Singaporeans should NEVER support China

[Cruxx]

Interesting debate on Tibet.

So no way to own the pro-Tibetan ang mohs when trolling them online?

Three words for them: might is right. What good is legitimacy if there's no recourse to international military support? Tibetans can argue all day about what ought to be but the reality is that no country has ever recognised the independence of Tibet.

 

[Narong Wongwan]

Three words for them: might is right. What good is legitimacy if there's no recourse to international military support? Tibetans can argue all day about what ought to be but the reality is that no country has ever recognised the independence of Tibet.

that's the PRC government lie....

please read the truth below

World Governments Recognize Tibet

International law states that recognition can occur by explicit or implicit acts including treaties, negotiations, and diplomatic relations. Mongolia and Tibet signed a formal treaty of recognition in 1913. Historically, Nepal and Tibet had peace treaties. Tibet's independence was also confirmed at the Treaty of Simla (1914) which was concluded by Tibet and British India. In 1949, Tibet maintained diplomatic, economic, and cultural relations with such countries as Nepal, Sikkim, Mongolia, China, British India, and to some extent, Russia and Japan. Further, Nepal maintained an Ambassador in Lhasa and told the U.N. in 1949 that it conducted international relations with Tibet. In fact, Britian, Bhutan, India, and even China also maintained diplomatic missions in Tibet's capitol, Lhasa. The Tibetan Foreign Office conducted talks with President Franklin D. Roosevelt when he sent representatives to Lhasa to discuss the allied war effort against Japan during World War II. In 1950, El Salvador formally requested that China's aggression against Tibet be placed on the agenda of the U.N. General Assembly. The issue was not discussed. However, during four U.N. General Assembly debates on Tibet (1959, 1960, 1961, & 1965), many countries (e.g., Philippines, Nicaragua, Thailand. United States, Ireland) openly stated that Tibet was an independent country illegally occupied by China. In fact, the U.N. passed three resolutions (1959, 1961, & 1965) concerning Tibet stating that Tibetans were deprived of their inalienable rights to self-determination. Even Mao Zedong during the Long March admitted that Tibet was an independent country when he passed through the border regions of Tibet remarking, "This is our only foreign debt, and some day we must pay the Mantzu (sic) and the Tibetans for the provisions we were obliged to take from them." Tibetans clearly constitute a people under international law, as described, for instance, by the UNESCO International Meeting of Experts on Further Study of the Concept of the Rights of Peoples. They are a distinct people and fulfill all the characteristics of this concept: commonality of history, shared language, culture, and ethnicity.

 

[Clone]

Three words for them: might is right. What good is legitimacy if there's no recourse to international military support? Tibetans can argue all day about what ought to be but the reality is that no country has ever recognised the independence of Tibet.

Cruxx,

I ask for advice to pawn them, not self-pawn.

 

[Cruxx]

Cruxx,

I ask for advice to pawn them, not self-pawn.

Self-pawn? How? Explain to us please (I'm waiting for you to take the bait)

 

[Orion]

It was never legal to the China.

It is like explaining splitting Germany into east and west and cut Austria and Hungary.

Western powers always fear a bigger country.

that's the PRC government lie....

please read the truth below

World Governments Recognize Tibet

International law states that recognition can occur by explicit or implicit acts including treaties, negotiations, and diplomatic relations. Mongolia and Tibet signed a formal treaty of recognition in 1913. Historically, Nepal and Tibet had peace treaties. Tibet's independence was also confirmed at the Treaty of Simla (1914) which was concluded by Tibet and British India. In 1949, Tibet maintained diplomatic, economic, and cultural relations with such countries as Nepal, Sikkim, Mongolia, China, British India, and to some extent, Russia and Japan. Further, Nepal maintained an Ambassador in Lhasa and told the U.N. in 1949 that it conducted international relations with Tibet. In fact, Britian, Bhutan, India, and even China also maintained diplomatic missions in Tibet's capitol, Lhasa. The Tibetan Foreign Office conducted talks with President Franklin D. Roosevelt when he sent representatives to Lhasa to discuss the allied war effort against Japan during World War II. In 1950, El Salvador formally requested that China's aggression against Tibet be placed on the agenda of the U.N. General Assembly. The issue was not discussed. However, during four U.N. General Assembly debates on Tibet (1959, 1960, 1961, & 1965), many countries (e.g., Philippines, Nicaragua, Thailand. United States, Ireland) openly stated that Tibet was an independent country illegally occupied by China. In fact, the U.N. passed three resolutions (1959, 1961, & 1965) concerning Tibet stating that Tibetans were deprived of their inalienable rights to self-determination. Even Mao Zedong during the Long March admitted that Tibet was an independent country when he passed through the border regions of Tibet remarking, "This is our only foreign debt, and some day we must pay the Mantzu (sic) and the Tibetans for the provisions we were obliged to take from them." Tibetans clearly constitute a people under international law, as described, for instance, by the UNESCO International Meeting of Experts on Further Study of the Concept of the Rights of Peoples. They are a distinct people and fulfill all the characteristics of this concept: commonality of history, shared language, culture, and ethnicity.

