Comments by "Toi Chut Gong Wu" (@ToiChutGongWu) on "ShanghaiEye魔都眼"
channel.
-
27
-
27
-
25
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
20
-
18
-
16
-
12
-
12
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@wynn3077 Ah yes, “Mohammed Kumar”/“Hkchinese”/”wynn” , the ”Johnny Somali 2.0” on here. The troll that has claimed to be Chinese, a Hongkonger, Australian, Pakistani, “chidian” and Indian. As a “Chinese” it has stated that it missed the British Crown ruling Hong Kong and also misses the Japanese fascistic Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. It has also posted that “A chinese free world is a peaceful world”. It always claims to live in Sham Shui Po, Hong Kong, while at the same time posting “I live in Maple Leaf Country in Retchi Bungalow and I'm very happy.”. The troll has also commented that it laughed about the deaths of Palestinian children and agreed with the killing of Palestinian children. Any other poster who it disagrees with will be told that it works in a bot farm or call centre in Dongguan. Or that other posters mothers are street walkers in Portland Street or Temple Street. It has posted that I live variously in Richmond and Toronto, Canada. While, apparently, I am also Malaysian and “International”.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Omsim-k1r Laughable the "Nine Dash Line" was first established as the "Eleven Dash Line" when the Nationalist KMT was in power in China. The KMT on Taiwan still claim the Eleven Dash Line from Taiwan. This is only disputed because The West is looking for conflict with China. The vast majority of the shipping going through the South China Sea is to and from China, and The West is seeking to put its boot on the throat of China in the South China Sea.
Following the defeat of Japan at the end of World War II, the Republic of China (ROC) claimed the Paracels, Pratas and Spratly Islands after accepting the Japanese surrender of the islands based on the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations. However, the terms did not specify ROC sovereignty over the archipelagos and surrounding waters.
In November 1946, the ROC sent naval ships to take control of these islands. When the Peace Treaty with Japan was being signed at the San Francisco Conference, on 7 September 1951, both China and Vietnam asserted their rights to the islands. Later the Philippine government also laid claim to parts of the archipelagos.
In December 1947, the Ministry of Interior of the Nationalist government released "Location Map of South Sea Islands" (南海諸島位置圖) showing an eleven-dash line.[7][27] Scholarly accounts place its publication from 1946 to 1948 and indicate that it originated from an earlier one titled "Map of Chinese Islands in the South China Sea" (中国南海岛屿图) published by the ROC Land and Water Maps Inspection Committee in 1935. Beginning in 1952, the People's Republic of China (PRC) used a revised map with nine dashes, removing the two dashes in the Gulf of Tonkin. The change was interpreted as a concession to the newly independent North Vietnam; the maritime border between PRC and Vietnam in the Gulf of Tonkin was eventually formalized by treaty in 2000.
After retreating to Taiwan in 1949, the ROC government continued to claim the Spratly and Paracel Islands. President Lee Teng-hui claimed that "legally, historically, geographically, or in reality", all of the South China Sea and Spratly islands were ROC territory and under ROC sovereignty, and denounced actions undertaken there by the Philippines and Malaysia. Taiwan and China have the same claims and have cooperated with each other during international talks involving the Spratly Islands.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wynn3077 Ah yes, “Mohammed Kumar”/“Hkchinese”/”wynn” , the ”Johnny Somali 2.0” on here. The troll that has claimed to be Chinese, a Hongkonger, Australian, Pakistani, “chidian” and Indian. As a “Chinese” it has stated that it missed the British Crown ruling Hong Kong and also misses the Japanese fascistic Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. It has also posted that “A chinese free world is a peaceful world”. It always claims to live in Sham Shui Po, Hong Kong, while at the same time posting “I live in Maple Leaf Country in Retchi Bungalow and I'm very happy.”. The troll has also commented that it laughed about the deaths of Palestinian children and agreed with the killing of Palestinian children. Any other poster who it disagrees with will be told that it works in a bot farm or call centre in Dongguan. Or that other posters mothers are street walkers in Portland Street or Temple Street. It has posted that I live variously in Richmond and Toronto, Canada. While, apparently, I am also Malaysian and “International”.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Footage from a documentary titled The Gate of Heavenly Peace shows viewers parts of an interview between Chai Ling and reporter Philip Cunningham from May 28, 1989, a week prior to the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre. In the footage, Chai makes the following statements:
Chai Ling: “All along I've kept it to myself, because being Chinese I felt I shouldn't bad-mouth the Chinese. But I can't help thinking sometimes – and I might as well say it – you, the Chinese, you are not worth my struggle! You are not worth my sacrifice!”
“What we actually are hoping for is bloodshed, the moment when the government is ready to brazenly butcher the people. Only when the Square is awash with blood will the people of China open their eyes. Only then will they really be united. But how can I explain any of this to my fellow students?
"And what is truly sad is that some students, and famous well-connected people, are working hard to help the government, to prevent it from taking such measures. For the sake of their selfish interests and their private dealings they are trying to cause our movement to disintegrate and get us out of the Square before the government becomes so desperate that it takes action....
Cunningham: "Are you going to stay in the Square yourself?
Chai Ling: "No."
Cunningham: "Why?"
Chai Ling: "Because my situation is different. My name is on the government's blacklist. I'm not going to be destroyed by this government. I want to live. Anyway, that's how I feel about it. I don't know if people will say I'm selfish. I believe that people have to continue the work I have started. A democracy movement can't succeed with only one person. I hope you don't report what I've just said for the time being, okay?"
According to Keith Schoppa, Ling's comments showed the "depth of her revolutionary feelings" and that the film itself featured "much of the criticism of Chai Ling's zealotry." In June 1995, Chai attacked the film in the journal Tiananmen where she argued the film's producer made the film for "crude commercial gain by taking things out of context."
In 2009, Chai and her firm have launched multiple lawsuits against the film's non-profit producers, the Long Bow Group. An initial suit, in which Chai alleged defamation, was summarily dismissed. An additional suit claimed that the organization infringed upon Jenzabar's trademark by mentioning the firm's name in the keyword meta tags and title tag for a page about Jenzabar on its website. Her lawsuits were subsequently criticized by some commentators, including columnists for the Boston Globe and The New Yorker. In the end, each of her legal actions against the film were dismissed by the Massachusetts appeals court. In its ruling the Superior Court handed an award to defendants of more than $500,000 in attorney fees and expenses, stating that Jenzabar "subjected Long Bow to protracted and costly litigation not to protect the goodwill of its trademark from misappropriation, but to suppress criticism of Jenzabar's principles and its corporate practices." in the ruling.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1