Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (36595)	7/27/2003 3:53:14 AM
From: Seeker of Truth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

That is counterfeit history that you are repeating. Tibet has been part of China for centuries. Okay this doesn't go back to the Han dynasty but it goes back to before Marco Polo. Please get the facts straight. Not everything you read in the US press is the truth :-).

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (36595)	7/27/2003 4:00:53 AM
From: Seeker of Truth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Paraphrasing you, did you know that Beijing is not part of China? The People's Liberation Army attacked and occupied it a few decades ago. What was the basis for China taking over Beijing again? Does China have some right to maintain ownership of the serfs in Beijing? At some time or other almost all of China was not part of China. History is complicated. The concept "China" used to include Outer Mongolia. It may do so again. Which one of the three kingdoms was China, anyway?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (36595)	7/27/2003 9:21:34 AM
From: BubbaFred	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

A SHORT HISTORY OF TIBET omni.cc.purdue.edu "Out of a total population of some 13 millions, 3.8 millions (some western writters like to use a figure of 6 millions) are Tibetans , 2 % are Han (somewhere around 200,000 people including soldiers), the rest are Moslems, Mongolians, Turks, Tu, Baiyi, Yi etc. Some propagandists counted them as `Chinese migrations', and concluded wrongly that there were more `Chinese' than Tibetans in the land of Tibet. It was unreasonable to re-build Tibet Dynasty in today's world, just as to re-build a Serb dominating Yugoslavia. This was an irrationality of `Tibet Independent Movement' as proposed which includes Qinghai, parts of Szechuan and Yunnan."