Hong-Kong Protests


ZeEa5KPul

Junior Member
Registered 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.
Then maybe a better term than "civil war" would be "Cultural Revolution with American characteristics.":D

Perhaps I'm indulging in a bit of fantasy and wishful thinking, but I think that even the meekest person will eventually fight back if pushed into a tight enough corner. Yes, even the vegan yoga teacher in west Hollywood might eventually develop an appreciation for his Second Amendment rights.

If the situation deteriorates much further, I can see an argument for China involving itself - at least at arm's length. Just as an example, I believe that certain types of armour-piercing ammunition (e.g., 9mm AP) is illegal in the US because a concealable weapon that can punch through body armour can be problematic for police. Well, very large quantities of such ammunition might inexplicably appear in the US.
 

solarz

Brigadier
Then maybe a better term than "civil war" would be "Cultural Revolution with American characteristics.":D

Perhaps I'm indulging in a bit of fantasy and wishful thinking, but I think that even the meekest person will eventually fight back if pushed into a tight enough corner. Yes, even the vegan yoga teacher in west Hollywood might eventually develop an appreciation for his Second Amendment rights.

If the situation deteriorates much further, I can see an argument for China involving itself - at least at arm's length. Just as an example, I believe that certain types of armour-piercing ammunition (e.g., 9mm AP) is illegal in the US because a concealable weapon that can punch through body armour can be problematic for police. Well, very large quantities of such ammunition might inexplicably appear in the US.
I think that's a terrible idea.

Neither China nor the world need a destabilized US. What's happening right now is bad enough, but at least it's contained within their borders. An actual insurrection will have far reaching consequences that will be disastrous for many countries.
 

Rettam Stacf

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It's great that HongKongese will continue to remember the 1989 Beijing massacres. Carrie Lam's suggestion that the continued ban on gatherings of more than 8 people is about public health is a joke given that you can now go to religious services in a church, temple, etc in Hong Kong. All the evidence suggests that the risk of transmission of Covid-19 is worse inside than it is outside.
US cities are using curfew to stop protest from turning violent. Why Hong Kong government can't do the same with other means. Hong Kong government, by not using curfew, should be praised for preventing violence without inconveniencing her ordinary citizens to go about their normal life.

Why the double standard ?
 

Mr T

Senior Member
US cities are using curfew to stop protest from turning violent. Why Hong Kong government can't do the same with other means.
First, you don't understand what a curfew is. It's not an order to stay at home 24 hours a day, it requires you to be at home for part of the day (usually the night). Even if your local area has a curfew, that curfew doesn't stop you protesting or marching when it's not in effect. In contrast, the ban on public demonstrations is running 24 hours a day. It wouldn't matter if the vigil was held at 9am instead of 9pm, it would still be banned.

Second, Hong Kong officials have said the ban has nothing to do with the vigil itself but claimed it's about "public health" - despite what I pointed out about them allowing religious services to restart.

Third, whilst I could be wrong, I can't recall any serious violence at the annual Tiananmen vigils in the past, so there would be no reason to think there'd be significant violence this year either. The more radical students don't attend as they see the vigils as being related to mainland Chinese political reform, whereas their focus is on Hong Kong.
 

Rettam Stacf

Junior Member
Registered Member
First, you don't understand what a curfew is. It's not an order to stay at home 24 hours a day, it requires you to be at home for part of the day (usually the night). Even if your local area has a curfew, that curfew doesn't stop you protesting or marching when it's not in effect. In contrast, the ban on public demonstrations is running 24 hours a day. It wouldn't matter if the vigil was held at 9am instead of 9pm, it would still be banned.

Second, Hong Kong officials have said the ban has nothing to do with the vigil itself but claimed it's about "public health" - despite what I pointed out about them allowing religious services to restart.

