I'm kinda surprised there isn't a topic on this already. Discussion for the ongoing protests in Hong Kong, the causes, their desired outcome and the likely outcome.... commence.
been travelling or satellite radio or not watching any news at all so don't even know whats going on there
Alright, I'll give a quick run-down: * Hong Kong used to be a protectorate of the UK government up until 1997. From that point forward, it was supposed to be a SAR (Special Administrative Region) that had some level of autonomy for 50 years to allow a transition back to being fully Chinese. Due to HK's almost 100-year run as a UK territory, they were quite western and a vast majority speak English. * HK Government on March 31st signed an Extradition Law that stated that HK citizens, for any reason, could be extradited to foreign countries. This had previously protected HK citizens who are political dissodents from being sent to China to be harvested for their organs stand trial. * HK protestors have been active since April but it really ramped up in July. * The Chinese government was seen moving a huge number of empty troop transports to Shenzen (major city just across water in mainland China) and outright stated the protesters are headed for "self-destruction"
Will not end well for the protesters, criminals, floats tiny penis people , or whatever you want to call them...
There is rioting. Do you need to know which law rioting violates, or is the fact that there is rioting sufficient?
I think, it's always hard to tell with float, but he's referring to how they've been labeled terrorists by the CCP.
I'm protesting you not calling them criminals. I'm okay calling them protesters, and calling illegal immigrants, illegal immigrants. Just seems like one of us is inconsistent. But carry on.
What do you call someone who enters the country illegally, commits fraud, forges documents, and steals identities.... wait I know; the less fortunate (but fortunate enough to be living within walking distance).. I call them criminals.
What do you call someone who riots, destroys property, attacks law enforcment, and attempts to shut down aspects of commerce, due to disagreement over a new law? I call them protestors.
I'm actually arguing two topics. Either we should take a "government can take its own stance, to the determent of any human being on its soil" or we can take a different stance. But we shouldn't take both stances, unless we're idiots.
I'm more interested in what the international community will do if the military shows up. I've not followed completely, but seems there's not THAT much attention being given by world leaders yet.
There is another argument in here about whether other countries should interfere in the possible or actual atrocities of another country. And if we interfere in Hong Kong (because like VD said, they're lucky enough to live in a former semi-Western location), why aren't those countries interfering in the unlucky places. But that may be too semantic.
