Jump to content

They R Lying


Recommended Posts

I think both you and Xu have entirely missed the point. It appears to be all very well for you to be drip-fed state-controlled media, but when the free Western media dares to criticise the Chinese regime, it's anti-Eastern prejudice.

Do you honestly think that Western journalists make up the stories they write? Do you? Do you believe that the story I read today of how a woman was forced to spend 18 months in a labour camp because of her beliefs, before fleeing to this country out of fear of being detained again, was a fake? Because I don't and I don't think many others will.

The details of what does and does not go on in China almost do not matter. The broad brush strokes of oppression are there for anyone to see and accusing critics of prejudice or anything else will not change that.

Wow.... when people expressed their intelligent pro-tibet opinions in this forum, it reflects the individuality and the freedom of speech, and when I speak out my mind, I am prototyped as brain-washed by the state-controlled media as if I do not have my own individual thinking like you intelligent do. You assume anybody with a different opinion must be living in China what you presume I am. I am sorry, your prejudice and presumption works against the reality.

FYI, I live in country in Asia with full access of info from both West and non-West countries (i.e. the other 2/3 of the populations in the world), and probably make judgement based on a fuller set of information than the one you had and the one you though was so free, unbiased and complete. I lived in a western coutnry for 10+ years and have seen how western media not to the point of frabricate, but report selectively, that do the same, if not more, damage to ordinary readers's perception.

Sure, live in your world of democracies mandated by mankind to liberate the world. Just ask the rest of the 2/3 of the people in the world in South America, Africa, Middle East and Asia what they think of the American, British and French and all the great advanced democrasies, and what they have done to the world in the name of liberating the world in the past 20-30 years, not to mention the earlier even darker period not very long ago in the history of mankind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI, I live in country in Asia with full access of info from both West and non-West countries (i.e. the other 2/3 of the populations in the world), and probably make judgement based on a fuller set of information than the one you had and the one you though was so free, unbiased and complete. I lived in a western coutnry for 10+ years and have seen how western media not to the point of frabricate, but report selectively, that do the same, if not more, damage to ordinary readers's perception.

With the internet anybody here in America can get "west" and "non-west" news. I can do a Google news search and it will come back with articles from all over the world. So how can you say that you get a fuller set of information?

I just did a Google search for "Olympic torch" and the articles that came up on the first page were

1. Xinhua, China

2. Tokyo, Japan (through International Herald Tribune, France)

3. Bloomberg (USA)

4. Bloomberg (USA)

5. International Herald Tribune (France)

6. Xinhua, China

7. AP (USA)

8. AFP (France)

9. AFP (France)

10. AP (USA)

So I think that we can get almost any news source we want from any country we want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, live in your world of democracies mandated by mankind to liberate the world. Just ask the rest of the 2/3 of the people in the world in South America, Africa, Middle East and Asia what they think of the American, British and French and all the great advanced democrasies, and what they have done to the world in the name of liberating the world in the past 20-30 years, not to mention the earlier even darker period not very long ago in the history of mankind.

Are you talking about World War 2? So what was "dark" about it from the American, British and French point of view? They did a wonderful job liberating Germany and the world from the furuncle called Third Reich. Was the intervention of democratic states more legitimate than in this case? Or are you sad in any way that they did away with those bloody Nazis? :blink:

And by the way: Are the western democracies intervening militarily into China? -- No! Are they even imposing a serious boycott on that country? -- No! All they do is demanding that China keeps the promises it gave itself when it was awarded the 2008 Olympics. What is illegitimate about such demands? China placed that burden on itself. And if that country doesn't stand the scrutiny by the rest of the world, it should never have bid for such a major global sports event. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you talking about World War 2? So what was "dark" about it from the American, British and French point of view? They did a wonderful job liberating Germany and the world from the furuncle called Third Reich. Was the intervention of democratic states more legitimate than in this case? Or are you sad in any way that they did away with those bloody Nazis? :blink:

And by the way: Are the western democracies intervening militarily into China? -- No! Are they even imposing a serious boycott on that country? -- No! All they do is demanding that China keeps the promises it gave itself when it was awarded the 2008 Olympics. What is illegitimate about such demands? China placed that burden on itself. And if that country doesn't stand the scrutiny by the rest of the world, it should never have bid for such a major global sports event. Period.

