remained* My typo, apologies. Hong Kong had much stricter policies on Covid for a long time compared to even mainland China.

Yes, most of the ones who fucked up in China were removed. That's a good thing. None of them who fucked up in Hong Kong were or are ever removed. And yes, it is the Hong Kong government — but who appoints them? Who extremely recently reformed the system such that even less say is given to Hong Kongers on who govern them? 人大.

Yes, the fire was in Urumqi. However, the protests were nationwide, and China reacted in a month's time. Hong Kong protested for years peacefully and were treated to arrests and nothing more. 2014. 2019, before June 12. Every July 1st since the handover. A fifth of the population went on the streets on June 9, and the government tried to force the bill through. Then afterwards, a quarter of the population went on the streets to protest again on June 16th. Nothing. I wonder why there's violence. Or would you like to suggest that Palestinian resistance, South African anti-apartheid resistance, American Civil Rights resistance, etc. are justifiably responded to with extreme levels of force? The majority of Hong Kong "violent" protests pale in comparison both to those, and to the government's response. Or is shooting an unarmed teenage protestor and then arresting him and sentencing him to jail for years justice? Not to mention the crackdown on pan-dem politicians who have done nothing of the sort? Or arresting and attacking medics, or using ambulances to transport police?

In addition, of course, are very convenient "suicides" like a 15 year old swimmer randomly drowning after being found naked and ASAP cremation, a protestor randomly falling from a building that police operated at not long ago... or the literal triads they released at Yuen Long, or the police themselves attacking bystanders and planting evidence on the MTR on 831... and even several different cases of covered-up rapes widely reported by journalists whose newspapers were forced to close. If the Chinese government is not either complicit or approving, surely any reasonable government would step in immediately to tell Carrie Lam to change course? Instead, they promoted John Lee and Chris Tang, Secretary for Security and Commissioner of Police, to Chief Executive and Secretary for Security, a clear stamp of approval for any future protests.

Oh and regarding the PLA, (which by the way, any reasonable person would know that police and armies are separate entities, and besides the garrison is the PLA, even if there are PAP in there) there is a lot of evidence out there suggesting that they were involved. Anti-riot HK police gear found at the garrison, unmarked vans traced back to them, and even more obviously segments of the police consistently using Mandarin to communicate — unless you intend to suggest that policemen would use their third language to communicate otherwise?

Also, the actions at consulates such as that in Manchester. Attacking and attempted kidnapping of protestors in a foreign country. Only recalling after 2 months, and not allowing prosecution, while never once denouncing the actions, and in fact denouncing the protestors, who were doing so peacefully? Including from the Consul General himself? And setting up police stations in other countries without the permission of said countries, thereby violating sovereignty, and violating international law with the Sino-British Joint Declaration, and putting a bounty on the heads of people who have done nothing except lobby their governments. Even Israel isn't this much of a bully.

Speaking of that autonomy: Beijing has said that the entire constitution of Hong Kong is only as valid as the laws it makes with the National Security Law being equal to the Basic Law, thereby bypassing and ignoring its illegitimacy. Might I remind you that the NSL did not pass LegCo, as is required by law. Legislation which did not go through the legislative body. What is the point of a supposedly autonomous legislative body if such a body can be bypassed whenever convenient for the state? And for the autonomy in East Turkestan, what use is autonomy when the people there are being ethnically cleansed, and Han Chinese are being migrated there in much the same way as Israeli settlers, or indeed most settler colonial movements? There is a well-documented genocide there, which the Chinese government continues to deny. I'm not even going into Tibet.

In summary I absolutely agree! Hong Kong's government is much, much worse than the national government. They have literally concluded that boobs can be used as a weapon of assault, which I believe even the CCP wouldn't stoop to, for example. That does not excuse the national government for what it has done to not only encourage but incite such behaviour from them. If Israeli settlers conduct violence, or the IDF, the responsibility lies on Bibi's fascist government. Most of the West takes responsibility for its previous crimes, including most notably the Holocaust. How is it different, then, for China? If China doesn't approve of the actions Hong Kong has done, why have they not only helped them but provided the tools specifically to allow them in the National Security Law? Why does it continue treating non-mainland non-Han peoples as second-class citizens? And if the CCP is good, why does it conduct genocide in Uyghurstan? Why does it bully people protesting peacefully who aren't even living there — setting bounties, dragging them into consulate grounds to beat them up, arresting their families in Hong Kong, and more? I can go on and on and on.

One last question for you as a person, not as a political point, but as a person. Why do you consistently insist on ad hominem attacks? Why do you think I don't know as much as you just because I disagree with you? I've lived through protests at scales China hasn't seen since Tiananmen, which your government still covers up. Perhaps you should ponder why such movements can reach such scales so consistently in Hong Kong, despite leaders constantly being arrested, despite changes made specifically to counter them, despite the sheer power imbalance, instead of assuming anyone who disagrees with you is immediately wrong.

Very thorough explanation. It truly was quite insightful.

I appreciate your comments and effort. I don't think it got through though.