I don't mean to bust your chops, but I think you have a bit of a distorted view about the whole Tibet situation. How can you say that unfortunately the Dalai Lama is not Bin Laden? That is completely preposterous! You guys invaded Tibet, the least thing you could do it admit to it instead of making up suck a biased, baloney and commie influenced story. I mean no disrespect but I simply cant tolerate you're insolence. (I may be exaggerating a bit with the severity of may accusations so please do not be offended) 8 h: u' X9 X. e7 ]6 [; g% h; Z

2 o) _2 Y9 w2 _- [1 P" Y; T. @I somehow sense that you are taking this discussion way too personal. Although I appreciate your version of the story, I would also like to be skeptic about what is said by a totalitarian regime where information tends to be manipulated. I don't condem China for the Tibetian invasion and whatever China does is none of my business (at least not yet) but you can't start babling about how it's unfortunate that the Dalailama is no Bin Laden. I know it's hard to question your country but in order to get your facts straight it is vital that you do so. ) k8 B% F2 K7 A, S3 b5 [; M) S

" B* r  H: J! k6 q; t  r& B; Y  _+ q( k7 A/ k) R

7 n; H/ ^. C: v  p4 t. hThis is an intense debate and I think I need to throw my word in. I think neither Ricky nor myself give a hoot about the independence of Quebec (maybe Matt might). You might want to use better examples. 5 F2 q; |; v$ h) v
Yeah violent protest are present in any part of the world, but it is not a justification to remove these peoples' rights. I am positive if I search for violent actions by China against Tibet the list will be long. The true topic of debate here should be with regards to whether Tibet should be an independant country. Bin why wouldn't India claim part of Tibet? Isn't part of it in India?
4 v3 M- \/ Z+ F+ f
: O- A% c- e/ ~/ f# h  i3 |7 l0 wLets lose the bias and stick to the facts.
: B# s( Z4 m+ a9 q2 B
. P8 ]1 Y( k. q3 P. r# V  y# p& v5 _' v/ {$ u3 W3 \- g
I'd like to point out to you that Tibet had already declared and signed their independence in 1914, although without Chinese consent. Now, after a four decade long period of dissertation by the Chinese government you would expect Tibet to be considered somewhat of an independent nation. I think the fact that it used to belong to the Chinese half a century before they decided to invade it is pretty irrelevant. When you give people a taste of freedom, it is usually very hard to remove it and pretend nothing happened and that, my good friend, is one of the things that make people go nuts.# V; t" `  k! p4 g1 b1 y

2 g" b0 e/ Q. m6 G' q, a' t# U# T( |6 \
( E4 a% `7 D+ R9 B+ _& s8 J' G! v

# a8 K( r% h! c+ V) @2 LA couple of things, as I sit back and enjoy the show:
$ J1 z) k. X; O' Z/ c6 p" e# K; G- The Dalaï Lama is the head of a theocracy and should be considered as such. I must admit that personally, I am a fan of the separation of church and state and it is true that monks have a tad more clout than I would be comfortable with and that they essentially control the rythm of life over there. A third of the population (not sure of the real percentage so I'll take Bin's numbers) is equivalent to a fairly hefty proportion having to live in large part off the labour of others. That said, I don't quite know why China should decide for Tibetans, infrastructure building or not. If I was in such a system, and with my current psychosocial make-up I'd strive to overthrow any sort of theocratic order. But again, this should be left up to Tibetans. And yes, any claim that China's presence there is benign seems disingenuous. 1 U$ _* s; }+ u
- The independence of Québec? Of course I care. We can discuss if you want, but the situation is a bit different, I might say.  yes, new immigrants made the difference last referendum (for the no side), so you would not be the first one to come and meddle in
5 P: v: s/ S. [0 n/ o) ~6 r% Y1 Q5 T- m) ~* |
熬夜DEBT发了两个晚上，有些TERMINOLOGY狂查金山词霸，收到这些FEEDBACK,呵呵，罢了，好歹尽了中国人的义务了

关注3月22公投投票  放弃幻想，准备打仗