dear Tomas,

thank you so much for sharing with us those exciting moments .

be careful and wish you all the best on Everest.^-^

As a reader from china , i hope one day you would like to go to many other places in china and bring more funny stories to your friends and family.

thank you again dear dear mr reporter , we will always welcome you .:)

Jomolangma, the mount Everest, will not allow China to carry Beijjing Olympic torch to her summit.
She is ours.

Dear Tomas, it is a truly amusing and entertaining story, despites the little information you got from the officials. I bet Mr. Bin must be a solace for you after all those days of being confine at the camp, knowing nothing about what has been going beyond the Camp. I wonder if it is Mr. Bin’s own will to climb the mountain to jeopardize his life or he is being pushed to dot that. China does everything to get what she wants, killing, torturing, violate human rights. Communist party is the most skilled to make propaganda to brainwash people, hopefully they can’t do that to you journalists. Dear Mr. Tomas, do you believe every single word they say???
Good luck anyway
Richard

In the end, you said "Perhaps I should come back here one day, but not as a journalist." Hehe, for me, the same dream.
___An ever-journalist in Lhasa.

to Tibetan –
Brother, hate will consume you, and you still can't change history. Come back, work with your prople for a new tibet in the big family.

To all people living on this earth

I wish the olympic kindling can reach the roof of our earth and spread peace to all human beings.

Richard, why bash on China? Why you do not see how the west treated the Asian. Unitill now they are still killing and continue to kill.

How nmany Tibets are kelled by the China government. How many innocence people are killed daily including children.

Hypocrite go home. Do bash on other when you and yourself is not clean. Don't think that justice is in your hand and you have the licence to kill and non of your people protested and the Asian are just keep quiet when you are doing the killing

This China's intention to take the Olympic torch to the top of the world so as to provide a focal point. Now that it has drawn your attention on China as a nation, and also on Tibet. Whether Tibet should be an indepent enclave or part of China, people should look at history objectively (not from propaganda sources), and also the things China have done over the past decades in all the aspects. Chinese, like all human with dignity, would not do as people told, but do it the way they want to. Restablishment of trust between Dalai and China is vital because trust was totally lost after the CIA sponsored fighting in 1959.
Western countries bash China in name of free Tibet so as to lessen their colonial history over the Chinese (in particular in 1900 ) is understandable.

to spiker_mike,
How do you know I hate china? Is it because I am a Tibetan? Or is it because I protest torch relay through Tibet?

Everything has history. My books and pens have their own interesting history. But history is not something happens without any causes and conditions. We can change the course of history. Our history is our product.

I don't need big family. I just need happy, peaceful, trustworthy, compassionate, loving, rational and broaded minded family. Then there is hope for happiness, freedom and prosperity.

Other wise better to stay separate as before 1959.

Tibet is already new.

Do you know how much she became new?
Deforestation..........never happened in the past. A new one.
Millions of Chinese staying in Tibet which makes Tibetans minority in their own homeland................never happened in the past. A new one.
Nuclear station for millitary purpose............never happened in the past. A brand new one.
Sino Indian war faught in the area of Tibet and Indian border in 1962..........never happened in the past. A new one.

What do you expect from new Tibet?

Tomas – your news is excellent – thanks for keeping us informed – I met you in Namche in April and fired a whole bunch of questions at you!!! You had so much information and I cannot remember it all – where can I read about your knowledge and travels of Tibet? Keep well, keep warm and I hope you have success with your time in Tibet at Base Camp!!

Thomas,
i have been a guide on Nepal side of Everest for 8 years. I have reached the top 6 times. Let me be the 1st to ask, why is no one covering how China, via gauranteeing millions of euro loans to Nepal, that they have turned the Nepali side into a police state? Have you ever considered sending someone over there? at least the BBC was brave enough to try, and got kicked out. I have been speaking out about this behavior from China since 2006 when i reported on the shooting of a 17 year old nun on the NangPa La Pass on the border between Tibet and Nepal. Where is your coverage of both sides of the story? Has China bought CNN too?

What a great article. Wish I could travel around the world to one of the most beautiful countries and write nothing. Well, except for a few paragraphs about myself, which the writer did.

Maybe he could explain that he is in Tibet, not China and how the Chinese gov't has systematically tried to exterminate the Tibetans for the last 50 years. It will go down and second only to the Holocaust in the last 100 years most likely.

I have been where he is. yes,it is cold. Yes, it is high. quit crying and give us some news instead of this crap. The Tibetans are amazing. So are the Chinese. It is just a shame the Chinese swallow the gov't BS more than we do. Free Tibet and love live the Dalai Lama!

[...] Blog:  Follow journalist Tomas Etzler on Mount Everest [...]

Dear Tomáš,

thanks for your informations about the olympic´s torch case, I admire what you have done for not only CNN and also what you do for Czech Television in China. Wish you all the best and looking forward to your new articles!
Greetings from BRNO
Nela

Thanks for the nice pictures and reports fron the roof of the world.
How many Tibetans killed by CCP regime since 1950? Almost 60 years. Can anyone provide authentic real evidence rather than BS? A Holocaust? How about the number of innocent civilian Iraqis and Aghans killed by the Bush regime since 2002? Just 6 years. And how many serfs and slaves, raped, maimed, mutilated and killed by Dalai Lama's regime in the 40's and 50's? I read reports somewhere that the Dalai Lama once had a mentor cum tutor from Hitler's Nazi regime. What did he learnt from Hitler ? -> How to do a Holocaust all over again?
Go to Tibet and see for yourself. Tibetans today are more free and better off than at any time in their entire history. Don't believe all the China bashings bullshit you read from Western news media.

Careful there Tomas! Good reporting. I'll be Prague in August. Send me a note when you get some time.

Allen

To Peter: to be fair, do you have "authentic real evidence rather than BS" to substantiate your claims? Also remember that the Dalai is a Nobel peace laureate, and I think the Swedes are somewhat more credible than you at being an impartial authority. Why do all CCP supporters use the word "bash" whenever the CCP is criticized? Is that the only word they know? And unless you're a Tibetan, I highly doubt you'd be in a position to judge their well-being compared to other times in "their entire history"; and even if you were a Tibetan, i similar doubt that you speak for all Tibetans.

SK if it is not BS, then can you provide authenticated proof of the actual numbers that I want to know. Please don't make sweeping statements without proof. Dalai is a Nobel peace laureate? How do you know the Swedes are impartial? Can you read the minds of the Nobel committee?
The Nobel Peace Prize is a farce, it's not credible. Nobel Peace prize committee has the bad habit of attempts to give legitimacy to prominent dissidents in order to show their support to further Western political agenda.
You don't know the slightest mite about the Tibetans either. Have you been to Tibet or China? The Tibetan exiles who are mostly Lamas and dispossessed land owners and slave owners are the minority of all the Tibetans. They are the ones who routinely make wild exaggerated accusations of human rights violations in order to gain the sympathy and thus the financial aid from gullible sucker Westerners as well as their bootlickers.

http://www.mounteverest.net/news.php?id=17254

http://www.mounteverest.net/

Red Flares on mountains!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.mounteverest.net/

Red Flares on mountains!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

this Blog has certainly been 'invaded' by 'happy happy joy joy' people of a certain persuasion.....interesting!

leave politics aside

there are many other orgainizaitions, forums, or international bodies to discuss human rights, poverty, .......

olympic is just olympic, an event every four years for all people around to celebrate and enjoy

To Peter: I don't have the numbers. Do you have the authentic numbers to back your statements about "serfs and slaves" etc? Who's making sweeping statements now? I don't know that the Swedes are perfectly impartial, but they certainly strike me as being more impartial than you. Look, if you always assume that everyone who disagrees with you is biased, then it makes for a very short discussion. How convenient for you. That you question the legitimacy of the Nobel Peace prize illustrates the depths of your illusions. I don't claim to know anything about Tibetans; you do make such claims, however unfounded they might be. BTW, are you actually claiming that CCP China hasn't committed human rights violations? That would be priceless.

That Tibetans before their liberation in 1950 were serfs and slaves is a fact. What numbers? You go check out yourself. Don't sweep everything I said that doesn't appeal to you under the carpet. I have said my piece on Nobel Peace Prize, let people judge for themselves, I don't have to argue every point with you nor do I need to. Numerous other bloggers have said that you are in the bad habit of twisting and distorting other people's words and stuffing words into other peoples mouth. That's your way of evading giving straight answers, trying to twist and turn you way from dealing with the real issues. On your disingenuous claim about the CCP claim, those are your words not mine.

The above is for SK Cheung. You glib tongue is well known.

Sorry for my previous posting. It doesn't belong here.
GO Olympics.

To Peter: no worries, you have your "facts", I'll stick with mine. I sleep well at night. Ahh, the "twist" word again. It seems many of your ilk have a vocabulary limited to twist, bash, and brainwash. If you can't make a reasonable, coherent, and valid point, I have no sympathy for you anyhow. On dealing with "real issues", you have similarly not shown me a capacity for such cerebral pursuits. Man that felt good to the tongue.

S.k Cheung,

I'm not sure what you're trying to dispute. There's no dispute from anyone, not even those in the Tibetan exile camp, that pre-1950 Tibetan society had a large serf "underclass" that were treated like property by the nobility. They were sold and exchanged, and the children of the serfs were also considered part of their property.

If you are unclear as to even these basic facts, then you need to educate yourself. You can start with Tsering Shakya (an exile Tibetan)'s excellent academic work about historical relations between China and Tibet.

If you don't want to read an academic textbook, then you can read Tashi Tsering's "A Struggle for Modern Tibet". Tashi Tsering represents a Tibetan voice rarely heard in the West: the son of a slave family given to the religious class, in order to repay tax debts. He also went into exile along with the Dalai Lama, later studied in the US, but ultimately decided to return to China where he became a Maoist "Red Guard".

