tonbridgebrit

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/hong-kong-protesters-plan-march-022648940.html


Okay, from the above link, the demonstraters/rioters are blatantly showing their ignorance.

From the above link, [Thousands of demonstrators in Hong Kong marched to the U.S. Consulate on Sunday, urging President Donald Trump to "liberate" their city as they press for more democratic freedom in the semi-autonomous Chinese territory.]

This is an aburd act. It's as if the guys who are the "power behind the demonstrations", they're deliberately trying to make the demonsrators look ridiculous and absurd, by ordering them to demonstrate in front of the American consulate in Hong Kong.

Okay, I would like to thank Senior Player for putting up this post, and using time and effort to help us people with this application.

Now, bearing in mind it's not easy to actually get a Single Entry Tourist Visa, how about this ?

Okay, a British man, with a British passport, in Britain. He wants to go to Thailand for a 60 day holiday. Now, he buys plane ticket, and the return date on the plane ticket is day 59 of his holiday. Okay, on day 29 of his holiday, he's got a plane ticket to Malaysia, it's not that expensive. Go to Malaysia, and fly back to Thailand on day 30. Yes, this means a day trip in Malaysia. And once back in Thailand, stay in Thailand, and fly home to England on day 59.

All plane tickets (that's four plane tickets, London to Bangkok, Bangkok to Malaysia, Malaysia to Bangkok, and Bangkok to London) will be purchased before flying from London to Bangkok. And he will have all four tickets on him, when he flies out.

The holiday involves a day trip to Malaysia, stay in a hotel for one night in Malaysia. Malaysia is actually an okay place for a one day visit. Yes, try to enjoy the one day in Malaysia.


And doing it this way, no need to apply for a Single Entry Tourist Visa for Thailand. No need to pay for the SETV, no need to go through the aggro of having to apply. I really do wonder.

6 hours ago, simple1 said:

There are many opinions on why NATO / Afghan forces have been unable to contain the Islamic extremists, for me it is unclear why the current state of affairs exist. 

Unclear as to why the current state of affairs exist ?

Well, it might be because, for a start, some of the people in Afghanistan actually support "extreme Islamic ideas". 
Yes, I think there are some people in Afghanistan who reckon that it's a good idea to punish shoplifters and other thieves by chopping off their hands. Yes, there's people in Afghanistan who reckon that producing books and videos that insult Islam should be a capital offence. Not all Muslims reckon that insulting Islam should be treated as harmless fun or punished with a slap on the wrist, they want to see a bigger punishment.

Also, the Afghans who are moderate Muslims, well, their attitude might be this. They look at the NATO soldiers in Afghanistan, and they've got belief and suspicion regarding the actual motive for NATO having it's soldiers present in Afghanistan. Yes, the people of Afghanistan are suppose to accept that NATO soldiers are in their country, in order to benefit Afghanistan. But some of them Afghan people, they reckon that the real reason for the NATO soldiers being there, is some other reason or reasons.

It's a bit like when American soldiers where in Iraq. Not all the Iraqis regarded Washington's presence in Iraq, was, was to save Iraq. And indeed, Vietnam, not all the Vietnamese reckoned that the foreign soldiers who were in their country, foreign soldiers were there to save Vietnam ?


Trying to tell and convince the locals, "we are here to save and help you". Sometimes, it's not an easy thing to do.

5 hours ago, simple1 said:

China is already a threat to world peace. China has military in Tibet, parts of the South China Sea, Africa and elsewhere bordering Afghanistan, plus disputed claims of Chinese troops already in Afghanistan on missions. 

 

3 hours ago, Morch said:

Whether you like it or not, China projects military power and leverages it. Some mentioned in @simple1's post above. Same goes for China's international image.

Look, let me put it this way. If Beijing sends Chinese soldiers to Afghanistan, in that case, I demand that NATO sends soldiers to Afghanistan. Yes, NATO soldiers in Afghanistan, to boot the Chinese soldiers out. That's because, yes, the presence of Chinese soldiers in Afghanistan means that China is a threat and danger to world peace.
There is no evidence of Chinese troops in Afghanistan, but if there is, in that case, I think American soldiers must stay in Afghanistan.

Chinese soldiers in Tibet ? Tibet is part of China, it's inside China. Hence, China is allowed to send soldiers into Tibet. There's the Kashmir, it's part of India, hence, I don't reckon that NATO should send soldiers into Kashmir, in order to remove the Indian soldiers.

