In Singapore in 2003 a friend told me that he and many of his friends were delighted when they heard the news of September 11th two years earlier. In China, a colleague told me how he and his classmates applauded and cheered in school the following day. Obviously this isn’t representative of all Asian people, but I also think they were hardly isolated incidents.
I understood it. I understood that there was a lot of joy, and even more schadenfreude, to see the world’s superpower, the one that arrogantly appointed itself police officer of the world, weakened and devastated. It wasn’t right, but it’s not hard to explain.
With that in mind, I was interested in a much-tweeted WSJ blog post that appeared yesterday dealing with the complex range of emotions Chinese people were expressing on the Internet over the news of Bin Laden’s death. Of course, picking out comments from the Web is not a scientific method of measuring public sentiment, especially when vocal fenqing can easily drown out more reasonable voices. Still, I found the contrasting emotions quite fascinating. Here are a few of the examples:
“Deeply mourning Bin Laden,” wrote Weibo user Jiajia Nuwu in comments echoed fairly widely across the site. “Yet another anti-American hero is lost.”
“Is this real? Excellent!” wrote another. “Now the only terrorist left is the United States!”
….“Thank you America for helping us,” wrote user Zhaoling Tongzi, noting Beijing’s assertion that that the Al Qaeda leader had supported a Muslim separatist movement in Xinjiang. “He wasn’t a friend. He was an enemy.”
….In another oblique reference to Chinese politics, a number of Chinese Twitter users passed around a message reading: “Of the ten most evil people in the world, the U.S. has killed one. Now there are nine left.”
Nine is the number of members on the Chinese Communist Party’s ruling Politburo Standing Committee.
….In a more analytical vein, former journalist and prominent political blogger Wen Yunchao argued on his Twitter account that the death of Mr. bin Laden would have consequences for China’s foreign policy.
“In the past, the U.S. needed China to join the fight against terrorism and so made more than a few concessions,” Mr. Wen wrote. “Now that bin Laden is dead, there’s one less constraint. The Free World now has more power to encircle China on the issue of universal values.”
So I don’t think we can pigeonhole exactly how “the Chinese people” feel about the news. I’m assuming the usual suspects were unhappy to see America achieve what can only be described as a major victory, while the more sober observers realized it was something that had to be done, and perhaps was even a good thing for the entire world. I appreciated the blog post because it showed there’s more to Chinese opinion on the Web than just angry, jingoistic young men.
While we’re on the topic I’d like to get down some of my own thoughts on what has been an extraordinary couple of days in America.
Osama Bin Laden had become increasingly irrelevant and weak as each year passed. But the jubilation over his capture is unsurprising and is not misplaced (though the circus of ecstasy and shouting of “USA, USA!” is misplaced). After all, he did plan and provide the resources that led to a horrific attack on American soil, nothing less than an act of war, and he was also at least partly responsible for the deaths of thousands of Muslims, usually Shiites, who were butchered with religious fanaticism by Bin Laden’s point man in Iraq, Zarqawi. And he was responsible for many other acts of bloodshed against totally innocent victims.
(For anyone who might have doubts about the savagery of Zarqawi and his intimate relationship with Bin Laden, I suggest you read Bruce Riedel’s The Search for Al Qaeda and Lawrence Wright’s The Looming Tower.)
So while Bin Laden’s relevancy was diminished, the breadth and scope of his evil remained, and he was deservedly the most wanted man in the world.
Franz Stangl, the commandant of Treblinka, was captured in the 1960s, decades after Treblinka was destroyed, and he was in no way “relevant” to any cause at all (he was working at an auto plant in Brazil when he was captured). And yet, his relevancy was not the issue, but his evil deeds were, and justice had to be served. He spent the rest of his life in a German prison. For Bin Laden as well, justice had to be served, and news that it finally happened ignited a not-so-surprising sense of relief and national pride.
I just finished reading the aforementioned Search for Al Qaeda, which explains beautifully why Bin Laden did what he did. It was nearly 100 percent a reaction to Western colonialism in the Middle East following WWI, culminating in the creation of the State of Israel. The breaking point was the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia for the 1991 invasion of Iraq, which Al Qaeda sees as desecration of the sacred Arabian peninsula. They saw the USSR as colonizers of Afghanistan in the 1980s and we gave the Mujaheddin, supported strongly by Bin Laden, aid to defeat the Soviets, then we left them in the lurch, and the rest is history. So it’s quite fair to say the West played a pivotal role in the creation of Al Qaeda. But that’s no justification for global terrorism and mass murder.
I’ve actually read opinions that we should not have killed Bin Laden because it would inevitably lead to a reaction resulting in more violence. I find this point of view extraordinary. Do we actually not go after mass murderers because it would inflame other murderers? Do we turn the other cheek to the architect of an act of evil as heinous as 911, because we’re afraid his followers might respond violently?
On the other hand, I found the reaction by many Americans equally extraordinary, watching them dance in the streets and celebrating as if it were the end of World War II. It wasn’t the end of anything (aside from the hunt for Bin Laden), and celebrating anyone’s death in this way is undignified, . But again, I understand this reaction, even if I don’t admire it.
Bin Laden’s death is a good thing. It was an incredibly large achievement for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta, not to mention the Navy SEALs who carried out the operation like clockwork. It was a deservedly proud day for America (how could it not be; the murderer of 3,000 Americans has been brought to justice), but one that needs to be kept in perspective. There are a lot of depraved men out there willing to sacrifice themselves to kill as many infidels as possible. They aren’t necessarily Al Qaeda, the size and strength of which has been exaggerated and mythologized both by the media and by the government. But they do exist, and I doubt Bin Laden’s death will have much impact on them, except to give them added reason to kill. It will, however, deprive them of their charismatic figurehead, and that counts for something.
Update: Nice analysis and screen captures here showing how China’s major media are playing the Osama story.
1
By S.K. Cheung
It should surprise no one that the FQ would recite chapter and verse from the Mao playbook. “America is the enemy…anyone who is an enemy of the enemy is a friend…a ‘friend’ has just died, at the hands of the enemy, no less…so we’re gonna mourn our ‘friend”s death.” Sing it with me now….it’s idiotic but entirely predictable. Right and wrong, or justice, are irrelevant concepts in the FQ consciousness.
As you say, this is a symbolic victory of little to no strategic relevance. If one overriding American goal is to fight terrorism, and if the US needed China’s assistance and cooperation before Abbottabad, I don’t think anything has changed.
Given how FQ like to wallpaper blogs, the apparent prevalence of certain sentiments is likely not a good reflection of reality.
May 4, 2011 @ 1:38 am | Comment
2
By red_five
I’m going to go ahead and give this one to my neighbours to the south…even the jingoistic street parties. It’s been a tough decade and they could use a victory, even if it is more symbolic (although reports seem to indicate there was serious hard intel found in the building along with OBL).
May 4, 2011 @ 1:51 am | Comment
3
By Richard
Red, like I said, I totally understand it and am not really surprised. I’m not knocking them, I just think it’s kind of undignified, though (again) not at all surprising.
SK, the FQ have long been completely predictable, a broken record, or a CD with a big scratch that makes it keep replaying.