Our blog has more thoughts about the Olympic torch on Everest, from the perspective of a few Chinese:

http://blog.speak4china.com/?p=58
http://blog.speak4china.com/?p=55

SK, you seem to arrogate that the only "reasonable, coherent, and valid" points are yours alone, any other points of view otherwise are
"not shown me a capacity for such cerebral pursuits". Why should I show you anything? Who do you think you are, to be prosecutor and judge and jury at the same time? My opinion is as valid as anybody's. Don't be so arragant and so judgemental.
I have encountered people of your ilk too. Their vocabulary is limited just to anti-CCP bashing. What's your beef with the CCP anyway? May I attempt to make an intelligent guess? Are you a fugitive dissident committed some form of crime in China or perhaps HK. Or maybe you participated at Tiananmen Square uprising and had to run.

To Peter: I never said you weren't entitled to your opinion, just as I am to mine. I don't find yours "reasonable, coherent, or valid", but I'm simply stating my opinion, to which I hope you agree I'm entitled. You don't seem shy about expressing your views on the nature of my opinions, so why are you getting so sensitive now? Is it only a one-way street in your world? Ahh, another "bash" phrase. Quite original, I must say. Another "quality" with CCP-sympathizers like you is the incessant need to "guess" at the background of fellow bloggers. For me, your background is of no consequence. But hey, guess away, for it's another of the rights that western society affords.

SK, I quote you right, now don't you try to twist yourself out this one. Don't try to rephrase your own words with you glib tongue now.
I quote you again "“not shown me a capacity for such cerebral pursuits�. Compare this with your previous comment. I grant you it's a slip of the tongue.
Another tired old "CCP-sympathizers " refrain from a typical brainwashed pro-Western bootlicker. Quite original, I must say. I'm just quoting you.
It's of interesting to know your background. It can shed some light on your dogged persistence and strong motivation of your "Cold War" mentality. You must be very tired by now fighting many so-called "CCP-sympathizers " on all fronts.

To Peter: what is your problem with English? You haven't shown me a capacity for cerebral pursuits. Does that opinion bother you? Would you like me to say it again? What am I twisting, exactly? No slip of tongue whatsoever. If you want me to say that I think you're intellectually challenged 20 different ways, I'd be happy to oblige...just say the word, pal! Regardless of my impression of the quality of your opinion, you're still entitled to it. I find my position entirely consistent with my earlier post.
I do find you copying my phrasing quite a bit. No problem, there's no charge. I guess imitation is the highest form of flattery. So thanks, I guess.
I also wonder why you so blindly support the CCP. To each his own I guess. If CCP-supporter and CCP-sympathizer doesn't fit, maybe CCP-apologist?
Guys like you are a sport for me. So keep the weird logic coming. It's good comic relief.

SK, I quote you "I also wonder why you so blindly support the CCP". Similarly, I also wonder why you so blindly support the Western imperialist clique. Until you tell us the reason why you're so anti-CCP, to each his own I guess.
I quote you "Guys like you are a sport for me, It’s good comic relief."
I think I have better things to do, like catching up on my tennis lessons.
:-)

To Tang: Thank you for the blog links. I will be sure to check them out. I do not seek to dispute history; however, i do dispute the "logic" that historical events justify present-day oppression of the Tibetan people. Even if average Tibetans were liberated by the PLA in the 50's and were thankful for same, does not mean that they welcome continued CCP presence in their land today.

To Peter: yes, why you support the CCP and why I don't will remain a mystery to both of us. I'm fine with that. Good luck with your groundstrokes...no logic required for that, just the physics of topspin.

Canadian Indians and American Indians are also not welcome their homeland continued to be occupied by the whiteman. Similarly Australian aborigines, New Zealand Moaris, Pacific islanders and Bikini atolls inhabitants are also not happy for their land to be subject to continued presence by whiteman. Whiteman get lost and give them back their land.
British colonialists occupied Hong Kong for more than 150 years. They didn’t give any freedom, human rights or democracy to the people of HK. They bullied China with gunboats, forced unequal treaties on her when she was weak and exploited the Chinese people by selling them opium in return for gold and silver. But just before they return HK to China, they preach vigorously democracy, human rights. British hypocrisy! Eternal Shame on the little Britain !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Canadian Indians and American Indians are also not welcome their homeland continued to be occupied by the whiteman. Similarly Australian aborigines, New Zealand Moaris, Pacific islanders and Bikini atolls inhabitants are also not happy for their land to be subject to continued presence by whiteman. Whiteman get lost and give them back their land.
British colonialists occupied Hong Kong for more than 150 years. They didn’t give any freedom, human rights or democracy to the people of HK. They bullied China with gunboats, forced unequal treaties on her when she was weak and exploited the Chinese people by selling them opium in return for gold and silver. But just before they return HK to China, they preach vigorously democracy, human rights. British hypocrisy! Eternal Shame on the little Britain !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Canadian Indians and American Indians are also not welcome their homeland continued to be occupied by the whiteman. Similarly Australian aborigines, New Zealand Moaris, Pacific islanders and Bikini atolls inhabitants are also not happy for their land to be subject to continued presence by whiteman. Whiteman get lost and give them back their land.

British colonialists occupied Hong Kong for more than 150 years. They didn’t give any freedom, human rights or democracy to the people of HK. They bullied China with gunboats, forced unequal treaties on her when she was weak and exploited the Chinese people by selling them opium in return for gold and silver. But just before they return HK to China, they preach vigorously democracy, human rights. British hypocrisy! Eternal Shame on the little Britain !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To B. Leung: I have no direct answer for your first paragraph, other than to say that it would put the world back to the 1500's. However, in using your logic, China would also have no right to be in Tibet.
I disagree with your second paragraph. I feel that HK had a more democratic system as a British colony than it does now under CCP, "two systems" and all. I don't recall democracy protests pre-1997 akin to the ones seen since.
i don't know the history of the opium stuff, but it seems if the Brits were willing to sell it, you still needed somebody willing to buy it.
You shouldn't disparage "Little Britain"...that is one funny TV show.

To S.K.

You seems to learn pretty fast from the western news medias and develop your slippery mouth and evasive brain even quicker.

When you cannot defend your positions. You start to resort to lies and denies, your lack of "direct answer to B Leung's first paragraph" = "lie and deny", your disagreement with his second paragraph = "manipulation".

You think all these western countries only committed historical sins, you are lying again. The US is still in Iraqi pumping out oils today. Iraqi didn't ask the US to go to "liberate" them.

It is fine that China is learning from the western countries. The Chinese will issue an apology and call themselves historical siners 150 years from now after they finish off integrated Tibet into China.

To Chen: I don't have an answer...how is that lying and denying, exactly? At least I have the decency to acknowledge when i don't have the answers, unlike your "i don't feel like explaining myself about the Tibetan trials" position on life.
I disagreed with the second paragraph...what am I manipulating? Nice words, but how about some substance, pal? Do you deny the presence of democracy protests in HK post 1997?
If your position is that China will leave Tibet when the US leaves Iraq, i think many Tibetans would jump at that offer. How about that, pal?
If you're not accustomed to English at a sophisticated level where you come from, that is not of my concern.

To S.K.

It is true that HK has democracy protests since returned to China. It didn't have similar protests under Brit rule. I don't see any problem. One, it shows Chinese rulers are more tolerate than the Brits and allow the HKers to protest. Two, these protesters are small numbered. You must have read and disappointed at the news that, when the torch was relayed in HK, majority of the HKers come out to support China and booed away a small number of the pro-Tibet and other protesters. Three, these democracy protesters are the exact people like you, who willingly submitted to their colonial masters under Brit rule and didn't demand free election then, and who didn't know how to be their own masters under China rule even if a HKer is elected governor year after year. By the way, HKer can elect their parliament in 12 years. What are you complaining?

I already explained the trial was fair under Chinese law. I am not sure any more pixel will help you to understand. I am not sure you are capable of understanding anything else other than the cheap and free "democracy"

Don't worry about my English, I am a master of a bunch of Americans and I laid off all the HKers who can speak better English than me. As a matter of fact, I closed out a HK center of engineering and fired all HK engineers. These HK guys are good at finance but so so at engineering. I am sure "democracy" didn't help them getting fired because they didn't have the basic skills to survive, man!

To Chen: Your interpretation of the HK protests as a sign of CCP tolerance is reasonable. However, I think it is also reasonable to infer that, while under British rule, there wasn't anything worth protesting. I'm not sure of your justification in suggesting that the Brits oppressed dissent somehow. Yes, i was aware of the proChina rallies in support of the torch. I have no problem with that either. i think it is a misrepresentation to say that all HK prodemocracy rallies post 1997 have been small, but size is not really worth debating. Your third point is ridiculous. I thiink many HKers were more than happy to be under the British umbrella, and may have preferred those days when compared to their present circumstance. Yes, things might be better in 2020, but perhaps the protests reflect, in some quarters at least, a desire for change in a more timely manner.
You never "explained" how that trial was "fair"...you just stated it. Pardon me if I don't place similar weight on your "statements" as you do. You should have realized that by now.
I didn't realize "engineering" was a basic life skill. I'm happy for you that you take pleasure in firing people. By the way, in the West, we may "employ" people, but we don't pretend to be their "masters". Perhaps it is this attitude that allows you to justify Tibet etc. And you're correct, democracy cannot cure all ails, especially the ones with which you are afflicted.

To S.K.

You are manipulative since you didn't question the Brits for not giving democracy to HKers and you blame China for post-1997 protests.

You are denying the facts by pretending you didn't have an answer, as soon as you are pointed down on bads of the West.

To Chen: oh, and I'm still waiting to hear how you justify "lying and denying" and "manipulation" from the previous post. You take your time. If you can't, perhaps you would have the decency to acknowledge as much. But I'm not holding my breath.

Tibet Autonomous Region, does that mean that China is going to Free Tibet?

Naahh. Probably not. The goons in power wouldn't do anything like that.

To Chen: oops, missed your last point. Well, perhaps your dictionary provides a different definition for "manipulation" than my understanding of the word. i think the Brits would have been happy to give HK independence, forget about just democracy. Unfortunately, they were constrained by their "lease" terms with China. I don't blame China for the post 97 protests; CCP just happened to be the subject of those protests, that's all.
So, when i do have an answer for thiings, I'm manipulating the facts. When i don't have an answer, I'm denying or pretending to deny the facts. That is a convenient position to take...doesn't allow for much debate about anything contrary to your point of view. Is this how discussions work in CCP China? Fortunately, i don't share your totalitarian mindset...hmmm...I wonder where you get it from?
Oh, hey "master", I'm just curious, how many people do you enslave?
Don't bother with explaining the Tibet trials...with your logic, it wouldn't make any sense anyway.

