ISIS had hundreds of thousands of fanatical troops and billions of dollars, Joe Hung said. The world would just have to live with the Islamo-Nazis’ new Thousand-Year Reich, he insisted. Because ISIS would bring peace and love and understanding to the Middle East, just like all the Caliphates did before it.
Oh, and never you mind about the lowly infidel (Yazidi and Christian women) relegated to sexual slavery to soldiers of the Master Faith. Yazidis & Christians are little people, and in Joe Hung’s world, the rapes of a few thousand little people are well worth the price of the grand Middle Eastern Utopia he assured us was just around the corner.
A few of Joe Hung’s mighty, invincible rapist-terrorists. After their defeat. Why, they look ten-feet tall, don’t they just?
#ISIS lost nearly 6000 terrorists in #Raqqa, then surrendered in large numbers. Once purported as fierce, now pathetic and a lost cause. 4/6 pic.twitter.com/JV9EFywqd4
“The last Nobel Peace Prize Laureate to be effectively killed by his own government was Carl Ossietsky, in Germany in 1938,” [Bill] Bishop notes. “Does Xi care that the the likely precedent here for Beijing will be pre-World War II Nazi Germany?”
"In what amounts to nothing less than a 'war on law' that is unprecedented in its scale and severity," the New York [City Bar Association] said, "Chinese human rights lawyers and activists have been summoned for questioning, kidnapped by secret politic, detained incommunicado in 'black jails' and other prisons, humiliated and subjected to marathon interrogation sessions and other forms of sadistic psychological and physical torture, including sleep deprivation, forced medication (often with grave consequences for mental and physical health), brutal beatings, electric shocks, prolonged subversion in water, death threats, and months of solitary confinement."
If the China Post had been this honest about China over the past 15 years, it might still have a print edition.
But instead, the Post elected to be Chinese Communist Party shills, thereby driving their 65-year-old newspaper into the ground.
"Perjury is the intentional act of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official court proceeding. Contrary to popular misconception, no crime has occurred when a false statement is intentionally or unintentionally made in court while subject to penalty. Instead, criminal culpability only attaches at the instant the declarant falsely asserts the truth of statements which are material to the outcome of the proceeding."
You sound very knowledgeable and erudite and…hey, did you just copy all that from Wikipedia? Because here's Wikipedia on perjury:
"Perjury is the intentional act of […] falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding. Contrary to popular misconception, no crime has occurred when a false statement is (intentionally or unintentionally) made while under oath or subject to penalty—instead, criminal culpability only attaches at the instant the declarant falsely asserts the truth of statements […] which are material to the outcome of the proceeding."
"Statements that entail an interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often draw inaccurate conclusions unwittingly, or make honest mistakes without the intent to deceive. Individuals may have honest but mistaken beliefs about certain facts, or their recollection may be inaccurate, or may have a different perception of what is the accurate way to state the truth. Like most other crimes, to be convicted of perjury one must have had the intention (mens rea) to commit the act, and to have actually committed the act (actus renus).
Furthermore, statements that are facts cannot be considered perjury, even if they might arguably constitute an omission, and it is not perjury to lie about matters immaterial to the legal proceeding."
"Statements which entail an interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often draw inaccurate conclusions unwittingly, or make honest mistakes without the intent to deceive. Individuals may have honest but mistaken beliefs about certain facts, or their recollection may be inaccurate, or may have a different perception of what is the accurate way to state the truth. Like most other crimes […] to be convicted of perjury one must have had the intention (mens rea) to commit the act, and to have actually committed the act (actus reus). Further, statements that are facts cannot be considered perjury, even if they might arguably constitute an omission, and it is not perjury to lie about matters immaterial to the legal proceeding."
Hung maintains, quite wrongly, that Chen's testimony was immaterial to the conviction of Fung. Why exactly he should think so is rather a mystery, for Chen claimed to have been on the phone with Fung the entire time the rape occurred.
If Chen's claim was indeed truthful, Elmer Fung should have been exonerated. The innocence of Fung in a court of law hinged upon Chen Peng-jen's testimony, making that testimony material by definition.
As for the actual evidence used to convict Chen Peng-jen of perjury, Joe Hung is light on specifics.
On the one hand, phone records no longer exist that would corroborate Chen's testimony (leading Hung to suggest there wasn't enough evidence to convict Chen).
But on the other hand, Chen claimed he spoke with Fung while on the way to the American Institute in Taiwan to pick up a passport with a new visa.
The only problem with his story was that AIT was apparently closed that day. Oops!
But before I close this discussion of convicted perjurer Dr. Chen Peng-jen, there's one sentence in Hung's column that almost deserves some kind of award for its deceitfulness:
"No questions were asked of Professor Chen to defend himself [at his perjury trial]."
