kingofsurrey Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 300,000 Canadians living in Hong Kong ... look for the exodus to begin with Vancouver being the PRIME location / destination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken. Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 1 hour ago, kingofsurrey said: 300,000 Canadians living in Hong Kong ... look for the exodus to begin with Vancouver being the PRIME location / destination. Why isn’t Surrey the prime destination ? Best place on earth amiright ! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 12 hours ago, Chicken. said: Why isn’t Surrey the prime destination ? Best place on earth amiright ! Of course you are right. Surrey is one of the fastest growing cities in Canada. This is because of the wonderful parks / green space.... proximity of the beach and the wonderful culture in the city of Surrey. Fantastic place to live. So many young people moving to Surrey. So much new development going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bishopshodan Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Of course you are right. Surrey is one of the fastest growing cities in Canada. This is because of the wonderful parks / green space.... proximity of the beach and the wonderful culture in the city of Surrey. Fantastic place to live. So many young people moving to Surrey. So much new development going on. It is turning into a great place for the future. Has some hurdles to go though. Did you hear that they refused to fly the Pride flag not too long ago ? and what's up with not allowing pot shops? is that city trying keep the marijuana sales going to gangs? I thought they were trying to get rid of the violent crime.. On topic, I remember living in England in the 70's and my parents taking a trip to Hong Kong. They were saying at the time ' we better get there now before China takes it back and screws it up.' Well on the way to being screwed now. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 11 minutes ago, bishopshodan said: It is turning into a great place for the future. Has some hurdles to go though. Did you hear that they refused to fly the Pride flag not too long ago ? and what's up with not allowing pot shops? is that city trying keep the marijuana sales going to gangs? I thought they were trying to get rid of the violent crime.. On topic, I remember living in England in the 70's and my parents taking a trip to Hong Kong. They were saying at the time ' we better get there now before China takes it back and screws it up.' Well on the way to being screwed now. Great post. True on all your points. Surrey has some growing up to do politically - still has that small town mentality that is behind the times. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 22 hours ago, CBH1926 said: About 50 000 civilians killed in Dresden, Pforzheim, Wurzburg before and after operation Plunder. Battle of Berlin as many as 125 000 civilians killed, Halbe around 10 000, Breslau 80 000 etc. Now let’s add Soviet advance on the eastern front in 1945 through Pomerania, Silesia and Prussia. Tens of thousands civilians executed, raped to death, starved, tortured, ran over by tanks etc. Not to mention thousands of civilians that killed themselves before Soviet hordes got ahold of them. What happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was horrifying, slaughter that took place in Germany in 1945 probably claimed more lives. How many times do I have to repeat the simple ethics of ' You cannot DELIBERATELY target civillians as some sort of prima facie justification for saving more 'potential' victims of collateral damage ?? Based on what you are saying, warfare's first line of offense should be then to infiltrate the enemy nation and take the wives & mothers of the soldiers hostage, kill a few thousand of them and pressure the military to stand down, so rest of their moms and wives are spared. Less casualties, right ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 On 6/12/2019 at 10:29 AM, Tortorella's Rant said: The only ones complaining about the bombs are the ones who didn't have to storm the beaches under a hail of enemy machine gun fire as an alternative choice.. Right. So let the soldiers kill civillians if it saves their own necks in the process, i suppose. There is a word for that: cowardice. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 (edited) Wow really The Geneva Conventions are rules that apply only in times of armed conflict and seek to protect people who are not or are no longer taking part in hostilities; these include the sick and wounded of armed forces on the field, wounded, sick, and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea, prisoners of war, and civilians. The Fourth Geneva Convention "relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War" (first adopted in 1949, based on parts of the Hague Convention (II) of 1899 and Hague Convention (IV) 1907).