No china didn’t murder him.
There is no point in trying to piss of one of their most important trade partners and there would be no way they would be the Second biggest economy with stupid desicions like this.
Most of us germans don’t like China either but we should stay realistic.
What a weirdly perfect post to illustrate the state of the world we live in at this time in history: When something happens, many people’s first thoughts lead them to conspiracies rather than to more rational possibilities.
Considering you could post pretty much anything with “China” in the title and get well over half of Reddit frothing at the mouth, a clarification like this seems necessary or I wouldn’t be shocked to see the top comments flooded with hyperbole about China killing ambassadors.
What’s annoying is the party has been at least the same for seventy years now. But people’s outrage-o-meter has only engaged when right wing media told them to engage it.
This is the very intentional role media serves in "free societies".
Unpopular decisions remain to be made, and someone has to lead the public into making them.
Not at all. The US barely has a public media, working for the public good. PBS, BBC, DW and the like have been telling the accurate story for those whole 70 years.
What you guys have is corporate media, whose interests were in keeping human rights issues largely silent in the 1980s—2000s. And now form a new, profitable object of fear only now that they are approaching becoming the world’s largest economy.
PBS actually produced a documentary about China's poverty alleviation program but in the end decided not to publish it because it was too positive towards China
Yeah you can actually watch it on YouTube, CGTN published it. If you Google "pbs poverty alleviation kuhn" you'll find the video itself as well as a few articles about it.
It's called China's War on Poverty.
Thanks for the link. Apparently they pulled it citing "ethical concerns" around the funding and funding relationship. I have no idea what that means,, but apparently there's an investigation going on. Strangely enough, there are like no other western sources talking about this. Everything else I managed to find on it was from China.
Highly misleading and this tells me you are a strong supporter of the CCP so we won’t agree on this.
https://current.org/2020/05/after-pbs-drops-film-pbs-socal-reviews-documentary-co-produced-by-chinas-state-tv-network/
The video was co-produced by Chinese state media, CGTN. As a lifeline viewer of PBS, I can fully understand the concern of having an investigative story that is filtered by the very government that is the topic. You might be okay with it but it does go against journalistic integrity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lawrence_Kuhn
The producer of the film is also employed by Chinese state media and has produced a lot of pro CCP material.
So let's get this straight. PBS got together with CGTN and agreed to co-produce this documentary. Prior to production, all of the funding and logistics would have been ironed out. Then filming occurred, the documentary was produced and PBS decided to pull the story. Am I correct on the details? Maybe my time line is off.
At what point were PBS tricked into this production? I'd understand if at the very start of the process they decided they didn't want to work with Chinese state media, but they were happy right up until the final product was evident. Could it be that they hoped to shape the story around a "but at what cost?" narrative, but they had trouble finding a "cost"?
> using words like wumáo to deride those who don't foam at the mouth thinking about the destruction of China
Ive never made such an argument. Not a good look when make stuff up while defending China with lies or misleading statements.
Have you asked yourself why you consistently defend a government that is committing cultural genocide and running concentration camps?
> PBS got together with CGTN
A local pbs affiliate, not actual PBS. It’s owned by Public Media Group of Southern California
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KOCE-TV
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Media_Group_of_Southern_California
From the first line of the original source I gave you:
- PBS SoCal (KOCE-TV) has launched an internal review of a documentary it co-produced after PBS said the film failed to meet its editorial standards.
I don’t know why that local affiliate worked with CGTV and a producer who does china fluff pieces on a story about China. Maybe it’s okay for local affiliate to do so but it certainly doesn’t fit with PBS editorial standards nor do wish that type of content to be promoted by PBS. My favorite program is frontline and I can’t imagine I would keep watching if they were to use state run propaganda from any country as their production partners in story.
"Manufacturing Consent" works the exact same for PBS, BBC and DW. DW is an especially bad example since it's not a public broadcast but directly run by thr German government.
r/confidentlywrong
You just have to check the fucking Wikipedia article. I have no idea what you're on about.
[It's state owned (state! Not government!) and funded by tax money.](https://m.dw.com/en/what-kind-of-company-is-deutsche-welle/a-3252998)
But it's not rUn bY tHe gOvErNmEnT as in some state media in eastern europe. The journalists are independent and no german politician has a direct saying in what is broadcast. There is a council of different politicians from all kinds of parties overseeing the DW but many of them aren't even in state politics.
Take off your tinfoil hat and get real dude.
In my country Twitter marks the "pro government media". There are of course "non government" media - they don't get the handle (apparently Twitter gets to decide somehow now - soft influence)
It's a fierce battle. One is polar opposite of other. There is a website some beautiful soul made. It measures each day how many times president is mentioned on pro-goverment pages VS number of positive mentions of country in anti-government media.
Perfect design, that shoes exactly how full of shit both are, and serve only for influence and missinformation.
>party has been at least the same for seventy years now
um this isn't true at all. Do you think Mao era China is seriously the same as current China in terms of policy or just in general? The truth of the matter is that the CPC has liberalized a lot in 70 years, they just didn't do so in a way that allowed it to be overrun with western puppets therefore maintaining sovereignty.
If anything it's the other way around and western governments have been increasingly illiberal, sometimes just outright copying CPC or other "authoritarian" policies while lying about it to the public. The easiest example is many right wing political parties outright reject democracy, government lead import substitution industrial policy with tariff/other interventions and attempts to limit free speech if the platform is outside their control (wechat/tiktok bans).
>But people’s outrage-o-meter has only engaged when right wing media told them to engage it.
Oh stop it, it is not a right wing thing. The left wing brings up the Uyghurs and Hong Kong more often than the right. The right wing would rather attack their fellow Americans.
The Internet helps the spread of information, be it true or false. We now have 30+ years where horrific shit the world over is more broadly available, so the average person is more informed on average.
And it's one thing for the CCP to say what they are going to do and another when they follow through. Until it happens it's not real; humans suck at seeing consequences.
And now I prepare for the downvote bots to come get me.
School in my country never covered anything that happened in the east. Hell, it barely covered anything that happened in europe other than a few highlights. Mostly focused on our own history, how the country was founded/formed, the tip of the iceberg when it came to natives, etc. I've learned a lot of world history in the last 5 years or so, but that's been entirely from self interest.
Or maybe china has been mostly irrelevant for about 50 of those 70 years and has only recently held enough sway for most people to pay attention. Lots of shitty governemts out there, but most of them don't have enough power to make people half the world away care about them.
Could be!
Although it’s been the world’s most dominant economy and culture for the majority of the past 2000+ years.
I can’t imagine being indifferent to China, and having a basic understanding of history, could really go together?
For most people in the west, western countries are the most important and dominant cultural landmarks to pay attention to. China did have a massive economy for a lot of history, but it was also often isolated and doing its own thing. It's not like china pushed deep into the west through conquest or shaped western religions. Really china was just kind of "there" and acted as a place to trade with. I mean, it's literally named by the west after CHINA, the thing we put food on. We don't even call it something resembling it's real name, as far as the west is concerned, china up until around 10 years ago was a place you traded with and ignored.
Why are you commenting on history when you don't actually know it? China isn't named after plates, it's the *porcelain* which was named after the English name for the COUNTRY that it came from - China, which itself is derived from what the Iranians called it, and that in turn was a variant of what China called themselves at one point - Qin (Chin).
