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

  1. Or if not theirs, then the global average.
    2
  2.  @fugueguy1929  I live in Hong Kong. I've seen first hand just how much being of the same ethnicity of those in the mainland helps with the feeling of unity. I've also been going round China for the last 16 years and married a former PRC citizen. Really, the only Han Chinese who seem united are those who can expect nasty consequences if they're not. There's very loud claims to be united, but very little substance (and so many of those who are loudly claiming to be united, patriotic Chinese are funnelling their funds and family overseas as fast as they can) At a bare minimum, you need to completely ignore the last two years to say the Chinese are united.
    2
  3.  @fugueguy1929  that's superficial in many ways. It's also an image given to an outsider. Face is everything. I've spent the best part of two decades viewing this country from the inside and the outside. My best way of describing it is layers of circles. Culturally on the mainland, this goes from national, right down to personal family and friends. Anyone inside your circle is to be defended and supported. Anyone outside of it is an enemy to be profited from or treated as a threat. The inner circle is most important, the outer circle is least. So when given a choice, they'll tend to preference the inner circle at the expense of the outer. This is a collectivist culture thing to begin with (look up high and low context cultures. Also look up geert hofstede's cultural dimensions) but it's made so much worse by the CCP, particularly with the long term scarring from the cultural revolution which was very much a "succeed by any means to survive" event. For contrast, broadly speaking, we're (I'm guessing you're western) come from low context cultures, which are individualistic. This both means we're not as supportive of each other, but it also means that we view outsiders as individuals, just like ourselves. But in general, ignore the words and look at the actions. They paint a very different picture. And for what the leadership is afraid of, look at their actions. Also remember that the party is more important than the country. They're simply terrified of anything that unites the people against the centre and they'd rather see China burn in a civil war than to give up power any sooner than they need to. Hong Kong is proof of that. They could have used Hong Kong as a base to experiment with preparing China for a post CCP life. They didn't. All this ignores the trust issues, btw. This thing where we trust strangers is not normal. In the PRC it's taken to an extreme.
    2
  4. My wife is from there. I was there during the 2006 north Korean missile tests. It was one of the only times I've had nightmares. Far too close for comfort.
    2
  5.  @clarkecorvo2692  Because they're the face of the CCP that people can easily access without going through the media. As much as they do a wonderful job of making themselves look like idiots, sometimes they need a bit of help.
    2
  6.  @erikb8979  and then if Russia and the PRC were the winning side, neutering the ability of Western countries to oppose them... To start with, take a look at a Qing dynasty map. There's a lot of land there that's part of Russia. To say nothing of a vast, overpopulated country bordering a vast, sparsely populated region. You could say they were victorious allies and would never turn on each other, but I think we've tried that script for ww2. And you could say they'd sign a treaty if eternal friendship and promise never to be bad, but Hong Kong shows those agreements are easily made nothing more than historical documents of no practical significance
    1
  7. If a Russia PRC alliance won and achieved dominance, leading to no country having the clout to stop the PRC doing whatever it liked, how long do you think there would be peace between them? Keeping in mind the CCP is great at making up excuses on why things should belong to it and there's an awful lot of Siberian land that was once Chinese. You could sign a treaty with it, but Hong Kong shows those don't mean much.
    1
  8.  @Nastheweasel  >>that was always an option, but in this case china's words and actions match. << Do they? How do you know this? >>Americans in the south china sea are looking for their expensive junk and china isn't.<< You have your own spy satellite network? Edit: I should be clear - I'd have no problems with them searching for it. To me, it's fair game. There's no moral issue or blah de blah. But this idea that they're not searching for it is simply ludicrous. Only an imbecile (the same sort who'd take their words at face value) wouldn't be searching for it. Further edit: the only plausible reason for them to not search is if the chance of finding it first was basically zero.
    1
  9.  @Nastheweasel  you didn't answer my question of where this intimate knowledge of their actions came from. What your post lacked in brevity it made up for in irrelevance.
    1
  10.  @Nastheweasel  >>what intimate knowledge are you going on about? Do you know what it takes to pull out an F-35 that has crashed into the sea and sunk? Even if china wanted to retrieve it With all the American warships present how would they go about doing that?<< You think they'd be fired on if they found it first and got the crane out? >>It's a Job that requires a navy salvage ship among other things. What do you think china has an invisible navy?<< I don't. What I think it has is a navy you know nothing about, despite your claims that their actions matched their words. >>If there isn't a race to retrieve something for whatever reason there isn't a race so what do you want to run in circles about pretending to be a great wise general?<< You mistaking not pretending that the CCP is remotely honest (you first relied on their words, remember?) and not pretending that you've got knowledge of what the PLAN is doing (your second reason was their actions matching their words, remember?) for my pretending to be a great wise general. I haven't said they're doing or not doing anything. What I've said is the logic you've given for your knowledge of their actions is BS.
    1
  11.  @Nastheweasel  Just enjoying myself pointing out that intelligent people don't take the CCP's word at face value 🙂 Thank you for being further evidence of this.
    1
  12.  @Nastheweasel  My point is quite simple. I've been given many times, but here it is again: The CCP's words are meaningless. Maybe they coincide with reality, maybe they don't, but their words are only ever connected with reality by coincidence. The stuff you're coming up with really says you're relying on your imagination to argue against what I say, rather than what I'm actually saying 🙂if I thought you were capable of shame, I'd say you should be embarrassed. Also: If they think they've got a chance of getting it (or even think if they keep their stuff in the right place) of course they'd make the attempt, or be ready for the opportunity if it came up. It basically costs them nothing (meaningful) to do this vs what would be at minimum a propaganda victory, at best might get them something useful. Only someone with the sort of brain you're showing (youtube has a tendency to delete posts that bluntly describe people like you) wouldn't at least be ready for the attempt.
    1
  13.  @Nastheweasel  Still don't understand how only an imbecile takes the CCP's words at face, value, hey? I'm sorry I was too confusing for you 🙂 I should know that the sort of person who takes the CCP's word at face value needs things explained in a far simpler way than is reasonably possible. Anyway, I've got no idea how you'll read this. All I really know for certain is what you read won't be what was written.
    1
  14. Why would Indonesia side with the PRC? Do you think they're imbeciles who don't see what happens if the PRC is dominant?
    1
  15.  @bobojr456  Is a pretty minor thing vs what's openly under threat from the CCP's expansionism.
    1
  16.  @lenomali  It's difficult to see what your point is or what you're getting at.
    1
  17. It's even funnier how he has zero issue with any unsourced claim about these being Chinese waters. I like him, though. He's so obviously a disingenuous troll that he does a first class job of making the CCP look bad by association. TBH, I love the entire 50 cent army for that.
    1
  18. True. The main vulnerability is economic. Kind of like how the USSR just caved in on itself. There's no need to take the land, causing economic collapse and letting whatever internal chaos comes next is plenty good enough.
    1
  19.  @TheXanian  one of these countries is terrified of separatism. Plus, a pro CCPer like yourself should know the value of an external enemy.
    1
  20.  @yaucharles91  and if they don't, and the PRC wins, they've got the PRC as a neighbour with nothing holding them back. Which sounds at least as bad as what you're describing.
    1
  21.  @anti-amentia5437  you say this as if China doesn't try to use economics to (very, very blatantly) control and punish other countries. I'm Australian. We've had a huge backlash for the dastardly crime or daring to ask how this incredibly damaging pandemic started. Plus the 14 points. Edit: you should also try telling China's other neighbours this. Anyone who's worried about the claims in the South China sea for a start.
    1
  22.  @anti-amentia5437  I'd say it's interesting that you think that scripted boilerplate ramble was a response to what I'd actually said, but.... It's not interesting. It's just the boring same old, same old we've come to expect from the sort of people the CCP thinks improves its image.