But Chinese soldiers in Afghanistan, (or indeed Indian soldiers in Afghanistan) , yes, NATO must act. We must not allow such acts of aggression to happen, such acts of aggression must be stopped and punished.

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

If and when the USA steps out, the country will most likely descend into some sort of civil war. And it's not that things are great even now, with the USA presence keeping things under some semblance of control. 

 

Dealing with Afghanistan on an economic level related to large infrastructure and mining operations would require a stable government. Kinda doubt that the Chinese will have a reliable partner to do business with.

 

China is not all that coy about projecting military might and more, when it suits. More so when the things are (relatively) in its (expanding) neighborhood.

 

And while you may tout the resistance bit, I don't think that all people of Afghanistan are thrilled about the possibility of the USA withdrawing. Nice co-opting effort there.

"If and when the USA steps out, the country will most likely descend into some sort of civil war".  I think you should accept that basically, instead of believing that the Americans are the solution to the problem, well, they have unfortunately become part of the problem.

About China sending soldiers into Afghanistan, look, it's extremely unlikely that Beijing will send Chinese soldiers to Afghanistan. Suspicion and belief that Beijing will send soldiers is based on a fantasy world, created by some of the media. Yes, this absurd and fake picture that is being created, is trying to tell us that China is willing to use military force outside of China.
China is not going to send soldiers to places outside of China. China is not going to send soldiers to Afghanistan. It's extremely unlikely Beijing will send soldiers. If they do, well, it might justify the views of the anti-China bits of the media. It means that they can say "oh look, China is a danger and threat to world peace, they've got their soldiers in Afghanistan".

8 hours ago, SinCityGr8One said:

!8 years, 5.7 Trillion USD, Thousands of US military deaths and wounded, Uncountable Afghani dead and wounded and still keeps going. Afghanistan has never been conquered since the days of Genghis Khan. Afghanistan is a treasure trove of mineral wealth. A report done by the US conclude it contains 4 Trillion USD of Gold, silver and especially Rare Earths. Plus that report is decades old. It is my understanding that China is ready to move into Afghanistan and start projects and tap into the minerals there. Once the US is out, China will move in to develop the Country. 18 years for what US? Get out ASAP and learn one lesson. You cannot conquer unconquered people. If Genghis Khan failed along with others that followed, that should have given thought for going in the first time around. 

China is going to move into Afghanistan ?  China wants to tap into Afghanistan's natural resources, and send in tens of thousands of Chinese soldiers ?

I hope they don't. Nobody wants to see Chinese soldiers in Afghanistan. 
Russia sent soldiers there. America sent soldiers there. Let's hope China does not repeat the disaster, third time round.

12 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's the beginning of the end for the pro western government, sadly, but Obama should have ended it when he became president. All that has happened since is that many US soldiers died for nothing, and much treasure has been spent.

IMO the government is probably too corrupt to last without US support. Their poorly paid soldiers will not be able to withstand dedicated fanatical Taliban warriors that are not afraid to die.

We've seen it all before of course, when the US abandoned Sth Vietnam. 

The only reason I've heard as to why the US is even there is so girls can go to school. 

Yes, it was a massive mistake when America got involved in Vietnam, and it was also a mistake to have US soldiers in Afghanistan. Let the local people fight and butcher each other.

We have to ask, what's the real reason for American soldiers being in these foreign countries ?  Is it really because Washington wants to see Afghan girls in schools ? Is that really why Washington has spent billions of US tax-payers dollars ?

Joshua Wong and the demonstraters carried out demonstrations that disrupted Hong Kong for 79 days five years ago, back in 2014.

What are on earth did the demonstrations achieve ? Almost nothing, apart from harming Hong Kong's economy. I really do think the demonstraters should accept that they fired their bolt back in 2014, and they're going to achieve very little this time round, again.

Are they going to block traffic and harm Hong Kong's economy for another three months ? Well, I suppose the important thing is, is that they don't take over the airport again.


By the way, the right to demonstrate, to block traffic, and to do it for more than four days. They're being allowed to do this in Hong Kong. Riot police are not actually clearing them away.
What about Britain ? How great is the freedom to do a demonstration, and to block traffic for more than four days ? Block traffic for months, bring central London to a standstill for weeks or months ? The British Prime Minister has carried out a 'coup' in order to force through a 'suicidal no-deal Hard Brexit'.  Should the Remainers in Britain be allowed to block traffic in central London for as long as they want ?

