Malaysia Airlines MH17 Shot Down in Ukraine, Chinese Reactions

Malaysia AIrlines Flight 17 wreckage after it was shot down in Ukraine near the Russian border, allegedly by separatists.

News about the Malaysia Airlines plane shot down in Ukraine is big news today since it reached the Chinese internet near midnight last night…

From NetEase:

Russian Media: A Malaysian Passenger Plane Has Crashed in Ukraine

Russian Media Claims a Malaysian Passenger Plane Has Crashed in Ukraine — Night of the 17th Beijing time, Russia’s Interfax quoting industry insider information claims a Boeing 777 belonging to a Malaysian airline has crash landed in Ukraine near the Russian border. According to reports, the plane was carrying around 280 passengers and 15 crew.

Comments from NetEase:

网易吉林省延边州延吉市手机网友 ip:222.169.*.*

I feel like I’ve been really lucky, having been able to safely return home on a Malaysian plane.

网易辽宁省沈阳市手机网友 ip:113.225.*.*

What happened? One really must not go to Malaysia! Must remember!

网易湖南省手机网友 ip:222.246.*.*

Now there really will be no one who dares go to Malaysia.

网易陕西省西安市手机网友 ip:36.46.*.* (responding to above)

Boeing 777, do you still dare ride on one?

网易浙江省嘉兴市手机网友 ip:115.227.*.*

Malaysia Airlines again!

网易山东省青岛市手机网友 ip:112.224.*.*

TM once again Malaysia.

网易辽宁省沈阳市手机网友 ip:182.200.*.*

No way, a second plane?

网易广东省深圳市手机网友 ip:113.116.*.*

Again Malaysia.

亚历山大柴可洛夫斯基59 [网易广东省手机网友]:

My sofa, everyone please ding me up.

9287c222638a9319b56f0d39 [网易北京市手机网友]:

Fuck!

malaysia-airlines-mh17-shot-down-over-ukraine-crash-01

From NetEase:

Malaysia Airlines Plane With 298 Passengers Shot Down Over Ukraine

Reuters quotes an Interfax report on the 17th that a Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 passenger plane carrying 298 people crashed in Ukraine near the Russian border on the night of the 17th Beijing time. An Ukrainian Ministry of Interior adviser says this Malaysia Airlines passenger plane was hit by a Buk air-to-surface guided missile launched by “separatists”, with all 298 people on board perishing. Military forces in Donetsk loyal to Russia accuse Ukrainian government forces for shooting down the Malaysia Airlines airplane.

WARNING: Below is a sample of the 72 images included in this NetEase photo gallery. Some include images of passenger bodies that may be disturbing to certain viewers. Discretion advised. The 72 images include more photographs of the wreckage, first responders, overseas news reports, the Buk surface-to-air missile systems, flight paths, and a passenger list. Click here to jump directly to the translated comments for this NetEase article.

malaysia-airlines-mh17-shot-down-over-ukraine-crash-03

malaysia-airlines-mh17-shot-down-over-ukraine-crash-04

malaysia-airlines-mh17-shot-down-over-ukraine-crash-05

malaysia-airlines-mh17-shot-down-over-ukraine-crash-06

malaysia-airlines-mh17-shot-down-over-ukraine-crash-07

malaysia-airlines-mh17-shot-down-over-ukraine-crash-08

Comments from NetEase:

网易广东省广州市手机网友 ip:58.248.*.*

Upvote me and you’ll be safe taking planes in this lifetime.

V字仇杀队x [网易辽宁省大连市网友]:

The Russians have once again done something inhuman.

网易安徽省宿州市网友 ip:183.164.*.*

Malaysia Airlines is going to go bankrupt.

中奖五千万 [网易江西省新余市手机网友]:

Cherish your life, stay away from Malaysia Airlines.

网易江苏省连云港市手机网友 ip:221.178.*.*

Malaysia Airlines is definitely going to go out of business this time.

芙小小4世 [网易四川省泸州市网友]:

Too ruthless, too inhuman.

中國夢我去年買了個表 [网易河北省廊坊市手机网友]:

Look, this is the wonderful thing that the Russian-supported Ukraine separatist power has done. Their weapons surpass even the Ukrainian government’s army, all advanced Russian weaponry.

网易江苏省常州市手机网友 ip:117.63.*.*

May the dead rest in peace.

网易山东省手机网友 ip:140.75.*.*

With photos there is truth.

网易山东省手机网友 ip:140.75.*.*

What model was MH370?

Here are some more headlines for currently trending and heavily-discussed articles on two other major Chinese web portals QQ and Sina:

  • On-Site Photos of Malaysia Airlines Passenger Plane Crash in Ukraine” (QQ)
  • Malaysia Airlines Passenger PLane Shot Down 12 Hours Keywords” (QQ)
  • The Life of MH17 Passenger Cor Pan” (QQ)
  • Woman Lost Friends and Relatives in Both of Malaysia Airlines’ Odd Air Disasters” (QQ)
  • Media Claims Malaysia Airlines Plane May Have Been Mistakenly Shot Down” (QQ)
  • Over A Hundred Bodies Already Discovered Near Crash Site” (QQ)
  • One Hong Kong Passenger Confirmed to Have Been on Crashed Malaysia Airlines Plane” (Sina)
  • Defense Expert: Two Situations Exist for Shooting Down a Plane at 10,000 Meters Altitude” – (Sina)
  • Foreign Affairs Ministry Makes Statement on Flight MH17 Crash” (Sina)
  • Malaysian Passenger Plane Carrying 295 People Crashes in Ukraine” (Sina)

From Sina Weibo:

A Malaysian Passenger plane crashes in Ukraine: 295 People On Board — According to Russian media reports, a Malaysian Boeing 777 passenger plane crashed in Ukraine near the Russian border. According to reports, the plane was carrying around 280 passengers and 15 flight crew personnel.

Comments from Sina Weibo:

Enmo雯棋:

Where is Malaysia Airlines Going has a second season too? [吃惊]

[Note: This is a joke combining the missing MH370 plane and the popular “Where Are We Going, Dad?” reality television show that is currently airing its second season.]

王同學要做CEO:

Malaysia Airlines wants the whole world to know that it has monopolized air disasters for this year. [拜拜]

用户rv1adfjipy:

Fortunately, I can’t afford to go abroad. This is the first time I’ve felt it’s not bad to not have money!

cola海带:

I thought they had figured out what happened to MH370, but it turns out to be a new incident… Malaysia Airlines is on its knees now…

晚晚cola:

Hehehehe, some people are saying we shouldn’t blame Malaysia Airlines, but you need to know that what we are blaming is not the occurrence of the unexpected, because no one wants that to happen. What we are blaming is how Malaysia Airlines behaves irresponsibly to the victims families after an accident occurs, not providing a reasonable explanation to the Chinese people, where even its text messages [to Chinese families] confirming the crash are in English. Hehe, okay, we won’t blame the motherfuckers [also a pun on Malaysia Airlines], and you saints can go one defending Malaysia Airlines~ [拜拜]

鲁鲁修不列颠尼亚:

Let’s tidy up the train of thought [by some in the comments]: 1. There are people in the comments saying those who don’t blame Malaysia Airlines should first look at how 370 was handled before they comment. Is there an alternate theory to terrorist attack? 2. Asking if there were Chinese people on board, busybodies escalating this to racism/discrimination. I laugh, as if only you could do it. To use the simplest analogy, your man and other people are in a mine and upon hearing the mine has collapsed, the first thing you think to ask is if it is your man or other men? Stupid cunts, please stop talking and reflect on your characters.

S_uffer_Lee:

What terrorist group can afford Buk guided missiles that can reach over 10,000 meter altitudes and be so accurate? 10,000 meters? Terrorists can afford Buk missiles that can bring down planes flying around 700 [km/h?] at over 10,000 meter altitude?

Xiaoyuan_Rae:

Terrorists shooting down a passenger plane at a height of 10,000 meters?! Their military is going too far! Ukraine, why not just admit it was the Ukrainian military who did it, afraid to admit they had mistaken the passenger plane for a Russian fighter jet, instead of thinking you can fool children?? And Malaysia Airlines, you too are not taking your god seriously enough, clearly knowing that Ukraine is a country at war with poor weapons, yet not notifying Ukraine in advance of your plane’s flight path. You think the countries the passengers belong to can’t do anything to you!?

喝汽水的胖子:

Malaysia Airlines, this is the second time this year. Based on Malaysia Airline’s irresponsible attitude, I bet there will be a third time. Everyone please don’t stop taking Malaysia Airlines and let it go bankrupt.

Gavin__Yu:

This year’s most dangerous transportation tools: Heavenly Kingdom public buses [referring to a recent incidents in China], Malaysian passenger planes, Korean ferries! Those in agreement please click upvote!

In addition to the above popular microblog post by state media People’s Daily, there is also a “Malaysia Airlines Passenger Plane M17 Shot Downtrending topic on the Sina Weibo social network, as well as three trending hashtags: #Malaysia Airlines Passenger Plane Shot Down#, #Malaysia Airlines M17 Shot Down#, and #Malaysia Airlines Passenger Plane Crash#.

Help us maintain a vibrant and dynamic discussion section that is accessible and enjoyable to the majority of our readers. Please review our Comment Policy »
  • Free Man

    Well, at least this time they don’t have to search for the plane.

    Seriously: for once I agree with the comments. An airline flying through a combat zone is really not recommendable. Many other airlines started avoiding this area much earlier. I feel sorry for the unlucky people on the plane and their families&friends.

    • firebert5

      Well, they are different situations (presumably), but the more these type of things happen so often to one particular airline, the more it looks like issues within that airline may be key rather than the aircraft manufacturer, which has the same type of aircraft in use by other airlines without the same preponderance of incidents within such a short time frame.

      • Kai

        That’s the sentiment of a lot of people, and it really isn’t fair much less rational.

        Other than both MH370 and MH17 having “crashed” (presumably for MH370), the circumstances of the crashes are very different. We still don’t know what exactly happened to MH370 but it doesn’t seem like it was shot out of the air. While there may be questions of the behavior of the pilots of MH370, are there any questions about the crew on MH17? Is there any indication that Malaysia Airlines did anything wrong or questionable in the lead-up to either incident?

        If not, then it’s irrational and unfair to blame the airline, just as it would be irrational and unfair to blame Boeing 777s.

        The only valid blaming or criticism with MH370 was how Malaysia Airlines handled the situation and aftermath. However arguably poorly they handled the fallout, that can be reasonably blamed on them. If anyone wants to link the two incidents into a problem about Malaysia Airlines, they’d have to cite how Malaysia Airlines is again handling the fallout of this incident poorly (something some Chinese netizens are predicting). In either case, that may justify resentment against the airline, but any suggestion that the airline is responsible for the crashes themselves is just being stupid.

        • firebert5

          I understand your sentiments, but I disagree that it is irrational to begin to see the airline in a less than stellar light. As you pointed out, they did not handle the situation after the first downed aircraft well at all. Moreover, there does not seem to be any indication that they tried to find a safer route than over a known hot spot when flying the second aircraft over the Ukraine. These are both enormous management problems and are could be indicative of larger management issues within the airline company. I am not saying that either airline was shot down or that the airline pilots themselves did anything to knowingly harm the passengers. I am saying that the airline’s management quality is now ripe for revision.

          • Kai

            To clarify, it can be rational for a person to have a less than stellar impression of the airline after how it handled MH370. It would not be rational to blame the airline for its disappearance until we have a better idea of what exactly happened.

            As for questioning the airline’s management for flying the path it did, it’s complicated by what appears to be other airlines who also flew the same or similar paths. If we question Malaysia Airline’s management for the decision to fly that path, we’d have to question the others. We’d therefore be bound to have the same criticism of them all., right?

          • ClausRasmussen

            I don’t want to fly an airline that both have bad decision making and bad management. That’s completely rational in my opinion.

  • Rick in China

    I was waiting on this one.

    I’m most curious how many Dutch people will be waiting outside Russian or Malaysian embassies with signs, claiming they will fast until they get the truth, etc.

    I guess the facts are all up in the air, but the recording/transcript released (can find on The Guardian for example) seems to indicate it was “miners group”, rebels with Russia’s support. The conspiracy theorists going on about how it’s a false flag operation, how Ukraine thought it was Putin’s personal jet etc…. ridiculous.

    Netizens ranting on about Malaysian airlines probably haven’t read the story, I suppose Malaysian Air has _some_ responsibility in that its flight plan took them over a region that had attacks on aircraft, but then again, I suppose it was a little bit unimaginable that a BUK would be launched at a passenger plane at 34,000 ft. How fucked up. So many people dead, and seems so many great people who worked towards HIV cure and for the WHO and such. “Giants”, I believe, they were referred to as.

    • ninxay

      Singapore Airlines and Air India had planes on the same corridor as MH17 when it went down, and Thai Airways was also flying nearby after the crash. I would put more blame on Ukraine traffic control who cleared the airway from 32,000 feet up when missile systems known to be in the area could reach up to 70,000 feet. They should have closed off Ukraine’s entire airspace. That’s been done now but it’s too late.

      I think there won’t be so much of the histrionics that we saw with some Chinese relatives of MH370 passengers. There will be more sanctions against Russia, if Putin’s goons are found to have provided the missiles and/or trained pro-Russian rebels on how to use them.

      • Rick in China

        Yes, I agree with all of that. You’re right that they were not the only airline that was flying in the vicinity – and singapore airlines – damn, one of the best airlines in the world, could have done significant damage upon their otherwise flight-god namesake, but the point is…..many airlines already just avoided that area on their own risk-aversion information. That’s all I meant by some responsibility, is that there is only a tiny potential link to responsibility and the flight path is it, which makes the meat of the comments at the beginning relatively trashy. Many airlines did indeed think ahead, some changed only after this, but .. yeah.

        I was being sarcastic about the people gathering around Malaysian/Russian embassies, because on the 370 thread, I was saying specifically how it was absolutely a Chinese social phenomenon where the families would collect up and make absolutely ridiculous demands as they did…and received counter-arguments about how it’s not because it was Chinese passengers who made up the bulk of the missing but rather because when so many families experience the same tragedies together the ‘group dynamics’ type phenomenon leads to their collective uprising. I thought that was absolutely bullshit. Therefor, I was waiting for this story to break, so I could say “where’s the fucking dutch with equally many dead, probably murdered?” — more of an I told you so about one tiny social issue within China than anything.

        • ninxay

          Yeah, the issue about ridiculous demands by Chinese families still riles me up. Other people grieve too, others are more considerate… while some aren’t.

          US carriers, British Airways, Qantas and I think Emirates were completely skirting Ukraine airspace in the past few weeks. Branson’s Virgin flew straight through as did most Asia-Pacific airlines because a direct route saved fuel and decreased flying time. It’s so screwed up to think that for the sake of saving a few thousand dollars worth of fuel, the lives of hundreds of people were put at risk. Ukraine and ICAO should have closed off that entire area to begin with.

          Then again, flying SQ to Europe, it’s creepy to see Afghanistan passing far below…

          • ClausRasmussen

            >> US carriers, British Airways, Qantas and I think Emirates were completely skirting Ukraine airspace

            And Korean Air, China Airlines (Taiwan), Air Berlin, Asiana Airlines, Cathay Pacific Airways, and Pakistan International Airlines

            An Asiana spokesman was quoted for “although the detour adds to flight time and cost, we have been making the detour for safety”

            To me, Malaysia Airlines was not just unlucky (again). They and some other airlines didn’t prioritize the safety of their passengers over some saved fuel.

          • vincent_t

            I only seen reports of US prohibiting her airlines flying through eastern Ukraine.
            Can you show me evidences other airline you mentioned already skirting that airspace?

          • ClausRasmussen

            This article lists Korean Air, Asiana, Quantas, China Airlines, and Cathay Pacific: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10975344/Asian-airlines-stopped-flying-over-Ukraine-months-ago.html

          • Qantas

        • Kai

          Your “told you so” would be both misguided and petty because the two incidents are obviously not equivalent and the circumstances influencing the reactions of those affected are vastly different.

          You’d instead come across as trying to use a tragedy to prove a prejudice you harbor against Chinese people (to be precise: “Chinese social phenomenon”). It’s as bad as the Chinese netizens who are gloating about how this incident proves something about Malaysians/Malaysia Airlines.

          • ninxay

            Looking back at MH370, I didn’t see Malaysian or American families calling the Malaysian government “murderers”, demanding the return of their loved ones’ bodies, marching on embassies and forcing ambassadors to kneel. The Chinese families did all that and it was tolerated by the Chinese government and the Party, even though such dissent on other matters would be quickly snuffed out.

            And now Chinese netizens are gloating over another Malaysian plane going down, forgetting that the majority of passengers killed were actually Dutch. It isn’t prejudice when such disgraceful behaviour is visible to the whole world.

          • Kai

            You have criticisms about how some Chinese people behaved about MH370. They may be warranted. You have criticisms abou thow some Chinese netizens are behaving about MH17. They may be warranted.

            It is however prejudice when you prefer to believe histrionics is specific to certain people based on nationality without due consideration of the specific circumstances that gave rise to them. It is still distasteful that Rick is using this tragedy to gloat a petty point, as distasteful as the Chinese netizens doing similar things. Is it not?

