It's really ambiguous what they're talking about or what they even mean. Here are two things that could both be described as, "Forcing Tibetan children to kill their parents."

• A Tibetan soldier volunteers to join a war, and through sheer chance, they learn that their parents are fighting on the other side of the battlefield. They ask to leave the front and their CO refuses - technically, they've been forced to kill their parents.

• A communist agent abducts a family in the dead of night and hands the child a gun while putting a knife to their sister's throat and telling them if they don't kill their parents, they'll be killed, along with their siblings. This happens systematically across Tibet, and only Tibet.

They could be referencing the Cultural Revolution. A lot of shit happened during this period, including what you described. But to my knowledge, the struggle sessions and such were more the actions of the Red Guards, who were student led paramilitary groups, not the same as the People's Liberation Army that went into Tibet.

So like, what they said was, "the liberation army forced Tibetan children to murder their parents," but, what actually happened (so far as it's possible to connect that claim to anything in reality) was that the PLA failed to maintain control (although they did eventually succeeded in suppressing them) against young radicals denouncing their parents and subjecting them to public humiliation (the Red Guards also committed all sorts of atrocities during this time, I wouldn't be surprised if there were cases of children killing parents but I'm unaware of any specific cases). Which happened decades after the PLA went into Taiwan, which wasn't (to my knowledge) really a main area involved in the chaos.

And that's why I asked for a source.

Fairly common knowledge. Even portrayed in movies like Kuru and Seven Years in Tibet.

Oh, well if it's portrayed in movies it must be true.

Here is a link to a PDF

That document lists 100 atrocities, which of them are you referencing with "forcing children to murder their parents?"

It is worth noting that even these claims are impossible to verify.

Mhm.

But the simple fact remains that May Zedong openly opposed religion and claimed that his annexation of Tibet was a “liberation” from what he called “religious oppression.”

Yes, because Tibet was subject to religious oppression. They had an aristocratic system of serfdom with extreme poverty (while the religious rulers lived in luxury), and an average life expectancy in the 30s. It was a cruel, oppressive theocracy, and used religion to justify a caste system similar to India's history of discrimination towards "untouchables." After the aristocrats and theocrats were thrown out, the Tibetan people experienced the same massive increases in life expectancy and improvements in material conditions that the rest of China experienced during this period, including doubling of life expectancy.

Tibet emerged along with countless other warlord states following the collapse of the Qing, it was always considered part of China by the KMT and it was never recognized as an independent state by the international community (iirc, it was only ever recognized by like Mongolia). The communists and nationalists fought side-by-side against most of these warlord states with a common understanding that the nation needed to be unified, however, Tibet wasn't a priority because of it's remoteness. Had the KMT won they'd have brought it back into the fold eventually too, as evidenced by the fact that Taiwan still maintains a territorial claim over all of Tibet.

At how many million deaths would you draw the line between a bad man and a good man?