To. S.K.

I don't think I can agree that there was nothing worth protesting under British rule. There has been essentially no change on the ground in everyday life of HKers after returned to China. Politically, there are arguably more freedom and self-rule after the return, for example, election of a HKer to be the governor. There will be always some small number of some kind of people in anywhere in the world they will hold a different view no matter what. So I believe, as I said, "these democracy protesters are the exact people like you, who willingly submitted to their colonial masters under Brit rule and didn’t demand free election then, and who didn’t know how to be their own masters under China rule even if a HKer is elected governor year after year." I also agree there is no pot to cure this, which you yourself are afflicted. I can also predict these people, again like you, will find something else to protest even after 2020. I think the Chinese leaders are too sensitive. They need to learn from Bush and become insensitive to any anti-war protests. Protest is a way of life in the West. No big deal.

To S.K.

I confess I get my mindset from Bush and Blair, in addition to other western leaders who are keen in interfering others countries and using everything they can including NGOs and medias, invasion in needed, to overthrow any governments they don't like.

To S.K.

What is your logic?

Your logic is that if you are caught with your pants down, you will call it "freedom of expression".

To Chen: I completely acknowledge that things may not have been perfect in HK before 1997. But the fact is there were no large scale protests for democracy. We simply disagree on the reasons for absence of such protest. You have yours, i have mine, that's the way it is.
Again, i don't want to get into a debate about size. What's small to one may not be to another. There's no universal definition. You simply fail to acknowledge that democracy protesters simply want democracy, and need not fit into all of your preconceived (and unsubstantiated) assumptions. BTW, the first HK governor post 1997 was appointed by Beijing, and although the current ones are elected, I'm not sure that the process of getting oneself on the ballot is a totally democratic one.
The "afflictions" sentence you copied from me, i don't understand. You'll have to try again. If you're accusing me of smoking pot, then that's awfullly childish, but whatever floats your boat i say. I must say it wouldn't surprise me.
In a democracy, the right to protest is enshrined. It is self-evident to most, but I figure you needed that explained again. So yes, there will be more protests after 2020 if people feel the need, as it should be. If you don't feel the need to partake, such is your choice. However, you are in no position, nor have you the capacity, to understand what others hold dear.

To Chen: Your thoughts, much like your logic and reasoning, seem to go around and around in circles. Must make you dizzy.
Your 2325 GMT post shows that you've completely lost your mind...I realize there wasn't much there to begin with, but that's beside the point. Again, I realize that you have no experience with democracy, so let me educate you. In the West, we have freedoms. We also have laws which place limits on those freedoms. So no, streaking, while perhaps expressive, will still get you arrested. Perhaps in an asylum, such as where you belong, it might be tolerated.

To S.K.

I am sorry I didn't make myself clear to you.

I was saying, even smoking pot will not cure the disease of these HK protesters who are more than willingly submitted to their colonial masters, you included.

So the Chinese leaders need to learn from Bush and become insensitive to all these protests, pro-Tibet protests included. No big deal.

I don't think I need you to educate me on democracy. I know it better than you.

Whatever logic you care to use Tibet is under Chinese rule since the middle sges. They have more right than USA or Canada in North America.
Hongkong had no democracy under British colonial rule. HK people were second-class subjects exploited by Britain for the wealth and subject to indignity in their own country. Under one country two systems now they have regained their freedom and dignity as first class Chinese citizens.
Before 1997 they didn't dare or care to protest since they were colonial subjects and didn't have democracy and freedom. After 1997 there were many protests now that they have more freedom and democracy.

To SK: Now Little Britain (formerly self acclaimed Great Britain) forced the sale of opium to China and affilcted great suffering on the Chinese people. When the Chinese government minister Lin Ze Xu ordered the burning of the opium to stop the opium trade, the dastardly imperialist Little Britain sent gunboats and soldiers to bully China into submission. They then forced China to sign treaties to take possession of Hongkong, Shanghai, Hanyang, Beijing, Tianjin and many towns and cities.
Nowadays many kinds of drugs like heroin, marijuana, ice and so on are sold in western countries. Does any western country allow that kind of thing? Are you saying that is fine as long as there are people willing to buy them?

To Chen: I think your CCP-sponsored version of "democracy" is a rather poor fascimile of the real thing. I can only hope that one day, PRC citizens will get to experience democracy in all its glory. I'm not sure how much the CCP can learn from Bush; he's not all that bright either. But I hope future CCP leaders will learn from the West and apply those lessons to good effect for her citizens. As for HK protesters, you will never learn...all they have is a healthy yearning for democracy, it's unfortunate your narrow mind cannot grasp that concept.

My dear brother or sister, B. Leung,

After reading your, partisan postings in defence of the elites and governement of the People's Republic of China, and the personal attacks upon S. K. Cheung, it is apparent that you lack either the resident education or the courtesy to enter into and maintain adult level discourse.

To that end, I will keep this commentary as brief and on point as possible,

"Little Britain", you are correct, in your assertion that the British empire has fallen, but to attack a nation's name is as juvenille a measure as I have seen since I witnessed my four and five year olds fighting over the substantive value of Lisa being smarter than Bart Simpson. And, using your logic, since the government of China operates camps that utilze rape, torture, and other methods to force their own citizens to adopt their political ideology, they are not really representative of their citizenry, and therfore the title of the People's Republic of China, should by your logic be changed to the "Elites Republic of China". Of course I may be incorrect, perhaps we should wait until the Olympics and ask the tens of millions of ordinary and unrepresented Chinese citizens whose water supply will be cut off and re-directed to the Olympic site to service tourists, atheletes, and industry.

And, you are wholly correct on the moral bankruptcy of Great Britain's use of narcotics to control and mainpulate parts of their former empire. But, is that any better or worse than the People's Republic of China's policy of "culutal genocide" in Tibet, or indeed knowingly allowing the sale of counterfeit and inactive AIDS, Malaria, and Cancer medication to Africa and other poor nations and making billions of illicit dollars in the process.

It is a very dangerous game, when one tries to proclaim moral or ethical superiority, and it is indeed ludicrous, in the case of any supporters of the People's Republic of China, for the evidence of their moral and ethical bankruptcy is found in cemeteries and hospitals around the globe today.

And, so, my dear brother or sister, B. Leung, please have a great week, and keep posting, your beligerance only serves to show the world the reality of the lack of substance inherent in the politics and policies of the eltes and government of the People's Republic of China.

Free Tibet. Free China. Boycott the Olympics and their sponsors.

God Bless.

Hi SK,

You and MFM, an undercover Tibetan government-in-exile agent, have resorted all-right lies when your version of democracy was striped down to butts. You haven't been able to get any mileage out of your concept of democracy yet because it doesn't have substance. I have been able to get a lot of mileage out of the situation in Iraq and a lot of other people have been able to get a lot of mileage out of the sins of the West in past because you have nothing to say against the facts and truth. The only option you have is to say, Oh, they are "historical sins". You are frustrated and were degenerated to personal attacks when you internal sub-ordinance nature to your Brit masters were exposed. You are such a deceptive person and complete liar just as Blair, Bush, and other western politicans, wester governments, and west news medias.

Hi MFM,

Welcome back after you got trained by the Tibetan Government-in-exile. I am wondering how much are you got paid by them. I have found your posts are full of lies.

Go China! Crackdown on Tibetan Rioters!

Down the Da-Liar Lama!

My dear brother or sister Chen,

Thank you for the welcom, actually I never really left the "virtual" world, simply, was tied up in real world professional and personal commitments.

I thought that that the partisan based and beligerant attacks of your bretheren Peter were laughable, but you, my friend, have profoundly raised the bar, "after you got trained by the Tibetan Government-in-exile"? I suppose if you consider common law courtrooms, ivy league educations, and the principled teachings of Christ the Lord to be the evidence of the latter, than I must conceed your point.

My life partner and friends were laughing the loudest at the following part of your post, "I am wondering how much are you got paid by them.", actually, I have not been paid one cent by any individual or group in any nation but I am a proud member of Lawyers Without Borders, Human Rights Watch, GreenPeace, and a large number of other academic and human rights NGO movements to protect the rights of children, women, and victims throughout the world. from Boston to Bejing to Jerusalem to Jakarta.

I save the best of your post of last, "I have found your posts are full of lies." Really? Petere, your lies, misrepresentations, and fictions have been detailed and dismissed, please do me the same service, simply calling an invidual a mammoth does not make him one – just like calling the government and elites of the People's Republic of China popular citizenzry – does not make it so – no matter how many times you repeat it, scream it, or beat it into people.

"Go China! Crackdown on Tibetan Rioters!" No comment necessary, Peter, you are a walking, breathing, and talking testament to the inherent failure of the failure of the government of the People's Republic of China.

"Down the Da-Liar Lama!"?

The government of the People's Republic of China has been brought to their proverbial knees by His Holiness through his simple and honest life spent in the service of mankind, attack him as all inidivduals like him have been attacked through histrory from Buddah through to Christ the Lord. His Holiness the Dalai Lama and his true followers will survive long affer the elites and government of the People's Republic of China is gone from this earth most likely due to ineternal collapse.

Keep posting my brother or sister, by your beligerance, ignorance, fanaticism, and hate, your serve our purposes not yours.

God Bless.

My dear brother or sister Chen,

Thank you for the welcom, actually I never really left the "virtual" world, simply, was tied up in real world professional and personal commitments.

I thought that that the partisan based and beligerant attacks of your bretheren Peter were laughable, but you, my friend, have profoundly raised the bar, "after you got trained by the Tibetan Government-in-exile"? I suppose if you consider common law courtrooms, ivy league educations, and the principled teachings of Christ the Lord to be the evidence of the latter, than I must conceed your point.

