Comments by "Bob" (@bobs_toys) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

  1. I think whatever you can say about Karens, one thing we can all agree on is that they're the best people to use as shock troops. Doesn't even need to be a war on. Just find a machine gun nest and get them to run at it.
    30
  2. International waters.
    17
  3. The idea that the CCP's words mean anything is completely baffling.
    13
  4. Imagine believing the labels the CCP gives to things.
    10
  5. This idea that the CCP's words mean anything is pretty weird.
    10
  6. Whose yard did they enter? It certainly isn't the PRC's yard. No permission is required.
    10
  7.  @4nix591  probably not. Too far away and ICBMs were the best part of a decade away. Western Europe could have been screwed, though.
    8
  8.  @hooke8069  a name doesn't denote ownership.
    7
  9.  @klm2639  yes they did. No issue there, it's how the war ended up. The issue was with your attempt to pretend that the PLA wasn't involved, but it was basically a rag tag militia, with the implication that the "real" PLA would have done much better. The actual PLA was involved and the war, started by the PRC's ally ended with the previous status quo. Plus a bunch of pointless deaths. For your misrepresentation, I'll put it this way. Officially it wasn't a war, it was a police action. The army wasn't an army, it was a police force. Imagine if I said that the American police had killed hundreds of thousands of PLA soldiers in a foreign land, imagine if the real US military had come in. It would be about as honest as your line.
    6
  10.  @cavaleer  it's more like if you have an accident on a public road near your neighbour's house, your neighbour doesn't have a right to take your car.
    6
  11. A/An are based on phonetics.
    5
  12.  @klm2639  ok, they were a militia fighting against a foreign police force to a stalemate. Congratulations?
    5
  13.  @klm2639  it was a UN police action. Either labels matter or they don't. You're trying to have it both ways. Choose whether the label is more important than the reality and we can proceed. Up until then, if the Chinese involved were a militia, then the UN forces were police. And this idea that the PLA trained a militia that was otherwise unrelated to it from scratch rather than transferred from it and relabelled is a simple lie.
    5
  14.  @liam7903  yeah, but compared with Mao, the Japanese weren't as damaging. Considering what was to come, I can see why defeating the Japanese could be seen as an evil act by Chinese eyes.
    5
  15.  @MrFlatage  I've pointed you to the 2016 UNCLOS arbitration result between the PRC act the Philippines before. That you're incapable of figuring out which is the correct 2016 UNCLOS arbitration between the PRC and the Phillipines is your own problem. While we're on the subject, are you going to ask Edwin for his official sources on them being Chinese waters?
    5
  16.  @titustitusnation1999  unless the CCP keeps doing what it's been doing over the last decade and it becomes a choice between just letting them go as far as they like and going to war. What's worse? Losing a war without a shot being fired? Or winning a bloody war?
    4
  17. The PRC also said it would respect Hong Kong's autonomy until 2047.
    4
  18.  @Nastheweasel  You're free to ignore both as meaningless. It's possible for more than one entity to have meaningless words.
    4
  19.  @klm2639  regardless of the label, they were PLA and not the militia you're pretending they were, and they did manage a surprise attack from their home country against a military whose home base of supplies was about 10000km away. The surprise attack went very well. But the overall situation isn't as you're pretending it was.
    4
  20.  @1badhaircut  Maybe we can also sell him our bridge.
    4
  21. Some air. Not all of them.
    3
  22.  @klm2639  I am enjoying this "our labels define truth but your labels are meaningless" Just like I've enjoyed the transition from it was a militia to ok it was the PLA to aren't the PLA awesome for training this militia to they were PLA soldiers under a different label. Sorry dude, but it was a police action. I don't care what you think police do or don't do, it was a police action and the Chinese people's volunteer army only managed a stalemate against a UN police force. There was also no Korean war. It was a police action. Or none of these are true and these meaningless labels were only applied for political or legal reasons Either way, at least you're following the wumao standard of being consistent in your inconsistency.
    3
  23. Why wouldn't they? They're not going to be fired on.
    3
  24.  @tasteslikeawesome  >>China are clearly voluntary and consensual<< To say nothing of sex between young athletes and elderly party officials! The CCP has put the resources of the state into preserving its leadership's right to commit rape.
    3
  25.  @КГБ-л3п  you think that the CCP has forgotten about it? That only the Taiwanese govt remembers that land? Really? As for those precautions. Russia would be totally at the economic mercy of China if the west was neutered. As an Australian whose country is far less vulnerable than yours would be (but is still very vulnerable) good luck with that.
    3
  26.  @wei0951  considering the sweeping claims in the nine dash line, I can't imagine why anyone would only be talking about influence. You also don't need permission to go into a place someone merely has influence over. Edit: unless you're talking about some mafia thugs protecting their spheres, which seems a pretty relevant comparison when talking about the CCP.
