Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday June 24 2019, @02:29PM   Printer-friendly
from the the-seedy-side-of-organ-harvesting dept.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/17/china-is-harvesting-organs-from-detainees-uk-tribunal-concludes:

An independent tribunal sitting in London has concluded that the killing of detainees in China for organ transplants is continuing, and victims include imprisoned followers of the Falun Gong movement.

The China Tribunal, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, who was a prosecutor at the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, said in a unanimous determination at the end of its hearings it was “certain that Falun Gong as a source - probably the principal source - of organs for forced organ harvesting”.

“The conclusion shows that very many people have died indescribably hideous deaths for no reason, that more may suffer in similar ways and that all of us live on a planet where extreme wickedness may be found in the power of those, for the time being, running a country with one of the oldest civilisations known to modern man.”

He added: “There is no evidence of the practice having been stopped and the tribunal is satisfied that it is continuing.”

[...] China announced in 2014 that it would stop removing organs for transplantation from executed prisoners and has dismissed the claims as politically-motivated and untrue.

[...] There have been calls for the UK parliament to ban patients from travelling to China for transplant surgery. More than 40 MPs from all parties have backed the motion. Israel, Italy, Spain and Taiwan already enforce such restrictions.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Monday June 24 2019, @07:33PM (46 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 24 2019, @07:33PM (#859474) Journal

    Video from 1989 looked bad. Very bad.

    Organ 'harvesting' done in private is undoubtedly more profitable. If not profitable, then through nepotism the 'right' relative in need can receive much needed organs from non-people.

    In the US this kind of thing would be part of your service agreement with AT&T. Allowing them to harvest your organs, if your cable tv company hasn't already gotten them first. That would be so much more humane and voluntary.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 25 2019, @05:57AM (45 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 25 2019, @05:57AM (#859627) Journal

    In the US this kind of thing would be part of your service agreement with AT&T.

    Because decades of laws to the contrary, with absolutely no movement in the direction of the above claim, don't mean a thing.

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday June 25 2019, @01:05PM (15 children)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 25 2019, @01:05PM (#859692) Journal

      If AT&T believed they could get away with a binding clause to harvest your organs, I assure you they absolutely would do it. Because shareholder value.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 25 2019, @01:15PM (14 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 25 2019, @01:15PM (#859695) Journal

        If AT&T believed they could get away with a binding clause to harvest your organs

        "IF". Since they don't believe such, and nothing is changing anywhere in the world to make them more likely to believe that they could get away with such a clause, your observation is worthless.

        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday June 25 2019, @02:02PM (13 children)

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 25 2019, @02:02PM (#859710) Journal

          The value of the observation, IMO, is a statement about the value of human life at the highest levels of a corporation. Not about the present state of conditions that prohibit them from being as brazen as I suggest they would be.

          While not as shocking as organ harvesting, I would point out that corporations have no problems with pollution, toxic waste, radioactive waste. I would point out Love Canal [wikipedia.org], a scandal in the 1970's if memory serves. As I recall, a guy was hired to dispose of some drums of 'stuff'. Without being told what it was. Cheapest contractor, etc. It was dioxin. It was sickening and killing people.

          A more recent example, although not a corporation. Flint Michigan water crisis. [cnn.com] In the interests of money, a whole community poisoned with lead in the water. Affecting a generation of children. The government gave lots of nice sounding platitudes. But suddenly when the water affected GM's manufacturing plant, then suddenly it was a major emergency for the government to get clean water to the manufacturing plant ASAP!!! But not to the children. Ever.

          Please feel free to think my statement has no value in pointing out that there is no depth too low for corporations to stoop when it comes to the value of human life.

          --
          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 25 2019, @03:18PM (12 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 25 2019, @03:18PM (#859738) Journal

            The value of the observation, IMO, is a statement about the value of human life at the highest levels of a corporation.

            And a large part of what makes the observation worthless.

            Not about the present state of conditions that prohibit them from being as brazen as I suggest they would be.

            The present state which is unlikely to change. Under the right circumstances you could be committing serious crimes like murder. Should we be worrying about those circumstances?

            I would point out Love Canal, a scandal in the 1970's if memory serves.

            Wouldn't have been a scandal, if someone hadn't built on the site afterward. Things like schools and residential areas don't appear by magic. And it turns out that property was given to the

            A more recent example, although not a corporation.

            There we go again.

            Please feel free to think my statement has no value in pointing out that there is no depth too low for corporations to stoop when it comes to the value of human life.

            Indeed, it doesn't. Because that doesn't happen when you put enforced rules in place to keep that from happening. Why obsess over motives when the crimes don't happen?

            Funny how despite listing two other examples of government malpractice, you ignore the obvious lesson. Government isn't subject to those stringent rules that businesses are subject to. For example, the US government, as everyone's favorite punching bag, has committed murder, massive environmental pollution, workplace safety violations (again on a massive scale), and accounting book cooking. These would have sent massive numbers of business people to jail and bankrupted many companies, if it had been done by them instead.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 25 2019, @03:51PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 25 2019, @03:51PM (#859752) Journal
              As further elaboration on my remarks on the Love Canal scandal, consider this phrase from the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org].

              After its sale to the local school district in 1953, which occurred using the threat of eminent domain, Love Canal attracted national attention for the public health problem originating from the former massive dumping of toxic waste on the grounds.

              In other words, this mess wouldn't have happened in the first place, if the school district didn't seize the land and then allow 800 families to buy homes and directly build two schools on the property in the first place. It still may have been a huge Superfund site with all kinds of environmental problems. But government was instrumental in bringing people in contact with the harm (and with disrupting the integrity of the Love Canal dump site) not the hypothetical sociopathy of business.

            • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday June 25 2019, @03:57PM (10 children)

              by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 25 2019, @03:57PM (#859754) Journal

              A perhaps more relevant example of corporations valuing shareholder value far above human life is Big Pharma raising prices of some very old drugs to insanely high prices.

              In China, it is government that does involuntary organ harvesting of non persons.

              In America, it will be corporations that do it for shareholder value. When it comes. I am not so optimistic as to presume that it won't degenerate to that level.

              --
              People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 25 2019, @04:45PM (9 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 25 2019, @04:45PM (#859773) Journal

                A perhaps more relevant example of corporations valuing shareholder value far above human life is Big Pharma raising prices of some very old drugs to insanely high prices.

                Because of government enforced cartels. The FDA is a big player in creating this mess.

                And now the other shoe drops:

                In China, it is government that does involuntary organ harvesting of non persons.

                In America, it will be corporations that do it for shareholder value. When it comes. I am not so optimistic as to presume that it won't degenerate to that level.

                Here is the bogus moral equivalence. China's government has harvested organs from prisons. But it's only their word that they would harvest them from executions that would happen anyway and aren't of political prisoners and the like.
                br. Meanwhile you continue to assert the same of US business without even the slightest shred of supporting evidence. I have not once claimed that US business has some sort of moral superiority over Chinese government. But instead it has rules, rules that aren't in any danger of backsliding to the organ harvesting level while the Chinese government does not. Your continued lack of confidence in the face of decades of history is remarkable. You can't even come up with examples despite trying three times.

                • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday June 25 2019, @05:35PM (8 children)

                  by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 25 2019, @05:35PM (#859784) Journal

                  Now we're just talking about rules that corporate america can buy and sell just as they buy and sell politicians, which is a well known fact.

                  The current prohibitions you are talking about are simply a matter of degree. It would be too big a shock to suddenly allow corporate organ harvesting. But they can get their if they do it by inches instead of miles.

                  --
                  People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 25 2019, @06:09PM (7 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 25 2019, @06:09PM (#859795) Journal
                    Politicians are vastly cheaper. It's not like I can wave a twenty and get one of your kidneys. Even in a corporate republic there's only so much you can afford.
                    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday June 25 2019, @07:20PM (6 children)

                      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 25 2019, @07:20PM (#859813) Journal

                      Boeing tried to bribe a senator into saying that the 737 MAX problem is just those durned furruner pilots. Apparently there was a limit to what a bribe can buy.

                      We are getting a new press secretary. IMO: the previous one quit because she was asked to tell a lie so big that even she wouldn't tell it. So maybe there are limits. She did say she wanted to be remembered for being honest and transparent (some months back). Which statement no doubt got many laughs.

                      So you may be on to something. There may be some bottom. Somewhere. But I don't think we're anywhere close to there yet. And I'm still not fully convinced one exists.

                      Throughout history, the wealthy and powerful get what they want, no matter how awful.

                      --
                      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 25 2019, @10:25PM (5 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 25 2019, @10:25PM (#859887) Journal

                        So you may be on to something. There may be some bottom. Somewhere. But I don't think we're anywhere close to there yet. And I'm still not fully convinced one exists.

                        What's the point of this vague "I'm still not fully convinced"? There's all kinds of checks and balances in modern, democratic societies. Just because someone, wealthy and powerful, wants something doesn't mean that they can afford it or have the power to get it.

                        And we have plenty of examples of that even in the US as you noted. It breaks down once the checks and balances do. That's why I'm far more concerned about government power than I am about corporate power. The latter has plenty of built-in checks and balances, if only because there are thousands of powerful businesses rather than a few powerful governments, and they have far less power and wealth at their disposal in addition.

                        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday June 26 2019, @01:40PM (4 children)

                          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 26 2019, @01:40PM (#860075) Journal

                          IMO: global megacorporations are concentrations of wealth and power that our founding fathers could never have imagined. If they had, they would have created more checks and balances. I fear the corporations more than the government. Because the corporations control the government. Corporations, including now foreign corporations (who are people too!) buy and sell politicians. Can make unlimited campaign contributions.

                          Government power only seems like it is the biggest power. But if corporations are behind the scenes manipulating the levers of government, then it is really they who are to be concerned about.

                          They will try to get anything they want. By inches instead of miles if necessary.

                          --
                          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 27 2019, @02:28AM (3 children)

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 27 2019, @02:28AM (#860345) Journal

                            global megacorporations are concentrations of wealth and power that our founding fathers could never have imagined.

                            And the obvious rebuttal is the British East India Company [wikipedia.org] which had a vastly amount of power due to its privileged market position in the British Empire, which in turn was the superpower of the day, and due to its control of the India subcontinent and foreign trade with China (being the number one opium runner to China). No modern megacorporation has that kind of power, not even the state-backed corporations like Saudi Aramco or Sinopec.

                            It's also one of the causes of the US Revolution via the Boston Tea Party which destroyed a bunch of East India Company tea in protest of tea taxes which favored the East India Company.

                            So not only did the founders know of megacorporations of their times, one which was more powerful than any present day analogue, the abuses of those megacorporations were some of the sparks of the revolution that led to the creation of the US!

                            • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday June 27 2019, @01:44PM (2 children)

                              by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 27 2019, @01:44PM (#860500) Journal

                              There is no point to continuing this. Maybe corporations will somehow magically police themselves. Or government will grow a spine and have some kind of limits on how badly they can behave.

                              I am skeptical. I think it is a perfectly valid position. I think stating it is not an observation having zero value.

                              --
                              People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 28 2019, @05:05AM

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 28 2019, @05:05AM (#860827) Journal

                                Maybe corporations will somehow magically police themselves.

                                And maybe someday you'll think about outcome rather than motive? Until then, we'll just have to continue with sensible regulation.

                                Or government will grow a spine and have some kind of limits on how badly they can behave.

                                Like it has for the past century? How quick you are to completely ignore reality!

                                I am skeptical.

                                Not much use to skepticism in the absence of awareness of reality.

                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 28 2019, @05:41AM

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 28 2019, @05:41AM (#860838) Journal
                                I also thought about this statement.

                                There is no point to continuing this.

                                Perhaps that is true, but why would that be the case?

                                For example, you asserted that founders of the US were unaware of the potential threat of megacorporations. I showed how that assertion was false - in particular that one such megacorporation, more powerful than any modern corporation, helped spark the US revolution.

                                It's convenient for certain ideologies to assert that people of the past couldn't understand the problems of today, thus, we should discard their wisdom, often as part of some greater erasure of the past. But that viewpoint ignores that technology and knowledge doesn't change some fundamental problems, conflicts, or human (more generally, sapient) nature.

                                Perhaps you should consider why you think there's no point to continuing this discussion. Sorry, but it won't be flattering to your reasoning processes!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 25 2019, @01:59PM (28 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 25 2019, @01:59PM (#859707)

      Because decades of laws to the contrary

      Sure, and the many instances of false accusations [rationalwiki.org],

      with absolutely no movement in the direction of the above claim, don't mean a thing.

      as well as those solid counter-evidences [chinadaily.com.cn], are meaningless alike.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 25 2019, @04:19PM (27 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 25 2019, @04:19PM (#859764) Journal
        China already admits it harvested organs from prisoners at till recently. That's a huge piece of evidence missing from your post. And given the continuing secretive nature of China's prison system (and suppression of anything related to the organ harvesting scandal), there isn't counterevidence.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 25 2019, @04:25PM (26 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 25 2019, @04:25PM (#859766)

          Again confusing organ transplantation from prisoners (banned since 2015) / organ black market (target of law enforcement) with systematic and forced organ organ transplantation from FLG followers, especially to the extent they claim?

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 25 2019, @06:25PM (25 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 25 2019, @06:25PM (#859797) Journal

            Again confusing organ transplantation from prisoners (banned since 2015) / organ black market (target of law enforcement) with systematic and forced organ organ transplantation from FLG followers, especially to the extent they claim?

            Once again, the point is that we have here organ transplants from prisoners (which might have been banned since 2015 or not - why again are we taking China's word for this?), lots of Falun Gong prisoners, plenty of motive for transplants (via plenty of rewards for satisfying the huge need for human organs), and a very opaque environment that allows for this to continue. Why again are we assuming that it's not happening? Appealing to the virtue of the Chinese bureaucrat and/or black market trader?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26 2019, @06:43AM (24 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26 2019, @06:43AM (#860011)

              Why again are we assuming that it's not happening? Appealing to the virtue of the Chinese bureaucrat and/or black market trader?

