5 ms·

I would say, as others have pointed out, that this is in retaliation to the pieces about graft and wealth building by CN officials counter to the spirit o

by temphn 14y ago

I would say, as others have pointed out, that this is in retaliation to the pieces about graft and wealth building by CN officials counter to the spirit of the revolution because it could cause internal PLA dissent/strife -and to see if they could obtain info about sourc(e)s of that info. Absolutely. But the greater context is that they see this as a skirmish in the larger campaign to discredit the PRC's current leaders, foment discontent, overthrow the government, and set up a (US-controlled) democracy.

magicalist 14y ago
You have presented nothing to connect that to this, except the obvious one: that state sponsored actions have state objectives behind them. You're arguing by insinuation and equivocation, and present nothing relevant to this event. It's like a comment section on the Stuxnet worm being inundated with comments about Iran sponsoring suicide bombers in Israel. Yes, it's related, but the volume of "evidence" you've added to this discussion suggests you just want to have a conversation about something else.
- JumpCrisscross 14y ago
  I thought it was helpful to see a rational state objective behind why the Chinese military may be hacking the New York Times (the article leaves motive unanswered beyond insinuating general malevolence). "It's like a comment section on the Stuxnet worm being inundated with comments about Iran sponsoring suicide bombers in Israel." This may not be a news flash for Israelis or Americans, but I bet it would make for informed reading for an Iranian (or even for an American sitting next to an Iranian). I've found foreign articles on current events illuminating of my own cultural blinders.
  - magicalist 14y ago
    ...except the GP provided no rational state objective for this except insinuating general malevolence as perceived by the Chinese government. That's my whole point. There's no argument here except equivocation. > This may not be a news flash for Israelis or Americans, but I bet it would make for informed reading for an Iranian (or even for an American sitting next to an Iranian). I've found foreign articles on current events illuminating of my own cultural blinders. Sure, but Stuxnet was built for very specific purposes, and sponsorship of suicide bombers is so far down the list of motives that it becomes essentially a non sequitur. However, it does achieve very well a change in conversation from the implications of introducing a computer worm to sabotage a nuclear program to a discussion of how evil a regime is. The former is a conversation worth having, no matter how much you feel Stuxnet was justified. Here, we have a comment about the "context" of this action, which is summed up for us pretty well above as "they see this as a skirmish in the larger campaign to discredit the PRC's current leaders, foment discontent, overthrow the government, and set up a (US-controlled) democracy" (which, incidentally, sounds exactly like the greater context for the great firewall and state-controlled media, as well). This completely ignores the very specific correlation the Times points out with a series of articles they ran on Premier Wen Jiabao. That accusation is much more specific then the "context" found above.
- temphn 14y ago
  Well, you implied in your comment below that you weren't interested in a simple "discussion of how evil a regime is". Very understandable and I agree with you. Yet the thing is that without this context Americans just don't understand why the Chinese military would get involved on a negative story about a leader. It seems like a gross overreaction. Indeed, without understanding the context it just seems "evil". Until you realize that undercutting popular support for a leader is step 1 in the PNAC handbook for democratic change. We accuse them of atrocities, we accuse them of holding WMDs, we accuse them of suppressing freedom of speech, we get their population to believe that they are illegitimate by funding "democracy" movements. Then the fighting starts and we drop off weapons with the rebels, even if we know full well this could result in something worse ("Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants"). Now half a dozen countries are burning across the Middle East in the name of setting up US-controlled democracies. Yet most Americans don't get why the Chinese would defend their leaders reflexively or why the Chinese military would hit out. The view goes something like this: Sure, Wen Jiaobao may have skimmed some money off the top, but politicians are constantly caught in scandals and China has gotten richer while the US has gotten poorer. So China's corruption isn't fatal to growth, while America's bank/Fed chimera may well be. And yet America wants to set China on fire just like it has so many other countries in the world, first with words and then with guns. So, yes, I do believe this context is relevant. You don't need to agree with their views, but you do need to understand why they see this as self-defense against US imperialism.
  - magicalist 14y ago
    Again, all you've done is repeat the same explanation for the Great Firewall and censorship of news as soon as it starts to appear to be capable of "fomenting dissent". It's worth noting that many in China do not share your view, and we have the weibo messages to prove it. While there is certainly a good bit of animosity aimed at the US (both well-sourced and born of invented stories), it's ridiculous to claim that even a large portion of the populace believes that they need to be protected from revolution brought about by american psyops in the news. Assuming that of them certainly sells the people of China short, not to mention the complete lack of agency you seem to believe the people that actually live in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria, etc had in deciding to revolt in the first place. It's not clear what your personal belief is here (you're only reporting on the "context", after all), but you've repeated the libya arms thing enough that I'll assuage your fears: look back through history. Nation building by rebel proxy does not work as intended. You only have to look at your so called new "US-controlled democracies" to dispel any idea of US control. Meanwhile, the new york times reported on corruption in those around Wen Jiabao, and the Chinese government hacked into their systems apparently so they could find out who provided information to the reporters and how they got the information that they did. It's a silly strawman to suppose that "without this context Americans just don't understand why the Chinese military would get involved on a negative story about a leader." No, it's extremely clear, and I think few here were very surprised.
mc32 14y ago
Perhaps. The bigger 'threat' is not so much from foreign media per se, but from internal Chinese (activists) who would translate and disseminate this information via various channels. It's not as though most Chinese know how/bother to avoid the GFC or know how to read English. It's the internal 'conspiracy theorists' and anti-propagandists who the gov't fear the most which is why they have introduced laws governing internet cafes, ISPs, blogs, microblogs, and hire thousands to scrub sites of offending info, etc. The gov't mostly want to control internal communication. I think in this case they were looking for info on where the NYT got this information, so they could track down and rectify the sourc(e)s.

by temphn 14y ago

magicalist 14y ago

You have presented nothing to connect that to this, except the obvious one: that state sponsored actions have state objectives behind them. You're arguing by insinuation and equivocation, and present nothing relevant to this event. It's like a comment section on the Stuxnet worm being inundated with comments about Iran sponsoring suicide bombers in Israel. Yes, it's related, but the volume of "evidence" you've added to this discussion suggests you just want to have a conversation about something else.

