MANILA: China to Philippines: Quit Scarborough Shoal

Apr 18, 2012 Full story: Asia News Network 15,220

China has asked all Philippine vessels to leave immediately Scarborough Shoal and sent a second aircraft buzzing over the area to scare away Filipino fishermen, officials said yesterday.

Full Story
Cev

San Juan, Philippines

#9665 Aug 11, 2012
Chinaman Cev is so STUPID wrote:
<quoted text>
Hahahahah
1. Still trying to convince me she knows a billionaire and that happens to be a chinaman she insulted and run down in here.
2. Next she says she is related to this chinaman billionaire relative of her although not by blood, she says meaning she MAKE IT ALL UP just in case you need to check the DNA.
3. Now she claimed she lend money to the chinaman billionaire relatives of hers. So how many BILIONS did she lend him. Hahahahaha
Go and sux your grandfather's dixk. You think we are low IQ morons like you to believe such outlandish granny tale that is all tainted with the island banana fantasy. Hahahahahahah
4. Why do she need to tell us, she have a chinaman billionaire relative after all her insults against her ancestry and heritage. Hahahahaha That is how a low IQ confused chinaman CEV thinks. She will be accepted into as a REAL PINYOY. She depends on them for a living!!!!! And she claim she lend money BILLION???? to a chinaman relative billionaire. Hahahahahahahahaha
5. The rest of low IQ PINYOY will readily accept your TALL TALL TALE of a banana eating BIGFOOT in the downtown Manila. Hahahahahah
Thanks a lot for making me fell of a chair. Hahahahahaha
If you ever in the class although we know your caste thru' your writing in here.
We can BEST describe you as a COUNTRY BUMPKIN with a couple of PESO (remitted from abroad) to spare for another banana meal! Hahahahahahahahah
Hmm.. Are you that bothered that I'm smart and handsome plus I'm a successful businessman?

It doesn't really mean much to me, and it certainly is not an issue for me if you choose to believe me or not.

But fact in this forums is: i never lie.

You can turn green with envy for all i care. Blame it in your parents for your bad genes. It's your natural stupidity that does not allow you to walk the same level as i do.:D
Cev

San Juan, Philippines

#9666 Aug 11, 2012
Tsarbomba wrote:
<quoted text>
Negative, Taiping Island is the only island in the Spratly Islands that has its own source of fresh water. Article 121 in UNCLOS, 3rd point specifies "Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life OF THEIR OWN shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf." Therefore, none of the Philippine occupied islands have any EEZ, infact most of the PH occupied Spratly Islands are illegally occupied as those resources belong under Taiping Island's EEZ. EEZ from the main PH islands do not overlap enough with Taiping's to lay any claim to islands such as Thitu. Whether Chinese ships can sail through this area and use resources would be Taiwan's call, not PH's.
As for signing UNCLOS, please read up on each country's declaration when signing. UNCLOS allows signing parties to make such declarations and the right to opt out of International Court.
If PH vacates Spratly Islands within Taiping's EEZ, the call for China to vacate Scarborough would be logical. Until then, it's hypocritical to be demanding another country to move out of one's EEZ while doing the very same thing to another country's EEZ.
Negative to you as well.

Taiping Island, after the signing of the Treaty of San Francisco became Res Nullius.

The first to occupy the islands were Filipinos, under the lead of a Thomas Cloma.

Taiwan invaded the island and drove the Filipinos out. This action is an act of Conquest, and is illegal under international law.

Therefore, Taiwan is not the real owner of Taiping Island.

Also, with your bringing up of UNCLOS, perhaps you should check out the benefits of an archepelagic state. The Philippines is considered an archepelagic state and has the right to claim ALL small surrounding islands around his waters. This includes the entire Spratlys area.

Another point in UNCLOS that you may want to check out is the law on continental shelves. Under this law, the Philippines can claim areas considered part of his continental shelf, which includes both Scarborough and the Spratly islands.

If you're going to pretend that you know UNCLOS, perhaps you should read the articles of UNCLOS in full first before feigning to know anything when you know nothing.

Dumbass. LOL.
xon

Philippines

#9667 Aug 11, 2012
Red China wrote:
FU ALL!! All your land will soon belong to us!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
What's taking you so loooong? Come and get it NOOOOWWW! Let's see what happens. Hahahahaha!