May 4, 2011 @ 1:59 am | Comment
4
By red_five
Ah, sorry dude, didn’t mean my comment to come off in a criticising manner. It was intended to be more of a reinforcement of what you mentioned in your post.
May 4, 2011 @ 2:05 am | Comment
5
By yourfriend
Why do you fault people for celebrating? Sure, there were some morons disgracing the real fighting men overseas with their ape chanting, but many among them were people who lost friends and family to the attacks. There were larger gatherings in NY and DC for that reasons.
May 4, 2011 @ 2:38 am | Comment
6
By yourfriend
Also I would there is nothing “unbiased” about this post. Representing a “range of views” without regard to weighting is inherently distorting.
The vast majority of Chinese people do not give a shit about Osama bin Laden, and out of those who do I’m sure most have bought into the propaganda about how he’s the most evil man alive etc etc etc.
Hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq, who will take responsibility?
May 4, 2011 @ 2:46 am | Comment
7
By Richard
I celebrated, in a sense. I was delighted. but the shouting of “USA USA!” and the dancing in the streets seemed a bit much – but I’m not condemning it; in fact, I’m saying I fully understand it.
Here’s exactly what I wrote:
May 4, 2011 @ 2:55 am | Comment
8
By yourfriend
Oh I can agree if you just mean the chest-thumping by a bunch of frat boys who have never seen combat in their lives.
I apologize.
May 4, 2011 @ 3:06 am | Comment
9
By FOARP
Weird to think there are kids in school learning long division who weren’t even born when the twin towers came down. I have never felt so utterly tired of the war on terror as I do now.
Back in 2001 people wanted to see justice against those who had attacked civilisation unprovoked. Edward Norton’s “fuck you” monologue in the excellent 2002 Spike Lee film 25th Hour put the general feeling about Al Qaeda quite well.
Nowadays, though, all the important people behind the 9/11 attacks are either dead or imprisoned – some of them extra-judicially, perhaps never to be released. The people we’re fighting are now mostly the people who joined Al Qaeda and the Taliban after we started going after Al Qaeda. Many of them joined because we went after Al Qaeda.
The only thing I can hope now is that Islamic terror groups like Al Qaeda go the way of their left-wing predecessors like the Red Brigades and the Baader-Meinhof gang. That the people involved in it eventually realise that they’ll never grow to old age without seeking some kind of peace.
May 4, 2011 @ 5:22 am | Comment
10
By Other Richard
I would say the greater strategic picture of the Middle East, including South Asia, is generally ignored by most Chinese people that I know, and that includes the war on terror narrative. The only exception is the general fear of Uighur “separatism” which, of course, is the party line.
The death of Bin Laden is almost certainly considered bad news in Zhongnanhai, in spite of public statements to the contrary. First of all, it signals the waning of Al Qaeda and the subsequent rise of the Arab Spring, which is an ideological thorn in the side of the CCP. Second of all, and perhaps more importantly, it demonstrates very clearly that, in spite of fatigue from fighting two very long, very hard wars, the sharp end of the American spear can reach almost anywhere in the world to execute a deliberate, discreet, and remarkably competent intelligence/military operation with little encumbrance. For all the talk of the rise of Chinese military power, surely no one thinks that the PLA/PLAN will have this sort of capability for decades, if ever. The first Gulf War was a wake-up call to the PLA, showing just how far American capabilities had progressed since Vietnam. This action highlights the current cutting edge of American military prowess, honed by nearly a decade of continuous global warfare, and leaves most observers wondering exactly what and how much the U.S. is capable of.
It’s hard to imagine PLA military planners not being a bit disturbed by this. The fact that the U.S. still has capacity for intricate special operations, while simultaneously conducting two in-country occupations, one offshore support mission (Libya), and one major relief mission (Japan) (and who knows what in Yemen), should give pause to anyone heralding the arrival of the Chinese military.
May 4, 2011 @ 2:18 pm | Comment
11
By Danfried
If there’s one good thing out of this that I’d wish for, it would be for Osama’s death to be considered an opportunity for Americans to declare the “Global War On Terror” over, regardless of whether it’s over or not. I’d go farther and agree with James Fallows that it shouldn’t even be considered a war — terrorism is just one threat out of many that the U.S. faces, and it shouldn’t have been the excuse to ignore domestic and international law, squander a trillion dollars, and waste the lives of thousands of Americans and half a million Iraqis.
I’m not holding my breath, though.
As for “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”, it’s certainly not something unique to the Chinese. The U.S. backed almost every non-Communist autocrat in the world during the Cold War, and Al Qaeda is just part of the blowback from that. That backing also means the Jasmine Revolution is just as much a concern to the White House as it is to Zhongnanhai; Mubarek may not be the last pro-U.S. dictator to fall, and you’d be a fool to think newly-liberated Arabs are going to suddenly be pro-American.
May 4, 2011 @ 5:41 pm | Comment
12
By ecodelta
@other_richard
Agree with you that the jasmine revolution will push back influence and perception of China in Arab minds.
It will not mean necessarily easier access to natural resources by EU/US, but it would change the world view in Arab countries to one more compatible and more critical to authoritarian regimes like the one run by the CCP.
There has been already critics in Arab countries about the coverage of the jasmine movement and the conflict in Libya.
It remains to be seen if China will have more difficult/expensive access to natural resources in Arab countries, and what will happen to chines led business, and infrastructure building in exchange for resources.
One significant change, on the US side, is the change of perception of young Muslims. The jihadist fanatic image competes now with Internet/facebook/twitter savvy jasmine youngsters.
What will be the view of CCP-China of this young people?
May 5, 2011 @ 1:07 am | Comment
13
By t_co
Other Richard–
It’s not surprising for the U.S. to have so much military capacity when it outspends its next 10 peer competitors combined. For all those heralding the arrival of the Chinese military, it bears witnessing that the U.S. defense budget is still 7x larger in nominal terms and 2.5x larger in PPP terms.
That said, it still is problematic for Zhongnanhai if the U.S. ever shifts its focus from the Middle East after killing Osama. This would free up U.S. military assets to pursue other “enemies” around the world, and China would be high on any potential list–if not directly, then by proxy via N.Korea.
On the flip side though, this operation certainly came at the cost of the U.S.-Pakistani relationship. Note how the U.S. and Pakistan are still witholding intelligence from each other (the U.S., all the electronic and hard data from the compound; the Pakistanis, all of the HumInt from the compound’s other occupants) even though combining intelligence from both sources would obviously be helpful. This is emblematic of a deeper distrust on both sides that is now very, very manifest in the public of both countries. What is telling is that in spite of letting the U.S. conduct drone attacks and military operations on its soil, the U.S. public still distrust Pakistan, whereas for Pakistan, they distrust the U.S. in spite of recieving military aid that lets them maintain an admittedly asymmetric but still useful military parity with India in spite of having 12% of the population.
May 5, 2011 @ 5:08 am | Comment
14
By King Tubby
OBL was little more than a smelly old man with a penchant for 12 year old brides and a lot of blood on his hands. His death is getting more news and tweet coverage than it deserves, since the Arab world (Tunisia, Egpyt etc) is already trying to develop a new governmental paradigm far removed from AQs agenda of political terror.ie moving towards some sort of democratic modernity and diametrically away from AQs loony theocratic caliphate.