Third, whilst I could be wrong, I can't recall any serious violence at the annual Tiananmen vigils in the past, so there would be no reason to think there'd be significant violence this year either. The more radical students don't attend as they see the vigils as being related to mainland Chinese political reform, whereas their focus is on Hong Kong.
You are using selective facts to justify you argument.

First, HK government disallowed just the Tiananmen protest and not others, a very specific action, even more narrow than a curfew.

Secondly, it is true there were no significance violence in the previous virgil. But given the current volatile environment in Hong Kong, it is highly likely that it will be hijacked by the extreme elements and turn it into a riot. Isn't the George Floyd protest are mostly peaceful but some extreme elements turn it into a riot, hence the need for curfew and calling out the national guard ?

Please stop your double standard !
 

plawolf

Brigadier
Then maybe a better term than "civil war" would be "Cultural Revolution with American characteristics.":D

Perhaps I'm indulging in a bit of fantasy and wishful thinking, but I think that even the meekest person will eventually fight back if pushed into a tight enough corner. Yes, even the vegan yoga teacher in west Hollywood might eventually develop an appreciation for his Second Amendment rights.

If the situation deteriorates much further, I can see an argument for China involving itself - at least at arm's length. Just as an example, I believe that certain types of armour-piercing ammunition (e.g., 9mm AP) is illegal in the US because a concealable weapon that can punch through body armour can be problematic for police. Well, very large quantities of such ammunition might inexplicably appear in the US.
No China is not going to actively fuel and escalate the violence, we are not American CIA/NED.

Willingness to resist is only half the equation, and is meaningless without the means to resist.

Even in America, with its massive civilian gun ownership, civilians have zero chance against the police never mind the military.

The only way a revolution or civil war could break out is if significant parts of the police and military side with the protestors, and side with them in a strong enough way as to be willing to take up arms against their own government and fellow service members.

As bad as things look in America right now, it is still nowhere near bad enough for that to become a remote possibility.

Short of Trump blatantly disregarding the results of a presidential election, or orders the widespread and sustained shooting of unarmed peaceful civilians with live rounds en mass, that’s not going to happen. And Trump would have to be mad to make such extreme and blatantly unconstitutional moves. If he did, the Republican Party would remove him from office via constitutional means rather than wait for civil war to actually break out.

I just think Trump is almost deliberately inflaming tensions as this is a much ‘better’ crisis for him than covid19, which if you would notice, suddenly no one is grilling him over any more.

As I mentioned a few times now, this protest crisis could actually serve to benefit Trump politically, as such it makes sense for him to want to keep it simmering just so right up to the November elections, or as long as he can stretch it. He doesn’t want it to die away, and he doesn’t need to push the US into actual civil war. He just need to trigger the protestors enough that they go from overwhelmingly peaceful and reasonable to violent and extremist. He could then crack down as violently as he wants on the protestors, and the majority of Americans will cheer him on as he does it, and get credit for ending the very chaos he helped start.

The astute amongst you might notice that this is the exact same strategy that the US uses internationally to try to leverage benefits from others while giving up nothing itself.

First it manufactures a problem, and then offers to make said problem go away if the other side made significant concessions America wanted to start with.

Let’s not forget that THE defining characteristic of Trump’s original Presidential election success owned much to his willingness to employ tactics and strategies domestically that previously America reserved exclusively for external use.

As such, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that he would use that same overall winning strategy again this time around and again employ tactics and strategies American previously only used abroad against foreigners.
 

Mr T

Senior Member
First, HK government disallowed just the Tiananmen protest and not others, a very specific action, even more narrow than a curfew.
Incorrect. It (supposedly) extends to any outdoor public gathering, I think of more than 8 people. However, because the ban was extended specifically up to and including the anniversary date, it was regarded as being a ban on the vigil.

Secondly, it is true there were no significance violence in the previous virgil. But given the current volatile environment in Hong Kong, it is highly likely that it will be hijacked by the extreme elements and turn it into a riot.
Hong Kong has been much more peaceful recently, in part because the police have reacted quicker when there have been disturbances and also because some people who would be protesting are social-distancing due to Covid-19.

