What's new

Pakistan Beware, They Are Cornering China!

Anyway, I believe atleast half of Ahmad Qureshi's article. China, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are steadfast behnd each other to support each other and promote regional dominance. China is helping Pakistan on many military fronts including JF-!7 thunder, missiles, tanks, and the latest ship for army. Same on Gwadar port.

USA, Russia and India understand the regional game and are desparate to avoid any future strengthening of Pakistan or China with help of Saudi money. India & Russai are playing their separate game against PAK and China. And, the USA is trying best to secure its Oil & Gas reserves of Caspian Sea.

China has not only secured the oil fields of Sudan but also few in Iran and is ready to join the IPI pipeline with PAK. India also a booming economy needs Oil & Gas for its survival, and has invested in few wells of Iran.

The Great Chinese stronghold of world economy is causing the USA economy to go into recession slowly. All major exports are being manage by China worldwide.

No wonder it is in the interest of USA, Russia and India to suppress and corner China.

While Pakistan currently has only two sincere friends i.e China and Saudi Arabia.

China has good reason to support Pakistan.

One, it will keep India busy.

Two, it will neutralise the Uighurs since Pakistan and other Moslem countries will not support their demand for religious freedom or independence!

Selective application of Islam!

Indeed, the plight of the Uighurs indicates the hypocrisy of Islamic countries!
 
China has good reason to support Pakistan.

One, it will keep India busy.

If that would be the reason as indeed mentioned by you, wouldnt china then have supported us in every war against india? Since that was not the case, doesnt it prove otherwise that china has no such intensions and it wants to peacefully coexist with all its neighbours including india and be a responsible power.
 
Salim, LN, SA, ipf, Malang, at al,

As an ordinary person, just as I’m not comfortable with Leap and Revolution in the past, I’m not comfortable with 40000, and the alike in the current. As Neo pointed out, that discussions are getting off topic. In addition, if you are cozy with your system, why should I bother?


Now back to the topic.

I think Pakistanis have a good reason to worry about Tibet riots. Why? Because some Indian elites want to utilize the situation in Tibet and attempt to control Tibet whereby, though, to me or to any sane people, it is not even remotely probable in reality.

Here is an excerpt of the article. India's response to Tibet's freedom cry - upiasiaonline.com

“…
What has India to gain or lose from Tibet's cry for freedom?

India has everything to gain if China's grip on Tibet is loosened. It would be still better if the Dalai Lama was restored to power and China's military was forced to leave. The wrongs of the last 60 years would be righted, if that happened.

China's claim over Tibet is hollow. Into Tibet the Chinese came marching militarily, completely unopposed. India in 1950 accepted it as a fait accompli.

A great benefit, if Tibet's cry for freedom is heard, is that China's prestige will be cut down to size. The Chinese do not wish that; hence they have rushed their highly equipped rapid reaction force to the region. Images of how China will reinforce the India-China border in case of trouble are beginning to form in the Indian security officers' minds. Now they have a direct example of Chinese plans if there is a firefight on the Indian border.
Very soon, rightly or wrongly, China will suspect an Indian hand in the Tibetan uprising. They will reinforce the Indian border. Like the border fight of 1962, they may create a border incident and ultimately try to turn it into a military confrontation. This time India must reply with vigor. The Tibetan uprising will help.

The net benefit to India from the trouble in Tibet is that China is being cut down to size. India can relax a bit this year as China focuses much of its attention on controlling Tibetan monks and freedom groups, who will thank the Western media for not ignoring them.
…

“

According to this "prophet", if Tibet is in India’s grip, pressure on Pakistan’s north will be greatly increased.

It looks not that China wants to keep India busy, rather it is some Indians try to make India to keep China busy.
 
From above-quoted: "This time India must reply with vigor". Truly belligerent.

I happen in the midst of reading some declassified documents from US department of State, and find some history handy, though history does not repeat itself: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/70142.pdf

" ...

PM Chou: It is also possible to misunderstand the origins of the Sino-Indian conflict.

Dr. Kissinger: That’s possible.

