The international-law Irony of U.S. Provocations in South China Sea

[Elkanah]

In my opinion the news article raises a valid point, and I think that point has been missed by many. China should cite the US refusal to be bound or ratify UNCLOS gives China absolutely unchallengeable legitimacy to withdraw from UNCLOS, and though I've not heard it stated by any official China groups I'm almost positive that continued FON activities with US warships will eventually draw a withdrawal from the treaty by China

 

[jhungary]

Been to merryland rsl playing porker 20 yes ago, don't care which council it belongs to since it is a bad place, lots of gun shooting like in punchbowl, is it not?

Wrong, Merryland is quite safe in the area between Granville, Auburn and Parra. And MErryland belong to Holroyd City Council, they were to amalgam with Parramatta City Council from 2013 onward, and have been fighting since

My BMW is under 5 yrs old so I don't need pink slip and these days people do rego online on the Mygov website without any sticker, Just recording your registration number on the notice. From memory the cbd rat was at York or clearance st, now it is called a different name, like the one in chatseood Victoria st.

So you have been driving your brand new Beemer without a NSW Driving License? You can renew your rego online but until Service NSW merged with RTA in 2015, you CANNOT RENEW YOUR LICENSE ONLINE. You have to go to your local RTA and take a photo and they give you your license directly after a few minute (or hours, depend on the day and the laziness of the staff)

Unless you have been driving for the last 30 years without a NSW license or Licenses at all (You need to get a temp license from RTA anyway even if you are using an International License) you would know what they have been calling all the time.

They change from RTA - Road and Traffic Authority to Road and Maritime Service (RMS) somewhere in 2011 (Don't exactly know which month) after being folded into Transport for NSW to What it have been called now Service NSW, although some old RTA office still called RMS and offer photo service so you can get your license immediately. But those big one (Like in Parra or Chatswood or Sydney) now being called Service NSW where they also deal with CenterLink, Medicare issue.

So you are saying you never renew your license in 30 years? Strange because I only renewed 3 times and I remember what they called and when they were called what they called. Given you claim to have stayed in NSW for 30 years, you have to be al very least renewed 6 time (before 2015, the longest license period is 5 years). And you have no idea what or where you renew your license? And were they called?

And wrong, the Sydney RTA office were in the corner of Eddy Ave and Elizabeth Street, opposite the Central Station, now they were relocated to Haymarket McKell Center opposite the Sydney Central Fire Brigade. If you drive into Central, you will know, so I guess you never drive into Central CBD in your 30 years in Sydney huh? It doesn't surprise me as you seems to never have to renew your license too.

And finally, what Pink slip have to do with RTA/RMS or Service NSW? You got your pink from mechanic, you visit a mechanic and they give you a epink slip so you can renew your rego, it have no relationship with RTA at all (except of course they were the road authority)

How much per head does the Korean BBQ restaurant cost at mandarin centre at he corner of the second or third floor?adult?children?

Don't have kids so I don't know, can't also remember which floor either as I only went once or twice, don't like Korean Food either, but I remember it was in the upstair food court above the Chinese Supermarket (Miracle), it charge $15 for a lunch buffet for adults. Never went there for dinner, as it will mean I will miss the last bus back home.

We don't pay much attention to your west but I do known that Indonesian developer was building the highest residential tower in paramatta 2 yrs ago and people manly chinese bought all through the off plan stage. I remember it was called forum or something like that and has 50 floors.

so? Do you know the forum went thru the Parra Free bus service, can you tell me where does it goes and what route number of the Free bus service?

Do you know where the Hop on-Hop off bus pick up at Manly?

 

[jhungary]

@Tiqiu

Let's cut the crap, I can ask you a lot of question about mall and food but if you were not frequent those joint, you will never know. After a disappointment from your knowledge of RTA, let's focus on what Every Australian have to do, and if you were indeed an Australian that lived in Sydney for 30 years, you will bound to know stuff about "Voting-Electoral Issue", Passport Issue (As you claim you have an Australian Passport) and Immigration issue (I don't suppose you were born in Australia as you have indicated you move to Australia for 30 years from China)

1.) How many different type of Election have an Australian need to participate?
2.) Is voting Complusory for ALL AUSTRALIAN?
3.) What type of information you have to write down on your ballot paper beside ballot preference?
4.) Where can you vote?
5.) In what year Australian Passport office stop process over the counter passport application and transfer them to local post office?
6.) Who can interview you for an Passport Interview?
7.) HOw long ago you have to book before an interview commence?
8. Department or Border and immigration have change their name several time (I counted 4) since the last 15 years, what were they called respectively? And also their website name?

These are the question you should know as a man in Australia for 30 years. Because one way or another you will need to have to experience it over the course of your stay, so if you are who you said you are, you should know all the ANSWER to the above questions.

