Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 8 of 11
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6559
Reputation: 304.7Reputation: 304.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the Chinese know that Canada's leadership is feckless and incompetent.

Justin should threaten to send the Kitchen Witch to nag them into submission.

The more important point, as the gentle reader must realize, is that we have become a target for the Chinese because of Justin's recklessness in arresting Meng for something that is not a crime in Canada. It was probably because he has screwed up so badly with Trump that he has to humiliate the country before he can get Trump to pick up the phone.

Did we need this? October is only 10 months away!
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1468
Reputation: 128.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BUGS, shut the F up will you?

Youre a real dunce and make no sense.


Please show me whereby fraud is NOT a criminal act in Canada. If you cannot, then shut the F up. Simple..easy. Thank you.

And you cant even see how preposterous the Chinese reaction is. They know the US asked for it. But for reasons they must think they can blame us.

I dont really care what they think. Its all posture now and the Chinese will back down, the CDN guy wont be executed , others will be released from bogus charges and likely Meng will be let go by the US for political reasons.

And of course lastly, Freeland is doing a stellar job. That she is a woman doing things you could never do upsets you so much and is wonderful to watch you drag her name in the mud.

LOL!...oh what a stupid lil boy....
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6559
Reputation: 304.7Reputation: 304.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Show me where the fraud could possibly be in a Chinese company trading honestly with a nation that the USA is running an embargo against. This is clearly an extraterritorial extension of US law that is probably "illegal" in International Law.

That's the part that you just ignore. Why is anything that Meng did a crime in Canada?

We are paying a continuing price for playing the part of a henchman in this kidnapping/hostage taking. The smart thing to do was to let her go on her own recognizance.

But we don't have a smart government, do we? We have Chrystia and Justin instead.

Surely you agree with me that this government is screwing up decades of Canadian diplomacy with its amateurism. Who can trust these people?
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1468
Reputation: 128.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Show me where the fraud could possibly be in a Chinese company trading honestly with a nation that the USA is running an embargo against. This is clearly an extraterritorial extension of US law that is probably "illegal" in International Law.

You say clearly, but no reason why nor have you understood any of this even though youve been supplied the details at least three times.

So once again.....
Quote:
Meng's alleged crimes
Meng, who also serves as deputy chairperson of Huawei's board, faces "serious charges of fraud involving millions of dollars" in the United States, according to the affidavit of a Canadian law enforcement official. She could receive substantial jail time if convicted, the statement said.
Her arrest was set in motion in August, when a US federal judge signed off on a warrant for her arrest.
The United States accuses Meng, 46, of helping Huawei, one of the world's biggest makers of smartphones and networking equipment, get around sanctions on Iran. She's said to have told financial institutions that affiliate Skycom was a separate company in order to conduct business in the country, when in fact it was a subsidiary.
"Meng and other Huawei employees repeatedly lied about the nature of the relationship between Huawei and Skycom and the fact that Skycom operated as Huawei's Iran-based affiliate in order to continue to obtain banking services," the United States said in the arrest request it delivered to Canadian authorities.


She lied to banking authorities.
Had she lied to Canadian banking authorities under a scenario whereby we had snactions against Iran, we would have arrested her for fraud her instead of being asked by the US to do so.
Quote:

That's the part that you just ignore. Why is anything that Meng did a crime in Canada?

You have had this explained numerous times.
Quote:
The smart thing to do was to let her go on her own recognizance.

Nope. We are an ally of the US and a signatory to the agreement. We would have NO standing to ignore it and/or piss of the yanks.

Not to mention youd be here bellowing about how JT is sticking it to the orange idiot by not helping.
Win lose...no way out on this.
Quote:

But we don't have a smart government, do we? We have Chrystia and Justin instead.

Naw, thats just cover because you have no understanding about these things. SO you find a woman to heap your ignorant rhetoric on. So easy to see.
Quote:
Surely you agree with me that this government is screwing up decades of Canadian diplomacy with its amateurism. Who can trust these people?


Why would I agree?

You dont have enough knowledge nor understanding about any of this as it is beyond your capacity to do so.

