On Apr 21, 10:30=A0pm, netvegetable <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:53:01 -0700, ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > On Apr 21, 12:56=A0am, lesbian hitler
> > <h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 08:21:18 -0700, ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >> > If there is such an overarching "principle of self-dtermination" is
> >> > of suh im****tance, then your government and other governments
should
> >> > terminate diplomatic relation****p with Beijing unless Tibet has
self-=
> >> > determined. As a matter of fact, I believe your goverment's
official
> >> > positon is "Tibet is part of China."
>
> >> You are actually quite correct, though you may not realize it.
Morally,=
> >> Australia should break off all ties with Beijing.
>
> > OK. Should the same morality also require Austrialian government to
> > return Austrialia to the arborigins?
>
> It should apply where ever practicable.
>
>
>
> >> And if I want to I can
> >> publicly advocate that. People in Tibet, however, get locked up for
> >> speaking their minds.
>
> > Why not? I always make more sense to me. People should ask what they
can=
> > do and what their governmetn can do rather do making demand on an
other
> > country. bTW, in case you decide to ask your government to return
> > Australis to the arborigins, please inform.
>
> Will do. Meanwhile, if you're going to post on aus.politics, I will
> continue to give you my opinion whenever I like. And if you're going to
> continue to post transparent propaganda about Tibet, that even a child
> can see through, I will continue to show you up for it. Like your
> government, you only have yourself to blame.
>
> [snip]
>
> >> >> Here's an account of two young men sentenced, at the Lhasa
> >> >> Intermediate People's Court, to three years in prison simply for
> >> >> shouting "Free Tibet" and carrying the banned Tibetan flag.
>
> >> >>http://tinyurl.com/6fycff
>
> >> > AI does not hve re****ters inside China. Their re****ts are
> >> > unsbstrantiated and unsubstantiable.
>
> >> He was tried in a public court, ergo it should be a matter of public
> >> record that you could probably check on if you wanted to. But, of
> >> course, you won't will you? Because you don't want to know.
>
> > I did not subscribe to AI. Please look up the court record and post
it.
>
> I don't need to. I have more than enough evidence to demonstrate my
> point, which is that Tibetans risk arrest by speaking their minds, and
> ergo you have no right to speak for them. =A0I've presented this
evidence,=
> by the bucket load, and you can easily verify it for yourself. But, of
> course, you don't want to know do you? You prefer to wallow in
ignorance.
*Willful* ignorance. To him, punching a man in the mouth is the same
as feeding a man a sandwich. Never mind that it might be a knuckle
sandwich...
|