“HAHAHAHAHA”

Since: Aug 12

Shanghai, China

#9668 Aug 11, 2012
xon wrote:
<quoted text>
What's taking you so loooong? Come and get it NOOOOWWW! Let's see what happens. Hahahahaha!
I'm surprised you can type.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Wu Mao

Nantong, China

#9669 Aug 11, 2012
I'm Chinese, and I LOVE the Philippines!

(Most Chinese are pretty evil, though, so most other Chinese will probably curse or make the usual genocidal threats when discussing this issue instead of spreading love and peace)
Cev

San Juan, Philippines

#9670 Aug 11, 2012
Arguments of China wrote:
12 miles is for sovereignty, 200 miles is for EEZ, so there is an overlap of EZZ between this EEZ and the EEZ based on coastal baseline. Again, EEZ is the effect, not the cause of sovereignty claim. The crux of the question is who has sovereignty over the shoal, not whose EEZ includes the shoal. Once this question is settled, then one can look at the question of EEZ, it could be 200 miles or some other numbers, but not the other way around.
Sovereignty claims have nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with UNCLOS.
Sovereignty claims conventions are based on four principles:(a) who discovered it first,(b) who named it first,(c) who derived economic benefits from it first and (d) who officially administered it first.(a)(b) and (c) are based on historical arguments. Therefore, arguments that dismiss historical claims are simply ignorant of international conventions. And (d) is not that straightforward as it appears, politically speaking, if, one rejects the notion of colonial successor rights. By the way, some parts of VN's claims are based more on colonial successor rights in (d) which as said, can be rejected by her opponent.
Currently, no claimants, repeat after me, no claimants, are strong in all four categories. To cast China as the bully may be politically expedient because it appeals to common sense. But common sense does not always make sense.(I read some study somewhere, can't remember, that half of the times, common sense is wrong)
At the end of the day, sovereignty claims can only be resolved through political negotiations, not legal arguments. Legal documentation only codifies what has been politically agreed to. Legal agreement is the 'effect', not the 'cause' of settlement. Cause leads to effect, not the other way around. I often laugh when people quote international law for solving sovereignty disputes.
There are international conventions that countries could use as references for solving sovereignty disputes, but more importantly, not to subject oneself to international court of any kind regarding sovereignty disputes is itself an act of compliance with international law. It takes two to tango and you can't force any party to tango – that's the law.
Failing a political settlement, war is the only way out.
Wrong wrong wrong!

Why are you inventing your own laws? Are you stupid??

First of all, sovereignty claims acceptable under international law is:

1. Accretion
2. Cession
3. Conquest (if before international law)
4. Prescription
5. Effective Occupation

NOT history. History is only a component of some of these modes of acquiring sovereignty. And a claim based on history alone (LIKE THAT OF CHINA) is considered a WEAK CLAIM under international law.

So don't be stupid and spout nonsense.

EEZ derived from UNCLOS and the sovereignty attached to the EEZ is interelated. So long as the said area is not owned by any country, EEZ can cover it.

Perhaps I should remind you that China DOES NOT OWN SCARBOROUGH. He only has a 9 dash line claim that includes Scarborough, on which the claim is backed by ONLY a historical claim that you chinamen are unable to prove.

So stop with the bullshet and suck it up. You do not own Philippine territory. You are just thieves trying to take something from smaller countries like the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei.

So much stupidity coming from the Chinamen posters. Is this what you mean by high IQ?

So stupid.
Arguments of China

Valenzuela, Philippines

#9674 Aug 11, 2012
Taiwan is one of Chinese province, received the island "Itu Aba Island" (or Tai-Ping Island or Peace Island) from UN as a returning package of SCS, Taiwan was representing the Chinese central government to receive the it.
Arguments of China

Valenzuela, Philippines

#9675 Aug 11, 2012
200BC around – China firstly discovered the Spratly Islands
220 – Nansha (Spratly) Island was settled by Chinese monks, building up a monastery on that island.
789 – The Tang Dynasty, China included the Nansha Islands into its administrative map
990 – Spratley Islands became a part of the Northern Song area in Hainan
1121 – Kublai Khan controlled most of the islands during China’s Yuan Dynasty

China was the first to discover, name, develop&#65292;conduct economic activities on and exercise jurisdiction of the Nansha

Islands.
The earliest discovery by the Chinese people of the Nansha Islands can be traced back to as early as the Han Dynasty. Yang Fu

of the East Han Dynasty (23-220 A.D.) made reference to the Nansha Islands in his book entitled Yiwu Zhi (Records of

Rarities), which reads:“Zhanghai qitou, shui qian er duo cishi”(“There are islets, sand cays, reefs and banks in the South

China Sea, the water there is shallow and filled with magnetic rocks or stones”). Chinese people then called the South China

Sea Zhanghai and all the islands, reefs, shoals and isles in the South China Sea, including the Nansha and Xisha Islands,

Qitou.