If you use the "there might be violence" reason for banning the vigil, all protests and vigils should be banned forever.

Isn't the George Floyd protest are mostly peaceful but some extreme elements turn it into a riot, hence the need for curfew and calling out the national guard ?
As I said, the curfews are not 24 hours a day. People can still protest peacefully during the day-time.
 

Rettam Stacf

Junior Member
Registered Member
Incorrect. It (supposedly) extends to any outdoor public gathering, I think of more than 8 people. However, because the ban was extended specifically up to and including the anniversary date, it was regarded as being a ban on the vigil.



Hong Kong has been much more peaceful recently, in part because the police have reacted quicker when there have been disturbances and also because some people who would be protesting are social-distancing due to Covid-19.

If you use the "there might be violence" reason for banning the vigil, all protests and vigils should be banned forever.



As I said, the curfews are not 24 hours a day. People can still protest peacefully during the day-time.
The 8-people limit was extended because a new Covid-19 cluster has just emerged the last few days. Fact does matter, Mr. T, not speculation.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Get up to date on what happened in Hong Kong the last two weeks since the reopening up of the city and the fanning of flame by foreign government and press, and you will not think there is no fear of reemergence of violence like what happened prior to Covid-19 lock down. Why selective use of facts ?

People can still hold vigil or protest peacefully in smaller group any hour they want in Hong Kong. No curfew to restrict them like in the US. So what is your issue with that ? Why the double standard ?
 
The point was that it would have been nice to see a similar act in Hong Kong, a senior officer showing solidarity with protesters or otherwise that he/she really understood them. But there hasn't been that sort of situation, and the only public statements have been pretty nasty or negative. It doesn't mean the Hong Kong police are all bad, there are no doubt junior staff who have resigned or shown compassion at times. But the senior leadership haven't handled things well and given protesters a reason to think they're being fair, other than they haven't shot all of them.
But that would have been stupid. American protesters simply wanted police to stop racist killings; you can't disagree with that. On the other hand, the terrorists in HK wanted change that could not be brought to a Chinese city. There is no solidarity with that. You can't have it your way; if you want democracy, move to a democratic country. American police wouldn't have shown solidarity with protesters either if they were asking to rewrite the US constitution.

Also whenever I hear "external forces" I can't take it seriously. There are no names, no organisations, nothing. It's like saying "someone is doing something in the shadows, but I won't name them so you can't prove I'm wrong".
Whenever I see your ignorance, I can't take it seriously. CIA, US government. There's pictures.

No, I think the international media would be saying that Beijing was starting to listen and that this might signal a peaceful resolution to the protests.
That would set a dangerous precedent of a nation negotiating with terrorists. The message has to be clear: when you resort to violence in China, and chances you have become zero. That's not to mention that they wanted something that is unreasonable and that they can't have so there's nowhere to go except total defeat for them.

The oath taking was a big deal because it led to legislators being kicked out just on that point. Up until Beijing intervened it had been possible for at least some of the legislators to retake it. It was a completely unnecessary intervention and just made the CCP look petty by demanding absolute loyalty with no critical thinking or tolerance.
I don't think any country tolerates, "oath takers" who mar the oath and use it to insult the country. Absolutely needed to remove anyone who makes clear that s/he has malice against the nation s/he is swearing an oath to.

As for the Chief Executive, if she's been unable to resolve a situation where there have been protests for a whole year, yes I think Beijing should have demanded her resignation. Alternatively, in a parallel universe where Beijing fully respects Hong Kong's autonomy and has never said a word about the city's politics, it could have said the central government no longer had any faith in her and that she should consider her position.
True, they should have replaced her with a PLA General to govern Hong Kong.

The protesters don't trust the central government to run things any better, I would have thought that would be pretty obvious.
Well, then they can move to a country where they trust the leadership, because in China, this is the leadership. Once again, this ain't Burger King; you can't have everything your way, but you can leave.