 

[Jah_rastafar_I]

Aiyoh yoh chinese dog mercury actually replies to me close to 2am and i have already explained to him logically and defeated him yet what does he say? Total BS. Look what he writes is all nonsense and what he states is true and others are false. What a delusional bugger.

 

[Jah_rastafar_I]

Haha Mercury. I admire your indefatigability. I've long given up on this schizo. It's beneath me to debate with a crackpot.

OH yeah sure you're supporting him and he might be your clone the asshole who is actually a racist.

 

[Jah_rastafar_I]

It was never legal to the China.

It is like explaining splitting Germany into east and west and cut Austria and Hungary.

Western powers always fear a bigger country.

I'm glad you see this. Mexico for eg had lands taken from it. southern thais are malays whom are culturally seperate from thais for eg and there are many more but why don't any of these ppl talk about those countries taking those other countries into their territory? Why? Cos they actually follow the western media in only specifically targetting china on the issue yet ignore their own attrocities. Seriously BS these ppl aren't tibetians so what does it matter if tibet is free or not? Why not they concern themselves with papua new guinea under indonesia for eg?

 

[Cruxx]

that's the PRC government lie....

please read the truth below

World Governments Recognize Tibet

International law states that recognition can occur by explicit or implicit acts including treaties, negotiations, and diplomatic relations. Mongolia and Tibet signed a formal treaty of recognition in 1913.

Mongolia herself wasn't even recognised by the international community as an independent country until 1945. Unilateral declaration means nothing. They themselves signed a treaty 2 years later, recognising China as having sovereignty over an autonomous Mongolia. They could recognise Tibet for all they wanted. It's akin to the "Democratic Republic of Hougang" signing a mutual recognition treaty with Taiwan

Tibet's independence was also confirmed at the Treaty of Simla (1914) which was concluded by Tibet and British India.

No, it wasn't. The Simla Accord (1914) was to divide Tibet into two parts with "Outer Tibet" under Chinese suzerainty but with the Tibetans having control over its administration and "Inner Tibet" under Chinese jurisdiction.

In 1949, Tibet maintained diplomatic, economic, and cultural relations with such countries as Nepal, Sikkim, Mongolia, China, British India, and to some extent, Russia and Japan. Further, Nepal maintained an Ambassador in Lhasa and told the U.N. in 1949 that it conducted international relations with Tibet. In fact, Britian, Bhutan, India, and even China also maintained diplomatic missions in Tibet's capitol, Lhasa.

De facto independence isn't de jure indepndence. None of these countries officially recognised Tibet as an independent sovereign state.

The Tibetan Foreign Office conducted talks with President Franklin D. Roosevelt when he sent representatives to Lhasa to discuss the allied war effort against Japan during World War II.

Yes, that was when President Roosevelt sent the Dalai Lama a letter, addressing him not as the ruler but as the religious leader of Tibet. Kong Hee isn't the ruler of an independent state called "City Harvest", is he?

However, during four U.N. General Assembly debates on Tibet (1959, 1960, 1961, & 1965), many countries (e.g., Philippines, Nicaragua, Thailand. United States, Ireland) openly stated that Tibet was an independent country illegally occupied by China. In fact, the U.N. passed three resolutions (1959, 1961, & 1965) concerning Tibet stating that Tibetans were deprived of their inalienable rights to self-determination.

No, they did not. These resolutions either denounced the violations of religious freedom or the violations of the Tibetan's right to self-determination. Not a single one of them expressly proclaimed that Tibet is an independent country. Anyway, the right to self-determination, as with all human rights, are no more than quixotic ideals of the Western liberals. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly stated that the freedom of movement is an inalienable right of all human beings. Yet, how many countries in this world do not operate with jails prohibiting the free movement of human beings?

Even Mao Zedong during the Long March admitted that Tibet was an independent country when he passed through the border regions of Tibet remarking, "This is our only foreign debt, and some day we must pay the Mantzu (sic) and the Tibetans for the provisions we were obliged to take from them."

