[ardy42]

> Your point of view is that the western world represents absolute justice,

How did you come to that conclusion? That is not, in fact, any position which I have expressed.

> and you can judge us based on your value system, this is not the case, at least from our viewpoint.

Of course, and it's kinda bonkers to think that I would use someone else's value system to make my own judgements.

Also, please make the petition I suggested. I would like to find out how it goes.

[Koiwai]

I've already explained, we can't agree on a mutually acceptable definition of "trustworthy reporters", so this will not happen, ever.

Example: IAEA versus Iran.

Yes, in a sense, You can judge us however you like, also in that sense, we're not obligated to accept your judgment.

[ardy42]

> I've already explained, we can't agree on a mutually acceptable definition of "trustworthy reporters", so this will not happen, ever.

You don't understand. We don't have to agree on a definition of "trustworthy reporters." You seem to be trying to convince me that I should be more skeptical of these allegations, but that's not going to happen unless reporters I consider trustworthy have sufficient access to investigate, to the point where the people you criticize don't have to be relied on. It really doesn't matter what you think of the reporters, and attaching unnecessary conditions is just a deflection and indication there's something to hide.

I agree your petition can't happen ever, but for different reasons. It would probably be quite unwise of you to make it, for obvious reasons.

> Yes, in a sense, You can judge us however you like, also in that sense, we're not obligated to accept your judgment.

You're not, but your decision reflects on you.

[Koiwai]

Don't know why but I can't rely to ardy's comment so I'm gonna write here:

So you agree we(you and us) can't agree on a definition of "trustworthy reporters" but we(China) should accept reporters that you deemed trustworthy, and that really sounds alright to you? seriously?

>It would probably be quite unwise of you to make it, for obvious reasons.

You're implying we're oppressed and you're not, if you're American(US), try saying "All Lives Matter" out loud, my point is, both of us are oppressed, just in different ways.

And no, I don't WANT to make a petition to allow unsanctioned western reporters to come here.

[ardy42]

> So you agree we(you and us) can't agree on a definition of "trustworthy reporters" but we(China) should accept reporters that you deemed trustworthy, and that really sounds alright to you? seriously?

Yes, seriously. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

I mean: you're acting like you have something to hide, so I'm going to grant far more credibility to those who make claims you're hiding something. You're basically helping your opponents make their case.

> You're implying we're oppressed and you're not, if you're American(US), try saying "All Lives Matter" out loud, my point is, both of us are oppressed, just in different ways.

That's what we call a "false equivalency." Also, again, I make no claims that America or Western countries are perfect.

[Koiwai]

You failed to understand that we're not a colony of the US, you simply do not have that kind of jurisdiction over China.

You claim we're hiding something and then we must accept whatever investigation you ALONE deemed appropriate, I really can't tell if you're stupid or expecting us to be that stupid or both.