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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 25 2019, @01:59PM (28 children)
Sure, and the many instances of false accusations [rationalwiki.org],
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)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 25 2019, @04:25PM (26 children)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.)
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)?
And the average citizen feels immensely better than the average under the previous government, in addition to most ones that once existed there.
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)
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)
So you now now blatantly refuse to address the US-caused damages in these regions?
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.
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)
Yes, because a) it's irrelevant to the conversation, and b) you're only considering one side of the balance sheet.
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.
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)
It is surely very relevant because it is exactly the comparison between China and US that the conversation is about.
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.
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).
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)
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.
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.
US does too. And as I noted, it's been doing it for longer.
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)
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.
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, ...
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 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)
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.
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.
Begging the question. We can assume anything which is done is profitable for the US (or Chinese equivalent) military-industrial complex.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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 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).
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)
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).
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?
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.
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?
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.
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)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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)
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 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!
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.
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)
So how was the Civil War of China related to the Totalization, which happened afterwards?
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.
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.
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)
The winner got to do the Totalization. And because there was a war, massacre of civilians by the victors, still counts as war crimes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 02 2019, @07:54AM (6 children)
Fine, so because the US also had a Civil War, all mistreatment of colored people by the US government thereafter counted as war crimes.
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.
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.
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)
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.
Such as Canada, Europe, Japan, Philippines, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, China, South Korea, and Vietnam? To name a few.
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.
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)
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".
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.
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
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.
What dirt is supposed to get out?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @03:48PM
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.
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.