
Wrong about what?   I think they are correct in thinking that a 
well-placed bomb or six would get headlines, but I think they are 
wrong if they think that you can set off bombs and still be a 
Buddhist.

Maybe what we are seeing here is that Chinese cultural genocide
against the Tibetans has worked well enough that some Tibetans 
are now no longer Buddhist and are instead willing to behave like
the Chinese occupiers.   Every action is its own reward.


On the other hand, people who are aware of the occupation are mostly
full of admiration for the peaceful way that Tibetans have put up
with it.   And what does it cost us to admire them?   Zip.


Yes they are, and whether this serves them well or not depends on 
whether they want Buddhist principles or political independence.
And without political independence can they preserve their cultural
and religious traditions?


The Chinese would certainly refer to them as terrorists, just as
the Hitler regime used to refer to European resistance movements
as terrorists.


Better off in what way?   As proponents of pacifism or as 
proponents of political autonomy?

And better off in what time-scale?   The Soviet Empire practised
cultural genocide against something like a hundred small minorities,
some of which resisted violently, and some of which did not, but
in the end it was the Soviet Empire that collapsed and at least
some of the minorities survived.

Now some of the minorities are fighting one another.    Is that
because they have to, or because violent resistance to an oppressive
Empire legitimized violence?