              Because innocent until proven guilty? I still see zero solid evidence for systematic and forced organ transplantation from FLG followers, let alone the ludicrous scale of the claim.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 26 2019, @01:11PM (23 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 26 2019, @01:11PM (#860067) Journal

                Because innocent until proven guilty?

                That's utterly foolish for two reasons. First, the Chinese government, like any other government in the world, has no such right. Governments readily can commit abuses on a scale no one else can and hide it pretty well too. As noted before, we have all the ingredients for a continuing and well-concealed industry of involuntary donation and murder. If you leave food out, you will get vermin. It's foolish to assume that it won't continue and expand to exploit any out-group, like Falun Gong and various minorities, that is ostracized by the Chinese government. There's too much value in it, even if they aren't choosing to make massive profits in the process.

                Second, the Chinese government would not give us the same respect. Innocent until proven guilty is not a one way street.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26 2019, @01:32PM (22 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26 2019, @01:32PM (#860073)

                  First, Chinese government, like any other government in the world, has no such right. [...] Second, the Chinese government would not give us the same respect.

                  Then the US government should be executed well before the Chinese government because of the wars, poverty and hunger they waged (directly) and induced (indirectly) against other countries and all those people.
                  First, the US government rarely had unrefutable justifications for the damages. Second, the US government has no such right to be innocent until proven guilty.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 26 2019, @01:49PM (21 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 26 2019, @01:49PM (#860079) Journal

                    Then the US government should be executed well before the Chinese government because of the wars, poverty and hunger they waged (directly) and induced (indirectly) against other countries and all those people.

                    China would be a Communist shithole right now, if it weren't for trade with the US and Europe. Instead it's a growing world power. Where's the "Thank you!"?

                    The global system of trade, prosperity, and peace which was in large part created and enforced by the US has prevented or reduced a lot of wars, poverty, and hunger. Currently, as I have noted [soylentnews.org] before, this economic system is in large part responsible for the elevation of many billions of people, far more than just what's in China, from poverty and hunger. Are you going to pay us for that generosity just as you would have us pay for the bullets?

                    Meanwhile the same Chinese government now was responsible for many tens of millions of deaths in living memory through a combination of incompetence, ideological blindness, and level of malice rare in men. Only the imaginary evils of the US could possibly compare. The real world evils simply can't.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26 2019, @02:15PM (20 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26 2019, @02:15PM (#860088)

                      China would be a Communist shithole right now, if it weren't for trade with the US and Europe. Instead it's a growing world power. Where's the "Thank you!"?

                      China would have been in a perhaps much better condition, if not due to the Century of Humiliation. Where's the "Sorry"? Nice double standard.
                      (When a country prospers, "thank US"; when a country is invaded by US, ignore it and instead emphasize the (questionable) stabilization effect by US.)

                      The global system of trade, prosperity, and peace which was in large part created and enforced by the US has prevented or reduced a lot of wars, poverty, and hunger.

                      It may be, or may not be, but that's irrelevant. Care to explain the necessity of the actual damages, and those threatening to happen (see Iran)?

                      Meanwhile the same Chinese government now was responsible for many tens of millions of deaths in living memory through a combination of incompetence, ideological blindness, and level of malice rare in men.

                      And the average citizen feels immensely better than the average under the previous government, in addition to most ones that once existed there.

                      Only the imaginary evils of the US could possibly compare. The real world evils simply can't.

                      Or it can. In contrast with the average Chinese citizen, see how people (and refugees) from Afghanistanian, Iraq, Libya and Syria live.

                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 27 2019, @02:30AM (19 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 27 2019, @02:30AM (#860349) Journal

                        In contrast with the average Chinese citizen, see how people (and refugees) from Afghanistanian, Iraq, Libya and Syria live.

                        Because the world consists only of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria? My take is that Syria is the only region (not even a country any more) which is worse off now than it was twenty years ago. Maybe the US had something to do with that improvement, maybe not. But it's pretty weak accusations since that's the worst you can find.

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 27 2019, @09:23AM (18 children)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 27 2019, @09:23AM (#860460)

                          Because the world consists only of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria?

                          So you now now blatantly refuse to address the US-caused damages in these regions?

                          My take is that Syria is the only region (not even a country any more) which is worse off now than it was twenty years ago.

                          I am then interested in how you would explain the existence of the refugees, and how US is not a huge contributing factor in the Syrian Civil War.

                          Maybe the US had something to do with that improvement, maybe not. But it's pretty weak accusations since that's the worst you can find.

                          The improvements (if any) are irrelevant. The damages caused by US are still unjustified.

                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 27 2019, @10:55AM (17 children)

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 27 2019, @10:55AM (#860467) Journal

                            So you now now blatantly refuse to address the US-caused damages in these regions?

                            Yes, because a) it's irrelevant to the conversation, and b) you're only considering one side of the balance sheet.

                            I am then interested in how you would explain the existence of the refugees, and how US is not a huge contributing factor in the Syrian Civil War.

                            I'm not so interested. It's a red herring. Now, we've gone from the entire world to some very small part of it which would have been dysfunctional anyway even in the absence of US action.

                            The improvements (if any) are irrelevant. The damages caused by US are still unjustified.

                            So what? The damages and their unjustifications are similarly irrelevant. I find it remarkable how you can dismiss a near universal improvement in the human condition, because Syria didn't enjoy a similar improvement over the past ten years. It puts the rest of your complaints in an revealing light.

                            Well, here's hoping China eventually discovers the benefits of rule of law and democracy within our lifetimes.

                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 27 2019, @12:51PM (16 children)

                              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 27 2019, @12:51PM (#860485)

                              Yes, because a) it's irrelevant to the conversation, and b) you're only considering one side of the balance sheet.

                              It is surely very relevant because it is exactly the comparison between China and US that the conversation is about.

                              Now, we've gone from the entire world to some very small part of it which would have been dysfunctional anyway even in the absence of US action.
                              So what? The damages and their unjustifications are similarly irrelevant.

                              If the part may be dysfunctional anyway without US, then there is even less reason for US to disrupt it; moreover, it seems likely the amount of damages would be much smaller without US.
                              And if the positive effects to the world can be an excuse for the crimes of US, then the long-term positive effects of Chinese aids in African would probably absolve China of its faults.

                              I find it remarkable how you can dismiss a near universal improvement in the human condition, because Syria didn't enjoy a similar improvement over the past ten years. It puts the rest of your complaints in an revealing light.

                              Because China also contributes, hugely and increasingly, as one of the largest economies (in just about two decades), and continues to help developing countries greatly in multiple ways (since the inception of PRC).
                              So surely I can "dismiss" the improvement, given that China hardly exported any unprovoked war, hunger and poverty, in comparison with US which exports a lot of them (in addition to sanctions, lol).

                              Well, here's hoping China eventually discovers the benefits of rule of law and democracy within our lifetimes.