My life partner and friends were laughing the loudest at the following part of your post, "I am wondering how much are you got paid by them.", actually, I have not been paid one cent by any individual or group in any nation but I am a proud member of Lawyers Without Borders, Human Rights Watch, GreenPeace, and a large number of other academic and human rights NGO movements to protect the rights of children, women, and victims throughout the world. from Boston to Bejing to Jerusalem to Jakarta.

I save the best of your post of last, "I have found your posts are full of lies." Really? Petere, your lies, misrepresentations, and fictions have been detailed and dismissed, please do me the same service, simply calling an invidual a mammoth does not make him one – just like calling the government and elites of the People's Republic of China popular citizenzry – does not make it so – no matter how many times you repeat it, scream it, or beat it into people.

"Go China! Crackdown on Tibetan Rioters!" No comment necessary, Peter, you are a walking, breathing, and talking testament to the inherent failure of the failure of the government of the People's Republic of China.

"Down the Da-Liar Lama!"?

The government of the People's Republic of China has been brought to their proverbial knees by His Holiness through his simple and honest life spent in the service of mankind, attack him as all inidivduals like him have been attacked through histrory from Buddah through to Christ the Lord. His Holiness the Dalai Lama and his true followers will survive long affer the elites and government of the People's Republic of China is gone from this earth most likely due to ineternal collapse.

Keep posting my brother or sister, by your beligerance, ignorance, fanaticism, and hate, your serve our purposes not yours.

God Bless.

To B. Leung: allow me to enlighten you in the folly of your logic. This may take some time, so bear with me. First of all, the states of the US and the provinces of Canada do not consider themselves "ruled" by Washington and Ottawa, respectively. They are part of the union and confederation in their own country, and remain so while striving for the common good of their respective countries. If Tibet truly belonged in China, why would they need to be "ruled" by Beijing? That very term suggests subjugation which clearly distinguishes it from the rights and freedoms US and Canadian citizens enjoy. Does a person in Shanghai consider him/herself "ruled" by Beijing, I wonder?
I've said before, and i say again, that you and people like you seem to confuse this discussion with purchasing tickets on a train or a plane. Pre-1997 HKers did not consider themselves 2nd class anything; they were merely residents of a bustling and vibrant metropolis. This whole class system terminology is favoured by folks like you, perhaps because it is what you are accustomed to under the CCP.
The reason why HKers didn't protest pre1997 was because there was no reason to; the reason why they've protested since is because the CCP have provided such reason. Is that logic too complex for you?
Calling countries "little" might satisfy your juvenile desires, but does not further this nor any other discussion.
It is regrettable that CHina was unable to effectively defend herself 2 centuries ago, and I am happy that she has clearly rectified that problem since. And no amount of whining or complaining will change those reprehensible historical facts. I'm not sure constantly rehashing them serves any purpose. Of course, in a civilized society, access to narcotics is restricted. That's why our society works hard to eliminate the buying and selling of controlled substances. That's why the West has laws, and we work hard to uphold them. However, if such free trade of controlled substances back then was permitted in China, it simply reflects on the inadequacies of law and order at that time, but in no way diminishes the aspirations or ideals of a democratic system.

To Chen: apart from my response to B. Leung, another characteristic of folks like you is to claim that contrarian voices are employed by some government or other. I'll let MFM speak for him/herself, for he/she seems exceedingly capable, at a level of eloquence to which I can only aspire, and of which you can't even conceive. Now, before you make a point, try to imagine the counterpoint. You accuse me of speaking for Tibetans in exile, I accuse you of parroting for the CCP...that becomes pointless. Is this the ultimate goal you strive for in your discussions, to reach the point of pointlessness. For if it is, congrats, you've arrived!
Democracy is not measured in MPG. You appreciate it when you've got it, and if you're somewhat enlightened, you might yearn for it when you don't. Obviously you don't belong to the former, and you probably don't fit the criterion for the latter, either. Too bad, so sad.
My only frustration from this blog has been the dearth of intelligent individuals with whom I could exchange opinions in a civilized manner, even when we may not always agree. The only redeeming feature has been the presence of neanderthals like you, upon whom I've been able to refine my ability to address the great unwashed.

To S.K.

To quote from you:

"First of all, the states of the US and the provinces of Canada do not consider themselves “ruled� by Washington and Ottawa, respectively. They are part of the union and confederation in their own country, and remain so while striving for the common good of their respective countries."

The same can be said about China. No Chinese, local Tibetan Chinese included, no city or province in China are considering themselves ruled by Beijing. Very few people felt that way in China. You can see millions of Chinese in more than 10 cities demonstrated against Da-liar Lama clique. The separation of Chinese government and Chinese people is made up by the West, specially the news media and news commentator like Jack Cafferty. That is the reason a lot of pro-China bloggers attacked you as "brainwashed" by the western news media. I am sorry to use this brainwash again and I understand you didn't like it. I am just trying to quote what other people called.

That is the reason I wish you shall go to China probably live them for sometimes.

China is not perfect. CCP is not perfect. Just as you have admitted the West, the western governments, and democracy is not perfect.

As I said before, I think CCP is not really an evil but it made terrible mistakes. CCP is getting better during the past 30 years. I also agree CCP can do better and have more to improve.

In addition, this world is a mutli-dimensinal world. You can not use the same human right and free election standard to measure every country.

I found it is very difficult for you to understand anything else other than you want every country to have the same democracy as in the US.

I might like to import the US system into China previously. Over the years and observed Soviet Union, Russian, Kosovo, Iraq, etc. I am now thinking a system more like Singapore or Japan may be better for China. A stable majority party with some limited freedom for people to express whatever they want to express. Some kind of election like in Japan or Singapore with the leading party in power for 50 years. They can chant "Down with the CCP!". That would be ok under the new system as long as they don't break the law.

I don't believe CCP is doing communism any more in China. The best you can call them socialists. I think CCP should change their name to Chinese Socialism Party. That is more fitted.

Economically, the current Chinese system is very much like the French system, with free market economy and a lot of state-owned companies.

The Frence and Japan even UK have socialism parties. That will take care of all these anti-CCP stuff. It will also make China more acceptable to the world communities.

For Dalai Lama, as long as he comes back as religious leader with no real political power. That should be ok. He can make his noise about Tibetan culture and such. But anything he proposes will have to go through the same democratic process and implemented by local government. He needs to forget about his "Greater Tibet" and "withdraw Chinese military bases" and such.

To Chen: I agree with almost the entirety of your last post. I agree most of China is not "ruled" by Beijing. The only reason I made that point was in response to B. Leung's wording. I would suggest, however, that while Tibetan "Chinese" may not feel subjugated, Tibetan "Tibetans" may feel differently. I simply don't know, and have no basis for saying one way or another. You are not responsible for the language of others, no need to apologize.
I also agree that the US does not have a patent on "democracy", and the concept in varying iterations may be more applicable for China. I especially agree that a version of "democracy" akin to other successful Asian models as you have noted may be more appropriate for China. In fact, I sometimes wish that westerners be subject to 20 lashes for public mischieve to deter the hooliganism that seems increasingly pervasive in our society.
I hope you realize I wish China no ill will, and hope that she continues on the road to prosperity as she has done in recent years. In fact, my dislike is focussed on the CCP, and even then, primarily as it pertains to their methods. I acknowledge that the lives of many Chinese have improved, and only wish that continued improvement will engender an environment that demands greater respect for human rights and freedoms.

To Chen: am I speaking with more than 1 "Chen"? The tenor, content, and insight of the last post differs dramatically from some earlier entries. I hope you can see that, when faced with polite discourse, I am happy to respond in kind.

To SK Cheung:
You have not answered my question:
"If the Brits were willing to sell it, you still needed somebody willing to buy it." So you agree it is right to sell drugs like heroin, cocaine, marijuana as long as there are people willing to buy them? If you don't like little, then I will use Dastardly cowardly Britain surreptitiously smuggled opium into China for some time before it was discovered. Chinese government forbade the import of opium, that was Chinese law then. Don't dismiss China then had its own laws and sovereignty. China has had laws long before Western Europe emerged from the Dark Ages. Why are you so biased ?

Hongkong is a bustling and vibrant metropolis bulid by Chinese sweat and blood. They were ruled and exploited by their colonial masters. British banks Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, and Standard Charted Bank got its capital from the opium trade. The economy and land were controlled by the big British firms who repatriate their profits back to Britain. Hongkongers were colonial subjects without any freedom and rights or welfare benefits. When Britain handed back HK to China, these colonial subjects were not allowed to settle in Britain.

Tibet was part of China, whatever play of semantics you may prefer.

You said CHina was unable to effectively defend herself, so that was justification be taken advantage of and preyed on by aggressive imperialist Western powers and Japan. That shows the moral bankruptcy of your arguments. When China was weak, the West preyed on her. When China is strong, the West says its a threat. They looked at the mirror and saw their own reflections, and they wrongfully asume that China will do the same thing they did to her more than a century back. This shows the extend of their guilt, and they don't dare to appologize for their sins.

To S.K.

I am the same "Chen" posted last two posts. I was just tired all these manipulative and negative and non-subjective "China" news. A lot of these people like MFM and Tibetans-in-exile don't really understand the situation on the ground.

I hope people to separate the "nationalism" and "democracy" apart. That is used very skillfully by Dalai Lama. Even some Chinese dissants are not supporting Dalai Lama for Tibet independence. I am say "some".

When it comes to nationalism, I am for China. I don't really think Dalai Lama has done much for his own people inside Tibet. I can go on and on on the examples.

When it comes to "democracry", I think I am on the center-left side. But if you push me too hard on this Tibet issue, I will go all way out to defend China, CCP included.

So when the West push China on "democracry", they better separate this Tibetan issue out. They could push a lot of "center-left", "center-right", and "right-wing" Chinese toward "left. This is the reason why the Germans and Bush are careful. I am sure they would love to see an independent Tibet and they would love to push China on this issue, but they also realize majority of Chinese will not agree to that. Ready for war on Tibet?

To S.K.

Do you know the CCP Politburo was discussing "Politcal Reforms"? With all these Tibet protests, I am not sure the CCP Politburo will hold back more and sit tight again. Sometimes you would wonder if these protests are really counter-productive.