2 hours ago, WeekendRaider said:

not disputed any more.  August 29, 2019.

 

today's Nikkei Asian Review.  Xi and Duterte have reached an agreement.

 

   

And this post is massively important. The Philippines are "well in" with Beijing, they are now an ally of the Peoples' Republic of China. And bear in mind that Duterte was democratically elected.

Looking at whatever map, the Philippines do have large chunks of the South China Sea. The Philippines, are they allowed to claim the South China Sea ? Are they allowed to build islands on all the bits of the South China Sea that are closest to the Philippines ? Surely, they are ?

And are the Philippines allowed to grant permission to Beijing, to build more Chinese dots in the South China Sea ? Surely, they are allowed to do this ?

Is Washington claiming that Duterte is a Beijing puppet ? The claim is absurd. There's a far stronger claim that Marcos was a Washington puppet, and Marcos controlled the Philippines for two decades.

1 hour ago, TKDfella said:

No it isn't restraint...they know the world is looking and any show of force would damage much of what China has built. And the second point is they also know that the protesters have no real armoury and feel that protests will fizzle out, for one reason or another, as time goes on. However, what would be a greater challenge to their waiting game is if the protesters maintain a hold on a 'key' government office.

Well, there is no way that Beijing is going to take the bait by sending in Chinese soldiers to remove the demonstraters. Yes, the international media will condemn Beijing for this.

The protests will fizzle out ? Yes, I think so. The demonstraters can carry on their actions, and these actions are disrupting and harming Hong Kong's economy. Beijing is never going to give the demonstraters what they want, the demonstrations can go on for another few months, but all that is doing is harming Hong Kong's economy even more.

Okay, you wrote about, if the demonstraters maintain a hold on a 'key' government office.   ????
Can you please explain exactly what you mean ?

14 hours ago, fantom said:

Do you have any evidence to back your opinion? Being in HK now I have a very low opinion about the way this is being reported.

You're not the only one who has a very low opinion about the way this is being reported.

Lots of people in Hong Kong are angry at how the media is reporting this. Some people in Hong Kong are angry, they can see that the demonstrations are slowly harming Hong Kong's economy. 

4 hours ago, car720 said:

Understand what the CCP  are capable of before descrying the revolutionaries.

Yes, the Chinese Communist Party certainly have the ability to remove the demonstraters, mass arrests, and stop any demonstrations from tomorrow onwards. But they won't take the bait. They won't crush the demonstrations in a forcefull and violent way. They know that if they do, it will cause a huge backlash against Beijing, across large areas of planet earth.

I think Beijing will simply allow the demonstraters to continue disrupting and harming Hong Kong's economy. And Beijing is hoping that the demonstrations will eventually become reduced and stop.

Surely, all of us here are hoping that there will not be a forceful and massively violent end to the demonstrations.

36 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Did anyone claim otherwise?

Morch, the riot police fired tear gas after the demonstraters threw Molotov cocktails and bricks. Now, I'm going to say, in my opinion, I reckon that people deserve to have tear gas used against them IF they throw Molotov cocktails and/or bricks. I reckon that footage from security cameras should be used to identify who exactly are the people throwing Molotov cocktails and bricks.

And what should the punishment be, for throwing a Molotov cocktail or brick, before the tear gas was released ? What about throwing a Molotov cocktail after the tear gas was released ? I reckon that people should actually be arrested and punished, especially those who threw Molotov cocktails or bricks before the tear gas was released. And indeed, those who watched Molotov cocktails being thrown at the riot police, and then threw bricks or Molotov cocktails after tear gas was fired, well, they should be punished as well.

The security cameras are needed to find out who the offenders are. And people who are shining lights at the security cameras, they should be given a small punishment for "preventing the gathering of evidence, against the offenders".

What do you reckon, Morch ?? Do you reckon it was wrong for the riot police to fire tear gas at the demonstraters ??

41 minutes ago, Roadman said:

Petrol bombs and bricks.  Morons....and Hong Kong as a whole will face the consequences for the actions of those who can’t abide to peaceful protest. 

And I totally agree.

And for everybody reading this, please note, from the OP "Police used tear gas after some protesters threw Molotov cocktails and bricks and others tore...". 
Yes, police used tear gas after some protesters threw Molotov cocktails and bricks.

