Are you saying that the few million Tibetans that survive in Tibet is testimony to the fact that is no genocide going on in Tibet, and that a genocide never occurred? The last time I checked there were Jews in Germany and Russia, Tutsis in Rwanda, Christian black Africans in Darfur, Hindus in Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan, Serbs in Bosnia, Zoroastrians in Iran and Kurds in Iraq. A few that happen to survive does not mean that a genocide never occurred. Sorry no takers here for your communist lies.
2.The Communists were not the first Chinese regime that ruled Tibet. Qing also ruled Tibet, so there are at least partial legal basis for China's "occupation".
As I said before. Tibet was occupied for brief periods in history by certain Chinese dynasties which happens to be China's premise for its current occupation of Tibet. And might I add, its a baseless premise.
3.Nehru never sucked up to China. Else he won't stir up shit in Tibet. Anybody who stir up shit over Tibet would be treated as China's arch enemy, does Nehru not understand this simple fact? How do you suck up somebody by screwing his mother? Let's not talk about who is on the justice side here, and I just don't understand the logic about Nehru feeling betrayed by China.
Anybody who stir up shit over Tibet would be treated as China's arch enemy,
Tibet is not Chinese territory. And it was China that "stirred up shit in" Tibet through occupation and brutal subjugation.
Let's not talk about who is on the justice side here...........
Why not? Are you afraid of the truth?
If Nehru "stir up shit in Tibet" as you claim then its a matter between India and Tibet. China has no locus standi on the issue. Nehru's fundamental mistake was he gave legitimacy to Chinese occupation of Tibet by recognizing Chinese suzerainty over Tibet. You seem to have a sore boil in your butt because he didn't accede to more Chinese demands and concede further territory.
4.Why should China allow India to define the McMahhon Line as the border line? The McMahhon Line is unilaterally imposed on Tibet by the imperilist British Empire. Why should China allow India to inherit all the spoils from the British bandits?
Because China has no Locus Standi in the region. Independent India inherits everything that British India legally accorded it (that excludes areas coming under the control of Pakistan or princely states that chooses to remain independent). McMahhon Line comes under the charter signed between British India and Tibet (which was then an independent state that didn't require the consent of the Chinese). McMahhon Line was the border recognized by both Tibet and India. It maybe an "imposition" on a losing side by a winning side but it is still legal. Versailles treaty post WW1 was also an "imposition" on a losing side by a winning side but it was also legal. Same with WW2 and UN charter.
Three questions:
You are saying "Why should China allow India to define the McMahhon Line as the border line? The McMahhon Line is unilaterally imposed on Tibet by the imperilist British Empire."
My question : If you are saying "McMahhon Line was unilaterally imposed" by the British, what give Chinese communist bandits the right to move in and unilaterally change the border?
You are saying "Why should China allow India to inherit all the spoils from the British bandits?"
If you are saying that McMahhon Line was illegitimate because it was imposed by British (an "imperialist" foreign power), how does Chinese (a foreign Communist regime) occupation over Tibet becomes any more legitimate?
You are saying "Why should China allow India to inherit all the spoils from the British bandits?"
On that basis why should the Chinese be allowed to inherit everything among the spoils of a (a once brief moment in history) Qing dynasty rule over Tibet?
I think Mongolia has the historical right to incorporate and rule the majority of China. Let's start a petition and take our claim to the UN on behalf of Mongolia.