Violent Protests In Hong Kong.

Yurt2

greencap wrote: »

You can stop acting like a professor of Chinese history now.
I've watched as many history of Hong Kong youtube videos as you have (self-)professor.

You must have missed the videos about the handover negotiations so. I recommend authoritative books when it comes to these sort of things.

I have to laugh, someone comes at a thread with an extremely low level of knowledge about the topic at hand, goes off on one about 'boots on necks' and then the person who points out how desperately unknowledgeable they are is some sort of high and mighty 'professor.'

Just do some cursory reading before the next time you want to wade into a thread advocating police brutality.

greencap

Yurt! wrote: »

You must have missed the videos about the handover negotiations so. I recommend authoritative books when it comes to these sort of things.

I have to laugh, someone comes at a thread with an extremely low level of knowledge about the topic at hand, goes off on one about 'boots on necks' and then the person who points out how desperately unknowledgeable they are is some sort of high and mighty 'professor.'

Just do some cursory reading before the next time you want to wade into a thread advocating police brutality.

What detail have I missed out on that is pertinent and excuses Britain arriving and imposing itself on Chinese territory?

Will the color of pen used, or the people in the room at the time of a document signing really make a difference?

This is your distraction because the fundamental facts are that China is taking back what is theirs. Your lame counter to the greater issue is to tell me I need to read the same books you have read.

You can't argue the essential, relevant and important facts of the situation, so you run for cover in pedantry.

I advise you stay there.

Yurt2

greencap wrote: »

What detail have I missed out on that is pertinent and excuses Britain arriving and imposing itself on Chinese territory?

Will the color of pen used, or the people in the room at the time of a document signing really make a difference?

This is your distraction because the fundamental facts are that China is taking back what is theirs. Your lame counter to the greater issue is to tell me I need to read the same books you have read.

You can't argue the essential, relevant and important facts of the situation, so you run for cover in pedantry.

I advise you stay there.

You think that Britain coerced China into the one country two systems formulation in the declaration. Child of grace, that was Deng Xiaoping's (you know who he is right?) policy. Britain had Hong Kong Island (and Kowloon) in perpetuity and could have legally held it should they have wanted to defend it militarily, as the PRC took on the mantle of the successor state to the Qing Dynasty and their treaty obligations.

You don't have a clue. History isn't pedantry, it deals in facts. I'll say it again, you're wading in with a boner talking about boots on necks without the faintest idea what you're on about.

greencap

Yurt! wrote: »

You think that Britain coerced China into the one country two systems formulation in the declaration. Child of grace, that was Deng Xiaoping's (you know who he is right?) policy. Britain had Hong Kong Island (and Kowloon) in perpetuity, and could have legally held it should they wanted to defend it militarily, as the PRC took on the mantle of the successor state to the Qing Dynasty and their treaty obligations.

You don't have a clue. History isn't pedantry, it deals in facts. I'll say it again, you're wading in with a boner talking about boots on necks without the faintest idea what you're on about.

After the war the PRC stopped its territorial drive short of Hong Kong in order to not have any trouble with the UK and its husband the US.

They were intimidated by the prospect of trouble with the west, it wasn't worth re-taking the lands in question given the tiny size and the unforeseeable political implications.

Also given that the new territories were on the books for '97 it all added up to a compromise being the smart move.

This post-war fear of still relatively powerful ex-colonial powers forced China into compromise. They dared not take back what was rightly theirs just quite yet.

Post 97, China was growing stronger, becoming relatively more powerful and confident, but still they were smart enough to not jump the gun just yet.

So China compromised, and the UK upon realizing that China would hand them their asses if it really came down to it, also compromised. And so 'One country two systems' everyones a winner.

Britain is allowed to gracefully slide its tentacle out, so saving some face, and China is allowed to gradually take back its own lands. How kind.

2019 - And the UK, even with its bull the US, doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of invading, the 'agreement' is pretty much crumpled up and tossed.

