Is the US shooting itself in the foot by banning Huawei?

Status
Not open for further replies.

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
The US is just publicly exposing its playbook on how it's going to spy on others even its own allies. Convenient how they forget about Edward Snowden. Even right before him, I remember reading articles how the US was bragging how it could spy in on Xi because his wife was seen with an iPhone. The fact is if the US knows which phone belongs to who they can listen in. It doesn't even matter whose hardware is being used because it's all about where your information is travelling through. Like the article says it has to be encrypted from the start to be safe. If your information is going through suspect hardware it doesn't really matter what's the device you're using. Why doesn't the US pass laws that everything has to be encrypted from the start? Because then it's harder for the US to spy in on Americans using their devices. They don't want Apple to start encrypting the phones they sell. So the US has to use people's conceitedness that they're important enough to be spied upon to get people to turn on Huawei.

I've come across some people in my life that would probably be diagnosed as paranoid. They think people would spend unlimited amounts of money and break laws just to get them. They're not important people working in sensitive fields yet they think people want to get them by any means necessary even risking going to jail. You know what these people had in common? They thought they were better than everyone else. They were vain people.

Espionage concerns are a smoke screen. All the sectors in the Western world's economies that make them stand out and control the world economy are being threatened just from competition from China. One of them is the telecom industry. If they're not on the top of these industries, it's the end of Western international power. The US brags about how countries like them more. Yeah because it's about the money. Once they don't have the money, no one is going to like them. If it wasn't about the money, they wouldn't be afraid of Chinese competition since people would naturally gravitate to them more. But they are afraid... They know what will happen if China has the money and they don't hence why the alarm.

People wonder why the US is so anti-drug. It's because they don't know history. All the top richest US families in the late 1800s and early 1900s made money from opium sold to China. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's family made all their money in getting China addicted to opium. The countries of the Western world all hand their hands in the opium business and remember it was a one-way trade. Only the West made the money and it was the biggest money making industry in the world at the time. They used opium to destroy a country so it would be easier to take over. The US is anti-drug because they know themselves how it can be used to destroy a country so others can take over.

Another example of how it's not wrong when they do it.
 

Nutrient

Junior Member
Registered Member
Are you making a counterfactual argument or are you prepared to put facts behind the "fake news" assertion?

I have at least as many facts as you provided, when you asserted that security trumped economics [in Southeast Asia and thereabouts].

As I questioned (and you edited out), what if the security concerns are mostly fake news? What if, by aligning so blatantly with the West, Australia and New Zealand saw their export markets in BOTH China and a very slowly growing West start to drastically diminish? Would they be willing to sacrifice their economic present and future for fear of a threat that would probably not materialize? I doubt it.

By banning Huawei, the ANZAC countries will be locking themselves out of Asia's 5G network (because their 4G+ networks will be too weak to handle 5G's high data rates). These countries will be basically invisible from Asia's point of view, and many lucrative business deals will bypass them. The countries will have shot themselves in the foot.
 

Brumby

Major
I have at least as many facts as you provided, when you asserted that security trumped economics [in Southeast Asia and thereabouts].
Actually I did not provide any facts. I was merely making a statement. You were asserting that the security concerns are predicated upon "fake news". I asked and I am asking again whether you are prepared to back up your assertion with facts. Once you do, we can then engage in a meaningful conversation. Until then we have nothing substantive to go on.

As I questioned (and you edited out), what if the security concerns are mostly fake news? What if, by aligning so blatantly with the West, Australia and New Zealand saw their export markets in BOTH China and a very slowly growing West start to drastically diminish? Would they be willing to sacrifice their economic present and future for fear of a threat that would probably not materialize? I doubt it.

By banning Huawei, the ANZAC countries will be locking themselves out of Asia's 5G network (because their 4G+ networks will be too weak to handle 5G's high data rates). These countries will be basically invisible from Asia's point of view, and many lucrative business deals will bypass them. The countries will have shot themselves in the foot.