In numerous history and geography books published in the Tang and Song Dynasties, the Nansha and Xisha Islands were called

Jiuruluo Islands,$hitang (literally meaning atolls surrounding a lagoon), Changsha (literally meaning long ranges of

shoals), Qianli $hitang, Qianli Changsha, Wanli $hitang, and Wanli Changsha among others. Reference was made to the Nansha

Islands in over one hundred categories of books published in the four dynasties of Song, Yuan, Ming and Qing in the name of
$hitang or Changsha.
Arguments of China

Valenzuela, Philippines

#9676 Aug 11, 2012
During World War II, Japan launched the war of aggression against China and occupied most of China’s territory, including the

Nansha Islands. It was explicitly provided in the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation and other international

documents that all the territories Japan had stolen from China should be restored to China, and naturally, they included the

Nansha Islands. In December 1946, the then Chinese government sent senior officials to the Nansha Islands for their recovery.

A take-over ceremony was held on the islands and a monument erected in commemoration of it, and the troops were sent over on

garrison duty. In 1952 the Japanese Government officially stated that it renounced all its “right, title and claim to Taiwan,

Penghu Islands as well as Nansha and Xisha islands”, thus formally returning the Nansha Islands to China. All countries are

very clear about this part of historical background. As a matter of fact, the United States recognized China’s sovereignty

over the Nansha Islands in a series of subsequent international conferences and international practice.

For quite a long period of time after WWII, there had been no such a thing as the so-called issue of the South China Sea. No

country in the area surrounding the South China Sea had challenged China’s exercise of sovereignty over the Nansha Islands

and their adjacent waters. Prior to 1975, Vietnam had, in explicit terms, recognized China’s territorial integrity and

sovereignty over the Nansha Islands. Before the 1970s, countries like the Philippines and Malaysia had never referred to

their territories as including the Nansha Islands in any of their legal instruments or statements made by their leaders. In

the Treaty of Peace signed in Paris in 1898 and the Treaty signed in Washington in 1900 between the United States and Spain,

the scope of the Philippines’ territory was expressly laid down, which did not include the Nansha Islands. This was further

confirmed in the Philippines Constitution of 1935and the Mutual Defense Treaty Between the Philippines and the United States

in 1951. As for Malaysia, it was only in December 1978 that it first marked part of the Nansha Islands, reefs and waters into

the territory of Malaysia in its published continental shelf maps.
Arguments of China

Valenzuela, Philippines

#9677 Aug 11, 2012
China the First to Exercise Jurisdiction over the Nansha Islands

The Nansha Islands came under the jurisdiction of China from the Yuan Dynasty. Geography Book of the History of the Yuan

Dynasty and Map of the Territory of the Yuan Dynasty with Illustration both includes the Nansha Islands within the domain of

the Yuan Dynasty. The History of the Yuan Dynasty has accounts of the patrol and inspection activities by the navy on the

Nansha Islands in the Yuan Dynasty.

The inscription on the Memorial Tablet of the Tomb to General Qian Shicai of the Hainan Garrison Command of the Ming Dynasty

reads:“Guangdong is adjacent to the grand South China Sea, and the territories beyond the Sea all internally belong to the

Ming State.”“General Qian led more than ten thousand soldiers and 50 huge ships to patrol tens of thousands of li on the

South China Sea.” All these descriptions clearly testify to the ownership by China of the Nansha Islands in the Ming Dynasty.

The Hainan Garrison Command of the Ming Dynasty was responsible for inspecting and patrolling as well as exercising

jurisdiction over the Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha Islands.