PM Chou: The Indians said that we created the Ladakh incident. It occurred on a peak of the Karakorums on the Aksai-chin Plateau of Sinkiang. At this point a ridge of the Karakorums falls off very sharply downward on the Kashmir side. The elevation is very high and even the Soviet helicopters used by the Indians could only gradually work their way up the steep slope. Our people were on top of this ridge and could see down on the Soviet helicopters gradually coming up. The Aksai-chin Plateau is the route along which we have to travel when crossing from Sinkiang to the Ali district of Tibet. The height of the plateau is 5000 meters. We started to build this highway in 1951—

Dr. Kissinger: The Indians call this region Ladakh.

PM Chou: Actually, Ladakh is farther below, but the Indians call all of this region Ladakh. Even the British colonial maps do not show this as a part of India, and Nehru was only able to provide a claim on the basis of a map drawn by a British traveller. Even three years after the road was built, Nehru didn’t know about it. It runs all the way from Western Sinkiang to the Ali district of Tibet.

In my discussions with Nehru on the Sino-Indian boundary in 1956 he suddenly raised the issue of the road. I said, “you didn’t even know we were building a road the last three years, and now you suddenly say that it is your territory.” I remarked upon how strange this was. Although the so-called McMahon Line was a line that no Chinese government ever recognized, at least it was a line drawn by a Britisher, even though in drawing it he included more than 90,000 square kilometers of our territory in India. However, in the western sector there was no such line.

There was no agreement with us either in 1956 or 1957. And so in 1959 the Indians sent small patrols crawling up the steep slopes to attack our post. Our guards were at the passes. This was in December and the weather was extremely cold—40 degrees below zero. Our post was in the form of a fort and we could see them climbing up. So when the Indians attacked they suffered more heavy losses than we. However, we did have some wounded, and we raised a protest with the Indian Government. TASS said of this incident that the Chinese committed aggression against India. Khrushchev, without inquiring, took the same position on the grounds that the Indians had suffered such heavy casualties. This was the first such anti-China statement from the USSR.
...
"

Let's see how vigorous it will be this time.
 
If that would be the reason as indeed mentioned by you, wouldnt china then have supported us in every war against india? Since that was not the case, doesnt it prove otherwise that china has no such intensions and it wants to peacefully coexist with all its neighbours including india and be a responsible power.

China did not support Pakistan physically since she had her own self interest in mind.

She did not want to squander her finance in a fruitless war when she was in a race to modernise and take on the US.
 
China did not support Pakistan physically since she had her own self interest in mind.

She did not want to squander her finance in a fruitless war when she was in a race to modernise and take on the US.

So how are you suggesting that china is helping pakistan to keep india busy. Busy how?
 
Origins of violent monks[/B]


Ïê½â£ºËùνÖйú¾üÈË°çÀ®ÂïÕÕ´©°ïϸ½Ú (2)--ͼƬ--ÈËÃñÍø

maybe you should get some info more about this picture, Mr. Logic Note.
and I present you the link above, please look for some difference. And if you cann't read chinese, I translate its main meanning of the news as follow:

The picture was shot/made at least 7 years ago (2001),because:
1. the uniform of China's armmed police have been totally changed 2005,( I can send you some figures of the new uniform if you want.)
2. Beware of the curtain of man-forced tricycle! The color of the curtain in this picture actuaaly have been suggestted to change as Blue_Red-Green in by gov.in 2004 to "show Tebitan unique culture"! And there's no tricycle with such curtain in 2004's winter!

and actually, the picture was shot in a movie ( they're ordered to join a movie as mass actor).

ËùνÖйú¾üÈË°çÀ®ÂïÕÕƬϵÅĵçӰʱËùÉã

So, please not to be cheated by some "Super-Professional" media as it's their unique nature or the necessary needs of their gov.
 
I think you mistake me for a Pakistani.

Mao played a great role and of that there is no doubt and even in India, his role is acknowledged.

His treatise on guerilla warfare is world acclaimed.

But the issue I was mentioning was that what was anathema to the Communist - Capitalism and consumerism are the very pillars on which today China's prosperity and progress is engined on.

It means total rejection of the Communist philosophy and embracing an economic model that was reviled by Mao.

In short, Mao and his philosophy remains rejected and garbaged and whatever he hated has been embraced.