Sure, they have done it right in the second world war, and I was talking about what they have done to the rest of the world in South America, Africa, middle east and Asia. I do not have to be explicit in the few words that categorize this period, cause based on experience those few would touch some people's nerves which I have no intention to provoke unnecesary emotions.

Regarding human rights improvement, yes there are areas for improvements, but anyone who has a bit of first-hand experience on the developments of China in the past 10 years would have seen changes in not 1 but many aspects in the society that cannot be imaginable 10 year ago (e.g. liberation on labour rights, legal/ judicial system enhancements, social security). Sure, the media is still tightly controlled, but you don't know how many cases these days social issues like corruption, social injustice have been brought up for discussion in the media these days that would never been thought of 10 years ago. Things are changing but i won't blame you or other people f you do not know any of such.

On the issue of Tibet, if you still insist it's a human rights issue, like what a lot of people do, then that be it, but I still have a lot of due respect for your pure and saintly belief. Again, history tells us time after time after time that CIA has been behind all these anti-government groups (Taliban used to be one of them but they diverted later) that they used in the names of democracy and human rights to stir up stability and overthrow their enemies . Tibet is just 1 of these many hidden agendas. CIA did a great job promoting Dala and brooming up those Tibetans in exile (or second generations Americans?), and llike I said before, if anyone knows the kind of slavery and aristocracy system Tibet was really like before, I bet he won't be 1/10 as popular as what he is right now.

I think China has been reasonable and open in addressing other human rights issue to align with the global standards, like what they have been doing in the last 10 years, but for some issues like the Tibet issue, dress it up how ever one like, it's fundamentally less of a human right issue but more of a sovereighty issue against not a religious group but a hidden force of a darker agenda. You have every right to disagree with me, and I respect that. But like it or not, history tells us many times what the west (or to be fair, largely US and partically US) has done to South America, Africa, Middle East and Asia in the name of democracry is undeniable, and the more fragmented and unstable in another regions other than their own serve their best innterest. Like I said many times, still believing it's a human rights issue show a lot of naiety, though I respect your point of view the way your view is shaped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're beating completely around the bush. What has the past of western democracies to do with their current behaviour towards China? Are they invading the country? Are they boycotting it? They only make justified demands about the human rights situation in China, including (for example) the working conditions for foreign journalists.

And, by the way: What has the past slavery system in Tibet to do with the policy the Dalai Lama currently stands for? I only hear the same two "arguments" against him: That he's supported by the CIA and that once, there was an unjust system in Tibet. But what gives you the impression that the Dalai Lama would create a "CIA state" or re-introduce the slavery if Tibet would gain sovereignty? He wouldn't even want to have the political power, as he said just a couple of weeks ago! He strives for a democratic system offering the Tibetans more human rights than they currently have. (So that's why this whole Tibet topic is a human rights topic in fact.) Even if Tibetans made mistakes as well in the past -- how can you assume that they would make those mistakes again and not learn from their own mistakes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow.... when people expressed their intelligent pro-tibet opinions in this forum, it reflects the individuality and the freedom of speech, and when I speak out my mind, I am prototyped as brain-washed by the state-controlled media as if I do not have my own individual thinking like you intelligent do. You assume anybody with a different opinion must be living in China what you presume I am. I am sorry, your prejudice and presumption works against the reality.

What absolute total and utter babble. You are the one making accusations of prejudice that you can't substantiate, so don't try and turn this round on anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez. A criticism that the free Western media should not be criticised for its "anti-Eastern prejudice", yet labelling the opposing news outlet as "drip-fed state-controlled"? Where is the mutual respect for opposing views?

I come from a country often criticised for its "over-regulated" media, and they are probably right. I cannot discount the fact that the local news coverage is anywhere near to being politically nuetral, but the govenment's stand on the "pitfalls" of a completely free media scene does have some merits, for one just needs to review its history of racial riots fueled by a free-wheeling press. The link between sensationalisation and profits do not need much elaboration. Even reporting of truth can lead to sensationalism, for people often form opinions based on isolated cases to apply them at any level they so wish.

