Usama? Why? He's from Saudi Arabia. Did you read the article? That wasn't really the scope of it. Are you comparing the Dalai Lama to Osama Bin Laden? Read the articles. Answer the question.
Why should I read a statement from a separatist who tried to sell Tibet to the UK in the past and is still in league with the Western Imperialist powers and is now confirmed to be engaging in terroristic activities? If China followed American foreign policy doctrine, it would have gone to war with India last week for harboring the Dalai Lama.
Keep trying to side step the topic. You are just one of the whiny b****es that you talked about according to your own logic. What do you not agree with?
Just for sh!ts and giggles, I guess. Or to get into the mind of the enemy, read his thoughts and learn how the evil Dalai Lama really thinks and where he might be planning his next terrorist attack.
I submit as well. As far as I'm concerned India is now part of China, as well as all of Southeast Asia. And Ayers Rock in Australia.
So that's your argument Sammy? "You're wrong and I'm right?" My god, why didn't you say so in the first place. Ironically that's your best argument so far, which involved calling me and others "brainwashed/internet spy/mob/bot." That strong line of reasoning calls for another timeless American "debate tactic" in response. "You're a moron." I'm still waiting for proof of the 3 million ethnic Hans in Tibet figure. I wasn't aware that while we were going about our business, you shouted "everybody freeze" couple years ago in Tibet and proceeded to count every inch of the territory for the number of people living there. Suddenly I get this unshakable feeling that I've wasted my life, compared to you. And you know, Lhasa is about 55 square metres. Based on your figures... quick, somebody tell Hong Kong they aren't the most densely populated city in the world any more. It's a city in the middle of nowhere. So just for the record, I'm calling you a liar and a moron. But the difference between you and me is that I actually prove that you are a liar and a moron. You just engage in pointless drivel.
This is a very elementary video that a whopping 428 people have viewed. Where or where does it say anything worthwhile or promote violence at all? Have to admit...this is a strange post by you.
How so? Now, I'm not sure if that has anything to do with the "Dalai clique" (I'm not even sure what it means). But if anything, it shatters the myth that the "peaceful protests" were spontaneous. And a whopping 428 people huh? Indeed. Perhaps if more people watched it, they'd be less inclined to believe the peaceful monk protest BS. Things like this haven't found their way to the mainstream media, yet the likes of BBC and CNN claim that they are painting an objective picture of the whole situation.
http://www.slate.com/id/2187567/?GT1=38001 Why Does China Care About Tibet? Plus, when are monks allowed to get violent? By Nina Shen Rastogi Posted Friday, March 28, 2008, at 7:04 PM ET Buddhist monks and other Tibetans began protesting in and around Lhasa on March 10, the anniversary of a major uprising against Chinese rule. Tensions have been flaring in the region ever since, with some protests turning violent. Tibet is a remote, impoverished mountain region with little arable land. Why does China care so much about keeping it? Nationalism. China invaded Tibet in 1950, but Beijing asserts that its close relationship with the region stretches back to the 13th century, when first Tibet and then China were absorbed into the rapidly expanding Mongol empire. The Great Khanate, or the portion of the empire that contained China, Tibet, and most of East Asia, eventually became known as China's Yuan Dynasty. Throughout the Yuan and the subsequent Ming and Qing dynasties, Tibet remained a subordinate principality of China, though its degree of independence varied over the centuries. When British forces began making inroads into Tibet from India in the early 1900s, the Qing emperors forcefully reasserted their suzerainty over the region. Soon after, revolutionaries overthrew the Qing emperor—who, being Manchu, was cast as a foreign presence in Han-majority China—and formed a republic. Tibet took the opportunity to assert its independence and, from 1912 to 1950, ruled itself autonomously. However, Tibetan sovereignty was never recognized by China, the United Nations, or any major Western power. Both Sun Yat-sen's Nationalists and their rivals, Mao Zedong's Communists, believed that Tibet remained fundamentally a part of China and felt a strong nationalistic drive to return the country to its Qing-era borders. The 1950 takeover of Tibet by Mao's army was billed as the liberation of the region from the old, semi-feudal system, as well as from imperialist (i.e., British and American) influences. Resentment of the Chinese grew among Tibetans over the following decade, and armed conflicts broke out in various parts of the region. In March 1959, the capital of Lhasa erupted in a full-blown but short-lived revolt, during which the current Dalai Lama fled to India. He has lived there in exile ever since. There are also strategic and economic motives for China's attachment to Tibet. The region serves as a buffer zone between China on one side and India, Nepal, and Bangladesh on the other. The Himalayan mountain range provides an added level of security as well as a military advantage. Tibet also serves as a crucial water source for China and possesses a significant mining industry. And Beijing has invested billions in Tibet over the past 10 years as part of its wide-ranging economic development plan for Western China.
There's nothing spontaneous about a combustible situation that has been brewing for many years. Secondly, if your little 14 year old brother dressed up as subcomandante Marcos, put up a Mexican flag in his closet and filmed himself stirring up support for a future "campaign", I highly doubt any reputable news source would give it any air time.
That's how SamFisher has been conducting his so-called 'debate'. His posts are all filled with flammatory statements, name callings, labeling and insults. If you do not agree with him, he would make assumption on your beliefs and allegiance. And then if he is losing the debate, he would start calling you names, giving you labels and throwing out insults. I think he has claimed that he is a Lawyer before and I thought a lawyer would hold a higher moral standard than that.
I don't know about anyone else but the lawyers that I have met with before are all very respectable people.
I appreciate you endorsing my profession. You are obviously a former poster that has been banned, you seem to know too much about me. What was your previous User ID?
