Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

China is looking more like Nazi Germany


Recommended Posts

https://www.thetelegraph.com/news/article/China-signals-plan-to-take-full-control-of-Hong-15285627.php

There are videos showing the Pro-CCP 'lawmakers' are forcing Hong Kong supporters out of their parliament (or the equivalent). China is systemically taking over Hong Kong and converting it to Chinese style rule.  If there was a land connection between China and Taiwan, they would have already taken it over.

Quote

Local media in Hong Kong, including the South China Morning Post, reported Thursday that Beijing will pass a comprehensive national security law in Hong Kong by fiat, bypassing the city's legislature and chief executive.

The law, which will target subversive activity, appears to be a tailored response to last year's pro-democracy uprising - which Beijing blamed on secessionist forces and foreign influence. The unrest was sparked by a government proposal to allow extraditions to mainland China, but grew into a broader rebellion calling for full democracy and opposing China's efforts to chip away at Hong Kong's firewall with the mainland.

Wang did not elaborate on what "improvement" meant. But he also referred to the Chinese territory of Macao, a gambling hub where open displays of political dissent are rare and where most leaders tow Beijing's line.

Don't kid yourself, China only wants one nation, one rule of law.  However I don't think anyone is going to step in and push back on China. So they will continue this path.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/21/asia/hong-kong-npc-article-23-intl-hnk/index.html

Quote
Article 23 of Basic Law -- Hong Kong's de facto constitution -- calls on the local government to "enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government." Though past Hong Kong administrations have spoken of a need to pass Article 23, it has never been put on the agenda, apparently for fear of the type of widespread unrest seen last year over a proposed extradition law with China.
Those mass protests, which lasted over six months and grew increasingly violent and disruptive before the coronavirus pandemic drew them to a partial halt, were a major challenge to Beijing's control over the city. Following a closed-door meeting of China's top political body late last year, an official communique spoke of the need to "improve" Hong Kong's legal system, which some saw as a reference to Article 23.
Dennis Kwok, a pro-democracy lawmaker from Hong Kong's legislative body, told CNN after hearing of the proposal: "It is the end of 'One Country, Two Systems'. Completely destroying Hong Kong."

And I doubt any other nation is going to do or be able to do a damn thing about it.

 

Hong Kong is dead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably  NWO...but do indulge me ...and let me play devil's advocate for the sake of discussion. Revolutions start like this. Crushing Hong Kong with either a slow choke hold or a sledge hammer will cause an adverse reaction. That reaction has a ripple effect that starts off as a tiny drop in a dam wall but escalates into a larger leak not necessarily visible and then eventually the wall collapses. 

China is trying to plug a hole using a drill that may be making the hole bigger. Time will tell but Hong Kong mayb create a a domino effect.

With that in mind I suggest,  If China can not regulate it's wet markets, don't be so sure it can regulate its people as strong as you think it can. 

Chinese history illustrates examples of many invincible empires  think they  could live on forever but collapsed.

 

Edited by Rue
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

China has concentration camps for people they don't like.  They don't need any other way to emulate Nazi Germany.

Edited by bcsapper
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Rue said:

...Time will tell but Hong Kong mayb create a a domino effect...

Your premise here is simply not based in, logic, as it disregarded 1)Russia's [and India's, to lesser degree] effect on any domino sitting just west of the antimeridian. And 2)the place in question here is officially called Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China for a good reason ---which allows evil China the right to purge Hong Kong Parliament members at will.

Edited by Tdot
Link to post
Share on other sites

Margret Thatcher has failed the people of Hong Kong.

 

Hong Kong could have been transferred to the Republic of China (Taiwan), which is the direct successor to the Qinq Dynasty, which leased the land to the British in the first place. In addition, the Hong Kong people should have been given right to self determination to choose their own destiny.

Edited by -1=e^ipi
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, xul said:

Nothing like Nazi Germany....its size is as large as US or USSR....

Tibetans  says : This is our land. 

China says, no, it's ours.

Taiwan says : This is our land

China says, no, this is ours.

Hong Kong says : this is our land

China says : Nah, this is part of China now.

Very similar to Nazi Germany.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tdot said:

...the place in question here is officially called Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China for a good reason...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2020 at 8:43 AM, -1=e^ipi said:

Margret Thatcher has failed the people of Hong Kong.

 

Hong Kong should have been transferred to the Republic of China (Taiwan), which is the direct successor to the Qinq Dynasty, which leased the land to the British in the first place.

Britain had no legal authority to do that.  Issues as two recognizing  another nation's legitimate ruler are complex but in the case of Taiwan  could not be unilaterally decided by the UK. It had nothing to do with China and everything to do with international law and its concept of sovereignty.

Legally,  Taiwa  and China are defacto separate states with equal rights to separate sovereignty.  So any discussion as to whether either state should rule the other is between those two nations and the international world must remain neutral. If  China tried to force rule on Taiwan or vice versa that would in law be equally as wrong at this point in time.

As for Hong Kong if they argued they want to be a separate nation from China like Singapore did or join with Taiwan which no Hong Kong citizen necessarily argues they want to do, or remain with mainland China but with a free trade zone is a matter ultimately Hong Kong citizens must decide and that will entail dealing with their government.

Decisions as to who rules a nation in law should come from its citizens. The concept of sovereignty says countries have equal rights and so invading them to side with or impose a government is illegal.

Technically in regards to recognizing Taiwan's Nationalist government not the Maoists as the rightful ruler of China, this  is no longer up to a foreign government to decide.

De  facto conditions  or on-going reality if uninterupted even if not agreed to leads to legal rights and status in international law. It is akin to property rights. If you squat on property you do not own uninterupted for more than 5 years, you gain legal right to it since the rightful owner made no effort to get it back.

So because Taiwan never attempted to physically  regain mainland  China it  lost it's right to claim sovereignty over it and vice versa with China's mainland government to physically retake Taiwan.

That may not make sense to you but its why nations can support Taiwan if she is attacked defend herself but can not join Taiwan in an unprovoked war to take back China.

As for Hong Kong the treaty did not give the UK any right to decide which government in China to give back the Hong  Kong the land to only the one adjacent to Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is legally Chinese. Hong Kong in that treaty was defined as a geographic territory not it's people and it defined the government it was leased from not with a specific type of government only the geographic area where Hong Kong was detached from. Hong Kong was never attached to Taiwan.

Further commplicating matters, Taiwan had a government before Chang Hai Shek and his Nationalist Party fled there and took it over. Neither Nationalists or Communists had a superior right over the other  to rule China or Taiwan, now they do from uninterupted rule.

Edited for typos.

Edited by Rue
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Rue said:

Britain had no legal authority to do that.

I never made any claim about legal authority, nor did I suggest other countries should attack China or whatever else you have falsely inferred from what I wrote. I only pointed out that Margret Thatcher made a mistake. The Hong Kong people should have been given the right to self determination instead, to choose if they want to be independence, or be part of the PRC or ROC.

Also, you do not specify which legal system you are referring to. There are many legals systems in the world with their own interpretations as to who has the legal authority to do what.

 

24 minutes ago, Rue said:

Legally,  Taiwa  and China are defacto separate states with equal rights to separate sovereignty.  So any discussion as to whether either state should rule the other is between those two nations and the international world must remain neutral.

Yes... the very neutral world. Almost all of which consists of commie appeasers who refuse to recognize Taiwan as a country, including our current government.

 

25 minutes ago, Rue said:

As for Hong Kong if they argued they want to be a separate nation from China like Singapore did or join with Taiwan which no Hong Kong citizen necessarily argues they want to do, or remain with mainland China but with a free trade zone is a matter ultimately Hong Kong citizens must decide and that will entail dealing with their government.

The Hong Kong people have no right to self determination under the so-called international UN law. That was stripped from them in 1972 under UN resolution 2908, upon the request by the PRC.

 

30 minutes ago, Rue said:

Hong Kong is legally Chinese. Ho g Ho g in that treat was defined as a geographic territory not it's people and it defined the government it was leased from not with a specific type of government only the geographic area where Hong Kong was detached from. Ho g Kong was never attached to Taiwan.

Hong Kong was transferred to the PRC by the UK under certain conditions, such as relative independence until 2047. All of this was done without consent of the governed. Given that the conditions of the transfer have been so strongly violated by the PRC, I think the UK and other countries should cease to recognize the transfer as valid, and put the city in a weird limbo state where its status unclear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, New World Disorder said:

Tibetans  says : This is our land. 

China says, no, it's ours.

Taiwan says : This is our land

China says, no, this is ours.

Hong Kong says : this is our land

China says : Nah, this is part of China now.

Very similar to Nazi Germany.

American aboriginal: What I'm standing on is our land!

British colonial pirate: What I'm holding is a gun..... 

Maybe the method isn't Nazi's at all but an universal value of human race?

 

You didn't understand what I tried to express:

Germany didn't lose ww2 just because its government wasn't politically correct.

If political-correctness always triumphed, today's Canadian PM should dress like this.....everyday:

trudeau-ceremonial-chief-20160304-topix.

If you knew how close Hitler was to win WW2 if he didn't committed a series of mistakes, and if you assumed that the country which Hitler ruled had the size and population like China, probably you would consider nowadays Canadian PM might wear uniform like this one:

npnuxxi0yydy.png

 

Edited by xul
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

I never made any claim about legal authority, nor did I suggest other countries should attack China or whatever else you have falsely inferred from what I wrote. I only pointed out that Margret Thatcher made a mistake. The Hong Kong people should have been given the right to self determination instead, to choose if they want to be independence, or be part of the PRC or ROC.

Also, you do not specify which legal system you are referring to. There are many legals systems in the world with their own interpretations as to who has the legal authority to do what.

 

Yes... the very neutral world. Almost all of which consists of commie appeasers who refuse to recognize Taiwan as a country, including our current government.

 

The Hong Kong people have no right to self determination under the so-called international UN law. That was stripped from them in 1972 under UN resolution 2908, upon the request by the PRC.

 

Hong Kong was transferred to the PRC by the UK under certain conditions, such as relative independence until 2047. All of this was done without consent of the governed. Given that the conditions of the transfer have been so strongly violated by the PRC, I think the UK and other countries should cease to recognize the transfer as valid, and put the city in a weird limbo state where its status unclear.

First, I inferred nothing of you. I was discussing why the land lease to Hong Kong provided no legal basis for the UK to have done what you suggest.  Second, claiming Thatcher made a mistake is illogical. The law predicated how the lease would end not her. She never drafted the lease.

In regards to Hong Kong's right to determine it's own government that is termed suffrage. Its right to sufferage or political independence can not be decided by the UN only the people of Hong Kong and the government they may wish to cede from.

The UN declaration if read properly does not deny their rights but it does say Hong Kong is legally a city in China under the Chinese government so under the principle of sovereignty other countries can be sympathetic and offer humanitarian support but can not invade the country on to change the government.

The system I refer to is international law and the international laws of sovereignty and suffrage and defacto recognition of legal rights.

I sympathize with Hong Kong citizens but interfering in the internal affairs of a country whose ideology we may find unacceptable is complex and unlimited. Invading g a country to free it's people from tyranny is the first thing a totalitarian regime uses as its pretext to invade and conquer and so for that reason we have international laws to try stop illegal invasions protected as liberating a country.

That said if China had any common sense it would ease up on Hong Kong not tighten the noose. The problem is the current political regime feels it will loose face if it did weakening its control over all of China not just Hong Kong.

Many countries choose to not recognize Tauwan because China says if you recognize them we will not deal with you and the countries that cower to that threat I personally believe are wrong but that is another issue non legal and in fact political  and for me governments capitulating to China because of its economic control over their debts is cowardly.As you are aware countries  have sold themselves out to China and for that reason Taiwan and Hong Kong should not expect any open support from such nations.

Interestingly though Israel strongly  supports Taiwan as an ally but  Communist China government also has relations with Israel because  China  can't afford to have Israel invade Iran and has internal issues with its Muslims non Chinese Muslim terrorist groups are aiding so it asks for intelligence from Israel with such groups. Bottom line, if China needs something it knows how to compromise. It is not the invincible Tiger it is portrayed as. Its petrified of it's own  

By the way Taiwan is prosperous. The same two faced hypocrites who do not recognize it openly are only to happy to do business with it without a formal relationship.  

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Rue, I have no idea where your ramblings about invasion are coming from.

 

Also, you keep bringing up legality here, but the concept doesn't apply. For example, the communist party ignores Hong Kong basic law as well as their promises under the Hong Kong transfer. The law is whatever the thugs with the biggest guns say it is (which in this case is usually the communist party of china). We like to dress this up by referring to international law, or have romantic notations that laws stem from a monarch divinely appointed by god, or from a romanticized revolution long before we were born (US revolution, French revolution, Chinese civil war) even though all these revolutions were illegal at the time, or from the righteousness of protecting the best interest of some nationality (be it the turks, han chinese, or whoever); but ultimately all laws and legal systems derive their power from violence or the threat of violence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 all laws and legal systems derive their power from violence or the threat of violence.

In a democracy they derive their power from the cooperation and will of the people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

In a democracy they derive their power from the cooperation and will of the people.

 

In the US they derive power from the will of the people. In Canada, it stems more from the insane concept of the divine right of monarchs. In the case of the communist party, they derive their power from having the biggest stick.

Edited by -1=e^ipi
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

In the US they derive power from the will of the people.