                              Surely, but clearly not a "democracy" [reddit.com] where money-power trade (aka bribery) is called "free speech", so the rich are more equal than the poor.
                              (And where even a somehow approximately true representative [slashdot.org] of people can be easily defeated by super PACs.)

                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 28 2019, @05:31AM (15 children)

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 28 2019, @05:31AM (#860833) Journal

                                It is surely very relevant because it is exactly the comparison between China and US that the conversation is about.

                                Then why are we still talking? China loses that one handily. They might not have harmed some small parts of the world, like Syria as much as the US has. But they certainly have harmed China, a country that has about two orders of magnitude more people than Syria does, far more than the US has.

                                If the part may be dysfunctional anyway without US, then there is even less reason for US to disrupt it; moreover, it seems likely the amount of damages would be much smaller without US. And if the positive effects to the world can be an excuse for the crimes of US, then the long-term positive effects of Chinese aids in African would probably absolve China of its faults.

                                So you are claiming, for example, that the US intended for former Ba'athists to join ISIS? Sure, it would be great for the US to be more competent in its international machinations than it presently is. But these actions didn't happen in a vacuum.

                                And the US has greatly benefited Africa as well for a longer period of time. You aren't going to win that game.

                                Because China also contributes, hugely and increasingly, as one of the largest economies (in just about two decades), and continues to help developing countries greatly in multiple ways (since the inception of PRC). So surely I can "dismiss" the improvement, given that China hardly exported any unprovoked war, hunger and poverty, in comparison with US which exports a lot of them (in addition to sanctions, lol).

                                US does too. And as I noted, it's been doing it for longer.

                                Surely, but clearly not a "democracy" where money-power trade (aka bribery) is called "free speech", so the rich are more equal than the poor. (And where even a somehow approximately true representative of people can be easily defeated by super PACs.)

                                And yet it's vastly superior to China's present government. I can speak my mind. I live with minimal influence from these "money-power" brokers. And I have a pretty good idea of the shenanigans they cause.

                                I get that you're stuck backing a shitty government. But you and others can fix it, just as I strive to fix the US's problems. I think it's time to stop making excuses.

                                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 28 2019, @09:43AM (14 children)

                                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 28 2019, @09:43AM (#860884)

                                  Then why are we still talking? China loses that one handily. They might not have harmed some small parts of the world, like Syria as much as the US has. But they certainly have harmed China, a country that has about two orders of magnitude more people than Syria does, far more than the US has.

                                  No, it is the US that loses that one handily, because what China did was (partly unintended) misfeasance, while what the US did was (surely deliberate) war crimes.
                                  Additionally, to only name the latest, the US-induced refugee problem and ISIS problem are serious world-scale disruptions, with net effects comparable to China' faults, at the worst.

                                  So you are claiming, for example, that the US intended for former Ba'athists to join ISIS? Sure, it would be great for the US to be more competent in its international machinations than it presently is. But these actions didn't happen in a vacuum.

                                  Since it's surely very profitable for the MIC [soylentnews.org], and the US government "has no such right" to be innocent until proven guilty.
                                  Moreover, noting that Syrian Civil War, in strong connection with the US, is a key milestone for ISIS, and that ISIS is supported by Saudi Arabia, which is interestingly allied with the "anti-terrorist" US, ...

                                  And the US has greatly benefited Africa as well for a longer period of time. You aren't going to win that game. [...] US does too. And as I noted, it's been doing it for longer.

                                  If the "expiation" for national crimes (before the latter even happens) can exist, how much is the price for it, so that China can't be absolved but the US can?
                                  And such expiation shall never exist, or the US would be able to invade any country, kill the people therein, and then be absolved of the flagrant atrocities.

                                  And yet it's vastly superior to China's present government. I can speak my mind. I live with minimal influence from these "money-power" brokers. And I have a pretty good idea of the shenanigans they cause.
                                  I get that you're stuck backing a shitty government. But you and others can fix it, just as I strive to fix the US's problems. I think it's time to stop making excuses.

                                  And yet it's only a thin veil superior to China's present government. I can speak my mind. I live with minimal influence from these political pressures. And I have a pretty good idea of the shenanigans they cause.
                                  (Actually, in the same vein of "a false sense of security is worse than [microsoft.com] no security", I find a hypocritical democracy worse than no democracy, and therefore the US to be worse than China.)
                                  (And noting the vicious worldwide effects the US has created and is still creating, it is surely vastly worse than China in the foreign affairs sense.)
                                  I get that you're stuck backing a shitty government. But you and others can fix it, just as I strive to fix China's problems. I think it's time to stop making excuses.

                                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 29 2019, @12:08AM (13 children)

                                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 29 2019, @12:08AM (#861170) Journal

                                    No, it is the US that loses that one handily, because what China did was (partly unintended) misfeasance, while what the US did was (surely deliberate) war crimes.

                                    Actually a considerable portion of the deaths attributed to China came from the Chinese Civil War and would be war crimes of the deliberate sort. China checks that box off. And there's their invasion and occupation of Tibet too, should we start caring about war crimes. If that's "misfeasance", then why again are you wasting words on the US's lesser activities? The same whataboutism where greater crimes can be ignored because lesser crimes aren't treated as justly as you claim to prefer, means that those lesser crimes can be similarly trivialized.

                                    Nor do I buy your spinning of intent. We don't have evidence that the US intended to create the mess in any of the countries you've listed so far. Sure, a wise person could have easily predicted many of these harms and problems but not many, if any countries are ruled by wise men.

                                    Additionally, to only name the latest, the US-induced refugee problem and ISIS problem are serious world-scale disruptions, with net effects comparable to China' faults, at the worst.

                                    Sure they are. Mind you that is at serious world-scale problems that don't hold a candle to China's tens of millions of deaths it has caused as opposed to "induced". "Induce" also ignores that the US isn't a primary part of Syria's problems which are caused, not induced, by some of the worst actors in the world such as ISIS and al-Assad.

                                    Since it's surely very profitable for the MIC, and the US government "has no such right" to be innocent until proven guilty.

                                    Begging the question. We can assume anything which is done is profitable for the US (or Chinese equivalent) military-industrial complex.

                                    Moreover, noting that Syrian Civil War, in strong connection with the US, is a key milestone for ISIS, and that ISIS is supported by Saudi Arabia, which is interestingly allied with the "anti-terrorist" US, ..

                                    ISIS isn't supported by Saudi Arabia. It might have been at some point in the past, but that was then. And as a world-scale disruption, it isn't doing very well at the moment.

                                    If the "expiation" for national crimes (before the latter even happens) can exist, how much is the price for it, so that China can't be absolved but the US can? And such expiation shall never exist, or the US would be able to invade any country, kill the people therein, and then be absolved of the flagrant atrocities.

