RED CHINA – RED ALERT – CHINA THE MAIN ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE THREAT TO UNITED STATES
Red China’s spying is not limited to stealing military secrets. Red China poses most serious threat to Americans because Red China is stealing Intellectual Property, and is causing economic loss of hundreds of billions dollars. Military can defend vital national security interests in spite of Enemy’s spying. The loss of Trade Secrets robs economic vitality and productivity of United States and it is not easy to defend economic interests as Enemy robs, steals, and plunders without firing a bullet.
CHINA THE MAIN ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE THREAT TO US: FBI
By PTI | 26 Jul, 2015, 02.44PM IST
Coleman said there has been a 53 per cent increase in economic espionage
cases, or the theft of trade secrets leading to the loss of hundreds of
billions of dollars.
WASHINGTON: The US has witnessed a 53 per cent spike in economic espionage
cases aimed at American firms, with a vast majority of the perpetrators
originating from China with ties to the government, the FBI said.
The head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s counterintelligence
division, Randall Coleman, said there has been a 53 per cent increase in
economic espionage cases, or the theft of trade secrets leading to the loss
of hundreds of billions of dollars, over the past year.
Coleman said at a recent briefing that state-sanctioned corporate theft by
China is at the core of the problem.
Coleman said that China is the most predominant threat facing the US from
the standpoint of economic espionage.
He cited examples of large corporations successfully targeted in the past
such as DuPont, Lockheed Martin and Valspar, who have since worked with the
FBI to further safeguard their intellectual property.
To highlight this growing threat to the US economy, the FBI has launched a
nationwide campaign intended to warn industry leaders of the danger they
face from foreign actors. But the FBI not only considers this a threat to
American economic prosperity, but to its physical security as well.
“Economic security is national security,” said Bill Evanina, the head of the
National Counterintelligence and Security Center and one of the agents
leading the charge in stemming the threat to corporations. Many of the tools
used are the same as the ones used to track terrorists, he said.
Half of the 165 private companies that participated in a survey conducted by
the FBI have claimed to be victims of economic espionage or theft of trade
secrets, and 95 per cent of those attempts originated from individuals
associated with the Chinese government, CNN reported.
One of the most concerning means of obtaining sensitive industry secrets is
through the use of “insider threats,” or employees who are familiar with the
inner workings of a particular technology being recruited by foreign agents
in exchange for large amounts of cash.
The FBI continues to see spear phishing attempts, when an email or link
appears legitimate but is in fact a bogus message intended on tricking
recipients into offering up personal information. Social media and sites
like LinkedIn are also being utilised in economic espionage where potential
recruits can be found and contacted based on relevant knowledge and work
experience, officials said.
“The Chinese government plays a significant role” in economic espionage,
Evanina said. “The playing field is not level” when a single company faced
with relentless targeting by individuals or entities who have the backing of
a foreign government, he said.
Other big targets for economic spies are specifications for US military
technology and proprietary information on everything from superconductors to
seed-and-grain hybrids.
“It’s across the board,” said Dean Chappell, a section chief in the FBI’s
counterintelligence division. “It’s not high-end avionics for military
aircraft; it’s not joint strike fighter stuff. It’s all of the things that
we see every day.”
In a change from more traditional modes of economic espionage, such spies
are appearing as non-traditional actors, serving as insider threats within
organisations and institutions, officials say.
William Evanina, head of the National Counterintelligence and Security
Center, said such individuals have been observed in the US serving as
professors, engineers, travelling students and businessmen.
Officials also warn of cyber tactics used to hijack intellectual property
and trade secrets.
In particular, actors, predominantly from China, are known to employ mass
spear-phishing campaigns to coax employees inside companies into clicking
tainted links or attachments, Fox News reported.
If successful, the actor could get critical data off of the organisation’s
computer network.
China in particular has been publicly outed on multiple occasions by the
Obama administration for its efforts geared toward breaching private sector
interest.
US economists blame China for contributing to an increasingly uneven playing
field on the world economic scene.
“To sustain its phenomenal growth rate, China must employ cyberattacks to
steal information,” said Scott Borg, director and chief economist of US
Cyber Consequences Unit, a non- profit research institute.
“Cyberattacks stealing competitively important business information are a
fundamental part of the national economic development strategy of China. For
this reason, getting China to moderate this behaviour will be extremely
difficult,” Borg said.
As a result, The FBI has announced a nationwide awareness campaign and
continues to develop relationships within U.S. industry.
The agency has provided over 1,300 in-person briefings on the economic
espionage threat to companies and industry leaders over the past year, using
a FBI-produced video entitled ‘The Company Man: Protecting America’s
Secrets’, as a training tool.
READ MORE ON » Valspar | US economy | US | united states | Randall Coleman |
obama administration | National Counterintelligence and Security Center
The Economic Times
If United States is not “NEUTRAL” in South China Sea Disputes, it demands action to join the dispute for its complete resolution. Red China is unwilling to settle her territorial dispute with Tibet and the same unwillingness is clearly displayed in her attitude that is manifested as South China Sea Disputes. Red China has become very assertive and is very confident of her military and economic power. Red China ignores pronouncements made by diplomats for she truly believes that no one can fight against her. At Special Frontier Force, we express a willingness, a readiness, a preparedness to fight against Red China for we think that is the right thing to do and for we believe it is ‘The Battle of Right Against Might’.
The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS George Washington underway in the South China Sea.
Image Credit: U.S. Navy Photo
US Not ‘Neutral’ in South China Sea Disputes: Top US Diplomat
America’s top diplomat for East Asia clarifies the country’s outlook in a keynote speech.
By PRASHANTH PARAMESWARAN for The Diplomat
July 22, 2015
The United States is not neutral when it comes to following international law in the South China Sea and will come down forcefully to ensure that all parties adhere to the rules, Washington’s top diplomat for East Asia said Tuesday.
The United States has repeatedly said that while it takes no position on competing sovereignty claims over disputed land features in the South China Sea, it does want these maritime claims to be advanced in accordance with international law and without the use of coercion. That hedged position has led some to incorrectly read the U.S. stance on the issue as being ‘neutral,’ with China in particular accusing Washington of ‘taking sides.’
But in response to a question by a Chinese participant on perceived U.S. ‘neutrality’ in the South China Sea, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Russel firmly clarified at a think tank conference in Washington, D.C. that this neutrality only extended to the competing claims, rather than the way in which the disputes were resolved.
“We are not neutral when it comes to adhering to international law. We will come down forcefully when it comes to following the rules,” Russel said during a keynote speech delivered at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
In this vein, Russel said in his speech that the United States was currently encouraging relevant parties in the South China Sea to create the atmosphere and conditions necessary to manage the disputes peacefully, diplomatically and lawfully despite escalating tensions there partly caused by China’s assertive actions.
“We’re pushing the parties to revive the spirit of cooperation,” Russel said.
The focus, Russel said, would be on lowering the temperature and creating the breathing room necessary to pursue peaceful paths toward resolving disputes, such as negotiations and arbitration. He encouraged all actors – not just China – to cease actions that run contrary to this spirit, including reclaiming land, building facilities and militarizing features. Beijing has been engaging in an extensive land reclamation activities in the South China Sea to the alarm of claimants and outside actors.
Russel said that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry would push for progress on this front at the upcoming ASEAN Regional Forum, which will be held next month in Malaysia, this year’s chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
“He’ll push for progress. This is an important priority,” Russel said.
On the first peaceful path to resolving disputes – bilateral negotiations – Russel acknowledged it was challenging to pursue this course under the current atmosphere. While not directly mentioning China by name, he noted that “absolutist” statements by certain countries that their claims were “indisputable” made going down this path even more challenging.
But he also said that there were several cases in the region where this had worked, including between Indonesia and the Philippines, Malaysia and Singapore, and Bangladesh and Myanmar.
“Hey, it can be done,” Russel argued.
On the second path – arbitration – Russel specifically referenced the Philippines ongoing case against China at the United Nations Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague. He stressed that regardless of the outcome, both Beijing and Manila had to abide by the court’s legally binding decision as they were both signatories to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
“In keeping with the law, both China and the Philippines are obligated to follow the decision whether they like it or not,” Russel said.
In the meantime, Russel said that the United States would safeguard its own interests in various ways, including honoring its alliances and security commitments and aiding the development of effective regional organizations. This included taking steps such as investing in maritime domain awareness for coastal states and carrying out freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea.