You cannot accept the mere fact that there is NO ONE who doesnt think Freeland is very bright, very accomplished and dedicated to her job.

bugs...see woman....shit on woman...repeat.

That is NOT to say she has had missteps and errors. Who doesnt? But the job she has had to do , especially w that orange idiot and his complete lack of understanding trade deals was diffulcult . She would give w3hat he wanted then change his mind. Same as when he would build.
Agree to payment X, and when it came do he would refuse it and bluster until the poor tradesmen would cave.

But you dont get any of that. I am not even sure you ever will.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6559
Reputation: 304.7Reputation: 304.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The question is one of jurisdiction.

Where does a US judge get jurisdiction over a Chinese official conducting business (in China) with Iran? Hmmmm?

Where's the fraud? Nobody alleges that there was a misappropriation of funds. And how is this a crime in Canada? We wouldn't extradite cannibals who kidnapped young girls as sex slaves unless they took the death penalty off the table. Why are we such pushovers now?

The fraud is about supposedly against the bank, that probably acted as an escrow agent. Its exposure comes from US law, which could impose penalties on a bank doing business in the US -- but that's a different matter. The bank is supposed to turn down such transactions -- but did the bank know what country was buying the equipment? It's hard to see how they didn't.

Companies regularly set up corporations to limit their liability (or for other reasons) in specific deals. There's nothing wrong with that. Was any financial organization at a loss because of this arrangement? There is no indication of that. This is a lame excuse to get their hands on people who run the US blockade for revenge.

The fraud charge is a red herring -- it's supplying Iran that's the real problem. The US's case is against the bank, not the Chinese.

Don't imagine I am for Iran or China in this dispute. You can sputter about stupidity all you want. It just strikes me and lots of others as an extraterritorial application of American law, and very dubious.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/12/08/prosecuting-chinese-huawei-executive-is-an-idiotic-wa

Or how about this:
Quote:
To arrest someone without offering a clear reason is an undisguised infringement upon the human rights of that person. The Canadian side, even though there had not been a trial and determination of guilt, went entirely against the spirit of the law, choosing to infer guilt and placing the person in handcuffs and fetters. To treat a Chinese citizen like a serious criminal, to roughly trample their basic human rights, and to dishonour their dignity, how is this the method of a civilised country?
https://www.lawfareblog.com/detention-huaweis-cfo-legally-justified-why-doesnt-us-say-so


I am not alone, my opinion is not an exotic one ... sorry, but you can foam away.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1468
Reputation: 128.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh good lord. I ....this is really stupid of you.
Bugs wrote:
The question is one of jurisdiction.

Of which the US has in asking us to detain.

The headline of YOUR link states...
"The Detention of Huawei’s CFO is Legally Justified. Why Doesn’t the U.S. Say So?"
Quote:

Where does a US judge get jurisdiction over a Chinese official conducting business (in China) with Iran? Hmmmm?

She is charged with defrauding a US bank. Ergo...they have jurisdiction. Please get that through your head.
Quote:

Where's the fraud? Nobody alleges that there was a misappropriation of funds.

That is exactly what it is! Holy fuck how can this be so hard.

Got to bank.
Ask for loan.
Lie about many things on app.
Get money.
Get found out you lied.

Fraud.

Quote:
And how is this a crime in Canada?

Um...cuz fraud is a crime in Canada?
Quote:

We wouldn't extradite cannibals who kidnapped young girls as sex slaves unless they took the death penalty off the table. Why are we such pushovers now?

Not relevant for reason that youll never understand if this Huawei case is strangling your last brain cell already.
Quote:

The fraud is about supposedly against the bank,

Right. Huawei and meng lied to get the money. Pure and simple fraud.
Quote:

Companies regularly set up corporations to limit their liability (or for other reasons) in specific deals. There's nothing wrong with that. Was any financial organization at a loss because of this arrangement? There is no indication of that.

There is something wrong with that when you lie.

Back to your link.....
Quote:
1. Meng is not being charged with violating Iran sanctions, but with bank fraud.