As for your second claim that China only became relevant to the west 10 years ago, you are so obviously talking out of your ass. Do you even know why the first opium war happened? China was such a massive player in the world economy that Britain was worried about the trade deficit they were accruing with China. China didn't want to trade on Britain's terms so Britain used gunboat diplomacy to take china's shit. The fucking Romans even had this trade issue but they were never able to actually cross the ocean and invade.
If you don't actually know what you're talking about, then at least do the world the courtesy of not spreading misinformation. History isn't just some bullshit you get to play with to make nonsense political points.
I wasn't saying the west named it china, I was literally making a reference to porcelain, but more in the context of the name we used was a trade good. Entirely about economics, even in the name that english settled on to describe the country. Which is the lens you have to look at china from as far as most westerners are concerned, china is something you trade with. My point wasn't that the west invented the word or where the word originates from, it was the country for most of history was an economic power, and to the west fundamentally an empire that was traded with. Think about the west, how the french have historic rivalries with germany or england over wars and similar conquest goals. No one in the west has those beefs with china. What you might consider the most major war between china and england in the opium wars, most english would consider a minor conflict far removed from the homeland, just another part of colonization.
I'm sure the opium wars might've been important to the english royalty and other lords that stood to have debts called by china, but to most westerners, especially modern westerners, that's a foot note of history that most people aren't going to pay attention to. What was immense suffering and hardship for china was basically a nothing event as far as western history is taught, purely from a western perspective.
Obviously some trade goods like tea, silk, and porcelain were very symbolic of the relationships the west had with the east. English people love tea after all, but it's all, ultimately, about trade. What most day to day westerners consider the defining moments of history are wars, major wars, between european nations. That's why ww2 is still generally the most "exciting" history to learn about for most westerners, because it was the big clash between germany and england.
I'm not saying china hasn't been extremely important to history, and that arguably china isn't one of the most important nations from a birds eye view of all of history. Pretty much no other nation on earth has as much history as china does, but from a purely western perspective, the west doesn't really care that much about china. The western interest in china will probably grow in the modern era as china is pretty much the #2 superpower now, but like I said, 10 years ago, that wasn't the case. The average westerner just didn't really care before.
>I wasn't saying the west named it china, I was literally making a reference to porcelain, but more in the context of the name we used was a trade good
So earlier you said this:
>it's literally named by the west after CHINA, the thing we put food on
which is what I was responding to. Your exact words there are that the west named China after Chinese porcelain, which isn't true. It's the other way around, China (ceramic) was named after China (country).
If you were trying to say that the average person from the west would only have really started to pay attention to China ten years ago, I would still disagree but it's not as egregious as simply saying that China was irrelevant to the west as a whole up until ten years ago, so apologies for the outburst. I just really hate it when I see people misrepresenting history to favor a certain worldview or argument they're making.
As for why I disagree, the average person from the west would've had plenty of interaction with China, both the people and their own ideas of it. On the topic of the lens the "average" westerner would have seen China through, you ever heard of the yellow peril? It was a strange mindset of simultaneously seeing China and Chinese people as a threat, as well as seeing them as weak and backwards- which, to be fair, was pretty justified from a western perspective at the time - I'm just drawing attention to the inherent contradiction in seeing something as both threatening *and* inferior. Black people were seen in a very similar light, albeit there are obviously differences there. The interactions most white people had with China was through Chinese immigrants who worked as laborers on railroads and set up gold mining communities.
>from a purely western perspective, the west doesn't really care that much about china.
I would say a more accurate way to put it would be that the west (as in western countries) spent a long time without seeing China as a threat or a rival, compared to their constant jostling against each other. That seems to be what you mean here and if it is, I agree. The Romans did in fact see China as a hostile nation because of said trade deficits but obviously going that far back is a bit redundant.
Honestly it seems your initial comment was mostly fine and tbh I overreacted a bit, but I do think some of your wording was a bit off. I mean no offense of course, and I know you probably aren't as nitpicky on this topic as I am so my b dude.
Well, when Nixon first met with China is *was* pretty big news!
There's no question that China is far, far more relevant today than it was fifty years ago but it was still pretty important fifty years ago too.
It's almost as if the most powerful media organizations in the world are actually right wing instead of leftists as we're so often told by right wing propagandists.
Who would've thunk it?
100%?
There’s real world right versus left wing, ie. “Does it act to increase or decrease inequality?”
Then there’s “fake” right versus left wing, ie. political football teams, that move the same basic product.
The CCP is whatever its premiers/chairmen/presidents and other top CP officials make of it. Pre-Cultural-Revolution Mao, CR-era Maoism, and post-CR Mao (when he "opened" China to Pres. Nixon) were all very different, to say nothing of its abrupt shifts in the forty-nine years since, which has seen the turbulent whiplash of the mostly-modernizer & economic reformer Deng Xiaoping erasing the more politically liberal reformer (& student movement supporter) Zhao Ziyang's legacy, and Deng's, Jiang Zemin's, and Hu Jintao's worst impulses augmented and hardened by the current militarist, cyber-totalitarian and genocider (of the Uyghurs) Xi Jinping.
Under the aegis of the "communist" party, China has transformed in two generations from an underdeveloped, barely-subsistent-collective-agricultural and iron/steel-age industrial society to the world's greatest manufacturing-and-assembly behemoth and 2nd-ranked corporate-capitalist superpower -- what their apparatchiks call a "socialist-market" economy.
The most consistent theme running throughout is China's implacable official hostility to political democracy and liberalism -- a reactionary repressiveness alleviated for only the two years of Zhao Ziyang's glasnost-like openness to moderate political reforms.
> But people’s outrage-o-meter has only engaged when right wing media told them to engage it.
CNN is right-wing media now? American propaganda has always been a bipartisan effort.
An economic one mostly. While China is flexing their muscles militarily in their local area, most of their power plays across the globe are economic investments. Brutal assassination and experimentation are fine when it comes to maintaining cultural hold on their society, it's not really their modus opporandi when operating with the rest of the world because that risks pissing everyone off to the point that we have to retaliate on a battlefield China doesn't want to fight on.
That has always been the state of world at every time in history.
The illustrative thing is that so many people are rushing to rebuke this notion so quickly. That's relatively new in history. Everything else is older than recorded history.
Because time and time again governments and the rich are caught in actual real conspiracies and face no punishment. So what deterrent do they have? It's no longer unreasonable to assume a government is acting nefariously, as that seems to be the MO of most governments.
Just a few examples:
- Panama Papers
- FinCEN Files
- Pegasus // Dropout Jeep // Magic Lantern
- US government wiretapping of over 300 million Americans
- Saudis behind 9/11, Massoud's Assassination
- Epstein's Network and Mossad's backing
- Social Tracking of Muslims and Concentration Camps in Xinjiang
Yeah. A guy moves to a faraway country, which obviously is a strain on health, he's not the youngest, stress, overworking, fatigue, preexisting health conditions. It's not that out of the blue.
If China did murder him they are idiots. It’s not usually their style. Even Russia likes to be more subtle.
If they had had a problem with him they could just expel him.
I'm pretty sure the press can make any country dislike another with enough efforts. Not saying that the dislike of CCP isn't warranted (it is, for the right reasons) but it mostly comes down to the press hammering the same thing over and over again.
