Chinese Media-US Should Stand With Protestors

| May 29, 2020

Nope, no similarities between Hong Kong’s demonstrators and Minneapolis’s rioters. (The Donald Win)

The Global Times, a propaganda outlet of the Chinese Communist Party, insists that the US should stand with the violent rioters in Minneapolis. Their line of reasoning? That we sided with the Honk Kong demonstrators.

The Hong Kong demonstrators marched for a legitimate cause. They protested suggested policies that violated their human rights. They protested CCP activities that didn’t recognize Hong Kong’s autonomy.

The rioters and looters in Minnesota?

Destroying other people’s property, stealing, attacking infrastructure in place to keep the peace, etc., isn’t the same thing as the Hong Kong protests. The Minneapolis rioters risk destabilizing peace and security.

Actions are being taken to address the police officer involved with the incident that started the riot. It’s clear, from video evidence and initial reporting, that justice is going to take its course. This is a legitimate case that’s going to be addressed. There are plenty of differences between what the rioting people are doing here, and what the Honk Kong demonstrators are doing.

From The Global Times:

Hong Kong’s rioters and police should carefully watch how the “democratic US” deals with the chaos in Minnesota.

After the tragic death of African-American George Floyd following violent police treatment, enraged protesters in Minneapolis rushed to the city’s police building, where a fire later broke out. US President Donald Trump then began to feel uneasy. He sent out a tweet early Friday morning (US time), saying, “I can’t stand back & watch this happen.” He instructed Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey to “get his act together and bring the city under control,” saying the alternative was that he would send in the National Guard and “get the job done right.”

“When the looting starts, the shooting starts,” Trump said. He said he had spoken to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and told him “the military is with him all the way.”

The people that are burning buildings, including a police precinct building, and stealing from other people, are rioting when they shouldn’t be rioting. They already have the freedoms that their Hong Konger counterparts are demonstrating for. President Trump wouldn’t have supported the Hong Kong rioters if they had no reason to riot and had they done the same things the Minneapolis rioters are doing.

More could be read at China’s Global Times.

President Trump’s tweet regarding the rioters.

Fireworks go off as police precinct building burns:

Police escaping the rioters:

Category: Politics

Comments (71)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Ex-PH2 says:

    Anarchy? What was the point to setting the police station on fire? Oh, that’s right – no point at all, just a chance to destroy something. If those loons really want anarchy, they should be careful what they wish for.

    • Commissar says:

      Actually, setting the police precinct on fire makes a salient and justifiable political statement.

      That there is consequences when the government abuses or murders its citizens. That the power of the police only exists due to the continuous consent of the people. Without our consent the police are powerless.

      However, most of the rest of the vandalism is bullshit.

      And looting is always bullshit.

      • thebesig says:

        No, setting the police precinct on fire does not make a salient or justifiable political statement. It demonstrates disrespect for rule of law. It makes the demonstrators no different from the police officer, and his actions, that they are protesting.

        Yes, there are consequences for the government, or its representatives, abuse and murder citizens. We have such a system in place, it’s being implemented. The police officer involved is going to be held accountable.

        There is enough information available, in the video as well as with reporting, that those demonstrations are not needed. They have a large segment of the country on their side. No need for their violence, they actually damage their argument by doing it that way.

        Such reckless regard for rule of law should not be tolerated.

        • Commissar says:

          Your authoritarianism leanings are pretty god damn evident.

          “Such reckless regard for rule of law should not be tolerated.”

          In a democracy it must be tolerated. Otherwise there is no social contract.

          Consequences for violating the social contract must be felt by both sides.

          No just at the ballot box.

        • Commissar says:

          Burning a police station as a political statement would be UW/FID 101.

          You never physically attended the course did you?

      • The Other Whitey says:

        It makes no statement at all, Lars. The cops involved in the Floyd incident have already been fired, and the one who kept his knee on the Floyd’s neck is up on charges for it. If that’s not enough, then they are advocating lynching. The rioters have no interest in justice, they just want an excuse.

        • Commissar says:

          The problem is systemic. One cop and his apathetic fellow officers does not solve the issue.

          And it makes a statement.

          You know damn well it does.

          • The Other Whitey says:

            It makes no fucking statement. The full story is yet unknown and under investigation, though more details are rapidly coming to light. Nobody in the Floyd incident is skating. Those involved have been fired and the knee-planter is up on charges and will have his day in court. The people burning down Minneapolis don’t give a shit about justice. Those who aren’t simply seizing an excuse to go feral are advocating a lynching. You know, the very thing they claim to abhor. Why do you keep dodging that?

            • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

              IMHO he’s just killing time until his next check arrives and he can pay his tab at Brucie’s Bath House (Entrance in the Rear).

      • rgr769 says:

        Most of us here don’t care for you or the things you believe and say. How about we come to your house and burn it down? Would that be a “justifiable political statement?” I guess you think arson is perfectly OK if it is intended by the arsonist to make a “political statement.”

        It is clear you don’t believe in the rule of law. I suppose you and your Antifa/BLM pals will likely have a circle jerk watching videos of the arsonists’ handiwork.

        • Commissar says:

          Clearly you were a correspondence course long tabber.

          And did not pay learn much from the little booklets you filled out.

          • rgr769 says:

            Well, in our 12 week SFOC curriculum at Ft. Bragg in 1972, we were not trained to burn and loot civilian businesses nor police stations. I find it difficult to believe that is current SF doctrine.

            I guess you think these pavement dwelling hoodrats are UW freedom fighters or something. You should put your money where your mouth is and get your limp ass to Portland or Minneapolis and advise your Antifa-bois in guerilla warfare to take down the Republic, since you are such an expert on the subject.

            In the month long UW exercise I conducted as an ODA commander in Germany in 1973, if I had suggested a simulated burning of the local police station, even my E-5’s would have looked at me like I was nuts.

            Moreover, if you actually knew anything about SF qualifications, you would know that completing the SF correspondence course alone did/does not earn a SF MOS or the long tab.

            • Commissar says:

              This discussion is not about burning and looting businesses.

              It is about burning an empty police station.

              I made that clear right from the fucking start.

              And if your exercise had you leading insurgents or acting as insurgents then they sure as well would not think it odd that you suggested burning a police station.

              Doing that would be textbook.

              • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

                SO what about the AutoZone franchise that was burnt along with a nightclub that a former Firefighter poured his life’s savings into as well as the Target that was looted, zampolit?

                • Commissar says:

                  Looting and vandalizing businesses is bullshit. It undermines the protests.

                  I made that absolutely clear in multiple posts.

                  Though the guy that broke the windows of the Autozone was clearly not a protestor. Protestors told him to stop and the protestors were asking him who he was. Suspecting he was a cop.

                  Whatever he was, he was not a protestor.

            • Commissar says:

              Let me explain the value of this in a UW context…

              1. It shows that the government is impotent because it can’t even protect the symbol of government security and enforcement in the local area.

              2. It undermines the moral and confidence of local police because they see it as a message that they are targets. The result is their interaction between themselves and citizens become strained.

              3. It likely destroys the investigative records of local police. Some of those records may be investigative files on insurgent activities.

              4. It causes the local police to crackdown on security. That overreaction creates a wedge between them and the population.

              5. It serves as a recruitment message to others who may not be aware of insurgent activities or presence in their area.

              6. It sets police organization and operations back as they need to relocate to new facilities. Resetting the planning timeline of any counter insurgency operations.

              7. And most relevant to the discussion; it serves as a message of civilian retaliation for any real or perceived police transgressions against the population. Which are usually numerous during counter insurgency operations.

              I am pretty astonished you needed any of that explained to you.

              But it explains why you were so sensitive and worried about your E5s looking at you funny. They probably were constantly wondering why you were so clueless.

          • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

            “Clearly you were a correspondence course long tabber.”

            I see you’re projecting yet again, zampolit.

            • Commissar says:

              I don’t even think you know what I am referring to with that comment.

            • rgr769 says:

              Don’t bother with him. He never received any written materials from the JFK school house regarding Unconventional Warfare. He has apparently been reading the stuff put out by Antifa and Black Block. These man-bun wearing soiboys couldn’t mount a guerilla war even if they were armed

              • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

                They can’t even figure out which restroom to use, let alone start a revolution. Just think about how quickly they’d get their asses kicked to the moon and back the moment they tried their shit in Red State America!

      • NHSparky says:

        Oh STFU and go play in traffic already, dipshit.

        • Commissar says:

          I don’t believe in that as a protest tactic.

          It is counterproductive.

          • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

            *WHOOSH!*, that flew RIGHT over your head! You have a mind like concrete, it’s all mixed up and permanently set!

            • Commissar says:

              You floor me with your cluelessness.

              The irony of saying “Woosh, that flew right over your head.”

