China has keeped in peace nearly 30 years

Schumacher said:

lol, u were quick to change what u wrote weren't u ?

Click to expand...

And you still have this inability to check whether people have edited their posts before you reply. It's very easy, do you need me to explain how?

Must have realized it looked pretty much like u're making things up again.

Click to expand...

More that I knew there was no source I could present that would satisfy people like yourself and ecc, so there was no point in trying to get blood out of a stone.

FuManChu said:

I removed the comments before I read your post.



So it's ok for you to offer interpretations but I cannot? Isn't that rather hypocritical?



I could say the same to you, given you haven't offered any "real material" either.

Click to expand...

well let's see, a whiteboy from UK who's probably never been to China saying that the Chinese are too biased for anything...

not understand that there isn't any PLA presence in Tibet until after the revolt, which was incited by the aforementioned countries...

pretending to understand internal Chinese history while you don't read a character of Chinese, and can't speak the language...

The reason why I don't offer "real material" is because the stuff I say is true, unlike your highness. I would suggest that you don't pull anymore bullshit on me. I'm not getting a major in liberal arts.

FuManChu said:

And you still have this inability to check whether people have edited their posts before you reply. It's very easy, do you need me to explain how?

More that I knew there was no source I could present that would satisfy people like yourself and ecc, so there was no point in trying to get blood out of a stone.

Click to expand...

Most don't flip-flop as much, they usually think before writing something & stick to it. Sorry, I'll know better next time with u.

Yes, I suspected u had no source, no surprises there.

eecsmaster said:

well let's see, a whiteboy from UK who's probably never been to China saying that the Chinese are too biased for anything...

Click to expand...

What does me being "white" have to do with anything? Your skin-colour doesn't dictate what you understand about a country! That's the sort of argument a kid uses.

And, yes, I have been to China, actually.

Now I see you've completely ignored the point I made, so I take it your silence means you can't disagree with it.

not understand that there isn't any PLA presence in Tibet until after the revolt, which was incited by the aforementioned countries...

Click to expand...

Wrong, PLA troops entered Tibet in 1950 - the uprising didn't start until years later.

pretending to understand internal Chinese history while you don't read a character of Chinese, and can't speak the language...

Click to expand...

Well, you know, it's funny. It may surprise you, but there are books in English about Chinese history. Amazing I know, but I promise it's true.

The reason why I don't offer "real material" is because the stuff I say is true, unlike your highness.

Click to expand...

Hahahaha, so you don't have to produce evidence because you're "right"? Again, that's what children do.

"I don't have to prove I'm right - you prove me wrong!"

Schumacher said:

Most don't flip-flop as much, they usually think before writing something & stick to it.

Click to expand...

Well, geez, if you don't like people using the edit button ask Webby to remove it. But while it's there it's rather petty of you to complain about me using it.

you're right, PLA did have a significant presence in Tibet before 54, my apologies.

"Now I see you've completely ignored the point I made, so I take it your silence means you can't disagree with it."

of course I disagree with it, or else I wouldn't have made a ruckus. They're just as biased as you are.

"Well, you know, it's funny. It may surprise you, but there are books in English about Chinese history. Amazing I know, but I promise it's true."

ever heard of lost in translation? It is inevitable that texts are biased.

"Hahahaha, so you don't have to produce evidence because you're "right"? Again, that's what children do."

so can I expect explicit references from now on?

and I do admit that my statement was rather childish. My understanding of hardwares is much better, I assure you.

FuManChu said:

.......Well, geez, if you don't like people using the edit button ask Webby to remove it. But while it's there it's rather petty of you to complain about me using it.

Click to expand...

Let's not argue abt edit button shall we ? Was merely using that to relate to how u often seem to make things up.

eecsmaster said:

you're right, PLA did have a significant presence in Tibet before 54, my apologies.

Click to expand...

No problem.

of course I disagree with it, or else I wouldn't have made a ruckus. They're just as biased as you are.

Click to expand...

Ecc, when you start saying things like "1/4 of the world's population/1.3 billion people disagree with you", you're going to leave yourself open to criticism of the way those people are educated. Of course not all Chinese are incapable of discussing Tibet - there are many thoughtful people who have looked at the matter from both sides and not just gone with one view.

But you know that China does push a POV very heavily and restricts access to contrary views - that isn't the case in the UK. So let's not try to discuss matters by using points like "X laymen agree with me".

ever heard of lost in translation? It is inevitable that texts are biased.

Click to expand...

There is bias in all academic commentary, but that doesn't mean non-local language books can't do a good job on the subject in question.

so can I expect explicit references from now on?

Click to expand...

I've already made a specific point on the bit about PLA troops not entering Tibet until after the uprising started.

and I do admit that my statement was rather childish.

Click to expand...

I should have been less unpleasant towards you as well.

it seems that most of yours do not have any acknowledges about the territory of qing dynasty which include part of the middle asia,part of Vietnam,whole Mongolia and part of south Siberia.

Tibet and xinjiang to china is just as the north Ireland to UK.and taiwan to china is just as Jerusalem to Israel.
No one can make argy-bargys on this things.

ofone said:

it seems that most of yours do not have any acknowledges about the territory of qing dynasty which include part of the middle asia,part of Vietnam,whole Mongolia and part of south Siberia.

Click to expand...

Well China has given up its claim to South Siberia and recognised Russian control of it, so territory claimed by the Qing Dynasty isn't relevant any more.