Hong Kong

[Novus America]

Right.... [X] to Doubt.

It’s not like you’re own totalitarian loving beliefs is tainting your opinion at all.

I don’t support totalitarianism, just Law and Order

The PRC is totalitarian and does not respect the rule of law.

[Thermodolia]

Tibet should be Independent. The fact that you don’t want it to despite living in a nation that gained independence is quite strange.


That’s not a newsflash. However after WW2 such violent land grabs have been falling away. China invaded a nation that didn’t want China there, the Chinese continue to occupy it while ignoring the people who live there.

And before you start grabbing that straw I think the US never should have invaded Vietnam or Iraq.


Actually you’re wrong. I think that Scotland, Wales, Catalonia, and others should all have the chance to be independent. So no I’m not only just applying it to China. I’m not talking about the others because they aren’t the topic. So put the goal posts back and don’t project your beliefs on everyone else.

Just because you don’t think nations shouldn’t be independent doesn’t mean I don’t.

First of all, its not strange because I am a supporter of national sovereignty and therefore opposed to unilateral secession, emphasis on unilateral. Singapore is independent because it was granted independence by the State it was a part of, Malaysia, and its an exercise of national sovereignty for a State to grant independence to a portion of its territory, or to refuse.

Oh so you only support independence for places that you like and not Hong Kong or Tibet or for the Uyghur people. Interesting how you project your beliefs on me.

Secondly, as I've already explained Tibet and Xinjiang are part of the territory of China ever since the Qing Dynasty, with the ROC and then the PRC acting as successors to Qing China under succession of States theory in international law. 1950 was a re-establishment of control over a region of China that had rebelled and fallen out of de facto State control during a period of civil war and warlordism.

They where an independent nation before the Qing. And after. Just because a nation is invaded doesn’t mean their independence is gone forever. Look at all the nations the Soviets took over. The Baltic state where independent nations that the Soviets took over however they did suddenly stop being nations because whatever batshit reason you have.

However, in international law, a State doesn't lose territorial title to a piece of land just because it momentarily loses effective control of it during a civil war. If that were the case, someone needs to let Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Somalia that they are no longer States anymore.

Tibet was an independent nation for decades. They where not apart of the civil war nor did they fight in it. The civil war ended according to the PRC in 49 not 51. Tibet was invaded by a nation for no reason.

Its an unworkable legal standard if that were to be the law, hence why it isn't. Its not an 'invasion' for a State to send military forces to re-establish control over territory that is in open rebellion, otherwise I guess the entire American South was 'invaded' by the Union by your logic.

The Union didn’t invade the south though because the Union didn’t attack first. The south did. You’d have a point if the Union had a three decades long civil war ended said civil war and then a year later invaded the long independent south. Just like the PRC did

So yes, again, there's an obvious hypocrisy at work here, because presumably you understand the importance of succession of States theory when applied to most countries you like, you just don't like it applied to China, and only China

Again no hypocrisy here as I think several nations should hold democratic independence referendums. Again I’m not talking about those nations because they aren’t the FUCKING topic. So please put the goalposts back

[Thermodolia]

Right.... [X] to Doubt.

It’s not like you’re own totalitarian loving beliefs is tainting your opinion at all.

I don’t support totalitarianism, just Law and Order

By supporting the PRC you support totalitarianism. Don’t try to weasel your way out of that one

[Purgatio]

And I'll take your supposed commitment to the rule of law seriously when I hear you condemn the Hong Kong protestors for their flagrant disrespect for the rule of law

Nice Whataboutism. Whataboutism is not a defense, it is an admission of guilt.

I do not support every single action by every single protester.
That is the thing. They are not some hive mind.
Not all collectively guilty for the actions of a few.

And before you say but “what about the PRC?” note I have never collectively blamed the Chinese people for the actions of the PRC government.

However unlike the protesters the PRC is a single corporate entity.

Also sometimes you have to rebel against unjust laws and unrepresentative, unjust regimes.

It's not an admission of guilt, I support the rule of law more than almost anyone, I believe in the existence of a legal order, with promulgated rules from recognised sources and rules of recognition, which can guide human conduct and provide a measure of stability and predictability to human relations and human association, and I detest those like the Hong Kong rioters who conspire so insidiously and cruelly to rob their society of the social benefits of the rule of law through their rampant rioting, vandalism and destruction of human stability, all at the expense of their fellow Hong Kongers.

