China Violating UN Embargo, Providing Arms & Training to Sudan Army

As compared to what? CCTV?

 

Come back to me when you can understand CCTV's broadcast, son.

 

The same story, LOL? You mean the dead girl's dead uncle resurrected from his own death bed?

The family needs to back that up with evidence. Simple. So far they couldn't.

 

So I asusme you are done claiming that it wouldn't be a violation if they did what BBC said they did? That, at least, is a step forward.

 

Yep, you know Sammy, "free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things." But seriously, problems exists in China, I freely admit. But that does not absolve BBC free of shoddy journalism. At least this time, PRC doesn't restrict journalists, foreign or domestic, to access the troubled area. BBC runs out of all the sorry excuses in the world.

Not necessary an implied syllogism, but BBC has a history of putting up distorted, unverified rumors, and biased reports on China. That's indisputable.

Hardly. If China doesn't export arms directly to the Darfur region, there is no violation.

 

You need to read the text of the resolution again.

 

The problem lies with Sudan and all the conflicting militant groups in the Darfur region. Don't you guys feel funny how the names of arms suppliers to various rebel groups are not mentioned? Where do they get their weapons, don't you wonder? What was British Ministry of Defence doing by training Sudanese military officers, for instance?

 

Sammy, you are such a riot.

In 1992, Blacks in LA rioted because Rodney King was beaten savagely by some members of LAPD, who were later acquitted by a white jury. If some news agency named BBS reported LA Blacks rioted because Rodney King's daughter was raped and killed by the nephew of LAPD police chief Daryl Gates, I claim that BBS is full of ****. Do you have a problem with it?

 

so what if it's from china? there are things called RUMOR. rumors can start riot.

HOWEVER, if you are supposed to be a news agency, you better not be spreading RUMOR.

hey, if BBC likes to report rumors. why should we take BBC seriously?

 

This is true. I'm not sure the US is in the greatest position to criticize China on supporting dictators that do resource deals with them.

So are you just describing this or approving of it?

 

It matters how? I was never one of those that claimed not to call names. You've confused me with your other targets.

Europe and America has had a self-imposed arms embargo on China since 1989. Both regularly exported trucks to China. Japan too. So right from the horse's mouth, contradiction to your moronic claim that they viewed trucks as military goods.

You should practise what you preach. Look around.

No moron, get it right. The part of motorized infantry that makes it a weapon ISN'T the motorized part, it's the infantry part. You take any civilian transport technology, add a rifle company to it, it can kill. You take any truck, bus, plane, boat, it would extend the range and mobility of an army. The only way those trucks would be classified as weapons is if to classify all transport technology/discoveries, right down to horses and donkeys as weapon systems. Only your thick head is stupid enough to make such a claim.

I hardly rationalized. As stated above, neither the EU nor the US view this technology as of military use. But instead, it's you who's trying to fit a score peg into a round hole in order to tailor your continued crusade against the Chicoms.

Checking my facts? HA. A rose by any other name... China Internet Defense Force may be a first, but not the repeated claims by you of brainwashed Chinese drones, internet police, genocide supporter etc.

The only emerging pattern here is your repeated losing of the argument, and having to resort to such tactics to hide your shame.

 

I think it's the other way around Sammy. All I have to do is show up, trash up your argument, before the ostrich effect hits. You'll hide your head in the sand until a more opportune chance to repeat.

Actually I do Sammy. And one consistent scheme in the definition of op eds is that they USUALLY appear opposite an editorial column. Meaning that they don't ALWAYS. But then again, I don't expect you to be able to tell the difference.

HA. I thought you'd never ask. That is so easy. For starters, the articles claims that China is trying to mandate a population emigration to Zambia when in reality, the country has only a few thousand Chinese residing there, with most returning home as soon as their project is complete.

Secondly, the claim of exploitation of Zambia by the Chinese. When the Europeans went to Zambia, they went with an army, looted the resources and then went home.

When the Chinese went to Zambia, they went with money. They bought resources at market prices. In line with Chinese non-intervention policies, what Zambia does with their profit is their own business. If they do well, that's to their credit. If they become a **** hole, that's their own problem too. It's not China's place (nor did it) dictate how Zambia's government should spend its own money.

In one part of the article, it quoted an employee saying their Chinese employers doesn't care if they are having family problems and tried to spin this as a negative. Excuse me but, why should your employer care about your personal problems. Do you want your boss to hold your hand too?

There are plenty of other holes in the article, but to keep it short, I'll just keep it at that for the time being.

Wrong moron. China supports its oil supply and its own pocket book, precisely the reason for the non-interventionist policy. The only reason you think there isn't a dispute is because you have a hole in your head.

For starters, the Sudanese government disputes your claim.

And all I am getting is ooh ooh ahh ahh's from the rest of your post. As demonstrated above already, China is not in ANY violation of the UN embargo. If it actually did, you and your masters at BBC would be calling to bring it forward in the security council instead.

And for somebody who "doesn't care" about my thoughts on it, you seem to care plenty.

 

epic fail?

running out of words to say huh?

 

Choking on sand ostrich? Such short replies are expected.

 

I'm guessing you are not read 15 CFR 744 and how that imposes restrictions on China and how that is different from a UN Security Council Resolution? Yet another instance of leaping before looking? *GASP*

Why am I not surprised? Again, I realize you really don't care. I could post "China is the greatest thing on earth." and your head would explode stuck in a logic loop between your eternal need to disagree with your 'China hater' list and your eternal need to never say anything bad about China. You are pathological in your need to never acknowledge that you could possibly be wrong about even the most minor thing.