          • whuddyasack

            Yes, Rick’s comment and anticipation might have rubbed others the wrong way but at least he was not doing it with malicious intent. His was more tongue in cheek, perhaps petty but I’d rather that than a full fledged anger and hate filled vent exploiting this disaster. Speaking of distasteful, this one is worse. It is from our resident, basement dwelling “POS”. http://www.chinasmack.com/2014/pictures/lost-childhoods-of-ethnic-yi-migrant-worker-children.html#comment-1490929553

            His posting name is in itself offensive, exponentially increased by the fact he is posting on an unrelated article that in itself is tragic.

          • guest

            There are Malaysian families cursing their government through many ways for the way it handle the incident. Just saying.

          • Rick in China

            I agree that the situations have many differences. They also have many parallels. I do think that they both warrant similar reactions from the grieving families – and I do believe that Chinese people (and only Chinese people)’s reaction to the 370 incident shows their immaturity, victim’s-syndrome, and ridiculous demanding nature. I do not, however, think that all Chinese people are like that..but I do, anecdotally, believe that a lot of people who _are like that_ are Chinese. Call it prejudice if you wish, but again, unless you see that sort of nonsense happening elsewhere during similar situations.. I don’t take any contradiction to these points with ernest.

          • Kai

            I disagree with your conclusion because of a host of logic fallacies, such as mixing up correlation and causation.

            The very behavior you’re critical of and point to as being uniquely Chinese arise from circumstances in MH370 that are not found in MH17, relating to how Malaysia Airlines handled the matter and the far greater lack of information and certainty.

            The only parallels are that the incident involves a plane, operated by Malaysia Airlines, and something bad happened involving loss of life. What are the parrallels that would justify a direct comparison of reactions by the victim’s families? There aren’t any.

            Very few people question your distaste for how many of the Chinese families reacted to MH370, myself included. What is being questioned is your eagerness to think it is unique to Chinese people and your eageness to use grossly incomparable situations to “justify” your prejudice that this is unique to Chinese people.

            Immatureity, victim syndrom, ridiculous demands, and histrionics in general are not unique to Chinese people. If you want to argue the histrionics of the Chinese grieving families on MH370 are unique and that other nationalities would never behave in similar ways given sufficiently similar circumstances, then you actually have to find such evidence. You haven’t. MH17 is not sufficiently similar. You do not have the same mysterious circumstances of disappearance without wreckage and bodies. You do not have the same PR handling and blunders by Malaysia Airlines. You do not have the same congregating of families negatively reinforcing each others’ speculations and emotions borne out of uncertainty and dearth of information. You have none of these direct causative factors.

            The Ford Pinto was notorious for a fuel tank design that resulted in deadly fires in rear-end collisions. Would the histrionic reaction of a wife whose husband burned to death in his Pinto because Ford decided it was cheaper to settle lawsuits than redesign and recall the car be comparable to the reaction of a wife whose husband was killed in his Pinto by a drunk driver? In both cases, there’s a wife grieving over the loss of a loved one in a Ford Pinto. Just like there are families grieving over the loss of loved ones in a Malaysia Airlines flight. The differences in reactions come from very specific differences in circumstances.

            You cannot point to superficial similarities to argue a point about how only a specific nationality would react in a specific way.

            Here’s the thing, how many grieving Chinese families in the MH370 incident behaved was incredibly obnoxious and, as far as outsiders like us could see, beyond irrational and crossing into sheer obnoxiousness. As much as we wanted to sympathize with their loss, their emotional irrationality went beyond what we could tolerate. They’ve earned being judged. What they haven’t earned is generalizing their behavior as specifically “Chinese”. Histrionics is not uniquely Chinese; it is unique to individuals who cannot control their emotions. Individuals who cannot control their emotions are not uniquely Chinese. There is far more evidence of historionics being universally human than there is of it being uniquely Chinese. No one questioned you for thinking all Chinese people are like anything; I’ve questioned you for thinking a human behavior is uniquely Chinese drawing upon an insufficiently similar situation as your proof.

          • 白色纯棉小裤裤

            Call it prejudice if you wish, but again, unless you see that sort of nonsense happening elsewhere during similar situations.. I don’t take any contradiction to these points with ernest.

            I guess what makes sense is to file a lawsuit and get a ridiculous amount of money. If Chinese have access to American legal system then everyone would be “mature” – Why bother protesting when you can simply file a lawsuit and make tens of billions of dollars?
            Florida jury awards record $23 billion against RJ Reynolds
            http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/20/us-usa-tobacco-award-idUSKBN0FO0ZM20140720

          • Rick in China

            Yes. Lawsuits in the US are *RIDICULOUS*, and I think it’s a mostly-American phenomenon. Thanks for pointing this out, because it’s a good parallel — Americans have many people who behave like that, China has many people who behave like this, right on!

      • Kai

        I think it’s important to acknowledge that the histrionics of the relatives of the MH370 Chinese passengers were a result of how Malaysia Airlines handled the situation as opposed to the crash/disappearance itself happening. A lot of the angst was in the prolonged uncertainy of what exactly happened, if it was because of the wrongdoing or negligence of airline personnel, and the officials ostensibly responsible being unable to offer any real explanations.

        The fate of MH17 is much clearer, and while Malaysia Airlines can still handle the PR situation poorly, no one is wondering if there was wrongdoing or negligence on the part of the airline. It is already confirmed that the passengers died, and there is a strong narrative of it having been shot down by a specific type of weapon with specific culprits identified. There’s sorrow over the deaths but no agonizing uncertainty. There’s a clear narrative and a clear culprit to blame other than the airline.

        What sucks for Malaysia Airlines is that there will be a lot of people who will simply file these two incidents away in their brains as “can’t fly Malaysia Airlines”.

        • guest

          What’s worse for MH370 is that no one is held responsible to this date as compared to the multiple arrests of the people involved and resignation/dismissal of government officials from the Korean ferry’s tragedy.

        • Edward Kay

          Nevermind. We still have AirAsia. A tad uncomfortable though.

          • Kai

            I’ve taken AirAsia. It’s alright as a budget airline, food is okay, good website and online booking/check-in workflow. Flight attendants are a bit hit or miss in terms of customer service but nice red uniforms. I think the whole talking head thing is kinda lame though.

          • Kent in Malaysia

            wow u dont really know AirAsia…

          • Kai

            I was giving my impressions having taken 4 four fligths with them. It’s entirely possible that my experiences and impressions are not reflective of AirAsia as a whole, and you’re welcome to tell me what I don’t know about AirAsia that you feel should modify my impression of them.

        • ClausRasmussen

          >> “can’t fly Malaysia Airlines”

          Count me in.

        • The argument of the MH370 relatives can go in endless circles. Malaysian authorities themselves were at a loss to the exact cause of the disappearance. Until such time that the plane itself is recovered, examined can there be a final say as to who is culpable. As things stood and still stand, no wreckage, no bodies, not even a cellphone video of witnesses at sea or on the ground. What could Malaysian Airlines have told the passengers’ kin except repeat the already sparse information?

          What caused the frenzy, few people dare say out loud, is the irrational willingness of the relatives to believe in conspiracy theories that were swirling about—like maybe the plane was hijacked and landed safely somewhere, or that Malaysia Air knew the pilot was suicidal and still let him fly, etc. Much like how rumors were spread that salt could cure SARS symptoms, when the Chinese government didn’t spearhead health bulletins in the aftermath of the crisis.

          So in the absence of credible information or evidence of negligence, how can you justify the physical and verbal attacks that the Malaysian Airlines authorities endured? There was a prolonged uncertainty because even up to today, there still is hardly any information to say with certainty what happened to MH370. You might say the delay of announcing the missing plane or the circumstances surrounding it could count as negligence, and you’d be logical. But would it have made a difference except to move earlier the starting point of the relatives’ grief?

          The only embarrassing and eyebrow-raising part here really is how these bumpkins reacted to something that was out of everybody’s control. Nothing more. No other country’s citizens would’ve reacted in such a boorish manner.

          • Kai

            how can you justify the physical and verbal attacks that the Malaysian Airlines authorities endured?

            I didn’t do this. I explained the proximate direct reasons why the reactions by family members of victims are likely to be different between MH370 and MH17 in response to people wanting to compare the two.

            The only embarrassing and eyebrow-raising part here really is how these bumpkins reacted to something that was out of everybody’s control. Nothing more. No other country’s citizens would’ve reacted in such a boorish manner.

            I disagree. This is more you wanting to believe something than truth. This is you overstimating all “other country’s citizens” because you want to insist on something negative being unique to Chinese. This is simply prejudiced and it’s incredibly disappointing that you are so eager to believe this.

          • Kent in Malaysia

            Mr Kai, i think Malaysian people need someone like you to come to Malaysia and help us to do the PR things.. seem to me you know more than us. One question to you, if you got zero clue/information….how/what answer you will give?

          • Kai

            Not sure if you’re being sincere. One of the main problems with MH’s initial response was that the media really sunk its teeth into certain soundbites from MH management that really made MH sound incompetent. That said, MH management needed to be more careful with their PR statements by stressing what they were doing and avoiding statements that could be abused as soundbites. They should’ve anticipated that telling the public they had nothing would look bad, so even if you have nothing, you don’t say that but say WHAT you are doing to figure things out. PR is often about answering questions by communicating conclusions you want others to have.

      • Qantas and other airlines had re routed weeks ago. The blame in these situations is from many parts put together. Seldom a single entity.

    • mr.wiener

      A lot of “Karma” comments being thrown around about some stories lately… I’m no expert on what karma is or isn’t but it would certainly please my sense of dark irony if the bastards who shot this plane down died of AIDS.

      • Rick in China

        That’s fun :D but, insufficient. AIDS, with modern medicine (partly due to, I’m sure, many of those who died on the plane) is a sufferable disease. This is (if evidence thus far is to be believed) a fucking missile shot at a passenger plane carrying hundreds of innocent and surely many really great people, all dead in a terrible smashing into the ground – regardless of which side/whom fired the reason “why” is because of some FUCKING LAND and bullshit borders. There is very little that is more senseless than innocents being denied life because of a fucking judo master fake hunter ex-KGB super-bowl ring thief secret cocksucker’s hurt pride about what consists of the motherland.

        • ninxay

          Don’t forget bear wrestler. I’m wary as fuck about Putin’s dreams of being a modern Czar and bringing back glorious Mother Russia when the ex-Soviet states around him want to be able to make their own choices. Then again, if those states join the EU and NATO, that would mean encirclement of Russia and a big increase in geopolitical tensions.

          China is also trying to be like Russia, which is very worrying for East and Southeast Asia. The US could step in and bam, another Cold War starts.

          • darrenjh

            The fact the current Ukraine government are nazis makes your argument look completely retarded.

          • denvereen

            Me too. Especially given that documents were leaked showing the USSR wanted to make the UK a communist country through the then labour party (communist party of great britain). If I was living in finland, I’d be sweating like a indian doctor on a rape charge..

        • Bengbeng

          Please don’t use the word cocksucker to imply someone is a homosexual. It’s really fucking offensive.

          • How on earth is cock sucker an implication of homosexuality? FFS. Fool.

    • MonkeyMouth

      facts ‘up in the air’, huh? lets hope it all doesnt come to a crashing halt, or come crashing down?

    • denvereen

      Perhaps those researchers were on their way to announce a possible future cure/vaccine, and a certain government and industry did not want that to be announced. Not wearing a tinfoil hat, but shoot it down and blame it on others…..quite convenient for some.

      • Rick in China

        Doubtful. Research these days doesn’t happen in isolated environments with pen and paper, especially something as massive and coordinated as HIV research – there wouldn’t be some “Ah-ha!” moment, other than a new idea to test – and each new idea to test would take ages, research, peer review, studies, testing, etc. That’s not something you can cover up by killing a few people on an airplane :D That’s too…… B-movie.

        • denvereen

          RIC, I’m not stating it was a conspiracy, just call it playing devil’s advocate if you will, stirring up the pot a bit.

          Personally, I reckon they would not have had to down a plane to cover up something like that. But who knows what lengths the pharma industry would go to, to protect their own bottom line. How’s china anyhoo?

    • Kent in Malaysia

      do you thing Malaysian Airlines the who dcided which route to fly?

  • Marcus Black

    Don’t jump on the bandwagon people. That’s exactly how they want you to react. NO evidence has been shown that this plane was shot down. Furthermore if you analyse the video of the plane exploding, you’ll notice the absence of smoke trails from both the BUK missile and the burning debris of the plane falling from the sky. These trails should not only be clearly visible but they should be in the sky for hours based on how calm the weather was at the location. Also you’ll see in the media a supposedly intercepted audio of militants reporting to a Russian military personnel of a plane they shot down. But when you do further investigation of the video file you’ll see it was created on the 16th. BEFORE the crash. The lamestream media will keep running with the bullshit highlighted above because they know the majourity of the world’s population are bubble heads. Easy to jump to conclusions without carefully investigating the allegations. This is how governments have started many wars.

    They immediately blame the opposition when they have done no fucking investigation. It was the same thing with chemical weapons being used in Syria. Immediately Obama, Cameron and their goons blamed Assad and his government when all the evidence later found pointed to the terrorists being responsible.

    • firebert5

      **foolishly feeds the conspirator for kicks**
      So, what actually happened, Marcus?

      • ninxay

        Aliens.

        • Kai

          No, langoliers.

          • Rosemon Calvin Pilot

            LMAO Kai..you win the internet with that one!!

          • mr.wiener

            They have a lot to answer for.

      • JabroniZamboni

        Illuminati.

        Or Reptilians.

        Or Henan Ren.

    • Renjick

      Wow you’re dumb.

    • JMLD85

      Lol. There is thousands of planes flying each day and crashes like this are extremely rare. This also happens to be a warzone were actually the SAME day another plane was shot down.

      Are you really that naive to believe this is a coincidence? The rest of your post is just the typical self-proclaimed “internet expert” stuff. Leave it to the professionals.

      • Rick in China

        No, you don’t get it. There was no smoke in the one cell phone recording of the plane after it had already struck down, and it should have stayed for HOURS because of all of the information I have about what the ‘smoke’ would have been made up of chemically and what the air quality and air movement was like. Wait, no, that’s all pulled directly from deep within Marcus’ rectum. :P

    • mr.wiener

      You are doing a bit of conclusion jumping yourself there Marcus.

    • JabroniZamboni

      “Easy to jump to conclusions without carefully investigating the allegations.”

      Pot. Kettle. Black.

      • Marcus Black

        I have come to no conclusion on who is responsible for the crash. I simply gave examples of times when people have jumped to conclusion too soon without any proper investigation being conducted.

    • TheInconvenientRuth

      You obviously have no idea how SAM’s work. I’ve seen them in action in Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq. Most of them have no smoke trails to avoid evasion. When the hit, often the plane does not explode, they are meant to damage the plane to the point where it will crash by itself. They fire a cone of shrapnel into the target when they are close enough. It’s not like in a movie. I ahve seen Hinds, Migs and Mirages shot down without flames, fire or smoke until they hit the ground and exploded.

      • 白色纯棉小裤裤

        The BUK missles in this vid obviously have trails

        • ClausRasmussen

          What is also obvious from this video is that equipment like that require trained personnel.

      • Marcus Black

        Yes but from what I have read Buk missile hit causes the target to explode. Also the missile leaves a dark grey smoke trail that should have been visible in the video.

        • Dr Sun

          the dark grey crash trail is visible on the video along with bodies and debris falling from the sky. The plane was shot down by a sam

          • Guest

            If that’s the case why is everyone blaming Russia and the Buk missile for being responsible when there has been no conclusive investigation by an independent party yet.

        • TheInconvenientRuth

          Please post a link to the video you are talking about. Is it the video of the impact on the ground where all you see is an explosion and smoke column? Bearing in mind the plane was hit at 33,000ft, doing probably aroung 900km/h cruising, the point of intercept by the missile coud be quite far from the crash site, momentum would carry the plane forwards and dwonwards. The missile smoke trail (I now believe it was a 9K37 Buk, which does leave a clear smoke trail) could easily be behind the person filming.

      • ninxay

        I’m curious as to how you managed to see so many air combat shootdowns in so many conflict zones. Ex-NATO observer? BUK system sales personnel?

        Anyway, most fragmentation or continuous rod warheads wouldn’t cause an explosion unless the plane’s fuel tanks or munitions were hit. It’s scary knowing that most of the passengers on MH17 were still alive when the cabin ruptured at cruise altitude and they died only on impact with the ground.

        • TheInconvenientRuth

          Press Photographer. And I served 12 months with a HAWK missile battery,

          • ninxay

            Interesting background there… do you think it’s possible for a barely trained militiaman to fire a Buk missile in the single truck configuration? I heard that using it in a battery takes lots of training.

          • TheInconvenientRuth

            I have no experience with the Buk, obviously. But since they shot down an airliner, either the Command module was missing or they intentionally shot down an airliner. The TELAR, however does have it’s own aquisition/guidance radar (the one on the videos being shown towed away was a TEALR, not a TEL). And it was a -very- easy target. Of course it is easy to theorize that once the separatists got their hands on one, qualified staff was sent over form ‘elsewhere’… I think it would be difficult if not impossible for completely untrained crew. But I’m not an expert by any means.

  • Dick Leigh

    Wow, Chinese humour is best when it’s dark!

    • mr.wiener

      Yes ,but easy to laugh when it happens to other people. So far the only Chinese death found was some poor guy from HK. …I’m not laughing. Shit is getting real.