 

[Zsari]

No, you are the one misrepresented with the issue here. 9 Point line is what China used to claim the Island and their surrounding water as territorial water, I never did say China claim the whole SCS to begin with, I said China claim about 80% of South China Seas based on the claim submitted by the 9 dots line.

Problem is, no one, other than China, recognized the 9 dots line and the claim propelling it, hence, if you look at it in the eyes of Chinese government, your claim seems logical simply because it is your claim, but to other, it is not logically. And when it was about actual borders, you will need to know international border is not something you claim it to be, but also they were to be respected by other country, and in this case, no one, other than China respecting the "Chinese Border" in the SCS.

Who tell you the islands China is claiming and their surrounding water consitutes 80% of the SCS? The islands are small specks within the sea and even the 12nm around them comprises tiny portion of the water. And as to who recognize the 9 dash line, in the same line, no country recognize the claim of another in the entire region. That's why its not a two way contest between China and other claimant but a 5 way contest between all of the claimants.

FON ops were a way for US to challenge the "Limited" navigation right one claims, it was a direct challenge based on the US own view and definition of international water and airways. And you are assuming what you control is what you own, which is not the case for the US, hence what you think it was US violating the 12 nm limit of your territorial water in Triton, the US does not think it is, as US position on Triton island is, they are located in the international water, then of course they have the right of way to enter any sea lane they please as with their own definition of "international water"

That obviously was not the claim from the US government as it recognize the 12nm within Triton island as territorial water of another state, regardless if its China's or any other claimants, it is however territorial water by definition, which is why innocent passage was invoked by the US. Islands and the waters surrounding them are not interntional waters regardless who claims or owns them. Remember, in any international treaty, the status of the land feature determines the status of the water surrounding them, never the othe way around where an island can be defined by situating in international water, as there is no such thing. And again there is no argument from the US ever stating 12nm withinTriton is international water.

Under UNCLOS islets that cannot by themselves support human economic life are referred to as "rocks" (Article 121-3) and aren't entitled to an exclusive economic zone. Coastal states' artificial islands built up from such rocks aren't entitled to any territorial waters of their own (Article 60-8).

Islands that cannot sustain economic life on their own are not entitled to 200nm EEZ, but are still entitled to have 12nm of territorial water. Only submerged rock are not entitled to territorial water. And Triton island is neither submerged, nor artifical.

 

[gambit]

In my opinion the news article raises a valid point, and I think that point has been missed by many. China should cite the US refusal to be bound or ratify UNCLOS gives China absolutely unchallengeable legitimacy to withdraw from UNCLOS, and though I've not heard it stated by any official China groups I'm almost positive that continued FON activities with US warships will eventually draw a withdrawal from the treaty by China

Sorry, but you are wrong. Please read this post carefully...

https://defence.pk/threads/the-inte...tions-in-south-china-sea.420183/#post-8122438

...And this...

https://defence.pk/threads/the-inte...in-south-china-sea.420183/page-7#post-8124872

 

[JSCh]

Dude, the different is, you cannot use innocent passage when you are INTENTING to do something that will cause trouble. It was the US intention to enter the area as international water which the Chinese claim as "Territorial" water before entering and circumventing Triton island. The dispute was while US sees the water surrounding Triton Island was international water, and the Chinese did not, innocent passage or not, if China did not protest what US did, that mean China agree Triton and it's surrounding island is in fact international water. Hence Symbolically dropping the claim of South China Seas.

On the other hand, US will not protest the Chinese transit thru Bering strait and enter US water in Alaska, because it was the right of way for passage thru international waterway. Unless China stop and conduct espionage mission or what not during the transit thru Alaskan water, US cannot protest such act as protected by International Law. Which US cannot contest the fact that Bering Strait is international waterway, and the entering from International water into US territorial water in order to transit out of the area is protected by innocent passage as a part of frely transit thru someone sovereign water for the purpose of progess in or out of an international waterway.

Shall US protest, there will be for nothing in effect to two point.

1.) Bering Strait is an internationally recognized international waterway and US cannot block off traffic from US territorial water if the traffic is solely to transit out of the Area (You cannot access the Bering strait unless you enter either Russia Water in one end and exit the US water on the other or vice versa, by law, both side (US and Russia) cannot block the waterway by denied access of it's own territorial water to shipping if their sole goal was to tranit thru the strait, that will effective eract a blockade inside international water, even if the blockade is within its own territorial water)

2.) US cannot stop innocent passage from happening unless the shipping in question present a sercuity threat, but as I pointed out, US have monitor the shipping in question, and they passed peacefully without hinder or delay, then what can US protest?





Are Canadian Territorial water considered international water? And what is the purpose of entering US Territorial Water?