Your salty tears result. Because you only look at the end part of the story.

Britain had Hong Kong Island (and Kowloon) in perpetuity, and could have legally held it should they wanted to defend it militarily

Well no, we all know what would have happened to a tiny island on the edge of Chinese territory, thousands of miles from Britain had China decided to just take it.
A master of history such as yourself should know that Britain couldn't even hold it against a 1940's Japanese expeditionary force, let alone Chinas mammoth 20th/21st century military.

Yurt2

You hadn't even heard of the Sino-British Joint Declaration until a few hours ago. You were wrong, I know it's tough, just have the good grace to admit it. Never write a history book, because that made for terrible reading. The declaration was signed in '84 for your information, not '97, another little factoid you missed in your furious Wikipedia scramble to save face.

No one is advocating for a British invasion of Hong Kong btw, lay off the LSD. The only tears are for your murdering of context and history. I wish I could put a boot on the neck of that.

greencap

Yurt! wrote: »

You hadn't even heard of the Sino-British Joint Declaration until a few hours ago. Never write a history book, because that made for terrible reading. The declaration was signed in '84 for your information, not '97, another little factoid you missed in your furious Wikipedia scramble to save face.

No one is advocating for a British invasion of Hong Kong btw, lay off the LSD. The only tears are for your murdering of context and history. I wish I could put a boot on the neck of that.

Well no, you asserted that I hadn't heard of the sino-British agreement until a few hours ago. That doesn't make it true. I watched the handover in 97. So kind of difficult for me not to have known.

The declaration was signed in '84 for your information, not '97

Well, ok ... whatever.
Again, your pedantry is just a distraction.

When you can tell me why China fully re-integrating part of their territory post foreign imperialism is a bad thing maybe I'll listen.

But you can't so you'll just intentionally confuse China's sins with this case of a nation fully taking back what is and always was rightfully theirs.

Looking forward to your best seller.

Yurt2

greencap wrote: »

its right to exercise its own laws on its own lands are indisputable.

Is that document an agreement with Albion?

I wonder what right the British had to force the declaration on China in the first place.

Evidence of your ignorance of said declaration and its contents over the course the last few hours. You didn’t have a bean.

PS, when you're attempting to give a chronology of a significant historical event like the declaration (particularly when you're going for credibility), it's advisable to get the year it was signed correct.

greencap

Yurt! wrote: »

Evidence of your ignorance of said declaration and its contents over the course the last few hours. You didn’t have a bean.

PS, when you're attempting to give a chronology of a significant historical event like the declaration (particularly when you're going for credibility), it's advisable to get the year it was signed correct.

Well I had the meat and veg, and half a bean.

You decided to focus on my half bean.

The story usually runs along the same lines when it comes to decolonization. You don't actually have to get anal about dates. Especially not when you're just on a forum.
A thesis isn't necessary to point out that the butthurt being cried about now is just an easily foreseeable, and inevitable consequence of decisions that were made in the 40's/50's as the peoples republic rolled towards the border of Britains colony.

How some people can be so light-speed naive to be shocked and whinging at this late stage is what surprises me.
Especially those who claim to know about history.

How anyone could be in HK post hand over and not clearly know that a strategically patient China was going to eventually do wtf it pleases, and with intentional, high profile, defiant, disregard to an agreement with ex-colonists is hilarious.

It was right there. You may as well loudly and publicly announce that the bouncer will not throw you out of the club, because you say so.

The audacity.

its right to exercise its own laws on its own lands are indisputable.

And it is. You'll be talking to yourself or a rifle butt.

Is that document an agreement with Albion?

And it was. You understand sarcasm.

I wonder what right the British had to force the declaration on China in the first place.

How many nations in history have found themselves volunteering a declaration with a nation on the other side of the planet for the craic of it.