    1
  23.  @christophmahler  >>You may argue like a child about a self-righteous historical mission of the US - including the elusive UNCLOS, set up by the US that had introduced the current confusion about 'extended zones' which had to lead to conflict. << According to the arbitration of the Phillipines claims, there's no such confusion. If it's a bad treaty, maybe the CCP shouldn't have voluntarily signed it. >>After the war, there will be nothing left to base such childlike vanity upon and we - the nationalist outside the Anglosphere - shall see to it that it won't when it comes to it...<< Actively preserving international rights, which the CCP voluntarily decided were worth signing up for is childlike vanity? Also, do you think what happens in general won't affect you and your family within the PRC?
    1
  24.  @christophmahler  lol. So let me get this straight. Either you think you're magically going to be safe if the barbarians in Beijing launch a nuclear war or you've got so little to live for that you're looking forward to the barbarians in Beijing ending everything in a nuclear holocaust (along with the lives of pretty much everyone else in the PRC) Which is it? Do you believe in magic? Or do you simply not enjoy living? Also, thank you for showing the barbarity of the pro CCPer (who's both savage and witless enough to gloat over the coming nuclear war intended to preserve his theft)
    1
  25.  @christophmahler  so from your gloating about nuclear war, I'm curious. Do you think you're magically going to be protected? Or is your life simply bad enough that you view a nuclear holocaust as an improvement?
    1
  26.  @christophmahler  I'm still curious. Do you believe in magic? Or do you hate your life? Anyone who actually gloats over the chance of a nuclear war is either an imbecile or a failure
    1
  27. Given two major cities inside a country that controlled and that MacArthur was in charge of had been nuked only five years prior, it seems a safe bet they at least had this much knowledge
    1
  28.  @tek87  that's a fair counterpoint
    1
  29. Because the objective isn't to destroy the other side at any cost.
    1
  30.  @03mai67  I see Carrie Lam saying the same thing about Hong Kongers support for her policies.
    1
  31.  @dps253  >>No. I don't have an answer to your ideological question<< It seems a pretty practical one to me. >>because currently there's no danger of any trade route disruption, even with the Chinese military establishments in the middle of South China Sea<< Before anything else: It's interesting that even you felt the need to insert the word 'currently'. Anyway, is this where we try to pretend that the CCP doesn't use trade as a way of punishing countries that say things it doesn't like? More seriously: 1. The world (even if only tacitly) decides that these are PRC waters, and that the PRC has the right to say who can go through them. 2. The PRC starts to find reasons why ships going to countries it dislikes can't go through them. >>On the contrary, with her focus on the BRI project which will require this Seaway and all other international trade routes to be free of disruption,<< All approved trade routes >>China will ensure this passage be accessible to everyone<< Accessible to all approved entitites. >>But obviously you agree with sending 80% of the Navy strike groups to exercise in an area where there is no clear and present danger<< The only way there isn't a clear and present danger is if you believe the CCP doesn't have a tendency to use trade (and trade embargoes) as a weapon. >>while ignoring the real flashpoint 8000 km to the West,<< You mean the land based flashpoint? >>and you are more than willing to lose 78M of tax payers' money to a phantom mission,<< Peanuts vs the value of trade going through there. >>and you inadvertently place higher priority on commercial interest over democracy preservation, then in that case, I have no answer for that.<< How is allowing totalitarian states to have a powerful tool they could (If you're going to claim that the CCP doesn't use trade as a weapon, this Australian will simply laugh at you) use against democracies democratic preservation? More to the point, what do you even mean when you say 'democracy preservation'?
    1
  32. Anyone who's seen a Qing era map and compared it with today should be able to see that. And what happens next.
    1
  33. These are international waters.
    1
  34.  @abcdefgabcedfg  it's international waters, according to the UNCLOS, which the CCP voluntarily signed.
    1
  35.  @abcdefgabcedfg  a rose by any other name is still international waters. But if the only argument you've got is as irrelevant as a label, then that tells us everyone we need to know about the emptiness of the excuses behind the CCP's theft from its neighbours.