JumpCrisscross 14y ago
I thought it was helpful to see a rational state objective behind why the Chinese military may be hacking the New York Times (the article leaves motive unanswered beyond insinuating general malevolence). "It's like a comment section on the Stuxnet worm being inundated with comments about Iran sponsoring suicide bombers in Israel." This may not be a news flash for Israelis or Americans, but I bet it would make for informed reading for an Iranian (or even for an American sitting next to an Iranian). I've found foreign articles on current events illuminating of my own cultural blinders.
- magicalist 14y ago
  ...except the GP provided no rational state objective for this except insinuating general malevolence as perceived by the Chinese government. That's my whole point. There's no argument here except equivocation. > This may not be a news flash for Israelis or Americans, but I bet it would make for informed reading for an Iranian (or even for an American sitting next to an Iranian). I've found foreign articles on current events illuminating of my own cultural blinders. Sure, but Stuxnet was built for very specific purposes, and sponsorship of suicide bombers is so far down the list of motives that it becomes essentially a non sequitur. However, it does achieve very well a change in conversation from the implications of introducing a computer worm to sabotage a nuclear program to a discussion of how evil a regime is. The former is a conversation worth having, no matter how much you feel Stuxnet was justified. Here, we have a comment about the "context" of this action, which is summed up for us pretty well above as "they see this as a skirmish in the larger campaign to discredit the PRC's current leaders, foment discontent, overthrow the government, and set up a (US-controlled) democracy" (which, incidentally, sounds exactly like the greater context for the great firewall and state-controlled media, as well). This completely ignores the very specific correlation the Times points out with a series of articles they ran on Premier Wen Jiabao. That accusation is much more specific then the "context" found above.
temphn 14y ago
Well, you implied in your comment below that you weren't interested in a simple "discussion of how evil a regime is". Very understandable and I agree with you. Yet the thing is that without this context Americans just don't understand why the Chinese military would get involved on a negative story about a leader. It seems like a gross overreaction. Indeed, without understanding the context it just seems "evil". Until you realize that undercutting popular support for a leader is step 1 in the PNAC handbook for democratic change. We accuse them of atrocities, we accuse them of holding WMDs, we accuse them of suppressing freedom of speech, we get their population to believe that they are illegitimate by funding "democracy" movements. Then the fighting starts and we drop off weapons with the rebels, even if we know full well this could result in something worse ("Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants"). Now half a dozen countries are burning across the Middle East in the name of setting up US-controlled democracies. Yet most Americans don't get why the Chinese would defend their leaders reflexively or why the Chinese military would hit out. The view goes something like this: Sure, Wen Jiaobao may have skimmed some money off the top, but politicians are constantly caught in scandals and China has gotten richer while the US has gotten poorer. So China's corruption isn't fatal to growth, while America's bank/Fed chimera may well be. And yet America wants to set China on fire just like it has so many other countries in the world, first with words and then with guns. So, yes, I do believe this context is relevant. You don't need to agree with their views, but you do need to understand why they see this as self-defense against US imperialism.
- magicalist 14y ago
  Again, all you've done is repeat the same explanation for the Great Firewall and censorship of news as soon as it starts to appear to be capable of "fomenting dissent". It's worth noting that many in China do not share your view, and we have the weibo messages to prove it. While there is certainly a good bit of animosity aimed at the US (both well-sourced and born of invented stories), it's ridiculous to claim that even a large portion of the populace believes that they need to be protected from revolution brought about by american psyops in the news. Assuming that of them certainly sells the people of China short, not to mention the complete lack of agency you seem to believe the people that actually live in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria, etc had in deciding to revolt in the first place. It's not clear what your personal belief is here (you're only reporting on the "context", after all), but you've repeated the libya arms thing enough that I'll assuage your fears: look back through history. Nation building by rebel proxy does not work as intended. You only have to look at your so called new "US-controlled democracies" to dispel any idea of US control. Meanwhile, the new york times reported on corruption in those around Wen Jiabao, and the Chinese government hacked into their systems apparently so they could find out who provided information to the reporters and how they got the information that they did. It's a silly strawman to suppose that "without this context Americans just don't understand why the Chinese military would get involved on a negative story about a leader." No, it's extremely clear, and I think few here were very surprised.

mc32 14y ago

Perhaps. The bigger 'threat' is not so much from foreign media per se, but from internal Chinese (activists) who would translate and disseminate this information via various channels. It's not as though most Chinese know how/bother to avoid the GFC or know how to read English. It's the internal 'conspiracy theorists' and anti-propagandists who the gov't fear the most which is why they have introduced laws governing internet cafes, ISPs, blogs, microblogs, and hire thousands to scrub sites of offending info, etc. The gov't mostly want to control internal communication. I think in this case they were looking for info on where the NYT got this information, so they could track down and rectify the sourc(e)s.