Very exaggerated claim to say China 'invaded' Tibet.
Can your country invade your own country?
What is the definition of an invasion ?
USA had civil war, did the north 'invade' the south?
China had civil war, did the communists and nationalists all
'invaded' one another repeatedly all across China?
Just from this term 'invasion' , it is already a twisting of
fact, shifting the pendulum, bending the discourse.
I strongly challenge this notion.
People who use the term 'invasion' would like you to believe
'Tibet' is a sovereign and separate entity, apart from China, and
China, being another entity, 'invaded' it.
Please take a look at history, it is an event inside China's
revolution. Tibet has been part of China for centuries. It is part
of an ancient landscape of China.
When did Tibet become a sovereign and separate country?
On what map did it appear that way?
Show me what map and what time period, even on British maps or
others.
So how can 'Tibet' be 'invaded' by 'China' ?
Just from that sentence alone, it is wrong on so many
levels.
Can 'Sembawang' be 'invaded' by 'Singapore' ?
Is that a logical idea ? Follows logic..? Philosophically
sound?
Not just Tibet, in some eastern provinces, up to 1950s there
wasnt soverignty recovered in other parts of China. Dalian/ Lushun
in the east, in 1955 China exercise sovereignty. Even Hong Kong,
only recently China regain control and sovereignty.
So I dont understand why some people blindly follow this idea
'China invaded Tibet'. In my opinion this is a very fatal
flaw in their basis of thinking for supporting Tibetan
independence, without true understanding of Tibet's history as a
whole.
I did say it previously, be careful when u adopt terms and
jargons. One person's terrorist is another person's hero. So when u
call someone a 'terrorist' that means u already adopt a certain
viewpoint and already put on a certain glasses when u see
other things.
So dont be so easy to say 'China invaded Tibet', a very flawed and
baseless claim and make u put on tainted glasses to see all the
rest.
Meat Pao.
Following up, Indonesia can also legally acquire Singapore via a
military operation without being labelled as an Invasion.
After all, Singapore was once territory belonging to the Srivijayan
empire that had its capital in Sumatra.
Ancient history sometimes don't weigh as much. From the
period of the 1910s up to the PRC invasion of Tibet in the 1950s,
Tibet was not under Chinese control nor did China exercise any acts
of sovereignty.
Sembawang cannot be invaded by Singapore because the ethnicity
of the people are the same, Singapore government has consistently
exercised sovereignty over the "district".
Of course, Tibet is a recognized part of China now. Much
good came out of it especially in terms of infrastructure
development. But the act of acquiring the territory, was through a
process called an "invasion. If we do not consider PLA's expedition
in 1949 -1951 as an invasion, it will embolden the Chinese
government to attack Taiwan in future, since its an even weaker
case to classify as an invasion.
Personally, I do not support Tibetan independence (simply cause
they'd be worse off). But I support keeping China in
check. We know how much it is expanding militarily, and we do
not want it to start making historical claims and unilaterally
claiming territories with its military.