[Thermodolia]

Nice Whataboutism. Whataboutism is not a defense, it is an admission of guilt.

I do not support every single action by every single protester.
That is the thing. They are not some hive mind.
Not all collectively guilty for the actions of a few.

And before you say but “what about the PRC?” note I have never collectively blamed the Chinese people for the actions of the PRC government.

However unlike the protesters the PRC is a single corporate entity.

Also sometimes you have to rebel against unjust laws and unrepresentative, unjust regimes.

It's not an admission of guilt, I support the rule of law more than almost anyone, I believe in the existence of a legal order, with promulgated rules from recognised sources and rules of recognition, which can guide human conduct and provide a measure of stability and predictability to human relations and human association, and I detest those like the Hong Kong rioters who conspire so insidiously and cruelly to rob their society of the social benefits of the rule of law through their rampant rioting, vandalism and destruction of human stability, all at the expense of their fellow Hong Kongers.

So you admit to supporting totalitarianism? Because that’s the only way you’re going to enforce any of that

[Purgatio]

First of all, its not strange because I am a supporter of national sovereignty and therefore opposed to unilateral secession, emphasis on unilateral. Singapore is independent because it was granted independence by the State it was a part of, Malaysia, and its an exercise of national sovereignty for a State to grant independence to a portion of its territory, or to refuse.

Oh so you only support independence for places that you like and not Hong Kong or Tibet or for the Uyghur people. Interesting how you project your beliefs on me.

Secondly, as I've already explained Tibet and Xinjiang are part of the territory of China ever since the Qing Dynasty, with the ROC and then the PRC acting as successors to Qing China under succession of States theory in international law. 1950 was a re-establishment of control over a region of China that had rebelled and fallen out of de facto State control during a period of civil war and warlordism.

They where an independent nation before the Qing. And after. Just because a nation is invaded doesn’t mean their independence is gone forever. Look at all the nations the Soviets took over. The Baltic state where independent nations that the Soviets took over however they did suddenly stop being nations because whatever batshit reason you have.

However, in international law, a State doesn't lose territorial title to a piece of land just because it momentarily loses effective control of it during a civil war. If that were the case, someone needs to let Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Somalia that they are no longer States anymore.

Tibet was an independent nation for decades. They where not apart of the civil war nor did they fight in it. The civil war ended according to the PRC in 49 not 51. Tibet was invaded by a nation for no reason.

Its an unworkable legal standard if that were to be the law, hence why it isn't. Its not an 'invasion' for a State to send military forces to re-establish control over territory that is in open rebellion, otherwise I guess the entire American South was 'invaded' by the Union by your logic.

The Union didn’t invade the south though because the Union didn’t attack first. The south did. You’d have a point if the Union had a three decades long civil war ended said civil war and then a year later invaded the long independent south. Just like the PRC did

So yes, again, there's an obvious hypocrisy at work here, because presumably you understand the importance of succession of States theory when applied to most countries you like, you just don't like it applied to China, and only China

Again no hypocrisy here as I think several nations should hold democratic independence referendums. Again I’m not talking about those nations because they aren’t the FUCKING topic. So please put the goalposts back

You do understand how double standards work right? Double standards mean you apply one standard to one situation but a different standard to a different situation, but my standards are consistent. I support national sovereignty of States, and a State consensually granting independence to its own territory is consistent with national sovereignty, whereas forcibly wresting control of a territory out of a State's control through a unilateral secession is contrary to national sovereignty. This is the exact opposite of a double standard, its applying one standard to materially-different circumstances and reaching results based on that standard.

An example of a double standard is what you are doing. You don't have fixed rules and principles, you apply one rule to China and a different rule for everyone else. The Baltic States were eventually granted their independence after the fall of the USSR in 1991 with Boris Yeltsin approving those declarations of independence. That's not unilateral secession, that's a State, the USSR, consensually granting independence to territories over which it has territorial title, a valid exercise of national sovereignty. That's not the same as Xinjiang and Tibet trying to unilaterally secede without the consent of the State that has territorial title.

