"If I remember correctly, you were in Beijing for a while. What are your views on this matter having been in China?"

/panda is still in China

That's how you interpret it avogadro, while the theory insists on a communist state being the ultimate, fair, efficient government, who symbolises and represents the people more then it governs them.

true LP!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=x61wxQuAGIY&feature=related

see this

"
On a more serious note, it's plain propaghanda. The creator of this movie openly admits he's Chinese himself, so I thik it's reasonable to question his intentions. His opinion is - by default - tainted. According to Historic theory, this movie is useless, as much as the American Army reporting about their actions in Iraq tongue"

everything is biased; to imply he is any more biased then any other person because of his nationality is ridiculous.

the author of the film fails to realize the difference between good and evil. he says China is good because its old. North America is bad because its young. North America and europe are just as bad for areas they've taken by force.

when in reality Oppression is evil, China is oppressing a large group of people, and thats what the world is complaining about. it has nothing to do with how long they lay claim to the land. and calling examples of what other countries have done is childish.

People really need to stop thinking that the Dalai Lama Buddhist monks (to separate them from the other sects they oppress) and descendants of the feudal nobility who probably have some nostalgia for the old order, represent the Tibetan peoples wholly.

The Dalai Lama and his oppressive clergy didn't seem to mind when the Chinese returned after the Civil War in 1951 to provide security and provide social services (hospitals, infrastructure...etc) allowing the Dalai Lama and his posse to continue the tradition of self-government. It was only in 1956-57 when the Chinese began showing signs that they would not allow the feudal system to continue that the "Independence" uprising began.

For whose interests I wonder, was it was for the former serfs and slaves who were freed from the grip of the monks and nobility or for the monks and nobility themselves.

A religion which taught that the Dalai Lama was a god-king and that the majority of the population who were serfs, not even mentioning the portion who were enslaved should bear out their current lot in life because they deserved the karmic consequences of their past lives. Yes, can't see why a religion like that should be dismantled...

Maybe it's because I'm agnostic so I don't automatically kowtow to anything that calls itself a religion. I'm no apologist for the Chinese govt either, their actions to their own people is indefensible.

However when you have a country like Tibet which has always been an autonomous part of China (not even the DL says Tibet should be fully independent) and all of sudden when the feudal system being dismantled and the monasteries and nobility are no longer regnant over their fellow citizens, it was always about the freedom and independence of the common Tibetan peoples from the beginning? It's an insult to intelligence.

I can't see why Islam preaches that Jihad is right, so I don't see why there ought to be a Crusade to dismantle it /sarcasm.

Freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, etc., etc.  I'm going to break down that video's "FACTS" with counter-arguments:

FACT #1: China is NOT a single ethnic nation, in fact, 56 ethnic groups make up China...

Point is...?  I wonder how many ethnic groups make up Europe.  Did that justify NAZI Germany for going all-out in world war II?  Did ever saying "Because they are a part of..." was ever a justification anywhere?  Just look at Europe, look at how Germany during the 1930s and tell me that their actions in annexing Austria and the Sudetenland were justified by saying "Because they are a part of us."

FACT #2: Tibet has been a part of China for a thousand years.

May be true, but since when does time affect the legitimacy of a territory?  The video showed images during several dynasties of Tibet being a part of China, but the fact remains that China has transitioned itself from one government to the next and its so-called legitimacy to any claim comes into question.  An example would be Taiwan.

FACT #3: 1903AD, due to the weak Qing Dynasty, British gained control of Tibet as a colonial region and treated them as slaves.

Which justifies your point...how?  Not only is this 'justification' irrelevant, but they just contradicted themselves in that Tibet was a "part of China" for 1000 years.

FACT #4: The DaLai Lama was, and still is, funded by the CIA to separate Tibet from China.

And we're still funding Taiwan.  Point is what?  This does not equal to a legitimate claim to Tibet.  What kind of argument is this?

FACT #5: The Chinese Government spends 200 Millions (40 Millions US) a year developing Tibet, building schools, hospitals, infrastructures...

You know...that isn't a whole lot of money.  40 Million US is kinda like a movie budget in Hollywood.  Anyways, building infrastructure, schools, and hospitals does not entitle you to a legitimate claim.  That's like saying the US has claim over Europe for post-WWII reconstruction, or Iraq, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, etc., etc.  The list goes on.

Side Comments:

To the rest of you...

Britain: Scotland, Northern Ireland Independence.
- They gave most of Ireland Independence and from what I heard, Northern Ireland doesn't want to secede.  Scotland isn't exactly under control of Britain, either.

United States: Free Texas Republic or just all pack up and go back to Europe.
- I don't even know why we would want to free a state when they WANTED to join the Union and have no qualms about leaving.  Last I heard, Texas voted (within their nation) to be annexed and the US, at first, didn't want to because it would mean war with Mexico.

Canada: Quebec Referendum or just all pack up leave and give the land back to the native people
- I don't think the native people are rioting in the streets, and I don't think Quebec has started riots for independence.  Besides, don't the majority of Canadians want Quebec to disappear?

Japan: Hokkaido Independence, Okinawa Independence
- I don't have anything for this one.  I didn't realize the people there wanted independence.

Australia: Stop treating the natives like crap or just pack up leave for Europe as well.
- I don't think the first Australian colonists even wanted to be there.

"Dalai Lama and his masters from the West must be proud.  Thank you, the West, your fair news media had never stop attacking other countries' sovereignty and your governments never stop trying to split other countries apart, but not for one second had you guys questioned about your own existences and rule over the native people...so, Bravo...and dream on...for China to become the next Yugoslavia, Bosnia...Because we know that this is our country called home...and no one could ever, ever break it apart so...DEAL WITH THAT."

Woopdiedoo.  I would've stood up and clapped at this part...if it wasn't so poorly thought out.  We don't control our news media, sadly.  However, I do believe it is the opposite in China, no?  We don't question our own existences and rule over our lands because they aren't the ones rioting in the streets, clashing with police, and causing destruction.  We don't want China to break a part, we never wanted that, we want China to start treating its people with basic human rights.  That's all we want.  If you aren't going to even be human about it, then deal with the outcries of foreign governments.  Also...China was broken apart several times in its history...like Taiwan.

Tavius,

Lol we smacked them natives and built an empire. What are you talking about?

Maybe we just like Tibet and want them liberated?

"It's slightly unbelievable that I have to defend why a feudal/religious theocractic system should not be preserved."

I'm not saying it should be preserved, I am saying that you have no right to think that you have control over a people's beliefs.  If they were raised in that way of life, and they accept that way of life, then there should be no reason for third-party criticism.  I am of the moral belief that people should believe whatever the hell they want to believe as long as they don't infringe my own rights and beliefs.  That's it.  That's my moral beliefs summed up in a sentence.

Say hypothetically, that you (Sir SupAll) are an atheist, and say Sir Gawain is a Protestant. Does Sir Gawain's belief of a God not infringe upon your belief that there is no God?