To B. Leung: listen, if you're not going to read, I can't help you. First, your "question" is actually from my post (it seems if the Brits were willing to sell it, you still needed somebody willing to buy it.)
(May 12th, 2008 1748 GMT) Are you expecting me to answer myself? As for your "question": "Of course, in a civilized society, access to narcotics is restricted. That’s why our society works hard to eliminate the buying and selling of controlled substances. That’s why the West has laws, and we work hard to uphold them. However, if such free trade of controlled substances back then was permitted in China, it simply reflects on the inadequacies of law and order at that time, but in no way diminishes the aspirations or ideals of a democratic system." (May 13th, 2008 2004 GMT) Asked and answered. As for your retort, at that time, China had laws, but was clearly unable to enforce them. If a country cannot uphold her own laws, then the blame lies within. Next time, read first, then ask questions.
If you would like to engage in a Q&A, I'd be pleased to partake:
1."If Tibet truly belonged in China, why would they need to be “ruled� by Beijing? That very term suggests subjugation which clearly distinguishes it from the rights and freedoms US and Canadian citizens enjoy. Does a person in Shanghai consider him/herself “ruled� by Beijing, I wonder? (May 13th, 2008 2004 GMT) It's not just "semantics" when the choice of words (ie "ruled") was yours. And even if one concedes that Tibet at one time "was" part of China, that should in no way relegate it to eternal subjugation.
2. "The reason why HKers didn’t protest pre1997 was because there was no reason to; the reason why they’ve protested since is because the CCP have provided such reason. Is that logic too complex for you?" (May 13th, 2008 2004 GMT)
You take your time...
HK was built by HK blood. Before 1997, NOT the same thing as Chinese blood; even post 1997, still not, as evidenced by their vocal desire for democracy. I don't dispute the benefits Britain garnered from their HK colony. To the victor go the spoils. I don't recall HKers complaining back then. It's only people like you creating imagined-grievances now.
Throughout time, the strong have vanquished the weak. Survival of the fittest. That's the way it goes. To whine about it is to ignore the laws of nature. Just be glad that China is now strong, and will no longer be preyed upon. Whether the west views China as a threat or not, that is their perogative, is it not? Why should China concern herself with that. China hasn't shown a tendency to respect international opinion on many fronts; is she suddenly starting to now?
Hey, news flash...of course I'm biased. Show me a person with an opinion who isn't biased. Seems to me you have your biases too. To even resort to that argument reflects your inability to engage in deeper logical thought. And without logic, you have no capacity for argument.

Hello Chen: I agree that both sides have their own "information", and there will never be agreement. Sadly, political "truths" are not readily defined by physics and mathematical equations, and even "independent" verification can never be truly independent. So we'll each have to assess what information we have, in the context of our background, experiences, and philosophies, and come to our own conclusions. I certainly don't begrudge you that right, and I'm hopeful that you don't begrudge me mine.
I can see that you would appreciate democracy in some form, applied in a manner respectful of Asian/Chinese culture. I would be thrilled if the CCP could provide you with same. I'm happy you distinguish that from nationalism. The thing that has confused me with all this blogging is, why/how does Tibet engender such a nationalistic uproar among Han Chinese? i wonder if you could explain that to me. My other question is, why does a wave of nationalism have to equal increasing support for the CCP? Can nationalism not thrive apart from the CCP? Couldn't nationalism and democracy coexist in the absence of CCP? I ask this, because the US is democratic, but its people are also extremely nationalistic. Would appreciate your response.

To S.K.

To your first question " why/how does Tibet engender such a nationalistic uproar among Han Chinese", my guess and it is only my personal view is that the Chinese had a bad experience with Britian/Russian/American Imperialism. China was humiliated in the 19th and early 20th centuries. China lost a lot of land/control of the land. Examples are Hong Kong, Macau, and the current outer Mongolia. The Britain had a history of trying to separate the Tibet out. You can see that feeling from the posts of B. Leung. China used to be a very weak and poor giant in Asia so the Chinese cannot tolerate any bullying from the West. When one reads a lot of articles written by the western journalists about ordinary news in China, nothing on human right or such, the journalists always put a negative spin on the news and link the news to the bads of CCP. It really puts a bad taste in very Chinese's mouth. So subjective and natural news reporting by the western news outlets are important. Over the time, I think these being humiliated feelings may be reduced as China becomes stronger and more confident. Secondly, the CIA involvement in Tibet in 1950 to 1972 put a very bad taste in the mouth of Chinese leaders. They cannot trust Dalai Lama. That is the reason why the Chinese leaders insist the Tibet issue is an internal issue. I think if Dalai Lama didn't ask for CIA's help, the negotiation between Dalai Lama and Chinese government could be easier with more trust. However, Dalai Lama would say Tibetans are powerless. He needs the help from the West. Politics is complicated. A lot of times it is a double edged sword. No winer there.

So Bush and other western leaders are smart to "save the Chinese faces" and try to bring them onto the world stage.

On your second question " why does a wave of nationalism have to equal to increasing support for the CCP". Oh, it is hard to separate the people, the nation, the government and the ruling party all together. Because of the aforementioned Tibet background, just for the sake of argument, the Han Chinese has outpour of nationalism. They will be behind their own country. Of course CCP is in the position to be benefited. That said, CCP may be benefited when it is facing foreign critics. CCP may not be benefited for domestic issue. In today's news, I saw a CCTV reporter was very straight and forceful when she was questioning the Minister of Public Welfare from the Central Government on why there are some many school buildings collapsed while the Administration Building of the local governments didn't during the Sichuan Earthquake. That interview was live on CCTV. Which is unprecedented in my memory. It shows the (limited) wake up of the independent journalism and (limited) looser control of news. Of course, the CCP can tolerate more this kind of critics on domestic issues than issues like Tibet. The same can be said for the US public. Privately not many people like Bush's war in Iraq. US public can protest and bash Bash very hard on that. But if a foreign country like China started to bash Bash on the same issue, most of Americans will be defending their country and find all excuses like "promoting democracy in Iraq" and such. Of course, Bush is in a position to benefited. Because US is a democratic system, Bush may not gain as much here because there is always a counter-balancing voice out there.

On your third question "Couldn't nationalism and democracy coexist in the absence of CCP". That answer is a definite "yes". Every country has its own nationalism, Frence, UK, India. India, as a democracy, has been fighting Kashmir Independent Movement for year. I think China can have both co-existed too. The problem is how to get from point A to point B. Point A is China's current system. Point B is some kind of democracy. I am not talking about the exact format of point B. I am talking the process getting from Point A to Point B. 1. A foreign invasion like Bush did in Iraq? China is not Iraq. One would see 10x to 100x more casualties on both sides, the invaders and the Chinese. It may take another 10 years to get the country stable and another 20 years to get everyone used to and know to exercise their election rights to do the democracy right. I don't think the Iraqis have learned about democracy yet although they had an election. If they had, you wouldn't see that much fighting in Iraq. 2. A slow process with internal reforms, ironically by CCP? Last I read from the HK Wenhu daily is that CCP prefers a system like Singapore. I, personally would be ok with that. By the end of day, democracy or nor, majority of people just want to have a good life. If CCP can keep the economy growing at 10% for the next 50 years, I will go with their return of 10% and a Singaporean style of democracy. That is just my personal view. I do understand democracy and free press are more desirable to prevent the leaders to make a huge and unrecoverable mistake, to prevent human right abuses, to ensure a more stable social and economic growth. Actually a nationalism co-exited with democracy is a little bit of balanced and stable. The question is how to get from point A to point B. Politics is not an easy task.

If the option is #2 above, the West including the news medias shall learn how to engage the Chinese, specially the Chinese youth. Rather chanting "Free Tibet" and get all the Chinese youth pissed off. I think the solution to the Tibet issue lays in the solution to give China democracy. In a democratic China, the Tibetans will have more says in how they want their culture/religion being practices. If I were Dalai Lama, I will go back to Tibet now without prior conditions. With a crown of Nobel Peace Price and all support from the West and NGOs, he can bring more democracy to Tibet/China. Chinese government cannot silence his voice. He can travel to the world as now. He can bring a lot of more money to Tibet to help construction with a lot of more foreign donations. He can start to preserve the Tibetan Culture now right rather later. Besides "Greater Tibet" and "withdraw Chinese military bases", there are not fundamental difference between Dalai's position and Chinese government's position in preserving Tibetan culture/language/religion. Local Tibetans are educated 50% in Tibetan language and 50% in Chinese mandarin now. If Dalai Lama wants a 70%/30% mix, I don't see any problem for the Chinese government to agree to that. Right now, because Dalai Lama is in exile. A lot of religion practice is not well practiced because the leader is no in house. If Dalai went back now, I don't see any problem for the Chinese government to allow him to lead the teaching of religion and the lead the religion ceremonies. I am sure Chinese government would love that as a fact. There will be no international pressure any more on Tibet but more international aids, the Chinese government can see the benefits too. That is the reason why Chinese government has been talking to him since 1987 for six rounds already. The problem is Dalai still want to be in charge of local government. The Greater Tibet is 25% of China including many areas which were not even ruled by him directly. Some marginal areas of his Greater Tibet had Tibetan habitants but were ruled by the Nationalist Government from Naijing. The bottom line is what is better for the ordinary Tibetans on the ground in Tibet now. I believe my proposal is better, comparing to the current situation, i.e., Dalai Lama staying in exile and riots going on inside Tibet, more destruction, more "repression" if you want to call it. I think majority of the westerners and western government can live with my proposal too as they don't see the hope of an independent Tibet as possible.

To Chen: thank you for your response. I appreciate you taking my questions seriously, and taking the time to respond in such detail. Let me read it a few more times and digest it first...I might have some questions later.