In the Qing Dynasty, the Chinese Government marked the Nansha Islands on the authoritative maps and exercised administrative

jurisdiction over these islands. The Nansha Islands were marked as Chinese territory in many maps drawn in the Qing Dynasty

such as A Map of Administrative Divisions of the Whole China of the 1724 Map of Provinces of the Qing Dynasty, A Map of

Administrative Divisions of the Whole China of the 1755 Map of Provinces of the Imperial Qing Dynasty, the 1767 Map of

Unified China of the Great Qing for Ten Thousand Years, the 1810 Topographical Map of Unified China of the Great Qing for Ten

Thousand Years and the 1817 Map of Unified China of the Great Qing for Ten Thousand Years.
Arguments of China

Valenzuela, Philippines

#9678 Aug 11, 2012
International Recognition Of China’s Sovereignty over the Nansha Islands

1. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and the Northern Island

a) China Sea Pilot compiled and printed by the Hydrography Department of the Royal Navy of the United Kingdom in 1912 has

accounts of the activities of the Chinese people on the Nansha Islands in a number of places.

b) The Far Eastern Economic Review (Hong Kong) carried an article on Dec. 31 of 1973 which quotes the British High

Commissioner to Singapore as having said in 1970:“Spratly Island (Nanwei Island in Chinese) was a Chinese dependency, part

of Kwangtung Province… and was returned to China after the war. We can not find any indication of its having been acquired by

any other country and so can only conclude it is still held by communist China.”

2. France

a) Le Monde Colonial Illustre mentioned the Nansha Islands in its September 1933 issue. According to that issue, when a

French gunboat named Malicieuse surveyed the Nanwei Island of the Nansha Islands in 1930, they saw three Chinese on the

island and when France invaded nine of the Nansha Islands by force in April 1933, they found all the people on the islands

were Chinese, with 7 Chinese on the Nanzi Reef, 5 on the Zhongye Island, 4 on the Nanwei Island, thatched houses, water wells

and holy statues left by Chinese on the Nanyue Island and a signboard with Chinese characters marking a grain storage on the

Taiping Island.

b) Atlas International Larousse published in 1965 in France marks the Xisha, Nansha and Dongsha Islands by their Chinese

names and gives clear indication of their ownership as China in brackets.

3) Japan

a) Yearbook of New China published in Japan in 1966 describes the coastline of China as 11 thousand kilometers long from

Liaodong Peninsula in the north to the Nansha Islands in the south, or 20 thousand kilometers if including the coastlines of

all the islands along its coast;

b) Yearbook of the World published in Japan in 1972 says that Chinese territory includes not only the mainland, but also

Hainan Island, Taiwan, Penghu Islands as well as the Dongsha, Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha Islands on the South China Sea.

4. The United States

a) Columbia Lippincott World Toponymic Dictionary published in the United States in 1961 states that the Nansha Islands on

the South China Sea are part of Guangdong Province and belong to China.

b) The Worldmark Encyclopaedia of the Nations published in the United States in 1963 says that the islands of the People’s

Republic extend southward to include those isles and coral reefs on the South China Sea at the north latitude 4°.

c) World Administrative Divisions Encyclopaedia published in 1971 says that the People’s Republic has a number of

archipelagoes, including Hainan Island near the South China Sea, which is the largest, and a few others on the South China

Sea extending to as far as the north latitude 4°, such as the Dongsha, Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha Islands.
Arguments of China

Valenzuela, Philippines

#9679 Aug 11, 2012
5. Viet Nam

a) Vice Foreign Minister Dung Van Khiem of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam received Mr. Li Zhimin, charge d’affaires ad

interim of the Chinese Embassy in Viet Nam and told him that “according to Vietnamese data, the Xisha and Nansha Islands are

historically part of Chinese territory.” Mr. Le Doc, Acting Director of the Asian Department of the Vietnamese Foreign

Ministry, who was present then, added that “judging from history, these islands were already part of China at the time of the

Song Dynasty.”

b) Nhan Dan of Viet Nam reported in great detail on September 6, 1958 the Chinese Government’s Declaration of September 4,

1958 that the breadth of the territorial sea of the People’s Republic of China should be 12 nautical miles and that this

provision should apply to all territories of the People’s Republic of China, including all islands on the South China Sea. On

September 14 the same year, Premier Pham Van Dong of the Vietnamese Government solemnly stated in his note to Premier Zhou

Enlai that Viet Nam “recognizes and supports the Declaration of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on China’s

territorial sea.”

c) It is stated in the lesson The People’s Republic of China of a standard Vietnamese school textbook on geography published

in 1974 that the islands from the Nansha and Xisha Islands to Hainan Island and Taiwan constitute a great wall for the

defense of the mainland of China.