    1
  36.  @abcdefgabcedfg  because it's near to China. Same as the Indian Ocean. Only a liar or an idiot thinks that a convenient name = ownership. And why try to pretend that the PRC is more than the CCP? Only what the CCP wants matters. China and the Chinese people are completely irrelevant.
    1
  37.  @abcdefgabcedfg  (assuming it was exactly how you say it was) just like 1/4 of the globe was part of the British Empire and the entire Mediterranean was part of the Roman Empire? Lots of places were part of other places and now aren't. Only idiots use random bit of historical ownership to justify taking stuff, because it all becomes an irreconcilable mess. And in case you think you're special.... You're not. Which is why what's far more important is the UNCLOS, which the CCP voluntarily signed. If they didn't agree with how it defined ownership, they shouldn't have signed it. (Instead it looks like they signed it while intending to break it)
    1
  38.  @abcdefgabcedfg  Independent Taiwan isn't aggressively pressing any claims there. It's the CCP along with its property (that's you, amongst others. You're their property) in the mainland that's doing this.
    1
  39.  @abcdefgabcedfg  Overlapping territorial claims don't make independent Taiwan part of the PRC. And independent Taiwan has nothing to do with the actions of the CCP dominated PRC. If we're going to go by that they're both China, for accuracy we need to remember that there are two, separate, independent Chinas. One is the seccessionist PRC (You don't secede from things that came after you. They secede from you). The other is the original Republic of China, now known as Taiwan.
    1
  40.  @abcdefgabcedfg  You seem to have a weird fixation on labels and claims as if they mean everything. I've seen the Republic of China's (Short name is Taiwan) territorial claims. If you want to insist on it being China, then we're going to be talking about two separate, independent Chinas with overlapping territorial claims. (Here's where we need to remember that the sociopaths who run the separate country across the strait have threatened to invade if they do things like change the name) Sound good to you? That'll remove the confusion that will naturally come from pretending that these two, separate, independent countries are the same country.
    1
  41.  @abcdefgabcedfg  Just like Singapore? Australia eats largely British food, takes similar holidays to the UK, speaks English, it's part of the UK, right? Same with Canada, the USA, etc.
    1
  42.  @abcdefgabcedfg  It was. Now it isn't. The UK now has absolutely no claim on Australia (or America, or Canada, or India, or any of its former colonies) Just like how the territories that now comprise the PRC once were part of the ROC. Then the CCP led a rebellion and seceded. And now they're not. (By contrast, the territories that the ROC controls have never been part of the PRC)
    1
  43.  @abcdefgabcedfg  And now they're not. Do you see how that works? When a situation changes, it's different to what it was before. The past and the present are not the same thing. But thank you for differentiating between the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China. It's confusing to refer to two separate, independent nations by the same name 🙂
    1
  44.  @abcdefgabcedfg  At best (without knowing more specifics), that island would give independent Taiwan (If you're going to insist on using the short form name, the correct short form is Taiwan, not China) territorial waters about 12 nautical miles and an EEZ of 200NM in the South China Sea. Depending on what was around it. IIRC generally it would be halfway between it and the start of another country's legal claims.
    1
  45.  @abcdefgabcedfg  What's your point?
    1
  46.  @abcdefgabcedfg  which UN law? Which part of it says it extends out to the entire sea? Can you quote it? For bonus points, it needs to be signed by the ROC. if the ROC hasn't signed it, it doesn't apply to the ROC. The ROC is not bound by agreements signed by the PRC.
    1
  47.  @abcdefgabcedfg  I can't begin to imagine how you would even begin to believe that such an irrelevant statement answered my question.
    1
  48.  @derbaeumaed8158  well I know that I liked many of my comments twice. Because that's a thing you can do.
    1
  49. ​ @mrhdebater1607  I'm not pretending to know what goes on in their minds (although propaganda value alone of getting it would be enough) What I'm pointing out here is that the CCP's words are meaningless.
    1
  50.  @frankyshh6827  you started your level of accuracy with your first statement and kept it consistent until the end. Congratulations😁 Seriously, if you're going to lie, try to come up with a believable one. The CCP is obsessed with its image.
    1