Why "the West" gets China wrong

When London has CCTV cameras everywhere watching everyone's move, it's called security. China does it and it's called a human rights violation. Yeah sure those cameras can be used for that purpose but vastly more over simply for crime prevention. Like Great Britain doesn't use their tools for nefarious purposes. Just ask Northern Ireland on how the British have clearly violated their rights. Just as the media wants to spin everything bad in China, is it hard to believe they don't want CCTV being used so crime can flourish and make life difficult or perhaps wanting to have drug dealers addicting Chinese citizens? We already know they like to advocate sanctions on countries they don't like. Sanctions don't work because the last people to suffer are the people they're targeting. So the purpose of sanctions is really to make the people suffer and hopefully have them start a revolution and change the government at the expense of X amount of innocent lives. Of course they don't outright tell you that because they divert attention to the coordinated superficial spin. It's just like Hillary Clinton using the Arab Spring as a feather in her cap. Is she outright saying she's the one that orchestrated it so that she can take credit? Should she take credit for what resulted in more anti-American governments taking their place? I call that a failure and highly irresponsible if they are truly humanitarians at heart. But it's the superficial spin and rewards that are most attention grabbing to the public. They say people who believe in human rights are people of conscious. Where's their conscious now?

ABC78 said:

Interesting when Joe Lieberman proposed an American version of the Great firewall there are legitimate reasons for such a system.

Click to expand...

What exactly is your point? I'm not aware that The Economist agrees with censoring the internet, whether for China or the US. Are you saying that The Economist is wrong to say the Chinese internet shouldn't be censored because someone else thinks the US internet should be controlled in a similar way?

AssassinsMace said:

When London has CCTV cameras everywhere watching everyone's move, it's called security. China does it and it's called a human rights violation.

Click to expand...

Who are you thinking of that agrees with CCTV cameras in London but not Beijing? Do you have a specific person or organisation in mind, with some sourced quotes on the subject?

Mr T said:

Who are you thinking of that agrees with CCTV cameras in London but not Beijing? Do you have a specific person or organisation in mind, with some sourced quotes on the subject?

Click to expand...

Everyone that points it out. You think I just thought it up in my head? The British government themselves cancelled a deal with a British company that was going to sell the very same system to China. Why? Human rights concerns of course. It's outright hypocritical. Those who are against CCTV cameras in London don't make the hypocrites not hypocrites as you suggest. It makes the British government more hypocritical since they're accused of doing what they want to prevent in China.

AssassinsMace said:

Everyone that points it out.

Click to expand...

Anyone else (bar what you refer to below)?

The British government themselves cancelled a deal..

Click to expand...

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to - could you link me to an article? Thanks.

Mr T said:

Anyone else (bar what you refer to below)?



I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to - could you link me to an article? Thanks.

Click to expand...

All you have to do is do an internet search. Saw plenty of articles about how China uses security cameras for human rights abuses. Regarding the deal from a British security firm to sell the same security camera system to China... well I remember reading something like a decade ago where the British government nixed the deal citing how the West doesn't sell anything to China that can be uses to abuse rights. I also remember something mentioning Western countries stopped selling tear gas and other police equipment to China.

AssassinsMace said:

Regarding the deal from a British security firm to sell the same security camera system to China... well I remember reading something like a decade ago where the British government nixed the deal citing how the West doesn't sell anything to China that can be uses to abuse rights.

Click to expand...

Excuse me, a decade ago? Seriously? I thought this thread was about current issues, not just complaining about every time foreign countries have ever supposedly slighted China.

I also remember something mentioning Western countries stopped selling tear gas and other police equipment to China.

Click to expand...

When - in 1989?

Mr T said:

Excuse me, a decade ago? Seriously? I thought this thread was about current issues, not just complaining about every time foreign countries have ever supposedly slighted China. Not surprising you pick and choose what past is relevant for today.



When - in 1989?

Click to expand...

1989 is forgotten? It's still a part of Western foreign policy on China. Let me guess... It's because Beijing hasn't acknowledged or felt sorry. Since when has the West felt sorry for the past against China. Maybe because they have never acknowledged it so they don't have the need to feel sorry.

Well if that was the case why does the British media bring up Western colonialism in Africa in regard to China's presence there now. That was a part of the past and on top of that China didn't participate in Western colonialism. Not only does the West bring up the past to attack China today, you have use your own past to bash China today. Let me guess... you're going to ask proof that the British media has associated Western colonialism with China in Africa today. Go look it up yourself. Bringing up the past? Like the West doesn't bring up the past about China to put in in the context of current events. I can see why you would ignore the past for yourself given worst ugly history. Ten years ago doesn't count? I guess then you better stop bringing up anything bad about China because that's all in the past and certainly past ten years ago.

