Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    04 Jun '18 21:49
    Originally posted by @deepthought
    "our historical imperialist enemies" - I wonder who the "we" that "our" refers to. I understood that you are an ethnically Chinese US citizen, rather than a Chinese citizen. That would explain your continuous support of their national policies. Are you a PLA cyberwarfare operative? I'm sure you'll correct my identification if I am mistaken about that.
    The lying troll DeepThought ignores the substance of what I wrote (confuting his nonsense),
    preferring to indulge in personalized trolling of me.

    First of all, I suspect that DeepThought could not care less about the welfare of the Tibetan people.
    What DeepThought apparently yearns for is to weaken China at all costs, which is why
    he seems to hope that most Tibetans will attempt a (practically hopeless) armed uprising
    in the hope of creating an independent Buddhist theocracy rather than settle for a peaceful
    future as equal citizens of the People's Republic of China. DeepThought seems to care
    nothing about the Tibetan lives that would be lost as long as they can take Chinese lives with them.

    Contrary to DeepThought's narrow-minded dogmas, the Tibetan people are diverse.
    Tibet was a Buddhist theocracy, but Tibetans seem to be becoming more secular.
    Tibetan's Muslim minority may fear persecution (like in Myanmar) from a Buddhist theocracy.
    DeepThought may admire most of all any Tibetan who volunteered for training by the CIA
    (in the 1960s) to fight China. In contrast, DeepThought may look down upon a Tibetan
    who earned a PhD and has become a professor of Tibetan studies at a Chinese university.
    Increasingly many Tibetans seem to welcome a future beyond the hidebound theocracy of the past.

    "Our historical imperialist enemies..."
    --DeepThought

    DeepThought (a Brit, as No1Marauder would call him) may be ignorant of the historical fact
    that the British Empire has been an enemy of most, if not nearly all, societies in the world.
    British imperialism has invaded every continent except Antarctica. The British Empire
    has made many diverse enemies around the world.

    The British Empire would be my 'historical imperialist enemy' in the sense that it also is
    of Finnegan (an Irishman now in the UK) or No1Marauder (an Irish American).
    The British Empire would be my 'historical imperialist enemy' in the sense that it also is of
    everyone in every former British colony (including the USA and India) that fought for independence.

    Some of my ancestors might (though I have no specific knowledge) have fought against
    the British Empire. The British Empire has committed many terrible crimes, which even
    today some apologists (including DeepThought?) seem determined to lie about and cover up.
    Nonetheless, I learned English (when I was not strictly required to do so) for my personal
    enrichment as well as because it could increase my opportunities for employment.
    I embraced British literature. I absorbed British philosophy. I plunged into British history.
    At one time, some of my friends and family believed that I was much too Anglophilic.
    My point is that I was mature enough to distinguish between the good and bad aspects.
    I embrace the good aspects of British culture; I condemn British imperialism and racism.

    In contrast to DeepThought's dogma that a Tibetan who learns Chinese must be "surrendering
    one's identity", my family has no reservations about my learning to read and write English
    better than almost all native speakers of English. Would DeepThought also claim that
    Richard Burton (a native Welsh speaker) "surrendered his identity" when he learned
    English and became one of the best actors in the UK?
  2. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    04 Jun '18 22:011 edit
    Originally posted by @deepthought
    "our historical imperialist enemies" - I wonder who the "we" that "our" refers to. I understood that you are an ethnically Chinese US citizen, rather than a Chinese citizen. That would explain your continuous support of their national policies. Are you a PLA cyberwarfare operative? I'm sure you'll correct my identification if I am mistaken about that.
    DeepThought's fantasies reveal much about the bizarre workings of his mind.

    "I wonder who the "we" that "our" refers to ..."
    --DeepThought

    'We' refers to any and every one of the many diverse peoples who have opposed British imperialism.
    It could refer to the Irish, the Americans, the Indians, etc. It could even refer to the Welsh
    or Scots who resisted English imperialism. The British Empire had many diverse enemies.

    "I understood that you are an ethnically Chinese US citizen..."
    --DeepThought

    Can DeepThought QUOTE where I supposedly wrote that?

    "...rather than a Chinese citizen."
    --DeepThought

    I have written that I am not a citizen of the People's Republic of China (which disallows dual citizenship).

    "That would explain your continuous support of their national policies."
    --DeepThought

    DeepThought shows his illiteracy or extreme dishonesty if he fantasizes that what I wrote
    in this thread shows complete support of everything that China ever has done in Tibet.
    DeepThought prefers to ignore all my criticisms of the People's Republic of China.
    I suspect that a member of the PLA could get into trouble for writing what I have done.

    As an independent scholar, however, I criticize the *historically ignorant* racist
    demonization of China that seems so popular among Westerners.

    "Are you a PLA cyberwarfare operative?"
    --DeepThought

    Could DeepThought please forward to me all the cheques that the PLA's supposed to send me?
    I have the need of the money. DeepThought can tell the PLA that I have received a better
    offer from the DPRK, so I may have a postal box in Pyongyang soon. (sarcasm intended)
  3. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    04 Jun '18 22:15
    Originally posted by @deepthought
    This happened over a century ago, at a time of different standards for warfare (Britain was busily using starvation as a weapon against the Boers around then). I was ignoring the invasion of Tibet, as that started before I was born. However, since you are determined to rake over history I may as well. The Chinese haven't withdrawn from Tibet. I don't ...[text shortened]... f anywhere the US has maintained overtly coercive forces for so long since the Second World War.
    "This happened over a century ago, at a time of different standards for warfare."
    --DeepThought

    DeepThought, an extremely disingenuous apologist for US imperialism, shows his ignorance.

    DeepThought implies that all the proud Americans who tortured and massacred many
    Filipino civilians in the war (1899-1902) must be innocent because they lacked any
    awareness that what they were doing was illegal or morally wrong. That's FALSE.

    In fact, the Hague of Convention of 1899 already had been accepted by the USA.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907

    "It specifies the treatment of prisoners of war, includes the provisions of the Geneva Convention
    of 1864 for the treatment of the wounded, and forbids the use of poisons, the killing of
    enemy combatants who have surrendered, looting of a town or place, and the attack or
    bombardment of undefended towns or habitations. Inhabitants of occupied territories may
    not be forced into military service against their own country and collective punishment is forbidden.
    The section was ratified by all major powers mentioned above.[11]"

    In fact, the USA violated the Hague Convention in many ways, including killing combatants
    who had surrendered and applying collective punishment against civilians in entire regions.

    Moreover, contrary to DeepThought's implication that all Americans at that time had no
    awareness that the USA was no doing anything wrong in its brutal conquest of the Philippines,
    there was significant opposition (albeit by a minority) within the USA against the war.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anti-Imperialist_League

    "The American Anti-Imperialist League was an organization established on June 15, 1898,
    to battle the American annexation of the Philippines as an insular area."

    DeepThought cannot rightfully argue that all Americans were genuinely unaware that there
    was anything wrong with the USA torturing and massacring Filipinos in the early 20th century.
    Both the Hague Convention and the existence of prominent Americans condemning such
    war crimes shows that all Americans were not as morally blind as DeepThought himself.
  4. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52865
    04 Jun '18 22:49
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    DeepThought's fantasies reveal much about the bizarre workings of his mind.

    "I wonder who the "we" that "our" refers to ..."
    --DeepThought

    'We' refers to any and every one of the many diverse peoples who have opposed British imperialism.
    It could refer to the Irish, the Americans, the Indians, etc. It could even refer to the Welsh
    or Scots who ...[text shortened]... a better
    offer from the DPRK, so I may have a postal box in Pyongyang soon. (sarcasm intended)
    That's funny. You do have a sense of humor!

    BTW, you know about the dude who can never get lost in Arizona?

    He had a sense of Yuma....
  5. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    06 Jun '18 13:04
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    DeepThought's fantasies reveal much about the bizarre workings of his mind.

    "I wonder who the "we" that "our" refers to ..."
    --DeepThought

    'We' refers to any and every one of the many diverse peoples who have opposed British imperialism.
    It could refer to the Irish, the Americans, the Indians, etc. It could even refer to the Welsh
    or Scots who ...[text shortened]... a better
    offer from the DPRK, so I may have a postal box in Pyongyang soon. (sarcasm intended)
    "'We' refers to any and every one of the many diverse peoples who have opposed British imperialism." - Come off it, this really is disingenuous, you had a specific nation in mind when you wrote "our".

    I'll take that post as denying cyberwarfare for the PRC. In that case you might find that debates would be more constructive if you did not start practically every post with words to the effect of "The lying/racist/sexist [delete as appropriate] troll X who said Y in a thread from several months ago everyone else has forgotten shows his/her ignorance about Z.".

    "Can DeepThought QUOTE where I supposedly wrote that?" - I said understood, I didn't claim certainty. The basis for this is that you have said that you are ethnically Asian. You seem to be based in the US. You have said that the country (I could try digging out the relevant post, but it would take ages) you, or your parents, emigrated from, once fought a war against the British and that some of your relatives back there resent the British for it. Based on various posts about the Japanese it cannot be there, I can rule out Vietnam (It was a French colony), and for various reasons everywhere else in the Pacific Rim so really the only places that fit everything you've said are China and Malaysia. A Malaysian communist is possible and would explain the defence of China, but seems a little unlikely, so that leaves China. Asian can also mean somewhere like Afghanistan or Iran but well it seems odd that an Iranian or Afghani would spend so much effort defending China. It also can't be India based on a description of the border war with the Chinese. As far as your nationality status is concerned again, I don't know that you are a US citizen but (unless you really are a PLA member) it seems likely a Chinese civilian allowed abroad would simply avoid politics on the Internet.

    "DeepThought prefers to ignore all my criticisms of the People's Republic of China." You are quite uncritical of the PRC. Having said that I don't read every thread.

    As far as my attitude to China is concerned, you do like to build strawmen don't you. I'm not too worried about the Chinese. I don't think a policy of containment is required, if that's what you think I think. There are more unnerving nations. Nevertheless China is just as capable of everyone else as acting in an aggressive fashion, violating human rights standards and so forth. I read an interesting article about China and the extent to which they are able to deescalate conflicts (https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-china-stop-wars-once-they-start).

    Having had a chance to catch up with what happened in the Philippines yes, it was deranged. Having said that note that the local commander, General Otis, seems to have been exceeding his authority in starting the war, and spent some effort in a campaign of misinformation to the US press in having soldiers retract statements and so forth. The Hague convention at that time applied to wars fought between the signatories and wouldn't have applied to a civil war, since the US claimed to be the legitimate authority in the Philippines it's not clear to me that the Hague conventions apply. To forestall the point I imagine you making, this does not mean that I regard what they were doing as tolerable, just that immoral is not the same as illegal. However, this all happened over a hundred years ago and I'm not sure that anything that happened before say World War II is really within the scope of the discussion in this thread. Otherwise we'll be arguing over the manner in which the attempted Chinese invasion of Japan in the 13th century was fought.

    To what extent do I care about the welfare of the Tibetans? Well, their treatment is a sort of barometer of Chinese good faith. If Tibet is treated badly then the other countries in the region might have less reason to regard Chinese actions in the South China Sea as being as benign as you seem to claim.
  6. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    06 Jun '18 22:404 edits
    Originally posted by @deepthought
    "'We' refers to any and every one of the many diverse peoples who have opposed British imperialism." - Come off it, this really is disingenuous, you had a specific nation in mind when you wrote "our".

    I'll take that post as denying cyberwarfare for the PRC. In that case you might find that debates would be more constructive if you did not start pr ...[text shortened]... reason to regard Chinese actions in the South China Sea as being as benign as you seem to claim.
    First of all, DeepThought refuses to concede that he has written blatant falsehoods.
    Given DeepThought's continuing record of offensive dishonesty, I see no reason to act
    as 'politely' toward him as he demands. (Surely, if I were trained by the PLA, I would
    adopt a less confrontational approach toward an ignorant Westerner.)

    "You have said that you are ethnically Asian .."
    --DeepThought

    Where did I supposedly write that? I was not aware that 'Asian' is an ethnic group.
    I don't know of real Asians who identify their ethnicity as 'Asian'.
    Does DeepThought identify his *ethnicity* as 'European' or 'white'?

    DeepThought's fantasies about my identity seem to be based upon his dogmatic assumption
    that I must have a single and fixed nationality or ethnicity, whereas my family's reality
    and mine have been much more diverse and fluid. (One of my relatives has had four
    passports so far in her life.) Indeed, one of my closest relatives is nominally 'English'
    and learned history from 'patriotic' British textbooks. DeepThought ignores the possibility
    that my parents could be from quite different backgrounds (speaking different languages).
    (Hint: One of my parents was much more anti-British than the other.)
    DeepThought also ignores the possibility that I may not have complete information about
    my recent ancestral tree. Particularly in troubled times, more than a few children grow
    up while knowing little or nothing about some of their (usually male) ancestors.

    DeepThought also apparently presumes that I must be very nationalistic, whereas everyone
    who knows me knows that I am about the least nationalistic (or most internationally-minded)
    person around. DeepThought presumably would refuse to believe that Saburo Ienaga,
    could be really Japanese when he was so eloquent in condemning Japan's war crimes.

    "I'll take that post as denying cyberwarfare for the PRC."
    --DeepThought

    DeepThought's extremely deluded when he fantasizes that anyone who has suggested
    that China's government consider offering 'apologies and reparations' to Tibetans when
    historical wrongdoing was proven could be employed by the PLA to write that statement.

    ".. a Chinese civilian *allowed abroad* would simply avoid politics on the Internet."
    --DeepThought

    Almost everyone in China can travel, study, work, or live abroad as long as one can find
    another country willing to accept one. DeepThought seems to act as though it's a
    special privilege for a Chinese citizen to be 'allowed' to leave China for any reason.

    "To what extent do I care about the welfare of the Tibetans?"
    --DeepThought

    DeepThought seems not to consider the possibility that most Tibetans could be better
    off as equal citizens of China than fighting for a nominally independent Buddhist theocracy.
    Should independence for Wales be the ONLY way to make most Welsh people happy?
    If Tibet were to approach other regions in economic development and enjoy more cultural
    autonomy, then would DeepThought insist that the only way that a Tibetan could avoid
    "surrendering one's identity" would be to refuse to learn Chinese and prepare to fight
    to death for a 'Free Tibet'?

    "...to regard Chinese actions in the South China Sea as being as benign as you seem to claim."
    --DeepThought

    My point is that what China's doing seems not unusual or unprecedented for a rising great power.
    China seems to be taking measures to stake out its initial bargaining position (at least)
    and make it harder for its claims to be overthrown by force. China lives in a tough
    neighbourhood and does not expect to get points for playing too nicely. If China
    suddenly were to reverse course and dismantle what it has built in the South China Sea,
    then would a hard right-wing Japanese nationalist like Prime Minister Abe conclude that
    it shows China's wonderful generosity? He would conclude that it shows China's weakness.

    "You are quite uncritical of the PRC."
    --DeepThought

    Again, I criticize the historically ignorant demonization of China that seems so popular in the West.
    In this thread alone, I have written that China's government should not be trusted (nor
    should the Free Tibet movement) to provide accurate facts about the situation in Tibet.
    And DeepThought absurdly regards this as being 'quite uncritical' of China's government.

    For the record, I am very different from Xi Jinping, who would not welcome many of my views.
    If I (hypothetically) had the power, I would prefer to govern China quite differently,
    particularly in reducing domestic inequality. I would prefer to act for China's perceived
    interests within the framework of international agreements and cooperation rather than
    accept that Western interests must always supersede Chinese interests. I doubt that
    there ever again will be a leader of China who's as eager to surrender as the West wishes.
  7. SubscriberWOLFE63
    Tra il dire e il far
    C'e di mezzo il mar!
    Joined
    06 Nov '15
    Moves
    22675
    06 Jun '18 23:31
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    First of all, DeepThought refuses to concede that he has written blatant falsehoods.
    Given DeepThought's continuing record of offensive dishonesty, I see no reason to act
    as 'politely' toward him as he demands. (Surely, if I were trained by the PLA, I would
    adopt a less confrontational approach toward an ignorant Westerner.)

    "You have said that you ...[text shortened]... hat
    there ever again will be a leader of China who's as eager to surrender as the West wishes.
    OMFG..somebody make it stop.

    Her endless cackling has all the appeal of a creative writing class in a Pakistani madrassa.

    Every day...the same tired excuses and lame justifications. Who the f@#k cares what this lady thinks?

    She's constantly negative...and drags down the enjoyment of legitimate debate in this forum.
  8. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    07 Jun '18 00:08
    Originally posted by @wolfe63
    OMFG..somebody make it stop.

    Her endless cackling has all the appeal of a creative writing class in a Pakistani madrassa.

    Every day...the same tired excuses and lame justifications. Who the f@#k cares what this lady thinks?

    She's constantly negative...and drags down the enjoyment of legitimate debate in this forum.
    So the lying racist troll Wolfe63 makes another demand that I be censored.
    If Wolfe63 prefers not to read my posts, then he should not read them.
  9. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    07 Jun '18 01:291 edit
    Originally posted by @deepthought
    "'We' refers to any and every one of the many diverse peoples who have opposed British imperialism." - Come off it, this really is disingenuous, you had a specific nation in mind when you wrote "our".

    I'll take that post as denying cyberwarfare for the PRC. In that case you might find that debates would be more constructive if you did not start pr ...[text shortened]... reason to regard Chinese actions in the South China Sea as being as benign as you seem to claim.
    "It also can't be India based on a description of the border war with the Chinese."
    --DeepThought

    My comments about the 1962 border war between China and India are based upon
    _India's China War_ by Neville Maxwell.

    "Neville Maxwell ... is a retired British journalist and scholar who authored the 1970 book
    India's China War, which is considered an authoritative analysis of the 1962 Sino-Indian War."
    --Wikipedia

    Neville Maxwell's an Australian citizen (unlikely to be an agent of the Chinese PLA).

    Neville Maxwell wrote that he began writing his book with a strong pro-Indian bias.
    He had many friends in India and none in China. He initially accepted the ignorant Western
    assumption (still common today) that India was the victim of unprovoked Chinese aggression.
    To his credit, as Neville Maxwell did more research, his findings of fact did not support his
    initial beliefs, so he changed them (his beliefs, not the facts). Neville Maxwell concluded
    that China had done about everything that it reasonably could to avoid the war, and that
    India's aggressive unilateral 'Forward Policy' had compelled China to decide upon war
    as a last measure to resolve an intolerable situation. Contrary to their excuses later,
    India's generals had been confident of winning a war with China and had advised Nehru
    accordingly, encouraging him to keep acting unilaterally to occupy and fortify the disputed
    territory while avoiding the negotiations that China had sought. The Chinese victory came
    as a dramatic shock to India. 'Democratic' India also persecuted its ethnic Chinese minority
    (a convenient scapegoat), even though they had nothing to do with China's government.

    As I recall, Neville Maxwell concludes that one of the biggest obstacles to peace and
    reconciliation between China and India will be that it will be extremely painful for India to
    concede--even to itself--that India was wrong in any way. The self-deluded narrative
    of India being completely right and the innocent victim of unprovoked Chinese aggression
    has been uncritically endorsed by generations of ignorant or prejudiced Westerners.
    An exceptionally brave Indian leader would be needed to make peace with China upon
    any basis other than a complete Chinese surrender (not in the cards), and few leaders
    have enough courage to tell their nationalists that their sacred 'patriotic' history is a myth.

    Arundhati Roy's an Indian who's very critical of India's 'democracy' and capitalist system.
  10. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y3ngvdp2
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    07 Jun '18 18:58
    From the comments section of the following link:

    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-japans-navy-the-best-asia-not-china-24201

    francis c: a chicom media troll has always answer for everything and rebutalls its their fulltime job .....they work in shifts...lol
  11. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    07 Jun '18 19:37
    Originally posted by @athousandyoung
    From the comments section of the following link:

    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-japans-navy-the-best-asia-not-china-24201

    francis c: a chicom media troll has always answer for everything and rebutalls its their fulltime job .....they work in shifts...lol
    The racist troll AThousandYoung can find and cite many racist internet sources that
    support his virulent anti-Asian (particularly anti-Chinese) racism. Has AThousandYoung
    checked the Stormfront website to see how much anti-Asian racism he can find there?

    As I already have written, China's navy (PLAN) is much weaker than the US Navy.
    It's by no means clear that the PLAN's stronger than the navies of Japan or India.
    So Japan and India have less reason to feel 'intimidated' by China's navy.
  12. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    07 Jun '18 19:481 edit
    Originally posted by @deepthought
    "'We' refers to any and every one of the many diverse peoples who have opposed British imperialism." - Come off it, this really is disingenuous, you had a specific nation in mind when you wrote "our".

    I'll take that post as denying cyberwarfare for the PRC. In that case you might find that debates would be more constructive if you did not start pr ...[text shortened]... reason to regard Chinese actions in the South China Sea as being as benign as you seem to claim.
    DeepThought's projections about my supposed 'Asian' ethnicity are undermined by his
    gaping ignorance of Asian history.

    "I can rule out Vietnam (It was a French colony)..."
    --DeepThought

    DeepThought wrongly believes that Vietnamese have no historical grievance against the British.
    In fact, the Vietnamese fought a war against the British (1945-46) when the British were
    helping the French to restore their imperialist rule over Vietnam.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Vietnam_(1945%E2%80%9346)

    "For Britain's involvement in the First Vietnam War, the officially stated casualty list was
    40 British and Indian soldiers killed and French and Japanese casualties a little higher.
    An estimated 2,700 Viet Minh were killed. ...About 600 of the dead Viet Minh were killed by British soldiers,"

    So the Vietnamese are another of the many diverse peoples who have fought against the British.

    DeepThought also seems ignorant of the fact that the Burmese fought three wars against the British.
    Has DeepThought ever wondered whether I could be like Aung San Suu Kyi?
  13. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    07 Jun '18 19:581 edit
    Originally posted by @deepthought
    "'We' refers to any and every one of the many diverse peoples who have opposed British imperialism." - Come off it, this really is disingenuous, you had a specific nation in mind when you wrote "our".

    I'll take that post as denying cyberwarfare for the PRC. In that case you might find that debates would be more constructive if you did not start pr ...[text shortened]... reason to regard Chinese actions in the South China Sea as being as benign as you seem to claim.
    "It seems odd that an Iranian or Afghani would spend so much effort defending China."
    --DeepThought

    Given that I have 'spent much effort' defending the Palestinians, some reader(s) concluded that I am Arab.
    Would DeepThought also consider it odd that a Chinese would 'spend so much effort'
    defending the Palestinians when China's government has been fairly quiet about it?

    DeepThought seems ignorant of the reality that many diverse people (including white people)
    have defended China at times when they believed that China was being unfairly treated.
    Bertrand Russell was a Sinophile and condemned British imperialism and racism against China.

    DeepThought presumably would have been astonished to meet a Chinese Communist
    representative, Anna Wang, who was from a famous Prussian aristocratic military family.
    She married a Chinese Communist in Berlin and, fleeing the Nazis, moved with him to China.
    She told Mao Zedong that she hoped that her 'mixed race' son would be accepted as
    really Chinese, and he assured her that he would grow up as an equal citizen in China.
    The Chinese Communists sent her to negotiate (successfully) with the Vichy French.
Back to Top