              Bless your little heart and tiny mind,

              Thoughts and prayers,

      • JarHead Pat says:

        Do you ever get sick of being a big fat troll cunt? I mean all you ever do is just shit all over everything America, here is a thought, why don`t you fuck off and go live in China or better yet Russia, as a former expat working/living in Russia I can attest to the fact that you would just love it over there.

        • Commissar says:

          Not trolling.

          You would have to be pretty fucking thick skulled not to see how burning a police station after cops killed an unarmed restrained citizen is a political act/statement.

          Do you think American patriots were only being law abiding citizens when they responded to the Boston Massacre?

          And what does living in China or Russia have to do with this issue?

          • Penguinman000 says:

            4 officers fired and 1 arrested 3 days after the incident. And the FBI is investigating.

            What else do you think could be done to address the situation?

            Lynch some cops who had no involvement in the incident? Perhaps some Asians since there was an Asian cop involved?

            Burn down another 130 businesses that employee the very same people vandalizing?

            Remove another 130 businesses the local populace the very same people vandalizing rely upon for their day to day?

            What exactly is your remedy? You are constantly popping off about what is wrong. How about acting like an adult? Let’s hear some realistic solutions..

            • Commissar says:

              You are not even trying to have a good faith discussion at this point.

              I explicitly said right up front, at the very beginning, that I didn’t agree with opportunistic vandalism and looting.

              Literally the only act of vandalism that I thought served as a genuine political statement was the burning of the police station.

              You decided to attribute a bunch of other bullshit to my position to make it easier to discredit my opinion.

              • Penguinman000 says:

                No, I asked what your solution is. Yes I threw in some hyperbole.

                I assumed since you consistently claim the intellectual high ground you would recognize it.

                Clearly I was wrong.

                I’ll drop the hyperbole.

                What’s your solution beyond firing, arresting the officers involved and having the FBI investigate. In the space of 72 hours.

                • Commissar says:

                  If you think the problem of police violence against citizens, disproportionally minorities, is about one officer in Minneapolis, and one death…

                  Then you are failing to recognize the problem.

                  My solution is a complete transformation of law enforcement.

                  Psychological screening tests that weed out authoritarian personalities and sociopaths. To the extent screening can.

                  A national database of police use of force incidents with legally mandated reporting.

                  A national agency that polices law enforcement and prison guards exclusively.

                  Removal of qualified immunity form police officers.

                  Require all police officers to maintain professional insurance. This drives the costs up for poor policing and forces unions, who will likely be paying these insurance costs, to remove problem officers.

                  When an officer is negligent their insurance is on the hook first. Much like other professions with insurance for negligence.

                  As a general rule eliminate valor rewards for shooting suspects. Except in cases of true acts of valor.

                  Implement awards for not shooting suspects or deescalation.

                  Create a national certification standard for minimum law enforcement trsining.

                  No more untrained provisional officers. No more two to six week academies.

                  Fund research on use of force and officer citizen outcomes.

                  Stop shoehorning military training into law enforcement training.

                  I can go on. But those would be a start..

                  • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

                    More Government and more bureaucracy which will mean jobs for even more incompetent clueless BOOBS like you!

                  • Fyrfighter says:

                    Some good ideas there, but what happens when -Psychological screening tests that weed out authoritarian personalities and sociopaths. To the extent screening can., and -Create a national certification standard for minimum law enforcement training, and- No more untrained provisional officers. No more two to six week academies. all dramatically reduce the number of “diversity” hires on these departments? There’s no question that it would, look at the changes to testing procedures that have been implemented to increase those numbers. You didn’t mention tightening restrictions on those with previous criminal records, which is another thing that was dramatically eased in order to increase “diversity”. If you were to reverse those policies as well, that would have a definite impact. How would you address the immediate screeches of “racist” when that happens?