To SK Cheung:
Your Western society has laws, but yet you deny the same rights to Chinese laws. Your country is society where narcotics are restricted, but yet you deny the same rights for the Chinese government to restrict opium. You called your society of 200 years as civilized, and you implicitly imply that China was not civilized. You seem to forget that China has more than 5,000 years of culture and civilization. The Chinese government of the day sent a senior minister Lin Zexu to Southern China to oversee the destruction of contraband opium, and to ensure the ban to imports of the narcotics. Of course imperial China in 1840’s could not uphold and enforce laws as well as present day CCP does. Even today the CCP government cannot ensure that any kind of law is water-tight. Today even the USA or Europe cannot uphold and enforce laws. Thousands of illegal immigrants enter your country every year. Similarly millions of dollars worth of illegal narcotics are smuggled into your country despite your law enforcement efforts. Your logic is that if your country cannot stop narcotics smuggling then it has itself to blame. If that is your logic then there is nothing wrong if other countries grow narcotics and try to sell narcotics to your country. Therefore you insist that it is your own fault if you cannot uphold your civilized laws, don’t blame others for smuggling narcotics into your country.

Hongkongers did protest, during the Boxer patriotic uprising and the May 4th Movement. But many Chinese were massacred. HK’ers remember that. They are afraid that the British troops stationed in HK will slaughter them, as happened many times before. You deny that Hongkongers are Chinese people. That takes the cake.
Under the one country two systems Hongkong is guaranteed basic democratic rights and freedom. But they are impatient for full western-styled democracy. They are free to protest as much as they liked without fear of CCP which allowed them to protest. That gives them the confidence to protest.

“Throughout time, the strong have vanquished the weak. Survival of the fittest. That’s the way it goes. To whine about it is to ignore the laws of nature. Just be glad that China is now strong, and will no longer be preyed upon.� That’s what you said. So please don’t you whine about Tibet.

To B. Leung: you still cannot, or choose not to, read. China had every right to her own laws back then, just as she does now. Where in my post do I deny China's right to her own laws? But it is China's job to uphold them, and if she couldn't back then, "the blame lies within". Come on already! Are you easily distracted or something? Do I need to put flashing lights next to the spots you need to read?
I'm not sure where i "imply" what you claim I do. But since you bring it up, existence does not automatically equal civilized. You didn't have to, but thanks for making my points for me. Absolutely, if our country is failing to uphold our laws, then we should do something about it, whether it be to improve enforcement, or to improve legislation. That's my point, so what's yours? Please also note that I wasn't the one whining about lawlessness; you were. You seem capable of utilizing my logic; where's your own?
HKer's are HKers, and I only wish it had stayed that way. Are you suggesting that HKer's didn't protest because they were afraid of slaughter, Tianneman style? You have got to be kidding me, right? IF that's the nature of your logic, then actually, please continue to use mine. Yes, you've made the point that CCP "allowed" people to protest, and good for her; you still miss the point that it is the CCP that gives people something to protest about. Were it not for the CCP, there would be nothing to protest. How many different ways must I say it before the little light in your head flickers on ever so slightly?
Ah, you were doing some reading. You make a good point. I will no longer use Tibet's military weakness as a reason for seeking independence, so long as you will stop the whining about historical sins that have been acknowledged. But moving forward, Tibetans need not necessarily be satisfied with their status quo. And if Britain and Portugual gave you back HK and Macau, when will China give Tibet back to the Tibetans, in order to acknowledge and reconcile her historical sin?
BTW, you've only answered 1 of my earlier questions.

To SK Cheung:
If you say that China has every right to enforce her laws, but when Chinese minister LinZexu was ordered by the emperor to burn the confiscated illegal opium, the British East India Company refused to obey Chinese law. When China tried to enforce her laws on her own territory, they instigated the British government to send a huge armada of warships and soldiers to attack China. The British East India Company just wanted to make profits at the expense of China, and they knowingly ignored the immense harm and suffering caused by smoking opium. Why didn’t Britain allow opium to be sold to its own citizens? That is British hypocrisy.
As regards your question, I just borrowed your words to make it easier for you to understand, i.e. in your own words. It is not a question.
Who said anything about lawlessness? You are the one who brought it up. The British were the ones that didn’t respect other country’s laws.
You said HK’ers are not Chinese people. Please tell me where did they come from in the first place? Your preference to be subordinate to your British master is yours to make. The majority of us HKer’s are very happy to return to our motherland.
Pre-1997 Hong Kong was ruled by the British crown, what is the point of protesting. They were already used to it and were resigned to it after 150 years of colonial rule. And they know that they cannot do anything about it one way or the other.
After 1997 they see the prospect of more freedom and democracy coming. They protest to bring forward the date of more free elections. Now they have the incentive to protest.
I find your opinion that strong countries have the right to invade and annex weak countries very troubling. I find your piece very objectionable “Throughout time, the strong have vanquished the weak. Survival of the fittest. That’s the way it goes. To whine about it is to ignore the laws of nature.� You don’t seem to respect international laws of the United Nations.
HK and Macau were returned to China because they are Chinese territory. Similarly Tibet or Xizang is Chinese territory.
I just hope that America can be returned to Native Americans and European settlers can go back to Europe. Same to Australia and New Zealand as well.
I find the tone of your language very patronizing and arrogant.

To B. Leung: you keep going over the same thing again and again. Your entire first paragraph simply goes back to the fact that back then, China couldn't stand up for herself. That was a sad fact, and unfortunate. You can lament it and wallow in it (as you are doing), or simply take pride in the fact that China will not be in such position again. Your entire point seems to be an objection of Britain benefitting at China's expense. Well, it happened. Deal with it. Move on already!
"You have not answered my question: “If the Brits were willing to sell it, you still needed somebody willing to buy it.� " (May 14th, 2008 724 GMT). I don't know, sounds like a question to me; if you say it's not, no biggie, i won't quibble.
To your next point, i would only say that respect is earned.
I'm happy you are glad to have returned to the motherland. You make your choices; I make mine. I am impressed that you only said "majority", and not all. Many who share your point of view like to unilaterally declare themselves as spokesperson for 1.3 billion people. Of course HKer's are Chinese by DNA; of course they shared a common culture and heritage. But pre 1997, they were certainly different from PRC Chinese in many significant ways, in my opinion.
Listen, first you say HKers didn't protest Britain for fear of slaughter; now you say they didn't protest due to futility. So which is it? The bottom line is, it was what it was, and it is what it is. You can spin it whichever way you desire. Doesn't change anything.
As for your last 2 paragraphs, you have your opinion, I have mine, to which we are both entitled. I have great respect for the UN. As a history lesson for you, please note that the events you keep rehashing occurred more than 50 years before the UN was formed. And I do agree those attitudes have a mitigated role in today's society. But that's how the world worked in the 1800's and before. HK and Macau were returned literally because the leases expired. So I ask again, if you object to the survival of the fittest, then when will China recognize her sin, and return Tibet to Tibetans?
Your logic has come full circle, back to the discovery of the Americas. I would prefer to live in the present, with aspirations for the future, rather than going back to the 1500's.
As for my tone, it is what it is, you can deal with it, or not. I would like to point out, however, that my tone can be very deferential, but only to those whose opinions and logic I respect, and who have made their points respectfully. As I said, respect is earned, and not to be taken for granted (BTW, the logical response to my last statement is that I have not earned your respect, and that is fine with me!)

To SK Cheung:
The reason that I go over the issue British opium trafficking and illegal trade in narcotics is that you were equivocating in your responses.
You defended British opium trade to China by falsely claiming that China permitted it. China never permitted that. Then you further claimed that China didn't have laws to restrict the trade in opium. Britain grew the narcotic in the British colony of India and then shipped it to China. Opium was a new product and its harmful effects the Chinese didn't understand initially. When they did, the Emperor issued an edict to ban the trade. But the British refused to stop the trade in banned narcotics, greedy at handsome profits that they had become used to. Queen Victoria sent gunboats to attack China to force her to allow trade in opium. You defended dastard Britain's war of aggression by saying that was China's fault because didn't have modern weapons to defend herself. I find that morally very objectionable on your part. The implication is that you support the militarily strong countries to bully weak countries.
I tend to believe that almost all HK'ers are happy that they returned to China. I am glad you now admit that HK'ers are Chinese. I’m just happy that HK’ers now have a bright future to look forward to. Pre or post 1997 I can't see anything different in HK'ers and PRC Chinese. You may also say that people living in Manhattan may look different than people living in Long Island, NY.
You have not answered my question: “Your logic is that if your country cannot stop narcotics smuggling then it has itself to blame. If that is your logic then there is nothing wrong if other countries grow narcotics and try to sell narcotics to your country. Therefore you insist that it is your own fault if you cannot uphold your civilized laws, don’t blame others for smuggling narcotics into your country.�
You said that was how the world worked in the 1800’s. I would say that was the way prior to WWII. before the UN was formed. Then was then, now is now, you prefer to live for the future. But then who dictated the rules then, and who dictate the rules now? Britain ruled the world then, now USA ruled the world now as the sole superpower. Among them they conquered, occupied and populated vast swathes of land in America, Australia, New Zealand, the Pacific Islands, and elsewhere. Now they changed the rules and pretend to be goody two shoes. Now they want to maintain the status quo. Very convenient. Why must the rest of the world live by the rules and dictates of these two superpowers?
I’m glad you have respect for the UN. But the USA routinely shows great contempt for the UN and many international organizations, such as Kyoto protocol, the International Court of Justice. They acted unilaterally against the UN by attacking Iraq and Afghanistan. They violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty by supplying India with nuclear know-how and materials. The USA allowed Israel to develop nuclear weapons, but they are against the peaceful use of energy by Iran.
Tibet acknowledged Chinese rule of the territory a very long time ago. It is now part of China. The USA and Canada were established when British and European colonial settlers came to America, took over the homeland of Native Indians and committed a holocaust on them. It is time to admit your sins, apologize to the American Indians and give them back their land.
You have no respect for differences of opinion. If others didn’t agree with you, you have the bad habit of calling them names and disparaging people. That is why many bloggers have returned in kind to your insults. Personally I shall not go down to your base level.

To Chen: I've read your response several times now, and am truly appreciative of your insight. I particularly appreciate the second paragraph. I agree that throughout history, the movements that have engendered the most lasting and significant changes have come from within. It is my sincere hope that PRC citizens over time will apply the necessary pressure to produce lasting changes to the manner in which the CCP goes about its business. It is ironic, and also sad, that it takes a natural disaster to spur progress.
I sincerely hope that no one invades China. Or China doesn't invade North America. We really don't need any more wars.
I could certainly see your "solution" as a starting point. It is unfortunate, as you suggest, that the polarization between China and the West has come to the point of such distrust. And similarly, between the Dalai and the CCP. But communication is a prerequisite to any solution, so any discussion is better than not.