Pretty hypocritical when all the criticism of China is because of the past.

AssassinsMace said:

1989 is forgotten? It's still a part of Western foreign policy on China. Let me guess... It's because Beijing hasn't acknowledged or felt sorry. Since when has the West felt sorry for the past against China. Maybe because they have never acknowledged it so they don't have the need to feel sorry.

Click to expand...

IMO, I don't think Beijing should apologise for anything. They should instead build a memorial to commenmorate the soldiers who were lynched by the mob while refusing to use their weapons due to orders from commanders. China lost some good soldiers in those days, disciplined soldiers who followed orders to their death. The scumbags who were throwing molotov cocktails and bricks and dragging soldiers out of their tanks to be burnt to death should have been punished severely, preferably by capital punishment. It is regretful that Deng Xiaoping gave the order to fire so late, many soldiers would have been spared if the rioters were gunned down en-masse earlier.

jobjed said:

IMO, I don't think Biejing should apologise for anything. They should instead build a memorial to commenmorate the soldiers who were lynched by the mob while refusing to use their weapons due to orders from commanders. China lost some good soldiers in those days, disciplined soldiers who followed orders to their death. The scumbags who were throwing molotov cocktails and bricks and dragging soldiers out of their tanks to be burnt to death should have been punished severely, preferably by capital punishment. It is regretful that Deng Xiaoping gave the order to fire so late, many soldiers would have been spared if the rioters were gunned down en-masse earlier.

Click to expand...

I have a grand-uncle who lives in Beijing, and I remember my dad talking to him about it back in 1997. What I took away from that conversation was that while there were a few soldiers killed by the mob, that number is quite small.

The disconnect happens when people talk about the Tian'anmen Square incident, they focus exclusively on what was happening at the square and forgetting that there was a riot in the entire city.

From what I understand, the students were largely peaceful. However, as things dragged on, union workers got involved. Some say the workers were on the side of the government, while others say they were on the side of the students. The truth is probably both. Remember that this was as much an internal power-struggle inside the CCP as it was a rally for democracy and against corruption.

Anyway, from what my grand-uncle said, the soldiers who died were those who found themselves isolated in the narrow alleys of Beijing.

As for the "massacre" itself, it has always been a myth perpetuated for propaganda purposes. Recent wikileaks publications has proven that the US government knew there had been no massacre in the Square.

The Chinese government has maintained that there were no deaths within the Square itself. Jay Mathews, former Beijing bureau chief for the Washington Post said "as far as can be determined from the available evidence, no one died that night in Tiananmen Square".[115] Videos taken there at the time recorded the sound of gunshots but there is no video showing anyone being shot. The State Council claimed 5,000 PLA and 2,000 civilians wounded. Yuan Mu, the spokesman of the State Council, said that about 300 soldiers and civilians died, including 23 students from universities in Beijing, along with a number of people he described as "ruffians".[citation needed] According to Chen Xitong, then Beijing mayor, 200 civilians and several dozen soldiers died.[116][117] Other sources stated that 3,000 civilians and 6,000 soldiers were injured.

Click to expand...

solarz said:

I have a grand-uncle who lives in Beijing, and I remember my dad talking to him about it back in 1997. What I took away from that conversation was that while there were a few soldiers killed by the mob, that number is quite small.

The disconnect happens when people talk about the Tian'anmen Square incident, they focus exclusively on what was happening at the square and forgetting that there was a riot in the entire city.

From what I understand, the students were largely peaceful. However, as things dragged on, union workers got involved. Some say the workers were on the side of the government, while others say they were on the side of the students. The truth is probably both. Remember that this was as much an internal power-struggle inside the CCP as it was a rally for democracy and against corruption.

Anyway, from what my grand-uncle said, the soldiers who died were those who found themselves isolated in the narrow alleys of Beijing.

As for the "massacre" itself, it has always been a myth perpetuated for propaganda purposes. Recent wikileaks publications has proven that the US government knew there had been no massacre in the Square.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Is it just me, or is it almost always, that "other sources" will add another thousand or two onto any figure the Chinese come up with?

Since one can't simply average the two (Because that ignores a lot of issues.), it always seems like the reader has to investigate and come up with a numbers themselves.