[bikersfan]

That video is full of lies and half truths.

[leyliana]

Originally posted by FrostyBoy
In the end however, I don't think he quite understands that the people of Tibet don't want to be part of China, they WANT to be independent. Just like Hong Kong did; he does not understand that there is a common understanding of the European settlements (nowadays) that even though the commonwealth countries are still colonies of Europe, we are still run as independent countries and we're okay with that, there is now no need to be independent when we are trying to make the world one. The problem here is that Tibet WANTS to be independent, and China gets upset by that - that is immature behaviour in the eyes of westerners these days. Or have I just said a load of crap again? Another lot of crap.

[Erexecike]

For starts the vast majority of those periods where China had influence overTibet the government was pretty much independent other then the need to pay the yearly tribute of protection money. Even during periods when the Chinese invaded that people always considered themselves Tibetan and not Chinese plus it was at best a colonial arrangement with a few Chinese lording it over a great mass of Tibetans who didn't want them there.

As I said for the vast majority of the time Tibet was either fully independent or independent in all respects except for the need to pay protection money.

There is certainly less reason for Tibet to be part of China then Mongolia yet Mongolia is independent while Tibet still suffers under Chinese occupation.

[Sierabiera]

Or have I just said a load of crap again? Like always.

[TOD4wDTQ]

Originally posted by DaShi


Why? There a video listing them in the first post.

Although the British did treat all the natives of its colonies like salves. That's a FACT! True but Tibet was never a British colony. There was a very brief military expedition to Tibet from British India in 1903 in response to a Tsarist Russian expedition to Tibet. The British were afraid that Russia might gain influence over an area bordering India.

From Wiki:

The British expedition to Tibet in 1903 and 1904 was actually an armed invasion of Tibet by British Indian forces, seeking to prevent the Russian Empire from interfering in Tibetan affairs and thus gaining a foothold in one of the buffer states surrounding British India, under similar reasoning which had led British forces into Afghanistan twenty years before. Whilst British forces were remarkably successful in achieving their aims militarily, politically the invasion was very unpopular back in Britain, where it was virtually disowned post-war. The effects on Tibet, despite higher casualties and some economic disruption, were also not significant, and any changes were not long retained. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...ition_to_Tibet

the claim that the British made Tibetans slaves and that the Dalai Lama was put into power by the British is just a complete fabrication by the Chinese.

[Imampaictjg]

It is important what goes into the salve however. Freshly killed Tibetans are better in this regard. Beaten to death with a bamboo stick is the preferred Tibetan however killed by bullet Tibetans will do in times of shortage.

[Dxwlxqvg]

Yeah, I can see why you may be reluctant. I run a dead pool so I'll go out on that limb alone if need be.

[Zugaxxsn]

I say Bravo to this guy... his logic is impeccable. All we need to do is look at historical maps!

Now that Tibet is all sorted out, we can do something about pesky Poland, Finland, Belgium etc...

[kavaTeexy]

Originally posted by DaShi
Arguing about Tibet (among a series of other issues) with a Chinese nationalist is like arguing against creationism with an evangelical Christian. Actually the free tibet bunch is twice as silly.

[JessicaLin]

The CCP officially gave up their claim on Mongolia in 1949 when the Soviets told them it was war unless they did so.

[Tarrccrys]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Actually the free tibet bunch is twice as silly. Yeah, but the nationalists are four times as silly as them. What kind of argument is that?