You are positing an opinion of a potential future state . I am not willing to discuss hypotheticals because they are meaningless, lacking scope and meaningful facts. Such a platform is a recipe for conversations that go no where.

Some countries have made a decision based on their security concerns. They have gone through due process in making a determination. The assertion that somehow their security concerns are grounded on fake news is an insult to their established process, their institutions and generally to some of us living in those countries. I am prepared to engage in a debate over those security concerns which are based on the present state and not some unknowable future hypothetical state.
 

Nutrient

Junior Member
Registered Member
Actually I did not provide any facts. I was merely making a statement.

Precisely. If you have facts, put them on the table. Otherwise, your assertion (that "security trumps economics") is worthless.

You were asserting that the security concerns are predicated upon "fake news".

No, I asked a question: What if the security concerns were mostly fake news? If you couldn't understand that, it's not my fault.

You are positing an opinion of a potential future state . I am not willing to discuss hypotheticals because they are meaningless, lacking scope and meaningful facts. Such a platform is a recipe for conversations that go no where.

Fine. If you aren't "willing to discuss hypotheticals", why did you mention security concerns? Those are certainly hypothetical, as a war hasn't started yet.

Some countries have made a decision based on their security concerns. They have gone through due process in making a determination. The assertion that somehow their security concerns are grounded on fake news is an insult to their established process, their institutions and generally to some of us living in those countries.

What if these security concerns are fake? The West is certainly not above faking the news, even on serious life-and-death issues: remember the false accusations that Saddam had WMDs, used to justify the killing of a huge number of Iraqis.

I will repeat my statement:

By banning Huawei, the ANZAC countries will be locking themselves out of Asia's 5G network (because their 4G+ networks will be too weak to handle 5G's high data rates). These countries will be basically invisible from Asia's point of view, and many lucrative business deals will bypass them. The countries will have shot themselves in the foot.

You say you live there? If so, that is your likely future. If it turns out that your people did this to themselves because of fake news, I hope you enjoy that future.
 
Last edited:

Brumby

Major
Precisely. If you have facts, put them on the table. Otherwise, your assertion (that "security trumps economics") is worthless.
I initially made a statement. You then asserted fake news. You did not initially asked for facts but I did twice from you and now this is the third time. You are now parroting me. If you are unwilling or unable just conduct yourself in a mature manner by conceding you can't back up your claims. Since I asked first it is professional conduct to respond and then I will provide my rebuttal. I will not ask a fourth time.

No, I asked a question: What if the security concerns were mostly fake news? If you couldn't understand that, it's not my fault.
No. If you don't understand how a question is constructed then this whole engagement is severely degraded. "What if" is either a counterfactual or an assertion. I gave you an opportunity to clarify your position. All you are doing now is obfuscating it into a convoluted conversation.

Fine. If you aren't "willing to discuss hypotheticals", why did you mention security concerns? Those are certainly hypothetical, as a war hasn't started yet.
You are wrongly assuming your proposition is mutually exclusive. Security concerns are based on facts and decisions are taken thereof. Whether hypotheticals eventuate is secondary. It is call risk management.

What if these security concerns are fake? The West is certainly not above faking the news, even on serious life-and-death issues: remember the false accusations that Saddam had WMDs, used to justify the killing of a huge number of Iraqis.
There you go again and not just making a claim but setting up a fallacy of equivocation by invoking the Iraq war.

You say you live there? If so, that is your likely future. If it turns out that your people did this to themselves because of fake news, I hope you enjoy that future.
You need to first substantiate your claim of fake news. Constant repeat of a claim without offering support of it just demonstrate that you are unable to advance beyond making assertions.
 

signgraph

Banned Idiot
Registered Member
When America makes a baseless accusation without any proof, it demands to be taken seriously.

When China demands evidence, it is further accused of "hiding something nefarious".

