|
China in Hong Kong: Who were the people denying protesters their right to be heard in TST?
|
[ New Topic]
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
 |
| 4614 Posts |
| of trenchancy |
|
| posted by smog 63 days ago |
 |
But puyi if you argue that any indigenous people (where "indigenous" is defined as being there at some arbitrary point a very long time ago with some racial or cultural traits which are different from other people) should have the right for ever in the future to "kick out" people who subsequently invaded "their" country regardless of any agreements apparently made subsequent to the invasion, then how will you apply this principle to:
Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the USA, most of South & Central America, Poland/Belarus/Germany, Taiwan, Wales, Scotland, Cornwall, the southern provinces of Thailand, Singapore, the Arctic territories of Russia, the US & Canada, and so on?
___________________________
http://smogsblog.wordpress.com for more of the same
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 6512 Posts |
| over the hill |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by puyi 63 days ago |
|
smog the debate is in respect to china if you want to change direction then so be it but we are talking about a very very recent form of colonisation ( on going ) and then we have to appease japan and say they had a legitimate right to invade china etc etc etc...the tibetans had their own country and empire not just as you put it an indigenous group
darren rudd is a sinophile
|
|
|
|
|
| Newbie |
|
| 194 Posts |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by bus aunty 63 days ago |
|
Puyi, their own land, which they signed over in exchange for the benefits.
It is still legit an agreement. Why are you still not able to answer to me, why the Dalai Lama (words and behaviours at offical functions) still concurs with the agreement?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Fundy |
 |
| 10468 Posts |
| Rained out |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by adfundum 63 days ago |
|
quote:
Originally posted by bus aunty
Adfundum, you are sourcing your info from the Free Tibet Movement. And a historical interpretation of a period in history to support their view. Pardon me for being skeptical. ahem ahem.
And, of course, the historical accounts used by the opponents to Tibetan independence are not slanted and/or interpreted in any way that might support them? There would be no reasons whatsoever to be skeptical of your sources I assume?
Quote from Wikipedia on the Dalai Lama (if this is acceptable to you):
quote:
After initially ratifying, under military pressure, the 1951 Seventeen Point Agreement, he left Tibet for India following the failed uprising and the collapse of the Tibetan resistance movement in 1959. In India he was active in establishing the the Tibetan Government in Exile and in seeking to preserve Tibetan culture and education among the thousands of refugees who accompanied him.[5]
.
The problem with instant gratification is that it takes too bloody long...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 4614 Posts |
| of trenchancy |
|
| posted by smog 63 days ago (edited 63 days ago) |
|
Puyi,
So you are going to draw an arbitrary line at 1950 (give or take) and say that because China's "invasion" of Tibet happened after that date then, despite its acceptance by the Tibetan leaders and government, it should still be reversed, whereas, for example, the Chinese invasion of Taiwan in 1949 or the carve up of Eastern Europe in 1945, should not be reversible.
Do I understand you correctly?
___________________________
http://smogsblog.wordpress.com for more of the same
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 4586 Posts |
| brilliant view |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by geraldo 63 days ago |
|
everybody can make changes to wikipedia articles, it's not that reliable a source
same with freetibet.org - they're probably not going to write about the medical and infrastructural improvements (if any - I didn't say there were)
that's why I like groups like amnesty and Greenpeas
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The Designer |
|
| 4126 Posts |
| in |
| United Kingdom |
|
| posted by HKBloke 63 days ago |
|
In subjects like this i don't think you can quote wikipedia where most of the contributers are bleeding heart liberals.
|
|
|
|
|
| Newbie |
|
| 194 Posts |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by bus aunty 63 days ago |
|
I was about to say the same about Wiki, hence Wiki is wiki.
I can only go by what the Lama's behaviour and actions are TODAY. He still speaks of Tibet being part of China and wanting to hammer out the conditions/interpretations of the agreement.
So I am sorry, but I do not accept the agreement was signed under duress, as justification and logic used by protesters to say Tibet is not a part of China.
If the Dalai Lama claimed duress from day one and today, then that is a different issue. However, he fundamentally supports being part of China, for reasons that were still legit at the time of signing and today. Sum of parts being better etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Fundy |
|
| 10468 Posts |
| Rained out |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by adfundum 63 days ago |
|
That's a subjective opinion...
Surf on over to the website of the Tibetan Government in exile: http://www.tibet.com/whitepaper/white2.html
But I'm sure, Bus Aunty will declare that as manipulative and slanted as well.
The fact remains that, since none of the parties to this debate were present at the time, all our information with regard to the issue comes from 3d parties.
