Glory to Hong Kong

[Guest]

Not too worrying. This must be the ok propaganda, you know, the one drilled into them from birth ...

It's all true, but all Western news is fake. Duh ...

Pff Eastwood Shmeestwood

Edited October 11, 2019 by Guest

[PE Scott + 563]

You're going to have to teach me to Photo Shop on your level DT 😉

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

Photo Shop on your level

Easy. The toughest bit is making it look like thousands of fake people together.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

There’s OBVIOUSLY not that many people in all of HK! Must be photoshopped...

[Guest]

Yes it is. The government controlled paper said so. Duh.

[Guest]

On 10/11/2019 at 4:00 AM, ronwagn said:

We are just tired of hearing your wrong opinions. 

Just spotted this. LOL

[Otis11 + 551]

On 10/10/2019 at 9:05 PM, frankfurter said:

Unbelievable?  On this matter we can agree.  China has extensive surveillance. But so has the UK, the US, Canada, Australia, France, each and every "western" country.  The entire world is now a surveillance state. Now what? 

But why waste your attentions and efforts focusing upon China?  Why are you not applying your talents and efforts against the "authorities" in your own countries? 

Would this forum not be better served by comparing notes and formulating a grass roots movement?  

 

 

So we agree on at least something -  many western countries (and companies) have surveillance that I would deem excessive and worrisome... and absolutely criticize on a regular basis, it's just not the topic of this thread (but hey, when has that stopped us?). Feel free to start a thread on this topic and I'll join in. 

That said, I haven't personally seen any westerner I've met restrain from voicing a critical opinion because of government surveillance campaigns in the west. I have seen many - actually every - Chinese citizen I know well enough for the to speak freely voice that they regularly restrict their speech when in China or on electronics that China can tie to them. 

Western world - we freely speak and criticize the government without fear of retribution.

China - absolutely not.

These are not the same,  nor even close enough to be meaningfully comparable...

On 10/11/2019 at 7:36 AM, DayTrader said:

It's funny that everyone who knows the Chinese here and have asked their opinions say totally different things to people IN China.

Weird.

I guess 1984 brainwashing complete.

We Love You Big Brother.

In case you hadn't seen South Parks response to being banned in china...  (attached below)

On 10/11/2019 at 8:03 AM, DayTrader said:

Yep loved the ''in our 4000 year history we haven't done anything'' outside our borders.

Why bother, just kill your own.

It's hard to do anything outside your borders when you keep redefining your borders to a constantly expanding 'hirstorical' map. Would invading Taiwan be 'outside their borders?

On 10/11/2019 at 8:17 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

Just off the top of my head...

Chinese advisors in the Vietnam War ✔️

Chinese intervention in the Korean War✔️

No no, those are both within their borders... the rest of the world just doesnt correctly define their boarders yet. They're ignoring China's too-complex-for-western-comprehension, yet obviously clear and indisputable history!

On 10/11/2019 at 8:19 AM, DayTrader said:

< #Free Tibet >

*cough

Whole anniversary seemed to be a celebration of their military ...

I'm sure they are just building it all for a laugh though.

Again, (now) within their borders.

Edited October 14, 2019 by Otis11

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

It's hard to do anything outside your borders when you keep redefining your borders to a constantly expanding 'historical' map.

Hahaha what an amazing point.

Respect.

5 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

They're ignoring China's too-complex-for-western-comprehension, yet obviously clear and indisputable history!

Haha gold.

Edited October 14, 2019 by Guest

[frankfurter + 562]

4 hours ago, Otis11 said:

So we agree on at least something -  many western countries (and companies) have surveillance that I would deem excessive and worrisome... and absolutely criticize on a regular basis, it's just not the topic of this thread (but hey, when has that stopped us?). Feel free to start a thread on this topic and I'll join in. 

That said, I haven't personally seen any westerner I've met restrain from voicing a critical opinion because of government surveillance campaigns in the west. I have seen many - actually every - Chinese citizen I know well enough for the to speak freely voice that they regularly restrict their speech when in China or on electronics that China can tie to them. 

Western world - we freely speak and criticize the government without fear of retribution.

China - absolutely not.

These are not the same,  nor even close enough to be meaningfully comparable...

In case you hadn't seen South Parks response to being banned in china...  (attached below)

It's hard to do anything outside your borders when you keep redefining your borders to a constantly expanding 'hirstorical' map. Would invading Taiwan be 'outside their borders?

No no, those are both within their borders... the rest of the world just doesnt correctly define their boarders yet. They're ignoring China's too-complex-for-western-comprehension, yet obviously clear and indisputable history!

Again, (now) within their borders.

"Western world - we freely speak and criticize the government without fear of retribution."

