Then we call our representatives and congressmen and get them to take a side for Blizzard.
Hey everyone, just got news that some Blizzard employees are walking out in protest over the Hong Kong ban thing, and the news i am getting is that Blizzard are sitting back at the moment and ‘assessing the situation’.
In all honesty, I know the politicians themselves are mad at Blizzard for wanting to appease China. It’s now officially an international incident, so I hope they work it out.But in all honesty though, my country constantly gets caught in the middle of China and the USA as well, so I know how Blizzard feels. It really sucks.
I think when they do choose to speak up about it, perhaps do some research how Australian politicians handle such things, the ironic thing is that our Prime Minister is pretty close to US President Trump, but at the same point has said things that make China happy too, he seems to be able to have a knack to being able to not offend anyone.
And that Hearthstone player must be proud of himself that he just caused an international diplomatic incident. God, makes me scared as a wow player what I could do…
But the reason why Tiananmen is still relevant in this topic is the fear that China will do the same to Hong Kong.
Legislators may ultimately make a difference in US trade policies with China and other oppressive regimes, but it is unlikely that this particular incident will furnish that impetus.
There weren’t hundreds, there were maybe 1 or 2 violent protesters per 100 peaceful ones.
If I was one person throwing a molotov at one cop, they would be justified in using lethal force.
If one person in a group of dozens throws a molotov, that cop would NOT be justified in opening fire on the crowd.
But if, say a sniper, can single out the offender, should he be taken out?
no, you use the proper riot control tactics to arrest the offender, no one has to die
Generally they would deploy tear gas, then a group of riot police, armored head to toe in body armor and with massive riot shields, would form a shield circle and move out to subdue the perpetrator, stand him or her up in the middle of the circle after handcuffing them, then return to the riot line and put them in a safe place to be processed.
No gunfire necessary
Huh? You grabbing at straws that don’t exist. Police can and will use lethal force. But they don’t have to they can tazer you and handcuff you instead.
The sad truth is that the Warcraft movie made millions in China, but didn’t do as well in America, so from a business point of view, Blizzard probably doesn’t want to get on the wrong side of China, as it’s a good source of revenue for them, but I think that if they are smart about it, they can still be nice to China without compromising their own values? There must be a way to do that.
I think we all know it is impossible to find out the muderers in such kind of protest.
A tire of a military vehicle broke, then they were surrounded by a group of protests. They burned the truck and killed the soldiers inside. Until the end the soldider did not use their guns cause they didn’t get the order. The protesters dragged the soldiers’ bodies out and hung them on the bridge.
This is maybe the most terrible case in these muders. Als I think these muders irritated the soldiers, so when they get the order, the tragdey inevitably happened.
Maybe you could say the CCP should not send the order. Before that take a look at what US gov would do on student protest.
en {dot} wikipedia {dot} org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
1 Like
Tu Quoque
I condemn those shootings too, as did everyone at the time.
As to the rest, better 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be murdered. Though in the case of Tiananmen it’s more like better 1 guilty man go free than 100 innocents be murdered.
Vaara, it depends who shot first. If the protesters shot first, then they bought it upon themselves really.
I mean we weren’t there in China at the time, so don’t know the full story, only what we were told.
Private gun ownership was and is illegal in China
None of the protesters there had firearms.
Legalism only stops good guys from having a gun. But bad guys will always have a gun to overpower the unarmed.
Bad guys will be bad guys.
2 Likes
Yes but getting illegal firearms in China is next to impossible, especially back then.
Again, same crime, just b/c in one situation offender is alone but the other there’re accomplice, the offender will be punished differently? That’s not fair or logical. B/c following that logic to deploy lethal damage without the fear of being shot on site is to organize a riot.
I mean, I understand where you come from. American cops use lethal force all the time, so it becomes now “acceptable”. But when riots happen in foreign countries, American politicians make a big deal about ANY casualty.
You are correct until some soldiers and policemen were killed and guns were taken.
No, it’s because in one scenario, only the perpetrator is killed, in the other scenario, the perpetrator and hundreds of innocents around him are killed.
There were no shots fired by protesters on the day of the massacre itself, which was actually rather uneventful until police and soldiers were given the order to storm the square and end the riot by any means necessary.
No, like I said, IF the offender can be singled out. So in both scenarios, only the offender would be killed.