Why should anyone listen to the US regime, who has a rich history of lying to create pretexts for its genocidal wars of aggression?
● Fake wmd in Iraq.
● Fake Nariyah Testimony
● Fake Gulf of Tonkin incident
● Fake battle of Manilla Bay
● Fake Syrian gas attacks
● Fake Tibetan genocide
● Fake Tibetan cultural genocide
● Fake 1 million Uyghurs in prisons
● Fake forced technology transfers/ip theft
● Fake China implants spy chips into its hardware

Western media = fake news, but don't take it from me, here it is from one of CIA's former top propagandists

Journalists for Hire: How the CIA Buys the News
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


and here it is from Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, ex-White House Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy

Here are the facts.

● CIA/NSA has been proven to be illegal spying on the entire world including its so called "friends, allies, and partners" (eg vassals)
● NSA hacked into Huawei's servers - see Operation Shotgiant

● The White House found no evidence of Huawei "security threat"
Exclusive: White House review finds no evidence of spying by Huawei - sources
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


● UK's GCHQ found no evidence of Huawei "security threat"
No evidence that Huawei is spying on UK, say GCHQ spooks
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


● German IT chief found no evidence of Huawei "security threat"
'No evidence' of Huawei spying, says German IT watchdog
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


● No European nation has found evidence of Huawei "security threat"
In Huawei battle, signs of us decline
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


To recap:
The biggest illegal spying organization in the world is run by the US regime. This is the world's most rapacious intellectual property thief and biggest state sponsor of industrial espionage. This rogue organization is the world's biggest proven security threat is accusing Huawei of being a "security threat" without a shred of evidence.

Brumby, I'll be charitable and assume you have extreme learning difficulties. Otherwise I'd have to assume you are a duplicitous and malevolent liar.
 

Nutrient

Junior Member
Registered Member
I initially made a statement. You then asserted fake news.

No, I did not assert. Your statement that I did so is as fake as much of the news emanating from the West. I asked you to consider a question: What if the security concerns are mostly fake news?


You did not initially asked for facts but I did twice from you and now this is the third time.

You have no right to demand some facts as you have given none -- and you started this.


No. If you don't understand how a question is constructed then this whole engagement is severely degraded. "What if" is either a counterfactual or an assertion.

I suspect I know syntax and grammar better than you do. In casual English, almost any sentence becomes a question if it ends with a question mark, especially when the word "if" is in the major clause.


I gave you an opportunity to clarify your position. All you are doing now is obfuscating it into a convoluted conversation.

Still not supplying facts, I see.


There you go again and not just making a claim but setting up a fallacy of equivocation by invoking the Iraq war.

(Memo to Mister English Expert: "equivocation" does not mean what you think it means.)

By using the "Iraq WMD" example, I proved that the West indeed produces very toxic fake news. How do you know that the ANZUS countries aren't being similarly poisoned?


You are wrongly assuming your proposition is mutually exclusive. Security concerns are based on facts and decisions are taken thereof. Whether hypotheticals eventuate is secondary. It is call risk management.

Then name some verifiable facts in the Huawei case. Perhaps you could start with why Huawei's equipment is less secure than American gear, which thanks to Edward Snowden we know is insecure.
 

Brumby

Major
No, I did not assert. Your statement that I did so is as fake as much of the news emanating from the West. I asked you to consider a question: What if the security concerns are mostly fake news?




You have no right to demand some facts as you have given none -- and you started this.




I suspect I know syntax and grammar better than you do. In casual English, almost any sentence becomes a question if it ends with a question mark, especially when the word "if" is in the major clause.




Still not supplying facts, I see.




(Memo to Mister English Expert: "equivocation" does not mean what you think it means.)

By using the "Iraq WMD" example, I proved that the West indeed produces very toxic fake news. How do you know that the ANZUS countries aren't being similarly poisoned?




Then name some verifiable facts in the Huawei case. Perhaps you could start with why Huawei's equipment is less secure than American gear, which thanks to Edward Snowden we know is insecure.
I said I will not ask a fourth time. Since you cannot even conduct your self in a professional mature manner by even attempting to address the initial question, further engagement is pointless and a waste of my time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top