Mao Zedong? That commie who sent the PLA to invade Tibet? That commie who presided over the period when the Seventeen Point Agreement was ratified by the Tibetans, confirming China's sovereignty over the territory?

Tibetans clearly constitute a people under international law, as described, for instance, by the UNESCO International Meeting of Experts on Further Study of the Concept of the Rights of Peoples. They are a distinct people and fulfill all the characteristics of this concept: commonality of history, shared language, culture, and ethnicity.

An independent sovereign state is neither a culture nor a nation. Pulau Ubin isn't a separate country even though it has a commonality of history, shared language and culture. Singapore has no shared ethnicity. Is it not an independent state then?

Mr Stig, I would appreciate if you could argue on your own terms rather than rely on disingenuous cut-and-paste propaganda from pro-Tibet websites.

 

[Clone]

Good effort on your part to rebut point by point, Cruxx!

Too tired to read now, quote first read tomorrow!

Mongolia herself wasn't even recognised by the international community as an independent country until 1945. Unilateral declaration means nothing. They themselves signed a treaty 2 years later, recognising China as having sovereignty over an autonomous Mongolia. They could recognise Tibet for all they wanted. It's akin to the "Democratic Republic of Hougang" signing a mutual recognition treaty with Taiwan



No, it wasn't. The Simla Accord (1914) was to divide Tibet into two parts with "Outer Tibet" under Chinese suzerainty but with the Tibetans having control over its administration and "Inner Tibet" under Chinese jurisdiction.



De facto independence isn't de jure indepndence. None of these countries officially recognised Tibet as an independent sovereign state.



Yes, that was when President Roosevelt sent the Dalai Lama a letter, addressing him not as the ruler but as the religious leader of Tibet. Kong Hee isn't the ruler of an independent state called "City Harvest", is he?



No, they did not. These resolutions either denounced the violations of religious freedom or the violations of the Tibetan's right to self-determination. Not a single one of them expressly proclaimed that Tibet is an independent country. Anyway, the right to self-determination, as with all human rights, are no more than quixotic ideals of the Western liberals. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly stated that the freedom of movement is an inalienable right of all human beings. Yet, how many countries in this world do not operate with jails prohibiting the free movement of human beings?



Mao Zedong? That commie who sent the PLA to invade Tibet? That commie who presided over the period when the Seventeen Point Agreement was ratified by the Tibetans, confirming China's sovereignty over the territory?



An independent sovereign state is neither a culture nor a nation. Pulau Ubin isn't a separate country even though it has a commonality of history, shared language and culture. Singapore has no shared ethnicity. Is it not an independent state then?

Mr Stig, I would appreciate if you could argue on your own terms rather than rely on disingenuous cut-and-paste propaganda from pro-Tibet websites.

 

[Conqueror]

PRC Is The Product Of Imperial Japan

1 The shitting, pissing and other disgusting craps are always more common in China than in any other country I know.

I, finally, have to conclude that China may not have enough toilets to help so many people to relieve their bodily excess or toxic waste. China has yet to improve itself especially its image. There used to be saying that the Chinese population was 90% rural with only 10% urban, comparing this with the Russian's counterpart 90% urban with only 10% rural. China was a strange kid that cooped himself up from others (as if the foreigners had got AIDS ?) Taiwan was 'Japanised' while the Jap was partially Westernised. The same thing goes for Korea. All three were governed by the Americans ? All play baseball except ex-Brit empire like Sinkiesland and Hong Kong. The cultural exchange in China was very limited - opera, ballet, classical stuff that makes you yawn.

2 We Singaporeans will never allow our own women to degrade themselves like these shameless PRC chickens.

Everyone's daughter here is going to be slut very soon. The time has changed. Modern people do not look at this as a taboo anymore. Virginity is not the in thing - an oldies' concept.

These PRCs women are just desperate for money to escape poverty and for those that used them to generate money. The same thing goes to places like Indonesia or Thailand. There wasn't enough foreign industries to utilise the people to produce stuff and to make ends meet for its people. That's why the world talked about "fighting against poverty" some time ago.

Singapore govt is no saint. It was accused of a paradise for human trafficking. Even money laundering too. Did they tell you about Kim's money in Sinkiesland ?

 

[Conqueror]

No More Old Stuff ! Get Rid Of Them !

An independent sovereign state is neither a culture nor a nation. Pulau Ubin isn't a separate country even though it has a commonality of history, shared language and culture. Singapore has no shared ethnicity. Is it not an independent state then?

