Hong-Kong Protests

SpicySichuan

Senior Member
Registered Member
Honestly, I think those who threw molotov cocktails, doused people on fire, and stabbed others (police included) should be jailed for 10+ years. However, I don't think marginalizing the pan-democrat lawmakers (who are legitimate civil servants) would be a good idea because do so would only push moderate pan-democrats into the arms of the radicals, especially those who support a violent revolution. Therefore, my confusion is why can't Beijing just resort to divide and rule tactics as opposed to grouping all opposition (moderates and radicals alike) into one camp (like it is doing right now). Another issue is that the radicals have now been forced underground. Would this mean HK police and the PLA would have to engage in counter-insurgency operations for years to come?
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Honestly, I think those who threw molotov cocktails, doused people on fire, and stabbed others (police included) should be jailed for 10+ years. However, I don't think marginalizing the pan-democrat lawmakers (who are legitimate civil servants) would be a good idea because do so would only push moderate pan-democrats into the arms of the radicals, especially those who support a violent revolution. Therefore, my confusion is why can't Beijing just resort to divide and rule tactics as opposed to grouping all opposition (moderates and radicals alike) into one camp (like it is doing right now). Another issue is that the radicals have now been forced underground. Would this mean HK police and the PLA would have to engage in counter-insurgency operations for years to come?
Firstly, maybe wait for the actual details before rushing to judgement.

Secondly, no matter what your political views, patriotism and loyalty to country and people can never be optional.

As for counter insurgency, well that’s what China truly excels at. Ever since it’s founding the Nationalists in Taiwan and both superpowers tried their level best to whip up unrest and regime change Beijing. They didn’t even come remotely close. Those spoilt low IQ used condoms would do better than the CIA and KGB? Yeah, I’ll take those odds.

As soon as the traitors openly adopt conventional terrorist tactics and cause fatalities, the gloves will come off and they will be liquidated as fast and comprehensively as you please.

While Beijing is unlikely to be deliberately aiming to push them to such extremes, it is nothing China is remotely concerned about.
 

KYli

Brigadier
Honestly, I think those who threw molotov cocktails, doused people on fire, and stabbed others (police included) should be jailed for 10+ years. However, I don't think marginalizing the pan-democrat lawmakers (who are legitimate civil servants) would be a good idea because do so would only push moderate pan-democrats into the arms of the radicals, especially those who support a violent revolution. Therefore, my confusion is why can't Beijing just resort to divide and rule tactics as opposed to grouping all opposition (moderates and radicals alike) into one camp (like it is doing right now). Another issue is that the radicals have now been forced underground. Would this mean HK police and the PLA would have to engage in counter-insurgency operations for years to come?
The so called moderates never condemned violence and riot. They have strong tie with the UK, the US, CIA and Taiwan. They have financially supported the radicals and even joined the radicals in many rallies. They have aided the riots by calling, organizing and mobilizing peaceful protests but all these peaceful protests become violent protests. The moderates also are the ones that brainwashed these radicals and told them to seek independent. The central government has finally waken up and realized there are no moderates. The so called moderates are just people who don't want to go to jail themselves but would actively encourage others to pursue HK independent and commit violence.

Most of the radicals have fled to Taiwan and some to the European and the UK. The radicals were given weapons such as guns and explosive by CIA but they never did much damage which mean these radicals are not diehards. HKPF was able to raid many of these bombs and weapons factories and confiscated the weapons before any harms are done. That means there are people inside the movement that would rat them for money. So no, there wouldn't be any counter-insurgency. Most of the radicals are not that stupid because they would flee rather than stay and fight.
 
Honestly, I think those who threw molotov cocktails, doused people on fire, and stabbed others (police included) should be jailed for 10+ years. However, I don't think marginalizing the pan-democrat lawmakers (who are legitimate civil servants) would be a good idea because do so would only push moderate pan-democrats into the arms of the radicals, especially those who support a violent revolution. Therefore, my confusion is why can't Beijing just resort to divide and rule tactics as opposed to grouping all opposition (moderates and radicals alike) into one camp (like it is doing right now). Another issue is that the radicals have now been forced underground. Would this mean HK police and the PLA would have to engage in counter-insurgency operations for years to come?
Firstly, maybe wait for the actual details before rushing to judgement.

Secondly, no matter what your political views, patriotism and loyalty to country and people can never be optional.

As for counter insurgency, well that’s what China truly excels at. Ever since it’s founding the Nationalists in Taiwan and both superpowers tried their level best to whip up unrest and regime change Beijing. They didn’t even come remotely close. Those spoilt low IQ used condoms would do better than the CIA and KGB? Yeah, I’ll take those odds.

