China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Brumby]

So your opinion for those arguments are they same old same old and should be ignored? Shouldn't it depends on the context? For example, nfgc made the argument that those islands/reefs are unclaimed. A pro-China person would argue that China claimed those islands/reefs since imperials times. Yes, it is the same argument as the Chinese government's argument, and yes, we have heard it a million times already. But in this context, it is still a valid counterpoint. The pro-China person didn't mention it out of thin air.

You need to take it up with nfgc. It is not for me to defend his statements.

As your other point about playing the victim's card. Look at the map and see who occupies the most islands/isles/reefs. It is a wild wild west out there and everyone is trying their best to grab their piece. No one is innocent. Since China is the most powerful player in the area, an unbiased person would say she has shown a LOT of restraint in her action so far.

Example of comparative development and your idea of restraint. I wonder what would constitute unrestrained.

As for media bias. Please tell me how come no one report Vietnam or Phillipine's land reclamation on the islands they control yet all Western media scream about China's and made it sounded like she's the only one doing it?

For the simple reason due to the scale of China's reclamation relative to all the others combined.

 

[vincent]

You need to take it up with nfgc. It is not for me to defend his statements.

Evasive, aren't we. You know full well my point was to adress your dismissal of people making the same argument as the Chinese government

Example of comparative development and your idea of restraint. I wonder what would constitute unrestrained.

China build on islands/reefs they control. Not dragging Phillipine's junk ship off Second Thomas Shoal. Not blockading other islands, etc

For the simple reason due to the scale of China's reclamation relative to all the others combined.

So it's ok to report only China's reclamation and have ZERO mention on what others are doing as well? What happen to the shining city on a hill and balanced and unbiased reporting all Western media claimed to be? Using other posters' analogy, a 100lb guy punched a 200lb guy. The 200lb guy punched back and everyone points an accusing finger at the 200lb guy. Is that balanced and unbiased reporting?

 

[Brumby]

Evasive, aren't we. You know full well my point was to adress your dismissal of people making the same argument as the Chinese government

Since you insist. Please state your case. I do not understand what you mean by "same old same old".

China build on islands/reefs they control. Not dragging Phillipine's junk ship off Second Thomas Shoal. Not blockading other islands, etc

The context was victimisation. The relative size of comparative development does not present a picture of China being a victim as claimed. Having said that, blockading attempts to supply food and water to a derelict ship would present a picture of a victim and aggressor at play.

So it's ok to report only China's reclamation and have ZERO mention on what others are doing as well? What happen to the shining city on a hill and balanced and unbiased reporting all Western media claimed to be? Using other posters' analogy, a 100lb guy punched a 200lb guy. The 200lb guy punched back and everyone points an accusing finger at the 200lb guy. Is that balanced and unbiased reporting?

I don't have an issue if you choose (or others) to highlight that western reporting is being selective with the facts. Once you get past that, the facts in their entirety doesn't change the picture in terms of comparative and scale of development. The problem in my view is the conversation is hijacked to become that of western reporting rather than the nature of the story.

 

[vincent]

Since you insist. Please state your case. I do not understand what you mean by "same old same old".

Your statement: "Arguments tends to mirror China official policies with very little substance being added". So same old pointless argument, should be dismissed?

The context was victimisation. The relative size of comparative development does not present a picture of China being a victim as claimed. Having said that, blockading attempts to supply food and water to a derelict ship would present a picture of a victim and aggressor at play.

I'll say China is a victim of Western media biase.

BTW, it is a derelict ship because Phillipine purposely grounded it to occupy the shoal. Who was the one that threw the first punch?

don't have an issue if you choose (or others) to highlight that western reporting is being selective with the facts. Once you get past that, the facts in their entirety doesn't change the picture in terms of comparative and scale of development. The problem in my view is the conversation is hijacked to become that of western reporting rather than the nature of the story.

Well, the nature of the story is that SCS is a wild wild west where everyone is trying to grab their piece. No one is innocent nor victims. Western reportings aggressively painted China as the big bad bully which is not true.

 

[joshuatree]

That is an opinion formed from observation. If the landscape changes then I am prepared to change accordingly.

That landscape only changes depending on how the discussion take place. Highly charged and biased replies from both sides only add fuel to the fire.

Except there is only one in the room aspiring to be a super power. If you want to be treated and respected like a big boy then act like one.

That doesn't change the fact that multiple sides play the victim card for their agendas.

And what is this "big boy then act like one" jab? For someone who commented about observing debates tending to degenerate and goes downhill, you're contributing to that slide yourself with inflammatory comments like this. In your own words, very little substance is added to the conversation. Do you expect people to react positively to such comments?