History of Nanhai (South China Sea) Islands

The South China Sea islands were well-documented in Chinese records since Qin Dynasty (around AD 200). They were collectively

named as Tough Heads of the Surging Sea(&#28466;&#28023; &#23822;&#38957; Zhàngh&#462;i Qítóu) and Coral Cays (&#29642;&#29786;& #27954; Shanhu Zhou) since their discovery by the

Chinese in the Qin Dynasty. But seafaring did not occur until the next dynasty, the Han Dynasty. After the Song Dynasty, the

Islands had been called The Thousand-Mile Long Sands (&#21315;&#37324;& #38263;&#27801;) and Myriad-Mile Stony Embankment (&#33836;&#37324;& #30707;&#22616;).

There are houses dated back to the Tang or Song Dynasty on Ganquan Island (&#29976;&#27849;& #23798;), which is part of the Xisha Islands. In 1045,

during the reign of Emperor Renzong of Song China, imperial troops (&#29579;&#24107;) were sent to the Paracel Islands. The fishermen of

Hainan composed various “Notebooks on Paths and Timing”(&#26356;&#3633 5;&#31807;) that recorded over 200 routes, the time needed for sailing

among the different isles, and the names of over 100 islands commonly used by the fishermen.
Arguments of China

Valenzuela, Philippines

#9681 Aug 11, 2012
TREATY OF PEACE – The Republic of China and Japan

Article 2

It is recognised that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace which Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on 8 September

1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title, and claim to Taiwan

(Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratley Islands and the Paracel Islands

Discussion of the TREATY, particularly in regards to Taiwan (Formosa), the Pescadores, the Paracel Islands and other Chinese

territories and others with China. BOTH Russia and Japan’s position. GRASP the context and how it led to the articles that

specifically state Spratly and Paracel as well as Formosa and Penghu.

Statement of the First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, A.A. Gromyko, at the Conference in San Francisco

(1951)

… The peace treaty with Japan should, naturally, resolve a number of territorial questions connected with the peace

settlement with Japan. It is known that in this respect as well the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union

undertook specific obligations. These obligations are outlined in the Cairo Declaration, in the Potsdam Declaration, and in

the Yalta Agreement.

These agreements recognize the absolutely indisputable rights of China, now the Chinese People’s Republic, to territories

severed from it. It is an indisputable fact that original Chinese territories which were severed from it, such as Taiwan

(Formosa), the Pescadores, the Paracel Islands and other Chinese territories, should be returned to the Chinese People’s

Republic.

The rights of the Soviet Union to the southern part of the Sakhalin Island and all the islands adjacent to it, as well as to

the Kurile Islands, which are at present under the sovereignty of the Soviet Union, are equally indisputable.

Thus, while resolving the territorial questions in connection with the preparation of a peace treaty with Japan, there should

not be any lack of clarity if we are to proceed from the indisputable rights of states to territories which Japan got hold of

by the force of arms.
Arguments of China

Valenzuela, Philippines

#9682 Aug 11, 2012
… As regards the American-British draft peace treaty with Japan in the part pertaining to territorial questions, the

Delegation of the USSR considers it necessary to state that this draft grossly violates the indisputable rights of China to

the return of integral parts of Chinese territory: Taiwan, the Pescadores, the Paracel and other islands severed from it by

the Japanese militarists. The draft contains only a reference to the renunciation by Japan of its rights to these territories

but intentionally omits any mention of the further fate of these territories. In reality, however, Taiwan and the said

islands have been captured by the United States of America and the United States wants to legalize these aggressive actions

in the draft peace treaty under discussion. Meanwhile the fate of these territories should be absolutely clear — they must be

returned to the Chinese people, the master of their land.

Similarly, by attempting to violate grossly the sovereign rights of the Soviet Union regarding Southern Sakhalin and the

islands adjacent to it, as well as the Kurile Islands already under the sovereignty of the Soviet Union, the draft also

confines itself to a mere mention of the renunciation by Japan of rights, title and claims to these territories and makes no

mention of the historic appurtenance of these territories and the indisputable obligation on the part of Japan to recognize

the sovereignty of the Soviet Union over these parts of the territory of the USSR.