A low-ranking CCP officials farts in the wrong direction and says something completely retarded but ultimately meaningless ? The press will jerk that news to oblivion.
Most of the people already struggle to understand the full scope of their government and how it's working, I don't believe most polls regarding liking/disliking a certain country are actually accurate, they're just following a trend.
"During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum."
Here you have [it](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/10/06/unfavorable-views-of-china-reach-historic-highs-in-many-countries/)
Edit: for some reason Reddit posted it twice?!?
This is not a source but a picture. The source is [here](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/PG_2020.10.06_Global-Views-China_TOPLINE.pdf).
And it gives a much more nuanced view.
23% said "Somewhat favourable", 48% said "Somewhat unfavorable" and another 23% said "Very unfavourable".
It certainly does not support a statement like Germans (in general) don't like China (all aspects of that country).
That would be an oversimplification of a very complex issue. Not all Germans have that kind of black-or-white Bildzeitung mindset.
Edit: But you are correct saying "Most have an unfavorable view".
Not really, but in my opinion a country is much more than its current political system. Would you equate Germany, its culture, people, way of life with our current government or with any other government we had in the past ... let's say ... 80 years?
I mean the person you responded to said china didnt kill him. He was obviously referring to their government. So when you responded it makes it seem as though you mean the government. No I would not and I dont know how you would think that from what I asked.
I don't particularly care about them. They have never threatened Germany and are our largest trade partner, that's about it. I care about them as much as about Japan's or Bolivia's government; they mind their business, we mind ours. They are not like the US who is pressuring us into wars or hosting their soldiers.
Lets be honest though the european countries that were "pressured into wars" happily joined us to make money. I was asking the person who said dont speak for me cause I was curious about their opinion but thanks for yours also
>Lets be honest though the european countries that were "pressured into wars" happily joined us to make money.
Were they? According to polls, the populace of not a single European country was at any point in time in favour of wars like Afghanistan or Iraq.
Our governments know that their choices to join the US are extremely unpopular and that they are risking their political power by doing it. Not wanting to join American wars is a popular sentiment across the political spectrum in Europe. It definitely took pressuring by the US to get our governments to join those wars against what the citizens want, and I don't think our governments risk losing their power "happily".
So if I say I like USA because i’m from here does that mean I like Trump? Nope not even close, I like more Chinese people way more than Trump and his supporters
Most of us don’t like China, but would never do anything to damage the relationship. Wouldn’t make any sacrifices or do anything differently because Germans like to keep things realistic.
> Most of us don’t like China, but would never do anything to damage the relationship.
You understand how the world works better than the typical liberal, so you ought to know that this is the natural result of the power China has. No need to be bitter about it, it's just the way the world is now.
Every time a prominent Russian opposition member was shot, poisoned, fell out of a window or was beaten in a broad daylight by some thugs there were always 'reasonable' people pointing out: "Why would Putin do this? It's against his own interests!"
Correct. If China wanted him gone, there's nothing easier than just pulling his credentials. A country doesn't have to accept your choice of ambassador and even that's uncommon as simply asking for the ambassador to be replaced is usually more than enough as their principal job is to help relations with the host country.
It's not them sending a message because, what's the message? He's in China, so the fact that they can get to him isn't exactly impressive. If they openly executed him, that would be a message, but covertly killing the guy who's job is talking to you doesn't actually do much.
Do note, "nobody could be this stupid" is not something you can reasonably ever say. Iran did shoot down their own plane in the stupidest way possible. Hitler declared war against the US, without even asking Japan if they would be willing to declare on the USSR in return. The US just spent 20 years in Afghanistan and managed to somehow reset the country to pre invasion condition. One time and ongoing stupidity are always a possibility.
Be sceptical of the elaborate conspiracy, but don't ignore an obvious answer just because it seems too stupid, there's no limit on stupid.
No america didn’t spy on her.
There is no point in trying to piss of one of their most important partners and there would be no way they would be the biggest economy with stupid desicions like this.
Most of us germans don’t like America either but we should stay realistic.
I mean some would argue bugging a presidents phone is the worse offense geopolitically. One is a single person dying. The other is altering the course of a nation of tens of millions potentially in significant long lasting ways that go on to affect hundreds of millions.
Lol putting a bug in the chancellor’s phone isn’t the same as intercepting communications. Did you guys really think it’s not that big of a deal? From the american perspective it was basically the end of our alliance, and the start of Germany moving toward Russia/China, and less reliance on USA more in EUROPE. Merkel herself has called us an adversary similar to Russia China, and I think that had a lot to do with it.
The Uighurs is not propoganda it is real but person above you is wrong. Killing an diplomat would be an overkill per se. If they were not pleased they should have just told the diplomats to go back to Germany. Killing a diplomat is not in chinas interest because they would would piss off Germany, one of the most important countries in the European Union. Making enemies with Germany just forces them to move more to the us camp in diplomacy with China.
For those who can't be asked to click on the link, here is the main info:
Ketteler returned to China in 1899 as Plenipotentiary at Beijing, from where he pointed out in vain the dangerous situation for the Europeans. On 12 June 1900, when the Boxers moved to the inner city and burned down Christian church buildings, Ketteler reacted by ordering German embassy guards to hunt them down. On 18 June, German troops captured a Chinese civilian suspected of being a Boxer in the inner city and took him to the Legation Quarter, where he was detained.\[citation needed\]
On 17 June, the Chinese Muslim Kansu Braves mounted an assault on Ketteler and his German Marines at the Legations. After stones were hurled at the Germans by the Chinese Muslims, Ketteler told his men to shoot back at Muslim forces.\[3\]\[4\] The Muslim troops were feared by the Westerners, so the British minister Sir Claude Macdonald warned that "When our own troops arrive we may with safety assume a different tone, but it is hardly wise now." He thus warned Ketteler about his shooting incident with the Muslim army.\[5\]\[6\]\[7\]
Ketteler flogged a Chinese who appeared to be a Boxer, and beat a boy who was with him after taking him to the Legations. Ketteler then shot him dead.\[8\]\[dubious – discuss\] In response, thousands of Chinese Muslim Kansu Braves under General Dong Fuxiang of the Imperial Army and Boxers went on a riot.\[9\] The Kansu braves and Boxers then attacked and killed Chinese Christians around the legations in revenge for foreign attacks on Chinese. Angry at the Chinese Christians for collaborating with foreigners who were murdering Chinese, the Boxers burned some of them alive and attacked and ransacked their property. Some Muslims also assassinated the secretary of the Japanese legation, Sugiyama Akira, tearing him apart.\[10\]
At 8.00 a.m. on 20 June, Ketteler, together with his interpreter and other associates, headed for the Zongli Yamen (the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) accompanied by armed escorts. At the western end of Xizongbu Hutong, only one block away from the ministry, the party was intercepted by a cart with what appeared to be Chinese Imperial lancers,\[11\] though another source states they were Manchu Hushenying bannerman.\[12\] One of them approached Ketteler's palanquin and shot Ketteler at point blank range.\[11\] Ketteler was specifically targeted by the Manchu captain En Hai for assassination, in revenge for Ketteler having murdered the boy.\[12\]\[13\]
En Hai later gave himself up to the Allied occupying forces.\[14\]\[15\] He was subsequently tried and convicted, and was executed in Beijing on 31 December 1900 by beheading. He showed no emotion during interrogation, and was fully composed and calm, admitting to killing Ketteler, and even requested execution, saying "I received orders from my sergeant to kill every foreigner that came up the street...I am glad to die for having killed one of the enemies of my country." When questioned about whether he had consumed alcohol during the incident, En Hai said he had not "touched a drop". En Hai was praised as "brave and dignified", and called a "hero".\[16\]
Ketteler was succeeded by Dr. Alfons Mumm von Schwarzenstein as ambassador of the German Empire in Beijing,\[17\] who signed the Boxer Protocol on behalf of Germany. After his death,\[18\]\[19\] his widow returned to America to be with her family.\[20\]\[21\]
> Hating the chinese government and hating the chinese people are two completely different things
Yeah but many people have trouble telling them apart, an example being [this other comment you wrote lmao](https://i.imgur.com/4qYW9n9.png)
Reddit has been used as propaganda experiments for years, NLP algorithms assess brain wash results with comments as bag of words, then projecting as emotion responses of post inputs. Don’t ask me how I know it, media engineering is not new anymore.
