I didn't think it was, but I'm once again surprised by the arrogance and self-righteousness of your statement. I thought that this kind of bombast had no place here, but perhaps I'm mistaken?

in a room full of critical thinkers

I take it you're including yourself from that group, but that I'm not a part of it? Or at least that's the implication I'm getting from your comment.

nonsensical relative moralism / You might not like it, but it exists nonetheless.

Err, no - it was actually a genuine question. When the Chinese hijack the Dalai Lama's computer network, they genuinely think that they are in the right. But you might disagree with that; what makes your right truer than theirs?

This type of question has confounded philosophers for thousands of years. It's not an easy problem to solve, and is fraught with contradictions. The best we've arrived at is that principles like 'equality' are enshrined in our constitutions; each of our opinions are considered to have equal importance, and that includes the opinions of the Chinese and the Iranians. You seem to show no awareness of this, which makes me think that your bombast and self-righteousness may be misplaced.

You may be right that there is such a thing as a higher moral ground, and you may even be right that it applies here; I think it would be difficult to define in an off-hand 10 line comment, but I'd be glad to read your attempt should you care to try.