Thus, it is a salute of the Chinese people to Capitalism and rejection of the sacrifices of Mao and the other Communist heroes of the Revolution!

I am so sorry about it that indeed I made a mistake!

And about Mao's philisophy, there is a problem of view of the knowledging:
Ma's philisophy didnot just only include economic, but much more in philisophical issues! About how to get knowledge of the truth, how to act upon a society, how to comment china's history,etc.

Your views are, indeed, right about Mao's failure in strenthenning china's economy during some special periods. However, a conclusion of "chinese abardoned Mao's philisophy" basing these info is really ironic.

It just gives others a inpression that you have confused Policy and Philisophy.
 
Salim, LN, SA, ipf, Malang, at al,
As an ordinary person, just as I’m not comfortable with Leap and Revolution in the past, I’m not comfortable with 40000, and the alike in the current.

Since India being a free country.. you can come here start an NGO and hold protest marched to highlight the issue.. I am sure you cannot hold rallies in China to bring to justice those responsible for deaths of millions..


As Neo pointed out, that discussions are getting off topic. In addition, if you are cozy with your system, why should I bother?

If chinese think themselves to be incapable to rule themselves or do not want basic human freedom then I have no problems.. but why should Tibetans, Uighurs etc. suffer?

Now back to the topic.

Coming from you?? You are the guy who is bringing India versus China discussion...

I think Pakistanis have a good reason to worry about Tibet riots. Why? Because some Indian elites want to utilize the situation in Tibet and attempt to control Tibet whereby, though, to me or to any sane people, it is not even remotely probable in reality.

Control tibet? why? Doesn't India declare Tibet to be a part of China? Though I am sure if India refuses to take part in Olympics and supports Tibetan freedom there will be popular support..

[quote\Here is an excerpt of the article. India's response to Tibet's freedom cry - upiasiaonline.com
“…
What has India to gain or lose from Tibet's cry for freedom?
India has everything to gain if China's grip on Tibet is loosened. It would be still better if the Dalai Lama was restored to power and China's military was forced to leave. The wrongs of the last 60 years would be righted, if that happened. [/quote]

India has categorically said that Tibet is a part of China, but Tibetans have a right to protest injustice too..

China's claim over Tibet is hollow. Into Tibet the Chinese came marching militarily, completely unopposed. India in 1950 accepted it as a fait accompli.[/quote

absolutely..

A great benefit, if Tibet's cry for freedom is heard, is that China's prestige will be cut down to size. The Chinese do not wish that; hence they have rushed their highly equipped rapid reaction force to the region. Images of how China will reinforce the India-China border in case of trouble are beginning to form in the Indian security officers' minds. Now they have a direct example of Chinese plans if there is a firefight on the Indian border.
Very soon, rightly or wrongly, China will suspect an Indian hand in the Tibetan uprising. They will reinforce the Indian border. Like the border fight of 1962, they may create a border incident and ultimately try to turn it into a military confrontation. This time India must reply with vigor. The Tibetan uprising will help.The net benefit to India from the trouble in Tibet is that China is being cut down to size. India can relax a bit this year as China focuses much of its attention on controlling Tibetan monks and freedom groups, who will thank the Western media for not ignoring them.
…

Okay..

According to this "prophet",

do you as much contempt for this prophet as others?

if Tibet is in India’s grip, pressure on Pakistan’s north will be greatly increased.

Nope.. you are adding stuff on your own.. your quote from the article didn't mention Pakistan..

It looks not that China wants to keep India busy, rather it is some Indians try to make India to keep China busy.

Thanks for your opinion.. I don't buy it...
 
Tibet wasn’t ours, says Chinese scholar

HONG KONG: A leading Chinese historian and a veteran of the committee that advises on official Chinese history textbooks has broken step with the official Chinese line on historical sovereignty over Tibet and said that to claim that the ancient Buddhist kingdom “has always been a part of China” would be a “defiance of history”.

