Militant Tibetans?

/Begin Rant

Seriously, I've had it with Tibet.

I know I will piss off a lot of people with these thoughts... I admit I don't know the first thing about the background to the whole China-Tibet conflict, and I am almost ashamed to say I don't care.

Almost...

What is it that ticks me off with all this Tibet crap flying around now? That Tibet fans (ex-pat? exiles? fans? exported people? what?) decided that the ONE event in the world that stands for peace and "shut the f&%$^ up and stop fighting for a while, is the event they turn into a guerrilla war on?

I'm going to go to the extreme here, and you will not like it at all: Political Terrorism
*.

The General Assembly resolution 49/60, titled "Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism," adopted on December 9, 1994, contains a provision describing terrorism:

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them." (Resolution session 49, page 4)

So does this make me a China lover? Hell no!
Like I said in the beginning of this blog, I don't know anything about the situation. Most likely China is in the wrong in the grab of Tibet, but I'm not having the information or background to pass judgment, other than the fact that the Dalai Lama is cool.

Unfurling banners from bridges - Cool.
Picketing embassy locations around the world - Cool.
Disrupting the Olympiad traditions in a terrorist fashion - Not Cool.

In most of my life, I've always heard that Tibet was one of the last places where love and peace came before everything, even invasion! The Dalai Lama is a perfect example of that thought. But after the recent events globally, I'm starting to think Tibetans are acting like children now, acting out because they think no one is listening to what they want.

/End Rant





*Note:
The modern definition of terrorism is inherently controversial. The use of violence for the achievement of political ends is common to state and non-state groups. The difficulty is in agreeing on a basis for determining when the use of violence (directed at whom, by whom, for what ends) is legitimate. The majority of definitions in use have been written by agencies directly associated with a government, and are systematically biased to exclude governments from the definition. Some such definitions are so broad, like the Terrorism Act 2000, as to include the disruption of a computer system wherein no violence is intended or results.