I am in no way suggesting that the said misfortunes suffered by that woman was isolated, nor do I deny the human rights abuses suffered by the Tibetans in Chinese hands. I am, however, debucking this believe that a "liberal press" automatically gives its readers a balanced view on the subject at hand. I deplore, for one, the lack of reports on the good things the Chinese may have done to help ordinary Tibetans rise from absolute poverty, especially when they habitially give tacit mention of this with a prefix "The Chinese government says....".

It is extremely difficult for me, as a working journalist, to have any respect for such inaccurate nonsense as the accusations of Western media bias when one takes into account the clear controls placed upon the media working inside China.

Nobody, with the exception of Sir Roltel and certainly not from those making the charges of bias, has actually attempted to answer the question I raised. Do these people really believe that Western journalists make up the stories they write? As Sir Roltel quite rightly said, we do not simply take the stories we write out of thin air. There has to be substance to them. And if you are suggesting that profit is allowed to get in the way of a good story, I will tell you and anyone else who would make a similar suggestion that any self-respecting journalist always puts the readers they serve first.

And when you say you 'deplore' the use of phrases such as 'the Chinese government says', I'm not sure what else you expect to be said. The regime can make whatever claims it wants about taking people out of poverty and other issues, but there is little or no way in which such claims can be independently verified. In that context, to simply take these claims without contextualising them in that way leaves the media open to a charge of being too skewed in favour of the regime. In short, the media can never win whatever it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a few of us here at GamesBids who work in the media. Myself, while I work in the technical media now, I've had almost three decades experience in major mainstream news organisations. I know a thing or two about how it works. People love throwing accusations of media bias when they don't like what they're hearing. Sometimes there is substance to such claims. More often, it's not as simple as that.

Others, quite rightly, have pointed out the plurality of media in the West. We do have a wide range of different outlets for different opinions and viewpoints. Most media consumers here know how to filter and judge varying news outlets. When you are watching an outlet like Fox news, for example, most of us know it is taking a particular stance and will be able to balance it out with views from other, more liberal outlets. But even organisations that usually have traditional leanings can surprise. Take my employer, News Ltd (Murdoch). Traditionally we are seen as conservative. On the Beijing issue, at least in Australia, it hasn't followed such a clear line. Our coverage has tended to be anti-boycott and pro-games. Indeed, one of our leading tabloids, usually the voice of petty nationalism and conservatism (Sydney's Daily Telegraph) ridiculed Dawn Fraser last week for her announcement she will be boycotting Beijing to protest over rights. If anything, the stance has been firm not to politicise the games or the relay, but at the same time support our right to protest and disagree.

As Arwebb said, to think journalists will make up events of world significance out of thin air is ridiculous. One, in my experience, journos tend to be an ornery lot who don't take kindly to anyone telling them what to do or write, be it their boss or their readers or, especially, their government. Two, in this era of the internet, so many sources are available that any inadvertent or even deliberate mis-reporting is quickly found out and exposed. Plus, the open and widespread nature of the internet increases the diversity and plurality of news sources available to western readers and media consumers. It really is a golden era of citizen journalism and of consumers being able to piece together events from a multiplicity of sources.

As to the anti-CNN postings specifically. Looking through them, it seems a vast majority seem to be picking at the fact that photographs from outside China were used to illustrate stories about events within China. Granted, some may have been captioned better to make this clear (indeed, some are actually so captioned). As someone who has access to the wire news and photo sources, and took particular interest in them in light of the recent events, these were in many cases the only images available to illustrate. Footage and photographs from within Tibet itself was scarce and hard to come by at the height of the violence there, especially after foreign journalists and tourists were quickly "told" to leave when events broke out. But news coverage, print and electronic, requires images to sell ts stories. If events in China produce few such images, but those same events also spark protests in neighbouring countries for which images ARE available, it is legitimate to run with those pictures _ provided, of course, those images are properly explained and captioned. The fact that a picture of a riot in Nepal is used to illustrate a story about riots in China does not mean that the riots in China were made up. It illustrates the act that events in China can also spark actions outside its borders.