                                    Let's not be idiots here. A lot is revealed in your language. Earlier, it was the weaselly language about "induced" and "misfeasance", which is a far cry from the direct language you use here. Here, you babble on about "national crimes", but nothing you or I have mentioned so far is a national crime in either the US or China. That tells us nothing. But what is revealing about the absence of national crimes is what is allowed. In the US, screwing up foreign policy and military strategy in a way that allows an enemy to kill more people and cause "world-scale" problems is legal. In China, killing tens of millions of people through the before mentioned combination of "incompetence, ideological blindness, and level of malice rare in men" was legal and can be made legal any time the powers-that-be decide it is convenient to do so.

                                    That's the problem here with the double standard you attempt to employ. Concerning this story, the US has numerous safeguards against harvesting the organs of prisoners which have nothing to do with the dubious virtue of the US government. That doesn't hold in China, which in addition has a high level of opaqueness, meaning it can hide wrongdoing for generations, and a huge number of convenient ways to jail and disappear inconvenient people. We only have the word of the Chinese government that it doesn't do these things. I believe you already have figured out what I think that is worth.

                                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 29 2019, @07:17AM (12 children)

                                      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 29 2019, @07:17AM (#861272)

                                      Actually a considerable portion of the deaths attributed to China came from the Chinese Civil War and would be war crimes of the deliberate sort. China checks that box off. And there's their invasion and occupation of Tibet too, should we start caring about war crimes. If that's "misfeasance", then why again are you wasting words on the US's lesser activities?

                                      Interesting claim on civil wars. So Abraham Lincoln is likewise a war criminal?
                                      What you allege to be "invasion and occupation", I consider as liberation, noting how the people there were treated by the previous authority, in comparison with the current government.
                                      And Tibet has been a part of China ever since the Yuan Dynasty, so the phrase "invasion and occupation" shows that you have clearly not researched much about the history of Tibet.

                                      Sure they are. Mind you that is at serious world-scale problems that don't hold a candle to China's tens of millions of deaths it has caused as opposed to "induced".

                                      The deaths due to the government's faults are far less than the damages caused by the previous civil war, and the same faults have not been seen again.
                                      (Additionally, while the damages of the faults above could be largely "expiated" by the developments in the following years, in a much legitimate way than that of the US.)
                                      The government has surely not clearly apologized for the faults, but I guess it is not unreasonable to wait 130 years [wikipedia.org] for an apology.

                                      "Induce" also ignores that the US isn't a primary part of Syria's problems which are caused, not induced, by some of the worst actors in the world such as ISIS and al-Assad.

                                      The Syrian Civil War was directly connected to the Arab Spring, and the rebel groups has always been supported by the US. It is more than appropriate to say "induce".
                                      In almost every country the US has claimed to bring "freedom" and "democracy" to, the people now live worse than before, so al-Assad is not even as bad as the US.
                                      In sharp contrast with China's efforts to avoid the previous faults, the US has never shown any introspection on its war crimes, and the damages are only becoming increasingly severe.

                                      ISIS isn't supported by Saudi Arabia. It might have been at some point in the past, but that was then. And as a world-scale disruption, it isn't doing very well at the moment.
                                      [...] Begging the question. We can assume anything which is done is profitable for the US (or Chinese equivalent) military-industrial complex.

                                      China had some really nasty faults more than 40 years ago, but that was then. And China has been doing remarkably well after that, and still improving in this decade.
                                      Exactly, and likewise one can fabricate any accusation against the China government without sufficient evidences.

                                      Nor do I buy your spinning of intent. We don't have evidence that the US intended to create the mess in any of the countries you've listed so far. Sure, a wise person could have easily predicted many of these harms and problems but not many, if any countries are ruled by wise men. [...]
                                      In the US, screwing up foreign policy and military strategy in a way that allows an enemy to kill more people and cause "world-scale" problems is legal. In China, killing tens of millions of people through the before mentioned combination of "incompetence, ideological blindness, and level of malice rare in men" was legal and can be made legal any time the powers-that-be decide it is convenient to do so.

                                      Nor do I buy your spinning of intent. We don't have evidence that the China government ever intended to conduct systematically and forced organ transplantation on Falun Gong followers.
                                      Yes, which makes plenty room for the MIC to actually screw up foreign policy and military strategy, in order to maximize its profits.
                                      Oh, and so much for "incompetence" (George W. Bush, anyone?), "ideological blindness" (the US "democracy", LMAO), and "level of malice rare in men" (wow, Saudi Arabia).

                                      A lot is revealed in your language. Earlier, it was the weaselly language about "induced" and "misfeasance", which is a far cry from the direct language you use here. [...]
                                      That's the problem here with the double standard you attempt to employ. Concerning this story, the US has numerous safeguards against harvesting the organs of prisoners which have nothing to do with the dubious virtue of the US government. That doesn't hold in China, which in addition has a high level of opaqueness, meaning it can hide wrongdoing for generations, and a huge number of convenient ways to jail and disappear inconvenient people. We only have the word of the Chinese government that it doesn't do these things. I believe you already have figured out what I think that is worth.

                                      Exactly because I'm attempting to be unbiased in standards, and to discuss objectively based on the causes of the damages, and the long-term effects of these damages.
                                      That's the problem here with the double standard you attempt to employ. I was just having fun pointing how selectively blind you have been so far to actual crimes:
                                      When accusing China of forced organ transplantation only based on the possibility, vs. when defending the unjustified damages intentionally for MIC profits based on the possibility;
                                      When attempting to underplay the US-caused ongoing damages because of its contributions, vs. when emphasizing China's previous faults and completely ignoring its efforts to avoid and atone for them.
                                      When accusing the al-Assad government based on his wrongdoings, vs. when being blind to Saudi Arabia [anonhq.com]'s crimes [zerohedge.com], just because Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US;
                                      ... the list goes on, exactly because of you, yourself.

                                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 30 2019, @12:36PM (11 children)

                                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 30 2019, @12:36PM (#861593) Journal

                                        Interesting claim on civil wars. So Abraham Lincoln is likewise a war criminal?

                                        What did Abraham Lincoln do? Mao consolidated power with mass killings of civilians. Estimates online claim in the millions (8 million estimate [hawaii.edu] for example).

                                        What you allege to be "invasion and occupation", I consider as liberation, noting how the people there were treated by the previous authority, in comparison with the current government.

                                        Then why is it part of China rather than liberated? The circumstances don't fit the lie. AC. And notice how once again, we only have China's worthless word for how people were treated by the "previous authority". It was a weak neighbor with no allies, an easy target. That's Tibet's real fault.

                                        And if that logic of liberation applies to Tibet, then it surely applies to North Korea, which is far worse. Why hasn't China done anything about that in the sixty or so year period it has supported North Korea?

                                        In almost every country the US has claimed to bring "freedom" and "democracy" to, the people now live worse than before, so al-Assad is not even as bad as the US.

                                        That list includes the entirety of Europe, the Americas, and several interesting countries near China such as Taiwan/Formosa, Japan, and South Korea. Your list consists of Syria and nothing else at present. Even the other countries you've mentioned, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya are doing better than they were.

                                        We don't have evidence that the China government ever intended to conduct systematically and forced organ transplantation on Falun Gong followers.

                                        Nor will we get evidence for or against that until we get a new, far more democratic government in China.