Some U.S. commentators, like Zachary Karabell and Jeffrey Sachs, have suggested that Meng’s detention is somehow illegitimate because, as a Chinese national running a Chinese company, neither Meng nor Huawei should not have to comply with U.S. sanctions on Iran due to their extraterritorial nature. This is a serious argument, but a mistaken one.

First of all, according to the affidavit described at Meng’s Vancouver bail hearing, Meng is being charged with bank fraud, rather than violating U.S. sanctions on Iran. It is likely that Meng will be charged by the U.S. with violating the bank fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1344, which criminalizes any attempt “to defraud a financial institution,” or obtain funds from a “financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.” According to reports describing the U.S. affidavit, Meng is alleged to have personally made a presentation to HSBC claiming that a company doing business with Iran was not controlled by Huawei in violation of U.S. sanctions. If Meng knowingly misled HSBC in order to get some financial benefit or support, this would likely violate the statute—a breach that carries a possible 30-year jail sentence or $1 million fine.

It is worth noting that bank fraud prosecutions are not rare in the U.S. The Justice Department’s web page is filled with press releases about numerous bank fraud convictions. Moreover, if the allegations are true, Meng really did expose HSBC to severe liability: as a financial institution operating in the United States, the bank is fully subject to all U.S. sanctions on Iran. Indeed, in 2012, HSBC agreed to settle various charges against it in U.S. courts, including violating U.S. sanctions, at a cost of over $1.2 billion dollars.

Hope you can read.
Quote:

The fraud charge is a red herring -- it's supplying Iran that's the real problem. The US's case is against the bank, not the Chinese.

And once again you show your ignorance on what this is.

Quote:
It just strikes me and lots of others as an extraterritorial application of American law, and very dubious.

Only the chinese and you.
Congrats, get in bed w the chinese then.
Quote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/12/08/prosecuting-chinese-huawei-executive-is-an-idiotic-wa

Link doesnt work.

Quote:
Or how about this:

Now why would I want to back the chinese on this.

Your little squib is misleading. It is from the Chinese Communist Party.

Here let me show you how your obfuscation/outright lie should have been presented.
Quote:
China’s leading party-run newspaper further developed this point when an editorial there argued that:

To arrest someone without offering a clear reason is an undisguised infringement upon the human rights of that person.....blah blah blah


The entire article you linked here supported the notion that the US is legal in what they did, and agrees that should Meng have lied, she is in deep shit for it.

I can read, and its slimy of you to embed that Communist party manifesto as de facto reasoning for your assertions.

Here are the headers from your link that go entirely against your thoughts.
1. Meng is not being charged with violating Iran sanctions, but with bank fraud.
2. It is not improper to subject Meng and Huawei to U.S. sanctions laws
3. Meng has received due process appropriate for an extradition proceeding.
4. Law enforcement is an important tool to advance U.S. policy toward China.

And again, your highlighted blurb was embedded and foretold saying..." Here is what the Communist Party is saying.

You tried to pass it off as some semblance of authority backing you up.
And thats where you go completely stupid.

Quote:

I am not alone, my opinion is not an exotic one ... sorry, but you can foam away.

You are alone with the Communist Party. Thats it.

sorry,but you can go be a f***ing idiot somewhere else.

How is this so hard? Prob because you hate women and the courts.

So thats two links you posted without reading , and which shred any intelligence you think you possess on this.

ANd I should apologize? Holy shit dude, you continually show you are as dumb as a rock. Id be ashamed and left this site long ago had I posted anything like you have.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6559
Reputation: 304.7Reputation: 304.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I took the quote from where it was being discussed, but there was an article that justified without dealing with the legal problem. The fact that the US gives itself jurisdiction for extraterritorial crimes doesn't mean Canada has to. No other common law country makes such presumptions, which go back to Westphalia.

Maybe this would suit you better ... but who am I kidding? I am not in a rational discussion, but dealing with a blithering Liberal party zealot whose only points are only mere insults. And not even particularly interesting ones at that.