2 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

I have received an email from a long time friend who  said in his  message " This is  now a big  money attempt to provoke the central Chinese administration to revoke the relative autonomy of Hong Kong.

It's  gonna  have an impact  but not what they hope for. Crazy .The  "Core" in  China not  gonna  move until  the other side  does. Look out  for  some  real <deleted> then !  Us that  know  know what it is about. The only  people  gonna lose in  the poor traders in  HK. Again! See  you soon on the outside."

Until I meet  him  I can  only  assume what he means but  I have a  suspicion  of what  it  is.

 

And the "big money attempt to provoke the central Chinese administration to revoke the relative autonomy of Hong Kong", where do people reckon this money is from ?  Who is the "real power" behind the demonstrations ?

And, "The only people gonna lose in the poor traders in HK".  This, I think, is very unfortunately true.

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Yes. And you're really concerned about HK.

You do realize that your posting history is public, right?

"Yes. And you're really concerned about HK."
Well, I would prefer Hong Kong to continue being a prosperous place, with an economy that works and has growth. I gain nothing if Hong Kong's economy is harmed, and those demonstraters are harming Hong Kong's economy when they disrupt traffic and the airport. The OP has already said that arrivals entering Hong Kong have dropped by half compared to last year.

You talk about concern for Hong Kong. I'm going to ask, what about the media, are the media really concerned about Hong Kong ? If they really are concerned about freedom in Hong Kong, why not be so concerned about the people in various other places, other places that have less freedom than Hong Kong ? Why has there been almost no media coverage about the hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees who are still in Bangladesh, they went there about two years ago from Burma. Bangladesh, supposedly, is not fully accepting them.

My opinion is, the media is giving coverage to what's happening in Hong Kong, but they're giving less coverage to events that are far more serious than what's happening in Hong Kong. Why is this ? What's the real reason, for giving a moderate amount of coverage to the Hong Kong demonstrations, bearing in mind that they're giving less coverage to other events that are more serious. I would love it if, you or anybody else, could comment on this point.

7 hours ago, Oliver Holzerfilled said:

What's your point comrade?

My point is this, from the OP, the demonstrations are basically killing of Hong Kong's tourism sector, visitor arrivals have dropped by roughly half compared to a year ago, the demonstrations are harming and destroying Hong Kong's economy. This is not good for Hong Kong.

Are the demonstraters going to take over the airport again ? Do you think it will be a good idea for the demonstraters to turn up at the airport in one weeks time, and block flights for three weeks ? How about four weeks ? Do you think it will be a good idea if the demonstraters disrupt traffic in various places in Hong Kong for another four months ?

I'm just trying to say, the demonstraters are harming Hong Kong, the demonstraters are harming the actual place that they live in. Who is feeling the pain more ? The people of Hong Kong, bearing in mind that it is their economy that is being trashed, OR, are the guys in Beijing feeling the pain more ?

Carrying out demonstrations that are trashing the place that you live in, it's self-harm, it's best to not do it.

6 hours ago, yellowboat said:

Basic law was violated.  Surprised it took this long.  The extradition bill was a huge blunder obviously, handed down by Carry Lam who talks about retiring to the English countryside.  She is an awful roll model for Hong Kong   Beijing and Carry Lam made this mistake, not the Hong Kong people.  So far, given the size of the demonstrations, the violence has been minimal.  The disruptions are just something that needs to put up with, as most of Hong Kong supports the demonstrators. 

 

Even with all this, I prefer China to Thailand as China has more freedom, better opportunities and far less visa hassles.  Oh, almost forgot, alcohol is much cheaper too.

From your comment "Even with all this, I prefer China to Thailand as China has more freedom, better opportunities and far less visa hassles.  Oh, almost forgot, alcohol is much cheaper too."

Your comment is massive. You want to make the claim that China has more freedom than Thailand ? I do not want to comment on this. But I say, that just about everybody accepts that there is more freedom in Hong Kong than places like Vietnam, Burma, Cambodia, etc. The people of Hong Kong have got the freedom to bring the city-centre to a standstill, they've got the freedom to turn up at the airport and block flights. That's a lot more freedom than what people have in other places. And the riot police in Hong Kong, they continue to give the demonstraters the freedom to do this, the riot police have not been ordered to stop and clear any crowds that block any traffic.

Why is it, that some of the media are zooming in on Hong Kong, about Hong Kong's demonstrations on the lack of freedom ?  Why not zoom in on other places that have got less freedom than Hong Kong ?
Why is this ?