                                        Exactly because I'm attempting to be unbiased in standards, and to discuss objectively based on the causes of the damages, and the long-term effects of these damages.

                                        Then why are you still talking? Your attempt is feeble. We are to excuse Chinese misbehavior because the US does bad things too? Do you really think it's a good thing to use as a standard of behavior the worst behavior of the US?

                                        Similarly, these supposedly objective attempts don't actually mention anything objective. Look at the first two sentences of your current post. "Interesting claim on civil wars. So Abraham Lincoln is likewise a war criminal?" What US war crime have you mentioned in the first place? Even in the US Civil War there were US war crimes (a really common one, for example, was mistreatment of prisoners of war which occurred on both sides and which Lincoln would have been aware of by the end of the war). It's not hard to find actual real world war crimes. But when one does, one finds that they don't match the scale of similar war crimes in China. There's no massive massacre of civilians following the end of the US Civil War on the scale of the Chinese massacres nor do we see further massacres, mass starvations, and other acts of homicide in subsequent decades on the scale of what China did in subsequent decades.

                                        There was no need to create a culture of fear to force some freaky ideology on a hapless population. Similarly, there was no need to completely abandon said ideology when it turned out to not only be a disaster, but an unsustainable one as China had to in the late 1980s.

                                        When accusing the al-Assad government based on his wrongdoings, vs. when being blind to Saudi Arabia [anonhq.com]'s crimes [zerohedge.com], just because Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US; ... the list goes on, exactly because of you, yourself.

                                        So now, even the crimes of the US aren't good enough for your "objective standard". Now, you feel obliged to note that China's behavior is better than that of Saudi Arabia. It's not much of a standard, is it?

                                        What is this standard anyway?

                                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2019, @04:16PM (10 children)

                                          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2019, @04:16PM (#861663)

                                          Then why is it part of China rather than liberated? The circumstances don't fit the lie. AC. And notice how once again, we only have China's worthless word for how people were treated by the "previous authority". [...]
                                          And if that logic of liberation applies to Tibet, then it surely applies to North Korea, which is far worse. Why hasn't China done anything about that in the sixty or so year period it has supported North Korea?

                                          Because Tibet was invaded by the British people [wikipedia.org]. So you have still not researched more about Tibet?
                                          By saying "we only have China's worthless word", you again show your excessive [jstor.org] ignorance [ucpress.edu] about Tibet.
                                          Unlike Korea, Tibet has been under control [wikipedia.org] of China ever since Yuan. You are clearly even more ignorant about Korea than about Tibet.

                                          That list includes the entirety of Europe, the Americas, and several interesting countries near China such as Taiwan/Formosa, Japan, and South Korea. Your list consists of Syria and nothing else at present. Even the other countries you've mentioned, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya are doing better than they were.

                                          Which among "Europe, the Americas, and several interesting countries near China", except for Japan (which is, largely, why I said "almost"), was invaded by US?
                                          And I surely do not consider Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, which are infested with car bomb attacks, mass shootings, etc, better than before.

                                          What did Abraham Lincoln do? Mao consolidated power with mass killings of civilians. Estimates online claim in the millions (8 million estimate for example).

                                          You distorted the source material [hawaii.edu]: the death toll was a 1900-1949 total, which wouldn't be much lower even if Mao's intentions and actions had been different.
                                          So answer me: why does a leader of China's civil war need to be accused of war crime, while a leader of the US's civil war does not?

                                          Even in the US Civil War there were US war crimes (a really common one, for example, was mistreatment of prisoners of war which occurred on both sides and which Lincoln would have been aware of by the end of the war). It's not hard to find actual real world war crimes. But when one does, one finds that they don't match the scale of similar war crimes in China. There's no massive massacre of civilians following the end of the US Civil War on the scale of the Chinese massacres nor do we see further massacres, mass starvations, and other acts of homicide in subsequent decades on the scale of what China did in subsequent decades.

                                          Which scale, of which massacres, during the war? The "8 million" claim has already been falsified. And I did not deny the deaths after 1949 were due to the faults of the government.
                                          However, the government has done a lot to prevent mass deaths for one cause to happen twice, unlike the US which commits war crimes again and again, without any sign of stopping.

                                          Nor will we get evidence for or against that until we get a new, far more democratic government in China. [...] Then why are you still talking? Your attempt is feeble. We are to excuse Chinese misbehavior because the US does bad things too? Do you really think it's a good thing to use as a standard of behavior the worst behavior of the US?

                                          Or the leakers must have suddenly become stupid, noting the US's crimes like the collateral murders [wikileaks.org] and the PRISM have been revealed?
                                          Because revealing your hypocrisy is a fun. Surely it's a good thing to use the worst behavior of the US as a standard of behavior when considering the worse faults of China.

                                          So now, even the crimes of the US aren't good enough for your "objective standard". Now, you feel obliged to note that China's behavior is better than that of Saudi Arabia. It's not much of a standard, is it? What is this standard anyway?

                                          Except that I did not compare China with Saudi Arabia, and was pointing about the US's hypocrisy in bring "democracy" to other countries. Sorry, but your straw man is made too badly.
                                          And yes, China is way, way better than Saudi Arabia, so the US surely has to "improve" the latter before even considering the former, and certainly improve (or dissolve) itself in between.

                                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 01 2019, @02:17PM (9 children)

                                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 01 2019, @02:17PM (#861932) Journal

                                            the death toll was a 1900-1949 total

                                            You misread the source material. I was referring to the 8.4 million who died during the "The Totalization Period" not the 9 million who died during a different time period.

                                            Because Tibet was invaded by the British people.

                                            So we can correct British invasions by invading many decades later (for completely unrelated reasons, I might add)? So, for example, the US could fix the problems that China has experienced with British invasions in the 19th Century by invading China now? You have such an interesting take on such things!

                                            Nor will we get evidence for or against that until we get a new, far more democratic government in China. [...] Then why are you still talking? Your attempt is feeble. We are to excuse Chinese misbehavior because the US does bad things too? Do you really think it's a good thing to use as a standard of behavior the worst behavior of the US?

                                            Or the leakers must have suddenly become stupid, noting the US's crimes like the collateral murders and the PRISM have been revealed? Because revealing your hypocrisy is a fun. Surely it's a good thing to use the worst behavior of the US as a standard of behavior when considering the worse faults of China.

                                            The problem here is that you've been revealing imaginary hypocrisy and I've been revealing tens of millions of deaths at the hands of the same Chinese government that exists today.

                                            There are some things far worse than hypocrisy, even when hypocrisy is actually there.

                                            Except that I did not compare China with Saudi Arabia, and was pointing about the US's hypocrisy in bring "democracy" to other countries. Sorry, but your straw man is made too badly. And yes, China is way, way better than Saudi Arabia, so the US surely has to "improve" the latter before even considering the former, and certainly improve (or dissolve) itself in between.

                                            The comparison was implicit. You brought up the evils of Saudi Arabia. And now that you are explicitly comparing China and Saudi Arabia, we're still left with the previous question, why are you comparing China to some of the worst countries in the world, instead of say, Switzerland? Everyone in the developed world is way better than Saudi Arabia. It goes without saying. Yet you felt the need to say it for China. Your insecurity is showing.