Bias is a natural fact of life. Accept it and move on. Problem is too many of the conversation is about media bias rather than the subject matter that it becomes the default talking point. I don't see anybody complaining about media bias from Global Times or the People's Daily. Why is that?

Actually, I do see people complain about media bias from GT or PD or any other Chinese sourced media. Infact, a very senior and respected member of this forum wasn't exactly happy with the way the Chinese media reported the train incident in Belgium/France even though that particular article didn't seem biased, it just didn't go into detail or praised the American servicemen. But that's not twisting facts, rather neutral reporting. While this member voiced the complaint on another forum, it does tell me complaints about media bias is levied across both sides.

Since media bias is accepted as a natural fact of life, I fail to see why voicing complaints on media bias is a problem for conversation, especially if the media bias being complained about can be readily verified with other sources and not just merely an individual not liking how something is worded. That in itself can become a subject matter and relates to the original subject matter as media can be used as a tool to further one's agenda. It's fairly common to see discussion threads evolve on issue being discussed. If one doesn't want to continue on that specific item, one could merely choose not to reply to that specific item and continue posting on whatever topic that person wants to highlight.

 

[Blackstone]

You need to take it up with nfgc. It is not for me to defend his statements.


Example of comparative development and your idea of restraint. I wonder what would constitute unrestrained.
View attachment 17819



For the simple reason due to the scale of China's reclamation relative to all the others combined.

So China's reclamation is bigger that all other claimants combined, so what? Frankly, if the Fairy Godmother magically gave all other claimants equal land reclamations, it would make little difference in outcomes.

 

[Blackstone]

Having debated extensively with other posters in this forum I do have some observations that I can offer. Moderation are conducted professionally. Jeff in particular is as neutral as you can get. He is well respected by other posters regardless of ideological leaning. Any suggestion that moderation is bias is simply unfoundered when placed against facts. Having said that, many posters in this forum are generally pro China and any negative comments are not well received and that can generate a sense of forum bias. Any ensuring debate tends to degenerate and goes downhill. What is obvious it generally take a certain track :
* Arguments tends to mirror China official policies with very little substance being added;
* Playing the victimisation card i.e. it is someone else fault;
* Blame foreign media for reporting bias
* Dishing out the strawman argument even though it does not represent its usage in any shape or form
* Making assertions as if they are facts but will not respond when challenged

Finally, conduct yourself at all times in a civil and professional manner even if your actions might not be reciprocated because your patience will be tested.

Brumby, there's no balance to your message (which is generally true about the fanbois), because you could say pretty much the same things about some China critics on this forum.

 

[Brumby]

Your statement: "Arguments tends to mirror China official policies with very little substance being added". So same old pointless argument, should be dismissed?
.

I said " Mirroring with very little substance being added". You are tagging this statement as meaning "same old pointless argument, should be dismissed?" Am I communicating in Klingon that we are so far apart in establishing just what the contention is all about? There is a world of difference between echoing official statement and offering a defence of those statements. I have seen plenty of the former but clearly lacking in the latter.

I'll say China is a victim of Western media biase.

That is not what we were discussing. You are attempting to change the goal post. The issue was that China was claiming to be a victim in this. The genesis of this came from nfgc's post. A challenge that I might add that none of the pro China group has attempted to defend.

China stated in a press conference that it was the victim. Shall I post that in Putonghua and English as proof?

BTW, it is a derelict ship because Phillipine purposely grounded it to occupy the shoal. Who was the one that threw the first punch?

According to your post #1472 and this is what you stated "China build on islands/reefs they control." Applying your reasoning, the Philippines is only grounding a ship on what they considered to be their territory. How does that made China a victim considering that China is being the aggressor by blockading and not forgetting the territories are actually disputed.

 

[vincent]

According to your post #1472 and this is what you stated "China build on islands/reefs they control." Applying your reasoning, the Philippines is only grounding a ship on what they considered to be their territory. How does that made China a victim considering that China is being the aggressor by blockading and not forgetting the territories are actually disputed.

The shoal is a contested territory. I think that is a fact that everyone agrees. So, who made the first move to take it over and who reacted to that move? How can the one who made the second move to be the aggressor? Any Vulcan will laugh at your logic

 

[Brumby]

The shoal is a contested territory. I think that is a fact that everyone agrees. So, who made the first move to take it over and who reacted to that move?

According to history, the Philippines grounded the vessel in the Second Thomas in response to China's move on Mischief Reef. Regardless, the issue that China is a victim in this is laughable.

How can the one who made the second move to be the aggressor? Any Vulcan will laugh at your logic

The aggression is in the blockade. Occupation is benign. In contrast, blockade is an action designed to prevent supply from getting through. That is aggression even a Vulcan can understand. Whether they would laugh at it I guess you have to ask Mr. Spock