Yurt2

You thought, on hearing about the declaration, that Britain 'coerced' China into it (that's an upsidedown view of events to be kind). Saying that their rights to impose laws in HK is indisputable (they're not - not in the Basic Law of Hong Kong or the UN deposited treaty). Stop playing silly games here, you're not operating off knowledge or even an objective view of the facts.

You're more interested in wading in, cheerleading violence on protestors. Which is fair enough if that's how you get your kicks, but don't pretend when you logged in today you knew what you were talking about.

greencap

Yurt! wrote: »

You thought, on hearing about the declaration, that Britain 'coerced' China into it (that's an upsidedown view of events to be kind). Saying that their rights to impose laws in HK is indisputable (they're not - not in the Basic Law of Hong Kong or the UN deposited treaty). Stop playing silly games here, you're not operating off knowledge or even an objective view of the facts.

You're more interested in wading in, cheerleading violence on protestors. Which fair enough if that's how you get your kicks, but don't pretend when you logged in today you knew what you were talking about.

'Defacto' look it up some time.

The UN. lol.

Oh no, Hans Brix.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc22CFhDBEM

Yurt2

If I needed de facto explained to me, I wouldn't plug defacto into google, that'sforsure [see what I did there?].

How is their 'indisputable right' to impose whatever law they like in HK going at the moment? It's not looking very de facto, nor de jure.

China big, Hong Kong small. We get it.

greencap

Yurt! wrote: »

If I needed de facto explained to me, I wouldn't plug defacto into google, that'sforsure [see what I did there?].

How is their 'indisputable right' to impose whatever law they like in HK going at the moment? It's not looking very de facto, nor de jure.

China big, Hong Kong small. We get it.

Did you seriously just question a typo? A missing space. Wow. Jesus.

These are not two separate entities, its not China big HK small, its all just China.

They're having their little catharsis at the moment, and the media are eating it up ... for now. Its scheduled. Let them wear themselves out throwing their toys.

Have them ready for beddy byes* in time for the 70th anniversary in a few weeks.


*Beddy-byes.

Yurt2

greencap wrote: »

Did you seriously just question a typo? A missing space. Wow. Jesus.

These are not two separate entities, its not China big HK small, its all just China.

They're having their little catharsis at the moment, and the media are eating it up ... for now. Its scheduled. Let them wear themselves out throwing their toys.

Have them ready for beddy byes* in time for the 70th anniversary in a few weeks.


*Beddy-byes.

When you're being a smart*rse dropping Latin in a post saying 'look it up sometime,' it helps to be accurate, particularly when you're displaying a weak handle on the content of the thread.

'It's all China' You sound like an undercooked Chinese nationalist shouting 'One China!' on the street as if it constitutes an arguement. One China, two systems was and is the bedrock of the handover, the de facto and de jure political and legal arrangement, and it's being fatally undermined by Beijing's behaviour. This problem isn't going away for China, and Taiwan is looking on. They've lost Hong Kong's trust, and any intervention, military or otherwise, will see their international reputation in the toilet (it's merely hovering over the lid at the moment).

greencap

Yurt! wrote: »

When you're being a smart*rse dropping Latin in a post saying 'look it up sometime,' it helps to be accurate, particularly when you're displaying a weak handle on the content of the thread.

'It's all China' You sound like an undercooked Chinese nationalist shouting 'One China!' on the street as if it constitutes an arguement. One China, two systems was and is the bedrock of the handover, the de facto and de jure political and legal arrangement, and it's being fatally undermined by Beijing's behaviour. This problem isn't going away for China, and Taiwan is looking on. They've lost Hong Kong's trust, and any intervention, military or otherwise, will see their international reputation in the toilet (it's merely hovering over the lid at the moment).

But the Chinese nationalist is right in this regard. China has no moral obligation to follow the rules of people who came and took their land.
I don't want to use an analogy now, as its awkward, but I must.

If I take your car from you, only to have you catch up with me and pull me from the seat do you think that a negotiated return of your property is really appropriate.
Would you really stick to the terms of our negotiated return as you drove off? Am I morally in the right when I call you up and remind you that you did agree not to go over 55, I mean you did freely agree that, and your breach of this agreement is ruinous to your reputation. I have the signature to prove it.