[33] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions Edited June 13, 2019 by kingofsurrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBH1926 Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 2 hours ago, canuckistani said: How many times do I have to repeat the simple ethics of ' You cannot DELIBERATELY target civillians as some sort of prima facie justification for saving more 'potential' victims of collateral damage ?? Based on what you are saying, warfare's first line of offense should be then to infiltrate the enemy nation and take the wives & mothers of the soldiers hostage, kill a few thousand of them and pressure the military to stand down, so rest of their moms and wives are spared. Less casualties, right ? You asked me for numbers of civilians killed after allied invasion. It is very simple concept, invasion of Japan would have killed millions of people. Civilians would have died as well, maybe not in the ivory tower that you live in, but in reality. The best solution would have been no WW2, but in real life you have to make tough choices. Unlike philosophy class where you get to pose all kinds of hypothetical questions. Killing 200 000 was horrible thing, killing 2 million would be even worse don’t you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 (edited) 47 minutes ago, CBH1926 said: You asked me for numbers of civilians killed after allied invasion. It is very simple concept, invasion of Japan would have killed millions of people. Civilians would have died as well, maybe not in the ivory tower that you live in, but in reality. The best solution would have been no WW2, but in real life you have to make tough choices. Unlike philosophy class where you get to pose all kinds of hypothetical questions. Killing 200 000 was horrible thing, killing 2 million would be even worse don’t you think? Quote KIng of Surrey It was actually a War Crime. Quote Edited June 14, 2019 by kingofsurrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 4 hours ago, CBH1926 said: You asked me for numbers of civilians killed after allied invasion. It is very simple concept, invasion of Japan would have killed millions of people. Civilians would have died as well, maybe not in the ivory tower that you live in, but in reality. The best solution would have been no WW2, but in real life you have to make tough choices. Unlike philosophy class where you get to pose all kinds of hypothetical questions. Killing 200 000 was horrible thing, killing 2 million would be even worse don’t you think? So you are saying that it is okay to deliberately target civillians, if it means lesser total # of casualties, correct ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 18 hours ago, canuckistani said: Right. So let the soldiers kill civillians if it saves their own necks in the process, i suppose. There is a word for that: cowardice. Haha, yeah. The Allies should've immediately surrendered to the Axis to avoid conflict because a civilian would've undeservedly been bombed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 9 hours ago, Tortorella's Rant said: Haha, yeah. The Allies should've immediately surrendered to the Axis to avoid conflict because a civilian would've undeservedly been bombed. Why are so many here so incompetent in English ? Its the only damn language most of the people here know anyways..... Anyways, learn the difference between the word 'undeserved' and 'deliberate', along with their moral implications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBH1926 Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 22 hours ago, canuckistani said: So you are saying that it is okay to deliberately target civillians, if it means lesser total # of casualties, correct ? Every military source that I have found, predicted that Japan invasion would kill 5-15 million people. Japan has mobilized millions of civilians, including woman and children into home defense forces. They were armed with knives, clubs, swords, bamboo sticks, Molotov cocktails etc. Americans and Brits could relate to Germans, that was not the case with the Japanese. They were considered sub human, and would have been exterminated by the U.S and U.K. Innocent people should never die in a war or be targeted, unfortunately in every war they are the ones that suffer the most. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldoescobar Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 Did Hong Kong leave yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violator Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 Looks like they decided to pull back for now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 51 minutes ago, Violator said: Looks like they decided to pull back for now Suuuuree We can all trust Carrie Lam to do the right thing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 12 hours ago, canuckistani said: Why are so many here so incompetent in English ? Its the only damn language most of the people here know anyways..... Anyways, learn the difference between the word 'undeserved' and 'deliberate', along with their moral implications. A lot of us are ex hockey players. We understand each other’s usage. As for Hong Kong. Too bad for them. China is bigger, and more powerful. That’s the way things have worked forever. It’s survival of species stuff. While under British rule, the people of Hong Kong should have been getting chummy with the US or Russians, and got nukes. As it stands now they are going to be the bug under an Elephant’s foot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 (edited) Whats the big issue with extradition to the mainland... .. Isn't there cases where the mainland gov has just cruised over to hong kong and scooped up guys they wanted .... put them on a boat across back to the mainland.... Has this happened recently... ? . Hardly seems like it would change much... Edited June 16, 2019 by kingofsurrey 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtis Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 China sucks! No wonder so many of them are leaving for greener pastures it other countries. One day it will fall apart.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.d5f1805f2010907592fb76b22028216a.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now