China to attack Vietnam's benefits

[Nestea]

OK, after all insulting words, now tell me, what's your point at all

It seems, NiceGuy impact on you is not small, you conversation becomes even more stupid! My point in front of the conversation has clearly stated that, Do I need to reply you again, what is my viewpoint?

You talk once again proved my point of view is correct, Vietnam excels to sophistry! Your so-called Nansha Islands and Xisha Islands sovereignty, Can only come through the confusion concept, to Manufacture the false evidence to prove，Method is different, trick was the same！Since Vietnam may say the such shameless words, Then we have the necessity which continues to talk? Therefore, do not pretend that Viet Nam is innocent, Insult China's unreasonable,bullies the small and weak country,Regarding Vietnamese this kind of shameless country, China makes anything not to be excessive! This is Vietnam should obtain! Finally, with retarded NiceGuy,Returns to the Vietnamese forum, This is not the mentally handicapped and shameless people Discussion place!

Regarding Vietnam, So-called Vietnam to the Nansha Islands and Xisha Islands sovereignty truth, just is Vietnam's one kind of explanation! Vietnam want to how to explain, Can obtain itself to hope “ truth”! You and NiceGuy is a true microcosm of Vietnam, shameless + mentally handicapped! Therefore, do not continue to reply to my remarks, we have nothing to talk about, You also do not have the qualifications to continue with me to talk!

 

[Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ]

It seems, NiceGuy impact on you is not small, you conversation becomes even more stupid! My point in front of the conversation has clearly stated that, Do I need to reply you again, what is my viewpoint?

Regarding Vietnam, So-called Vietnam to the Nansha Islands and Xisha Islands sovereignty truth, just is Vietnam's one kind of explanation! Vietnam want to how to explain, Can obtain itself to hope “ truth”! You and NiceGuy is a true microcosm of Vietnam, shameless + mentally handicapped! Therefore, do not continue to reply to my remarks, we have nothing to talk about, You also do not have the qualifications to continue with me to talk!

Again, after all insulting words, what's your point to prove your "sovereignty" at all? Your point is coz "Nice Guy impact" me and I'm "mentally" so Paracel and Spartly belong to China?

Talking with no proof and evidence is all Chinese like you have?

You haven't broken any of my points, all you can reply is simply insulting word like "stupid", "mentally retarded" ... blah blah blah ...
All of this thing prove that you are mentally, not me

 

[Nestea]

Again, after all insulting words, what's your point to prove your "sovereignty" at all? Your point is coz "Nice Guy impact" me and I'm "mentally" so Paracel and Spartly belong to China?

Talking with no proof and evidence is all Chinese like you have?

You haven't broken any of my points, all you can reply is simply insulting word like "stupid", "mentally retarded" ... blah blah blah ...
All of this thing prove that you are mentally, not me

1.Examines the beforehand conversation ! I say you are NiceGuy influence, Concrete manifestation in where? Was I had already expounded own viewpoint: Vietnam excels to sophistry! But you after having quoted my conversation, Also continues to ask me: What is your viewpoint? You said that, You asked this question whether very stupid? I said that NiceGuy affects you to be whether correct?

- The author accuse Vietnam for "treat both archipelagos as only one archipelago in the history", but they can't explain why Viet Nam can't do that

You talk once again proved my point of view is correct, Vietnam excels to sophistry!!

 

[Nestea]

OK, after all insulting words, now tell me, what's your point at all

2. China has the South China Sea islands sovereignty, I through introduced you read “Daniel J. Dzurek, Clive H. Schofield” the article proved. Your so-called Viewpoint , just a Viet Nam sophistry! Moreover the author is the third party viewpoint, It is not Chinese own rhetoric , You just don't willing to admit that the facts ! Is similar to the author a very important fact which pointed out in the article: Vietnam so-called to the Nansha Islands sovereignty “evidence”, Is realizes through the confusion concept! This is author's in article description: "Vietnamese argumentation, covering the period until the end of the 19th century, refers exclusively to the Paracels. " Given the 400km distance between them, it would be unusual to treat both island groups as a single entity or use one place name for both.” Then, carefully review your previous conversations, How vividly to display the Vietnamese true mentality !

- The author accuse Vietnam for "treat both archipelagos as only one archipelago in the history", but they can't explain why Viet Nam can't do that

Therefore, Can I say Vietnam is good at sophistry? Therefore ,By confusing concepts to create false evidence? Whether to say you are very shameless?

So, about these two spots, I can say: Vietnam excels to sophistry? You have the retarded tendency? The personhood is very shameless?

 

[vtnsx]

2. China has the South China Sea islands sovereignty, I through introduced you read “Daniel J. Dzurek, Clive H. Schofield” the article proved. Your so-called Viewpoint , just a Viet Nam sophistry! Moreover the author is the third party viewpoint, It is not Chinese own rhetoric , You just don't willing to admit that the facts ! Is similar to the author a very important fact which pointed out in the article: Vietnam so-called to the Nansha Islands sovereignty “evidence”, Is realizes through the confusion concept! This is author's in article description: "Vietnamese argumentation, covering the period until the end of the 19th century, refers exclusively to the Paracels. " Given the 400km distance between them, it would be unusual to treat both island groups as a single entity or use one place name for both.” Then, carefully review your previous conversations, How vividly to display the Vietnamese true mentality !