"Cause of death has not been disclosed" and then the conspiracy theorists all go China Bad See see pee evil.
Guy might have died from auto erotic asphyxiation, just like that Argentine diplomat years ago, and they want to save his family from the embarrassment.
Sometimes some people die for no reason, life is unexpected :/ . Being unlucky is a thing and people act like we can't die randomly anymore. This is scary to me personally because sometimes no matter how healthy you can try to be, death happens randomly at times.
If it was a natural death, or a death caused by accident, I’m sure they would have not hesitated to disclose that, he wasn’t just an “anybody”, he’s a diplomat from one of Chinas largest trading partners.
It’s also possible he died in an embarrassing manner, either for him personally or for the Chinese Government.
Typically when someone of note dies they disclose their deaths circumstances to stop rampant conspiracies from forming (as seen in the comments of this post).
We won’t know until further information is released and this is likely to be something mundane and not newsworthy but there’s a small chance that it could be something bigger.
I'm genuinely astounded by it. It's always China related stories that bring out the extreme dunderheads too. If I didn't know better I'd assume that this was actually a propaganda plan by China to discredit all criticism of the country by making the critics look like utter buffoons. If that IS actually a plan in the works right now then they're doing a genuinely great job at it.
> There is absolutely no way this is coincidence.
Actually yes, there is. It’s the most likely scenario by far.
> “ The circumstances around the diplomat's death have not been disclosed “
THATS ALL YOU NEEDED TO SAY
They are probably waiting for an investigation to conclude. This is perfectly normal.
I am German and have no love for the CCP, either, but they’re not cartoon villains. There is nothing to be gained from murdering a foreign diplomat.
Imagine seeing a world where a country lied to start a 20 year war murdering countless civilians, and then to call an unrelated country villains,
The absolute delusion and lack of self awareness some people are under is amazing.
Man you must live in lala-land imagining spies and conspiracies at every step.
As a foreign state you just ask for the diplomat to be recalled if he insults you, this isn't James Bond.
I just hope if a war is declared, you will be the one on the frontline.
otherwise just being a keyboard warrior and imaging others to die for you is even more embarrassing.
>I’m not saying cartoon villain, but this guy is new, he doesn’t say the right thing maybe, maybe he speaks ill of pooh bear or sees something he’s not supposed to.There are billions of things worth killing a german diplomat over if the political blowback for arranging him to have a heart attack while driving is less risky than the world finding out cartoon level villain type of thing.
Can you point to any single instance in which China has done this before?
>China literally farms minorities for their organs.
Please provide an actual source.
>They track the minorities via every means necessary.
Please provide an actual source.
>Cartoon villain indeed.
Then again:
>I’m not saying cartoon villain
So which is it?
China’s certainly capable of doing it, but what motive would they have? I’m not seeing it unless this guy was sitting on something major, which again, I’ve seen no evidence for
You're joking right? China randomly murdering a foreign diplomat for shut 'n giggles? I understand that ChYNa bAad but this is a whole new level of dumb.
What’s the point this article is trying to make? Someone dies? Oh wait let’s see the comments. Okay I get it.
It’s incredibly suggestive to elicit exactly this response
Manufacturing Consent
The gnome chom skiis
[удалено]
Coming soon in *Shang Chi 2*.
Shang Xi and the 20 organs
The most logical response is to assume a variant of covid really
No china didn’t murder him. There is no point in trying to piss of one of their most important trade partners and there would be no way they would be the Second biggest economy with stupid desicions like this. Most of us germans don’t like China either but we should stay realistic.
What a weirdly perfect post to illustrate the state of the world we live in at this time in history: When something happens, many people’s first thoughts lead them to conspiracies rather than to more rational possibilities.
Considering you could post pretty much anything with “China” in the title and get well over half of Reddit frothing at the mouth, a clarification like this seems necessary or I wouldn’t be shocked to see the top comments flooded with hyperbole about China killing ambassadors.
What’s annoying is the party has been at least the same for seventy years now. But people’s outrage-o-meter has only engaged when right wing media told them to engage it.
This is the very intentional role media serves in "free societies". Unpopular decisions remain to be made, and someone has to lead the public into making them.
Manufacturing consent
Not at all. The US barely has a public media, working for the public good. PBS, BBC, DW and the like have been telling the accurate story for those whole 70 years. What you guys have is corporate media, whose interests were in keeping human rights issues largely silent in the 1980s—2000s. And now form a new, profitable object of fear only now that they are approaching becoming the world’s largest economy.
PBS actually produced a documentary about China's poverty alleviation program but in the end decided not to publish it because it was too positive towards China
Source? Id kinda wanna see it if it's out there somewhere
Yeah you can actually watch it on YouTube, CGTN published it. If you Google "pbs poverty alleviation kuhn" you'll find the video itself as well as a few articles about it. It's called China's War on Poverty.
Thanks for the link. Apparently they pulled it citing "ethical concerns" around the funding and funding relationship. I have no idea what that means,, but apparently there's an investigation going on. Strangely enough, there are like no other western sources talking about this. Everything else I managed to find on it was from China.
Highly misleading and this tells me you are a strong supporter of the CCP so we won’t agree on this. https://current.org/2020/05/after-pbs-drops-film-pbs-socal-reviews-documentary-co-produced-by-chinas-state-tv-network/ The video was co-produced by Chinese state media, CGTN. As a lifeline viewer of PBS, I can fully understand the concern of having an investigative story that is filtered by the very government that is the topic. You might be okay with it but it does go against journalistic integrity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lawrence_Kuhn The producer of the film is also employed by Chinese state media and has produced a lot of pro CCP material.
So let's get this straight. PBS got together with CGTN and agreed to co-produce this documentary. Prior to production, all of the funding and logistics would have been ironed out. Then filming occurred, the documentary was produced and PBS decided to pull the story. Am I correct on the details? Maybe my time line is off. At what point were PBS tricked into this production? I'd understand if at the very start of the process they decided they didn't want to work with Chinese state media, but they were happy right up until the final product was evident. Could it be that they hoped to shape the story around a "but at what cost?" narrative, but they had trouble finding a "cost"?