And yes, all the Bruce Springsteen USA fist pumping was plain embarrassing to watch.
Older, more thoughtful US citizens talked about a sense of closure, but that is a pop psychology script picked up from midday television.
If I lost a relative or friend, I would not be thinking about closure, but good old Old Testament payback.
In addition, someone in Pakistan (a failed state since the executive does not control the organs of governement) sold OBL down the drain to US intelligence for money$$$$. A choice selection of truly venal perps here, ie any one of the many Islamic militant groups, Pak mafias, ISI, military or even from within the govt. The narrative that the CIA assembled a full mosiac of intel over 3/4 years which exactly pinpointed Bin Laden is just not convincing.
Do a google news search and forget about reactions from within China. The Indian media is in hyperdrive and having a whale of a time ..snigger, sneer etc.
Pakistan is an imploding state – “democratic elections, sort of” – but without the normal and effective institutions and services of governmemt usually associated with a democratic society. Not exactly a good strategic ally for China, when Islamic militants start turning their attention to West China, and the various drug mafias start pushing narcotiocs into China which is unexplored territory with great market potential. And that day will come.
a
May 5, 2011 @ 6:35 am | Comment
15
By yourfriend
Other Richard
First of all, it signals the waning of Al Qaeda and the subsequent rise of the Arab Spring, which is an ideological thorn in the side of the CCP.
As Danfried said, Mubarak will not be the last of many US-backed dictators to fall. The crux of US economic power is the hundreds of billions funneled by said dictators into US coffers via money laundering. Once this network collapses, the US will have a much harder time paving over their huge problems (inefficient education, horrible health care, horrible infrastructure, bloated military expenditure, disintegrating society, astronomical crime, massive wealth gap).
May 5, 2011 @ 6:38 am | Comment
16
By yourfriend
Tubby
when Islamic militants start turning their attention to West China, and the various drug mafias start pushing narcotiocs into China which is unexplored territory with great market potential. And that day will come.
Only in your wildest, wildest dreams. Drug pushers and terrorists are already giving it their all in China with no small amount of help from Western pushers; if anything they will simply enrage the Chinese public and make the CCP stronger than you can ever imagine.
May 5, 2011 @ 6:42 am | Comment
17
By Math
The Suicide of Bin Laden Shows That In Fighting America, Building Underground Tunnels is Very Important
Therefore, using only the Korean, without scientific methods, it’s impossible to defeat the United States.
Let’s first talk about Sadam. He first made enemy with the US during the first Gulf War, and when the secondary second Gulf War arrived 10 years later, he still had neither WMD nor big scale underground tunnels. How irresponsible it is to let 10 years pass without such things, of course at the end he ended up being captured by the US.
Now let’s look at the War of Resisting America and Aiding Korea. It started in 1950 and ended in 1953, in merely 3 years, the People’s Liberation Army built underground tunnels near the 38th parallel that went around the earth 4 revolutions. One revolution around the the earth is 40000 kilometers, 4 revolutions are 160000 kilometers. Our soldiers dug and dug and dug, and finally America couldn’t take a small hill, despite outgunning and outfiring the PLA for 5 hours in battle. If the Iraq forces had the persistance and tenacity of the PLA, the Americans would still be in a quagmire in Iraq.
Qaddafi made enemy of the US 20 years ago, even his daughter was bombed to death by the US. It’s been 20 years, where are the tunnels?
Now, let’s talk about Bin Laden. Bin Laden was considered pretty sneaky, got a house near the Pakistani military academy and hid there for a long time, and finally was caught by the American forces and he committed suicide. Of course, the American gov’t will not admit that he committed suicide, because it’ll then be less hollywood of a situation.
But how many years has the Afghan war been going on? 10 years almost. Even if Bin Laden’s people are as hard working as the PLA, they could’ve dug a tunnel linking the mountain on the other side of the country, or 4-5 tunnels. At any moment’s notice, they can jump into the tunnel and walk out of Afghanistan.
They could’ve not only built tunnels to escape, but built tunnels to confuse and entrap American forces. They could’ve built an undergroup maze, and lure the American troops into this maze, and jsut as they got lost, “Ping! Ping! Pong ! Pong!” ambush fire would come out from all sides, and easily an entire division of American soldiers could be barbequed.
May 5, 2011 @ 10:00 am | Comment
18
By S.K. Cheung
Math, you are a freakin’ nut job. Time to take your meds.
May 5, 2011 @ 10:59 am | Comment
19
By King Tubby
@ Math. We are talking about serious medical issues here and trust me I am also a doctor. Like your companero Hongjiang on CS, symptoms indicate that you are in the final throes of parental-inherited syphilis. Affects the reasoning capacities, and to make it worse all your hair and eyebrows will end up as a hairball on the pillow. Crikey, more of your posts and I will swear off drugs. Serious.
May 5, 2011 @ 11:20 am | Comment
20
By FOARP
Math seems not to have heard of either flame-throwers, tear-gas, or simply high explosives. He also doesn’t seem to have heard of Iwo Jima. Or Operation Killer. He also seems to have forgotten his medications.
May 5, 2011 @ 1:45 pm | Comment
21
By ecodelta
“Pakistan is an imploding state – “democratic elections, sort of” – but without the normal and effective institutions and services of governmemt usually associated with a democratic society. ”
Maybe it should reunite with India….. a sort of federation maybe.
May 5, 2011 @ 3:32 pm | Comment
22
By S.K. Cheung
To YF:
“The crux of US economic power is the hundreds of billions funneled by said dictators into US coffers via money laundering.”
—huh? Are you saying that the money people like Mubarak pilfer from their people goes directly towards the US bottom line? Where on earth do you dream this stuff up?
May 6, 2011 @ 5:06 am | Comment
23
By King Tubby
@byyourfriend. I was simply making the point that China should choose its strategic allies carefully, and in the long term, rogue state Pakistan won’t be one.
Mynmar a PRC ally is already a major conduit for drugs into the Mainland.
Iran suffers from the depredations of the Pak drug trade, and so does Russia if you recall Medvedev’s recent statement of serious concern about the 2.5 million drug addicts in Russia.
Get rid of the single lense my friend, and you might grasp the point being made.
May 6, 2011 @ 8:21 am | Comment
24
By Math
The Final Run
Bit by bit, the sand dust that fills the sky is receding. The azure sky and and the scorching sun once again hang over the desert.
He is on the road, driving his beat-up yellow cab. The sides of the road are littered with wreckages of vehicles. Columns of smoke rise in the distance.
It’s a fine day despite the choking heat. Not a puff of wind is blowing. A convoy of vehicles is traveling towards him, carrying many passengers. The scene reminds of him of the market days in this country when throngs of trucks transport folks to the markets; the only difference is, this time, they are not trucks, but tanks, carrying foreigners, guns in hand. He stares at them. They stare back. So they pass by one another.
“The damned war,” he cursed. Two days ago, a missile fell on the market in front of his house, destroying nearly everything in sight. He survived by a stroke of luck. He decided then and there that he would give up this cab business. This will be his final run. After this, he will leave this place to see his wife and children. “Shala and my children, we’ll soon meet each other again, after I’m done here.” He turns his head to take a glance at a photo of his wife and children. Their smiles in the picture do not fail to provide him the only consolation that he has.