Even if we exclude "whistle blowers", that statement is hard to swallow.  Free speech, to me, means the right to espouse and expose fact and learned opinion, and extends to whistle blowers.  Using this standard, are you telling me Assange, Manning, Snowden, Ellsberg had no retribution? 

If you want to know who rules over you, criticise them. 

Recently, Israeli troops slaughtered 17 unarmed civilians. In China, I am free to condemn such actions, without retribution.  In USA, no criticisms of Israel are tolerated, socially or legally, thus I would be condemned as a hater of Jews for their murderous soldiers, and would face legal retribution.  Before you contest this point, read the act enacted recently in Florida.  This is but one example drawn from many states.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2019/741/BillText/er/PDF

I suppose you will now deny such facts? 

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

‘Whistleblowing’ is a special case. If the accusation is provable there can be, and often are, serious consequences to others. In this case, the bar to slander/libel are raised.

If you are referring to the ‘whistleblower’ in the Trump impeachment fiasco, the problem is that the whistleblower’s identity is not being released to ALL pertinent parties and the lack of first hand information of the issue. This causes issues of credibility.

It is legal, and tolerated to condemn Israel in America. If you bother to do your research, it is commonly done in the press. Perhaps you are inferring that it is unpopular to do so. This is an entirely different issue and has nothing to do with the legal system.

Assange, Snowden, Manning, Ellsberg committed breaches of national security, this is why action was taken against them. Freedom of speech does not allow you to endanger others.

You should not let your hatred of Israel cloud your logic.

[frankfurter + 562]

14 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

‘Whistleblowing’ is a special case. If the accusation is provable there can be, and often are, serious consequences to others. In this case, the bar to slander/libel are raised.

If you are referring to the ‘whistleblower’ in the Trump impeachment fiasco, the problem is that the whistleblower’s identity is not being released to ALL pertinent parties and the lack of first hand information of the issue. This causes issues of credibility.

It is legal, and tolerated to condemn Israel in America. If you bother to do your research, it is commonly done in the press. Perhaps you are inferring that it is unpopular to do so. This is an entirely different issue and has nothing to do with the legal system.

Assange, Snowden, Manning, Ellsberg committed breaches of national security, this is why action was taken against them. Freedom of speech does not allow you to endanger others.

You should not let your hatred of Israel cloud your logic.

I see. So, freedom of speech is a qualified freedom, not an inalienable right. Silly me, I thought it was absolute and enshrined.

So, whistle blowers are special cases. Freedom of speech must be subject to national security. Now where have I heard this before? gotta think.  ah yes.  From the evil government with the red flag.  Strange is it not, how you consider one govt to be righteous against blowers, but other govts to be evil when applying the same standards?

So, the act passed in Florida is not a restriction of free speech against "normal" citizens; though it states, in black and white, anyone who questions the actions of Israel is guilty of an offence. And you say my logic is clouded?  dear me. 

Again you infer, this time for hatred. Your inferences display your bigotry, sorry to say. What shall we infer about you and Israel? Shall we infer you condone murder? 

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

I really do not care, one way or they other, what you ‘infer’ about Israel and my position on her actions. You can, and will, infer whatever makes you feel good about yourself.

Caring about any inference you may have, would imply that I care about, or value, your opinion. Please believe me when I tell you that I do not.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

You should not let your hatred of Israel cloud your logic.

Ah so he hates other countries too, not just drugged up Americans? 

Lovely stuff. Winnie now going down the racist droid route ... 

#freedomisslavery

[Otis11 + 551]

5 hours ago, frankfurter said:

"Western world - we freely speak and criticize the government without fear of retribution."

Even if we exclude "whistle blowers", that statement is hard to swallow.  Free speech, to me, means the right to espouse and expose fact and learned opinion, and extends to whistle blowers.  Using this standard, are you telling me Assange, Manning, Snowden, Ellsberg had no retribution? 

If you want to know who rules over you, criticise them. 

Recently, Israeli troops slaughtered 17 unarmed civilians. In China, I am free to condemn such actions, without retribution.  In USA, no criticisms of Israel are tolerated, socially or legally, thus I would be condemned as a hater of Jews for their murderous soldiers, and would face legal retribution.  Before you contest this point, read the act enacted recently in Florida.  This is but one example drawn from many states.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2019/741/BillText/er/PDF

I suppose you will now deny such facts? 