“We the United States are obligated to protect U.S. interests,” Russel said.
Summarizing the essence of the U.S. position on the South China Sea disputes, Russel reiterated that it was not about rocks but about rules for the Asia-Pacific region.
“It’s really not about the rocks and the shoals. It’s about rules. It’s about the kind of neighborhood we all want to live in,” he said.
140923 N ZS026 543
PACIFIC OCEAN (Sept. 23, 2014) The Nimitz class aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN 73) is underway in formation at the conclusion of Valiant Shield 2014. The U.S. only exercise integrates Navy, Air Force, Army, and Marine Corps assets and offers real world joint operational experience to develop capabilities that provide a full range of options to defend U.S. interests and those of its allies and partners. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Trevor Welsh/Released)
uss george washington herb paynter
uss george washington f a 18e superhornet fighter plane
uss george washington
uss george washington uzak gemisi
us navy aircraft carrier
us not neutral in south china sea 1
us not neutral in south china sea 2
us not neutral in south china sea uss george washington
Red China – Red Alert – The policy of Brinkmanship
RED DRAGON – RED CHINA – RED ALERT – BRINKMANSHIP – MILITARY DOMINANCE : AN IMMINENT THREAT TO PEACE AND SECURITY OF ALL NATIONS.
The term ‘brink’ means the edge, especially at the top of a steep place. Very often ‘brink’ is used figuratively such as “At the brink of War.” Brinkmanship refers to the policy of pursuing a hazardous course of action to the brink of catastrophe. Red China’s Policy of Economic Expansionism draws support from her Policy of Military Expansionism. Red China’s pursuit of world’s territories, and natural resources is accompanied by her aggressive expansion of political influence over other nations to cause nations to become subservient to Red China’s ambitions. Red China’s Policy of ‘Brinkmanship’ has to be exposed, has to be effectively contained and has to be resisted at every place apart from South China Sea where the dispute is receiving attention of news media.
5 MILLION REASONS CHINA MAY BE DRAWN INTO GLOBAL CONFLICTS
By DAVID TWEED
BLOOMBERG
With five million offshore citizens to protect and billions of investment dollars at stake, China is rethinking its policy of keeping out of other countries’ affairs.
China has long made loans conditional on contracts for its companies. In recent years it has sent an army of its nationals to work on pipelines, roads and dams in such hot spots as South Sudan, Yemen and Pakistan. Increasingly, it has to go across borders to protect or rescue them.
That makes it harder to stick to the policy espoused by then-premier Zhou Enlai in 1955 of not interfering in “internal” matters, something that has seen China decline to back international sanctions against Russia over Ukraine or the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
As President Xi Jinping’s “Silk Road” program of trade routes gets under way, with infrastructure projects planned across Central Asia, the Indian Ocean and the Middle East to Europe, China’s footprint abroad will expand from the $108 billion that firms invested abroad in 2013, up from less than $3 billion a decade earlier.
That is forcing China to take a more proactive approach to securing its interests and the safety of its people. With more engagement abroad there’s a risk that China, an emerging power with a military to match, is sucked into conflicts and runs up against the U.S. when tensions are already flaring over China’s disputed claims in the South China Sea.
“It is going to be a long, hard haul,” said Kerry Brown, director of the University of Sydney’s China Studies Centre. “You either have disruption as a new power rips up the rule book and causes bedlam or you’ve got a gradual transition where China is ceded more space but also expected to have more responsibility.”
RED CHINA – RED ALERT – BRINKMANSHIP : RED CHINA IS INVESTING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND DISPATCHING MILLIONS OF CHINESE WORKERS TO FURTHER ITS EXPANSIONIST POLICY THAT MAKES CONFLICTS WITH OTHER NATIONS INEVITABLE. IN THIS PHOTO IMAGE, ETHIOPIAN AND CHINESE CONSTRUCTION WORKERS SEEN WAITING NEAR CHINA COMMUNICATION CONSTRUCTION COMPANY BUILDING ADDIS ABABA – ADAMA TOLL ROAD.
For more than a half century China stuck to Zhou’s policy predicated on non-interference and respect for the sovereignty of others. The policy partly reflected a focus on domestic stability and economic development by governments that lacked the means or interest to play a more active role offshore. It also led President Barack Obama to last year describe China’s leaders as “free riders” while others carried the global security burden.
China’s greater involvement in projects around the world comes along its military expansion, as it seeks to project its power abroad and challenge decades of U.S. dominance of the global economic and strategic order. U.S. policymakers are debating whether to find ways to accommodate China’s rise or to seek to contain it. As China’s policy evolves its leaders are dipping their toe into areas once considered taboo, including the practice of dealing only with a country’s leaders.
Myanmar Meeting
Xi met Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi in Beijing on June 11 to lay the foundation for improved ties ahead of a November election in Myanmar, and there are reports China has hosted peace talks between the Afghan government and Taliban.
On June 9 China called for a cease-fire in Yemen, during a teleconference between China’s ambassador Tian Qi and the United Nations envoy to Yemen, according to a posting on the website of China’s embassy.
China sent naval vessels into Yemen’s waters in April to rescue 629 Chinese citizens and 279 foreign nationals from escalating violence, the first time the People’s Liberation Army helped other countries evacuate their citizens.
“Protection of nationals and interests abroad particularly with big new projects like the Silk Road in the works, is likely to be long-term very significant for China’s evolution as a great power,” said Jonas Parello-Plesner, a diplomat at the Danish embassy in Washington, DC. “How China behaves in other parts of world will be a litmus test on its road to great power status.”
Five Million
Chinese investment abroad picked up from 2002 after then Premier Jiang Zemin championed a “going out” policy, even as he repeated China would not meddle in the internal affairs of other countries.
Parello-Plesner and Mathieu Duchatel, who co-wrote “China’s Strong Arm: Protecting Citizens and Assets Abroad” estimate there are five million workers offshore, based on research and interviews with officials, a figure that’s about five times larger than that given by the Ministry of Commerce.
The official data reflect a lack of systemic consular registration and the absence of formal reporting by subcontractors sending workers abroad, according to Parello- Plesner and Duchatel, who estimate about 80 Chinese nationals were killed overseas between 2004 and 2014. Duchatel is a Beijing-based senior researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
‘Greater Range’
“There are now several countries that – in terms of the number of Chinese citizens there – are ‘too big to fail’,” said Parello-Plesner. “The business-oriented ‘going-out’ strategy now has to be squared with broader strategic calculations.”
China’s foreign-policy evolution is becoming institutionalized. The concept of protecting nationals was added to the priority list at the 18th Communist Party Congress in 2012. The PLA’s role in protecting China’s interests abroad was enshrined in the 2013 Defense White Paper for the first time.
This year’s Defense White paper went further, noting the “national security issues facing China encompass far more subjects, extend over a greater range, and cover a longer time span than at any time in the country’s history.”
“While China is not likely to publicly drop the non – interference principle what we’ll see is increasing fluctuation in how it is applied — or not applied,” said Alexander Sullivan, an associate fellow at the Center for a New American Security in Washington.
South Sudan
“The departures from this policy that we have seen thus far have been driven generally by commercial and resource interests that for one reason or another come under threat.” Sullivan said Sudan and South Sudan have been a testing ground for China policy. After the outbreak of civil war in South Sudan, China persuaded other members of the Security Council in May last year to extend the United Nations peacekeeping mandate to South Sudan, where China National Petroleum Corp. has oilfield investments. China has sent 700 troops to join that mission.
China’s biggest overseas intervention was in Libya in 2011, when 35,000 workers were transported out at the start of the uprising against Muammar Qaddafi’s regime, mostly by air and sea.
As the trade route projects get under way, Pakistan will pose one of the biggest risks to the security of Chinese workers. The first investment of China’s $40 billion Silk Road infrastructure fund is $1.65 billion for the Karot dam on the Jhelum river in northern Pakistan.
Pakistan Force
Before announcing the project, Pakistan agreed to train a 10,000-strong security force to protect Chinese nationals building a $45 billion economic corridor from China to the deep – water port of Gwadar on the Arabian Sea. The route runs through Baluchistan, a thinly populated Pakistan province where an insurgency has killed thousands.
“Chinese foreign policy is taking a bigger role in global problem solving,” said Pang Zhongying, dean of the Institute of International Affairs at Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou. “The Silk Road is in essence bringing a lot of foreign policy changes but we still know little about its prospects.”
