Air China considering CX acquisition (potential oneworld exit to *A?)

[tomlee1986]

Well maybe if you had a look you would know, the big one for most would be this:

View attachment 375052

It would be hard to deny that China is no longer honouring that commitment with respect to the Special Administrative Region.

The full declaration lodged with the UN is here: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume 1399/v1399.pdf

Page 68 has what China agreed to.

sadly now after article 23, CX maybe absolved into CA and NO compensation payable because under CCP logic, no such thing as private property!

 

[drron]

And if someone doesn’t think that the UN is trustworthy then down load the British version from their Parliamentary Library.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8616/

 

[Buggbear]

Did you even check that Wikipedia article, please? You might be interested in arguing the references #56 onward where the real meat of the article is. If you do successfully counter-argue those, you would do a service by potentially enhancing the brainspace of those who want to try understand the matter.

Like I have said. I have no intention to waste my time on that. I have much better things to do.
If you suggest a point of reference as argument, put forward to convince me that it has substance in international legislation.
Not just saying such and such means such and such. Sorry, that is your personal interpretation and it will not hold water with me. I do not understand the whole situation and I am not against people putting forward their opinions. But opinions are not valid to substantiate what some people's claim to be factual.
I just want someone who use it as argument to show me why the argument is valid.

 

[Buggbear]

Well maybe if you had a look you would know, the big one for most would be this:

View attachment 375052

It would be hard to deny that China is no longer honouring that commitment with respect to the Special Administrative Region.

The full declaration lodged with the UN is here: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume 1399/v1399.pdf

Page 68 has what China agreed to.

Please tell me which clause or clauses out of the 200 odd pages in article 23 is/are not honouring this to the extent of international law. Not your interpretation of.

 

[prozac]

Like I have said. I have no intention to waste my time on that. I have much better things to do.
...
I just want someone who use it as argument to show me why the argument is valid.

So you have no intention to waste your time and want someone else to show you the way.

Please tell me which clause or clauses out of the 200 odd pages in article 23 is/are not honouring this to the extent of international law. Not your interpretation of.

 

[kamchatsky]

Please tell me which clause or clauses out of the 200 odd pages in article 23 is/are not honouring this to the extent of international law. Not your interpretation of.

Lazy bum who wants everyone to do the homework for him.

Are you a wumao?

 

[drron]

Like I have said. I have no intention to waste my time on that. I have much better things to do.
If you suggest a point of reference as argument, put forward to convince me that it has substance in international legislation.
Not just saying such and such means such and such. Sorry, that is your personal interpretation and it will not hold water with me. I do not understand the whole situation and I am not against people putting forward their opinions. But opinions are not valid to substantiate what some people's claim to be factual.
I just want someone who use it as argument to show me why the argument is valid.

If you have no intention of offering constructive evidence of your opinion then I would like to suggest you ignore this thread.

 

[tomlee1986]

Lazy bum who wants everyone to do the homework for him.

Are you a wumao?

I won’t be surprised he is one to be honest

 

[Buggbear]

If you have no intention of offering constructive evidence of your opinion then I would like to suggest you ignore this thread.

What evidence? I did not make any statement but ask you to substantiate yours and you cannot. Just quoting something does not mean anything. Everything has to turn political and you have no evidence of what you claim is happening. I should not even bother to reply.

 

[Buggbear]

Lazy bum who wants everyone to do the homework for him.

Are you a wumao?

Really? You have just lost your argument. Name calling is always the last defence.
BTW, I have read enough of it but cannot find any evidence, apart from personal interpretation or regurgitation of someone else's, to even come close to a claimed fact. Anyone can comment on all these Sino-British agreement and Article23 et al. But stating speculations as facts is not.
To be honest, 99.9% of all those involved, including yours truly, in these"discussions" have very little knowledge of the whole thing. In fact, I would say next to nothing. Proof me wrong. Move on.

 

[Buggbear]

So you have no intention to waste your time and want someone else to show you the way.