                                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 01 2019, @02:38PM (8 children)

                                              by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 01 2019, @02:38PM (#861943)

                                              You misread the source material. I was referring to the 8.4 million who died during the "The Totalization Period" not the 9 million who died during a different time period.

                                              So how was the Civil War of China related to the Totalization, which happened afterwards?

                                              So we can correct British invasions by invading many decades later (for completely unrelated reasons, I might add)? So, for example, the US could fix the problems that China has experienced with British invasions in the 19th Century by invading China now?

                                              What you call "invading" is still disputed, so the question is invalid to begin with. And the US never legitimately owned Tibet, so your analogy is equally invalid.

                                              The problem here is that you've been revealing imaginary hypocrisy and I've been revealing tens of millions of deaths at the hands of the same Chinese government that exists today.
                                              There are some things far worse than hypocrisy, even when hypocrisy is actually there.

                                              And the things have been largely atoned for by the subsequent developments, unlike the real hypocrisy which I have seen zero attempt to deal with, except for your attempts to underplay it.

                                              The comparison was implicit. You brought up the evils of Saudi Arabia. And now that you are explicitly comparing China and Saudi Arabia, we're still left with the previous question, why are you comparing China to some of the worst countries in the world, instead of say, Switzerland? Everyone in the developed world is way better than Saudi Arabia. It goes without saying. Yet you felt the need to say it for China. Your insecurity is showing.

                                              Because ignoring ongoing crimes by the Saudi Arabia while emphasizing faults that ended decades ago in China clearly shows you are simply attempting to find an excuse instead of upholding real democracy.

                                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 02 2019, @04:11AM (7 children)

                                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 02 2019, @04:11AM (#862272) Journal

                                                So how was the Civil War of China related to the Totalization, which happened afterwards?

                                                The winner got to do the Totalization. And because there was a war, massacre of civilians by the victors, still counts as war crimes.

                                                What you call "invading" is still disputed, so the question is invalid to begin with. And the US never legitimately owned Tibet, so your analogy is equally invalid. The obvious two rebuttals is first, words mean things and "invading" has a well accepted definition that applies here. The second is that China didn't return power to Tibetans after the invasion. If I chase down the purse snatcher, I don't get to claim that I'm preventing theft until I return the purse to Granny. Pocketing her money, maxing out her credit cards, and tossing away the purse doesn't count.

                                                And the things have been largely atoned for by the subsequent developments

                                                Oh really? Then the US has atoned for whatever bullshit you pretend to care about. I can play that game too.

                                                Because ignoring ongoing crimes by the Saudi Arabia while emphasizing faults that ended decades ago in China clearly shows you are simply attempting to find an excuse instead of upholding real democracy.

                                                The fault of opacity, lack of accountability, and hiding evil acts hasn't ended decades ago. Nor has China's attempts to control dissent or attempts at human freedom. And once again, why are you using the US's evil acts and Saudi Arabia as standards? You keep saying you're not, yet this is the third post in a row otherwise. It's interesting how year after year, we see the same phenomenon at work in these internet discussion forums. A story mentions a present day fault of China, maybe accurately, maybe not. But one of the first responses is always "But the US does bad thing X". Sometimes X is the same bad thing, and sometimes, as now, it isn't even remotely related.

                                                It's the broken logic of "Whatever China is accused of doing is ok because the US did a wrong thing too." You are implicitly stating that the standard against whatever you are judging China by is whatever the US supposedly gets away with.

                                                Funny how those people never try to use as a standard, the best countries of the world.

                                                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 02 2019, @07:54AM (6 children)

                                                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 02 2019, @07:54AM (#862315)

                                                  The winner got to do the Totalization. And because there was a war, massacre of civilians by the victors, still counts as war crimes.

                                                  Fine, so because the US also had a Civil War, all mistreatment of colored people by the US government thereafter counted as war crimes.

                                                  The obvious two rebuttals is first, words mean things and "invading" has a well accepted definition that applies here. The second is that China didn't return power to Tibetans after the invasion. If I chase down the purse snatcher, I don't get to claim that I'm preventing theft until I return the purse to Granny. Pocketing her money, maxing out her credit cards, and tossing away the purse doesn't count.

                                                  Since you were never able to give reliable argument against calling the operation liberation instead of "invasion", your unilateral application of the definition was invalid.
                                                  Tibet was not independent before the invasion, so it was unnecessary for China to "return power to" Tibetans. The purse fell off the snatcher's pocket, and the Granny found it herself.

                                                  Oh really? Then the US has atoned for whatever bullshit you pretend to care about. I can play that game too.
                                                  The fault of opacity, lack of accountability, and hiding evil acts hasn't ended decades ago. Nor has China's attempts to control dissent or attempts at human freedom.

                                                  In almost every country the US invaded, the people now live worse than before, so by the same standard you can't play that game, obviously.
                                                  The faults now fail to result in actual mass deaths however, unlike the US's ongoing war crimes which never stopped producing death, hunger and poverty.

                                                  It's interesting how year after year, we see the same phenomenon at work in these internet discussion forums. A story mentions a present day fault of China, maybe accurately, maybe not. But one of the first responses is always "But the US does bad thing X". Sometimes X is the same bad thing, and sometimes, as now, it isn't even remotely related.
                                                  And once again, why are you using the US's evil acts and Saudi Arabia as standards? You keep saying you're not, yet this is the third post in a row otherwise. [...] It's the broken logic of "Whatever China is accused of doing is ok because the US did a wrong thing too." You are implicitly stating that the standard against whatever you are judging China by is whatever the US supposedly gets away with. Funny how those people never try to use as a standard, the best countries of the world.

                                                  Except that there has never been reliable evidence for China's "present-day fault", unlike the unrefutable evidences for US's ongoing bad things X, Y, Z, ...
                                                  (Noting the US's secret crimes like the collateral murder [wikileaks.org] and the PRISM have been proven, I find it curious how no evidence has been provided for the FLG allegation.)
                                                  And when did I say I was not using the US's evil acts and Saudi Arabia as standards? The worst certainly needs to be compared with the worst -- that's my standard.

                                                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 02 2019, @12:25PM (5 children)

                                                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 02 2019, @12:25PM (#862350) Journal

                                                    Fine, so because the US also had a Civil War, all mistreatment of colored people by the US government thereafter counted as war crimes.

                                                    So how many colored people did the US put to death in the process of militarily occupying the former Confederacy? War crimes cover this situation because treatment of civilians during a military occupation still counts as a warfare matter.

                                                    Since you were never able to give reliable argument against calling the operation liberation instead of "invasion", your unilateral application of the definition was invalid.

                                                    Yes or no? Is Tibet independent of China? Answer is no. Thus, it is not liberation.

                                                    Tibet was not independent before the invasion, so it was unnecessary for China to "return power to" Tibetans. The purse fell off the snatcher's pocket, and the Granny found it herself.

                                                    Tibet was independent before the invasion. For example, your "British invasion" link from a few posts up described how Tibet gained such independence following the British invasion, which happened to be very temporary.

                                                    In almost every country the US invaded, the people now live worse than before, so by the same standard you can't play that game, obviously.

                                                    Such as Canada, Europe, Japan, Philippines, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, China, South Korea, and Vietnam? To name a few.

                                                    The faults now fail to result in actual mass deaths however, unlike the US's ongoing war crimes which never stopped producing death, hunger and poverty.

                                                    Except from the higher levels of existing death, hunger, and poverty from many decades of short sighted or malicious Chinese government policy. Just because China finally embraced capitalism in the 80s and 90s doesn't mean that it suddenly stopped being poor. The abuses and harms of the past continue to harm today.

                                                    Except that there has never been reliable evidence for China's "present-day fault", unlike the unrefutable evidences for US's ongoing bad things X, Y, Z, ...

                                                    Convenient that. Of course, there is plenty of evidence that China ruthlessly suppresses any public discussion of such faults (which actually was one of the faults I mentioned!).

                                                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 02 2019, @02:48PM (4 children)

                                                      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 02 2019, @02:48PM (#862404)

                                                      So how many colored people did the US put to death in the process of militarily occupying the former Confederacy? War crimes cover this situation because treatment of civilians during a military occupation still counts as a warfare matter.
                                                      Yes or no? Is Tibet independent of China? Answer is no. Thus, it is not liberation. Tibet was independent before the invasion. For example, your "British invasion" link from a few posts up described how Tibet gained such independence following the British invasion, which happened to be very temporary.

                                                      Glad you have finally educated yourself on the definition of military occupation [wikipedia.org], and now it should be clear that the occupation ended along with the war in 1949.
                                                      And glad you noted the highly temporary independence of Tibet, which was exactly why it was liberated instead of "invaded".

                                                      Such as Canada, Europe, Japan, Philippines, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, China, South Korea, and Vietnam? To name a few.

                                                      Again I do not consider Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, which are infested with car bomb attacks, mass shootings, etc, better than before.
                                                      The invasion of Canada, Europe, Philippines and China was not after WWII and therefore was out of this context; South Korea was almost voluntarily occupied, so again out of context.
                                                      Vietnam suffered [wikipedia.org] a lot after the invasion, not unlike Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, and could have been better now without the war; Japan was largely why I said "almost", so my point stands.

                                                      Except from the higher levels of existing death, hunger, and poverty from many decades of short sighted or malicious Chinese government policy. Just because China finally embraced capitalism in the 80s and 90s doesn't mean that it suddenly stopped being poor. The abuses and harms of the past continue to harm today.

                                                      And the death, hunger, and poverty has been replaced by the immense prosperity now in China, exactly because of its introspection, unlike the US's continued production of new atrocities.

                                                      Convenient that. Of course, there is plenty of evidence that China ruthlessly suppresses any public discussion of such faults (which actually was one of the faults I mentioned!).

                                                      Except that the allegation of forced organ transplantation on FLG followers was never known to be suppressed, and was actually laughed at by Chinese people universally.
                                                      Noting all kinds of existent suppression in China are occasionally exposed by Western media, this lack of evidence seems revealing, considering what a blockbuster the news would be.

                                                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 03 2019, @02:41AM (3 children)

                                                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 03 2019, @02:41AM (#862594) Journal

                                                        And the death, hunger, and poverty has been replaced by the immense prosperity now in China, exactly because of its introspection, unlike the US's continued production of new atrocities.

                                                        Again, you're playing games. The US is in large part responsible for that immense prosperity in China through trade. The same rationalization that absolves China of its crimes does the same for the US.

                                                        was never known to be suppressed

                                                        The weasel-speak is strong here. How would you find out? One of the things about a society like the US is that the dirt gets out. When will that happen in China so that your assertion of ignorance about the state of China's organ harvesting industry becomes relevant?

                                                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @09:15AM (2 children)

                                                          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @09:15AM (#862638)

                                                          Again, you're playing games. The US is in large part responsible for that immense prosperity in China through trade. The same rationalization that absolves China of its crimes does the same for the US.

                                                          Which however does not absolve its crime outside of China, in comparison with China's arguably successful efforts to compensate the same people for the disasters they endured.

                                                          The weasel-speak is strong here. How would you find out? One of the things about a society like the US is that the dirt gets out. When will that happen in China so that your assertion of ignorance about the state of China's organ harvesting industry becomes relevant?

                                                          All kinds of dirt in China do get exposed by Western media which are eager to make fun, but the dirt alleged by FLG followers was never exposed, curiously.
                                                          And the dirt in the US exposed by Snowden and Manning, for instance, was not supposed to get out, not unlike the alleged dirt in China.

                                                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 03 2019, @12:15PM (1 child)

                                                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 03 2019, @12:15PM (#862668) Journal

                                                            Which however does not absolve its crime outside of China, in comparison with China's arguably successful efforts to compensate the same people for the disasters they endured.

                                                            Compensation is not merely stopping killing people. Nor have you bothered to consider more recent crimes such as China's oppressive system of control which aren't so covered. Nor have you explained what crimes of the US aren't compensated in the same way that crimes by China supposedly are compensated. It's basically just blaming the US for Syria and maybe Saudi Arabia.

                                                            All kinds of dirt in China do get exposed by Western media which are eager to make fun, but the dirt alleged by FLG followers was never exposed, curiously.

                                                            Falun Gong are a bunch of flakes - there are plenty of those out there in the world. There's no real news potential there. China OTOH is the second largest country in the world. Nor have I ever claimed that China's control of information is perfect. Some dirt gets out to us despite that impressive oppression. Here's another example [soylentnews.org] of something that got out.

                                                            And the dirt in the US exposed by Snowden and Manning, for instance, was not supposed to get out, not unlike the alleged dirt in China.

                                                            What dirt is supposed to get out?

                                                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @03:48PM

                                                              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @03:48PM (#862757)

                                                              Compensation is not merely stopping killing people. Nor have you bothered to consider more recent crimes such as China's oppressive system of control which aren't so covered. Nor have you explained what crimes of the US aren't compensated in the same way that crimes by China supposedly are compensated. It's basically just blaming the US for Syria and maybe Saudi Arabia.

                                                              Correct, so China compensated its people by successfully creating the current prosperity for them, in addition to avoiding mass deaths for any reason twice, unlike what the US did.

                                                              Falun Gong are a bunch of flakes - there are plenty of those out there in the world. There's no real news potential there. China OTOH is the second largest country in the world. [...] What dirt is supposed to get out?
                                                              Nor have I ever claimed that China's control of information is perfect. Some dirt gets out to us despite that impressive oppression. Here's another example of something that got out.

                                                              Except that the news potential of the FLG allegation would be at least as big as that of the revelations by Snowden and Manning, as each would be top secret for the corresponding country.
                                                              It's exactly because of China's very imperfect information control that makes it interesting why there was never evidence for the FLG allegation, unlike most other kinds of bad news about China.