Quote:
Extradition is perhaps the oldest form of international law enforcement assistance. It is a creature of treaty by which one country surrenders a fugitive to another for prosecution or service of sentence. The United States has bilateral extradition treaties with roughly two-thirds of the nations of the world. Treaties negotiated before 1960 and still in effect reflect the view then held by the United States and other common law countries that criminal jurisdiction was territorial and consequently extradition could not be had for extraterritorial crimes.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/94-166.pdf


In any case all Canada had to do was arrest Meng, and give her bail on her own recognizance. Whoever heard of bail conditions like were imposed on Meng for a something as dubious as the charges against her? $millions, and electronic monitoring.

You can sputter all you want about my stupidity, but your own comments only reiterate the same tired line. I heard it before, I simply don't accept it. The only reason you take the line you do is because otherwise you have to accept the stupidity of the decision.

It was handed stupidly by a stupid government. You know my opinion. End of the story, as far as I am concerned. Crystia will fix it, she's so good at that ...
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6559
Reputation: 304.7Reputation: 304.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Charest: United States is Canada's best bet for defusing China tensions
Rachel Gilmore, CTVNews.ca Staff
Published Saturday, January 19, 2019 7:00AM EST

Former Quebec premier Jean Charest says Canada’s best bet for diffusing tensions in China lies with the United States.

“The way out for Canada on this is the United States,” Charest told host Evan Solomon during an interview for CTV Question Period, which airs Sunday.

“The Trump administration is negotiating this new trade arrangement with China. They have put us in this position.”

Former Quebec premier Jean Charest appears on CTV's Question Period in an interview airing Sunday, Jan. 19, 2019.

Charest explained that the United States created this problem with their extradition order for Chinese telecom executive Meng Wanzhou. He said Trump further escalated the issued when he tweeted that he was prepared to negotiate the release of Meng in exchange for a trade agreement.

China has since detained two Canadians, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, in an apparent retaliation for Meng’s December arrest. China’s ambassador to Canada recently denied that was the case.

China also escalated Canadian Robert Schellenberg’s 15-year jail sentence to a death sentence in a second hearing on Monday. Canada is referring to the move as “politically motivated.”

Charest said the damage arising from this escalating dispute is significant.

“There is damage, a lot of damage, and I think the relationship is going to go into a deep freeze for a while,” he said.

The former Quebec premier also had a warning for China. He pointed out that international media is picking up the story -- and it isn’t playing out well for China.

“There is a real danger for China, in this very sensitive time, of really overreaching. This is going out to the rest of the world, about how they’re reacting, and it’s not wearing well on them,” Charest said.

“There’s rather a much bigger interest on all sides to try to find some honorable way out.”

There have been calls for Trudeau to pick up the phone and call Chinese President Xi Jinping, but so far the prime minister has instead chosen to reach out to other leaders from around the world – including the United States, Signapore and Japan – in an effort to rally support. The United Kingdom, France and Germany have also backed Canada in its effort to secure the release of the two detained Canadians.

However, Chinese ambassador Lu Shaye warned Canada against continuing its effort to rally international support.

"If Canada has the sincerity of resolving these issues, then Canada will not do such things. We hope Canada thinks twice before making any actions," Lu told reporters on Thursday.

"China will not be isolated in the international community and will not waver in our position simply because of the objection of another country."

However, former international trade minister and current Infrastructure Minister François-Philippe Champagne told Solomon that Canada has no intention of slowing its effort to garner international support. [....]
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/charest-united-states-is-canada-s-best-bet-for-defusing-china-tensions-1.4260067
===================================================

The problem is ... why should Trump complicate his negotiations with China for two people who actively campaigned against him after he won the presidency? Trump knows very well that both Justin and Crystia hold him in contempt and feel that he is morally and intellectually inferior, and don't mind saying so.

