3 ms·

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 y

by 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.

by mthoms 6y ago

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.