Huawei 5G kit must be removed from UK by 2027

So when the OAS [0] fraudulently, according to the Guardian, the New York Times, and every subsequent study, accuses the legitimate Bolivian elections to be fraudulent, after which a well-coordinated coup by the military and the far-right establishes a dictatorship that keeps postponing elections (Haven't seen that happen in Egypt before), that is also completely coincidentally the group supported by the government of the United States despite the press, academia and intelligentsia of the country recognizing that the elections were legitimate, that is not a US-backed coup?

Because it seems to me that it was a coup. That was backed by the US. Which makes it a US backed coup.

[0] The OAS is a cold-war era organization that was literally founded in order to instrumentalize the Monroe Doctrine. Moreover, the current chairman of the OAS publicly states his support for regime change, and the organization is largely funded by the US. It was designed in order, and still largely acts, to implement US foreign policy.

The CIA literally had a budget in order to remove Allende from power. One of their top priorities was to fund, cause, and instrumentalize a military coup in order to remove Allende, which happened exactly in the timeframe they planned, and was executed by the actors that they had counselled and financed for the past two decades in the goal of removing any left-wing president : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_intervention_in_.... It is absolutely certain that the US was instrumental in the overthrow of Allende, with the CIA even publicly taking credit for creating the conditions that led to the coup. After the coup, the US politically and economically backed the military dictatorship. So yes, the US caused, and backed the coup. He was overthrown by his own military, that were organized to perpetrate a coup by the US.

It is literally a pattern of machinations. There aren't a series of dozens of coup d'états that mysteriously happen in countries with CIA activity that also happened to be against US interests, and that turned out exactly to further US interests. The CIA didn't make contacts in the militaries, in supranational organizations, and with local interest groups for fun.

Please stop posting flamewar comments. We ban accounts that do that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

>> please provide an example of two of where they claim China is more oppressive than it actually is

> I'll give you one. Pretty much every single mainstream media basically says religion is banned in China. However to my detriment, every time I go back to China to visit my paternal grandma (who is a catholic), I get asked to go to Sunday mass with her. So, where is religion banned in China? Let me know your thoughts about this, do you think religion is banned in China?

First of all, I can't remember ever seeing Western MSM saying religion is banned in China. Would you be so kind as to provide an example?

Second, while religion is clearly not banned in China, there isn't freedom of religion. I care very little about the rigmarole of religious people, but I do care about their freedom to keep those. China whitelists a set of religions, religious practices and religious institutions. As with so many other things in China, if you happen to find what you want within such an approved space, you enjoy freedoms. Outside of those preapproved boxes, there isn't freedom of religion in China.

You yourself bring up catholicism. I am not here to defend the catholic church (yuck!), but the approved catholic church in China is not allowed to have the same relationship with the Vatican as ordinary catholic churces elsewhere. This is not freedom of religion. And let's not even get started with islam, or let alone falun gong! You've got to be kidding me.

So, no, religion isn't banned in China. I've never claimed it is, nor do MSM tend to claim it is. The claim is rather that there is very little freedom of religion in China.

>> adversarial justice systems

> You do realise that "adversarial justice systems" only pretty much exist in Common Law countries right? Whereas Civil Law countries don't use an adversarial system, which is pretty much the legal system of the whole of the EU and pretty much all of Asia including China.

I'm sorry. As somone from a civil law country who usually gets quite annoyed by common law people assuming that common law is the system everywhere, I should have been a lot more careful with my wording. I should have said "justice systems where there is a true burden of proof on the prosecuting authority" instead.

> I've even read arguments from British barristers that the adversarial system can be an inferior system. I mean, the adversarial justice system certainly didn't do too well for the incarceration rate of black people in America now did it?

Here we go again. There's a lot that's wrong with the American justice system. The Chinese justice system is fundamentally flawed, to the point of being a worthless sham that merely rubberstamps the arbitrary "justice" of the CCP. If you cannot see that enormous chasm between these two, then I don't know how to get through to you.

I think I understand what you mean now - thanks for taking the time to explain it.

I understand your position to be that in the US (I'll use the US as an example but it's broadly interchangeable with any western democracy), privacy violations and acts of espionage which are directionally similar to those occurring in China do take place, and whilst you acknowledge that they are not as bad, you draw equivalence between the surreptitiousness of both.

I think the point is a meaningful one. Much of the content of the PRISM presentations was worrying because it made very clear the extent to which the US government has expanded its intelligence-gathering in the last few decades.

Introducing a point like this into a discussion focusing on China might seem like 'whatabouttery' to many people ("X is bad, but what about Y?"). On paper, NSA and CIA overreaching could have similar consequences (or even look identical) to Chinese state sponsored espionage, but provided there are avenues for whistleblowers and a free press, the two are not equatable.

> the point I am struggling to make

Your English is very good, and I enjoyed talking to you.