      • ninxay

        Sad innit? Some Chinese laugh when it’s happening to other nationals but they made a huge fuss when MH370 disappeared with mostly Chinese on board.

      • reply

        most the malaysian passangers are probably chinese as well

        • Ash

          Yeah, some of the passengers are Chinese, if I remember it correctly, and one of the stewardess and pilot are chinese as well.

        • guest

          I don’t know what makes you guess that Chinese being the majority of the Malaysian victims. And out of curiosity, I actually screened through the names and here I found out that you are wrong.
          Out of the 43 Malaysians on board, only 12 were ethnic Chinese (1 pilot, 2 stewardess, 9 passengers). The rest of the 31 Malaysians were from other ethnics groups.

      • woolv

        Ironically, HK people say they are not Chinese. so there you go.

  • ninxay

    Some of the comments in the article make me sick. How would Chinese feel if it was a Singapore Airlines plane (which was also flying nearby) or an Air China plane which was shot down? That it was a Malaysia Airlines flight that got hit was just bad luck. That airway was cleared by Ukraine traffic control from 32,000 feet upwards because no one thought some batshit motherfucker would actually lob a missile at an airliner, especially using potent Soviet gear.

    Go and play back the Ukraine sector on Flightradar24.com to see how many other airlines were flying over Donetsk during the past few days. Those airlines are keeping very quiet and thanking their lucky stars right now.

  • ninxay

    Everyone was keeping away from the Black Sea and Crimea, although an altitude warning was given for eastern Ukraine.

  • Ruaraidh

    I don’t claim to know, and maybe it will turn out to be the Ukrainians who did this after all, but given the fact that the separatists don’t have aircraft, why would the government be launching anti aircraft missiles?

    • hess

      And dont forget that the separatists has shot down Ukrainian planes before

  • Stefan

    This plane crash is just shocking, so sad, RIP to all the victims. :(

  • nobody really

    Shouldn’t China being addressing Russia in some way? Such a pause from China is curious….

    • JabroniZamboni

      Why? China holds no power over Russia.

    • YourSupremeCommander

      How dense are you? Was it a Chinese plane full of Chinese passengers, shot down near the Chinese border?

      • ninxay

        At the same time, Chinese netizens are gloating about another Malaysian plane going down and wishing it was full of Americans. Real classy.

        • JabroniZamboni

          Green hat imo. America is a strange bedfellow that China absolutely needs.

          • MonkeyMouth

            Thats why the Oakland A’s cant sell much merchandise in China, dontcha know?

    • Don’t Believe the Hype

      China’s foreign policy is more reactive than proactive, doubt you will hear much from them as they have little involvement with the issue

    • ptptp

      This is a perfect opportunity for China to act as a leading world power by helping to conduct an impartial investigation.

  • JabroniZamboni

    No one will ever find out who fired the missile. Let the propaganda party begin. What a tragic event. This will cause more deaths than just those who were on the plane. Russia is not going to come out of this unscathed no matter what the result of the “investigation” determines.

  • lacompacida

    I declare this is open season for rebels in east Ukraine. All military attacks on these rebels with whatever weaponary available are warranted, justified and humane. All supporters of the rebels are included in this open season. Leg hold traps can be used in hunting these animals.

  • hess

    “What terrorist group can afford Buk guided missiles that can reach over 10,000 meter altitudes and be so accurate? 10,000 meters? Terrorists can afford Buk missiles that can bring down planes flying around 700 [km/h?] at over 10,000 meter altitude?” The ones funded by the Russian government, obviously.

    • nita

      Putin is many terrible things, but stupid he is not.

      • MidniteOwl

        but the guy who pressed the button, who Putin probably gave the rockets probably is dumb as shit.

    • JabroniZamboni

      Almost all the major terrorist groups can as they are well funded. The problem is logistics. Terrorism is based on the element of shock and surprise. Surface to air missiles of this caliber are not exactly the tools of the clandestine.

  • Sino-sociopathy

    I posted this earlier on a different article but it is more relevant here: I’m wondering if anyone can explain the disgusting comments of the Chinese about Malaysia Airlines flight shot down by Putin’s Russian cronies? They are blaming America and wishing it was Americans, this is the second most upvoted comment on Sina’s news story: 为什么不是230个美国人?太遗憾了

    http://news.sina.com.cn/w/2014

    • TheInconvenientRuth

      It just reflects the utter callousness of the general Chinese population, which you can witness every day. No one cares abouta human life if it is not a relative or a friend. Then, blame the USA or Japan to get extra likes so you can feel cool and popular and niubi. One death is worth a hundred upvotes. But westerners are not much better, just have a look on 9gag or reddit. And of course the Palestinians say it is merely a planned diversion so Israel can attack them. The world is simply fucked up.

    • Don’t Believe the Hype

      that’s a bit unsettling

    • Maybe they were the ukranians, Some people say they thought it mistaken the plane for Putin’s

      • Wa

        Yah, because what would surely end the war would be firing at Putin’s plane.

      • Zappa Frank

        apparently were the filo-Russians.. but it’s irrelevant in the end.. it was a huge mistake, I bet there was no intention…

    • ijbz

      the guy who said it must have come to Chinasmack and seen the nasty comments about China here.

    • Cameron

      It just goes to show that in fact there are an awful lot of people in the world with a very disturbed moral compass.

      Recently someone posted on my QQ blog saying that we should commemorate the anniversary of Bin Laden’s death, and who is to say if he was good or bad? Sure, maybe he shouldn’t have murdered 3000 innocents going about their day, but he was standing up to The American Imperialists! And he was fond of China, apparently.

      When I challenged the depravity of the view, one 18 year Chinese student replied to me: “But you know in fact everyone has a good and a bad side. Look at Hitler for example.” I shit you not.

      • ninxay

        Amrika bad, everyone else good. Maybe that student got brainwashed from watching so much rubbish on CCTV that blames the US and Japan for China’s troubles.

      • JabroniZamboni

        To play devil’s advocate, Hitler did have a good side. He took a economically destroyed country and turned back into a force to be reckoned with. Was voted Time Magazine’s man of the year. This was not for nothing.

        The chaos that ensued reveals the dark side, however he did do some good for the German people before ultimately destroying all of the gains through vile actions.

        Hitler was nowhere near as bad as Mao.

        • MonkeyMouth

          Volkswagen, IBM….and a GOOD friend of Prescott Bush

      • MonkeyMouth

        you shit not, good sir. but….you really believe the story you were fed about usama bin laden? zero dark thirty?

      • Wa

        I just thought I’d inform you of some relevant wisdom passed along to me another individual:

        “It takes an enormous amount of care and intelligence to understand why some Chinese people might admire aspects of the Nazis/Hitler.”

        –Kai, mod here at Chinasmack

    • NeverMind

      I replied to your earlier comment as well, but anyways….Some of the American comments on American news sites (especially Yahoo news) are similar when there is a earthquake or destruction in China. Also, there are Americans cracking jokes and trying to appear smart in their comments regarding the Malaysian airline crash articles. All I want to say is there are some really sick people all over the world.

      And hope you haven’t forgotten how some Americans made fun of the names of the Korean Asiana air pilots recently.

    • Kai

      Your link doesn’t work. It returns a 404 page.

      How did 8 people upvote you without even being able to check what you’re referring to?

      • Wa

        http://news.sina.cn/?sa=d12461675t124v71&cid=786&cpage=1&leave=news11&pos=text_other&vt=4&wm=4002

        How difficult was that, Kai? It seems the comment is now number 1 by a good margin, with the second most up-voted comment also insinuating US involvement.

        • Kai

          I dunno, how difficult was it? If someone is going to link to something and ask people to explain it, TWICE, shouldn’t they be responsible for providing the correct link? I don’t think my response was wrong.

          Now let’s take a look:

          Yes, that’s the most upvoted comment on that article. Yes, the second comment insinuates US involvement. The first comment has 352 upvotes and the second one has 230.

          Now compare the stats of the article and these comments to those translated by Fauna and tell me which are more popular. I think most, if not all, of the articles translated above have more views/comments and most, if not all, of the comments translated above have substantially more upvotes than either of these.

          How difficult was that?

          Cherry-picking is the game of the intellectually dishonest.

          • Wa

            “Cherry-picking is the game of the intellectually dishonest.”

            And poorly considered accusations designed merely to distract are the tools of maladroit apologists. Let’s keep playing this game.

            “I dunno, how difficult was it? If someone is going to link to something and ask people to explain it, TWICE, shouldn’t they be responsible for providing the correct link? I don’t think my response was wrong.”

            Of course your response was wrong. As always, you just choose not to see it. You stated:

            “How did 8 people upvote you without even being able to check what you’re referring to?”

            It’s obvious they can check what he referred to. In fact, it is very easy to do so. The assumption you are making here is that if the link is broken, they couldn’t have seen what he’s talking about. It is a stupid assumption and a stupid question which implies bias.

            “Now let’s take a look:

            Yes, that’s the most upvoted comment on that article. Yes, the second comment insinuates US involvement. The first comment has 352 upvotes and the second one has 230.”

            Great. Thanks.

            “Now compare the stats of the article and these comments to those translated by Fauna and tell me which are more popular. I think most, if not all, of the articles translated above have more views/comments and most, if not all, of the comments translated above have substantially more upvotes than either of these.

            How difficult was that?

            Cherry-picking is the game of the intellectually dishonest.”

            Do you have any idea what point you are trying to make here, and do you realize how deranged you sound? Did Sino-sociopathy claim that you guys were misrepresenting PRC citizens’ attitudes? Did he claim that the article to which he linked should somehow be the only thing considered when weighing PRC citizens’ response to this event? Did he not post the link the first time on another article because your article on the plane being shot down had not yet been posted? So what’s your beef? He cited something you don’t like to see, apparently, so you accuse him of intellectual dishonesty?

          • Kai

            No, odds are they didn’t check what he referred to and didn’t even think it necessary before clicking upvote to agree with the sentiment he expressed. We can say I’m underestimating their abilities and you’re overestimating their abilities. At this point, we won’t know the truth.

            Yes, I know the point I’m making.

            It seems the comment is now number 1 by a good margin, with the second most up-voted comment also insinuating US involvement.

            The point I’m making is to put both his remarks and your remarks in proper context. A number 1 comment with 352 upvotes is very different from a number 1 comment with over 20,000 upvotes as far as statistical significance is concerned. Likewise for an article with few views versus an article with a lot of views.

            This context is important for evaluating the significance of Sino highlighting it and what it reflects about “the disgusting comments of the Chinese about Malaysia Airlines flight shot down by Putin’s Russian cronies”.

            Did you not notice that article the Chinese netizen responded to doesn’t even say the plane was shot down, or that it was suspected to have been shot down by “Putin’s Russian cronies”?

            These aren’t Chinese comments “about Malaysia Airlines flight shot down by Putin’s Russian cronies”. These are comments about a short two paragraph news blurb, with the first paragraph reporting that a Malaysia Airlines flight has crashed with no survivors, and a second paragraph dedicated to reporting the US reaction so far.

            It is not remotely odd for there to be some anti-American sentiments in response to such a short article without any details about the plane being “shot down” or the possible involvement of “Putin’s Russian cronies”. There are Chinese netizen assholes who celebrate tragedy befalling America for political or whatever reasons just as there are Americans who do likewise vice versa. That these types of people exist is significant.

            But the significance of a single comment of that nature being “second most upvoted comment on Sina’s story” requires us to consider WHICH story on Sina, HOW MANY views that story has, HOW MANY comments it has, AND HOW MANY upvotes it has (among other things).

            Did Sino-sociopathy claim that you guys were misrepresenting PRC citizens’ attitudes? Did he claim that the article to which he linked should somehow be the only thing considered when weighing PRC citizens’ response to this event?

            I never made such accusations.

            Did he not post the link the first time on another article because your article on the plane being shot down had not yet been posted?

            Which had the same broken link.

            He cited something you don’t like to see, apparently, so you accuse him of intellectual dishonesty?

            No. if I had a problem with Chinese people making asses of themselves saying stupid shit, I wouldn’t be so supportive of a site that regularly and honestly translates stuff like this. I also wouldn’t repeatedly defend the site against people who claim we’re Chinese traitors cherrypicking the “worst” comments in order to make China look bad. I also wouldn’t repeatedly argue that ugly comments by cS commenters NOT be censored just because a lot of people don’t like to see them including myself.

            For the record, I was actually accusing you of intellectual dishonesty for reinforcing the apparent popularity of the comment without contextualizing it like an intellectually honest person would.

            That’s as if someone pointed to an objectionable but otherwise “the most popular” comment on some YouTube video without pointing out that the video has very few views and the comment itself has very few upvotes. Why the hell would anyone think this remotely intelligent much less honest?

          • Wa

            “No, odds are they didn’t check what he referred to and didn’t even think it necessary before clicking upvote to agree with the sentiment he expressed. We can say I’m underestimating their abilities and you’re overestimating their abilities. At this point, we won’t know the truth.”

            At this point you are simply full of BS. We can say a lot of things, but what we can’t say is your claim that people upvoted him “without even being able to check
            what [he’s] referring to” is remotely accurate because it claims an impossibility (underlined by “even”). I have proven that “impossibility” not only possible but remarkably easy to accomplish. In contrast to your previous claim, now you are trying to assert *a possibility* that some people didn’t check, and you are relying on subjectivity as a smokescreen. This is a change in tactic due to the error of your previous position, but your willingness to “share your error” is a rather obvious tell that you’re being dishonest.

            “For the record, I was actually accusing you of intellectual dishonesty for reinforcing the apparent popularity of the comment without contextualizing it like an intellectually honest person would.”

            I see. In that case your accusation is even more asinine and deceitful because my comment asked you about the difficulty of doing something as simple as a search for the comment on Sina and then reported a change in fact from the situation the prior poster mentioned. I made no further claims and did not characterize the comments in any way.

            If you think this requires massive amounts of “contextualizing”, it is a sign of nothing but your sensitivity. As I said, Kai, “poorly considered accusations designed merely to distract are the tools of maladroit apologists”, and you’ve decided this is where you want to sit.

            “I never made such accusations”

            So what’s with the tirade? That would be the only basis for your ridiculous, divergent paragraphs on “proper context”. Not only do you go completely illogical by stating, “It is not remotely odd for there to be some anti-American sentiments in response to such a short article without any details about the plane being ‘shot down’ or the possible involvement of ‘Putin’s Russian cronies’,” but you also fail to recognize that the statistical confidence of online opinions is an issue of randomization, not pure “popularity”. And the issue of randomization is as much a problem for the statistical confidence of posts you select as it is for the article and posts Sino-sociopathy highlighted.

          • Alex Dương

            …the statistical confidence of online opinions is an issue of randomization, not pure “popularity”. And the issue of randomization is as much a problem for the statistical confidence of posts you select as
            it is for the article and posts Sino-sociopathy highlighted.

            OK, so your point is…what, exactly? We can’t draw conclusions of netizens’ attitudes from either the NetEase article or the Sina article Sino-sociopathy failed on two occasions to properly link to? If so, then your own answer to his question is, “there is no need to explain them.”

          • Wa

            “OK, so your point is…what, exactly? We can’t draw conclusions of netizens’ attitudes from either the NetEase article or the Sina article Sino-sociopathy failed on two occasions to properly link to?”

            That would make Kai’s attempt to explain the “proper context” ineffectual, wouldn’t it? Even leaving out his ridiculous divergence into the realm of the logically absurd (which we shouldn’t do).

            But of course that is not the only option. Should we assume an equivalent base level of statistical confidence for both, acknowledging that 4,800 posts is not a minuscule figure, then the question of comparative relevance could slide to the domain of proportional representation in the set of posts. Provided that’s the case, 352 upvotes out of 4800 posts (7.5%) is greater than the upvotes/posts ratio for some of the Chinese posts listed above. Naturally, this is laden with problems insofar as upvotes don’t have to be made by those who post, but it is not an altogether unfair arbitrary determination. Kai did claim most of the posts above were much more “popular”, which I wouldn’t have had a problem with. But his accusations of cherry-picking and intellectual dishonesty are marks against his argument and character, since from a proportional standpoint, the comments Sino-sociopathy highlighted are within the range of the set of NetEase comments above. In short, we could talk about the significance of both sets of comments.

            And this really is the point: we have the capacity to make reference to both sets of comments and not be hounded by the overly sensitive who jump at shadows and see value in one set, dishonest scheming in the other. As a mod, don’t overstep your boundaries and get abusive in attempting to frame a particular discussion to your liking. If you want to throw around accusations, go ahead, but be prepared for the exchange, be prepared to back up your accusations, and be prepared logically argue for your definitions of relevance.

            “If so, then your own answer to his question is, “there is no need to explain them.”

            Which question was that?

          • Alex Dương

            Provided that’s the case, 352 upvotes out of 4800 posts (7.5%) is greater than the upvotes/posts ratio for some of the Chinese posts listed above.

            Since you have emphasized that this particular comment is “number 1 by a good margin,” shouldn’t you compare its upvotes/posts ratio to the corresponding ratio of the top comments from NetEase? I’m going to assume you already did that and already saw that the upvotes/posts ratio of the top comments from NetEase far exceeds 7.5%.

            So again, your point is…what, exactly? By your own preferred metric, the comment Sino-sociopathy highlighted is not as popular as the top comments Fauna translated from NetEase. chinaSMACK translates the most popular of Chinese netizens’ comments on articles that are trending in China. And please, don’t back down again from your assumption of “an equivalent base level of statistical confidence for both.”