You forgot rule of law. That was key. There was stability in mainland China after Mao died but no rule of law. Plus people did seek asylum in Hong Kong on the basis of CCP repression.
There was plenty of law. People fled the mainland because it was impoverished. One of the biggest misconceptions that Westerners have is that Chinese people are fleeing oppression when the truth is, people just want more money, bigger houses, cheaper good food. If they got that in the Hong Kong, they would go; if they got that in the west, they would go; if they got that in China, they would stay. Government style has nothing to do with it. If anything, there are people who are willing to give up the easier lifestyle and abundance to return to China because they really do not like being in an alien place while others, for those things, can tolerate it.

Well yeah, in the later years, nearer to the handover. The HK police had a good legacy from the UK era in 1997.
From here? 2,000 arrests, 51 deaths?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

Personally I'm always interested in nuance and people's views. Which of the CCP's policies (not necessarily on Hong Kong) are you opposed to?
The one where they let riots run a muck in Hong Kong without using the military to quell them like the UK and US do.

First, you don't understand what a curfew is. It's not an order to stay at home 24 hours a day, it requires you to be at home for part of the day (usually the night). Even if your local area has a curfew, that curfew doesn't stop you protesting or marching when it's not in effect. In contrast, the ban on public demonstrations is running 24 hours a day. It wouldn't matter if the vigil was held at 9am instead of 9pm, it would still be banned.
I don't think you understand what other people are writing. The curfew would disallow violent night riots, and that could/should have been implemented and enforced in Hong Kong. Nobody said anything about a 24 hour curfew and nobody said anything about using that reason to stop the Tiananmen vigils.

Hong Kong has been much more peaceful recently, in part because the police have reacted quicker when there have been disturbances and also because some people who would be protesting are social-distancing due to Covid-19.
Exactly, more forceful police get the job done and are needed in uncivilized places like Hong Kong.

If you use the "there might be violence" reason for banning the vigil, all protests and vigils should be banned forever.
I'm good with that. It's clear that Hong Kong isn't mature enough for that level of freedom. They need reeducation before they are given freedom for the same reason that kids shouldn't have the freedom to have whatever they want for dinner because ice cream and gummy worms aren't exactly a balanced diet. But when that kid grows up and receives a degree in nutrition, that freedom is all his/hers.
 

Mr T

Senior Member
The 8-people limit was extended because a new Covid-19 cluster has just emerged the last few days. Fact does matter, Mr. T, not speculation.
That's not correct. It was extended beforehand. The new cluster had not arisen at that time.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(19 May 2020)

"Hongkongers can finally take part in bigger religious gatherings but might not be able to join the annual June 4 vigil for the first time in 30 years, after the government renewed social-distancing measures to combat Covid-19.

But the city’s health minister rejected accusations that extending the restriction on gatherings of more than eight people, which expires on June 4, was a political decision that in effect banned the Victoria Park candlelight vigil commemorating the Tiananmen Square crackdown, saying public health was the only concern."

Also, you claimed it was a discreet banning of the vigil.

"HK government disallowed just the Tiananmen protest and not others, a very specific action, even more narrow than a curfew."

So which is it, is the vigil deliberately being banned or is it an "unfrotunate" consequence of public health control? It can't be both.

Why selective use of facts ?
I'm sorry to say, but I'm much more up to date on HK facts than you are, given you thought public gatherings were only banned yesterday.

People can still hold vigil or protest peacefully in smaller group any hour they want in Hong Kong.
Until the HK police arrive and say it's an "unlawful assembly", sure. However, I'd like to think that at least this time they won't be heavy-handed and just let people hold candles without getting their truncheons out or pepper-spraying them.

Why the double standard ?
Given I've not said whether the curfews in the US are acceptable or not, you can't accuse me of having a double-standard. This is a thread about the Hong Kong protests, not global police enforcement.
 

Top