 

Whistle-blowers are protected. If you're referring to the current anti-Trump whistle-blower, it's not a whistle-blower, it's a coordinated smear campaign. (I was initially very skeptical too, as I am generally not a fan of conspiracy theories as people charge - however this is hardly a conspiracy theory. Way too much evidence)

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

Relating to your other comments:

• Assange - I believe he absolutely had a right to disseminate the information he gathered and to criticize the government. The question here is when this transitions from free speech to espionage (which is what he was charged with), among other supposed mis-deeds. If his actions did transition to espionage, or had a conspiracy to commit computer intrusion (also charged), committed the sexual assault in Sweden, or any number of other things he has been accused of, then let him stand before a court of law and be charged. If all he's guilty of is very thorough journalism and publishing information OTHERS illegally divulged, well, he's free to go.
• Manning - releasing classified materials to the press is a violation of the oath sworn before being accepted into the service is not freedom of speech. It's "wantonly [caused] to be published on the internet intelligence belonging to the US government, having knowledge that intelligence published on the internet is accessible to the enemy" at best, treason at worst.
• Snowden - There's a lot of nuance here. Technically he did breach his NDA, but as far as I can tell, he made significant attempts to proceed the right way and only took secondary (and technically illegal) action after the correct routes failed and - very importantly - proceeded to release the information in a deliberate way in which he believed it maximized the public benefit while minimizing unnecessary damage. I am not an expert on this, so could be mistaken and would be willing to hear evidence to the contrary, but I think he should be exonerated. Did he break the law? Yes, so technically a criminal, but he - to my current knowledge - actually fits the description of whistle-blower. (Though, I should add, this is not a free-speech issue, he signed an NDA and took an oath when he got his clearance)
• Ellsberg - if You're talking about Daniel Ellsberg - dismissed all charges against Ellsberg on May 11, 1973. We're good to go. (Though, again I should add this is not a free speech issue. He took an oath when he got his clearance and then broke it. He was charged for that, not for free speech.)

Israel - You can very much criticize them here. They regularly are... but most people are oblivious to the whole picture going on here. Is Israel innocent? No, they've done some things that the leaders/decision makers should be held accountable for. But they're in a very tough spot and have - in instances - shown great restraint. I'm not well versed on the intricacies here so am not going to get into a protracted debate, however, here in the US I am also free to condemn actions by Israel or any other nation. Free speech exists.

What do you think that bill says? It says Racial and Religious discrimination (already illegal) specifically in the form attacking the Jews is illegal. That's not limiting your free speech at all - you can still say whatever you want against anyone for their actions, you just can't discriminate.

(Discriminate: make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.)

2 hours ago, frankfurter said:

I see. So, freedom of speech is a qualified freedom, not an inalienable right. Silly me, I thought it was absolute and enshrined.

So, whistle blowers are special cases. Freedom of speech must be subject to national security. Now where have I heard this before? gotta think.  ah yes.  From the evil government with the red flag.  Strange is it not, how you consider one govt to be righteous against blowers, but other govts to be evil when applying the same standards?

So, the act passed in Florida is not a restriction of free speech against "normal" citizens; though it states, in black and white, anyone who questions the actions of Israel is guilty of an offence. And you say my logic is clouded?  dear me. 

Again you infer, this time for hatred. Your inferences display your bigotry, sorry to say. What shall we infer about you and Israel? Shall we infer you condone murder? 

 

It is an inalienable right, however in order to get access to certain information, you may agree to not divulge certain information. No one is forcing anyone to make this oath/agreement - they can walk away - they just won't get the information if they don't. This is not limited to countries - many companies do this too, all over the world.

Freedom of speech is not subject to national security. (And before you go citing the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 - only false statements were actionable, knowledge of a statement’s falsity and an intent to defame were elements of the offense, and the defendant was expressly permitted to introduce evidence of the statement’s truth. So if it's True, you're good. If you thought it was True, you're good. If you had no malice, again - you're good. They have to prove you intentionally spread a known un-truth for the purpose of damaging someone. I fail to see why that should be protected?)

Am I a bigot too? I'm having trouble telling anymore what facts make someone a bigot and what opinions espouse virtue. 

[Guest]

The word 'truthbomb' comes to mind ... 

[Guest]

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-hongkong-protests/tens-of-thousands-of-hong-kong-protesters-plead-for-u-s-help-idUKKBN1WT03B

''Tens of thousands of Hong Kong protesters plead for U.S. help''

This seems an odd headline? I thought their love of China was very clear?

I must be reading it wrong. I need to read the government approved papers I think. Then I'm sure to get the facts. 

 

35 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

and what opinions espouse virtue. 

Mine. They are opinions formed from facts. Facts are always a bonus. But saying that, I've heard that ''ignorance is strength''.

Edited October 14, 2019 by Guest

[Otis11 + 551]

20 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

The word 'truthbomb' comes to mind ... 

It's been a morning... needed a break from work.

Figured helping edu-mu-cate some folks was a decent distraction. Ya know, from us here common folk down in da backwoods of Texas.

[Guest]

“Make Hong Kong Great Again”, read one poster. Some protesters waved the U.S. flag and carried “Uncle Sam” recruitment posters reading “Fight for Freedom, Stand with HK”.

