If true then this is Jai Hind media level stupid from CIA. For the sake of global peace I hope it is fake. Otherwise who knows what sort of dumb ideas they also believe in.
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
Are they getting paid enough as a troll ? If not try Mistplay
The “loyalty program built for gamers” that began in 2017 as a platform where users are paid to play video games. is Android-specific and offers its users the opportunity to play online video games in order to earn some extra cash.
Gamers choose games based on a list they are provided with, a chart with other players and they also browse for offers. You are able to get a reward by doing tasks like downloading, testing, and playing games. You get $5 for every 1,500 points you can get or achieve.
This gives you more points the longer you play. These points can be used to redeem prizes which include Visa Cards and the like.
Woff woff woff...haahaaahaaa
Yesterday, the United Kingdom that it was adding itself as a party to a World Trade Organisation (WTO) dispute between the European Union and China, as part of a between Beijing and Lithuania over the launch of a Taiwan representative office in the Baltic country.
China has effectively placed a de-facto trade embargo and secondary sanctions regime on Vilnius, and while EU heads of state have been reluctant to be too vocal in confronting Beijing, Britain’s controversial Foreign Secretary has now positioned herself at the heart of the matter.
She accused China of “economic coercion” – a buzz phrase which has gained currency among the media and political classes to describe Beijing’s retaliation towards countries hostile to it, such as Australia.
Some might consider the move something of a surprise, given that Britain has now left the EU. But it speaks volumes about the direction of Britain’s foreign policy since Brexit – and since Truss was appointed foreign secretary – which has increasingly embraced the idea of great power nostalgia and Anglophone exceptionalism. The shouting match over Lithuania in particular suggests Britain is effectively becoming a proxy for American foreign policy goals within Europe, and is being used as a tool to disrupt the bloc’s relationship with China.
Since the end of World War II, the story of Britain’s foreign policy is one of contradiction, to put it mildly. It is the tale of a declining empire, which has repeatedly failed to be realistic about its place in the world, and this has manifested itself in its constant tilting between the US and Europe.
The so-called “special relationship” with America embodies the nostalgia of empire, the belief in the supremacy of Anglophone capitalism, clashing with the more mundane reality of Britain being in Europe. This has created longstanding disorientation, ranging from Charles de Gaulle’s of Britain’s entry to the bloc on the basis of its relationship with the US, to Euroscepticism and Brexit itself.
Now empirical nostalgia has won. Upon leaving the EU, the UK has as Global Britain. As Brexit talks came to an end in 2020, the UK reoriented its foreign policy to align even more closely to the US’, embracing the anti-China rhetoric espoused in Washington, considering itself a Pacific power and sending into the South China Sea.
With this has come the idea of the EU being less of a partner, and more of an economic and strategic competitor. The UK has engaged in multiple rows with France over fishing rights and actively undermined Paris further with the controversial deal, all while edging closer to other Anglophone states such as the US and Canada
With that, Britain appears to have positioned itself as a pro-US, anti-China proxy in Europe: a player that can undermine the EU’s relationship with Beijing, to the benefit of American interests. One good example is how the UK, via the BBC, actively helped to undermine the EU’s (CAI) with China in early 2021.
As my research has , the BBC operates according to the interests of the British foreign office. In the period from the end of 2020 onwards, when talks were being concluded between Brussels and Beijing, the BBC began publishing articles on the Xinjiang region in China at a very aggressive pace. This included pieces such as in December 2020, and the in internment camps in February 2021.
This escalation in BBC Xinjiang content coincided with a United Nations by then Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab on the matter, which subsequently built up to coordinated sanctions by the US, UK and the EU, causing China to retaliate and prompting MEPs to freeze the CAI. Britain had been involved, ever so subtly, in setting an agenda on human rights designed to disrupt engagement with China.
Now, Liz Truss is positioning the UK to become a leading and vocal figure on the Lithuania dispute. While this has a dual purpose – serving the anti-Russia and anti-China agenda – it again points to Britain engaging in a strategy on both fronts that solidifies American interests on the continent.
The UK is willing to engage with Europe, but to all intents and purposes it sees the EU as a political and economic rival which is working against Britain’s national interest. Its support for Lithuania is intended to block France and Germany’s ability to engage with both Moscow and Beijing.
However, Truss’s claims of “economic coercion” from China are fanciful. While it is true that Britain’s own sanctions regime has grown in sophistication and scope, and can unquestionably cause economic damage to a country, the terminology applied paints China in a uniquely negative light, simply for doing what the US has always done on a much greater scale. Never are US-led sanctions referred to, in any media dynamic, as “coercion”– yet Britain under Truss has embraced this controversial term, and is hurling it around recklessly.
Has Beijing brought Lithuania to the brink of starvation, as US sanctions have done to Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen and many more countries? The answer, of course, is no. However, for Britain to back Lithuania’s government in its highly provocative foreign policy serves a number of ideological and strategic goals. Brexit has shifted the geopolitical dynamic of the continent radically, and the UK is now in effect America’s “regional policeman,” similar to Israel in the Middle East, Japan in Asia and Colombia in South America.
Britain is undermining the EU to upset China and please the US
Yesterday, the United Kingdom that it was adding itself as a party to a World Trade Organisation (WTO) dispute between the European Union and China, as part of a between Beijing and Lithuania over the launch of a Taiwan representative office in the Baltic country.
China has effectively placed a de-facto trade embargo and secondary sanctions regime on Vilnius, and while EU heads of state have been reluctant to be too vocal in confronting Beijing, Britain’s controversial Foreign Secretary has now positioned herself at the heart of the matter.
She accused China of “economic coercion” – a buzz phrase which has gained currency among the media and political classes to describe Beijing’s retaliation towards countries hostile to it, such as Australia.