Again, many news outlets in the west have also tried to look at the bigger picture. The anti-CNN site has chosen to highlight a handful of the most senstational and unbalanced reports. This no doubt has happened. But it ignores, however, the vast amount of other articles that appeared that took a wider view, that did indeed mention the fact that Tibetan activists sparked events off by attacking Han Chinese businesses and individuals, that did mention the fact that many of those involved were acting outside the policies and wishes of the official Tibetan leadership in exile. There has been much quality analysis and writing in fact to the notion that younger Tibetans have appeared to be frustrated with the cautious and conciliatory stance of the Dalai Lama and his senior lieutenants and have chosen to act. And many outlets concede that much of the Tibetan actions have been planned and implemented to achieve the results they have. This does not negate, however, or make untrue the way China has reacted to it. Or negate the act that some Tibetan activists felt they had no alternative but to pursue such a course at a time when they knew they could gain maximum publicity for their cause. And, like or not, this whole issue is one that is of tremendous interest, sparking attention beyond the normal narrow readership of people who are just interested in the Olympics, or just interested in international politics. It's a big mainstream story and is getting big coverage.

Basically, the western media thrives on opposing viewpoints and most western consumers have learned how to use and balance them. Opposing an critical viewpoints, however, does not seem to be something that is encouraged by media in other, more closed societies, and such societies seem to find it hard to weigh up such opposing reports.

All Media outlets have a bias as all people do. Yours is Anti Developing World and that it is very apparent but only in these forums. That is your personally hang up of course which may or not be reflected in your News Writing for your Day Job.

If people did not have a Bias or point of View then they would be mindless robots repeating propaganda feed to them. Propaganda is Spun news to make a aprty look positive and it is very controlled without the luxury of multiple sources confirming the information or countering the Claim

Fox News is a Far right Biased organization . MSNBC is to left of Center. CNN is somewhere in between

The Only international news organization without a Clear Agenda or Bias I find is the BBC World News Service.

As much as I generally don't like the British the BBC I personally think is about the best for keeping the Propaganda Down .

24 hour News Channels have been the Bane of Non-Biased News coverage Actually. It is very simple how do you fill that time when you have not much going on ? You have shows like Hardtalk on the BBC World , Larry King Live on CNN and The O'reilly Factor on Fox News. all with slants and Bias by their hosts.

As to China and a bashing of that country well ignoring what is going on in the streets of cities like London and Paris in regards to the torch relay or rather having the Chinese population totally ignorant is going on. That smacks of censorship, mind control and propaganda in a country. China gets the coverage it deserves from its actions even as small as suppression of the Media Broadcasts and internet filtering to Human right abuses.

The FACT is China is occupying Tibet While the United States , Great Britain and other western powers occupy various Muslim lands. Who is the hypocrite

with regards to behavior in the International community? A set of countries that unilaterally invades IRAQ on false pretenses or China occupying Tibet for Decades? China has a record of huma rights abuses the United States has a recent past of Gitmo and detention without Trial .

I don't know how much clearer you can get without a Bias then the basic FACTS are shown .

jim jones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FACT is China is occupying Tibet While the United States , Great Britain and other western powers occupy various Muslim lands. Who is the hypocrite

with regards to behavior in the International community? A set of countries that unilaterally invades IRAQ on false pretenses or China occupying Tibet for Decades? China has a record of huma rights abuses the United States has a recent past of Gitmo and detention without Trial .

Since when have America and Britain been ruling Afghanistan and Iraq? I must have missed that particular news bulletin. Without wishing to reopen an old debate, I would have thought that the difference between that and China in Tibet is stark and obvious to most people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All Media outlets have a bias as all people do. Yours is Anti Developing World and that it is very apparent but only in these forums. That is your personally hang up of course which may or not be reflected in your News Writing for your Day Job.

If people did not have a Bias or point of View then they would be mindless robots repeating propaganda feed to them. Propaganda is Spun news to make a aprty look positive and it is very controlled without the luxury of multiple sources confirming the information or countering the Claim

Fox News is a Far right Biased organization . MSNBC is to left of Center. CNN is somewhere in between

The Only international news organization without a Clear Agenda or Bias I find is the BBC World News Service.

As much as I generally don't like the British the BBC I personally think is about the best for keeping the Propaganda Down .

24 hour News Channels have been the Bane of Non-Biased News coverage Actually. It is very simple how do you fill that time when you have not much going on ? You have shows like Hardtalk on the BBC World , Larry King Live on CNN and The O'reilly Factor on Fox News. all with slants and Bias by their hosts.