Therefore, Can I say Vietnam is good at sophistry? Therefore ,By confusing concepts to create false evidence? Whether to say you are very shameless?

So, about these two spots, I can say: Vietnam excels to sophistry? You have the retarded tendency? The personhood is very shameless?

No retreat, no surrender. That is Vietnamese's Law. And by the Vietnamese's law we will stand and fight, and die. We will give our last breath to defend it, give you nothing, but take EVERYTHING! Invade our land! This is where we hold you! This is where we fight! This is where you DIE!

 

[888jamie888]

No retreat, no surrender. That is Vietnamese's Law. And by the Vietnamese's law we will stand and fight, and die. We will give our last breath to defend it, give you nothing, but take EVERYTHING! Invade our land! This is where we hold you! This is where we fight! This is where you DIE!

Hahaha. Vietnamese! What is your profession!?!?

 

[Jihad]

Interesting that you bring this up. India will soon too need to flex her muscles to demonstrate to the world that we have now "arrived" on the global scene. Pakistan is too powerful to easily crush, but Sri Lanka would be a good option for the Indian military to make an example of.

To Sri Lankan members, please do not take it the wrong way. The bigger picture must be realized as India is now a global power and the next Superpower. We must send a strong message to China and Pakistan and the only way to do it is to make an example out of Sri Lanka. Because this war will be a very symbolic one it will carry the full wrath of the Indian military -- only then will hostile neighbors know how powerful we are.

Hahahahahhahahahahahahaha!!!

 

[Rechoice]

Hahaha. Vietnamese! What is your profession!?!?

When our land in danger, aggressors coming then all Vietnamese shall be fighters.

 

[Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ]

1.Examines the beforehand conversation ! I say you are NiceGuy influence, Concrete manifestation in where? Was I had already expounded own viewpoint: Vietnam excels to sophistry! But you after having quoted my conversation, Also continues to ask me: What is your viewpoint? You said that, You asked this question whether very stupid? I said that NiceGuy affects you to be whether correct?

"Vietnam excels to sophistry" -> Nope, we talk with evidence and proof, you talk with insulting word

2. China has the South China Sea islands sovereignty, I through introduced you read “Daniel J. Dzurek, Clive H. Schofield” the article proved. Your so-called Viewpoint , just a Viet Nam sophistry! Moreover the author is the third party viewpoint, It is not Chinese own rhetoric , You just don't willing to admit that the facts ! Is similar to the author a very important fact which pointed out in the article: Vietnam so-called to the Nansha Islands sovereignty “evidence”, Is realizes through the confusion concept! This is author's in article description: "Vietnamese argumentation, covering the period until the end of the 19th century, refers exclusively to the Paracels. " Given the 400km distance between them, it would be unusual to treat both island groups as a single entity or use one place name for both.” Then, carefully review your previous conversations, How vividly to display the Vietnamese true mentality !

Therefore, Can I say Vietnam is good at sophistry? Therefore ,By confusing concepts to create false evidence? Whether to say you are very shameless?

So, about these two spots, I can say: Vietnam excels to sophistry? You have the retarded tendency? The personhood is very shameless?

Now, show me what rules say that Vietnamese in the history can't treat both archipelagos as one???? Remember that "archipelago" meaning in the history is different with different countries, no rules offer the limit of the space between islands in a archipelago before the end of 19th century. "Unusual" doesn't mean "illegal"! Understand?
Second, the author mention about Spartly so he missed Vietnamese argument in Paracel.

#1504
Now what, Westerners in 18th, 19th history said that Paracel belongs to Vietnam so they also "excels to sophistry" or somethings like that

I don't know what the hell "sophistry" is in your dictionary, I know that according to international dictionary, "sophistry" is Chinese's argument. Let's check again your argument:
- Fishing movement. Chinese fishermen had reached there in Han/Tang/Yuan dynasties (Yuan, we all love the Yuan ) so it belongs to China Such an stupid argument, "set sovereignty" and "discover something" (or "catch some fish") are totally different. Spain can claim the whole America because they found it first? No, they have to send forces later to set sovereignty like other nations (England, France, Holland ...).
And, if force came there but didn't set sovereignty, it's illegal to claim too. Such as Vietnamese forces of General Lý Long Tường had been to Taiwan, but he didn't set sovereignty there so Vietnam can't claim Taiwan.
- North Vietnam "sold" Paracel and Spartly to China so Socialist Republic of Vietnam don't have the right over those islands.
-> They forget that the Viet Cong and the South Vietnam have the right over Paracel and Spartly, not North Vietnam. North Vietnam can't "sell" somethings not belong to them Today Vietnam has the sovereignty from Viet Cong, not from North Vietnam. Poor for China, both Viet Cong and South Vietnam opposed China's claim and invasion
All I can say is "Cheater was cheated" You can accuse North Vietnam for "treaky" or something like that, but real cheater like China have to be cheated sometimes, right?
- The author accuse Vietnam for "treat both archipelagos as only one archipelago in the history", but they can't explain why Viet Nam can't do that He only can say that it's "unusual" and "unsual" is not "illegal", so nothing wrong with it until you can show me any rule which say that Vietnamese in the history can't treat both archipelagos as one because in that time (18th, 19th Century), UN (or something like that) say that the limit of islands in 1 archipelago is xxx miles

 

[Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ]

Hahaha. Vietnamese! What is your profession!?!?