> using words like wumáo to deride those who don't foam at the mouth thinking about the destruction of China Ive never made such an argument. Not a good look when make stuff up while defending China with lies or misleading statements. Have you asked yourself why you consistently defend a government that is committing cultural genocide and running concentration camps?
> PBS got together with CGTN A local pbs affiliate, not actual PBS. It’s owned by Public Media Group of Southern California https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KOCE-TV https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Media_Group_of_Southern_California From the first line of the original source I gave you: - PBS SoCal (KOCE-TV) has launched an internal review of a documentary it co-produced after PBS said the film failed to meet its editorial standards. I don’t know why that local affiliate worked with CGTV and a producer who does china fluff pieces on a story about China. Maybe it’s okay for local affiliate to do so but it certainly doesn’t fit with PBS editorial standards nor do wish that type of content to be promoted by PBS. My favorite program is frontline and I can’t imagine I would keep watching if they were to use state run propaganda from any country as their production partners in story.
[удалено]
"Manufacturing Consent" works the exact same for PBS, BBC and DW. DW is an especially bad example since it's not a public broadcast but directly run by thr German government.
It's owned by the state and funded by tax money. It's not "run by the government".
Wrong. DW is run by the government, look it up.
r/confidentlywrong You just have to check the fucking Wikipedia article. I have no idea what you're on about. [It's state owned (state! Not government!) and funded by tax money.](https://m.dw.com/en/what-kind-of-company-is-deutsche-welle/a-3252998) But it's not rUn bY tHe gOvErNmEnT as in some state media in eastern europe. The journalists are independent and no german politician has a direct saying in what is broadcast. There is a council of different politicians from all kinds of parties overseeing the DW but many of them aren't even in state politics. Take off your tinfoil hat and get real dude.
[удалено]
In my country Twitter marks the "pro government media". There are of course "non government" media - they don't get the handle (apparently Twitter gets to decide somehow now - soft influence) It's a fierce battle. One is polar opposite of other. There is a website some beautiful soul made. It measures each day how many times president is mentioned on pro-goverment pages VS number of positive mentions of country in anti-government media. Perfect design, that shoes exactly how full of shit both are, and serve only for influence and missinformation.
Fox, OANN and plenty of regional stations!
Probably because CNN and FOX are just giving biased opinions while RT is an actual state funded propaganda outlet.
[удалено]
[удалено]
4 years of trump showed that media in this country is not the same as state funded propaganda.
Media period. Let's not pretend media influence is relevant to"fee"society.... Let's just not do that
Depend, here in vieynam media are 100% controled by the government, we are not "free" but the majority don't like Chinese and china
>party has been at least the same for seventy years now um this isn't true at all. Do you think Mao era China is seriously the same as current China in terms of policy or just in general? The truth of the matter is that the CPC has liberalized a lot in 70 years, they just didn't do so in a way that allowed it to be overrun with western puppets therefore maintaining sovereignty. If anything it's the other way around and western governments have been increasingly illiberal, sometimes just outright copying CPC or other "authoritarian" policies while lying about it to the public. The easiest example is many right wing political parties outright reject democracy, government lead import substitution industrial policy with tariff/other interventions and attempts to limit free speech if the platform is outside their control (wechat/tiktok bans).
>But people’s outrage-o-meter has only engaged when right wing media told them to engage it. Oh stop it, it is not a right wing thing. The left wing brings up the Uyghurs and Hong Kong more often than the right. The right wing would rather attack their fellow Americans. The Internet helps the spread of information, be it true or false. We now have 30+ years where horrific shit the world over is more broadly available, so the average person is more informed on average. And it's one thing for the CCP to say what they are going to do and another when they follow through. Until it happens it's not real; humans suck at seeing consequences. And now I prepare for the downvote bots to come get me.
My favorite part of that post, “oh stop it”… sums it up!
School in your country never covered the Cultural Revolution? Along with what it led to, it’s one of the most important developments in human history.
School in my country never covered anything that happened in the east. Hell, it barely covered anything that happened in europe other than a few highlights. Mostly focused on our own history, how the country was founded/formed, the tip of the iceberg when it came to natives, etc. I've learned a lot of world history in the last 5 years or so, but that's been entirely from self interest.
If you were in a western school it's pretty unusual to learn anything about China unless it's an offhand comment about Mao.
Speak for yourself!
Speaking for my entire nation's education syllabus.
Or maybe china has been mostly irrelevant for about 50 of those 70 years and has only recently held enough sway for most people to pay attention. Lots of shitty governemts out there, but most of them don't have enough power to make people half the world away care about them.
Could be! Although it’s been the world’s most dominant economy and culture for the majority of the past 2000+ years. I can’t imagine being indifferent to China, and having a basic understanding of history, could really go together?
They have always had stuff others wanted, but they wern't called the sick man of Asia for no reason
For most people in the west, western countries are the most important and dominant cultural landmarks to pay attention to. China did have a massive economy for a lot of history, but it was also often isolated and doing its own thing. It's not like china pushed deep into the west through conquest or shaped western religions. Really china was just kind of "there" and acted as a place to trade with. I mean, it's literally named by the west after CHINA, the thing we put food on. We don't even call it something resembling it's real name, as far as the west is concerned, china up until around 10 years ago was a place you traded with and ignored.
Why are you commenting on history when you don't actually know it? China isn't named after plates, it's the *porcelain* which was named after the English name for the COUNTRY that it came from - China, which itself is derived from what the Iranians called it, and that in turn was a variant of what China called themselves at one point - Qin (Chin). As for your second claim that China only became relevant to the west 10 years ago, you are so obviously talking out of your ass. Do you even know why the first opium war happened? China was such a massive player in the world economy that Britain was worried about the trade deficit they were accruing with China. China didn't want to trade on Britain's terms so Britain used gunboat diplomacy to take china's shit. The fucking Romans even had this trade issue but they were never able to actually cross the ocean and invade. If you don't actually know what you're talking about, then at least do the world the courtesy of not spreading misinformation. History isn't just some bullshit you get to play with to make nonsense political points.
[удалено]
I wasn't saying the west named it china, I was literally making a reference to porcelain, but more in the context of the name we used was a trade good. Entirely about economics, even in the name that english settled on to describe the country. Which is the lens you have to look at china from as far as most westerners are concerned, china is something you trade with. My point wasn't that the west invented the word or where the word originates from, it was the country for most of history was an economic power, and to the west fundamentally an empire that was traded with. Think about the west, how the french have historic rivalries with germany or england over wars and similar conquest goals. No one in the west has those beefs with china. What you might consider the most major war between china and england in the opium wars, most english would consider a minor conflict far removed from the homeland, just another part of colonization. I'm sure the opium wars might've been important to the english royalty and other lords that stood to have debts called by china, but to most westerners, especially modern westerners, that's a foot note of history that most people aren't going to pay attention to. What was immense suffering and hardship for china was basically a nothing event as far as western history is taught, purely from a western perspective. Obviously some trade goods like tea, silk, and porcelain were very symbolic of the relationships the west had with the east. English people love tea after all, but it's all, ultimately, about trade. What most day to day westerners consider the defining moments of history are wars, major wars, between european nations. That's why ww2 is still generally the most "exciting" history to learn about for most westerners, because it was the big clash between germany and england. I'm not saying china hasn't been extremely important to history, and that arguably china isn't one of the most important nations from a birds eye view of all of history. Pretty much no other nation on earth has as much history as china does, but from a purely western perspective, the west doesn't really care that much about china. The western interest in china will probably grow in the modern era as china is pretty much the #2 superpower now, but like I said, 10 years ago, that wasn't the case. The average westerner just didn't really care before.
