Xipeepee terpaling pissful. Own self langgar own boat then talk about war.

So prissfull jz rike kariban.

That spot was 150 nautical miles from the Philippines but more than 400 nautical miles from China. Like that also Xipeepee want to claim. Fark off la.

Xipeepee's "peaceful solution" is to claim everything as theirs.

Why don't you just say you want China to claim Malaysia? Say it.

ok, do you support china's claim of 曾母暗沙 as their southernmost point?

it's a simple yes / no question. what i'm asking is your personal opinion. your answer won't change malaysia or china's claim to the shoal.

if you can't answer somple question like that, than shaddap lah. all i'm interested to know is whether you are loyal to the country or a traitor.

let me remind you of this - negaraku. tanah tumpahnya darahku.

our borders are not up for negotiations. period. those who are willing to give up our borders are traitors. plus, this is about more than rocks. the claimed area is also where get most of our oil. did you forget about that part?

same goes for philippines for defending their own claimed borders. their national borders are not for negotiations. i believe they have competing claims and clashes with us as well. as for taiwan, they know, if taiwan falls, the chain breaks. there will be no way to contain china after that. it's a national security issue for south korea, japan, taiwan, philippines. they are bound together, whether they like it or not.

i understand peaceful settlements are preferred. in negotiations, there are red lines for each party. our claimed borders are our red lines. if the other party crosses that line, then there's nothing more to discuss. it's ICJ or war. we will always pick ICJ. china won'r dare to meet us there. they know their claim has no merit.

Nowadays people are confuse about loyalty.

You say you are loyal to this country yet you support china's illegal 9 dash line.

You are not answering my basic question.

If an foreign state comes and claim portion of land belongs to you, do you just hand over your soverign state inexhange for peace because you are scared ? And if they again do repeatedly, do you still continue to give ?

You ever understand the rukun negara ? Where does your loyalty lies ? How can you be a lalang on this subject ?

Because i ask you a question first and you skip it.



Do you know what this mean ?

Nowadays people are confuse about loyalty.

You say you are loyal to this country yet you support china's illegal 9 dash line.

Play victim and report my post yet dont have the decency to state your position on this matter.

So you are saying that giving away your country's sovereign right is better option to ensure whats the best for the country ? So lemme understand this correctly. You are willing to give your nation to ensure you are safe and not affected by war ?

Do u even understand the meaning of sovereignty?
Yes.

Or you are twisting the meaning of sovereignty to fit your narrative?
Nope.

Care to elaborate to you, what do "peaceful negotiations" and"diplomacy" entail?
Engage with opposing party in negotiations to settle the matter peacefully, no matter how long it takes.

Are u insinuating that making concessions and compromises in exchange for border security is the definition of "peaceful negotiations"?
Yes, and it's preferable to war.

Peace through appeasement?
It's called diplomacy. Or would you prefer a leader who settles all border disputes through war?

Does your definition of sovereignty of a country only cover its border and does not include autonomy in other matters? \
No. It include A LOT of other matters.

For instance, a sovereign country can't decide its own direction in aspects such as Economy, immigration and foreign relations?
I have never said that. In fact, my opinion is the opposite. Please refer to my latest tered about sohai Pinoy president.

So your "unnecessary conflict" is only at face value, meaning a weaker country gets to keep its border in name only, it also did not lose nor win in physical conflict, but in reality experience losses in other aspects, for instance, as a result of "peaceful negotiation", a weaker country relaxing immigration from a stronger country that would in turn affect the job prospect of the locals, is that your definition of victory? "No loss at paper/official capacity, but lose in reality"?
Depends on what the negotiations entail. I am not the one negotiating. If I don't like the terms, then we should continue negotiating provided the other party also wants to. If they want to stop and resort to war to settle the issue, then we would have no choice, would we? All I am say is "EXHAUST ALL PEACEFUL MEANS OF SETTLEMENT BEFORE CONFRONTATION".

If yes, does that mean you subscribe to might makes right mentality? Weaker party has to kowtow to stronger party?
Sad as that might be, this is the nature of our world. Israel-Gaza conflict is best example. Please show me an instance where might doesn't make right in this world.

U should have said this from the get go, save everyone's time, don't pretend. Previously, you talked as if you are neutral and does not have a stance.

Tq for showing ur true color.