The impression that Hung clearly is trying to convey is that poor Chen Peng-jen was railroaded, and his conviction was a terrible miscarriage of justice.
When instead, what most likely happened is that the prosecutor asked Chen to take the witness stand, and Chen declined to testify in his own defense.
Whether that decision was his alone or done in accordance with the advice of his lawyer is – dare I say it? – immaterial.
Postscipt #2: A quick backgrounder on Elmer Fung. Some from memory, some from Wikipedia. (And NONE of it plagiarized, I hasten to add):
In 2003 / 2004, Fung was the vice-presidential candidate in Taiwan for a minor party advocating unification with Communist China. (His "New Party" received very little support in that election, garnering a meager 17,000 votes out of 13 million cast).
But a few months before the election, Fung's Filipino maid accused him of raping her. Fung insisted the sex was consensual, and claimed she framed him by fishing out his used condom from the toilet and depositing it in a wastebasket for the police to discover.
[About this: It should have been pretty easy to verify Fung's claim by having lab techs determine if the condom had been contaminated with toilet water.]
A very sordid he-said-she-said situation. Who to believe?
For me, that dilemma was solved when Fung fired the maid, and paid her a "bonus" of something like 6 months salary? [about $24,000 USD]. (That was all above board – no one knows how much he paid her under the table.)
Because of Taiwan's immigration laws, the unemployed maid was required to return to the Philippines. Once out of country, it'd be difficult for her to testify against Fung now. And on top of that – mirabile dictu! – the maid signed a sworn statement withdrawing her accusation. Ain't it grand what a little hush money'll do?
Nevertheless, the case was brought to trial.
Which resulted in his conviction.
Which was subsequently overturned.
A couple years later, he'd be convicted again. Only to win in a later appeal.
Anyways, I lost track, but apparently there were 7 trials held between 2005 & 2016.
Frankly, I was unaware that Taiwan's supreme court found him guilty in 2016, and sentenced him to 3 1/4 years in prison. And I also didn't hear that he only spent 85 days in prison before being released on medical parole.
But it does lead one to wonder though: will Chen Peng-jen the KMT perjurer spend more time behind bars than Elmer Fung the New Party rapist?
"In most jurisdictions, the false statement made by the individual must have been important to the case. For instance, a witness who lies about his whereabouts during the crime is committing perjury."
"Why do people pretend that a political system that rolls tanks and artillery out against civilians without weapons represents a government worthy of our admiration or (is such a word possible?) affection?"
If he truly would like an answer, he could do worse than to ask his fellow China Post colleague, "Traitor Joe" Hung.
"After the conquest [of Taiwan], China would rule Taiwan as a province as Japan did from 1895 to 1945. The Japanese colonizers did improve the life of the colonized a great deal. The Chinese conquerors would outperform the Japanese."
"Perhaps, it may be much better to be conquered for Taiwan's next generation and those after them. All's well that ends well."
China and many other nations of Asia hope the [United States’ next president] can shift back to the Middle East again to contain the newly formed caliphate by peaceful means rather than force of arms. [Emphasis added]
Barack Obama should stop his Crusade against ISIS now, demands Hung:
Obama still has time to reconsider [his] new Crusade, lest he should repeat President Bush's folly by getting the United States mired ever more deeply in the Middle East quagmire.
A competent historian would never say Obama was engaged in a Crusade, for the simple reason that Obama's not trying to recover formerly Christian lands in the Middle East.
(It helps, when one accuses another of launching a Crusade, to have some familiarity with the actual DEFINITION of the word…)
Moving along, ISIS's grotesque little apologist in Taipei asserts the Islamofascist group cannot be fought because it's invincible:
Even supposing the new Crusaders succeeded in toppling the IS caliphate, suicidal terrorism could never be stopped. Caliph al Baghdadi has ordered a jihad. There would not be any lack of mujahideen. Hundreds of thousands of his followers are willing and ready to die in a holy war against the Western imperialists who they believe are launching the new Crusade.
No, 'fraid not. A caliph's religious and political legitimacy rests necessarily upon his control over TERRITORY. Remove his control over land and his legitimacy vanishes. After which, the orders of a phony caliph carry no weight.
Speaking of al-Baghdadi's legitimacy, supermajorities in Middle Eastern countries have a unfavorable opinion of ISIS and regard al-Baghdadi's self-proclaimed position as illegitimate. Read into it what you will that an agnostic Confucian like Joe Hung finds al-Baghdadi more legitimate than the vast majority of Muslims do.
Finally, Joe Hung suggests that because ISIS is invincible, it should be left alone to bring peace to the region, the way the Ottoman Caliphate did in years previous:
There was no trouble in the Middle East while the caliphs of the Ottoman Empire ruled it for more than 400 years.
This is all highly unconvincing, since according to Islamic law, a caliph is REQUIRED to wage at least one war every year against Infidel nations.