In an article in the China Review magazine, Professor Ge Jianxiong, 62, director of the Institute of Chinese Historical Geography and the Research Centre for Historical Geographic Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai, states that while considering how big China was during the Tang Dynasty (7th to 10th century), “we cannot include the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, which was ruled by Tubo/Tufan…”

Tubo/Tufan, notes Ge, “was a sovereignty independent of the Tang Dynasty. At least it was not administered by the Tang Dynasty.” If it were not, he argues, there would have been no need for the Tang emperor of the day to offer Princess Wen Cheng in a “marriage of state” to the Tibetan king, Songtsen Gampo.

“It would be a defiance of history,” asserts Ge, “to claim that Tibet has always been a part of China since the Tang Dynasty; the fact that the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau subsequently became a part of the Chinese dynasties does not substantiate such a claim.”

Ge’s article is an exploration of a larger theme of Chinese identity in history — and precisely when it evolved. And his comments on Tibet conform to scholarly accounts that acknowledge that the takeover of Tibet during the Qing Dynasty (17th to early 20th century) was the starting point for “Chinese sovereignty” over the region.

Yet, Ge’s comments are controversial insofar as they deviate from the official Communist Party line that Tibet has always been an inalienable part of China; in the past China has regarded as any weakening of that theory as “anti-national” and “split-ist”. It will be interesting to see how the authorities respond to Ge’s scholarly article.

Ge’s major research fields include historical population geography, population and migration history, and cultural history. He has written and edited numerous books, and over 100 articles on historical population geography, population and migration history, and cultural history.

In his latest article, Ge notes that prior to 1912, when the Republic of China was officially founded, the idea of China (in Chinese, Zhongguo) wasn’t clearly conceptualised. Even during the late Qing period, he writes, the term ‘China’ would on occasion be used to refer to the “Qing State, including all the territory that fell within the boundaries of the Qing empire”; but at other times, it would be taken to refer only to the “18 interior provinces”, excluding Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, Tibet and Xinjiang. Therefore, he argues, “if we want to understand the extent of ancient China’s territory, we can only speak of how large the actual territory controlled by a particular dynasty was at a particular moment.”

Noting that notions of a ‘Greater China’ were based entirely on the “one-sided views of Qing court records that were… written for the court’s self-aggrandisement”, Ge criticises those who feel that “the more they exaggerate the territory of historical ‘China’ or China’s successive dynasties and kingdoms, the more patriotic they are.”

In fact, he says, the opposite is true. “If China really wishes to rise peacefully and be on a solid footing to face the future, we must understand the sum of our history and learn from our experiences.”

DNA - World - Tibet wasn’t ours, says Chinese scholar - Daily News & Analysis

Hiyo! Silver away!
 
...

Coming from you?? You are the guy who is bringing India versus China discussion...


...

Your behavior of calling black white, just as many Democratic media do, is a vivid example of a living lier.

Open your maliciously selective-blind eyes and have a closer look, if you can, at this very thread: who is the first to bring in India vs China, India vs Pakistan, event China vs US, China vs Finland talks: :taz:

It is true that no political system is perfect.

But then, in a democracy everyone is allowed free thought and speech. And that is a boon that is not there in a totalitarian regime.

The very fact that Pakistan is a democracy is the very reason why you could change your govt to suit your convenience.

I am sure you find that (democracy) to be handicap and would have preferred to be under the military rule of Zia.

Even Musharraf who took over Pakistan through a coup gave you democracy and you are today having a govt of your choice!!

Where there is no Freedom, as in China, it is a serfdom.

If one cannot have personal liberties, freedom of thought and speech or the right to move to anywhere within the country without a govt permit, what is it then?

In the 1958, Mao set up a residency permit system defining where people could work, and classified an individual as "rural" or "urban" worker. A worker seeking to move from the country to urban areas to take up non-agricultural work would have to apply through the relevant bureaucracies. The number of workers allowed to make such moves was tightly controlled. People who worked outside their authorized domain or geographical area would not qualify for grain rations, employer-provided housing, or health care.

In a democracy, you can go where you want and when you want. The govt does not control your movement!

Happiness is unquantifiable..



in 40 years+ many Chinese died!!! in USA no American died of hunger in last 50 years+!!
…

…


What you quote here is a lack of political will and not inefficiencies of democracy why don't you quote examples of Norway, Finland etc?

....
 
Back
Top Bottom