Secondly, your argument that the American Civil War was not an 'invasion' of the South because the South attacked first makes no sense legally. Here's why. If I accepted your argument that the North's actions in the Civil War were a purely-defensive reaction to Southern aggression, that still doesn't explain why the North was entitled to occupy Southern territory even after the threat had been eliminated and the Confederacy defeated. International law allows to defend yourself from a State's attack, but it doesn't allow you to annex that State's territory after you've averted the threat. So do you regard the South as under illegal Union occupation since the 1850s? If the answer is no, it's because you don't regard the Civil War as an annexation, its a State lawfully restoring control over territory to which it has territorial title and is rebelling against its control. National sovereignty entitles a State to govern and control its own territory, and if a portion of the territory like the South tries to unilaterally secede, you are entitled to restore legal order over that territory, hence why we don't regard the South as under illegal Union occupation.

This is why calling the PRC sending the PLA into Tibet in 1950 an 'invasion' is hypocritical, because its simply restoring control over territory in open rebellion, which is perfectly legal, it was done in the American Civil War, it was done during the Troubles, it was done by every State that has ever experienced a civil war like Iraq or Afghanistan or Syria. We don't live in a world where the legal entity of a State disintegrates the moment any one plot of land experiences a rebellion, no legal order could operate in such a fashion. Hence, in 1950, China was legally-entitled to restore control over its own territory, same as any other country or nation on Earth.

[Purgatio]

It's not an admission of guilt, I support the rule of law more than almost anyone, I believe in the existence of a legal order, with promulgated rules from recognised sources and rules of recognition, which can guide human conduct and provide a measure of stability and predictability to human relations and human association, and I detest those like the Hong Kong rioters who conspire so insidiously and cruelly to rob their society of the social benefits of the rule of law through their rampant rioting, vandalism and destruction of human stability, all at the expense of their fellow Hong Kongers.

So you admit to supporting totalitarianism? Because that’s the only way you’re going to enforce any of that

Are you joking? All I described was how a legal order or a legal system works. If you think having a legal system is totalitarianism, than everyone who isn't an anarchist is a totalitarian by your definition. Read what I wrote again, nothing in there is remotely totalitarian. All I did was describe how a legal system works.

[Purgatio]

I don’t support totalitarianism, just Law and Order

So how would you enforce your idea of Law and Order?

Through law enforcement like any other country on Earth. And when rioters rush out into the streets to harass and attack innocent people and destroy governmental property and smash windows, law enforcement is socially and morally obligated to put a stop to their rampant criminality.

[Thermodolia]

So how would you enforce your idea of Law and Order?

Through law enforcement like any other country on Earth. And when rioters rush out into the streets to harass and attack innocent people and destroy governmental property and smash windows, law enforcement is socially and morally obligated to put a stop to their rampant criminality.

So protesters are rioters now? Damn that’s a warped worldview

[Purgatio]

Through law enforcement like any other country on Earth. And when rioters rush out into the streets to harass and attack innocent people and destroy governmental property and smash windows, law enforcement is socially and morally obligated to put a stop to their rampant criminality.

So protesters are rioters now? Damn that’s a warped worldview

No, but these protestors are.

[Thermodolia]

So you admit to supporting totalitarianism? Because that’s the only way you’re going to enforce any of that

Are you joking? All I described was how a legal order or a legal system works. If you think having a legal system is totalitarianism, than everyone who isn't an anarchist is a totalitarian by your definition. Read what I wrote again, nothing in there is remotely totalitarian. All I did was describe how a legal system works.

That’s a lot of straw you got there. Be careful it’s flammable

[Novus America]

So you admit to supporting totalitarianism? Because that’s the only way you’re going to enforce any of that

Are you joking? All I described was how a legal order or a legal system works. If you think having a legal system is totalitarianism, than everyone who isn't an anarchist is a totalitarian by your definition. Read what I wrote again, nothing in there is remotely totalitarian. All I did was describe how a legal system works.

Then how do you support the PRC regime with its totalitarian government, and no respect for the rule of law?

[Thermodolia]

So protesters are rioters now? Damn that’s a warped worldview

No, but these protestors are.

Except there hasn’t been any riots. The protests have been 99% peaceful. You are again slandering the protesters so it can be easier to attack them because your totalitarian ideology requires it

[Purgatio]

Not all protests are riots, but these protests happening right now in Hong Kong are:

[Purgatio]

These pictures show the reality of the Hong Kong rioters. They claim to want human rights and freedom and democracy. They are liars. These are antisocial deviants, hoodlums, vandals, thugs, gangsters. Hong Kong is normally a safe, orderly, law-abiding place, and these people hate that and want that destroyed. They want a Hong Kong of anarchy and lawless chaos, and they'll latch onto any fake virtue-signalling 'cause' to justify their reprehensible behaviour.

