How is it working against me when I manage to show that he's lying lol? He claims that *the video* exists, and if you want to argue that the actual things really does happen, it still doesn't really excuse you from claiming that it's captured on video, by the chinese side, nor it's a form of proof simply by stating that the probability of such things happened exists.Because it's such a minor detail. It works against you.
Yeah I know, expecting indians to back up their claim is a pretty tall asking. Silly me, expecting this indian to behave any better than the rest..Have your fun but you do your position a great disservice by acting just like a mindless Jai Hind.
Is this the mindset that you used whenever a BS claim made by the indian, a nervous thought in the back of your head that there's a possibility, not big, actually pretty slim given their typical ridiculous claims contrary to chronological reality, doubting yourself and scared of feeling embarrassed?? How pathetic in my opinion, unlike twineedle and I assume you as well since you brought this up, I don't need to feel embarrassed for literally asking for evidences to back up someone's claim. It should be a standard behavior in a discussion, and if I'm proven wrong, it's also should be a standard to well just admit it gracefully instead of playing hide-and-seek in the forumOnce the video is produced are you not embarrassed saying it didn't/doesn't exist?
You clearly don't understand the history that I had with on this particular topic and with this particular indian on this thread. I've shown multiple times evidences, videos, detailing the chronological order leading up to the clash in june, disproving his lies multiple times.Get your main point stated, then argue tiny details if you so wish or if it is important.
This was months ago ofc, and get this, *everytime* I call him out on this particular topic, he always just disappeared. Poof, gone without a word on my posts. And when I thought the discussion is over, months later here we go again once the cooling period is over, the same indian, repeating the same talking points that has been debunked months ago yet ignored by them. It's like a silly timeloop.
When did I mention that I disagree with this? They do attack our position, are those tents that they put not a form of aggression?The fight happened because an Indian group attacked a Chinese position. You can't stand it if a Chinese position is attacked? You can't tolerate the fact that a Chinese tent was attacked?
Here's a simple logical thought held by indian on this particular incident
China built tents -> india protests -> clash happened to remove the supposed chinese tents -> shows satellite image of the said chinese tent removed after clash -> mission success for india in halting chinese intrusion
Now here's the correct one, proven beyond reasonable doubt with the videos that I've posted for months already
India brought tractor, building bridges to cross the river, built tents, intruding into our position -> china protested -> the famous clash happened -> the satellite photo that the indian themselves shown that the indian tents (believed to be chinese before the video is posted, another proof of weakness of arguing by satellite photo) are now removed.
You can't see the stark difference between the two? Yep, only trivial stuff right? Clearly makes no difference in the discussion whether the same tents that are shown in the satellite and videos to be removed after the clash is owned by chinese or indian
Last edited: