Breaking news!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Engineer

Major
Ive been censured for using one word answers by the mods, so i wont, but you do catch my drift dont you?

That you have no meaningful comeback because it's a fact that the West is full of hypocripsy and double standard?

Violence deserves to be stopped, with a heavy hand if necessary, and this is an universal concept. Yet when it comes to China, we have ever more elaborate excuses to justify how it is good thing, even in light of innocent people getting hacked to death in the street. It's a smack of hypocripsy.
 
Last edited:

Schumacher

Senior Member
Serious questions are being raised about the London Olympics.
If the killers of Duggan walk free, they should strip London of the right to host the Olympics.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


China questions Olympics security after UK riots

Published on Aug 11, 2011
.
BEIJING (AFP) - CHINA'S state media has questioned the ability of London's embattled police to 'maintain social order' for the 2012 Olympics after Britain suffered its worst riots in decades.

Chinese media doubts Olympics safety Chinese state television says violent rioting in London has 'seriously hurt' the city's image and raised doubts about the safety of the 2012 Olympics.

More than 1,100 people have been arrested since violence erupted on Saturday in the north London district of Tottenham and then spread to other British cities, leaving three people dead. ...........................................
 

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
That you have no meaningful comeback because it's a fact that the West is full of hypocripsy and double standard?

I gave your statement a one word reply because it was a fallicy.I saw no futher need for clarification after Mr T' also replied to your post

"And you're falling into the old trap of complaining about "the western media". There is no such thing. There is a diverse range of media outlets from dozens of countries. They do not all have an "anti-China"agenda".


Violence deserves to be stopped, with a heavy hand if necessary, /QUOTE]

No problem with that
 
Last edited:

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Serious questions are being raised about the London Olympics.
If the killers of Duggan walk free, they should strip London of the right to host the Olympics.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


China questions Olympics security after UK riots

Published on Aug 11, 2011
.
BEIJING (AFP) - CHINA'S state media has questioned the ability of London's embattled police to 'maintain social order' for the 2012 Olympics after Britain suffered its worst riots in decades.

Chinese media doubts Olympics safety Chinese state television says violent rioting in London has 'seriously hurt' the city's image and raised doubts about the safety of the 2012 Olympics.

More than 1,100 people have been arrested since violence erupted on Saturday in the north London district of Tottenham and then spread to other British cities, leaving three people dead. ...........................................

At least they had the decency to not make any backhanded political comments...
 

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
Serious questions are being raised about the London Olympics.
If the killers of Duggan walk free, they should strip London of the right to host the Olympics.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


China questions Olympics security after UK riots

Published on Aug 11, 2011
.
BEIJING (AFP) - CHINA'S state media has questioned the ability of London's embattled police to 'maintain social order' for the 2012 Olympics after Britain suffered its worst riots in decades.

Chinese media doubts Olympics safety Chinese state television says violent rioting in London has 'seriously hurt' the city's image and raised doubts about the safety of the 2012 Olympics.

More than 1,100 people have been arrested since violence erupted on Saturday in the north London district of Tottenham and then spread to other British cities, leaving three people dead. ...........................................


More gold medals for the rest of us if they do decide to stay away.

I wonder if that guy that had the habit of calling most succeedng games, the "best one ever" is still around?

If I happen to be a innocent bystander caught in a riot, Id rather that it was the London one rather than Xinjiang 2009

The riots broke out during a peaceful protests by the uigurs , wanting and investigation as to what went on in that toy Factory in Southern China. According to the Uighurs.The police sparked the rioting by shooting at the peaceful protestors, Mr Nur Bekri the . Xinjiang governor is on record as saying said that the police shot “mobsters” after firing warning shots.
Now how many people died in that tragedy? compared to the current London one.
 
Last edited:

Engineer

Major
I gave your statement a one word reply because was a fallicy.I saw no futher need for clarification after Mr T' also replied to your post

And you were censored for your one word reply, not your choice of words, because your reply has no substance. It was nothing more than you trying to argue for the sake of arguing, especally in light of your response before your edit.

With regards to Mr T's responses, plawolf wrote all I could say.

Like I have said before, it is amusing to see Western double standard trips and falls flat on its face. When it is unacceptable to incite violence with online social networks in the West, then one shouldn't acts surprise and complains when the same behavior is not acceptable in China:
Guardian said:
The government is contemplating tactics against the UK riots that set dangerous precedents.

In parliament today, prime minister David Cameron said authorities and the industry were looking at "whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality". Well, at least he did post it as a question of right and wrong.

It would be wrong, sir. Who is to say what communication and content should be banned from whom on what platform? On my BlackBerry? My computer? My telephone? My street corner?

Cameron also said, according to a Guardian tweet, that he would look at asking online services to take down offending photos. Again, who decides that content is offending? If you give authority to government and telco and social companies to censor that, what else can and will they censor?

Beware, sir. If you take these steps, what separates you from the Saudi government demanding the ability to listen to and restrict its BBM networks? What separates you from Arab tyrannies cutting off social communication via Twitter or from China banning it?

This regulatory reflex further exposes the danger of British government thinking it can and should regulate media. Beware, my friends. When anyone's speech is not free, no one's speech is free. I refer the honourable gentleman to this . Censorship is not the path to civility. Only speech is.

There is also debate about tactics to restrict anonymity in public. Cameron wants police to have the authority "in certain circumstances" to require face masks to be removed: instead of a burqa ban, a hoodie ban. One MP in the current debate also suggested rioters be sprayed with indelible ink. In addition, Cameron said that CCTV pictures – and, one assumes, pictures on social networks and the afore-derided BBM – would be used to identity and arrest rioters. I understand the motive and goal to control crime. I don't necessarily oppose the moves, for I argue in Public Parts that what one does in public is public.

But again, be aware of the precedents these actions would set. Be aware how they could be used under other circumstances. In Public Parts, I compare the use of social media to identity Egyptian secret police from ID photos taken from their liberated headquarters with the use of social media to identity protestors in Iran. A tool used for good can be used for bad.

The bottom line of these debated tactics would be this: anonymity would be banned in public; it would require that one be public in public.

Right now, online, we are having many debates about anonymity and identity .

So now we need to look at how the public street in London compares with the public street on the internet, on Facebook, Twitter, BBM, blogs and newspapers. What government does on the streets it could do on the internet, and vice versa. Each is a form of a public.

I was just writing a post defending the need for anonymity and pseudonymity online for the use of protestors and whistleblowers and the oppressed and vulnerable. I was also writing to defend social services that try to require real identity as their prerogative to set the tone of their services (rather than discussing that in the context of Facebook or Google+, look at it in the context of, say, LinkedIn, where pseudonymity would rob it of its essential utility and value). I was going to suggest that services such as Google+ find a middle ground where real identity is encouraged – even with verification of true identity as an optional service – but pseudonymity is permitted, with more power given not to the service but to the user to filter people and media and comments on that basis (allow me as a user to, for example, read the comments of people who have the courage to stand behind their words with their names). There is much nuance to be grappled with in these issues and in these new circumstances.

But now come the UK riots and the debate over what to do about them, raising these same issues in a new context – the street – with a new player: the government. The proper debate, I argue in Public Parts, should be held not in the specifics of these matters but instead as principles.

Restricting speech cannot be done except in the context of free speech.

When debating public identity, one must decide what a public is.

These are not easy issues, any of them, in any of these contexts. So I would urge my British friends to be careful about enabling their government to impose restrictions on the public.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Engineer

Major
If I happen to be a innocent bystander caught in a riot, Id rather that it was the London one rather than Xinjiang 2009
All the more legimate reason for China to crack down on said riot with a heavy hand.

The riots broke out during a peaceful protests by the uigurs , wanting and investigation as to what went on in that toy Factory in Southern China. According to the Uighurs.The police sparked the rioting by shooting at the peaceful protestors, Mr Nur Bekri the . Xinjiang governor is on record as saying said that the police shot “mobsters” after firing warning shots.

And how did the London riot started compare to the above rumor? Ho hum.

Now how many people died in that tragedy? compared to the current London one.
A riot is a riot. One violence being bloodier than another does not make it okay for it to happen in China when it is universally not acceptable to happen in the West.
 

Engineer

Major
Oh yeah, remember this?

These rioters don't have a political agenda. Helped by poverty, unemployment , undereducated and boredom, they only care about themselves and what they want.

If the following were to happen in China, Western media would jump out and say how it is the result of years of oppression. I guess these people mentioned in the article must be very oppressed.
CNN said:
London (CNN) -- Before they started appearing in court, most people assumed London's rioters and looters were unemployed youths with no hope and no future.

So there was much surprise when details of the accused began to emerge, and they included some from wealthy backgrounds or with good jobs.

Those passing through London's courtrooms on Tuesday and Wednesday -- some courts sat overnight to cope with the numbers -- have included a teaching assistant, a lifeguard, a postman, a chef, a charity worker, a millionaire's daughter and an 11-year-old boy, newspapers reported.

The tabloid Sun newspaper wrote in its opinion page on Thursday of the "sick" society described by Prime Minister David Cameron: "The sickness starts on welfare-addicted estates where feckless parents let children run wild."

But its front-page headline told a different story about the accused: "Lifeguard, postman, hairdresser, teacher, millionaire's daughter, chef and schoolboy, 11."

The Daily Mail reported: "While the trouble has been largely blamed on feral teenagers, many of those paraded before the courts yesterday led apparently respectable lives."

The upmarket Daily Telegraph devoted its page three to the case of Laura Johnson, the 19-year-old daughter of a company director who pleaded not guilty to stealing £5,000 ($8,000) of electrical goods, under the headline: "Girl who has it all is accused of theft."

The newspaper said she lived in a converted farmhouse in the leafy London suburb of Orpington, Kent, with extensive grounds and a tennis court, had studied at one of the best-performing state schools in the country and now attends the University of Exeter.

Reporter Andrew Gilligan wrote in the Daily Telegraph: "Here in court, as David Cameron condemned the 'sickness' in parts of British society, we saw clearly, for the first time, the face of the riot: stripped of its hoods and masks, dressed in white prison T-shirts and handcuffed to burly security guards.

"It was rather different from the one we had been expecting."

He added of the defendants at Highbury Magistrates Court in north London: "Most were teenagers or in their early twenties, but a surprising number were older.

"Most interestingly of all, they were predominantly white, and many had jobs."

Most newspapers highlighted the case of Alexis Bailey, a 31-year-old learning mentor in an elementary school, who pleaded guilty to burglary with intent to steal at an electrical store in Croydon, south of London.

It was reported that Bailey surrendered to police without stealing anything.

The youngest defendant so far -- an 11-year-old boy -- also gained much attention in newspapers.

The boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, from Romford, east of London, admitted stealing a £50 ($80) trash can from a department store, the Guardian reported.

The Daily Mail highlighted the cases of Barry Naine, a 42-year-old charity worker charged with burglary; postman Jeffrey Ebanks, 32, and his student nephew Jamal Ebanks, 18, allegedly caught in a car stuffed with electrical goods near a looted Croydon store.

It also reported that Jason Matthews, a 35-year-old new father arrested in a Tesco supermarket, told police he "was not one of the bad ones" and needed diapers for his baby; and that Christopher Heart, a 23-year-old scaffolder and father of two, shouted "sorry for the inconvenience" and broke down in tears after admitting burglary at a sports shop in east London.

Lifeguard Aaron Mulholland, 30, wept as he appeared in court accused of joining thieves in a cell phone shop, the Daily Mail reported.

The Sun reported that an organic chef, Fitzroy Thomas, 43, and his 47-year-old brother Ronald, denied smashing up a branch of the Nando's chicken restaurant chain.

The Metropolitan Police in London said on its website on Thursday that 401 people have been charged so far.

Greater Manchester Police said five men aged between 46 and 23 had already been jailed for their part in the disorder.

West Midlands Police said 26 people, including a 44-year-old man, had appeared before an overnight court session in relation to the disorder in Birmingham.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



So much about being in poverty, unemployed, and uneducated. Although you are probably right about them being bored, and that they are selfish. I would say this is mob mentality at work, as it does in every riot. In short, a riot is a riot, which isn't somehow better and justified because it happened in China.
 
Last edited:

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
And you were censored for your one word reply, not your choice of words, because your reply has no substance. It was nothing more than you trying to argue for the sake of arguing, especally in light of your response before your edit.

With regards to Mr T's responses, plawolf wrote all I could say.

Like I have said before, it is amusing to see Western double standard trips and falls flat on its face. When it is unacceptable to incite violence with online social networks in the West, then one shouldn't acts surprise and complains when the same behavior is not acceptable in China:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And I was told that the rules of this forum played in my favor and somehow made it unfair for those who argued against me. What? Can't win on a level playing field? Like insults and harsh language make weak arguments a winner? I take it as a compliment that people need an unfair advantage in order to win an argument against me. But then who said I can't insult?

So ironic how the British are using social networks to get information to arrest people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top