It started with a few metres in some cases and has been going on at multiple fronts.
Perhaps PRC needs to stop expecting people to forget the past and start noticing how they contradict their own self.
The tensions have been created by PRC’s “an inch a day” tactics, which I honestly see as nothing more than petty (and I am saying this, knowing full well than PRC would want to call India “petty”, to help them get more fake points).
For Nepal
And if it really was just about a “few hundred acres” and PRC really worked with a Socialist philosophy, then they would:
a) Not really need to worry about Nepal (a pretty small country with hardly any military power) being any sort of a threat that would require putting effort to take a small amount of land.
b) Consider how the small amount of land would hardly make a difference to the people of China, while it would make a big difference to a country with was lesser land than China.
And that is where the inconsistency I talk about, comes in place.
Nepal is an otherwise docile country and I am pretty confident they would have been happy to have partial open borders with some kind of trade treaties in that area.
As such, while you try to play it down by calling it “contentious”, Nepal was trying to hide any such transfer or annexation, fearing what exactly? If it were really fairly claimed, there wouldn’t be a real reason for that, no?
You do realize that the border is with Tibet, right? An autonomous region within China that has never been recognized as a state with firm boundaries in all of human history. The border is contentious because borders are contentious. As much as you might not like border disputes, there is nothing socialist or anti-socialist about having border disputes. Nepal doesn’t want to make a big diplomatic stink over the situation. You want to psychologize them as fearful of China and therefore China isn’t socialist?
You’re not making any sense. China is not engaged in imperial capitalist expansion simply because there’s a few hundred acres being built on by the TAR along their own border in ways that violate the border. That’s a resolvable tension and doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.
Oh hey, I got you mad enough to chase me around now, eh? Welcome! I like that your primary beef with me is that you think I can’t read but then you post this particular link. Very well done! Do continue, please.
The Nation, The Diplomat, Center for European Policy Analysis, The Week, Jamestown Foundation, The central Asian caucus analyst, The Japan times, The Guardian, transnational institute, The Washington post, the daily telegraph, Harvard international review, financial times, the times of India, the Carnegie endowment, Nikkei Asia, the economic times, lowly institute, New York Times, the wall Street journal, human rights watch, foreign policy, BBC, Tibetan review, Taipei times.
I wonder if something ties all these sources together? Maybe an ideological alignment? People like you give anarchists a bad name.
there you go. for a No True Scotsman, that wasn’t bad.
I wonder if something ties all these sources together?
nice of you to forget to mention those sources quoting communist party members.
People like you give anarchists a bad name.
you’re staning a dictator from a platform whose admins support a transphobic dev. to be perfectly honest, I don’t give a shit what you think about “people like me”. and I wouldn’t, even if tankies didn’t view anarchists as expendable fodder and enemies of the state. the fact of your mere association with your instance is enough to tar you with the stain of their bigotry.
Pointing out imperial aligned sources aren’t socialist and have a narrative is no true Scotsman? Are you sure you know what that phrase means? Might as well just link a Radio Free Asia article cut the natopedia middleman.
You are disgusting calling me transphobic for simply using this site. Also what dictator am I stanning? I am simply calling out your lazy source that is clearly filled with American propaganda sources. If you take American propaganda outlets at face value you shouldn’t call yourself an anarchist you’re a lib. One who is severely detached from history and reality at that. I don’t support the Devs? I have never donated and there are no ads? I don’t know them personally. You seem like a shitty person and a petulant child.
Pointing out imperial aligned sources aren’t socialist
the source is a communist party. repeating a lie doesn’t make it true. stop ignoring communists just because they don’t agree with your emotional viewpoint.
You are disgusting calling me transphobic for simply using this site.
I don’t believe I ever said that. if you feel that’s what I said, then perhaps you’re just expressing your subconscious feelings of guilt. no need to drag me into that. you should calm down and consider your actions. try to do better, people like you give communists a bad name.
It started with a few metres in some cases and has been going on at multiple fronts.
Perhaps PRC needs to stop expecting people to forget the past and start noticing how they contradict their own self.
