You're right. Labeling the Dalai Lama as a terrorist, without trial, is just as bad as labeling Osama Bin Laden as a terrorist, without trial.
As for the truth in it, I've already hinted at my answer to that: applying the label "terrorist" to any person or organization without a fair trial (or a trial at all) should be treated with the same disgust, regardless of whether it's done by the West or the East.
Yeah... but OBL admitted and bragged about his involvement in actions of mass political murder. That's not the same as calling someone a terrorist out of the blue.
One, a peaceful activist. The other, a confessed -- nay, proudly boastful -- mass murderer. Yeah, these are exactly equivalent cases, and should be treated the same.
I did not say they are equivalent cases. I said that both should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That did not happen in either case, and I'm not willing to accept the summary execution of anyone, not even Osama Bin Laden.
In case there was any doubt: personally, I don't think the evidence to convict the Dalai Lama as a terrorist exists. The same probably cannot be said for the person we are so frivolously comparing him to.
Argument is valid in case of courts, in terms of international diplomacy ? I don't think so. At international level it is purely big fish eats small fish rule so if united states calls someone a terrorist it is a terrorist for the rest of the world. If they call the fountainhead of terrorism their alley others cant raise a finger against that alley.
As for the truth in it, I've already hinted at my answer to that: applying the label "terrorist" to any person or organization without a fair trial (or a trial at all) should be treated with the same disgust, regardless of whether it's done by the West or the East.