aMockTie

Genocide is never justified.

It’s also wrong to act like the actions of Myanmar or any perpetrator of genocide are representative of a religious monolith. Do you think it would be beneficial to insult and vilify Buddhists, and normalize that behavior because of the actions of Myanmar?

Insulting and vilifying adherents of a religion, and treating them like a monolith are exactly what leads to religious persecution, and in some cases genocide.

On a more basic level, it’s just needlessly hostile. Life is difficult enough on its own, why spend time and energy insulting others based on something that overwhelmingly does not affect you or your community?

The Buddhist successors to the Mongolian/Qing Dynasty were plenty harmful to others. That’s what sparked the student revolts responsible for their leadership’s removal.

It’s my understanding that those harms were political and not religious in nature.

You can blame the icky yicky communists

Why the disparaging adjectives? I feel like I’m missing the point.

falling back on CIA agitprop to justify what was effectively a US military operation intended to destabilize a border region isn’t proof of your humanitarianism. Even the Dalai Lama himself regrets letting the CIA militarize Tibet.

I don’t think there is any justification. It was selfish and self serving from the beginning. If the CIA had followed through on their promises, that would be a different story. But they clearly never intended to do so.

It’s the story of the Cold War told over and over again. The goal of these operations is to spark civil war, not to liberate or liberalize any population.

Amen.

Sure, that’s a reasonable opinion, but that also clearly wasn’t the purpose behind his abduction. Without any evidence, it’s impossible to say whether or not he is actually living, as an ordinary citizen or otherwise. I’m not trying to say that there isn’t any nuance in the situation, but without knowing with certainty his ultimate fate and also living in his shoes, it’s impossible to say which path would be preferable.

In your first reply, you put kidnapping in quotes and made it sound exclusively beneficial. Then in your follow up, you undercut my definition of kidnapping (and to be clear, you were technically correct). I interpreted all of that as a refutation of the idea that he was kidnapped. I apologize if I misunderstood at any point.

Thank you for the clarification, I see that now. What I also see from further research is that he and his family were taken by force and have not been seen publicly since. Whether or not that would be technically considered kidnapping or abduction feels like splitting hairs.

I don’t follow religious doctrine either, but as long as the adherents aren’t acting in ways that are harmful to others, I personally try not to insult or belittle them or their beliefs.

The information regarding the CIA is interesting though. The fact that the US reneged on their promises and only used Tibet to extract information about China is depressing, but not surprising.

Forcibly relocating a child away from their parents is the literal definition of kidnapping. Whether or not he ended up having a good life afterwards does not change that fact.

Archive link.

This apparently isn’t even the “real” Panchen Lama, but is the one chosen by China to replace the one that was kidnapped and was chosen by the Dalai Lama.