As soon as the traitors openly adopt conventional terrorist tactics and cause fatalities, the gloves will come off and they will be liquidated as fast and comprehensively as you please.

While Beijing is unlikely to be deliberately aiming to push them to such extremes, it is nothing China is remotely concerned about.
The so called moderates never condemned violence and riot. They have strong tie with the UK, the US, CIA and Taiwan. They have financially supported the radicals and even joined the radicals in many rallies. They have aided the riots by calling, organizing and mobilizing peaceful protests but all these peaceful protests become violent protests. The moderates also are the ones that brainwashed these radicals and told them to seek independent. The central government has finally waken up and realized there are no moderates. The so called moderates are just people who don't want to go to jail themselves but would actively encourage others to pursue HK independent and commit violence.

Most of the radicals have fled to Taiwan and some to the European and the UK. The radicals were given weapons such as guns and explosive by CIA but they never did much damage which mean these radicals are not diehards. HKPF was able to raid many of these bombs and weapons factories and confiscated the weapons before any harms are done. That means there are people inside the movement that would rat them for money. So no, there wouldn't be any counter-insurgency. Most of the radicals are not that stupid because they would flee rather than stay and fight.

I remember that on numerous instances, the so-called moderates when challenged to condemn the radical violence, openly stated that they have agreed among themselves to not condemn each other. By doing so, they lost their status as being moderates even when they do not participate in the act.
 

supersnoop

Major
Registered Member
Honestly, I think those who threw molotov cocktails, doused people on fire, and stabbed others (police included) should be jailed for 10+ years. However, I don't think marginalizing the pan-democrat lawmakers (who are legitimate civil servants) would be a good idea because do so would only push moderate pan-democrats into the arms of the radicals, especially those who support a violent revolution. Therefore, my confusion is why can't Beijing just resort to divide and rule tactics as opposed to grouping all opposition (moderates and radicals alike) into one camp (like it is doing right now). Another issue is that the radicals have now been forced underground. Would this mean HK police and the PLA would have to engage in counter-insurgency operations for years to come?
The problem is there are no real "democrats".

First, you have to remember the basis of the "laam chau"/35-Plus plan. Both of these plans essentially call for direct confrontation with the central government in the hopes that they would be met with a violent response which would open the door for direct intervention by western forces ('peacekeeping' mission) or possibly indirect (arms supply).

Second, there was the famous interview by one of the student unions' president Joey Siu on DW where she proudly proclaimed that she was not a radical, but (self-described) moderates like herself will never "break ties or criticize" radicals. This was not an uncommon stance (at least on social media).

Finally, all the so-called "democratic" leadership, the joshua wongs, martin lees, etc. are all shaking hands and smiling with people like ted cruz, mike pigpeo, tom 'army ranger' KKKotton. They have all also received money from NED.

Even if we put aside the idea of American conspiracy. We can see how the whole ideas of "moderates" and "democracy" have been totally eroded into meaninglessness. If you are truly committed to being a moderate (and many of the self proclaimed democrats seem to conveniently neglect this point), then you have to condemn the violence. Very little of the violence was actually political in nature, most of it was juvenile attempts at score-settling/petty revenge against perceived grievances against mainlanders and HK supporters of PRC. I've repeatedly pointed out on this thread, there is nothing democratic about smashing up a Starbucks, Maxim's, or some other restaurants. If you are actually a moderate, you cannot pretend this is some sort of peaceful protest tactic.

Also, functional democracy requires compromise. The "pan-democrats" have repeatedly resisted any overtures from the central government as "not enough". One major proposed reform was universal election for Chief Executive, but the main compromise would be the candidates would need to go through a vetting process first. Obviously this is a way for the central government to stack the deck, but at the same time the other side should accept that the door was opened a crack. Imagine if Obama decided to kill ACA because it didn't go far enough, then what happens? You are just stuck with the same/worse system as before. This is what happens in HK.

So long-story short, I think the government made the simple conclusion that there are no moderates left to work with.
 

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
View attachment 69461

The sign held by the women says "Support the national security law":cool:

Yes this was going around our Chinese association. And it just to go and shoe you the depth the western MSM, and their agent will sink to just to paint a bad image of China.

This so called journalist obviously can't read Chinese. And he takes a photo with Chinese writing on it, and automatically make the connection that any protest in Hong Kong must be directed AGAINST China. Lol

1st lesson in journalism, learn to read, or At least have some who can read. Instead of making assumptions. Lol
 
Top