

source: http://www.fas.org...

This compliments the 1.2 billion given annually by the European states:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org...

Palestinians overall have received at least 7 billion in aid since the beginning of 2008, and that is simply the money that can be tracked. Hamas managed a 500 million operating budget without taxation, that obviously came from Iran.

I find it hilarious how people bleed their hearts out of Palestinians when the Palestinians have used US tax dollars to enrich their leaders with lavish gifts and salaries while squandering the rest of the money on anti-Israel activity rather than seeking normalized relations with the Arabs and Israel.

Palestinians receive more aid than Sudan, Somalia, and Congo combined. Their leaders are richer than the queen of England. They get more news and drama than Tibet could dream of.

Palestinians are a bunch of f***king whiney @ss babies who don't deserve one penny of foreign aid. Tibet is being suffocated by China yet all we hear in the UN is Palestine this, Palestine that. Let them rot, they don't support the US. They print racist pictures of Obama in their newspapers. They condemn the US for killing Osama Bin Laden. They kill American citizens and brainwash their children with antisemitic garbage.

How can anyone sympathize with these people? Tibet deserves the world's sympathy but unfortunately they don't fight the Jews so no one will hear them out.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 12:26:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 8:48:58 PM, JuiceSqueeze wrote:
Palestinians are a bunch of f***king whiney @ss babies who don't deserve one penny of foreign aid. ...
How can anyone sympathize with these people? Tibet deserves the world's sympathy but unfortunately they don't fight the Jews so no one will hear them out.

I dare you to travel to Israel, disguise yourself as a Palestinian, experience first hand what it's like to be a victim of the brand of repression and state terrorism that Israel routinely and systematically visits on the Palestinians, and then tell me if it's fair to facilely reduce criticism of Israel and support for the Palestinian cause to anti-Semitism. But then I somehow doubt that you have the moral courage to test your pro-Israel convictions by doing such a thing.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
JuiceSqueeze
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 12:56:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I dare you to travel to Israel, disguise yourself as a Palestinian, experience first hand what it's like to be a victim of the brand of repression and state terrorism that Israel routinely and systematically visits on the Palestinians, and then tell me if it's fair to facilely reduce criticism of Israel and support for the Palestinian cause to anti-Semitism. But then I somehow doubt that you have the moral courage to test your pro-Israel convictions by doing such a thing.


I've been to Israel and I can tell you there is nothing "repressive" between Jews and Arabs, mostly because they live in different cities - except for Haifa which is mixed. Jesus, how cliched can your post be? Palestinian leaders are grossly antisemitic, notoriously violent, and behave like gangsters.

Even you can't defend it. Nobody defends the Palestinians. You just revert to how horrible Israel is.

But of course say nothing about Arab policies towards Palestinians, like in Lebanon and Egypt.

http://www.time.com...

http://www.fmreview.org...

let me know when you can actually response to my comments.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 2:45:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 12:56:22 AM, JuiceSqueeze wrote:
I dare you to travel to Israel, disguise yourself as a Palestinian, experience first hand what it's like to be a victim of the brand of repression and state terrorism that Israel routinely and systematically visits on the Palestinians, and then tell me if it's fair to facilely reduce criticism of Israel and support for the Palestinian cause to anti-Semitism. But then I somehow doubt that you have the moral courage to test your pro-Israel convictions by doing such a thing.


I've been to Israel and I can tell you there is nothing "repressive" between Jews and Arabs, mostly because they live in different cities - except for Haifa which is mixed. Jesus, how cliched can your post be? Palestinian leaders are grossly antisemitic, notoriously violent, and behave like gangsters.

Even you can't defend it. Nobody defends the Palestinians. You just revert to how horrible Israel is.

But of course say nothing about Arab policies towards Palestinians, like in Lebanon and Egypt.

http://www.time.com...

http://www.fmreview.org...

let me know when you can actually response to my comments.

This is rather like saying that because the Native Americans didn't behave like Gandhian saints toward the Europeans who invaded their lands, because they frequently engaged in hostile behavior that today would be termed terrorism, and because individual tribal leaders may sometimes have had self-serving motives behind their gangster-like methods, therefore they, the indigenous peoples of this country, deserved no justice and it was quite all right for the white man to dispossess them and wage a campaign of genocide against them? Mm-hmm, let's just latch onto the bad behavior of history's victims to justify the injustices and cruelties visited on them, and to side with those we're biased in favor of siding with. Well, maybe that works for you, but it doesn't for me. Sorry.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 3:13:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, see my post on the Palestinian question, http://www.debate.org...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 5:31:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why is it that everyone who is pro-Palestine, is so fricken warped?

You can never have a logical debate/conversation with someone who is pro-Palestine.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 6:12:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 5:31:23 PM, DanT wrote:
Why is it that everyone who is pro-Palestine, is so fricken warped?

You can never have a logical debate/conversation with someone who is pro-Palestine.

Eh, you go against a fanatically pro-israel and you get some pretty weird results as well.
JuiceSqueeze
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 11:20:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is rather like saying that because the Native Americans didn't behave like Gandhian saints toward the Europeans who invaded their lands, because they frequently engaged in hostile behavior that today would be termed terrorism, and because individual tribal leaders may sometimes have had self-serving motives behind their gangster-like methods, therefore they, the indigenous peoples of this country, deserved no justice and it was quite all right for the white man to dispossess them and wage a campaign of genocide against them? Mm-hmm, let's just latch onto the bad behavior of history's victims to justify the injustices and cruelties visited on them, and to side with those we're biased in favor of siding with. Well, maybe that works for you, but it doesn't for me. Sorry.:

That's an awful analogy, not only because it trivializes the plight of Native Americans and the partition of India, but also because it has no remote similarities with my argument above.

Less emotion, more facts.