What's new

Britain will lose by criticizing China on Tibet issue

Thats cause your Pakistani and a muslim brother, Im hindu and Tibet is sacred land for hindus sikhs buddhist I dont know if you heard of Mount kailash in tibet? it is a pilgrim site for all 3 dharmic religions. Lord Kalki the final Avatar of God will also be born in Tibet as mentioned in Hindu/Buddhist/Sikhs holy text. So Tibet has everything to do with us but Han chinese have nothing in common with tibet they simply annexed it.

Yes because there is not enough fighting in this world over religious turf. Let's make it all about who's god lived where then we'll really get the killing started.


I agree China is catching up fast in IT I think China is no1 in hardware and India is no1 in software thats why we have endless possibilities if we work together.

After reading Indian posts for a week or two, nothing confuses me more than this Indian schizophrenia where one posts will be about how India is going to whip China in a war and the other will be about the boundless possibilities that can be achieve if only China/India worked together.

Can someone please explain this to me.
 
.
I greatly admire Britain... but it is just a fact that Britain is losing geopolitical power in the world.

Nothing wrong with that, things always go in cycles.
 
.
Yes because there is not enough fighting in this world over religious turf. Let's make it all about who's god lived where then we'll really get the killing started.




After reading Indian posts for a week or two, nothing confuses me more than this Indian schizophrenia where one posts will be about how India is going to whip China in a war and the other will be about the boundless possibilities that can be achieve if only China/India worked together.

Can someone please explain this to me.




Thats cause your most likely a han atheist chinese am i right?
Religion is not important to you where as for hindus, sikhs, and buddhist who are dharmic religions, Tibet is very sacred and important place for us.


As for India whooping Chinas in war, it was China who first attacked passive India in 1962. India has no desire to wage war with China unless China again instigates it.
 
.
Thats cause your most likely a han atheist chinese am i right?

LOL what does that have to do with it? I'm Han too by the way.

I understand that Tibet to you is a sacred place.

In fact, Chinese Religion (Buddhism) came from the Indian subcontinent too. You may not see China as a place that is spiritual... but if you come to China you will see most people have an enormous respect for Buddhism especially, and Hinduism/Islam as well.

If you wish more autonomy to Tibet then good for you, I think Tibet should have more autonomy and freedom as well. Hopefully this can be achieved peacefully.
 
.
LOL what does that have to do with it? I'm Han too by the way.

I understand that Tibet to you is a sacred place.

In fact, Chinese Religion (Buddhism) came from the Indian subcontinent too. You may not see China as a place that is spiritual... but if you come to China you will see most people have an enormous respect for Buddhism especially, and Hinduism/Islam as well.

If you wish more autonomy to Tibet then good for you, I think Tibet should have more autonomy and freedom as well. Hopefully this can be achieved peacefully.

Well I agree with you we can work together peacefully, ive always believed that China and India who lived together and prospered for 5000 years side by side exchanging ideas on culture, philosophy & trade can use that as a base.

The next century belongs to Asia and we already working together on important issues like climate change, in the G20 summit we spoke with the same voice. The only thing like you said im in favour of is granting more autonomy to tibet but its freshing that you agree with me, i spoke to one Chinese chap on here (chinaownseverything) he told me India has no shared history with Tibet etc but i think he could have been Pakistani pretending to be chinese lol
 
. .
The next century belongs to Asia and we already working together on important issues like climate change, in the G20 summit we spoke with the same voice.

You are right my friend. :cheers:

The next century is certainly an Asian century, so we must work together.

Chinese people don't have a problem with Indian people at all. In fact, the "Buddha" himself was actually an Indian man!

For the Tibet issue I know there is a lot of sympathy for the Tibetan people, and I think it is very important for us to give them more autonomy, and more support.

Countries are judged by how they treat minorities, so China MUST do more for the people of Tibet. That is my opinion.
 
. . .
You are right my friend. :cheers:

The next century is certainly an Asian century, so we must work together.

Chinese people don't have a problem with Indian people at all. In fact, the "Buddha" himself was actually an Indian man!

For the Tibet issue I know there is a lot of sympathy for the Tibetan people, and I think it is very important for us to give them more autonomy, and more support.

Countries are judged by how they treat minorities, so China MUST do more for the people of Tibet. That is my opinion.

Agree on that.

