4 ms·

This has all the makings for a screenplay right up my alley. I have the utmost respect for Clandestine Operatives and the conditions and considerations. It's no

This has all the makings for a screenplay right up my alley. I have the utmost respect for Clandestine Operatives and the conditions and considerations. It's not playing a game on a board with pieces, these are people's lives. In 2003, I heard about China organ harvesting in its prisons and wrote a short story about it. 10+ years later, I made it into a screenplay. It's a Morality Play. https://www.scriptrevolution.com/scripts/infamy https://www.scriptrevolution.com/scripts/infamy The line "We've lost another one" could almost be the goddamn title of my take on events. Nobody wants to make that call.

averagewall 9y ago
Do you have the same respect for the 911 hijackers and all the preliminary work they did in America to prepare for it? Spying is preparing to kill.
- Para2016 9y ago
  This is a false equivalency. Odd couple of very anti-American commenters in this thread already.
  - hueving 9y ago
    This article does not put China in a very good light. A ruthless shooting in the middle of a government agency of a spy to send a message is pretty barbaric. I suspect articles about these events will have a significant amount of pro-China or anti-US comments to "put it in context".
- 6stringmerc 9y ago
  Nope because using Civilians as "Point-Making' Intentional Victims (not Collateral Damage engaging Combatant targets, e.g. human shields) out of combat sectors is simply fighting dirty (YMMV in 2000s), because those 9/11 hijackers had bankroll and were intent not on collecting information but inflicting damage. There is a significant difference between being an "observer" and an "assassin" if you want to get down to it. Spying is akin to foreshadowing, to have knowledge before action. If you don't understand the difference between inserting Assets for Information Gathering versus Mass Murder then we probably won't be able to communicate very well. There are nuances. Your conclusion is a false premise.
  - averagewall 9y ago
    "combatant targets" are humans too, sometimes conscripted involuntarily. Killing them is also murder. You seem to be carefully defining what's right so that it allows the type of murder the US army does but not the type that other groups/countries do to the US. Really, I think the US is a danger to Chinese people and is at risk of killing them. It surely will use its intelligence to help it do that. These spies might have had some other purpose but they surely weren't purely peaceful ones. Perhaps I should use a less sensitive example of Chinese industrial spies stealing trade secrets from American companies or stealing military secrets from the government. Do you support them too? It's not as risky and not for killing but is still spying.
    - hueving 9y ago
      It's not about sensitivity, it's that your first example wasn't equivalent at all. Spying != collecting information to murder people.
- elihu 9y ago
  Spying is gaining access to information that someone doesn't want you to have access to. It's not necessarily a precursor to violence even if it is often used to gain a military advantage.

averagewall 9y ago

Do you have the same respect for the 911 hijackers and all the preliminary work they did in America to prepare for it? Spying is preparing to kill.

Para2016 9y ago
This is a false equivalency. Odd couple of very anti-American commenters in this thread already.
- hueving 9y ago
  This article does not put China in a very good light. A ruthless shooting in the middle of a government agency of a spy to send a message is pretty barbaric. I suspect articles about these events will have a significant amount of pro-China or anti-US comments to "put it in context".
6stringmerc 9y ago
Nope because using Civilians as "Point-Making' Intentional Victims (not Collateral Damage engaging Combatant targets, e.g. human shields) out of combat sectors is simply fighting dirty (YMMV in 2000s), because those 9/11 hijackers had bankroll and were intent not on collecting information but inflicting damage. There is a significant difference between being an "observer" and an "assassin" if you want to get down to it. Spying is akin to foreshadowing, to have knowledge before action. If you don't understand the difference between inserting Assets for Information Gathering versus Mass Murder then we probably won't be able to communicate very well. There are nuances. Your conclusion is a false premise.
- averagewall 9y ago
  "combatant targets" are humans too, sometimes conscripted involuntarily. Killing them is also murder. You seem to be carefully defining what's right so that it allows the type of murder the US army does but not the type that other groups/countries do to the US. Really, I think the US is a danger to Chinese people and is at risk of killing them. It surely will use its intelligence to help it do that. These spies might have had some other purpose but they surely weren't purely peaceful ones. Perhaps I should use a less sensitive example of Chinese industrial spies stealing trade secrets from American companies or stealing military secrets from the government. Do you support them too? It's not as risky and not for killing but is still spying.
  - hueving 9y ago
    It's not about sensitivity, it's that your first example wasn't equivalent at all. Spying != collecting information to murder people.
elihu 9y ago
Spying is gaining access to information that someone doesn't want you to have access to. It's not necessarily a precursor to violence even if it is often used to gain a military advantage.