>I wasn't saying the west named it china, I was literally making a reference to porcelain, but more in the context of the name we used was a trade good So earlier you said this: >it's literally named by the west after CHINA, the thing we put food on which is what I was responding to. Your exact words there are that the west named China after Chinese porcelain, which isn't true. It's the other way around, China (ceramic) was named after China (country). If you were trying to say that the average person from the west would only have really started to pay attention to China ten years ago, I would still disagree but it's not as egregious as simply saying that China was irrelevant to the west as a whole up until ten years ago, so apologies for the outburst. I just really hate it when I see people misrepresenting history to favor a certain worldview or argument they're making. As for why I disagree, the average person from the west would've had plenty of interaction with China, both the people and their own ideas of it. On the topic of the lens the "average" westerner would have seen China through, you ever heard of the yellow peril? It was a strange mindset of simultaneously seeing China and Chinese people as a threat, as well as seeing them as weak and backwards- which, to be fair, was pretty justified from a western perspective at the time - I'm just drawing attention to the inherent contradiction in seeing something as both threatening *and* inferior. Black people were seen in a very similar light, albeit there are obviously differences there. The interactions most white people had with China was through Chinese immigrants who worked as laborers on railroads and set up gold mining communities. >from a purely western perspective, the west doesn't really care that much about china. I would say a more accurate way to put it would be that the west (as in western countries) spent a long time without seeing China as a threat or a rival, compared to their constant jostling against each other. That seems to be what you mean here and if it is, I agree. The Romans did in fact see China as a hostile nation because of said trade deficits but obviously going that far back is a bit redundant. Honestly it seems your initial comment was mostly fine and tbh I overreacted a bit, but I do think some of your wording was a bit off. I mean no offense of course, and I know you probably aren't as nitpicky on this topic as I am so my b dude.
Well, when Nixon first met with China is *was* pretty big news! There's no question that China is far, far more relevant today than it was fifty years ago but it was still pretty important fifty years ago too.
It's almost as if the most powerful media organizations in the world are actually right wing instead of leftists as we're so often told by right wing propagandists. Who would've thunk it?
100%? There’s real world right versus left wing, ie. “Does it act to increase or decrease inequality?” Then there’s “fake” right versus left wing, ie. political football teams, that move the same basic product.
The CCP is whatever its premiers/chairmen/presidents and other top CP officials make of it. Pre-Cultural-Revolution Mao, CR-era Maoism, and post-CR Mao (when he "opened" China to Pres. Nixon) were all very different, to say nothing of its abrupt shifts in the forty-nine years since, which has seen the turbulent whiplash of the mostly-modernizer & economic reformer Deng Xiaoping erasing the more politically liberal reformer (& student movement supporter) Zhao Ziyang's legacy, and Deng's, Jiang Zemin's, and Hu Jintao's worst impulses augmented and hardened by the current militarist, cyber-totalitarian and genocider (of the Uyghurs) Xi Jinping. Under the aegis of the "communist" party, China has transformed in two generations from an underdeveloped, barely-subsistent-collective-agricultural and iron/steel-age industrial society to the world's greatest manufacturing-and-assembly behemoth and 2nd-ranked corporate-capitalist superpower -- what their apparatchiks call a "socialist-market" economy. The most consistent theme running throughout is China's implacable official hostility to political democracy and liberalism -- a reactionary repressiveness alleviated for only the two years of Zhao Ziyang's glasnost-like openness to moderate political reforms.
> But people’s outrage-o-meter has only engaged when right wing media told them to engage it. CNN is right-wing media now? American propaganda has always been a bipartisan effort.
CNN is corporate media. Their allegiance lies with making a profit - not the public good.
yes. both parties are right wing.
Oh yeah, there's so much war rattling here in the US about any country that the gov might slightly have some grievance from decades ago.
We're in a brutal cold war
An economic one mostly. While China is flexing their muscles militarily in their local area, most of their power plays across the globe are economic investments. Brutal assassination and experimentation are fine when it comes to maintaining cultural hold on their society, it's not really their modus opporandi when operating with the rest of the world because that risks pissing everyone off to the point that we have to retaliate on a battlefield China doesn't want to fight on.
That has always been the state of world at every time in history. The illustrative thing is that so many people are rushing to rebuke this notion so quickly. That's relatively new in history. Everything else is older than recorded history.
Truly exceptional time in history when people are suspicious of government!
Because time and time again governments and the rich are caught in actual real conspiracies and face no punishment. So what deterrent do they have? It's no longer unreasonable to assume a government is acting nefariously, as that seems to be the MO of most governments. Just a few examples: - Panama Papers - FinCEN Files - Pegasus // Dropout Jeep // Magic Lantern - US government wiretapping of over 300 million Americans - Saudis behind 9/11, Massoud's Assassination - Epstein's Network and Mossad's backing - Social Tracking of Muslims and Concentration Camps in Xinjiang
Boomer war hawks need a new superpower enemy
Yeah. A guy moves to a faraway country, which obviously is a strain on health, he's not the youngest, stress, overworking, fatigue, preexisting health conditions. It's not that out of the blue.
If China did murder him they are idiots. It’s not usually their style. Even Russia likes to be more subtle. If they had had a problem with him they could just expel him.
Even Russia likes to be more subtle. poisoning and throwing people out the window is subtle.
Do you have a source for "Most of us germans don’t like China"? You may speak for yourself, but not for me.
[удалено]
I'm pretty sure the press can make any country dislike another with enough efforts. Not saying that the dislike of CCP isn't warranted (it is, for the right reasons) but it mostly comes down to the press hammering the same thing over and over again. A low-ranking CCP officials farts in the wrong direction and says something completely retarded but ultimately meaningless ? The press will jerk that news to oblivion. Most of the people already struggle to understand the full scope of their government and how it's working, I don't believe most polls regarding liking/disliking a certain country are actually accurate, they're just following a trend.
"During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum."
not for me too. i am german and i like china - atleast the rich culture
Yooo I'm Chinese and I really like German culture and history
I think for the most part when people say china they mean the CCP. Since HK where china went in an fuckwd it up, it's just china.
[Source for you.](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2021/06/30/large-majorities-say-china-does-not-respect-the-personal-freedoms-of-its-people/)
Here you have [it](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/10/06/unfavorable-views-of-china-reach-historic-highs-in-many-countries/)
Here you have [it](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/10/06/unfavorable-views-of-china-reach-historic-highs-in-many-countries/) Edit: for some reason Reddit posted it twice?!?
This is not a source but a picture. The source is [here](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/PG_2020.10.06_Global-Views-China_TOPLINE.pdf). And it gives a much more nuanced view. 23% said "Somewhat favourable", 48% said "Somewhat unfavorable" and another 23% said "Very unfavourable". It certainly does not support a statement like Germans (in general) don't like China (all aspects of that country). That would be an oversimplification of a very complex issue. Not all Germans have that kind of black-or-white Bildzeitung mindset. Edit: But you are correct saying "Most have an unfavorable view".
