Non-violence cannot tackle terrorism: Dalai Lama

[Angel Heart]

Non-violence cannot tackle terrorism: Dalai Lama

Non-violence cannot tackle terrorism: Dalai Lama

New Delhi: The Dalai Lama, a lifelong champion of non-violence candidly stated that terrorism cannot be tackled by applying the principle of ahimsa because the minds of terrorists are closed.

"It is difficult to deal with terrorism through non-violence," the Tibetan spiritual leader said delivering the Madhavrao Scindia Memorial Lecture here.

He termed terrorism as the worst kind of violence which is not carried by a few mad people but by those who are very brilliant and educated.

"They (terrorists) are very brilliant and educated...but a strong ill feeling is bred in them. Their minds are closed," the Dalai Lama said.

More...

 

[dilloduck]

Non-violence cannot tackle terrorism: Dalai Lama

Intersted---no comments or responses. I thought there were those that were positive that terrorism could never be overcome by violence.

 

[Sunni Man]

Who cares what the Dalai Lama has to say?

 

[dilloduck]

Who cares what the Dalai Lama has to say?

lots--he has a bigger following than even you !

 

[mightypeon]

I kinda have to Lol about this one, parts of the Tibetan autonomy movement propably commited acts of terrorism, and definitly considered it.

He is spot on on the "terrorists" beeing bright and well educated though.
This also held through for the German RAF and propably also to the IRA although I know less about them.

 

[Toro]

Good find.

This is a great passage.

The head of the Tibetan government-in-exile left the audience stunned when he said "I love President George W Bush."

 

[GHook93]

I didn't think it was possible, but I found even more respect and admiration for the Dalai Lama!

 

[Angel Heart]

Intersted---no comments or responses. I thought there were those that were positive that terrorism could never be overcome by violence.

Yeah weird how the liberals like to ignore this. Just like Bono's gave praise to Bush as well for his work on AIDS in Africa.

 

[morpheus]

Well, America's pro-Tibet hippies have always been hypocrites: they jump on the anti-Tibet fad, but I've never seen them promote Hawaiian secession, which has just as much of a legal case -if not more- than Tibetan independence does. Tibet was loosely ruled by Qing-era China until it was invaded and fully incorporated into the People's Republic of China in 1950. Hawaii was never part of the United States until the 1890s, in fact it was an internationally-recognized sovereign state -even recognized by the United States- before American invasion and annexation. Just more evidence that American liberals are just as nationalist and ethnocentric as American conservatives, something that completely flies over the heads of both sides.

My question is: did the Dalai Lama say anything about invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?

 

[dilloduck]

Well, America's pro-Tibet hippies have always been hypocrites: they jump on the anti-Tibet fad, but I've never seen them promote Hawaiian secession, which has just as much of a legal case than Tibetan independence does. Both were internationally-recognized sovereign states in the modern era before being invaded...difference is, Tibet was off and on ruled by China throughout history. Hawaii was never part of the United States until the 1890s. In fact it was even recognized by the United States before American invasion and annexation. Just more evidence that American liberals are just as nationalist and ethnocentric as American conservatives, something that completely flies over the heads of both sides.

My question is: did the Dalai Lama say anything about invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?

That message was probably sent on a different brain wave.

 

[morpheus]

dilloduck I revised my post (which you quoted in yours), due to an error that I made. Tibet was not even internationally recognized at the time of Chinese invasion, which gives the Tibetan independence movement even less of a legal case than Hawaiian secession. I made the proper revision.

 

[dilloduck]

dilloduck I revised my post (which you quoted in yours), due to an error that I made. Tibet was not even internationally recognized at the time of Chinese invasion, which gives the Tibetan independence movement even less of a legal case than Hawaiian secession,

10-4 good buddy.

I thought Japan already owned Hawaii anyway.