There may be some valid points in BA's arguments, but I refuse to accept that only (s)he has access to the correct information, and that all who dissent are China-bashers.
Let the Tibetans hold a UN supervised referendum, and settle the matter once and for all...
.
The problem with instant gratification is that it takes too bloody long...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The Designer |
|
| 4126 Posts |
| in |
| United Kingdom |
|
| posted by HKBloke 63 days ago |
|
What, and let the Scotish do the same (throw in the Welsh - why not) and the Basque region of Spain and the people of Cyprus....and of course Hong Kong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Fundy |
|
| 10468 Posts |
| Rained out |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by adfundum 63 days ago |
|
Not to forget the Flemish...
.
The problem with instant gratification is that it takes too bloody long...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 4586 Posts |
| brilliant view |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by geraldo 63 days ago |
|
quote:
Originally posted by bus aunty
I can only go by what the Lama's behaviour and actions are TODAY. He still speaks of Tibet being part of China and wanting to hammer out the conditions/interpretations of the agreement.
So I am sorry, but I do not accept the agreement was signed under duress, as justification and logic used by protesters to say Tibet is not a part of China.
If the Dalai Lama claimed duress from day one and today, then that is a different issue. However, he fundamentally supports being part of China, for reasons that were still legit at the time of signing and today. Sum of parts being better etc.
we're getting somewhere - which party has always refused talks, basically just wanting to install their government and run the Middle Kingdom the way they think it should be done ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Fundy |
|
| 10468 Posts |
| Rained out |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by adfundum 63 days ago |
|
quote:
Originally posted by bus aunty
If the Dalai Lama claimed duress from day one and today, then that is a different issue. However, he fundamentally supports being part of China, for reasons that were still legit at the time of signing and today. Sum of parts being better etc.
Here we go again, you claim legitimacy, but cannot prove your assertion...
.
The problem with instant gratification is that it takes too bloody long...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 6512 Posts |
| over the hill |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by puyi 63 days ago |
|
quote:
Originally posted by smog
Puyi,
So you are going to draw an arbitrary line at 1950 (give or take) and say that because China's "invasion" of Tibet happened after that date then, despite its acceptance by the Tibetan leaders and government, it should still be reversed, whereas, for example, the Chinese invasion of Taiwan in 1949 or the carve up of Eastern Europe in 1945, should not be reversible.
Do I understand you correctly?
As I said earlier if you accept sovereignty which is based upon invasion then what is to stop the future aggressive behaviors of any country and as you say we shouldn’t draw any line in the sand so we must continue bad practices that we all inherit from our predecessors..........
do read a bit closer
darren rudd is a sinophile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 6512 Posts |
| over the hill |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by puyi 63 days ago |
|
quote:
Originally posted by bus aunty
Puyi, their own land, which they signed over in exchange for the benefits.
It is still legit an agreement. Why are you still not able to answer to me, why the Dalai Lama (words and behaviours at offical functions) still concurs with the agreement?
so after one country invades another there is no duress ?? ok then the accords etc signed with the japanese in the 1930s were very fair even thougn it is obvious that it was a stalling tactic by the weaker party the chinese at the time
darren rudd is a sinophile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 4614 Posts |
| of trenchancy |
|
| posted by smog 63 days ago |
|
So there are dozens and dozens of similar situations that need to be reversed, including handing Australia back to the aborigines. Why are we all picking on China then? Pretty much all of the major countries of the world are guilty of similar "crimes".
___________________________
http://smogsblog.wordpress.com for more of the same
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 6512 Posts |
| over the hill |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by puyi 63 days ago |
|
as earlier posters pointed out this current post is about china if you want to go off on a tangent then feel free to do so start up one on your blogg etc etc maybe a new handle for you could be nev.......
darren rudd is a sinophile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 4614 Posts |
| of trenchancy |
|
| posted by smog 63 days ago |
|
FFS! It's not a tangent - it is absolutely fundamental to the question.
___________________________
http://smogsblog.wordpress.com for more of the same
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 6512 Posts |
| over the hill |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by puyi 63 days ago |
|
we are debating china do feel free to read the name of the post
darren rudd is a sinophile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 4614 Posts |
| of trenchancy |
|
| posted by smog 63 days ago (edited 63 days ago) |
|
puyi,
I give up. You are clearly too thick to engage in rational debate.
(You've demonstrated this many times previously, so I'm not sure why I bothered trying again to be honest.)
___________________________
http://smogsblog.wordpress.com for more of the same
|
|
|
|
|
|