Criminals and gangsters and predators, the whole lot of them.

[Thermodolia]

*long winded rant*

You’re applying current international law, which is useless anyway and only used by the nuclear powers to bash eachother or force smaller nations to comply, to a time when certain laws didn’t exist.

The “no annexing Occupied Territory gained during a war” rule only came about after WW2. So you can’t apply it back to the civil war era time.

[Neko-koku]

Hmm..I have a question..Are there wumaos on NSG?

[Thermodolia]

Not all protests are riots, but these protests happening right now in Hong Kong are:

(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)

These pictures show the reality of the Hong Kong rioters. They claim to want human rights and freedom and democracy. They are liars. These are antisocial deviants, hoodlums, vandals, thugs, gangsters. Hong Kong is normally a safe, orderly, law-abiding place, and these people hate that and want that destroyed. They want a Hong Kong of anarchy and lawless chaos, and they'll latch onto any fake virtue-signalling 'cause' to justify their reprehensible behaviour.

Criminals and gangsters and predators, the whole lot of them.

These pictures mean jackshit. I could go search and find any random photos on google just by googling “riots”. So I’m not going to believe a bunch of spammy images especially from a poster who has a bias against the protesters because they are a totalitarian

[Purgatio]

Not all protests are riots, but these protests happening right now in Hong Kong are:

(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)

These pictures show the reality of the Hong Kong rioters. They claim to want human rights and freedom and democracy. They are liars. These are antisocial deviants, hoodlums, vandals, thugs, gangsters. Hong Kong is normally a safe, orderly, law-abiding place, and these people hate that and want that destroyed. They want a Hong Kong of anarchy and lawless chaos, and they'll latch onto any fake virtue-signalling 'cause' to justify their reprehensible behaviour.

Criminals and gangsters and predators, the whole lot of them.

These pictures mean jackshit. I could go search and find any random photos on google just by googling “riots”. So I’m not going to believe a bunch of spammy images especially from a poster who has a bias against the protesters because they are a totalitarian

It is the true face of the Hong Kong rioters. These are the people you defend. Arsonists, vandals and hooligans trashing their own city.

[Neko-koku]

https://mobile.twitter.com/xiteller/sta ... 8433300480

Lmao. Li Yi Bar trolls were spamming FB and Twitter like DOS fuckers here and CCP fuckers praised them.

[Heloin]

These pictures mean jackshit. I could go search and find any random photos on google just by googling “riots”. So I’m not going to believe a bunch of spammy images especially from a poster who has a bias against the protesters because they are a totalitarian

It is the true face of the Hong Kong rioters. These are the people you defend. Arsonists, vandals and hooligans trashing their own city.

Since you're going to calling them rioting vandals no matter what, good. They all seem great. Takes bravery to stand up to a corrupt government and the triads as well.

[Purgatio]

It is the true face of the Hong Kong rioters. These are the people you defend. Arsonists, vandals and hooligans trashing their own city.

Since you're going to calling them rioting vandals no matter what, good. They all seem great. Takes bravery to stand up to a corrupt government and the triads as well.

Just so I have it on the record, these aren't rioting vandals? These are all brave wonderful people whom you have the audacity and the temerity to defend?

[Kowani]

It is the true face of the Hong Kong rioters. These are the people you defend. Arsonists, vandals and hooligans trashing their own city.

Since you're going to calling them rioting vandals no matter what, good. They all seem great. Takes bravery to stand up to a corrupt government and the triads as well.

They could’ve marched down the street holding hands and singing kumbaya, and he’d still have called them “troublemakers” or something of like nature.

[Bienenhalde]

Hmm..I have a question..Are there wumaos on NSG?

Purgatio sounds like one of them.

[Purgatio]

Since you're going to calling them rioting vandals no matter what, good. They all seem great. Takes bravery to stand up to a corrupt government and the triads as well.

They could’ve marched down the street holding hands and singing kumbaya, and he’d still have called them “troublemakers” or something of like nature.

But they aren't, they just aren't. Look at the images. These aren't peaceful protestors. They are rioters destroying and burning down their own city. They are menaces to peace and order and public safety. They will keep on hurting other people and endangering their lives and destroying property all over the place until they are finally stopped, for good.