4 ms·

But this is the same faulty reasoning that led the press to underestimate the danger of covid19. The probability of arbitrary and unbounded detention and tortur

But this is the same faulty reasoning that led the press to underestimate the danger of covid19. The probability of arbitrary and unbounded detention and torture is very small, but the change in personal utility would be so terrible that you have to consider the risk profile of travelling to China to be similar to wingsuit-skydiving or exposure to radiation.

mytailorisrich 6y ago
I think the faulty reasoning is to assume that the arrest of these 2 Canadians means that Canadians are not safe in China. This is FUD. As said, this overlooks who these 2 Canadians are: There are apparently hundreds of thousands of Canadians in China and the 2 arrested clearly have links to the Canadian government and/or intelligence agencies. The probability of being mugged and shot in the US is probably higher but I don't see articles telling people to stay well clear.
- mthoms 6y ago
  >the 2 arrested clearly have links to the Canadian government and/or intelligence agencies. One of them used to be diplomat so yes, he has connections to the government. The other has no connections (that have been reported on at least). And where did you get "intelligence agencies" from!? Do you have a citation or did you just make that up? You know, like spreading FUD?
  - dirtyid 6y ago
    Other Michael is buddy-buddy with Kim Jong Un and operated NGO with North Korean dealings. Like when China retaliatory arrested Canadian Garrats who operated a Coffee shop in a prefecture level city on the border of China/North Korea in response to Canada extraditing a Chinese spy to US. No country is going to confirm their spies, but these are pretty obvious hints. Ex-diplomat/NGO is also typical spy cover in China - the country cracked down on foreign NGOs a few years ago with NGO laws packaged with counter-espionage and national security legislation. Both Michaels were also picked up by Ministry of State Security (national security), it was exceedingly clear messaging on day one, months before official chargers, that these two were picked up on espionage in retaliation. There's nothing particularly baffling that a surveillance state which compromised every CIA asset in country 10 years ago knows where foreign intelligence assets are. As someone who follows the space, Chinese retaliatory arrests are calibrated to separate diplomacy and commerce, hence arresting spies and (threatening to) execute drug dealers. Spies because historically spies have no rights, Michaels are fortunate that ICJ ruled spied get consular access last year, so there maybe some movement on that. Regardless, until they start detaining random expats there on business or travel, this is pretty much business as usual. That said, Canadian intelligence assets should GTFO out of the country, because if anything China has under-retaliated for Meng. They arrested 6 Japanese when Japan detained a Chinese fishboat captain over Senkaku. There will be more pressure coordinated with different phases of Meng's trial.
    - mthoms 6y ago
      For the most part I was unable to decipher your comment. At least insofar as to how it provides any evidence whatsoever that either of the men are spies. All you seem to have said is that one of men is involved with North Korea (a close China ally, so I'm not sure how that supports your argument) and that "NGO is typical spy cover in China". Hardly compelling.
      - dirtyid 6y ago
        1. The Michael's fit the profile for spies that operate in China to a T. One Michael is ex-diplomat working at NGO, another works in NGO affiliated with NK and a source of NK information. Hint: Chinese officials with access to NK aren't the ones soliciting him for insights. 2. China has proven record to exposing spies domestically, seen in 2010 CIA debacle where every CIA asset in the country was compromised. 3. China doesn't detain expats arbitrarily. That's what western media tells their useful idiots to spread FUD. There are hundreds of thousands of expats in China, they don't need to waste time detaining innocent people. Just like how the drug dealer being executed has trafficking priors in Canada. 4. Ergo the Michael's were most likely spies, Chinese surveillance tech has only improved since. Obviously, China is opaque on this issues so there won't be smoking gun proof. But people who watched this space for along time can connect the dots, and in fact did so immediately, before official charges were levied. One would need compelling evidence to demonstrate why they aren't spies, i.e. Canada doesn't spy on China or China doesn't have the capability to expose Canadian spies. But many people can't seem to accept China is a rational geopolitical actor who retaliated intelligently instead of randomly kidnap expats for shits and giggles.
        mthoms 6y ago
        Edit: You know what, after looking at your post history, I'm not interested in a response. Nor will I respond. That's because your entire post history (as far back as I went) consists exclusively of vehemently defending China on a wide array of topics. That's a bit of a red flag (pun intended). Original post: 1. Sorry but "fitting the profile" is not compelling evidence. Of course they will pick people who "fit the profile". It's incredibly naive of you to think otherwise. 2. Since we don't know what percentage of spies they've caught I don't know how you can say they have a "proven track record" and therefore they are likely spies. What is their "proven" success rate exactly? What percentage? Can you provide citations? I'm only vaguely familiar with the CIA incident you describe but - doesn't it follow simple logic that the CIA would support and encourage the narrative that all their spies were caught? Come on. Use your head. 3. It wasn't arbitrary. That's been established. As you said they "fit the profile" and served a political purpose. 4. Ergo nothing. The only "evidence" you've offered is that they "fit the profile". Laughable. >One would need compelling evidence to demonstrate why they aren't spies Wait what? Really? Is that how your version of justice works? The CCP has a proven history of lies and manipulation probably unparalleled in the world. I'm flabbergasted that you'd give them the benefit of the doubt without any evidence. >But many people can't seem to accept China is a rational geopolitical actor who retaliated intelligently instead of randomly kidnap expats for shits and giggles. You're intentionally conflating rationality with justifiability. They acted in their own self interest, which (by definition) is indeed "rational". Nobody disagrees that they made a smart (and wholly expected) chess move. The question is whether the move was justified. None of the amateur armchair spymaster opinions you've offered come close to proving the move was justified. You've offered no compelling evidence other than "China wouldn't do that!" and "they fit the profile". Please.