Two systems expires in the bullsht contract sense in 2047 anyway. The whole thing is shambolic, I think China have been patient enough at this stage.
Their own humiliating Gibraltar right on their coast, yet gigantic military, economic and diplomatic power at their fingertips.
An historical injustice to correct, every reason in the world to send out a giant 'fck you' to Britain by tearing up this ''agreement'', in real terms the job is half finished already, and its set to be done in any case by 2047.
China's restraint has been pretty impressive on this.

But it seems Xi has the place down for the 70th anniversary, so the party is over. There's no fighting that tide, the people in HK should be reasonable, consider history, how their prior environment came to into being in the first place and whether or not China is willing to cave on the global stage after centuries of pursuing its goal. Time to get with it.

Yurt2

greencap wrote: »

But the Chinese nationalist is right in this regard. China has no moral obligation to follow the rules of people who came and took their land.
I don't want to use an analogy now, as its awkward, but I must.

If I take your car from you, only to have you catch up with me and pull me from the seat do you think that a negotiated return of your property is really appropriate.
Would you really stick to the terms of our negotiated return as you drove off? Am I morally in the right when I call you up and remind you that you did agree not to go over 55, I mean you did freely agree that, and your breach of this agreement is ruinous to your reputation. I have the signature to prove it.

Two systems expires in the bullsht contract sense in 2047 anyway. The whole thing is shambolic, I think China have been patient enough at this stage.
Their own humiliating Gibraltar right on their coast, yet gigantic military, economic and diplomatic power at their fingertips.
An historical injustice to correct, every reason in the world to send out a giant 'fck you' to Britain by tearing up this ''agreement'', in real terms the job is half finished already, and its set to be done in any case by 2047.
China's restraint has been pretty impressive on this.

But it seems Xi has the place down for the 70th anniversary, so the party is over. There's no fighting that tide, the people in HK should be reasonable, consider history, how their prior environment came to into being in the first place and whether or not China is willing to cave on the global stage after centuries of pursuing its goal. Time to get with it.

If they accelerate the process, they can kiss Taiwan goodbye, for forever probably. What you're speaking of is the deathknell of the one-China, two systems policy - meant originally to coax Taipei into the fold. It's not 'a bull**** contract,' it's been the cornerstone of the China unity policy in Beijing for decades, and Xi is pissing on it in his hubris. He's staking his political reputation on HK, and he'll look all-powerful until a clique in the standing committee turn on him. There is blatantly a fight in HK, and they won't go quietly.

Britain is long gone from HK, I don't understand the obsession. What cant be undone by Beijing is the way of life and freedoms they are accustomed to. All that is left is Hong Kongers and their will not to be subjugated. And to repeat, 1C2S isn't a British idea, but a Chinese one. You're playing 'Western bogeyman' game better than a party cadre. This is their commitment to the Hong Kongese, not London's.

Sow the storm...

And by the way, parts of Russia (modern-day Vladivostok for instance) were part of Qing Dynasty China up until the 19th century, and it lost them in an 'unequal treaty' to Moscow. One wonders why modern Chinese ultra-nationalists don't bellyache about those lands? (In fact, some on Chinese social media do, but ultimately know they don't have the same appetite to pick a fight with Russia as they do the West).

greencap

Yurt! wrote: »

If they accelerate the process, they can kiss Taiwan goodbye, for forever probably. What you're speaking of is the deathknell of the one-China, two systems policy - meant originally to coax Taipei into the fold. It's not 'a bull**** contract,' it's been the cornerstone of the China unity policy in Beijing for decades, and Xi is pissing on it in his hubris. He's staking his political reputation on HK, and he'll look all-powerful until a clique in the standing committee turn on him. There is blatantly a fight in HK, and they won't go quietly.