Shortly he arrives at a checkpoint. Tanks sit by the side of the road. Their long cannons and polyhedron-shaped towers send a chill through his spine. A bunch of soldiers armed to the teeth stand by. A foreign soldier signals him to stop. He calms himself down and pulls over. During the past few days, nearly no civilian vehicles come out of the capital city, his car is the only one on road.
A few foreign soldiers come up to him, one, two, three, four, five. The leader stooped to have a look at the old car, then at him. “Where did you come from and where are you going?” With a smile on his face, he answers with a broken speech in the tongue that the soldiers can understand, “Sir, I come from the capital, I’m leaving that place because it is a very dangerous place to be, with the war and everything.”
While talking, he hands a cigarette over to the soldier, then light it up for him.
“When will the war end?” he asks.
“It won’t take long. We’ll soon liberate all of you in the capital.” The soldier enhaled deeply. He seems to have spotted the photo in the car, “The cigarette is not bad at all. Are those your wife and kids? I have two of my own, roughly the same age.”
“Oh, yes, they are mine and they are constantly on my mind. They left the city a bit earlier, I’m on my way to see them. Driving a cab around during war times is too dangerous. I’m giving up the business.” He looks at the soldiers, still smiling.
“After we overthrow your dictator, you won’t have that to worry about, you can come back and pick up your livelihood again.” The soldier is leaning on the door of the car. It is perhaps the first time in many days that he has seen a happy face among the local people. It cheeres him up.
“Maybe, but I have to go to see my family. If you would pay us a visit, my wife will prepare a good meal for all of you. Come with me, this is going to be my last business run and I won’t even charge you.”
“Can’t make it. We’re on duty. Give our regards to your wife and kids.” The soldier is a bit excited, thinking, maybe quite some locals have open arms for them after all. “Oh, yes, I almost forgot, the south is battle-infected, where IS your family?”
Still smiling, he picks up the broken picture frame, presses a kiss on the photo, then turns around, not quite himself from the excitement, he looks at the soldier in the eyes, still smiling.
The last thing he saw was the dazed, fearful, contorted expression of the soldier, and the cigarette butt dropping from his fingers.
May 6, 2011 @ 8:47 am | Comment
25
By yourfriend
King Tubby
Mynmar a PRC ally is already a major conduit for drugs into the Mainland.
Also a major source of dead drug traffickers with a bullet hole in their heads.
SK Cheung
huh? Are you saying that the money people like Mubarak pilfer from their people goes directly towards the US bottom line? Where on earth do you dream this stuff up?
Oh I don’t know, maybe the news that $31 billion of his assets (a mere drop in the bucket no doubt) were “frozen” by Western banks? Said banks happily accepted his money- creating cheap loans for Americans and a stronger dollar- until now.
Do you understand how this works? When dictators stash their billions in America, Americans get wealthier. Once the guy dies, they simply nationalize all of their money. Only time will tell if Egyptians will show dignity and pride and demand it all back, or if they are fools unworthy of nationhood.
May 6, 2011 @ 11:05 am | Comment
26
By S.K. Cheung
Wow Math, that’s moving stuff. Maybe you’ve got a Pulitzer in your future. On the other hand, it takes a certain warped individual to write about a suicide bomber, so as you prepare your acceptance speech, I would once again like to remind you to take your meds. And maybe find a hobby, cuz if you spend your spare time dreaming up a narrative about a suicide bomber, that’s just not normal.
May 6, 2011 @ 12:36 pm | Comment
27
By King Tubby
Crikey. Another bad diagnosis on my part. Oh well, back to the medical dictionary.
Richard, I believe you are inflaming the trolls. This site is rapidly loosing its credibility. Reads like an upmarket Chinasmack. How about a new rule: evidence based posts and commenters with serious drug issues need not apply..
May 6, 2011 @ 3:28 pm | Comment
28
By Richard
Tubby, as long as they follow basic guidelines I let most comments stand. I promise, my comments have always been like this. I can’t put each comment through a litmus test to see if it’s evidence-based. Who’s to judge that?
May 6, 2011 @ 11:01 pm | Comment
29
By S.K. Cheung
To 25:
““frozen” by Western banks? Said banks happily accepted his money- creating cheap loans for Americans and a stronger dollar”
—it is unfortunate that I am required to keep pointing this out to certain individuals repeatedly, but is someone mixing up their “western” with their “American” again?
The banks that took his money did bolster their assets…but as a percentage of those banks’ market cap, how much are we talking here? A pretty small share, it would appear. So I think you’re trying to ridiculously and disproportionately inflate this to give some semblance of credance to your “point”.
And putting money into banks is investing into a private enterprise, since his (and your) bank deposits are not play money for the US Treasury. So it’s a pretty big leap to get to “US coffers”. I guess you’re a faithful sort.
May 7, 2011 @ 1:41 am | Comment
30
By yourfriend
SK Cheung
it is unfortunate that I am required to keep pointing this out to certain individuals repeatedly, but is someone mixing up their “western” with their “American” again?
Sorry, I forgot you have unique educational needs. America gets around 50% of the trillions, Europe (mainly through London and Switzerland) get the other. Source: CIA and the UN.
The banks that took his money did bolster their assets…but as a percentage of those banks’ market cap, how much are we talking here? A pretty small share, it would appear. So I think you’re trying to ridiculously and disproportionately inflate this to give some semblance of credance to your “point”.
That would make sense if Mubarak were the ONLY criminal with money invested in the US, and if we’re only talking money in banks and not shell corporations investing more broadly in American or European markets.
Drug lords, human traffickers and many others have hundreds of billions sitting around serving US economic interests at the expense of their people. The US Gov’t turns a blind eye to this activity until it’s politically convenient.
History has shown however that only a tiny amount is recovered. Given Egypt’s size, $30 billion sounds like a drop of piss in an ocean.
May 7, 2011 @ 2:02 am | Comment
31
By S.K. Cheung
If you started to become even a little bit precise in your use of “western” vs “American”, I wouldn’t have to keep pointing it out to you. Feel free to start anytime.
“America gets around 50% of the trillions”
—“trillions”? What on earth? Foreign dictators have “50% of trillions” in the US? Are you sure it’s not kajillions?
“money invested in the US”
—did you notice that you said “invested”? Are they invested in T-bills? If not, how does that have anything to do with “US coffers”?
I have no doubt criminals of any nationality or ilk have lots of money. I imagine they do have those monies invested all over the place. Heck, some of it might even be invested in China. As a byproduct of serving themselves, their investments do serve US economic interests. And it’s true that people aren’t necessarily asked where their money is coming from. However, I’m not sure how that distinguishes the US from any other western, eastern, northern, or southern government. If you’re trying to say that part of the US economy is driven by a criminal element, that’s fine, though I’m not sure anyone would find that particularly newsworthy or enlightening.
But you’ll have to start over with how dictators funnel stuff into US coffers. Or try again.
May 7, 2011 @ 4:12 am | Comment
32
By yourfriend
The fact that you’re woefully uninformed doesn’t lend any validity to your non-argument (essentially your typical petulant ad hominems).