Kill invaders

 

[Nestea]

"Vietnam excels to sophistry" -> Nope, we talk with evidence and proof, you talk with insulting word



Now, show me what rules say that Vietnamese in the history can't treat both archipelagos as one???? Remember that "archipelago" meaning in the history is different with different countries, no rules offer the limit of the space between islands in a archipelago before the end of 19th century. "Unusual" doesn't mean "illegal"! Understand?
Second, the author mention about Spartly so he missed Vietnamese argument in Paracel.

#1504
Now what, Westerners in 18th, 19th history said that Paracel belongs to Vietnam so they also "excels to sophistry" or somethings like that

I don't know what the hell "sophistry" is in your dictionary, I know that according to international dictionary, "sophistry" is Chinese's argument. Let's check again your argument:
- Fishing movement. Chinese fishermen had reached there in Han/Tang/Yuan dynasties (Yuan, we all love the Yuan ) so it belongs to China Such an stupid argument, "set sovereignty" and "discover something" (or "catch some fish") are totally different. Spain can claim the whole America because they found it first? No, they have to send forces later to set sovereignty like other nations (England, France, Holland ...).
And, if force came there but didn't set sovereignty, it's illegal to claim too. Such as Vietnamese forces of General Lý Long Tường had been to Taiwan, but he didn't set sovereignty there so Vietnam can't claim Taiwan.
- North Vietnam "sold" Paracel and Spartly to China so Socialist Republic of Vietnam don't have the right over those islands.
-> They forget that the Viet Cong and the South Vietnam have the right over Paracel and Spartly, not North Vietnam. North Vietnam can't "sell" somethings not belong to them Today Vietnam has the sovereignty from Viet Cong, not from North Vietnam. Poor for China, both Viet Cong and South Vietnam opposed China's claim and invasion
All I can say is "Cheater was cheated" You can accuse North Vietnam for "treaky" or something like that, but real cheater like China have to be cheated sometimes, right?
- The author accuse Vietnam for "treat both archipelagos as only one archipelago in the history", but they can't explain why Viet Nam can't do that He only can say that it's "unusual" and "unsual" is not "illegal", so nothing wrong with it until you can show me any rule which say that Vietnamese in the history can't treat both archipelagos as one because in that time (18th, 19th Century), UN (or something like that) say that the limit of islands in 1 archipelago is xxx miles

"Archipelago" meaning in the history is different with different countries. If you thought that the entire South China Sea islands use identical name replaces, that is your freedom! But if involves to the concrete geographical position, sovereignty request, You also apply mechanically this concept in has Vietnam not involved the Nansha Islands, That is one kind of illegal claim!

Daniel J. Dzurek is an American geographer,a specialized researcher, his opinion also more specialized, real, compared with can be persuasive. I quote his opinion, proved that own viewpoint, quite to be whether easy to let others accept? Comparatively, what are you? You are only one excel at the tongue movement Vietnam, If you thought that you are authoritative, You may through published papers or the publication books rebuttal author, Proved that oneself is true “expert”!

I have tired of endless debates with you, Wait until you can prove more authority than the author , Comes here to continue again to publish you “clever argument”!

 

[Roybot]

Too many emoticons on this page.

 

[Dalai Lama]

Too many emoticons on this page.

 

[Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ]

"Archipelago" meaning in the history is different with different countries. If you thought that the entire South China Sea islands use identical name replaces, that is your freedom! But if involves to the concrete geographical position, sovereignty request, You also apply mechanically this concept in has Vietnam not involved the Nansha Islands, That is one kind of illegal claim!

Daniel J. Dzurek is an American geographer,a specialized researcher, his opinion also more specialized, real, compared with can be persuasive. I quote his opinion, proved that own viewpoint, quite to be whether easy to let others accept? Comparatively, what are you? You are only one excel at the tongue movement Vietnam, If you thought that you are authoritative, You may through published papers or the publication books rebuttal author, Proved that oneself is true “expert”!

I have tired of endless debates with you, Wait until you can prove more authority than the author , Comes here to continue again to publish you “clever argument”!

Now focus on my comment:
1. Show me what rules say that Vietnamese in the history can't treat both archipelagos as one or what rules offer the limit of the space between islands in a archipelago before the end of 19th century. "Unusual" doesn't mean "illegal"! Understand?
2.
#1504
Now what, Westerners in 18th, 19th history said that Paracel belongs to Vietnam so they also "excels to sophistry" or somethings like that?

Too many emoticons on this page.

Sorry ~~

 

[Star√ation]

A bloody debate for ...nothing