To B. Leung:
Where exactly is my equivocation? It seems the problem is you have trouble reading. I never claim that China permitted the opium trade, I just said she was incapable of doing anything about it. There is a difference! I also never claim that China never had the laws; I just said she was never strong enough to uphold them. And, especially back in the 1800's, just "asking" Britain to cease and desist wasn't going to cut it. If you find the 1800's to have been "morally objectionable", just be glad you don't live in it. But if you can't accept the realities of yesteryear, I certainly can't help you. I don't think I can make it any clearer for you than that.
I don't merely imply that strong countries ruled the weak in history, I said so. Again, history is not something that's about to change. As for present day, here's what I did say: "I do agree those attitudes have a mitigated role in today’s society" (May 16th, 2008 1857 GMT). Why do I find myself constantly referencing past posts to correct you? Please read more carefully, attentively, closely...do whatever it is you gotta do, okay?
Dude, Manhattan compared to Long Island is lightyears from pre 1997 HK vs anywhere in mainland China. You're going to have to come up with a much better analogy. The follies of logic are endless...let's start with the fact that Manhattan and Long Island are part of the same state, and are governed by "one system". Pre 1997 HK was not a part of CHina, and now there are "two systems".
Our views on the "happy quotient" of HKers differs. That's the way it will have to be.
"Absolutely, if our country is failing to uphold our laws, then we should do something about it, whether it be to improve enforcement, or to improve legislation. " (May 15th, 2008 855 GMT) That's actually the THIRD time I answered your question. "As for your “question�: “Of course, in a civilized society, access to narcotics is restricted. That’s why our society works hard to eliminate the buying and selling of controlled substances. That’s why the West has laws, and we work hard to uphold them. However, if such free trade of controlled substances back then was permitted in China, it simply reflects on the inadequacies of law and order at that time, but in no way diminishes the aspirations or ideals of a democratic system.� (May 13th, 2008 2004 GMT) Asked and answered." (May 14th, 2008 2034 GMT). Those were the first two times. Seriously, dude, how many times do I need to answer THE SAME question because it triggers some synapses in your brain? You may not like the answer, but it doesn't mean I haven't answered it THREE friggin times already.
Yes, we've all acknowledged that the West has prior mistakes to atone for. And re-living it over and over will not change it one iota. It is convenient for the West to espouse more lofty and righteous aspirations today. And other countries can join the call or not, and let history be their judge. The world doesn't have to do what the superpowers say; but if the superpowers are right, neither should the world remain contrarian out of spite. That, my friend, would be juvenile.
I agree that the Bush Admin has messed up America's image, and I personally disapprove of their recent suspicions of the UN, for what it's worth.
I think you should be a little careful with the cavalier use of the term holocaust. Tibet may have acknowledged Chinese rule in the past; that doesn't necessarily mean they wish to submit to such rule in the future. The US and Canada have made reparations to aboriginal peoples. However, as I've also said, your suggestion to go back to the 1500's isn't going to fly.
Now, since you like questions so much, 2 can play that game:
1.If Tibet truly belonged in China, why would they need to be “ruled� by Beijing? That very term suggests subjugation which clearly distinguishes it from the rights and freedoms US and Canadian citizens enjoy. Does a person in Shanghai consider him/herself “ruled� by Beijing, I wonder? It’s not just “semantics� when the choice of words (ie “ruled� ) was yours. And even if one concedes that Tibet at one time “was� part of China, that should in no way relegate it to eternal subjugation.
2.Whether the west views China as a threat or not, that is their perogative, is it not? Why should China concern herself with that. China hasn’t shown a tendency to respect international opinion on many fronts; is she suddenly starting to now?
3.Absolutely, if our country is failing to uphold our laws, then we should do something about it, whether it be to improve enforcement, or to improve legislation. That’s my point, so what’s yours?
4.And if Britain and Portugual gave you back HK and Macau, when will China give Tibet back to the Tibetans, in order to acknowledge and reconcile her historical sin?
5.first you say HKers didn’t protest Britain for fear of slaughter; now you say they didn’t protest due to futility. So which is it?
6.HK and Macau were returned literally because the leases expired. So I ask again, if you object to the survival of the fittest, then when will China recognize her sin, and return Tibet to Tibetans?
I've shown you the courtesy of answering your questions up to 3 times. Perhaps you can extend the same courtesy as well. If I've missed your answers, I'd be happy for you to point them out now.
I have ample respect for a difference of opinion. What I lack is any respect for opinions made not with logic, but simply with belligerence. I wholly support the capacity to disagree without being disagreeable. However, I find making the same arguments, and asking the same questions, over and over again, to be quite disagreeable. And if others disparage me (admittedly not you), I have no qualms about returning the favor. And if your question is who started it, you'll have to go back to the various threads, and see for yourself.

To SK Cheung:
I refer to your post on May 17th, 2008 610 GMT
Second line:
“I never claim that China permitted the opium trade, I just said she was incapable of doing anything about it.”

Compare above line with that below, half-way down your post:

“However, if such free trade of controlled substances back then was permitted in China, it simply reflects on the inadequacies of law and order at that time,”

You are contradicting yourself, I’m afraid. Which is correct, China permitted OR China did not permit the opium trade? Please make yourself clear. I am not trying to be disagreeable, my friend.

You agreed with the statement that other countries have the right to grow narcotics and to sell them to your country. You said that it is your own fault if you cannot uphold your laws.

HK’ers are Chinese people and they did not change a bit before or after 1997. Only the politics changed. And for the better too.

I’m afraid your knowledge of history is somewhat lacking, no offence.
If you insist that the term holocaust be restricted to Nazi Germany, how about annihilated or systematically killed off. The US and Canada have made reparations to native peoples? How? They were driven to small patches of deserts and infertile land called reservations. Many of them died of hunger and disease.
They can no longer carry on their unique culture, language, and traditional way of life. It’s a cultural genocide on the Native Americans. Yes the Europeans started to arrive in America during the 1500’s. Initially they settled on the East coast. Later when more Europeans arrived in the 1700’s and the 1800’s they started to move westwards to grab more land, especially when gold was found in California. The killing spree did not end until 1890. The end of the wars more or less coincided with the end of the 19th century. The last major war was not really a war, it was a massacre in 1890 where Indian warriors, women, and children were slaughtered by U.S. cavalrymen at Wounded Knee , South Dakota , in a final spasm of ferocity.

http://www.nativeamericans.com/

http://www.historicaldocuments.com/IndianRemovalAct.htm

1.Tibet was ruled by the Emperors of China. Today Tibet is a province of China. The Tibetans enjoy many rights and freedom in common with other Chinese citizens. The majority of them do not consider themselves to be subjugated in any way.
2.If some countries feel threatened, they have the right to be paranoid if they so desire. They should also reflect on why they are so afraid. Maybe they did some bad deeds in the past and are now afraid of revenge. Perhaps they should make a sincere apology to China and the Chinese people to exorcise their guilty feelings.
3. You want to uphold your laws, but some dastardly country like colonialist Britain or the Bushist USA does not respect your laws. They will fabricate some kind of lies of wrong-doing and attack you.
4. Repetition of Q1.Same answer as 1.
5. HK’ers have many freedoms. They also have many answers to the same question. They are not controlled by the CCP like you think they are.
6. Repetition of Q1. Same anwer as 1.
I have also got the courtesy to answer you many times already, but you kept repeating the same questions over and over again.

A few Western countries do not represent the International Community. The member countries of the UN should be more rightfully called the International Community.

Perhaps you should also reflect on the tone of your language in order not to attract hostility towards yourself.

To SK Cheung:
I refer to your post on May 17th, 2008 610 GMT
Second line:
“I never claim that China permitted the opium trade, I just said she was incapable of doing anything about it.�

Compare above line with that below, half-way down your post:

“However, if such free trade of controlled substances back then was permitted in China, it simply reflects on the inadequacies of law and order at that time,�

You are contradicting yourself, I’m afraid. Which is correct, China permitted OR China did not permit the opium trade? Please make yourself clear. I am not trying to be disagreeable, my friend.

You agreed with the statement that other countries have the right to grow narcotics and to sell them to your country. You said that it is your own fault if you cannot uphold your laws.

HK’ers are Chinese people and they did not change a bit before or after 1997. Only the politics changed. And for the better too.

I’m afraid your knowledge of history is somewhat lacking, no offence.
Almost all of Native Americans were exterminated or systematically killed off by the U.S. Government, European settlers, and the U.S. Army. You said the US and Canada have made reparations to native peoples? How can they ever repay the blood debt? Only a small number of survivors were left and they were driven to small patches of deserts and infertile land called reservations. Many of them died of hunger and disease. They can no longer carry on their unique culture, language, and traditional way of life. It’s a genocide committed on the Native Americans. Yes the Europeans started to arrive in America during the 1500’s. Initially they settled on the East coast. Later when more Europeans arrived in the 1700’s and the 1800’s they started to move westwards to grab more land, especially when gold was found in California. The killing spree did not end until 1890. The end of the wars more or less coincided with the end of the 19th century. The last major war was not really a war, it was a massacre in 1890 where Indian warriors, women, and children were slaughtered by U.S. cavalrymen at Wounded Knee , South Dakota , in a final spasm of ferocity.

http://www.nativeamericans.com/

http://www.historicaldocuments.com/IndianRemovalAct.htm

1.Tibet was ruled by the Emperors of China. Today Tibet is a province of China. The Tibetans enjoy many rights and freedom in common with other Chinese citizens. The majority of them do not consider themselves to be subjugated in any way.
2.If some countries feel threatened, they have the right to be paranoid if they so desire. They should also reflect on why they are so afraid. Maybe they did some bad deeds in the past and are now afraid of revenge. Perhaps they should make a sincere apology to China and the Chinese people to exorcise their guilty feelings.
3. You want to uphold your laws, but some dastardly country like colonialist Britain or the Bushist USA does not respect your laws. They will fabricate some kind of lies of wrong-doing and attack you.
4. Repetition of Q1.Same answer as 1.
5. HK’ers have many freedoms. They also have many answers to the same question. They are not controlled by the CCP like you think they are.
6. Repetition of Q1. Same anwer as 1.
I have also got the courtesy to answer you many times already, but you kept repeating the same questions over and over again.

