The head of the Tibetan government-in-exile left the audience stunned when he said "I love President George W Bush." He went on to add how he and the US President instantly struck a chord in their first meeting unlike politicians who take a while to develop close ties.I wonder how many lefties would have done nothing but gushed over His Holiness yesterday, but would throw him under a bus now.
But wait, let's read the opening sentence, too:
The Dalai Lama, a lifelong champion of non-violence on Saturday candidly stated that terrorism cannot be tackled by applying the principle of ahimsa because the minds of terrorists are closed.He seems perfectly reasonable and rational to me--and this isn't the first time I've posted about something the Dalai Lama has said along these lines.
9 comments:
Of course one must support a Free Tibet. They have a right to self-governance just like everybody else.
He seems like a very rational person, though I can't claim to know him personally so I don't know ;) I read (most of) a book of his, very insightful, and not as abstract as I had expected.
Leftists are only going to listen to the Dali Lama in so much as he supports their world view. Notice how NOW has said precious little about the abomination of sharia law in regards to womens rights in the Middle East. And while the media didn't like to give any credit to the Bush Family, Laura Bush was very active in trying to resolve and press for education and safety for young women in the Middle East.
"Of course one must support a Free Tibet. They have a right to self-governance just like everybody else. "
But this doesn't tell us at what level above the individual to stop. Does Texas have the right to self-governance? How about Austin? Or a specific street in Austin?
I, too, would like to see Tibet free, but I don't have much principle to go on, other than I disapprove of the way the Chinese government runs things.
This makes it hard to be "of course."
-Mark Roulo
The Dalai Lama does not support a "free tibet". He just supports a theocracy instead of a secular dictatorship.
He supports a Tibet run by Tibetans.
Then again, "anonymous", your point really had nothing to do with Tibet, did it?
He supports a Tibet run by an aristocratic regime.
Sounds kinda like what we have in this country, yet we call ourselves free.
In the USA, you get to vote. In Tibet under the Lamas, nobody got a vote and the head of state and head of government were chosen by getting a kid to pick some random items!
They should be free to choose such a government. Clearly, like all leftists, you think government should be imposed instead of freely chosen.
Post a Comment