As to China and a bashing of that country well ignoring what is going on in the streets of cities like London and Paris in regards to the torch relay or rather having the Chinese population totally ignorant is going on. That smacks of censorship, mind control and propaganda in a country. China gets the coverage it deserves from its actions even as small as suppression of the Media Broadcasts and internet filtering to Human right abuses.

The FACT is China is occupying Tibet While the United States , Great Britain and other western powers occupy various Muslim lands. Who is the hypocrite

with regards to behavior in the International community? A set of countries that unilaterally invades IRAQ on false pretenses or China occupying Tibet for Decades? China has a record of huma rights abuses the United States has a recent past of Gitmo and detention without Trial .

I don't know how much clearer you can get without a Bias then the basic FACTS are shown .

jim jones

I am so glad there is at least someone here who is open to different views and maintain carry less judicial tone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All Media outlets have a bias as all people do. Yours is Anti Developing World and that it is very apparent but only in these forums. That is your personally hang up of course which may or not be reflected in your News Writing for your Day Job.

I am sick (and have reported) your personal vendetta and attempts at character assassination against me. As someone who has had a domestic partnership with a Chilean for 10 years, has travelled extensively around the developed world and has strongly spoken out against all forms of racism on this forum, I find your attacks offensive. You know nothing about me and base your tirades against the simple fact that I question the moral responsibility and realism of your pet hobby horse _ giving any games going away to the third world no matter their abilities or circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am so glad there is at least someone here who is open to different views and maintain carry less judicial tone.

With the greatest of respect, you have far greater problems than you realise if you are relying on that poster to support you in this debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're beating completely around the bush. What has the past of western democracies to do with their current behaviour towards China? Are they invading the country? Are they boycotting it? They only make justified demands about the human rights situation in China, including (for example) the working conditions for foreign journalists.

And, by the way: What has the past slavery system in Tibet to do with the policy the Dalai Lama currently stands for? I only hear the same two "arguments" against him: That he's supported by the CIA and that once, there was an unjust system in Tibet. But what gives you the impression that the Dalai Lama would create a "CIA state" or re-introduce the slavery if Tibet would gain sovereignty? He wouldn't even want to have the political power, as he said just a couple of weeks ago! He strives for a democratic system offering the Tibetans more human rights than they currently have. (So that's why this whole Tibet topic is a human rights topic in fact.) Even if Tibetans made mistakes as well in the past -- how can you assume that they would make those mistakes again and not learn from their own mistakes?

Dear sir, I respect yoru point of view, and regarding why history is important. HISTORY IS VERY IMPORTANT IN JUDGING A PERSON'S MOTIVE OF WHY THEY ARE GOING THINGS THEY DO. It's like making friends or making a trading partner, the past credit of what they did, why they did and how they did with their other friends/ trading partner have a lot of do if people trust/ get skeptical of the things they do. Again, like it or not, the West's past credit on what they did to developing nations just make other people (by that I mean not just the west but also the rest of the 2/3 populations of the world) very very skeptical of why they are doing some (I stress, not all though cause there are indeed good deeds the west have done) things they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the west, the media are the king makers. In the east, the kings are the journalists!

Interesting point, Lucifer.

I should say that the Daily Star has been known to completely fabricate some of it's stories, with many others publishing so slanted, twisted and sesationalised to the extreme. However, this is usually editors/owners/hacks who write drivel that they think the public will buy and will help them sell more papers (or keep those in power who favour their business) - even if it is all (or mostly) bollocks.

I don't have a lot of experience/understanding of the Chinese media, so am not really in much of a position to understand it. My understanding is that in China the government places restrictions on the media, almost become a mouth piece, only speaking highly of the government for fear of being shut down. I could be completely wrong, I also believe this is the case in Venezuela, Cuba, (some) Zimbabwean media and others.

It is interesting that when it comes to the media, governments and state control, there always seems to be someone calling the shots to suit their own needs - only the question of whom varies from place to place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an example (Sorry Roland, but it's one of your employer's publications), there was an article many months ago as Romania and Hungary were about to join the EU, under the header "400,000 crooks and gangsters to flood Britain", which basically discussed the crime rates in Bucharest and Budapest, implying that, because Romanians and Hungarians were now able to travel freely around Europe, Britain would be "swamped" with the Romanian/Hungarian polulation and also implying that Britain would have similar crime rates imposed upon it. Which was completely rediculous.

