This part is clearly talking about older incidents. I just googled it and that was from a previous article published in Jan 22nd. Did you really miss this parts in the beginning of the article where it says the items were dual use but no mention of what the items were, or the fact that it was one ship, or the name of the ship and its owner having not been determined, or the fact that the the WSJ reached out to both Iranian and Chinese foreign ministries for comment and got nothing in return?
Trump 2.0 official thread
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
No, I did not miss that. Since those ships have been going back and forth for about a year now, as widely reported, my assumption was that this is simply the latest example of the aforementioned. There is ample precedent, and the WSJ editors clearly saw fit to frame this latest incident in that context. On the other hand, what evidence or precedent do you have for your assertion that they are Chinese ships and property? Anything at all?
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
1. If you are under the assumption that the ships name and ownership are not known, why are you chimping up and down about how China needs to respond? Where did this assumption come from? "Do nothing when someone boards your ships and confiscates your property."
2. The sentence right under that says, "It isn’t clear if the Chinese government is aware of shipments to Iran’s missile program, which are often carried out by Iranian-controlled vessels and companies."
I don't have any evidence that this was a Chinese ship or an Iranian ship, but you carried out the argument in a dishonest manner just so you support the holy book's narrative. That part is clear to me. I guess we won't know now since the foreign ministries of both parties decided to sweep the who incident under the rug as usual.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
You are the one who assumed they were Chinese ships without evidence and used that to mock China's non-response, then when someone else pointed to evidence that strongly suggests they are Iranian and not Chinese, you accused him of being dishonest just because that evidence falls slightly short of concrete proof.
Buddy, I was replying to you. Your claim right here:
You have some nerve to accuse me of dishonesty right after admitting you have zero substantiation for your claim.
On Friday the 12th, President Trump proudly announced on Truth Social that Thailand and Cambodia had agreed to return to their ceasefire under his mediation:
Thai PM Anutin Charnvirakul not only denied Trump's claim of a renewed peace, but openly defied the "Leader of the Free World" in both word and :
Either Charnvirakul learned nothing from before Trump, or he hopes standing up to Daddy Donald will somehow .
. . . a little bit later . . .
Thai PM Anutin Charnvirakul not only denied Trump's claim of a renewed peace, but openly defied the "Leader of the Free World" in both word and :
Either Charnvirakul learned nothing from before Trump, or he hopes standing up to Daddy Donald will somehow .
That could still trigger a direct US military response. Until Washington recognises Beijing’s hegemony in Asia, the US Navy maintains the upper hand on the high seas (excluding the First Island Chain). In other words, the US Navy still has the edge in seizing Chinese commercial vessels on the high seas so long it occurs outside the range of possible nearby PLA naval assets. And of course, since China has virtually only two overseas bases, it would be impossible for the PLA Navy escort all of its commercial vessels. Unless China could somehow increase the number of overseas bases through Harry Potter’s magic wand, this will likely be a weakness for years to come.
A smarter retaliation may be to trigger some kinds of armoury explosion (or malware-induced industrial accident at TSMC or UMC) on Taiwan through sabotage that contains US-made weapons. It sends a message that Beijing would retaliate but not directly against the US (deep state gets the message without Orange feeling insulted).
The PRC could very well turn Taiwan into a punching bag the way North Korea is doing against South Korea. There is a famous NK joke that states, “whoever commits aggression against North Korea, North Korea always strike South Korea.” Maybe China can do the same to Taiwan (and Japan plus Philippines). Whoever conducts covert ops or other acts of aggression against China, China would do the same to Taiwan, especially DPP-affiliated organisations. Such retaliations could range from simple theft of trade secrets to assassinations and sabotage of critical infrastructures on the Island.
Last edited:
..