I am not particularly friendly about China. I am willing to look at them with hard eyes, but we have been played for the fools in this encounter because WE GET NOTHING OUT OF IT. We are going to the wall with this, and we have nothing to gain and only things to lose. It's unspeakably stupid.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6559
Reputation: 304.7Reputation: 304.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

China’s Plan to Break off US Allies
There’s a reason Beijing is pressuring Canada – not the US – over Meng Wanzhou’s arrest. Australia and New Zealand could be next.
By Tao Peng
January 16, 2019

In early December 2018, Sarah McIver, a Canadian teacher, was detained in China for illegal employment. She became the third Canadian citizen detained in China after Canada arrested Meng Wanzhou, an executive for Chinese tech giant Huawei, in Vancouver. Reports indicate up to 13 Canadians have been detained in China since Meng’s arrest, although some of them have already been released by the Chinese authorities, including McIver.

The first two Canadians detained in China, however, remain in custody. Former diplomat Michael Kovrig and businessman Michael Spavor were both arrested on the more serious charge of harming China’s national security.

Meng’s arrest has angered China and Beijing is taking action to retaliate. However, China has adopted two different responses, approaching the issue gently with the United States – which requested Meng’s arrest – while launching strict action against Canada. In doing so, Beijing hopes to deter Canada from following the United States against China, in order to prevent Washington from forming a global and regional offensive against Beijing.

In this way, China has started a battle to force U.S. allies in the U.S.-China conflict to choose to stand on the side of Beijing – or at least not to take Washington’s side.

On the issue of Huawei, China realizes that the United States has enlisted its allies to collectively encircle the Chinese high-tech company. This sets a precedent for the United States to gather allies to suppress China in other areas in the future.

The Chinese official media Global Times published a particularly stern editorial entitled “Let the country that is invading China’s interests pay the price” on December 16, 2018. saying that “for countries which do not care about China’s interests and have extraordinary behavior, China should resolutely fight back, let it pay the price, and even suffer huge losses.” Doing so, to article reasoned, “also allows other countries to understand that China is principled”:

Quote:
There is a high risk in following the U.S. to harm China’s interests. This time Canada helped the United States to detain a Huawei executive, which broke the bottom line. China needs to clearly express our attitude that we do not accept Canada’s doing so. If Canada finally extradites Meng Wanzhou to the United States, Canada will certainly pay the price of the retrogression of Canada-China relations. China needs to use practical actions to show the world the consequences of Canada’s doing so.


The commentary added, “We need to select counter-targets and make those countries be beaten very painfully. We argue that in this complex game, China should focus on the Five Eye alliance countries, especially Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. They follow the United States to harm China’s interests, especially in a step-by-step manner. Their performance is radical, and they are some of the targets that China should first hit.” (Emphasis added)

This was a public declaration that Beijing is set for retaliation against U.S. allies such as Canada and will adopt specific measures to implement the strategy of removing America’s friendly partners. In that sense, China’s measures against Canada are an example of the Chinese idiom “killing a chicken to scare the monkeys.” The goal is to deter other countries from angering China at the United States’ behest.

China’s strategy of forcing U.S. friendly forces to choose to stand on the Chinese side has achieved some results already. For example, since 2012, China has succeeded in forcing some Southeast Asian countries to stand on the Chinese side in the South China Sea disputes through its sharp strength and other means. Then, China impounded Singapore’s armored vehicles in Hong Kong in November 2016, which convinced Singapore to no longer echo U.S. views over the South China Sea. Even Japan has shifted a bit to China’s side. In October 2018, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe went to Beijing and said that Japan would no longer confront China. Since then, he has been more cautious in using the term “free and open Indo-Pacific strategy” as coined by the Trump administration.

In fact, Beijing believes that China has already settled the western Pacific in this sense. Now, China’s strategy of forcing U.S. allies to choose to stand on its own side is set to expand to the eastern Pacific. The Global Times editorial firmly believes that “achieving this goal or doing it to a considerable extent is very likely to be done.”

On the Huawei issue specifically, the Global Times also summed up a lesson from previous experience. The article pointed out that Australia was the first U.S. ally to follow the command of Washington to abandon the use of Huawei products. If China had taken more resolute action to respond to Australia’s decision at the time, other countries may have been more cautious about following suit.