                  • penguinman000 says:

                    Lets start from common ground. I 100% agree there should be a national data base for all use of force incidents. I likewise agree that more funding should be provided for research into use of force and officer/citizen outcomes. I also agree military TTPs are not appropriate for law enforcement as a whole. Valor awards for shooting a bad guy shouldn’t be automatic. And no officer should ever be allowed on the street if they haven’t completed the academy.
                    Now on to where we differ.
                    Solutions start at the individual level. When someone, citizen or cop, commits an illegal act they should be held accountable. The resentment felt by many in poor and minority communities stems from a perceived failure to hold individual police officers accountable. That is the root cause and that is something that needs to be addressed.
                    I’m on the fence about removal of qualified immunity. While there have been clear cases where it has been abused, there are also a number of cases where it hasn’t applied. Look at Officer Durocher in Portsmouth, VA. A clear case where a cop who was in a justified shooting of a bad guy doing bad things. Armed burglary in progress, suspect is convicted, sentenced to 6 years, body cams were working, and the gun was recovered on the suspect. Despite that Derocher is facing a malicious wounding charge and a charge of using a firearm in commission of a felony. And there are numerous other cases out there of a similar nature. On the other hand, it rubs my ‘Murican morals the wrong way when anyone has immunity. Not sure what the answer is for this one.
                    Establishing another law enforcement agency to police the police is a bad idea IMHO. It’s attempting the same thing that isn’t working. I think if CALEA certification were forced on every agency in the US (at least for those that have more than 10 officers), accompanied by funding to allow it to happen, would be a good start. Similar to the joint commission and hospitals. No accreditation and no authority to conduct policing activities. If Minneapolis PD were CELEA certified I guarantee that restraint technique would not be part of their policy.
                    Requiring all officers to maintain professional insurance because unions will bear the cost? What about agencies where there is not police union? There are lots of them. In my neck of the woods police unions are the exception and not the rule. I actually can’t think of a single agency near me that has one. If you want to make officers pay for their own insurance then pay is going to have to increase in an awful lot of places. If this were instituted right now, lots of agencies in areas where they are needed the most, would see their departments gutted. And if you think private insurance in the health care setting is a bad thing, why do you think it would have a beneficial effect in the law enforcement arena?

          • Penguinman000 says:

            Not to mention what the hell does protesting against a tax on tea have to do with anything?

            • Commissar says:

              You don’t know much about our revolution and the precipitating events/causes do you?

              • Penguinman000 says:

                Answering a question with a question is the most shallow form of intellectual BS I can imagine.

                I know quite a bit about American history, the military and law enforcement. Both in an academic and practical setting. How about we both send in our resumes/CVs/transcripts/DD214 to the mods? Don’t forget your LEO certs.

                Let me guess, no?

                What you are attempting is an ad hominem attack. A form of logical fallacy that tends to be the respite of the intellectually weak.

                How about you stick to the topic?

                • Commissar says:

                  Mods already have a lot of my stuff.

                  My linked in essentially has my resume.

                  Except my law enforcement cert. Certified in New Mexico.

                  Back to the discussion;

                  Throughout the colonies patriots looted, burned, and vandalized the businesses of loyalists, attacked those serving serving the crown. Burned an vandalized buildings and offices of the British government, assaulted and beat British soldiers.

                  And that activity increased dramatically after the Boston Massacre.

                  Throwing tea into the harbor makes a nice 5th grade social studies story but it was not representative of the colonist’s response to the Boston Massacre.

                  • penguinman000 says:

                    You are comparing a rebellion to separate from a government to angry people who don’t like police.

                    These 2 events are not even close to being the same. Different economics, politics, and social issues.

                    We are no longer an agrarian economy subject to England. No political party resembles the Whigs or Tories. And slavery was ended a couple hundred years ago with the blood shed of half a million Americans.

                    Sure makes a good sound bite though.

      • Doc Savage says:

        I dont know what “salient and justifiable political statement” you took from burning out a police station, but its quite clear you should never be in a position to lead or educate anyone.

        The action of one or a few do not reflect on the whole.

        • Commissar says:

          Any educated mind should be able to see how citizens burning a police station after police kill a unarmed citizen is a salient political statement.

          If you can’t see that it is you that should not be educating minds.

          Or leading a damn thing,

          In fact, you should be embarrassed that you can’t see it.

          • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

            HEY there o clueless stupidassed Seagull, then what statement were the animals making when they looted a Target, burned an AutoZone store and destroyed a nightclub that a former Firefighter had poured his life savings into?

            • Commissar says:

              You have reading comprehension issues,

              I am ONLY discussing the salient political statement being made by burning a police station.

              I specifically clarified that right from the beginning.

              God damn, infidel; you just keep proving yourself incapable of understanding the most basic concepts and minimal context for any discussion.

              You are as bad as Ex.

  2. Commissar says:

    Most Americans do stand with the protestors in Minneapolis.

    Just not with the opportunistic vandals and looters.

    There is no inconsistency in that.

    • David says:

      “Vandals, looters, and arsonists” – fixed it for you.

