Sometimes arguing with you people here is like arguing with
someone who doesn't understand the language.
1) Disapproval with the current rule does not make the current
rule any less legit. I once again quote the riots in the early days
of Singapore. Does that make our country any less legal? America
faces tons of violent protests. Should we save it from itself
then?
2) lol at your self-contradiction with the widow burning issue.
Universal values? These are simply imported cultures merging with
another. For some cultures, it was ok to do certain stuff. After
merging with another, it was no longer ok. This is a new culture.
Cultures change. They merge. They evolve. And they die. Universal
values indeed. Lol. If they were indeed universal, then by
defination, they would have already been in place long ago. They
were obviously imported crumbs of a foreign culture.
3) Brush up on History. Hong Kong always belonged to China. It
was ceded as part of an agreement to the British. But this always
had a time limit. It was a lease, not a full fledged invasion. When
the time was over...of course it was right for China to demand it
back.
4) Commercial trade is not a culture. Let's not be silly. I
never answered this question because it's irrelevant.
5) I'm most amused that you think I'm pro-chinese to the point
of fanatism. You on the other hand, I am most convinced are
anti-chinese to that point. It's pretty curious where you drew your
conclusion from. You gained all that insight from me from my
statement pointing out that the dalai lama wants violence? Bravo,
but hardly accurate.
6) Ahh, inciting patriotism. That's a pretty silly argument. Of
course I'm not going to be happy about invasion, and neither, I
would imagine, would the kuwaitiis. But I'm going to be pretty ok
about it if all my life, I was born a malaysian, years after the
invasion has occurred and settled. I imagine the majority of
"tibetians" feel the same way. I must remind you it HAS been 60
years.
1.) so if some invaders came along and take over and rule you,
and you're unhappy with the rule, it's wrong to protest against
them cos it's "legit" ? ...
2.) okie, nevermind universal values, since it doesn't appear to
be in your books ... so, again, in your books, it's alright for one
country to invade another, take it over, and 60 years later, say,
viola ! ... the second generations, third generations are all
citizens of our country, they have no cause for complaints or to
agitate for independence, since they were born in "our country"...
so any seperatist movement is really "treason"? ... you're
basically advocating force and power and the primary determinants
of legality isn't it ?
3.) brush up on YOUR history ... Hong kong was ceded in
perpetuity ... only the new territories came with a termed lease
... which ran out in 97, at which the chinese demanded the whole
colony back ... again, there's the problem .. hong kong was always
part of china, of course .... but the brits took a chunk back ...
and it's right for the chinese to get it back .... but when the
chinese took over one WHOLE OTHER COUNTRY .... you want that other
country to suck it up ? ..... wow ... just wow ....
4. where did this come from ? ...
5. that is your own observation sir ... but I observe that if
the tibetans were fighting like the chechens against the russians
today, maybe they wouldn't have been subjugated ... perhaps because
they were hapless, peaceful buddhists, that they got taken over
..
6. you imagine the majority of tibetans feel that way ? ... that
because they are the second and third generations born after the
invasion .. they'll feel more chinese and not tibetan ? ..... why
do you think we're seeing what we're seeing in the news then ? ....
are we seeing only old men more than 60 years old throwing rocks at
the chinese military vehicles then ? ... 