Some might consider the move something of a surprise, given that Britain has now left the EU. But it speaks volumes about the direction of Britain’s foreign policy since Brexit – and since Truss was appointed foreign secretary – which has increasingly embraced the idea of great power nostalgia and Anglophone exceptionalism. The shouting match over Lithuania in particular suggests Britain is effectively becoming a proxy for American foreign policy goals within Europe, and is being used as a tool to disrupt the bloc’s relationship with China.
Since the end of World War II, the story of Britain’s foreign policy is one of contradiction, to put it mildly. It is the tale of a declining empire, which has repeatedly failed to be realistic about its place in the world, and this has manifested itself in its constant tilting between the US and Europe.
The so-called “special relationship” with America embodies the nostalgia of empire, the belief in the supremacy of Anglophone capitalism, clashing with the more mundane reality of Britain being in Europe. This has created longstanding disorientation, ranging from Charles de Gaulle’s of Britain’s entry to the bloc on the basis of its relationship with the US, to Euroscepticism and Brexit itself.
Now empirical nostalgia has won. Upon leaving the EU, the UK has as Global Britain. As Brexit talks came to an end in 2020, the UK reoriented its foreign policy to align even more closely to the US’, embracing the anti-China rhetoric espoused in Washington, considering itself a Pacific power and sending into the South China Sea.
With this has come the idea of the EU being less of a partner, and more of an economic and strategic competitor. The UK has engaged in multiple rows with France over fishing rights and actively undermined Paris further with the controversial deal, all while edging closer to other Anglophone states such as the US and Canada
With that, Britain appears to have positioned itself as a pro-US, anti-China proxy in Europe: a player that can undermine the EU’s relationship with Beijing, to the benefit of American interests. One good example is how the UK, via the BBC, actively helped to undermine the EU’s (CAI) with China in early 2021.
As my research has , the BBC operates according to the interests of the British foreign office. In the period from the end of 2020 onwards, when talks were being concluded between Brussels and Beijing, the BBC began publishing articles on the Xinjiang region in China at a very aggressive pace. This included pieces such as in December 2020, and the in internment camps in February 2021.
This escalation in BBC Xinjiang content coincided with a United Nations by then Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab on the matter, which subsequently built up to coordinated sanctions by the US, UK and the EU, causing China to retaliate and prompting MEPs to freeze the CAI. Britain had been involved, ever so subtly, in setting an agenda on human rights designed to disrupt engagement with China.
Now, Liz Truss is positioning the UK to become a leading and vocal figure on the Lithuania dispute. While this has a dual purpose – serving the anti-Russia and anti-China agenda – it again points to Britain engaging in a strategy on both fronts that solidifies American interests on the continent.
The UK is willing to engage with Europe, but to all intents and purposes it sees the EU as a political and economic rival which is working against Britain’s national interest. Its support for Lithuania is intended to block France and Germany’s ability to engage with both Moscow and Beijing.
However, Truss’s claims of “economic coercion” from China are fanciful. While it is true that Britain’s own sanctions regime has grown in sophistication and scope, and can unquestionably cause economic damage to a country, the terminology applied paints China in a uniquely negative light, simply for doing what the US has always done on a much greater scale. Never are US-led sanctions referred to, in any media dynamic, as “coercion”– yet Britain under Truss has embraced this controversial term, and is hurling it around recklessly.
Has Beijing brought Lithuania to the brink of starvation, as US sanctions have done to Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen and many more countries? The answer, of course, is no. However, for Britain to back Lithuania’s government in its highly provocative foreign policy serves a number of ideological and strategic goals. Brexit has shifted the geopolitical dynamic of the continent radically, and the UK is now in effect America’s “regional policeman,” similar to Israel in the Middle East, Japan in Asia and Colombia in South America.
Last edited:
Ok Chad and other losers, go Cry Ab it
Last edited:
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Even American Karens know you can only pull Karen bullshit when you are the customer. Who would have thought that acting like a MAGA Karen as a seller towards your biggest customer would reduce your sales.
It’s like there is some secret pandemic in America obliterating their collective IQ scores.
No doubt they will blame it on some made up Chinese bioweapon.
Huo Jianguo also criticised the US for taking Beijing’s shortfall in its purchasing commitment as an “untenable” excuse to keep pressuring China while showing no willingness to proactively reduce the additional duties on Chinese products that Washington imposed during the trade war.
“The implementation of any agreement requires both parties to cooperate with each other. The supply chain in the US is in shambles, and ports are unable to ship goods,” Huo said, noting that China’s failure to meet its commitments was due to “a variety of reasons”.
“China has done its best and has imported as much as it could and should have.”
Lu Xiang, a US-China expert with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, agreed it was not the least bit surprising that Beijing fell short of its purchasing commitments in the , given the global supply-and-demand shocks in 2020 and 2021, along with an ongoing labour shortage in the US.
“It would have been a miracle if [the target] had been achieved … Coupled with the fact that the US tariffs have never been adjusted, none of the aspects were conducive for China to complete the purchases,” Lu said, adding that the estimated percentage was the “result of China’s best efforts”.
They still think the Chinese are idiots, they keep on attacking China whenever opportunity arises but at the same expect China to hand over the nation's money to them.
How to understand the relationship and interaction?
To be frank, why does not the United States just stop buying from China? Will such embargo collapse China? No?
The US prints $$$ out of thin air, and last time created $9 trillion in record breaking 18 month only as of September 2019 after the Repo Crisis in New York... exchanging the digital USD for the real stuffs from China... yet they are still complaining that China gets too many electronic digits... while the whole world is paying the price for a mad, irresponsible printing of $$$...
Genuine questions to all here: do you observe price increases to your daily necessities in places you live?