11–20 of 117 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There have been a lot of criticism about that at the time in Italy, investigations and even a trial IIRC. So, these things happened, but weren't blindly accepted, at least not in Italy.
I'm just trying to understand the context of the 'arrests' as the article is paywalled. I'm not making any justifications in either of the cases, not sure why you feel the need to downvote a simple question for clarification.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Doubtful. I don't know if it's true, but, from the article: > “We’re seeing the Chinese government resort to blackmail, threats of violence, stalking and kidnappings. They’ve actually engaged criminal organisations in the US, offering them bounties in hopes of successfully taking targets back to China,” said Mr Wray last year. You don't blackmail or threaten terror suspects, you'd kidnap them immediately. And from th…
> Last December, Ms Wu spotted a fundraising appeal to benefit the Proud Boys - a far-right group designated by the Canadian government as a terrorist "neo-fascist organisation"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm just trying to understand the context of the 'arrests' as the article is paywalled. I'm not making any justifications in either of the cases, not sure why you feel the need to downvote a simple question for clarification.
[flagged]
I'm American. I'm much more well versed in American issues and this is the first story that popped into my mind which I can bring up as a parallel.
> Second, you really want us to believe China's attempts at getting at its critics is the same as the US trying to get at a terror suspect?
As I clarified, as I couldn't read the full article, I am admitting I don't know - it would be great if the article had clarified down the way on what exactly their position is and someone had quoted it.
> If you want to criticize the US go ahead in the appropriate thread, there's plenty to criticize.
I love American thank you very much.
These forces are used to spy on, harass, and oppress Chinese dissidents and human rights advocates. You can find many other news sources focused on that: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=chinese+police+new+york&iar=news&i... Including the NY Times: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=chinese+police+new+york+site%3Anyt... Why did the Economist omit that entirely (unless I overlooked something)? Also, why repeat Chinese government clai…
What people don't realize is that extra-judicial "persuasion" is also commonly applied for strategic business interests. I recall a discussion with a someone at an electronics company a while ago where they described recent breaches and leaks of IP to Chinese state companies by unwitting employees pressured by these extra-judicial police.
[flagged]
Lots of countries get into trouble from their intelligence work overstepping bounds. But of course the country complaining does it themselves, so it's a bit of "don't get caught doing it" approach.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm just trying to understand the context of the 'arrests' as the article is paywalled. I'm not making any justifications in either of the cases, not sure why you feel the need to downvote a simple question for clarification.
[flagged]
It first states, "...using bilateral security arrangements struck with countries in Europe and Africa to gain a widespread presence internationally..." which seems to suggest the hosts countries are fully (or at minimum somewhat) aware.
Then, they go on to say "Safeguard Defenders stumbled on the police networks while trying to assess the scale of China’s efforts to persuade some of its people to return to China..."
Fair enough, but what exactly are those people accused of? If they're being accused of fraud or other illegal activities, are those really people we want in our countries.
These forces are used to spy on, harass, and oppress Chinese dissidents and human rights advocates. You can find many other news sources focused on that: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=chinese+police+new+york&iar=news&i... Including the NY Times: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=chinese+police+new+york+site%3Anyt... Why did the Economist omit that entirely (unless I overlooked something)? Also, why repeat Chinese government clai…
I don’t see how this article can be read as “looking the other way” in any sense.