            And his question was, ” I’m wondering if anyone can explain the disgusting comments of the Chinese about Malaysia Airlines flight shot down by Putin’s Russian cronies?” As I said, if you want to roll with “the issue of randomization is as much a problem for the statistical confidence of posts you select as it is for the article and posts Sino-sociopathy highlighted,” then there’s no need to answer that question, as the comment does not necessarily reflect Chinese netizens’ attitudes.

          • Wa

            “Since you have emphasized that this particular comment is “number 1 by a good margin,” shouldn’t you compare its upvotes/posts ratio to the corresponding ratio of the top comments from NetEase? I’m going to assume you already did that and already saw that the upvotes/posts ratio of the top comments from NetEase far exceeds 7.5%.”

            You can do so, and I have no problem with doing so; however, that alone would not allow us to understand the potential significance of such a comment and its support. Since we are comparing with the comments above, the mere appearance of that comment within the “popularity-based” set posted on Chinasmack would be a preferable way to put it in “the context” which Chinasmack itself establishes. I should also point out your basis for asking that question (“since”) is entirely fallacious and a product of poor reading. My “emphasis” was on the difference between what Sino-sociopathy had claimed of the comment and its (at the time) current status.

            “So again, your point is…what, exactly? By your own
            preferred metric, the comment Sino-sociopathy highlighted is not as popular as the top comments Fauna translated from NetEase.”

            Not the very highest, no, but it is as popular as some
            from NetEase currently translated on Chinasmack. The point of this is that Kai is doing his best to deny the validity of the comment, but by a reasonably fair metric the comment would in fact appear in the set which is posted on Chinasmack, i.e. it would exceed others Chinasmack deems relevant. One merely has to consider what the reaction would be then, and whether Kai would continue with his “logic”, in order to recognize the point.

            “And his question was, ‘I’m wondering if anyone can explain the disgusting comments of the Chinese about Malaysia Airlines flight shot down by Putin’s Russian cronies?’ As I said, if you want to roll with “the issue of randomization is as much a problem for the statistical confidence of posts you select as it is for the article and posts Sino-sociopathy highlighted,” then there’s no need to answer that question, as the comment does not necessarily reflect Chinese netizens’ attitudes.”

            Yeah, did I try to answer that question? Are you working with obliquities again?

          • Alex Dương

            however, that alone would not allow us to understand the potential significance of such a comment and its support.

            Of course not. I doubt you would be here arguing that chinaSMACK should translate a comment that has been upvoted four times from an article that has a grand total of four comments, even though such a comment has an upvote/post ratio of 1. And that is where Kai’s point remains: the first NetEase article Fauna translated from had 128,359 people participating in the comments. The second NetEase article had a similar number at 129,432. The article you and Sino-sociopathy refer to had 4,873 comments and thus no more than 4,873 people participating.

            chinaSMACK “provides non-Chinese language readers a glimpse into modern China and Chinese society by translating popular and trending Chinese internet content and netizen discussions from China’s largest and most influential websites, discussion forums, and social networks into English.” With limited space, why should Fauna translate comments from an article that’s been commented on 4,873 times compared to two articles, each of which have had more than 128,000 people participate?

            I’m sure I’ll get some self-contradictory circumlocutious “answer” as to why Fauna should be devoting her limited resources to such articles compared to much, much, much more popular ones. Knock yourself out.

          • Wa

            “Of course not. I doubt you would be here arguing that chinaSMACK should translate a comment that has been upvoted four times from an article that has a grand total of four comments, even though such a comment has an upvote/post ratio of 1.”

            Right. Which is why I noted the fact that 4800 posts is not a small number. We are not dealing with statistically insignificant information. Furthermore, you accepted an equivalent base level of statistical confidence for both, so this is just worthless verbiage.

            “And that is where Kai’s point remains: the first NetEase article Fauna translated from had 128,359 people participating in the comments. The second NetEase article had a similar number at 129,432. The article you and Sino-sociopathy refer to had 4,873 comments and thus no more than 4,873 people participating.”

            Actually, you don’t seem to understand what you are looking at or have chosen a purposefully duplicitous comparison. The NetEase article has around 40,000 people *posting*, not 129,432. We don’t know how many people read or are participating in the Sina article Sino-sociopathy referred to. We only know the posted comment number, and this does not mean “thus no more than 4,873 people participating” since anyone can upvote a comment. You once again show a severe logic deficit. So, the relevant comparison would be upvotes/posts ratio, not a comparison which focuses on information which is asymmetric or incomplete. Of course, none of this changes the fact that once you have accepted an equivalent base level of statistical confidence for both, a “survey” of 5000 is little different than a survey of 40,0000 or 129000. We are not dealing with a grand total of 4 comments.

            “chinaSMACK “provides non-Chinese language readers a glimpse into modern China and Chinese society by translatingpopular and trending Chinese internet content and netizen discussions from China’s largest and most influential websites, discussion forums, and social networks into English.” With limited space, why should Fauna translate comments from an article that’s been commented on 4,873 times compared to two articles, each of which have had more than 128,000 people participate?”

            If you could read, you’d recognize that at no point have I ever criticized Fauna for not including information that others or myself found pertinent for any reason. I am clearly not arguing for the inclusion of such a comment in Chinasmack’s set of comments above. What I clearly am stating is anything more than a superficial statistical assessment would reveal Kai’s attempt to deny the validity of addressing that comment is erroneous and deceitful, as it falls within acceptable Chinasmack parameters.

            “I’m sure I’ll get some self-contradictory circumlocutious “answer” as to why Fauna should be devoting her limited resources to such articles compared to much, much, much more popular ones. Knock yourself out.”

            You know, most of the time you argue with your own stupidity. Try to keep it quiet and let the rest of us avoid it.

          • Kai

            Actually, you don’t seem to understand what you are looking at or have chosen a purposefully duplicitous comparison. The NetEase article has around 40,000 people *posting*, not 129,432. We don’t know how many people read or are participating in the Sina article Sino-sociopathy referred to. We only know the posted comment number, and this does not mean “thus no more than 4,873 people participating” since anyone can upvote a comment. You once again show a severe logic deficit.

            Fauna’s NetEase article:
            – 13,973 comments.
            – 129,452 participants.

            Sino-Sociopathy’s Sina article:
            – 652 comments.
            – 4872 participants.

            It would appear YOU “don’t seem to understand what you’re looking at” and have once again shown a “severe logic deficit”.

            So, the relevant comparison would be upvotes/posts ratio, not a comparison which focuses on information which is asymmetric or incomplete.

            Why do you think upvotes/posts ratio isn’t asymmetric or incomplete itself?

            What I clearly am stating is anything more than a superficial statistical assessment would reveal Kai’s attempt to deny the validity of addressing that comment is erroneous and deceitful, as it falls within acceptable Chinasmack parameters.

            Where do I “deny the validity of addressing that comment”? What I did was first tell Sino-Sociopathy that he gave a broken link so I couldn’t initially respond to his question and then when you provided a working link, I addressed his comment and put it into what I consider proper context. I never denied the validity of addressing that comment. This is you strawmanning me.

          • Wa

            “Fauna’s NetEase article:
            – 13,973 comments.
            – 129,452 participants.

            Sino-Sociopathy’s Sina article:
            – 652 comments.
            – 4872 participants.

            It would appear YOU “don’t seem to understand what you’re looking at” and have once again shown a ’severe logic deficit’.”

            Well, at least we know you are both equally stupid and do not know what you are talking about.

            The first NetEase article above:

            – 39654 comments.
            – 129368 participants.

            Sino-sociopathy’s article:

            – 4874 评论 (COMMENTS)
            – ???? participants.

            “Why do you think upvotes/posts ratio isn’t asymmetric or incomplete itself?”

            With an equivalent base of statistical confidence, we are comparing accessible data categorized in the same way, which means it is not asymmetric. As I stated above, there are problems with this method, but at least it is a reasonably fair arbitrary determination.

            “Where do I “deny the validity of addressing that comment”? What I did was first tell Sino-Sociopathy that he gave a broken link so I couldn’t initially respond to his question and then when you provided a working link, I addressed his comment and put it into what I consider proper context. I never denied the validity of addressing that comment. This is you strawmanning me.”

            And this is you attempting to accuse another person of stawmanning again without actually considering what you’ve said:

            “That’s as if someone with a moniker like White-sociopathy pointed to an objectionable but otherwise “the most popular” comment on some YouTube video without pointing out that the video has very few views and the comment itself has very few upvotes. Why the hell would anyone think this remotely intelligent much less honest?”

            Not only is this idiotic and somewhat racially charged for placing “Sino” and “White” on the same semantic plane, but it is demonstrably clear in attempting to deny the validity of the comment in question (especially in light of the fact that 5000 comments is a reasonably acceptable sample size). With comments like this, why would anyone consider you intelligent much less honest?

          • Kai

            The first NetEase article above:

            – 39654 comments.
            – 129368 participants.

            Fauna translated two NetEase articles. I obviously posted the stats for the second one. The first one just results in an even larger difference.

            Well, at least we know you are both equally stupid and do not know what you are talking about.

            Sino-sociopathy’s article:

            – 4874 评论 (COMMENTS)
            – ???? participants.

            Sorry, you’re the stupid one who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, doesn’t know how to use the Sina website, and doesn’t understand how many Chinese websites display their comment counts.

            This is the original Sina article Sino-Sociopathy was referring to, as he himself has linked to. You are looking at the simplified mobile version of the article. If you look on the original article:

            已有652条评论,共4,874人参与

            条评论 = comments
            人参与 = participants

            With an equivalent base of statistical confidence, we are comparing accessible data categorized in the same way, which means it is not asymmetric.

            First, why do you premise your argument here on a presumption of “an equivalent base of statistical confidence” that isn’t established?

            Second, your entire argument is misguided and misdirected. You are trying your damn hardest to straw man me into “denying the validity of addressing a comment”. I did no such thing. “Statistical confidence” therefore has no relevance.

            Third, have you stopped to consider how the “accessible data” is categorized differently, thus making it asymmetric? Have you further considered the significance of who is doing the categorizing?

            And this is you attempting to accuse another person of stawmanning again without actually considering what you’ve said:

            Uh, what I said doesn’t contradict.

            Not only is this idiotic and somewhat racially charged for placing “Sino” and “White” on the same semantic plane,

            Oh, I’m sorry, let’s change that to American-Sociopathy then. My point remains valid.

            but it is demonstrably clear in attempting to deny the validity of the comment in question (especially in light of the fact that 5000 comments is a reasonably acceptable sample size).

            First, are you accusing me of “denying the validity of addressing a comment” or are you accusing me of “denying the validity of a comment”? Can you please get your accusations straight?

            Second, as I’ve said, I haven’t denied the validity of addressing a comment. Neither have I denied “the validity of a the comment in question”. I have to the contrary validated the comment by explicitly confirming the number of upvotes, saying such comments exist on Sina and elsewhere, that I’ve seen them, and that I can probably find more of them than Sino-Sociopathy could. How could I be “denying the validity of the comment”?

            Third, nope, it is “demonstratbly clear” in pointing out the intellectual dishonesty of highlighting a comment and representing its popularity WITHOUT PROPER CONTEXT. Again, you’re using a straw man. You earlier asked me if I knew what point I’m trying to make. I said the point I was trying to make was about “proper context”. You’re now misrepresenting me as trying to make completely different point. It would appear you don’t like the point I’m making and are trying to substitute a weaker point to attack. That’s intellectual dishonety.

          • Wa

            “Fauna translated two NetEase articles. I obviously posted the stats for the second one. The first one just results in an even larger difference.”

            The first one is what I referenced in my comments to Alex, and it was also the focus of comments translated above which fall below the 7.5% threshold.

            “Sorry, you’re the stupid one who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, doesn’t know how to use the Sina website, and doesn’t understand how many Chinese websites display their comment counts.”

            Actually, I’m just the one who linked to another web page which didn’t differentiate between comments and participants. Sorry, Kai, but I made my reference clear and cited what was put up by Sina on it, nor was my citation inaccurate. My comments on Alex stand because he did not understand what he was talking about and did display a logic deficit by saying the following:

            “The article you and Sino-sociopathy refer to had 4,873 comments and thus no more than 4,873 people participating.”

            Whereas I may be faulted for looking at a website which labeled both comments and participants 评论, Alex is to be faulted for stating that comments and participants are the same thing. Either he saw the site I referenced and displayed ridiculous logic in the lines above, or he saw the link Sino-sociopathy provided and chose to use erroneous labels.

            Of course, none of this changes the validity of the comparison. It is simply an obstacle in the attempt to assess proportionality, and it in fact lowers the threshold for Chinasmack’s parameters in the metric I introduced.

            “First, why do you premise your argument here on a presumption of “an equivalent base of statistical confidence” that isn’t established?”

            Because without it, we there is little reason to compare the two sets of comments at all; and you have done that repeatedly. Again, Chinasmack cannot justify the statistical confidence of its own translations as representative of Chinese netizens or the Chinese citizenry any more than the article Sino-sociopathy can due to issues pertaining to randomization. Therefore, the “popularity” of your comments means very little.

            “Second, your entire argument is misguided and misdirected. You are trying your damn hardest to straw man me into “denying the validity of addressing a comment”. I did no such thing. “Statistical confidence” therefore has no relevance.”

            Incorrect on all counts. I’ve quoted you denying the validity of addressing the comment above, and your response on that issue is typical hedging (I’ll get to that). You’ve also explicitly stated your concern with “context” above in the form of statistical significance:

            “The point I’m making is to put both his remarks and your remarks in proper context. A number 1 comment with 352 upvotes is very different from a number 1 comment with over 20,000 upvotes as far as statistical significance is concerned.”

            “Third, have you stopped to consider how the “accessible data” is categorized differently, thus making it asymmetric?”

            With the distinction clarified between comments and participants on the link Sino-sociopathy provided, I think we are a bit closer now. We still have to consider whether there is any difference between how upvotes are registered and the effect of that on the participant numbers. Again, there are problems with this, as I’ve said repeatedly, but it is an approach to the issue superior to falsely weighing the validity of Chinasmack comments based on an equally unrepresentative popularity.

            “That’s as if someone with a moniker like White-sociopathy pointed to an objectionable but otherwise “the most popular” comment on some YouTube video without pointing out that the video has very few views and the comment itself has very few upvotes. Why the hell would anyone think this remotely intelligent much less honest?”

            “Oh, I’m sorry, let’s change that to American-Sociopathy then. My point remains valid.”

            Your point remains invalid, as your point is simply to state it is unintelligent and dishonest to point to the comments Sino-sociopathy chose to point to. You continue to fallaciously assert that this does not mean you are denying the validity of addressing the comments, but even in your twisted apologetics the words “unintelligent” and “dishonest” constitute and assault on that validity.

            “it is “demonstratbly clear” in pointing out the intellectual dishonesty of highlighting a comment and representing its popularity WITHOUT PROPER CONTEXT.”

            You are hedging and misrepresenting your own words. At first you claimed your accusation of dishonesty was directed at me. Then when you realized you couldn’t make that accusation stick, you directed at others as well. Your obsession with “proper context” is an excuse, as “proper context” would necessitate a basis of comparison beyond mere popularity. Proportionality and statistical confidence would necessarily come into play. It is your context which is lacking.

            You reveal your dishonesty time and again, and your accusations of me strawmanning you are just a strategy to distract from your actual words.

            By the way, why do I have to remind you that Sino- and White- are not semantically substitutable words? This reveals nothing of your character, huh?

          • Kai

            The first one is what I referenced in my comments to Alex, and it was also the focus of comments translated above which fall below the 7.5% threshold.

            Irrelevant to my point, which applies regardless of whether the first or second NetEase article is used.

            Actually, I’m just the one who linked to another web page which didn’t differentiate between comments and participants.

            Euphemism. Please have the grace to acknowledge you made an argument premised on a mistaken understanding of how things work. You did not know what you were talking about, you demonstrated you don’t know how to use the Sina website, and you demonstrated you don’t understand how may Chinese websites display their comment counts. Yet you still arrogantly shoved your ignorance in other people’s face.

            You want to deflect by saying Alex was also mistaken? Fine, but at least take ownership of your own mistake.

            Of course, none of this changes the validity of the comparison. It is simply an obstacle in the attempt to assess proportionality, and it in fact lowers the threshold for Chinasmack’s parameters in the metric I introduced.

            You’re trying to win an argument by dictating the premises. It’s like trying to win a game by dictating the rules to your favor. If you want to assess proportionality, then assess proportionality.

            1. Is it important to consider the context of the article and comment SIno-Sociopathy linked to?

            2. Is it important to consider the context of the articles and comments that Fauna translated and linked to?

            3. Does sample size (number of views, comments, participants, upvotes) matter?

            4. Is there a significant difference between what Fauna translated and linked to versus what Sino-Sociopathy quoted and linked to?

            5. Does this difference affect the significance of representations like “second most upvoted comment of the Sina story”?

            You want to assess proportionality? DO IT. It’s what I’ve been doing the entire time in making my point about “proper context”.

            Because without it, there is little reason to compare the two sets of comments at all; and you have done that repeatedly.

            Oh dear, you do realize you’ve just inadvertently argued for what you’ve accused others of arguing, right? You’ve accused me of trying to deny the validity of the comment or of addressing the comment. You’ve now given a reason for doing just that. You’re arguing with yourself.