Yes, much of the money flows into bonds. And yes, money in the bank IS money that any American citizen or company can access in the forms of (now cheaper) loans.
The trillions represent the TOTAL amount of money laundered through banking institutions, worldwide, every year. This is all dirty money from not just dictators but corrupt politicians and other criminals.
According to a US SENATE INVESTIGATION, the CIA, and a UN COMMITTEE, 50% of ALL of this cash flow ends up in US banks. Nearly all of the rest goes through Swiss or English banks.
Do you get it yet or should I continue to cater to your special needs?
May 7, 2011 @ 8:01 am | Comment
33
By yourfriend
Also I forgot to address that little highschool business quip about Mubarak’s deposits relative to market cap. Market cap and total assets for banks is apples and oranges.
You are in way over your head.
May 7, 2011 @ 8:03 am | Comment
34
By S.K. Cheung
I’m not sure how your lack of precision in the use of language becomes my problem…except for the obvious fact that I’m left to try to decipher your mumbo-jumbo.
You started out in #15 with this gem (“The crux of US economic power is the hundreds of billions funneled by said dictators into US coffers via money laundering.”).
You have now morphed it in a meandering fashion to this (“money in the bank IS money that any American citizen or company can access in the forms of (now cheaper) loans.”) and this (“The trillions represent the TOTAL amount of money laundered through banking institutions, worldwide, every year. This is all dirty money from not just dictators but corrupt politicians and other criminals.”). So by “dictators”, you actually mean virtually all forms of the criminal element. By “U.S.”, you actually mean “worldwide”. And by “coffers”, you actually mean the banking system and possibly equity markets as well. Essentially, what you’ve said is that criminals the world over don’t always park their money in a mattress, and that money can end up back in the general circulation. Well gee, thanks Sherlock for that incredibly useful insight. If you said that initially, I would’ve thanked you profusely for telling us something we already know, then moved on. Instead, as per usual, your lack of precision in language requires that your “point” evolve over time as it is subjected to scrutiny. As least this time, it didn’t evolve into something ridiculous, only because you’re stating the blatantly obvious. But as I always say, you do what you gotta do.
You’re correct that when I said “banks that took his money did bolster their ASSETS…but as a percentage of those banks’ market cap,…” in #29, I could’ve repeated “assets” a second time. I should have been more clear. Now if only you’ll use the English language in the manner in which it was intended, we’d be getting somewhere. But everyone does things in their own time, I suppose.
May 7, 2011 @ 11:49 am | Comment
35
By FOARP
You know I was just wondering to myself why Maths’s* comments seem locked in a time-warp some time in the middle of the last decade. Thinking on it, his last comment didn’t actually read like his other comments, despite having the same 2005-ish feel to it, it seemed rather too human and didn’t have Maths’s tale-tell references to his scientific/engineering genius.
So I decided to do a bit of Googling to see what was out there, and looky what I found:
http://www.tianya.cn/publicforum/Content/english/1/11316.shtml
Yeah it’s something someone posted on Tianya back during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, originally by a Tianya poster using the moniker “shadowsmg”, and translated by “中吉普共军” (best guess translation: Chinese Jeep Communist Soldier). Maths’s appears to have done a copy/paste on us from someone else’s work.
*I refuse to use the American spelling of his name.
May 7, 2011 @ 8:54 pm | Comment
36
By S.K. Cheung
That’s priceless stuff. So unless Math also happens to be shadowsmg, he has just added plagiarism to his list of accomplishments. That has less to do with a lack of meds, and more to do with a lack of character.
May 8, 2011 @ 1:19 am | Comment
37
By yourfriend
Reading comprehension. Billions by dictators, TRILLIONS by other criminals. You just have very bad logic. Your math could use some work as well.
Estimates are 1.5-3 trillion for the world per year, 50% goes to America, 50% to “others” mainly Europe. What’s 3 divided by 2? Gee, hard one!
All of these statements are satisfied. You can blame me for not telling you all of the details, but that’s your problem- you certainly take a tone of someone who isn’t completely clueless. Don’t pretend you’re something you’re not, and we’ll communicate just fine.
May 8, 2011 @ 3:05 am | Comment
38
By S.K. Cheung
“Billions by dictators, TRILLIONS by other criminals.”
—that’s fantastic. As I already said in #34, “So by “dictators”, you actually mean virtually all forms of the criminal element. By “U.S.”, you actually mean “worldwide”. And by “coffers”, you actually mean the banking system and possibly equity markets as well. Essentially, what you’ve said is that criminals the world over don’t always park their money in a mattress, and that money can end up back in the general circulation.”. It’s interesting how I can say something, and it completely eludes you. And I’m not even trying. So I simply say it again, until it percolates slowly and (hopefully) eventually through your rather thick skull.
Considering that you started out talking about Mubarak, one wonders about the evolution of your “point” to its current state. Your “point” now is certainly no more enlightening than simple arithmetic, but perhaps we will need the help of Sherlock and Watson to show us how A materially contributes to B. Cuz you don’t seem up to the task. Time to check back into the training facility, it seems.
May 8, 2011 @ 6:48 am | Comment
39
By yourfriend
I’m not here to teach you reading comprehension. I already explained to you that your problem is that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Same thing happens every time- you get angry when anyone attacks your beloved little innocent West and come charging in with 0 facts.
Put that liberal arts degree to use and try reading sometime, hard I know.
May 8, 2011 @ 9:19 am | Comment
40
By S. K. Cheung
Listen, logic is where it’s at, and that’s what you lack. Precision is also good. Saying what you mean, and meaning what you say, is also a good idea. So that’s a couple of things you can work on.
But hey, if you can’t get your ideas straight right away, and need to develop it as you go along under derisive questioning, well, you do what you gotta do.
I am nowhere near angry. Disappointed, however, that all ccp apologists seem to conflate ” west” and the “USA” almost all of the time. You’ve probably done it again here. But that’s no big surprise. The next time you want to suggest that criminals invest their money just like the rest of us, just say so at the outset and save us both some time. And since that is not a unique trait of “eastern” or “western” criminals, best to spare us your “west is bad” routine unless the situation actually applies. But it amuses me to watch you try so hard. You are certainly motivated.
May 8, 2011 @ 12:25 pm | Comment
41
By xian
The asspain on this blog lol
Most Chinese people don’t care about Osama. Barring the kids trying to be edgy I’d guess most people feel a detached “might as well get him” towards his death.
May 8, 2011 @ 4:29 pm | Comment
42
By yourfriend
Saying what you mean
Except I did say what I meant. I just withheld some of my knowledge, since you think you’re an expert on everything when in fact you’re completely clueless.
May 9, 2011 @ 2:46 am | Comment
43
By yourfriend
I am nowhere near angry. Disappointed, however, that all ccp apologists seem to conflate ” west” and the “USA” almost all of the time.
Since you have special needs, I will again show my kindness to the challenged: the USA is part of the West. In fact it has so much sway that many of its policies are de facto, overriding policy.
You’re not very sharp (nor very educated), so I will break it down in a way even a complete degenerate could understand:
1) The US supports dictators all around the world
2) These dictators rape their people for money and hide their money in the US. But little Cheungsie asks, “Oh mister, but why is this a ‘US centric’ problem?!? Every country does the same!” Little Cheungsie, no, not every country does the same. The US turns a BLIND EYE to the vast majority of criminal cash flows into their country. Likewise, most other nations do not have banking institutions with decades of experience in money laundering and raping the poor for profit.