A few Western countries do not represent the International opinion. The member countries of the UN should be more rightfully called the International Community.

Perhaps you should also reflect on the tone of your language in order not to attract hostility towards yourself.

To Peter: OMG!!! China tried not to permit said trade, and yet it happened anyway, because she couldn't do anything about it. So bottom line, it is IRRELEVANT what she wanted, because it happened regardless. And whining repeatedly now changes squat. When will you be done with this circular repetitive nonsense?
Your second point, I am well aware of what I said, no need to repeat it to me. I not only read your posts, I read mine too when i'm typing them. My only correction would be that my country is not in the business of importing narcotics. But if criminals from elsewhere want to bring stuff here, then it's our job to try to stop them. By no means are we perfect at it. But I don't think we're whining about it.
We disagree about HKers. Repeating it every time changes nothing.
Thanks for the history lesson. Sounds like civics class in grade school. I said our countries have made reparations. I didn't say that negates all the wrongs of the past. So if you're going to paraphrase me, please do so with higher fidelity.
As for your answers:
1.Between ancient times and today, Tibet was independent. You seem to forget that. I never claim that Tibetans have FEWER rights than the rest of PRC's citizens; rather, they have just as few. I am not sure how you feel competent to speak for the majority of Tibetans.
2. Your statement is not an answer to the question. Why is China concerned with international opinion now? She never did before. Answer that. As for an apology, it's in the mail.
3. When has Bush attacked you? Does your life totally revolve around the prior deeds of colonial Britain? Can you ever hum another tune, I wonder? Or are you a one-trick pony?
4. Hardly the same as #1. If you complain about prior European aggression, and yet they've returned territory to China, then when will China acknowledge her prior aggression towards what was then an independent Tibet, and return the land to her people? Don't think you're getting off that easy, pal!
5. Again, not even close to answering the question. Did HKers not protest due to perceived futility, or fear of slaughter pre 1997?
6. If anything, this is similar to Q#4, so I'll let it go.
As I've now pointed out, your "answers" don't answer anything. If you've got the stones, let's see some, and some actual answers too.
I don't know what your second last point refers to. International means more than 1 country. Besides, most western nations belong to the UN.
Do you think hostility bothers me? What bothers me is belligerence, stupidity, and a lack of logic. If you got it, bring it!

Thank you Peter for saying what I always wanted to say. I couldn't say it any better.
Some Western countries always use their military superiority to threaten weak countries to force them to give in to their unfair demands. Imperialist Britain, Nazi Germany and Japan did that in the last century. The USA and their underlings like Britain are doing the same sort of thing today. It is like a being raped at gun-point , and then some numbskull tell you it happened anyway, because she couldn’t do anything about it. He seemed to be siding with the criminal. He is always siding with dastardly Western countries and will always find all kinds of stupid excuses to justify their crimes and wrong-doings, no matter how obvious they are to the International Community.

Always whining about Tibet. Wait another 100 years and people like him will still be whining about Tibet. When the USA grabbed Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California from Mexico in the last century, I wonder when she will return the land to Mexico. When they exterminated the Native Americans, I wonder when the USA will return all the land back to the survivors.

He says International community means more than 1 country. If USA and Britain claims to be The International Community, I bet Syria and Iran can also claim to be the The International Community. I bet Cuba and North Korea can also claim to be the International Community too. Why don't the western countries listen to them? At any one time there can be dozens of International Communities opposing the IC of USA and its little brother Britain. Why should China bother about these two bullies when the whole World Community is againt the international community of USA and Britain? He says most western countries belong to the UN. Does a few western countries represent more than 200 members of the UN? That is both arrogant and presposterous indeed.

To B. Leung:
I see that you've given up all hope of answering my questions, which is fine, for I didn't think you had the answers anyway, nor would your answers have had any relevance or significance. I merely wanted you to taste your own medicine at the annoyance of repetitive questions. Hopefully, some insight will allow you to avoid similarly annoying others in the future.
You should really go back to live in the 20th century. All your "points" seem to harken from that era, if not before. Your classless and distasteful "gun-point" analogy is again ridiculous, because my society HAS laws, and we're ABLE to uphold them. So if our law is broken, the offender will be punished. Too bad China couldn't say or do that back then. Like I said, too bad, so sad. If you can't see the difference, oh well, what could I expect from you anyway. Stupid is as stupid does, as they say.
By the way, which "international community" are you referring to, that shares your dim world-view?
I'm sorry you see logic as "stupid excuses". Again, reflects the intellect you possess...or lack thereof.
I'll be long gone in 100 years...maybe Tibet will be independent by then too. Yippee!! And no, California stays because Mexico lost the war. With your logic (and I'm using the term very loosely here), I similarly wonder when China will return Tibet to Tibetans.
In your world, international community becomes a popularity contest. That is one of your (many incurable) problems. Perhaps China should try to do what is right, and not what is popular (with Syria, Iran, NOrth Korea...hmmm, all very "democratic" countries, I see...I wonder what China shares with these nations...oh, that's right, tyranny!) Nice to hang with your brothers, isn't it?
That you lack the capacity to even acknowledge the presence, make-up, and legitimacy of the international community as a whole bespeaks your very cloistered and meaningless existence.

I am very dissappoited at this former HongKonger. He has sold out his motherland for some colonialist bullies. He must be working for CIA and MI6 or something like that. I hate TRAITORS.

To B. Leung:
And I have a visceral dislike for stupid people like you! Get a brain already. Oh, and your assumptions are on par with Peter's...equally pointless and hopelessly misguided. I can only hope that most HKers today aren't dragging their knuckles like you obviously do.

To S.K. CHEUNG:
SHAME on you. You no-brained idiotic defector, dissident ex-HongKonger selling out your motherland. All HongKongers are cursing you. Good riddance and don't come back to HK, you are NOT welcome here forever.
You and your Tibetan activist collaborationist MFM from Toronto are brained-washed tools of the International Bullies of USA and little Britain.
You are a stupid little POODLE of global hegemonists USA and its little Britain poodle just like you. Lick their boots and their asses you despicable scum. SHAME on you, TRAITOR.

To B. Leung: dude, you're 1 (one) HKer. I would try first to speak eloquently for yourself, the capacity for which you have yet to demonstrate, before attempting to speak for 6 million. Did I ever say I wanted to go back to HK; no thanks, i'm happy where I am. If you are happy with the CCP, that's your choice. To each their own. I am glad that you're living with the CCP, and not me.
Listen, could intellectually-challenged people like you find something worthy to say other than always falling back onto "brainwashed"? Is that the best you've got? How pathetic is that? I've told your asylum buddy Peter the same thing.
Why all the fancy verbiage at the end there, little peon? Logic isn't working so you'd try some gutter-talk? How admirable! You give HKers a bad name, and you're a disgrace to yourself, your family, your ancestors, and the race you supposedly represent. Try that on for size, moron.

To S.K. CHeung:
Hey you are 1 (ONE) eloquent tongue twisting deceitful artist. You are nothing but a fancy tongued clown, showing off his tongue twisting tricks.
Listen carefully, All of us HK'ers curse your disloyalty and being TRAITOR. We HK'ers are ashamed of your family as well as your ancestors not teaching you the right values and the right education to be intellectually handicapped by pathetic extremist Western deceitful propaganda teachings. You think you belong to White Community? They will kick your ass and spit on your children when they are tired of you. And don't cry and come running back.
Hey you miniscule peon of your colonial masters and the genocidal Native killing hegemon rightfully belong in the gutters, and stay there where you belong liking their foot and their butts off.
We despise you TRAITOR.

To B. Leung: I'm listening, yet you have nothing useful nor intelligent to say. That's unfortunate. I'm good with words, and you're not...that's evident now. I'm also good with logic, which is another area where you are sorely lacking. Vitriol and rhetoric, those are the areas where you take the cake. Congratulations...well done!!! Now, dude, if you're going to insult, can't you at least have the originality to come up with your own stuff; must you always be reduced to copying my lines?!? Aim high, pal, someday, you might get half-way there.
Who is this "we" you keep referring to? I thought your useless rants were the product of just your one useless mind. Don't tell me your writing has been a group effort, and this is the best the bunch of you morons can do. That would truly be disappointing.
Now, go educate yourself (or yourselves), try not to fixate ALL the time on the 19th century, learn to use logic, write better English, and maybe that way, you can put a stop to your ancestors spinning in their graves with disgust over the woeful inadequacies of their offspring. Does that make you feel better.....or worse?

To S.K. CHeung:
You have the intelligence of a poodle trained only to listen to the command of your colonial masters. You have a lap dog's logic and your slimy slippery tongue drools with the vitriol of rabbies that ravaged your diseased twisted brain. Your logic is full of contradictions and your zero knowledge of history and current affairs are pitifully pathetic. You make a fool of yourself in all the blogs spinning and twisting the facts to please your hegemonist masters.
Your ancestors must be turning in their graves at this unfilial intellectually handicapped peon who turns against their wishes and became a TRAITOR.

To B. Leung: that's better. At least a little originality, although you seem to recycle some of your own phrases, not to mention mine. Perhaps your brain doesn't function quickly enough to generate novel ideas on a regular basis. That would not surprise me, given the nature of your comments and their profound lack of depth, perspective, and tolerance. Having said that, you are entitled to your "ideas", no matter how stupid and pathetic they are. Such is the nature of freedom of speech, and I happily take the good with the bad. Do i need to spell out for you which category I feel you belong to? Oh, BTW, I think the dumbest dog is still much smarter than you. I don't know if you drool, but your knuckles must certainly drag on the ground, like any self-respecting neanderthal. And while my ancestors might "turn", your's are "spinning". Are you so dumb that you can't even take a recycled insult to the next superlative? Can you hear me now??