The thing is that a lot people think that Han Chinese are systematically trying to do a "culture genocide" or "religious genocide" on the Tibetan population. Maybe Tibetans don't have much more freedom according to Western Standards, but they definitely have more freedom comparing to just regular Han Chinese in China. Otherwise tell me how successful those genocides are when the native Tibetan population actually increased significantly with life expectancy more than doubled; and since the literacy of Tibet is actually almost on par with the national standard, there are more Tibetans that can read or write in Tibetan; and Tibetan Buddhism has become ever more popular as each year there are more visitors to Potala Palace for pilgrimage. With the efficiency that China's government had show for other things, those are definitely more than disastrous, and whoever is in charge of those should be sent to firing squad.
 
.
I greatly admire Britain... but it is just a fact that Britain is losing geopolitical power in the world.

Nothing wrong with that, things always go in cycles.

well you are little right but that not manes china is more poerful thne britain

fact is china stilll growing and there is no comparision between them
 
.
well you are little right but that not manes china is more poerful thne britain

fact is china stilll growing and there is no comparision between them

LOL you must be joking... :rofl:

China's economy is SEVERAL times larger than the UK economy already...

China has the 2nd largest economy in the world, Britain is only number 6...

Like I said, I admire Britain a lot, but they are losing strategic power.

They follow America around without any argument, even into wars. They have no power in the relationship.

In the EU, both Germany and France have larger economies and more political power, the UK isn't even part of the Eurozone currency.

Britain has a great history but is sliding downwards, unless they finally stand up to America or the EU, and stop following others like they did with George Bush.
 
.
LOL you must be joking... :rofl:

China's economy is SEVERAL times larger than the UK economy already...

China has the 2nd largest economy in the world, Britain is only number 6...

Like I said, I admire Britain a lot, but they are losing strategic power.

They follow America around without any argument, even into wars. They have no power in the relationship.

In the EU, both Germany and France have larger economies and more political power, the UK isn't even part of the Eurozone currency.

Britain has a great history but is sliding downwards, unless they finally stand up to America or the EU, and stop following others like they did with George Bush.

well, since they have this
CVF-LR-Image---3.jpg

and you only have this,
13-2007-Dalian-Overhead.jpg

so shut up you. :lol::sniper:

It is hard to live in everyday while being labeled as US's running dog, so cut the Brits some slacks, would you.

Also can someone educate me why UK's SLBM for their SSBN are US's Trident II/D5 while there is a treaty banning selling missiles beyond 300km
 
Last edited:
.
well, since they have this
CVF-LR-Image---3.jpg

and you only have this,
13-2007-Dalian-Overhead.jpg

so shut up you. :lol::sniper:

It is hard to live in everyday while being labeled as US's running dog, so cut the Brits some slacks, would you.

Oh man can I please please emphasize how useless carriers are in a proper state vs state conflict. It's not longer a strategic asset rather a 5000 man, 10 billion dollar liability.

They are excellent against none-state actors or failed states, to show you how vulnerable they are...

During a naval exercise in the Persian gulf, using surprise and unorthodox tactics, the wily 64-year-old Lt Gen. Paul K. Van Riper sank most of the US expeditionary fleet in the Persian Gulf, bringing the US assault to a halt.

Here's how he did it with obsolete Chinese technology.

Van Riper had at his disposal a computer-generated flotilla of small boats and planes, many of them civilian, which he kept buzzing around the virtual Persian Gulf in circles as the game was about to get under way. As the US fleet entered the Gulf, Van Riper gave a signal - not in a radio transmission that might have been intercepted, but in a coded message broadcast from the minarets of mosques at the call to prayer. The seemingly harmless pleasure craft and propeller planes suddenly turned deadly, ramming into Blue boats and airfields along the Gulf in scores of al-Qaida-style suicide attacks. Meanwhile, Chinese Silkworm-type cruise missiles fired from some of the small boats sank the US fleet's only aircraft carrier and two marine helicopter carriers. The tactics were reminiscent of the al-Qaida attack on the USS Cole in Yemen two years ago, but the Blue fleet did not seem prepared. Sixteen ships were sunk altogether, along with thousands of marines. If it had really happened, it would have been the worst naval disaster since Pearl Harbor
 
.
Oh man can I please please emphasize how useless carriers are in a proper state vs state conflict. It's not longer a strategic asset rather a 5000 man, 10 billion dollar liability.

They are excellent against none-state actors or failed states, to show you how vulnerable they are...



Here's how he did it with obsolete Chinese technology.
Old news. Van Riper was successful because he was well familiar with US military doctrines and higher than 'Top Secret' battle plans.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom