Hong-Kong Protests

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I was looking at all the incident that spur the black lives matter movement, many of which had killings caught on camera. Yet none of the perpetrators was ever convicted of the crime they had committed. Most of them were not even indicted for the killing.

It is extremely rare for any police abuse to lead to indictment, let alone conviction. The only exception I can recall was a conviction of an ethnic Chinese NYPD rookie cop who accidentally shot a victim in the dark stairway during an official police operation. But this was more an accident and was not even a racially motivated killing.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
- Acquitted for the shooting of Trayvon Martin (17 years old)
Darren Wilson - did not indict for Shooting of Michael Brown
Daniel Pantaleo - did not indict for Shooting of
Eric Garner
Timothy Loehmann - did not indict for Shooting of Tamir Rice (12-years old)


Does the US not respect black human lives, let alone black human rights?

Politicians would always voice their outrage each time and promise to reform the law enforcement agencies. But all odd these has been lip services without any tangible action and result. Hence, the tragedy keeps repeating itself.

I suggest the US to respect the human rights of the Black people within the US first.

Similarly, war crimes committed by US military personnel have pretty much gone unpunished.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

US does not have much standing in lecturing anyone about human rights since they have failed miserably in their deeds.
 
Last edited:

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
No, it's not treason "anywhere on Earth". For example, it's legal in the UK to campaign for any part of the country to become independent. There was even a referendum on Scottish independence in 2014. Quebec has also had two independence referenda. None of those referenda would have been possible if it was illegal to campaign for independence.

Also, the Hong Kong protests did not start out about independence. It was the extradition law. But because the Hong Kong authorities and Beijing handled it so badly, some protesters have gone as far as to campaign for independence. But the independence movement is still a minority in Hong Kong.

As for the old HK flag, if some protesters are unhappy with the status quo it's not surprising if they look at the past with rose-tinted glasses.

Final reminder, China signed a treaty with the UK for the return of the whole of Hong Kong (only the New Territories were originally to return in 1997). Rather than divide the city, the UK negotiated a treaty in good faith to give up control but for it to enjoy 50 years of autonomy. It's perfectly reasonable that Hong Kongese would call on the UK to intervene if Beijing is breaking the treaty by undermine said autonomy.

Wow. You're either ignorant of the facts or you're deliberately misleading people. Either way it's bad!

Treason laws. Almost if not all, country have them. To state a referendum on independence as proof that there's no such thing as treason laws is misleading people or you genuinely believe it is so. (Ignorant). You do realised that in order to have a referendum, the governing authority MUST approve the referendum. Without which, any results is null and void, and considered treasonous.

Asked the Barcelonian this. Tell me where's their freedom of separation? What's happened to those leaders now, oh let me guess, the Spanish authorities is after them for.... illegal act of..... referendum.... treason laws anyone!

So it is not illegal to campaign for independence then? In the USA, they thought a bloody civil war because is independence, and indeed, the white supremacy still fly the confederate flag with pride. What Trump called very good people!

And as for Hong Kong. I am taking a guess here that you're not for m Hong Kong. Because your knowledge is very limited, either that or you're deliberately misleading again.

I won't even bother to address any of what you said because I've never heard such BS. All I can say to you is I'm from Hong Kong, and know more about it than you from your history books with pictures it them from junior grade school!

Ps: I hope there's enough critical thinking here from an old Hong Konger brought up on a diet of route-learning!

I'm still waiting. And I'll wait, I still have plenty of time for an old timer. Just you becareful with all the mental gymnasts you're doing!
 

In4ser

Junior Member
Well, ‘war’ needs two sides. If it’s just one side dishing it out while the other side just takes it and complains impotently, it’s not war, just victimisation and oppression.

There are, sadly, countless examples throughout history, all over the world, where one powerless group is oppressed and victimised by the powerful majority. None of those instances can be described as civil wars unless and until the oppressed minority gains enough power and resolve to fight back in a systematic and organised way to the national level.

Yes, oppressing a minority group is a major contributing factor to civil wars, but realistically, modern civil wars are only viable if the oppressed minority have a reliable foreign backer able to provide weapons, funds and leadership; and/or if a country has recently been ravaged by external invasion that massively degraded the state’s ability to police its own territory and unleashed large quantities of military grade weapons into general circulation. Obviously none of the able applies to the US, as no external power would dare to support any domestic US insurgency, as that would be a declaration of war.

I cannot think of any remotely modern examples where a civil war has broken out in a state absent a foreign backer and/or some event that massively degraded the state’s military and police capabilities beforehand.

The most ‘recent’ example I can think of is ironically the American Civil War. But that came about due to, above all else, the massive vested economics invested associated with slavery that simply does not exist in today’s America. In addition, it takes a degree of bloody-mindedness and belligerence to consciously pursue a deliberate course of action with civil war being a significant possibility that the vast majority of black lives matters supports simply lack.

Simply put, the liberal fringe who are most supportive of black rights are also the most passive and non-violent segments of US society. Can you honestly see vegans and hippies taking up arms and being willing and able to fight and kill for their beliefs? I don’t.

If there is one group within the US who has the mental attributes necessary, financing, organisation and motivating to actually push the US to the brink of a civil war like situation, it is Trump’s ‘good people’ supporters. But there is no need for those people to actually get involved here since the US state will fight their fight for them.
Right now yes. However, I believe there is a possibility that there will be a dispute about the results of the 2020 elections if he loses. Even if Trump wins, Democrats will likely dispute it as unfair too because the Republican party has already sown seeds of doubt by creating a stink about mail-in ballots. They allege that it creates the opportunity of voter fraud by illegals and non-existent people. However, Democrats counter that voter turnout is being suppressed by the COVID-19 and that the US needs to protect the health and welfare of its citizens who want to vote with the option of mail-in ballots.
This will create fertile ground for another round of mass protests/riots and opportunity for violent and opportunist political gangs like ANTIFA, Proudboys and Patriotic Prayer who will probably increasingly harass and threaten people of the opposite political spectrum kind of like Optimates and Populares mob supporters during the winter years of the Roman Republic. Not to mention there is a rise of liberal gun ownerships especially amongst minority with John Brown group and Redneck Revolt pro-gun groups who increasingly distrust the police over their own gun for protection. So while another Civil War is not likely, there is still a greater risk than ever before for that to occur in generations.
 
Last edited:

Rettam Stacf

Junior Member
Registered Member
No, it's not treason "anywhere on Earth". For example, it's legal in the UK to campaign for any part of the country to become independent. There was even a referendum on Scottish independence in 2014. Quebec has also had two independence referenda. None of those referenda would have been possible if it was illegal to campaign for independence.

Also, the Hong Kong protests did not start out about independence. It was the extradition law. But because the Hong Kong authorities and Beijing handled it so badly, some protesters have gone as far as to campaign for independence. But the independence movement is still a minority in Hong Kong.

As for the old HK flag, if some protesters are unhappy with the status quo it's not surprising if they look at the past with rose-tinted glasses.

Final reminder, China signed a treaty with the UK for the return of the whole of Hong Kong (only the New Territories were originally to return in 1997). Rather than divide the city, the UK negotiated a treaty in good faith to give up control but for it to enjoy 50 years of autonomy. It's perfectly reasonable that Hong Kongese would call on the UK to intervene if Beijing is breaking the treaty by undermine said autonomy.

The very fundamental agreement is One-Country-Two-System. If people of Hong Kong or any other country do not want to respect One Country, do not expect China to respect Two System.

Article 23 of the Basic Law of Hong Kong requires Hong Kong to set up a national security law. China patiently waited for 23 years and Hong Kong still has not implemented it. So China applies Article 18 and Annex III of the Hong Kong Basic Laws to implement it. After the security law is et up, the Two System will still be in place in Hong Kong.

Please do not twist facts in your argument.
 
Last edited:

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Right now yes. However, I believe there is a possibility that there will be a dispute about the results of the 2020 elections if he loses. Even if Trump wins, Democrats will likely dispute it as unfair too because the Republican party has already sown seeds of doubt by creating a stink about mail-in ballots. They allege that it creates the opportunity of voter fraud by illegals and non-existent people. However, Democrats counter that voter turnout is being suppressed by the COVID-19 and that the US needs to protect the health and welfare of its citizens who want to vote with the option of mail-in ballots.
This will create fertile ground for another round of mass protests/riots and opportunity for violent and opportunist political gangs like ANTIFA, Proudboys and Patriotic Prayer who will probably increasingly harass and threaten people of the opposite political spectrum kind of like Optimates and Populares mob supporters during the winter years of the Roman Republic. Not to mention there is a rise of liberal gun ownerships especially amongst minority with John Brown group and Redneck Revolt pro-gun groups who increasingly distrust the police over their own gun for protection. So while another Civil War is not likely, there is still a greater risk than ever before for that to occur in generations.

I agree that there is a tiny to fair amount of risk associated with the November 2020 US presidential elections, but the risk isn’t from the US liberal left, but rather from Trump and his right wing supporters.

I think no matter how much Trump cheats, the Democrats would just swallow their hurt and wait 4 years rather than risk violence. The risk factor would be if Trump lost but refused to accept that.

That kind of flagrant breach of the constitution would be the only remotely likely scenario where I can see the Democrats digging their heels in enough to be willing to go to the point of armed conflict.

But I think that doesn’t really have anything to do with the current protests and unrest in the US, so best to leave that there.
 
Top