    3
  27. Which part of it is sketchy?
    3
  28. ​ @MrFlatage  >>Nope that is a blatant lie. I quoted you and you stated 'the arbitration' without naming any official source to your BS claim.<< Anyone who wasn't putting effort into being half witted would have found it easy to find it from what I provided you with (multiple times) >>Now what you claim is real? Is not real at all. There was never any 'UNCLOS arbitration between the PRC and the Philippines'. Yes not a true quote cos you literally cannot spell names of nations, lmao!!<< Yes there was. >>Was this PRC there for the arbitration? Did they ... agree to any arbitration? Who actually did any 'arbitration' named by name? << Thank you for confirming that you do know what I was talking about. Any subsequent confusion on what I'm talking about will be treated as a lie. >>Has there ever been an arbitration done by UNCLOS? Part XV of UNCLOS sets forth rules for the resolution of disputes between State Parties arising out of the interpretation or application of UNCLOS. Pursuant to Article 287(1) of UNCLOS? Awwhh everyone can easily prove read UNCLOS is not doing arbitration? Lmao!!<< If your objection to something you can easily find based on what you've been given is the title not being 100% accurate, you're getting desperate. >>You really think you and I quote 'the face of the CCP' could make up some BS stories that stand against proven facts we can proof read from official sources? Named by name? Yes you are the face of the CCP. Who else would hurl false accusations against innocent untill proven guilty?<< You yourself have shown you know what I'm talking about. If it hadn't happened, you wouldn't know enough to ask whether the PRC had attended (their refusal to attend was their problem) This is just sad. >>I will have my Onus Probandi. Each time you refuse that civil right you prove it is all just lies and propaganda.<< You've been given it. Again, that you know what I'm talking about shows that your whines about not getting what you ask for are a simple lie. >>Stop avoiding and deflecting. Prove your words and claim as required by every democratic constitution on this planet.<< I'm answering directly multiple times and you've demonstrated you know what I'm talking about. >>Again ... No 50 cents for you today.<< You seem to be projecting your own job here. Also, when are you going to ask Edwin for his sources?
    3
  29.  @MrFlatage  >>Haha stop deflecting your lies and put them on some kinda 'Edwin'? Rommel?<< AKA the person who made the first post in this thread. It seems like a huge amount of your arguing relies on selective illiteracy and ignorance (the word for this is disingenuous, BTW) >>Yes everyone here sees no proof and evidence to your big CCP lie. Now remember all you have given is 'the arbitration'. Do you deny your own words now? Yes or no?<< You mean the arbitration you have in front of you? >>What if We the People read from real official sources? PCA case number 2013–19, also known as the South China Sea Arbitration? Oooooh how come there is no UNCLOS arbitration going on? Where is it? Come on ... prove your big CCP lie already. Cos people will proof read from the official real world source quite easily as Onus Probandi is given. Where is yours? On 19 February 2013, China declared that it would not participate in the arbitration? But ... but comrade? How can any arbitration be done one sided? Does that not defy the very definition of the word in the dictionary? Haha!!<< If one side chooses not to argue its case, that's that side's problem. >>We can proof read from the actual case from the official source. Named by name that On 12 July 2016, the arbitral tribunal ruled it would not "rule on any question of sovereignty ... and would not delimit any maritime boundary", China's historic rights claims over maritime areas remain in legal effect under UNCLOS. On 12 July the Secretary-General publically stated that UNCLOS 'doesn't have a position on the legal and procedural merits of the case or on the disputed claims''?<< Seems a bit strange for Beijing to reject it if that's the outcome. Are you sure you're not missing something? >>But? Is there not a 'UNCLOS arbitration'? Are those not the words and screams of the CCP? So I state again. Where is it? Are these not your words and claim? Against the proven facts from real world official sources? Why not simply post the UNCLOS case number? Cos it ... doesn't exist? Lmao!!<< You've already given the case number 🙂 >>Too bad everyone who is free will read from the real world sources. Not commie lies that do not exist. Going to rinse and repeat your denial and deflect to others? For days at a end? Haha yes you will. All because you do not get your 50 cents for failing China.<< If you had anything meaningful to add, you wouldn't be putting this effort into splitting hairs over the title.
    3
  30. Treasury bonds don't work that way. All that would happen is that America might have to raise the interest paid on maturation a little. It's not like something you can just call in, and if they tried selling everything at once, they would not find it was a settler's market.
    3
  31. If maintaining a legal right is pushing the world to war, there are bigger problems. Namely the entity that sees someone maintaining its legal rights as a provocation that justifies war.