Britain is long gone from HK, I don't understand the obsession. What cant be undone by Beijing is the way of life and freedoms they are accustomed to. All that is left is Hong Kongers and their will not to be subjugated. And to repeat, 1C2S isn't a British idea, but a Chinese one. You're playing 'Western bogeyman' game better than a party cadre. This is their commitment to the Hong Kongese, not London's.

Sow the storm...

And by the way, parts of Russia (modern-day Vladivostok for instance) were part of Qing Dynasty China up until the 19th century, and it lost them in an 'unequal treaty' to Moscow. One wonders why modern Chinese ultra-nationalists don't bellyache about those lands? (In fact, some on Chinese social media do, but ultimately know they don't have the same appetite to pick a fight with Russia as they do the West).

Not much odds of Taiwan rejoining China in any case I would think.
I don't think anything to do with HK is going to push that issue very far in either direction.

I suspect Xi wants to be seen to piss on the ''agreement''. The US pisses on international diplomacy, Europeans piss on diplomacy, Russians piss on diplomacy. Its a message to all the world ... 'what are you going to do about it'.

Of course they won't go quietly, they'll make noise for a while. And then they'll start to make slightly less noise. And we'll tire of hearing about it.

And of course theres less appetite to fight with Russia. A lot of the time might equates with right. It just sohappens that in HK's case China is not only on the right side of that rather boorish equation, but also is on the right side of history.
I can understand how in short term thinking, in terms of decades or years they come off as the bad guys, but thats just the superficial appearance.

Yurt2

greencap wrote: »

Not much odds of Taiwan rejoining China in any case I would think.
I don't think anything to do with HK is going to push that issue very far in either direction.

I suspect Xi wants to be seen to piss on the ''agreement''. The US pisses on international diplomacy, Europeans piss on diplomacy, Russians piss on diplomacy. Its a message to all the world ... 'what are you going to do about it'.

Of course they won't go quietly, they'll make noise for a while. And then they'll start to make slightly less noise. And we'll tire of hearing about it.

And of course theres less appetite to fight with Russia. A lot of the time might equates with right. It just sohappens that in HK's case China is not only on the right side of that rather boorish equation, but also is on the right side of history.
I can understand how in short term thinking, in terms of decades or years they come off as the bad guys, but thats just the superficial appearance.

The Taiwanese independence movement, stronger now and with more momentum than ever. Congratulations Mr Xi. If you don't think this HK situation affects Taiwan's calculations, I'll say it again bruv, you don't know China or the intricacies of this.


HK calls for greater autonomy, the Chinese diaspora becoming a major battleground for the whole affair. This will be Xi's legacy.


As for China being on the right side of history? Pffft, only if jackboots, kidnapping, unfair trials, and widespread censorship gets you sexually aroused.

dwayneshintzy

greencap, you're talking absolute ****e. The idea that the people of Hong Kong should have no say in how they are governed or the freedoms that they hold is ridiculous. You're talking as if you're an expert on these protests, yet you're also spouting ****e about them being foreign led. You been down to any, aye?

Most Hongkongers feel little allegiance to mainland China and the Communist Party, in a similar way to the citizens of Taiwan. These are popular protests with a very legitimate aim and grievance.

Yurt2

And as if to buttress my point, President of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen came out this week and said that what is happening in HK proves the futility of 1C2S.

Xi almost certainly ensured her reelection ahead of the formerly dominant (soft pro-Beijing) KMT. Notably, Beijing spent a lot of time money and effort trying to influence last year's Taiwanese local elections (with some success). He's handed the DPP victory for at least a couple of cycles and impetus to the independence movement.

Nice work XiDaDa. The CIA couldn't have done a better job.

http://m.focustaiwan.tw/news/aipl/201908200010.aspx

ILoveYourVibes

But the Chinese nationalist is right in this regard. China has no moral obligation to follow the rules of people who came and took their land.
I don't want to use an analogy now, as its awkward, but I must.