–With assistance from Kamran Haider in Islamabad and Daniel Petrie in Sydney.
RED DRAGON – RED CHINA – RED ALERT – BRINKMANSHIP – MILITARY DOMINANCE : AN IMMINENT THREAT TO PEACE AND SECURITY OF ALL NATIONS.
Red China Poses Red Alert – Freedom in Tibet is at Extreme Danger
Whole Alert – Red China poses Red Alert – Freedom in Tibet is at Extreme DangerWhole Alert – Red China poses Red Alert -Freedom in Tibet is at Extreme Danger
On behalf of Special Frontier Force I share my concern about Tibet’s Freedom. Decades of military occupation and repressive rule by Red China could not wipe out Tibetan Identity. As long as Tibetan Identity lives, Tibetans will continue to resist military occupation and will continue to seek their natural rights. The problem is indeed about the loss of American Identity. Americans have lost connection with values that shaped founding of their nation. Democracy, Freedom, Human Rights, and Peace do not continue to inspire the minds of American people. Tibet’s Freedom is at risk as American Values have evaporated.
Whole Alert – Red China poses Red Alert – Freedom in Tibet is at Extreme Danger
Tibet Isn’t Free Yet; That Doesn’t Mean the Dalai Lama Has Failed
Freya Putt, Human rights activist & Deputy Director at Tibet Action Institute: Tibet Isn’t Free Yet; That Doesn’t Mean the Dalai Lama Has Failed
Posted: 06/25/2015 3:38 pm EDT
In recent years, I’ve noticed an increasing trend of articles and commentaries examining the Dalai Lama’s life and legacy that conclude Tibetans, and he as their leader, have failed in their cause to restore freedom to Tibet. Having worked for this movement for 18 years, I can understand having doubts about what the future holds. But really? Failed? It’s a done deal?
Tibet Isn’t Free Yet; That Doesn’t Mean the Dalai Lama Has Failed
Some voiced similar sentiments in the 1960s and 1970s, when most people had never heard of Tibet, and certainly no countries were bothering to advocate for Tibetan political prisoners or other rights. China had been “lost” by the west and Tibetans were unfortunate casualties.
But the gloom-and-doom analysis proved to be misguided then, as the mere handful of Tibetan refugees who had resettled globally built awareness and inspired activism. Huge protests in Lhasa in the late 1980s, as well as the Dalai Lama’s Nobel Peace Prize, Hollywood and the Tibetan Freedom Concerts, drove Tibet into international public consciousness. Likewise, this frame of analysis is misguided now.
Tibet Isn’t Free Yet; That Doesn’t Mean the Dalai Lama Has Failed
Perhaps I’m just too invested to acknowledge that the cause is lost. But I don’t think so.
First of all, it’s human nature that where there’s injustice, there’s struggle. People don’t just give up trying to make their lives better because the odds are against them; the daily effort to resist indignities and oppose oppression continues regardless of what the endgame might be. Tibetans demonstrate this constantly, showing their opposition to China’s occupation by wearing traditional clothes, patronizing Tibetan-owned shops, holding onto their language and fighting for its use in schools, deploying art, music and poetry to express themselves and rally each other, using blockades and other direct action to protect lands, and even making the extreme choice to light themselves on fire in defiance of Chinese rule.
In fact, while state oppression has increased in recent years, resistance in Tibet has grown and deepened. A decade ago, opposition to Chinese rule seemed to manifest mainly through small, unplanned protests, which though symbolically powerful, are easily countered by China. Today, resistance is constant, sophisticated, and waged on many fronts.
Tibet Isn’t Free Yet; That Doesn’t Mean the Dalai Lama Has Failed
And while our collective memory is short, it shouldn’t be too much of a stretch to remember that many — perhaps most — conflicts about rights, territory and self-governance have taken decades or centuries to resolve. Think slavery and civil rights in the U.S.A., Irish independence, the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa, Indian independence and decolonization the world over.
The conditions affecting rights and freedom for Tibet are daunting, to say the least. China has steadily gained economic clout and countries increasingly react in fear when it flexes its economic muscle. Tibetans number roughly six million, Chinese 1.3 billion. Tibet’s high, mountainous plateau has kept it isolated and made it easier for China to severely limit both physical and virtual interaction between Tibetans and the outside world. And Tibet’s mineral and water resources and strategic location in the heart of Asia make it an economic and geopolitical prize.
Looking at these factors, it shouldn’t be a big surprise that the Tibetan struggle hasn’t yet been won.
But not having yet won a struggle is very different from having lost it. Bill Moyer, an American theorist and activist, developed a strategic model for explaining the progress of social movements and used case studies to illustrate eight distinct phases. He emphasized that after substantial gains, such as building a mass movement, achieving popular support and defining an issue as a problem on society’s agenda, movements often find themselves mired in a sense of despair and powerlessness based on a misperception of their progress.
Tibetan freedom movement has made significant strides toward its goals: establishing the legitimacy of Tibetans’ claims to freedom, building a mass base of popular global support, overpowering China’s propaganda factory in the media, and making Tibet a constant challenge to China’s reputation on the global stage. There is much more to be done, clearly, but the critical foundation has already been built.
Tibet Isn’t Free Yet; That Doesn’t Mean the Dalai Lama Has Failed
In fact, amidst all the tragedy, suffering and daily hardship that Tibetans face, there is much to celebrate. Far from having failed, the Dalai Lama should be recognized as one of the global leaders of the 20th and 21st century who has made an indelible, positive impact on the world.
The Dalai Lama brought the issue of Tibet to the world and inspired tens if not hundreds of thousands of people to support the cause. He bridged the various religious, regional and other divides within the Tibetan community to unify Tibetans behind a strategic approach to the struggle that included making it visible internationally — despite China’s constant objections and best efforts
RED CHINA – RED ALERT – TIBET’S FREEDOM: TIBET’S NATURAL RIGHT TO FREEDOM IS AT RISK. WHERE ARE THOSE VALUES ENSHRINED IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE?RED CHINA – RED ALERT – TIBET’S FREEDOM : AMERICA HAS TO REDISCOVER HER OWN VALUES THAT DEFINE HER NATIONAL IDENTITY.RED CHINA – RED ALERT – TIBET’S FREEDOM: AMERICANS HAVE TO RECALL THEIR PAST TO REDISCOVER VALUES THAT DEFINE AMERICAN NATION.RED CHINA – RED ALERT – TIBET’S FREEDOM: I ASK AMERICANS TO RECALL PRESIDENT KENNEDY’S VITAL CONTRIBUTION TO TIBETAN RESISTANCE MOVEMENT.RED CHINA – RED ALERT – TIBET’S FREEDOM: TIBET’S FREEDOM IS AT RISK. IT IS TIME TO REVITALIZE AMERICANS.Whole Alert – Red China poses Red Alert – Freedom in Tibet is at Extreme Danger
The Evil Red Empire – Who can make War against Red China?
The Evil Red Empire – Who can make War against Red China?
Red Dragon is impressing nations of this world by expanding her military power. The New Testament Book Revelation, Chapter 13 describes a scenario which is relevant to the rising power of Red Dragon. I am quoting verses 1,2, and 4 from Revelation, Chapter 13:
The Evil Red Empire – Who can make War against Red China?
1. And the Dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a Beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.
2. The Beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The Dragon gave the Beast his power and his throne and great authority.
4. Men worshiped the Dragon because he had given authority to the Beast, and they also worshiped the Beast and asked, “Who is like the Beast? Who can make war against him?”
The Evil Red Empire – Who can make War against Red China? Red China vs Tibet – David vs Goliath – Who can make War against the Beast?The Evil Red Empire – Who can make War against Red China? Red China vs Tibet – David vs Goliath – Who can make War against the Beast?
At Special Frontier Force, we do not worship The Dragon or The. We are trained to recognize Red China, Red Dragon, Scarlet Beast, and The Beast as our Adversary, Opponent, or Enemy. We describe War against Red China as a ‘Battle of Right Against Might’. Red Dragon used her military power and great authority to illegally occupy Tibet, her weak neighbor. If a War against Red China is the only solution to wipe out injustice in Tibet, we will confront Red China just like David challenged Goliath with a sling and a smooth pebble as his weapon of War.
The Evil Red Empire – Who can make War against Red China? Red China vs Tibet – David vs Goliath – Who can make War against the Beast?The Evil Red Empire – Who can make War against Red China? Red China vs Tibet – David vs Goliath – Who can make War against the Beast?
China: Milestones in the Dragon’s Rise
BY JOSEPH V. MICALLEF
JOSEPH V. MICALLEF
Best Selling Military History and World Affairs Author and Keynote Speaker
Posted: 06/20/2015 8:29 am EDT Updated: 06/20/2015 1:59 pm
The Evil Red Empire – Who can make War against Red China? Red China vs Tibet – David vs Goliath – Who can make War against the Beast? China’s First Aircraft Carrier
The passage of history is often marked by milestones whose significance lies less in the events they commemorate then it does in the underlying trends that they confirm and validate. These last weeks, were punctuated by a series of such milestones. By themselves, these events mark noteworthy developments in China’s contemporary history. Collectively, they underscore the far reaching changes that are transforming China and its growing role on the international stage.
Last week, the collective valuation of China’s publicly traded equity exceeded 10 trillion dollars for the first time in its history. Considering that forty odd years ago China’s equity markets were moribund, the benchmark is astonishing.
The Amsterdam, now part of the Euronext, and London stock exchanges, the world’s oldest, both of which have been around since the seventeenth centuries, are well below this level. The combined European exchanges, at 15 trillion dollars in valuation, and the combined value of the U.S. stock exchanges at 20 trillion, however, still, at least for now, exceed the capitalization of China’s public equity market by a considerable margin.
The Evil Red Empire – Who can make War against Red China? Red China vs Tibet – David vs Goliath – Who can make War against the Beast? Shanghai, Pudong Skyline
No doubt the “loose” monetary policies pursued by the major central banks has facilitated the rise in the value of China’s stock markets. Since the introduction of “quantitative easing” by the U.S. Federal reserve Bank in 2008 and similar policies by other central banks, the value of the world’s stock markets have doubled. China’s markets have more than quadrupled. Collectively, the world’s stock markets now represent about a quarter of the world’s combined financial assets.
In one sense the fact that China, the world’s second largest economy, should also have the world’s second highest valued equity market should not come as a big surprise. The two, while not inexorably linked, do tend to proceed in tandem. The rise in China’s economic power, which the rise in its stock markets underscore, however, has also fuelled a concomitant rise in China’s international military and political ambitions. Those ambitions and their consequences were driven home last week by a number of other events.
On June 6, Hungary became the first European nation to formally sign a cooperation agreement for China’s new “Silk Road” initiative to develop trade and transport infrastructure across Asia. The historic “silk road” was a system of overland caravan routes across central Asia that linked China, via the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, with the Middle East, Russia and Europe. The trade route flourished in particular during the 13th and 14th century as a result of the Mongol conquest of much of Central Asia and China and resulted in the first significant and sustained contact between Medieval Europe and China.
This new initiative, first unveiled in 2014, represents a far more ambitious undertaking and consists of a number of far-ranging infrastructure projects including a network of railways, highways, oil and gas pipelines, power grids, Internet networks, maritime and other infrastructure links across Central, West and South Asia extending from the coastal cities of the South and East China Seas as far as Greece, Russia and Oman,
The Evil Red Empire – Who can make War against Red China? Red China vs Tibet – David vs Goliath – Who can make War against the Beast? Chinese Russian Summit, March 2015
This multi-trillion dollar investment program would represent an unprecedented expansion of Chinese political and economic influence across Central Asia resulting in trillions of dollars in trade and facilitate the expansion of Chinese exports to Europe. It would allow China to further cement its economic and trade relationships in the oil and mineral rich countries of Central Asia. Many of these nations, former Soviet Republics, are also being heavily wooed by Moscow to become part of Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union.
In the meantime along the South China Sea littoral, two other developments underscore the far reaching ripples of China’s ambitions. In recent months, Beijing has undertaken a massive land reclamation project designed to increase the surface area of a number of contested shoals in the South China Sea and allow the construction of air fields and permanent military facilities. The shoals are part of two island groups, the Paracel and the Spratly Islands.
Control of these islands has been disputed by the nations surrounding the South China Sea since at least the 3rd century BC. At stake, are fishing rights and the potential for vast untapped hydrocarbon reserves below the seafloor. The region also contains key maritime transit routes that are vital to the countries that border the South China Sea or its peripheral areas.
The Evil Red Empire – Who can make War against Red China? Red China vs Tibet – David vs Goliath – Who can make War against the Beast? Competing Territorial Claims in the South China Sea
Ironically, the practice of building up the shoals to allow permanent facilities was a practice that began with the Philippine and Vietnamese governments. China was late to the party but is now making up for its tardiness with an unprecedented program of land reclamation. Should Beijing succeed in enforcing its claims, the South China Sea would become a virtual Chinese lake and allow China to project military force from a string of newly created islands along its periphery.
China’s ambitions to control the South China Sea and its potential resources has raised concerns among the other countries that border the region. Two events in recent weeks, marking unprecedented cooperation among former enemies, underscore the gravity of those concerns.
On June 5, Japanese and Philippine media disclosed that from June 22 through the 26th Japan and the Philippines planned to hold a joint maritime drill in the South China Sea. This was the second such drill in as many months although Philippine government sources described this drill as the first “official” joint exercise between the two countries since the end of the Second World War.
The Evil Red Empire – Who can make War against Red China? Red China vs Tibet – David vs Goliath – Who can make War against the Beast? Japanese and Philippine Naval Forces Conduct Joint Drills in the South China Sea, May 2015
More significantly, in addition to pledging to strengthening security cooperation between the two countries and to concluding an agreement for the transfer of “defense equipment and technology and expanding bilateral and multilateral trainings and exercises”, the two countries also agreed to open discussions on a visiting forces agreement that would allow Tokyo access to Philippine military bases.
This is the first time that Japanese forces would have ongoing access to Philippine military facilities since the end of WW II. While the agreement stops short of a permanent Japanese military presence in the Philippines it does allow for a continuous rotation of Japanese Military Self Defense Forces (JMSDF) that would result in much the same thing.
The presence of Japanese military forces on the Philippines is not without some controversy. Eighty years of Philippine-Japanese cooperation have not entirely healed the scars of Japan’s brutal occupation of the Philippines during the Second World War.
In the meantime, on the opposite end of the South China Sea, two other historic enemies, Vietnam and the United States, announced that in July, Nguyen Phu Trong, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam was expected to visit the United States.
The Evil Red Empire – Who can make War against Red China? Red China vs Tibet – David vs Goliath – Who can make War against the Beast? Chinese Island Building in the South China Sea
The visit caps a process of reconciliation between the two former combatants that began in 1995 when Washington finally opened diplomatic relations with Hanoi and which has seen the execution of a broad range of agreements between the two countries including, significantly, in 2014, the lifting of the U.S. embargo against supplying military hardware to Vietnam.
More significantly, Vietnam’s growing cooperation with the United States heralds a profound realignment of Hanoi’s foreign policy from an “unofficial” strategic partnership with China to a defacto strategic alignment with the United States. The fact that Hanoi is prepared to undertake such a realignment, notwithstanding its still broad ideological differences with Washington, underscores how significantly its attitude towards its former “strategic protector” and “big brother has changed.
Three events, none of which elicited more than a ripple of interest in the western media and which individually are unlikely to merit much more than a footnote in the broad sweep of China’s history. Collectively however, they underscore the profound, far-reaching changes that are realigning the political and strategic landscape of East Asia.
The Evil Red Empire – Who can make War against Red China? Red China vs Tibet – David vs Goliath – Who can make War against the Beast?The Evil Red Empire – Who can make War against Red China? Red China vs Tibet – David vs Goliath – Who can make War against the Beast?The Evil Red Empire – Who can make War against Red China? Red China vs Tibet – David vs Goliath – Who can make War against the Beast?The Evil Red Empire – Who can make War against Red China? Red China vs Tibet – David vs Goliath – Who can make War against the Beast?
Nixon-Kissinger US administration in 1971-72 took advantage of the split between Soviet Union and Red China to formulate US foreign policy that initiated trade and commerce relations with Red China.
Red China openly confessed its sense of deep fear about Western Democratic Ideals. In her view, Internet poses a grave challenge to her one-party governance inspired by Communist ideology. This fear of Democracy, Freedom, and Individual Liberties shaped the split between Red China and Soviet Union during late 1950s.
The Evil Red Empire – Red China – Whole Villain: President Eisenhower welcomes Premier Nikita Khrushchev. This Policy is important to contain and isolate Red China’s Imperialism.
Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev (April 17, 1894 – September 11, 1971), leader of the USSR from 1956 (Premier from 1958) to 1964 traveled to United States in 1959 and 1960. His insistence on “peaceful coexistence” with the West contributed to a rupture with Communist government of Red China. Khrushchev stopped assisting Chinese nuclear program on June 20, 1959. Red China’s Chairman Mao Tse-Tung criticized Khrushchev as a “palm-singing buffoon who underestimated the nature of Western Imperialism.”
Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev (April 17, 1894 – September 11, 1971), leader of the USSR from 1956 (Premier from 1958) to 1964 traveled to United States in 1959 and 1960.Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev (April 17, 1894 – September 11, 1971), leader of the USSR from 1956 (Premier from 1958) to 1964 traveled to United States in 1959 and 1960.Khrushchev agreed for the first Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty of 1963. The Moscow Agreement banned testing nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, in outer space, and under water
The Evil Red Empire – Red China – Whole Villian: Moscow, August 05 ,1963. It was a very good beginning that has full potential to curb Red China’s Expansionist Policy.
Khrushchev agreed for the first Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty of 1963. The Moscow Agreement banned testing nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, in outer space, and under water
Khrushchev agreed for the first Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty of 1963. The Moscow Agreement banned testing nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, in outer space, and under water. It paved the way to 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or The Limited Test-Ban Treaty that tried to restrict the size of the “Nuclear Club.” Khrushchev further eased relations with the West by agreeing to limit central strategic forces. Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) began in 1969 and SALT I Treaty was signed in May 1972. Two arms-control agreements were made, 1. The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty that agreed to limit antiballistic missiles, and 2. Interim Agreement on Offensive Nuclear Weapons that imposed freeze on long-range land- and sea-based ballistic missile launchers. Soviet Union did not violate provisions of these treaties.
Nixon-Kissinger US administration in 1971-72 took advantage of the split between Soviet Union and Red China to formulate US foreign policy that initiated trade and commerce relations with Red China. Nixon-Kissinger had clearly underestimated the nature of Red China’s Imperialism and failed to recognize threats posed to Peace and Freedom by Red China’s Policy of Expansionism.
The rupture between Soviet Union and Red China initiated by Premier Khrushchev in 1959 is in the interests of promoting Western Values of Democracy, Freedom, and Peace. The current US foreign policy of containing and isolating Russia is driving Russia to seek healing of rupture of 1959 and is forcing Russia to rebuild broken relations with Red China.
China has taken up Russia’s Deepest Fear
By Linette Lopez
(Reuters) A poster depicting Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping pasted on the Brancusi Atelier by activists from Reporters Without Borders to mark the 20th annual World Press Freedom day in Paris in 2013.
(Reuters) A poster depicting Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping pasted on the Brancusi Atelier by activists from Reporters Without Borders to mark the 20th annual World Press Freedom day in Paris in 2013.
President Xi Jinping wants his people to know that the greatest threat to China is an insidious export from the West — ideas that could lead to a color revolution. “The one non-neglectable factor [in the development of] color revolutions in these countries is the spreading of Western ideology, especially from the US,” Xu Songwen of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences wrote Sunday in The People’s Daily(via The South China Morning Post).
The People’s Daily is a Chinese Communist Party paper known to reflect the sentiments of Jinping’s regime. Songwen wasn’t alone either. In the same issue, four other academics also shared their thoughts on the dangers of color revolutions. The message was clear. There will be no nonviolent political movements in China. There will be no regime change. This will not be Lebanon or Ukraine in 2005. This will not be the Middle East in 2011.
Don’t even think about it.
That’s where the danger is, after all — in the thinking.
China has been systematically shutting out Western ideals from research centers, school curriculums, and higher learning for some time now, but this is the first time a government mouthpiece has made it clear that these thoughts are an intentional aggression from the West.
The basic gist of all of the papers in Sunday’s People’s Daily is fairly simple. It’s like this: The proliferation of Western democratic ideals are a Cold War tactic that helped bring about the end of the Soviet Union.
The ideas bring unrest and discontent to populations and ultimately lead to bloodshed. They also tend to end in failure (see: Arab Spring). Those who foment this kind of unrest are enemies of the state.
There is “a high price to pay for nations that fall into the trap of color revolutions,” one article said, according to the South China Morning Post. Besides, a People’s Daily commentary that ran Friday said, the Chinese Communist Party is “rigid enough to protect against threats, and resilient against internal problems and external shocks.”
So don’t even try it.
(Reuters) Putin and Xi arriving for a festive concert marking the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe, at Red Square in Moscow on May 9, 2015.
China is taking a play right out of Russia’s book with this one. In March, Security Council of Russia railed against the US security strategy, writing: “In relation to Russia, there is a high probability of the US using extensively advanced means for ‘color revolutions’ to eliminate unwanted political regimes.”
So where do color revolutions start?
Aside from schools and research centers, they start on the internet. The People’s Liberation Army knows that all too well, having released a chilling memo last month that said “the internet has become the main battlefront for struggle in the ideological area.”
Western hostile forces and a small number of “ideological traitors” in our country use the network, and relying on computers, mobile phones and other such information terminals, maliciously attack our Party, blacken the leaders who founded the New China, vilify our heroes, and arouse mistaken thinking trends of historical nihilism, with the ultimate goal of using “universal values” to mislead us, using “constitutional democracy” to throw us into turmoil, use “color revolutions” to overthrow us, use negative public opinion and rumours to oppose us, and use “de-partification and depoliticization of the military” to upset us.
Hours after these papers appeared in The People’s Daily, Hong Kong authorities said they had taken nine people into custody for potentially attempting to plan an attack on a legislative building on the island. Officials think they may advocate “localism,” or the belief that the mainland should stay out of Hong Kong affairs, according to The New York Times.
Bad timing.
Nixon-Kissinger US administration in 1971-72 took advantage of the split between Soviet Union and Red China to formulate US foreign policy that initiated trade and commerce relations with Red China.
THE EVIL RED EMPIRE – RED CHINA – COMMUNIST: ONE – PARTY GOVERNANCE OF RED CHINA HAS NO RESPECT FOR NATURAL RIGHTS OF PEOPLE .
I am asking my readers to acknowledge Red China’s one-party governance as “COMMUNIST.” In the years ahead, the United States and others will be left with no political alternatives as there is fundamental incompatibility between the systems of governance called ‘Democracy’, and ‘Communism’.
THE EVIL RED EMPIRE – RED CHINA – COMMUNIST : COMMUNISM LAYS EMPHASIS ON THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE WITH NO CONCERN FOR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES . COMMUNIST GOVERNANCE IS NOT BASED UPON SOCIAL CONTRACT . COMMUNISTS RULE WITHOUT CONSENT OF THEIR PEOPLE .
Communism is the form of government by a one-party political structure which lays emphasis on the requirements of the State rather than on individual liberties. State is primarily involved in planning and control of economy without transparency and public accountability. Democracy is a form of government based on the theory of “Natural Rights” and the doctrine of government by “Social Contract.” In Democracy, government is instituted among men deriving its just powers from consent of the governed. Communism includes an unmistakable design to establish tyranny.
Red China’s Communist Party Chairman Mao Tse-Tung or Mao Zedong established a national entity on October 01, 1949 where the Communist Party can rule or govern people without their consent. Red China entered the Korean War against UN forces in 1950, participating on a large scale until the armistice of 1953. Red China invaded and occupied its weak neighbor Tibet during October 1950. A liberal “Hundred Flowers” period of 1957 was followed by a harsh crackdown on intellectuals. Red China demonstrated its ambitions to become a global superpower by exploding an atomic bomb in 1964 and the launching of its first satellite in 1970. Nixon-Kissinger “TREASON” in Vietnam paved the way for Red China’s entry to the United Nations. While the United States was engaged in a bloody war in Vietnam to resist and contain Communism, Nixon-Kissinger visited Peking in February 1972. US and Red China normalized diplomatic relations on January 01, 1979.
In 1981, Red China’s Communist Party severely criticized Mao Tse-Tung’s policies in the last years of his life in a public document and in 1982 Maoist ideology and political structure were curbed through the adoption of new Party and national constitution. The events commonly described as “TIANANMEN SQUARE MASSACRE” during May-June 1989 is clear evidence of a system of governance inspired by ideology of Communism which has no respect for “Natural Rights” of people.
THE EVIL RED EMPIRE – RED CHINA – COMMUNIST: Beijing. Tien An Men Square. ‘The Tank Man’ stopping the column of T59 tanks. 4th June 1989.
Red China has not accounted for her “Crimes Against Humanity” during a period of her history called the “Cultural Revolution.” Communist Party Chairman Mao Tse-Tung launched a massive upheaval in August 1966 to physically destroy all ‘liberal’ elements who in his view posed a threat to China’s “Red Revolution.” It was a mass campaign to revitalize revolutionary fervor by attacking people and cultural institutions perceived as liberal or so-called “BOURGEOIS” elements in cultural circles. Tibetan religious and political institutions that define Tibetan national character and Tibetan national identity became the targets of vicious attacks that aimed to physically destroy persons and material properties associated with Tibetan Culture using State-sponsored violence. Cultural Revolution ended in 1976 with the death of Chairman Mao and the purging of the “Gang of Four.” However, Communist misrule, xenophobia, and anti-intellectualism continue unabated in Occupied Tibet.
Here’s how The Washington Post covered Tiananmen Square in 1989
By SWATI SHARMA June 4
In 1989, the chinese military descended on Tiananmen Square and moved to end pro-democracy demonstrations. The event, which resulted in several hundred to several thousand dead, is considered one of the most brutal crackdowns in modern history. At the height of the protests, which were sparked by the death of a Communist Party leader who wanted reform, at least a million people were estimated to have participated in the demonstrations. Here is a look back at the Tiananmen Square massacre through the pages of The Washington Post.
May 20: Students defy martial law orders
“[T]he government today declared martial law ‘in certain areas’ of the capital to meet the growing defiance by Chinese citizens. Martial law provisions included a ban on demonstrations, and restrictions on the movements of Chinese citizens and the activities of foreign journalists.”
June 3: Troops are blocked for a second time
Although 200,000 troops surrounded Tiananmen Square, citizens were able to stop them from entering. “The citizens shouted ‘Go home,’ and called on people in the area to join them in opposition to the troops. The troops continued to press forward but were channeled into the left-hand side of the street, when a mass of people now numbering more than 1,000 stopped the soldiers in their tracks. The troops then seemed to give up.”
Tiananmen Square Massacre June 1989
June 3: Frightened students worry about what comes next
After troops were blocked from entering the square twice, concerned students and media contemplate the military’s next move. Staff writer Jay Mathews poses a simple question: “Would they come?”
Tiananmen Square Massacre June 1989.
June 4: The massacre
Here is the front page, leading with staff reporter Daniel Southerland’s coverage.
Tiananmen Square Massacre June 1989.
June 4: The legacy of Tiananmen Square
The front of The Post’s Outlook section: “‘There’s been nothing like it in human history,’CBS’s Charles Kuralt proclaimed on Sunday morning.”
Tiananmen Square Massacre June 1989.
June 5: Death in Tiananmen
Tiananmen Square Massacre June 1989.
June 6: An infamous photo is born
July 1: An avenue full of corpses
Shen Tong became the first Chinese student to speak publicly about the massacre. He told reporters: “People around me were being shot because they could not believe the army was shooting at them, so they did not move.”
Massacre in Tiananmen Square June 1989.
Note: This post was originally published on June 3, 2014.
Swati Sharma is a digital editor for World and National Security and previously worked at the Boston Globe.
The Evil Red Empire: Red China Communist: PRO-DEMOCRACY PROTEST June 03, 1989The Evil Red Empire: Red China Communist t. Tiananmen Square Protests 19891989, Beijing, China, Bodies of protestors shot by the Chinese army piled up in the corner of Capital hospital after the Chinese army occupation of Tiananmen Square on the 4th June, 1989. Tiananmen Square MassacreThe Evil Red Empire: Red China Communist. Bodies and mangled bicycles. Pro Democracy Protests 1989.The Evil Red Empire: Red China Communist. Pro Democracy protests June 05 1989
The Seven Heads of Red China manifest as 1. Evil Power, 2. Expansionist, 3. Imperial State, 4. Aggressor Nation, 5. Neocolonialist, 6. Tyrant, and 7. Jackal. Nations that conduct business with Red China have to deal with the reality of this Seven-Headed Monster.
The Evil Red Empire – Red China – Seven-Headed Scarlet Beast
The Evil Red Empire – The Seven-Headed Scarlet Beast: The Seven Heads of Red China manifest as 1. Evil Power, 2. Expansionist, 3. Imperial State, 4. Aggressor Nation, 5. Neocolonialist, 6. Tyrant, and 7. Jackal. Nations that conduct business with Red China have to deal with the reality of this Seven-Headed Monster.
Red China’s Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong or Mao Tse-Tung proclaimed the founding of People’s Republic of China on October 01, 1949. Red China joined the global community of nations with ‘evil’ intentions. Red China shared a vision for her own future growth and development, formally disclosed a plan for building an ‘Empire’ using the policy of ‘Expansionism’.
The Evil Red Empire – The Seven-Headed Scarlet Beast: The Seven Heads of Red China manifest as 1. Evil Power, 2. Expansionist, 3. Imperial State, 4. Aggressor Nation, 5. Neocolonialist, 6. Tyrant, and 7. Jackal. Nations that conduct business with Red China have to deal with the reality of this Seven-Headed Monster.
I monitored the growth of this Evil Empire and she symbolizes Seven-Headed Scarlet Beast described in The New Testament Book of Revelation, Chapter 17, verse 3.
Revelation 17:3
“So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.”
Each head of this Scarlet Beast represents a particular trait or aspect of Red China and her behavior as a national entity. The Seven Heads of Red China manifest as 1. Evil Power, 2. Expansionist, 3. Imperial State, 4. Aggressor Nation, 5. Neocolonialist, 6. Tyrant, and 7. Jackal.
Nations that conduct business with Red China have to deal with the reality of this Seven-Headed Monster.
CHINA OFFICIAL SAYS AIR DEFENSE ZONE IN SOUTH CHINA SEA HINGES ON SECURITY
Reuters
Mischief Reef in the Spratly Islands. Red China Land Reclamation .Photo image MAY 11, 2015. Nations that conduct business with Red China have to deal with the reality of this Seven-Headed Monster. Nations that conduct business with Red China have to deal with the reality of this Seven-Headed Monster.
China’s decision on whether to establish an air defense zone in the South China Sea depends on whether there is a threat to its air or maritime security in the region, a senior military official said on Saturday.
Extensive land reclamation work by China in the South China Sea has led to speculation that it will declare an Air Defense Identification Zone around the disputed waters.
Such a move “depends on whether our security in air and maritime will be threatened and extensive factors will be taken into consideration,” Admiral Sun Jianguo, a deputy chief of staff of China’s People’s Liberation Army, said at a security forum in Singapore.
(Reporting by Rachel Armstrong; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan)
The Washington Post
The Seven Heads of Red China manifest as 1. Evil Power, 2. Expansionist, 3. Imperial State, 4. Aggressor Nation, 5. Neocolonialist, 6. Tyrant, and 7. Jackal. Nations that conduct business with Red China have to deal with the reality of this Seven-Headed Monster.
Pentagon chief criticizes Beijing’s South China Sea moves
The Seven Heads of Red China manifest as 1. Evil Power, 2. Expansionist, 3. Imperial State, 4. Aggressor Nation, 5. Neocolonialist, 6. Tyrant, and 7. Jackal. China official says air defense zone in South China Sea hinges on security. Nations that conduct business with Red China have to deal with the reality of this Seven-Headed Monster.
China’s land reclamation in the South China Sea is out of step with international rules, and turning underwater land into airfields won’t expand its sovereignty, Defense Secretary Ash Carter told an international security conference Saturday, stepping up America’s condemnation of the communist giant as Beijing officials sat in the audience.
Associated Press
The Seven Heads of Red China manifest as 1. Evil Power, 2. Expansionist, 3. Imperial State, 4. Aggressor Nation, 5. Neocolonialist, 6. Tyrant, and 7. Jackal. China official says air defense zone in South China Sea hinges on security. Nations that conduct business with Red China have to deal with the reality of this Seven-Headed Monster.The Seven Heads of Red China manifest as 1. Evil Power, 2. Expansionist, 3. Imperial State, 4. Aggressor Nation, 5. Neocolonialist, 6. Tyrant, and 7. Jackal. Nations that conduct business with Red China have to deal with the reality of this Seven-Headed Monster.The Seven Heads of Red China manifest as 1. Evil Power, 2. Expansionist, 3. Imperial State, 4. Aggressor Nation, 5. Neocolonialist, 6. Tyrant, and 7. Jackal. Nations that conduct business with Red China have to deal with the reality of this Seven-Headed Monster.The Seven Heads of Red China manifest as 1. Evil Power, 2. Expansionist, 3. Imperial State, 4. Aggressor Nation, 5. Neocolonialist, 6. Tyrant, and 7. Jackal. Nations that conduct business with Red China have to deal with the reality of this Seven-Headed Monster.The Seven Heads of Red China manifest as 1. Evil Power, 2. Expansionist, 3. Imperial State, 4. Aggressor Nation, 5. Neocolonialist, 6. Tyrant, and 7. Jackal. Nations that conduct business with Red China have to deal with the reality of this Seven-Headed Monster.The Seven Heads of Red China manifest as 1. Evil Power, 2. Expansionist, 3. Imperial State, 4. Aggressor Nation, 5. Neocolonialist, 6. Tyrant, and 7. Jackal. Nations that conduct business with Red China have to deal with the reality of this Seven-Headed Monster.
Red China vs Tibet: Who decides the results of a battle? The outcome of the fight is not always controlled by the relative military strengths of the opposing parties.
Red China has claimed that it is expanding its defense spending to increase its global military reach to defend its economic interests and territorial rights which includes Red China’s claim for territorial rights in Occupied Tibet. People’s Liberation Army maintains an impressive military force in Tibet with which it brutalized and represses people who offer Resistance to Red China’s occupation. Red China rules over Tibet with its Iron Fist.
Red China vs Tibet: Who decides the results of a battle? The outcome of the fight is not always controlled by the relative military strengths of the opposing parties.
Everyday deeds by ordinary folks can break the knuckles of the military grip over Tibet. Who decides the results of a battle? The outcome of the fight is not always controlled by the relative military strengths of the opposing parties.
RED CHINA vs TIBET – THE FIGHT BETWEEN DAVID AND GOLIATH:
Red China vs Tibet: Who decides the results of a battle? The outcome of the fight is not always controlled by the relative military strengths of the opposing parties.
Wars in ancient times were sometimes decided by “representative combat”; Champions from each side would fight, and the results of their combat would determine the battle’s result. People believed the outcome of the fight was controlled by the warriors’ gods more than by the two sides’ military strength.The Old Testament Book of 1 Samuel, Chapter 17 described an interesting fight between David, a young Israeli shepherd and Goliath, a gigantic warrior of the Philistine army. David had no prior experience of warfare but was confident in his God. Whereas Goliath was an experienced soldier and was especially scornful of Israelites who openly proclaimed that they are God’s chosen people.
Red China vs Tibet: Who decides the results of a battle? The outcome of the fight is not always controlled by the relative military strengths of the opposing parties.
The Philistines had ventured into Israel’s territory and had taken a firm position on the slope of a hill, with Israel camped on the opposite hill. From the Philistine camp Goliath made daily challenges to personal combat, but after forty days no one accepted his challenge as Israelites were simply terrified and dismayed by the Philistine. Goliath’s size was extraordinary. He was over nine feet (or even over eleven feet) in height. Goliath had a bronze helmet on his head and wore a coat of scale armor of bronze, on his legs he wore bronze greaves, and a bronze javelin was slung on his back. He also held a sword and a spear. For forty days, Goliath came forward every morning and evening and took his stand demanding Israelites to send a soldier to fight him. David had been sent to Israeli camp to deliver some provisions to his three brothers who served as soldiers in Israeli army. When David heard Goliath’s challenge, he made repeated inquires about its meaning. After being told, David agreed to respond to Goliath’s challenge and demand for personal combat without any concern for his lack of war experience.
Red China vs Tibet: Who decides the results of a battle? The outcome of the fight is not always controlled by the relative military strengths of the opposing parties.
David took his staff in his hand, chose five smooth stones from the stream, put them in the pouch of his shepherd’s bag and with his sling in hand ,went to face Goliath. He approached him and said to Goliath, “You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the LORD Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied…… All those gathered here will know that it is not b sword or spear that the LORD saves; for the battle is LORD’s, and He will give all of you into our hands.” (1 Samuel 17: 45-47)
Red China vs Tibet: Who decides the results of a battle? The outcome of the fight is not always controlled by the relative military strengths of the opposing parties.
As Goliath moved closer to attack David, he ran quickly toward the battle line to meet Goliath. David reached into his bag and took out a stone, slung it striking Goliath on his forehead. The stone found its mark, sank into Goliath’s forehead, and Goliath fell facedown on the ground.
Red China vs Tibet: Who decides the results of a battle? The outcome of the fight is not always controlled by the relative military strengths of the opposing parties.
So David triumphed over Goliath with a sling and stone without a sword in his hand; he struck down Goliath and killed him.
Red China vs Tibet: Who decides the results of a battle? The outcome of the fight is not always controlled by the relative military strengths of the opposing parties.
David took hold of Goliath’s sword and drew it from the scabbard and he cut off his head with the sword.
Red China vs Tibet: Who decides the results of a battle? The outcome of the fight is not always controlled by the relative military strengths of the opposing parties.
In my analysis, David overwhelmed Goliath, taking full advantage of a small portion of Goliath’s huge body to strike it at a most vulnerable spot in a very precisely executed attack.
Red China vs Tibet: Who decides the results of a battle? The outcome of the fight is not always controlled by the relative military strengths of the opposing parties.
I am not concerned about the religious beliefs of people who fight on behalf of Tibet or those of Red China. I visualize this as a ‘Battle of Right Against Might’. Military occupation of Tibet is illegal, unjust, and it reveals the evil intent of Red China. For Red China’s actions are evil, Red China has no choice other than that of experiencing the fruits of their own actions. For that reason, I predict that Beijing Is Doomed. Red China will come down, its downfall will be sudden and very quick as mentioned in The New Testament Book Revelation Chapter 18, Verse 21.
Red China vs Tibet: Who decides the results of a battle? The outcome of the fight is not always controlled by the relative military strengths of the opposing parties.
CHINESE MILITARY SETS COURSE TO EXPAND GLOBAL REACH AS ‘NATIONAL INTERESTS’ GROW
The Washington Post
Simon Denyer
Red China vs Tibet: Who decides the results of a battle? The outcome of the fight is not always controlled by the relative military strengths of the opposing parties.
BEIJING — China said Tuesday that it plans to extend its global military reach to safeguard its economic interests, while defending its territorial claims at sea against “provocative actions” by neighbors and “meddling” by the United States.
A policy document setting out China’s military strategy, issued by the State Council, or cabinet, underlined the dramatic growth of the country’s defense ambitions — especially its naval ambitions — in tandem with its rapid economic rise.
Beijing insisted in the document that its military is dedicated to “international security cooperation” and peaceful development. But it also said the navy will expand its focus from “offshore waters defense” to a greater emphasis on “open seas protection” as China aims to establish itself as a maritime power. The air force, meanwhile, will shift its focus from “territorial air defense to both defense and offense.”
Patrick Cronin, director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, called the white paper “a blueprint for achieving slow-motion regional hegemony.”
“It asserts a confidence backed by growing capability on land and increasingly at sea,” he said. “While it calls for balancing China’s territorial ‘rights’ with ‘stability,’ there should be little doubt on the part of its neighbors that China is building a maritime force to assert the former.”
China’s officially disclosed defense budget was expanded by just over 10 percent this year, to $141 billion, marking two decades of nearly unbroken double-digit growth. The navy is reportedly building a second aircraft carrier and has invested heavily in submarines and warships.
“China has made it a strategic goal to become a maritime power,” Senior Col. Wang Jin said at a news conference Tuesday. “Therefore, we need to build a strong navy.”
He added that the development of long-range precision weapons means that the battlefield at sea is widening. “Offshore-waters defense alone can no longer provide effective defense of the country’s maritime interests,” he said.
In Washington, State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke said the administration was aware of the paper and continued to monitor China’s military developments carefully. “We also continue to urge China to exhibit greater transparency with respect to its capabilities and to its intentions,” he said.
According to a Pentagon report released this month, China is developing missiles designed to “push adversary forces — including the United States — farther from potential regional conflicts.”
The Chinese military is mainly focused on readying for possible conflict in the Taiwan Strait but also is investing to prepare for “contingencies” in the East China Sea and the South China Sea, where it is engaged in several territorial disputes, the Pentagon report said.
Chinese officials say that the country’s declared annual defense spending is significantly below the global average when compared with the size of its economy. Its actual defense spending is almost certainly higher than the declared number but is still far lower than the Pentagon’s fiscal 2015 budget of $560 billion, experts say.
In a move welcomed by other nations, China sent a 700-strong peacekeeping force in December to South Sudan, where it has extensive oil interests, marking the first time it has sent an infantry battalion on a U.N. mission.
Beijing also is negotiating with the strategic port nation of Djibouti to open a military base there to support anti-piracy naval escort missions in the Gulf of Aden and off the coast of Somalia, the Agence France-Presse news agency reported this month. The United States and France already have a military presence in the tiny Horn of Africa country.
Mapping Asia’s Chinese fears
“With the growth of China’s national interests, the security of our overseas energy and resources, strategic sea lines of communication and the safety of our overseas institutions, personnel and assets have become prominent issues,” Senior Col. Zhang Yuguo said at Tuesday’s news conference.
Zhang added, however, a note of outreach apparently aimed at the United States and other countries watching China’s military growth. “China will never seek hegemony or divide up spheres of power, nor will it engage in military alliances or expansion,” he said.
In addition to rattling its neighbors, China’s military growth has set the nation on a possible collision course with the United States.
This year in particular, the Obama administration has repeatedly condemned a program of rapid land reclamation and construction on disputed islands and reefs in the South China Sea. A U.S. surveillance plane was warned to leave the area by the Chinese navy last week, while Beijing lodged a formal diplomatic complaint.
Senior Col. Yang Yujun, a Defense Ministry spokesman, on Tuesday likened China’s construction activities on the islands to “everyday actions” such as the building of houses, roads and bridges. But he acknowledged that the facilities being constructed, including an airstrip and radar stations, will have both military and civilian uses.
[Chinese warships could one day outnumber U.S. fleet]
Rathke, the State Department spokesman, said the United States took a different view, saying that China’s land reclamation efforts in the South China Sea have “contributed . . . to rising tensions” and suggesting that other countries in the region share that view.
Yang said that the Chinese military was responding to increasingly frequent surveillance flights in a “legal and professional manner” but that the issue was being hyped up to “throw mud” at China.
“There’s no ruling out the possibility that some country is seeking an excuse for its potential action in the future,” he said. “I don’t think this is a new trick. It’s an old trick.”
On Monday, the state-owned tabloid the Global Times warned that battle is “inevitable” if the United States tries to prevent China from finishing its reclamation and construction work. It said the risks would be “still under control” if Washington accepts China’s peaceful rise.
Although not necessarily fully reflecting official thinking, the editorial shows China’s determination to continue its projects in the South China Sea.
Yang said Sino-U.S. relations are generally good and noted that both militaries have signed agreements to govern air and maritime encounters and prevent crises.
But the policy paper expressed concern about the United States’ “ ‘rebalancing’ strategy,” which has led China to enhance its military presence and strengthen military alliances in the Asia-Pacific region and worry about more assertive military and security policies in Japan. It accused China’s neighbors of provocative actions by reinforcing their military presence on “China’s reefs and islands that they have illegally occupied.”
“Some external countries are also busy meddling in South China Sea affairs,” it said, adding in a clear reference to the United States: “A tiny few maintain constant close-in air and sea surveillance and reconnaissance against China.”
Philippines President Benigno Aquino III was quoted as saying Monday that his nation will continue flying over disputed islands in the South China Sea, while Defense Minister Voltaire Gazmin said he was seeking a “stronger commitment” from the United States to help its ally, according to news agency reports.
China responded angrily.
“I would like to remind the Philippines that China will not bully small countries, but small countries must not ceaselessly and willfully make trouble,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said at a news conference. “We hope the Philippines can cease its instigation and provocation and return to the correct path of resolving the problem through negotiation and consultation.”
On Tuesday, state media reported that China had held a groundbreaking ceremony for the building of two lighthouses on the disputed Spratly Islands, a move that Hua said was meant to fulfill the nation’s international obligations but that is unlikely to ease concerns about Beijing’s expanding influence.
The military strategy paper also outlined threats emanating from instability on the Korean Peninsula, from separatist forces in its western regions of Tibet and Xinjiang and from forces attempting to instigate a “color revolution” to overthrow the Communist Party. It also noted growing threats in outer space and cyberspace.
Xu Yangjingjing in Beijing and Dan Lamothe in Washington contributed to this report.
Red China vs Tibet: Who decides the results of a battle? The outcome of the fight is not always controlled by the relative military strengths of the opposing parties.Red China vs Tibet: Who decides the results of a battle? The outcome of the fight is not always controlled by the relative military strengths of the opposing parties.Red China vs Tibet: Who decides the results of a battle? The outcome of the fight is not always controlled by the relative military strengths of the opposing parties.Red China vs Tibet: Who decides the results of a battle? The outcome of the fight is not always controlled by the relative military strengths of the opposing parties.Red China vs Tibet: Who decides the results of a battle? The outcome of the fight is not always controlled by the relative military strengths of the opposing parties.Red China vs Tibet: Who decides the results of a battle? The outcome of the fight is not always controlled by the relative military strengths of the opposing parties.Red China vs Tibet: Who decides the results of a battle? The outcome of the fight is not always controlled by the relative military strengths of the opposing parties.Red China vs Tibet: Who decides the results of a battle? The outcome of the fight is not always controlled by the relative military strengths of the opposing parties.Red China vs Tibet: Who decides the results of a battle? The outcome of the fight is not always controlled by the relative military strengths of the opposing parties.Red China vs Tibet: Who decides the results of a battle? The outcome of the fight is not always controlled by the relative military strengths of the opposing parties.
Neocolonialism describes the revival of Colonialist exploitation by a foreign power of a region that has achieved independence. Colonialism is the system or policy by which a country maintains foreign colonies especially in order to exploit them economically. Colonization refers to extension of political and economic control over an area by an occupying state that has organizational or technological superiority. Imperialism has been a major colonizing force. The Colony’s population is subdued to assimilate them to the Colonizer’s way of life.
The Great 13th Dalai Lama of Tibet declared Tibet’s independence from Manchu China(Qing or Ch’ing Dynasty) on February 13, 1913. Tibet expelled Manchu China’s diplomats and its military contingent posted in Lhasa, Tibet’s Capital. For centuries, Tibet came under foreign conquests by Mongols and Manchu China but Tibet was never colonized. Red China’s military invasion of Tibet in 1950 describes the typical features of Colonialism. Tibet’s population is repressed by brutal force in an attempt to fully assimilate Tibetans to the Colonizer’s way of life. Red China’s Colonial Rule is a direct threat to the existence of Tibetan way of life shaped by centuries of Natural Freedom. Apart from wiping out Tibetan System of Governance known as Ganden Phodrang, The Institution of Dalai Lama at Potala Palace, Lhasa, the tyrannical rule of Red China is destroying every attribute of Tibetan Culture including Tibetan language, and Tibetan religious institutions putting Tibetan Identity at a great peril. Red China’s colonization of Tibet is defacing and degrading Tibetan territory and its fragile environment totally upsetting its delicate ecological balance. The Land of Tibet is scarred by Red China’s reckless mining activities, deforestation, diversion of rivers, and dumping of toxic chemical and nuclear wastes.
Colonization was the vehicle of European expansion from the 15th century into Africa, the Americas, and Asia. The Spanish, Portuguese, English, French, and Dutch established Colonies worldwide that have for the most part obtained independence from imperial system only in the 20th century.
Red China determines the economic development of other countries from which it extracts vast amounts of raw materials. With the sole exception of Tibet, Red China is able to get raw materials and flood world markets with Made in China products without the need to fight the wars of the previous Colonial Era. With threats of its muscle power, Red China has entered a new era of Colonialism. People of the World have to awaken to the threat imposed by Red China – Neocolonialist.
Whole Evil: Red China Neocolonialist exploiting mineral deposits in Tibet
Whole Dude - Whole Concept 