Another stupid thing the News Of The Screws did, was a few weeks after the whole "name and shame" scandal of publishing the names and addresses of paedophiles (causing vigilante attacks), they had an article featuring a scantily clad then 14 year old Peaches Geldof (daughter of Bob) under the header "Phwarr!! She's only fourteen, but she doesn't look it!". Now I it would be equally sesationalist of me to suggest that this would encourage paedophilia, but it is a tad hypocritical...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear sir, I respect yoru point of view, and regarding why history is important. HISTORY IS VERY IMPORTANT IN JUDGING A PERSON'S MOTIVE OF WHY THEY ARE GOING THINGS THEY DO. It's like making friends or making a trading partner, the past credit of what they did, why they did and how they did with their other friends/ trading partner have a lot of do if people trust/ get skeptical of the things they do. Again, like it or not, the West's past credit on what they did to developing nations just make other people (by that I mean not just the west but also the rest of the 2/3 populations of the world) very very skeptical of why they are doing some (I stress, not all though cause there are indeed good deeds the west have done) things they do.

And what do I, for example, born in the year 1982, have to do with anything previous generations of Germans and Westerners did? Why do I have to let myself judge by something I didn't commit at all?

Sadly, you don't have the balls to display your home country here -- but I'm 100 % certain that your country has dark shadows in its past, too. How would you like it if you were repeatedly judged by that history? How would you like, if you were in my place as a German and Westerner, to be called a "Nazi" or even just the "grandson of Western invaders" (like Xu Wen-Ting did)?

And that's why history should be remembered, but history should really not be the scale you or anyone else applies to today's generations of Westerners. It's complete bollocks to think "Oh, he's just criticising China's human rights record because he's one of those typical Western imperialists". Whoever does that, takes the too easy way out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what do I, for example, born in the year 1982, have to do with anything previous generations of Germans and Westerners did? Why do I have to let myself judge by something I didn't commit at all?

Sadly, you don't have the balls to display your home country here -- but I'm 100 % certain that your country has dark shadows in its past, too. How would you like it if you were repeatedly judged by that history? How would you like, if you were in my place as a German and Westerner, to be called a "Nazi" or even just the "grandson of Western invaders" (like Xu Wen-Ting did)?

And that's why history should be remembered, but history should really not be the scale you or anyone else applies to today's generations of Westerners. It's complete bollocks to think "Oh, he's just criticising China's human rights record because he's one of those typical Western imperialists". Whoever does that, takes the too easy way out.

That's true. Cheer up and I can prove you definitly have the balls and German sausage. Ymm...

Good point you made, don't gettin me wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what do I, for example, born in the year 1982, have to do with anything previous generations of Germans and Westerners did? Why do I have to let myself judge by something I didn't commit at all?

Sadly, you don't have the balls to display your home country here -- but I'm 100 % certain that your country has dark shadows in its past, too. How would you like it if you were repeatedly judged by that history? How would you like, if you were in my place as a German and Westerner, to be called a "Nazi" or even just the "grandson of Western invaders" (like Xu Wen-Ting did)?

And that's why history should be remembered, but history should really not be the scale you or anyone else applies to today's generations of Westerners. It's complete bollocks to think "Oh, he's just criticising China's human rights record because he's one of those typical Western imperialists". Whoever does that, takes the too easy way out.

Jesus, this guy just always take every issue so personally to the point of twisting other people's meaning per se .. I quote my original sentence:

"...Sure, live in your world of democracies mandated by mankind to liberate the world. Just ask the rest of the 2/3 of the people in the world in South America, Africa, Middle East and Asia what they think of the American, British and French and all the great advanced democrasies, and what they have done to the world in the name of liberating the world in the past 20-30 years, not to mention the earlier even darker period not very long ago in the history of mankind. .."

Where did I say people in the people in western countries have to take blame personally for what their ancestors did many years ago... all along in my posting, I keep saying these governments have hidden agendas in the name of democracy and freeing up people like what they did before. It's the same argument some people say they are just targeting at the Chinese regime and not the Chinese people. How many times I said I have all the due respect for those people with all the hearts for good reason, but they probably base their judgement on incomplete info. Please do not put your own words in my mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...