“All of the Hong Kong people feel hopeless and the government hasn’t listened to our voices so we need the USA to help us,” said protester Edward Fong, 28.

The protesters are angry at what they see as Beijing’s tightening grip on the city which was guaranteed 50 years of freedoms under the “one country, two systems” formula under which it returned to China. Beijing rejects the charge and accuses Western countries, especially the United States and Britain, of stirring up trouble.

The unrest poses the biggest popular challenge to Chinese President Xi Jinping since he came to power in 2012. He warned that any attempt to divide China would be crushed.

[Guest]

“In June, 2 million took to the street and demonstrated peacefully, yet the government showed a complete disregard to the public opinion... Escalation of violence is inevitable,” Chan said.

On Monday, speakers called on U.S. senators to vote for the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019, saying it would be their “most powerful weapon”.

Photoshopping 2 million people was a nightmare

On 10/11/2019 at 3:38 PM, PE Scott said:

You're going to have to teach me to Photo Shop on your level DT 😉

 

Edited October 14, 2019 by Guest

[John Foote + 1,135]

On 10/10/2019 at 9:55 PM, ronwagn said:

We have a grass root movement called Trump supporters. 

Trump is the current personification perhaps, but not the movement. It started before him, and if he doesn't destroy it, will continue on without him.  

The movement is much more valid than the man. In that respect, not any different than almost any worthwhile organization or movement. When a personality is the focus, things will go sideways.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, John Foote said:

When a personality is the focus, things will go sideways.

Just ask NK.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

"Caring about any inference you may have, would imply that I care about, or value, your opinion. Please believe me when I tell you that I do not."

Absolute gold Doug!

[Otis11 + 551]

13 hours ago, Otis11 said:

It's hard to do anything outside your borders when you keep redefining your borders to a constantly expanding 'hirstorical' map. Would invading Taiwan be 'outside their borders?

No no, those are both within their borders... the rest of the world just doesnt correctly define their boarders yet. They're ignoring China's too-complex-for-western-comprehension, yet obviously clear and indisputable history!

Again, (now) within their borders.

 

 

And I didn't catch this before @DayTrader, but:

"The Great Wall of China (Chinese: 萬里長城; pinyin: Wànlǐ Chángchéng) is the collective name of a series of fortification systems generally built across the historical northern borders of China to protect and consolidate territories of Chinese states and empires against various nomadic groups of the steppe and their polities."

So how do you justify that whole section North of the great wall as "Part of China"? China is a growing country that is swallowing everyone opposed to them. I look to watch them swallow Taiwan, Bhutan, potentially Nepal, continue to 'dispute' areas into India and Pakastan... (They'd take North Korea too if it wasn't more useful to them as a tool for sewing international discord and distraction...), even 'Outer' Mongolia (It is just a different part of Mongolia after all... which they claim 'Inner Mongolia'. Though this would be a stretch purely based on the land mass...)

Also wouldn't be shocked to see them claim parts of the Philippines, and Indonesia. If they were smart they'd negotiate deals with the leaders behind the scenes to 'accept and agree' with such claims to build their international credibility for other claims.

I'm also waiting to see how they justify taking over Vietnam - mainly for the oil off shore. (Though I'm not sure they need it as everyone refuses to stand up to their expanding claims in the South China Sea...)

[Guest]

Dang, now our history sage is confused by their border definitions? We need the Chinese press to explain it to us no doubt. Or the peaceful Tibetan Buddhists. Maybe they can explain such wisdom that is clearly unattainable in the West. 

[Otis11 + 551]

1 minute ago, DayTrader said:

Dang, now our history sage is confused by their border definitions? We need the Chinese press to explain it to us no doubt. Or the peaceful Tibetan Buddhists. Maybe they can explain such wisdom that is clearly unattainable in the West. 

Nope, figured it out... clearly China still needs all of Mongolia, most of Vietnam, half of North Korea, Bits of Laos and Myanmar (or Burma?) , and a huge chuck of Russia. Or, and don't forget Kazakhstan. Because that's all historical territory.

And your other article answered my last question:

Quote

Xi's Belt and Road Initiative bears some -- dubious -- resemblance to the tributary system of dynastic China. This initiative has China providing the income and expertise to build the logistical infrastructure of a recipient nation, which in turn imports Chinese goods and services employing that new infrastructure. Worse, however, China lends countries money; then when the country cannot repay the debt, China helps itself to resources or infrastructure or whatever, in a "debt-trap."

They'll take over other countries slowly -by making them completely indebted to China... so that China owns all the infrastructure and resources. Then it's a matter of semantics who actually 'governs' the country.

Can't believe I missed those points this morning...