            I compared the two sets of comments because I am comparing the contexts, the sample sizes, the statistic significane of them. I don’t need “an equivalent base of statistical confidence” to make this comparison about proper contexts.

            Again, Chinasmack cannot justify the statistical confidence of its own translations as representative of Chinese netizens or the Chinese citizenry any more than the article Sino-sociopathy can due to issues pertaining to randomization.

            You’re trying to accuse cS of doing something it doesn’t claim to do. Again, see our FAQ.

            Therefore, the “popularity” of your comments means very little.

            In your contorted framework, the popularity of Sino-Sociopathy’s comment also therefore mean very little. The problem with your overall argument on this is that neither Sino-Sociopathy nor we are operating in your framework!

            Sino-Sociopathy considers the popularity of his comment to be important in one way. We consider the popularity of the comments Fauna translated to be important in the same way. They are therefore comparable, as are their contexts, as are the differences in articles, in views, in total comments, in total comment participants, in total upvotes.

            Sino-Sociopathy represented his comment in terms of popularity as a reflection of Chinese netizen sentiment. We did the same thing. His comment is real. So are ours. His 352 upvotes are real. So our our tens of thousands of upvotes. You made a specific accusation. Your accusation is false because no one is denying the validity of the comment he cited or denying the validity of addressing it. You are making accusations against a straw man.

            Your point remains invalid, as your point is simply to state it is unintelligent and dishonest to point to the comments Sino-sociopathy chose to point to. You continue to fallaciously assert that this does not mean you are denying the validity of addressing the comments,

            Your intellection dishonesty is out of control. You insist on making straw man arguments about what “point” I’m making despite me explicitly stating what my point is (after you asked, no less!).

            There are intelligent and honest ways to point out objectionable and obnoxious comments by Chinese netizens. Sino-Sociopathy did not do so because he didn’t take into account or provide proper context. The point is VERY simple.

            If you keep forcing me to repeat myself, I’m going to ignore you again until you stop clutching to false accusations and finally move ahead in the conversation saying something worth responding to.

            but even in your twisted apologetics the words “unintelligent” and “dishonest” constitute an assault on that validity.

            No, it consitutes an assault on Sino-Socipathy’s behavior, on his chosen way to portray something, not an assault on the validity of the comments or of addressing those comments. I don’t think you’re genuinely so stupid as to mix the two up so you’re once again reinforcing my impression of you as being intellectually dishonest.

            At first you claimed your accusation of dishonesty was directed at me.

            Because that first accusation WAS directed at you. Sino-Sociopathy’s subsequent comment made it clear the accusation of “intellectual dishonesty” also applies to him.

            Your obsession with “proper context” is an excuse, as “proper context” would necessitate a basis of comparison beyond mere popularity. Proportionality and statistical confidence would necessarily come into play. It is your context which is lacking.

            Already addressed above, and I’m going to point you back to this:

            Third, have you stopped to consider how the “accessible data” is categorized differently, thus making it asymmetric? Have you further considered the significance of who is doing the categorizing?

            your accusations of me strawmanning you are just a strategy to distract from your actual words.

            How can I distract from my actual words when I consistently say the same thing and also link back to what I said?

            By the way, why do I have to remind you that Sino- and White- are not semantically substitutable words? This reveals nothing of your character, huh?

            More poisoning the well fallacy from you? The point is that Sino-Sociopathy’s chosen screen name gives cues to his character and motivations behind his comment, just as “White-Sociopathy” or “American-Sociopathy” would. That’s the point that remains.

            You’re insinuating that I’m a racist because “White” is widely considered a “race” while “Sino” (Chinese) can be argued as a mere nationality. Go for it. People can review my comment history and determine whether or not I’m a racist and whether or not I was just trying to illustrate a point about the prejudice and bigotry inherent in choosing a screen name like “Sino-Socipathy”. If I wanted to play this poisoning the well game with you, I would have long ago rhetorically asked how your failure to take issue with his screen name reveals something about your character. See how that works? It’s retarded.

            If you choose to continue with this fallacy, I’m just going to ignore it. I really hope you’ll respond with something that doesn’t require me to repeat myself.

          • Wa

            Kai, your mendacity persists throughout your claims, but we’ll start with the basics first.

            “In your contorted framework, the popularity of
            Sino-Sociopathy’s comment also therefore means very little. The problem with your overall argument on this is that neither Sino-Sociopathy nor we are operating in your framework!

            Sino-Sociopathy considers the popularity of his comment to be important in one way. We consider the popularity of the comments Fauna translated to be important in the same way. They are therefore comparable, as are their contexts, as are the differences in articles, in views, in total comments, in total comment participants, in total upvotes.

            Sino-Sociopathy represented his comment in terms of
            popularity as a reflection of Chinese netizen sentiment. We did the same thing. His comment is real. So are ours. His 352 upvotes are real. So our our tens of thousands of upvotes.

            You on the other hand made a specific accusation. Your accusation is false because no one is denying the validity of the comment he cited or denying the validity of addressing it. You are therefore making accusations against a straw man.”

            This really gets to the heart of the matter and allows us to address all of the central points.

            “Sino-Sociopathy considers the popularity of his comment to be important in one way. We consider the popularity of the comments Fauna translated to be important in the same way.”

            There are two issues here that you are conflating.
            First, there is the “importance” of “the popularity”. In that case you and Sino-sociopathy do appear to have the same concept in mind: representative value. However, for reasons I will state again below, the difference between you two lies in the fact that you alone are engaging in a second order error by using something you know to be valueless to purchase something of value.

            Second, there is the importance of what “popularity” is. In this respect you and Sino-sociopathy obviously did not consider the popularity of your comments “in the same way”. In fact, you see “popularity” (a term he did not use) in different ways. His comment referenced the “popularity” of the comment in terms of its position, not its specified upvote count. He is disturbed that the comment is more upvoted than any other (or any other but one). Clearly you see the importance of that position constrained by a relatively small upvote count. EQUALLY CLEARLY by his own words, he didn’t. This is, after all, the basis of your accusations, so there is no use denying it.

            “They are therefore comparable, as are their contexts, as are the differences in articles, in views, in total comments, in total comment participants, in total upvotes.”

            No, you are clearly comparing a few different things here and are using “the contexts” to conflate quantitative and qualitative issues. I’ll destroy your claims on each, so don’t worry about that, but you must be clear that you insist on a quantitative assessment yet conflate qualitative issues with it.

            Let’s deal with the quantitative first.

            You are accusing Sino-sociopathy of not specifying the upvote count (and providing “context” in that manner) because he clearly did not. Your assumption is that it is necessary to do so. You think he has to incorporate that quantitative difference into his address. You think it is necessary context. If you are right about it being necessary, then you have reason to believe not addressing it is unintelligent and dishonest. You have reason to believe his “behavior” is the issue, addressing the comment AS HE DID, not merely the fact that he addressed the comment. If you are not right about it being necessary, you are accusing him of dishonesty without basis, and you are trying to deny the validity of addressing the comment–merely that, not his behavior, as his behavior will not be the issue should the quantitative specification not be necessary (we’ll deal with the qualitative later, but the quantitative clearly takes precedence in your accusations).

            “Sino-Sociopathy represented his comment in terms of
            popularity as a reflection of Chinese netizen sentiment. We did the same thing. His comment is real. So are ours. His 352 upvotes are real. So our our tens of thousands of upvotes.”

            Here is your claim on why specifying the upvote count is necessary. Note that you articulate “popularity as a reflection of Chinese netizen sentiment” (“we did the same thing”) again, and here is where your problems with quantitative assessment begin. By claiming translated comments on Chinasmack “reflect” “Chinese netizen sentiment”, you are arguing for them being representative. By arguing for them being representative and highlighting the quantitative difference between 352 upvotes and 20,000 upvotes, you are claiming sample size is a key issue and will somehow gain your translated comments more purchase. However… I’ve pointed out the intractable problem with this approach to you many times already:

            “The statistical confidence of online opinions is an issue of randomization, not pure ‘popularity’.”

            And at certain times you’ve even mendaciously responded:

            “I can’t “fail to recognize” something I myself have explicitly advised and cautioned others of.”

            (Yet here you do)

            “You’re trying to accuse cS of doing something it doesn’t claim to do.”

            (Not only did I not accuse you of that, but here you are claiming precisely that it does)

            One can have no statistical confidence in a sample *regardless of the size* if problems pertaining to randomization are not sorted and controlled (Don’t believe me? I’ll show you idiots making unfounded claims about American society based on 20,000,000 non-randomized Republican votes). You have admitted Chinasmack’s claim to being representative here faces this exact problem (yes, so does Sino-sociopathy’s), yet you think the difference in quantitative upvotes between Sino-sociopathy’s comment and your own top comments are enough to purchase value, to override this problem? No.

            Your entire basis for a quantitative comparison is undermined with this type of assessment. A sample size predicated on upvote count or participant count difference IS WORTHLESS without proper randomization.

            IT IS THEREFORE UNNECESSARY TO SPECIFY UPVOTE COUNT in Sino-sociopathy’s claim. Thus, you are accusing him of dishonesty without basis from a quantitative standpoint, and your comment criticism is therefore NOT directed at his “behavior”.

            “Oh dear, you do realize you’ve just inadvertently argued for what you’ve accused others of arguing, right? You’ve accused me of trying to deny the validity of the comment or of addressing the comment. You’ve now given a reason for doing just that. You’re arguing with yourself.

            I compared the two sets of comments because I am comparing the contexts, the sample sizes, the statistical significance of them. I don’t need “an equivalent base of statistical confidence” to make this
            comparison about proper contexts.“

            You are simply behaving foolishly. I haven’t inadvertently argued for anything. Even Alex ultimately understood this point when I made it above. It is you who chose to deny the validity of addressing the comment ON THE BASIS of a quantitative account which is worthless in terms of representation, the very thing you say you agree with Sino-sociopathy on. Do you think statistical significance is independent from statistical confidence? Your pretext of being more representative because Chinasmack’s comments are a larger sample size is meaningless due to problems I’ve just mentioned. You either have larger numbers in isolation, or you have nothing. It is you who chose to compare things on this basis, rather than on any other form of “popularity”.

            If we are to compare, we have to find a way to compare things that are comparable and meaningful, not a sample size which is wholly irrelevant. You obviously want to compare, but the notions of quantitative assessment you have simply don’t work. Sino-sociopathy, in contrast, did not compare the comment he referenced to anything on Chinasmack. Now, judging from his second statement, not his first, he obviously sees those comments as representative of Chinese netizens (and perhaps broader society), so what does that leave us with?

            Since you can’t rely on sample size for statistical confidence due to problems of randomization, since you are insistent that we must compare on the basis of representative schema, and since 4900 participants is not a ridiculously small number but one that often conforms to adequate sample sizes, I suggested a more valid and fair means of comparison: assuming a base level of statistical confidence for both and comparing their proportional popularity within their own sets. This can quantitatively account for your concern with upvotes and also quantitatively account for the proportionality Sino-sociopathy is concerned about. That is how you make quantification work in this case, not your ridiculous double talk.

            I’ll get to the qualitative aspects of “context” you conflated with this next. LIttle busy at the moment.

          • Kai

            Second, there is the importance of what “popularity” is. In this respect you and Sino-sociopathy obviously did not consider the popularity of your comments “in the same way”.

            I disagree. See his subsequent comment and his past comments where he wields popularity “in the same way” (specifically “considers the popularity of his comment to be important in one way”).

            Your assumption is that it is necessary to do so.

            Yes, this is necessary to do in order to be intellectually honest when representing the popularity of something.

            By claiming translated comments on Chinasmack “reflect” “Chinese netizen sentiment”, you are arguing for them being representative.

            Once again, see our FAQ. You’re making an argument that is already addressed and refuted.

            (Not only did I not accuse you of that, but here you are claiming precisely that it does)

            Wow, you really need to go back and reread because you are not following the conversation. As I’ve said, I’m not going to keep repeating myself (ugh, I just repeated myself).

            yet you think the difference in quantitative upvotes between Sino-sociopathy’s comment and your own top comments are enough to purchase value, to override this problem? No.

            You’re still arguing against a straw man. You’re still trying to argue that I’m somehow denying the validity of a comment when my point is that proper context is necessary to address a comment that is represented in terms of popularity. Please argue against what I’m saying, not what you’re putting into my mouth.

            IT IS THEREFORE UNNECESSARY TO SPECIFY UPVOTE COUNT in Sino-sociopathy’s claim.

            I said it would be intellectually honest for people to take into account proper context when evaluating a comment. Upvote count is part of that context, which is why I articulated it when providing such context. It puts Sino-Sociopathy’s “second most upvoted” representation into context.

            Thus, you are accusing him of dishonesty without basis from a quantitative standpoint, and your comment criticism is therefore NOT directed at his “behavior”.

            Nope. You’re still arguing against a straw man instead of my actual position.

            It is you who chose to deny the validity of addressing the comment ON THE BASIS of a quantitative account which is worthless in terms of representation, the very thing you say you agree with Sino-sociopathy on.

            Still an unproven straw man argument. I have not in any way “chosen to deny the validity of addressing the comment” on any basis. To prove this accusation, you just need to find a quote of mine that reasonably suggests I’ve “chosen to deny the validity of addressing the comment”. You can’t do this without misrepresenting me, so you’re misrepresenting me and it is getting really tiresome.

            Do you think statistical significance is independent from statistical confidence?

            I don’t think you understand statistical confidence and its application in this discussion.That’s my problem. You’re throwing out big words and not using them correctly. I asked you a very specific question to determine whether or not you know what you’re talking about and you still haven’t answered it. Since I’m afraid you’re going to play dumb, here it is quoted:

            “Third, have you stopped to consider how the “accessible data” is categorized differently, thus making it asymmetric? Have you further considered the significance of who is doing the categorizing?”

            I want a straight non-convoluted (and as Alex would say a non-“circumlocuitous”) non-“mendacious” answer from you on this instead of what you did last time: changing the subject.

            […the rest of your comment…]

            You’ve read our About and FAQ pages, right? How many times have I asked you this now? Argh, I’m repeating myself again.

            This whole “quantative” and “qualitative” framework you are trying to use is not working. I feel like you’re using such words just to sound more intelligent and persuasive. Let me go back to the actual meat of the disagreement between us:

            “1. Is it important to consider the context of the article and comment SIno-Sociopathy linked to?

            2. Is it important to consider the context of the articles and comments that Fauna translated and linked to?

            3. Does sample size (number of views, comments, participants, upvotes) matter?

            4. Is there a significant difference between what Fauna translated and linked to versus what Sino-Sociopathy quoted and linked to?

            5. Does this difference affect the significance of representations like ‘second most upvoted comment of the Sina story’?”

          • Wa

            I should point out that when I say “Sino-sociopathy’s article”, I’m referencing the one I linked to with a working link since mine was the only one provided for a time. I still haven’t clicked on his.

          • Kai

            At this point […] you’re being dishonest.

            Okay, I’ll go ahead and let others judge that. I believe I have sounder premises for assuming they didn’t actually check the source Sino-sociopathy wanted to link to than you do for assuming they have. If your goal is to argue that they MAY have, sure, I’ll concede that. It’s a possibility that I find unlikely given what I know about the upvoters. What I said about us not being able to know for sure remains true. We have no objective reliable way of determining if they had or hadn’t.

            I see. In that case […] in any way.

            Yeah, okay, I’m gonna let those interested in judging your propensity for intellectual dishonesty by reviewing your comment history.

            If you think this requires massive amounts of “contextualizing”, it is a sign of nothing but your sensitivity. As I said, Kai, “poorly considered accusations designed merely to distract are the tools of maladroit apologists”, and you’ve decided this is where you want to sit.

            Meh. It’s like when whuddyasack or some other “anti-white” hater pulls up some random anecdote or statistic to substantiate a conclusion they want to impress upon others, and people challenge it. I’m doing the same thing. Context matters, just like the word choice, screen name, and representations “Sino-sociopathic” chose to construct his comment with. You read motivations into people based on what they’ve written and how they conduct themselves just as I do. All that matters at the end of the day is how compelling and persuasive our read is to others.

            So what’s with the tirade?

            Here’s where I redirect you to your first paragraph (starting with “At this point you are simply full of BS…”) because it applies to you just as much as you think it applies to me.

            but you also fail to recognize […]that the statistical confidence of online opinions is an issue of randomization, not pure “popularity”. And the issue of randomization is as much a problem for the statistical confidence of posts you select as it is for the article and posts Sino-sociopathy highlighted.

            Sorry, you have zero basis for thinking I “fail to recognize” anything you think you’re saying here. See our FAQ. I can’t “fail to recognize” something I myself have explicitly advised and cautioned others of.

            In conclusion:

            I’m going to ignore you now because, again, you spend more time in your arguments slinging ad hominems trying to make the issue about the other person than you do actually discussing and debating the actual subject at hand. You have a history of being disingenuous, dishonest, and not discussing in good faith. I’ve laid out my argument about the subject above so these are, yes, my ad hominems against you. If people want to understand why I feel I cannot have an honest discussion with you, they can review your discussions and judge the applicability of this accusations of your behavior for themselves.

          • Wa

            “I believe I have sounder premises for assuming they didn’t actually check the source Sino-sociopathy wanted to link to than you do for assuming they have.”

            What are they?

