Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread

[QV]

Simmer down there, Skippy.

We all can agree that it's an objectively good thing that this is being done, so if it's not a win for the government, what do we call it? That's all I was asking.

Only you would applaud the Trudeau government for finally doing the right thing years after they got called out on it.

This government knew, and did nothing about it because they were benefiting electorally. They don't get a pat on the back, they need to be fired wholesale.

Had the LPC removed Trudeau, the party itself could be salvageable. They have not, and therefore are not salvageable.

 

[TacticalTea]

On one hand you can say the Liberals are damned if they do damned if they don't. They expelled the diplomat and people still aren't happy.

That's not a catch-22, I refuse this characterization.

No one's angry that Trudeau has finally kicked him out. We're all just disappointed/annoyed it took so long.

 

[Lumber]

Only you would applaud the Trudeau government for finally doing the right thing years after they got called out on it.

This government knew, and did nothing about it because they were benefiting electorally. They don't get a pat on the back, they need to be fired wholesale.

Had the LPC removed Trudeau, the party itself could be salvageable. They have not, and therefore are not salvageable.

What?! Shit, have I been sleep-posting again!? God damnit not again. I don't remember posting an applaus of the liberal government for this.

If you can show me the post where I did so, I'll ask the mods to delete it.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Well, that makes sense.... in China

https://twitter.com/x/status/1655487641117159424

 

[Lumber]

Katie Tedford and CSIS say they did. There's a report supporting this too.

Mendicino then turns around and blames "bad actors" but doesn't name them.

Can you provide sources for the first one? I'm not calling bullshit on you, but I can't find any reference to Kate Telford making any statement wrt the Chong case.

For the second one, I think either your wording is unnecessarily misleading or you read his statements wrong. Mendicino wasn't saying that the report not being shared was the the fault of "hostile actors" (he used that term, not 'bad'). Rather, he was being political and shifting focus; instead of answering the quesiton "how did this happen", he basically avoided the question and said "the real concern here is the hostile actors who engineered these threats."

Kind of like if you asked him "how are illegal guns getting into Canada?" with a response of "the real concern here is the evil people killing each other in Canada with illegal guns". Like, ok, yes, but that doesn't anaswer my question. Ass.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Mendocino has to go , I wouldn't be surprised if currently he has as much support in caucus as he does here.
Mind you in caucus he only needs the support of one person in it to keep his job.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Mendocino has to go , I wouldn't be surprised if currently he has as much support in caucus as he does here.
Mind you in caucus he only needs the support of one person in it to keep his job.

His damage is done. The red and orange liberals are getting ready to ram through his latest attempt at a firearms package.

 

[Lumber]

His damage is done. The red and orange liberals are getting ready to ram through his latest attempt at a firearms package.

Convenient, eh, that they announced that they are going to limit debate on Bill C-21 (ie 'bad news') on the same day they announce they are expelling the Chinese diplomat (i.e. 'good news').

 

[Halifax Tar]

Convenient, eh, that they announced that they are going to limit debate on Bill C-21 (ie 'bad news') on the same day they announce they are expelling the Chinese diplomat (i.e. 'good news').

Your sarcasm is palpable

Quick get some firearms legislation out to change the channel!

 

[Lumber]

Your sarcasm is palpable

Quick get some firearms legislation out to change the channel!

I actually wasn't being sarcastic this time! I meant it; the liberals couldn't have played it any smarter (that or this is just a really convenient coincidence).

 

[Halifax Tar]

I actually wasn't being sarcastic this time! I meant it; the liberals couldn't have played it any smarter (that or this is just a really convenient coincidence).

It's too convenient for me. This seems very well planned out.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Can you provide sources for the first one?

Sure.

He's a video that includes a story run by the Globe and Mail pointing out that contrary to what Trudeau said, the 2021 CSIS report in question reached the National Intelligence Advisor. There's also video of Katie Tedford saying nothing is ever withheld from the Prime Minister (in fairness and hindsight she's saying nothing is withheld from him, not that he saw the report in person. But I'll find that soon)

For the second one, I think either your wording is unnecessarily misleading or you read his statements wrong. Mendicino saying that it wasn't saying that the report not being shared was the the fault of "hostile actors" (he used that term, not 'bad'). Rather, he was being political and shifting focus; instead of answering the quesiton "how did this happen", he basically avoided the question and said "the real concern here is the hostile actors who engineered these threats."

No you got it. That's what I mean. They're having conflicting information about who knew what and Mendicino turns around and starts talking about hostile actors being behind the threats. Like you said it's avoiding the question.


Have a listen at 1:16. Reporter is asking about CSIS and Michael Chong not being told and Mendicino says neither the prime minister or the public safety minister at the time were briefed directly by CSIS.

Loaded words.

Is he suggesting CSIS is lying about the report being sent to the National Intelligence Advisor?
Is he insinuating that someone briefed the National Intelligence Advisor/PM but it "wasn't CSIS directly"?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Can you provide sources for the first one? I'm not calling bullshit on you, but I can't find any reference to Kate Telford making any statement wrt the Chong case.

For the second one, I think either your wording is unnecessarily misleading or you read his statements wrong. Mendicino wasn't saying that the report not being shared was the the fault of "hostile actors" (he used that term, not 'bad'). Rather, he was being political and shifting focus; instead of answering the quesiton "how did this happen", he basically avoided the question and said "the real concern here is the hostile actors who engineered these threats."

