Discussed to death.
They might be historic claims but before 1962. (Good that you used that word)
It doesn't lay down what China claims after the 1962 war.
Do the thread a service and don't forget that (knowingly or otherwise).
Ladakh Flash Point
- Thread starter Mt1701d
- Start date
- Status
They might be historic claims but before 1962. (Good that you used that word)
It doesn't lay down what China claims after the 1962 war.
Do the thread a service and don't forget that (knowingly or otherwise).
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
No wonder people say your evidence is garbage. Your first link is a picture with an arrow that says "Google told a lie" and your second image is a Google map picture with a marker on the clash site. It's so meaningless and stupid there's nothing to debunk.
Where is the evidence connecting what China did with the dotted line drawn in the second photo? Why does your first picture call Google a liar and then the second one use Google as a reference to trust? Your arguments and your logic are complete trash just like India's attempts to steal territory from China and your entire argument depends on people being too sick of you to open your links.
before 1962, there was no lac. Isn't that clear?
Since 1962, the de facto lac has remained the line where China reached in 1962, even though both sides have differing perspectives. China attempted to shift the lac at Galwan from the historic Indian claim since 1962, in line with the LAC on google, towards the historic chinese claim, which is closer to the mouth. China failed to do this, and as a result the lac has remained the same as it was for decades.
Last edited:
No. The LAC hasn't stayed the same since 1962. In fact, there was no demarcation of LAC since 1962. Whatever existed before just went to the trash heap of history.
If there indeed was a mutually agreed upon LAC, many of the issues right now wouldn't have happened.
That picture was posted by a Chinese user. It is matched by China's historic claim.
That question is to you.
Aren't you clear? Before or since then LAC wasn't mutually agreed upon or dilineated.
What we have are either country's their own interpretation of LAC.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
LOLOL What does it claim? Google is a liar? LOLOL So then you used Google maps asking us to trust its line and that its line means something that you claim, not even something that Google claims? "A Chinese user" is your citation?? Is it a media source? And official government source? Or just a random internet guy named "leegun hamlet" which you say is Chinese for some reason? That is actually worth laughing out loud at.
I'm a PhD, kid. Bullcrap evidence doesn't fly. I've refuted and rejected evidence that could fool itself into peer-reviewed scientific publications so don't gimme this garbage that could get you laughed at by a MacDonald's employee and tell me it's "evidence."
This doesn't answer any of my questions and a historic claim does not equal what China tried to take this time. This is why people who know what they are talking about answer every question in a point to point and people who don't try to BS through with short nonsense like you.
Last edited:
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Interesting how you still cannot make a point-to-point response, because you need to avoid the real questions.
PS. Moving on to other evidence does not exonerate you from your previous attempts to use nonsensical, indefensible evidence.
No, they don't teach you to draw an arrow on a map saying "Google is a liar" then make claims about what lines mean according to whatever you wish them to represent. That will get you kicked out of the program for basic lack of logical reasoning if you were to ever present something like that to a committee. They would consider such a person unteachable due to poor foundation.
Well show them here. I only went with what you showed. Any literate person would know that you don't show a modified Google image and then refer to Maxar and Planet Labs as your evidence LOL. By the way, do those sources claim to provide live updated control lines for conflict zones or do they just show what is historically accepted?
PS. Moving on to other evidence does not exonerate you from your previous attempts to use nonsensical, indefensible evidence.
Last edited:
Interesting how you invalidate the words of a Patrol Troop Commander for Phds or think tank shills.
(Galwan)
- Status