            “If your goal is to argue that they MAY have, sure, I’ll concede that.”

            You don’t need to. Since you appear slow to understand, I’ll reiterate: your original claim was they *couldn’t*. They could. Then you started arguing on the basis of what MAY have happened, a position you haven’t substantiated. Don’t confuse our claims, Kai.

            “Yeah, okay, I’m gonna let those interested in judging your propensity for intellectual dishonesty by reviewing your comment history.”

            Please do. I’m sure that means you won’t have to justify your accusation in this case, as you never do.
            How convenient for you.

            “Here’s where I redirect you to your first paragraph (starting with “At this point you are simply full of BS…”) because it applies to you just as much as you think it applies to me.”

            Sharing our error again, Kai? You throw out accusations like you suffer from Tourette’s. It’s a game you think works for you.

            “It’s like when whuddyasack or some other “anti-white” hater pulls up some random anecdote or statistic to substantiate a conclusion they want to impress upon others, and people challenge it.”

            I don’t know anything about Sino-sociopathy, but I can’t say that post above resembles whuddyasack’s rants. Then again, I didn’t exchange mail with whuddy or take a long time to start criticizing him, as you did. You know, before, when you just called him and his kind “bold”. In fact, this just seems like another one of your failed analogies.

            “All that matters at the end of the day is how compelling and persuasive our read is to others.”

            I’ll take that as an admission that honesty is not really a concern of yours.

            “I’m going to ignore you now because, again, you spend more time in your arguments slinging ad hominems trying to make the issue about the other person than you do actually discussing and debating the actual subject at hand. You have a history of being disingenuous, dishonest, and not discussing in good faith. I’ve laid out my argument about the subject above so these are, yes, my ad hominems against you.”

            Right. Who slung the first ad hominem above, again? All I’ve asked is that you justify them and receive in kind if you want to go down that road. Instead you play the victim while slinging more. I’ve answered your statistical points below in a post to Alex, if that suffices. Your logical idiocy I cannot countenance.

          • Sino-Sociopathy

            “Cherry Picking”? Kai you are exposing your own intellectual dishonesty here. You know that you could click on any of those Sina stories and the top comments are all flaming the US and insinuating its an American plot. You really need to be more honest about the nature of China’s state sponsored hatred of Americans and Westerners in general. This hatred is being reflected in the comments of Chinese netizens. Dont play naive and definitely dont accuse anyone of cherry picking.

            Here is the link, not sure why it got cut off. Go ahead and make your concession.

            http://news.sina.com.cn/w/2014-07-18/014930537497.shtml

          • Alex Dương

            You ignored what Kai pointed out: you did not provide context as to how popular the “top comments” are compared to the comments translated here at chinaSMACK. Your highlighted anti-American comment has 352 upvotes. The top comment in one of the NetEase articles translated here has over 18,000 upvotes, and the top comment in another NetEase article translated here has over 33,000 upvotes. Neither is anti-American.

          • Kai

            You know that you could click on any of those Sina stories and the top comments are all flaming the US and insinuating its an American plot.

            Really?

            Let’s take a look at this one then, which was significantly more popular and commented than your article:

            http://news.sina.com.cn/w/2014-07-17/231430537100.shtml

            Not a single one of the top 10 comments flames the US or insinuates its an American plot. As per Wa’s line of argument, I’ve just proved you wrong.

            Please don’t make the mistake of thinking I’m denying that there are Chinese netizens who flame the US or are insinuating that this is an American plot. I know there are such netizens. I’ve seen them on Sina too. I’ve seen them elsewhere as well.

            Lemme show you another one:

            http://comment5.news.sina.com.cn/comment/skin/default.html?channel=gj&newsid=1-63-8114&style=1

            Over 100k comments and over 600k participants. Of the top 5 most upvoted comments displayed, not a single one flaming America or insinuating an American plot.

            About cherry picking:

            Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. [1] Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.[2]

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)

            You really need to be more honest about the nature of China’s state sponsored hatred of Americans and Westerners in general.

            You’ve got to be kidding me. I’m way more honest than you are. I acknowledge that there are anti-American and anti-Western propaganda and editorials in China. I also recognize that they are not the only media voices in China, and this is reflected in the actual diversity of Chinese media content AND “reflected in the comments of Chinese netizens”.

            I can’t play naive when I openly acknowledge things. Whereas you overstate things, I caution against overweighting them and falling to fallacies like cherry picking, selective attention, and confirmation bias. The fact is, I can find way more obnoxious anti-American sentiments by Chinese netizens and online communities than you can. But I put them into context because that’s the intellectualy HONEST thing to do.

    • Guang Xiang

      Since when should comments in an article be taken seriously? But don’t let me stop the circlejerk.

      • Wa

        Since you started visiting Chinasmack? Or do you come here just for the visual stimulation?

        • Guang Xiang

          Yea, I come here for some brief entertainment; what truly amuses me are the people who doesn’t know how to back down after being clearly refuted, continuing to spin it in whatever way they can in order to save face.

          On topic with the original comment in this thread: How can anybody take the comments seriously (and most ridiculously, for statistical interpretation) when you’re not subjecting the ENTIRE nation to provide MANDATORY comments? Ever heard of the vocal few?

          • Wa

            Do you take the translated comments on Chinasmack seriously? Again, these are a vocal few. It’s not like Sino-sociopathy’s article was pulled off of a minor website or some racist’s blog with a readership of a few hundred, and its not like that comment isn’t about as blatantly malicious as possible. Nor did anyone make the claim that such comments are to be preferred for assessing Chinese attitudes.

            Kai doesn’t want to back down from his initial comment that people couldn’t check on Sino-sociopathy’s article, yet he hasn’t provided any evidence that they did not do so. Kai doesn’t want to back down from calling me intellectually dishonest for verifying the existence of the news and comments. Kai doesn’t want to back down from claims that others were cherry-picking, yet Alex suggested only comparing the proportional representation of upvotes of the most upvoted comments here, not the rest. At least I attempted to fairly provide a proper means of comparison rather than point to a “popularity” which, from a statistical standpoint, means very little.

          • Kai

            Kai doesn’t want to back down from calling me intellectually dishonest for verifying the existence of the news and comments.

            My lord. You’re intellectually dishonest for dishonestly representing what I’m calling you intellectually dishonest for. Is there such a thing as “intellectually-dishonest-ception”? You’re intellectual dishonesty wrapped in intellectual dishonesty wrapped in intellectual dishonesty…

          • Wa

            And you are just proving my point and acting like a jabbering jackass in the process. Again, your claim that I was intellectually dishonest was addressed to this post:

            “How difficult was that, Kai? It seems the comment is now number 1 by a good margin, with the second most up-voted comment also insinuating US involvement.”

            Which verifies the existence of the news and comments Sino-sociopathy referred to. I noted a change in position and also noted what was in second now since that’s where Sino-sociopathy had the comment ranked. All the shit you are trying to sell on the importance of context, when you’ve provided nothing substantial (and I’ll address that below), cannot justify your claim that the comment above was intellectually dishonest.

            If you are really going to accuse someone of poisoning the well, you should know better.

          • Probotector

            Don’t worry, he calls anyone he doesn’t agree with “intellectually dishonest”. It’s just a pretentious label he likes to throw around wantonly to sound important.

          • Kai

            blockquote>Which verifies the existence of the news and comments Sino-sociopathy referred to.

            1. I never needed “verification of the existence of the news and comments Sino-Sociopathy referred to”.

            cannot justify your claim that the comment above was intellectually dishonest.

            2. Nothing you said in that comment of yours relates to why I’ve accused you of being intellectually dishonest.

            If you are really going to accuse someone of poisoning the well, you should know better.

            Please don’t misuse the fallacy. There’s a difference between refuting your arguments by pointing out the intellectual dishonesty in them, and introducing an irrelevant accusation about a person in order to distract from evaluating the validity of their arguments.

          • Wa

            “I never needed “verification of the existence of the news and comments Sino-Sociopathy referred to."

            You clearly did since verifying them was necessary to prove people are able to check what he’s referring to. You declared people were unable “to check what you’re [Sino-sociopathy] referring to”. I checked and stated his reference. Do you seriously realize how stupid it is to try to stand on this point? You are making an ass of yourself.

            “Nothing you said in that comment of yours relates to why I’ve accused you of being intellectually dishonest.”

            Except your first accusation followed directly after that comment. You already verified this point below. Again, you are making an ass of yourself and proving me correct.

          • Kai

            You clearly did since verifying them was necessary to prove people are able to check what he’s referring to.

            Telling Sino-Sociopath his link is broken is not me needing to “verify the existence of the comment” he referred to. It is me telling him I’d like a working link so I can see the context surrounding the comment in order to address his question. You strawmanning this into me needing to verify the comments existence is you once again being intellectually dishonest.

            You declared people were unable “to check what you’re [Sino-sociopathy] referring to”.

            No, I questioned how he got 8 upvotes when those people couldn’t even check what he was referring to. You argued that because you could find the source, those 8 people must’ve took the time to find the source themselves, read it in Chinese, and then upvoted.

            I remained skeptical that these 8 people did such a thing and believe they simply upvoted because they agreed with the sentiment Sino-Sociopathy expressed.

            Since the only way this could be settled is to rely on the honesty of the 8 people, 6 of which are anonymous, in representing whether or not they actually did what you are arguing they did, I said it isn’t possible for us to actually settle this. I find your assumption that they did all that, and were capable of all that, to be presumptive. You of course think I’m being presumptive too. Like I said, this can’t be objectively determined.

            I checked and stated his reference.

            No, you attacked me for asking how 8 people could upvote him without being able to check the source on the presumption that it is easy to find the source and that the 8 people who upvoted him did so. You also re-emphasized the popularity of the comment.

            I responded by, as I said above, remaining skeptical about them having actually gone out of their way to find the source before upvoting. I responded also by putting the popularity of the comment into what I consider proper context. If Sino-Sociopath and you are both going to highlight the comment with an emphasis on its popularity, I will put that popularity into context.

            Except your first accusation followed directly after that comment.

            Yes, have you considered how my statement there is true? I said “Cherry-picking is the game of the intellectually dishonest”. I’m referring to your behavior, not the literal specifics of what you said. Stop playing dumb. Stop the intellectual dishonesty.

          • Wa

            Congratulations, Kai, you’ve so completely inured yourself to your own stupidity and mendacity that you cannot actually see how badly you’ve taken leave of reality. Your claim now stands as follows:

            “Nothing you said in that comment of yours relates to why I’ve accused you of being intellectually dishonest.”

            but it is “your behavior”

            and therefore

            “your behavior does not relate to your comment”

            In other words, you don’t even have to refer to my comment at all any more. You can simply create a fantasy of my behavior that you wish to see. You’ve already done so in this comment:

            “No, you attacked me for asking how 8 people could upvote him without being able to check the source on the presumption that it is easy to find the source and that the 8 people who upvoted him did so. You also re-emphasized the popularity of the comment.”

            The entire set of sentences that referred to you rather than the post Sino-sociopathy referenced is limited to one, yet still you manage to misread it.

            “How difficult was that, Kai?”

            In your fantasy world, this is me “attacking” you. You have no firm semantic, pragmatic, or phatic foundation for your claim: it is all, at the very least, gross exaggeration. And even if we choose to overlook the fact that this, yes, “is something in that comment of [mine] that relates to why [you’ve] accused [me] of being intellectually dishonest”, and therefore overlook the fact that you are desperately trying to have it both ways, we can’t do it for the next sentence: “You also re-emphasized the popularity of the comment.”

            So which is it, Kai? Can you comment on my behavior without reference/relation to my comment? If so, why are you trying to deny it? The fact that you can twist yourself up like a pretzel in baseless sophistry tells us not only how badly you believe yourself, but also how deluded and duplicitous you are. There are several psychological disorders I suspect you have and, I suspect, you may have already considered you have.

            It should no longer be astounding to see why you must insist on other people’s intellectual dishonesty. Your glaring guilt in this regard merely makes you desire an “even” playing field, lowering everyone to your level for your own benefit.

            I’ll address the rest of your comments in a little while, but first I think it would be wise for you to talk to your friends and see if they have any counsel. Seriously. I’ve rarely seen you lose your shit this badly.

  • BaiGui

    The BUK missiles are pretty old, made in Soviet Russia. Maybe production continued in the 90’s and the then semi-independent Ukrainian government purchased some more. What is sure, however, is that US did not fund these weapons. It is still uncorfimed if the missile used in this attack was stolen by the Donetsk rebels from Ukrainian bases or sent over across the border from Russia. A BUK carries 62 kg of explosives and can reach up to 20 000 m so *if* the missile was a gift from Putin, one must ask what in the world was he thinking to give such weaponry in the hands of the paranoid drunk amateurs of the so-called People’s Republic of Donetsk army?? It could just as well have hit a Russian civilian airplane.

    The Chinese comments expressing disbelief in the possibility of terrorists possessing advanced weapons were quite revealing of the mindset of subjects to a centralized totalitarian state. Chinese terrorist attacks are usually carried out with knives or homemade explosives. But looking back at history, the People’s Republic of China was founded by a similar pack of terrorists who 1)were supported by Russia 2)gained control over military bases and infrastructure, becoming the only provider of security and food and uniting the people against a common enemy.

    • ninxay

      The missile could have been fired from:

      1. Ukraine missile battery, manned by Ukrainian armed forces
      2. Ukraine missile battery, manned by Ukrainian forces defecting to the rebel side
      3. Captured Ukraine missile battery, manned by rebels
      4. Captured Ukraine missile battery, manned by Russians
      5. Russian missile battery, manned by rebels
      6. Russian missile battery, manned by Russians

      Whew. Given that the rebels didn’t have any air power, #1 is unlikely. #2, 3, 4 are possible but Ukraine said it hasn’t lost any Buk units, not sure if that’s to be believed. #5, 6 would be very bad for Russia’s reputation and could force them to stop aiding the separatists.

      We can only know more on based on missile debris and flight recorder data. I’m concerned about Russia’s silence on the matter while Ukraine hogs the airwaves – are they keeping quiet because they have something to hide? Putin and gang would come across as barbaric monsters if even a tiny minnow like Malaysia condemns them.

      • ClausRasmussen

        >> 1. Ukraine missile battery, manned by Ukrainian armed forces

        Not that I think it was them who did it this time, but that have happened: Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 shot down during an Buk missiles exercise in 2001 with 78 lives lost: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812

        Note to self: Don’t fly Malaysian Airlines, don’t fly Ukrainian airspace, and certainly don’t fly Malaysian Airlines in Ukrainian airspace.

    • Kai

      That comment was actually rhetorically insinuating that Russia be blamed for supplying the “terrorists” with such weapons…so it isn’t quite “revealing of the mindset of subjects to a centralized totalitarian state.” The guy isn’t ignorant, he was being sly in pointing his finger.

      @disqus_E4orTDot58:disqus

      • BaiGui

        Apparently my ability to read thoughts between the lines is inferior. I was referring also to the second comment by Xiaoyuan_Rae, who blamed the Ukrainian Army for mistaking the passenger plane for a Russian fighter jet. Both are assuming that the rebels wouldn’t have the capacity to take over Ukrainian weaponry just as easily as they have taken large parts of the land.

        Does anyone know if ethnic russians have been exempted from draft in Ukraine? In many other ex-Soviet states they don’t usually serve. The rebels have been quite succesfull for being untrained soldiers, so I was wondering if the blokes who grew up in post-soviet times have done their military service or not?

        • Kai

          I wasn’t criticizing your ability to read thoughts between the lines. I was just clarifying something to both you and hess, my way of contributing to the discussion with what I know. Please don’t interpret every clarification or correction or disagreement or whatever as some sort of personal attack. I was trying to nip a misunderstanding in the bud and consequently help you guys better appreciate the sentiment and nuance that Chinese netizen expressed.

  • Wa

    “This message brought to you by Dai Xu, not your average Henan citizen.”

    • Confucius

      I don’t understand what your response means, but I assume you’re making some analogy which depicts me as part of the Chinese propaganda machine. You must really have a jaded view of the world and a redneck belief in your own righteousness to see my comment as propaganda. I suggest you should challenge yourself to take on the viewpoint of a neutral observer, maybe swap some of the participants of a particular situation around, and see if you can move past the obstacle. Of course, it is easier to be a bigot but I can assure you life is more beautiful when you open your mind and heart to others who aren’t just bitter and jaded. At least you will enjoy friendships that are more fulfilling, and potentially it may help you in your marital relationship because the male/female divide is often the result of an unwillingness to let go of that male bigotry. Good luck.

      • Wa

        “I don’t understand what your response means”

        Of course not.

        “but I assume you’re making some analogy which depicts me as part of the Chinese propaganda machine.”

        Oh, no. You’re simply someone who comes onto a website cataloguing Chinese responses to news in order to blame the US for a plane being shot down with Russian weaponry. A…ah…”multilateralist”…I think you’d call yourself.

        “You must really have a jaded view of the world and a redneck belief in your own righteousness to see my comment as propaganda. I suggest you should challenge yourself to take on the viewpoint of a neutral observer”

        “Of course, it is easier to be a bigot but I can assure you life is more beautiful when you open your mind and heart to others who aren’t just bitter and jaded.”

        “At least you will enjoy friendships that are more fulfilling, and potentially it may help you in your marital relationship because the male/female divide is often the result of an unwillingness to let go of that male bigotry.”

        I admit, I’ve considered learning from you. You don’t sound the least bit bitter or jaded, and your “redneck belief” is clearly not bigoted, what with this whole tirade hanging on your acknowledged assumption. Perhaps I ought to take the advice of such an unctuous purveyor of platitudes, with a mind propped permanently open by the redoubtable weight of the USS Maddox to receive the effulgent light of the sun.

  • whuddyasack

    RIP to the victims and my heart goes out to the families. Everytime a disaster like this happens, I feel for their loss as they are living my greatest fear with so much gusto despite the pain. All victims who go through this deserve respect and a nations mourn their losses. Even if in different ways, grief is grief and what they are going through is too great for me to understand. I hope their loved ones can live in a world without suffering.

    A very sad loss of life. All of this is very sudden and I observed a moment’s silence with my Australian and Malaysian friends. I don’t agree with the overall lack of sympathy in the netizens. Thankfully, there are those who
    did offer condolences, but if anything this is very rare even here. In fact, it is very disappointing to see many are fighting and picking fights amidst this tragedy. I now understand why the three things you never talk to a friend about are: politics, religion and sex. It gets really ugly. There is a time and place for everything. I wonder if anyone is going to stop and consider how the Dutch, the Malaysian, Australian, and British posters feel when retards being retards decide to selfishly post confrontational bullshit, comparing disasters, and self-victimizing. FFS, learn to evolve. It’s called sympathy and it’s not hard. Just because Malaysian and Dutch posters don’t post often doesn’t mean they don’t exist and they are some of the few silent, unappreciated posters that truly shine.
    So-have-some-consideration, dimwits.

    Sadly, at this point prayers are the best I have and that’s all I can really give.

  • YourSupremeCommander

    I am already starting the countdown to the next Malaysian Airline incident… I say 1 year from now, book it.

  • jon9521

    Amazing the Chinese seem to blame Malaysia Airlines when it is obviously the fault of Russia or their cronies in East Ukraine. Many other airlines followed the same legal route and MH were just unlucky. Are they too far up Putins arse to notice this?

    • woolv

      You don’t have to be rocket scientist to understand that flying a commercial airplane full of passengers over a WAR ZONE is extremely dangerous. US commercial airlines are banned from flying over that area, doesn’t ring any bell to Malaysia Airlines?

      • ninxay

        Ukraine air traffic control cleared that sector from 32,000 feet upwards and ICAO also cleared it. Some airlines like British Airways decided to avoid Ukraine entirely but most didn’t. For your information, in the same day that MH17 was downed, Virgin, Singapore Airlines, Air India, Aeroflot, Thai Airways and Lufthansa were passing over the same area.

      • jon9521

        In fact american airlines were allowed to fly over the area and many did so up to a few days before the attack.

        According to data from the flight-tracking company FlightRadar24, there were 55 planes that flew over eastern Ukraine around where Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 was hit on Thursday, including those from Qatar, Emirates, Etihad, Austrian Airlines, Thai Airways, Jet Airways and Pakistan International Airways.

        A Singapore Airlines flight from Copenhagen to Singapore was within 15 miles of Flight 17 at the time of the crash.

        According to Don Biener, a retired American Airlines captain who flew the Boeing 777 on international routes until 2003, the NOTAMs issued prior to the disaster did not close off the airspace where the Malaysian aircraft was shot down. It wasn’t until after the crash that the FAA issued a NOTAM closing off entire sections of airspace, known as “flight information regions” or FIRs, to U.S. carriers, stating:

      • MonkeyMouth

        you dont have to be a rocket scientist, no…just a rocket LAUNCHER

  • MidniteOwl

    Uneducated peons making noise, thinking they know shit.

    • jon9521

      Those people are just following the Chinese media line – to blame Malaysian Airlines just as with the previous incident. They likely beleive that it will advantage Chinese Airlines business.

  • Bubbles99

    Wow! I thought American commenters were ignorant, but these Chinese comments make us look intelligent and well-informed by comparison.

  • Greg in Wuhan

    This tragedy is a direct result of Russias shameful and obvious attempt to annex the Ukraine and expand its borders. Just like china is trying to do in the south china sea and throughout the region. Lets hope both these countries take notice and scale down their aggressive an illegal attempts at border expansion. Russia cannot be allowed to get away with this! As proven by the phone transcripts published on other news sites Russias involvement and their level of not just cooperation but of leading and guiding these so called Ukrainian rebels is plain for everyone to see. This was done by Soldiers supplied and paid by Russia. Which makes them (despite their country of birth) Russian troops and this a Russian action

  • In describing unfolding events, one could reason Russia has every incentive to deny any culpability in the downing, whether accidental or intended, as it continues to incredulously insist on Ukraine culpability and to boot has already been implicated in the smuggling of a BUK missile launcher back to the US presumably to be destroyed whilst it pours over the ‘black box.’

    Ukraine on the other hand has every incentive to inflame rhetoric and inspire the US and Europe’s hand to at last to take a reluctant stand behind it no matter how reticent the US and Europe are to get involved in the regional fracas. But it seems the West’s hand too has at last been forced as the world watches to see whether the US will accept the current quagmire status quo in East Ukraine or whether it will force Russia to denounce separatists and its support and funding of….. something that Kiev will be desperately hoping for as it takes political advantage of the death of 298 people.

    http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2014/07/malaysian-airiines-mh17-buk-missile-launcher-smuggled-back-russia-missing-2-rockets/

  • According to a 2014 Pew survey, 52% of Indonesians are at least somewhat concerned that territorial disputes between China and neighboring countries could lead to a military conflict.

    • 白色纯棉小裤裤

      52% of Indonesians are at least somewhat concerned that territorial disputes between China and neighboring countries could lead to a military conflict.

      However that does not mean the military conflict is between Indonesia and China.
      I might be concerned about Pakistan having a military conflict with its neighboring countries but I think the probability of Pakistan having a war with China is 0.
      In fact, Indonesians rate China higher than the US.

      • ClausRasmussen

        In my next life I want to be a US diplomat responsible for making friends in South East Asia :-) I wouldn’t have to do a thing, could get drunk every day, and still be a stellar success; the Chinese would do my job for me

    • nita

      If you look at almost all those border disputes, they have been in existence for several decades and thus provide zero evidence of China’s “expansionist” intent. For all its massive problems, PRC China has not pursued nor prioritized expansionist policies like Russia has.

      For most of the PRC’s history, its surrounding border countries have been relatively weak and unstable. Only in recent years have many of these countries become stronger and confident enough to make their voice heard. In addition, China’s bellicose, crazy Communist leaders threatening worldwide nuclear war are long gone and replaced by leaders who at least pretend to reasonable on the world stage. That’s another reason surrounding countries feel more at ease discussing these issues. Just because these border disputes are being discussed more nowadays says nothing about anything.

      If China were truly expansionist like Russia, it would have zero border disputes, because it would just go ahead and annex whatever it wanted from the surrounding small countries instead of “disputing” anything.

      I mention this because I don’t think it does anyone good to paint other countries’ foreign policies with an overly broad brush. Yes, Russia and China were historically the US’s enemies. That does not mean that they now have the same outlook or that there’s going to be another “Cold War.” (That comment has to be the dumbest comment I have ever read on Chinasmack).

      • You’re being a little too generous in giving China’s situation the benefit of the doubt in every way possible.

        Yes, the disputes have been in existence for several decades, in the sense that these unsettled borders have gone several decades without being resolved. However, these disputes which were once predominantly the domain of bureaucratic political negotiation are now becoming the emotional sensations of the outraged general public. If it were only the Western media which were playing up these disputes, then it indeed wouldn’t mean much, but it’s not just Western media; these disputes are getting daily front-page coverage in Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, and perhaps several other countries. I don’t see how you can possibly claim that it “doesn’t mean anything” when there is ample footage of mass protests in these countries, largely unprecedented compared to just three years ago. I’ve read a number of Filipino comments on Filipino websites that characterize their situation as feeling they are being pushed by China into war. I personally don’t agree with this mindset, but it is their mindset nonetheless.

        Considering China’s enormous economy and territory, coupled with its deficiency of soft power, it was frankly stupid to engage in all these border disputes so prematurely. I realize that after three decades of “patiently rising”, the nationalists are eager to finally claim some of the dividends of being a powerful country, but China is still poor and unpopular enough such that it would have benefited from waiting another decade or two before “showing its cards” (or as fenqing like to say, “showing its true colors”). A pro-China political strategist would have to admit that the past two years have been a major PR disaster and a complete sabotage of the past three decades of soft power China had been working so hard to achieve.

        • nita

          No, I am providing the facts while you are stating your beliefs. The fact that you characterize my comments about facts as “generous to China” indicates you think this as a political debate. But facts are not political. You acknowledge the fact that these are decades old disputes, so yes, it does mean nothing that these issues are simply discussed more now in any media, Western or not.

          Like I said, if China were truly expansionist like Russia, it would have no border disputes because it would just annex whatever it wanted. Do you think if China really wanted to annex some disputed territory from a small country like Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, etc, these countries could do anything about it?

          • Again, it’s not just “media” that is discussing it more; it’s the general public. It is a fact that the people of these countries are talking about these border disputes far more than they were several decades ago; it is your belief that this apparently means nothing.

            Facts obviously have political implications. Just because something’s a “fact” doesn’t mean it can’t politically affect a country positively or adversely.

            “Expansionist” is not synonymous with “tactless”. Just because China does not outright annex territory does not mean it does not wish to expand. Hell, even modern-day Russia has never actually annexed any land; it maneuvered through a referendum in Crimea and is only covertly supporting armed rebels in Ukraine. China has no ethnic diaspora in Diaoyu/Senkaku or the South China Sea so obviously those are not even options. China is nonetheless pushing for expansion in a moderate and gradual manner that, although premature, will at least not so instantaneously trigger WWIII.

          • nita

            Yes, the Filipino general public talking more about the dispute means nothing. I’m sure Chinese general public are also talking about the disputes but again that means nothing. And you don’t even know whether they are talking about it more, since you weren’t there before Asia got wired into the Internet.

            Your statements are contradictory, because you acknowledge these are decades old border disputes (some even predating the PRC), yet you keep stating your opinion that China is “pushing its expansion gradually.”

            You’ve provided no evidence that China does want to expand. And I’m not sure how funding and arming separatists and holding fake elections to annex and destabilize a sovereign nation could be construed as “tactful” in any sense of the word. Furthermore, the “diaspora” justification is a completely ludicrous one. Can Norway annex Minnesota because its diaspora is there? The “diaspora” justification is much more ludicrous than many of China’s claims to these territories, which are based on historical usage and decades long ambiguity over who owns these uninhibited rocks. I believe Taiwan also claims both the Senkaku and Spratly islands. Is Taiwan also “expanding gradually short of WWIII.”

          • There’s a difference between having an unsettled border and moving in ships to secure that border. I suppose you think if India were to move tanks into Aksai Chin, it would “mean nothing” since the border dispute is technically decades old.

            Russia’s diaspora speak Russian and many are still politically loyal to the motherland. Your comparison of them to Norwegian-Americans in Minnesota is utterly absurd. I’m not “defending” Russia’s annexation maneuvers; I’m just explaining how such behind-the-scenes actions at at least more tactful than outright sending in official Russian tanks on public orders from Moscow to claim territory. China’s actions aren’t completely tactful either, but they’re at least more tactful than outright annexing with full military action; that’s my whole point.

            If Taiwan is sending in ships to secure its borders in an unprecedented manner, then yes, it’s also expanding gradually, but 1) that isn’t happening, and 2) No country is going to start WWIII because of Taiwan, but a few might because of China.

            Honestly, nothing I’m saying is remotely controversial or unreasonable. I think you’re just caught in “debate mode” and are contesting my remarks because you’re suspecting an insidious intent that isn’t simply there.

          • nita

            Actually, India probably HAS moved troops there and to other disputed areas. China probably has too. This sort of back and forth has happened for decades. It’s not something that is just happening now. That’s what happens with disputed areas, because both sides believe it is theirs and treat it as theirs. Also, China is not the only country that has taken such actions. All the countries involved in the disputes have done these things.

            And just because some in the Russian diaspora speak Russian and are still loyal to the motherland is zero justification for annexation of a sovereign nation. None whatever. It is a bullshit justification, period.

          • Considering Aksai Chin is administered by China, I highly doubt that India has moved troops there. I would hope China has moved troops there because I’m not sure how they would be administering it otherwise.

            The fact that you think I’m trying to “justify” Russia’s annexation makes me want to facepalm so hard that my palm will crack through my skull and come out the back of my head. Do I seriously need to tell you a THIRD time to stop projecting your assumptions of insidiousness onto my comments? Seriously, you’re not freaking getting it.

          • denvereen

            You are right about the russian diaspora.

            Even Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a critic of the soviet regime and dissident, called Ukraine and the north of Kazakhstan essentially russian, and is opposed to NATO moving into the Ukraine.

            http://www.rferl.org/content/Solzhenitsyn_Leaves_Troubled_Legacy_Across_Former_Soviet_Union/1188876.html

            He and many other russian nationalists want I would imagine a sort of slavic soviet union lite, without all the ‘stans and the republics near turkey dragging them down. The baltics well, they went their own way a long time ago, and they are not slavs. But the Ukraine, Kazakhstan (at least the north), you can bet it’s part of the “great game” still.

          • Probotector

            “Do you think if China really wanted to annex some disputed territory from a small country like Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, etc, these countries could do anything about it?”

            More likely China fears there would be ramifications from the U.N. and a reaction from the U.S., who has treaties to defend many of these smaller countries.

          • nita

            The US has no such treaties with any of the Southeast Asian countries, and the Spratly islands are claimed by many countries, so I highly doubt the US would get involved over those.

            Yes, China does have a bunch of territorial disputes with its neighbors, but they are decades long disputes, and it is quite common and even natural for neighboring countries to have such disputes. Japan also has territorial disputes with South Korea and Russia. Malaysia also has territorial disputes with Indonesia, Singapore, and Philippines. India also has territorial disputes with Nepal, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Even close friends Canada and the US have border disputes. And so on. Of course China is going to have disputes since it’s bordered by a gazillion countries.

          • Probotector

            It’s not only countries in south-east Asia that feel threatened by China. What about Taiwan, South Korea and Japan? The U.S. does have defence treaties with all of them.

          • nita

            Okay, so why hasn’t China annexed everything it disputes besides Senkaku and Taiwan?

          • You’re seriously acting like there are no political ramifications to upsetting the international order. Just because a country CAN take unilateral action doesn’t mean it SHOULD. Just because the US doesn’t have any formal defense treaties with SEA doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be grave international consequences for such a bold infringement on others’ (or at least disputed) territory.

            Do you really want China to become a pariah state like Russia and Israel? You may think you’re arguing on behalf of China’s best interests, but military unilateralism isn’t as costless as you seem to think.

          • nita

            I’m not arguing anything, nor do I give a crap whether China becomes a pariah state. I’m stating facts (which you don’t deny) that are inconvenient to your idea of “China the expansionist bogeyman,” so you automatically assume I must be “arguing on behalf of China’s best interests.” That’s exactly something someone at Fox News would say.

            I have stated the facts that these disputes are decades long, and you
            acknowledge that. I pointed out that China has not annexed these
            territories, and you don’t deny that either, but keep
            insisting that China is expansionist without providing any evidence.

            It is this type of excessive fearmongering attitude that led to the Vietnam war and is not helpful.

          • I’ve already written this once, but I’ll post it again because it apparently didn’t register the first time:

            Honestly, nothing I’m saying is remotely controversial or unreasonable. I think you’re just caught in “debate mode” and are contesting my remarks because you’re suspecting an insidious intent that isn’t simply there.

            Nothing you’re saying is “inconvenient”, except insofar as it’s inconvenient for me to have to repeat myself and counter your false representations of what I’m saying. I am not concocting any “expansionist bogeyman”; if you cannot recognize that China has taken substantially bolder steps in recent years toward the unilateral “settling” of these decades-old border disputes, then that’s your problem, not mine. I am not interested in convincing you that the sky is blue. Believe what you wish to believe.

            I assume(d) you are trying to argue on behalf of China’s best interests because that is honestly the only logical explanation that would justify the effort you’re exerting in contesting my incredibly mild remarks.

            The only “fearmongering” is that which resides in your head. Stating that China is territorially expansionist is not any more “fearmongering” than stating that America is ideologically expansionist. I’m sorry if the facts offend you but please don’t take it out on me by forcing myself to explain why I think the sky is blue. If you think that militarily securing territory through a tactfully gradual process of annexation while leveraging economic power to ward off the interference of outsiders is not expansionist, then fine.

          • nita

            You have provided absolutely zero facts. And two can play that game. I guess the only logical explanation for your statements is that you are trying to destroy the US by trying to entangle it into another pointless war in Asia. If that happens though, go personally onto the front lines to defend Senkaku or whatever rock from China and don’t ask other American soldiers to go fight and die for it.

          • Good lord…

            What on earth makes you think I am supporting war? Seriously, you are so unfathomably and mindbogglingly off-base that I’m wondering if I’m not being pranked on some new Internet-based reality show. Seriously, you have been so utterly wrong on every single interpretation of my comments that I find it inconceivable that this isn’t on purpose. No one could be THAT unintentionally obtuse over and over again despite THREE attempts at clarification.

            In the unlikely scenario that this isn’t an Internet-based reboot of Punk’d (Ashton Kutcher, is that you?), I’ll go ahead and point out the exceedingly obvious: Just because I think a country is expansionist doesn’t mean I think other countries should go to war against it. In full disclosure, I also believe that grass is green and water is wet.

            I feel like I’m insulting your intelligence for stating the mind-numbingly obvious, so please comfort me and assure me that you are, in fact, just Ashton Kutcher trying to revive his career.

          • nita

            Done with your melodramatic whining and bitching? I’m noticing that no matter how wrong you are, you always have to have the last word on this site, as if your entire self worth depends on it. It’s so pathetic, that’s why no one engages you, and I will be sure to not make the same mistake again in the future.

            Yes, your baseless comment that China is “pushing its expansion gradually by anything short of WWIII” is fearmongering intended to push the US into deeper military involvement in Asia. Likewise, your comment that China has taken subtantially bolder steps now than in the past is completely baseless. Where is your data showing the current number of China’s provocative actions in these disputes is greater than past numbers of provocative actions in the 2000s, 90s, 80s, 70s, 60s, 50s? Either show it or admit that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

          • Dude, you just don’t get it. I’m not disagreeing with you on ANYTHING remotely substantial. I’ve had many arguments with people in the past with whom I strongly disagreed with, but honestly I haven’t got a goddamn clue what your beef is. You might think I dislike you, but honestly I’m just confused why you’ve decided to dedicate your Sunday afternoon (or whenever) to nagging me over mere semantics.

            You’re projecting what you want to see onto my comments. My intentions are not remotely what you think they are. I am about as big a pacifist there is––I don’t think territory is worth going to war for, so even if China were to annex all of SEA, I still wouldn’t consider that to be a valid reason for war (this is assuming no violence in the process).

            Seriously, you picked the wrong fight with the wrong person. You might think what I’m saying intrinsically justifies war, but it doesn’t. I’m not a warhawk; you’re just assuming my comments prove I am. I don’t know what else I can say. You’ve pegged me all wrong and that’s all there is to it.

            As for whether there are more provocations now than there were in the past, I obviously can’t know if a provocation existed if it wasn’t reported in the media, and I haven’t been following Chinese border dispute developments over the past several decades anyway, so if you want to claim this little rhetorical victory, then go ahead and take it.

          • nita

            Why, how magnanimous of you LOL. I have yet to read here or anywhere else how PRC is expansionist besides having decades long border disputes, or why exactly its current behavior is different/alarming/worse compared to its past behavior. I don’t see how asking for facts is rhetorical, but whatever.

          • nita

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/stephenharner/2014/06/22/the-nytimes-china-threat-myth-the-pivot-to-asia-and-obamas-foreign-policy-legacy/

            “The famous “nine-dash line” is an expression of China’s historical claims. It was first transposed on Chinese maps in 1947 when France (then still the suzerain of Vietnam) and the Philippines began a diplomatic campaign to assert their claims in post-WWII forums dealing
            with Japan’s imperial conquests (which included the islands).

            Five times–in 1970, 1971, 1978, 1980, and 1999–Philippine armed forces took actions that have placed nine islands claimed by China under
            foreign occupation. Since occupying the islands, the Philippines has proceeded to build military installations and station some 1000 men on them.

            Beyond occupying the islands, Manila has for years taken actions highly provocative to China, including arresting and expelling Chinese fisherman fishing in the disputed area. Chinese protests have been dismissed. In June 2011 the office of PI president Aquino declared that
            the South China Sea would henceforth be called the West Philippine Sea. In July 2011 a delegation of Philippine legislators landed on a Chinese-claimed island, declaring Philippine “sovereignty.””

            In other words: These disputes have been happening for a long time, and it takes two to tango.

          • None of that rebuts anything I’ve said. I’ve never said the Philippines hasn’t taken actions to secure the disputed islands. I’ve also never said the Philippines isn’t expansionist.

            As far as I’m concerned, any country interested in increasing the amount of territory it controls is expansionist. How long it has been expansionist (“we’ve claimed this territory for billions of years”) or what the other party does (including acting expansionist in its own right) does not negate that basic definitional premise.

          • nita

            That’s where we differ, because I disagree that the Philippines, China, Vietnam, etc. are expansionist simply because they have territorial disputes or have taken actions to secure the disputed islands. The parties in territorial disputes believe they are defending their existing land, not increasing their land. These are disputed, uninhabited rocks that were too small to be mentioned in most international agreements, and there is ambiguity surrounding when they were discovered, by whom, when they were claimed, etc. Given such ambiguity, it is understandable that these countries would have disputes over them. Does not mean any of these countries are bent on world domination.

          • I now understand where you’re coming from. That is a legitimate interpretation of the word. The word I would have in mind to describe your alternative scenario would be “imperialism”, which to me implies a more overt intention of annexing territory without any regard for moral justification or rightful ownership––i.e., “because we can” rather than “it rightfully belongs to us”. That said, by that metric, Russia would not even qualify as expansionist, since its historical claims to Crimea and eastern Ukraine are analogous to the historical arguments that characterize the South China Sea and Diaoyu/Senkaku disputes. Russians may not have formally “disputed” these territories due to reasons involving Soviet and post-Soviet history, but they certainly do feel that those territories rightfully belong to Russia.

          • nita

            Crimea is nothing like Senkaku, because Crimea was made unambiguously part of Ukraine when the USSR transferred it to Ukraine and Crimea has unambiguously been part of Ukraine since then. Whether Russia believes it is historically their territory is irrelevant because legally it isn’t. An analogous situation to Russia annexing Crimea would be China annexing some areas of Manchuria that now legally belong to Russia because China believes they have some historical claim on it.

            The same cannot be said for Senkaku, Spratlys, or most of these other disputed rocks in Asia because the disputes are about who owns them legally, and their legal ownership is ambiguous. The whole reason Senkaku is in dispute is because it was not specifically mentioned in the international accords settling things post WWII (because it is so small nobody bothered to mention it). So there is no similarity whatsoever between Crimea and these Asian disputes. The US also has historically been neutral on almost all these disputes because again, no one has a clear legal claim to these rocks.

          • Probotector

            I already answered that question.

          • Zhegezhege

            As far as I can see it, the PRC can’t even get away with putting an oil rig 150 miles from Vietnam’s coastline…

            …so why are you so sure they can do what they want to “small” countries like Vietnam (88million), Philippines (97million) and Indonesia (250million)?

            “Hurrr they’re all small countries compared to glorious China.”
            “Hurrrrrrrrrrnn, we have Made In China nukes.”
            “Hurrrrrrrnnnnnggggg we concluded our studies early so we got the rig out of there when we wanted to and it was nothing to do with us over-reaching, having to back down and as usual being unable to admit a mistake.”

          • nita

            If they can’t get away with even doing that, then how are they expansionist again? Surprised your brain hasn’t exploded yet from the massive logic fails.

  • Cameron

    I wonder how the guy who was gloating about downing a Ukranian military plane is feeling now, having murdered eighty children and entire families?
    Wonder if he’s still feeling like the big man?

  • Confucius

    It actually is, if you trace the reason for the civil war in Ukraine back to its original US-funded, US-manipulated beginning.

    However, I did not attribute blame of the MH17 being shot down to the US, try actually reading what i wrote. I was simply refuting the point that the weapons that the rebels capture from the Ukrainian government are funded by Russian – they were bought with American dollars. It would be a big stretch to attribute blame to the US for giving them money, it would require attributing the power of foresight to them too, something that only George Orwell and Nostradamus seem to have.

    It is ironic that so many commentators here have a paranoia about the alleged wumao army, I guess it is on of those terms that captures imagination, rather like “kowtow” and “hurt the feeling” – there is an exotic satisfaction when one refers to those

    • BaiGui

      Some of the weapons and vehicles they steal have been bought with US sponsoring, some are way older. The Buk’s we are discussing could as well be from Soviet times. They are not exactly the latest technology.

  • JabroniZamboni

    “(You should also consider Scotland, Quebec, Catalonia etc if you want to open your mind further).”

    You can’t compare these situations at all to this conflict. The referendums of these places, or the impending ones, are/were all done in situations were the democratic aspects of them were not up to debate.

    The Crimean referendum was nothing more than a “hurry up offence” kangaroo court style proceeding, with people being intimidated to stay away from the polls.

    Before you retort, please keep in mind that I am born in Quebec. I have lived through 2 referendums on separation. They were nothing like this.

    • Confucius

      I can see I was unclear in my comment. The information in brackets is a suggestion for Greg in Wuhan to consider if he wants to open up his thoughts on the issue of self-determination, not as a point of argument in whether they are any better or worse than Crimea, Tibet or Xinjiang.

      Having said that, I think you have chosen a point of view for your argument and took a tangential interpretation of my comment to make your point, and in fact tried to set up a strawman argument, which all reflect the general anti-Chinese theme in your comments on this website.

      But since you’ve gone down this tangent, let me remind you that the Ukrainian government was installed in a way that is not dissimilar, and was in fact proven to be manipulated by the US (if not also others) from leaked reports. So your argument against the change in allegiance in Crimea needs to take that into account.

  • Kai

    Hah, sorry, glad I didn’t inadvertently offend you.

  • Guest

    If only they’d trained them to handle their Vodka…
    Utter disgrace.

  • Dr Sun

    A terrible act of terrorism by the ultra nationalists, cossacks, Checkyians and the other mercenaries Russia has sent to the Ukraine (russian supported terrorists/ thugs) One can only wonder why after 2 days of the “separatists” destroying and removing evidence that the entire parachute regt, SAS, GS7, Rangers, Seals, Delta have not been deployed to secure the scene and pacify the terrorists controlling it. one can only assume that terrorism backed by Russia which results in loss of nearly 300 lives is not “Just cause for war”, whereas 911 was, as it was not backed by a former G8 member.

    • BaiGui

      Absolutely. The 300+ (some east ukrainians reportedly died from being hit by falling debris) lives will not be returned by escalating the conflict into direct confrontation. Now the anglosphere needs to back off and let Merkel, Moon and Putin negotiate it out. Not even Holland, that lost 154 citizens, is going to endanger its business relationship to Russia.

      Today US backed terrorists in Iraq and Syria have continued murdering gas field workers, christians, alawis, shi’ites, seculars, kurds and so on.

  • lonetrey / Dan

    I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one who REALLY DOES NOT CARE about why they’re shooting down planes, and instead are just plain FURIOUS that some jackass with a missile accidentally killed 100 brilliant minds trying to find the cure to AIDS.

    At least, I hope I’m not alone in this.

  • Chris

    Congratulations Russia, this is what happen when you give military grade weapons to civilian rebels with absolutely no training for how and when to use them.

  • This is not just some random jpeg from a “click bait” article from some obscure website with an agenda rehashed onto BuzzFeed. This is the annual Pew Research Center publication for 2014; they have an established history of pursuing high-quality opinion polling data regarding global attitudes across a variety of metrics. To characterize them as just some “China haters” trying to get website traffic is completely inaccurate. The image I posted was from one page of a 96-page document, which included plenty of data reflecting countries having negative attitudes toward the US, including profoundly and pervasively negative attitudes about US drone strikes and spying.

    Sorry, but Pew is a very respectable organization doing a great job, and I hate to see it get slammed by someone who understandably is suspicious but ultimately is not familiar enough with the organization to appreciate its objectives and therefore its credibility. They do not just make up their figures, and in fact the 2014 publication includes 14 pages disclosing in detail its surveying methods. It may not be 100% “accurate” in a sampling sense, but it is certainly intended to be impartial and objective.

  • ninxay

    I included Singapore Airlines because one of their planes was a few miles behind MH17 at the time of the shootdown. And yes, most overseas Chinese wouldn’t put themselves in the same basket as mainlanders because they’ve been separated culturally and historically for a century or more. Singaporean Chinese see themselves as Singaporeans and Malaysian Chinese identify as Malaysians, neither having anything to do with the mainland.

  • Keithroc

    Dam the Chinese are stupid. With MH17 being shot down it had nothing to do Malaysia Airlines. It was shot down by Russian supported terrorists. The flight path was cleared by By the European Air Traffic controllers. Others airlines also flew through the same path.

  • Raymond

    Why isn’t there a RussiaSLAM post about Russian reactions? I’m waiting.

    • Kai

      Joe has been having trouble getting broadband internet access back.

  • MeNoCare

    From all the China people comments above about to avoiding to come to Malaysia again. Oh, please. Please don’t come at all. What a relief statement. We Malaysian also hates those CHINA people coming to Malaysia for soooooooo many reasons. Thank you!

  • Karze

    Like China, Russia too doesn’t have freedom of media. As such State dictates the news. Those not following the government will be tracked and punished.

  • For some reason, I’m not receiving email notifications of your comments. Perhaps it’s because you don’t have a Disqus account; I’m not sure. I only found your two comments here by accident, so please excuse the delayed response time, which is uncharacteristic of me.

    Now, with that out of the way:

    This Pew study covered 44 different countries, and most of the survey questions nothing to do with China. Pew has conducted opinion polling on MANY topics, and there is absolutely zero pattern of any sort of agenda.

    Just because there is the feasible possibility of an agenda does not mean that one can automatically assume, without any evidence, the presence of a secret agenda.

    Nothing about the data I posted is particularly surprising. Countries like Vietnam, the Philippines, and Japan score higher in concern while countries like Pakistan and Indonesia score lower in concern. Does that not sound reasonable to you? You can argue that Pew’s threshold for what constitutes “Somewhat concerned” is more generous than you would like, but that’s not indicative of an “agenda” so much as a matter of subjective interpretation.

    One may assume that even if the threshold is “biased”, the polling methodology of the various countries is at least horizontally systematic. From that assumption, one may deduce that Indonesian concern can at least be gauged relative to Vietnamese/Filipino/Japanese concern, which we may not be able to precisely quantify but can at least generally qualify through general familiarity and past experience with the matter. Surely that is reasonable, unless you intend to argue that Pew has a vested interest in understating Vietnamese/Filipino/Japanese concern relative to Indonesian concern, which is highly unlikely.

    Not every question needs be asked. The abundance of conspiracy theorists proves that everything can be questioned and perhaps even “debunked”. But reasonable doubt applied too generously can obstruct meaningful progress and understanding. There is no opinion poll that could not be handicapped by the same points you’ve raised above. Perhaps you consider ignoring all opinion surveys to be a viable and practical solution, but I consider that to be unnecessary and overly conservative.

    Like I said, Pew’s credibility is apparent in the bigger picture of all the work it has done. An organization dedicating to bashing China would not expend so much time and effort surveying matters that have nothing to do with China. You might anticipate that Pew is coming from an overly pro-American perspective, but its ample acknowledgement of anti-Americanism invalidates that hypothesis as well. Perhaps you think Pew could be operating from both an anti-Chinese and anti-American perspective, which is certainly possible but exceedingly unlikely.

    • Confucius

      Hi Matt, first of all, I want to say I do appreciate your frank and detailed response to me. Thank you for a rational and interesting discussion.

      I believe we are debating two different arguments here. I accept your belief that the Pew study is impartially conducted and has a broad coverage (I am unaware of the details of the organisation or the study). I also accept that you belief this study shows that China causes significant concern in her neighbours because of the territorial disputes she has with them.

      My argument, on the other hand, is that studies (and especially surveys) are not done in isolation of confounding factors. Let me be more specific with my argument: Indonesia is a vast country with over 240million people spreading over multiple islands that stretches across the width of the south china sea speaking God knows how many languages. How many Indonesians did the Pew study survey and in what language in which area at what time with what events occupying their airwaves at the time of the survey? Did this reflect an increase in their usual anxiety about China over the past 100 years? How do they feel about Australia – what percentage of them are “at least somewhat concerned” about Australia?

      The study also needs to be conceived by someone, designed by someone and reported by someone. Why did they choose to survey Indonesians about their anxiety towards China? Did they survey Canadians about the US? If they didn’t, do you think their initial motivation to survey Indonesians about China may demonstrate a belief that the survey will be ‘positive’ and ‘significant’? How does that belief feed back into the design and analysis of the study?

      Finally, how would you feel about a survey of Indonesians which reports that 48% of Indonesians are not anxious about the territorial disputes involving China? That is the same data you cited, but reported with the opposite bias. Why was it reported as 52% of Indonesians were somewhat anxious?

      I doubt I will come back to this thread to continue this fascinating discussion but if you haven’t seen this yet and are interested, this http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science#t-143242 is a great first step to understanding the interplay between vested interests and our beliefs.

      Best wishes.

  • nita

    I have no idea what your point is. You are saying China is a paper tiger that is too scared to do anything expansionist, next you are saying they are expansionist. You cannot have it both ways.

  • jon9521

    Scotland? There is a democratic vote in September to decide is they wish to be independant from the UK -Scots only voting of course. When was the vote for Xinjiang or Tibet held? Please check your facts before trying to counter this argument

  • Kent in Malaysia

    The Chinese people may say whatever they wants like Cola say “What we are blaming is how Malaysia Airlines behaves irresponsibly
    to the victims families after an accident occurs, not providing a
    reasonable explanation to the Chinese people”…. how do u know that? are you one of victim family? I am Malaysian, and I am very proud of how my Government handle MH370 that now still missing and now MH17. Come to Malaysia (by boat or Car if you afraid flying) see how our govnt working on these MH370 and MH17. And for MH17, you blame Malaysia?

Personals @ chinaSMACK - Meet people, make friends, find lovers? Don't be so serious!»