[thewholeview]

China never tries to spread its influence, China is in a purely defensive position and the West continues to tap into China's business and then leverage whatever reaction received as China's evil deeds.

China doesn't invade the Middle East, China doesn't preach Communism globally. It's a really good question to ask who always really tries to spread their own influence.

[flukus]

Then explain why pro CCP demonstrators are intimidating Honk Kong protesters the world over? Explain why their are so many new accounts astro-turfing for China? Just because they don't have the military might to do it directly doesn't mean they aren't spreading their influence. They're busy buying influence wherever they can and using their citizens and former citizens as soft influence in other places. Of course they aren't preaching communism, they abandoned communism decades ago.

[thewholeview]

You have it backwards. China has the military might but chooses not to, because what the CCP wants is a peaceful resolution within its own region. On the contrary, the West's supposedly moral support of the "peaceful" demonstration is seeing 48/58 subway stations closing due to vandalism, many banks and phone stores getting robbed. These aren't pictures that Western media would portray, but that's the closer to truth reality that's occurring in HK. My friend in HK are evading to Shenzhen for protection, and other friend is attempting to understand the immigration process better to leave the unstable HK. Is this the real meaning of liberating HK? Just because other states, AKA Middle East hasn't gotten enough soft influence to show the world what "liberating" them means (destroyed states that cannot recover in decades), China will not take the soft course and actually stands to protect its own territory.

[flukus]

No, they don't remotely have the military might to invade the middle east, not that this is a bad thing, but to argue they do is just silly, they can't even invade Taiwan like they've wanted to do for 60 years.

As for peaceful, from Tienanmen square to how they deal with the Uyghurs to what is likely to be the case for Hong Kong they are anything but peaceful, even with their own citizens. If they were truly peaceful they wouldn't have to censor their own actions from their own citizens. If they wanted a peaceful solution they'd be happy keeping Hong Kongs current autonomy. Externally, they invaded Tibet, they would invade Taiwan if they could, most of their peacefulness comes from inability and not lack of desire.

[cbnotfromthere]

Your account was created 6 days ago.

[thewholeview]

Yes, I can admit that I've created an alternative account. Because the American political atmosphere is endangering my ability to freely express the alternative that's other than the popular opinion.

I only come to hope to bring certain other perspective in peace and hoping for scholarly discussions on perspectives that I've not personally considered.

But of course it's all in the willingness of yourself to believe that there can actually be legitimate and unsponsored grassroot opinions not in favor of the West's perspective.

[throwawy4trueth]

You are not alone. We are on the same boat. Invisible censorship is more deceptive than visible censorship. I don't blame the system. Freedom of speech? It's not easy although it's a wonderful idea.