First you add exiting international water, international waterway and then "intention" or lack thereof as conditions for "innocent passage".

None of this is mentioned elsewhere.

These are all your own invention.

Have fun with yourself, I have better thing to do.

 

[jhungary]

Who tell you the islands China is claiming and their surrounding water consitutes 80% of the SCS? The islands are small specks within the sea and even the 12nm around them comprises tiny portion of the water. And as to who recognize the 9 dash line, in the same line, no country recognize the claim of another in the entire region. That's why its not a two way contest between China and other claimant but a 5 way contest between all of the claimants.

Did you actually read your own claim? The 9-dots-line claim basically all the South China Seas with the exception of Vietnamese Coast and Philippine Coast, which give only the part that South China Sea overlapping both Philippine and Vietnam Coast were not what it claimed by the Chinese. Which lies about 12 nm off shore (Some are overlapping Chinese Territorial water, so may not even be 12 nm)

The Chinese don't just claim the Island as their, but the Island is the extension of the continental shelf, which make the whole Sea, apart from the South West part, were Chinese territorial water

This is the 9-dash-line claim the Chinese push forward.

That obviously was not the claim from the US government as it recognize the 12nm within Triton island as territorial water of another state, regardless if its China's or any other claimants, it is however territorial water by definition, which is why innocent passage was invoked by the US. Islands and the waters surrounding them are not interntional waters regardless who claims or owns them. Remember, in any international treaty, the status of the land feature determines the status of the water surrounding them, never the othe way around where an island can be defined by situating in international water, as there is no such thing. And again there is no argument from the US ever stating 12nm withinTriton is international water.

When did US recognize the 12nm within Triton Island as territorial water of another states?

They specifically mentioned "THE US NAVY CHALLENGE the limitation of navigation right imposed by CHINA AND OTHER COUNTRIES". As mentioned by this Article

WASHINGTON — The Navy challenged China and other countries’ “excessive” attempts to restrict navigation in the South China Sea on Saturday, sailing the guided missile destroyer USS Curtis Wilbur near disputed islands there, according to the Pentagon.

This said 2 things.

1.) The passage is intended to be a challenge, you cannot claim one's passage to any sort of water as innocents passage, when the sole intention is to challenge whatever or whoever claim to the ocean.

2.) The declaration specifically point to China and Others, meaning they do not recognize the claim of ANY CLAIMANT.

Being in the international water or not is not an issue, I raised the international waterway issue with another poster because he uses the example of PLAN Transit thru Bering Strait and enter US territorial water as "Innocent Passage"

Innocent passage can be used in both territorial water and international water, there are no guide line to denied both innocent passage, the only guide line is that if that they cannot be an innocent passage if the intention of the passage is to make trouble. Which is what the US did before circumventing the Triton Island, regardless the status of the water surrounding Triton, the US enter the water with the sole intent to challenge the Chinese, that would negate the "Innocent" part of "Innocent passage"

Islands that cannot sustain economic life on their own are not entitled to 200nm EEZ, but are still entitled to have 12nm of territorial water. Only submerged rock are not entitled to territorial water. And Triton island is neither submerged, nor artifical.

That is the whole point of the debate you claim the island have 12nm, and most importantly, belong to you the world says otherwise.

The problem is, you assume the triton island belong to China from the beginning, mostly because they are currently garrisoned by the Chinese, but that fact itself, is disputable.

First you add exiting international water, international waterway and then "intention" or lack thereof as conditions for "innocent passage".

None of this is mentioned elsewhere.

These are all your own invention.

Have fun with yourself, I have better thing to do.

I cannot be hold responsible for your own incompetence to understand a basic situation, you used two different scenario to explain the same thing, I said the two situation is not the same (One is about entering and exiting International Water, while the other is about challenging someone claim)

If you still don't know you are using the wrong example to support your own point, then I cannot help you with it. Good day.

 

[Tiqiu]

Before answering yours, you need to answer the following simple one.
These are your words calling me lying in past 24 hours.

Oh, by the way, if you are really here for 10 years, you would have use Domain.com website to show me

lol, now I doubt you were even in Australia at all. Or you are simply and blatantly lying.

Stop pretend to be Aussie please. Nobody think you are even in Australia...

As I said, you don't live in Australia, don't try to pretend you are.

lol, manly beach aren't that great anyway, I was thinking bondi. but meh, it's a place you never live anyway.

Hah, now I know for sure you don't live in Sydney at all

And now you changed your tune to this

These are the question you should know as a man in Australia for 30 years. Because one way or another you will need to have to experience it over the course of your stay, so if you are who you said you are, you should know all the ANSWER to the above questions.

So does it mean you made mistakes and hence proved my reading about your problem: self deception and over confidence?