Kind of like if you asked him "how are illegal guns getting into Canada?" with a response of "the real concern here is the evil people killing each other in Canada with illegal guns". Like, ok, yes, but that doesn't anaswer my question. Ass.

The last portion of your answer describes the grit pro forma response to any question asked of them. Their regular practice is to obfuscate and filibuster. Very seldom, and then only when it's to their advantage, do they tell the truth in something other than Klingon.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Sure.

He's a video that includes a story run by the Globe and Mail pointing out that contrary to what Trudeau said, the 2021 CSIS report in question reached the National Intelligence Advisor. There's also video of Katie Tedford saying nothing is ever withheld from the Prime Minister (in fairness and hindsight she's saying nothing is withheld from him, not that he saw the report in person. But I'll find that soon)

No you got it. That's what I mean. They're having conflicting information about who knew what and Mendicino turns around and starts talking about hostile actors being behind the threats. Like you said it's avoiding the question.


Have a listen at 1:16. Reporter is asking about CSIS and Michael Chong not being told and Mendicino says neither the prime minister or the public safety minister at the time were briefed directly by CSIS.

Loaded words.

Is he suggesting CSIS is lying about the report being sent to the National Intelligence Advisor?
Is he insinuating that someone briefed the National Intelligence Advisor/PM but it "wasn't CSIS directly"?

She also said that nothing goes over his desk that he doesn't read. Whether true or not, nobody with an IQ above their shoe size is going to believe him. Lies are what everyone expects as soon as he opens his mouth. The more uhms and ahhs, the more he's trying to manufacture a suitable answer on the fly. Something you don't need to do if you're being truthful.

 

[brihard]

Is he insinuating that someone briefed the National Intelligence Advisor/PM but it "wasn't CSIS directly"?

Just speculating on one small point- Privy Council Office has its Intelligence Assessment Secretariat that takes in all-source info at various classification levels and briefs cabinet. That’s one way by which classified intelligence material could reach senior members of government without coming directly from the agency that generated it.

 

[Good2Golf]

Well, it’s finally happened. JT bit the bullet and has expelled a Chinese diplomat. What kind of Chinese fireworks will we see as a result?

‘Persona non grata’: Canada expelling Chinese diplomat after threats to Tory MP | National Newswatch

National Newswatch: Canada's most comprehensive site for political news and views. Make it a daily habit.

www.nationalnewswatch.com

Less than we would have seen under the covers coming from the US for Canada heading towards supporting the development of an existential threat on its longest (relatively unprotected) border…

Surely the Taiwanese aren't the only ones who knew this 7 years ago. How many people are there that could have sounded the alarm but didn't? Wow.

Even the Star Chamber knew, but chose to look the other way and remain loyal to the head of the star chamber.

We all can agree that it's an objectively good thing that this is being done, so if it's not a win for the government, what do we call it? That's all I was asking.

It’s not a win for the ruling party Government, but it is a small win for Canadians.

 

[RangerRay]

More on our non-record of turfing “diplomats” behaving badly.

Canada has not expelled a foreign diplomat since 2018 | Globalnews.ca

Despite evidence of diplomatic misconduct, more than five years have passed since Canada last ejected a foreign diplomat from the country.

globalnews.ca

Over the past five years, foreign diplomats have been accused of spreading disinformation, helping a foreign student accused of sexual assault flee Canada, trashing a rental unit and punching a police officer in the face.

But none of them have been asked to leave Canada.

Since President Vladimir Putin launched his 2022 invasion of Ukraine, European countries have expelled more than 400 Russian diplomats, most recently 20 from Germany, he said.

But the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has not taken similar steps, most notably against China for a foreign influence campaign that has included establishing illicit police stations in Canada’s major cities.

Since the start of Putin’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Russian embassy has used social media to attempt to undermine Canada’s support for Kyiv.

On its Twitter account, the embassy has accused Canada of supporting what it falsely labels Ukraine’s Nazi regime while denying the widespread war crimes committed by Russian forces.

The (Ukrainian Canadian) Congress wants the government to demonstrate its resolve by kicking out Russian diplomats, as Canada’s NATO allies like Germany and Norway have done, but no action has followed.

 

[JLB50]

Less than we would have seen under the covers coming from the US for Canada heading towards supporting the development of an existential threat on its longest (relatively unprotected) border…


Even the Star Chamber knew, but chose to look the other way and remain loyal to the head of the star chamber.


It’s not a win for the ruling party Government, but it is a small win for Canadians.

Maybe I’m wrong but, although some may see it as a win for the government, a growing number of Canadians are seeing that Trudeau did this because he was forced to. It was not a proactive decision. That, along with Trudeau’s wishy-washy stance on defence, shows his impotence and lack of commitment in the face of international crises.

 

[RangerRay]

Maybe I’m wrong but, although some may see it as a win for the government, a growing number of Canadians are seeing that Trudeau did this because he was forced to. It was not a proactive decision. That, along with Trudeau’s wishy-washy stance on defence, shows his impotence and lack of commitment in the face of international crises.

His sock-puppet foreign minister, Jolie, basically told the HoC that they’re afraid of trade and commerce reprisals, like that’s supposed to trump basic national security. Our political class has a deeply incestuous relationship with the Canada-China Business Council.

Australia has much deeper trade ties to China than we do, plus are physically more isolated from their allies, but have no problems taking strong positions against Beijing.

 

[Good2Golf]

Maybe I’m wrong but

I don’t think you are.