3) Likewise, other criminals like drug lords, human traffickers, slave traders, corrupt politicians dump money into the US (and the rest of the West, since someone is a little too dense to follow the argument). Thus the “trillions”. Not lost yet, are you? You can do it Cheungsie, just don’t forget which side of your drool cup should be facing upwards. I believe in you.
4) After this money is laundered, this dirty, filthy money soaked in the blood of children, it flows into all US (and Western) assets. It increases the value of your stocks. It makes your loans cheaper and more widely available. It lowers your interest rates. It inflates the value of your assets. It decreases the price of commodities. And your banks earn a handsome profit.
5) This corrupt and evil practice also cements ties between the US Gov’t and murderers like Mubarak, who is just one of many, many fascist dictators the US supports (and has supported). Others include: Mobutu, Suharto, Papa Doc Duvalier, Francisco Franco, Augusto Pinochet, and the list goes on and on and on and on. Saddam Hussein was another but he went “rogue” aka turned his back on Western (and American) interests.
But go ahead and keep believing your precious innocent West can do no wrong, has never done wrong, is the end of history, and is only wealthy because of honest hard work. In other words, Latin Americans, Africans and Middle Easterners are poor because they’re “stupid”, not because America (and the rest of the West) robs them blind.
Also they hate your freedoms.
May 9, 2011 @ 2:56 am | Comment
44
By yourfriend
Long story short:
A tiny handful of people die at Tiananmen,
Cheungsie: OMGOSH, HORRIBLE, UNFORGIVABLE, NEVER FORGET! DOWN WITH THE CHINESE REGIME!
America invades Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of non-combatants,
Cheungsie: Oh wonderful! Democracy is spreading! Give someone a Nobel Peace Prize!!
Falun Gong levies deranged and false accusations of “organ harvesting” against China,
Cheungsie: CHINA MUST BE DESTROYED, LIQUIDATE THE GOVERNMENT!
America systematically rapes and plunders the third world,
Cheungsie: Well everyone else does it too! Who cares that when they do it, it’s on a 1/100,000th scale? Scale doesn’t matter! Scale only matters when we’re talking about “rogue governments” and “regimes” that my corporate mass media tells me to dislike!!
May 9, 2011 @ 3:00 am | Comment
45
By S.K. Cheung
“Except I did say what I meant.”
—oh really? Considering that you went from this in #15 (“The crux of US economic power is the hundreds of billions funneled by said dictators into US coffers via money laundering.”) to this (“money in the bank IS money that any American citizen or company can access in the forms of (now cheaper) loans.”) and this (”The trillions represent the TOTAL amount of money laundered through banking institutions, worldwide, every year. This is all dirty money from not just dictators but corrupt politicians and other criminals.”) in #32, I guess you say what you mean, except it is what you mean that evolves over time. Which is what I told you before. You have a penchant for requiring me to repeat myself. As I said, you should’ve just said that the money from criminals can end up in all the nooks and crannies of the financial system the world over, and we could’ve dispensed with this long ago. If that is “knowledge”, well, it’s pretty common knowledge. But if you need to take heart in the small victories, be my guest.
“the USA is part of the West. In fact it has so much sway that many of its policies are de facto, overriding policy.”
—the key phrase there is “part of”. If you can conceptualize that the “west” includes other “parts” besides the USA, well, that’s already progress. Good show, mate.
And what is “de facto policy”? Perhaps you can share with us what you mean when you say that…in due time of course, since that might evolve too.
The US does support certain dictators at certain times. Those dictators do behave like dictators…though not unlike dictators that the US does NOT support. BTW, I guess we’re back to “dictators”, as opposed to “criminals”. But like you say, you say what you mean. Right.
“no, not every country does the same. The US turns a BLIND EYE to the vast majority of criminal cash flows into their country. Likewise, most other nations do not have banking institutions with decades of experience in money laundering”
—hmmm, I didn’t realize countries like Switzerland had such inexperienced banking institutions. Wow. You are a great source of “knowledge”. And other nations should be applauded for their apparently rigorous and systematic mechanisms for rooting out funds invested in their country by criminal elements and “dictators”. Could you perhaps name some of these “other nations”?
“other criminals like drug lords, human traffickers, slave traders, corrupt politicians dump money into the US (and the rest of the West,”
—thanks once again, as I’ve said, for stating the blatantly obvious. I had a suspicion the criminal elements don’t keep their money in a mattress, but gosh I couldn’t be sure until you told me. You are such a fountain of “knowledge”.
“It increases the value of your stocks. It makes your loans cheaper and more widely available. It lowers your interest rates. It inflates the value of your assets.”
—and yours too, I suspect. Due to your apparent distaste for such things, I imagine you have a morals-driven portfolio, don’t take out loans, don’t use credit, and insist on selling your assets for less than book value (since of course the book value is “inflated”). BTW, any luck on naming a country that systematically weeds out the capital of “criminal elements”?
“believing your precious innocent West can do no wrong”
—now where have I said that? It’s obviously not perfect, but it’s better than what the CCP has to offer. That’s why I live here. How about you? Potentially painful question that exposes your hypocrisy, I know, but you’re a big boy, right?
Your #44 is pathetic. Classic example of a CCP apologist arguing against something they hoped someone had said, rather than what they said. It’s like a genetic defect amongst you folks.
If you feel Chinese citizens sitting in a square deserve to be killed by their government, that’s your problem, not mine. The Iraq thing is completely schizophrenic in the context of this discussion, so maybe you, like Math, should take your meds. The FLG organ business is crazy, but that doesn’t detract from their other legitimate differences, though of course such a subtle distinction will no doubt elude geniuses like you. And the last point is too full-on retarded to even merit a response. Your #44 sounds like a list of CCP talking points. Are your handlers giving you a hard time for your ineffectiveness to date? Is that what provoked your comical little tirade? Of course, no CCP apologist tirade can pass without a reference to “media” to boot. You guys are just so predictable, and so true to your training.
May 9, 2011 @ 5:42 am | Comment
46
By yourfriend
Considering that you went from this in #15
Still fail at reading comprehension?
I guess you say what you mean, except it is what you mean that evolves over time.
Except not. The only thing that doesn’t make perfect sense upon reading it the first time is how I mentioned the hundreds of billions from dictators (Mubarak ALONE had AT LEAST 30 bil stashed away), then expanded it to the trillions with the addition of other criminal activity.
It’s a part of the whole. Fail logic, fail reading comprehension again. Try again Cheungsie.
hmmm, I didn’t realize countries like Switzerland had such inexperienced banking institutions
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/most
2. in the majority of instances: Most operations are successful.
I had a suspicion the criminal elements don’t keep their money in a mattress, but gosh I couldn’t be sure until you told me. You are such a fountain of “knowledge”.
Nice try at dodging the point. So you’re saying that America being the de facto criminal banker for .75-1.5 trillion dollars worth of dirty money a year is not a bad thing?
BTW, any luck on naming a country that systematically weeds out the capital of “criminal elements”?
