Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know you don't. The point is, if you did, you would realize that many westerners do not support you.
I know a lot of people from Norway, and I have met many people who dislike the violence in Hong Kong, and do not support putting the police in jail while giving amnesty to the protestors. Norwegians like stability, and they know that disbanding the police will just lead to anarchy.
It's stupid to just walk up to a stranger on the streets and ask them stuff. If you do that you must be deranged, which you probably are.
Quote:
Ever heard about vote brigading? What is happening is that protestors and their supporters are going around and upvoting stories thet like, while ordinary westerners have no incentive to do that.
It's stupid to just walk up to a stranger on the streets and ask them stuff. If you do that you must be deranged, which you probably are.
Haha, the fact that you thought I asked you to go up to people just show how dense you are. In addition there is nothing deranged about street interviews. If you were familiar with western culture you would know that.
I never asked you to go up to strangers to ask them stuff, I said if you did then you would realize that a lot of westerners do not support putting the police in jail while giving amnesty to the protestors.
I know this, because I know a lot of Norwegians. All of them support democracy, but not at any cost. They also do not hate Chinese like you do, and would think you are a monster if they heard that you would not care if millions of Chinese get massacred. In other words, your twitter feed does not represent the average westerner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greysholic
One topic out of like 15 is against the protesters and receives 1/10 of upvotes and comments. You can keep twisting reality, doesn't make it true.
Yes, that is the effect of vote brigading. Do you not understand how vote brigading works?
Also, your argument was that everyone on r/worldnews support the current riots. That is obviously untrue, because then there would exist no topics where a clear majority of the posters have negative views.
Maybe the government will tax the heck out of their citizens to pay for the clean up, which means the citizens uninvolved will have to pay for it while many get away with no consequences. And those rioters who destroy stores, they get away while the owners are left with the aftermath and financial loss. Freak rioters destroying the city and disrupting innocent people's lives.
I don't support the protesters. I'm anti-China in many ways, but I do support China in this case as this is an internal affair and the pro-democracy folks need to accept that the Central People's Government is supreme here. It would be one thing if a majority of China was against their government, but a faction of one province being against the government isn't compelling.
After front page coverage of Hong Kong demonstration for two consecutive days and an editorial urging Senate to do its job by Washington Post, Senate unanimously passed the Hong Kong Democracy and Human Rights Act this morning. The version it adopted is the House revised version, which is more punitive than what was drafted earlier.
So likely Trump will sign it.
But in fact this bill is more than democracy and human rights. It gives other tools to US to tackle China, i.e. finance, technology transfer, freeze asset,....etc.
I don't support the protesters. I'm anti-China in many ways, but I do support China in this case as this is an internal affair and the pro-democracy folks need to accept that the Central People's Government is supreme here. It would be one thing if a majority of China was against their government, but a faction of one province being against the government isn't compelling.
This is not strictly an internal affair of China. In fact, when I watched so many Youtube video on foreign reporters interviewing pro-China demonstrators in London or NYC or Toronto, the most common excuse they made is "This is an internal affair of China (which implies it is none of your business)".
The Sino-Britain Joint Communique signed by Beijing and London in 1984 stipulated that China had to honor certain terms on how Hong Kong has to be governed between 1997 and 2047. Obviously many promises made by China have been broken and the freedom enjoyed in Hong Kong has been gradually eroded. The international community has a legitimate right to advise China to stick to the terms in the Communique.
The Communique is also not invalid and merely a "Historical" document as Beijing claimed.
If it is invalid, the three joint Communiques signed by US and China should be also deemed invalid and merely historical documents since they were all dated earlier than the Sino-Britain Joint Communique.
This is not strictly an internal affair of China. In fact, when I watched so many Youtube video on foreign reporters interviewing pro-China demonstrators in London or NYC or Toronto, the most common excuse they made is "This is an internal affair of China (which implies it is none of your business)".
The Sino-Britain Joint Communique signed by Beijing and London in 1984 stipulated that China had to honor certain terms on how Hong Kong has to be governed between 1997 and 2047. Obviously many promises made by China have been broken and the freedom enjoyed in Hong Kong has been gradually eroded. The international community has a legitimate right to advise China to stick to the terms in the Communique.
The Communique is also not invalid and merely a "Historical" document as Beijing claimed.
If it is invalid, the three joint Communiques signed by US and China should be also deemed invalid and merely historical documents since they were all dated earlier than the Sino-Britain Joint Communique.
To be fair, though, that treaty is essentially worthless and toothless as the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress has final authority to interpret the Hong Kong Basic Law (effectively, the Hong Kong Constitution), though its interpretations are apparently not retroactive. Thus, by Hong Kong's own agreed upon laws (that the Brits were okay with), the PRC's power over the region is much more significant than what some may gleam from the treaty. Note, I bring up the Basic Law as it was established in accordance with the terms of the treaty.
Moreover, Article 23 of the Hong Kong Basic Law requires Hong Kong to "enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies."
On the whole, we have to ask ourselves what recourse the UK (which would be the only party apart from the PRC who could claim legal foul over the treaty being violated) would have over treaty violations. I find nothing to support that the treaty provides for any legal recourse if its terms are violated. Thus, it really is a toothless treaty with no real legal affect.
Its under this framework that I claim that the Hong Kong situation is an internal Chinese affair. Still, to alleviate any concern from outsiders on the matter, I expect the PRC to withdraw from the treaty in due time, which it is allowed to do as a sovereign signatory to the treaty . . . the Brits have no legitimate claim to Hong Kong Island or Kowloon. Hong Kong is no longer a British colony and the UK has no right of oversight over the territory.
I don't want to bore other fellow posters with Basic Law. But since you mentioned it, let me remind you what Article 22 of Basic Law stipulates:
No department of the Central People's Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in accordance with this Law.
How many times has the China Liaison Office in Hong Kong, which sole purpose is to co-ordinate activities among China-based enterprises in Hong Kong, interfered in the domestic affairs of Hong Kong?
Numerous occasions. The most outrageous is interference in local election. Even those candidates backed by China admitted it.
Sino-British Joint Communique is indeed toothless. But Hong Kong Democracy and Human Rights Act just passed by Congress is full of sharp biting teeth. For instance, there is no way other China-based enterprises can again act like Huawei in importing US technology to Hong Kong and then clandestinely re-export them to Iran from Hong Kong.
Why does China @#$%^ this Act? Because it really hurts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