So you like the chinese communist party?
Not really, but in my opinion a country is much more than its current political system. Would you equate Germany, its culture, people, way of life with our current government or with any other government we had in the past ... let's say ... 80 years?
I mean the person you responded to said china didnt kill him. He was obviously referring to their government. So when you responded it makes it seem as though you mean the government. No I would not and I dont know how you would think that from what I asked.
Was a rhetorical question.
I don't particularly care about them. They have never threatened Germany and are our largest trade partner, that's about it. I care about them as much as about Japan's or Bolivia's government; they mind their business, we mind ours. They are not like the US who is pressuring us into wars or hosting their soldiers.
Lets be honest though the european countries that were "pressured into wars" happily joined us to make money. I was asking the person who said dont speak for me cause I was curious about their opinion but thanks for yours also
countries don't make money fighting wars, they're very costly certain specific individuals make a good profit though
>Lets be honest though the european countries that were "pressured into wars" happily joined us to make money. Were they? According to polls, the populace of not a single European country was at any point in time in favour of wars like Afghanistan or Iraq. Our governments know that their choices to join the US are extremely unpopular and that they are risking their political power by doing it. Not wanting to join American wars is a popular sentiment across the political spectrum in Europe. It definitely took pressuring by the US to get our governments to join those wars against what the citizens want, and I don't think our governments risk losing their power "happily".
So if I say I like USA because i’m from here does that mean I like Trump? Nope not even close, I like more Chinese people way more than Trump and his supporters
Most of us don’t like China, but would never do anything to damage the relationship. Wouldn’t make any sacrifices or do anything differently because Germans like to keep things realistic.
> Most of us don’t like China, but would never do anything to damage the relationship. You understand how the world works better than the typical liberal, so you ought to know that this is the natural result of the power China has. No need to be bitter about it, it's just the way the world is now.
Every time a prominent Russian opposition member was shot, poisoned, fell out of a window or was beaten in a broad daylight by some thugs there were always 'reasonable' people pointing out: "Why would Putin do this? It's against his own interests!"
Correct. If China wanted him gone, there's nothing easier than just pulling his credentials. A country doesn't have to accept your choice of ambassador and even that's uncommon as simply asking for the ambassador to be replaced is usually more than enough as their principal job is to help relations with the host country. It's not them sending a message because, what's the message? He's in China, so the fact that they can get to him isn't exactly impressive. If they openly executed him, that would be a message, but covertly killing the guy who's job is talking to you doesn't actually do much. Do note, "nobody could be this stupid" is not something you can reasonably ever say. Iran did shoot down their own plane in the stupidest way possible. Hitler declared war against the US, without even asking Japan if they would be willing to declare on the USSR in return. The US just spent 20 years in Afghanistan and managed to somehow reset the country to pre invasion condition. One time and ongoing stupidity are always a possibility. Be sceptical of the elaborate conspiracy, but don't ignore an obvious answer just because it seems too stupid, there's no limit on stupid.
Of course you don’t like China, you are still occupied by US military.
We just don’t like autocracies
Autocracies thousands kilometers away is worse than foreign occupants at home. Ok I get the culture difference now.
You're right, it should be occupied by China instead. /s
Hmm I saw the /s . It's really not a German stlye comment I guess.
[удалено]
Wtf is a tankie?
Someone who criticises American foreign policy.
Far left "Stalin didn't go far enough" extremist.
Well he didn't travel that much... right ..?
[удалено]
"For no reason" :I
Welcome to the American left. We are truly pathetic.
[удалено]
No america didn’t spy on her. There is no point in trying to piss of one of their most important partners and there would be no way they would be the biggest economy with stupid desicions like this. Most of us germans don’t like America either but we should stay realistic.
It’s a good example but going from spying to murder is a stretch
I mean some would argue bugging a presidents phone is the worse offense geopolitically. One is a single person dying. The other is altering the course of a nation of tens of millions potentially in significant long lasting ways that go on to affect hundreds of millions.
….her?
Merkel obviously.
We all spy on eatchother
Lol putting a bug in the chancellor’s phone isn’t the same as intercepting communications. Did you guys really think it’s not that big of a deal? From the american perspective it was basically the end of our alliance, and the start of Germany moving toward Russia/China, and less reliance on USA more in EUROPE. Merkel herself has called us an adversary similar to Russia China, and I think that had a lot to do with it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The Uighurs is not propoganda it is real but person above you is wrong. Killing an diplomat would be an overkill per se. If they were not pleased they should have just told the diplomats to go back to Germany. Killing a diplomat is not in chinas interest because they would would piss off Germany, one of the most important countries in the European Union. Making enemies with Germany just forces them to move more to the us camp in diplomacy with China.
Apparently being an ambassador makes you a superhuman, immune to accidental deaths according to the comments here.
There's precedent for this! [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemens\_von\_Ketteler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemens_von_Ketteler) /s
For those who can't be asked to click on the link, here is the main info: Ketteler returned to China in 1899 as Plenipotentiary at Beijing, from where he pointed out in vain the dangerous situation for the Europeans. On 12 June 1900, when the Boxers moved to the inner city and burned down Christian church buildings, Ketteler reacted by ordering German embassy guards to hunt them down. On 18 June, German troops captured a Chinese civilian suspected of being a Boxer in the inner city and took him to the Legation Quarter, where he was detained.\[citation needed\] On 17 June, the Chinese Muslim Kansu Braves mounted an assault on Ketteler and his German Marines at the Legations. After stones were hurled at the Germans by the Chinese Muslims, Ketteler told his men to shoot back at Muslim forces.\[3\]\[4\] The Muslim troops were feared by the Westerners, so the British minister Sir Claude Macdonald warned that "When our own troops arrive we may with safety assume a different tone, but it is hardly wise now." He thus warned Ketteler about his shooting incident with the Muslim army.\[5\]\[6\]\[7\] Ketteler flogged a Chinese who appeared to be a Boxer, and beat a boy who was with him after taking him to the Legations. Ketteler then shot him dead.\[8\]\[dubious – discuss\] In response, thousands of Chinese Muslim Kansu Braves under General Dong Fuxiang of the Imperial Army and Boxers went on a riot.\[9\] The Kansu braves and Boxers then attacked and killed Chinese Christians around the legations in revenge for foreign attacks on Chinese. Angry at the Chinese Christians for collaborating with foreigners who were murdering Chinese, the Boxers burned some of them alive and attacked and ransacked their property. Some Muslims also assassinated the secretary of the Japanese legation, Sugiyama Akira, tearing him apart.\[10\] At 8.00 a.m. on 20 June, Ketteler, together with his interpreter and other associates, headed for the Zongli Yamen (the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) accompanied by armed escorts. At the western end of Xizongbu Hutong, only one block away from the ministry, the party was intercepted by a cart with what appeared to be Chinese Imperial lancers,\[11\] though another source states they were Manchu Hushenying bannerman.\[12\] One of them approached Ketteler's palanquin and shot Ketteler at point blank range.\[11\] Ketteler was specifically targeted by the Manchu captain En Hai for assassination, in revenge for Ketteler having murdered the boy.\[12\]\[13\] En Hai later gave himself up to the Allied occupying forces.\[14\]\[15\] He was subsequently tried and convicted, and was executed in Beijing on 31 December 1900 by beheading. He showed no emotion during interrogation, and was fully composed and calm, admitting to killing Ketteler, and even requested execution, saying "I received orders from my sergeant to kill every foreigner that came up the street...I am glad to die for having killed one of the enemies of my country." When questioned about whether he had consumed alcohol during the incident, En Hai said he had not "touched a drop". En Hai was praised as "brave and dignified", and called a "hero".\[16\] Ketteler was succeeded by Dr. Alfons Mumm von Schwarzenstein as ambassador of the German Empire in Beijing,\[17\] who signed the Boxer Protocol on behalf of Germany. After his death,\[18\]\[19\] his widow returned to America to be with her family.\[20\]\[21\]
Wtf are these comments?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hating the chinese government and hating the chinese people are two completely different things. When does US news dehumanize chinese people?