China is deeply confident in attacking U.S. friendly forces while adopting a “soft” strategy toward the United States itself. First, China knows that almost all American allies maintain active economic and trade ties with China. China is also the largest trading partner for many of them. For example, Australia and New Zealand both count China as their largest trading partners, and Canada’s second largest trading partner is China. So China has ample measures to “deal with” these U.S. allies.

Second, Beijing does not want to undermine the consensus and progress toward a trade agreement reached between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping at last year’s G20 summit. That’s why China is trying to avoid direct conflict with the United States. In addition, American allies like Canada are not as strong as the United States, making them easier targets. Therefore, in the Meng Wanzhou incident, China avoids direct confrontation with the United States, but focuses on hitting U.S. ally Canada, using this to divide and deter other countries from following the United States to encircle China.

However, it remains to be seen whether countries such as Canada and Australia will be coerced to join China’s side. To overcome the U.S. judicial and propaganda offensive against Chinese high-tech and telecommunications companies, China cannot succeed using only this tactic. Western countries have already questioned and abandoned the use of Chinese telecom service products such as those of Huawei because of the U.S. offensive. How to lift the crisis of confidence is a major problem that China is facing.

Dr. Tao Peng is an editorial writer and a senior columnist for World Journal in New York. He obtained his doctorate in political science and sociology at the University of in Germany.
https://thediplomat.com/2019/01/chinas-plan-to-break-off-us-allies/
=================================================

I think it means we are going to be a whipping boy while the Chinese make nice with Donald, hoping he'll lose the next election. What is the smart path for Canada, in diplomatic terms? We already know -- they aren't going to "trade" with us, they're going to sell to us. That's all. And buy our resources (if we let them). That's my sense of it.

Thoughts?
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1468
Reputation: 128.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
I took the quote from where it was being discussed,

No , you simply cherry picked to try and make a point. It was a literally
the communist party writing it.

The rest of the article, had you looked, spelled out our legal and justifiable grounds and the writer came to the conclusion we are good with what we did.

You really should read your own link.
Quote:

. The fact that the US gives itself jurisdiction for extraterritorial crimes doesn't mean Canada has to. No other common law country makes such presumptions, which go back to Westphalia.

And again, you bring up something that is totally irrelevant.

In this case the US is using fraud , committed inside US borders , perpetrated by Meng. HSBC operates here in NA , and they too wanted her caught and charged since they would likely side step liability for the indiscretion.
Quote:

Maybe this would suit you better ... but who am I kidding? I am not in a rational discussion,

It really is hard to have a discussion when you do not know
1) That fraud is a crime in the US and Canada.
2) No idea about extraditions .
3) just want to shit on Freeland.
Quote:

but dealing with a blithering Liberal party zealot whose only points are only mere insults. And not even particularly interesting ones at that.

Of course you would say that. Most would if they had their ass handed to them over this. Its your infantile way of squirming out of the fact you are really stupid, especially on this matter. Laughably so. Id hang my head if I was in your shoes.

You havent ( and I can list them all in one post) the foggiest notion of what you are trying to say. You step on your dick constantly by ignoring the legion of reports of what transgressions Meng commited .

Quote:


In any case all Canada had to do was arrest Meng, and give her bail on her own recognizance. Whoever heard of bail conditions like were imposed on Meng for a something as dubious as the charges against her? $millions, and electronic monitoring.

And again,more BS.

Want to know why I call you an idiot and dumbass ?

You are because we have gone over all this ...twice. (now three times)

Meng and/or her lawyer made a point to offer that to the Judge before the Judge had time to consider what conditions to lay down.
The Judge said..Ok.

So there ya go...you forgot (riiiiight) ....and add the 4 listed above and it is easy to see why you get what you get.
Quote:

You can sputter all you want about my stupidity,

I dont sputter.

You do make it easy though. I just have to refer to a post of yours and voila, there it is.
Quote:

but your own comments only reiterate the same tired line.

Yea, reiterating the truth. Sorry thats so hard for you.
Quote:
I heard it before, I simply don't accept it.

Of course you dont.

Thats what makes you on the losing end so often.

Because none of this is opinion for the most part.
The USA says she has committed fraud.
Canada, pick her up please on X date.
Canada, do your review as to the legalities of our request for extradition.