How about all of those countries that, I don’t know, don’t launder trillions a year? Like oh say, all of them but America? (Switzerland wins on a per capita basis though, England beats America as well)
but it’s better than what the CCP has to offer. That’s why I live here. How about you? Potentially painful question that exposes your hypocrisy, I know, but you’re a big boy, right?
Nope, the CCP doesn’t steal trillions from impoverished nations a year. That’s why they have less to offer.
Want a country that was developed on democracy? Move to India or Haiti. Want a country that was built on genocide, disenfranchisement of non-whites, and generally non-democratic behavior? Try Canada.
Your #44 is pathetic. Classic example of a CCP apologist arguing against something they hoped someone had said, rather than what they said. It’s like a genetic defect amongst you folks.
Pot, kettle. You’re the king of straw men and ad hominems here. I’d tear you a new one if my comments weren’t auto-filtered- without your childish, whiny ranting and personal attacks.
The Iraq thing is completely schizophrenic in the context of this discussion
Cheungsie boy thinks deaths caused by a government are different from deaths caused by a government. Oh wait, the US killed several times more people, for a much less justifiable reason! That means… the West is in the right, again!
Deranged West-fanboys think it’s always okay to murder civilians, as long as white people do it. Also it’s okay to murder civilians if you’re a nation backed by the West, like say Indonesia under Suharto where hundreds of thousands died and millions more starved and withered away to disease.
but that doesn’t detract from their other legitimate differences
It detracts from their credibility, Cheungsie boy, and you’d have to be a blind shill to believe any of their other fantastic horse dung.
Your #44 sounds like a list of CCP talking points.
Your entire career sounds like CIA sponsored propaganda. Hey, if they paid $2-3 trillion for a pointless war, they may as well give you a few peanuts for your laughable efforts.
May 9, 2011 @ 8:55 am | Comment
47
By S.K. Cheung
“Except not. The only thing that doesn’t make perfect sense…then expanded it to the trillions with the addition of other criminal activity.”
—it is amazing how you can contradict yourself in the span of back-to-back statements. Do they teach you that too? Your meaning does not evolve over time…but for the time when you took one thing and “expanded” it into another. Expanded… evolved… toMayto… toMAHto … whatever floats your boat. What you say makes perfect sense…except when it doesn’t. I think that about covers your grasp of logic.
“It’s a part of the whole.”
—indeed. And what is “the whole”? Why, it’s what I’ve already said several times (“the money from criminals can end up in all the nooks and crannies of the financial system the world over”). BTW, you’re welcome.
“2. in the majority of instances…”
—ummm, I hate to show you digging a hole for yourself again, but you said this in #32 (“50% of ALL of this cash flow ends up in US banks. Nearly all of the rest goes through Swiss or English banks.”). So has your meaning of “most” also evolved to not include Switzerland all of a sudden? Or England perhaps. When you say “all of the rest”, do you mean something other than “the majority of instances”? It is comical how you CCP apologists say things that contradict yourself in a span of 48 hours. I know having a short memory is a good thing when you are dazed and confused, but this is a bit much, no?
“Like oh say, all of them but America? (Switzerland wins on a per capita basis though, England beats America as well)”
—pardon? Those are exactly the two nations that you already said processes nearly all of the other 50% of all those trillions. So on the one hand, they handle nearly as much “dirty money” as America, but on the other hand, they are the same countries that “systematically weeds out the capital of “criminal elements”? OK, I give up, you’re going to have to evolve that one for me.
So in the end, this challenge is yet unanswered: “And other nations should be applauded for their apparently rigorous and systematic mechanisms for rooting out funds invested in their country by criminal elements and “dictators”. Could you perhaps name some of these “other nations”?”. As a hint, Switzerland and England aren’t going to fly unless you operate with a unique form of the English language. You’ll also have to “evolve” an answer for how “per capita” relates to the banking system. You take all the time you need. I’m in no particular hurry.
“So you’re saying that America being the de facto criminal banker for .75-1.5 trillion dollars worth of dirty money a year is not a bad thing?”
—well actually, I’ve said nothing on this thus far. If money can be proven to be dirty, then that’s one thing. However, (unlike in China perhaps) broad-strokes labelling of money being from drug lords etc doesn’t carry much weight in a society with the rule of law. When people are convicted of whatever crime, then those proceeds of crime can be confiscated. Ironically, it is when those proceeds of crime are confiscated by the state that you can truly say that the dirty money enters US coffers, so that would probably give you a hissy fit as well. So it is unclear to me exactly what you would find acceptable. It’s part of that say what you mean/mean what you say business again.
“Nope, the CCP doesn’t steal trillions from impoverished nations a year.”
—umm, that hardly answers “That’s why I live here. How about you?”. Who knows, maybe that “answer” of yours will also evolve/expand over time.
“I’d tear you a new one…”
—wow, you are one tough customer in the anonymity of the internet. A CCP apologist with big brass ones, apparently. A rarity indeed. Good show.
“deaths caused by a government”
—didn’t you start out wanting to talk about “dirty money”? I guess that, too, has evolved. Much of what you say seems to be in evolution. If only your intellectual capacity could undergo the same process, we’d be getting somewhere. Right now, you seem to be at the level where, if someone rings a bell, your mouth waters.
“Deranged West-fanboys think it’s always okay to murder civilians,”
—I have truly lost track of the number of times I’ve found “a CCP apologist arguing against something they hoped someone had said, rather than what they said. It’s like a genetic defect amongst you folks.” You have once again reaffirmed the rule.
“It detracts from their credibility”
—this I can agree with. What a miracle, for you. The whole FLG organ harvesting business was idiotic. However, that does not render FLG persecution at the hands of the CCP “fantastic”. Of course the CCP would feel otherwise, so it’s no surprise that you feel that way too. I admire your dedication. Your effectiveness, not so much.
“Your entire career…”
—huh? This is strictly leisure…and it’s folks like you who provide me with frequent amusement. I hope you write again soon.
May 9, 2011 @ 2:42 pm | Comment
48
By slim
How do we count China’s investments and dollar holdings in the US: as that of criminals, or of dictators?
May 10, 2011 @ 5:20 am | Comment
49
By yourfriend
Are you stupid?
This is what I said:
Likewise, most other nations do not have banking institutions with decades of experience in money laundering”
This was your mind-bogglingly stupid response:
—hmmm, I didn’t realize countries like Switzerland had such inexperienced banking institutions. Wow. You are a great source of “knowledge”.
Get over it, you lost. Not even you are this much of a retard.
If money can be proven to be dirty, then that’s one thing. However, (unlike in China perhaps) broad-strokes labelling of money being from drug lords etc doesn’t carry much weight in a society with the rule of law.
Are you stupid? Like I said, the CIA, US Senate and the UN are the ones calling the money dirty. I’m not even going to dignify your idiotic “name a country that doesn’t” comment with a response. I guess that means every “CCP supporter” (i.e anyone who doesn’t worship the West) can stonewall all discussion of human rights and the environment with “name one country that doesn’t violate human rights” or “name one country that doesn’t pollute”.
You’re not very bright though so I doubt you will see the parallel, and just try to bog me down with more of your retarded questions.
You have once again reaffirmed the rule.