An ISIS caliphate is therefore likely to create A GREAT DEAL of trouble outside the Middle East, regardless of what happens inside. (Just as the Ottomans made incessant war on Eastern Europe and the Balkans.)
And as for his fanciful prospects of ISIS pacifying the Middle East, Joe Hung forgets the presence of 6 million Jews and many more million Shiites in the region, whom ISIS is unlikely to leave unmolested.
Um, you said "rapes" twice.
POSTSCRIPT: Joe Hung invents "facts" to satisfy his narrative:
As a matter of fact, one result of the Crusades, during which Jews were massacred by Crusaders in a pogrom, was the birth of Zionism, which finally triumphed with the creation of Israel. [Emphasis added]
Comrade Historian is apparently unaware that Zionism (like many other forms of nationalism) was largely a product of the 19th century.
“Persisting with selective memory, fuzzy logic and contrived debates is what sustains global terrorism.”
Really? Now, I would have guessed that al-Baghdadi and al-Zawahiri are motivated less by “selective memory, fuzzy logic and contrived debates” and more by Islamic Supremacist ideology. But what Mr. Amin says must be true, since it was published in a KMT funny paper.
Adnan R. Amin, words cannot express the anguish I feel over my PC WrongThink. Rest assured I shall spend the next several months wracked with grief, spending long sleepless nights tossing and turning in nightmares of guilt.
How dare I condemn as “terrorists” men who send death squads into nightclubs to gun down scores of civilians? Should men who rape infidel women purchased in slave markets really be considered “terrorists”?
Well, I used to think so. But thanks to Adnan R. Amin, I have come to see the error of my ways. Praise be to Adnan R. Amin!
And so I do make this solemn vow: Never again shall this lowly First Worlder hurt the all-important feelings of men I once referred to as terrorists by calling them “terrorists”.
Nope. From now on I shall only use the Obama-approved term for brave warriors of the Religion Of Peace™: namely, “widows-and-orphans”.
(Mommy, why did the nice bearded “widow-and-orphan” otherize those men on the fence spikes?)
UPDATE (November 22, 2015): I was awfully harsh on Adnan R. Amin in writing this post last night. But I think my reaction was entirely justified.
What Adnan R. Amin is attempting to do is destroy the very valuable civilizational norm that prohibits sending death squads to massacre civilians. That’s not really terrorism, says Adnan R. Amin, it’s…well, he doesn’t say. Legitimate resistance, perhaps?
But once people begin excusing Muslims deliberately targeting and massacring Infidel civilians, others will follow their lead and excuse terrorist massacres of Muslim civilians.
And we’ll wind up with more Anders Breiviks.
UPDATE (November 23, 2015): The mind boggles:
All we hear of ISIS is puritanical & punitive; is there nothing celebratory & joyous? Or is query naive?
The United States tried to contain the Soviet Union in vain. [Emphasis added]
Nice tin foil hat. Really goes with the suit.
In the same paragraph, Comrade Historian also rewrites the history of Asia to better suit his Zhongnanhai-directed Communist narrative:
Uncle Sam continued to contain Mao Zedong’s China after the chairman had sent his army to fight the Korean War. The containment did not work, of course, and it took President Richard Nixon ending it to pave the way for concluding the normalization of relations between the United States and the People’s Republic in 1979. [Emphasis added]
Now, I’m no doctor of history, but I DO know multiple sources confirm that no Soviet army overran Western Europe in 1963. Nor did any Chinese Communist army step foot in Taiwan.
So whaddya know? Maybe containment DID kinda work after all, huh?
UPDATE: Perhaps credentialed (but uneducated) Comrade Historian Joe Hung confuses the strategy of Containment with that of Rollback?
Because they are two very different things, you know. Not that a PhD-holder from Georgetown University could ever understand such highly-advanced concepts…
It took U.S. President Harry S. Truman — who had written off Chiang — to neutralize the Taiwan Strait right after the Korean War broke out in 1950 to prevent Mao Zedong from “washing Taiwan with blood.” With American military and economic assistance, Chiang was able to reorganize his defeated armies into a defense force strong enough to deny Mao a takeover of Taiwan by force…
That sounds suspiciously like saying Mao Tse-tung was successfully contained to me.
Chu has to modify his stance on unification [ie: to a more unificationist position] if he wants to win over those hardcore supporters of [Hung Hsiu-chu] and improve the KMT's chances of returning enough lawmakers to keep a majority in [Taiwan's] highest legislative organ.
On this matter, the Foreigner finds himself in rare agreement with the editors of the China Post. Does Eric Chu have the, uh, guts, to do the same thing over and over again while expecting different results?
Oddly enough, there's never been much mention of them in the pages of the China Post – a paper which styles itself as Taiwan's "Chinese nationalist" newspaper.
