Strategists admit West is goading China into war. US military experts say a war over Taiwan is desirable, because Asia’s growth to become world’s economic heartland has become unstoppable. The Western media is playing a key role in this process.

submitted by Chipit from johnmenadue.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Wow the ultimate team up we were all waiting for - I can't believe it finally happened - ChiCom propaganda being circulated and upvoted on a Q-adjacent Reddit clone site.

Where the hell did you find this, OP? I read it very closely. It was written and published by Friday Culture Ltd of Hong Kong, an outlet who work with the communist government on events and media to portray the mainland takeover of hong kong in the best possible light.

I was especially curious, who is this "strategist" in your post title, out there ADMITTING that the west is goading China? If I didn't want to believe Friday Culture Ltd on the matter, perhaps this strategist has better credentials. In fact they were referring to the book: "Strategy of Denial" written by Trump-associated and Trump-appointed E. Colby, author of Trump's Chy-na strategy, which Q-adjacent forums like this one were celebrating every step of the way. Unbelievable.

So the MAGA fuckheads declare "america first" and take a piss on the chicoms for stealing hong kong. Then in response, the chicoms start this English language media to propagandise internet users. The english language outlet reads the MAGA fuckhead ideology back to the MAGA fuckheads and they upvote it as a condemnation of the liberals and dems. Perfect.

As to the actual content of the article: the author/s strongly believe that Taiwan's future is not as an independent democratic nation....and all their mistakes cascade from there.

[–]Chipit[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

You didn't actually address any arguments. This is just personal attacks.

Here's an example, but you can try to address anything.

But won’t there be Taiwanese casualties? Yes. China “must be permitted to strike as indiscriminately as possible,” in this scenario. “Colby further urges the US not to provide potential civilian targets with air defences, reasoning that collateral damage will whip up the public anger against China necessary to winning a war,” Roussinos adds.

In other words, deaths of Taiwan citizens (the “collateral damage” he mentions) would be a public relations coup for the US side.

They're willing to let civilians die so that they can achieve their goals of starting a war.

Say, how are the US generals at winning a war? Can you name a war they've won since...oh, in the last couple of decades? They lose, lose, lose and lose again, and nobody gets fired. The same idiots are in charge.

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Again you're quoting Colby, who was appointed for a short while by trump to work on the Chy-na strategy. The quotation you provide has no bearing on reality of current US policy, it's just a book by some dude related to a prior administration. That's not a personal attack on anyone.

The same idiots are in charge.

In charge of what? In charge of a fictional scenario written by a guy who used to work in the DoD for a very short while under a different government....you genuinely think, don't you, that because Friday Culture Ltd said that this is real American policy, it must be true?! Admit it. You don't need any more basis in reality than any old piece of chicom junk mail. That says a lot about you.

[–]Chipit[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

There isn't much difference between administrations. The people with real power aren't elected, and there's no way to get rid of them. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

You don't need any more basis in reality than any old piece of chicom junk mail. That says a lot about you.

This is a personal insult, in violation of Saidit TOS. Go back to Reddit, you don't belong here.

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Did you take that as an insult? If I mistook ChiCom propaganda constructed out of a fictional scenario written by a trump strategist as reality and somebody pointed it out, maybe I'd be upset too. Do you think maybe that's what got you upset?

It's not off topic: the first words of the title you chose to add to this post are, "strategist admits". Now we've learned that the strategist is in no position to admit anything at all, being totally outside the halls of power - are you still sure that this article is real?

[–]Chipit[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Begone, troll. Back to Reddit where you belong. You do not fit in at Saidit.

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You do not fit in at Saidit

Did you conclude that because I have clearly been laid before, while saidit's #1 post for the past few days was the extremely virgin post titled: "Verily, I say unto thee: a WHORE is born today!"

Or is this just generally a place where we don't challenge wumao content

[–]Chipit[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

These are just more ad hominems. Back to Reddit with you.

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No they are not ad hominems, I am legit asking you, did you proclaim that I do not fit in because of my unusually strong chad energy levels? Or because people here normally don't challenge wumao/ little pinkie propaganda? Who is that ad hominem against? Do you feel personally targeted because you never slept with a woman before, and so you strongly identified with the 'virgin' comment that wasn't about you?

[–]Chipit[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

These are insults, not arguments. Is a war desirable? Who wants it, and why?