Can a republic be a sovereign state ? A republic has no sovereign.

sovereign - a monarch; a king, queen, or other supreme ruler.

The mind has to change. If you don't, the president will become another sovereign with basically nothing else being changed - a fake republic. That's why I still hate this word.

No more old stuff ! Get rid of them. You cannot progress with old stuff trailing behind you like a chained cannonball.

Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.

 

[Mercury]

Aiyoh yoh chinese dog mercury actually replies to me close to 2am and i have already explained to him logically and defeated him yet what does he say? Total BS. Look what he writes is all nonsense and what he states is true and others are false. What a delusional bugger.

Lol typical mentality of PRC supporter always think they've won everything. You only showed me your unlimited support and defend for China. It's clear to anyone you're quite an strong China supporter judging from your comments...you defend their actions and make every excuse for them, an typical PRC supporter who doesn't care about right or wrong as long as Chinese wins.

 

[Sideswipe]

No, it wasn't. The Simla Accord (1914) was to divide Tibet into two parts with "Outer Tibet" under Chinese suzerainty but with the Tibetans having control over its administration and "Inner Tibet" under Chinese jurisdiction.

Mao Zedong? That commie who sent the PLA to invade Tibet? That commie who presided over the period when the Seventeen Point Agreement was ratified by the Tibetans, confirming China's sovereignty over the territory?

the Simla Accord actually confirmed Tibet's subordinate relation to China. the Tibetan leaders admitted Chinese sovereignty over Tibet there. China rejected the agreement and denounced it as illegitimate. the treaty was useless for both Tibet/Britain since it didn't have the important Chinese signature. the pro Tibetans self-pawn big time using this fact.

Mao Zedong usually do the opposite of what he said. the Tibetans missed the obvious hint.

 

[Sperminator]

QUOTE, " There is only one good - Knowledge ; there is only one evil - Ignorance " - Socrates.

Singapore, Singaporeans are all free people, born free... free to choose, even on what they believe in, and what they support or not support.

Singapore is a young country as compared to China... It is only due to Singapore's unique geographical location with deep sea ports that make what Singapore it is today. Singapore thrive on trading... no trading, no economy.

China is manufacturer of the world, no goods from China, Singapore is doomed.

So, the argument on "SINGAPOREANS should NEVER support CHINA" - I think this statement is skewed towards ignorance.

 

[Cruxx]

QUOTE, " There is only one good - Knowledge ; there is only one evil - Ignorance " - Socrates.

Singapore, Singaporeans are all free people, born free... free to choose, even on what they believe in, and what they support or not support.

Singapore is a young country as compared to China... It is only due to Singapore's unique geographical location with deep sea ports that make what Singapore it is today. Singapore thrive on trading... no trading, no economy.

China is manufacturer of the world, no goods from China, Singapore is doomed.

So, the argument on "SINGAPOREANS should NEVER support CHINA" - I think this statement is skewed towards ignorance.

I'm sure Sinkieland was doomed in 1970 when China wasn't the manufacturer of the world then. Another dumb Sinkie who can't think analytically and logically

 

[jw5]

I know some morons who would support China when they played Singapore in football.
And that was before the Singapore team had ah tiongs or other foreigners in the team.

 

[Jah_rastafar_I]

Lol typical mentality of PRC supporter always think they've won everything. You only showed me your unlimited support and defend for China. It's clear to anyone you're quite an strong China supporter judging from your comments...you defend their actions and make every excuse for them, an typical PRC supporter who doesn't care about right or wrong as long as Chinese wins.

don;t talk rubbish la cockster. All your "explainations" are rubbish and you are biased against chinese. I carefully explained everything to you and how silly you sound like you totally ignore it cos you have lost.

 

[Jah_rastafar_I]

I know some morons who would support China when they played Singapore in football.
And that was before the Singapore team had ah tiongs or other foreigners in the team.

Are those same ppl morons if they support man U instead of singapore when man u played against singapore? How about USA vs sg in b-ball?

 

[Mercury]

don;t talk rubbish la cockster. All your "explainations" are rubbish and you are biased against chinese. I carefully explained everything to you and how silly you sound like you totally ignore it cos you have lost.

People who throw insults are the one's who lose. Just look at how many insults you threw at me because you couldn't chew in the facts I presented to your face. Your behavior is typical of an frustrated cowards who think they can by arrogantly saying you've lost and throwing insults at the same time.

Any explanation to PRC supporters are of course rubbish, since when did PRC Chinese ever listened to anyone?