    3
  32.  @titustitusnation1999  I certainly hope not. I'm in Hong Kong counting down the months until I can leave. Relations between China and the world are getting bad so quickly I'll admit to being more than a touch nervous. I also don't think Australia is nearly far enough away, but unfortunately I've lost that particular debate with the wife.
    2
  33.  @Bialy_1  >>As someone knowledgeable said during Soviet era: "i do not put too much attention to rumours until TASS agency deny them. 😁<< I normally wait for the CCP to throw a 'how dare you even suggest this?' tantrum.
    2
  34.  @bene8168  except as a thing to avoid an immediate invasion, I doubt they'd even do that. The nine dash line both steals from their EEZ and is perfectly capable of expanding. To say nothing of whatever else the creative minds in Beijing can be expected to come up with.
    2
  35. >>Just a reminder, it's called South China Sea due to it's geographic proximity to China while the US coast is weeks away - the US isn't an actual 'world police' to patrol international waters with authority or to exercise outside it's territorial water, pretending that there's an English speaking 'world state' since WW II doesn't make it so...<< It is, however, a state that has the perfect legal right to be exactly where it is. Pretending that the CCP's nine dash line has any legal validity doesn't make it so.
    2
  36.  @christophmahler  >>The US NAvy has no business to patrol outside territorial waters - regardless of international law, the US never abides to, anyway, looking back to 30 years of destabilization. << Sure it does. And nice bit of whataboutism. >>It's a provocation and in the end, carriers will be sunk by anti-ship missiles or sub surface nuclear detonations. << If it's a provocation to exercise the right of free passage covered under the UNCLOS, which the PRC voluntarily signed, then the problem isn't with the US. >>This is not about the CCP, but the drive for total supremacy by the West - of which all of us have had enough.<< This is very much about the CCP's illegal attempts to achieve 'total supremacy' over territory it doesn't own, and by the agreements it voluntarily signed, has no legal right to beyond those rights enjoyed by any random nation, including the USA.
    2
  37. Why shouldn't they be able to use international waters? What's more important? The F35 or the ability for global trade to go through the international waters of the South China Sea?
    2
  38.  @dps253  in other words, you can't answer either question.
    2
  39.  @klm2639  which was covered over two hours ago. It was you who decided reality needed embellishment.
    2
  40.  @johnmabbett6586  instead we go back to that they regained the status quo. North Korea's invasion failed, a huge amount of people died and it was all for nothing.
    2
  41. It's amazing how many are on here pushing variations of this line as if what the CCP says actually means anything.
    2
  42. So. Assume there's a war in which China comes out triumphant. There's no brakes on what the CCP can do. All serious domestic and international foes are gone. Remember those huge chunks of China the now belong to Russia? How much do you think the Russian govt trusts the CCP to not try and grab that plus a little (lot) extra because of historical (or whatever) claims?
    2
  43. Basically no need.
    2
  44.  @Quadnippz  My dearest friend, let's do business! It worth 20 big piles of moneys, but we sell to you for 10 big piles of moneys with a deposit of two big piles. Let me give you my cryptocurrency wallet information.
    2
  45.  @williammcconville4967  Everything in China is brand new or falling apart. Having lots of new stuff doesn't mean it's good. The quality control is just the worst. There's also a difference between the plans (which may or may not be the real thing) and the finished product.
    2
  46. GPS radio frequencies are blocked by water.
    2
  47.  @hahahuhu9828  Listen to the one that's made disagreeing with the party illegal and practices mass censorship and persecution of those who say or write the wrong thing? Sure, why not? If you can't trust a sociopathic dictator, who can you trust?
    2
  48.  @КГБ-л3п  that you didn't answer the first questions says plenty. The simple answer is you couldn't. As for the bases. Let's assume they occupied the entire (bloody large and heavily populated) country. It seems a safe bet they would have their hands full for a long time anyway. The idea that they would voluntarily allow US forces there in that event is far fetched. And involuntary imposition also means they'd be fighting a war with a huge threat to their back. And in the end.... Russia just isn't that important. You're not the USSR anymore. You're just the remnant of a failed experiment.
    2
  49.  @snslifestyleorg  what does that have to do with what i said?
    2
  50.  @carlosschaafygarcia884  Or like a PRC/Russian fleet that went through a strait separating two major Japanese islands late last year? To which the Japanese response was basically "We're watching, but it's legal" There's also the shadowing of exercises near the Australia coastline last year (I'm not American, BTW) to which the Australian response was also "We're watching, but it's legal" Prior to that (quick search) gets you bits like this "Chinese Navy Ships Came Within 12 Nautical Miles of U.S. Coast Vessels complied with international law, Pentagon officials say"
    2