In the US, power flows from how much money you have behind you. The lumpen masses can be shaped and moved and herded with sufficient money for TV spots and internet web sites.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

In the US they derive power from the will of the people.

Wrong, in the USA the power lays in the big corporations that own politicians.

4 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

In Canada, it stems more from the insane concept of the divine right of monarchs. In the case of the communist party, they derive their power from having the biggest stick.

Canada has no stick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

China is like a spoiled rotten Child that gets no discipline. Maybe of my friends don't want to say anything bad about China. The elites want us infighting, while China is the real ones to blame.

It's funny that the far-right use to call the Jews the secret ruelers of the world, but Israel has less people than Cuba... If you want to know who secretly rules the world, prehaps look at a country that's 150 times bigger?

 

Edited by ProudConservative
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ProudConservative said:

China is like a spoiled rotten Child that gets no discipline. Maybe of my friends don't want to say anything bad about China. The elites want us infighting, while China is the real ones to blame.

It's funny that the far-right use to call the Jews the secret ruelers of the world, but Israel has less people than Cuba... If you want to know who secretly rules the world, prehaps look at a country that's 150 times bigger?

No discipline ?  They are united, and that alone takes discipline.  Meanwhile we blame things on bogeymen like 'the elites', and demand more without acknowledging the reality that we are competing in a world market.

There's no secret - the wealthiest and most powerful people are well-known to everyone.  But some countries mumble about conspiracies and George Soros while others build high speed train lines...

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

No discipline ?  They are united, and that alone takes discipline.  Meanwhile we blame things on bogeymen like 'the elites', and demand more without acknowledging the reality that we are competing in a world market.

There's no secret - the wealthiest and most powerful people are well-known to everyone.  But some countries mumble about conspiracies and George Soros while others build high speed train lines...

United? Well I guess forced unity can be a thing. We call that dictatorships.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

No discipline ?  They are united, and that alone takes discipline.  Meanwhile we blame things on bogeymen like 'the elites', and demand more without acknowledging the reality that we are competing in a world market.

There's no secret - the wealthiest and most powerful people are well-known to everyone.  But some countries mumble about conspiracies and George Soros while others build high speed train lines...

I mean... No one wants to call them out on their bullshit. Everyone is too afraid to bite the hand that feeds them. We love Chinese slave labor. We love cheap imports. We're willing to turn a blind eye to a totalitarian dystopia, just for transnational convenience. We'll if you don't stand up to a bully, they will try and take everything. No one here takes you seriously, because your bias is obvious. China isn't a democracy. They throw people in prison for protesting, and have 2 million Muslims in concentration camps.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ProudConservative said:

1. No one wants to call them out on their bullshit. Everyone is too afraid to bite the hand that feeds them.
2. We love Chinese slave labor. We love cheap imports.
3. We're willing to turn a blind eye to a totalitarian dystopia, just for transnational convenience. We'll if you don't stand up to a bully, they will try and take everything.
4. No one here takes you seriously, because your bias is obvious. China isn't a democracy. They throw people in prison for protesting, and have 2 million Muslims in concentration camps.

1. I think that lots of people want to and do.  FOX News, Donald Trump, Hong Kong protestors... lots.
2. Slave labour didn't create the Chinese economic juggernaut, market forces did.  "Cheap Imports" include Apple products,  Ford Motors etc. Also you left out Chinese capital, ie. investment in Canada and Canadian jobs.
3. This is what every country does - trades off moral choices for economic choices.  You do it too, but maybe you aren't aware.
4. Wow.  That hurts.  Let's see.. when did you join ?  Nov 2019 ok.... :lol:  Explain "my bias"... if you can.  :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2020 at 10:56 AM, Michael Hardner said:

No discipline ?  They are united, and that alone takes discipline.  Meanwhile we blame things on bogeymen like 'the elites', and demand more without acknowledging the reality that we are competing in a world market.

There's no secret - the wealthiest and most powerful people are well-known to everyone.  But some countries mumble about conspiracies and George Soros while others build high speed train lines...

Their united because that is the wish of their leader, welcome to communism....where that discipline is controlled by fear of losing what very few freedoms they do have, I thought all this envy of china was a liberal trait. while here in Canada we can not even build a pipeline due to so many special interest groups. 

I also think Michael has a very good point, market forces did this , because most democracies value money or greed more than moral choices, we do this every day when shopping we look for deals to stretch our money as far as we can...regardless if that item is made in a sweat shop or not, regardless if buying that item actually curtails our own manufacturing sector.

Edited by Army Guy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...