The tensions have been created by PRC’s “an inch a day” tactics, which I honestly see as nothing more than petty (and I am saying this, knowing full well than PRC would want to call India “petty”, to help them get more fake points).
For Nepal
And if it really was just about a “few hundred acres” and PRC really worked with a Socialist philosophy, then they would:
a) Not really need to worry about Nepal (a pretty small country with hardly any military power) being any sort of a threat that would require putting effort to take a small amount of land. b) Consider how the small amount of land would hardly make a difference to the people of China, while it would make a big difference to a country with was lesser land than China.
And that is where the inconsistency I talk about, comes in place.
Nepal is an otherwise docile country and I am pretty confident they would have been happy to have partial open borders with some kind of trade treaties in that area.
As such, while you try to play it down by calling it “contentious”, Nepal was trying to hide any such transfer or annexation, fearing what exactly? If it were really fairly claimed, there wouldn’t be a real reason for that, no?
You do realize that the border is with Tibet, right? An autonomous region within China that has never been recognized as a state with firm boundaries in all of human history. The border is contentious because borders are contentious. As much as you might not like border disputes, there is nothing socialist or anti-socialist about having border disputes. Nepal doesn’t want to make a big diplomatic stink over the situation. You want to psychologize them as fearful of China and therefore China isn’t socialist?
You’re not making any sense. China is not engaged in imperial capitalist expansion simply because there’s a few hundred acres being built on by the TAR along their own border in ways that violate the border. That’s a resolvable tension and doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.
He’s an Indian nationalist he’s not going to make sense when it comes to China.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_imperialism
Oh hey, I got you mad enough to chase me around now, eh? Welcome! I like that your primary beef with me is that you think I can’t read but then you post this particular link. Very well done! Do continue, please.
mad? nah, I just want to annoy you some more. it’s low hanging fruit, I know, but I also know you can’t help but angrily try to debate me.
I’m not angry, Lu. I’m just disappointed
you have a pathological need to have the last word, don’t you?
Absolute comedy gold
it is, isn’t it?
Lmao you should check the sources on natopedia before you post. Western tabloids and government spin off NGO’s.
the article sources multiple Asian communist parties. you should, as you said, check the sources. but go on, give us your best No True Scotsman.
The Nation, The Diplomat, Center for European Policy Analysis, The Week, Jamestown Foundation, The central Asian caucus analyst, The Japan times, The Guardian, transnational institute, The Washington post, the daily telegraph, Harvard international review, financial times, the times of India, the Carnegie endowment, Nikkei Asia, the economic times, lowly institute, New York Times, the wall Street journal, human rights watch, foreign policy, BBC, Tibetan review, Taipei times.
I wonder if something ties all these sources together? Maybe an ideological alignment? People like you give anarchists a bad name.
there you go. for a No True Scotsman, that wasn’t bad.
nice of you to forget to mention those sources quoting communist party members.
you’re staning a dictator from a platform whose admins support a transphobic dev. to be perfectly honest, I don’t give a shit what you think about “people like me”. and I wouldn’t, even if tankies didn’t view anarchists as expendable fodder and enemies of the state. the fact of your mere association with your instance is enough to tar you with the stain of their bigotry.
Pointing out imperial aligned sources aren’t socialist and have a narrative is no true Scotsman? Are you sure you know what that phrase means? Might as well just link a Radio Free Asia article cut the natopedia middleman.
You are disgusting calling me transphobic for simply using this site. Also what dictator am I stanning? I am simply calling out your lazy source that is clearly filled with American propaganda sources. If you take American propaganda outlets at face value you shouldn’t call yourself an anarchist you’re a lib. One who is severely detached from history and reality at that. I don’t support the Devs? I have never donated and there are no ads? I don’t know them personally. You seem like a shitty person and a petulant child.
the source is a communist party. repeating a lie doesn’t make it true. stop ignoring communists just because they don’t agree with your emotional viewpoint.
I don’t believe I ever said that. if you feel that’s what I said, then perhaps you’re just expressing your subconscious feelings of guilt. no need to drag me into that. you should calm down and consider your actions. try to do better, people like you give communists a bad name.
And China will only call it “resolvable” as long as the resolution ends up with them getting more area.