But the point is, they made statements that I think are not completely factual and I am challenging them to convince me otherwise. It is not up to me do their work. From where I stand wild remarks that sparked this discussion are what I consider speculations and I called it out. Back up what you said or admit it is just your opinion. Move on.

 

[drron]

But the point is, they made statements that I think are not completely factual and I am challenging them to convince me otherwise. It is not up to me do their work. From where I stand wild remarks that sparked this discussion are what I consider speculations and I called it out. Back up what you said or admit it is just your opinion. Move on.

The evidence has been provided with links to the actual document. You are just too lazy to discover things for yourself. There is an index on the documents linked so you can go to the relevant part of the document.
Now stop wasting everyone's time and go to another thread. 'I will not bother reacting to further posts from you as you are just repeating the same old garbage.

 

[kamchatsky]

Really? You have just lost your argument. Name calling is always the last defence.
BTW, I have read enough of it but cannot find any evidence, apart from personal interpretation or regurgitation of someone else's, to even come close to a claimed fact. Anyone can comment on all these Sino-British agreement and Article23 et al. But stating speculations as facts is not.
To be honest, 99.9% of all those involved, including yours truly, in these"discussions" have very little knowledge of the whole thing. In fact, I would say next to nothing. Proof me wrong. Move on.

Did I name call you? I asked you a question. I did not make a statement. You can simply said No.

Your response is typical and is for everyone to see here. That's because you know who you are.

Maybe your heart is like glass, very fragile?

 

[prozac]

What's a 'wumao'?

 

[jase05]

What's a 'wumao'?

In polite terms it’s basically a internet troll paid by the CCP to spread propaganda

 

[Buggbear]

The evidence has been provided with links to the actual document. You are just too lazy to discover things for yourself. There is an index on the documents linked so you can go to the relevant part of the document.
Now stop wasting everyone's time and go to another thread. 'I will not bother reacting to further posts from you as you are just repeating the same old garbage.

Likewise. You have provided a bunch of links to articles but still cannot point out where article 23 contradict the agreement. You are wasting my time.

 

[Buggbear]

Did I name call you? I asked you a question. I did not make a statement. You can simply said No.

Your response is typical and is for everyone to see here. That's because you know who you are.

Maybe your heart is like glass, very fragile?

Perhaps your understanding of English is not too good. Move on.

 

[Buggbear]

The level of paucity of common sense and awareness is astounding. Anyone who is not sheeple is automatically branded.
Hong Kong is much more important to China than you think. There is no benefit for China to destroy HK. You know why.
There are only 2 cities in the region that can bridge the gap between east and west hemisphere for financial trading. The other is Singapore. Singapore is already the winner due to the recent upheaval in HK. HK is struggling under all this unnecessary negative views from misinformed people. Watch how China will try to lift HK out of this doldrums instead of destroying it. Hope that is before someone might nuke us. Like in my first post, China bashing is "fashionable and politically correct". I would be really surprised that it would be otherwise on an Australian based platform. It is simply a potential takeover of an airline. Really!
BTW, read this:-

South China Morning Post (SCMP) China Conference: Southeast Asia – Speech by Mr K Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law

South China Morning Post (SCMP) China Conference: Southeast Asia – Speech by Mr K Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law

www.mha.gov.sg

Not 100% related but skip to the part about Singapore and Hong Kong. You think they know a tad more than you? And they get paid by the CCP to spread propaganda? Mind you. I must add that like all things controversial, there will be hundreds of negative views. Unfortunately, critical thinking is usually not inherent in most of us.

 

[kamchatsky]

What's a 'wumao'?

"wumao" means "50 cents" in Chinese. @jase05 already summarised in earlier post. But the history of the name is that they get 50 cents per post:

50 Cent Party - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Must...Fly!]

HK is struggling under all this unnecessary negative views from misinformed people.

All those multinational corporations with legal teams bigger than most must all be wrong?

"wumao" means "50 cents" in Chinese. @jase05 already summarised in earlier post. But the history of the name is that they get 50 cents per post:

50 Cent Party - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Oh no, not Wikipedia again...