Okay, the message to the demonstraters in Hong Kong is this.
"Look, you go and cause the city-centre in Hong Kong to grind to a halt, and do it every day, that's up to you, go and do it, but, but leave the airport alone, we the people who are not from Hong Kong, we might have to go through Hong Kong Airport on our way to and from Asia, we do not want our flights cancelled or postponed by you people, you have sympathy from some foreigners, but that sympathy will be quickly reduced if you block our flights". 
"And remember, the only reason why Beijing has not sent in the riot police to clear your demonstrations is because, doing so will make Beijing look bad on the world's media, Beijing does not want to create a poor image of China. But if you take over the airport, you lose sympathy with the foreigners, the foreigners won't be that concerned when you are forcibly removed from the streets".

Notice from the OP that, visitor arrivals in Hong Kong have dropped by about half compared to a year ago. Yes, these demonstrations are destroying Hong Kong's tourism sector.  Is tourism just as important to Hong Kong as it is to Thailand ? I'm not sure. So, the demonstraters are harming Hong Kong's economy. How long are they going to continue ?  Continue damaging Hong Kong's economy ? Do the guys in Beijing really care about how a bunch of Chinese in Hong Kong are damaging Hong Kong's economy ?

21 hours ago, Morch said:

 

As for your trade waffle. you were the one who asserted China would cut of trade/relations. Try to at least follow your own posts.
 

Morch, the USA, and the vast majority of countries across planet earth, has got a Chinese Embassy which is an Embassy of the Peoples' Republic of China. That's mainland China. The Embassy is NOT an Embassy of "Republic of China, Taiwan".

Now, you do realise, right, that no country on planet earth has both an embassy for China and one for Taiwan ?  Okay, in London, if the British government was to allow Taiwan to open an Embassy, called Embassy of the Republic of China (Taiwan) then, then what ? Well, Beijing will simply close down the Chinese Embassy in London. That's why London has not got an Embassy of the Republic of China. And this applies not just to London, it applies to all other capital cities. Nobody can have both Embassies.

The poster boonrawdcnx appears to be pushing for a campaign to isolate China. And indeed, recognising Taiwan as China (and refusing to recognise China as China) is certainly an attempt to isolate China. Yes, recognising Taiwan as China, this involves having an Embassy of the "Republic of China, Taiwan".

I'm only trying to say that, for any major country on planet earth, it's disastrous if they allow Taiwan to have an Embassy, which will cause China to close the Chinese Embassy. Do you feel that, it would be crazy and absurd if Washington allows Taiwan to open an Embassy in Washington DC, and hence, cause Beijing to close down the Chinese Embassy ? Yes, the White House might carry out stupid and silly behaviour sometimes, but they're not really that stupid. If they were, they'd go and allow Taiwan to have an Embassy in America.

On 8/20/2019 at 10:52 AM, Morch said:

 

This topic ain't (for a wonder) about Trump. And even if it was, Trump is not a permanent fixture. You're just deflecting.

 

You're pretty much the only poster repeatedly bringing up NATO in contexts (more absurd and less) relating to China.

 

And, as if you weren't aware of it, China needs trade with other countries just as badly, if not more so. The prospects of China closing down shop and cutting relations with the USA is quite out there.

Surely, you accept that if American soldiers are going to be in China, to fight alongside whatever Chinese, against whatever other Chinese (the old men of Beijing) , well, this involves NATO ? Washington will demand that Europe spills the blood of European soldiers, if Americans are going to die fighting against China ? No way will America shoulder the burden of war against China, on it's own.

China needs trade with other countries ? It certainly does. China needs trade with Europe. Europe is not interested in reducing trade. China wants trade with Britain. Britain is not interested in reducing trade. China needs trade with America. The White House is contemplating a trade war with China. China does not want a trade war.

China wants trade and contact with the rest of the world. China wants to send tourists to London and Paris, China wants to flood Thailand with tourists. All this is good for China, and good for planet earth.
The poster, boonrawcdnx, that poster seems to be against China doing all of this.

Morch, are you against America and Europe importing a mountain of Chinese manufactured goods ? Are you against Europe and Britain regarding China as a vital export market ? Are you against London and Paris regarding the mainland Chinese tourists as vital ? Do you feel that, China is a vital export market for American soybean farmers ? Do you feel that China is a vital market for large sectors of America's agricultural sector ?