Yes, the rule where you’re too stupid to realize you did actually say something you claimed you didn’t. But then again, you have no grasp of logic or reading comprehension, and you’re also too much of a moron to remember your own words.
Ironically, it is when those proceeds of crime are confiscated by the state that you can truly say that the dirty money enters US coffers
Nope, you don’t get to define when capital benefits a nation. That’s for people with basic economic sense, not people who are uh, challenged.
The whole FLG organ harvesting business was idiotic.
Doubt that’s what you and your fellow shills thought before Harry Wu repudiated their laughable claims. You’re making progress here, the Down’s Syndrome I don’t think you’ll be able to overcome this decade however. But science is amazing these days, perhaps we’ll be able to raise your IQ to triple digits.
May 10, 2011 @ 5:25 am | Comment
50
By yourfriend
slim
How do we count China’s investments and dollar holdings in the US: as that of criminals, or of dictators?
Neither. The Chinese government is less criminal than the US gov’t or the majority of European nations.
May 10, 2011 @ 5:26 am | Comment
51
By xian
Aw did you guys delete my comment
Is it because I said ass?
May 10, 2011 @ 9:26 am | Comment
52
By xian
PS: That’s a lot of personal attacks in one post friend
The butthurt is palpable
May 10, 2011 @ 9:27 am | Comment
53
By Richard
I haven’t been watching this thread, and now I see it’s gotten kind of nasty. Yourfriend-ferin, I’ve been very magnanimous, letting you comment at will, but you are pushing it. You were doing well for a while, avoiding the ad hominems but now you’re relapsing. Do it again and the ban will go back into effect.
Xian, what are you talking about? None of your comments have ever been deleted.
May 10, 2011 @ 9:54 am | Comment
54
By S.K. Cheung
“Likewise, most other nations do not have banking institutions with decades of experience in money laundering”…
—news flash for the ol’ YF there. We’ve already been through #44 and 45. Among others, #46 and 47 have happened since then. Why did you ignore some of my observations in #47? You are running through the CCP apologist checklist with expert efficiency. First, argue against what you hoped someone had said, rather than what they actually said. Second, when pressed with points and questions to which you have no response, ignore them and go over things that were already previously discussed. Why is it that CCP apologists display such a dearth of character? Is that a prerequisite or something?
But hey, if you can’t handle #47, and want to dance with #45, I’m game. So you said “Likewise, most other nations”. Great. So is Switzerland among that illustrious group? Seems like you’re going to go with “no” for the time being (recognizing of course that you reserve the right to “evolve” that answer if necessary). Well ok then, so in that same paragraph I go on to say “And other nations should be applauded for their apparently rigorous and systematic mechanisms for rooting out funds invested in their country by criminal elements and “dictators”. Could you perhaps name some of these “other nations”?”. So your answer is…??? Bueller??? Bueller??? Oh, I get it, the CCP apologist runs away and hides when he doesn’t have an answer. Seen that movie before. And you had been so helpful with your definition of “most” being that of “a majority of instances”. There must be so many countries with exactly such rigourous rules in place to ensure that their banking institutions would not have extensive experience with money laundering. Yet you can’t even name one…pity. And funny.
Anyway, feel free to go over #45 again and again. And then when you finally grow a pair, you can steel yourself to address the first 5 paragraphs of #47. Don’t worry, I know you’re slow, so I’ll wait.
“Like I said, the CIA, US Senate and the UN are the ones calling the money dirty.”
—ummm, you need a conviction before the proceeds of crime can be labeled as such. It’s that annoying rule of law thing. Ever heard of it? Besides, this is another hilarious example for a CCP apologist. Usually, it happens with “western media”, when you guys go on and on about “bias”, only to turn around and use a “western media” story when it suits your POV, proving that it’s not the media that is biased, but the particular consumer. In this case, you are happy to concur when the CIA and US Senate call something “dirty money”. Hmm, I wonder if you are quite as keen to concur with the CIA and US Senate when they affix certain other labels to certain other nations like China when it comes to things like human rights. Like I said last time, you are an endless source of entertainment.
“I’m not even going to dignify your idiotic “name a country that doesn’t” comment with a response.”
—of course you won’t, because you don’t have one. And you lack the depth of character to admit it.
““name one country that doesn’t violate human rights” or “name one country that doesn’t pollute”.
—it’s pretty hilarious when your attempted parallels aren’t even parallel. Can you even see straight? Your contention is that the US is rather unique in her capacity to launder money. Well ok, it can’t be too hard in that case to name even one (1) country that has a systematic mechanism in place to prevent “dirty money” from entering their financial system, right? On the other hand, have I ever contended that China is rather unique in her capacity to violate human rights? Have I ever contended that China is rather unique in how she pollutes? If I had, then you can issue your retorts as a parallel. But I haven’t. So your retorts are rather obtuse. Logic, my friend. You should meet him sometime. You could use his help…and lots of it. Just as a hint for next time (and let’s face it, with your low-rent logic, there is sure to be a next time), it is you CCP apologist types who constantly feel the need to compare. Me, not so much. I just say that China sucks with human rights. Doesn’t matter if she sucks more or less than someone else. And if you suck at something, you should work at it, independent of what others do (and that advice is particularly timely for you right about now). Herein endeth the lesson for today.
“so I doubt you will see the parallel”
—like I said, it’s not parallel…so I guess that’s why I’m not seeing it. And it’s quite funny that you thought it was. Once again, you bring a smile to my face. Thank you.
“you’re also too much of a moron to remember your own words.”
—yes, I could learn. So maybe you can show me some examples. Kinda like what I’ve done for you here…not to mention #47. I should really charge tuition soon. Then again, maybe I’ll just consider this community service. Paying it forward, as they say.
“you don’t get to define when capital benefits a nation.”
—when did I “define” that? I just said you can’t confiscate proceeds of crime unless and until you’ve established that a crime occurred in a court of law. Are you arguing against something I didn’t say again. Gosh, you folks just can’t help yourself sometimes.
“Doubt that’s what you and your fellow shills thought before Harry Wu…”
—and the basis for your doubt is…? Oops, sorry, just asked you another question you can’t answer. Can’t help myself. Your failure to answer makes me laugh, and your actual attempts at answers make me ROFL, so I guess the reward for asking you a question is just too great to ignore sometimes.
So it looks like you addressed a smattering of my points from the latter half of #47. When you’ve gathered yourself, maybe you can summon the strength and character to address the first half. Like I’ve said before when it comes to you, I can’t wait.
=================================
BTW, that response to Slim doesn’t make sense. “less criminal” is still criminal, so how is that “neither”? You seem slick with a dictionary, so you should look up “neither” for future reference. And another nice comparison there. You folks simply and uttering cannot help yourself.
May 10, 2011 @ 12:53 pm | Comment
55
By S.K. Cheung
Is YF the same as Ferin? Didn’t he have some other moniker a while back? Maybe he needs a different handle for each of his colourful personalities. I would suggest man’sbestfriend, since that would mesh nicely with the reference to the Pavlov test subject that I made in #47.
May 10, 2011 @ 1:08 pm | Comment
56
By xian
Oh I missed it, nvm
May 10, 2011 @ 1:14 pm | Comment