And here we are. Not an ounce of that is opinion.
Quote:

The only reason you take the line you do is because otherwise you have to accept the stupidity of the decision.

Says the guy who hasnt a clue what is going on with this.

Thanks, that was a good laugh.
Quote:

It was handed stupidly by a stupid government. You know my opinion. End of the story, as far as I am concerned. Crystia will fix it, she's so good at that ...


Your opinion is based on false knowledge, lack of integrity, and a complete failure on reading comprehension.


China is a communist country behaving much like those idiots in Saudi Arabia. China is acting like a baby knowing full well that there is legal precedent on this and that this is completely on the up and up.
They know the US asked us to detain her.
China knows she was given a fair hearing and that she is not in jail nor under any duress . She can leave her house as we have seen . She is under no true hardship other than the ability to move freely on her own accord.

In other words, she is much freer than any of the normal citizens of China. Chinese are limited to areas they are registered in for many things (ie social programmes)

Chinese censorship is legion. And fierce.
The Chinese people only know what the Communists want them to know.

And this freedom they seek but cannot have is why we have huge numbers of chinese citizens here in Canada. These folks know they have to get their money out of China before they lose it or before any collapse .

There are mainland and Hong Kong citizens who commute to Van and back on a weekly basis. Now why would anyone do that? To secure their and their kids freedom for the day that may come in China to close any doors , or worse, take bank accounts.

China needs to grow up .
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6559
Reputation: 304.7Reputation: 304.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The gentle reader will, I hope, understand if I no longer respond to this nuttiness. I express fact-based opinions as much as I can. I welcome fact-based counter-opinions, but I am not getting them from TC, who has gotten to the point where he is alleging that the communist party is giving me talking points. Nuts.

I am normally a supporter of American policy, probably more than most on here. TC is contemptuous. His fact-based comments? He runs at the mouth about something ... the colour "orange" pops up amongst the froth -- Rosie O'Donell level comments.

In this case, the Americans are applying US criminal law extraterritorially and requiring Canada to honour its new self-endowed superpower. Is there any doubt about that? How can anyone support that?

Examine Justin's and Crystia's performance in context. They have actively campaigned against Trump in the USA, does anyone doubt that? It's a major dumb move. They have pressed for an agenda they didn't get elected on, and pretty much ignored their promise to give us a more dynamic economy. Do none of us recall Justin, with an air of triumphalism, announcing that he was doing what Harper couldn't, get pipelines built? Like most of his promises, it has the taste of ashes now, does it not?

We got cut out of the negotiations of a post-NAFTA deal, for instance, left with a take-it-or-leave-it deal. We weren't adequately represented. Did you hear anyone making the point that when you include services, we do have balanced trade with the US? Probably not. Why did we go to such lengths for the milk producers while ignoring the rest of Canadians, auto-workers included? Nobody justified that. It was always presented to us as "Canada is not going to be pushed around", probably the most manipulative way they could dream up to justify their drift. For Justin and Crysta, it was always a matter of swanning around in the limelight rather than solving practical problems and keeping a system of trade going.

The bottom line? TC is making it up. His position on the Meng arrest is just plain wrong. There is every reason to suspect, due to the timing, that the arrest was designed to blow up the trade truce that the US and China had only just agreed upon. If Canada had gone through the forms and let Meng evade US justice, it would have gotten everybody off the hook. She's the Belinda Stronach of China, so there's no real value in holding her. Meng (and other Chinese officials) would know that they risked arrest in travelling in the West, which would be enough.

Make no mistake, embargos and the like are acts of war in so-called International Law. The extension of American criminal law beyond its borders is not the practice in the world It is the act of imperial power, and more than merely questionable. Thus it is not just a matter of law, it's a matter of policy.

There's no possibility of a rational discussion here. I am not a student to be evaluated by TC. He can blow his comments through his shorts as far as I am concerned.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1468
Reputation: 128.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
The gentle reader will, I hope, understand if I no longer respond to this nuttiness.

No surprise. You ve been lying through your teeth about all of this.
Quote:
I express fact-based opinions as much as I can.