    • Sapper3307 says:

      Can I get free T.V with a side of smug?

      • 5th/77th FA says:

        Sure can Sapper 3307; and have a DVR and a pair of Air Jordans while you’re stealing err, err getting. Get some soft fuzzy blankets and scented candles for your Special Lady. They like that stuff.

        • rgr769 says:

          Everyone that lit a match or lighter in Minneapolis should be getting that latter stuff for their future cellmates. But happily for our resident commie cuttlefish, Squidward, and his ilk, most will never be caught and prosecuted.

      • NHSparky says:

        Lars was the fuckstick who walked out of Target with that box of Legos.

        I mean, I get that they’re expensive, but fucking seriously?

    • NHSparky says:

      Try again, dipshit. Expand your horizons beyond the Berkeley hive mind for once in your fucking life.

  3. RetiredDevilDoc8404 says:

    As much as it galls me and gives me indigestion, I have to say that I say that I see Lars’s point about why the troglodytes burned the police station; doesn’t make it right or justify the action however, it’s a symbol to them and they want to destroy it. The officer whose actions set all this in motion has apparently had a very problematic career, and a certain dummycrap senator from Minnesota had a chance to do something about him when she was State’s Attorney but failed (looking at you Amy Klobachar). Ugh, I feel gross now that I’ve admitted seeing Larsie’s point, gonna go wash my eyes out with acid, drink bleach and take a beatin’ out of petty cash (or just take a shower or 6). I’ve been quarantined too long…

    • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

      As they used to say in Blaxploitation movies, it’s all about “sticking it to DA MAN”!

    • Commissar says:

      Thank you.

      You understand why destroying a symbol of government power and abuse of citizens is making a salient political point.

      You sound like a freedom loving, pro-democracy, American patriot who knows our revolutionary history and values.

      Not like most of these other guys.

      • 11B-Mailclerk says:

        Arson being a major hazard upon a whole bunch of innocent folks. Like the firefighters who have to risk their asses to put it out. The neighbors. Passers by downwind. EMTs. Neighbors.

        Forcible felony.

        Arson is not a “political statement”. It is a widespread assault on the rights of life, liberty, and property of a whole bunch of innocent folks.

        Fire tends to spread, yes? The smoke from the burning building is wicked toxic, yes?

        Spare us your platitudes. That was a disgraceful thing to foist on folks.

        We solve disputes in court. It actually works pretty well. We have come light-years better in my lifetime.

        Yes, we have. Yes, we will do even better.

        No, mob rule isn’t “freer”.

        If you get to declare some folks “enemies of the people” with their rights voidable as “political statements”, then other folks get to tag you as such.

        You wouldn’t like that. No one would. Why not turn away from the ass-hattery, hm?

        • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

          It’s obvious to me that he enjoys being a crusading “useful idiot”, check out the link I posted on this thread and tell me what you think!

        • The Other Whitey says:

          Arson is also a “general intent” crime, meaning the arsonist is legally liable for *all* effects of the fire. There is no “I only set that one thing on fire, not my fault it torched the whole block” defense. If somebody dies as a result of that fire, the arsonist is now a murderer.

          On top of that, arson is also a coward’s crime. It is ridiculously easy to start a small fire unnoticed that spreads to cause major damage, and that’s before you get into common incendiary devices with built-in time delay. The arsonist himself is either long gone or hidden in the crowd of rubbernecks by the time anyone realizes something is burning. Little evidence remains afterwards, and what is there can easily be destroyed by fire suppression and overhaul efforts before the area of origin is even identified. And the likelihood of getting a usable fingerprint or other “smoking gun” link to the asshole responsible from whatever remains is somewhere on the order of winning the lottery while getting a blowjob from Margot Robbie, so it then boils down to trying to find out who might have been there during a particular timeframe.

      • RetiredDevilDoc8404 says:

        Uh, Lars I didn’t say I agree with it. I said I saw the point you were making about why the troglodytes burned the police station. Arson is NOT civil disobedience, it endangers firefighters, EMS, cops, and bystanders ya dolt. Fire spreads as long as it finds stuff to burn, it’s strange like that. You want might want it to burn one thing but it takes a mind of its own and all of a sudden you’re in a world of hurt because you were an idiot. Just for the record, I don’t think the day will ever dawn that you and I will ever share the point of view, Lars – at least not while I have a semi functional brain. I am at least able to remember to breathe without constant reminders to…