 

[JSCh]

Did you actually read your own claim? The 9-dots-line claim basically all the South China Seas with the exception of Vietnamese Coast and Philippine Coast, which give only the part that South China Sea overlapping both Philippine and Vietnam Coast were not what it claimed by the Chinese. Which lies about 12 nm off shore (Some are overlapping Chinese Territorial water, so may not even be 12 nm)

The Chinese don't just claim the Island as their, but the Island is the extension of the continental shelf, which make the whole Sea, apart from the South West part, were Chinese territorial water

This is the 9-dash-line claim the Chinese push forward.

View attachment 291514



When did US recognize the 12nm within Triton Island as territorial water of another states?

They specifically mentioned "THE US NAVY CHALLENGE the limitation of navigation right imposed by CHINA AND OTHER COUNTRIES". As mentioned by this Article



This said 2 things.

1.) The passage is intended to be a challenge, you cannot claim one's passage to any sort of water as innocents passage, when the sole intention is to challenge whatever or whoever claim to the ocean.

2.) The declaration specifically point to China and Others, meaning they do not recognize the claim of ANY CLAIMANT.

Being in the international water or not is not an issue, I raised the international waterway issue with another poster because he uses the example of PLAN Transit thru Bering Strait and enter US territorial water as "Innocent Passage"

Innocent passage can be used in both territorial water and international water, there are no guide line to denied both innocent passage, the only guide line is that if that they cannot be an innocent passage if the intention of the passage is to make trouble. Which is what the US did before circumventing the Triton Island, regardless the status of the water surrounding Triton, the US enter the water with the sole intent to challenge the Chinese, that would negate the "Innocent" part of "Innocent passage"



That is the whole point of the debate you claim the island have 12nm, and most importantly, belong to you the world says otherwise.

The problem is, you assume the triton island belong to China from the beginning, mostly because they are currently garrisoned by the Chinese, but that fact itself, is disputable.



I cannot be hold responsible for your own incompetence to understand a basic situation, you used two different scenario to explain the same thing, I said the two situation is not the same (One is about entering and exiting International Water, while the other is about challenging someone claim)

If you still don't know you are using the wrong example to support your own point, then I cannot help you with it. Good day.

I used the Alaskan transit to refute you claim that US interpret "innocent passage" as challenge to sovereignty. Because US perceived and claimed the transit to be "innocent passage".

China navy transit Alaskan territorial water.
US said that it is "innocent passage" and therefore it is ok.
US still called the area as US territorial water.
ergo, US do not consider "innocent passage" as a challenge to sovereignty.

South China Sea FONOP 2.0: A Step in the Right Direction | Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative

In the wake of the previous Freedom of Navigation Operation (FONOP), the administration’s top concern appeared to be to downplay the transit in order to prevent upsetting Beijing more than necessary. As a result, no U.S. officials would speak on the record about the operation for days, despite extensive coverage in every major media outlet. This left the door open for unattributed statements and speculation to fill the gap. As should have been expected, the result was significant confusion about what exactly the Lassen was objecting to with its FONOP. In reality, it took nearly two months before a U.S. official fully and publicly explained the operation and its intentions.

By contrast, the Department of Defense was ready with a statement on the Curtis Wilbur’s FONOP within hours. Not only did the Pentagon take control of the messaging so it could not spin out of control, as happened following the Lassen’s operation, but it did so with relative clarity. Where did the operation take place? “Within 12 nautical miles of Triton Island.” What did the destroyer do? “Transited in innocent passage.” What excessive maritime claim was it contesting? “Policies [of China, Taiwan, and Vietnam] that require prior permission or notification of transit within territorial seas.”​

Reading from the statements from office of the secretary of defense, it is clear that what US challenge/contest is the process of prior permission or notification. You are adding all sorts of extra thing to the US official statement.

And in your answer to Zsari, you said I use the Chinese Navy Alaskan transit as example of "innocent passage".

I think I need to make a clarification on that.

I use the Alaskan transit as example because US defense official made a statement calling it "innocent passage" (Chinese Warships Made ‘Innocent Passage’ Through U.S. Territorial Waters off Alaska - USNI News).

And because Chinese Navy did not make prior notification to US, some western media are saying that China is engaging in double standard since that is China requirement of "innocent passage".

In fact China is using "transit passage" when transiting Alaskan territorial water, not "innocent passage" as claimed by the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_passage

Transit passage is a concept of the Law of the Sea which allows a vessel or aircraft the freedom of navigation or overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of a strait between one part of the high seas or exclusive economic zone and another. The requirement of continuous and expeditious transit does not preclude passage through the strait for the purpose of entering, leaving or returning from a state bordering the strait, subject to the conditions of entry to that state.​

 

[gambit]

Since U.S. officially considered that action as "innocent passage" as stated by U.S. defense officials and applying your logic of "innocent passage" to the Chinese side, when Chinese warship innocent pass through Alaskan territorial water, China is asserting that it is international water, and China DO NOT accept U.S. sovereignty of Alaskan territorial water.

Since U.S. did not protest that action, could I therefore conclude that U.S. has given up the sovereignty of Alaskan territorial water ?!

You have a serious reading comprehension problem, and I do not mean linguistically but in concepts and following a debate.

Alaska is an ESTABLISHED territory of the US, and by centuries of conventions and laws, there are ACKNOWLEDGED boundaries extending into the seas that also made portions of the seas US territory. Any passage thru this territorial water would be either 'innocent' or 'hostile', depending on actions.

Those islands in the SCS that were created by China DO NOT have the equivalent support as that of Alaska. That means Chinese claims about territorial waters can be challenged, not just in principle but in physicality by anyone.

Ex 1: Say a man own a house and it is registered with the government and the bank. Not only that, it acknowledged by the neighbors as a SOVEREIGN property. If you get on that property, ANYONE in his family can order you to leave, even though only the man is the legal owner of said house.

Ex 2: Say a man stake out a parcel in a field. As a parcel, it has some demarcations resembling that of a property, but essentially, it was just something the man drew in the land. No one challenges his claim but then everyone know there is no legal foundation for that claim. The reason no one enter his so-called 'property' is simply because they see no value in challenging him. But if someone more powerful than him can take that parcel away from him, there is nothing the man can do. He cannot petition the government for help. He cannot plead for sympathy from the neighbors.

Alaska is example 1.

The SCS is example 2.

 

[Tiqiu]

@Tiqiu

Let's cut the crap, I can ask you a lot of question about mall and food but if you were not frequent those joint, you will never know. After a disappointment from your knowledge of RTA, let's focus on what Every Australian have to do, and if you were indeed an Australian that lived in Sydney for 30 years, you will bound to know stuff about "Voting-Electoral Issue", Passport Issue (As you claim you have an Australian Passport) and Immigration issue (I don't suppose you were born in Australia as you have indicated you move to Australia for 30 years from China)

1.) How many different type of Election have an Australian need to participate?
2.) Is voting Complusory for ALL AUSTRALIAN?
3.) What type of information you have to write down on your ballot paper beside ballot preference?
4.) Where can you vote?
5.) In what year Australian Passport office stop process over the counter passport application and transfer them to local post office?
6.) Who can interview you for an Passport Interview?
7.) HOw long ago you have to book before an interview commence?
8. Department or Border and immigration have change their name several time (I counted 4) since the last 15 years, what were they called respectively? And also their website name?

These are the question you should know as a man in Australia for 30 years. Because one way or another you will need to have to experience it over the course of your stay, so if you are who you said you are, you should know all the ANSWER to the above questions.

There are many holes in your replies to my questions about local Sydney knowledge. However I believe the best judge or referee is not me or you, it is the other Aussie members here , even though they may have not seen it now, nevertheless what we said are recorded here to be judged by them in the future.

Right now I think you are playing the game of “the best defense is a good offense” here. Your have been trying hard to avert most Chinese posters' concerns about your background. Why can't you man up to answer this simple challenge , given I have maned up and spent lots of my time to your challenge ?

As a token of my sincerity, I will answer your query as to whether I live in Australia for 30 yrs as I claimed first, based on the assumption that now you are no longer questioning whether I live here, but for how long.

As a first generation of migrant and an adult, I didn't and couldn't finish HSC, so I went to NSW TAFE ultimo campus instead in 1996. Upon finishing my diploma, I went to Sydney University for bachelor degree in Business and finished my MBA from UTS thereafter. So you are more than welcome to discuss with me about all those subjects I did, which building for which subjects in the campus we needed to attend to,etc.

Here is some of my comments on Hottcoper.com.au, Australian No.1 share trading discussion site.(I guess you don't know that) I joined in 2000, the site still kept 2 summary pages of my comments with the earliest one dated back to 2009.

My year 2000 membership:
http://hotcopper.com.au/members/xtnie.1906/

First summary page:
http://hotcopper.com.au/search/25985370/?q=*&t=post&o=relevance&c[user][0]=1906&c[visible]=1

Second summary page:
http://hotcopper.com.au/search/25985370/?page=2&q=*&t=post&o=relevance&c[user][0]=1906&c[visible]=1


And among many posts of mine at hotcopper, this one is may favorite because I posted at 01/02/09 when all the western medias were talking about the free fall of China economy. I was right and made lots of dough.

China Story(in summary page 2)
220 AD, the Great Wall; 1420, the Forbidden City; 1997, Three Gorges Dam;2002, China does it again. Tackling one of the biggest construction work on earth in meddle of the ocean, a 20 kilometres quay ,with 50 berths, over 30 kilometres out to sea, linked to China by the world second longest ocean bridge, China built the biggest deepwater port ever built on earth in YangShan.

So are you satisfied ? In case you will re-act in a way like all those kids being caught of lying, I will remind you that my email name used to register in PDF is identical to my hotcopper name. I can even write a post about you to hotcopper now.

Now how about you provide some verifiable materials to substantiate who you said you are?

 

[jhungary]

Before answering yours, you need to answer the following simple one.
These are your words calling me lying in past 24 hours.







And now you changed your tune to this


So does it mean you made mistakes and hence proved my reading about your problem: self deception and over confidence?

LOL did I change my tune?

But on the other hand you have no answer to any of the number of question I raise, instead you keep re-approaching any of my question with your own set of question.

I live in Sydney Long enough to know who is lying about their proud history or who is just claiming to be. I am not an Australian by birth, everyone here knows that, but that does not mean I claim to be this and that and while all you do is you said you live here for 30 years and for the last 10 years being a stench reader of SMH, yet you have no idea on how SMH reporting such news regarding the Chinese train in Sydney that make me wonder otherwise, did I use "How Long I lived in Sydney" as an argument the authenticity of my answer? If you are going to play a long term Sydney sider card to counter my point of a train I took everyday to work, then it's only fair I can put your "Residence History" under the microscope.

And by the way, does that means you have no answer to any of the question I asked?

There are many holes in your replies to my questions about local Sydney knowledge. However I believe the best judge or referee is not me or you, it is the other Aussie members here , even though they may have not seen it now, nevertheless what we said are recorded here to be judged by them in the future.

Again, I am not the one who claim I live here for something, something years. Again with the argument, you first use your "30 years" of history and "10 years reading or subscripton" of Sydney Morning Herald and challenge what I said by "Never hearing those story in any News Outlet" It's only fair I can challenge the validity of the claim.

Right now I think you are playing the game of “the best defense is a good offense” here. Your have been trying hard to avert most Chinese posters' concerns about your background. Why can't you man up to answer this simple challenge , given I have maned up and spent lots of my time to your challenge ?

As a token of my sincerity, I will answer your query as to whether I live in Australia for 30 yrs as I claimed first, based on the assumption that now you are no longer questioning whether I live here, but for how long.

No, I pegged you as a person who MAY lived (Past Tense) or Currently living here. As most of what you do suggest you are an Out of Towner.

As a first generation of migrant and an adult, I didn't and couldn't finish HSC, so I went to NSW TAFE ultimo campus instead in 1996. Upon finishing my diploma, I went to Sydney University for bachelor degree in Business and finished my MBA from UTS thereafter. So you are more than welcome to discuss with me about all those subjects I did, which building for which subjects in the campus we needed to attend to,etc.

again, heresay, as I said, you can claim whatever you want to be, as long as there are no hard proof or knowledge to support your claim, it's a moot point. All the building name and class room were in the UTS or Sydney Uni website, I can go in length with you about how UTS this or that, and in all possibility, you may actually have been a UTS student or Sydney U, however, being knowledgable about how the lay out of UTS does not support your claim that you have been in Australia for 30 years.

Also, You should know, today is 2016, and you now claimed you went to NSW TAFE in 1996, that's 20 years or less. Not 30 years. That's one incorrect information here, so what make people think you are telling the truth even if you were

I can claim I am from Wollongong, I can claim I was from Newcastle, how else you will know I am telling the truth? Just by claiming is useless, hard evidence is needed. Or I can claim I was from UNSW (Which I actually did studied some course in UNSW) you will have something called a Student ID and the Uni E-mail will never expired even after years of graduate.

Even then, it still does not say which year you are in Sydney, it could be 2009 or 2015, it would still be the same suffix.

Here is some of my comments on Hottcoper.com.au, Australian No.1 share trading discussion site.(I guess you don't know that) I joined in 2000, the site still kept 2 summary pages of my comments with the earliest one dated back to 2009.

My year 2000 membership:
http://hotcopper.com.au/members/xtnie.1906/

First summary page:
http://hotcopper.com.au/search/25985370/?q=*&t=post&o=relevance&c[user][0]=1906&c[visible]=1

Second summary page:
http://hotcopper.com.au/search/25985370/?page=2&q=*&t=post&o=relevance&c[user][0]=1906&c[visible]=1


And among many posts of mine at hotcopper, this one is may favorite because I posted at 01/02/09 when all the western medias were talking about the free fall of China economy. I was right and made lots of dough.

China Story(in summary page 2)
220 AD, the Great Wall; 1420, the Forbidden City; 1997, Three Gorges Dam;2002, China does it again. Tackling one of the biggest construction work on earth in meddle of the ocean, a 20 kilometres quay ,with 50 berths, over 30 kilometres out to sea, linked to China by the world second longest ocean bridge, China built the biggest deepwater port ever built on earth in YangShan.

So are you satisfied ? In case you will re-act in a way like all those kids being caught of lying, I will remind you that my email name used to register in PDF is identical to my hotcopper name. I can even write a post about you to hotcopper now.

Now how about you provide some verifiable materials to substantiate who you said you are?

1.) You can be outside Australia when using the hottest Australian website online
2.) IT CAN BE LITERALLY ANYONE WHO POST THIS.

I have a Yahoo.com.au email in 1990s when my sister went here for high school, does that mean I came here in 1990s (I forgot which years)

You are saying something does not mean that was you, and no, I am not satisfied, Because all 8 question I posted to you and things you should know. But no answer for it, beside all the talk.

LOL. For me, it's quite fishy for someone who claim having a BMW but do not know the name of the place where they have to renew the license in order to drive it. One possible solution is that you are either still using your Chinese License for it, which means you do not need to apply or renew A NSW License, which mean you are not even a permanent resident. Or, you are simply, lying.

Also, all other question remain, and for that, unless any of the 8 question I posted were answered, I do not for one second considering you as a Sydney Sider, maybe a tourist or visitor.

You can call me if you want to ask me anything about Sydney, infact, I had a gathering with some PDF member here in Sydney a few months ago, we had coffee, and they are genuine Sydney sider. You? I highly doubt it.

Call me, I will tell you everything 0431322132

 

[Tiqiu]

You acted exactly as i expected.
My friends and I have been playing soccer every Saturday afternoon for 20 yrs at Tasker park Canterbury. We will start at 5pm and you are invited to come. You should not be worried as we are all law law abiding citizen, plus lots of people from HK playing with us too. That will once for all solve it, right?

LOL did I change my tune?

But on the other hand you have no answer to any of the number of question I raise, instead you keep re-approaching any of my question with your own set of question.

I live in Sydney Long enough to know who is lying about their proud history or who is just claiming to be. I am not an Australian by birth, everyone here knows that, but that does not mean I claim to be this and that and while all you do is you said you live here for 30 years and for the last 10 years being a stench reader of SMH, yet you have no idea on how SMH reporting such news regarding the Chinese train in Sydney that make me wonder otherwise, did I use "How Long I lived in Sydney" as an argument the authenticity of my answer? If you are going to play a long term Sydney sider card to counter my point of a train I took everyday to work, then it's only fair I can put your "Residence History" under the microscope.

And by the way, does that means you have no answer to any of the question I asked?



Again, I am not the one who claim I live here for something, something years. Again with the argument, you first use your "30 years" of history and "10 years reading or subscripton" of Sydney Morning Herald and challenge what I said by "Never hearing those story in any News Outlet" It's only fair I can challenge the validity of the claim.




No, I pegged you as a person who MAY lived (Past Tense) or Currently living here. As most of what you do suggest you are an Out of Towner.



again, heresay, as I said, you can claim whatever you want to be, as long as there are no hard proof or knowledge to support your claim, it's a moot point. All the building name and class room were in the UTS or Sydney Uni website, I can go in length with you about how UTS this or that, and in all possibility, you may actually have been a UTS student or Sydney U, however, being knowledgable about how the lay out of UTS does not support your claim that you have been in Australia for 30 years.

Also, You should know, today is 2016, and you now claimed you went to NSW TAFE in 1996, that's 20 years or less. Not 30 years. That's one incorrect information here, so what make people think you are telling the truth even if you were

I can claim I am from Wollongong, I can claim I was from Newcastle, how else you will know I am telling the truth? Just by claiming is useless, hard evidence is needed. Or I can claim I was from UNSW (Which I actually did studied some course in UNSW) you will have something called a Student ID and the Uni E-mail will never expired even after years of graduate.

Even then, it still does not say which year you are in Sydney, it could be 2009 or 2015, it would still be the same suffix.




1.) You can be outside Australia when using the hottest Australian website online
2.) IT CAN BE LITERALLY ANYONE WHO POST THIS.

I have a Yahoo.com.au email in 1990s when my sister went here for high school, does that mean I came here in 1990s (I forgot which years)

You are saying something does not mean that was you, and no, I am not satisfied, Because all 8 question I posted to you and things you should know. But no answer for it, beside all the talk.

LOL. For me, it's quite fishy for someone who claim having a BMW but do not know the name of the place where they have to renew the license in order to drive it. One possible solution is that you are either still using your Chinese License for it, which means you do not need to apply or renew A NSW License, which mean you are not even a permanent resident. Or, you are simply, lying.

Also, all other question remain, and for that, unless any of the 8 question I posted were answered, I do not for one second considering you as a Sydney Sider, maybe a tourist or visitor.

You can call me if you want to ask me anything about Sydney, infact, I had a gathering with some PDF member here in Sydney a few months ago, we had coffee, and they are genuine Sydney sider. You? I highly doubt it.

Call me, I will tell you everything 0431322132

Hey just did, no one answering.

Called 0431322132 for the second time,where are you man?

 

[TaiShang]

US provocations serve multiple purposes
By Zhao Minghao

Illustration: Shen Lan/GT

\On Saturday, the guided missile destroyer USS Curtis Wilbur sailed within 12 nautical miles of the Chinese territorial waters around the Xisha Islands without permission and Chinese troops stationed at the islands and naval ships took immediate action. The two sides didn't clash, but no one can be assured that they would always be lucky in this way.

Previously, the Chinese and US sides had conflicts mainly over the Nansha Islands, but this time US military made provocations in the waters around the Xisha Islands. China's Law on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, enacted in 1992, stipulates that foreign military ships need the approval of the Chinese government to enter China's territorial waters. This article conforms to the international law and practices and many countries have similar articles.

The US hasn't ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). But the maritime hegemon has been abusing its right of innocent passage, which allows for a foreign vessel to pass through the territorial waters of a littoral state so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security in the coastal state. But as Oppenheim's International Law admits, the right of innocent passage by foreign warships is not universally recognized. As an unrivaled maritime power, the US can interpret the international law in accordance with its own interests and political needs and choose to ratify UNCLOS or not.

The US flexes its muscles against China at this time for some purposes. The US-ASEAN Summit is to be held in mid-February at the Sunnylands in California. It is where Chinese President Xi Jinping met with his US counterpart Barack Obama in June 2013 and put forward the principles of a new type of major power relationship, which include no conflict, no confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation. But the US may believe that it is expected by ASEAN nations to confront China. Shortly before Obama departed for Malaysia to attend the East Asia Summit in November, the USS Lassen illegally entered the waters near China's Nansha Islands in late October. The East Asia Summit was initiated by ASEAN to be a platform for discussing about nontraditional security cooperation. Yet it has been turned largely by the US into a venue for sensitive political topics like territorial disputes. ASEAN undoubtedly doesn't want the regional institution to become a tool of big powers.

Last year, US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter put forward the Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative that costs $425 million, most of which will be used to fund some countries in arms acquisition. It's reported that the navies of the US, Japan and Australia will hold joint military exercises in the South China Sea for the first time in February. The increase in the US-led military moves in Asian waters leads to growing uneasiness of Beijing.

Apparently Washington has deliberately ignored Beijing's wisdom and capabilities in dealing with territorial issues. China's two-way trade volume with its important neighbor Vietnam has exceeded $90 billion and China has been the latter's largest trading partner for 11 years in a row. In Vietnam's latest leadership election, Nguyen Phu Trong, who advocates friendly ties with China, was re-elected as the secretary general of the Communist Party of Vietnam. This may disappoint the US.

China and Vietnam have addressed the delineation of the land border and the Beibu Gulf through consultations and are working jointly to develop the waters outside the mouth of the Beibu Gulf. During his visit to Vietnam in November, Xi proposed that on maritime issues the two sides should seek a basic and long-standing solution acceptable to both sides. His visit was considered an attempt to heal the rifts in China-Vietnam ties and showed China's will to stick to the approach of peaceful consultations.

What concerns Chinese analysts is how much grip the White House has on the US military. Admiral Harry Harris, head of US Pacific Command, recently said that his personal view is that "those islands (in the South China Sea) do not belong to China." Such irresponsible remarks by a senior military official carry high risks.

Many pundits believe that the deterioration of the Ukraine crisis that put the US and Russia at odds originated largely from the aggressive and blind actions by Victoria Nuland, assistant secretary of state. It remains a question whether the US-China relationship will be exacerbated due to the lack of control of the US military by the White House.

 

[Viva_Viet]

. .Apparently Washington has deliberately ignored Beijing's wisdom and capabilities in dealing with territorial issues. China's two-way trade volume with its important neighbor Vietnam has exceeded $90 billion and China has been the latter's largest trading partner for 11 years in a row. In Vietnam's latest leadership election, Nguyen Phu Trong, who advocates friendly ties with China, was re-elected as the secretary general of the Communist Party of Vietnam. This may disappoint the US.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/the-inte...-south-china-sea.420183/page-18#ixzz3zBIhTOHo

Mr.Trong is so happy when VN officially becomes TPP member.

TPP deal means containing CN and take down CN economy by stop using CN goods