Bullshit.

You just spout infowars type bullshit and you know it.

How do I know?

Read this ...
Quote:

In this case, the Americans are applying US criminal law extraterritorially and requiring Canada to honour its new self-endowed superpower. Is there any doubt about that?

Yes there is doubt about that.

For one, your own link you used yesterday said so,in fact it was absolute.

See? Only an idiot would do that.

You arent even smart enough to see it. ! LOL!
Quote:

How can anyone support that?

Support what? Your infowar-ish idiocracies ? ]

Give it up dumbass.



Quote:

The bottom line? TC is making it up.

Yup, making it up.

But doing so with plenty of learned writers, journalists, and of course...Your very own link which, sucks to be you, supports my position from start to end.

Your link denies everything you have said.

Now THATS funny.
Quote:

There is every reason to suspect, due to the timing, that the arrest was designed to blow up the trade truce that the US and China had only just agreed upon.

The US had us arrest Meng to blow up the trade truce?

Wow. I never knew the level of stupidity one could sink to. LOL!



Quote:


There's no possibility of a rational discussion here.

Correct. You are plainly too dumb to be rational.
Quote:
I am not a student to be evaluated by TC. He can blow his comments through his shorts as far as I am concerned.


You arent a student, I get that.

You are , for lack of a better analogy, a geriatric moron sitting in his own shit drooling out of your mouth.
The Nurses stop by and pat you on the head.

A complete f***ing dubass.

Oh good lord, I love this shite !

give it up dude, you are so far lost no one will find you
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6559
Reputation: 304.7Reputation: 304.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Are you enlightened?
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6559
Reputation: 304.7Reputation: 304.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chinese authorities mistreating Canadian detainees, ambassador says
ROBERT FIFE OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF
SEAN SILCOFF TECHNOLOGY REPORTER
OTTAWA
PUBLISHED 4 HOURS AGO
UPDATED JANUARY 20, 2019

Chinese authorities are mistreating two Canadians detained last month for allegedly endangering national security, Canada’s ambassador to China told MPs in a closed-door session Friday.

Ambassador John McCallum told members of the House of Commons foreign relations committee that Michael Kovrig – a Canadian diplomat on leave – and businessman Michael Spavor are being kept in prison cells where the lights are on 24 hours a day, said sources at the hearing who were not allowed to publicly discuss what the envoy said. Authorities are also subjecting them to interrogation, the sources said.

Mr. McCallum informed MPs at the in-camera session that China will only allow Canadian consular officials to visit the detained men once a month and only for half an hour. Authorities are monitoring their conversations and the Chinese guards forbid embassy officials from speaking to the Canadians in French in case they are passing on messages.

At last week’s cabinet retreat in Sherbrooke, Mr. McCallum told reporters that the two Canadians face up to four hours of questioning each day and have no access to a lawyer, a situation that could last for up to six months under the Chinese legal system. Some observers believe the arrest of Mr. Kovrig breaches long-standing principles of diplomatic immunity, which are extended to former diplomats as well under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, The Globe and Mail reported last Wednesday.

The two arrests are part of an escalating diplomatic crisis between the two countries after last month’s arrest by Canadian authorities of Huawei chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou in Vancouver at the behest of the U.S. government, which wants to extradite her so she can face fraud charges related to violating sanctions against Iran.

The arrest of Ms. Meng prompted sharp criticism of Canada from China and demands for the executive’s release; it came amid a continuing review by Canada into whether it should ban or limit the Chinese telecommunications giant from supplying 5G equipment to the Canadian wireless market like three of its allies in the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network – the United States, Australia and New Zealand. [....]
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-chinese-authorities-mistreating-canadian-detainees-ambassador-says/
=================================================
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6559
Reputation: 304.7Reputation: 304.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Canada is doing US bidding on Huawei case ... American economist.

This video is a CBC interview of Professor Jeffery Sachs talking about the Huawei case, and what Canada should do, at this point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5Ta_RhsXYY
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 8 of 11

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


The Huawei Arrest & what it means

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB