[ATimes] Letter - Sangkancil

Message from discussion [ATimes] Letter

gnh

More options 24 Apr, 13:29

From: gnh <g...@pc.jaring.my>

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:29:57 +0800

Local: Thurs 24 Apr 2008 13:29

Subject: Re: [sangkancil] Re: [ATimes] Letter

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward | Print | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message | Find messages by this author
  

Hey G V

Now Malaysia also part of China, yes ?

Because if China no buy, Malaysia die ........

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

G V wrote:

> Wednesday, February 21, 2007

> Chinese historian: "To exaggerate the size of China's historical
> territory is not patriotic" - Full Text
> <http://granitestudio.blogspot.com/2007/02/chinese-historian-disputes-...>

> <http://bp0.blogger.com/_VXQinw7KBZE/RdwVvdYlw1I/AAAAAAAAAI8/3UXxT8zd4...>Via
> CDT <http://chinadigitaltimes.net/>: The blog Letters from China
> <http://voyage.typepad.com/china/2007/02/tibet_not_alway.html> has a
> post about an article in the magazine China Review
> <http://www.quanheng.cn/xzj.asp?id=8758> by Fudan University professor
> Ge Jianxiong. The CDT brief
> <http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2007/02/tibet_not_always_part_of_china_c...>
> and the Letters from China post both feature the title "Tibet not
> always a part of China: Chinese Historian." Taken in context,
> Professor Ge's comments are not quite so shocking. While he does
> mention Tibet as not being a part of the Tang Empire, the article
> itself I think is more interesting for the larger argument: When
> discussing what is and, perhaps more importantly, what is not China,
> it's important to

Reply to author Forward