Cantonese speaking HongKongers did not steal Chinese people's land.

pauldla

Yurt! wrote: »

And as if to buttress my point, President of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen came out this week and said that what is happening in HK proves the futility of 1C2S.

Xi almost certainly ensured her reelection ahead of the formerly dominant (soft pro-Beijing) KMT. Notably, Beijing spent a lot of time money and effort trying to influence last year's Taiwanese local elections (with some success). He's handed the DPP victory for at least a couple of cycles and impetus to the independence movement.

Nice work XiDaDa. The CIA couldn't have done a better job.

http://m.focustaiwan.tw/news/aipl/201908200010.aspx

I've thought before that the CCP might regret moving away from DXP's legacy (hide your strength & bide your time, don't get involved with foreign entanglements, two terms limit etc).

greencap

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

greencap, you're talking absolute ****e. The idea that the people of Hong Kong should have no say in how they are governed or the freedoms that they hold is ridiculous. You're talking as if you're an expert on these protests, yet you're also spouting ****e about them being foreign led. You been down to any, aye?

Most Hongkongers feel little allegiance to mainland China and the Communist Party, in a similar way to the citizens of Taiwan. These are popular protests with a very legitimate aim and grievance.

Digressive strawman horsesht.

Take your pointless excuse for a post and pack it tightly.
I don't care if most of the people in HK feel little allegiance, they're on Chinese land.

You been down to any, aye?

how fantastically stupid.

Its posts like this that make me thank heaven that I can dispense with the deeper reasoning and simply resort to bringing up the fact that those boots are going to march right in, over any idiot who gets in the way, and theres not one tiny thing that can be done about it. I hope you get to watch it live with salty tears streaming down your little pink cheeks.

ILoveYourVibes

I want to make a point.

Its clear from History that the Chinese people themselves object to the govt system from things like Tienanmen Sq etc.

If the Chinese people themselves were aware of the situation and were allowed to communicate freely online and had freedom of assembly they themselves would be objecting to the govt.

But they are oppressed and they can't.

greencap

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Cantonese speaking HongKongers did not steal Chinese people's land.

But someone did.

ILoveYourVibes

greencap wrote: »

But someone did.

Hong Kong belongs to the people who live there. Hong Kongers belong to themselves.

Besides life was much better for them under the British. When you compare to how China was its clear.

Yurt2

greencap wrote: »

But someone did.

By treaty, at the barrel of a gun, against a corrupt and crumbling Qing Dynasty, in the mists of time.

The big bad bogeymen imperialists are gone - replaced by a venal and capricious 'communist party' elite who's spoiled brat kids are driving around cities like Vancouver and San Francisco in Maseratis waving the hongqi chanting nationalist slogans and trying to silence people abroad like they do at home. And you for some reason are supporting it.

Because... Brits?

greencap

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Hong Kong belongs to the people who live there. Hong Kongers belong to themselves.

Besides life was much better for them under the British. When you compare to how China was its clear.

And thats where some people keep getting it wrong.
Its not about whether the Chinese govt are nasty people, or Taiwan, or censorship, or even punctuation errors.

You don't have to be a nice person/govt to be on the right side of justice.

Yurt2

Edited because there's no point. Yerman clearly has an obsession with authoritarianism. Whatever, sad to see.

Kimsang

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I want to make a point.
Its clear from History that the Chinese people themselves object to the govt system from things like Tienanmen Sq etc.

If the Chinese people themselves were aware of the situation and were allowed to communicate freely online and had freedom of assembly they themselves would be objecting to the govt.

But they are oppressed and they can't.

Really this is 3 good points...:mad:

Seems a lot of people around here are completely ignorant of Orwell's 1984. Coincidentally 1984 is also the year that the British agreed to give Hong Kong back to China in 1997.

greencap

Yurt! wrote: »

Edited because there's no point. Yerman clearly has an obsession with authoritarianism. Whatever, sad to see.

Yerman?