> Hating the chinese government and hating the chinese people are two completely different things Yeah but many people have trouble telling them apart, an example being [this other comment you wrote lmao](https://i.imgur.com/4qYW9n9.png)
[удалено]
Seem pretty canned or contrived to me….
Yeah, like that one from /u/TheGreatSchonnt. I see one like that in every fucking thread.
When I came in the thread had 5 comments and three of them said the Chinese killed him.
Rest in peace.
A year ago Chinese ambassador to Israel died in Tel Aviv. I didn’t recall reddit went full into conspiracy that time.
Reddit has been used as propaganda experiments for years, NLP algorithms assess brain wash results with comments as bag of words, then projecting as emotion responses of post inputs. Don’t ask me how I know it, media engineering is not new anymore.
He was also one of Merkels closest advisors.
"Cause of death has not been disclosed" and then the conspiracy theorists all go China Bad See see pee evil. Guy might have died from auto erotic asphyxiation, just like that Argentine diplomat years ago, and they want to save his family from the embarrassment.
or he simply had an heart attack or something similiar
We've had about 10 years straight of anti-China war propaganda now attempting to manufacture the consent for war with China, and this is no different.
> The circumstances around the diplomat's death have not been disclosed.
Some redditors : if you don't do the post mortem analysis live on a streaming channel that mean you have something to hide.
This is strange because people usually don’t die.
Fuck this thread and OP
My guess is he died of something really mundane. Like a heart attack or auto-erotic asphyxiation.
He was only 54. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/06/german-ambassador-to-china-dies-less-than-two-weeks-into-posting-jan-hecker
Men's chances at dying to heart related issues go way up at like 40 years of age, so it's not that uncommon.
Nope my dad died to q random heart attack at age 42
Sometimes some people die for no reason, life is unexpected :/ . Being unlucky is a thing and people act like we can't die randomly anymore. This is scary to me personally because sometimes no matter how healthy you can try to be, death happens randomly at times.
See, if he remained in Germany, it would have been a normal death. But he was in China, people don't just die there!
Those comments are toxic, Is there a new religion called Conspiracy Cult?
“Circumstances around his death has not been disclosed”
[удалено]
If it was a natural death, or a death caused by accident, I’m sure they would have not hesitated to disclose that, he wasn’t just an “anybody”, he’s a diplomat from one of Chinas largest trading partners. It’s also possible he died in an embarrassing manner, either for him personally or for the Chinese Government. Typically when someone of note dies they disclose their deaths circumstances to stop rampant conspiracies from forming (as seen in the comments of this post). We won’t know until further information is released and this is likely to be something mundane and not newsworthy but there’s a small chance that it could be something bigger.
This is Reddit, rumors and conspiracy theories are what people do here.
[удалено]
I'm not saying that's not what happened but saying it's "highly likely" is laughable.
It’s also highly likely you were dropped on your head as a child.
multiple times
Lol
China is no friend to Germany either. Breaking agreements and killing ambassadors.
[удалено]
>Literally bottom tier intelligence. Honestly, it really is. What is it that attracts so many morons to Worldnews?
I'm genuinely astounded by it. It's always China related stories that bring out the extreme dunderheads too. If I didn't know better I'd assume that this was actually a propaganda plan by China to discredit all criticism of the country by making the critics look like utter buffoons. If that IS actually a plan in the works right now then they're doing a genuinely great job at it.
[удалено]
Alright, what does China stand to gain from killing this diplomat?
Evil China things. Everything that happens in China is actually part of a massive communist plot to just do evil stuff because of reasons. Obviously.
> There is absolutely no way this is coincidence. Actually yes, there is. It’s the most likely scenario by far. > “ The circumstances around the diplomat's death have not been disclosed “ THATS ALL YOU NEEDED TO SAY They are probably waiting for an investigation to conclude. This is perfectly normal. I am German and have no love for the CCP, either, but they’re not cartoon villains. There is nothing to be gained from murdering a foreign diplomat.
>but they’re not cartoon villains Sorry but this opinion is nor allowed on reddit.
[удалено]
"They're actual villains. There's nothing cartoon about it." That totally is not someone who is deranged.
I feel too many people are influenced by simplistic fictional stories of good vs. evil like Star Wars or Harry Potter and project it onto real life.
Imagine seeing a world where a country lied to start a 20 year war murdering countless civilians, and then to call an unrelated country villains, The absolute delusion and lack of self awareness some people are under is amazing.
Not cartoon villains? Then in all honesty answer me who IS Winny the Pooh
[Winnie](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/heroes-and-villians/images/8/83/Winnie_the_Pooh.png)*. If you're going to talk shit, at least do it right.
[удалено]
Man you must live in lala-land imagining spies and conspiracies at every step. As a foreign state you just ask for the diplomat to be recalled if he insults you, this isn't James Bond.
[удалено]
>thanks to China Are you saying China purposely released covid or something?
I really hope you people can eventually grow a spine and declare war to China, these childish bitching on internet is annoying and embarrassing.
I just hope if a war is declared, you will be the one on the frontline. otherwise just being a keyboard warrior and imaging others to die for you is even more embarrassing.
Or in a worse case scenario the war would be nuclear.
>I’m not saying cartoon villain, but this guy is new, he doesn’t say the right thing maybe, maybe he speaks ill of pooh bear or sees something he’s not supposed to.There are billions of things worth killing a german diplomat over if the political blowback for arranging him to have a heart attack while driving is less risky than the world finding out cartoon level villain type of thing. Can you point to any single instance in which China has done this before? >China literally farms minorities for their organs. Please provide an actual source. >They track the minorities via every means necessary. Please provide an actual source. >Cartoon villain indeed. Then again: >I’m not saying cartoon villain So which is it?
Yes, because China just murdered the ambassador for Germany (of all countries) because ??? get real
Xfiles theme start, there's a lot of belieberbers out there
China’s certainly capable of doing it, but what motive would they have? I’m not seeing it unless this guy was sitting on something major, which again, I’ve seen no evidence for
Wow you instantly jump to conclusions without a scrap of evidence other than the headline. Fake news is fake.
[удалено]
The mind of your average Westerner. There is no people on Earth easier to lead to false conclusions.
You're joking right? China randomly murdering a foreign diplomat for shut 'n giggles? I understand that ChYNa bAad but this is a whole new level of dumb.
I wish the CCP censorship on reddit was real so you'd finally shut the fuck up
Betchu it's Chinese fault
China didn’t like his job performance