Hong-Kong Protests

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
If HK protesters have to follow the law then I see no reason why gangsters should be able to do what they want.
I agree. Assault, assault with weapons, assaulting an officer, destruction of public/private property, unlawful assembly, failing to disperse, disturbing the peace, resisting arrest, were just some of the crimes committed, therefore, anyone, gangsters or otherwise, should be able to do what they want with the little terrorists that masquerade as protesters. If they don't follow the law, then those who stand up to them need not either.
 

crash8pilot

Junior Member
Registered Member
There you have it guys. The mind gymnastics at it's best. Over the 12 months of chaos and unrest. When have we have seen the thugs follow any law!? They beat fellow classmates, they intimidate police chief's daughter, they tried to derailed trains, they throw large items of bridges (an act of mass murder). They even burn people, and murder by stoning poor uncle Law to death.

Yep. In his mind, they are law abiding citizens. That takes some mind gymnastics of the Nadia Comaneci and Nellie Kim vintage variety.
I rest my case your honor.... Or in other words 無你咁好氣 :rolleyes:
 

Mr T

Senior Member
Over the 12 months of chaos and unrest. When have we have seen the thugs follow any law!?

There have been hundreds of thousands, potentially over a million, HK people protesting since it all kicked off. How many of them were acting violently? A small percentage.

Yep. In his mind, they are law abiding citizens.

The ones that didn't hurt anyone were law-abiding. I find it weird that you struggle with that concept.

I mean, this is from the pro-HK government SCMP.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"What struck me about the recent Hong Kong protests was the orderliness despite the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. The absence of litter and images of crowds parting to let an ambulance through were impressive. A civic sense guided the protesters even as a few took to violence after the more recent rallies.

...

Protesters in Hong Kong see themselves as custodians of their hometown, a sense of responsibility that extends to other aspects of life – on escalators, people stand aside to give way to others and, on the MTR, those wishing to enter wait for passengers to exit. Public property and utilities in Hong Kong are dependable and well maintained. There is a symbiosis between the government, which maintains and provides utilities, and the people, who use them with consideration."


Or even this article rather than opinion piece, which literally referred to the protest as being peaceful.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As I think has been tirelessly pointed out, no one on this forum has ever said there was no violence, and it's clear that violence at the protests increased over time.

But what is morally repugnant is the idea that:

Because a minority of protesters were violent, all protesters should be seen as violent
And as such, it's justifiable to challenge any of the protesters physically
And if someone wants to challenge the protesters, they can break the law
And if such a group of people decide to break the law, it's ok for them to attack uninvolved civilians on their way home purely on the basis that suspected protesters might have been amongst them

Which leads to the absurd situation of people who sing the virtues of law-and-order seeking to justify mobsters terrorising members of the public on the HK mass transit system.

mind gymnastics

The only double-standards here are from those people who have justified the Yuen Long attacks because they were done by people whose interests vaguely align with the HK government and were done to intimidate the public to not back the protests.
 
Last edited:

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
There have been hundreds of thousands, potentially over a million, HK people protesting since it all kicked off. How many of them were acting violently? A small percentage.



The ones that didn't hurt anyone were law-abiding. I find it weird that you struggle with that concept.

I mean, this is from the pro-HK government SCMP.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"What struck me about the recent Hong Kong protests was the orderliness despite the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. The absence of litter and images of crowds parting to let an ambulance through were impressive. A civic sense guided the protesters even as a few took to violence after the more recent rallies.

...

Protesters in Hong Kong see themselves as custodians of their hometown, a sense of responsibility that extends to other aspects of life – on escalators, people stand aside to give way to others and, on the MTR, those wishing to enter wait for passengers to exit. Public property and utilities in Hong Kong are dependable and well maintained. There is a symbiosis between the government, which maintains and provides utilities, and the people, who use them with consideration."


Or even this article rather than opinion piece, which literally referred to the protest as being peaceful.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As I think has been tirelessly pointed out, no one on this forum has ever said there was no violence, and it's clear that violence at the protests increased over time.

But what is morally repugnant is the idea that:

Because a minority of protesters were violent, all protesters should be seen as violent
And as such, it's justifiable to challenge any of the protesters physically
And if someone wants to challenge the protesters, they can break the law
And if such a group of people decide to break the law, it's ok for them to attack uninvolved civilians on their way home purely on the basis that suspected protesters might have been amongst them

Which leads to the absurd situation of people who sing the virtues of law-and-order seeking to justify mobsters terrorising members of the public on the HK mass transit system.

The only double-standards here are from those people who have justified the Yuen Long attacks because they were done by people whose interests vaguely align with the HK government and were done to intimidate the public to not back the protests.
If any one of them ever disobeyed a police order to disperse or gathered at an unlawful assembly, they are criminals. If they damaged anything, they are vandals. They may not have committed assault with the intent to murder like the terrorists shooting arrows or throwing molotovs, but they are petty criminals nonetheless and deserve to be subdued with as much violence as they bring upon themselves while resisting.
 

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
have been hundreds of thousands, potentially over a million, HK people protesting since it all kicked off. How many of them were acting violently? A small percentage.

The ones that didn't hurt anyone were law-abiding. I find it weird that you struggle with that concept.

I mean, this is from the pro-HK government SCMP.

Ok. I will debate with you.

You said thousands, heck even hundreds of thousands are law abiding protestors in Hong Kong.

Yes. But we are not talking about these people. The people we are talking about the ones that comes out destroying properties, beating up old folks. Using Molotov cocktails, catapults bows and arrows.

And these people mingled with hundred of thousands of other protestors. Heck these hundred of thousands even provide protection for them. So they can melt back into the crowd after they done their deeds.
Remember the motto? Be like water!

So, if you think these hundreds of thousands are innocent victims here. You're either:
Delusional, naive or have mental gymnastics capabilities of the Olga korbet variety.

With regards to the "triads". One thing you still unable to answer is this.

Why should these "demonstrators" moved into an area of Hong Kong, that's been peaceful and away from any disturbances thus far? In doing so, ain't they being provocative? (It just like the orange marches in the UK, and people view them as provocative.)

And I take it you are not Chinese or are you from Hong Kong. Otherwise you would have known yung long Is quite a remote part of Hong Kong. It is possibly the further most from the centre of Hong kong. It is only a few miles from the Chinese border. And with histories of opposing British rules.

Also, during the "demonstration" some the protestors broke off from the main group and change their clothing. CCTV footage capture all these "innocents" activities. And these thugs started their path of destruction. They even set fire to buildings. Afterward, they got change again and melted back into the main demonstration.

It is all organised, and some of the main demonstrators are accomplices. The "triads" didn't ask them to be there. And if they weren't there, we would have nothing to discuss. The facts they were there, and locals "triads" reacted the way the did. It's quite restrained. Let's not forget one big details here. Unlike the thugs, where they have to hide their faces. The "triads" locals did not. So you have got to ask yourself. Why not?
 

supersnoop

Major
Registered Member
One theory I heard with regards to triads, perhaps someone more well informed can elaborate, is that it was used as an excuse to pick on Fujianese (Hokkien) people since there are ties to organized crime (Like Italians and Sicily). Even if they are not criminals, they are generally seen as CCP supporters. Rioters later went on to destroy/vandalize Fujianese owned businesses like Best Mart 360 and Fulum Group restaurants.

Perhaps Taiwanese should be more weary of how the rioters see their cousins from across the strait.

Ironically, I just realized this. Many of the rioters used "Chinazi", yet their excuse for destroying those stores amounts to the threat of "Jewish Bolshevism" as theorized by a infamous man with a peculiar mustache.
 
Last edited:

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
This is just me sick. A local councillor for over 20 years. She should no better. Yet she got off almost scotch free thanks to western judge.

She been given 28 days prison sentence suspended for the 12 months. That's some justice for doxxing.

20200326143322144480contentPhoto1.jpg


Hong Kong / Law and Crime

Hong Kong protests: district councillor who doxxed police officer ‘thankful’ after getting suspended sentence

Cheng Lai-king, of the Central and Western District Council, had posted the name and details of officer accused of shooting Indonesian reporter in the eyeJudge agreed with prosecutors that her position as a public office holder made her more culpable, saying ‘greater care’ should have been expected of her

Topic | Doxxing and cyberbullying

Jasmine Siu

Published: 4:17pm, 19 Oct, 2020

Rest of the article:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top