We do not speak of the fact that by introducing such proposals on territorial questions the United States and Great Britain,

who at an appropriate time, signed the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations, as well as the Yalta Agreement, have taken the path of

flagrant violation of obligations undertaken by them under these international agreements
Arguments of China

Valenzuela, Philippines

#9683 Aug 11, 2012
In 1958, the People's Republic of China (PRC) issued a declaration defining its territorial waters within what is known as the nine-dotted line which encompassed the Spratly Islands.

The Republic of China (ROC) named 132 of the South China Sea Islands in 1932 and 1935. In 1933, ROC government logged official protest to the French government after its occupation of Taiping Island.[5] After World War II, ROC government occupied the islands earlier controlled by the Japanese. In 1947, the Ministry of Interior renamed 149 of the islands. Later in November, the Secretary Department of Guangdong Government was authorized to publish the Map of the South China Sea Islands.
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

Delta, Canada

#9686 Aug 11, 2012
stop it... Philippines would never accept a UN brokered settlement if they lost.... nor would China...

either side would antagonize the others fishing fleets until war broke out...

if both cannot reach a settlement... then they should go to war to settle the dispute...

better to do it now than if innocent lives are there and war breaks out...

“HAHAHAHAHA”

Since: Aug 12

Shanghai, China

#9687 Aug 11, 2012
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE wrote:
stop it... Philippines would never accept a UN brokered settlement if they lost.... nor would China...
either side would antagonize the others fishing fleets until war broke out...
if both cannot reach a settlement... then they should go to war to settle the dispute...
better to do it now than if innocent lives are there and war breaks out...
I agree!
RayH

Shenzhen, China

#9688 Aug 11, 2012
Wu Mao wrote:
I'm Chinese, and I LOVE the Philippines!
(Most Chinese are pretty evil, though, so most other Chinese will probably curse or make the usual genocidal threats when discussing this issue instead of spreading love and peace)
Good, you should move there. That's if you don't get kidnapped there first.
Americans so easily FOOL

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

#9689 Aug 11, 2012
RayH wrote:
<quoted text>
Good, you should move there. That's if you don't get kidnapped there first.
Hahahaha

If this Wu Mao is ever to be in Beijing, it will be still in a daze suffering from the SHOCK of arriving from the BANANA REPUBLIC of the 3rd World. Hahahahahahaah

Next his proxy will take it to the MOON and MAR! Hahahahaha
Chinaman Cev is so STUPID

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

#9690 Aug 11, 2012
Cev wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmm.. Are you that bothered that I'm smart and handsome plus I'm a successful businessman?
It doesn't really mean much to me, and it certainly is not an issue for me if you choose to believe me or not.
But fact in this forums is: i never lie.
You can turn green with envy for all i care. Blame it in your parents for your bad genes. It's your natural stupidity that does not allow you to walk the same level as i do.:D
Since you STUPID the last time, you were caught lying and now you SHAMELESS exhibits yourself here!
You are just waiting to be humiliated and getting screw in the process. Hahahahah

1. I am pretty sure you have many sad, sad grand nanny stories about your unhappy childhood and your BAD upbringing and maybe you will blame it on your neighbor, an astronesian banana farmer and your banana swallowing mom.

2. That will explained your low IQ !

3. So how many billions did you lend your billionaire relative in Beijing????

4. Based on your post alone, I can tell you a from a low CASTE and all this talk about you being a successful businesswoman will impressed the astronesian PINIYOY pimping for the Subic Bay revival. With a shape of banana, you will certainly turn many heads around. Like you says, nobody have seen a more pretty made belief fake PINYOY in a shape and a color of a banana. Hahahahahah I am still not IMPRESSED!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

World News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Weight loss helps erectile dysfunction, improve... (Aug '13) 11 min Andrew 14
Myths made reality bizarre claims made for anci... 16 min Anuragh Mishra 41
Christmas, a Salvation to Malaysians 25 min _malon_goblok 1
Fierce Critic of Islam Honored at Israel's Open... 30 min Yupp111 7
Teaching English in Saigon: At what cost is par... 37 min meaningless 3
Turkish PM resolved to punish 'plots against na... 47 min Kannibaal M 16
Ho Chi Minh City : Vietnam to move homeless to ... 50 min meaningless 1
Islam Will Conquer Italy and the Entire West (Sep '10) 1 hr Huh 392,671
More from around the web