mytailorisrich 6y ago

I think the faulty reasoning is to assume that the arrest of these 2 Canadians means that Canadians are not safe in China. This is FUD. As said, this overlooks who these 2 Canadians are: There are apparently hundreds of thousands of Canadians in China and the 2 arrested clearly have links to the Canadian government and/or intelligence agencies. The probability of being mugged and shot in the US is probably higher but I don't see articles telling people to stay well clear.

mthoms 6y ago
>the 2 arrested clearly have links to the Canadian government and/or intelligence agencies. One of them used to be diplomat so yes, he has connections to the government. The other has no connections (that have been reported on at least). And where did you get "intelligence agencies" from!? Do you have a citation or did you just make that up? You know, like spreading FUD?
- dirtyid 6y ago
  Other Michael is buddy-buddy with Kim Jong Un and operated NGO with North Korean dealings. Like when China retaliatory arrested Canadian Garrats who operated a Coffee shop in a prefecture level city on the border of China/North Korea in response to Canada extraditing a Chinese spy to US. No country is going to confirm their spies, but these are pretty obvious hints. Ex-diplomat/NGO is also typical spy cover in China - the country cracked down on foreign NGOs a few years ago with NGO laws packaged with counter-espionage and national security legislation. Both Michaels were also picked up by Ministry of State Security (national security), it was exceedingly clear messaging on day one, months before official chargers, that these two were picked up on espionage in retaliation. There's nothing particularly baffling that a surveillance state which compromised every CIA asset in country 10 years ago knows where foreign intelligence assets are. As someone who follows the space, Chinese retaliatory arrests are calibrated to separate diplomacy and commerce, hence arresting spies and (threatening to) execute drug dealers. Spies because historically spies have no rights, Michaels are fortunate that ICJ ruled spied get consular access last year, so there maybe some movement on that. Regardless, until they start detaining random expats there on business or travel, this is pretty much business as usual. That said, Canadian intelligence assets should GTFO out of the country, because if anything China has under-retaliated for Meng. They arrested 6 Japanese when Japan detained a Chinese fishboat captain over Senkaku. There will be more pressure coordinated with different phases of Meng's trial.
  - mthoms 6y ago
    For the most part I was unable to decipher your comment. At least insofar as to how it provides any evidence whatsoever that either of the men are spies. All you seem to have said is that one of men is involved with North Korea (a close China ally, so I'm not sure how that supports your argument) and that "NGO is typical spy cover in China". Hardly compelling.
    - dirtyid 6y ago
      1. The Michael's fit the profile for spies that operate in China to a T. One Michael is ex-diplomat working at NGO, another works in NGO affiliated with NK and a source of NK information. Hint: Chinese officials with access to NK aren't the ones soliciting him for insights. 2. China has proven record to exposing spies domestically, seen in 2010 CIA debacle where every CIA asset in the country was compromised. 3. China doesn't detain expats arbitrarily. That's what western media tells their useful idiots to spread FUD. There are hundreds of thousands of expats in China, they don't need to waste time detaining innocent people. Just like how the drug dealer being executed has trafficking priors in Canada. 4. Ergo the Michael's were most likely spies, Chinese surveillance tech has only improved since. Obviously, China is opaque on this issues so there won't be smoking gun proof. But people who watched this space for along time can connect the dots, and in fact did so immediately, before official charges were levied. One would need compelling evidence to demonstrate why they aren't spies, i.e. Canada doesn't spy on China or China doesn't have the capability to expose Canadian spies. But many people can't seem to accept China is a rational geopolitical actor who retaliated intelligently instead of randomly kidnap expats for shits and giggles.
      - mthoms 6y ago
        Edit: You know what, after looking at your post history, I'm not interested in a response. Nor will I respond. That's because your entire post history (as far back as I went) consists exclusively of vehemently defending China on a wide array of topics. That's a bit of a red flag (pun intended). Original post: 1. Sorry but "fitting the profile" is not compelling evidence. Of course they will pick people who "fit the profile". It's incredibly naive of you to think otherwise. 2. Since we don't know what percentage of spies they've caught I don't know how you can say they have a "proven track record" and therefore they are likely spies. What is their "proven" success rate exactly? What percentage? Can you provide citations? I'm only vaguely familiar with the CIA incident you describe but - doesn't it follow simple logic that the CIA would support and encourage the narrative that all their spies were caught? Come on. Use your head. 3. It wasn't arbitrary. That's been established. As you said they "fit the profile" and served a political purpose. 4. Ergo nothing. The only "evidence" you've offered is that they "fit the profile". Laughable. >One would need compelling evidence to demonstrate why they aren't spies Wait what? Really? Is that how your version of justice works? The CCP has a proven history of lies and manipulation probably unparalleled in the world. I'm flabbergasted that you'd give them the benefit of the doubt without any evidence. >But many people can't seem to accept China is a rational geopolitical actor who retaliated intelligently instead of randomly kidnap expats for shits and giggles. You're intentionally conflating rationality with justifiability. They acted in their own self interest, which (by definition) is indeed "rational". Nobody disagrees that they made a smart (and wholly expected) chess move. The question is whether the move was justified. None of the amateur armchair spymaster opinions you've offered come close to proving the move was justified. You've offered no compelling evidence other than "China wouldn't do that!" and "they fit the profile". Please.