> There had been many bad things going on in Tibet, but it does not mean you can just invade the country, destroy all forms of religion, put people in prisons, starve and kill your victims, grab the resources, make the life of Tibetans miserable, and pretend you are the great liberator - only because of superior military power.
Is it just me or the sentence also makes perfect sense if Tibet is replaced by Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya?
Is it just me or the sentence also makes perfect sense if Tibet is replaced by Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya?