あかね
push
Ads
Ads
非人類基因統合體
香港人係時候登報屌柒中國外交部
- 分享自 LIHKG 討論區
https://lih.kg/QvtrJU
1. 近日中國外交部不斷般出外國勢力在香港推動顏色革命的言論，卻從未能提供任何證據，香港人建議中國政府盡快啟動國家機器，自行製造證據支持有關說法。否則該等言論顯示中國外交部有關人士患上嚴重妄想症，需要盡快接受治療
1. Given that the China MFA keeps alleging that the Hong Kong Colour Revolution is incited by foreign powers with little substantial evidence, if any, we, Hongkongers, urge the Chinese government to initiate the state apparatus and fabricate evidence to support their allegation. Not doing so may indicate the possibility that the concerned officers are suffering from severe delusional disorder, which should immediately be treated.
2. 即使外國勢力在香港存在，貴黨當年亦在偉大的革命領袖毛澤東主席領導下，接受外國勢力蘇聯扶植以暴力手段奪得中國大陸統治權，外交部打著反暴力反外國勢力干涉的旗號，暗中以今諷古，吃著黨的糧反黨反毛，其心可誅
呢段我搞唔撚掂呀！！！
3. 就中國外交部指出香港在彭定康先生治下「不民主、不自由」，香港人回應：
(1) 貴黨當年先後於五十年代及九十年代阻撓英國殖民政府嘗試民主化香港的計劃，現在中國外交部批評香港在英國治下「不民主」，即批評貴黨當年對香港政策，這是貴黨內部矛盾，香港人不作評論
參考閱讀: https://www.vjmedia.com.hk/articles/2014/01/11/60039
3. Regarding the allegation supposed by the China MFA that under the rule of Chris Patten, democracy and freedom in Hong Kong are suppressed, the followings are our responses:
(1) It was the CCP which prevented the British Hong Kong government from promoting democracy in Hong Kong during the 50s and 90s. The China MFA, however, now blames that British Hong Kong was undemocratic. In other words, the CCP is criticising the CCP’s policies concerning Hong Kong back then. This is the internal controversy among the CCP, which is inappropriate for us to judge.
(2) 對於以耿爽為首的中國外交部錯誤指香港於彭定康先生治下「不自由」，「無遊行權利」，香港人建議中國外交部查證：(a)1989年5月28日香港是否有大型遊行？(b) 貴黨的新聞喉舌大公報及文匯報在港英時代是否存在並能不斷發佈反對港英的新聞及評論？
中國外交部以上錯誤的評論顯示出中國外交部未能僱用對現實有基本認知的人員，缺乏人材，香港人對此表示深切慰問。
(2) As for the unjust accusation made by Geng Shuang that Hong Kong citizens were not allowed freedom of association under the rule of colonial government, we suggest the China MFA should probe into the following questions: (a) Was there not an enormous demonstration occurred on May 28, 1989? (b) Did the British Hong Kong government ban the mouthpieces of the CCP from promoting anti-government thoughts?
All these inequitable accusations indicate the fact that the China MFA officers lack the basic knowledge of reality and that the China MFA encounters obstacles when it comes to recruiting talents. We offer the CCP
and the China MFA our deepest condolences.
泥漿摔角屌柒口交部
- 分享自 LIHKG 討論區
https://lih.kg/QvtrJU
1. 近日中國外交部不斷般出外國勢力在香港推動顏色革命的言論，卻從未能提供任何證據，香港人建議中國政府盡快啟動國家機器，自行製造證據支持有關說法。否則該等言論顯示中國外交部有關人士患上嚴重妄想症，需要盡快接受治療
1. Given that the China MFA keeps alleging that the Hong Kong Colour Revolution is incited by foreign powers with little substantial evidence, if any, we, Hongkongers, urge the Chinese government to initiate the state apparatus and fabricate evidence to support their allegation. Not doing so may indicate the possibility that the concerned officers are suffering from severe delusional disorder, which should immediately be treated.
2. 即使外國勢力在香港存在，貴黨當年亦在偉大的革命領袖毛澤東主席領導下，接受外國勢力蘇聯扶植以暴力手段奪得中國大陸統治權，外交部打著反暴力反外國勢力干涉的旗號，暗中以今諷古，吃著黨的糧反黨反毛，其心可誅
呢段我搞唔撚掂呀！！！
3. 就中國外交部指出香港在彭定康先生治下「不民主、不自由」，香港人回應：
(1) 貴黨當年先後於五十年代及九十年代阻撓英國殖民政府嘗試民主化香港的計劃，現在中國外交部批評香港在英國治下「不民主」，即批評貴黨當年對香港政策，這是貴黨內部矛盾，香港人不作評論
參考閱讀: https://www.vjmedia.com.hk/articles/2014/01/11/60039
3. Regarding the allegation supposed by the China MFA that under the rule of Chris Patten, democracy and freedom in Hong Kong are suppressed, the followings are our responses:
(1) It was the CCP which prevented the British Hong Kong government from promoting democracy in Hong Kong during the 50s and 90s. The China MFA, however, now blames that British Hong Kong was undemocratic. In other words, the CCP is criticising the CCP’s policies concerning Hong Kong back then. This is the internal controversy among the CCP, which is inappropriate for us to judge.
(2) 對於以耿爽為首的中國外交部錯誤指香港於彭定康先生治下「不自由」，「無遊行權利」，香港人建議中國外交部查證：(a)1989年5月28日香港是否有大型遊行？(b) 貴黨的新聞喉舌大公報及文匯報在港英時代是否存在並能不斷發佈反對港英的新聞及評論？
中國外交部以上錯誤的評論顯示出中國外交部未能僱用對現實有基本認知的人員，缺乏人材，香港人對此表示深切慰問。
(2) As for the unjust accusation made by Geng Shuang that Hong Kong citizens were not allowed freedom of association under the rule of colonial government, we suggest the China MFA should probe into the following questions: (a) Was there not an enormous demonstration occurred on May 28, 1989? (b) Did the British Hong Kong government ban the mouthpieces of the CCP from promoting anti-government thoughts?
All these inequitable accusations indicate the fact that the China MFA officers lack the basic knowledge of reality and that the China MFA encounters obstacles when it comes to recruiting talents. We offer the CCP
and the China MFA our deepest condolences.
泥漿摔角屌柒口交部